Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/19/07 09:43 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

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.

As i've said before. People unfit or unwilling to have a child shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

At 7/18/07 01:08 AM, Memorize wrote: Pro-abortion basically says that marrige isn't for love. It's just for free sex whenever you feel like having it.

What does that have to do with marriage? If people believe in free sex whenever you feel like having it, wouldn't that imply that they feel that marriage is only for love? (Or money, but that's a whole other sack of yams).

"Oh, but they're just a clump of cells". So is every other human being on the planet.

Yes, but I'm a self-aware, conscious clump.

Clump clump.

good word

At 7/19/07 12:28 PM, Elfer wrote:

What does that have to do with marriage?

Well, considering the legalization of abortions and the divorce trend of the late 60's and up, i'd say so.

If people believe in free sex whenever you feel like having it, wouldn't that imply that they feel that marriage is only for love? (Or money, but that's a whole other sack of yams).

Not in this day and age. Marriage is rarely a result of actual love.

Yes, but I'm a self-aware, conscious clump.

See? That's exacly my point. Everytime your argument fails, you come up with another worthless point straight from your ass.

A fetus is a parasite in a human body. A woman risks much by bearing a fetus, and until it can survive outside her body, I don't see any reason as to give it human rights.

If a 12-week fetus is a human, why isn't a sperm one? I don't want to be arrested just for jacking off.

At 7/19/07 12:34 PM, Memorize wrote: Well, considering the legalization of abortions and the divorce trend of the late 60's and up, i'd say so.

Do you have any source that a large part of the abortions are done by a married woman? *cause otherwise it's like saying "1990 there was more storks than usually, and a baby boom, so that proves that storks bring babies".

At 7/19/07 01:13 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

Do you have any source that a large part of the abortions are done by a married woman? *cause otherwise it's like saying "1990 there was more storks than usually, and a baby boom, so that proves that storks bring babies".

Nope.

And i'm not going to dig one up right now because i'm going to the movies.

The only thing I do know is that over half of all abortions are done by women who are financially capable of supporting themselves and a child.

At 7/19/07 12:19 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/19/07 09:43 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Doesn't mean everyone will, but just in case someone might.

As i've said before. People unfit or unwilling to have a child shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

;
Your level of STUPID truely knows no bounds.

People, even married people do not engage in sex , just to recreate.
There are studies proving that sex between partners strenghtens the bonds.
Making the family unit stronger.
There are studies on how sex is good for your health.
An active healthy sex life, actually can help you live longer.

You have absolutely no concept of anything to do with sexuality & personal relationships.
Your not even able to fake it.
So why not S.T. F.U. on subjects you no absolutely nothing about?

The Pro-Life/Pro-Choice argument is much like any other People vs. Christian People argument. Just like gay marriage and creationalism, the people logically come up with an answer that's obvious, and the Christian people warp one topic to make their point. We say that it's freedom, they get a choice. They spit religious hooey at us to make us guilt trip (like a mother about to get an abortion isn't guilty enough) into taking their side.

At 7/19/07 03:41 PM, RedDreadSky wrote: The Pro-Life/Pro-Choice argument is much like any other People vs. Christian People argument. Just like gay marriage and creationalism, the people logically come up with an answer that's obvious, and the Christian people warp one topic to make their point. We say that it's freedom, they get a choice. They spit religious hooey at us to make us guilt trip (like a mother about to get an abortion isn't guilty enough) into taking their side.

Or maybe not everyone who opposes abortion is a Christian, you sound like you oppose things that Christians support out of pure spite.

I'm from the Netherlands. I think its the only country in the world that actually allows abortion as a legal action. I'm really happy about this policy. I'm not happy about the policy because it leaves us the choice, I'm happy about the policy because it gives us the opportunity to end the childs suffering before he gains awareness. I think the pain children get from being unwanted gives us the right to end a bunch of cells what hardly can be called a child.

I think there is a downside though. because where do we draw a line? We already check the babe on a lot of deseases. It is not an exception that people do an abortion just because the child is not how it should be. It think thats wrong.

At 7/19/07 03:53 PM, Grammer wrote: Otherwise, you just pulled the whole "only in certain scenarios" bullshit out of your ass. Don't tack on shit that isn't true to legitamize your own beliefs.

I love these abortion threads. They come with more assholes than solutions.

At 7/19/07 04:06 PM, Dizziot wrote: I'm from the Netherlands. I think its the only country in the world that actually allows abortion as a legal action.

Well, maybe I'm just bad at English and "legal action" is a term that I don't know about, but abortion is legal in many countries in the world. Here in Sweden, nearly anyone can go through an abortion until 12th week, and up to 18th week under special circumstances (such as rape, risk for the mothers life, and so on).

I think there is a downside though. because where do we draw a line? We already check the babe on a lot of deseases. It is not an exception that people do an abortion just because the child is not how it should be. It think thats wrong.

Why? Should a child be forced to live, even though it has sicknesses? Most people don't go through an abortion for the pure fun of it; Actually, it's quite straining, both for the woman, and in the cases there is one, for the would-be-father.

At 7/19/07 05:43 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 7/19/07 05:32 PM, Brick-top wrote: I love these abortion threads. They come with more assholes than solutions.

Oh man, Wikipedia. What a reliable and irrefutable source.

You moron.

Oh yeah just going on to Google and typing something in the search bar is a better source of information isn't it you fucking jackass?!?!

Fuck sake why am I even bothering with you? This is completely going off topic.

At 7/19/07 09:30 AM, SecondHandOpinion wrote: 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.

I agree, it is a solution. But it is not the best solution.

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.

How do you assume that, because a child wasn't expected, that he's going to be abused? Many people have children they weren't expecting, and don't abuse them

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.

No, I have no problems with prenatal care of the woman.

Consent is for one thing and JUST that. No go on that one buddy. Consent to sex=/=consent to being pregnant.

Consent to sex does equal consent to being pregnant. Regardless of the precautions one may take.
If you consent to jumping out of an airplane, you consent to die by crashing to the ground, no matter how many reserve chutes you have.
You cannot say you do not consent to a consequence of an action when you know before hand that that action can lead to that consequence.

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.

If a fetus is human enough to have law apply to it, it is human enough to have the protections of law applied to it, too.

At 7/19/07 05:56 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I agree, it is a solution. But it is not the best solution.

Well, what is a better solution? As I see it, there are only two other; Keeping the baby, which is worse, because the world doesn't need more children, it needs more happy children, or set the child up for adoption, which is worse because you only force the responsibility upon someone else and, in the end, some other kid gets to live without a family.

Consent to sex does equal consent to being pregnant. Regardless of the precautions one may take.
If you consent to jumping out of an airplane, you consent to die by crashing to the ground, no matter how many reserve chutes you have.

Now we ain't talking jumping out of planes, rather flying with them. And if I go on a holiday and find myself threwn out of the plane, then I'd do what I could to save the rest of my life.

If a fetus is human enough to have law apply to it, it is human enough to have the protections of law applied to it, too.

And vice versa. If a fetus IS human, it's not respecting here integrity and should be forced to leave the area. If it ISN'T human, well, then there's no reason to make a woman risk life as she knows it for it.

Why is it all of a sudden woman forget that when you have sex it will typically cause a baby?

At 7/19/07 05:56 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 7/19/07 09:30 AM, SecondHandOpinion wrote: 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.

I agree, it is a solution. But it is not the best solution.

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.

How do you assume that, because a child wasn't expected, that he's going to be abused? Many people have children they weren't expecting, and don't abuse them

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.

No, I have no problems with prenatal care of the woman.

Consent is for one thing and JUST that. No go on that one buddy. Consent to sex=/=consent to being pregnant.

Consent to sex does equal consent to being pregnant. Regardless of the precautions one may take.
If you consent to jumping out of an airplane, you consent to die by crashing to the ground, no matter how many reserve chutes you have.
You cannot say you do not consent to a consequence of an action when you know before hand that that action can lead to that consequence.

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.

If a fetus is human enough to have law apply to it, it is human enough to have the protections of law applied to it, too.

So what's the best solution for an unwanted pregnancy then? A Live birth costs more then most abortions not counting prenatal care. Then live birth you have to wait for the fetus to beceom a child.

Weren't expecting doesn't equal unwanted. People usually have abortions for a reason. They don't want or can't afford the child. They may not beat them, but probably at least make them feel guilty for a large portion of their life. Which would be pretty life damaging.

Uh, no. I don't think anyone sky dives with the intention of dying besides those suicidal. If you get in a car and you crash, you did not consent to dying, or NEAR dying. You're basically saying if they jumped out of a plane and landed without a parachute and didn't die we shouldn't treat them because they consented to jumping out of the plane in the first place.

Consent- to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.

Mind telling Pro-choice people wh ohad an abortion that they agreed to have a parasite in them?

Yes, it IS a parasite.

Parasite- an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Dictionary.com

What makes a fetus human now?

At 7/19/07 02:10 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

People, even married people do not engage in sex , just to recreate.

You're right. They don't. And that is exactly what their problem is.

Haha, I guess my parents are an exception!

There are studies proving that sex between partners strenghtens the bonds.

Yes. Yes.

Making the family unit stronger.

Key word: "family unit". Ironic.

It certainly makes it stronger considering these abortion cases.

There are studies on how sex is good for your health.

Yes. Go on.

An active healthy sex life, actually can help you live longer.

Ok.

So why not S.T. F.U. on subjects you no absolutely nothing about?

Haha. Really? You deny that sex can cause reproduction?

Go read a biology book. Better yet. Don't speak on anything you know nothing about.

At 7/19/07 06:10 PM, JakeHero wrote: Why is it all of a sudden woman forget that when you have sex it will typically cause a baby?

Why is it you assume they didn't have protection? That lowers the risk by a lot.

At 7/19/07 06:23 PM, Memorize wrote:

:You're right. They don't. And that is exactly what their problem is.
Why is that a problem? Because GOD has said so? Because it isn't NATURAL? Animals do it. Monkeys masturbate, and lesbian swans sure don't get kids.

Haha, I guess my parents are an exception!

If you only knew...

Making the family unit stronger.

Key word: "family unit". Ironic.

Since when does "family" include every fertilized eggcell? A family could include only two persons, actually.

Haha. Really? You deny that sex can cause reproduction?

He doesn't; he simply points out that there are MANY reasons to have sex besides that.

Sometimes we go skiing in the mountains. I know that I can get a virus by doing that; Actually, the risk is quite big if I don't protect myself well enough. If I DO get a virus, I take pills to kill it. I don't feel sorry for the virus, as it doesn't feel anything. I do, however, continue to protect myself. I know there are people who go skiing in only bathing-trunks, but they are exceptions. Most people don't want to have a virus in the first place, even though it's quite natural to get if you go skiing.

Pro life/ pro choice debates by men always make me kind of sad, reading certain arguments here, I can only hope that they were written by men who have not engaged in sexual activities nor have been in serious relationships, or are extremely religious because some are very ignorant.

I'm obviously pro choice! People do not just have sex to make babies, people have sex because they enjoy it and it causes you and your partner to grow closer. I'm not talking about 15 year olds here, or girls that behave like sluts. Just girls like me, who enjoy sex with their boyfriends yet who are not interested in having a child yet. Therefor I always use protection. Would I however, by accident, get pregnant, I am 99% sure I will have an abortion, because I did not have sex to create a new life.

But really, no men has the right to force a woman what to do with her own body.

Will someone PLEASE give me 4 good solid reasons (other than their own opinion) why this is wrong? Because I just don't see any, well any that show relevence.

Oi, for my parasite defintion I meant to put this one as the definition, seeing as how the fetus is the same species.

a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others

At 7/19/07 06:46 PM, Brick-top wrote: Will someone PLEASE give me 4 good solid reasons (other than their own opinion) why this is wrong? Because I just don't see any, well any that show relevence.

hmm i can give you a few maybe
1) the general idea of preventing life is bad, this may be a little subjective, but i doubt i know anyone who says its good
2)many mothers after having these operations feel extreme guilt, there is a woman i know, who is in her mid fifties, she had an operation like this and now she lives with several cats and has an obvious sign of sadness in her voice at all times
3) the dangers of having any operation where you cut into a human doesnt really cover the reward that well.
4) people COULD do it for hedonistic reasons (please don't confuse that with heathenistic)
btw im pro - choice, im just pointing these out to you

At 7/19/07 08:23 PM, a2toedmonkey wrote:

At 7/19/07 06:46 PM, Brick-top wrote: Will someone PLEASE give me 4 good solid reasons (other than their own opinion) why this is wrong? Because I just don't see any, well any that show relevence.

hmm i can give you a few maybe
1) the general idea of preventing life is bad, this may be a little subjective, but i doubt i know anyone who says its good
2)many mothers after having these operations feel extreme guilt, there is a woman i know, who is in her mid fifties, she had an operation like this and now she lives with several cats and has an obvious sign of sadness in her voice at all times
3) the dangers of having any operation where you cut into a human doesnt really cover the reward that well.
4) people COULD do it for hedonistic reasons (please don't confuse that with heathenistic)
btw im pro - choice, im just pointing these out to you

Preventing life in such a large population isn't all that bad an idea at this point.

http://www.imnotsorry.net/ shows many don't go through depression.

There's 2 cut down.

At 7/19/07 01:10 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: A fetus is a parasite in a human body. A woman risks much by bearing a fetus, and until it can survive outside her body, I don't see any reason as to give it human rights.

If a 12-week fetus is a human, why isn't a sperm one? I don't want to be arrested just for jacking off.

You're still forgetting the obvious fact that the # of rapes per year is very small compared to the number of Abortions per year. [And remember that not all Rapes involve Vaginal penetration; rape is infact a far more broad term.

You may also want to take into account; that with this knowledge i have judge bestowed to you; that In most Situations a Female intentionally has sex; Though most likely not realising that a pregnancy occured [if it did and the pregnancy was unintentional] if you don't realise that Sometimes Sex => Fetus; you certainly shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

Also; by stating that a Fetus is a paracite that the woman does not desire to have; your still forgeting that the only possible way that a fetus could have been unintentionally devised is through an intentional act; one which most of the western world Results in Fetuses.

What scares me is How liberals inargueably desire to releive people of every Wiff of responcibility. AE the responciblity of knowing the important phrase, no glove no love. And of course once the law is set in place there's really no un-doing it.

It's hard to argue that if individuals took every step possible to protect themselfs from pregnancy [Excluding abstinence; which should be encouraged as well; not for the moral reasons but for the logicistic and medical ones] That the number of abortions in the US would be signifigantly lower.

At 7/19/07 09:45 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 7/19/07 01:10 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: A fetus is a parasite in a human body. A woman risks much by bearing a fetus, and until it can survive outside her body, I don't see any reason as to give it human rights.

If a 12-week fetus is a human, why isn't a sperm one? I don't want to be arrested just for jacking off.

You're still forgetting the obvious fact that the # of rapes per year is very small compared to the number of Abortions per year. [And remember that not all Rapes involve Vaginal penetration; rape is infact a far more broad term.

You may also want to take into account; that with this knowledge i have judge bestowed to you; that In most Situations a Female intentionally has sex; Though most likely not realising that a pregnancy occured [if it did and the pregnancy was unintentional] if you don't realise that Sometimes Sex => Fetus; you certainly shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

Also; by stating that a Fetus is a paracite that the woman does not desire to have; your still forgeting that the only possible way that a fetus could have been unintentionally devised is through an intentional act; one which most of the western world Results in Fetuses.

What scares me is How liberals inargueably desire to releive people of every Wiff of responcibility. AE the responciblity of knowing the important phrase, no glove no love. And of course once the law is set in place there's really no un-doing it.

It's hard to argue that if individuals took every step possible to protect themselfs from pregnancy [Excluding abstinence; which should be encouraged as well; not for the moral reasons but for the logicistic and medical ones] That the number of abortions in the US would be signifigantly lower.

Are you implying we should be using the kid as a way to hold them responsible? That doesn't seem very fair. You still didn't answer the question, if it can't live outside the woman's body why should it be given human rights? What makes it a person?

A fetus can only be devised through sex, but that isn't the only thing that sex is for. It's also for recreation.

No glove no love is an important phrase, but prevention isn't 100% infallible. Do you intend to test every single abortion candidate before they have an abortion? If they did or not, it doesn't matter. A fetus then child should not be used as punishment for your actions. Plain and simple.

That's not what this topic is about. I am pro-choice, but protection is still important. I'd MUCH rather have to pay a couple bucks for a condom than a couple hundred for an abortion.

At 7/19/07 12:34 PM, Memorize wrote: Not in this day and age. Marriage is rarely a result of actual love.

My point is, if people want free sex whenever they want, why would they get married? I don't think the "free love" people wait until they're married to have sex.

Yes, but I'm a self-aware, conscious clump.

See? That's exacly my point. Everytime your argument fails, you come up with another worthless point straight from your ass.

My argument was never that I was not a clump of cells. My argument on this issue has always been that in the early stages of pregnancy, a fetus is not conscious, it is not self-aware, it is in no way cognizant of the events occurring around it. These are the things that really define the human condition.

The point that you are trying to make is that there's no significant difference between a grown human being and a fertilized embryo. Don't give me no jive about pulling things out of my ass.

At 7/19/07 09:25 PM, SecondHandOpinion wrote:

At 7/19/07 08:23 PM, a2toedmonkey wrote:

At 7/19/07 06:46 PM, Brick-top wrote: Will someone PLEASE give me 4 good solid reasons (other than their own opinion) why this is wrong? Because I just don't see any, well any that show relevence.

hmm i can give you a few maybe
1) the general idea of preventing life is bad, this may be a little subjective, but i doubt i know anyone who says its good
2)many mothers after having these operations feel extreme guilt, there is a woman i know, who is in her mid fifties, she had an operation like this and now she lives with several cats and has an obvious sign of sadness in her voice at all times
3) the dangers of having any operation where you cut into a human doesnt really cover the reward that well.
4) people COULD do it for hedonistic reasons (please don't confuse that with heathenistic)
btw im pro - choice, im just pointing these out to you

Preventing life in such a large population isn't all that bad an idea at this point.

http://www.imnotsorry.net/ shows many don't go through depression.

There's 2 cut down.

well as i said in my earlier post(before the one with the 4 reasons) that i believe life should be a little thinned, but in the depression thing, i said MANY not all, the mear fact that it can happen is reason. same with risks with certain drugs, just because it doesnt always happen, doesnt mean that it doesn't have risks

At 7/19/07 09:35 PM, Grammer wrote: Just name me a case where a pregnant woman was murdered but it wasn't counted as two counts of murder because the child was too young.

The whole double murder thing is just a bullshit way to bootstrap legal precedent for the purposes of criminalizing abortion altogether. It's all BS. It can't be murder if the baby isn't viable outside the womb, be it through the murder of the mother or the termination of the pregnancy.