Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

First off I am NOT trying to force my idea on others I'm just explaining it.
Their seem to be a few situations where abortion seems to be exceptable but only one is in my opinion.
1=if your dumb enough to not use a condom why should the chid be the one to pay for your lack of thought to the consequences? and there is always adoption meaning no child dies and an infertile couple get the child they wan't so in that case abortion should be illegal.
2=On the other hand if the woman was raped its not her fault is it?Well I still believe it is not the child's fault either that this happened and the woman could adopt it off if she did not want it so since there is an alternative it should be illegal.
3=Now this is a rare case.If the baby would be born dead(not if it would be born handicapped that still counts as killing it in my oppinion) in the mother's hands then and only then should an abortion be alloweds it has no chance and would only cause the mother pain and could possibly kill her.

Some may claim a woman has the right to a choice but why did she not decide to not have unprotected sex in the first place?
Also saying that a foetus is not alive means I could hit a woman so hard she has a miscarriage and only be charged with assault, no?But since I'd be charged with murder doesn't that the foetus IS alive?
I hope what I've just finished typing has had some impact on your opinion related to this cause the second it's fertilised it's on the way to being humanbeing and stopping it is just as bad as killing the baby itself

At 10/8/08 05:14 PM, Silenthobo1234 wrote:

1=if your dumb

Sorry man I have to stop you there and just acknowledge teh irnoy right there. Carry on.

1=if your dumb enough to not use a condom why should the chid be the one to pay for your lack of thought to the consequences?

1. man, I mean, I guess it's a good thing condoms work 100% of the time. Phew.
2. If they're just SOOOOOO stupid, why do we actually *want8 them to give birth.

and there is always adoption meaning no child dies and an infertile couple get the child they wan't so in that case abortion should be illegal.

These options should be encouraged, yes, but we should still give people the CHOICE.

2=On the other hand if the woman was raped its not her fault is it?Well I still believe it is not the child's fault either that this happened and the woman could adopt it off if she did not want it so since there is an alternative it should be illegal.

Oh yeah that's totally a good idea. A woman goes through an incomprehendably traumatizing experience and what do wwe do? Make her suffer through nine months of knowing she has a monster's baby growing inside of her, constantly remindin her of what happened.

How considerate of you.

3=Now this is a rare case.If the baby would be born dead(not if it would be born handicapped that still counts as killing it in my oppinion)

If it's early enogh into birth then it should be legal. I mean killing off a few cellss that aren't even capable of feeling pain is hundreds times btter than a lifetime of supporting a person who can't even go to the toilet by themseleves or feeding themselves, thus really just draining from society.

Some may claim a woman has the right to a choice but why did she not decide to not have unprotected sex in the first place?

Birth control is ALWAYS effective. Right. Got it.

Also saying that a foetus is not alive means I could hit a woman so hard she has a miscarriage and only be charged with assault, no?But since I'd be charged with murder doesn't that the foetus IS alive?

Abortion should only be allowed in the first trimester. Anything after that should be considered murder.

And I'd maybe go so far as to call it manslaughter if you hit her with a baby in the first triemster, because it's her option whther to have the baby or not, not yours.

I hope what I've just finished typing has had some impact on your opinion related to this cause the second it's fertilised it's on the way to being humanbeing and stopping it is just as bad as killing the baby itself

So by that logic we can assume you're against the mornign after pill?

Anyway, if it's in the first trimester, can't think, and can't feel pain, what's so bad about aborting it then, really?

You can disgree with it all you want, but women should still have the choice.

At 10/6/08 02:13 AM, marchohare wrote:

At 10/6/08 02:05 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No nervous system = no pain.

That's true of course, but when I've pointed it out to religious fundamentalists, they've countered with, "How do YOU know it doesn't feel any pain?"

There is no argument against magical thinking.

Well of course it isn't "magical", but it WILL soon be a baby.

I personally feel VERY strongly about this subject.
I think it should ALWAYS be the woman's choice, its her body, her life, so there for its her choice! I mean what if the woman was raped by her father, do you really think it would be best for the child if the mother couldn't even look at her child without cringing. No, the child would want to die because the only parent it has doesn't love it, can't love it. Not only that, but there are sooo many health risk with having a child, especially if it was inbred. So if a mother can't physically have the child don't you think she should have the choice to abort it to save her own life?!? On another personal note, I don't think men should have any right to tell a woman what she should do with her body. I don't think men should have any choice in the matter, I mean if the father wants the baby then certainly he should speak up, but in the end its the woman's decision. And hey, I know if one day my husband wants a child and science is advanced enough, I'd want him to carry it. I don't want a child, so if I get pregnant I will either have an abortion or Stephen will have to carry it. I don't see why I have to go through that much pain for a child who will only f*** up my future.

At 10/9/08 05:49 PM, T-N-T wrote:

There is no argument against magical thinking.

Well of course it isn't "magical", but it WILL soon be a baby.

okay you COMPLETELY missed the point of his post there buddy.

Under an outright abortion ban, the uterus of the woman becomes, in effect, property of the State, the woman herself being rendered insignificant, a mere housing for the State's property. A woman under this ban does not and should not expect the same protections from unreasonable intrusion by government into her private life, nor the freedom of self-determination afforded a man under the law. She is a baby factory; the primary role in her life determined not by her own will but by government fiat. Indeed, under an outright abortion ban she is required by law to be a child-bearer first and foremost; to deny this role is to invite punishment.

This is no fine, subtle point. We're talking about the destruction of the idea that men and women are completely equal in the eyes of the law. We're talking about encoding into law (once again!) that women are inherently inferior to men, that they are not allowed to make choices regarding their own body and future, and that they must quietly, submissively and gratefully bring to term the child of any man to have intercourse with her, whether she authorized that intercourse or not.

The so-called moral arguments against abortion are, ultimately, morally bankrupt. To enforce them in the name of protecting potential life requires committing an equally abhorrent act; denying a certain type of citizen freedom of will and self-determination, rendering them effectively subhuman or, at best, cheapening their own humanity in the face of the potential humanity of what may or may not, in 9 months time, become another human life.

I'm no fan of abortion; in fact I find it morally repugnant. I also don't believe that abortion should be restriction-free; 8 months in is a wee late to decide you don't want to be a mother anymore. However, my own beliefs in this matter are trumped by my conviction that gender has no bearing on an individual's rights at law. Because women just happen to have the baby-growing apparatus inside them is not grounds for treating them any differently than any other citizen, nor restricting or removing their own self-determination in the role they will play in society.

At 10/10/08 06:38 AM, Ben-Fox wrote: Under an outright abortion ban, the uterus of the woman becomes, in effect, property of the State

Thank you.

At 10/10/08 07:05 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/10/08 06:38 AM, Ben-Fox wrote: Under an outright abortion ban, the uterus of the woman becomes, in effect, property of the State

Thank you.

No thats basically saying. With the outright outlawing of Child murder, the Child becomes property of the state.

Humans are not owned by other humans, and a zygote is a stage in human life; its the FIRST step. You shouldn't be able to kill a human at whatever stage they are at. To state that they have no consciousness just justifies killing infants and toddlers, because they don't have the brain capacity to actually care until its done.

it should definately be the right of a woman to use her vagina right and besides if the few cells of underdeveloped protoplasm would be handicapped or retarded why have it go through that pain it would not be helping the common good , it then simply becomes a heartache on the parents and even its self , why live like that ? why not solve the problem before the misery becomes real

At 10/10/08 09:54 AM, Frattochino wrote: No thats basically saying. With the outright outlawing of Child murder, the Child becomes property of the state.

How about this: We totally ban abortions, but we allow women to use, long, sharp, pointy dildos at any stage during pregnency if they want to.

You must not hold the potential for life more sacred than life that is already present. Pregnancy does not automatically equal baby carried to term. A fetus is a potential human and that is all.

Are you truly prepared, in the name of a potential human, to denigrate the humanity of a living, present human being? To tell her that you have already determined for her what her primary role is to be, and that her feelings on the matter are irrelevant? That she can accept that she is a baby factory, a fleshy housing for The Uterus (the only part of her that matters), or she can be completely abstinent? That, in the face of the potential for life within her--hell, the very potential of The Uterus itself, her humanity is annihilated? Are you truly prepared to, yes, its true, assert ownership over her, negate her free will and, like property, order the way in which her body is used to your liking?

Because that is what an outright abortion ban is saying. That's what you're saying to every single woman when you support bans like that. You're telling your mother, who chose out of love for you to bring you into this world, that her love is meaningless, like the rest of her that isn't The Uterus. She should have been forced to have you, making her choice irrelevant. You're here because The Uterus functioned As Intended, not because your mother wanted you here.

I find abortion repugnant, but it pales in comparison to the disgust I feel at the prospect of inflicting such degradation on a living human being in the name of one who might be.

At 9/4/08 03:42 AM, SynicalSatire wrote: A major dispute between the two presidential candidates is abortion. I personaly believe that abortion is murder, and that it should not be inlawed except for a few obvious resons.
1. rape or incest

2.danger to mother or childs life.

I agree, just wanted to say McCain is pro-choice. Sorry to let you down.

At 9/4/08 07:03 PM, Pre-K-Prostitute wrote: Kids are fucking. They always have fucked, and they always will. More than often without contraception, which leads to gestation situations around the globe. I like to compare unborn babies to cockroaches. They feel pain when they're squished, but most likely can't comprehend anything beyond the fact that they're in pain. I feel no moral qualms about abortion. They put erasers on pencils for a reason.

Really? You're comparing a living thing to a pencil mark? You're saying a living person is like a cockroach? Whether or not you can comprehend anything other than you're in pain you're still in pain. You have got to read your own stuff before sending it out to make the rest of us dumber.

At 10/2/08 03:51 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: Of course your counter-arguement to this is "Oh dear, we can't kill humans!". Stop bullshitting yourself. We go to war, we kill people, we execute people, we murder innocents all this happens (well except war) on a daily basis.

MURDER is still illegal, regardless of going to war or not.

and i know fetuses can't chose, i'm just saying if they HAD a choice, you know damn well what it would be.

I lean somewhat towards the pro-choice position. Partly

At 10/10/08 06:38 AM, Ben-Fox wrote: Under an outright abortion ban, the uterus of the woman becomes, in effect, property of the State, the woman herself being rendered insignificant, a mere housing for the State's property.

So, when the baby is born, and the parents are still forced to care for the baby or put it up for adoption - are they still "property of the state".

I find it so ironic that liberals will wax poetic about how we should take a utilitarian, non-rights, based stance to issues like gun control/economics/etc, but when an issue involves them, they become hardcore libertarians.

A woman under this ban does not and should not expect the same protections from unreasonable intrusion by government into her private life, nor the freedom of self-determination afforded a man under the law.

Well, on ethics I don't agree with you. But in practice I agree that a total ban on abortion would require unreasonable intrusion.

She is a baby factory; the primary role in her life determined not by her own will but by government fiat. Indeed, under an outright abortion ban she is required by law to be a child-bearer first and foremost; to deny this role is to invite punishment.

Then we're all slaves, because we all are required to pay taxes.

This is no fine, subtle point. We're talking about the destruction of the idea that men and women are completely equal in the eyes of the law.

Because men are women are actually biologically different, we're going to have to treat them differently under the law. There's no way around that.

That said, because there are penalties for a man killing a fetus, the law as it exists today is quite unfair.

We're talking about encoding into law (once again!) that women are inherently inferior to men, that they are not allowed to make choices regarding their own body and future, and that they must quietly, submissively and gratefully bring to term the child of any man to have intercourse with her, whether she authorized that intercourse or not.

Right, but that's just a fact of biology. If the fetus is indeed a person, then nature puts us in between a rock and a hard place.

The so-called moral arguments against abortion are, ultimately, morally bankrupt. To enforce them in the name of protecting potential life requires committing an equally abhorrent act; denying a certain type of citizen freedom of will and self-determination, rendering them effectively subhuman or, at best, cheapening their own humanity in the face of the potential humanity of what may or may not, in 9 months time, become another human life.

That's a black and white fallacy. Most abortions don't occur at the beginning of pregnancy. I believe 9 weeks is the median.

I'm no fan of abortion; in fact I find it morally repugnant. I also don't believe that abortion should be restriction-free; 8 months in is a wee late to decide you don't want to be a mother anymore. However, my own beliefs in this matter are trumped by my conviction that gender has no bearing on an individual's rights at law. Because women just happen to have the baby-growing apparatus inside them is not grounds for treating them any differently than any other citizen, nor restricting or removing their own self-determination in the role they will play in society.

I agree with you quite a bit there. I think the cutoff point should be placed somewhere between 3-6 months.

Why is everyone debating this issue anyway? It's been how long since Roe v. Wade? And have you pro-lifers gotten it overturned yet?

Although if we're going to be overturning Supreme Court cases my vote goes to F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation.

I was almost aborted...

I was incorrectly diagnosed with spina bifida whilst still in the womb, and from what I've been told (by my parents) the doctor's advice was that I should be terminated.

The only reason that I'm alive today is because my mother was scared shitless of the abortion-tools and didn't want them anywhere near her.

And yet, I still believe that abortion should remain legal, albeit with slightly tighter controls.

Get laid whenever you want but use protection! It is widely available, so there is no excuse. If people choose not to use protection, therefore making a stupid decision, they deserve to suffer the consequences and therefore learn from there mistakes.

But fuck the baby, right? Who cares if the mother can't take care of it? That mother needs to be taught a lesson! Or you could always give it up for adoption, along with the other thousand kids that don't have a home (or parents).

Get laid whenever you want but use protection! It is widely available, so there is no excuse. If people choose not to use protection, therefore making a stupid decision, they deserve to suffer the consequences and therefore learn from there mistakes.

Yup! Because contraception is 100% effective with no chance of failure.

Is there some sort of way to solve this problem with castration and potatoes?

At 10/23/08 04:56 AM, Ynek wrote: Yup! Because contraception is 100% effective with no chance of failure.

Well its better then not using them and abstinance doesnt work.

It would seem that a large number of the anti-abortion people don't know what they are talking about and I would guess statements like- "the woman didnt get raped but had sex because she wanted to be pleased and got pregnant" Indicate a high concentration of 12-14 year olds.

Seriously, Its easy not to get pregnant, but in the 1% condom failure chance, you shouldn't be stuck with a baby, and in many cases a baby is inconvenient.

Abortion is a woman's right.

I'm pro-choice but I also think the man should have a say in the matter in stead of it being completely the Woman's choice without consulting him. It takes two people to make a baby.

At 10/10/08 06:38 AM, Ben-Fox wrote: Under an outright abortion ban, the uterus of the woman becomes, in effect, property of the State, the woman herself being rendered insignificant, a mere housing for the State's property.

How do you feel about child support?
Currently a man has to pay child support if he has fathered a child.
It doesn't matter if he did it willingly, because he was drunk, because whatever contraception was used failed, or if he was somehow raped by a woman.

In many places child support payments will even be subtracted from unemployment benefits.
The father is effectively enslaved to the mother, because she chooses to have the child, with absolutely no say in whether or not that child is brought into the world.

Do you agree with me that forcing men to pay child support is dehumanising?

i think that if ur raped, it's incest you shouldhave right to abort, if ur a retarded teen having unprotected sex, then u should get a Moron-Medal and you'll should be obligated to keep the baby, unless there is a risk that u can die or the baby is already sick

Abortion isn't right,

But if we do cure cancer it'll save more lives in the long run

It is murder, and that is why I support abortions.

I only wish there was mandatory abortions.

I think people should be allowed to choose.
Personally, I don't remember anything from when I was a fetus, therefore, I can assume that a fetus isn't conscious.

I believe that if someone wants to have an abortion it is the girls right... It is her body, her life and her responsibility while it is in her body.

Therefore technically she is killing a part of herself... I personally wouldn't be happy if my girlfriend decided to have an abortion but at the same time at this point in my life I am not going to be able to look after it, this is not going to stop me having sex with my girlfriend...

It's all very well saying well if you don't want it give it up for abortion but the girl is still the ONLY one who HAS to look after that baby for 9 months... no one else... So it's not really a topic a man before or after having children could ever understand...

It's there body not ours...

At 10/9/08 02:49 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/8/08 05:14 PM, Silenthobo1234 wrote:

1=if your dumb

Sorry man I have to stop you there and just acknowledge teh irnoy right there. Carry on.

1=if your dumb enough to not use a condom why should the chid be the one to pay for your lack of thought to the consequences?

1. man, I mean, I guess it's a good thing condoms work 100% of the time. Phew.
2. If they're just SOOOOOO stupid, why do we actually *want8 them to give birth.

Oh yeah... and this is the probably the best response yet.

Something I didn't get to touch on before I am not going to stop having sex with my girlfriend but I can't guarantee we are never going to get pregnant... condoms are not 100% says so on the packet... Am I right in thinking you are endorsing no sex not only before marriage but until you are ready to have a baby? Ummm yeah, fine if it's your belief but don't force it on others...