Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/18/07 12:37 PM, BLACKEntertainment wrote: Memorize what's with you and all the drug references? What's so bad about drugs? I don't do them of course, but I think they definitely should be legalized.

I can understand Marijuana being legalized.

But give me one good reason why cocain and meth should be.

I think IllustriousPotentate had it right.

They don't do abortions after the 1st trimester for a reason.

One good reason? The economy. If the government sells drugs then they can tax them and regulate the quality. Major boost for the economy. Another reason? Lowers the crime rate. If we start selling drugs in the market place we can take away from the people who sell drugs on the street. There are a lot of gangs that revolve around the drug trade, and if we take that away from them we can lower the amount of crime that goes on, same with prostitution. If we legalize drugs and prostitution we take away some of the major players that cause crime: pimps and dealers. Seems simple to me. Also this way we can regulate quality and who we sell the drugs to. Dealers don't care how young the kid might be, they just want the money, but if the government sells them they can avoid selling the drugs to minors. With the government growing the drugs we can avoid the risks you take when you buy from a drug dealer, when you buy drugs you don't know what those drugs might contain (I had a friend buy pot that was laced with cocaine once), without the dealers involved there isn't that risk factor.

Now that all sounds good in theory but would it work the same in practice? Hell yes. Want proof? Prohibition.
Prohibition was one of the worst things to happen to the 1920's. There was crime everywhere, all the people trying to smuggle booze in and out of bars got rich off of that stupid law, and thats exactly what is happening to the drug dealers of today. Legalize it and we reduce (if no eliminate) these problems.

At 7/18/07 03:12 PM, BLACKEntertainment wrote:

Now that all sounds good in theory but would it work the same in practice? Hell yes. Want proof? Prohibition.

Prohibition dealt with cigarettes and alcohol. Marijuana used to be sold over the counter.

Over half of all drug stops and users are marijuana users.

Canada doesn't really enforce drug laws on marijuana and they're ranked #1 for most users in any developed country.

So tell me. How the hell is this going to work for cocain and meth?

Well I must say, I always think it's funny when people say you can't do something cause "god said so." They don't even have a real argument. Just "god said so." However, you have a good point Memorize. I am pro-choice, but you still bring up an excellent argument. Think about this, though. You get a girl pregnant. She has the child, and says you are responsible for it. Your 18 years old, and not only do you not have the financial escurity you need, but you don't have the time to take care of yur child. The child grows up to be a neglected, abused, and in most cases, misguided. do you think that was a child who really shud have lived? It's your choice.

Where did you pull that statistic from? Your ass?
Even if it's true, marijuana is still illegal here, well enforced or not. In places like Amsterdam it isn't illegal at all and there is a surprising lack of use there. Even still, I never said that any of that would reduce usage I'm just saying it would be good for the economy, the crime rate, and for regulating what gets sold and who it gets sold to. The thing is here in Canada it is still illegal, that means the only way to get it still is by ways of drug dealers. The fact that it's less enforced makes it easier to do yes, but the fact that it's illegal also makes it way easier to obtain. Any time I want I can go out and buy some pot, no problem, but if I want to buy alcohol I need to get someone of age to do it for me. It would work exactly the same for other drugs.

At 7/18/07 04:54 PM, Grammer wrote: If you kill a pregnant women, you are charged with two counts of murder.

Only in certain cases where the child was close to being born.

Nobody wants a frucking kid that they cant afford! Go ABORTIONS!

I've been reading alot of abortion topics on ng, and the debates really heat up now and then. My question is, isnt it legal in the US? I thought is was, or is there an intense political debates about it it know?
because you all sure do like talkin about it...

in my own opinion everyone should be able to get an abortion for reason so many before me (namely other topics) have given.
But here in my country abortion has been legal far before my birth, so here its kinda normal.. funny thing is that the netherlands has one of the lowest abortion rates. I dont know a single soul thats against abortion (thats not an argument). But the latter could also be due to the fact that we have the highest percentage of non religious people.

At 7/18/07 04:51 PM, BLACKEntertainment wrote: Even if it's true, marijuana is still illegal here, well enforced or not. In places like Amsterdam it isn't illegal at all and there is a surprising lack of use there. Even still, I never said that any of that would reduce usage I'm just saying it would be good for the economy, the crime rate, and for regulating what gets sold and who it gets sold to.

You sir, should look up in history exactly why it was the ancient egyptians were defeated.

It depends on which state you're in. Each state has their own laws not only on the legality but how far into a pregnancy one can have an abortion and what method.

At 7/18/07 05:18 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 7/18/07 05:07 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 7/18/07 04:54 PM, Grammer wrote: If you kill a pregnant women, you are charged with two counts of murder.

Only in certain cases where the child was close to being born.

It's not cool to pull facts out your ass

I'll do it if you go first,

See what I did there?

Anywho back to basics.

The best thing about being Pro-choice is you dont bitch and bitch and bitch constantly about fucking shit that doesn't really matter simply because we have an entire government singing the same tune we are.

So to all you pro-life people shut up, learn to live with it and buy a George Foreman grill, am so proud of it a put ma name on it lol.

At 7/18/07 06:56 PM, Brick-top wrote:

I'll do it if you go first,

Whoops, I meant I'll stop doing it if you go first.

Now do you see what I did there?

I think an easy way to deal with this is if you don't like abortions dont have one.

At 7/18/07 06:01 PM, JakeHero wrote: You sir, should look up in history exactly why it was the ancient egyptians were defeated.

Why were they all stoned? Please elaborate, if you know so much on the subject, enlighten us.

Tomsan, out of curiosity, I'd like to know how much people smoke there in the Netherlands. What's the comparison between here and there? Everybody seems much smarter there...

At 7/18/07 06:56 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 7/18/07 05:18 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 7/18/07 05:07 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 7/18/07 04:54 PM, Grammer wrote: If you kill a pregnant women, you are charged with two counts of murder.

Only in certain cases where the child was close to being born.

It's not cool to pull facts out your ass

I'll do it if you go first,

See what I did there?

Anywho back to basics.

The best thing about being Pro-choice is you dont bitch and bitch and bitch constantly about fucking shit that doesn't really matter simply because we have an entire government singing the same tune we are.

So to all you pro-life people shut up, learn to live with it and buy a George Foreman grill, am so proud of it a put ma name on it lol.

Your making a strong assertion that deturmines pro-life is a minority.

I hope to never see you complaining about a policy that you do not support.

________________________________________
_____________________________

On another note; i myself am more interested in results then morality; and it's impossible to imagine that at this point they'res any hope of being able to; even with an illegalization; hope that people are then forced to act responcibly.

Abstinence is no longer in style, you can expect the ammount of abortions to continue to rise untill more effective forms or improovements are made to contraception or sex is no longer considered what's Cool.

Abortion should be allowed to a point, preferably the end of the first trimester (with some exceptions in extreme cases such as a risk of fatal miscarriage), when the embryo fetusizes and is human enough to be kind of human. At this point, one would usually realize that they're pregnant, and have time to say " Oh shit, I wouldn't be a good mother if I had a child now, I should get an abortion" or " I don't want my life and dreams ruined." and do it without having someone force their religion on them. If the fetus is conscious and kicking, they shouldn't be allowed to say "Hurr, I don't need another welfare check. I'ma kill this one." becaue people like this should have to deal with the kid then be sterilized. Would it be fair if all women were forced to wear robes and burkhas in a muslim-dominated free society? No. So that's how people should treat abortion. Sorry if I'm a bit vague, but it's late and this stuff irks me.

I'm pro-common sense...
If you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption.

You don't have to kill the damn thing.

At 7/18/07 10:11 PM, Explosive-Kun wrote: Abortion should be allowed to a point, preferably the end of the first trimester (with some exceptions in extreme cases such as a risk of fatal miscarriage), when the embryo fetusizes and is human enough to be kind of human.

And what about cases of birth defects? Many cases that lead to severe disablement of the child or even to guaranteed death at or shortly after birth are not fully detectable until significantly later in the pregnancy. Should someone who learns at Month 5 that their child will effectively be born dead, or that their child is in fact already dead be forced to carry it to term, since removal would be an "abortion" after the first trimester? Should someone who learns that their child will be born with severe mental disabilities or deformities be forced to bring that child into this world, even if they can't bear to inflict that pain on the child? There is no way to know beforehand whether something devastating like that will happen, and yet you make no allowance for such occurrances in your opinion.

The fact that you have made no attempt to even consider those situations shows that you have never had a child of your own and are merely making statements based on a moralistic, probably virgin position. Anyone who has had a child should know of that horrible period when you worry whether it will be a healthy child, and many also know the horror when they or someone close to them learns that the child is not healthy. Abortion at any stage is necessary for medical and ethical reasons, regardless of the mostly-mythical "baby whore" who wants an aborption simply to avoid consequences and learns nothing from the event.

The way you phrased your opinions also strongly suggests that you are male, as you appear to look at those situations completely impersonally-- after all, if you didn't want a baby you could simpyl walk out on the girl. The pain, both mentally and physically, associated with pregnancy, birth, and abortion all obviously have not registered on you yet, and perhaps never will, but your reasons for your stance on abortion are full of naive assumptions and ignorant faith in the decisions of officials. How can you agree with the Brainwash-Position (the one passed down to children and others without their ever having thought it over) when you don't actually know when a fetus is "like a human" or truly "alive"? There is a lot more to every issue than people ever give it credit for; think about this one a bit more.

At 7/18/07 09:31 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 7/18/07 06:56 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 7/18/07 05:18 PM, Grammer wrote: It's not cool to pull facts out your ass

I'll do it if you go first,

You see, you're adding this whole "only in certain scenarios" clause. That's bullshit. Don't know where you got it from, but stop it.

It is a fact that if you kill a pregnant women, you are charged with two murders depending on the state. You can't add any "only if..." bullshit if you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh for fuck sake. In a homicide case the distinction between a fetus and an unborn child is that a child could survive if it had been born, while a fetus could not. Hence the reason why you have to use the phrase unborn child rather than fetus, you fucking idiot. However an illegal abortion is classified as murder.

interesting topic here.... anyways

abortion is a very touchy topic, because you are really killing a child
but hold off , i am pro- choice. the reason is that, we as humans find killing as a horrid thing, at least with other humans, but if you look at the big picture, without thinking of yourself as human, you see that there are to freaking many humans as it is. now that sounds harsh, what will be even more harsh is the starving MILLIONS of people in the next, (insert random number here) years. now on to personal choices and relation

to anyone who says something to the extent of "well use a condom(or birth control, or whatever) your kinda crushing your goal, you see the whole arguement here is "is it killing something" and obviosly you say it is , since it is preventing this being from being alive, but IF YOUR USE SOMETHING TO PREVENT IT YOUR STILL PREVENTING LIFE, the only differince is that you cant see it happen, kinda like wars far away heh?

i may also add that i would never allow anyone in my family to have an abortion, out of sheer principle, like all people i do consider it murder, but i also consider a lot of things murder

Personally, I think all prolifers should have to support all babies they "save". I'd rather be aborted then brought up unwanted child really. You'd lack a lot of parental love, something noe one goes through in life unscratched. Abortions is NOT murder, it's self defense. In event of being attacked you'd use self defense. The fetus is using the woman's body without her permission, which is illegal and self defence up to and including death is mostly legal. I don't see why a fetus gets special treatment there.

At 7/19/07 04:03 AM, a2toedmonkey wrote: interesting topic here.... anyways

abortion is a very touchy topic, because you are really killing a child
but hold off , i am pro- choice. the reason is that, we as humans find killing as a horrid thing, at least with other humans, but if you look at the big picture, without thinking of yourself as human, you see that there are to freaking many humans as it is. now that sounds harsh, what will be even more harsh is the starving MILLIONS of people in the next, (insert random number here) years. now on to personal choices and relation

to anyone who says something to the extent of "well use a condom(or birth control, or whatever) your kinda crushing your goal, you see the whole arguement here is "is it killing something" and obviosly you say it is , since it is preventing this being from being alive, but IF YOUR USE SOMETHING TO PREVENT IT YOUR STILL PREVENTING LIFE, the only differince is that you cant see it happen, kinda like wars far away heh?

i may also add that i would never allow anyone in my family to have an abortion, out of sheer principle, like all people i do consider it murder, but i also consider a lot of things murder

Abortion is not murder. Seeing as how it's widely not illegal. You may consider it homicide, but it is not murder. Also, disallowing someone to have an abortion seems kinda extreme, it's their choice. Unless you want to go through pregnancy against your will, birth and raising the child.

At 7/18/07 10:41 PM, KyleTheMadcap wrote: I'm pro-common sense...
If you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption.

You don't have to kill the damn thing.

1) Knowing you Sqashed out a life-form signifigantly lower than you [on a biological perspective] is much more fun then having to Go through labor and put it up for adoption; less paper work, more killing. And no, i'm not being sarcastic.

2) A leftist can argue against the 'adoption' issue as well; and i know the argument just as well as any leftist does. Adoption puts the child in an unfavorable situation.

At 7/19/07 04:16 AM, SecondHandOpinion wrote: Personally, I think all prolifers should have to support all babies they "save".

Who do you think pays for foster care, welfare, etc? Taxpayers.

I'd rather be aborted then brought up unwanted child really.

If you were aborted, you wouldn't have the choice.

You'd lack a lot of parental love, something noe one goes through in life unscratched.

Few people I know didn't face adversity growing up. In fact, those that didn't face adversity growing up have a harder time being responsible adults, I have found.

Abortions is NOT murder, it's self defense. In event of being attacked you'd use self defense. The fetus is using the woman's body without her permission, which is illegal and self defence up to and including death is mostly legal. I don't see why a fetus gets special treatment there.

?!?

That is unequivocally the most ridiculous and stupid line of reasoning for abortion I have heard in my life. Never, ever, have I heard someone essentially equate fetuses with rapists. Until now.

At 7/19/07 08:06 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 7/19/07 04:16 AM, SecondHandOpinion wrote: Personally, I think all prolifers should have to support all babies they "save".

Who do you think pays for foster care, welfare, etc? Taxpayers.

I'd rather be aborted then brought up unwanted child really.

If you were aborted, you wouldn't have the choice.

You'd lack a lot of parental love, something noe one goes through in life unscratched.

Few people I know didn't face adversity growing up. In fact, those that didn't face adversity growing up have a harder time being responsible adults, I have found.

Abortions is NOT murder, it's self defense. In event of being attacked you'd use self defense. The fetus is using the woman's body without her permission, which is illegal and self defence up to and including death is mostly legal. I don't see why a fetus gets special treatment there.

?!?

That is unequivocally the most ridiculous and stupid line of reasoning for abortion I have heard in my life. Never, ever, have I heard someone essentially equate fetuses with rapists. Until now.

Intresting points. So you're saying welfare pays for the child 100%, including time invested and labour pain? I don't think so.

I wouldn't have a choice obviously. You can't choose to be aborted, but suppose for a moment I could choose my fate. Between the two I perfer abortions.

No parental love and being told you're a mistake all your life isn't just "hardship" it's life scarring.

Uh, care to really explain the difference between unwanted fetii
and rapists? In the crime sense. The fetus may not be a person, or have the same legal standing, but it is still using the woman's body against her will. The only difference I see besides not being a person is one is for sexual means. Don't act like having something growing inside you aginst your will, sapping your energy and overall making you feel like shit for the whole time isn't a "teehee, now I have a baby which I will instantly love because welfare is a totally good means ofsupporting my newborn child."

Also, I'm pretty sure I said in the event of being attacked, not raped. Well, until my last post where I asked how you think of them as so very far apart.

At 7/19/07 08:18 AM, SecondHandOpinion wrote: Intresting points. So you're saying welfare pays for the child 100%, including time invested and labour pain? I don't think so.

No. But I am countering your claim that "saved" fetuses should be helped by those that want to save them.

No parental love and being told you're a mistake all your life isn't just "hardship" it's life scarring.

Someone cuts you with a knife on your arm. Would you rather have a disfiguring scar on your arm, or have it amputated? Are you claiming that a scarred life is worse than no life at all?

Uh, care to really explain the difference between unwanted fetii

The correct plural form is "fetuses". Look it up next time before you nitpick grammar.

and rapists? In the crime sense. The fetus may not be a person, or have the same legal standing, but it is still using the woman's body against her will. The only difference I see besides not being a person is one is for sexual means. Don't act like having something growing inside you aginst your will, sapping your energy and overall making you feel like shit for the whole time isn't a "teehee, now I have a baby which I will instantly love because welfare is a totally good means ofsupporting my newborn child."

A rapist needs no action by the a woman to attack and does so willingly, despite having the ability not to.

A fetus cannot form but for the actions of the woman impregnated. If a woman does not have sex a fetus cannot form. The fetus has no control over its surroundings, nor did it choose to come into existence.

Unlike rape, where there is no reasonable expectation that it will occur, a woman knows that, if they have sex, they can get pregnant. By doing so, they accept any and all risks associated with sex, including pregnancy.

At 7/19/07 08:38 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 7/19/07 08:18 AM, SecondHandOpinion wrote: Intresting points. So you're saying welfare pays for the child 100%, including time invested and labour pain? I don't think so.

No. But I am countering your claim that "saved" fetuses should be helped by those that want to save them.

No parental love and being told you're a mistake all your life isn't just "hardship" it's life scarring.

Someone cuts you with a knife on your arm. Would you rather have a disfiguring scar on your arm, or have it amputated? Are you claiming that a scarred life is worse than no life at all?

Uh, care to really explain the difference between unwanted fetii

The correct plural form is "fetuses". Look it up next time before you nitpick grammar.

and rapists? In the crime sense. The fetus may not be a person, or have the same legal standing, but it is still using the woman's body against her will. The only difference I see besides not being a person is one is for sexual means. Don't act like having something growing inside you aginst your will, sapping your energy and overall making you feel like shit for the whole time isn't a "teehee, now I have a baby which I will instantly love because welfare is a totally good means ofsupporting my newborn child."

A rapist needs no action by the a woman to attack and does so willingly, despite having the ability not to.

A fetus cannot form but for the actions of the woman impregnated. If a woman does not have sex a fetus cannot form. The fetus has no control over its surroundings, nor did it choose to come into existence.

Unlike rape, where there is no reasonable expectation that it will occur, a woman knows that, if they have sex, they can get pregnant. By doing so, they accept any and all risks associated with sex, including pregnancy.

Yes, they should get support, but they shouldn't have to carry the baby to term. Adoption is a solution to an unwanted child. Abortion is a solution for unwanted pregnancy.

A small cut on your arm does not compare to the huge amount of emotional trama suffered by unwanted children in such horrible cases. Your parents beat you, drink in huge heaps and tell you without you their life could have meant something. Might not sound like much but it is. A small cut does not even begin to comapre.

No, you do NOT instantly accept all risks. I get into the car, I know I might crash. Should I not get treated for my crash injury because I magically consented for it? That's what you're implying. Consent is for one thing and JUST that. No go on that one buddy. Consent to sex=/=consent to being pregnant.

If the fetus voluntarily or not, is using a womans bodily resources without her permission it is a violation of her bodily integrity. Which, last time I checked I is against the law to violate. If it's the fetus' fault or not, it is still breaking the law. As such, the woman should have the right to abort.

At 7/19/07 08:38 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

a woman knows that, if they have sex, they can get pregnant. By doing so, they accept any and all risks associated with sex, including pregnancy.

I disagree with this part of your post.
I know from personal experience, that even if you use a condom (safe sex as taught in school)
Even if your partner is takeing birth control pills (safe sex- see unwanted pregnancy)
You can still get your girlfriend pregnant.

It happened to me, it has happened to others.

Also when I was married, we had a daughter she was about a year old. We were married just over a year and money was tight. We didn't want another child- yet- so my wife was on birth control pills, next thing we know daughter # 2 was on the way.

So as to "expecting the risk of pregnancy" we had taken proper precautions, and still it happened.

Shit happens, that's why abortion should be there for those who wish to make use of it.
Doesn't mean everyone will, but just in case someone might.

At 7/19/07 08:18 AM, SecondHandOpinion wrote:

Uh, care to really explain the difference between unwanted fetii
and rapists? In the crime sense. The fetus may not be a person, or have the same legal standing, but it is still using the woman's body against her will.

Um... probly due to the fact that the fetus didn't just magically pop into existance. The fetus was put there by the fault of the woman. Because the woman had sex (which everyone knows may lead to a child), she essentially gave the fetus permission to be there.

The fetus did not invade the woman. Sex causes children. Pure and simple.