Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Who's paying somebody to kill their baby?
Last I checked, both the hitman and his employer are charged with murder.

At 10/16/07 07:10 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 10/16/07 07:08 PM, PhoenixTails wrote: That's like charging a gun salesman with murder, while the man he sold a gun to who shot somebody gets a slap on the wrist.

Are you a serious? who actually kills the baby?

nobody does, it's a fetus

At 10/16/07 06:53 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 10/16/07 06:48 PM, Elfer wrote: Well, anyway, I still think that's a poor definition of "person," because it essentially suggests that the defining element of humanity and what makes a person is genetics rather than thought.

Yes because if you follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion if person with an IQ of 200 would need to kill 4 people with an IQ of 50 for us to even think about execution, 2 people with an of 100 etc.
It would mean a person is "more human" because he is smarter than someone else and therefore is entitled to more rights.

Yes, because that's exactly what I didn't say at all. Nice straw man argument.

However, what I was saying is that thought and consciousness is what defines the human experience, not that the smarter you are, the more of a person you are.

Why does it seem that in abortion arguments, the only way anti-abortionists can deal with my arguments is by lying about what I've said?

At 10/16/07 07:27 PM, Elfer wrote:

However, what I was saying is that thought and consciousness is what defines the human experience, not that the smarter you are, the more of a person you are.

since thought=human doesn't more thought=more hum

Why does it seem that in abortion arguments, the only way anti-abortionists can deal with my arguments is by lying about what I've said?

I didn't say you said that I merely applied your logic and came to the logical result.

No one here has yet to argue why it's not more humanitarian, less authoritarian, and more effective to focus on reducing the need for an abortion than removing the abortion possibility itself.

Jesus it's just like with the health care argument, No one even BOTHERS to think of stooping the root of the problem.

At 10/16/07 07:32 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: No one here has yet to argue why it's not more humanitarian, less authoritarian, and more effective to focus on reducing the need for an abortion than removing the abortion possibility itself.

It certainly is, no disagrees with you, but how?

At 10/16/07 07:30 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 10/16/07 07:27 PM, Elfer wrote:

However, what I was saying is that thought and consciousness is what defines the human experience, not that the smarter you are, the more of a person you are.

since thought=human doesn't more thought=more hum

No. It's binary, not analog.

At 10/16/07 07:21 PM, Musician wrote:

nobody does, it's a fetus

Look you really are starting to annoy me. at least call it something else because a fetus is a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

At 10/16/07 07:38 PM, Elfer wrote:

No. It's binary, not analog.

I don't understand your reference.

At 10/16/07 07:41 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 10/16/07 07:38 PM, Elfer wrote:

No. It's binary, not analog.

I don't understand your reference.

It's a reference to the English language.

At 10/16/07 07:36 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 10/16/07 07:32 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: No one here has yet to argue why it's not more humanitarian, less authoritarian, and more effective to focus on reducing the need for an abortion than removing the abortion possibility itself.

It certainly is, no disagrees with you, but how?

There's little the government itself can do except for pushing money and set ups of education which promotes methods of protection against sex [Abstinence, Condoms, BC pills etc. etc. ] It also needs to get the populace WANTING that kind of stuff; Something to this effect needs to turn into a trend, of course creating trends isn't USUALLY something the government does, but that's not to say the US government hasn't promoted certain ideas over others in the past.

People them selfs need take action into they're own hands in 2 other ways;

To understand that the foundation of capitalism gives them control over what is sold and presented to them for 'buying'. Buying into things which promote behaviors disadvantageous to a community is indeed within a persons right, but it's also within a persons right to gain support and simply stop BUYING into these things.

More importantly, and much more tangible is the need of parents to influence their children in ways that make them more open about what they do...

[This is where liberalism comes in handy; with parenting; to an extent; there are also particular conservative practices in the home, most notably being the act of eating family together which are known to improve 'Certain' things about the child's developement You could argue the family value of eating dinner together are not something which are reserved for conservatives, but the actual act of eating together as a family is something associated with a more traditionalistic household as opposed to a modern American one. ]

... There ARE ways to do this, and there ARE people who have dedicated time and money into teh internetz to provide for individuals the resources to do this; it's simply a matter of getting your Media pop icons and elites to point a finger in that direction. [It's called a Fad]

At 10/16/07 07:47 PM, Elfer wrote:

It's a reference to the English language.

1: of, relating to, or being an analogue2 a: of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities b: of or relating to an analog computer c: being a timepiece having hour and minute hands

something made of or based on two things or parts: as a: binary star b: a binary number system

Still dont understand what your trying to tell me.

At 10/16/07 08:15 PM, therealsylvos wrote: a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities
a binary number system

Still dont understand what your trying to tell me.

Hints in quotes.

At 10/15/07 10:35 PM, therealsylvos wrote: incorrect

Try it's an opinion, it isn't correct or incorrect unless misquoted.

incorrect

Once again, opinion, but I'll agree that it's a dumb opinion. (no offense poster)

if it is a deadly risk you got a reason otherwise no

Eh, agreed that I wouldn't like to see it done unless it's a deadly risk, but I'm pro-choice, as far as I'm concerned it's up to them.

so...lets kill a baby!

And I'm put in extreme discomfort when I have a physical, shall I kill the doctor?

its called foresight bitch live with the consequences of your actions.

Agreed, you decided to keep it, whine if you want that you can't jump on a trampoline, just don't do it too much for the love of god.

see above

See above above.

correct

True, dolphins have sex for fun so why can't I?

incorrect

Rape? Let them choose. Incest? Let them choose, if they chose to screw their cousin they can choose about the kid too, oh by the way the only incest that actually DOES cause birth defects is either Father/Daughter or Mother/Son, I can't remember which one. Being underage and too poor? No fucking excuse to kill the damn kid! But like I said before...up to them.

5. Without clean sterilized clinics legally available women will resort to more primitive and unsafe ways of aborting their children. This could result in the death of the mother and the child.

but less woman will if we criminalize it.

True, but the ones that do may fuck themselves up, which last time I checked, is a bad thing. Keep it in the clinics.

So when you are asleep You won't mind if i kill you?

That depends...do I get to help kill him too? Oh and it's only knocked out for the first four weeks, after that it notices it's being killed.

The right to life and the right to free money are mutually exclusive.

Yes...yes they are.

At 10/16/07 09:50 PM, TonyTostieno wrote:

At 10/15/07 10:35 PM, therealsylvos wrote: incorrect

Try it's an opinion, it isn't correct or incorrect unless misquoted.

It's a belief... an incorrect one

And I'm put in extreme discomfort when I have a physical, shall I kill the doctor?

unless I am mistaken I believe you somehow missed that dripping sarcasm.

Rape? Let them choose. Incest? Let them choose, if they chose to screw their cousin they can choose about the kid too, oh by the way the only incest that actually DOES cause birth defects is either Father/Daughter or Mother/Son, I can't remember which one. Being underage and too poor? No fucking excuse to kill the damn kid! But like I said before...up to them.

why should they be allowed to choose? and ANY couple can give birth to a defective baby however the closer they are related the higher the probability that there will be a negative gene reinforcement.

5. Without clean sterilized clinics legally available women will resort to more primitive and unsafe ways of aborting their children. This could result in the death of the mother and the child.

but less woman will if we criminalize it.

True, but the ones that do may fuck themselves up, which last time I checked, is a bad thing. Keep it in the clinics.

and the people who inject heroin also fuck themselves up, is that a reason to have clinics where they can get sterilized needled?

Just a question I thought I'd ask here, do you consider those Plan B pills(or whatever they are called) a form of Abortion? These pills are used on a fertilized egg, not a fetus am I correct?

At 10/16/07 11:02 PM, HooglyBoogly wrote: Just a question I thought I'd ask here, do you consider those Plan B pills(or whatever they are called) a form of Abortion? These pills are used on a fertilized egg, not a fetus am I correct?

Yes I do, albeit a better form when available.

At 10/16/07 08:18 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/16/07 08:15 PM, therealsylvos wrote: a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities
a binary number system

Still dont understand what your trying to tell me.

Hints in quotes.

HAHAHA you guys crack me up, this is the funniest debate I've read in a long while, mostly because of the mental disabilities of therealsylvos.
youre funny man and utterly stupid.

I'd like to point out that roughly 0.5 percent of abortions are done because the child was conceived through rape or incest, and roughly 95 percent are preformed as a form of birth control. The other 4.5 percent are due to the possibility of serious birth defects in the child, or the possibility of the mother's death.

With adoption, we could eliminate 95 percent of abortions preformed.

So why isn't it an option?

At 10/17/07 01:10 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: With adoption, we could eliminate 95 percent of abortions preformed.

So why isn't it an option?

it is an option, one that many women opt not to choose.

At 10/17/07 02:30 PM, tony4moroney wrote:
it is an option, one that many women opt not to choose.

The original topic starter stated that it was not an option.

I want to understand why he would say this, because I haven't read anything saying adoption doesn't work, quite the opposite in fact.

At 10/17/07 04:24 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

At 10/17/07 02:30 PM, tony4moroney wrote:
it is an option, one that many women opt not to choose.

The original topic starter stated that it was not an option.

I want to understand why he would say this, because I haven't read anything saying adoption doesn't work, quite the opposite in fact.

the OP has four reasons stating why adoption is not a replacement for abortion (hence a,b,c,d)

At 10/17/07 04:24 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

At 10/17/07 02:30 PM, tony4moroney wrote:
it is an option, one that many women opt not to choose.

The original topic starter stated that it was not an option.

I want to understand why he would say this, because I haven't read anything saying adoption doesn't work, quite the opposite in fact.

I would probably be more in favor of this if the number of childeren adopted began to etch closer to the number of orphans 'created' over the same time frame. Hence the usefullness of allowing gay couples to adopt childeren, Asuming they're as responsible as any other straight couple which would be veiwed by the CPP.

My other most recent post still remains fresh and open for debate.

It's a shame that they banned Stem-Cell research, the people didn't want the baby in the first place, so why not use it to improve the lives of other, It has certain potenial to cure uncurable diseases by normal standards. A prefectly good fetus gone to waste just because some religious bastards think it's immoral

Your off topic.

At 10/17/07 07:54 PM, Musician wrote:
the OP has four reasons stating why adoption is not a replacement for abortion (hence a,b,c,d)

I covered those reasons on the first page.

He's arguing that the child does not deserve life because the mother is made uncomfortable by it.

I do not consider this a valid argument.

At 10/17/07 04:24 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

At 10/17/07 02:30 PM, tony4moroney wrote:
it is an option, one that many women opt not to choose.

The original topic starter stated that it was not an option.

I want to understand why he would say this, because I haven't read anything saying adoption doesn't work, quite the opposite in fact.

well then the OP is an idiot because women aren't barred from giving birth and then giving it to adoptive parents.

and as for your baseless assertion no it is not a fact. women are given the option NOT to have an abortion and are also in many ways pressured to carry full-term. the thing is, THEY DON'T.

At 10/18/07 05:31 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

At 10/17/07 07:54 PM, Musician wrote:
the OP has four reasons stating why adoption is not a replacement for abortion (hence a,b,c,d)

I covered those reasons on the first page.

He's arguing that the child does not deserve life because the mother is made uncomfortable by it.

I do not consider this a valid argument.

There IS NO CHILD. There is a possible child. When I jerk off, I kill thousands of possible humans.

The fetus is a parasite in the womans body. If a human came home to you with a deadly virus and didn't accept to leave, you would actually be allowed to call the cops, and they would remove him, even if it meant his death in some way. This fetus isn't even a conscious human, so in opposite of the sick man, it doesn't even suffer from it. And yes, the likeness is good. Both trespass your privacy, both put you on a deadly (or at least serious) risk, and both should be allowed to be removed, even if it causes the death of it/him.
The fetus is, until it's old enough to survive outside the womb, a parasite. I wholly support abortion until the week where a child earliest has been saved from early birth, and after that I support Caesarean section whenever the woman wants to, although in that case the child should be taken care of as an early birth, and if it survives, the woman of course has the responsibility to support it.

The question ultimately is this: What is more important, a living woman or a parasite that MIGHT become human in the future?

To echo Sajberhippien's words.

If somebody suddently depended on you, such as if you were the only one who could donate blood to him, it doesn't give him the right to force you to donate blood. Being pregant isn't much diffrent. We have a fetus who is unable to live unless it can take from the mother. And despite what many people think, getting pregnant isn't a normal choice. Sure, you are having sex on purpose, but let's face it. The majority of sex in the world is not done to get children these days.

Sex isn't simply a way to get chidren anymore, but a way to get pleasure. Although it can be replaced with mastrubation, some form of sex is a basic human need, such as social interaction or mental stimulation. It's main function has pretty much changed both in practice and in the eyes of society. When magazines, the media, anything, talks about sex, they don't talk about getting children. Getting pregant is often on purpose, but it's also very often not on purpose. It's often the result of an accident. You can't blame the woman of getting pregant when a condom fails anymore than you can blame a driver for when his car fails and crashes. Sure, they drove/had sex on purpose, but the result was not intended, and it is by definition an accident.

Ofcourse, my reasoning doesn't cover all situations. This deals mostly when pregnancy is the result of an accident. It would not at all apply for somebody using abortion as a means of prevention, or people who get abortions when they planned to get pregant. But, you can't take a one situation and use it as a base for all other situations.

One last thing. Pro-lifers sure love to call the fetus a baby. To be honest, I'm not really that into the abortion debate. I have a few arguments, but I'm far from a champion of either of the sites. But, this name-calling trick really pisses me off.

It isn't a baby. It's a fetus. Calling it a baby is just as wrong as calling it a teen. It's the wrong term completely. And I have the feeling it's called a baby in order to stir those feeling people get when they see a cute baby with diapers and all that. But, it's completely wrong. The fetus is it's own stage, before the baby, in which it changes a lot. In the start, the fetus is simply a ball of cells, which we can't even call an individual yet, since it can turn into twins if the cells are simply separated. Calling that a baby is false and missleading.

At 10/19/07 03:12 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:
The question ultimately is this: What is more important, a living woman or a parasite that MIGHT become human in the future?

You say that like there's an outside chance of it happening.

Will the sun rise tomorrow?