# abortion



## Graffight (Nov 16, 2008)

I posted this on another forum, but this one seems to have some pretty opinionated people with some interesting stuff to say and i'd like to see the reaction here 

every time i read through abortion topics it seems like both sides miss the point, though i think the pro-choicers have the better idea. The answer to abortion is not to criminalize women who would have them, or to make them illegal. See Abortion is only a symptom of a the bigger problem and making them illegal won't stop people from having unprotected/premarital sex. That really has to do with a person's upbringing and a whole slew of other things, and i don't believe it is our job as a society take a woman's right to choose what is best for her and her child away. though if the the law is to be made it should be at a state level and not federal.

Honestly teaching Abstanance in schools should be a major priority, but teaching sex education needs to be a priority as well. We have to be realistic some children are going to make the wrong decision and we need to equip them with the tools to make the right decision about their wrong decision.







I really haven't gotten my head wrapped around why people usually the evangelical christian crowd think that teaching sex ed will somehow encourage children to have sex any more than drug education will make kids want to do drugs.

the fact of the matter is that this happens so much because we are an oversexually stimulated culture. Sex is everywhere nomatter where you look and we really expect children who see that to be able to make good decisions regardless of whether or not abortions are illegal? With the advent of the internet people are becoming sex addicts faster and younger every day. It's so crazy to me how we don't want to deal with the our actual problems, and instead want the gov't to take action and fix it for us. The problem is...they can't. Criminalizing abortion will do 2 things...increase the number of underground/unsafe abortions and increase the number of children in an already overstressed foster care system.

As a christian i don't see how it's in any way ok to force my beliefs onto non Christians. It's also quite interesting to me how we (Christians) over dramatize how bad abortion is compared to other sins. How can a christian get mad at a sinner for doing what they are supposed to do....sin. Further how is it that abortion and gay marriage (which i won't get into) get so much backlash and not on the whole host of other sins that people commit.

I see abortion just like any other sin or bad thing people do, i don't agree with it, nor do i think it's right, but i also don't think criminalizing it will help the actual problems that lay underneath the symptom of abortion. Making abortion illegal is the easy way for people to feel good about themselves and ultimately helps nobody. why not find the real problems and focus on them?

Lets face it...NOBODY (no sane individual that is) actually wants to kill babies. Nobody sits up at night saying i want to get pregnant so i can kill a baby. Nobody thinks it's the right thing to do, it's an incredibly tough and painful process to go through, and nobody...NOBODY wants it to happen.

maybe i'm stupid, but a lot of this stuff just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. you totally ignore the children that WON'T die. show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

I think Kang from the Simpsons said it best.
"Abortions for all! [crowd boos]
Very well, Abortions for none! [crowd boos]
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! [crowd cheers]"


----------



## swack (May 29, 2007)

the problem in America is that the debate has gotten to a point where it is devolved so greatly that neither side can see it. Most Americans agree with the simpsons...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.
[/quote]

calling a child a fetus is a convenient way to circumvent the truth. our government will prosecute for double homicide when a man kills a pregnant woman. a pregnant woman will not give birth to a duck, and you know it. and saying that everyone who would get an abortion will, legal or not, is a pretty nonsensical argument. fact is, it would save lives.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.
[/quote]

calling a child a fetus is a convenient way to circumvent the truth. our government will prosecute for double homicide when a man kills a pregnant woman. a pregnant woman will not give birth to a duck, and you know it. and saying that everyone who would get an abortion will, legal or not, is a pretty nonsensical argument. fact is, it would save lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I never liked that double homicide law either, so I would argue that that law should be changed. I am stunned, btw, that a minimal government conservative such as yourself would advocate government involvement in this case. It goes to show that my theory is right - conservatives don't really want small government, they simply disagree with liberals where the government should be big. I am going to play conservative on this one - don't like abortions, don't get one, it's that simple - but leave the rest of us alone.

The backalley abortion argument, btw, is the same as the argument for drug legalization - drugs are illegal but it doesn't stop people from doing them; it turns them towards the black market and backalley dealers.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.
[/quote]

calling a child a fetus is a convenient way to circumvent the truth. our government will prosecute for double homicide when a man kills a pregnant woman. a pregnant woman will not give birth to a duck, and you know it. and saying that everyone who would get an abortion will, legal or not, is a pretty nonsensical argument. fact is, it would save lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I never liked that double homicide law either, so I would argue that that law should be changed. I am stunned, btw, that a minimal government conservative such as yourself would advocate government involvement in this case. It goes to show that my theory is right - conservatives don't really want small government, they simply disagree with liberals where the government should be big. I am going to play conservative on this one - don't like abortions, don't get one, it's that simple - but leave the rest of us alone.

The backalley abortion argument, btw, is the same as the argument for drug legalization - drugs are illegal but it doesn't stop people from doing them; it turns them towards the black market and backalley dealers.
[/quote]

it doesn't "go to show" that, at all. i would argue that you just want to see that. i'm talking about ONE issue. and i feel government should get involved because it's to save human life. i support and end to the war on drugs, the IRS, entitlements, public education, and gay marriage bans but yeah, i just want government bigger in different places. if you think an unborn child is not a "real" human, then you are deluding yourself. for the sake of argument, let's say that it's not a real child. you know what "it" will be. you know and you still advocate the killing of what you KNOW will be a human.

there are a lot of people that don't do drugs because of the law. it won't stop everyone, but it will save lives.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.
[/quote]

calling a child a fetus is a convenient way to circumvent the truth. our government will prosecute for double homicide when a man kills a pregnant woman. a pregnant woman will not give birth to a duck, and you know it. and saying that everyone who would get an abortion will, legal or not, is a pretty nonsensical argument. fact is, it would save lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I never liked that double homicide law either, so I would argue that that law should be changed. I am stunned, btw, that a minimal government conservative such as yourself would advocate government involvement in this case. It goes to show that my theory is right - conservatives don't really want small government, they simply disagree with liberals where the government should be big. I am going to play conservative on this one - don't like abortions, don't get one, it's that simple - but leave the rest of us alone.

The backalley abortion argument, btw, is the same as the argument for drug legalization - drugs are illegal but it doesn't stop people from doing them; it turns them towards the black market and backalley dealers.
[/quote]

it doesn't "go to show" that, at all. i would argue that you just want to see that. i'm talking about ONE issue. and i feel government should get involved because it's to save human life. if you think an unborn child is not a "real" human, then you are deluding yourself. for the sake of argument, let's say that it's not a real child. you know what "it" will be. you know and you still advocate the killing of what you KNOW will be a human.

there are a lot of people that don't do drugs because of the law. it won't stop everyone, but it will save lives.
[/quote]

*Will *be a human; but not human yet. Unless you seriously believe that before a woman has a chance to ask "what are you thinking" and a man has a chance to smoke a cigarette there are already three people in the room ?


----------



## swack (May 29, 2007)

I'd argue alot of people do drugs because its illegal. The taboo factor and rebellious nature of drugs are one of the things that draws people towards them.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.
[/quote]

calling a child a fetus is a convenient way to circumvent the truth. our government will prosecute for double homicide when a man kills a pregnant woman. a pregnant woman will not give birth to a duck, and you know it. and saying that everyone who would get an abortion will, legal or not, is a pretty nonsensical argument. fact is, it would save lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I never liked that double homicide law either, so I would argue that that law should be changed. I am stunned, btw, that a minimal government conservative such as yourself would advocate government involvement in this case. It goes to show that my theory is right - conservatives don't really want small government, they simply disagree with liberals where the government should be big. I am going to play conservative on this one - don't like abortions, don't get one, it's that simple - but leave the rest of us alone.

The backalley abortion argument, btw, is the same as the argument for drug legalization - drugs are illegal but it doesn't stop people from doing them; it turns them towards the black market and backalley dealers.
[/quote]

it doesn't "go to show" that, at all. i would argue that you just want to see that. i'm talking about ONE issue. and i feel government should get involved because it's to save human life. if you think an unborn child is not a "real" human, then you are deluding yourself. for the sake of argument, let's say that it's not a real child. you know what "it" will be. you know and you still advocate the killing of what you KNOW will be a human.

there are a lot of people that don't do drugs because of the law. it won't stop everyone, but it will save lives.
[/quote]

*Will *be a human; but not human yet. Unless you seriously believe that before a woman has a chance to ask "what are you thinking" and a man has a chance to smoke a cigarette there are already three people in the room ?
[/quote]

you can call it a zygote, if you want. if you wish to cheapen life and say that all bets are off until whatever arbitrary condition you set is met, so be it. i've made my opinion known and so have you. neither one of us will change the other's mind.

the fact remains, it will save humans from death. if you don't see it that way, i hope legislators value human life and don't agree with you.


----------



## Uncle Jesse (Feb 18, 2007)

mdrs said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.
[/quote]

calling a child a fetus is a convenient way to circumvent the truth. our government will prosecute for double homicide when a man kills a pregnant woman. a pregnant woman will not give birth to a duck, and you know it. and saying that everyone who would get an abortion will, legal or not, is a pretty nonsensical argument. fact is, it would save lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I never liked that double homicide law either, so I would argue that that law should be changed. I am stunned, btw, that a minimal government conservative such as yourself would advocate government involvement in this case. It goes to show that my theory is right - conservatives don't really want small government, they simply disagree with liberals where the government should be big. I am going to play conservative on this one - don't like abortions, don't get one, it's that simple - but leave the rest of us alone.

The backalley abortion argument, btw, is the same as the argument for drug legalization - drugs are illegal but it doesn't stop people from doing them; it turns them towards the black market and backalley dealers.
[/quote]

it doesn't "go to show" that, at all. i would argue that you just want to see that. i'm talking about ONE issue. and i feel government should get involved because it's to save human life. if you think an unborn child is not a "real" human, then you are deluding yourself. for the sake of argument, let's say that it's not a real child. you know what "it" will be. you know and you still advocate the killing of what you KNOW will be a human.

there are a lot of people that don't do drugs because of the law. it won't stop everyone, but it will save lives.
[/quote]

The problem is who is to decide what ONE issues the government should have control over? Cars are legal but millions of people die from them every year. Should we ditch them too? If you don't want to die from a car accident don't get in one. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't get one. Its as simple as that. YOU stay out of my business and I'LL stay out of yours!
I'm in no way saying they are rite. Myself, I would never get one. 
Some other things that kill people, but are still legal: Tobacco, Alcohol, and Caffeine are you also fighting to ban these?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.
[/quote]

calling a child a fetus is a convenient way to circumvent the truth. our government will prosecute for double homicide when a man kills a pregnant woman. a pregnant woman will not give birth to a duck, and you know it. and saying that everyone who would get an abortion will, legal or not, is a pretty nonsensical argument. fact is, it would save lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I never liked that double homicide law either, so I would argue that that law should be changed. I am stunned, btw, that a minimal government conservative such as yourself would advocate government involvement in this case. It goes to show that my theory is right - conservatives don't really want small government, they simply disagree with liberals where the government should be big. I am going to play conservative on this one - don't like abortions, don't get one, it's that simple - but leave the rest of us alone.

The backalley abortion argument, btw, is the same as the argument for drug legalization - drugs are illegal but it doesn't stop people from doing them; it turns them towards the black market and backalley dealers.
[/quote]

it doesn't "go to show" that, at all. i would argue that you just want to see that. i'm talking about ONE issue. and i feel government should get involved because it's to save human life. if you think an unborn child is not a "real" human, then you are deluding yourself. for the sake of argument, let's say that it's not a real child. you know what "it" will be. you know and you still advocate the killing of what you KNOW will be a human.

there are a lot of people that don't do drugs because of the law. it won't stop everyone, but it will save lives.
[/quote]

*Will *be a human; but not human yet. Unless you seriously believe that before a woman has a chance to ask "what are you thinking" and a man has a chance to smoke a cigarette there are already three people in the room ?
[/quote]

*you can call it a zygote, if you want*. if you wish to cheapen life and say that all bets are off until whatever arbitrary condition you set is met, so be it. i've made my opinion known and so have you. neither one of us will change the other's mind.

the fact remains, it will save humans from death. if you don't see it that way, i hope legislators value human life and don't agree with you.
[/quote]

Well, isn't it the correct way to call it ?

Another thing you may want to consider is how many welfare babies these unwanted pregnancies will produce and how much burden it'll be on the taxpayer. You'll probably say - well, welfare is unconstitutional anyway so people should act more responsible. Yeah they should, but they won't and everyone knows it. It would be a complete disaster if Roe v. Wade is reversed today, believe me.


----------



## Graffight (Nov 16, 2008)

mdrs said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.
[/quote]

calling a child a fetus is a convenient way to circumvent the truth. our government will prosecute for double homicide when a man kills a pregnant woman. a pregnant woman will not give birth to a duck, and you know it. and saying that everyone who would get an abortion will, legal or not, is a pretty nonsensical argument. fact is, it would save lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I never liked that double homicide law either, so I would argue that that law should be changed. I am stunned, btw, that a minimal government conservative such as yourself would advocate government involvement in this case. It goes to show that my theory is right - conservatives don't really want small government, they simply disagree with liberals where the government should be big. I am going to play conservative on this one - don't like abortions, don't get one, it's that simple - but leave the rest of us alone.

The backalley abortion argument, btw, is the same as the argument for drug legalization - drugs are illegal but it doesn't stop people from doing them; it turns them towards the black market and backalley dealers.
[/quote]

it doesn't "go to show" that, at all. i would argue that you just want to see that. i'm talking about ONE issue. and i feel government should get involved because it's to save human life. if you think an unborn child is not a "real" human, then you are deluding yourself. for the sake of argument, let's say that it's not a real child. you know what "it" will be. you know and you still advocate the killing of what you KNOW will be a human.

there are a lot of people that don't do drugs because of the law. it won't stop everyone, but it will save lives.
[/quote]

Here's the thing...there is a humongous difference between a murderer and a woman who has an abortion. we have to get off our high horse and remember that the mother does not do it because she wants to kill the baby....people who have abortions don't want to kill babies. They do however have a whole host of issues that they have to decide how best to deal with and unless you become that person and have to deal with the exact same issues we can't rightly tell that person what the right thing to do is. No...no baby has lived through an abortion grown up and advocated abortion, but i'm sure there are individuals who wish they were aborted. Abortion is wrong, I'll be the first one to say that, but again, how is criminalizing it going to put a stop to the root cause? Just because the children won't die does not by any means guarantee that their life will be good, or that they will get a fair shake....or even that they will be a productive member of society. It might on the other hand mean that they grow up as an unwanted child of a mother who just wants to benefit off of government care (welfare), or that they will become a part of an already overtaxed and overstretched foster care system, or they will slip out of the system and never be seen again so we won't know what happens to them. Again...i think abortion is wrong, I DON'T WANT TO KILL BABIES, but making it illegal does not mean that the child will have a good life, and i'm not sure if someone should have the right to force a child into a potentially poor life either...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Graffight said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.
[/quote]

calling a child a fetus is a convenient way to circumvent the truth. our government will prosecute for double homicide when a man kills a pregnant woman. a pregnant woman will not give birth to a duck, and you know it. and saying that everyone who would get an abortion will, legal or not, is a pretty nonsensical argument. fact is, it would save lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I never liked that double homicide law either, so I would argue that that law should be changed. I am stunned, btw, that a minimal government conservative such as yourself would advocate government involvement in this case. It goes to show that my theory is right - conservatives don't really want small government, they simply disagree with liberals where the government should be big. I am going to play conservative on this one - don't like abortions, don't get one, it's that simple - but leave the rest of us alone.

The backalley abortion argument, btw, is the same as the argument for drug legalization - drugs are illegal but it doesn't stop people from doing them; it turns them towards the black market and backalley dealers.
[/quote]

it doesn't "go to show" that, at all. i would argue that you just want to see that. i'm talking about ONE issue. and i feel government should get involved because it's to save human life. if you think an unborn child is not a "real" human, then you are deluding yourself. for the sake of argument, let's say that it's not a real child. you know what "it" will be. you know and you still advocate the killing of what you KNOW will be a human.

there are a lot of people that don't do drugs because of the law. it won't stop everyone, but it will save lives.
[/quote]

Here's the thing...there is a humongous difference between a murderer and a woman who has an abortion. we have to get off our high horse and remember that the mother does not do it because she wants to kill the baby....people who have abortions don't want to kill babies. They do however have a whole host of issues that they have to decide how best to deal with and unless you become that person and have to deal with the exact same issues we can't rightly tell that person what the right thing to do is. No...no baby has lived through an abortion grown up and advocated abortion, but i'm sure there are individuals who wish they were aborted. Abortion is wrong, I'll be the first one to say that, but again, how is criminalizing it going to put a stop to the root cause? Just because the children won't die does not by any means guarantee that their life will be good, or that they will get a fair shake....or even that they will be a productive member of society. It might on the other hand mean that they grow up as an unwanted child of a mother who just wants to benefit off of government care (welfare), or that they will become a part of an already overtaxed and overstretched foster care system, or they will slip out of the system and never be seen again so we won't know what happens to them. Again...i think abortion is wrong, I DON'T WANT TO KILL BABIES, but making it illegal does not mean that the child will have a good life, and i'm not sure if someone should have the right to force a child into a potentially poor life either...
[/quote]

if you agree that abortion is the termination of a human life, you advocate the killing of a human being. don't rationalize by speculating about what people do and do not want to do. if the mother wants to have an abortion, the mother wants to terminate her baby's life. if she didn't she wouldn't have an abortion.


----------



## Graffight (Nov 16, 2008)

mdrs said:


> saying that making abortion illegal won't help anyone is a pretty misguided statement. *you totally ignore the children that WON'T die.* show me one child that survived the abortion process that grew up to advocate abortion. the reason that it needs to be handled on the federal level (not something i typically advocate) is because it is in the defense of human life. if you think that a mother has a right to "decide what's right" for her child, where do you draw the line and then not make it illegal to commit murder. if you admit she's aborting a human child, you advocate the killing of that child. are there things that need to be addressed in addition to the actual act? sure. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that when you abort a child, you are murdering that child.


A fetus is not a child; but fetuses WILL die and have died if/when abortion is/was illegal. They just wouldn't die in a safe clinic under a doctor's supervision, they'll likely die in a back alley where some high school dropout named Tommy performs the operation with a coat hanger.
[/quote]

calling a child a fetus is a convenient way to circumvent the truth. our government will prosecute for double homicide when a man kills a pregnant woman. a pregnant woman will not give birth to a duck, and you know it. and saying that everyone who would get an abortion will, legal or not, is a pretty nonsensical argument. fact is, it would save lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I never liked that double homicide law either, so I would argue that that law should be changed. I am stunned, btw, that a minimal government conservative such as yourself would advocate government involvement in this case. It goes to show that my theory is right - conservatives don't really want small government, they simply disagree with liberals where the government should be big. I am going to play conservative on this one - don't like abortions, don't get one, it's that simple - but leave the rest of us alone.

The backalley abortion argument, btw, is the same as the argument for drug legalization - drugs are illegal but it doesn't stop people from doing them; it turns them towards the black market and backalley dealers.
[/quote]

it doesn't "go to show" that, at all. i would argue that you just want to see that. i'm talking about ONE issue. and i feel government should get involved because it's to save human life. if you think an unborn child is not a "real" human, then you are deluding yourself. for the sake of argument, let's say that it's not a real child. you know what "it" will be. you know and you still advocate the killing of what you KNOW will be a human.

there are a lot of people that don't do drugs because of the law. it won't stop everyone, but it will save lives.
[/quote]

Here's the thing...there is a humongous difference between a murderer and a woman who has an abortion. we have to get off our high horse and remember that the mother does not do it because she wants to kill the baby....people who have abortions don't want to kill babies. They do however have a whole host of issues that they have to decide how best to deal with and unless you become that person and have to deal with the exact same issues we can't rightly tell that person what the right thing to do is. No...no baby has lived through an abortion grown up and advocated abortion, but i'm sure there are individuals who wish they were aborted. Abortion is wrong, I'll be the first one to say that, but again, how is criminalizing it going to put a stop to the root cause? Just because the children won't die does not by any means guarantee that their life will be good, or that they will get a fair shake....or even that they will be a productive member of society. It might on the other hand mean that they grow up as an unwanted child of a mother who just wants to benefit off of government care (welfare), or that they will become a part of an already overtaxed and overstretched foster care system, or they will slip out of the system and never be seen again so we won't know what happens to them. Again...i think abortion is wrong, I DON'T WANT TO KILL BABIES, but making it illegal does not mean that the child will have a good life, and i'm not sure if someone should have the right to force a child into a potentially poor life either...
[/quote]

if you agree that abortion is the termination of a human life, you advocate the killing of a human being. don't rationalize by speculating about what people do and do not want to do. if the mother wants to have an abortion, the mother wants to terminate her baby's life. if she didn't she wouldn't have an abortion.
[/quote]

I'm sorry but i don't believe that someone who has an abortion is in the same class as a murder. Yeah it's human life i'll give you that, i also give you that it's wrong, but i won't sit here and say that a woman who has an abortion is a bad person or a murder out for the blood of unborn babies. You make it sound like these women get pregnant for the soul purpose of killing a baby. You know that's not true...a murder kills for the soul purpose of killing he kills because that's what he wants to do he has no remorse about killing, or maybe he does, but the intentions are totally different. A woman who gets an abortion may be misguided and wrong, but that woman is not a murderer, and should not be imprisoned or have her choice taken away because someone else who isn't going through her plight is ashamed of her....i just don't see the justification.


----------



## Graffight (Nov 16, 2008)

here's another thing you'll see more of with abortions made illegal...more babies will end up in dumpsters...and for me that is the worst thing on earth i can possibly imagine...a defenseless baby in a dumpster unable to do anything...unable to fend for themselves just left to starve and die scared and alone....i have much more sympathy for that baby than the baby who can't even process that information yet.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

You guys really need to learn how to quote someone and not carry 15 old quotes around with it. Scrolling screen after screen to get a 3 line post is so annoying. You do realize that you are simply posting a repeat of the entire conversation dont you?

I dont have an issue with abortion...I just dont like how one person holds the lives of two others in the balance. Or if you dont consider a fetus a life...then one other person in the balance. If the guy doesnt want to kid and she decides she does...he is screwed for 18 years. If he wants the kid and she doesnt...his "potential" child is killed. I think if the guy wants to keep the child and the chick doesnt....he should be able to get a court order to force the chick to have the kid...get child support from her...and care for the kid. I hate when chicks come back with the old "dont have sex if you dont want a child" comment. The responsibility should go both ways.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

febsalien said:


> The problem is who is to decide what ONE issues the government should have control over? Cars are legal but millions of people die from them every year. Should we ditch them too? If you don't want to die from a car accident don't get in one. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't get one. Its as simple as that. YOU stay out of my business and I'LL stay out of yours!
> I'm in no way saying they are rite. Myself, I would never get one.
> Some other things that kill people, but are still legal: Tobacco, Alcohol, and Caffeine are you also fighting to ban these?


comparing someone who can die from ingesting a substance of their own free will and the termination of a defenseless human life is a pathetically illogical argument. if that's the best you have, i suggest you work on your argument. it's as simple as that.


----------



## Lifer374 (Dec 5, 2003)

Surprized "cases of rape and incest" hasn't been brought up yet.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Tango374 said:


> Surprized "cases of rape and incest" hasn't been brought up yet.


yeah, good point.


----------



## Plowboy (Apr 9, 2008)

I think the idea of abortion is pathetic, *BUT* I also think a woman without the capacity to care for a child should have a way out.

GG has a great point too!


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Graffight said:


> I posted this on another forum, but this one seems to have some pretty opinionated people with some interesting stuff to say and i'd like to see the reaction here
> 
> every time i read through abortion topics it seems like both sides miss the point, though i think the pro-choicers have the better idea. The answer to abortion is not to criminalize women who would have them, or to make them illegal. See Abortion is only a symptom of a the bigger problem and making them illegal won't stop people from having unprotected/*premarital* sex. That really has to do with a person's upbringing and a whole slew of other things, and i don't believe it is our job as a society take a woman's right to choose what is best for her and her child away. though if the the law is to be made it should be at a state level and not federal.
> 
> ...


i personally thing its total unrealistic to focus on abstanance

im sure there are married people taht have abortions.


----------



## FuZZy (Apr 18, 2003)

I don't think abortion should be legal except in a select few cases. My views have nothing to do with religion, its just wrong to kill a fetus. Pretty funny how if I kill my pregnant wife I will be charged with 2 murders, but If my wife decides to get an abortion a whole slew of people will applaud her.

How about a new law. If a woman gets an abortion, she would have to have her tubes tied.


----------



## Lifer374 (Dec 5, 2003)

^
I don't know about applauding her....


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Personally I believe abortion is disgusting (in my heart i am pro life). Reality is a bitch tho, and unfortunetly abortion is an necessary evil (it is my opinion that the state can not tell a woman what do do with her HUMAN BABY up until the 3rd trimester).

I believe that human life starts at conception. You can classify it all you want, zygote, fetus, its still a living human being. 
I used to be very pro life, but life throws curve balls at you and stuff happens and you see life in a whole new way. It just really saddens me today to see abortions being so widley used like its some form of contraceptive. I am totally against the idea of late term abortions.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

the major problem i have is that if you take teh choice away from the woman or place various criteria on what is and is not acceptable, who makes thoase decision and at what point is there a major conflict? unfortunately in this society you cant have grey areas of judgement what if medical reasons dont cover every possible medical reason. whats good for one person is not necessarily good for everyone i dont think the law makers are exactly in touch with or looking out for everyones interest any ruling that has stipulations would more then likely cause more problems. worse is consider that i would think the vast majority of women that do get abortions have to live with that, do they really need to add to that shame and embarassement of some process of scrutiny and ridicule? or even worse they turn to some "back alley" alternative that is both more dangerous and potentially less "humane".

lastly this country is plauged with numerous far more difficult problems ahead of it. this is really the last thing our govt. shoudl be dealing with at this time. ultimately it should remain the womans choice and those people that are so against it should change their tactic instead of being so brutally opposed and expecting the govt to agree with them perhaps they shoudl do more to educate and provide alternatives and except that not eveyone will see things their way.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Personally I believe abortion is disgusting (in my heart i am pro life). Reality is a bitch tho, and unfortunetly abortion is an necessary evil (it is my opinion that the state can not tell a woman what do do with her HUMAN BABY up until the 3rd trimester).
> 
> I believe that human life starts at conception. You can classify it all you want, zygote, fetus, its still a living human being.
> I used to be very pro life, but life throws curve balls at you and stuff happens and you see life in a whole new way. It just really saddens me today to see abortions being so widley used like its some form of contraceptive. I am totally against the idea of late term abortions.


i definately agree that as i have gotten older my "pro choice" stance has taken on a newer reality as i have seen more realtive and friends start thier families, kids are pretty amazing but i also still belive ultimately the choice should be left to the woman, every child deserves a chance and a shot at a good life and not every parent can provide that at the time.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

I didn't even read any of the comments posted, but my opinion is simple.

If a baby human is in the uterus of a woman... whether it's an hour old or 9 months old, it's a f*cking human being.

To kill it is murder.
That's the bottom line.

1.) If you don't want a kid, don't risk the possibility of having one by having unprotected sex.
2.) If you get raped and inseminated, give the kid up for adoption.

Killing is not the answer.
There is something seriously mentally wrong with anybody who sees differently on this topic.
"At what age is the person considered a human?"
Get real.


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

I will throw my .02$ in..

How about the government stays out of the abortion issue all together!! Yeah.. Our government is like a runaway freight train...

I say the government should have no say so about it one way or another. 
That being said, I don't want any of my tax dollars going to a single abortion. If the cost goes to $2,000 or so because there are no tax dollar funded clinics to do it cheap, people would have less of them.

In the 90's, American tax dollars were funding abortions in Europe.. It's a crazy waste of tax payer dollars. I don't care if someone wants an abortion.. If they want one, get one!

I'm just saying I don't want my $$ helping to pay for it.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

I lean to the conservative side, but not on this. If someone wants to have an abortion, they can knock themselves out. All I ask is that they do it as soon as they realize they are pregnant, if an abortion is the way they want to go.

I'm far from having a mental problem, piranha man. It's called being realistic and keeping individual rights. A fertilized egg is not a child. It's an egg. I guess that's just too much to take in for some people.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Piranha_man said:


> I didn't even read any of the comments posted, but my opinion is simple.
> 
> If a baby human is in the uterus of a woman... whether it's an hour old or 9 months old, it's a f*cking human being.
> 
> ...


first off, holly quoted tread.

secondly I completely disagree with p-man, isn't our job to produces only enough to replace our self's and shouldn't we remove those that have an extra Y chromosome(and other mutations) from the gene pool, nature meant for survival of the fittest but yet we as a society make exceptions. why because of pitty

many of of you need to read and comprehend Darwin's theories.

yea I'm a cold hearted SOB but at least I admit-it


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

06 C6 LS2 said:


> I didn't even read any of the comments posted, but my opinion is simple.
> 
> If a baby human is in the uterus of a woman... whether it's an hour old or 9 months old, it's a f*cking human being.
> 
> ...


first off, holly quoted tread.

secondly I completely disagree with p-man, isn't our job to produces only enough to replace our self's and shouldn't we remove those that have an extra Y chromosome(and other mutations) from the gene pool, nature meant for survival of the fittest but yet we as a society make exceptions. why because of pitty

many of of you need to read and comprehend Darwin's theories.

yea I'm a cold hearted SOB but at least I admit-it
[/quote]

dude, how is abortion natural selection? i think YOU need to reread your darwin.


----------



## Lifer374 (Dec 5, 2003)

Wow. 
I didn't know there were really people out there that expect a woman who is, lets say gang raped and impregnated, to actually go through with having the baby.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Idk but I'll never forget the titi's on my 7th grade sex ed teacher. Mrs Keegan







only class I'd sit in the front row for.







I remember one day she bent over oh so slightly to write on the overhead projector and I got an all access show of those babies freckles and all







.. Sex is about as natural to our species as the laws of attraction that govern it. Education sure, but there's no place for preaching abstinence. You might as well try and preach to the average fat ass that just because they order a salad from mcdonalds still doesn't make it good for them.. Moral needs to be taught at home and most families are far from perfect. So while some might believe life actually starts at conception the reality is it doesn't actually begin until the late teens







. It makes no sense to ruin any life at a young age, two lives if an 18 or a 25 year old for that matter actually try to raise another retard. People make mistakes and given that these people are already living and breathing their trials and errors there's no reason to sentence any child or anyone thats not ready, with the responsibility of being a parent. Keep in mind, the more that people actually have and keep a baby when they're actually "Ready" the less retards we have walking around. I guess I can understand feeling bad when anything dies but I don't understand going all mickey mouse over a puddle of piss especially when these same people have no problem sending real life to die in a war built on lies..


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

mdrs said:


> I didn't even read any of the comments posted, but my opinion is simple.
> 
> If a baby human is in the uterus of a woman... whether it's an hour old or 9 months old, it's a f*cking human being.
> 
> ...


first off, holly quoted tread.

secondly I completely disagree with p-man, isn't our job to produces only enough to replace our self's and shouldn't we remove those that have an extra Y chromosome(and other mutations) from the gene pool, nature meant for survival of the fittest but yet we as a society make exceptions. why because of pitty

many of of you need to read and comprehend Darwin's theories.

yea I'm a cold hearted SOB but at least I admit-it
[/quote]

dude, how is abortion natural selection? i think YOU need to reread your darwin.
[/quote]

I was waiting for your response(I wont call you an ignorant ass fool due to the fact that you've been known too run too the mods)
but isn't it the family's obligation to only bring the best stock possible into this world, I mean seriously why should there be one sub par baby born since we save and cherish all forms of life and why is it that my tax dollars and future tax dollars go toward something that would not survive under normal circumstances(state and federal aid for those that cant function in a even a remedial job)

I'm done with this thread....take may statements and opinions how you want.

like I said I'm a cold hearted SOB (ask me how many kids I have after 6 years of marriage)


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

06 C6 LS2 said:


> I was waiting for your response(I wont call you an ignorant ass fool due to the fact that you've been known too run too the mods)
> but isn't it the family's obligation to only bring the best stock possible into this world, I mean seriously why should there be one sub par baby born since we save and cherish all forms of life and why is it that my tax dollars and future tax dollars go toward something that would not survive under normal circumstances(state and federal aid for those that cant function in a even a remedial job)
> 
> I'm done with this thread....take may statements and opinions how you want.
> ...


you can name call all you want. it doesn't make you right and i don't run to mods. i won't call you stupid, i don't need to make a point of it.

natural selection is when something doesn't produce enough to survive, on its own. it is not when offspring is killed by a parent to make the parent's life easier. that is called infanticide. as i said, it does you no credit to tell people they need to read and understand darwin and then screw up one of the most basic tenets of the theory.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Piranha_man said:


> but isn't it the family's obligation to only bring the best stock possible into this world, I mean seriously why should there be one sub par baby born since we save and cherish all forms of life and why is it that my tax dollars and future tax dollars go toward something that would not survive under normal circumstances(state and federal aid for those that cant function in a even a remedial job)


Are you seriously advocating using abortion to weed out any imperfection in an unborn child? I would rather see us sterilize unfit adults then kill unborn "sub par" babies.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

in the end, gg, it's fucked up but killing the child is not the answer. the child didn't do anything wrong.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

.


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

Liquid said:


> Idk but I'll never forget the titi's on my 7th grade sex ed teacher. Mrs Keegan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It doesn't sound like you value others lives too much.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> but isn't it the family's obligation to only bring the best stock possible into this world, I mean seriously why should there be one sub par baby born since we save and cherish all forms of life and why is it that my tax dollars and future tax dollars go toward something that would not survive under normal circumstances(state and federal aid for those that cant function in a even a remedial job)


\
*Are you seriously advocating using abortion to weed out any imperfection in an unborn child? I would rather see us sterilize unfit adults then kill unborn "sub par" babies.*[/quote]

what I'm saying is why carry out a "defective pregnancy"(rape victims expeshly) the parents should be aware of the genetic, risk factors, addictions and possible mutations etc.... and take action before they decided to conceive. then again I'm one of those crazy logical planers.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

06 C6 LS2 said:


> but isn't it the family's obligation to only bring the best stock possible into this world, I mean seriously why should there be one sub par baby born since we save and cherish all forms of life and why is it that my tax dollars and future tax dollars go toward something that would not survive under normal circumstances(state and federal aid for those that cant function in a even a remedial job)


\
*Are you seriously advocating using abortion to weed out any imperfection in an unborn child? I would rather see us sterilize unfit adults then kill unborn "sub par" babies.*[/quote]

what I'm saying is why carry out a "defective pregnancy"(rape victims especially) the parents should be aware of the genetic, risk factors, addictions and possible mutations etc.... and take action before they decided to conceive. then again I'm one of those crazy logical planers.
[/quote]

I'm one of those crazy people that think before they act


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Grosse Gurke said:


> but isn't it the family's obligation to only bring the best stock possible into this world, I mean seriously why should there be one sub par baby born since we save and cherish all forms of life and why is it that my tax dollars and future tax dollars go toward something that would not survive under normal circumstances(state and federal aid for those that cant function in a even a remedial job)


Are you seriously advocating using abortion to weed out any imperfection in an unborn child? I would rather see us sterilize unfit adults then kill unborn "sub par" babies.
[/quote]

agreed stupid people and genetic disasters should not breed, however this does not eliminate the fact that even "genetically strong" people can still have "genetcially defective" kids at that point i still think it should be the womans choice, raising a "special needs" kid and adult is very demanding and not everyone can provide fo those needs maybe its selfish but i definately feel the parents should be able to choose if that is what they want n their life to an extent it is more responsable then to bring that child nito a world that for all intensive purposes its not welcome.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm pro-choice for a few reasons (but there should be some restrictions on getting an abortion)...

if the girl is raped, then I do not see the point of forcing her to have the child. imagine that kids life, the entire time his mom is reminded about that event.

if the parents are unfit and they're just gonna bring another "bastard" child into the world, then allow free choice. no need for the child to suffer cause of shitty parents.

but the problem i have with the 2nd scenario, if you play with fire you gotta be careful. there is a chance of having protected sex and still the chick getting pregnant, you just gotta be careful. (or just do her in the pooper)

Oh don't get me started about breeding licenses for humans.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

b_ack51 said:


> I'm pro-choice for a few reasons (but there should be some restrictions on getting an abortion)...
> 
> if the girl is raped, then I do not see the point of forcing her to have the child. imagine that kids life, the entire time his mom is reminded about that event.
> 
> ...


who is going to determine if the parents are "unfit" what is the criteria for "unfit"?

this is why I disagree with putting any kind of "justification" criteria, plus the legal battles that these criteria would both depend on and inniated. if someone really needs an abortion they cant wait for the court systems to make a judgment.

ultimately people need to be less concerned about what everyone else is doing regardless of the beliefs you may or may not have that other people may or may not share.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

I simply don't like abortion because of what it does to society. It literally dumbs down the idea of life. And accepts kids as a wanted accessory rather than a blessing and miracle as they are. Abortion is disgusting to me.
The only "on the fence" subject I relate with is in the matter of rape or incest or where the mother's well being is in danger. Abortion is an EXTREME act and should never be handed out with no questions asked. You can debate the young girl who slipped up and no has to live with a child. The girl whose husband left her after the news and now lives alone of an income under 20K a year. The college student who must drop college because shes due in a few months and will have her life put on hold now, etc etc etc...
In every one of these case I say "tough sh*t". You sleep in the bed you made, you deal with your choices and save for the way above examples (rape, incest, health reasons) I will tell you now that this generations got a big ass problem with responsibility. With living with ones choices and manning the hell up and stop blaming the government, voters and God for your problems.

So to that I say no on abortion. Widely accepted abortion will be a serious retardation of a keystone moral in society. Let us not forget the beauty and purpose for it all while we fiercely debate the troubles and challenges.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

im pro choise, im pro euthanasia im pro genetic research and im against the death sentence.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

C0Rey said:


> im pro choise, im pro euthanasia im pro genetic research and *im against the death sentence.*


I find the last part of your statement....odd

Why is in you believe that a mother has the right to terminate her childs life, an old person can legally commit suicide, yet do not think that a person that has committed a most guesome act deserves to die?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

I wish people would keep their moralizing to themselves. If you don't like abortions, don't get one - that simple


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> I wish people would keep their moralizing to themselves. If you don't like abortions, don't get one - that simple


Whats your take on late term abortions? Ones, where you put it, the fetus, is viable and can live outside the womb.


----------



## swack (May 29, 2007)

+1


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> I wish people would keep their moralizing to themselves. If you don't like abortions, don't get one - that simple


Duh. Course what we're talking about is a larger picture than what you do. Can't one have an opinion on his country? After all what good is the first amendment if you don't speak. I never agree with you, but I'll never demand your silence because we differ in views. Thats a very oppressive characteristic.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> I wish people would keep their moralizing to themselves. If you don't like abortions, don't get one - that simple


Whats your take on late term abortions? Ones, where you put it, the fetus, is viable and can live outside the womb.
[/quote]

It's a grey area. I like the state laws that require approval of a second physician in this case.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> I wish people would keep their moralizing to themselves. If you don't like abortions, don't get one - that simple


Whats your take on late term abortions? Ones, where you put it, the fetus, is viable and can live outside the womb.
[/quote]

It's a grey area. I like the state laws that require approval of a second physician in this case.
[/quote]

So basically, if the life of the mother/child are not at risk, then you oppose later term abortions?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ocellatus2000 said:


> I wish people would keep their moralizing to themselves. If you don't like abortions, don't get one - that simple


Whats your take on late term abortions? Ones, where you put it, the fetus, is viable and can live outside the womb.
[/quote]

It's a grey area. I like the state laws that require approval of a second physician in this case.
[/quote]

So basically, if the life of the mother/child are not at risk, then you oppose later term abortions?
[/quote]

I don't see how you got that from my post. I simply said I like the laws where the approval of two licensed physicians is required before such procedure takes place


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

Ex0dus said:


> im pro choise, im pro euthanasia im pro genetic research and *im against the death sentence.*


I find the last part of your statement....odd

Why is in you believe that a mother has the right to terminate her childs life, an old person can legally commit suicide, yet do not think that a person that has committed a most guesome act deserves to die?
[/quote]

IMO its not a child, and the world has enough people crawling around, i also believe people that find out there child is retarded should be given the chance to terminate it. and ofc rape victims etc. i dont have a very spiritual view when it come to life. a person doesnt need to be old to die can be very sic etc. i think its up to every person if they want to continue living when theyre in pain or what not. 
a person that has done something horrible, yeah if he wants to die shure. but theres always the possebility that the jury was wrong etc, and people can change if given a chance. 
i could give you a much more in dept answer on all accounts, but i dont have the enrgy or the time right now.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

I am very much pro-death penalty. It's simply the only way to punish the most heinous of criminals. If the evidence is overwhelming, what's the problem ? People can change, sure, but some criminals are too repugnant to attempt to rehabilitiate


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> I wish people would keep their moralizing to themselves. If you don't like abortions, don't get one - that simple


Whats your take on late term abortions? Ones, where you put it, the fetus, is viable and can live outside the womb.
[/quote]

It's a grey area. I like the state laws that require approval of a second physician in this case.
[/quote]

So basically, if the life of the mother/child are not at risk, then you oppose later term abortions?
[/quote]

I don't see how you got that from my post. I simply said I like the laws where the approval of two licensed physicians is required before such procedure takes place
[/quote]

I got that by wanting a yes or no answer from you, not skating around the issue. Under what circumstances do you feel a late term abortion would be warranted?


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> I am very much pro-death penalty. It's simply the only way to punish the most heinous of criminals. If the evidence is overwhelming, what's the problem ? People can change, sure, but some criminals are too repugnant to attempt to rehabilitiate


well if they are they never see the light of day. 
there has been many cases where evidence was stacked up and 10 -15 years later the person is proven innocent. 
and here the max sentence for anyone is 16 or 18 years ( dont remember exactely ) you guys give people 200 years sentences so yeah f*ck rehabilitation and what not in that case might as well shoot the f*cker.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

I find it amusing how one can always reply with an obvious statement with "way to miss the point". It's such an incredibly vague and quick way to back out of your obviously failed point. Imposing my morals? Hardly. Expressing my opinion? Yes. No one (especially me) is holding a gun to anyone demanding abortions stop. If the majority of the public deems in favor of abortion (which they do not at all), I will humble myself before my democratic system and respect the decisions of the majority. Imposing my morals? My friend, we're talking about the unborn. If we're really arguing morals let us first agree that life is precious. Or is it to you? Way to miss the point Jewelz. And thanks for the reminder of your oh so mighty mod power that you graciously spare me from.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> im pro choise, im pro euthanasia im pro genetic research and *im against the death sentence.*


I find the last part of your statement....odd

Why is in you believe that a mother has the right to terminate her *childs life*, an old person can legally commit suicide, yet do not think that a person that has committed a most guesome act deserves to die?
[/quote]

who says it's living?

i support a womans right to choose in the first trimester...after that, they should be illegal. viable fetus's should not be aborted, thats just not right, and if you're going to get an abortion, get it early, wtf is the point of waiting?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Imposing my morals? My friend, we're talking about the unborn.


Uh huh....









Well, I must say though that I am very pleased that you at least backed away from your martyrdom stance that bad people are attempting to "silence" you and take away your first amendment rights.. I was afraid you'd start a Guy Faulkner type underground movement - for the rebel who dares to speak the truth shall never be silenced !


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Jewelz, I have the very real feeling you have nothing to argue in defense. I enjoy the grouping together of sentences out of context to put words in my mouth. But I suppose you're going to run a smear campaign instead of a discussion.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

C0Rey said:


> I am very much pro-death penalty. It's simply the only way to punish the most heinous of criminals. If the evidence is overwhelming, what's the problem ? People can change, sure, but some criminals are too repugnant to attempt to rehabilitiate


well if they are they never see the light of day. 
there has been many cases where evidence was stacked up and 10 -15 years later the person is proven innocent. 
and here the max sentence for anyone is 16 or 18 years ( dont remember exactely ) you guys give people 200 years sentences so yeah f*ck rehabilitation and what not in that case might as well shoot the f*cker.
[/quote]

What about the cases where the evidence is obvious and/or the suspect confesses ?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> I am very much pro-death penalty. It's simply the only way to punish the most heinous of criminals. If the evidence is overwhelming, what's the problem ? People can change, sure, but some criminals are too repugnant to attempt to rehabilitiate


well if they are they never see the light of day. 
there has been many cases where evidence was stacked up and 10 -15 years later the person is proven innocent. 
and here the max sentence for anyone is 16 or 18 years ( dont remember exactely ) you guys give people 200 years sentences so yeah f*ck rehabilitation and what not in that case might as well shoot the f*cker.
[/quote]

What about the cases where the evidence is obvious and/or the suspect confesses ?
[/quote]

even confessions have been overturned before. there was one case where they (the cops and DA's office) had pressured a guy with circumstantial evidence for over a year, then they brought a printer into a room and told him it was a lie detector...in the other room they had a guy on a computer and when they asked him questions, it would print out "he's lying", or something to that effect. eventually they got him to confess, which was later overruled and the innocent person who had been branded for life, was let free.

not sure what the name of the case was, but i know it was in one of my criminology books, i'll have to review to find it.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ocellatus2000 said:


> Jewelz, I have the very real feeling you have nothing to argue in defense. I enjoy the grouping together of sentences out of context to put words in my mouth. But I suppose you're going to run a smear campaign instead of a discussion.


I suspect you also get some kind of a weird enjoyment out of playing a perpetual victim. Argue what in defense ? I say people should keep their morals to themselves, a crazy person thinks I am attempting to silence him. Logical ?


----------



## JoeDizzleMPLS (Nov 5, 2007)

they did that on "the wire"...


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

is that a TV show? that's interesting...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> I am very much pro-death penalty. It's simply the only way to punish the most heinous of criminals. If the evidence is overwhelming, what's the problem ? People can change, sure, but some criminals are too repugnant to attempt to rehabilitiate


well if they are they never see the light of day. 
there has been many cases where evidence was stacked up and 10 -15 years later the person is proven innocent. 
and here the max sentence for anyone is 16 or 18 years ( dont remember exactely ) you guys give people 200 years sentences so yeah f*ck rehabilitation and what not in that case might as well shoot the f*cker.
[/quote]

What about the cases where the evidence is obvious and/or the suspect confesses ?
[/quote]

even confessions have been overturned before. there was one case where they (the cops and DA's office) had pressured a guy with circumstantial evidence for over a year, then they brought a printer into a room and told him it was a lie detector...in the other room they had a guy on a computer and when they asked him questions, it would print out "he's lying", or something to that effect. eventually they got him to confess, which was later overruled and the innocent person who had been branded for life, was let free.

not sure what the name of the case was, but i know it was in one of my criminology books, i'll have to review to find it.
[/quote]

What about the cases where the evidence is overwhelming and well beyond the reasonable doubt (such as a video tape, f.e.) and the suspect confesses under no duress ?


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

I wonder how the pro-life contingent on the forum would feel if there wife was gang-raped and became pregnant...should she be forced to cary the child to term and give birth? What if it is her first child....would you be ok with her caring another mans child inside her and having her first experience in child birth be with another mans child? I know it would bother me...selfish as that sounds. 
And what about the health concerns with pregnancy and child birth.....what if your wife died during child birth....is that a risk she should be forced to take? Or how about if the birth was so traumatic on her body that she could no longer get pregnant....would you be ok not having kids because you forced her to have the baby after she was raped? I think some people need to give this topic a little more though....

How about the morning after pill...is that murder as well?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

granted a video tape is quite reliable...video tapes can be easily altered on a 300 dollar PC from tiger direct. you'd really have to see the circumstance, know the situation. etc... but i see where you're coming from. it's a lot better than, "oh, i was walking along the road, and i saw him do it".


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> granted a video tape is quite reliable...video tapes can be easily altered on a 300 dollar PC from tiger direct. you'd really have to see the circumstance, know the situation. etc... but i see where you're coming from. it's a lot better than, "oh, i was walking along the road, and i saw him do it".


I am just trying to understand from the POV of those opposed to capital punishment - a lot of their arguments seem to be - "what if the person is later found innocent"; well, does that mean that if they're obviously guilty as hell we can fry them and exactly what degree of proof is needed ?


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> What about the cases where the evidence is overwhelming and well beyond the reasonable doubt (such as a video tape, f.e.) and the suspect confesses under no duress ?


Then I think death is too easy for these types. I think we should have an island we drop these men and women off on and let them fend for themselves. Survival of the fittest. Like "No Escape". Seriously though....I would like to see people that inflict pain on their victims for their own pleasure....suffer a little more then just getting the needle. I think the surviving family should have some say in what happens. Sometimes living is more punishment then death.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Grosse Gurke said:


> What about the cases where the evidence is overwhelming and well beyond the reasonable doubt (such as a video tape, f.e.) and the suspect confesses under no duress ?


Then I think death is too easy for these types. I think we should have an island we drop these men and women off on and let them fend for themselves. Survival of the fittest. Like "No Escape". Seriously though....I would like to see people that inflict pain on their victims for their own pleasure....suffer a little more then just getting the needle. I think the surviving family should have some say in what happens. Sometimes living is more punishment then death.
[/quote]

Yeah, except some of those scumbags would thrive under those conditions. I say let the survival of the fittest play out for a few months, than have Sarah Palin shoot the few surviving fittest from a helicopter.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> Yeah, except some of those scumbags would thrive under those conditions. I say let the survival of the fittest play out for a few months, than have Sarah Palin shoot the few surviving fittest from a helicopter.


Yeah...but that would be the point. The first on the island would be all set up because there would be no predators......but any newb that got dropped off would be in for a wild ride. I dont know...but I would fear being dropped off on an island with 50 psychopath rapists then living in a cell for 20 years waiting for the needle.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

i think that abortion isnt our choice as men. It is a womans body and a womans choice and this discussion is moot because, while i admit to not readying about 25% of the thread, im pretty much sure that no woman has even chimed in. we can sing all we want about the rights of the unborn, but when the risks of pregnancy dont fall on our own health, then we should not be the one to make the decision.

and the death penalty, i agree with GG, is too easy for some of these criminals. although it taxes our system to keep them alive, i think its fair punishment to be forced to live the rest of your life without basic freedoms. Plus the fact that a lot of these people arent guilty, i think that we have not the ability to judge so finally as to end anothers life.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> I am very much pro-death penalty. It's simply the only way to punish the most heinous of criminals. If the evidence is overwhelming, what's the problem ? People can change, sure, but some criminals are too repugnant to attempt to rehabilitiate


well if they are they never see the light of day. 
there has been many cases where evidence was stacked up and 10 -15 years later the person is proven innocent. 
and here the max sentence for anyone is 16 or 18 years ( dont remember exactely ) you guys give people 200 years sentences so yeah f*ck rehabilitation and what not in that case might as well shoot the f*cker.
[/quote]

What about the cases where the evidence is obvious and/or the suspect confesses ?
[/quote]
well if its obvious doesnt mean its right. and if the person confesses well the he/she does time accordingly.

i dont really see death as the ultimate punishment either.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

DiPpY eGgS said:


> Idk but I'll never forget the titi's on my 7th grade sex ed teacher. Mrs Keegan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It doesn't sound like you value others lives too much.
[/quote]

all hail baby Jesus














I hope the bible wasn't just talking sh*t when it spoke about him coming back as a lion


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Nick G said:


> i think that abortion isnt our choice as men. It is a womans body and a womans choice and this discussion is moot because, while i admit to not readying about 25% of the thread, im pretty much sure that no woman has even chimed in. we can sing all we want about the rights of the unborn, but when the risks of pregnancy dont fall on our own health, then we should not be the one to make the decision.
> 
> and the death penalty, i agree with GG, is too easy for some of these criminals. although it taxes our system to keep them alive, i think its fair punishment to be forced to live the rest of your life without basic freedoms. Plus the fact that a lot of these people arent guilty, i think that we have not the ability to judge so finally as to end anothers life.


it costs more to kill them.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> i think that abortion isnt our choice as men. It is a womans body and a womans choice and this discussion is moot because, while i admit to not readying about 25% of the thread, im pretty much sure that no woman has even chimed in. we can sing all we want about the rights of the unborn, but when the risks of pregnancy dont fall on our own health, then we should not be the one to make the decision.
> 
> and the death penalty, i agree with GG, is too easy for some of these criminals. although it taxes our system to keep them alive, i think its fair punishment to be forced to live the rest of your life without basic freedoms. Plus the fact that a lot of these people arent guilty, i think that we have not the ability to judge so finally as to end anothers life.


it costs more to kill them.
[/quote]

Not in Texas


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

This is the way I see it

Are any of you "pro-lifers" planning on adopting a child any time soon? Seriously. If its ok with you to have a sh*t load of unwanted kids then I hope your doing your part to support what you fought for. I mean I pay enough taxes to support wanted kids (welfare) and your just adding to the population which statistically means you are adding to more that every single american needs to support. If you are pro life, you should be forced to pay more taxes, adopt a kid. You wanna end this fuckin debate once and for all. At the next election make everyone vote on whether or not abortions should be illegal. Then, everyone who votes illegal, adopts a kid and get charged higher taxes if the law passes. Let everyone get affected by their decision, then we will see how people truly feel. See how many people vote for that sh*t.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> This is the way I see it
> 
> Are any of you "pro-lifers" planning on adopting a child any time soon? Seriously. If its ok with you to have a sh*t load of unwanted kids then I hope your doing your part to support what you fought for. I mean I pay enough taxes to support wanted kids (welfare) and your just adding to the population which statistically means you are adding to more that every single american needs to support. If you are pro life, you should be forced to pay more taxes, adopt a kid. You wanna end this fuckin debate once and for all. At the next election make everyone vote on whether or not abortions should be illegal. Then, everyone who votes illegal, adopts a kid and get charged higher taxes if the law passes. Let everyone get affected by their decision, then we will see how people truly feel. See how many people vote for that sh*t.


excuse me, but the majority of people born are going to be productive workers in society, people without kids should have to pay exponentially more taxes, because they're the ones that are not giving back to the future of society. who's going to whipe your 80 year old alzheimers ass? certainly not one of your kin. you're burdening society by not reproducing and creating a working member of society (next gen).


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

To everybody who's claiming that the fertilized egg is not 'human...' please explain to me at what exact second the "Nonhuman" turns into a "Human."

Seriously people.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

I suppose that it could very well be considered "More humane" to kill a human that's not fully developed yet, just as it could very easily be considered "More humane" to kill a sleeping person than one who is awake... or a person who is in a coma, or elderly and demented...

If I pumped a few slugs into the brain of a sleeping person or if I break into a hospital and slice the throat of somebody in a coma, would you think "Ah, that's okay... ?"


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Piranha_man said:


> To everybody who's claiming that the fertilized egg is not 'human...' please explain to me at what exact second the "Nonhuman" turns into a "Human."
> 
> Seriously people.


at what point is it living? breathing, feeling pain, creating thoughts, instinctively surviving...?


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

You know I dont want to sound cruel and ...well, stupid. But after sitting through a dinner already and seeing some relatives and friends interact and discuss politics, gossip and anything else under the sun I'm slightly more for abortion now.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Piranha_man said:


> To everybody who's claiming that the fertilized egg is not 'human...' please explain to me at what exact second the "Nonhuman" turns into a "Human."
> 
> Seriously people.


at age 18







you're not a parent are you


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

heres a question for pro-lifers

what about women that get pregnant and smoke and drink and do drugs then have a miscarrage or have kids with major issues shold a mis carrage due to severe irrisponsability be considered murder like you consider abortion? should those women be charged with child abuse because you consider a fertalized egg a child?


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

nismo driver said:


> heres a question for pro-lifers
> 
> what about women that get pregnant and smoke and drink and do drugs then have a miscarrage or have kids with major issues shold a mis carrage due to severe irrisponsability be considered murder like you consider abortion? should those women be charged with child abuse because you consider a fertalized egg a child?


IMO... absolutely.
What they're doing is worse than abortion.
They're mentally and physically damaging their own children.

If a mother were to beat her kid senseless with a baseball bat, she'd be arrested.
If she causes severe mental damage to her kid before it's born by doing drugs and such, she's not breaking any laws against her child.

Absurd!


----------



## WhiteLineRacer (Jul 13, 2004)

I hate the idea of abortions, but agree that they should not be made illegal.

Why screw up 3 peoples lives before one has drawn breath?

Out of curiosity, are the majority of people that are anti abortion anti contraception also?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

WhiteLineRacer said:


> I hate the idea of abortions, but agree that they should not be made illegal.
> 
> Why screw up 3 peoples lives before one has drawn breath?
> 
> Out of curiosity, are the majority of people that are anti abortion anti contraception also?


i can't speak for the majority, but i'm not against contraception. i rarely meet many who are that aren't hard line catholics. a sperm cell or an egg cell is a cell, not a child. if left alone, they will both die. when the two join, they produce something greater than the sum of its parts that can sustain life. that, IMO, is when a child is created.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

I just think it's absolutely pathetic for people to think it's okay to get off on having sex and then not being able or willing to step up to the plate if they get pregnant.

Anybody who is pro abortion is a cowardly, idiotic, wimpy, irresponsible piece of sh*t IMO.

There's a saying among prison inmates... "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

I have a saying for abortion... "If you can't be a parent, don't f*ck."

Pull your heads out of your asses people... show some backbone and responsibility.
If ya can't be responsible about it, then don't f*ck.
Period.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

i will add another wrench to this...

Roe v. Wade is the real reason the crime rate in the US dropped so dramatically in the 90's; it wasn't because the crack epidemic ended, it wasn't because guiliani was 'fixing' broken windows. About 18 years after abortion was legalized(an age when most people would commit crimes), crime started dropping.

If there is any reason to keep abortion legal, it is to keep unwanted children that won't be brought up properly out of the criminal world.

Interesting read: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Pap...galized2001.pdf


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

sooo unwanted children have no rights? and we should just kill them because statistics say they will be criminals? why don't we just go ahead and forget the whole innocent till proven guilty bit of our culture and start preemptively executing would be criminals? are you in favor of the death penalty for adults who are at least aware of the crimes they actually did commit?


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

mdrs said:


> sooo unwanted children have no rights? and we should just kill them because statistics say they will be criminals? why don't we just go ahead and forget the whole innocent till proven guilty bit of our culture and start preemptively executing would be criminals? are you in favor of the death penalty for adults who are at least aware of the crimes they actually did commit?


Excellent point.

There have been scores of valuable people born of garbage.. and tons of garbage born from valuable people.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

that's not to say that these would even be capital crimes. many of these crimes could well be burglary and other non capital crimes.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Well, no matter how you look at it, we're living in a society that's fucked up way more than just in the way it views the killing of an unborn child.

We're living in a society that puts the importance of personal gain higher than the benefit of the human race in general, 
A society where athletic ability can earn you millions more than intelligence...
And a society where the belief in some ridiculous religious doctrine directs the decision of the masses.

We are very much still in the dark ages.
1,000 years from now (If we make it that far) people will look back and look at us the way we look at the lifestyle of cavemen.


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

Piranha_man said:


> I just think it's absolutely pathetic for people to think it's okay to get off on having sex and then not being able or willing to step up to the plate if they get pregnant.
> 
> Anybody who is pro abortion is a cowardly, idiotic, wimpy, irresponsible piece of sh*t IMO.
> 
> ...


I agree with this bigtime!

I realize that there is some nasty $hit that goes on like incest/rape and an innocent woman gets pregnant, but how often does this

happen?

what are the facts? are there any?

From the people that I know and the things Ive heard, it seems that those who have abortions in the majority are

some *SELFISH MOFO's!*

Every time I hear a WOMAN is going to have it scraped is when she cant afford it, is scared, doesn't know the dad, is too young,

IT doesn't fit into her life plan, simply doesn't want kids, was drinking and partying too much and thinks it might be fu*ked up, isn't married, has had so many it does not matter anymore to her, OR the MAN is a pu$$y and wont take responsibility, hes scared and pressures the WOMAN, has no money, doesn't wrap his $hit, it was a one night stand and the broad was a $lut and he was too much of a drunk [email protected]$$ to get the facts if she or he was safe or not etc. Some of these reasons also point to why so many people are infected with some kind of STD when they bump ugly's. Sometimes it breaks or "your in the moment" but once again, if you are doing the knee trembler that's the risk YOU AND HER TAKE.....PERIOD.

My biggest problem here is that so many people don't or wont own up to THEIR ACTIONS. So.....they scrape it out.

I love it when the pro-lifers are picketing and they show the brutal pictures of aborted FETUSES and people get all pissed.

So many people live in such a sanitary world its sad. Its what they pull out so deal with it. Thats life that's the choice some people

make and that's the reality.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Piranha_man said:


> Well, no matter how you look at it, we're living in a society that's fucked up way more than just in the way it views the killing of an unborn child.
> 
> We're living in a society that puts the importance of personal gain higher than the benefit of the human race in general,
> A society where athletic ability can earn you millions more than intelligence...
> ...


which would be said of any time period where people look back 1000 years. that really doesn't say anything about humanity at this point in time.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

mdrs said:


> Well, no matter how you look at it, we're living in a society that's fucked up way more than just in the way it views the killing of an unborn child.
> 
> We're living in a society that puts the importance of personal gain higher than the benefit of the human race in general,
> A society where athletic ability can earn you millions more than intelligence...
> ...


which would be said of any time period where people look back 1000 years. that really doesn't say anything about humanity at this point in time.
[/quote]

Oh contrare monfrare!
It says EVERYTHING about humanity at this point in time.

You really think that right now.... at this moment of time... we have all the answers?
You think that right now... in the early winter of 2008... we have finally figured it all out?

Dude.
We are as much messed up now as we were one thousand, two thousand, three thousand years ago.

You seriously think we have figured it all out and have nothing else to learn???

Damn dude... seriously.
Wake the f*ck up.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Piranha_man said:


> Oh contrare monfrare!
> It says EVERYTHING about humanity at this point in time.
> 
> You really think that right now.... at this moment of time... we have all the answers?
> ...


well i guess i'll need to remind you that i never said we have it all figured it all out. you put all those words in my mouth. so i'll have to tell you to wake up.

but 1000 years ago, atheists like you would be burned at the stake. china and japan were a myth. there was no america. there wasn't even a n wester hemisphere. the average age for europeans was not even 40. man hadn't even had the rennisance, yet.

do i think we've figured it all out? not even close. do i think you know how to listen to others rather than spout what's already in your head without judging others? i have my doubts. but we've come lightyears in the last 1000 years, and we STILL have a very long way to go. all that says is that man progresses at a pretty impressive rate, not that "we're still in the dark ages."

you can quote me as saying, however, the following. a: you display all of the intolerance and hostitlity you accuse people of religion to have. perhaps your argument about religion causing these that is a bit off base. and b: the dark ages were perpetuated by intolerant and hostile people just like you. people that weren't willing to listen to others and all to willing to treat those who didn't agree with them as heretics who were burned at the stake. perhaps you should take something away from that.

/end of derail. this thread is about abortion.


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

The most important human rights of all is the right to be born.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

rchan11 said:


> The most important human rights of all is the right to be born.


how poetic...but according to whom?

My opinion, leave this debate to people who give a sh*t about it. Abortion is just another bible thumping spin issue that lets people focus on something other than what's important. It's not your baby, your life, your deal, so mind your own damn business. No need to waste more govt money funding anti abortion legislation, it's legal, it's been voted on, drop it. The most hateful people I've ever seen are the ones picketing an abortion clinic. It's not like people go skipping in there happily getting their abortion.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Boobah said:


> The most important human rights of all is the right to be born.


how poetic...but according to whom?

My opinion, leave this debate to people who give a sh*t about it. Abortion is just another bible thumping spin issue that lets people focus on something other than what's important. It's not your baby, your life, your deal, so mind your own damn business. No need to waste more govt money funding anti abortion legislation, it's legal, it's been voted on, drop it. The most hateful people I've ever seen are the ones picketing an abortion clinic. It's not like people go skipping in there happily getting their abortion.
[/quote]

if you don't see anything more hateful than that, you really should watch some public stoning vids from the middle east. or even that vid on here a while back about the girl whipped for being alone with a boy who raped her. in other words, that's a very sheltered statement to make.

and according to whom, i'd say the whole life liberty and the pursuit of happiness covered it pretty well. if you don't agree how about that if you deny someone the right to life then not having freedom of religion and speech really don't matter that much? all rights come from the right to live. and if you really think that because it's law it shouldn't be changed, i imagne the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and people who want the patriot act to end also bother you, no?

and did i misread your statement or did you tell someone participating in a debat to leave it to those who "give a sh*t" about it?


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

mdrs said:


> The most important human rights of all is the right to be born.


how poetic...but according to whom?

My opinion, leave this debate to people who give a sh*t about it. Abortion is just another bible thumping spin issue that lets people focus on something other than what's important. It's not your baby, your life, your deal, so mind your own damn business. No need to waste more govt money funding anti abortion legislation, it's legal, it's been voted on, drop it. The most hateful people I've ever seen are the ones picketing an abortion clinic. It's not like people go skipping in there happily getting their abortion.
[/quote]

if you don't see anything more hateful than that, you really should watch some public stoning vids from the middle east. or even that vid on here a while back about the girl whipped for being alone with a boy who raped her. in other words, that's a very sheltered statement to make.

and according to whom, i'd say the whole life liberty and the pursuit of happiness covered it pretty well. if you don't agree how about that if you deny someone the right to life then not having freedom of religion and speech really don't matter that much? all rights come from the right to live. and if you really think that because it's law it shouldn't be changed, i imagne the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and people who want the patriot act to end also bother you, no?

and did i misread your statement or did you tell someone participating in a debat to leave it to those who "give a sh*t" about it?
[/quote]

sorry i dissed your people, but i've never been personal witness to a stoning or a girl whipped for being alone with a boy, so i don't present youtube as a real life experience. Anyone who feels the need to go out and mentally beat down people for not sharing their beliefs is pretty hateful. I'm sorry if I didn't clarify my statement for you. The people that picket abortion clinics are the third most hateful people I know of, after people that were stoning others in the middle east, and the person that whipped the girl for being alone with a boy.

All of you hardcore pro-life people happily use YOUR definition of when life starts, which is the main focus of the abortion debate, but who cares about that, you know you're right!

Of course! I love slavery, segregation, and the patriot act. Those are my three pillars. Point is, as a proponent of small government you need to wake up and realize that you're not going to win this one, the world is becoming more liberal every day, so quit throwing money at it.

no you didn't misread my statement, you're one of the people on here that really seem to care so much about something that has absolutely 0 to do with you, and i'm not. My opinion is leave it alone, mind your own business. I'm not going to get into the typical debate and start spouting off the same pro-choice BS everyone says (omg back alley abortion, omg rape and incest!!) hence the I don't give a sh*t about it comment. I honestly really didn't want to get in on this one, especially with you because i'll spend the entire time rebutting little comments about 'Did i misread what you said, or did you in fact imply that you hate black people!?' But being as it's p-fury i felt i should add my .02. Debating on beliefs is pointless, there's no way to change anyone's opinion.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

you can quote me as saying, however, the following. a: *you display all of the intolerance and hostitlity you accuse people of religion to have. perhaps your argument about religion causing these that is a bit off base.* and b: the dark ages were perpetuated by intolerant and hostile people just like you. people that weren't willing to listen to others and all to willing to treat those who didn't agree with them as heretics who were burned at the stake. perhaps you should take something away from that.

Interesting perspective.
Wrong, but interesting.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Boobah said:


> sorry i dissed your people, but i've never been personal witness to a stoning or a girl whipped for being alone with a boy, so i don't present youtube as a real life experience. Anyone who feels the need to go out and mentally beat down people for not sharing their beliefs is pretty hateful. I'm sorry if I didn't clarify my statement for you. The people that picket abortion clinics are the third most hateful people I know of, after people that were stoning others in the middle east, and the person that whipped the girl for being alone with a boy.
> 
> All of you hardcore pro-life people happily use YOUR definition of when life starts, which is the main focus of the abortion debate, but who cares about that, you know you're right!
> 
> ...


i advocate small government that protects basic rights, like life. anyone who says life doesn't begin at conception can't come up with a logical reason as to why it begins at any other time. i don't picket abortion clinics, they aren't "my" people. as an FYI, Piranha_Man, as you can read is real anti abortion, is also a hard core atheist. not about religion, my friend, it's about logic and morality.

as for the rest of the bile you just spewed, if you can't change someone's mind and don't care, sarcasm and being rude will always be a close second. nice talking with you as always.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Here is a map of abortion laws by each country.

Pro-lifers - ask yourself - is it a mere coincidence that in majority of cases, the countries where abortions are illegal are 3rd world hellholes and/or muslim fundamentalist states i.e. basically places on globe where none of us would ever choose to live voluntarily ?


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

To be realistic, nobody's gonna change anybody's views on such a serious topic via arguement.
Let's just agree to disagree.

For those who are pro abortion... go ahead and condone the killing of unborn children.
For those of us who are anti abortion... we'll go ahead and frown on murder, especially that of our own babies.

I'm sick of this debate.
It proves to go nowhere but round and round.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> Here is a map of abortion laws by each country.
> 
> Pro-lifers - ask yourself - is it a mere coincidence that in majority of cases, the countries where abortions are illegal are 3rd world hellholes and/or muslim fundamentalist states i.e. basically places on globe where none of us would ever choose to live voluntarily ?


all the cool kids are doing it is not a valid argument.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

ironic it's legal in N korea and illegal in S Korea


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

scrubbs said:


> i will add another wrench to this...
> 
> Roe v. Wade is the real reason the crime rate in the US dropped so dramatically in the 90's; it wasn't because the crack epidemic ended, it wasn't because guiliani was 'fixing' broken windows. About 18 years after abortion was legalized(an age when most people would commit crimes), crime started dropping.
> 
> ...


Correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

Liquid said:


> Idk but I'll never forget the titi's on my 7th grade sex ed teacher. Mrs Keegan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It doesn't sound like you value others lives too much.
[/quote]

all hail baby Jesus







:laugh: I hope the bible wasn't just talking sh*t when it spoke about him coming back as a lion








[/quote]

It's mildly amusing how you conduct yourself.. And how you don't make sense. lol but your trying. D for effort.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> ironic it's legal in N korea and illegal in S Korea


Huh. That is odd.


----------



## BUBBA (Sep 4, 2003)

Im Against Obortion period.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

BUBBA said:


> Im Against Obortion period.


what about Abortion?


----------



## Ægir (Jan 21, 2006)

My stance on the subject: The biggest reason for not allowing it is" its murder", and you are killing somebody...

Well If a fetus is a human being, then any mother who has ever had a miscarriage (or neglectfully caused it to happen) should be tried for murder, or manslaughter. Also, there are many delciate subjects in this matter (rape, incest, major disabilities) and there cant be a definite "yes or no" on if it should be allowed or not... Not to mention the benefits of stem cell research...

Honestly i think *abortion should be mandatory* unless you have been approved to have a kid... there are too many stupid people, and people that bring children into this world ONLY for the tax benefits or bigger welfare checks, and not for the love of a child or raising a family...* idiots reproducing is obviously a larger problem than abortion 
*


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Skunkbudfour20 said:


> My stance on the subject: The biggest reason for not allowing it is" its murder", and you are killing somebody...
> 
> Well If a fetus is a human being, then any mother who has ever had a miscarriage (or neglectfully caused it to happen) should be tried for murder, or manslaughter. Also, there are many delciate subjects in this matter (rape, incest, major disabilities) and there cant be a definite "yes or no" on if it should be allowed or not... Not to mention the benefits of stem cell research...
> 
> ...


okay stem cell research is one of the most oft used excuse and has no merit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7060601345.html

you can make stem cells from skin cells. oh and....

1 stem cells aren't gathered from abortion
2 adult stem cells were the only viable form of research (libs just latched on to the embryonic stem cell research)
3 denying people children is denying a basic right. who are you to tell anyone that they aren't allowed to have kids?

and a miscarriage is hardly an intentional termination of a pregnancy. you need to put some more thought in to this and come up with better arguments.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

8o8P said:


> This is the way I see it
> 
> Are any of you "pro-lifers" planning on adopting a child any time soon? Seriously. If its ok with you to have a sh*t load of unwanted kids then I hope your doing your part to support what you fought for. I mean I pay enough taxes to support wanted kids (welfare) and your just adding to the population which statistically means you are adding to more that every single american needs to support. If you are pro life, you should be forced to pay more taxes, adopt a kid. You wanna end this fuckin debate once and for all. At the next election make everyone vote on whether or not abortions should be illegal. Then, everyone who votes illegal, adopts a kid and get charged higher taxes if the law passes. Let everyone get affected by their decision, then we will see how people truly feel. See how many people vote for that sh*t.


Anyone want to educate him about the concept of "secret ballots"?

If we go with that, everyone who is "pro-choice" needs to watch videos of abortions with their eyes held open with toothpicks and heads held in restraints.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

agreed about stem cells. the whole theory of banning stem cell research because you don't like abortion is ludicrous. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. Stupid legislation like that will make us fall behind the rest of the world in medical R&D


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

federal money doesn't make or break us in terms of medical research. it's the private market that determines our position in the world as far as medical R&D. but that little fact, as well as the fact that EMBRYONIC stem ell research is OBSOLETE is often ignored by people making an issue about the research.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Boobah said:


> agreed about stem cells. the whole theory of banning stem cell research because you don't like abortion is ludicrous. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. Stupid legislation like that will make us fall behind the rest of the world in medical R&D


It wasn't always that way, but now, yeah, those bans should be extinct.


----------



## Ægir (Jan 21, 2006)

mdrs said:


> agreed about stem cells. the whole theory of banning stem cell research because you don't like abortion is ludicrous. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. Stupid legislation like that will make us fall behind the rest of the world in medical R&D


Agree, they should both be legal, but abortions shouldnt be over the counter easy...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Skunkbudfour20 said:


> agreed about stem cells. the whole theory of banning stem cell research because you don't like abortion is ludicrous. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. Stupid legislation like that will make us fall behind the rest of the world in medical R&D


Agree, they should both be legal
[/quote]

if you'd have read the link i gave you, you'd not have had to make your little personal attack. so i suggest you read them. i know what a stem cell is. i also know what they do and where they come from. do you know the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research? it seems, you don't spend much time reading up on it as the washington post article is over a year old. but hey, i guess you spend time learning how to call people names.

and you were talking about certian kinds of miscarriages, huh? why did you say "any mother who has ever had a miscarriage" then? that doesn't seem to line up with what you were saying.

don't accuse someone of being out to start fights when you just call names, and don't bring any actual logical statements to the table. read my posts, then read links, then answer. it makes you sound like you're at least pretending to be interested in discussion rather than schoolyard crap.


----------



## Ægir (Jan 21, 2006)

mdrs said:


> agreed about stem cells. the whole theory of banning stem cell research because you don't like abortion is ludicrous. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. Stupid legislation like that will make us fall behind the rest of the world in medical R&D


Agree, they should both be legal
[/quote]

if you'd have read the link i gave you, you'd not have had to make your little personal attack. so i suggest you read them. i know what a stem cell is. i also know what they do and where they come from. do you know the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research? it seems, you don't spend much time reading up on it as the washington post article is over a year old. but hey, i guess you spend time learning how to call people names.

and you were talking about certian kinds of miscarriages, huh? why did you say *"any mother who has ever had a miscarriage"* then? that doesn't seem to line up with what you were saying.

don't accuse someone of being out to start fights when you just call names, and don't bring any actual logical statements to the table. read my posts, then read links, then answer. it makes you sound like you're at least pretending to be interested in discussion rather than schoolyard crap.
[/quote]

i read your link, it says and i quote "they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells" "if it works with human cells" keywords MOUSE and IF IT WORKS WITH HUMAN

"the scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells."

"A human is not a mouse, so a lot more work has to be done"

"warned that it could take a long time to translate the new work to human cells"

So you are saying we shoud retard our disease, cancer, and stemcell research and just "wait it out" untill cures for diabetes and advanced kidney cancer can be done without destroying an embryo...

you eat eggs, thats destroying chicken embryos? how does this make the chickens feel?

i am for abortion, stemcell research, and eating chicken embryos....

*And you take everything i say to seriously, right after that i said you should convict mothers to manslaughter... it was a f*cking joke to prove how stupid the "abortion is murder" slogan is*


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Skunkbudfour20 said:


> i read your link, it says and i quote "they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells" "if it works with human cells" keywords MOUSE and IF IT WORKS WITH HUMAN
> 
> "the scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells."
> 
> ...


i don't take what you say seriously. i just take the time to read it and point out your logical flaws. you're not the first person to claim joke when they get egg on their face. how is it smart to say something very stupid and illogical to point out what you feel to be stupid and illogical? rest assured, i don't take the majority of what you say seriously.

my mistake. the right link.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1293...stem-cells.html


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> i read your link, it says and i quote "they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells" "if it works with human cells" keywords MOUSE and IF IT WORKS WITH HUMAN
> 
> "the scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells."
> 
> ...


i don't take what you say seriously. i just take the time to read it and point out your logical flaws. you're not the first person to claim joke when they get egg on their face. how is it smart to say something very stupid and illogical to point out what you feel to be stupid and illogical? rest assured, i don't take the majority of what you say seriously.

my mistake. the right link.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1293...stem-cells.html
[/quote]

A promising development, but far from the end of the road. From your own source:



> For these cells to be as useful as embryonic stem cells, "we have to find a way to avoid retroviruses before application in cell therapy", Yamanaka says, as they could result in tumours.


To this day, embryonic stem cells remain the scientists' best hope in medical research.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> A promising development, but far from the end of the road. From your own source:





> However, to date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research (*ESCR*). Adult stem cells and cord blood stems cells have thus far been the only stem cells used to successfully treat any diseases.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell

i know, i know, wiki. it's not an obscure fact, so just work with me. we could easily be using stem cells from cord blood. we could be working with ones taken from marrow. but this research (important as it is) is just being politicized. it's not illegal, which could have been done, it's just not being funded by the government. but people make a big deal about it because both sides use it as a talking point. we have viable research that's made verifiable progress, but we say it's not good enough because of one point that our political machine latches on to a small facet to fight about.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> A promising development, but far from the end of the road. From your own source:





> However, to date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research (*ESCR*). Adult stem cells and cord blood stems cells have thus far been the only stem cells used to successfully treat any diseases.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell

*i know, i know, wiki*. it's not an obscure fact, so just work with me. we could easily be using stem cells from cord blood. we could be working with ones taken from marrow. but this research (important as it is) is just being politicized. it's not illegal, which could have been done, it's just not being funded by the government. but people make a big deal about it because both sides use it as a talking point. we have viable research that's made verifiable progress, but we say it's not good enough because of one point that our political machine latches on to a small facet to fight about.
[/quote]

Yeah and the source you cited right before that states that the other method is not as useful as embryonic stem cell research at this point; so now you go find a source that seems to contradict your previous source. You say it's not illegal - right and neither are abortions but there are folks that would like to ban both. It's great if we can make stem cells out of skin, if we can use adult stem cells - even though from what I've read they're a lot less flexible than embryonic ones. Why not use all the available tools at our disposal ?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> Yeah and the source you cited right before that states that the other method is not as useful as embryonic stem cell research at this point; so now you go find a source that seems to contradict your previous source. You say it's not illegal - right and neither are abortions but there are folks that would like to ban both. It's great if we can make stem cells out of skin, if we can use adult stem cells - even though from what I've read they're a lot less flexible than embryonic ones. Why not use all the available tools at our disposal ?


because an embryo is a potential human. embryos are so great because they aren't developed humans but we KNOW what they are. you can't use a stem cell from a cow, why? because it isn't HUMAN. but that doesn't matter, why? i've yet to hear one rational reason as to why these "non humans" don't matter. what acceptable criteria makes a human being a human being? obviously life begins earlier than many (including you) say because there IS a difference between a human embryo and the embryo of anything else.

i am one of those folks that would ban both. because (until i hear a rational and moral reason otherwise) human life is human life. these are biologically indistinguishable from any other embryo. great, use a different species, problem solved. oh it doesn't work? but why, they're not human, they're not anything yet, right? they aren't aware of their surroundings? neither are coma patients. they don't "contribute" to society? there are a lot of adults that don't either. they'll be criminals, statistically speaking? they're guilty of nothing. these aren't reasons. they're rationalizations, and weak ones at that. not one makes logical sense after a cursory examination.

if my view is so wrong, a devil's advocate, just do the easy thing and presuppose i'm right. do your level best to take my point of view and see how long it takes you to run out of reasons to at least be cautious. you hear one argument over and over on my side. life is life. but you hear numerous different non cohesive and illogical arguments on the other side.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

mdrs said:


> Yeah and the source you cited right before that states that the other method is not as useful as embryonic stem cell research at this point; so now you go find a source that seems to contradict your previous source. You say it's not illegal - right and neither are abortions but there are folks that would like to ban both. It's great if we can make stem cells out of skin, if we can use adult stem cells - even though from what I've read they're a lot less flexible than embryonic ones. Why not use all the available tools at our disposal ?


because an embryo is a potential human. embryos are so great because they aren't developed humans but we KNOW what they are. you can't use a stem cell from a cow, why? because it isn't HUMAN. but that doesn't matter, why? i've yet to hear one rational reason as to why these "non humans" don't matter. what acceptable criteria makes a human being a human being? obviously life begins earlier than many (including you) say because there IS a difference between a human embryo and the embryo of anything else.

i am one of those folks that would ban both. because (until i hear a rational and moral reason otherwise) human life is human life. these are biologically indistinguishable from any other embryo. great, use a different species, problem solved. oh it doesn't work? but why, they're not human, they're not anything yet, right? they aren't aware of their surroundings? neither are coma patients. they don't "contribute" to society? there are a lot of adults that don't either. they'll be criminals, statistically speaking? they're guilty of nothing. these aren't reasons. they're rationalizations, and weak ones at that. not one makes logical sense after a cursory examination.

if my view is so wrong, a devil's advocate, just do the easy thing and presuppose i'm right. do your level best to take my point of view and see how long it takes you to run out of reasons to at least be cautious. you hear one argument over and over on my side. life is life. but you hear numerous different non cohesive and illogical arguments on the other side.
[/quote]

Well said.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> Yeah and the source you cited right before that states that the other method is not as useful as embryonic stem cell research at this point; so now you go find a source that seems to contradict your previous source. You say it's not illegal - right and neither are abortions but there are folks that would like to ban both. It's great if we can make stem cells out of skin, if we can use adult stem cells - even though from what I've read they're a lot less flexible than embryonic ones. Why not use all the available tools at our disposal ?


because an embryo is a potential human. embryos are so great because they aren't developed humans but we KNOW what they are. you can't use a stem cell from a cow, why? because it isn't HUMAN. but that doesn't matter, why? i've yet to hear one rational reason as to why these "non humans" don't matter. what acceptable criteria makes a human being a human being? obviously life begins earlier than many (including you) say because there IS a difference between a human embryo and the embryo of anything else.

i am one of those folks that would ban both. because (until i hear a rational and moral reason otherwise) human life is human life. these are biologically indistinguishable from any other embryo. great, use a different species, problem solved. oh it doesn't work? but why, they're not human, they're not anything yet, right? they aren't aware of their surroundings? neither are coma patients. they don't "contribute" to society? there are a lot of adults that don't either. they'll be criminals, statistically speaking? they're guilty of nothing. these aren't reasons. they're rationalizations, and weak ones at that. not one makes logical sense after a cursory examination.

if my view is so wrong, a devil's advocate, just do the easy thing and presuppose i'm right. do your level best to take my point of view and see how long it takes you to run out of reasons to at least be cautious. you hear one argument over and over on my side. life is life. but you hear numerous different non cohesive and illogical arguments on the other side.
[/quote]

You think the arguments are illogical and non cohesive because you're not being open-minded. We don't believe life begins at conception, plain as that. But the great thing about our view is everybody has a free will (I know, I know, except for the unborn bundle of cells which you are convinced is a human). Therefore, if you believe life begins at conception, you're free to exercise your right to not partake in abortions, just like everyone else. I respect your opinion, I don't believe it's non cohesive or absurd, I just happen to disagree. What I don't respect is you telling the rest of us what's acceptable and what isn't. You want to dictate to my future wife what she can/cannot do with her reproductive organs ? No, thank you. BTW, I've met plenty of people who would never even consider having abortions themselves but would never tell anyone else whether or not they can.

Embryos being potential humans is exactly the thing that makes them so useful for research - it's the early stage of development that makes their cells so flexible, from my understanding. And this one is my favorite:



> obviously life begins earlier than many (including you) say because there IS a difference between a human embryo and the embryo of anything else


Human embryo is different from cow embryos ? whoopee ! So is human sperm. Would you like to ban everyone from spanking it and killing human sperm cells as well ?


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Jewelz... just curious as to at what point do you believe "Life begins" then?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Piranha_man said:


> Jewelz... just curious as to at what point do you believe "Life begins" then?


Check your birth certificate, dude


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> You think the arguments are illogical and non cohesive because you're not being open-minded. We don't believe life begins at conception, plain as that. But the great thing about our view is everybody has a free will (I know, I know, except for the unborn bundle of cells which you are convinced is a human). Therefore, if you believe life begins at conception, you're free to exercise your right to not partake in abortions, just like everyone else. I respect your opinion, I don't believe it's non cohesive or absurd, I just happen to disagree. What I don't respect is you telling the rest of us what's acceptable and what isn't. You want to dictate to my future wife what she can/cannot do with her reproductive organs ? No, thank you. BTW, I've met plenty of people who would never even consider having abortions themselves but would never tell anyone else whether or not they can.
> 
> Embryos being potential humans is exactly the thing that makes them so useful for research - it's the early stage of development that makes their cells so flexible, from my understanding. And this one is my favorite:
> 
> ...


with respect, i am being open minded. i approached this issue the same way i did everything else when i became conscious of the larger issues. i agreed totally with people who share your opinion. then i looked deeper and with unflinching logic.

you tell me abortion and stem cell research isn't a big deal because we're not killing people. you tell me they're just a collection of cells and as such, don't matter. that you can't tell the difference, under a microscope and so aren't people because they aren't anything. okay, fine. i see that. so i read about it. and we see that's not true at all. that there is a difference and sometimes we don't know why, but there has to be a difference because you can't use stem cells from a different species. okay. so that point is now not valid because it can be disproven.

you tell me then that a "fetus" is not a human being because (despite knowing it will be) it isn't self sufficient. but, again, that can be disproven as we know there are full on adults that are never self sufficient.

you tell me then that they're unwanted. i then say that "unwanted" is an opinion but even assuming it's true, there are "unwanted" adults. should they then be killed because someone doesn't want them?

you tell me then that i shouldn't bring "God" in to the issue and then tell me about what you believe to be true. but what i believe should be ignored because it's superstition.

this goes on, and on, and on, and on until eventually you say that it's your opinion and you'll never change your mind. after you have no more facts to offer (or just don't care to) that what's happening is a simple difference of opinion. and that i have no right do dictate what others do based on a difference of opinion. but in the end, you still CANNOT come up with any reason based on any criterion you choose as to where life begins is not what i believe. it's science until that fails. then it's morality, until that fails. until all you have is your opinion and no facts. and i'm the one with a narrow view of the world?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> You think the arguments are illogical and non cohesive because you're not being open-minded. We don't believe life begins at conception, plain as that. But the great thing about our view is everybody has a free will (I know, I know, except for the unborn bundle of cells which you are convinced is a human). Therefore, if you believe life begins at conception, you're free to exercise your right to not partake in abortions, just like everyone else. I respect your opinion, I don't believe it's non cohesive or absurd, I just happen to disagree. What I don't respect is you telling the rest of us what's acceptable and what isn't. You want to dictate to my future wife what she can/cannot do with her reproductive organs ? No, thank you. BTW, I've met plenty of people who would never even consider having abortions themselves but would never tell anyone else whether or not they can.
> 
> Embryos being potential humans is exactly the thing that makes them so useful for research - it's the early stage of development that makes their cells so flexible, from my understanding. And this one is my favorite:
> 
> ...


with respect, i am being open minded. i approached this issue the same way i did everything else when i became conscious of the larger issues. i agreed totally with people who share your opinion. then i looked deeper and with unflinching logic.

you tell me abortion and stem cell research isn't a big deal because we're not killing people. you tell me they're just a collection of cells and as such, don't matter. that you can't tell the difference, under a microscope and so aren't people because they aren't anything. okay, fine. i see that. so i read about it. and we see that's not true at all. that there is a difference and sometimes we don't know why, but there has to be a difference because you can't use stem cells from a different species. okay. so that point is now not valid because it can be disproven.

you tell me then that a "fetus" is not a human being because (despite knowing it will be) it isn't self sufficient. but, again, that can be disproven as we know there are full on adults that are never self sufficient.

you tell me then that they're unwanted. i then say that "unwanted" is an opinion but even assuming it's true, there are "unwanted" adults. should they then be killed because someone doesn't want them?

you tell me then that i shouldn't bring "God" in to the issue and then tell me about what you believe to be true. but what i believe should be ignored because it's superstition.

this goes on, and on, and on, and on until eventually you say that it's your opinion and you'll never change your mind. after you have no more facts to offer (or just don't care to) that what's happening is a simple difference of opinion. and that i have no right do dictate what others do based on a difference of opinion. but in the end, you still CANNOT come up with any reason based on any criterion you choose as to where life begins is not what i believe. it's science until that fails. then it's morality, until that fails. until all you have is your opinion and no facts. and i'm the one with a narrow view of the world?
[/quote]

Do you enjoy these strawman arguments ? Didn't even know you ever brought "God" in the issue. I also never said you can't tell the difference under the microscope - of course you can, so back to the sperm cell argument. I am assuming you're for banning masturbation AND contraception - after all there is definitely a difference between human sperm and that of other species, right ?

I see you rationalizing and spinning as to why you believe what you believe, but in the end I already stated that I respect your beliefs. I don't agree with them, but we don't have to agree. I am not the one who's trying to tell you how you should live your life; you're trying to tell me how to live mine - but after all that is the 'conservative' way, right ?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

you can get stem cells from bone marrow, skin, a lot of different things. and your argument is that "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg...but that's not how a lot of other people view it...why is your view so right? what makes you so certain that life BEGINS at the fertilization of an egg? sperm are living, moving things, should we ban masturbation and contraception because it results in billions of dead sperm? babies are babies, fetus's are fetus's, and embryos are embryo's, without incubation, embryo's dont become viable humans, they're just a cluster of cells.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> Do you enjoy these strawman arguments ? Didn't even know you ever brought "God" in the issue. I also never said you can't tell the difference under the microscope - of course you can, so back to the sperm cell argument. I am assuming you're for banning masturbation AND contraception - after all there is definitely a difference between human sperm and that of other species, right ?
> 
> I see you rationalizing and spinning as to why you believe what you believe, but in the end I already stated that I respect your beliefs. I don't agree with them, but we don't have to agree. I am not the one who's trying to tell you how you should live your life; you're trying to tell me how to live mine - but after all that is the 'conservative' way, right ?


i'm not spinning anything. and not using straw man arguments. i'm saying human life begins at conception. i'm saying that when a sperm and egg join, something new and uniquely human is created. as i said in the last page of this topic. you can abstractly see we consider it human life being destroyed. but you show you don't understand when you say it all boils down to opinion. we'll agree to disagree and while one side gets its abortions and stem cell research, the other can just not kill their own children.



> i can't speak for the majority, but i'm not against contraception. i rarely meet many who are that aren't hard line catholics. a sperm cell or an egg cell is a cell, not a child. if left alone, they will both die. when the two join, they produce something greater than the sum of its parts that can sustain life. that, IMO, is when a child is created.


and r1, as you said the same thing as jewlez, i consider this an answer to your post as well. and as i said earlier which you may have missed, HUMAN life begins at conception. an embryo is a cluster of cells. yes. but HUMAN cells. what is a "viable" human. again you're using opinion and not logic. if an infant is left alone, it dies, as well. so that last bit there is not logical.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Boobah said:


> The most important human rights of all is the right to be born.


how poetic...but according to whom?

My opinion, leave this debate to people who give a sh*t about it. Abortion is just another bible thumping spin issue that lets people focus on something other than what's important. It's not your baby, your life, your deal, so mind your own damn business. No need to waste more govt money funding anti abortion legislation, it's legal, it's been voted on, drop it. The most hateful people I've ever seen are the ones picketing an abortion clinic. It's not like people go skipping in there happily getting their abortion.
[/quote]

couldn't agree more.. These are the same type of intolerable hypocrites that used to burn witches in the name of God. Too bad we can't round them up and ship em off somewhere again







What a detrimental drain on man kind







like a plague but worse, a living half wit thinking disease.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> Jewelz... just curious as to at what point do you believe "Life begins" then?


Check your birth certificate, dude
[/quote]

Just checked it.
It tells the exact time and date in which I exited the womb.

I really wasn't alive seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks and months before that?
That's wild!
I had no idea that embryos and fetuses were not alive!

How interesting.
Thanks for the info!


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Liquid said:


> The most important human rights of all is the right to be born.


how poetic...but according to whom?

My opinion, leave this debate to people who give a sh*t about it. Abortion is just another bible thumping spin issue that lets people focus on something other than what's important. It's not your baby, your life, your deal, so mind your own damn business. No need to waste more govt money funding anti abortion legislation, it's legal, it's been voted on, drop it. The most hateful people I've ever seen are the ones picketing an abortion clinic. It's not like people go skipping in there happily getting their abortion.
[/quote]

couldn't agree more.. These are the same type of intolerable hypocrites that used to burn witches in the name of God. Too bad we can't round them up and ship em off somewhere again :laugh: What a detrimental drain on man kind







like a plague but worse, a living half wit thinking disease.
[/quote]

the same type of intolerable hypocrites are now saying that abortion is wrong and we should respect innocent life? that sounds like the opposite of the intolerance that allowed the horrific acts you just described. that doesn't even make sense. from where do you get the mental superiority to call other halfwits when saying the illogical things you do?


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> The most important human rights of all is the right to be born.


how poetic...but according to whom?

My opinion, leave this debate to people who give a sh*t about it. Abortion is just another bible thumping spin issue that lets people focus on something other than what's important. It's not your baby, your life, your deal, so mind your own damn business. No need to waste more govt money funding anti abortion legislation, it's legal, it's been voted on, drop it. The most hateful people I've ever seen are the ones picketing an abortion clinic. It's not like people go skipping in there happily getting their abortion.
[/quote]

couldn't agree more.. These are the same type of intolerable hypocrites that used to burn witches in the name of God. Too bad we can't round them up and ship em off somewhere again :laugh: What a detrimental drain on man kind







like a plague but worse, a living half wit thinking disease.
[/quote]

the same type of intolerable hypocrites are now saying that abortion is wrong and we should respect innocent life? that sounds like the opposite of the intolerance that allowed the horrific acts you just described. that doesn't even make sense. from where do you get the mental superiority to call other halfwits when saying the illogical things you do?
[/quote]








hahaa did I fart? So I guess the real question is what gave you the assumption I was talking to or about you.







must have hit home but theres no way in hell I have the energy to get into a debate with a jahova witness tonight.. What in the world do they put in turkey nowadays. /needs more sleep..


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Liquid said:


> :laugh: hahaa did I fart? *no that smell is the crap coming out of your mouth. confused me too.* So I guess the real question is what gave you the assumption I was talking to or about you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nice job on refraining from any sheep comments, though. you're getting much better. you didn't even mention baby Jesus or turrists. you may be able to form an articulate thought, yet.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> i'm not spinning anything. and not using straw man arguments.


By putting words into my mouth that I've never said that's exactly what you were doing.



> i'm saying human life begins at conception. i'm saying that when a sperm and egg join, something new and uniquely human is created.


And I disagree because you failed to prove your case. The burden of proof in this case rests on you because you want to change the laws that currently exist and you want to interfere in people's lives. The only thing you've proven is that a precursor to life begins at conception and I don't believe anyone would argue that. What's good about my solution is I am not forcing you to do anything different than you already doing or not doing.



> we'll agree to disagree and while one side gets its abortions and stem cell research, the other can just not kill their own children.


See, that wasn't so hard.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Piranha_man said:


> Jewelz... just curious as to at what point do you believe "Life begins" then?


Check your birth certificate, dude
[/quote]

Just checked it.
It tells the exact time and date in which I exited the womb.

I really wasn't alive seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks and months before that?
That's wild!
I had no idea that embryos and fetuses were not alive!

How interesting.
Thanks for the info!








[/quote]

Glad to be of assistance


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> And I disagree because you failed to prove your case. The burden of proof in this case rests on you because you want to change the laws that currently exist and you want to interfere in people's lives. The only thing you've proven is that a precursor to life begins at conception and I don't believe anyone would argue that. What's good about my solution is I am not forcing you to do anything different than you already doing or not doing.


ah that's cute. i tell you that you've not proven your case on any logical terms that i've let you choose. so you accuse me of doing so and then and only then, mention burden of proof. if you don't have the facts to continue this discussion, just say so. don't hope i won't see you using my statements without answering the statements put to you (strawman argument?). you can't well accuse me of what you're in part doing now and hope i won't see that.



> we'll agree to disagree and while one side gets its abortions and stem cell research, the other can just not kill their own children.





> See, that wasn't so hard.


if you really think that was anything other than a pathetic statement based on (i hope) sarcasm, that didn't provide one iota of factual contribuiton, i'll agree you can go ahead and put up a post that isn't deserving of a decent rebuttal. (that's what liquid does) you accuse me of not being open minded and then put up that? what did that show other than when faced with no more logical or even rational arguments, you'll just throw up the same bitter arguments that do your point no favors. you're better than that. i don't ususally agree with you but at least you take the time to be serious and rational. don't let that go for this one thread. i implore you, don't fall to one liners and smileys. give a decent argument, not something unintelligible marred with smilely faces and no thought.

i still invite you, argue from a different standpoint. argue (honestly) from the other side and see how it goes. or keep making sarcastic and bitter remarks. i know you can't do it when removed from the moral vacuum your side enjoys. but keep glossing over my points and accusing me of ignoring your own. i'm used to it. liquid and many others do it all the time are you that gifted, in logic?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> ah that's cute. i tell you that you've not proven your case on any logical terms that i've let you choose. so you accuse me of doing so and then and only then, mention burden of proof. if you don't have the facts to continue this discussion, just say so. don't hope i won't see you using my statements without answering the statements put to you (strawman argument?). you can't well accuse me of what you're in part doing now and hope i won't see that.


When did you tell me I haven't proven my case ? I thought I was pretty clear about what my position is and I am also pretty sure you won't change my mind just as I won't change yours. Yes, the burden of proof rests with you because you are the one who wants to tell other people how to live their lives. Deal with it.



> > cc
> 
> 
> 
> ...


mdrs, what on the god's green earth was that rant about ??? You lost me completely, I am afraid

My remark was nothing - and I mean nothing more than acceptance of a peace offering, which I thought you had presented. You said "we'll agree to disagree and while one side gets its abortions and stem cell research, the other can just not kill their own children." I said - ok, fine. Did the "peace" smiley strike some kind of a nerve or something ? I am simply beyond puzzled at your response.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> Jewelz... just curious as to at what point do you believe "Life begins" then?


Check your birth certificate, dude
[/quote]

Just checked it.
It tells the exact time and date in which I exited the womb.

I really wasn't alive seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks and months before that?
That's wild!
I had no idea that embryos and fetuses were not alive!

How interesting.
Thanks for the info!








[/quote]



















Glad to be of assistance








[/quote]


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

ChilDawg said:


> i will add another wrench to this...
> 
> Roe v. Wade is the real reason the crime rate in the US dropped so dramatically in the 90's; it wasn't because the crack epidemic ended, it wasn't because guiliani was 'fixing' broken windows. About 18 years after abortion was legalized(an age when most people would commit crimes), crime started dropping.
> 
> ...


Correlation does not imply causation.
[/quote]

of course correlation does not always imply causation. However, in this case, the hypothesis was presented in the form of an academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal that is known to be the oldest and most respected economics journal's in the world, published by MIT and Harvard. one of the authors of this paper is the winner of the award given out to the brightest US economist under 40. He was also named one of Time's 100 people who shape our world. I guess my point is the authors of this paper are not some hicks that just looked at abortion, then looked at crime and said hey there is correlation it must be the reason! On the contrary, the paper is 42 pages and can be a fairly tedious read. It does, however, go into give evidence that it is more than simply correlation.

Some tidbits are that the states that legalized abortion several years before roe v wade had crime drops before the states that legalized abortion when roe v wade happened. In states with high abortion rates, only arrests of those born after roe v wade fell relative to low abortion rate states. There are more examples and empirical evidence in the paper.

Alternatively, you can also read the book Freakonomics where he explains it in more layman terms. The book is a good read anyways and i recommend it.

On the subject of correlation and causation, in the book freakonomics he also looks into the commonly held belief that innovative policing strategies, more police, end of the crack epidemic, etc. were the cause of the drop in crime in the 90s. He tries to show that in this case the correlation is invalid and thus causation is wrong. Yet, in this case, it is a widely held belief in the public that these efforts were the reason crime fell. Another correlation/causation mystery.

So all this begs the question, how do you PROVE causation in a case like this? I dont know. I dont write research papers for a living, and i dont do research in the form of academics. The case of crime vs. abortion is going to be empirical. Some may choose to believe it, while others may not. It certainly twists your way of thinking and some may not be 'open' to it. It really is an odd way to look at the problem.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

scrubbs said:


> i will add another wrench to this...
> 
> Roe v. Wade is the real reason the crime rate in the US dropped so dramatically in the 90's; it wasn't because the crack epidemic ended, it wasn't because guiliani was 'fixing' broken windows. About 18 years after abortion was legalized(an age when most people would commit crimes), crime started dropping.
> 
> ...


Correlation does not imply causation.
[/quote]

of course correlation does not always imply causation. However, in this case, the hypothesis was presented in the form of an academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal that is known to be the oldest and most respected economics journal's in the world, published by MIT and Harvard. one of the authors of this paper is the winner of the award given out to the brightest US economist under 40. He was also named one of Time's 100 people who shape our world. I guess my point is the authors of this paper are not some hicks that just looked at abortion, then looked at crime and said hey there is correlation it must be the reason! On the contrary, the paper is 42 pages and can be a fairly tedious read. It does, however, go into give evidence that it is more than simply correlation.

Some tidbits are that the states that legalized abortion several years before roe v wade had crime drops before the states that legalized abortion when roe v wade happened. In states with high abortion rates, only arrests of those born after roe v wade fell relative to low abortion rate states. There are more examples and empirical evidence in the paper.

Alternatively, you can also read the book Freakonomics where he explains it in more layman terms. The book is a good read anyways and i recommend it.

On the subject of correlation and causation, in the book freakonomics he also looks into the commonly held belief that innovative policing strategies, more police, end of the crack epidemic, etc. were the cause of the drop in crime in the 90s. He tries to show that in this case the correlation is invalid and thus causation is wrong. Yet, in this case, it is a widely held belief in the public that these efforts were the reason crime fell. Another correlation/causation mystery.

So all this begs the question, how do you PROVE causation in a case like this? I dont know. I dont write research papers for a living, and i dont do research in the form of academics. The case of crime vs. abortion is going to be empirical. Some may choose to believe it, while others may not. It certainly twists your way of thinking and some may not be 'open' to it. It really is an odd way to look at the problem.
[/quote]

I think it's a very interesting argument, and I am interested in doing some further reading. I like that he has considered the other aspects of to what the decrease in crime rate has historically been attributed. I'm not sure how to prove this decrease is based upon Roe vs. Wade except for, perhaps, a repealing of said court decision.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

ChilDawg said:


> i will add another wrench to this...
> 
> Roe v. Wade is the real reason the crime rate in the US dropped so dramatically in the 90's; it wasn't because the crack epidemic ended, it wasn't because guiliani was 'fixing' broken windows. About 18 years after abortion was legalized(an age when most people would commit crimes), crime started dropping.
> 
> ...


Correlation does not imply causation.
[/quote]

of course correlation does not always imply causation. However, in this case, the hypothesis was presented in the form of an academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal that is known to be the oldest and most respected economics journal's in the world, published by MIT and Harvard. one of the authors of this paper is the winner of the award given out to the brightest US economist under 40. He was also named one of Time's 100 people who shape our world. I guess my point is the authors of this paper are not some hicks that just looked at abortion, then looked at crime and said hey there is correlation it must be the reason! On the contrary, the paper is 42 pages and can be a fairly tedious read. It does, however, go into give evidence that it is more than simply correlation.

Some tidbits are that the states that legalized abortion several years before roe v wade had crime drops before the states that legalized abortion when roe v wade happened. In states with high abortion rates, only arrests of those born after roe v wade fell relative to low abortion rate states. There are more examples and empirical evidence in the paper.

Alternatively, you can also read the book Freakonomics where he explains it in more layman terms. The book is a good read anyways and i recommend it.

On the subject of correlation and causation, in the book freakonomics he also looks into the commonly held belief that innovative policing strategies, more police, end of the crack epidemic, etc. were the cause of the drop in crime in the 90s. He tries to show that in this case the correlation is invalid and thus causation is wrong. Yet, in this case, it is a widely held belief in the public that these efforts were the reason crime fell. Another correlation/causation mystery.

So all this begs the question, how do you PROVE causation in a case like this? I dont know. I dont write research papers for a living, and i dont do research in the form of academics. The case of crime vs. abortion is going to be empirical. Some may choose to believe it, while others may not. It certainly twists your way of thinking and some may not be 'open' to it. It really is an odd way to look at the problem.
[/quote]

I think it's a very interesting argument, and I am interested in doing some further reading. I like that he has considered the other aspects of to what the decrease in crime rate has historically been attributed. I'm not sure how to prove this decrease is based upon Roe vs. Wade except for, perhaps, a repealing of said court decision.
[/quote]

funny you should ask what would happen if roe v. wade was repealed...

Same author looked into romania, where it was the opposite of the US. Abortions were easy to get before ceacescu made them illegal. Children born after the ban were worse off in many measureable ways, and were more likely to become criminals. However, you have to realize that romania wasn't exactly the best off country, and these children may have just been worse off because the state could not support the glut of new children.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2005/06/Wher...s-Gone.aspx?p=1

In 1989, abortions were again legal in romania. Low and behold, crime rate in bucharest dropped 50% from 2000-2004...

By the way, i am not saying i totally believe in this theory. It is a very interesting argument as you say, and there is some evidence to suggest that there may be some causation between crime and abortion. However, there may be other, as yet unnoticed, aspects that are also the cause.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

*In 1989, abortions were again legal in romania. Low and behold, crime rate in bucharest dropped 50% from 2000-2004...*

Wow... so people started aborting their babies in 1989... and thus crime went down over the course of the following 11-15 years.

Just goes to show how many criminals are ranging from age 11-15!

Think before you post.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> The most important human rights of all is the right to be born.


how poetic...but according to whom?

My opinion, leave this debate to people who give a sh*t about it. Abortion is just another bible thumping spin issue that lets people focus on something other than what's important. It's not your baby, your life, your deal, so mind your own damn business. No need to waste more govt money funding anti abortion legislation, it's legal, it's been voted on, drop it. The most hateful people I've ever seen are the ones picketing an abortion clinic. It's not like people go skipping in there happily getting their abortion.
[/quote]

couldn't agree more.. These are the same type of intolerable hypocrites that used to burn witches in the name of God. Too bad we can't round them up and ship em off somewhere again :laugh: What a detrimental drain on man kind







like a plague but worse, a living half wit thinking disease.
[/quote]

the same type of intolerable hypocrites are now saying that abortion is wrong and we should respect innocent life? that sounds like the opposite of the intolerance that allowed the horrific acts you just described. that doesn't even make sense. from where do you get the mental superiority to call other halfwits when saying the illogical things you do?
[/quote]

Since you've dropped my name in this thread not once but 3 times without any direct provocation, and now that I'm rested :laugh: ... I guess you couldn't take the hint with the "hook line and sink" that was left yesterday that you've been weighed a long time ago and deemed a delusional bible thumping hypocrite. And as time has allowed, most have already witnesses for themselves the improbability that it is to have any kind of logical bilateral debate with whats left of your kind.

All in the same breath. And while wearing your "baby Jesus is #1" walmart brand magic underwear, your kind can some how defend the ideology of the irrelevant while backing the reality of a corrupt domestic and foreign policy that has taken actual living and breathing relevant lives and toll on a supposed educated modern society.. But the great irony in all this is that up to the present time in "pending". The vicious cycle of these ideals and policies have been backed with no facts, just the same old self righteous hypocritical dogmatic intolerance that has done mankind so proud over the centuries :laugh: .. Being the new leaf is still "pending", and hasn't been oh so "devinely" eradicated yet, I've taken great hilarity in just indirectly dropping "chum" to draw the very core of your irrational reasoning out on to the table as to allow the "pattern" to present itself as my "gracefulness" has its limits :laugh: .

I'm willing to bet you're the type of poopy hole that walks around all day complaining that now that Obama's in office, the word "Christ" will be taken out of the word Christmas and changed into X-mas all in the name of allah.. As if Jesus could give a flying missionary style intercourse about a name given the amount of atrocities that have been committed in this name over the centuries. I'm also willing to bet that if we are made in his image, Jesus has changed his name long ago to Anal Lube out of spite for the hypocrisy he's had to put up with throughout time..

Hey I got an idea for a Pfury outage. Lets all get together at the local clinic with our God given second amendment right and threaten to blow up the place while we scream "Debil Whore" at people that are going through some pretty troubled trials in their life. C'mon lets do it for baby Jesus, wooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!1


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

I don't think that being anti-abortion has anything to do with religion.

I've got to be just about the most adament athiest on this site, and I think abortion is insanely wrong.
One does not have to believe in some ridiculous "God creature" to have a set of moral values.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)




----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Piranha_man said:


> *In 1989, abortions were again legal in romania. Low and behold, crime rate in bucharest dropped 50% from 2000-2004...*
> 
> Wow... so people started aborting their babies in 1989... and thus crime went down over the course of the following 11-15 years.
> 
> ...


I actually think it is a pretty interesting statistic. I would say that in the US there are more children born into poverty (or low income individuals/families) so it would make sense that this would create a certain percentage of crime. I wonder what effect we would have in the US if abortions were banned. 
I personally think we have enough kids being produced by people that are unable to care for them either emotionally or financially.....could you imagine the burden we tax payers would suffer if we removed the only out for these idiots...

I think we should use a birth control implant on every baby...and it doesnt get removed until they are 21 and can prove they are mature enough, and have the financial means, to care for children. It would be like getting a drivers license.....until you pass the tests....you can not reproduce.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> *In 1989, abortions were again legal in romania. Low and behold, crime rate in bucharest dropped 50% from 2000-2004...*
> 
> Wow... so people started aborting their babies in 1989... and thus crime went down over the course of the following 11-15 years.
> 
> ...


I actually think it is a pretty interesting statistic. I would say that in the US there are more children born into poverty (or low income individuals/families) so it would make sense that this would create a certain percentage of crime. I wonder what effect we would have in the US if abortions were banned. 
I personally think we have enough kids being produced by people that are unable to care for them either emotionally or financially.....could you imagine the burden we tax payers would suffer if we removed the only out for these idiots...

*I think we should use a birth control implant on every baby...and it doesnt get removed until they are 21 and can prove they are mature enough, and have the financial means, to care for children. It would be like getting a drivers license.....until you pass the tests....you can not reproduce.*
[/quote]

Now that's the best damn idea I've heard on the topic.

That would help curb the overpopulation problem, keep children from being born into families that could not support them, would completely eradicate unwanted babies and abortion...

The sad fact is that we're definitely not gonna see this happen in OUR lifetimes!
(Still too many religious freaks out there that would have a problem with it.)


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Piranha_man said:


> Now that's the best damn idea I've heard on the topic.
> 
> That would help curb the overpopulation problem, keep children from being born into families that could not support them, would completely eradicate unwanted babies and abortion...
> 
> ...


and too many people that enjoy freedom


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Boobah said:


> Now that's the best damn idea I've heard on the topic.
> 
> That would help curb the overpopulation problem, keep children from being born into families that could not support them, would completely eradicate unwanted babies and abortion...
> 
> ...


and too many people that enjoy freedom
[/quote]

Yes, and too many people that enjoy freedom.

Even if the cost for it is having unwanted babies.
Some people only care about themselves.


----------



## NTcaribe (Apr 8, 2004)

i wish i was aborted as a baby then i woudnt hve to deal with this fucked up world


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

NTcaribe said:


> i wish i was aborted as a baby then i woudnt hve to deal with this fucked up world


Why don't ya just kill yourself?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

NTcaribe said:


> i wish i was aborted as a baby then i woudnt hve to deal with this fucked up world


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Boobah said:


> and too many people that enjoy freedom


Freedom? Really? Let society keep paying unfit mothers to bring more kids into their already poor household. Lets keep having 13 year old mothers drop out of school to raise another generation of the undereducated welfare receptionists. Im all about freedom when it doesnt come on the backs of everyone else. I could afford a lot more freedom to do what I wanted if I didnt have to pay moms to have kids they cant afford. I didnt have kids when I was 22...because I wasnt financially stable to do so....so why should I pay for people that are not smart enough to make the same decisions? If you want to put the responsibility back on the mothers and fathers to take care of their own kids...and not society...then great. But until then...dont talk to me about freedom.


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

i say, if you made it and its in your body, its your choice, simple as that.
or, what if you know the baby is deformed?
would you like to bring a child into this world (as messed up as it is already) that cannot function properly?
many other factors, it is not up to the people as a whole to decide the fate or path of one persons life.
get over it, or be prepared to walk down bloody alley ways with dead fetus everywhere.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

joey said:


> i say, if you made it and its in your body, its your choice, simple as that.
> or, what if you know the baby is deformed?
> would you like to bring a child into this world (as messed up as it is already) that cannot function properly?
> many other factors, it is not up to the people as a whole to decide the fate or path of one persons life.
> get over it, or be prepared to walk down bloody alley ways with dead fetus everywhere.


Who are you to decide what "Functioning properly" means?

Take a look at Stephen Hawking.


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

Piranha_man said:


> i say, if you made it and its in your body, its your choice, simple as that.
> or, what if you know the baby is deformed?
> would you like to bring a child into this world (as messed up as it is already) that cannot function properly?
> many other factors, it is not up to the people as a whole to decide the fate or path of one persons life.
> get over it, or be prepared to walk down bloody alley ways with dead fetus everywhere.


Who are you to decide what "Functioning properly" means?

Take a look at Stephen Hawking.
[/quote]
lol, im sorry, what is the ratio of deformed children born, to results like him again, what like 100000000000000000000000-1?
great point you just threw out there buddy









BTW, im Joey"d, thats who i am








i know who i am , do you know who you are?


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

joey said:


> i say, if you made it and its in your body, its your choice, simple as that.
> or, what if you know the baby is deformed?
> would you like to bring a child into this world (as messed up as it is already) that cannot function properly?
> many other factors, it is not up to the people as a whole to decide the fate or path of one persons life.
> get over it, or be prepared to walk down bloody alley ways with dead fetus everywhere.


Who are you to decide what "Functioning properly" means?

Take a look at Stephen Hawking.
[/quote]
lol, im sorry, what is the ratio of deformed children born, to results like him again, what like 100000000000000000000000-1?
great point you just threw out there buddy









BTW, im Joey"d, thats who i am








i know who i am , do you know who you are?
[/quote]

Glad to meetcha Joey'd.


----------



## swack (May 29, 2007)

"I'm tired of political candidates p*ssy-footing delicately around the issue of abortion. Every time I turn on the TV, there's always some group of hippies protesting "for choice" or "for life." Each group pisses the other off, and no candidate will take a strong enough stance on the issue of abortion, so I've decided to form a political party of my own:

The Regressive Party
I have a different stance on abortion: I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win. I'm neither pro choice, nor pro life; I'm pro you-shutting-the-hell-up. The only way I'd be "pro choice" is if it meant I could choose which babies I could abort, and only then if I could lift the age restriction to 80. I was at this mall the other day watching some shitty documentary when I came out of the theater and saw old people dancing to country music in the courtyard. I couldn't remember the last time I saw a group of people begging this hard to be aborted."-maddox


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

swack said:


> "I'm tired of political candidates p*ssy-footing delicately around the issue of abortion. Every time I turn on the TV, there's always some group of hippies protesting "for choice" or "for life." Each group pisses the other off, and no candidate will take a strong enough stance on the issue of abortion, so I've decided to form a political party of my own:
> 
> The Regressive Party
> I have a different stance on abortion: I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win. I'm neither pro choice, nor pro life; I'm pro you-shutting-the-hell-up. The only way I'd be "pro choice" is if it meant I could choose which babies I could abort, and only then if I could lift the age restriction to 80. I was at this mall the other day watching some shitty documentary when I came out of the theater and saw old people dancing to country music in the courtyard. I couldn't remember the last time I saw a group of people begging this hard to be aborted."-maddox


^^ Uh........ who is this guy?
Never seen him around here before.

Welcome to the site guy!


----------



## swack (May 29, 2007)

I just thought it could use a little bit of humor....its from a website, thats why i cited it. www.maddox.xmission.com he's a satirical writer, funny stuff you should check it out if you get a chance.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> and too many people that enjoy freedom


Freedom? Really? Let society keep paying unfit mothers to bring more kids into their already poor household. Lets keep having 13 year old mothers drop out of school to raise another generation of the undereducated welfare receptionists. Im all about freedom when it doesnt come on the backs of everyone else. I could afford a lot more freedom to do what I wanted if I didnt have to pay moms to have kids they cant afford. I didnt have kids when I was 22...because I wasnt financially stable to do so....so why should I pay for people that are not smart enough to make the same decisions? If you want to put the responsibility back on the mothers and fathers to take care of their own kids...and not society...then great. But until then...dont talk to me about freedom.
[/quote]

so you were serious about wanting to put an implant in people that would keep them from being able to conceive until "society" thinks they're ready? I thought you were kidding, but honestly that's probably one of the scariest things I've ever heard of. yeah i do have a problem with the way the system works now. We shouldn't have to pay for unfit parents having children, but we're not going to biologically inhibit their abilities to give birth. That's not even socialist that's a crazy dictatorship.....

for the record i'd rather just neuter rapists, pedophiles, etc. but that chip would be nice for them.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Boobah said:


> so you were serious about wanting to put an implant in people that would keep them from being able to conceive until "society" thinks they're ready? I thought you were kidding, but honestly that's probably one of the scariest things I've ever heard of. yeah i do have a problem with the way the system works now. We shouldn't have to pay for unfit parents having children, but we're not going to biologically inhibit their abilities to give birth. That's not even socialist that's a crazy dictatorship.....
> 
> for the record i'd rather just neuter rapists, pedophiles, etc. but that chip would be nice for them.


Im not completely serious...because it would never happen....but Im yet to hear a valid argument against it. I would actually be all for removing the ability of my daughter to get pregnant until she was 21. That way we remove the "Oh sh*t...I got drunk and made the biggest fricken mistake of my life" factor in all these pregnancies and abortions. I dont think very many people are emotionally ready to have kids before the age of 21....and I am tired of society being left to deal with children being brought into this world by unfit parents. Look at how out of control many of the youth of today are....you dont think that this has anything to do with the fact that so many parents have no idea what the hell they are doing? I know people get all worked up over the removal of freedoms....but what would is the actual negative impact of something like this? If we could take away someones ability to drive drunk....by some implant....would you be against that as well? I personally dont see any valid reason for someone to get pregnant before 21...and yes I know that it isnt my decision when someone gets pregnant...unfortunately it isnt my decision to pay to support kids born into poverty either.

Now...beside the whole freedom argument....what would be the downside to either the individual or society of doing this?


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> so you were serious about wanting to put an implant in people that would keep them from being able to conceive until "society" thinks they're ready? I thought you were kidding, but honestly that's probably one of the scariest things I've ever heard of. yeah i do have a problem with the way the system works now. We shouldn't have to pay for unfit parents having children, but we're not going to biologically inhibit their abilities to give birth. That's not even socialist that's a crazy dictatorship.....
> 
> for the record i'd rather just neuter rapists, pedophiles, etc. but that chip would be nice for them.


Im not completely serious...because it would never happen....but Im yet to hear a valid argument against it. I would actually be all for removing the ability of my daughter to get pregnant until she was 21. That way we remove the "Oh sh*t...I got drunk and made the biggest fricken mistake of my life" factor in all these pregnancies and abortions. I dont think very many people are emotionally ready to have kids before the age of 21....and I am tired of society being left to deal with children being brought into this world by unfit parents. Look at how out of control many of the youth of today are....you dont think that this has anything to do with the fact that so many parents have no idea what the hell they are doing? I know people get all worked up over the removal of freedoms....but what would is the actual negative impact of something like this? If we could take away someones ability to drive drunk....by some implant....would you be against that as well? I personally dont see any valid reason for someone to get pregnant before 21...and yes I know that it isnt my decision when someone gets pregnant...unfortunately it isnt my decision to pay to support kids born into poverty either.

Now...beside the whole freedom argument....what would be the downside to either the individual or society of doing this?
[/quote]

well other than taking away personal freedoms and physically altering the reproductive cycle of people, I guess you're right lol. I guess I think that's reason enough. There are tons and tons of children born to people every year who are under the age of 21 that are not complete drains on society.

Wouldn't making abortion more accessible and easier have the same overall effect though? but it would be voluntary instead of forcefully implanted in people.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> so you were serious about wanting to put an implant in people that would keep them from being able to conceive until "society" thinks they're ready? I thought you were kidding, but honestly that's probably one of the scariest things I've ever heard of. yeah i do have a problem with the way the system works now. We shouldn't have to pay for unfit parents having children, but we're not going to biologically inhibit their abilities to give birth. That's not even socialist that's a crazy dictatorship.....
> 
> for the record i'd rather just neuter rapists, pedophiles, etc. but that chip would be nice for them.


Im not completely serious...because it would never happen....but Im yet to hear a valid argument against it. I would actually be all for removing the ability of my daughter to get pregnant until she was 21. That way we remove the "Oh sh*t...I got drunk and made the biggest fricken mistake of my life" factor in all these pregnancies and abortions. I dont think very many people are emotionally ready to have kids before the age of 21....and I am tired of society being left to deal with children being brought into this world by unfit parents. Look at how out of control many of the youth of today are....you dont think that this has anything to do with the fact that so many parents have no idea what the hell they are doing? I know people get all worked up over the removal of freedoms....but what would is the actual negative impact of something like this? If we could take away someones ability to drive drunk....by some implant....would you be against that as well? I personally dont see any valid reason for someone to get pregnant before 21...and yes I know that it isnt my decision when someone gets pregnant...unfortunately it isnt my decision to pay to support kids born into poverty either.

Now...beside the whole freedom argument....what would be the downside to either the individual or society of doing this?
[/quote]

It would be the gateway to even more progressive removal of freedoms?









statistically, women over 25 make up 46.3% of abortions in 2005, while women 19 and under made up 20.2%. 
If going by stats , we shoudl neuter all white women over the age of 25 to reduce abortions.

Why Abortions Are Performed

* The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.U.S. Abortion Statistics, U.S. State abortion statistics, by Race, by Age, Worldwide abortion statistics, teen abortion statistics

* Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
* 1% because of fetal abnormalities;
* 3% due to the mother's health problems.

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

* Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
* Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
* Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
* Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
* Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
* Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
* Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
* Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
* Other: 2.1%

So as seen above, approx 12.2% of pregnancy are ended due to age.

Abortions Worldwide

Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000

Where abortions occur:
78% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 22% occur in developed countries.

Legality of abortion:
About 26 million women obtain legal abortions each year, while an additional 20 million abortions are obtained in countries where it is restricted or prohibited by law.

Abortion averages:
Worldwide, the lifetime average is about 1 abortion per woman.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Boobah said:


> It would be the gateway to even more progressive removal of freedoms?


Kind of like the argument that Weed is a gateway drug....I dont buy it









Anyways...according to your stats it looks to me like most abortions are the result of a simple mistake...so why not remove that variable? Then abortions are reduced, the burden on society is reduced...it is a win/win!


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

The 'Taking away of freedoms' is a lame excuse for not exercising GG's idea.

So I suppose then, that speed limits on the roads are "Taking away our freedom to drive like a maniac?"

How about laws against stealing... does that take away one's freedom to pilage?

I mean really.
I think Grosse has an awesome idea here.
Like I said before, it's a shame that it will never go into effect.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Piranha_man said:


> The 'Taking away of freedoms' is a lame excuse for not exercising GG's idea.
> 
> So I suppose then, that speed limits on the roads are "Taking away our freedom to drive like a maniac?"
> 
> ...


not surprised at all. you're so against abortion, but would rather force people to be sterile until they're 21. I mean that makes sense....

If you don't think a bunch of undeveloped cells or even a early stage fetus has more rights than a under-21 woman you need to go pick up your sign and get back to the clinic, the other crazies are waiting.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Boobah said:


> The 'Taking away of freedoms' is a lame excuse for not exercising GG's idea.
> 
> So I suppose then, that speed limits on the roads are "Taking away our freedom to drive like a maniac?"
> 
> ...


not surprised at all. you're so against abortion, but would rather force people to be sterile until they're 21. I mean that makes sense....

If you don't think a bunch of undeveloped cells or even a early stage fetus has more rights than a under-21 woman you need to go pick up your sign and get back to the clinic, the other crazies are waiting.
[/quote]

I fail to understand how the hell you could possibly fail to understand.
You make absolutely no sense here in the least.

Against abortion... why in hell wouldn't I be against the women getting pregnant in the first place?

Use your noggin' man...


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Piranha_man said:


> I fail to understand how the hell you could possibly fail to understand.
> You make absolutely no sense here in the least.
> 
> Against abortion... why in hell wouldn't I be against the women getting pregnant in the first place?
> ...


i make no sense? do i need to get my crayons out?

you claim to be against abortion to defend the rights of an fertilized egg, but you would happily impede the rights of a woman under the age of 21.

Who gets to decide who gets "implanted" and who doesn't? GG at least has a valid argument, he doesn't like financing children that should not have been born.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Im against financing children that parents willingly bring into a state funded household. Everyone needs help once in a while...and I am fine with that...but dont compound an already bad situation by having children if you cant afford it. What I would like to prevent are unwanted pregnancies...or pregnancies that happen to kids that dont know or understand the implications of their actions. If you want to make the age 18...fine....but I still think people need to live a little before they are forced with the decision of having children or not.

OK...how about this. You can receive financial aide...but as a condition...we get to give you the implant to prevent pregnancy until you are off the state nipple. That way it would be voluntary.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Boobah said:


> I fail to understand how the hell you could possibly fail to understand.
> You make absolutely no sense here in the least.
> 
> Against abortion... why in hell wouldn't I be against the women getting pregnant in the first place?
> ...


i make no sense? do i need to get my crayons out?

you claim to be against abortion to defend the rights of an fertilized egg, but you would happily impede the rights of a woman under the age of 21.

Who gets to decide who gets "implanted" and who doesn't? GG at least has a valid argument, he doesn't like financing children that should not have been born.
[/quote]

Dude... stick with the crayons. (Smartass little punk.)
It's pretty retarded to say that GG has a point and that I don't.
My statement is that I think he has a good idea.

Think about it.
(Better yet, rather than strain your little brain, just go color something.)


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

NTcaribe said:


> i wish i was aborted as a baby then i woudnt hve to deal with this fucked up world










see now thats the spirit


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Liquid said:


> i wish i was aborted as a baby then i woudnt hve to deal with this fucked up world


:laugh: see now thats the spirit








[/quote]

Personally, I liked my idea of how to remedy his situation.
I think he should put a bullet in his head.
I mean... if you're motivated toward a goal... carry it out!


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

swack said:


> The Regressive Party
> I have a different stance on abortion: I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win. I'm neither pro choice, nor pro life; I'm pro you-shutting-the-hell-up. The only way I'd be "pro choice" is if it meant I could choose which babies I could abort, and only then if I could lift the age restriction to 80. I was at this mall the other day watching some shitty documentary when I came out of the theater and saw old people dancing to country music in the courtyard. I couldn't remember the last time I saw a group of people begging this hard to be aborted."-maddox


----------



## maknwar (Jul 16, 2007)

I just wanted to post something in case this gets locked at some point.

Oh yea, and abortion is like politics, society will never agree on the same thing.


----------

