Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

We kill animals all the time, fetuses are no different. At the point that the baby becomes developed enough to have thought (about six months) they can not be aborted. Imagine having a having a tumor removed abortion is similar to that, because you take the UNWANTED part of THE MOTHER.

At 1/14/08 06:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: My point still stands.

I don't need an Op Ed article to tell me anything.

I'll remember you said that.

Your point is shit. "It's crap because I say so" isn't very good for a person of your debating standards.

Not to mention that I spend most of my waking life watching stand up. If I'm on the TV it's the comedy channel, if I'm bored it's the DVD's and if I'm on the internet it's youtube. And, I'm listening to stand up comedy as I type this paragraph. lol irish drunks.

And I've used examples of stand up comics where as you just put your fingers in your eyes and shout "Not listening, la la la"

And if our stand up comedy is shit why did Rich Hall and several other American comics (can't remember their names) come over here to learn how to be a stand up comic?

I think this is a time where we should just shut up and walk away.

At 1/14/08 06:45 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: We kill animals all the time, fetuses are no different.

Wow... so you're equating human life with that of animals? I'm not even going to touch that, it's so retarded.

At the point that the baby becomes developed enough to have thought (about six months) they can not be aborted.

Technically, dogs are as intelligent as a 5 year old child, so before that, is it acceptable to kill babies because they're not capable of mature cognitive thought?

Imagine having a having a tumor removed abortion is similar to that, because you take the UNWANTED part of THE MOTHER.

Abortion is NOTHING like that. A malignant tumor will never willingly leave the body once "fully formed". A tumor can never be fully independent of a host, it doesn't have a pulse, it doesn't have the ability to eventually have cognition. Your entire example is not only flawed, it's completely and utterly stupid.

At 1/14/08 06:54 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/14/08 06:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: My point still stands.

I don't need an Op Ed article to tell me anything.

I'll remember you said that.

Your point is shit. "It's crap because I say so" isn't very good for a person of your debating standards.

Lol you linked to an opinion as some sort of proof...

We're talking about comedy, a matter of opinion. Not a tangible, political subject that can actually be debated based on facts.

Therefore, links are pointless. And linking to someone else's opinion as if just because it's on another website makes it credible, is just plain stupid. It shows how weak your argument is when you think a link to someone else's opinion somehow fortifies your own.

Oh, and the funny thing is, after having previously argued that American comedy sucks, you link to an article that suggests they are similar, thus effectively contradicting yourself.

Not to mention that I spend most of my waking life watching stand up.

Oooh wow. That's sad.

If I'm on the TV it's the comedy channel, if I'm bored it's the DVD's and if I'm on the internet it's youtube. And, I'm listening to stand up comedy as I type this paragraph. lol irish drunks.

That means that YOU like certain comedy. Even if you are more into comedy than someone else, it doesn't mean that YOUR opinion about comedy native to YOUR country is somehow more sound.

And I've used examples of stand up comics where as you just put your fingers in your eyes and shout "Not listening, la la la"

You used the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen in my life.

I said that American comedy is diverse. You used the repetition of a few American comedians to claim otherwise, never minding that I was making reference to the diverse nature of comedy as a whole in the US.

And if our stand up comedy is shit why did Rich Hall and several other American comics (can't remember their names) come over here to learn how to be a stand up comic?

First of all, as I've said, American comedy is diverse. If some idiots want to go to the UK to learn comedy that's their business, but it doesn't reflect on the US comedy scene as a whole, at all. In fact, I'd say that the amount of American comedians that go to the UK for SHOWS, would mean that the absence of good local comedians creates a vacuum for which American comedians will occupy.

American comedians going to the UK doesn't mean they are going there to learn. And even if some did that, it doesn't reflect on the respective comedy styles of the countries as a whole.

I think this is a time where we should just shut up and walk away.

Lol, oooooh. The funny thing is:

At 1/14/08 06:00 PM, Brick-top wrote: I'm not going to let another useless arguement spill onto another thread so I'm going to leave you with this and you can do what you want.

-------

Apparently you just did the very thing you weren't going to "let" happen.

What a freak show you are.

Imo, aobrtion is not a sin. In some cases, it can save the life of a mother. Rape victims who are in no means of supporting a family are the people im talking about. I'm against a mother getting an abortion if she can support it and had willing, unprotected sex with a man. However, i, personally, do not consider it "murder".

The premise of ROE vs WADE really had nothing to do with whether or not a fetus was alive or not (which is highly debatable). The argument that eventually led to legalizing abortions was simply that banning abortion didn't prevent it, and instead of having safe and sterile facilities, mothers would resort to more barbaric practices like clothes hangers or alleyway surgeons, which would lead to the harm/death of the mother and the child.

Also, just about any sane person realizes that the woman is more important than the child, which is why we abort the baby if it appears that the baby will be a risk to her health, and also in the case of rape.

So basically, if you're really pro-life then you should want abortions legalized, because having them legalized ultimately leads to more death.

less death*

well said, i agree

At 1/14/08 07:45 PM, Musician wrote: So basically, if you're really pro-life then you should want abortions legalized, because having them legalized ultimately leads to more death.

Today, that assumption wouldn't fit. Unlike when Roe v. Wade was instated in 1973, when an unwed mother being pregnant was pretty much the most shameful stigma you can go through, today it's much different. Unwed mothers are a common sight. So the shame that would lead pregnant women into back alley butchers is a very slim possibility. Society's changed so much from that mentality, that to keep the stance of RvW current is to focus on the actual state of living.

At 1/14/08 07:59 PM, LadyGrace wrote: Today, that assumption wouldn't fit. Unlike when Roe v. Wade was instated in 1973, when an unwed mother being pregnant was pretty much the most shameful stigma you can go through, today it's much different. Unwed mothers are a common sight. So the shame that would lead pregnant women into back alley butchers is a very slim possibility. Society's changed so much from that mentality, that to keep the stance of RvW current is to focus on the actual state of living.

A completely unsupported claim. Unwed single mothers are still treated like trash, during pregnancy and after.

At 1/14/08 07:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/14/08 06:54 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/14/08 06:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: My point still stands.

I don't need an Op Ed article to tell me anything.

I'll remember you said that.

Your point is shit. "It's crap because I say so" isn't very good for a person of your debating standards.

Lol you linked to an opinion as some sort of proof...

We're talking about comedy, a matter of opinion. Not a tangible, political subject that can actually be debated based on facts.

You're right it based on opinion....to a point. Comedy isn't an exact science but it does require something that can be measured and examined.

Otherwise anybody could walk up onto a stage and get a barrol of laughs and that doesn't happen.

Therefore, links are pointless. And linking to someone else's opinion as if just because it's on another website makes it credible, is just plain stupid. It shows how weak your argument is when you think a link to someone else's opinion somehow fortifies your own.

I only posted that fucking link because I thought this conversation was over. But we're both fully grown adult men and as such we can't let things drop. We have to drag it on and it's a wonder why we're not both banned for going half a million miles off topic.

Oh, and the funny thing is, after having previously argued that American comedy sucks, you link to an article that suggests they are similar, thus effectively contradicting yourself.

Not to mention that I spend most of my waking life watching stand up.

Oooh wow. That's sad.

Some people drink to relax, some people paint, some people write. I watch comedy. And sometimes go to the pubs and clubs but what I do outside of the internet is none of your business.

Sue me, I like to laugh.

If I'm on the TV it's the comedy channel, if I'm bored it's the DVD's and if I'm on the internet it's youtube. And, I'm listening to stand up comedy as I type this paragraph. lol irish drunks.

That means that YOU like certain comedy. Even if you are more into comedy than someone else, it doesn't mean that YOUR opinion about comedy native to YOUR country is somehow more sound.

No, I like all comedy. Scripted, unscripted chat shows, black and white, improvised shows whatevers going. And not just from the UK. Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, basically anything that speaks English but I have watched a few with sub titles. lol the old monte python crew doing a comedy gig in Canada, that made me laugh purely because a few of them were still doing it after all these years. ohh what a pile of shit that really is.

And that paragraph would forward the arguement if indivisual opinion but there are similarities I have noticed. Especially recently, I've hear 4 comedians say the same joke (not exact, it had variations) yet they live on different parts of the planet. Now I don't know if they copied each other it was blind luck but there's definatly some structure.

You used the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen in my life.

But it's not far from the truth. And I'm doing the exact same thing and I'm regreting I've carried on this arguement because I know what a competetive cunt you are.

Al Murray is a good example of diversity because he doesn't talk about anything else other than other countries, cultures and plenty of politics. Probably because he's completely politically incorrect, insulting and acts like an ignorant person, however he always drops in hints that he's not being serous. And works it in a clever way. He one of those that can make up stuff as he goes along with a good quality that's hard to find.

I said that American comedy is diverse. You used the repetition of a few American comedians to claim otherwise, never minding that I was making reference to the diverse nature of comedy as a whole in the US.

Have you actually SEEN American comics? All they talk about is George Bush, then the fuel prices, then they talk about sex and then they're personal lives, then slip in a bit of racism and the end.

They're like a fucking broken record. And so are you sometimes.

And if our stand up comedy is shit why did Rich Hall and several other American comics (can't remember their names) come over here to learn how to be a stand up comic?

First of all, as I've said, American comedy is diverse. If some idiots want to go to the UK to learn comedy that's their business, but it doesn't reflect on the US comedy scene as a whole, at all. In fact, I'd say that the amount of American comedians that go to the UK for SHOWS, would mean that the absence of good local comedians creates a vacuum for which American comedians will occupy.

So, Americans coming the UK (who are now idiots) means nothing but the same people appear on British shows doesn't mean the same thing? I wonder if Johnny Depp will ask again to appear in another Paul Whitehouse and Mark Williams comedy sketch again just so our always inferior comedy can be boosted with having an American in it.

American comedians going to the UK doesn't mean they are going there to learn. And even if some did that, it doesn't reflect on the respective comedy styles of the countries as a whole.

I think this is a time where we should just shut up and walk away.

Lol, oooooh. The funny thing is:

At 1/14/08 06:00 PM, Brick-top wrote: I'm not going to let another useless arguement spill onto another thread so I'm going to leave you with this and you can do what you want.

-------

Apparently you just did the very thing you weren't going to "let" happen.

What a freak show you are.

You know what? I'm going to do what "I'm going to be the bigger man, and walk away"

Because I know what's going to happen, you're going to kick off with the insults (like what you've just done there) then I'm going to continue with the insults (like what I've done up there) and then we're going to fuck up this thread and get banned for a week. Then you're going to continue with the insults and ranting though the PM's. Then, you'll probably make a rant thread about me but that'll all depend on when your peroid is.

So now I'M going to put my fingers in my ears and ignore anything you have to say that doesn't involve abortions.

Want to talk about abortions? Fine, they're fantastic everyone should get one for Christmas!!

At 1/14/08 07:45 PM, Musician wrote: The premise of ROE vs WADE really had nothing to do with whether or not a fetus was alive or not

Which makes it an irrelevant and faulty court case.

:(which is highly debatable).

Gravity is highly debatable. I'm sure we can find a few crackpot, self-educated scientists who think the Earth is flat (and, in fact, they are out there). And likewise, evolution is highly debatable. Anything can be disputed, but what really matters is what the scientific consensus is. That consciousness begins at roughly 10 weeks is strongly suggested, and that consciousness occurs prior to 24 weeks is certain.

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/html/lif e/abortion/articles/fetalpain.html
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/
BJOGfetalpain1999.pdf

:The argument that eventually led to legalizing abortions was simply that banning abortion didn't :prevent it, and instead of having safe and sterile facilities, mothers would resort to more barbaric :practices like clothes hangers or alleyway surgeons, which would lead to the harm/death of the :mother and the child.

Statistics? And don't try to shift the burden of proof on me. You brought up the argument, so you have to prove it.

Also, just about any sane person realizes that the woman is more important than the child, which is :why we abort the baby if it appears that the baby will be a risk to her health, and also in the case of :rape.

I really know what you're saying. When the constitution said "We the people", it didn't really mean: "We the people". It meant, "We the people who do not have poor or disadvantaged parents". When it said "We the people", it meant, "We the people who do not have down syndrome or disability. We the people who are useful and worthwhile, not just the poor scum of the Earth"

And when the constitution said "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", it really only meant life for groups who can find a couple of nice lobbyists. It only meant liberty for a select few.

I guess if you can read the constitution and decide that sanity is precluded by a sense of privilege and that rights are precluded by ability, then I shouldn't be too surprised that you've taken up an anti-life stance. Anti-life groups have not had a good track record on moderation, and I frankly don't find that too surprising.

So basically, if you're really pro-life then you should want abortions legalized, because having them legalized ultimately leads to more death.

I agree, legalizing does lead to more death.

At 1/14/08 06:40 PM, Al6200 wrote: Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Surely you should try something before you say it is bad.

In your rush to be condescending, you have obviously not watched the video and made yourself look like a stupid ass for missing the joke.

At 1/14/08 09:54 PM, Al6200 wrote: Which makes it an irrelevant and faulty court case.

Right from the bat you show you're incapable of keeping an open mind on the subject.

(which is highly debatable).

Gravity is highly debatable.

No it's not...

I'm sure we can find a few crackpot, self-educated scientists who think the Earth is flat (and, in fact, they are out there).

Having a few scientists believe that gravity doesn't exist or that the earth is flat doesn't make either subject "highly debatable".

And likewise, evolution is highly debatable.

Evolution is a fact. I don't know where you get these ludicrous ideas. We're you home schooled?

Anything can be disputed, but what really matters is what the scientific consensus is.

Disputed doesn't mean highly debatable. Trying to present things like religion in scientific circles will only get you ignored.

That consciousness begins at roughly 10 weeks is strongly suggested, and that consciousness occurs prior to 24 weeks is certain.

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/html/lif e/abortion/articles/fetalpain.html
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/
BJOGfetalpain1999.pdf

And the vast majority of abortions are performed before the end of the first trimester (first 3 months), which would mean the vast majority of abortions occur before consciousness is "strongly suggested" (which obviously means not proven), and all of them (legal ones anyhow) occur BEFORE proven consciousness (see graph below).

Statistics? And don't try to shift the burden of proof on me. You brought up the argument, so you have to prove it.

You're absolutely right, here you go.

I really know what you're saying. When the constitution said "We the people", it didn't really mean: "We the people". It meant, "We the people who do not have poor or disadvantaged parents". When it said "We the people", it meant, "We the people who do not have down syndrome or disability. We the people who are useful and worthwhile, not just the poor scum of the Earth"

Do you believe an abortion should be allowed if the mother will die giving birth? If you do then you basically have to admit that the woman's life is more important than the child's, because if they really were equal then you wouldn't be able to kill the "child" to save the woman.

Also like I've already shown, fetus' can't really be considered people when they're being aborted.

I guess if you can read the constitution and decide that sanity is precluded by a sense of privilege and that rights are precluded by ability, then I shouldn't be too surprised that you've taken up an anti-life stance. Anti-life groups have not had a good track record on moderation, and I frankly don't find that too surprising.

Actually, I'm not at all anti-life, I detest killing, even when I know it's necessary. Fetus's aren't humans though, they're just a clump of cells, incapable of thought or consciousness until much later in their development.

I agree, legalizing does lead to more death.

It was a typo which I corrected in my second post.

At 1/14/08 05:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

That's ironic coming from the man who thinks British comedy sucks.

My point still stands.

What point? That Ali-G is amazing?

At 1/14/08 04:58 AM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 1/14/08 12:58 AM, HaloKing336 wrote: Yay let's control what women can/can't do with their bodies and lives.

Fucking FUCK! A FETUS AND/OR UNBORN CHILD WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IS NOT PART OF IT'S MOTHER'S BODY! The child has a completely different DNA coding. It is a different "body", it's just INSIDE another's body. Not a PART of it. Fuck, if you're going to make ignorant asshat claims, at least get your science right.

Actually, I agree. It is more like a parasite that is sucking out of the mother's lifeforce and makes her miserable for 9 months. It is worse than a part of her body....

At 1/14/08 09:53 PM, Brick-top wrote: You're right it based on opinion....to a point.

Um you linked to someone's opinion in an argument about opinions, and you used it as if it was authoritative.

That's wacky in and of itself. But what makes it absolutely hilarious is that it contradicts your own argument because it states that American comedy and British comedy is similar. But in the other thread, as well as now in this thread, you've ripped on American comedy.

You used the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen in my life.

But it's not far from the truth.

LOL you used them as an example of America comedy as a whole... a few comedians. Even though it's obvious that American comedy is diverse, with many different kinds of comedy, from many different kinds of comedians. But then, in this thread you spewed out what you thought was an end-all link which actually stated that American and British comedy is similar. So that would contradict the basis of your argument, or make it so that you'd have to apply that criticism to British comedy at the same time, thus completely destroying your own argument,

I said that American comedy is diverse. You used the repetition of a few American comedians to claim otherwise, never minding that I was making reference to the diverse nature of comedy as a whole in the US.

Have you actually SEEN American comics? All they talk about is George Bush, then the fuel prices, then they talk about sex and then they're personal lives, then slip in a bit of racism and the end.

Lol...

YOU JUST LINKED TO AN ARTICLE THAT SAID BRITISH AND AMERICAN COMEDY IS THE SAME.

And now you're throwing out criticisms of American comics yet again.

That's like 3 self-contradictions you've made in a row.

You're on a roll.

You know what? I'm going to do what "I'm going to be the bigger man, and walk away"

Apparently that's what you pretended you were going to do before, and then you brought it up again.

I think you might be just a little crazy.

Have fun with that.

i'm an advocate of exterminating all humans ^_^

At 1/14/08 11:15 PM, Maxben wrote:

At 1/14/08 04:58 AM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 1/14/08 12:58 AM, HaloKing336 wrote: Yay let's control what women can/can't do with their bodies and lives.

Fucking FUCK! A FETUS AND/OR UNBORN CHILD WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IS NOT PART OF IT'S MOTHER'S BODY! The child has a completely different DNA coding. It is a different "body", it's just INSIDE another's body. Not a PART of it. Fuck, if you're going to make ignorant asshat claims, at least get your science right.

Actually, I agree. It is more like a parasite that is sucking out of the mother's lifeforce and makes her miserable for 9 months. It is worse than a part of her body....

The thing is, a fetus will eventually become independent of the mother and possibly make up for sucking out of the mother's "lifeforce" and those 9 months of "misery".

A parasite will never become more then that, a parasite and end up making more parasites.

At 1/15/08 12:40 AM, Ezgamer wrote:

At 1/14/08 11:15 PM, Maxben wrote:

At 1/14/08 04:58 AM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 1/14/08 12:58 AM, HaloKing336 wrote: Yay let's control what women can/can't do with their bodies and lives.

Fucking FUCK! A FETUS AND/OR UNBORN CHILD WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IS NOT PART OF IT'S MOTHER'S BODY! The child has a completely different DNA coding. It is a different "body", it's just INSIDE another's body. Not a PART of it. Fuck, if you're going to make ignorant asshat claims, at least get your science right.

Actually, I agree. It is more like a parasite that is sucking out of the mother's lifeforce and makes her miserable for 9 months. It is worse than a part of her body....

The thing is, a fetus will eventually become independent of the mother and possibly make up for sucking out of the mother's "lifeforce" and those 9 months of "misery".

A parasite will never become more then that, a parasite and end up making more parasites.

Not always. Some bugs lay eggs in other species so they grow and mature, feeding of the other animal, until the egg pops and a new bug comes out. This cycle is very similar to a baby if you ask me. The only difference is that a baby is, at times, more harmful to the mother as it sucks at her will to live after it is born due to issues with poverty, psychological breakdowns, and the like. Though this is a generalization, those who do get abortions tend to be those women incapable of taking care of the child for whatever reason.

At 1/15/08 01:21 AM, Maxben wrote: Not always. Some bugs lay eggs in other species so they grow and mature, feeding of the other animal, until the egg pops and a new bug comes out. This cycle is very similar to a baby if you ask me. The only difference is that a baby is, at times, more harmful to the mother as it sucks at her will to live after it is born due to issues with poverty, psychological breakdowns, and the like. Though this is a generalization, those who do get abortions tend to be those women incapable of taking care of the child for whatever reason.

The bugs eggs of those bugs make the host sick with infections and w/e diseases it is carrying and could make the host die in the process. And its not one bug that would come from this. Multiple will and they usually reach maturity extremely quickly so they can do the same to a multitude of other potential hosts.

A fetus would not intentionally want it's mother to be harmed as it rely's on her to live. If she goes, he/she goes with her, unlike with parasites which could still live of the dead host. And the "harm" it does is from hormones from the mother and most of the "pain and suffering" is during the First Trimester when the mothers body is adjusting itself to compensate for the baby. And the pain could be reduced by and smoking and drinking (a given but some continue doing these things regardless), having a healthy diet and sleeping hours.

And its (usually) not the babies fault the mom would be in poverty.

Also, I'll like to show you guys some good ol' statistics:

Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25.
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women.
Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0% or all abortions.

And my favorite one:
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Source: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fast facts.html
I especially wanted to bring up the "rape" one since many like to claim that most abortions are because of this, when it, with incest, only make up 1% of abortions while social reasons make up 93%.

These statistics go against your premise that people that have abortions are usually in poverty as people in poverty don't make $30,000 to $59,999 a year.

And yea, girls between 15-29 want to live it up. But live it up using a condom if you don't have a kid and/or can't cope with the consequences of what sex's primary use is, making babies. If you actually use it properly, it would have a less than 2% chance of breaking. And a woman is only fertile for a few days a month so if they don't want the guy to use a condom, don't have sex on those days.

At 1/15/08 02:38 AM, Ezgamer wrote: 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Even so, people like the OP wants abortion banned completely, not only when the mother is irresponsible. It's rare to hear somebody in politics say that "abortions should be banned unless it was the result of rape or if it can hurt the mother". It's usually completely pro-choice, pro-life, or no comment.

And if you compromise, well, that doesn't make sense either. It's okay to kill a human life if it came about because of rape rather than regular sex? It loses it's life to live for factors it could not control?

At 1/14/08 10:18 PM, Musician wrote:

Right from the bat you show you're incapable of keeping an open mind on the subject.

I have a very open mind. Time and time again I have revised my position when I see new information or evidence.

Gravity is highly debatable.

No it's not...

Yes, it is. If you're willing to ignore the science, you can claim that the Earth is a flat surface accelerating upward at 9.8 meters per second squared.

Having a few scientists believe that gravity doesn't exist or that the earth is flat doesn't make either :subject "highly debatable".

By your standards, it certainly does. We could debate it for hours, the same way we can debate fetal consciousness - if we ignore the evidence. However if we use the scientific method, fetal consciousness is not truly debatable, the vast weight of evidence shows that it occurs before birth, and possibly by 10 weeks.

Evolution is a fact. I don't know where you get these ludicrous ideas. We're you home schooled?

"We are you home schooled". No, we am you not home-schooled.

Disputed doesn't mean highly debatable. Trying to present things like religion in scientific circles :will only get you ignored.

Unless its an abortion case, of course, where feminists can produce debunked and anti-scientific rants about choice and women's rights, and get applauded - even though those issues are only scarecrows in this case.

And the vast majority of abortions are performed before the end of the first trimester (first 3 :months), which would mean the vast majority of abortions occur before consciousness is "strongly :suggested" (which obviously means not proven), and all of them (legal ones anyhow) occur BEFORE :proven consciousness (see graph below).

Which means that more than half are ethical, where are a large chunk are still performed on a conscious being.

Do you believe an abortion should be allowed if the mother will die giving birth? If you do then you :basically have to admit that the woman's life is more important than the child's, because if they really :were equal then you wouldn't be able to kill the "child" to save the woman.

No, because if the woman dies in child-birth, the non-viable child dies with her. If the child is viable, there's no reason to have an abortion, since she can just have the child at that point.

Also like I've already shown, fetus' can't really be considered people when they're being aborted.

And yet many of them do occur on conscious, feeling, persons with functioning brains and beating hearts.

Actually, I'm not at all anti-life, I detest killing, even when I know it's necessary.

Everyone thinks that their killing is "necessary". What makes your position anti-life is its belief that life is not a fundamental right. People don't naturally gain the right to life when they become a person. That's what I think is wrong with the Pro-Choice movement. Because their central anti-life position is so terrible, they try to shift the debate to irrelevant scarecrows.

:Fetus's aren't humans though, they're just a clump of cells, incapable of thought or consciousness :until much later in their development.

Fetus = 8 weeks, cerebral cortex = 10 weeks, probable pain = 13+ weeks, certain pain = 24 weeks.

So while I agree that most abortions are ethical (occur on pre-fetus), fetal abortions after 10 weeks are unethical since the fetus has sufficient neural development to be considered a person.

At 1/15/08 06:38 AM, Al6200 wrote: So while I agree that most abortions are ethical (occur on pre-fetus), fetal abortions after 10 weeks are unethical since the fetus has sufficient neural development to be considered a person.

Which is a very rare position for Pro-Life people. Sadly, the OPs opinion is the most common.

I'm not really sure if I would call you Pro-Life at all anymore. Even Pro-Choice people puts a limit on how late abortions should be, as nobody is arguing that you can abort an hour before birth.

It seems more that you simply dissagree on when the limit on abortion should be, not if abortion is morally right or not.

Most arguments for and against abortion are stupid and superfluous. I would imagine that in an intelligent world, the definition of a living human being would suffice for the shut-down of the pro-choice brigade. Unfortunately we don't live in that world.

The fact is that a functioning nervous system and brain activity is readable as early as 2.5 months. A genetically human creature with brain activity and a functioning nervous system defines a living human being. No question. It is technically a separate being. I've heard enough garbage about it being inside the woman, so it's part of her body. If you shove your dick inside a woman, ownership doesn't now pass over to her. Now, any "but!"s about abortion hereafter are infringements on human rights. "But, rape!" It doesn't really matter. Sure, it's sad that you were raped and are now pregnant with a rapist's baby, but that doesn't give you the right to commit the ultimate offense against another's human rights.

At 1/14/08 06:45 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: We kill animals all the time, fetuses are no different. At the point that the baby becomes developed enough to have thought (about six months) they can not be aborted.

So, a retard or a vegetable is not really a human, then? Let's just abort them too.

At 1/14/08 12:36 AM, EvilerBowser1001 wrote: I know two people that have had abortions.
They did not do it because of self indulgence, and they took it seriously.
One girl couldn't afford to feed the baby, and was only 16.

Being unable to afford a baby makes it okay to abort it, right? Because orphanages just aren't worth living for.

Another was a rape victim.
I want you to go up to them in person, and tell them the exact same thing you typed.

Emotions often cloud logic, reason, and judgment. Being impersonal and objective is the only real way to make decisions. The way you're trying to win is by pulling a crying Hillary. Making someone sad to benefit your point is just underhanded and manipulative.

At 1/14/08 12:58 AM, HaloKing336 wrote: Yay let's control what women can/can't do with their bodies and lives.

I wish I could meet you, so that I could duct-tape you to my side and then abort you.

At 1/14/08 11:45 PM, xXDathDalerXx wrote: i'm an advocate of exterminating all humans ^_^

Well, we'll create Grey Goo to do that for us in about two-hundred years. FINGERS CROSSED!

At 1/15/08 07:39 AM, KupaMan wrote: Most arguments for and against abortion are stupid and superfluous. I would imagine that in an intelligent world, the definition of a living human being would suffice for the shut-down of the pro-choice brigade. Unfortunately we don't live in that world.

The fact is that a functioning nervous system and brain activity is readable as early as 2.5 months. A genetically human creature with brain activity and a functioning nervous system defines a living human being. No question. It is technically a separate being. I've heard enough garbage about it being inside the woman, so it's part of her body. If you shove your dick inside a woman, ownership doesn't now pass over to her. Now, any "but!"s about abortion hereafter are infringements on human rights. "But, rape!" It doesn't really matter. Sure, it's sad that you were raped and are now pregnant with a rapist's baby, but that doesn't give you the right to commit the ultimate offense against another's human rights.

I see what you are arguing, but I think there is another way to look at it.

If you depend on my continuations blood donations every single hour to survive, would I be committing the ultimate offense of murder against you if I stopped donating blood to you?

The mother isn't directly killing the fetus. She is stopping supporting it, and the fetus cannot survive without a host body, thus it dies.

We have absolutely no rights or anything of the kind which allows us to demand that other sustain our life. If your life depends on another's body, then that is a problem YOU have, and you can't demand that others bend and give you what you need to survive.

It may sound though applying such a harsh reality on a fetus, but if you are to give human rights to a fetus, then the fetus gets just that, human rights, not super-duper-omnipotent-rights. Humans rights simply does not include the right to demand that others sustain your life. If so, I would be demanding that you buy me food and pay my rent this very instance, lol.

Even though the woman is the mother of the fetus, things does not change. A mother can't without exception be forced to take full responsibility for the fetus life no matter what, because getting pregnant is not always a direct choice. You can get it from being raped.

At 1/15/08 06:38 AM, Al6200 wrote: We could debate it for hours, the same way we can debate fetal consciousness - if we ignore the evidence. However if we use the scientific method, fetal consciousness is not truly debatable, the vast weight of evidence shows that it occurs before birth, and possibly by 10 weeks.

Guess what? abortions are already illegal in the third trimester. And as for the possible consciousness at 10 weeks? even your own link suggests that a fetus feeling pain in that period is unlikely.

while it is unlikely the fetus can feel anything before 13 weeks, "after 26 weeks it is quite probable.

Funny seeing as you've been pushing for 10 weeks. So yeah I guess you're right, anything is debatable if you're ignorant enough.

Unless its an abortion case, of course, where feminists can produce debunked and anti-scientific rants about choice and women's rights, and get applauded - even though those issues are only scarecrows in this case.

Most pro-choice advocates realize that there is a limit on abortion (AKA the third trimester). Whether or not there is fetal pain before 24 to 26 weeks is disputable, however there is certainly no real scientific proof to suggest that a fetus can feel pain before 24 to 26 weeks.

Which means that more than half are ethical, where are a large chunk are still performed on a conscious being.

Which means that MORE THAN HALF (approx 68%) are before the ten week period you originally suggested. Another 10 percent before the 13 weeks that you're currently suggesting. Another 6 percent before the nervous system starts to become active. And finally, the rest all before the time period where there is any significant evidence that the fetus can feel pain.

So basically all those abortions are "ethical" by your standards.

No, because if the woman dies in child-birth, the non-viable child dies with her. If the child is viable, there's no reason to have an abortion, since she can just have the child at that point.

There are cases where the child can live if the mother dies and vice versa. You're dodging the point. Should the mother be allowed to live or the child? You have to believe that one is more important than the other in a situation like that.

And yet many of them do occur on conscious, feeling, persons with functioning brains and beating hearts.

What's so important about a beating heart, that's more symbolic than it is significant.

Everyone thinks that their killing is "necessary".

I'm guessing you're for the death penalty right?

What makes your position anti-life is its belief that life is not a fundamental right. People don't naturally gain the right to life when they become a person.

Only fetus' aren't people, and you're also ignoring the fact that the woman is important and has certain rights.

That's what I think is wrong with the Pro-Choice movement. Because their central anti-life position is so terrible, they try to shift the debate to irrelevant scarecrows.

And you've been presenting irrelevant and biased facts. I've presented no scarecrows.

probable pain = 13+ weeks

nope 24+ is probable, not 13+.

certain pain = 24 weeks.

No only probable pain. And it's illegal already during that period.

At 1/15/08 08:07 AM, Drakim wrote: I see what you are arguing, but I think there is another way to look at it.

If you depend on my continuations blood donations every single hour to survive, would I be committing the ultimate offense of murder against you if I stopped donating blood to you?

The mother isn't directly killing the fetus. She is stopping supporting it, and the fetus cannot survive without a host body, thus it dies.

This is sort of a terrible argument. It's like saying, "If I hold my kids over the edge of a bridge, and then I stop supporting it with its fight against gravity by letting go, it's not really me that's killing it: it's the rocks and shit at the bottom." You're really just splitting hairs on what murder is. Besides, that's not how abortion works anyway. They don't just cut it loose and let it die. In the case of partial birth, the doctor snips the neck, vacuums out the brain matter, and then crushes the skull for easier carcass expulsion. In other cases, they inject the fetus with something, or do the old-fashioned sal-dumping on it. All of these ways are directly ending the life of the fetus. So, you can now reject that and say, "So, the doctor is killing the baby, then!" However, the people who hire hit-men still go to prison for murder.

We have absolutely no rights or anything of the kind which allows us to demand that other sustain our life. If your life depends on another's body, then that is a problem YOU have, and you can't demand that others bend and give you what you need to survive.

So, you (as the fetus) forced this lady to create you, and now you're demanding she let you not kill her. How inconsiderate, right?

It may sound though applying such a harsh reality on a fetus, but if you are to give human rights to a fetus, then the fetus gets just that, human rights, not super-duper-omnipotent-rights. Humans rights simply does not include the right to demand that others sustain your life. If so, I would be demanding that you buy me food and pay my rent this very instance, lol.

All-knowing rights? What the fuck are you going on about? Shut up and don't ever talk abortion politics again. You look like a fool. You're just wrong. I don't know how to argue with people who are just wrong.

Even though the woman is the mother of the fetus, things does not change. A mother can't without exception be forced to take full responsibility for the fetus life no matter what, because getting pregnant is not always a direct choice. You can get it from being raped.

I already covered rape. Stop being an idiot. You're just saying dumb stuff now that doesn't really stand up to any logic. You seem to be forgetting that previously in your own argument, you gave the fetus human rights, so, yeah. She does have to take the responsibility. Idiot.

Sorry, but what even makes an unwanted life form worth saving?