Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Are abortions federally funded? If so, is the funding only being spent on educating doctors in proper procedure for when abortion is the only recourse (rape, incest)?

My stance? Don't require insurance companies to cover the cost of an abortion. That way parents will be informed of their child's pregnancy regardless of whether or not legislation requires it from the clinic.

*It's nobody elses business.

At 2/16/07 01:53 PM, qygibo wrote:

How can you claim that you're pro life when you don't care about the children enough to consider them as anything more than a punishment? Pro life should be that you actually CARE about the child as a person, not as a object to force upon a woman because you deem yourself more superior.

Haha, because that's how life is. I care, I really do, but I do not care about the idiotic woman who decided she could do anything she wants with no repercussions. And once again, i'm not talking about rape victims.

If I talked about the "child" as if it were one, then you or someone else would come in and try to bash me for not being "scientifically correct" about the fetus. What's ironic here is that those worthless women who get abortions have no problem getting rid of it at an early stage, but as soon as it's born, they would gladly lay down their life for that child. I'm not the one being a hypocrite here.

But in a way, I'am more superior than those pathetic women. I'm more responsible, i'm more in control, and i care more. Why should I agree on making their lives easy over something stupid that they did? Why do they deserve such good treatment over their mistakes? They're selfish. I wouldn't mind giving them more support if they had the child. I wish the government would if they did. But then what does anyone learn by allowing it to be legal? Nothing, that they can do whatever they wish, and that doesn't exactly fix the problem now does it?

What other stance do you want me to take? The mother should be punished, but the fetus or "future child" as some would use, shouldn't just be ridden of on her account. Not all pro-life are goody goody. There are those like me who are against it not because of any religion, but because I think people should not be so stupid.

You're advocating for people caring more about children, which is fine. But there already are plenty of children in America who need homes and that people, especially those pro-lifers, are not taking in. Why should we advocate for potential lives to be "saved" when there are already 500,000+ children IN THE US ALONE who do not have stable families or stable homes? I fail to see why we should work ourselves up so much on women who believe that having an abortion is better than contributing to the foster care system in a negative fashion; instead of working ourselves up over the kids who are in foster care in the States, and who are in dire straits in the world.

Also, you don't need to keep bringing up the rape victims. I may be a pro choice person, but I'm also aware of the propaganda issued by my side that claims "What about the rape victims" when they are, indeed, a small minority of those who actually receive abortion procedures.

Most women who receive abortions, by the by, were those who did use at least one form of birth control and found that it failed, usually because of incorrect use (something I sorely wish sex ed classes taught, instead of just potential failure rates which fail to take into account real failure rates). I'd think that abortions wouldn't happen as much if we actually taught real sex ed, and by that I mean how to properly use birth control (and by that I mean all types) and if people were made aware of the ACTUAL failure rates instead of what the manufacturers just want us to know.... it'd save plenty of women from having to go through the abortion process.

I may be liberal, but I hardly think that I'm a zombie sort of liberal.

At 2/16/07 03:13 PM, qygibo wrote: I fail to see why we should work ourselves up so much on women who believe that having an abortion is better than contributing to the foster care system in a negative fashion; instead of working ourselves up over the kids who are in foster care in the States, and who are in dire straits in the world.

Here's a question to answer all that. Why would pro-lifers, if they believe all should have a chance on life, be willing to say that abortion should be legal just because of those in foster care?

It doesn't make any sense. There will always be children in foster care. Them agreeing with you would be like them saying that we should kill an innocent to make other lives potentially better. You people are using nothing more than a worthless excuse to exempt yourselves from being labeled. Women who have abortions do not take these things into consideration.

Most women who receive abortions, by the by, were those who did use at least one form of birth control and found that it failed, usually because of incorrect use (something I sorely wish sex ed classes taught, instead of just potential failure rates which fail to take into account real failure rates).

And once again, that would be their problem. If they're smart enough to use birth control, then they should be smart enough to know the risks and how it has a possibility to not work. Their ignorance shouldn't be an excuse.

it'd save plenty of women from having to go through the abortion process.

It could, but how is legalizing it solving the problem?

At 2/16/07 03:21 PM, Memorize wrote: Here's a question to answer all that. Why would pro-lifers, if they believe all should have a chance on life, be willing to say that abortion should be legal just because of those in foster care?

It doesn't make any sense. There will always be children in foster care. Them agreeing with you would be like them saying that we should kill an innocent to make other lives potentially better. You people are using nothing more than a worthless excuse to exempt yourselves from being labeled. Women who have abortions do not take these things into consideration.

For that I'll take a key from some of your own arguments, in that you seem to put a sort of hierarchy over which humans are more deserving of help and care and which ones aren't. We can't save everyone, and this is true, but how does it work where potential life trumps actual life that is already here? You've shown yourself that you care more about certain individuals than about other individuals, and I can actually agree to that to an extent. I don't think that all life is equal either, just as you and I'm sure many other pro lifers could probably agree with (except for the ones who are goody goody and true pro-lifers, who are actually quite rare).

there's even a ranking in the media as to which kinds of important life are considered more important: Note that in media coverage, we hear moe about fetuses and embryos as of late than we do about the children in foster care. In a way, we're placing a value on them; that (IMO) a group of cells and potential life is more important of attention than foster children, and are more worthy of having more money spent on them in order to save.

And once again, that would be their problem. If they're smart enough to use birth control, then they should be smart enough to know the risks and how it has a possibility to not work. Their ignorance shouldn't be an excuse.

I don't offer it as an excuse, just a matter of fact. Of course birth control has a possibility to fail; the problem is that oftentimes sex education only gives failure rates; it doesn't show people how to properly use birth control and it doesn't educate on the real failure rates.

And frankly, I'm not going to scorn people who used condoms and on the women who used their methods of birth control and ended up pregnant. I'm further not going to believe that it would be my place to persuade them one way or another whether they continue with said pregnancy or terminate it right there; whether they believe they could provide a proper home or whether they believe that they don't want to place a child into the foster care or adoption programs with little guarantee that the home that child goes into would really be a good home.

it'd save plenty of women from having to go through the abortion process.

A true pro-choice person would accept whatever choice happens to be made, even if the decision may not seem to be a good one. In the end, I can't say to know a person's circumstances as well as they do. Just like what your decision is in order to condemn women who have abortions: that's your choice to do so, and I have no particular want to want to change that, because that's your choice to believe as you do and I've no right to dissuade you from it.

It could, but how is legalizing it solving the problem?

Because we're not at the point yet where sex ed can manage to prevent as well as the theoretical rates conjecture. So until then, women have another option that they could or could choose not to exercise. I'm one of those who hopes that someday, we do get to the point where abortion is unnecessary because contraceptives will be that damn good, but we're not quite there just yet.

At 2/16/07 03:39 PM, qygibo wrote:

For that I'll take a key from some of your own arguments, in that you seem to put a sort of hierarchy over which humans are more deserving of help and care and which ones aren't. We can't save everyone, and this is true, but how does it work where potential life trumps actual life that is already here?

Because everyone except children (and fetus, if you want to call it 'alive') is guilty of something. Why should I hold these certain women who screw around and are nothing but a drain more than that potential, innocent life? To me, if they're willing to be selfish and irresponsible with not control and then to just get an abortion because of their stupidity, their life is worthless.

there's even a ranking in the media as to which kinds of important life are considered more important: Note that in media coverage, we hear moe about fetuses and embryos as of late than we do about the children in foster care. In a way, we're placing a value on them; that (IMO) a group of cells and potential life is more important of attention than foster children, and are more worthy of having more money spent on them in order to save.

Why can't they be equal? After all, it only makes sense considering they're the same, just more developed (kind of like how an adult is to a child).

I don't offer it as an excuse, just a matter of fact. Of course birth control has a possibility to fail; the problem is that oftentimes sex education only gives failure rates; it doesn't show people how to properly use birth control and it doesn't educate on the real failure rates.

If they teach that it could fail, then those women are even more stupid than I originally thought. They knew the risks and yet were willing to use something that could fail that they didn't know how to use properly. That's even more reason to say they screwed up and don't deserve any sympathy.

Because we're not at the point yet where sex ed can manage to prevent as well as the theoretical rates conjecture. So until then, women have another option that they could or could choose not to exercise. I'm one of those who hopes that someday, we do get to the point where abortion is unnecessary because contraceptives will be that damn good, but we're not quite there just yet.

And as i've said before. Abortions being illegal will has women using more risky ways. Heh, but that's not a problem with me if they're actually that stupid to try it. If they ended up killing themselves in the process, why should I care? Don't you think people would naturally feel more sorry for those killed in an accident than those women who perform these stupid risks? People would, if it weren't for the fact that what Stalin said was true. Accidents occur to millions so it's a statistic to everyone compared to these women. And just because there's a few of these women, everyone feels sorry.

At 2/16/07 04:43 PM, Memorize wrote: Because everyone except children (and fetus, if you want to call it 'alive') is guilty of something. Why should I hold these certain women who screw around and are nothing but a drain more than that potential, innocent life? To me, if they're willing to be selfish and irresponsible with not control and then to just get an abortion because of their stupidity, their life is worthless.

How are they a drain exactly? I'd really like to know that, how are they a drain? There might be a small drain when it comes to Title 19 insurance (aka Medicaid), but it is not poor women who receive the majority of abortions, it is actually middle class women who receive them. And a good portion of them pay for abortions out of their own pocket, at about $300-$400, maybe some help on their insurance if they are able to use it to cover the abortion.

Why can't they be equal? After all, it only makes sense considering they're the same, just more developed (kind of like how an adult is to a child).

I don't know why the media doesn't portray them as such, but I know that I wouldn't consider a fetus to be of equivalent status as to a child already out of the womb (mostly due to developmental issues). Although to think of it, my views might be shared by those in the media, they just enjoy the controversy that embryos give and that people love to read about.

If they teach that it could fail, then those women are even more stupid than I originally thought. They knew the risks and yet were willing to use something that could fail that they didn't know how to use properly. That's even more reason to say they screwed up and don't deserve any sympathy.

They know of the 2-9% theoretical failure risks of birth control, not of the 16-24% real failure risks (depending of if it's protecting from STDs or pregnancy). I would imagine that there would be some people scared off from sex before being in a committed relationship if the real facts were known, but they don't teach those sorts of things in school. Nor do they teach about proper use of birth control, which is a major reason for the real life 16-24% failure rates.

And as i've said before. Abortions being illegal will has women using more risky ways. Heh, but that's not a problem with me if they're actually that stupid to try it. If they ended up killing themselves in the process, why should I care? Don't you think people would naturally feel more sorry for those killed in an accident than those women who perform these stupid risks? People would, if it weren't for the fact that what Stalin said was true. Accidents occur to millions so it's a statistic to everyone compared to these women. And just because there's a few of these women, everyone feels sorry.

If you don't want to care, why should I try to make up an answer to justify anything? I don't necessarily feel sorry for women who've had abortions, and for someone like me that's a lot. It's just something that has happened, and it's a person's choice as to what they do following the abortion, whether it's to learn from the events or to unfortunately repeat them.

At 2/16/07 04:56 PM, qygibo wrote:

but it is not poor women who receive the majority of abortions, it is actually middle class women who receive them.

Thank you. THE TRUTH! SHALL SET YOU FREE (just always wanted a reason to say that).

Cause you see, since they are middle class then they have the income they need to support a child and have no reason to get an abortion. And since they're not poor, then there goes the 'they don't any better' arguement. And since they're middle class, then there is no reason to bring up the Foster Homes.

I don't know why the media doesn't portray them as such, but I know that I wouldn't consider a fetus to be of equivalent status as to a child already out of the womb (mostly due to developmental issues).

Considering an adult is more developed than a child then why do people cringe even more so with an infant's death?

If you don't want to care, why should I try to make up an answer to justify anything? I don't necessarily feel sorry for women who've had abortions, and for someone like me that's a lot. It's just something that has happened, and it's a person's choice as to what they do following the abortion, whether it's to learn from the events or to unfortunately repeat them.

And i'm saying that society needs to place the blame more on those who are responsible for their mistakes instead of babying them.

At 2/16/07 05:34 PM, Memorize wrote: Thank you. THE TRUTH! SHALL SET YOU FREE (just always wanted a reason to say that).

I'm sure that you've had other pro-choice people try to wiggle out of that, but believe me when I say that I'm not with most pro-choicers in terms of what I accept.

Cause you see, since they are middle class then they have the income they need to support a child and have no reason to get an abortion. And since they're not poor, then there goes the 'they don't any better' arguement. And since they're middle class, then there is no reason to bring up the Foster Homes.

Income is an indicator of being able to care for a child but it is not the only indicator. There are a number of foster children who have been removed from middle class homes, because the parents were just not very good parents. Having the money to financially provide for a child doesn't mean one has the emotional capacity or the maturity to handle caring for a child, and there are those who realize this.

Considering an adult is more developed than a child then why do people cringe even more so with an infant's death?

I'd call it the small and adorable factor. The smaller, more adorable, and more helpless one appears, the more likely people are to feel bad when something bad happens to the person. It's also why there's more of a to-do when a pretty young white woman disappears, and yet if it's a he, or a not as attractive she, there's little media attention.

And i'm saying that society needs to place the blame more on those who are responsible for their mistakes instead of babying them.

I've not seen much evidence to show that those women who have abortions are babied. They're usually seen as women who've made a decision to terminate a pregnancy. I've certainly never been babied after I got my abortion, it's just something that happened.

At 2/16/07 05:44 PM, qygibo wrote:

Income is an indicator of being able to care for a child but it is not the only indicator. There are a number of foster children who have been removed from middle class homes, because the parents were just not very good parents.

So we should make their lives easier, with no fine, no punishment because they're horrible parents? Why?

Nothing but hypocracy.

I'd call it the small and adorable factor. The smaller, more adorable, and more helpless one appears, the more likely people are to feel bad when something bad happens to the person. It's also why there's more of a to-do when a pretty young white woman disappears, and yet if it's a he, or a not as attractive she, there's little media attention.

A man has a relation with a female student, people cry for him to be severely punished. And even if the charges are dropped, the judge will stop throw him in prison. If a woman has a relation with a male student... well... nothing happens. Or they take forever with nothing happening.

I've not seen much evidence to show that those women who have abortions are babied. They're usually seen as women who've made a decision to terminate a pregnancy. I've certainly never been babied after I got my abortion, it's just something that happened.

You're babied because it's legal all with society telling you it's "not your fault" or "it's ok". It is your fault. And most of you don't have any other reason than just "oh well". It's sickening.

At 2/16/07 06:01 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/16/07 05:44 PM, qygibo wrote:

Income is an indicator of being able to care for a child but it is not the only indicator. There are a number of foster children who have been removed from middle class homes, because the parents were just not very good parents.

So we should make their lives easier, with no fine, no punishment because they're horrible parents? Why?

Nothing but hypocracy.

What on earth are you talking about? Oftentimes any parent who has their child removed from their care is charged with a crime, ranging from child abuse to gross neglect.

A man has a relation with a female student, people cry for him to be severely punished. And even if the charges are dropped, the judge will stop throw him in prison. If a woman has a relation with a male student... well... nothing happens. Or they take forever with nothing happening.

Yes, there is that bias against men, and I agree that it is wrong. I'll even go a step further and note that the current method of denying men any sort of choice when it comes to a woman being pregnant, a woman obtaining an abortion, and having to pay child support is wrong, and that men should at the very least be allowed to have their opinions heard. And on the child support, if the guy doesn't want to pay it and has stated clearly that he didn't want to have the child to begin with, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're babied because it's legal all with society telling you it's "not your fault" or "it's ok". It is your fault. And most of you don't have any other reason than just "oh well". It's sickening.

So I'm babied because abortion is legal? That's some rather goofy way of thinking, but ok, if you want to believe that, go right ahead. Forgive me for not noticing the "HURRAH, YOU HAD AN ABORTION!" party banners that seem to come free with every abortion that's been had.

I suppose being an orphan is better than not existing.

As you can see, abortion is on the decline

I suggest you all read this.

I honestly can't give much more than links. Because if I say it’s bad I will get bashed. And the same goes if I said Abortion is good.

At 2/16/07 06:42 PM, Mor-Evil-Than-Google wrote: I suppose being an orphan is better than not existing.

As you can see, abortion is on the decline

I suggest you all read this.

I honestly can't give much more than links. Because if I say it’s bad I will get bashed. And the same goes if I said Abortion is good.

That sounds more like you're too scared to offer up an actual opinion because people might not agree with it. Seriously, you swing one way or you swing another, that's all there is to it.

At 2/16/07 06:53 PM, qygibo wrote:

At 2/16/07 06:42 PM, Mor-Evil-Than-Google wrote: I suppose being an orphan is better than not existing.

As you can see, abortion is on the decline

I suggest you all read this.

I honestly can't give much more than links. Because if I say it’s bad I will get bashed. And the same goes if I said Abortion is good.

That sounds more like you're too scared to offer up an actual opinion because people might not agree with it. Seriously, you swing one way or you swing another, that's all there is to it.

Personally, I have no opinion either way. Because I am not in the position whether me or the person I am with has to make that choice. You cannot judge something without experiencing it. You don’t say Mt Everest is the best climbing experience unless you've climbed it. So unless my girlfriend is pregnant my opinion is irrelevant.

At 2/16/07 07:07 PM, Mor-Evil-Than-Google wrote: Personally, I have no opinion either way. Because I am not in the position whether me or the person I am with has to make that choice. You cannot judge something without experiencing it. You don’t say Mt Everest is the best climbing experience unless you've climbed it. So unless my girlfriend is pregnant my opinion is irrelevant.

Wow.... you're one of the first people I've ever talked to who actually hit upon the proper response to a debate like this on the head. I've waited to hear that response from someone.

At 2/16/07 06:10 PM, qygibo wrote:

What on earth are you talking about? Oftentimes any parent who has their child removed from their care is charged with a crime, ranging from child abuse to gross neglect.

I'm talking about the parents who are financially capable of supporting a child and get an abortion anyway.

So I'm babied because abortion is legal? That's some rather goofy way of thinking, but ok, if you want to believe that, go right ahead. Forgive me for not noticing the "HURRAH, YOU HAD AN ABORTION!" party banners that seem to come free with every abortion that's been had.

No need to overexaggerate. Altho I didn't expect any different.

At 2/16/07 07:08 PM, qygibo wrote:

Wow.... you're one of the first people I've ever talked to who actually hit upon the proper response to a debate like this on the head. I've waited to hear that response from someone.

You want to know where I get my belief on abortion from? My mother. She's a whole lot more extreme about it than I'am which is actually pretty funny (not anything like the people who bomb places, but you get what I mean).

At 2/16/07 07:08 PM, qygibo wrote:

At 2/16/07 07:07 PM, Mor-Evil-Than-Google wrote: Personally, I have no opinion either way. Because I am not in the position whether me or the person I am with has to make that choice. You cannot judge something without experiencing it. You don’t say Mt Everest is the best climbing experience unless you've climbed it. So unless my girlfriend is pregnant my opinion is irrelevant.

Wow.... you're one of the first people I've ever talked to who actually hit upon the proper response to a debate like this on the head. I've waited to hear that response from someone.

I just feel it’s the best way to go. For example, I’ve just eaten a yoghurt. Hypothetically you haven’t ever had this particular product. So you don’t know whether it tastes good. The only way you can give your opinion on it is my own assessment on the product. So doing this you are not giving your own opinion rather than you are relaying mine. And when/if you do eat one and hate it your pretty much fucked.

At 2/16/07 07:17 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/16/07 06:10 PM, qygibo wrote:

What on earth are you talking about? Oftentimes any parent who has their child removed from their care is charged with a crime, ranging from child abuse to gross neglect.

I'm talking about the parents who are financially capable of supporting a child and get an abortion anyway.

Probably because they get a sense that they would probably not be great parents, being unprepared in any way for raising a child. Which I do believe I mentioned prior. There are plenty of people who are financially capable of raising a child, but having money to raise a child means jack shit if the kid still manages to get abused or neglected anyway. Money is a factor in raising children in a good way, but it is not the only attribute for good parenting.

You want to know where I get my belief on abortion from? My mother. She's a whole lot more extreme about it than I'am which is actually pretty funny (not anything like the people who bomb places, but you get what I mean).

That's fine that you get your views from your mother on this. You give the impression that she probably considered an abortion but refused, although forgive me if I'm being too presumptious.

But I'll note this. I used to have the EXACT same views as you did about abortion once, when I was exactly the same age as you were. Maybe it was convenient for me to change my views after the fact, and I know you'd regard it as selfish. But I probably would have remained ignorant about birth control, despite years of sex ed, and I probably would have condemned just as hard as you do if not for the personal experience. And so today, I would be a bit more empathetic towards women who obtain abortions, which isn't the same as being sympathetic. You can take it for what you will, and you can say whatever it is that you'll want to say about me, but there it is.

At 2/16/07 07:25 PM, qygibo wrote:

Probably because they get a sense that they would probably not be great parents, being unprepared in any way for raising a child.

Therefore if the wife becomes pregnant while they knew what would happen and that they are financially capable of supporting a child, then they should be punished and fined. Not for the abortion exactly, but because they were stupid people who have no self control and are irresponsible.

People like them do not deserve their luxuries and because of the kind of people they are, barely deserve to be breathing.

That's fine that you get your views from your mother on this. You give the impression that she probably considered an abortion but refused, although forgive me if I'm being too presumptious.

No no. She never considered abortion, and she, at the time, wasn't considered rich or middle class much either (needless to say, now everything is good). However she always despised other women a lot who got one or even considered it.

You can take it for what you will, and you can say whatever it is that you'll want to say about me, but there it is.

*takes a deep breath* ...I would say many insulting things, haha, but I got off the computer for a little while (not that I stay on long, just got off of this forum) and watched a few funny tv shows. So, I won't, and i'll just grab a pizza pocket and watch tv.

At 2/16/07 08:34 PM, Memorize wrote: Therefore if the wife becomes pregnant while they knew what would happen and that they are financially capable of supporting a child, then they should be punished and fined. Not for the abortion exactly, but because they were stupid people who have no self control and are irresponsible.

People like them do not deserve their luxuries and because of the kind of people they are, barely deserve to be breathing.

That's pretty punitive. People make mistakes, and sometimes they're huge ones, such as managing to get pregnant with or without taking precautions. I thought that I hated people, but wow.... you're way up there.

No no. She never considered abortion, and she, at the time, wasn't considered rich or middle class much either (needless to say, now everything is good). However she always despised other women a lot who got one or even considered it.

That was her choice, although it seems a bit sad that even now she seems to carry a lot of resentment towards other women who made a different choice.

*takes a deep breath* ...I would say many insulting things, haha, but I got off the computer for a little while (not that I stay on long, just got off of this forum) and watched a few funny tv shows. So, I won't, and i'll just grab a pizza pocket and watch tv.

That's fine, believe me, I've heard just about all.

At 2/16/07 12:01 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 2/15/07 05:21 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Personally I do not support abortions, but I think they should be legal (but limited - none of this third-trimester stuff). And I don't want someone like Dre-Man telling me I can't have one.

People tell you a lot of things, yet you still do the.

Abortion is just one more step in the protection of childs' rights and life.

At 2/16/07 08:54 PM, qygibo wrote:

That's pretty punitive. People make mistakes, and sometimes they're huge ones, such as managing to get pregnant with or without taking precautions. I thought that I hated people, but wow.... you're way up there.

I do my best.

That was her choice, although it seems a bit sad that even now she seems to carry a lot of resentment towards other women who made a different choice.

She's very fun loving tho. Has 3 kids. But she is an airhead, but in a lovable, likeable way. It just makes her, her.

I won’t argue over whether Abortion is good or not. But I will say this to both sides.

Millions of people die due to the hands of another. War is fought, murders, violence, hatred, jealousy cause the deaths of so many.

Does the fact that an unborn child is so vulnerable that it angers you more than all those other people whose blood is spilt by another person?

Death is a constant. It's a natural way of life. But it’s also a violent and barbaric way of life.

How can we in a constantly changing world decide what’s right and wrong. In many ways what you call the way of life today would be against the law 400 years ago.

Much thinking is needed in this dilemma.

I think the only answer I or anyone can give in this topic is:
What can be done, will be done.

At 2/16/07 09:46 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 2/16/07 09:03 PM, Mor-Evil-Than-Google wrote: Does the fact that an unborn child is so vulnerable that it angers you more than all those other people whose blood is spilt by another person?

Wait, so because people die all the time, we're supposed to be desensitized when innocent, potential children die?

Oh, okay.

No, but why must you only concern yourself with one broken pencil when there is an entire case full?

At 2/16/07 09:53 PM, Mor-Evil-Than-Google wrote:

No, but why must you only concern yourself with one broken pencil when there is an entire case full?

Yeah, who cares if the man murdered the kid, it's just 1 kid.

At 2/16/07 06:48 PM, Grammer wrote:

4. Abortions get rid of unwanted people.

So does murder.

not usually.

At 2/16/07 09:58 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/16/07 09:53 PM, Mor-Evil-Than-Google wrote:

No, but why must you only concern yourself with one broken pencil when there is an entire case full?

Yeah, who cares if the man murdered the kid, it's just 1 kid.

Men dont get pregant. The point is I dont put my personal opinion to this. And I believe what ever effects someone negativly is bad. What you define as 'bad' is up to you.

correct me if im wrong but isnt a baby able to survive on the 5th or 6th month but a women can still abort it. dont they understand and respond to language during the 5th month. Is death a better choice then a hard life being raised in a poor family.?

At 2/16/07 10:01 PM, Mor-Evil-Than-Google wrote:

Men dont get pregant.

Wow, nothing gets passed you Mr. Obvious.

The point is I dont put my personal opinion to this. And I believe what ever effects someone negativly is bad. What you define as 'bad' is up to you.

Not according to the justice system.