Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/5/08 03:03 PM, Drakim wrote:

That means, If I loose both my legs and arms, I don't have some human right to demand that you work to get me food.

If I am your child I do, and actually in the nation that we live in the government would be required to give you food.

If I due to some sickness become unable to produce blood, I don't have some human right that lets me demand you donate blood to me regulary. You might bring in the "babies can't sustain themselves either without the care of the mother either, does that mean that the mother can just leave the baby to die?", but that misses that the mother is required by law to sustain the baby in order to keep the baby, and nothing else.

That's not true. If you just leave your baby on the street and "don't keep it" you'd still be charged for negligence. If adoption isn't available (as is the case with the fetus), the parent has to care for it.

If she is unable to sustain the baby, or doesn't want to, she isn't punished, but the baby is taken away from her.

Not true. Parents can be charged with negligence.

This is a very big diffrence. Although the mother is punished if she does take the responsibility of having a baby and then fails it (say, forgets to feed the baby thus killing it), then she is to be punished, but that is because she entered something akin to a contract. She may keep the baby as long as she sustains it.

By creating a person you are entering the contract to raise it as a child. If we accept that the fetus is a person, then the mother is obligated to protect it. Your claim that the contract begins with birth is completely arbitrary.

Even if we give full human rights to a fetus, it is still just that, human rights, nothing extra past that. There is no human right that let's the fetus demand that a woman sustain it. If we play by such rules, then parents should be required by law to donate any organ, blood or otherwise something in order to save a sick child, even if that hurt the parent (don't try to argue that pregnacies aren't taxing on the mother).

They are taxing on the mother, but so is raising the child - period. Of course if the mother's life is at risk from supporting the child, then that's a whole different story.

So, in short. Having the right of a full human being does not give the fetus the right to demand the mothers body. There is no such right. It's very possible for the mother to get pregnant without intending to, so you can't just lay the blame on her either.

Right, and a toddler has no right to demand the parents get food or water for it. Brilliant.

However, this doesn't neccessary mean that you should be able to have abortion until the day before the birth. One could very well have a system where keeping the baby for X weeks is sort of like a contract.

You enter into a contract by creating a child. Although to my knowledge a child isn't really created until the 2nd/3rd trimester.

At 7/5/08 03:32 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 7/5/08 03:03 PM, Drakim wrote:

That means, If I loose both my legs and arms, I don't have some human right to demand that you work to get me food.

If I am your child I do, and actually in the nation that we live in the government would be required to give you food.

No, it's if you are the child's legal guardians. If you are a sperm donor, you aren't in trouble if your child dies across the world.

If I due to some sickness become unable to produce blood, I don't have some human right that lets me demand you donate blood to me regulary. You might bring in the "babies can't sustain themselves either without the care of the mother either, does that mean that the mother can just leave the baby to die?", but that misses that the mother is required by law to sustain the baby in order to keep the baby, and nothing else.

That's not true. If you just leave your baby on the street and "don't keep it" you'd still be charged for negligence. If adoption isn't available (as is the case with the fetus), the parent has to care for it.

I adressed this point slightly down. Can't you read though the post to avoid this? Or edit when you see I adressed your point later in the post? If you do become the legal guardian of the child, it's indeed child neglet if you don't feed the child.

If she is unable to sustain the baby, or doesn't want to, she isn't punished, but the baby is taken away from her.

Not true. Parents can be charged with negligence.

yes, but that is because they didn't give up the baby in the "proper way", as for example adopting. If you are the legal guardian of a child, you have a "contract" that you will take care of it.

This is a very big diffrence. Although the mother is punished if she does take the responsibility of having a baby and then fails it (say, forgets to feed the baby thus killing it), then she is to be punished, but that is because she entered something akin to a contract. She may keep the baby as long as she sustains it.

By creating a person you are entering the contract to raise it as a child. If we accept that the fetus is a person, then the mother is obligated to protect it. Your claim that the contract begins with birth is completely arbitrary.

So, if a mother is raped and then captured and prevented from aborting until late in the pregnancy, is she still responsible for the child, even if she had absolutely zero control? I agree that if you enter this "contract" then you must indeed forfil it, but, nobody can argue that this contract goes into effect until at least a few weeks into the pregnancy, and that the mother isn't kept from having an abortion somehow.

My argument is that unless the mother agrees, the fetus has no power to demand the womans body. But keeping the fetus for X weeks, the mother agrees, (unless something keeps her from aborting).

Even if we give full human rights to a fetus, it is still just that, human rights, nothing extra past that. There is no human right that let's the fetus demand that a woman sustain it. If we play by such rules, then parents should be required by law to donate any organ, blood or otherwise something in order to save a sick child, even if that hurt the parent (don't try to argue that pregnacies aren't taxing on the mother).

They are taxing on the mother, but so is raising the child - period. Of course if the mother's life is at risk from supporting the child, then that's a whole different story.

There is no such thing as a pregnancy without risk. Even in the best place in the world, with the best doctors and best hospitals, it's very very risky. Although the risk of the mother outright dying is small, the risk for damage, even permament damage, is very large.

So, in short. Having the right of a full human being does not give the fetus the right to demand the mothers body. There is no such right. It's very possible for the mother to get pregnant without intending to, so you can't just lay the blame on her either.

Right, and a toddler has no right to demand the parents get food or water for it. Brilliant.

I adressed this in my post. What are you, a goldfish?

However, this doesn't neccessary mean that you should be able to have abortion until the day before the birth. One could very well have a system where keeping the baby for X weeks is sort of like a contract.

You enter into a contract by creating a child. Although to my knowledge a child isn't really created until the 2nd/3rd trimester.

Again, I label you a choicer, although a conservative one. As you said, the pro-life movement leaders doesn't want stricter abortions, they want abortions compeltely gone. Pro-lifers don't go around saying "late term abortions are murder". They mosty argue that ANY abortion is muder, and that life begins at contraption.

Holy hell.

That was a good read. You've done a brilliant job of proposing fantastic arguments for both sides. I imagine that you were a master on your high school debate team.

Well, I honestly support the sensible approach that you mentioned at the beginning of the post, because I'm no rebel, I'm no radical, and I'm definitely not an extremist. While I think abortion should be legal, I acknowledge the fact that, at some point, the little fellows are going to have to feel some pain.

At 7/5/08 03:03 PM, Drakim wrote: If we are to give full human right, including the right to live, to a fetus, that still leaves a big gap in the logic. You see, there is no human right that says you have a right to live off others.

That means, If I loose both my legs and arms, I don't have some human right to demand that you work to get me food.

Actually, you kind of have. At least if you believe UDoHR is relevant.
Article 25 clearly states:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.'

I do agree with the rest of the text though.

To believers against abortion: If God REALLY wants to bring a child into the world he COULD prevent the abortion (almighty?). And if He has created us, He has also created our future: If He also created the world, He prevented us from having free will. That's because the world and it's people determine the things we do. Without free will, anything goes EXACTLY how God wants, so when you (a believer) complain about abortions, you attack against God's will.
And by the way, I was a Christian when I was a child, so I know quite well the main points. Now I'm happily an Atheist.

At 7/6/08 07:13 AM, kalmikii wrote: To believers against abortion: If God REALLY wants to bring a child into the world he COULD prevent the abortion (almighty?). And if He has created us, He has also created our future: If He also created the world, He prevented us from having free will. That's because the world and it's people determine the things we do. Without free will, anything goes EXACTLY how God wants, so when you (a believer) complain about abortions, you attack against God's will.

A few problems.

1) You're assuming that all Christians believe in pre-destination.
2) You're assuming that God created all of the future.
3) How are you attacking God's will by complaining about abortions if that event was already written by God for you to attack and complain about abortions?

If anything, #3 is doing exactly what God's will entails if you do believe he writes the future and all of its events before they happen.

And finally...

#4: You assume that all of those who are against abortion do so for religious reasons.

And by the way, I was a Christian when I was a child, so I know quite well the main points. Now I'm happily an Atheist.

Really? How fascinating. Keep me posted when you take a shit.

At 7/2/08 01:46 PM, KeithHybrid wrote:

No its not. Women shouldn't have sex if they aren't prepared for the consequences.

But what if a woman was raped? She obviously had no say in wether or not she wanted sex and, by extent, wether or not she wanted a child. Unless you're gonna go as far to say that all women want sex, than there is no reason why the victim shouldn't be allowed the option to terminate.

Plus the pill would be just as bad as an abortion because you are still denying a child the right to life.

Oh, yes, because an unfertilized egg is just the same as a fully-grown person. And while we're at it, why not outlaw masturbation? All that sperm going to waste would be equivalent to mass murder.

Hell, why not charge every murder as a mass murder? All the unused eggs/sperm going to waste should be considered genocide!

I understand what your saying, but if you don't masterbate, they your concience should be guilt free. And the gorvernment can't stop anyone from masterbating, and I understand that. But in my church it is considered a mortal sin, which means I would go straight to hell if I did it and didn't confess it to the priest. Which is why I didn't say anything about it in the first place - because i don't do it.

p.s. Please don't bash my religion about the statement above.

At 7/6/08 11:33 AM, PrepareForWar wrote: I understand what your saying, but if you don't masterbate, they your concience should be guilt free. And the gorvernment can't stop anyone from masterbating, and I understand that. But in my church it is considered a mortal sin, which means I would go straight to hell if I did it and didn't confess it to the priest. Which is why I didn't say anything about it in the first place - because i don't do it.

Actually, your sperm dies even if you don't masterbate. They aren't produced to live long. Your body expects to get rid of it and produce more sperm, not save up the old. Thus, even if you don't masturbate, the results are the same.

p.s. Please don't bash my religion about the statement above.

Sorry there sonny, but when a religion tells you that you are going to hell for having a perfectly normal sexual life, then you can't expect that they will get away with it uncritizised. How would that be diffrent from a religion suppressing women and demanding that they don't be bashed for it?...oh wait...

What pro-life activists do not understand is that there is no universal right and wrong. Right and wrong are obviously subjective, although people often share the same perception on what is right and wrong; that's what makes what we call laws and morals. Society should only enforce laws which will protect society in general; if a parent kills their 8-year old son, then they should be put in jail because they are a danger to society - the parents knew that it was very wrong, but they still did it; they are immoral and dangerous. Now if a mother gets an abortion, it does NOT mean that she is a threat to society, because, in this case, the mother doesn't believe that it's wrong. It's not really a crime if the person who committed it didn't believe it was wrong; that's why we can use insanity as a legal defense.

At 7/6/08 10:34 PM, Alphabit wrote: What pro-life activists do not understand is that there is no universal right and wrong. Right and wrong are obviously subjective, although people often share the same perception on what is right and wrong; that's what makes what we call laws and morals.

Then what's stopping someone from arguing that those who kill an individual making their lives less than tolerable, aren't a threat?

People can and have killed for conveniance. And what other reason do 90% of these women who opt for abortion have for eliminating the fetus (that they put there on their own will) other than the fact that it provides an "inconveniance" to them?

This game can go both ways. Truth of the matter is. People are selfish and only use this bullshit "no universal" crap to better suit their own desirable needs.

Why do women argue that an abortion is their sole right? Because they demand the privilege of being capable of covering up their mistakes without accountability. Therefore they use "it's my body" as an excuse to justify their actions and deminish the voice of the potential father.

Then after the fetus develops and is born to be a child, suddenly things are different. Now, the child is not the sole property of the woman, it is now a 50-50 split between the man and woman. Why? The answer to that is, of course, Child Support Payments.

At 7/6/08 10:45 PM, Memorize wrote: Then after the fetus develops and is born to be a child, suddenly things are different. Now, the child is not the sole property of the woman, it is now a 50-50 split between the man and woman. Why? The answer to that is, of course, Child Support Payments.

Wow, I honestly sat here for a second and wondered if I should even bother responding to your post. Child support payments? Have you considered how physically taxing it is for a woman to bear a child? No matter how you look at it legally, the burden will always be unevenly placed on the woman.

At 7/6/08 12:59 PM, Drakim wrote: How would that be diffrent from a religion suppressing women and demanding that they don't be bashed for it?...oh wait...

Funny, sounds a lot like Islam to me. Of course, it's not PC to bash Islam in the media, but Christianity is somehow 'fair game' to them.

At 7/6/08 11:39 PM, Coherent wrote:

Wow, I honestly sat here for a second and wondered if I should even bother responding to your post. Child support payments? Have you considered how physically taxing it is for a woman to bear a child? No matter how you look at it legally, the burden will always be unevenly placed on the woman.

Naturally. Even though it is her fault just as much as it is the person's she slept with.

But even still, she does have sole ownership of the fetus, doesn't she? No input from the potential father.

As said in another thread, although she holds the responsibility of baring the child, she also has the capability to decide the financial future of the male.

Now who has the uneven burden?

At 7/6/08 11:48 PM, Memorize wrote: Naturally. Even though it is her fault just as much as it is the person's she slept with.

I'm not sure I care for the tone there. Accidents happen, sometimes it's nobodies "fault".

But even still, she does have sole ownership of the fetus, doesn't she? No input from the potential father.

Yes, because she's the one undergoing dramatic physical changes.

As said in another thread, although she holds the responsibility of baring the child, she also has the capability to decide the financial future of the male.

Now who has the uneven burden?

The mother, obviously.

At 7/7/08 12:01 AM, Coherent wrote:

I'm not sure I care for the tone there. Accidents happen, sometimes it's nobodies "fault".

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Sexual Activity leads naturally to what? Children.

Whose fault is it if they are unprepared to handle a child and 'go for it' despite the risks?

It's not like anyone bails people out for making bad investment decisions?

Yes, because she's the one undergoing dramatic physical changes.

And whose fault is that?

The mother, obviously.

Despite all of those great benefits!

At 7/7/08 12:28 AM, Memorize wrote: And whose fault is that?

Sex isn't a crime. The mother's life shouldn't be completely ruined because of an accident.

Despite all of those great benefits!

What benefits? 9 months of hell?

At 7/7/08 01:35 PM, Coherent wrote:

Sex isn't a crime. The mother's life shouldn't be completely ruined because of an accident.

Completely ruined?

Wow, talk about extremes.

Billions of women have given birth through the centuries. And yes, you heard it here, ALL of their lives have been completely ruined. 80 years of their lives have been completely ruined over a 9 month pregnancy of extra weight brought about by their own actions!

lolz

What benefits? 9 months of hell?

Please. Pregnancy is perfectly natural. Today, we can make the birth of a baby absolutely painless. So all she has to do is walk around with a bit of extra weight, put on by her own actions. I guess being 300 pounds is "hell". Why not: Let's call it torture!

At 7/7/08 01:40 PM, Memorize wrote: Completely ruined?

Yes, completely ruined. For one if the woman has a career she'll have to take months off of it, which means she could potentially lose her job or at the very least, get behind in her career. Furthermore she now has the burden of carrying a child she never wanted to have, possibly being shamed by her family and society in general.

What benefits? 9 months of hell?

Please. Pregnancy is perfectly natural.

Yes, it's natural, but that doesn't mean it's healthy for her. Having a child is definitely not good for your health, and sometimes it can even kill the mother.

Today, we can make the birth of a baby absolutely painless.

Hahaha, who told you that?

So all she has to do is walk around with a bit of extra weight, put on by her own actions. I guess being 300 pounds is "hell".

It's certainly not something that the man has to deal with at all.

At 7/7/08 03:24 PM, Coherent wrote:

Yes, completely ruined. For one if the woman has a career she'll have to take months off of it, which means she could potentially lose her job or at the very least, get behind in her career. Furthermore she now has the burden of carrying a child she never wanted to have, possibly being shamed by her family and society in general.

Once again: Whose fault would that be?

Besides...

Maternity leave.
Family members.
Charities.
Daycare Centers.
Churches.

And other such groups which would gladly help the mother in need.

Oh. Can't forget child support payments!

Yes, it's natural, but that doesn't mean it's healthy for her. Having a child is definitely not good for your health, and sometimes it can even kill the mother.

lol, no one is even arguing against abortion in such dire situations as death.

Hahaha, who told you that?

They're called doctors.

My mother was able to deliver 3 perfectly healthy children. Two of which arrived with her not feeling a thing thanks to all of our medical advances.

It's certainly not something that the man has to deal with at all.

Except that pocket book.

At 7/7/08 03:39 PM, Memorize wrote: Once again: Whose fault would that be?

Ok, what if the woman was raped? What then smart guy? Then it's not the womans "fault" at all. Are you going to force her to undergo 9 months of harsh physical changes for a child she never wanted to have?

Maternity leave.

Works sometimes, but it's also possible that she gets fired for "other reasons" before she gets to take maternity leave.

Family members.

She might get disowned by them depending on the circumstances.

Charities.

Haha charities, not something you can really depend on.

Daycare Centers.

Which cost money.

Churches.

So she can find Jesus as she's being forced to bear a child?

And other such groups which would gladly help the mother in need.

You're assuming to much. Society tends to shun the mothers of unwanted children.

lol, no one is even arguing against abortion in such dire situations as death.

But you are trying to argue that since pregnancy is "perfectly natural" it can't possibly harm the woman.

My mother was able to deliver 3 perfectly healthy children. Two of which arrived with her not feeling a thing thanks to all of our medical advances.

It's not always available and it's not always feasible. Sometimes a painless birth requires the use of parenteral narcotics, which could potentially be harmful to the child. Besides all that you can't require that the 9 months of bearing the child is painless. It's much more than just "carrying around a little extra weight".

Except that pocket book.

Oh dear! Not that! The man has to pay money? That's just terrible. Cry some more Memorize.

At 7/6/08 10:34 PM, Alphabit wrote: What pro-life activists do not understand is that there is no universal right and wrong. Right and wrong are obviously subjective, although people often share the same perception on what is right and wrong; that's what makes what we call laws and morals. Society should only enforce laws which will protect society in general; if a parent kills their 8-year old son, then they should be put in jail because they are a danger to society - the parents knew that it was very wrong, but they still did it; they are immoral and dangerous. Now if a mother gets an abortion, it does NOT mean that she is a threat to society, because, in this case, the mother doesn't believe that it's wrong. It's not really a crime if the person who committed it didn't believe it was wrong; that's why we can use insanity as a legal defense.

Oh, I get it. So if the Mom doesn't think there's anything wrong with killing her 9 year old kid, then she's not a threat to society because she doesn't think it's wrong. After all it's her personal belief and her right to choose.

At 7/8/08 12:07 AM, Al6200 wrote: Oh, I get it. So if the Mom doesn't think there's anything wrong with killing her 9 year old kid, then she's not a threat to society because she doesn't think it's wrong. After all it's her personal belief and her right to choose.

Well yeah, pretty much.
In a legal context, such a mother would probably be considered clinically insane because a normal adult would know that killing their child is wrong. Insanity is a legitimate defense for murder in most civilized countries and the main criterion to plead not guilty on grounds of insanity is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person doesn't know "the difference between right and wrong" (more specifically at the time of the crime). Now if a mother doesn't know that killing their child is wrong, then they obviously do not know the difference between right and wrong (in society's terms) and the law will forgive them of their crime.

At 7/9/08 06:56 AM, Alphabit wrote:

... the law will forgive them of their crime.

And stick them in a mental institution of course (for their own good though).

At 7/7/08 03:59 PM, Coherent wrote:

Ok, what if the woman was raped? What then smart guy? Then it's not the womans "fault" at all. Are you going to force her to undergo 9 months of harsh physical changes for a child she never wanted to have?

lol, you must have some sort of reading deficiency.

Works sometimes, but it's also possible that she gets fired for "other reasons" before she gets to take maternity leave.

"Possible", but unlikely with our laws. Very unlikely. So long as she gives notice.

She might get disowned by them depending on the circumstances.

"might", also highly unlikely.

Haha charities, not something you can really depend on.

Dude, there are plenty of charities. And all it takes is a simple google search to find the right ones.

Which cost money.

While she's working.

It's not like she's NOT going to work.

So she can find Jesus as she's being forced to bear a child?

What's more important?

Honestly, you're so pitiful. An excuse for literally everything. Even though the combined result of all of those leaves virtually no chance that she'd be without support.

You would lose horribly in a court case, lolz.

You're assuming to much. Society tends to shun the mothers of unwanted children.

Jeez, man.

There is SO much VAST amounts of help, and all you did was play on the assumption that every fucking one wouldn't.

But you are trying to argue that since pregnancy is "perfectly natural" it can't possibly harm the woman.

I didn't say it couldn't "possibly harm the woman". I said pregnancy is perfectly natural.

Take an English class.

Only around 7% of abortions are the result of her life being threatend. And as I said, i'm not arguing against those. I'm arguing against the ones who do so because a fetus or child would be "inconveniant". Well dumbass, shouldn't have risked it then.

It's not always available and it's not always feasible. Sometimes a painless birth requires the use of parenteral narcotics, which could potentially be harmful to the child.

And yet...

Besides all that you can't require that the 9 months of bearing the child is painless. It's much more than just "carrying around a little extra weight".

And... it's all perfectly natural and is the direct result of her "fooling around".

Oh dear! Not that! The man has to pay money? That's just terrible. Cry some more Memorize.

No. He is just as responsible for that fetus/future child as the mother is. The difference? Everything is in her favor.

He has no say in abortion matters.
He has no control over his own pocket book.
AND the child would still end up in her custody no matter how well off the child would be with him.

She gets to decide to abort on her own, despite engaging in sexual activity and putting the fetus there on her accord.

She gets to decide who keeps the money, despite engaging in sexual activity and putting the fetus there on her accord.

And please, don't respond and give me this "it's emotional to a woman who has an abortion and you don't know what they have to go through" bullshit. If it were that "bad" or "emotional" then nearly half of all abortions every year wouldn't be repeats. Which only furthers people's "keep it in your pants" argument.

At 7/9/08 12:08 PM, Memorize wrote: lol, you must have some sort of reading deficiency.

I'm starting to wonder why I even bother replying to you Memorize. It's obvious that you're an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about on 99.9% of the issues. It's like your so ingrained in your beliefs that you can't even take a step and question what you're arguing.

"Possible", but unlikely with our laws. Very unlikely.

You'd like it to be unlikely because that would support your argument, wouldn't it? And even if it was very unlikely, she's still going to get behind in her feild. She's still going to suffer a loss because of the child.

"might", also highly unlikely.

Not really, I've got a feeling that you personally would be one of the people making a single mother's life miserable. "Oooh, look at her. She's got a baby and she's not even married, that's not in my bible! It's obviously a sin!"

Dude, there are plenty of charities. And all it takes is a simple google search to find the right ones.

Dude, charities depend on people being generous and donating money. Since most people tend to not think about anyone other than themselves, they tend to be underfunded. Thus they have to be extremely selective of who they help. Charities aren't dependable, period.

While she's working.

It's not like she's NOT going to work.

Daycares get expensive, and besides you were trying to sneak them in as if they would voluntarily help the mother.

What's more important?

Lots of things. I've got to say, finding Jesus is pretty low on my list.

Honestly, you're so pitiful. An excuse for literally everything. Even though the combined result of all of those leaves virtually no chance that she'd be without support.

And yet, somehow there are millions of single moms living in poverty in the US. If you were right and there was "virtually no chance" that a mother would be left without support, why is it that there are over 3 million single mothers living in poverty today? Please explain this to me.

You would lose horribly in a court case, lolz.

You'd have your license to practice law revoked for your constant Ad Hominem.

I didn't say it couldn't "possibly harm the woman". I said pregnancy is perfectly natural.

Take an English class.

You're trying to argue that since it's natural it's confortable. Sorry buddy, but pregnancy is hell. The nine months that a woman is pregnant is one giant whirlpool of headaches, vomiting, exhaustion, abdominal cramps, constipation, loss of hair, congested sinus', hormonal mood changes, and of course rapid weight gain. That's not even including the incredibly painful delivery.

Only around 7% of abortions are the result of her life being threatend. And as I said, i'm not arguing against those. I'm arguing against the ones who do so because a fetus or child would be "inconveniant". Well dumbass, shouldn't have risked it then.

Inconvenient is a massive understatement.

And... it's all perfectly natural and is the direct result of her "fooling around".

There you go again. Just because something is perfectly natural doesn't mean it's healthy.

No. He is just as responsible for that fetus/future child as the mother is. The difference? Everything is in her favor.

Except for having to BEAR the child.

He has no say in abortion matters.

He doesn't have to bear the child.

He has no control over his own pocket book.

Neither does the woman if she decides to have it.

AND the child would still end up in her custody no matter how well off the child would be with him.

A completely seperate issue, but I do agree with you on this. The man definitely gets the shaft in the courtroom.

And please, don't respond and give me this "it's emotional to a woman who has an abortion and you don't know what they have to go through" bullshit. If it were that "bad" or "emotional" then nearly half of all abortions every year wouldn't be repeats. Which only furthers people's "keep it in your pants" argument.

The "take responsibility" argument is bullshit because getting an abortion is taking responsibility.

At 7/9/08 06:58 PM, Coherent wrote:

I'm starting to wonder why I even bother replying to you Memorize. It's obvious that you're an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about on 99.9% of the issues. It's like your so ingrained in your beliefs that you can't even take a step and question what you're arguing.

Belief?

We're not going to talk about religion, are we? Please please don't bring up religion!

You'd like it to be unlikely because that would support your argument, wouldn't it? And even if it was very unlikely, she's still going to get behind in her feild. She's still going to suffer a loss because of the child.

...Because it is unlikely...

We have laws in place to force Maternity Leave provided the woman does what is needed which is to give a notice before a period a time.

Not really, I've got a feeling that you personally would be one of the people making a single mother's life miserable. "Oooh, look at her. She's got a baby and she's not even married, that's not in my bible! It's obviously a sin!"

Haha.

In my area, we have Churches that have supported single women who have been living inside their vehicle for a long period of time.

Giving food and shelter to those people.

You obviously don't know Churches or Religious communities very well.

Dude, charities depend on people being generous and donating money. Since most people tend to not think about anyone other than themselves, they tend to be underfunded. Thus they have to be extremely selective of who they help. Charities aren't dependable, period.

And guess who gives more to charity?

That's right. The religious people.

Of course, you'll probly come up with another bullshit excuse like "Because it comes from religious people, they obviously aren't going to accept helping a single mom".

You do, of course, realize that the Bible demands to help the needy and poor, and to visit the Widow and comfort her, right?

Daycares get expensive, and besides you were trying to sneak them in as if they would voluntarily help the mother.

I was giving a list of organizations that will help her.

There are so many, it's pretty funny how you'd pull excuses right out of your ass for each and every one of them, banking on the idea that every single fucking one wouldn't help at the same time.

Lots of things. I've got to say, finding Jesus is pretty low on my list.

The first people to bring religion into a topic are almost always the non-religious.

Oh, the irony.

And yet, somehow there are millions of single moms living in poverty in the US.

Once again: Whose fault is that?

If you were right and there was "virtually no chance" that a mother would be left without support, why is it that there are over 3 million single mothers living in poverty today? Please explain this to me.

3 million out of... 150 million?

Wow, that's a pretty good number.

Thanks.

Also, just because they live in poverty doesn't mean that they don't receive support, smart one.

You'd have your license to practice law revoked for your constant Ad Hominem.

lolz

You're trying to argue that since it's natural it's confortable. Sorry buddy, but pregnancy is hell.

Lol, I didn't say it was comfortable. Merely that it was natural.

Damn son, learn to read.

The nine months that a woman is pregnant is one giant whirlpool of headaches, vomiting, exhaustion, abdominal cramps, constipation, loss of hair, congested sinus', hormonal mood changes, and of course rapid weight gain.

I'm suprised you didn't include death on there considering you were going for the absolute worst situation.

I mean, especially considering that my grandfather is one of 16 children and his mother only experienced:

-Weight gain
-Hormonal Mood

Ever think that exhaustion might be contributed to the weight gain?

Lol!

That's not even including the incredibly painful delivery.

Oh please. You were one saying that there was no such thing as a painless delivery. I proved you wrong, lol. Then you went about pulling excuses from your ass again.

Inconvenient is a massive understatement.

Really? Tell me why half of all abortions every year are repeats?

Oh, i'm so sorry if procreation is 'inconveniant' to your sexual lifestyle.

There you go again. Just because something is perfectly natural doesn't mean it's healthy.

It certainly isn't an illness.

But with your line of thinking, I could say that simply living is an illness. I mean after all, once we're born, we're just slowly dying, right?

Except for having to BEAR the child.

My fault?

He doesn't have to bear the child.

My fault?

Neither does the woman if she decides to have it.

By having the abortion, she has effectively decided not to take away from the man's pocket book.

D'uh.

The "take responsibility" argument is bullshit because getting an abortion is taking responsibility.

Please. It's nothing more than an easy out, done by completely irresponsible people who barely deserve anything they have in their lives.

As far as i'm concerned. Abortion does 1 great thing. I prevents idiot people from raising idiot children. The only thing that would make it infinitely times better is to sterilize the women who receive an abortion for reasons other than rape or death.

Want to get an abortion? Well obviously you made a huge mistake by being an idiot by not being ready to support a child, so why should you have one?

As far as i'm concerned, everyone gets what they want. The women get sexual pleasure without any of the "horrible" side effects of a child. And they don't have receive any more abortions. It would also help get rid of the load on the adoption agencies.

I love it. It's a perfect plan.

At 7/9/08 07:23 PM, Memorize wrote: Belief?

We're not going to talk about religion, are we? Please please don't bring up religion!

Beliefs don't necessarily have to be about religion. You're a big boy, I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

...Because it is unlikely...

We have laws in place to force Maternity Leave provided the woman does what is needed which is to give a notice before a period a time.

Laws can be worked around. Wake up.

Haha.

In my area, we have Churches that have supported single women who have been living inside their vehicle for a long period of time.

Question Memorize, if they're so "supported" why were they living in a vehicle? Shot yourself in the foot there, didn't you?

And guess who gives more to charity?

That's right. The religious people.

Hahaha wtf? Thanks for that irrelevant tidbit. It doesn't change the fact that charities are underfunded. Nice job trying to dodge the point though.

You do, of course, realize that the Bible demands to help the needy and poor, and to visit the Widow and comfort her, right?

The Bible also says thou shalt not kill, and you Christians seem to be fucking that one up consistently.

I was giving a list of organizations that will help her.

Daycares will help her for a price. That's hardly what I would call "supporting" her.

The first people to bring religion into a topic are almost always the non-religious.

I'm sorry, who mentioned churches?

Once again: Whose fault is that?

Societies. For one, the fact that she's single means her husband left her. Then of course theres the fact that women are payed less than men, and employed less than men. etc etc. You can't blame it all on the woman.

3 million out of... 150 million?

Wow, that's a pretty good number.

Yeah, 3 million, that's nothing. I mean, hell, lets just blow that shit off. By the way, there are actually 300 million US citizens, just so you know.

Also, just because they live in poverty doesn't mean that they don't receive support, smart one.

Memorize, the fact there are 3 million single mothers in poverty blows your argument completely out of the water. Because if they were being "supported" by charities, families, or Jesus (lol), then they wouldn't be raising children in a slum. They wouldn't be sleeping in vehicles. They wouldn't be living in shit.

lolz

I guess "lolz" is your way of saying "I have no response for what you just said. you got me"

Lol, I didn't say it was comfortable. Merely that it was natural.

Damn son, learn to read.

You were responding to my quote which read: "What benefits? 9 months of hell?"

That means, either you were:
A. Implying that it's not hell, since pregnancy is completely natural
B. Making a totally irrelevant statement

Either way, you're an idiot.

I'm suprised you didn't include death on there considering you were going for the absolute worst situation.

Nope, those are all frequent and expected side effects of pregnancy.

I mean, especially considering that my grandfather is one of 16 children and his mother only experienced:

-Weight gain
-Hormonal Mood

I seriously doubt you talked to your grandfather's mom about her pregnancy.

Oh please. You were one saying that there was no such thing as a painless delivery. I proved you wrong, lol. Then you went about pulling excuses from your ass again.

Most people don't opt for painless delivery since they don't want to have retard babies. You know, like you.

Really? Tell me why half of all abortions every year are repeats?

I was actually referring to pregnancy.

It certainly isn't an illness.

It can be as bad as one. In fact, it's worse for your health then a lot of illnesses.

By having the abortion, she has effectively decided not to take away from the man's pocket book.

and not take away from her pocket book. It's not like the man is the only one paying for the child. In fact, if the family get seperated the mother usually ends up spending much more than the man does on supporting the child.

Please. It's nothing more than an easy out, done by completely irresponsible people who barely deserve anything they have in their lives.

Oh, here we go.

As far as i'm concerned, everyone gets what they want. The women get sexual pleasure without any of the "horrible" side effects of a child. And they don't have receive any more abortions. It would also help get rid of the load on the adoption agencies.

You're sick. Get help.

for those of you who are only against abortion because it's against god, and that's why it should be banned, isn't that kind or controlling a womans body for the sake of god, aren't you kind of denying a woman freedom of religon?

Contraception is always the best option, and I think people who use it as a form of that insted of just using a condom are truely horrible,
but if a woman is raped, why the hell would you force her to have that rapist's baby?
THAT is what's truely disgusting.

At 7/9/08 08:19 PM, Coherent wrote:

Beliefs don't necessarily have to be about religion. You're a big boy, I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

I was simply asking.

Laws can be worked around. Wake up.

That's why I said "unlikely".

Read.

Haha.

In my area, we have Churches that have supported single women who have been living inside their vehicle for a long period of time.

Question Memorize, if they're so "supported" why were they living in a vehicle? Shot yourself in the foot there, didn't you?

Omg.

They found out she was living in a vehicle, you doofus. That's why I said "gave her shelter".

Kind of missing a few brain cells there, aren't you?

Hahaha wtf? Thanks for that irrelevant tidbit. It doesn't change the fact that charities are underfunded. Nice job trying to dodge the point though.

Just because some may be under-funded doesn't mean they don't or won't help. Or else, why would they be a Charity?

Anyway, it was to dispell your little notion that somehow supporting a single mother was "wrong" according to the Religious.

The Bible also says thou shalt not kill, and you Christians seem to be fucking that one up consistently.

I'm sorry, what?

And you say that I had to say was irrelevant, damn man.

Daycares will help her for a price. That's hardly what I would call "supporting" her.

Certainly better than leaving the child at home, by itself.

I'm sorry, who mentioned churches?

I was giving a list of organizations, like I said.

It doesn't mean I was going to turn it into a religious debate. You did that by implying it was against religious doctine to help a single woman.

Societies. For one, the fact that she's single means her husband left her. Then of course theres the fact that women are payed less than men, and employed less than men. etc etc. You can't blame it all on the woman.

Um... no.

Women are only payed less when you compare the total dollar to dollar ratio while not factoring in the types of jobs that women and men typically go for.

You don't honestly believe that being a part-time teacher pays as well as a Doctor, do you?

Yeah, 3 million, that's nothing. I mean, hell, lets just blow that shit off. By the way, there are actually 300 million US citizens, just so you know.

I'm just saying that you're the type of person who wouldn't even be happy if we got that number down to even 1,000.

Btw, I was counting women in the US. And since the ratio of women to men is almost identical (about 101 men to 100 women), so I said "150 million".

Doofus.

Memorize, the fact there are 3 million single mothers in poverty blows your argument completely out of the water. Because if they were being "supported" by charities, families, or Jesus (lol), then they wouldn't be raising children in a slum. They wouldn't be sleeping in vehicles. They wouldn't be living in shit.

Well, considering that with help of those churches she went from sleeping in a Vehicle to sleeping in a room with a comfortable bed, I'd say you pretty much "shot yourself in the foot".

I guess "lolz" is your way of saying "I have no response for what you just said. you got me"

No. I'm just laughing at your ignorance.

You were responding to my quote which read: "What benefits? 9 months of hell?"

That means, either you were:
A. Implying that it's not hell, since pregnancy is completely natural
B. Making a totally irrelevant statement

First. It's all a matter of opinion of whether or not is constitutes as "hell". Secondly, it was partly her fault for being in that "hell" you speak of.

Unless of course the man ran out, then it would be his fault. But if all she did was a one-night stand, taking the chance of not getting pregnant, it's primarily her's.

Either way, you're an idiot.

ooo, Good comeback.

Nope, those are all frequent and expected side effects of pregnancy.

All at the same time?

No.

I seriously doubt you talked to your grandfather's mom about her pregnancy.

I have.

My father's side typically lives up into their late 80's and 90's.

Even from smoking since they were 'youngin's'

Oh please. You were one saying that there was no such thing as a painless delivery. I proved you wrong, lol. Then you went about pulling excuses f