Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/21/08 06:05 PM, morefngdbs wrote: If a cancerous growth can be called a 'part' of your body, because it feeds off of it to your detriment ,
Why can't a fetus not be be included in that, they are both detrimental to the host.
While I understand that only 1 of them can become a new person, if successfully delivered full term, both are hard on the body.

Riddle me this: how can a fetus essentially be a cancerous growth if some some fetuses have cancer themselves? Last I checked, that sounds really redundant.

It was a study published by a medical university, but hey, what would they know?

The problem with you very anti-abortion people is that you make it sound like there are thousands of women nemphomanics going around whoring them selves, having unprotected sex with multiple partners in one night, getting pregnant the next day, then have an abortion in the afternoon then doing it all over again. Sometimes the condom breaks or they take the diaphram out a day early but that doesnt mean they didnt take precaution. And yes everybody should have the gift of life but you know what sometimes its better that the fetus gets aborted. I'm not talking about rape, I mean those families where the father is abusive, they mother doesnt care, etc. Should that be fair that a child should have to grow up in that kind of environment because abortion was made illegal.

I'm not reading that entire massive wad of eye-straining text, so I'll just focus on the basis of everything you say in it.

At 1/13/08 08:25 PM, JOEBIALEK wrote: Life begins at the point of conception.

It sure does, but it's not a human life. One cell is not a human.

At 1/21/08 08:17 PM, slackerzac wrote: The problem with you very anti-abortion people is that you make it sound like there are thousands :of women nemphomanics going around whoring them selves, having unprotected sex with multiple :partners in one night, getting pregnant the next day, then have an abortion in the afternoon then :doing it all over again.

That's not that bad, since its only a sperm/egg or a fertilized egg at that point. Our problem is with women who allow the fetus to grow and develop into a unique individual with a conscious nervous system, then end the life for their own convenience. That is wrong.

:Sometimes the condom breaks or they take the diaphram out a day early but that doesnt mean they :didnt take precaution.

They should be taking birth control pills too. In combination, there is practically no chance of pregnancy. If an unwanted pregnancy does occur, they should terminate it before consciousness occurs and the egg becomes a person (think morning after pill) or make a serious commitment to raise the child.

:And yes everybody should have the gift of life but you know what sometimes its better that the fetus :gets aborted.

And yet neither of your scenarios deals with a fetus... Both deal with a fertilized egg that is probably only be a handful of stem cells.

:I'm not talking about rape, I mean those families where the father is abusive, they mother doesnt :care, etc. Should that be fair that a child should have to grow up in that kind of environment because :abortion was made illegal.

Yes, of course a child should have the right to grow up once its created - poor parents or not. Being poor does not void the right to life.

At 1/21/08 08:17 PM, slackerzac wrote: The problem with you very anti-abortion people is that you make it sound like there are thousands of women nemphomanics going around whoring them selves, having unprotected sex with multiple partners in one night, getting pregnant the next day, then have an abortion in the afternoon then doing it all over again.

I refer you to my link:

-Around 55% of all abortions are done by the middle class an up.
-Only 17% are done by Teens.
-60% are done by women who already have had a child/children.

I can now effectively say that due to the 55% and 60%: Yes, a majority of these women are whores.

At 1/21/08 08:34 PM, Memorize wrote: -Around 55% of all abortions are done by the middle class an up.
-Only 17% are done by Teens.
-60% are done by women who already have had a child/children.
I can now effectively say that due to the 55% and 60%: Yes, a majority of these women are whores.

Even more damning, this survey shows that between 7% and 7.5% of the women who have had abortions are getting them for health reasons or because they were raped.
The other 92.5% of the reasons are bullshit reasons.
"I don't want people to know I'm pregnant!"
"I can't afford a baby!"
"I don't want to deal with another kid!"

I love how i am always ignored, hell even Shaggy the clown get's a whole hearted and fufilling response after every post that he makes.

*Sigh* i feel useless.

At 1/21/08 09:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I love how i am always ignored, hell even Shaggy the clown get's a whole hearted and fufilling response after every post that he makes.
*Sigh* i feel useless.

Don't be Shaggy. You make good points, which is why nobody wants to argue with them.

Be an irrational asshole and you'll get plenty of attention, albeit negative attention.

Alright Smilez, you win. I'll bite.

At 1/21/08 10:43 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I can tell you this in full honesty, because i know it will happen. Eventually [Given human technological advancements] there will be a virtually 100% effective 'cheap and easy' means of either making it so that the pregnancy of the female, or the virility of the male, will be able to be turned on and off with an internal body mechanism. If you want to have sex without a child, just turn it on, if you want a child, turn it off. [that is, if the mechanism prevents pregnancy]

I believe it. Now watch what the people will say about the device itself. Use of it is immoral, vs use of it is a choice.

I'm not even sure how the immoral argument on such a device would work, but I'm sure there'd be one....

Of course, with the exception of rape victims, today there are already existing methods of birth control that when combined [Spermacide + Condom + BC pill when use properly = Almost about as effective as a less than 1/the number of times that a person has sex in their life] Make pregnancy almost impossible, and i find it ironic that abortions havn't been looked on as immoral because they seem so largely avoidable... But it doesn't surprise me in another respect, since people are lazy after all.

You find it ironic abortions have NOT been looked on as immoral? I'm not sure I'm reading correctly, I thought there were several arguments on the immorality of abortion.

But I do agree that man tends to re-define certain things in a moral setting as need arises. In times of desperation the standard always seems to revert to dog eat dog and "anything goes".

Let us say that man has the LUXURY of making things moral and immoral at certain periods of time. I think that describes it fairly well.

But any who, once this devise is created, The need for an abortion is removed, and god mighty and ever inconstant as he is, decides that once again that abortion is an immoral practice. And that only uncivilized people engage in the pratice.

I'm waiting to see if God has another kid or something. Maybe a wife pops up, who knows? I find it far more interesting that God seemed to take anger management once Jesus was born.....

But yes, again, man has the luxury of designating a morality. Those with the luxury naturally will then look down on those without. And hence we have the nature of the world where man engages in a natural Superiority Complex over the stupidest things.....

But for now, we must contend with the slaughter as we had with slavery, the bubonic plague, and witch trials. [Witch trials count, since now that we know that there are no witches, there is no need to perform witch trials anymore.]

This is the part of pro-life I do not understand. The "suffering" or "pain" element. By having the child be born, that doesn't erase it's pain. If anything it amplifies it over a lifetime, through both physical, spiritual, and mental realms. Life can be quite the painful journey, no? But once death occurs, pain ends. We say things like this all the time; putting people "out of their misery", "rest in peace", etc.

I always ask the same question and always (like you) receive zero replies:
Painful life, or peaceful death?

well hopefully Smilez I made a smart enough post that mine will equally be ignored, and we can have ourselves a nice private conversation.... ;)

I can understand rape victoms and women who are in danger because of the pregnancy(partial birth canal). Im fine with them getting abortions. but what ever happoned to not bieng an idiot. even though my church is against it, im for the "wear a condom, don't be a dumbass" birth control. I dont like abortion because an actual baby dies, in my opinion. (ive heard too many studies going both ways on wether the fetus is alive or not, to make a conclusion plus I just don't like it.) I just think if you can prevent the fertilisation do it but if the egg has been fertalised just go with adoption. I know I can't actully speak for everyone though because im not a woman so if you don't approve of my opinion than go ahead and argue against it. I know im not perfect.

At 1/21/08 04:32 PM, Tomsan wrote: stuff

The only article you linked that could be read admitted that there was quite a bit of debate as to wheter or not pain originated earlier. For over a decade, we have ultrasound showing babies responding to pain.

So one schmuck saying "throw out mounds of evidence for my completely unproven theory, doesn't sway me at all.

At 1/21/08 05:00 PM, Draconias wrote: They are not irrelevant as they strongly reflect the situation in which the child will be born. If a mother does not want to have a child because she has HIV and will likely pass it to her child, does that motivation not matter to the situation? You would ignore her desire to save the child from a life of HIV, calling that totally irrelevant?

Yes.

Risk of transmission from mother to child if she takes drugs and has C-Section is 1%.

But let's assume it is 150%. People live with HIV for decades. Again, hard life doesn't mean life =/= worth living.

Not a straw man, an example of why abortion cannot be outlawed, as many people have proposed and argued for. It can only be restricted for this reason, something critically important to recognize which many policy supporters have ignored in discussion. I'm setting the basis for my argument by outlining what positions are possible, and if you haven't realized that, you need to read more closely.

Not a single person has ever argued against removing a dead fetus from a woman's body.
Thus it is a straw man.
No one considers removal of a dead child abortion.

The financial situation is, but the living conditions are not. A starving, homeless, drug-addicted woman probably will not be able to raise a child properly (at the minimum, without malnutrition and able to give schooling). This is relevant, as it indicates a high potential for harm to the child.

That is irrelevant. Give teh child up for adoption.

Not "what if", but rather "what is". There's a distinct difference between illustrative examples and imaginary attributes.

No, you delve into "what if" not "what is".

A life that is unfair to a child in every way is something that should not have been given in the first place. Abortion is the prevention of life, not the ending of it; killing a fetus and killing a grown adult are two distinctly different things. Also, in terms of legal issues, a grown adult is in the majority, and thus has legal freedom, so no matter what your two situations are different.

Remind me to shoot you dead when you fall behind in a bill or something. Your life is hard therefore I should kill you.

Yes, there most obviously is. Otherwise, we wouldn't have children who remain in the foster care system for so long. Simply saying, "Throw them to the foster care system!" is not a solution. About 125,000 child get adopted each year . In the past few years, there have been about 850,000 abortions each year. You do the math; adoption rates are nowhere near high enough to handle even a quarter of the total children from abortion, let alone real orphans.

Babies fly out of the system like wildfire. Try again.

First of all, I demand sources. You claim higher rates of several things, at least one of which I know to be untrue already. Show me the information you based those statements on. Secondly, if those trends are true, doesn't that suggest that abortion is a symptom of (supposedly) declining home environments? If a parent can not raise a child safely, they are more likely to seek an abortion. It's a safety valve, not a complete solution.

Oh, whatever.

None of my claims are untrue. Child abuse has tripled since abortion was legal. Single parent families has skyrocketed. Welfare rolls have expanded exponentially. And crime rose dramatically until the 80s and 90s. If you're going to claim abortion helped then YOU need to offer something...not me.

No, if we can't make life minimally bearable then that life should not be brought into the world. If you think it would be a positive thing to force more children to live in squallor and poverty, then you're more cruel than anyone who would simply seek to stop a life before it starts.

Thats bullshit. Mark Twain is the counter example.

I myself grew up in poverty. And I'm poor now. I really like this life thing and am glad I didn'tgert aborted.

Put bluntly, don't be a dumbfuck. First of all, you have no right to act over someone in the majority, and conditions for most adults are dynamic enough that you can't label them with those groups. Second, conditions such as bipolar disorder, OCD, etc. are treatable and fixable, so it generates more economy and money to let the medical system deal with them. We don't "contiue paying for people unable to find a job" if you didn't know; unemployment payments run out after a time period (obviously you've never held a job if you didn't know this). Ending a life that is already established and has an investment of 20+ years is much different than killing something before life has even started, with 0 time investment involved. From a societal perspective, the form is wasteful, the latter is not, and the two are distinctly different.

Sure I can. Life is hard. We should kill them

I'm showing why your example sucks.

Piss off if you don't like the practical application of your completely foolish argument.

What kind of idiot are you? Children are born with severe disabilities, or born with a body that cannot survive (so they die painfully), or all kinds of physical disorders. The act of birth even kills some babies, through strangulation by the umbilical to all sorts of other events. You can't possibly claim something so ignorant as "no child has ever been harmed."

Sure I can. Abortions a pretty crappy way to go too. You're not going to find a single example of a terrible child birth death that I can't counter with a grisly abortion tale.

Abortion is not murder, and you do not have the right to any say in the matter. War is murder on a grand scale, and it is legally sanctioned, so you can not possibly justify killing something before it even starts life as an actual being is murder. You have to be a human before you can be killed as a human, and even then we have all sorts of procedures such as euthanasia, removal of life support, death penalty, etc. to deal with you.

What bullshit.

A fetus (young one) is a unique human being. THe killig of a human is murder.

Comparing it to war is foolish. Does this automatically make war right? You can't have it both ways!

At 1/22/08 06:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/21/08 04:32 PM, Tomsan wrote: stuff

The only article you linked that could be read admitted that there was quite a bit of debate as to wheter or not pain originated earlier. For over a decade, we have ultrasound showing babies responding to pain.

So one schmuck saying "throw out mounds of evidence for my completely unproven theory, doesn't sway me at all.

scientific articles to confronting eh?
and you could read the abstracts couldnt you?

At 1/21/08 05:22 PM, Draconias wrote: Wrong. If people can consider things such as IQ tests even for small children, then it is established that their potential is in some way defined already.

No it doesn't. Dude, you really need to stop debating your betters.

IQ in and of itself doesn't measure potential. Many serial killers are insanely intelligent.
HOLY CRAP! Smart kids could be future killers!

The poor do have potential. The elderly have "earned the right" to last out until they die on their own, but you don't often see us providing complete life support for an elderly person -- which is what a pregnant woman does for an unborn child. If something cannot live mostly-unsupported, then it's not "killing it", it becomes "letting it die" by removing life support. Hence the difference between killing independent individuals who can manage their own wellbeing and health, and clumps of cells which will die if cut off from the host.

You're trying to deflect from the issue. No infant can survive on it;s own. Nor can any child. LET THEM DIE!

It wasn't my statistic. If you want to correct anyone, call your co-supporter a liar for citing false statistics. Regardless, there are still abortions that are medically necessary, and so a complete outlaw of abortion is unreasonable.

No one is proposing a complete outlaw. This is why I'm calling YOU a liar. Abortion for medical reasons has never been outlawed. And there's no one who is proposing outlawing it. You're trying to use a rare occurance to argue against the more common occurance.

It's not a strawman because people argue for the complete outlaw of abortion. Don't give me shit about that because at least 18% of people are proposing it according to a Gallup poll last May. I'm pretty damn sure a fifth of the relevant population is significant enough for this not to be a straw man.

YAAAAAAAWN. Abortion is almost never medically neccesary. The anger against medical abortions has stemmed from Doe vs Bolton which put "medical decisions" in the hands of social workers.

Moreover, this is still irrelevant as 18% is still a minority and no one has ever offered a law to make medical abortions illegal.

Prohibition. Exception spotted. Your statement makes it obvious that you're lying, anyways. Unsafe abortion has never been particularly expensive, and if you didn't know, medical procedures by a doctor is not the only way to have an abortion. That is why it has always been available.

Bullshit.

Prohibition marked a decrease in drinking. Sure crime rocketed, but drinking decreased.

And abortion was much harder to come by in the years before Roe. Which is why in the years after Roe was legalized teh abortion rate almost tripled.

Perhaps you don't understand, banning abortion will not decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies in any way because it is not facotred into their thinking. It may decrease abortions themselves somewhat, but it won't prevent unwanted pregnancies, the thing he was talking about.

I never said it would decrease unwanted pregnancies. I said it would decrease abortion.
The numbers support me on this.

Moreover, teh number of "unwanted pregnancies" have increased since roe was made law. Just a fun fact.

If you haven't hit puberty yet, I guess you may not know about certain things like "condoms" and "birth control pills" which are the first lines. Abortion is the last resort because all other methods to prevent the child failed. If you don't abort it at that point, you have the child... so it's very obviously the last resort. There's not much to misunderstand here, but you're doing a damn fine job of not getting it.

Again, bullshit.
Just because you get pregnant doesn't mean abortion is the last (or only) option. You're assuming:
1. Abortion is the last option because it;s the last thing done.
2. Everyone who has an abortion weighs the options.
3. They used contraceptives.

What shitty logic.

First, the doctor killed the unborn child-- not "innocent child". Second, 'Innocent' is an empty term that's just full of moralistic bull, but has no actual bearing on anything in reality. There is nothing morally negative about abortion, it is merely equivalent to not having a child in the first place (however, if you consider never having children to be morally evil, then you may have a basis for judgement).

No, not ever having a child is not equivalent to killing your child.
And if teh child has never done anything wrong, it's innocent.

The problem is unwanted pregnancies, not abortion. And, if you haven't realized it, outlawing something is not a solution, because even you said earlier that people will still do it anyways, regardless of law. Only making actions available can ever be a real solution to anything; outlawing something is just attempting to push the problem somewhere where you don't have to see it. However, referring my earlier example, Prohibition has showed us all what kind of effect that can have. Legal abortion simply makes something you can't stop or reduce a lot safer for those involved. Before you try to connect this to drugs, notice the "or reduce" clause, because I know you're not smart enough to pick up on that kind of thing unless I point it out directly.

Who cares? Murder will still happen. We prosecute that.

At 1/21/08 05:47 PM, morefngdbs wrote: IT is very simple.
So simple all of you who rail about it ,& all of you who try to come up with good reasons for it ; all seem to miss the 1 all important reason.
It is her body & I don't believe anyone has the right to decide what someone does to their own body.

Wow, hat COMPLETELY ignores the law that says we can tell her hundreds of things she can' do with her own body.

YAAAAWWWWWWN.

At 1/21/08 06:05 PM, morefngdbs wrote: If a cancerous growth can be called a 'part' of your body, because it feeds off of it to your detriment ,
Why can't a fetus not be be included in that, they are both detrimental to the host.

There is no detriment to the mother, Indeed the baby does several positive things for the mother.

Bottom line, -"Your Taking Someones Right's Away".

There is no reason to consider the mother's "right" if it infringes the baby's right.

At 1/22/08 03:29 AM, Imperator wrote: This is the part of pro-life I do not understand. The "suffering" or "pain" element. By having the child be born, that doesn't erase it's pain. If anything it amplifies it over a lifetime, through both physical, spiritual, and mental realms. Life can be quite the painful journey, no? But once death occurs, pain ends. We say things like this all the time; putting people "out of their misery", "rest in peace", etc.

I always ask the same question and always (like you) receive zero replies:
Painful life, or peaceful death?

well hopefully Smilez I made a smart enough post that mine will equally be ignored, and we can have ourselves a nice private conversation.... ;)

Nope, your post will foolish, and I'll comment.

The idea that poor=terrible is silly.

You cannot predict the kids life.

And if teh parent doesn't want to deal with it, give the kid up for adoption.

I'd find Draconias to be an amusing person in court. If he was tried for murdering someone would he just try to say "Its the equivalent of that person never having been born, so I don't see what the fuss is about"

Do Pro-Choice people see how most of their logic doesn't just attack fetal life, it attacks the concept of life in general?

At 1/22/08 06:10 AM, Tomsan wrote: scientific articles to confronting eh?
and you could read the abstracts couldnt you?

The abstracts were useless. I read teh full article you provided.

Regardless:

two sides:

Pro: Pain can't be felt. Due to a theory I have, pain can't be falt before the 26th week. This ignores the fact that the part of the brain needed to feel pain is fully developed by the 24th week.

Ani: We have observed signs in fetuses of pain before the 12th week. We prick them with needles and they act like we do. It's clear due to imperical evidence that the fetus feels pain.

Hmmm, which to side with. The bullshit scientist whjo ignores actual evidence or the people who have seen how fetuses react for decades......hmmmmm.

I think I'll go with option 2, as they're the people who know what the hell they're talking about.

At 1/22/08 06:36 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Nope, your post will foolish, and I'll comment.

Someone's tired this morning, you can tell in the English.

The idea that poor=terrible is silly.

Who mentioned anything about being poor? I'm talking more generally, life can be painful. Therefore, I do not understand the pro-life argument revolving around the idea that abortion is bad because it causes the fetus pain.

You cannot predict the kids life.

Precisely my point. What's "best for the child" (used on both sides) remains unseen. Therefore, how can pro-life use the idea of pain as an argument? Pain could be commonplace and more extreme throughout the child's life. The opposite may also hold true, but then we are simply throwing the dice with the child's fate, not truly looking out for it's interests, are we?

And if teh parent doesn't want to deal with it, give the kid up for adoption.

Is the adoption system necessarily gonna give the kid any better quality of life? Like you said, the kid's life is unpredictable. And my knowledge of the adoption system in this country is that it's not exactly a fantastic alternative to a shitty parent......

In fact, kids in our adoption system probably have it somewhat worse off than other places, because not a lot of Americans necessarily adopt American babies. I know people who adopted from Russia, for instance.

Again though, is this the responsible route? Instead of having the parent "deal with" the child you're telling them to throw their "problem" onto someone else. Is that the message then? Don't abort, just dump the burden on someone else?

At 1/22/08 06:40 AM, Al6200 wrote:
Do Pro-Choice people see how most of their logic doesn't just attack fetal life, it attacks the concept of life in general?

I do not, mainly because I don't see a whole lot of care in the Pro-life people beyond the child being born. Take Wolven's stance just now:

"And if teh parent doesn't want to deal with it, give the kid up for adoption."

The message is that the kid is a burden, and it's OK to dump that burden on someone else's shoulders. Or am I missing something?

Unfortunately what I'm seeing is that your side's concept of life is that it's shit, but misery loves company so don't abort and have the kid!

At 1/22/08 06:55 AM, Imperator wrote: Who mentioned anything about being poor? I'm talking more generally, life can be painful. Therefore, I do not understand the pro-life argument revolving around the idea that abortion is bad because it causes the fetus pain.

Life is pain. My argument doesn't revolve around "abortion hurts", but that it is a depraviation of the unborn'sa rights.

Precisely my point. What's "best for the child" (used on both sides) remains unseen. Therefore, how can pro-life use the idea of pain as an argument? Pain could be commonplace and more extreme throughout the child's life. The opposite may also hold true, but then we are simply throwing the dice with the child's fate, not truly looking out for it's interests, are we?

It's better for teh kid to have a hard life than no lifwe.

Is the adoption system necessarily gonna give the kid any better quality of life? Like you said, the kid's life is unpredictable. And my knowledge of the adoption system in this country is that it's not exactly a fantastic alternative to a shitty parent......

"It could suck" is hardly a reason to kill the kid.

In fact, kids in our adoption system probably have it somewhat worse off than other places, because not a lot of Americans necessarily adopt American babies. I know people who adopted from Russia, for instance.

MEH. The adoption system in America sucks for the following reasons (tho not for babies):

1. We have insanely high standards for adoption, yet pathetically low standards for foster parents.
2. We have kids in our system that have family that want them.
3. We deny potential families based on age, weight, etc.

Our "child problem" is completely of our own making. The fact that we have people who'd rather travel out of country for a child, shows how silly our system is.

Again though, is this the responsible route? Instead of having the parent "deal with" the child you're telling them to throw their "problem" onto someone else. Is that the message then? Don't abort, just dump the burden on someone else?

In a word yes. No one who has ever held a baby in their hands can ever really be pro-abortion. You see this tiny human and marvel at it, and realize you're holding a miracle.

Nthing is more important than life. If the right to life is not protected...we have no rights.

At 1/18/08 11:37 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: #1 "And political and social. Are you saying that if they are truly a result from natural human desires we should allow such acts?"

Political and social by the way, are general dominance. Remember that evolution doesn't KNOW things, it favors those who are most ambitious, there is no difference between social and political dominance with other 'dominations' of sorts.

"allowed' is an incorrect term; they happen because this new invention called morality [New as in only been around for the 10,000 years of the many millions that animals have been around] Is not stronger than the desire of humans to dominate one another. There is no reason why it should or should not be tollerated, but when you say 'allowed' you make it sound like people actually have a say in the matter.

So what your saying is that we should allow slavery and genocide because, according to you, they're human desire and evolution? And yes, we humans actually do have a choice in whether or not we should kill or enslave each other.

Our morality changes the rules for the most part. If we relied on pure instinct as you seem to be getting at that we should, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as far as we have as a species.

#2 "Child molestation has been around for quite along time too. Does that make it justifiable?

And many male animals eat their babies; what do you have to say about that? Think about it for a second...

Not my cup of tea.

#3 "Umm... How about continuing our races existence for one"

I might agree with you if this was the year 15,000 B.C.E and the entire human race was commiting infanticide, number one is that if this was ingrained in the human specie's mind we would have died out a long time ago; I beleive something in a woman's body makes them more protective of their childeren, [human race survival tactics]

However, the parents Aborted Fetuses come from the ranks of individuals who had no intention of raising a child in the first place, most likely because they are in a perpetual mating season due to the easiness of their lifestyles and also possibly the food they eat. It's not like every abortion clinic is equal to one less birth clinic; people are still going to want to have children.

If they had no intention of having kids, they should have taken precautions to prevent the women of getting pregnant. Condoms when used properly will have a ~2% failure rate. If the woman doesn't want kids now but may later, she can use a progestogen implants like Norplant or Implanon. Both have a failure rate of %0.05 and last for 5 and 3 years respectively and are fully reversible.

#4 "well, if the baby where to have a horible life if it was born, it would be more mercyfull to abort it"

The happiness of a persons life is irrelevant; it's the lacking of a desire to want to father/mother that particular child. The misery of a persons life is not a factor in deciding whether or not they deserve to live, it's how well they can think, act, and reproduce.

And you can't find out how well they can think, act, and reproduce when they're a fetus. At the very least you should let them live until you can see how well they do them before you kill them.

#5 Stuff

And lastly, people don't have a 'Right' to live, a right is an unyielding ability given by an individual who controls the area that you reside in.

Even under that, we all have the right to life, liberty and security of person under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was made by the most powerful leaders of world, who control most areas people reside in.

At 1/21/08 07:55 PM, Christopherr wrote: Riddle me this: how can a fetus essentially be a cancerous growth if some some fetuses have cancer themselves? Last I checked, that sounds really redundant.

;
not really, another excellent reason for abortion, thanks
;
twist, twist, twist the words all you like, the reference is to a fetus not being part of the mother.
<please try to go back and read the reference when you see a reply to anothers post> (jesus how new are you????)
IF cancer is a part of you, not desired but still part of you.
Then the reference that a fetus is also part of the host is valid.
Twist some more .... make it fit your ideals.
The right of whites to torture /abuse blacks is only valid if blacks have the same rights.
Twist ,twist, twist
I had assumed (obviously incorrectly) that you would have the intelligence to understand that a person's rights shouldn't be, to abuse & torture another sentient being.
Once a fetus is full term it becomes another person, while it is still 100% dependant on the mother it is apart of her, so making decissions (especially MEN making decissions over what a woman can & cannot do with her body) is TAKING AWAY HER RIGHTS.

It was a study published by a medical university, but hey, what would they know?

They know that the right to an abortion, is something no man has a use for, probably why so many ,like yourself, condone it.
Unlike you I made the decission to abort a fetus that my wife was carrying with a very similar diagnosis ,tumor possibly cancerous. Your decission would be for her to attempt to carry both herself & it to maybe death for both,BUT definate life long debilitating deformity & health problems for both.
I chose abortion, 1) to protect a person who was healthy except for the fetus
2) to ensure that the person who was pregnant would survive to continue to help raise the 2 children we already had.
3)It was the right thing to do at the time.
Some of you here definately need to 'walk a mile' in others shoes.
Gives you a whole different perspective, when you've been there yourself !

At 1/22/08 06:42 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

The abstracts were useless. I read teh full article you provided.:
Regardless::
two sides:

Pro: Pain can't be felt. Due to a theory I have, pain can't be falt before the 26th week. This ignores the fact that the part of the brain needed to feel pain is fully developed by the 24th week.

Ani: We have observed signs in fetuses of pain before the 12th week. We prick them with needles and they act like we do. It's clear due to imperical evidence that the fetus feels pain.

Hmmm, which to side with. The bullshit scientist whjo ignores actual evidence or the people who have seen how fetuses react for decades......hmmmmm.

I think I'll go with option 2, as they're the people who know what the hell they're talking about.

nice clean argumentation....!!!!
what evidence did you provide really, non valuable, all outdated and refuted. I did not make any statements in my previous post, I merely said things about consciousness and pain and consciouss pain are unclear. The sorta statement I did make is that the general opinion was that fetusses did not feel pain consciouly. embryology is a mayor black spot in science.
if you wanna put it black and white go ahead, but then that will end the debate.

btw you could definatly read 2 articles not 1 and I am pretty sure you could read 3 (but you had to click).

At 1/22/08 10:26 AM, morefngdbs wrote: not really, another excellent reason for abortion, thanks

This is an issue in oh, say, less than 0.1% of abortion cases, so no, it's not a good reason to justify abortions where the reasons are frivolous.

At 1/21/08 06:05 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

If a cancerous growth can be called a 'part' of your body, because it feeds off of it to your detriment
Why can't a fetus not be be included in that, they are both detrimental to the host.

I had assumed (obviously incorrectly) that you would have the intelligence to understand that a person's rights shouldn't be, to abuse & torture another sentient being.
Once a fetus is full term it becomes another person, while it is still 100% dependant on the mother it is apart of her, so making decissions (especially MEN making decissions over what a woman can & cannot do with her body) is TAKING AWAY HER RIGHTS.

I would like to see a law passed removing the right to abort without a serious medical reason. Yes, that would be taking away rights, but for the better.
All my argument has been against abortions performed for non-medical reasons. I'm for abortion if the baby is in danger.

They know that the right to an abortion, is something no man has a use for, probably why so many ,like yourself, condone it.

You do realize that I am against abortion for non-medical reasons, right?

Unlike you I made the decission to abort a fetus that my wife was carrying with a very similar diagnosis ,tumor possibly cancerous. Your decission would be for her to attempt to carry both herself & it to maybe death for both,BUT definate life long debilitating deformity & health problems for both.

I meant no offense... In fact, I didn't even say we shouldn't ban all abortions. I thought you were arguing that babies can be freely aborted because they were basically cancerous growths.

Some of you here definately need to 'walk a mile' in others shoes.
Gives you a whole different perspective, when you've been there yourself !

I've performed one. Read somewhere in the recent pages, when I was talking about how it feels, because I don't want to be redundant.

I apologize for misinterpreting what you said.

At 1/22/08 07:20 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
Life is pain. My argument doesn't revolve around "abortion hurts", but that it is a depraviation of the unborn'sa rights.

Oh. Ok. Rights to what?

It's better for teh kid to have a hard life than no lifwe.

So in my question of Painful life or peaceful death, you're choosing the former, yes? I'm not arguing, just trying to get a handle on this pro-life argument.

"It could suck" is hardly a reason to kill the kid.

Conversely isn't "It might turn out OK" hardly a reason to throw them to the lions?

Our "child problem" is completely of our own making. The fact that we have people who'd rather travel out of country for a child, shows how silly our system is.

Agreed.

In a word yes. No one who has ever held a baby in their hands can ever really be pro-abortion. You see this tiny human and marvel at it, and realize you're holding a miracle.

Well I think that falls through as an appeal to emotion, mainly because I've held babies and tend to think pessimistically. I'm willing to listen if you can expound on this though.

Nthing is more important than life. If the right to life is not protected...we have no rights.

Completely agree. Without life the other rights become meaningless, but some see it as a noble sacrifice to die defending those rights. Which brings a new problem. Does life supercede freedom then? "Freedom" being, and I'm assuming, the top dog of rights in the hierarchy of them all. If not, replace it with whatever you think it should be for the question to work.

umm dude, its there dicision if they want to fuck up they're baby. Why are assholes going up to them and saying "OUR WAY IS BETTER!@!!!, NO ABORTION!!! GPD DOESN'T LIKEZ YOU ANYMORE" i mean its just gay. Most religions are fucking stuck up.

At 1/22/08 06:33 PM, DeathAura wrote: umm dude, its there dicision if they want to fuck up they're baby. Why are assholes going up to them and saying "OUR WAY IS BETTER!@!!!, NO ABORTION!!! GPD DOESN'T LIKEZ YOU ANYMORE" i mean its just gay. Most religions are fucking stuck up.

Come again, trollmeister? I'm religious and against abortion, but I do not disagree with abortion because of my religion. I have non-religious ideas for why it should be illegal (unless a medical reason exists) In fact, most of the arguments in this thread are non-religious.

At 1/22/08 06:33 PM, DeathAura wrote: umm dude, its there dicision if they want to fuck up they're baby. Why are assholes going up to them and saying "OUR WAY IS BETTER!@!!!, NO ABORTION!!! GPD DOESN'T LIKEZ YOU ANYMORE" i mean its just gay. Most religions are fucking stuck up.

Who here has mentioned religion in this thread for a reason for/against abortion? Most of us haven't mentioned religion at all. Go back to general if you want to troll, dumbass.

At 1/22/08 06:22 PM, Imperator wrote:

Oh. Ok. Rights to what?

Right to life. Ever read the Declaration of Independence? No? It says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So in my question of Painful life or peaceful death, you're choosing the former, yes? I'm not arguing, :just trying to get a handle on this pro-life argument.

It's not rocket science. The American nation was founded on the principles of universal civil liberties, which should trump economic or social conveniences.

Conversely isn't "It might turn out OK" hardly a reason to throw them to the lions?

Is killing them more of "throwing them at the lions" then allowing them to make the life that they see fit for themselves?

Well I think that falls through as an appeal to emotion, mainly because I've held babies and tend to :think pessimistically. I'm willing to listen if you can expound on this though.

Completely agree. Without life the other rights become meaningless, but some see it as a noble :sacrifice to die defending those rights.

So the innocent children are sacrificed for the future of society? If the kid wants to not live since he has unloving and uncaring parents - so be it. But let it be the child's choice, not the parents. Have you been everything your parents expected? Would you confine yourself to what they see you being? No, of course not. So why grant your parent's the right to end your life when they see no promise. Isn't that your fundamental liberty to choose what you want to do with it?

:Which brings a new problem. Does life supercede freedom then?

Obviously, that's not much of a question. I've never seen anyone get charged for murder and then argue that his right to choice trumps the victim's right to life. Only Roe was crazy enough to do that, and apparently the Judge's were brain-dead enough not to start crying with laughter.

:"Freedom" being, and I'm assuming, the top dog of rights in the hierarchy of them all. If not, replace it :with whatever you think it should be for the question to work.

If you take someone's right to life away without their consent, you take away all of those person's freedoms. Freedom is #1, but murder is the ultimate assault on freedom, and therefore it is the highest crime.

At 1/22/08 06:22 PM, Imperator wrote: Oh. Ok. Rights to what?

Life.

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. "
-Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
This is legally enforceable in any UN member state.

To disagree with that, you must say that a fetus is not a human being. That game with words has its roots in the horrid experiments performed on Japanese and German prisoners in WWII. They referred to their subjects as materials that were "not human." This is the exact same argument omnipresent in the pro-choice movement.

Here's a testimony from a Dr. Lejeune, a man highly, highly qualified in this field. It is in a 1990s court case, and the US court system has done nothing whatsoever with it, even though it is valid proof that the embryo is a human being, even when it is being preserved apart from the woman's body.

That the foetus is not human yet seems to be very essential to me. I'm opposed to killing concious humans because they are in some way or form an inconvenience. But preventing something like a foetus, that isn't human or conscious yet, from ever becoming it, I've got a lot less issues against that.