Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think it's fair to say that the abortion issue won't be solved without compromise from all sides. Maybe, legalizing abortion only for the first tri-mester, in which a baby can in no way survive outside the mother, in addition to require some steps on the mother's part first, such as getting an ultra-sound. Could this be a very rough version of a workable compromise?

At 3/10/09 04:30 PM, Patton3 wrote: I think it's fair to say that the abortion issue won't be solved without compromise from all sides. Maybe, legalizing abortion only for the first tri-mester, in which a baby can in no way survive outside the mother, in addition to require some steps on the mother's part first, such as getting an ultra-sound. Could this be a very rough version of a workable compromise?

There can be no compromise for those who thinks abortion is outright murder. They won't approve even if you ultrasound your victim first, surely you must understand that?

At 3/10/09 04:58 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 3/10/09 04:30 PM, Patton3 wrote: I think it's fair to say that the abortion issue won't be solved without compromise from all sides. Maybe, legalizing abortion only for the first tri-mester, in which a baby can in no way survive outside the mother, in addition to require some steps on the mother's part first, such as getting an ultra-sound. Could this be a very rough version of a workable compromise?

There can be no compromise for those who thinks abortion is outright murder. They won't approve even if you ultrasound your victim first, surely you must understand that?

Would they rather not listen to and work with the other side? In a domocracy no less. And it wouldn't be just an ultra sound, which I suggested because many decide not to go through with an abortion after one, but other things, like meeting with women who have had an abortion.

And at any rate, I just tried to propose a very rough framework where both sides gave a little. Because in a true compromise, no one is happy.

At 6/17/08 05:27 PM, SasoriKun wrote: People who don't believe in abortion can choose not to get one and people who believe its okay may choose to get one, if people make abortion illegal then they are no better then tyrants because all that does is force one persons ideals on another person.

We force our ideals onto eachother all the time. How else do you explain Congress?

one of the most powerful reasons that i believe in America is because of my freedom to make choices, and if America becomes a country that forces its moral view on its citizens then why should i believe in it?

The problem with that argument is that, even in our free society, we still are not given the right to make a decision that ends in us infringing on the rights of others, and some would argue that abortion infringes on the rights of a fetus given, in this counter=argument, that the fetus is a person at a given point in the gestation process. The real crux is defining where that point is, not in who gets to make the choice.

At 6/15/08 05:49 AM, Mjolnir-1 wrote: What gives you any right at all to say that women should not have an abortion?
What gives you the right to force others to do as you would?
You are no American, no patriot, no republican, no democrat. You're a tyrannical dick.

Translation: "You disagree with me, so you are not a good person."

Instead of starting a new thread I figured i'd come here ! You can find this story just about anywhere I looked today, so I'm not providing a link.

Has anyone read about the latest crap to come out of the Pope's mouth ?
I mean it's one thing to be against abortion , I may not agree, but I can understand the reasoning & the desire to protect a totally dependant & possibley a viable developing human being .

But this time I believe he's gone too far !
For him to publicly state that condems are not the answer to aids & probably make it worse ! ! ! WTF !?! He's visiting Africa the World HOTSPOT for Aids !
The Pope's solution -Abstinence-
Quote" The only solution is two-fold: the first is a humanization of sexuality, a human , spiritual renewal which brings with it a new way of behaving amoung people and, secondly , a true friendship, especially for those who are suffering, a willingness to make personal sacrifices "he said .
He called for " correct behavior reguarding ones body "

I think the poor old guy's completely lost his mind ! Although to be fair, at least he didn't ask sufferers to commit the ultimate sacrifice that Jesus supposedly did & get themselves crucified.
Sure if we were all PERFECT ! ! !
IF none of us ever GOT HORNY ! ! !
If we were a totally nonsexual creature, & not like all other mammals with a built in sex drive.
Maybe a few people could follow his ideas, or maybe what he needs to do is follow this advise as published in my local paper today.

Dancing in and off itself isn't a sin, but the atmosphere and environment the dancing takes place in can very much be.

Condoms promote an atmosphere where extramarital sex is tacitly promoted. The pope believes the holier solution to rampant unprotected sex is not more condoms (for the reason previously stated), but a sexual awareness as provided for by Catholic dogma.

Obviously, a combination of both comdoms and education is the strongest suit to bid in, but you've gotta play the cards you're dealt.

At 3/19/09 09:15 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Dancing in and off itself isn't a sin, but the atmosphere and environment the dancing takes place in can very much be.

Condoms promote an atmosphere where extramarital sex is tacitly promoted. The pope believes the holier solution to rampant unprotected sex is not more condoms (for the reason previously stated), but a sexual awareness as provided for by Catholic dogma.

Obviously, a combination of both comdoms and education is the strongest suit to bid in, but you've gotta play the cards you're dealt.

You know what? If everybody was exactly like me and had my ideals...then there wouldn't be any wars. No conflict, no problems.

But I'm not an unrealistic dick that thinks that the entire world will shape itself to my designs. Condoms isn't about making the world into a sex crazy cult, it's a simply, affordable, and working solution to a grave problem. I can't see how anybody can really claim that by giving away condoms, one is pushing an agenda. The condoms doesn't come with a propaganda newletter or something like that.

To say that the condoms themselves promote sex is the absolute height of assholery. So African people have no free will? By giving them condoms, we are basically FORCING them to have sex? If somebody have sex, it's their, and only their, choice, not somebody elses. The pope can act like he is the moral authority for all people in Africa, but the fact is that nobody decides your sexlife but you. (unless you get raped or something).

If the pope was to promote abstinence, then fine, but why the fuck does he feel the need to control the people who don't want abstinence, but a healthy sex life with the added safety of condoms? The decision is theirs, not ours.

African people have no free will the same as African people don't have condom factories.

If somebody have sex, it's their, and only their, choice, not somebody elses. The pope can act like he is the moral authority for all people in Africa, but the fact is that nobody decides your sexlife but you. (unless you get raped or something).

And then you go on to ask why the pope feels a need to opine on others' sexual malfeasance?

Do you even know who the pope is, or do you believe he's just some asshole who isn't you?

At 3/19/09 09:41 AM, Drakim wrote:

If the pope was to promote abstinence, then fine, but why the fuck does he feel the need to control the people who don't want abstinence, but a healthy sex life with the added safety of condoms? The decision is theirs, not ours.

Why does he feel that need? It's his job description, that's why. Look it up.

At 3/19/09 03:46 PM, MisterRPG wrote:

At 3/19/09 09:41 AM, Drakim wrote:

If the pope was to promote abstinence, then fine, but why the fuck does he feel the need to control the people who don't want abstinence, but a healthy sex life with the added safety of condoms? The decision is theirs, not ours.

Why does he feel that need? It's his job description, that's why. Look it up.

But does that give him a right to say these things and claim to be an authority?

The same "right" any other world leader has to be such... the "right of authority". The difference is that a good percent of the world population considers himself and the church the voice of God on earth. That means his "right" stems from exactly that... not only does he speak, but people want to hear him.

Rights are what we make them, not some natural mystic thing we are born with, and the Catholic Church has done a powerful job of ensuring they retain that right. Don't like it? Don't think it's right? Too bad, really.

This seems like the appropiate place to ask for help with my problem: What should I do

women don't like to get abortions, but sometimes it is a necessary medical process because the would-be mother is incapable. It bothers me when people are so closed-minded not to realize that.

At 3/19/09 08:35 PM, Soldierofhentai21 wrote: This seems like the appropiate place to ask for help with my problem: What should I do

This is from the thread:
she is 14. Just getting that out of the way. Now, I advised her first not to have sex, then to use protection when she still planned to do it. And now, she is pregnant because she did not.

I am going to play the blame game. It's all her fault and she should suffer the consequences. It's logical in any situation to plan ahead and research what you're doing and if you think you're ready to do it. You can apply that to anything and it will still work. If there is a tick in all those boxes this slutty friend wouldn't be in knee deep in it.

Mistakes are costly, planning for the possibility of mistake is less costly. Avoiding the mistake doesn't cost a thing.

Genius at work.