Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Wow this topic has gotten big before I even got into it. I have a question was it an abortion pill or a day after pill or the pill. If it was one of the two later then she did not kill an embryo since it takes more than a day or two for it form, sometimes it takes a day or so for the sperm to even find the egg, if the even find the egg at all. Now Im not saying that pro-choice is wrong nor am I saying pro-life is right, but personally believe that a woman and the father (with the exception of rape babies) should be able to make that choice up untill a certain point when the baby is fully functioning while in the womb (Im not a doctor so I dont know when that is). Thats my two cents.

At the moment of conception, life is born
when the sperm and ova form a zygote,
it instantaneously merges into a living creature
It's just like bacteria as a living one cell organism
Though it may not be a complex human being yet
it is no doubt living and under normal circumstances will grow up into one

So bluntly put, when she took the pill, a living creature was killed
then she died a while after
2 deaths

For my own personal opinion, I don't agree with what she did
No doubt the child was more innocent than her
but both are dead and all we can do is rage
which I find amusing since I'm a sadistic beast

It's funny. Everyone complains about high taxes, and some people bitch about abortions, some say outlaw birth control all together. Can you even begin to consider the economic reprecussions of all the children who would be born?

Lets see, here, I'll use this as a template:
http://www.ilheadstart.org/generalinfo.html

Now, we'll consider the cost for one year, of all the newborns, so, we have $ 7,182 per child.

"More than 10.6 million U.S. women take birth-control pills" Okay, so, that's just birth-control pills. If we say birth control, shot, sponge, condoms, etc, we can EASILY estimate it's 23 million. That's probably alot lower than reality.

Now, we'll eliminate 8 million women, because if birth control wasn't available, obviously some people would try to not have sex.

So, we're left with 15 million women having unprotected sex. We'll say 80% of those get pregnant, and now we have 12 million women out of the workforce, we've got 12 million children, at a cost of $86,184,000,000 dollars the first year. That's 86 BILLION dollars.

Okay, so that's year one. Year two, that doubles, year three, that triples, because people are still having babies, but the babies that are born aren't going anywhere. These aren't planned pregnancies. These women don't have the money to support these children. This is money coming from social assistance. From taxpayers.

Now, we're in year 5 or 6. The economy somehow has coped, let's say (in reality, it wouldn't.) Guess what? Now it's time to send the younguns to school! Well, the classrooms are already overflowing, so they definately can't handle this massive wave of kids. That means more taxes.

And in the end, we have a massive, very low income family, the children of whom can't afford to go to university, and are themselves on social assistance, to follow the same trend.

There are 262 million people in America. We'll say 1/2 of them pay taxes. That's an extra 657 dollars and change a year, per taxpayer, to support those children the first year. Double the next, double the next.

Now, maybe you don't pay taxes. Maybe you live in your parents basement, claiming the moral highground that's unacheivable in the real world. It's all fine and dandy to say "I'm not going to have pre-marital sex" when no woman (or man) on the planet would come within 10 feet of you, given a choice. But for those of us with lives, and friends, sex is going to happen. Humans are still just animals, designed to breed.

Finally, one more note. You talk about people injecting poisons into their body deserving to die. What about the cancer victims who have to undergo radiation therapy. They're bombarding themselves with toxic rays.

Maybe they should just die, eh? Well, that'd balance out the population.

It's just like bacteria as a living one cell organism

How often do you wonder about how many bacteria you kill?

Though it may not be a complex human being yet
it is no doubt living and under normal circumstances will grow up into one

There is doubt, there is always doubt. Anyhow, the organism has the potential to become a sentient being (a being capable of "higher" thought), but isn't one. Why should it be given the same rights as a sentient being? Non-sentient deaths are not an issue.

why am i not suprised that he's the same guy that made the 'jews influence in disney thread'?

you, my 'friend', are a callous bastard who needs to take a good long look at life and shut the fuck up. honestly, i mean LOOK at what you posted dammit. i mean, 'the murdering whore'?

1) just because she has an abortion does not make her a whore. saying that just makes you look even dumber than you do now
2) murdering? let me give you a lesson in science buddy. an unborn fetus has the characteristics metabolism of an organ. do you consider donating organs to be murder?

please, do the world a favor, and shut up

one more thing: are you an extremely neo-conservative christian?

At 9/29/03 10:14 PM, gerbilfromhellll wrote: one more thing: are you an extremely neo-conservative christian?

You and the others are constantly stalking me around in all my threads bring up irrelevent subjects and asking if I'm a Christian. Once again, I'm not religious.

Ever consider ignoring those who go off topic and responding to points that those who do stay on topic make?

At 9/29/03 03:10 PM, Slizor wrote: There is doubt, there is always doubt. Anyhow, the organism has the potential to become a sentient being (a being capable of "higher" thought), but isn't one. Why should it be given the same rights as a sentient being? Non-sentient deaths are not an issue.

So what if I ran around all across the world and punched all pregnant woman and then they had miscarriages? They wouldn't charge me with assualt, they would charge me with murder.

And I know for a fact that you would want to punish me. So why is it different when the woman does it?

Shouldn't the father have part in the choice, but as it is now the father could be against it and the woman could still do it. A man can't kill his wife's unborn child, but the woman can even against the will of the father.

That woman was a whore ebcause she spread her legs and had a baby and then killed it when she could have used a contraceptive and prevented the creation of an embryo.

what if she did use contraception, but it didn't work (this happens you know. i know people who've taken all the precautions they could and gotten pregnant anyways)

so, you support contraceptives but don't support abortion? abortion is basically a late-stage contraceptive. i mean, the baby's not going to get born anyways, so what does it matter WHEN you decide to make you sure that it's not going to get born? it's not like it feels anything until near the time the third term of pregnancy and those abortions have been banned already.

At 9/30/03 06:05 AM, gerbilfromhellll wrote: so, you support contraceptives but don't support abortion? abortion is basically a late-stage contraceptive. i mean, the baby's not going to get born anyways, so what does it matter WHEN you decide to make you sure that it's not going to get born? it's not like it feels anything until near the time the third term of pregnancy and those abortions have been banned already.

Oh yeah, I'm sure she was used a condom and was on the pill and it still happened. Whatever. She was a cheap whore then because she still had sex knowing the possible consequences.

Don't want babies? Then don't have sex if you would kill the baby.

So what if I ran around all across the world and punched all pregnant woman and then they had miscarriages? They wouldn't charge me with assualt, they would charge me with murder.

The law does not define morality. See, what most people try to do in issues like this is get a moral grounding for their opinion.

And I know for a fact that you would want to punish me.

Actually no, I would send you to prison for rehailitation. Attacking women is wrong.

Shouldn't the father have part in the choice, but as it is now the father could be against it and the woman could still do it. A man can't kill his wife's unborn child, but the woman can even against the will of the father.

This is not an argument against abortion and is thus irrelevent.

That woman was a whore ebcause she spread her legs and had a baby and then killed it when she could have used a contraceptive and prevented the creation of an embryo.

So are women who "spread their legs" and use contraceptives not whores?

At 9/30/03 08:47 AM, Slizor wrote: So are women who "spread their legs" and use contraceptives not whores?

So there's nothing wrong with going around like a dog in heat fucking everything that moves? Only later to kill the result of those actions.

What would you think of a woman hundreds of years ago throwing herself down the stairs to kill a baby? Now they have pills so murder is alright.

i realy hope you dont think youre winning this argument. you blindly call all actions murder, which shows you are close-minded and since you have no ability to see the other side, it shows you have no real knowledge on the subject. why dont you address what Slye had to say? i think youre afraid to

After hearing what some people have said, I wished their mother had taken an abortion pill. Now the only arguement made here that i agree with is the part when he said that the father has no choice, and I think that is very true, and tragically unfair. Fathers have rights too.

At 9/29/03 01:16 PM, Dehitay wrote: At the moment of conception, life is born
when the sperm and ova form a zygote,
it instantaneously merges into a living creature

What I have to say here though is if life begins there, why does the stste reconize my birthday as March 29th and not June 29. The fact is i wasnt legally alive until I was born. So Unless you want to revise the laws so that the conception date is regarded as someones birthday, It seems to me that abortons will remain legal.

"So there's nothing wrong with going around like a dog in heat fucking everything that moves? Only later to kill the result of those actions."

Alright, lets stick to that standard.

Monitors produce radiation, which can cause tumors and cancer in some cases. If you get a cancer, are you going to want to kill it, because you KNOW theres a risk. So, you can just live with the cancer. Oh sure, it could kill you, but hey, it's your own fault.

For that matter, breathing carries the risk of inhaling a virus or bacteria like a cold. A virus is a living organism, so is bacteria. Are you going to take antibiotics to kill this virus? You breathed, knowing the risk.

So, stop breathing, and get the hell off the computer.

Virgins in high school have been known to get pregnant their first time. Are they running around fucking everything that moves? Nope, they've had perfect self restraint their entire lives. They found someone they think they love, and consumate, and have bad luck. Even using every contraceptive possible at the same time, there's still a chance. If you're going to advocate living your life not doing something, because there's a chance something bad could happen, you're advocating a pretty pitiful existance. You're also being a hypocrite, since you're doing something risky by reading this message.

I go back to my previous statement. It's all fine and dandy to say everyone who has sex is a whore, when you've never had sex, and probably never will.

At 9/30/03 05:25 PM, Slye wrote:

Monitors produce radiation, which can cause tumors and cancer in some cases.

Tumors are cancer.

Also, as an aside, the worst amound of radiation from the monitor is behind it... just so you know.

~Dr. Shrapnel

i would refer the grand vaulted Guilded_Warrior, who seems to have appointed himself judge and jury over all living persons, to my recent essay on abortion. I elieve that says everything for me.

At 9/30/03 12:47 AM, Guilded_Warrior wrote:

At 9/29/03 10:14 PM, gerbilfromhellll wrote: one more thing: are you an extremely neo-conservative christian?

Once again, I'm not religious.

Bullshit. Pure, unadulturated, staming bullshit.

Whatever happened to "May God have mercy on all you heathen bastards" What happened to "Where did you learn that from? The Bible."

You are an ignoratnt twit, but what makes it worse is you don't know it...

::sighs sadly::

At 9/28/03 10:37 PM, Guilded_Warrior wrote: I am against killing women, but this bitch put poison in her body to kill a child. How can I feel sorry for her when she felt nothing for her own baby.

At what stage in pregnancy do you consider the developing mass of cells a child? When it is a fetus? An embryo? I am just curious. At some point you have to look and say, hey, it's not even a child yet.

i look at abortion like i do euthanasia...

something is connected to something else that is keeping it alive...

so whats the big deal if you pull the plug???

(thats right, i actually rationalize abortion this way... well that and the fact that i dont think that me, a GUY, has the right to tell a women what she can and can not do, is what it all comes down to)

look, when in the womb, the baby is NOT alive. when in the womb, it has the metabolism of an organ. and an organ, by the scientific definition of living, is most definitelly NOT alive.

oh, and BEFORE some dumbass comes on and says that metabolism is only how fast you digest something, the definition of 'metabolism' is 'the sum of all the chemical reactions (or maybe it's another word) in an organism' in case you haven't realised it yet, that applies to every single life process in an organism. so, for anyone who was GOING to say that, you're wrong! HA HA! : P

So are women who "spread their legs" and use contraceptives not whores?

So there's nothing wrong with going around like a dog in heat fucking everything that moves? Only later to kill the result of those actions.

I am under the distinct impression this guy can not read. I ask a question and he thinks it's a statement. I mean, how dumb can you get?

At 9/30/03 01:18 AM, Guilded_Warrior wrote: So what if I ran around all across the world and punched all pregnant woman and then they had miscarriages? They wouldn't charge me with assualt, they would charge me with murder.

And I know for a fact that you would want to punish me. So why is it different when the woman does it?

holy shit.....holy shit.....that is the dumbest arguement i've ever seen. How again is running around beating up pregnant women not a crime? Hey you can legally punch yourself, it say aim for the temple...its our best chance. I can understand saying abortion is murder....but that is assault are you trying to discredit yourself?

At 10/1/03 08:55 AM, Slizor wrote: I mean, how dumb can you get?

Well, considering he's racked up at least 2 weeks of ban-time in the past month...

2 weeks? holy jeebus! then again, can't say he didn't deserve it.

but back on topic: y'know what's scary? if bush gets re-elected, that means he gets to make scalia chief justice of the supreme court (have you read that guy's opinions? he's SCARY! seriously, his opinion in the texas sodomy case actually said that this would lead to 'bestiality', and basically that we're all going to hell) as well as appoint two other justices once rhenquist and someone else (can't remember who) retire (they're expected to within the next 4 years). that would make enough of a majority in the supreme court to reverse Roe v. Wade if a similar case came up.....

At 9/30/03 05:25 PM, Slye wrote: For that matter, breathing carries the risk of inhaling a virus or bacteria like a cold. A virus is a living organism, so is bacteria. Are you going to take antibiotics to kill this virus? You breathed, knowing the risk.

You have to breathe to live, you don't have to have sex to stay alive.

At 10/11/03 05:25 AM, MacBeth- wrote: You have to breathe to live, you don't have to have sex to stay alive.

True, but if nobody had sex, we'd all be screwed in 100 years or so down the line when there were no children to carry on the species.

Have you not sonsidered that sex has two uses?

~ Pleasure
~ Making Babies

I will tell you for free that a lot more people have sex for pleasure than fore purely repopulation purposes.