Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/2/08 12:12 AM, Lindione wrote:

What about those idiotic teenage girls who have 5 partners without protection a week. Should women be forced to never have kids cause of their stupid mistakes? What about the women who are raped repeatedly by their boyfriends? Actions and laws like that ussually don't work out since there are always rare exceptions which create bylaws and those bylaws tie up the legal system.

Please.

No one mentioned rape here.

And no, I never said they should be forced to have the child. I said if that's the life they want to live, then they should be cut off from ever having children. Abortion is generally seen as, at least, a "morally unacceptable" practice. Why should these people who do not wish to have children and have resorted to abortion for birth control, even be allowed to have children?

After all, it's not the fetus placing itself there, it's the fault of the 'parent' placing it there.

That's why I said the same for this topic about people with aids. If they obtained this disease through activities such as 'one night stands', then shouldn't be given a cure.

At 3/2/08 12:18 AM, Memorize wrote: Please.

No one mentioned rape here.

Well, I am mentioning it, since if you are going to support legislation or if you had your way enact it, you must put into consideration all possibilities

And no, I never said they should be forced to have the child. I said if that's the life they want to live, then they should be cut off from ever having children. Abortion is generally seen as, at least, a "morally unacceptable" practice. Why should these people who do not wish to have children and have resorted to abortion for birth control, even be allowed to have children?

There is a weird thing in today's world thats called growing up or becoming more responsible as they grow older. Should you destroy a woman's right to have a child when she is ready since she did something stupid in her past? Should you deny a father the ability to have a son with his wife due to something she did ten years ago? Not to mention the fact that condoms fail and birth control is not fullproof.

After all, it's not the fetus placing itself there, it's the fault of the 'parent' placing it there.

Most of the time these days people who have sex don't do so with the objective of having a child in mind. Isn't the man as much to blame as the woman? Should he get a mandatory vasectomy?

That's why I said the same for this topic about people with aids. If they obtained this disease through activities such as 'one night stands', then shouldn't be given a cure.

So you say all people who have sex and get unlucky should be condemned to death? As far as I know, human being should get medical treatment when they are sick, it is not the role of the doctor to determine their fate based on their judgement. It is not the responsibility of the government to know how they got the diesese because for all we know they might have gotten an infected needle in a hospital. To do what you wish, the government would have to invade the personal lifes of people who should have privacy.

At 3/2/08 12:46 AM, Lindione wrote:

Well, I am mentioning it, since if you are going to support legislation or if you had your way enact it, you must put into consideration all possibilities

But i'm not talking about rape.

Rape = not under control.

I'm talking about unfit parents who willfully engage in sexual activity that results in their second abortion.

There is a weird thing in today's world thats called growing up or becoming more responsible as they grow older. Should you destroy a woman's right to have a child when she is ready since she did something stupid in her past? Should you deny a father the ability to have a son with his wife due to something she did ten years ago? Not to mention the fact that condoms fail and birth control is not fullproof.

Woman's right to have a child?

Please. That was nothing more than a play on the Constitution's saying of that there are rights not in the constitution's current form.

Yet that doesn't mean I can claim that I have a right to do cocaine simpley because I'm using it and not selling.

Rights aren't unlimited.

Most of the time these days people who have sex don't do so with the objective of having a child in mind. Isn't the man as much to blame as the woman? Should he get a mandatory vasectomy?

Yes, he is.

And yes, he should.

If he's going around spreading his stupidity gene, then he should have that vasectomy. I'm only saying "women" because as the law currently stands: Only the woman can make the decision without the consent of the "father" regardless of the fact that it takes 2.

So you say all people who have sex and get unlucky should be condemned to death?

Death?

As far as I know, human being should get medical treatment when they are sick, it is not the role of the doctor to determine their fate based on their judgement.

Why?

What if they just go out and remain doing whatever it is they did to cause their sickness? If they get sick from their job, then that's fine as they need to make money. But that doesn't exactly apply to sexual activity, does it?

Especially since you're the cause of the fetus' creation to begin with.

It is not the responsibility of the government to know how they got the diesese because for all we know they might have gotten an infected needle in a hospital.

And if they did, then they are eligible for the treatment.

To do what you wish, the government would have to invade the personal lifes of people who should have privacy.

It's much better than the alternative.

As I said: Rights are limited. Why should people fear such things if they obtained their disease by a hospital needle? If, on the other hand, they were the cause of their own sickness, then they shouldn't get such treatment. Because it'll simpley turn into what abortion has turned into: A easy out.

Do you think people would learn their lesson if all you did was cure everything they did wrong? If you just funnel out a cure for everyone regardless of the circumstances, then society will eventually move towards the mentality of "It doesn't matter what we do, there's a cure for it".

I do like how your placing "adoption" and "abortion" in seemingly the same light Memorize. When there's a world of difference there, abortion ends life completely, adoption gives the kid a shot with (presumably anyway) a family better equipped to provide for them then the birth family.

See, I can see where your coming from, but my biggest problem is that I don't like the idea of giving government more and more power to regulate people. They've got too much as it is already.

At 3/2/08 02:08 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

See, I can see where your coming from, but my biggest problem is that I don't like the idea of giving government more and more power to regulate people. They've got too much as it is already.

One more wouldn't hurt.

If anything, the government has given the people more and more lee-way over the decades.

How would doing what I'm suggesting be worse than banning abortion outright? After all, they still get 1 free shot at abortion; it's the second time that 'counts'.

Even still, I do love that the people who demand more government regulation are against the idea of regulating on an individual level. But I guess that's what far left liberals do: They demand regulation for the selfish purpose of making their own lives better, but are against the idea of giving up a small "freedom" for the better-ment of others.

Also, I only use adoption in such a way as the pro-abortion crowed loves throwing adoption out there as some horrible, vial institution.

As well, if you truely wanted to interpret whether or not abortion is constitutional as the founding fathers would present it, do you honestly believe that the founding fathers would approve of such a thing?

As I said, this idea is giving people exactly what they want. Sexual pleasure without the consequence. It also gets rid of the contribution to child abuse. Obviously if people get an abortion the first time, they weren't ready, right? Then if they have a second one, then they certainly don't want a child and have yet to learn their lesson. And since they can afford the second abortion, they can also afford a proceedure to keep them from having any more children.

It also benefits society as a whole. Less idiot parents raising their children to be idiots.

This is only a moderate point of view. It's not banning abortion, nor is it legalizing it outright. We got along fine before Roe vs Wade, why would today be any different?

That's why I think it's funny when during child custody cases or paternity tests, I hear: "It takes 2 to make a child", yet it only takes 1 to decide an abortion.

The point is: If people are going to continuously be irresponsible, then they shouldn't be given a free pass. Society wouldn't learn their lesson if they were able to do as they pleased any moment of their lives, and society as a whole would crumble due to their growing greed and selfishness.

I have aids. Long story short I got it from an unsterilized needle.

No, I don't want to be abandon on an island, no, I don't want to be branded a risk to society, and finally no, I don't want to be treated as sub-human because of something that was out of my control.

I have aids and I am going to die eventually because of it. Don't you think that is enough punishment without having to put up with bigots like you trying to control me?

I think its time people like you began to open your eyes and ears, and shut your mouth about issues you can't even remotely relate to. I only hope to live long enough to see idiots like you wakeup to yourselves.

Oh yeah, I think I will keep on coming around to your mother's place every Tuesday night to rape her in her sleep.

At 3/2/08 12:14 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/2/08 12:08 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Aren't you?

wow, the wit is overwhelming

I said it's how it should be.

So...
your arguing on something thats never going to happen, but its what you would like but it's not based to much in reality.

Really? So I guess having underage sex and obtaining an abortion while still living under your parent's home is protected under privacy?

Uhm, yeah.

There's no such thing as a right to privacy. Even still, rights have limits. That's why sex offenders are placed on a registry, and why those who make threats are placed in prison.

I guess you don't believe in the Supreme Court then, you know, since throught a few rulings they have said we have the constitutional right to privacy.

Like, Griswold v. Conneticut

If you really wanted to stop the abortion argument and reduce the child abuse, beatings and their being placed in adoption homes, then you should give those repeat'ers what they want: Sexual pleasure without the responsibilities.

Uh huh.
I'll keep that in mind when I have my next Autocrat meeting and ways to attempt to destroy civil liberties.

Why did this turn into an abortion discussion, this thread is rather unique, we should embrace the uniqueness.

The government hunting people down with aids isn't going to bode well for the people who will regard it as opression, plus, it's much to expensive and if even 1 single person is left in the population with aids; they can re-fuel the virus. Plus, if people know that being found with aids results in them being taken away from society or any other type of punishment, they are more likely to avoid getting checked for aids and more likely to continue sexual behaviour which spreads the disease.

You have to make a 'smart populace', one that know's the threat of aids, and one that can reject the 'selfish gene' urge to reproduce.

Honestly, if all people were asexual, the world would be a better place. We're already smart enough to know without instinct why we need to reproduce, we can abolish the need to engage in sexual activity because we can control birth more aptly than ever before.

At 3/2/08 08:45 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

wow, the wit is overwhelming

Isn't it?

So...
your arguing on something thats never going to happen, but its what you would like but it's not based to much in reality.

Pardon me, but considering the democrat-controlled congress has still yet to fullfill their promise on 'bringing troops home', I don't particularly see what's wrong with my suggestion.

Uhm, yeah.

Stupidity alert.

If the parents have 'the right' to know if their children are doing something illegal, then abortion falls into that category considering it was caused by underage sexual activity.

If this can be protected by privacy from the parents, then so should a slew of other issues.

I guess you don't believe in the Supreme Court then, you know, since throught a few rulings they have said we have the constitutional right to privacy.

Like, Griswold v. Conneticut

And I suppose in your world, people who threaten the President aren't arrested. And sex offenders aren't placed on registry.

Uh huh.
I'll keep that in mind when I have my next Autocrat meeting and ways to attempt to destroy civil liberties.

You can't claim i'm destroying civil liberties when abortion used to be generally illegal before 1973.

Since Memorize is all for forced sterilization, why don't we get him fixed?

At 3/2/08 01:14 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/2/08 12:46 AM, Lindione wrote:

Well, I am mentioning it, since if you are going to support legislation or if you had your way enact it, you must put into consideration all possibilities

But i'm not talking about rape.

Rape = not under control.

I'm talking about unfit parents who willfully engage in sexual activity that results in their second abortion.

What if the mother had an abortion with one man then had a second one with another? You have no way to know whether the sex was consentual in most cases. Would you give a man the death penalty based on the likelihood of him killing a guy, and not beyond reasonable doubt?

There is a weird thing in today's world thats called growing up or becoming more responsible as they grow older. Should you destroy a woman's right to have a child when she is ready since she did something stupid in her past? Should you deny a father the ability to have a son with his wife due to something she did ten years ago? Not to mention the fact that condoms fail and birth control is not fullproof.

Woman's right to have a child?

Please. That was nothing more than a play on the Constitution's saying of that there are rights not in the constitution's current form.

Yet that doesn't mean I can claim that I have a right to do cocaine simpley because I'm using it and not selling.

Rights aren't unlimited.

Most of the time these days people who have sex don't do so with the objective of having a child in mind. Isn't the man as much to blame as the woman? Should he get a mandatory vasectomy?

Yes, he is.

And yes, he should.

If he's going around spreading his stupidity gene, then he should have that vasectomy. I'm only saying "women" because as the law currently stands: Only the woman can make the decision without the consent of the "father" regardless of the fact that it takes 2.

So you say all people who have sex and get unlucky should be condemned to death?

Death?

Either that or the suffering of their particular dieseise, for people with AIDS it tends to be death.

As far as I know, human being should get medical treatment when they are sick, it is not the role of the doctor to determine their fate based on their judgement.

Why?

Since if doctors had their way on whether to treat a patient or not, there would be a lot of dead black people, Jews, etc. because of racist doctors. They would create an excuse and abuse that power to decide.

What if they just go out and remain doing whatever it is they did to cause their sickness? If they get sick from their job, then that's fine as they need to make money. But that doesn't exactly apply to sexual activity, does it?

if people get sick from their job then they sue the workplace. A zygote/fetus can't sue people yet. (give it a few years)

Especially since you're the cause of the fetus' creation to begin with.

It is not the responsibility of the government to know how they got the diesese because for all we know they might have gotten an infected needle in a hospital.

And if they did, then they are eligible for the treatment.

Then people will lie and say they got it from a needle.

To do what you wish, the government would have to invade the personal lifes of people who should have privacy.

It's much better than the alternative.

Not in my book, since if the government can do one thing that invades your personal life, a precedent is set and they can do other things, possibly something you don't want them doing.

As I said: Rights are limited. Why should people fear such things if they obtained their disease by a hospital needle? If, on the other hand, they were the cause of their own sickness, then they shouldn't get such treatment. Because it'll simpley turn into what abortion has turned into: A easy out.

Then aren't birth control pills and condoms also easy outs from getting pregnant in the first place and you are saying that easy outs are bad. You have the right to express your beleifs that abortions are wrong but that dosen't mean you can force that down everybody who dosen't agree with you's throat. Also, why do you think abortions are so wrong? As far as I'm concerned its just an egg and a sperm joined and i doubt you have any qualms about killing eggs or sperm. Also, in the early stages of pregnancy there is just a cluster of cells, nothing that even resembles a human. When you scratch your neck you are killing more cells than you would kill with some abortions.

Do you think people would learn their lesson if all you did was cure everything they did wrong? If you just funnel out a cure for everyone regardless of the circumstances, then society will eventually move towards the mentality of "It doesn't matter what we do, there's a cure for it".

By saying this, you are indirectly saying that you think smokers shouldn't be treated for lung cancer, drinkers shouldn't be treated, drug users shouldn't go into rehab, etc. If such a law were put into place, there would be even less responsibility than there is now since there would be either children getting abandoned after birth or illegal abortions not on the record books which kill the women. Also, people would learn their lesson because of either medical bills or the inconveinence of going to the hospital. You want a punishment which will scar them for life, not teach them a lesson.

If you have a problem with abortions, keep this in mind. Every time you decide to not have unprotective sex you are denying a possible baby a chance to live.

At 3/2/08 12:38 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Since Memorize is all for forced sterilization, why don't we get him fixed?

Forced?

Hm... considering actions have consequences, if people are incapable of raising children and opt out for abortion more than once, then why should be treated better than any other pet animal when it comes to children?

(Rest in PM form. No cluttering of thread!)

At 3/2/08 02:17 PM, Lindione wrote:

There are numerous charities, churches, and programs to help you. Not to mention family in most cases.

As I said:

Around 60% already have at least 1 other child.
50% are repeats.
Only 15% are by those who are underage.
Less than 1% is rape.

Not in my book, since if the government can do one thing that invades your personal life, a precedent is set and they can do other things, possibly something you don't want them doing.

Really?

You mean it's not better than playing the safe route? It's better 'in your book' to continue with an irresponsible practice which may/may not be the potential death of another?

Besides, abortion isn't a constitutional issue. It's a selfish issue. A greed issue.

Don't you realize that we've already fallen into a slippery slope as a result of its legalization? People honestly have come to believe (as evident by this thread) that teenagers still living in their parent's home, do not have to let their parents know about their activities.

If parents are notified for vandalism, drugs, grades and the like, then why is sex and abortion any different? After all, teenagers who go to receive abortions have already engaged in underage sexual activity. Why shouldn't the parent know?

They feed their teenager. They raised their teenager. They provide an education for their teenager. They house their teenager. As a result, the parent has every right to know and worry about their teenager's sexual misconduct.

To say what i'm suggesting would lead down a slippery slope is simpley foolish considering you're defending a policy which already had lead to such a slippery slope.

Also, why do you think abortions are so wrong? As far as I'm concerned its just an egg and a sperm joined and i doubt you have any qualms about killing eggs or sperm. Also, in the early stages of pregnancy there is just a cluster of cells, nothing that even resembles a human. When you scratch your neck you are killing more cells than you would kill with some abortions.

Such a pitiful argument.

You and I are both made up of nothing but cells. Is not an infant less developed than an adult? If so, then by your logic wouldn't said infant's life be worth less compared to that of an adult?

If so, why do people feel greater extreme sadness and grief over the death of infant?

Point is, a fetus is simpley a stage. No different from from an infant to a teenager to an adult to a senior. Everyone was a fetus whether you like it or not.

The problem is this mentality of "I'm better than you because... [fill in the blank]". By attempting to justify abortion by saying "it's just a bunch of cells" is nothing more than someone's trying to gain superiority.

At 3/2/08 03:25 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/2/08 12:38 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Since Memorize is all for forced sterilization, why don't we get him fixed?

Forced?

Hm... considering actions have consequences, if people are incapable of raising children and opt out for abortion more than once, then why should be treated better than any other pet animal when it comes to children?

(Rest in PM form. No cluttering of thread!)

At 3/2/08 02:17 PM, Lindione wrote:

There are numerous charities, churches, and programs to help you. Not to mention family in most cases.

As I said:

Around 60% already have at least 1 other child.
50% are repeats.
Only 15% are by those who are underage.
Less than 1% is rape.

If your idea goes into place that less than 1% will go up quite a bit as people will lie to avoid getting sterilizedand anyone who is not willing to lie will get it done by a quack with rusty equipment in the back of his pick up truck.

Not in my book, since if the government can do one thing that invades your personal life, a precedent is set and they can do other things, possibly something you don't want them doing.

Really?

You mean it's not better than playing the safe route? It's better 'in your book' to continue with an irresponsible practice which may/may not be the potential death of another?

You are saying that a fetus is a human life, it is a bunch of tissue which has the potential of becoming a human life. We have fufilled that potential. People having sex with birth control destroys that potential as much as an abortion. As I said before, people not having sex destroys that potential as well. So by your logic, we are comiting an abortion every time we don't have sex.

Besides, abortion isn't a constitutional issue. It's a selfish issue. A greed issue.

It is an issue on what the woman wants to do with her body, a fetus is basically a parasite in a woman's body, its not much different than a tapeworm, are you saying that people who get tapeworms twice should never be allowed to eat pork? It is traumatic enough for the woman to have an abortion, you don't need to ruin their chances of parenthood in the future on top of that.

Don't you realize that we've already fallen into a slippery slope as a result of its legalization? People honestly have come to believe (as evident by this thread) that teenagers still living in their parent's home, do not have to let their parents know about their activities.

Don't you realize that abortions legal or not legal people will still have sex? Teenagers will have sex whether we give them condoms or not. I agree with you in saying that the parents should know about their daughter having an abortion, its a medical procedure and they need to know about it.

If parents are notified for vandalism, drugs, grades and the like, then why is sex and abortion any different? After all, teenagers who go to receive abortions have already engaged in underage sexual activity. Why shouldn't the parent know?

They feed their teenager. They raised their teenager. They provide an education for their teenager. They house their teenager. As a result, the parent has every right to know and worry about their teenager's sexual misconduct.

To say what i'm suggesting would lead down a slippery slope is simpley foolish considering you're defending a policy which already had lead to such a slippery slope.

Also, why do you think abortions are so wrong? As far as I'm concerned its just an egg and a sperm joined and i doubt you have any qualms about killing eggs or sperm. Also, in the early stages of pregnancy there is just a cluster of cells, nothing that even resembles a human. When you scratch your neck you are killing more cells than you would kill with some abortions.

Such a pitiful argument.

You and I are both made up of nothing but cells. Is not an infant less developed than an adult? If so, then by your logic wouldn't said infant's life be worth less compared to that of an adult?

If so, why do people feel greater extreme sadness and grief over the death of infant?

They invested a lot of resources and hope into it, it has a nervous system, and they think its cute. However, I think that you will find that the death of a five year old will cause much more greif than the death of a newborn baby. You hear story after story about children dying, but not one about a baby dying in the womb.

Point is, a fetus is simpley a stage. No different from from an infant to a teenager to an adult to a senior. Everyone was a fetus whether you like it or not.

The problem is this mentality of "I'm better than you because... [fill in the blank]". By attempting to justify abortion by saying "it's just a bunch of cells" is nothing more than someone's trying to gain superiority.

Zygotes have no nervous system yet, they can't feel pain nor do they know what death is. An abortion is a procedure in which a fetus/cluster of cells is removed, its purpose is not to kill the child but to remove the child, the child just happens to be unable to survive the process. Would you subject the child to a life of having parents that don't care about it and the mother to 9 months of hell?

At 3/2/08 04:00 PM, Lindione wrote:

If your idea goes into place that less than 1% will go up quite a bit as people will lie to avoid getting sterilizedand anyone who is not willing to lie will get it done by a quack with rusty equipment in the back of his pick up truck.

And if they lie, then many of them will have to live with guilt.

And guilt can sometimes be a very good motivator.

You are saying that a fetus is a human life, it is a bunch of tissue which has the potential of becoming a human life. We have fufilled that potential.

Some more than others...

People having sex with birth control destroys that potential as much as an abortion. As I said before, people not having sex destroys that potential as well. So by your logic, we are comiting an abortion every time we don't have sex.

Except that the fetus does not arrive from people 'not having sex'.

It's not there to abort.

It is an issue on what the woman wants to do with her body, a fetus is basically a parasite in a woman's body, its not much different than a tapeworm, are you saying that people who get tapeworms twice should never be allowed to eat pork? It is traumatic enough for the woman to have an abortion, you don't need to ruin their chances of parenthood in the future on top of that.

If it were such a traumatic experience, then 50% of them wouldn't be repeats.

And c'mon, if "tapeworm" is the best you can do, then that's just sad. At least my argument has merrit considering it'll develop into an infant to an adult rather than simpley infinitely feed of the host.

A fetus is not a tapeworm. In the same way a human is not the same as an insect.

That's nothing more than the rationalization I was talking about earlier. "I'm better than you because..."

Don't you realize that abortions legal or not legal people will still have sex?

Naturally.

But you also want to teach responsibility.

They invested a lot of resources and hope into it, it has a nervous system, and they think its cute. However, I think that you will find that the death of a five year old will cause much more greif than the death of a newborn baby. You hear story after story about children dying, but not one about a baby dying in the womb.

And yet my point stands.

Zygotes have no nervous system yet, they can't feel pain nor do they know what death is.

Key word: Yet

infants also do not know what death is.

An abortion is a procedure in which a fetus/cluster of cells is removed, its purpose is not to kill the child but to remove the child, the child just happens to be unable to survive the process.

Wow... talk about a play on words.

You could be a politician or a lawyer.

Would you subject the child to a life of having parents that don't care about it and the mother to 9 months of hell?

"9 months of hell" is nothing more than an exaggerated, next to non-factual phrase uttered by those who have nothing left to argue with.

Memorize, you're not helping your argument any by being a dick. You don't need to include a snipe at every poster you respond to in every post. Even when you do make a good case for yourself, you drown it in instances of calling the other person stupid or their argument pathetic. It damages your credibility and makes you extremely unlikeable.

I'd love to see you try to go one whole thread without any name-calling or ridicule, just plain civilized debate. I bet you couldn't do it.

Nobody likes an asshole. Grow up and act like an adult, without the name-calling, and you might find that people respond to your arguments better.

At 3/2/08 04:14 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/2/08 04:00 PM, Lindione wrote:

If your idea goes into place that less than 1% will go up quite a bit as people will lie to avoid getting sterilizedand anyone who is not willing to lie will get it done by a quack with rusty equipment in the back of his pick up truck.

And if they lie, then many of them will have to live with guilt.

And guilt can sometimes be a very good motivator.

You would be surprized at what people live with, they would rather live with the guilt of lieing than live with the guilt of not giving their mother a grandchild.

You are saying that a fetus is a human life, it is a bunch of tissue which has the potential of becoming a human life. We have fufilled that potential.

Some more than others...

People having sex with birth control destroys that potential as much as an abortion. As I said before, people not having sex destroys that potential as well. So by your logic, we are comiting an abortion every time we don't have sex.

Except that the fetus does not arrive from people 'not having sex'.

It's not there to abort.

It isn't. it is there to advance the human race, but in most of these cases it would be a burden to the human race so thus in certain cases it is purposeless. If it were born, In a lot of cases it would not be loved, and those children will have problems and the rest of us will have to clean up that mess.

It is an issue on what the woman wants to do with her body, a fetus is basically a parasite in a woman's body, its not much different than a tapeworm, are you saying that people who get tapeworms twice should never be allowed to eat pork? It is traumatic enough for the woman to have an abortion, you don't need to ruin their chances of parenthood in the future on top of that.

If it were such a traumatic experience, then 50% of them wouldn't be repeats.

It would be more traumatic to have the baby and more troublesome to raise it and spend $200000.

And c'mon, if "tapeworm" is the best you can do, then that's just sad. At least my argument has merrit considering it'll develop into an infant to an adult rather than simpley infinitely feed of the host.

You're assuming all humans are good for the world, they are certainly not and are no better than parasites. For the benefit of humanity some things must happen including the sacrifice of the investment of a child for the betterment of the family. What if that child's brother died because only one of them could have food or most likely the case of that child is neglected. Unborn children and infants are investments and burdens. What is best for the child might not be best for the family. That fetus is part of the woman, it has no independant thoughts or feelings.

A fetus is not a tapeworm. In the same way a human is not the same as an insect.

That's nothing more than the rationalization I was talking about earlier. "I'm better than you because..."

We are all better than someone else, we are not all equal, since if everyone was equal we would get nowhere.

Don't you realize that abortions legal or not legal people will still have sex?

Naturally.

But you also want to teach responsibility.

Ya, and I want that to happen, but as long as there are drug addicts, drunks, criminals, etc. there better be abortions.

They invested a lot of resources and hope into it, it has a nervous system, and they think its cute. However, I think that you will find that the death of a five year old will cause much more greif than the death of a newborn baby. You hear story after story about children dying, but not one about a baby dying in the womb.

And yet my point stands.

Zygotes have no nervous system yet, they can't feel pain nor do they know what death is.

Key word: Yet

I don't see what your point is with that. Simply because something will devolop a nervous system means it has one now? It is luaghable to me really.

infants also do not know what death is.

Yes, but infants are not dependant on the mother and there are better options than killing it at that point.

An abortion is a procedure in which a fetus/cluster of cells is removed, its purpose is not to kill the child but to remove the child, the child just happens to be unable to survive the process.

Wow... talk about a play on words.

You could be a politician or a lawyer.

and your point with that is...

Would you subject the child to a life of having parents that don't care about it and the mother to 9 months of hell?

"9 months of hell" is nothing more than an exaggerated, next to non-factual phrase uttered by those who have nothing left to argue with.

Ask women who go through childbirth and I don't think they will say pragnancy is pleasant.

At 3/2/08 04:46 PM, Lindione wrote:

You would be surprized at what people live with, they would rather live with the guilt of lieing than live with the guilt of not giving their mother a grandchild.

You'd also be suprised at how far guilt can go.

It isn't. it is there to advance the human race, but in most of these cases it would be a burden to the human race so thus in certain cases it is purposeless. If it were born, In a lot of cases it would not be loved, and those children will have problems and the rest of us will have to clean up that mess.

Oh, if it's a burden to the human race, then why are you against my idea of sterilization?

Why do you think i'm giving them 1 free pass, but not on the second? It's to show them off as examples of what not to be to the rest of society.

I'd call that progress.

You're assuming all humans are good for the world, they are certainly not and are no better than parasites.

Then why are you arguing with me?

For the benefit of humanity some things must happen including the sacrifice of the investment of a child for the betterment of the family. What if that child's brother died because only one of them could have food or most likely the case of that child is neglected. Unborn children and infants are investments and burdens. What is best for the child might not be best for the family. That fetus is part of the woman, it has no independant thoughts or feelings.

I repeat: Why are you arguing with me?

We are all better than someone else, we are not all equal, since if everyone was equal we would get nowhere.

Excellent civil war era slave mentality.

Ya, and I want that to happen, but as long as there are drug addicts, drunks, criminals, etc. there better be abortions.

Or better yet, prevent unfit people from having kids.

Am I outlawing abortion? No.

I don't see what your point is with that. Simply because something will devolop a nervous system means it has one now? It is luaghable to me really.

What's laughable is that you compared a fetus to a parasite.

That's like me comparing a human to an insect simpley because they can walk/crawl to get to certain locations and have a natural instinct to survive.

Yes, but infants are not dependant on the mother and there are better options than killing it at that point.

When infants are first born, they most certainly are dependant.

and your point with that is...

You replaced "kill" with "remove" in an attempt to make it have a less impact upon the reader.

Ask women who go through childbirth and I don't think they will say pragnancy is pleasant.

You do realize we can put women to sleep during child birth.

At 3/2/08 06:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/2/08 04:46 PM, Lindione wrote:

You would be surprized at what people live with, they would rather live with the guilt of lieing than live with the guilt of not giving their mother a grandchild.

You'd also be suprised at how far guilt can go.

I don't think people who would get abortions in the first place think that its wrong, otherwise why are they having them, and if they don't think its wrong they won't feel guilt. Not only that, but people tend to justify their decisions/arguments, they probably think they are doing the right thing in some cases.

It isn't. it is there to advance the human race, but in most of these cases it would be a burden to the human race so thus in certain cases it is purposeless. If it were born, In a lot of cases it would not be loved, and those children will have problems and the rest of us will have to clean up that mess.

Oh, if it's a burden to the human race, then why are you against my idea of sterilization?

Since it should not be forced, if people volunteer to get sterilized i support their decision 100% but forcing anything on anyone is ussually not a good idea unless it is in extreme cases

Why do you think i'm giving them 1 free pass, but not on the second? It's to show them off as examples of what not to be to the rest of society.

I don't think people would advertise their sterilization

I'd call that progress.

You're assuming all humans are good for the world, they are certainly not and are no better than parasites.

Then why are you arguing with me?

Since I am against this sort of law.

For the benefit of humanity some things must happen including the sacrifice of the investment of a child for the betterment of the family. What if that child's brother died because only one of them could have food or most likely the case of that child is neglected. Unborn children and infants are investments and burdens. What is best for the child might not be best for the family. That fetus is part of the woman, it has no independant thoughts or feelings.

I repeat: Why are you arguing with me?

I repeat: Since I am against this sort of law.

We are all better than someone else, we are not all equal, since if everyone was equal we would get nowhere.

Excellent civil war era slave mentality.

What I'm saying is that there will alwas be lowlife and always be winners, regardless of race or sex. If we were all equal that would be socialism, and that ussually dosen't work as even then there is an imbalance of power. There must be some sort of ranking of power. Which should have more rights? A mother to a life without children, or a fetus to a live? America has picked option one. I commend you for not satisfying Godwin's law, though

Ya, and I want that to happen, but as long as there are drug addicts, drunks, criminals, etc. there better be abortions.

Or better yet, prevent unfit people from having kids.

Am I outlawing abortion? No.

You are strongly discouraging it though, you are going to make under the table abortions more common.

I don't see what your point is with that. Simply because something will devolop a nervous system means it has one now? It is luaghable to me really.

What's laughable is that you compared a fetus to a parasite.

That's like me comparing a human to an insect simpley because they can walk/crawl to get to certain locations and have a natural instinct to survive.

http://www.answers.com/parasite&r=67

Seems to fit that criteria to me.

Yes, but infants are not dependant on the mother and there are better options than killing it at that point.

When infants are first born, they most certainly are dependant.

I think you might be misunderstood, I meant dependant on the mother. After birth a father, grandparent, or foster parent could take care of the baby.

and your point with that is...

You replaced "kill" with "remove" in an attempt to make it have a less impact upon the reader.

Ask women who go through childbirth and I don't think they will say pragnancy is pleasant.

You do realize we can put women to sleep during child birth.

Ya, but I don't think we can make that last 9 months and theres no guarentee she'll give birth in a hospital with the latest in tranquilizers.

At 3/2/08 04:46 PM, Lindione wrote:

At 3/2/08 04:14 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/2/08 04:00 PM, Lindione wrote:

If your idea goes into place that less than 1% will go up quite a bit as people will lie to avoid getting sterilizedand anyone who is not willing to lie will get it done by a quack with rusty equipment in the back of his pick up truck.

And if they lie, then many of them will have to live with guilt.

And guilt can sometimes be a very good motivator.

You would be surprized at what people live with, they would rather live with the guilt of lieing than live with the guilt of not giving their mother a grandchild.

You are saying that a fetus is a human life, it is a bunch of tissue which has the potential of becoming a human life. We have fufilled that potential.

Some more than others...

People having sex with birth control destroys that potential as much as an abortion. As I said before, people not having sex destroys that potential as well. So by your logic, we are comiting an abortion every time we don't have sex.

No we are not. Because the egg and the sperm have not mixed, meaning there was never life in the first place. However, when it does mix, it creates human life, that is subsequentially destroyed by a foolish mothers decision.

Except that the fetus does not arrive from people 'not having sex'.

It's not there to abort.

It isn't. it is there to advance the human race, but in most of these cases it would be a burden to the human race so thus in certain cases it is purposeless. If it were born, In a lot of cases it would not be loved, and those children will have problems and the rest of us will have to clean up that mess.

It is an issue on what the woman wants to do with her body, a fetus is basically a parasite in a woman's body, its not much different than a tapeworm, are you saying that people who get tapeworms twice should never be allowed to eat pork? It is traumatic enough for the woman to have an abortion, you don't need to ruin their chances of parenthood in the future on top of that.

You are actually comparing human life to a tapeworm? A fetus is human life, it is an early stage and it should be treated as equally as an infant.

If it were such a traumatic experience, then 50% of them wouldn't be repeats.

It would be more traumatic to have the baby and more troublesome to raise it and spend $200000.

And c'mon, if "tapeworm" is the best you can do, then that's just sad. At least my argument has merrit considering it'll develop into an infant to an adult rather than simpley infinitely feed of the host.

You're assuming all humans are good for the world, they are certainly not and are no better than parasites. For the benefit of humanity some things must happen including the sacrifice of the investment of a child for the betterment of the family. What if that child's brother died because only one of them could have food or most likely the case of that child is neglected. Unborn children and infants are investments and burdens. What is best for the child might not be best for the family. That fetus is part of the woman, it has no independant thoughts or feelings.

You're assuming that we should deny a human beings right to exist just because he might have a bad life. At least, with his own life, he'll have a chance to make it better, however small, there's no denying its real. I simply cannot beleive you when u say that what's best for a child may not be best for the family. The child IS family. If you couldnt have supported another child, you shouldnt have made one in the first place, its just common since. All because you cant support it doesnt mean that u should deny its right to live.

A fetus is not a tapeworm. In the same way a human is not the same as an insect.

That's nothing more than the rationalization I was talking about earlier. "I'm better than you because..."

We are all better than someone else, we are not all equal, since if everyone was equal we would get nowhere.

You sound like a slave master. Everyone is equal, its just some shun people shun their equality by doing drugs and the like. But we are all born equal and can choose whether or not we want to be succesful.

Don't you realize that abortions legal or not legal people will still have sex?

duh

Naturally.

But you also want to teach responsibility.

Ya, and I want that to happen, but as long as there are drug addicts, drunks, criminals, etc. there better be abortions.

Drug addicts and drunks are taking their own lives, not the life of another human. A fetus is a human, its just an early form, like children. And criminals, well thats like saying "we can all smoke pot as long as there are murderers around". Criminals will never cease to exist, but abortion can.

They invested a lot of resources and hope into it, it has a nervous system, and they think its cute. However, I think that you will find that the death of a five year old will cause much more greif than the death of a newborn baby. You hear story after story about children dying, but not one about a baby dying in the womb.

And yet my point stands.

Zygotes have no nervous system yet, they can't feel pain nor do they know what death is.

Key word: Yet

I don't see what your point is with that. Simply because something will devolop a nervous system means it has one now? It is luaghable to me really.

A fetus doesnt have a nervous system, just as an infant does not have full use of its body. An infant doesnt gain full control and coordination until it is about 2 years of age. So if they kill a fetus because it doesnt have a nervous system, should they kill and infant because it has an under-developed cerebrum?

infants also do not know what death is.

Yes, but infants are not dependant on the mother and there are better options than killing it at that point.

An abortion is a procedure in which a fetus/cluster of cells is removed, its purpose is not to kill the child but to remove the child, the child just happens to be unable to survive the process.

Wow... talk about a play on words.

You could be a politician or a lawyer.

and your point with that is...

Would you subject the child to a life of having parents that don't care about it and the mother to 9 months of hell?

"9 months of hell" is nothing more than an exaggerated, next to non-factual phrase uttered by those who have nothing left to argue with.

Ask women who go through childbirth and I don't think they will say pragnancy is pleasant.

one word, morphine

At 3/2/08 11:16 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/2/08 08:45 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Pardon me, but considering the democrat-controlled congress has still yet to fullfill their promise on 'bringing troops home', I don't particularly see what's wrong with my suggestion.

It's just about as realistic as bringing the troops home.
Why do always mention democratics in your metaphors, why not something else?

Stupidity alert.

Okay now.

If the parents have 'the right' to know if their children are doing something illegal, then abortion falls into that category considering it was caused by underage sexual activity.

See, the thing is that your assuming that they do indeed have that right.

If this can be protected by privacy from the parents, then so should a slew of other issues.

Which is why we have a Supreme Court to interpret those other issues.

And I suppose in your world, people who threaten the President aren't arrested. And sex offenders aren't placed on registry.

See, the thing is with that, that they lost those rights to due process. You know, because there illegal.
Now since abortion hasn't been illegal since 1972 in the US, you can't be deprived of it.
Don't they teach you these things in school anymore?

You can't claim i'm destroying civil liberties when abortion used to be generally illegal before 1973.

And now it's 2008.

At 3/2/08 07:55 PM, arcansi wrote:

At 3/2/08 04:46 PM, Lindione wrote:

At 3/2/08 04:14 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/2/08 04:00 PM, Lindione wrote:

You are saying that a fetus is a human life, it is a bunch of tissue which has the potential of becoming a human life. We have fufilled that potential.

Some more than others...

People having sex with birth control destroys that potential as much as an abortion. As I said before, people not having sex destroys that potential as well. So by your logic, we are comiting an abortion every time we don't have sex.

No we are not. Because the egg and the sperm have not mixed, meaning there was never life in the first place. However, when it does mix, it creates human life, that is subsequentially destroyed by a foolish mothers decision.

Except that the fetus does not arrive from people 'not having sex'.

It's not there to abort.

It isn't. it is there to advance the human race, but in most of these cases it would be a burden to the human race so thus in certain cases it is purposeless. If it were born, In a lot of cases it would not be loved, and those children will have problems and the rest of us will have to clean up that mess.

It is an issue on what the woman wants to do with her body, a fetus is basically a parasite in a woman's body, its not much different than a tapeworm, are you saying that people who get tapeworms twice should never be allowed to eat pork? It is traumatic enough for the woman to have an abortion, you don't need to ruin their chances of parenthood in the future on top of that.

You are actually comparing human life to a tapeworm? A fetus is human life, it is an early stage and it should be treated as equally as an infant.

If it were such a traumatic experience, then 50% of them wouldn't be repeats.

It would be more traumatic to have the baby and more troublesome to raise it and spend $200000.

And c'mon, if "tapeworm" is the best you can do, then that's just sad. At least my argument has merrit considering it'll develop into an infant to an adult rather than simpley infinitely feed of the host.

You're assuming all humans are good for the world, they are certainly not and are no better than parasites. For the benefit of humanity some things must happen including the sacrifice of the investment of a child for the betterment of the family. What if that child's brother died because only one of them could have food or most likely the case of that child is neglected. Unborn children and infants are investments and burdens. What is best for the child might not be best for the family. That fetus is part of the woman, it has no independant thoughts or feelings.

You're assuming that we should deny a human beings right to exist just because he might have a bad life. At least, with his own life, he'll have a chance to make it better, however small, there's no denying its real. I simply cannot beleive you when u say that what's best for a child may not be best for the family. The child IS family. If you couldnt have supported another child, you shouldnt have made one in the first place, its just common since. All because you cant support it doesnt mean that u should deny its right to live.

That reason of you should not have made one in the first place is why abortions exist, since people make stupid decisions. I don't like abortions, but it is not my place to say that a woman's life in which many years of time and loads of resources were invested into is less important than a clump of tissue which can not live outside the mothers body. If there is any possible shot it can live outside the mothers body, it shouldn't be aborted, since well I think after a few months a woman would figure out that she is pregnant.

A fetus is not a tapeworm. In the same way a human is not the same as an insect.

That's nothing more than the rationalization I was talking about earlier. "I'm better than you because..."

We are all better than someone else, we are not all equal, since if everyone was equal we would get nowhere.

You sound like a slave master. Everyone is equal, its just some shun people shun their equality by doing drugs and the like. But we are all born equal and can choose whether or not we want to be succesful.

see above argument/explanation. Also, are you calling yourself equal to terrorists and the lowest of beings on this earth, if everyone is equal why do they always save the women and children first? By that they are saying that women and children are more important even though you all say we are all born equal. You can go ahead and tell a parent that got a pregnancy that the unborn baby is more important than her and her husband/boyfriend and any other children she may have, but I doubt she will listen. People who get an abortion won't do so lightly and ussually have a reason. not all people are equal in this country or world, its sad but true.

Don't you realize that abortions legal or not legal people will still have sex?

duh

Naturally.

But you also want to teach responsibility.

Ya, and I want that to happen, but as long as there are drug addicts, drunks, criminals, etc. there better be abortions.

Drug addicts and drunks are taking their own lives, not the life of another human. A fetus is a human, its just an early form, like children. And criminals, well thats like saying "we can all smoke pot as long as there are murderers around". Criminals will never cease to exist, but abortion can.

Actullaly they are making themselves a burden on other people and to the family, making it harder to raise children or the family unable to raise children, thus creating an abortion.

They invested a lot of resources and hope into it, it has a nervous system, and they think its cute. However, I think that you will find that the death of a five year old will cause much more greif than the death of a newborn baby. You hear story after story about children dying, but not one about a baby dying in the womb.

And yet my point stands.

Zygotes have no nervous system yet, they can't feel pain nor do they know what death is.

Key word: Yet

I don't see what your point is with that. Simply because something will devolop a nervous system means it has one now? It is luaghable to me really.

A fetus doesnt have a nervous system, just as an infant does not have full use of its body. An infant doesnt gain full control and coordination until it is about 2 years of age. So if they kill a fetus because it doesnt have a nervous system, should they kill and infant because it has an under-developed cerebrum?

No since a baby can feel emotion even though it is limited and probably have very limited thoughts. What makes us human is that we are conscious of the world around us, and have these feelings and thoughts. a bunch of tissue and a fetus feel no such things.

Would you subject the child to a life of having parents that don't care about it and the mother to 9 months of hell?

"9 months of hell" is nothing more than an exaggerated, next to non-factual phrase uttered by those who have nothing left to argue with.

Ask women who go through childbirth and I don't think they will say pragnancy is pleasant.

one word, morphine

see above argument, the pain and inconveinence of pregnancy is not just childbirth, it risks the mother's work (ruins in the case of models and some actresses) and impedes upon the ability of the mother to take care of the family at later stages. That and the hormones and throwing up.

At 3/2/08 08:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

It's just about as realistic as bringing the troops home.

Only unrealistic in a sense of getting enough votes.

Why do always mention democratics in your metaphors, why not something else?

Because they're easier to pick on.

See, the thing is that your assuming that they do indeed have that right.

And you're assuming that they don't.

I would assume the parents would want to know their child's activities to keep them safe.
I would assume the parents would have the right to know about things such as drug use or stealing.

To say that parents don't have the right to know about their own teenage child's abortion when they DO have the right to know about drugs, stealing, fights, grades ect., is simpley foolish.

Which is why we have a Supreme Court to interpret those other issues.

And yet it's so far been a state's decision on such privacy matters.

You can't pick and choose rulings just so it fits in your favor.

The Supreme Court could just as easily repeal Roe vs Wade.

See, the thing is with that, that they lost those rights to due process. You know, because there illegal.

And underage sex is not?

What about those other things such as knowing your child's educational status? It's not exactly illegal to fail now is it?

Now since abortion hasn't been illegal since 1972 in the US, you can't be deprived of it.
Don't they teach you these things in school anymore?

Apparently whatever schools you went too are indeed of need of a major overhaul of their educational system.

And now it's 2008.

All they did was legalize it. They have yet to decide on my suggestion.

At 3/2/08 09:22 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/2/08 08:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Only unrealistic in a sense of getting enough votes.

I meant it more to actually helping the conflict in Iraq.

Because they're easier to pick on.

True.

To say that parents don't have the right to know about their own teenage child's abortion when they DO have the right to know about drugs, stealing, fights, grades ect., is simpley foolish.

20 States have teenage abortion without parental consent as legal.
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/tee n-abortion.htm

And about this link, is that I agree with it on many aspects, including needing parental consent.

And yet it's so far been a state's decision on such privacy matters.

Unless it goes against the US Constitution in declaring that all citizens have a right to privacy.
And if you remember one of the outcomes of the US Civil War, is that a State Law can't supercede a federal one.

The Supreme Court could just as easily repeal Roe vs Wade.

Hopefully they do, but until that happens...

And underage sex is not?

Different states have different sex laws.
But, if you want to prosecute for underage sex, then these people would be placed into juvenile homes and yes, thier rights to privacy would be repealled.

Thats the whole idea of due process.

What about those other things such as knowing your child's educational status? It's not exactly illegal to fail now is it?

Different circumstances.
One: Education, since it has to comply with Federal Standards(if it's public school that is) has to follow the FERPA regulations on that till the child is 18.
Two: Since the legality of abortion was confirmed by the Supreme Court, states can set thier own restrictions on this act while still compling with Federal/Supreme Court regulations.

All they did was legalize it. They have yet to decide on my suggestion.

Or know about it, or consider it before laughing.

Oh yes, along with all my other arguments, your suggestion along with the idea that people with aids should be quarantined will tie up the legal system until its just one big ol' fantastic know of nothingness.