It's just plain wrong!!! [Archive]

General Septem

04-13-2006, 02:43 PM

I hear a lot of this "BUT WHAT IS SHES RAPED LOL?" bullshit from a lot of pro-choicers, but I've never actually heard it from a woman who's actually been raped, much less one that's gotten pregnant from rape. Why? Because 80% of women who get raped and concieve don't get abortions, and most of the other 20% were forced into it, either by fear, by their parents, by their rapist, or were talked into it by others. Women who concieve because of rape extremely rarely ever "choose" to get an abortion; they simply feel it's their only choice.

I have, however, heard scores of women who've been raped say that they feel personally attacked and insulted when their case is /used/ by people to push /their own/ agenda. Same goes for incest.

For example, Edith Young, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child: "Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss... The abortion which was to 'be in my best interest' just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only 'saved their reputations,' 'solved their problems,' and 'allowed their lives to go merrily on.'... My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception."

Moreover, according to Kathleen DeZeeuw, "I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side."

So don't give me that bullshit.

letlifelive2003

04-13-2006, 03:03 PM

They would use anything to make abortion legal. Like I said, they could pass the law , do whatever the hell they want but in hell there is no law, it's just hell waiting for people like these.

Tequila

04-13-2006, 04:39 PM

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-13-2006, 05:06 PM

I never cited rape or incest because I agree with you on that--those arguments are bullshit. I would like to ask a question of anyone who frequents this thread: There is a law that forbids abortions--unless it is to save the mother. Do you agree? (I'm just curious, I want to hear other people's opinions)

Yes, for just about any law there are going to be extenuating circumstances. The mother's life would no doubt be one of these. After thinking about it for a while, I would be more inclined to say that rape is not. True, it wasn't a choice of the mother, but that does not get around the fact that it is still murder of a living person. The rapist however, ought to be deeply in debt to the victimized woman for putting her through this choice that she was not allowed to make. I would also argue that the government should do something to compensate the raped woman for following through with the pregnancy.

DemocraticRepublican

04-13-2006, 05:11 PM

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-13-2006, 05:20 PM

i would like to interject here, OT-a-bit. (first post, forgive any faux-paus). i was arguing with a friend and i would appreciate additional input.

i think abortion is murder and should be treated and viewed as such. however, i also think that shooting an abortionist doctor is unexcusable and also should be viewed as murder. wat do u guys think?

Well, yea; saying that killing a murderer is okay is flawed in its intent. Yes, some argue that it warns others of the consequences of their actions, but there can and should be worse and more effective consequences than execution. That's like saying, it's okay for us but not for you because we make the laws.

Zzyzx

04-13-2006, 06:43 PM

Who is the most guilty: the man with the knife or the mother-to-be who decides that letting this kid grow up and have a life would be nice, but nah, it's just not convenient?

Sure, they're both murderers, but the woman bothers me more.

General Septem

04-13-2006, 09:33 PM

I would just like to point out that there are no medical conditions in which abortion is the medically recognized treatment. I've said this though.

letlifelive2003

04-14-2006, 07:11 AM

I would like to ask a question of anyone who frequents this thread: There is a law that forbids abortions--unless it is to save the mother. Do you agree? (I'm just curious, I want to hear other people's opinions)
__________________

To answer your question:

A mother should still go along with the pregnancy even if it risks her life. Jesus Christ died for our sins. A mother who loves her kids would not even think twice , she will die for her kids. Why not give your life to the "new life". Besides God will be your savior for this sacrifice.

Sorry - I still don't see why abortion should be legal. anybody has a better EXCUSE why it should be? As long as the devil is around there is always going to be abortions, it's up to us to choose which path to go to. As for me I have God in my life so, as long as i am in this planet abortion should be banned. No exemptions!

letlifelive2003

04-14-2006, 07:25 AM

Wait i think this excuse is much better...."What if the unborn child has downsyndrome"? So what!!! You have it, and love it more than ever because God has given you a "special" Gift and he will repay you. If not then you give it up for adoption, and don't come with that crap you can't afford it because these kids are expensive and need alot of special needs because Durf the government hands you a check for these kids. These kids with down syndrome are gifted and unique and for a mother that wants to terminate because the child is "defected" is just a selfish, stupid fucking excuse. Like I said, is there any other GOOD enough excuse why abortion should be legal because as far as i can see there are none except that the mother is selfish, irresponsible and stupid.

mikesg

04-22-2006, 04:17 AM

I dont know how my search engine led me to this site, but Here I am and I couldn't help but read up on what was in front of me.

First of all, let me begin by stating that I have three children, which the first born was conceived out of wedlock by an ex-girlfriend, and the other two were born by my wife, who is currently 6 months pregnant with our third child.

From what I've read... lol ... most every bit of it is pure BULLSHIT.. and each and every one of you is FULL of Bullshit, so I guess the title of the site is fulfilling itself to a biblical degree.

Normally I wouldnt waste my time posting such a statement as the above, but this site is so hillarious that it is interesting enough to just make you wanna join and contribute to the bullshittery.

Anyways, My first child, with my girlfriend, was highly unplanned on my part, yet not on hers. We had tough times and abortion was an option, thank GOD. Why would I thank God? Hmmm we'll get to that in a minute.

As a parent I have been to kids' events and to school plays and so on, and there was an event where my little girl, who is seven, had to get up in front of the whole school and stand in front of the microphone and tell what she wanted to be when she grew up, and like many of the little girls there she said she wanted to be a cheerleader, even one boy said he wanted to be a cheerleader (imagine that)! ....

When I was in High School, I have heard many people state what they were going to college for, and many were interesting professions to pursue.

Out of ALL these people, and many more, I have NEVER heard anyone say " I want to be a Devil Worshipper and Terminate Pregnancies because that way, I can legally get away with murdering people " .... I guess by reading some of the bullshit on this forum, you can see where I am going with this.

Actually the profession of being a doctor has its' good and bad sides of the profession, but as a Professional who pursue the career to "HELP PEOPLE", being a "PROFESSIONAL" is a term which none of you are familiar with. (By the way, my wife is a doctor but not the "baby killer" type.) If I were a doctor .. gynecologist.. physician, or any other type who had the choice to OFFER abortions, I would do it in a heartbeat, even though I do not support my wife or family having an abortion, nor would I ever recommend having an abortion for anyone since I don't believe in it. The REASON I would do it is so that I would not hold myself responsible or feel guilty every time a teenage girl was found dead with a coat hangar stuck up herself, or someone else sticking it up there!!!!! I'd do it for FREE if they couldn't afford it, but I'll say it would be a rigorous process to get me to go through with it, including calling parents ... potential fathers... family members, and so on. I would try to get the feeling and make sure that there is a possibility of potential suicide, murder, or possibly potential child abuse/neglect in the future of the unborn child. HOWEVER, you nosy fingerpointing motherfuckers would say "Theres a guy who murders babies and he enjoys it so much he does it for free!" which does nothing more than show how stupid and shallow of a person you really are!

If you disagree with that then you damn sure aren't a professional, dont know what it means, and never will be one! (here's an easy hint for you stupid people *you know who you are): A person who has unmatched skills and 30 years experience at driving a garbage truck, or greeting people at the door at Wal-Mart does NOT make you a "professional"! Being Skilled and Professional are two different animals.

Now that we have established that, lets move along to the next topic:

As I stated before, I would not and do not support abortions, and never will consider it MY option, there are some stipulations to the statement. It is not MY option because it is not my choice, but the OPTION is there if I choose to take it. Abortion IS an option in ANY case, by choice or not by choice so live with it. Even if they pass the anti-abortion law, there will ALWAYS be the option, there will ALWAYS be people who perform abortions, and there will always be people who will just beat the hell out of a pregnant woman until she loses the fetus, which is just the same thing... abortion. I'm sure if it were your daughter, sister, mom.. etc... You would rather them not confide in you and ask for help...Instead you'd rather find them in their bathroom in a pool of their own blood while trying to abort themselves. OH RIGHT, you taught them that abortion is wrong so that would NEVER happen to YOU right? Well when/if the abortion clinics are outlawed these statics will increase dramatically.

I think I actually heard someone say "selfish" and that is correct in most cases but... LOL.. How many people here have actually been RAPED and concieved? How many people do YOU KNOW PERSONALLY that are currently parenting a child who was conceived by forced rape? I'd be willing to bet you dont know ANY, if so its only ONE unless you are a counselor for a rape victim crisis center. Total Bullshit! But what you are telling us here, is that if a woman gets raped, stabbed and left to die... lives through it all and winds up pregnant.. it is absolutely WRONG for her to want to terminate the pregnancy? It isn't like she has ENOUGH fear to live with for the rest of her life, so lets fucking crucify her and MAKE her raise that child who ALREADY KNOWINGLY has the GENES of a GOD DAMNED KILLER and possibly will go ahead and finish her off ... yeah thats fucking brilliant...

OH man this is hillarious... I hope none of you fuckers are ever running this country...

I'll leave you with this...

IF it is my wife's choice to have an abortion, which it DAMN SURE IS, and IF she decides to go through with it and have one, which she never .. EVER would consider it even if it meant her own life, what fucking business is it of yours? Answer me that question. What fucking business is it of yours? ... I'll tell you what business it is..

NONE!

Your life is so fucking miserable, and you are so fucking lonely and bored because you have a blank spot in your life that you know not what to do with it, that you need to put your nose in the business of everyone else and cry and whine about what is right and wrong for everyone else. If MORALS were the issue with abortion and if MORALS were ruling your life, you wouldn't even know abortions existed because morally, your mind would be on your own life, and not what is right or wrong for others. Just because you piss in the bathtub doesn't mean everyone else should do it, and by god if they don't do it just like you do we should make it a fucking law.

Thats all I have to say!

I am 100% anti abortion (In MY life) and 100% pro choice (In Yours).

General Septem

04-22-2006, 09:57 AM

RE From what I've read... lol ... most every bit of it is pure BULLSHIT.. and each and every one of you is FULL of Bullshit, so I guess the title of the site is fulfilling itself to a biblical degree.

Join the crowd. :D

RE: Out of ALL these people, and many more, I have NEVER heard anyone say " I want to be a Devil Worshipper and Terminate Pregnancies because that way, I can legally get away with murdering people " .... I guess by reading some of the bullshit on this forum, you can see where I am going with this.

Does anyone ever murder anyone for the sole purpose of murdering them? George Bush didn't fly planes into the WTC because "this way I can legally get away with murdering people", he flew them in there so that he could gain more power. It's still wrong.

RE: If you disagree with that then you damn sure aren't a professional, dont know what it means, and never will be one!

That's quite the pig-headed and blanket statement.

RE: Even if they pass the anti-abortion law, there will ALWAYS be the option, there will ALWAYS be people who perform abortions, and there will always be people who will just beat the hell out of a pregnant woman until she loses the fetus, which is just the same thing... abortion.

Bullshit. So then let's just make everything legal. People sell hardcore drugs, murder people, rape people - obviously the laws aren't preventing this to any degree so let's just make it all legal. That is such a bullshit argument.

RE: I'm sure if it were your daughter, sister, mom.. etc... You would rather them not confide in you and ask for help...Instead you'd rather find them in their bathroom in a pool of their own blood while trying to abort themselves. OH RIGHT, you taught them that abortion is wrong so that would NEVER happen to YOU right? Well when/if the abortion clinics are outlawed these statics will increase dramatically.

My daughter won't get pregnant in the first place because I'm going to teach her common sense and fine-tune her bullshit detector. My daughter will never be some weakling easy girl, she will fight to protect her honor. And if she gets raped and gets pregnant, she will have my teaching - not rules, teaching - and she will care for her child because it is hers.

RE: How many people here have actually been RAPED and concieved? How many people do YOU KNOW PERSONALLY that are currently parenting a child who was conceived by forced rape? I'd be willing to bet you dont know ANY, if so its only ONE unless you are a counselor for a rape victim crisis center. Total Bullshit!

That's a totally pointless statement. Besides, only one or two out of every thousand assault rapes do concieve. Most women who concieve because of rape will not choose abortion. This is because while most women are pro-choice, they are personally pro-life.

RE: But what you are telling us here, is that if a woman gets raped, stabbed and left to die... lives through it all and winds up pregnant.. it is absolutely WRONG for her to want to terminate the pregnancy? It isn't like she has ENOUGH fear to live with for the rest of her life, so lets fucking crucify her and MAKE her raise that child who ALREADY KNOWINGLY has the GENES of a GOD DAMNED KILLER and possibly will go ahead and finish her off ... yeah thats fucking brilliant...

How dare you. How dare you use the situation of thousands of women to try and push your own fucking agenda without ever asking a single one of them what their real opinion is.

RE: IF it is my wife's choice to have an abortion, which it DAMN SURE IS, and IF she decides to go through with it and have one, which she never .. EVER would consider it even if it meant her own life, what fucking business is it of yours? Answer me that question. What fucking business is it of yours? ... I'll tell you what business it is..

What business is it of yours that people are starving in the streets? So are you against charity? The person whose business it is - the baby - cannot fight for themselves. Who's going to protect them? I'm fighting for the millions of lives who are holocausted each year.

RE: I am 100% anti abortion (In MY life) and 100% pro choice (In Yours).

Then you're either a hypocrite or not anti-abortion for the same reasons as I am.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-22-2006, 04:00 PM

You've written far too much for me to try to pick out and quote every portion that I disagree with, but I'm sure that you can remember to which portion of your statement I am referring while reading on.

First off, it really doesn't help you to label everyone who doesn't share your point of view as an idiot. Going about things this way often does a much better job of labeling the accusor as the idiot than it does the accusee(s), when looking through the eyes of everyone else. Just try to understand where we're coming from and we will give you the same courtesy.

Next, I'm sure you didn't hear people state that they're going to school to be a murderer, their point of view on the topic was obviously different from that. Abortion doctors feel good about what they do because they're helping the girl to fix what she thought was a mistake. They can see the benfits of it, while the worst of it goes unnoticed. It is not at all a sign of intelligence to believe that if you can't see that something is going wrong, then nothing is going wrong. We never see or get to know these unborn children, so some of us assume that they never existed. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. A poor way to go about life.

I wouldn't say that you're a guy who murders babies and enjoys it. I would say that you don't understand the bad side of what you're doing. We hear about extreme cases every now and then where a woman would do whatever she can to get rid of the baby, even if it's without the help of a professional. Yes, with abortion illegalized these cases will increase. However, I am certain that with the law in place there will be many more people survivng than there are people severely mutilating themselves to try and dodge the law. The majority of humans are law-abiding when it comes to the grand scale, so when abortion finally is realized as murder, the cases of it will decrease and the bad ramifications rising from it will be far outweighed by this decrease. It's making things better, but it just happens to also be making them different.

As far as choice goes, it shouldn't be something that you are allowed a choice on. Laws in this country take away choice when the choice is detrimental to others. Killing others is definately detrimental to them. Killing one's self is even considered detrimental to others because there is someone who is going to be adversely affected by the loss of your life other than just you.

On your next case, those who have been or know someone who has been raped and then conceived? Well, for one, I don't even know anyone who has been raped. But what does this have to do with abortion? Bringing up extreme cases against the matter which happen on a very rare basis does not mean that we should ignore the issue entirely. Oh, and because someone is the child of a bad person, is it inevitable that he will be a bad person too? If that were true and your case were acceptible then we should not only execute criminals of extreme crimes, but also any of their offspring, and probably any siblings and parents since they have just as much in common as far as genes go. Let's not take the chance. You really need to think through your conclusions better.

On your issue about morals? Do you honestly believe that a completely moral person would ignore what is going wrong in the world around him? Is it not a moral obligation to help your neighbor when you believe that your help is needed? That is exactly where we are stepping in. We do our best to speak for those who are not allowed a chance to speak for themselves. Maybe they would have wanted to be killed, but from my experience a GREAT majority of people alive would not have wanted to be killed before they were born, and I can only assume the same goes for the GREAT majority of people who [B]are[B] killed before they are born.

letlifelive2003

04-25-2006, 09:27 AM

bullshitter

04-25-2006, 07:47 PM

It is nothing more than an escapist's argument to say that 'people will find a way around the law, so there is no reason to pass it.' Yes, every law will find people breaking it and getting away with it. But with the law in place it is something that happens much less frequently.

That said, what right does anyone have to kill a person simply because she does not want to deal with the 9 months of consequences from the choice that she had already made? I know murder as it is defined today is a choice with consequences totaling many years, which ought to be the tradeoff for this choice that the woman makes.
i agree with tequilla i mean wat write does the govt. have anything to do with wat goes on in a chicks pants

General Septem

04-25-2006, 07:50 PM

i agree with tequilla i mean wat write does the govt. have anything to do with wat goes on in a chicks pants
You can't even speak English. Incredible.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-25-2006, 10:29 PM

i agree with tequilla i mean wat write does the govt. have anything to do with wat goes on in a chicks pants

The government has every right when that 'chick' is trying to murder someone that she stuffed up her pants.

Ticorey

05-05-2006, 11:58 PM

gribbla gruml griiil!!!
STUPID!!! so, are you saying, that if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, then she cannot have an abortion, because some fool law! besides i do not believe someone has the right to life before they are born, hell, at times i wish i had been aborted. AND I HAVE A ****ING REASON TO...

Don't be so subjective, just because you feel worthless or sorry for yourself and "I HAVE A ****ING REASON TO not to be, is no argument. So, you would kill a child before it comes out the chute, just because it is an inconvenience, an embarrassment or just a future pain in the ass (as we all have been)!

Look what happens when abortion goes wrong... Bill & Hillary Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Papa Doc and Baby Doc, Hitler, Caligula, and on and on... Don't worry, you are in good company, or bad.

Then again, I could've misread or misunderstood your meaning.

beelzebub

05-06-2006, 06:50 AM

Mike you are a fucking faggot ....;-)

Yeah, I can vouch for that.

beelzebub

05-06-2006, 06:55 AM

RE: I am 100% anti abortion (In MY life) and 100% pro choice (In Yours).

Then you're either a hypocrite or not anti-abortion for the same reasons as I am.

I see no hypocrisy. He is saying that he does not want to have an abortion (in his life) but... he supports the choice to do so (as I do).

General Septem

05-06-2006, 09:06 AM

I see no hypocrisy. He is saying that he does not want to have an abortion (in his life) but... he supports the choice to do so (as I do).
My point is, if he doesn't want to have an abortion, it must not be for all the same reasons that I wouldn't. If it is, he's a hypocrite for letting other babies be murdered.

beelzebub

05-06-2006, 09:17 AM

My point is, if he doesn't want to have an abortion, it must not be for all the same reasons that I wouldn't. If it is, he's a hypocrite for letting other babies be murdered.

Hypocrisy refers to the act of criticizing others for behavior which one engages in as well, or in other words, not practicing what you preach.

In this case he is not a hypocrite because he practices what he preaches BUT also values the free will of others.

He, like me, sets individual choice and freedom as a higher moral value. You, it would seem prefer controlling others on the issue of abortion.

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-06-2006, 12:07 PM

He, like me, sets individual choice and freedom as a higher moral value. You, it would seem prefer controlling others on the issue of abortion.

The point isn't about control, it's about true freedom of life for everyone regardless of their developmental level. How can you say that you set individual choice and freedom so high when you are allowing people to take just that away from someone just because that someone is unable to yet speak for himself? We all know that a child in the womb, once it has been born and learned to reason on such an issue would say that he did not want to be aborted, (this is on the grand scale, there will always be an ecception). Do you wish you were abored? How many people that you know truly wish that they were aborted? So we know that the child wants to live. Why can't we give him his individual choice and freedom when it is obviously on a more important issue than what the mother is otherwise recieving her freedom and individual choice on?

Ticorey

05-06-2006, 12:15 PM

"it's about true freedom of life for everyone regardless of their developmental level."

Well spoken Brains.

beelzebub

05-06-2006, 01:14 PM

Why can't we give him his individual choice and freedom when it is obviously on a more important issue than what the mother is otherwise recieving her freedom and individual choice on?

Because we cannot communicate with the child and that child is incapable of making choices. A fetus is not independent in several ways. The fact that it is apart of another organism, not separate, makes that organism responsible for all decisions. Not others.
But more importantly... You would be removing the choice from the individual who is carrying it and imposing your views.

General Septem

05-06-2006, 02:32 PM

He, like me, sets individual choice and freedom as a higher moral value. You, it would seem prefer controlling others on the issue of abortion.

Oh, not at all. I value individual choice and freedom over anything else. That's why I have chosen to go on a rampage and rape and kill as many people as I can. If anyone else would like to do the same. I support this decision.

(42,346,246 liberals are going to take this seriously.)

General Septem

05-06-2006, 02:41 PM

RE: Because we cannot communicate with the child and that child is incapable of making choices.

Just because he can't talk doesn't mean he is unable to make choices. He may be unable to relay these choices to others, but that's different. A lot of people with mental difficulties can't make choices either.

RE: A fetus is not independent in several ways. The fact that it is apart of another organism, not separate, makes that organism responsible for all decisions. Not others.

It is not "apart" of another organism. It has its own heart, its own lungs - it supports itself in the same way we support ourselves. Its dependence on the mother is only that of our dependence on food and air. As proof of this, one method of abortion is to remove the baby from the womb and let it die of exposure. But this can take hours, or at the very least several minutes. During this time, the baby beats its own heart, thinks with its own brain (even if mostly on an instinctive level), and flexes its own muscles by its own energy. If you separate something that truely is /a part/ of you, like your arm, fingers, penis, foot, etc. it dies immediately. It's the lack of sustaining systems - not exposure - which would kill the tissue of a severed arm.

beelzebub

05-06-2006, 08:22 PM

Just because he can't talk doesn't mean he is unable to make choices. He may be unable to relay these choices to others, but that's different. A lot of people with mental difficulties can't make choices either.

Now you are being silly. Of course the fetus cannot make decisions. Look at a child and see the development of its skills. They move in the direction of simple to complex. Obviously the origin was no though at all.

It is not "apart" of another organism. It has its own heart, its own lungs - it supports itself in the same way we support ourselves. Its dependence on the mother is only that of our dependence on food and air. As proof bla bla bla blab .

Ok so let’s pull the fetus out of the mother and see if it will survive INDEPENDENTLY. You unwillingness to recognize the evidence is rather astounding.

General Septem

05-06-2006, 09:40 PM

RE: Now you are being silly. Of course the fetus cannot make decisions. Look at a child and see the development of its skills. They move in the direction of simple to complex. Obviously the origin was no though at all.

So let me ask you this: where do you draw the line? The infant can barely make its own choices either, by your own logic.

RE: Ok so let’s pull the fetus out of the mother and see if it will survive INDEPENDENTLY.

I already told you, it does survive independently. However, he or she is unable at that stage to defend itself from the outside world and dies within a few minutes. The fetus is however as self-sufficient as we are. The only things the mother provides are nutrients and a suitable environment. This is a stark contrast to anything that is truely a part of one's self, which is completely sustained by its body. For instance, an arm. The arm cannot get its own oxygen, blood, or anything else when separated from its body. The fetus pumps his or her own blood. Therefore, it is not a part of the mother any more than we are a part of this planet. If you would get your head out of your ass you'd notice that what I'm saying makes sense.

beelzebub

05-07-2006, 04:38 PM

So let me ask you this: where do you draw the line? The infant can barely make its own choices either, by your own logic.

Once the infant is seperated from the mother.

I already told you, it does survive independently.

Then you are choosing to ignore the cold hard facts or you are ignorant of the information. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother. Just because the fetus has organs necessary for living does not mean that they are fully developed and ready for full function.

Anti-choice people claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.

What you (anti-choice) fail to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

Realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion.

Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person.

Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death.

General Septem

05-07-2006, 05:10 PM

(extremely long post clipped)

Yes, but you fail to notice one small detail: the only thing a mother provides to a fetus is nutrients and oxygen.

The fetus moves itself under its own brain power, pumps its own blood, and grows under its own power. Therefore it is not a part of the mother.

Your arm is part of you. Your arm does not pump its own blood. If separated from your body its circulation will cease. Your arm does not have its own brain to tell it to move. If it is separated from your body its nerves will not recieve any signals to move its muscles. Your arm will not continue to grow if separated from you. These are things that make your arm a part of you, because it's your body that does these things.

A fetus is different. The fetus grows under its own power, not the mother's power. The mother only provides the nutrients and the oxygen. The fetus flexes its own muscles. The mother does not fex the fetus's muscles, she merely provides the nutrients and oxygen. The fetus pumps its own blood, using its own heart. The mother does not pump the fetus's blood; she only provides the nutrients and oxygen. The fetus will one day be strong enough to survive without the mother and get its own nutrients and oxygen. Your arm will never separate from your body and live separately.

The mother does not provide a brain and heart for the fetus. It grows its own.

All of these mentioned are differences between the relationship between the fetus and the mother, and the relationship between you and your arm.

Stop ignoring the facts. We are still dependent on nutrients and oxygen - nothing more and nothing less than the very same things our mother gave us. We simply get it differently than we did when we were in the womb.

You say the baby is not independent until it is separated from the mother. We already know he or she is capable of surviving without assistance at 24 weeks and possibly sooner. This means that at this point, even though he or she is still attached to the mother and benefits from the mother, he or she is not dependent on the mother. Yet you would say even well past this time that as long as the baby was not yet born you could still kill him or her, even though it is proven through science and through real life experience that they are independent.

Stop ignoring the facts. Stop trimming everything you can't respond to from my posts and simply replying to vague out-of-context statements with blanket judgments that don't apply to anything I really said.

beelzebub

05-07-2006, 09:51 PM

[QUOTE=General Septem] Stop ignoring the facts. We are still dependent on nutrients and oxygen - nothing more and nothing less than the very same things our mother gave us. We simply get it differently than we did when we were in the womb.

I totally disagree. The fact remains that a fetus cannot survive with out the mother. The mother can survive without the fetus. This is proof that the fetus is not independent.

You kept saying stop ignoring the facts: YOU DID NOT ADDRESS MY FACTS. You only pick and choose what you want. Ask any one with common sense and they will tell you that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. Since you won’t believe me when I say it: go on the internet and look for yourself. A fetus cannot survive outside the mother. THAT MAKES IT DEPENDENT ON THE MOTHER. Therefore, not matter what organs have become independent, the fetus is dependent because it cannot survive outside the mother. Plain and simple.

I have NEVER heard of medical professionals taking out a fetus to be raised in a laboratory. WHY because they cannot. If we could it would have been done. WHY? Because the fetus is DEPENDENT on the mother.

GS - I do not understand why you continue to argue against such a common sense understanding.

General Septem

05-07-2006, 10:08 PM

RE: I totally disagree. The fact remains that a fetus cannot survive with out the mother. The mother can survive without the fetus. This is proof that the fetus is not independent.

The fetus can survive without the mother, after 24 weeks. This is much earlier than it used to be, so we can only logically assume that as technology advances, we will be able to support the fetus at earlier and earlier stages of development. Therefore, the fetus can survive without the mother.

RE: Ask any one with common sense and they will tell you that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. Since you won’t believe me when I say it: go on the internet and look for yourself. A fetus cannot survive outside the mother. THAT MAKES IT DEPENDENT ON THE MOTHER. Therefore, not matter what organs have become independent, the fetus is dependent. I am not an idiot. I am well versed and well read. I have NEVER heard of medical professionals taking out a fetus to be raised in a laboratory. WHY because they cannot. If we could it would have been done. WHY? Because the fetus is DEPENDENT on the mother.

No. We simply do not have the technology to support the fetus's environment before 24 weeks. I have friends, however, who were born at 24 weeks.

Now that we're on the topic of ignoring each other, respond to this:

You say the baby is not independent until it is separated from the mother. We already know he or she is capable of surviving without assistance at 24 weeks and possibly sooner. This means that at this point, even though he or she is still attached to the mother and benefits from the mother, he or she is not dependent on the mother. Yet you would say even well past this time that as long as the baby was not yet born you could still kill him or her, even though it is proven through science and through real life experience that they are independent.

Professional politicians can't fool me with their subject changing and question dodging. So just make it easy on your self and respond to the paragraph I have just copied.

Finally, just because it cannot live without the mother does not mean it is a prt of the mother.

beelzebub

05-08-2006, 06:30 PM

The fetus can survive without the mother, after 24 weeks. This is much earlier than it used to be, so we can only logically assume that as technology advances, we will be able to support the fetus at earlier and earlier stages of development. Therefore, the fetus can survive without the mother.

I agree that Neonatal medicine has decreased the risks associated with premature birth. The World Health Organization adopted the standard of twenty-two weeks as being the dividing line between spontaneous abortion and birth, and newborns as young as twenty-weeks gestational age have survived. While I agree that the fetus can survive without the mother (though I have reservations about how soon) that does not mean that the fetus is independent.

Most babies born prior to 24 weeks have little chance of survival. 24-30 weeks: Only about 50% will survive and the other 50% may die or have permanent problems due to being born too early. However, babies born after 32 weeks have a very high survival rate, and usually do not have long term complications.

No. We simply do not have the technology to support the fetus's environment before 24 weeks.

If pigs had wings they could fly. Pigs do not have wings now. Therefore pigs cannot fly.
All your statement means is that we MAY have an alternative to abortion in the future.

You say the baby is not independent until it is separated from the mother. We already know he or she is capable of surviving without assistance at 24 weeks and possibly sooner. This means that at this point, even though he or she is still attached to the mother and benefits from the mother, he or she is not dependent on the mother. ...

You start with the supposition "We already know he or she is capable of surviving without assistance at 24 weeks and possibly sooner". Personally I have reservations with agreeing with this.

You close with the supposition "without assistance". I disagree because these infants are kept in protective environments and provided critical care.

That said:
All your little paragraph means is that we can substitute the "provider of fetal needs" with technology. Which means that a fetus cannot live without that support which means it is not independent. I am saying that wile the fetus is in the woman it is dependent on her to provide those needs.

Answer this one: If the fetus was so independent why would it stay in the mother for the full nine months? I can tell you: because it needs to. It needs this time in the mother because it is not fully independent.

Professional politicians can't fool me with their subject changing and question dodging. bla bla bla arrogant bla bla bla

I have responded. The only difference that I see in my response is that I have more accurately defined your logical problem. You think that independence means "the fetus does not to have only rely on the host provider of needs it can rely on technology" I am saying: "The fetus cannot survive outside of the womb" If you stop using futuristic estimates of technology (no proof whatsoever) and deal with the here and now I think you will get my point.

General Septem

05-08-2006, 07:42 PM

-earlier things cropped out due to having been answered at the bottom of post-

RE: You close with the supposition "without assistance". I disagree because these infants are kept in protective environments and provided critical care.

Protective environment and critical care would fall under what you described as "social dependence", not physical dependence. Social dependence, as you said, involves providing food, clothing, shelter, and medical needs. Anyone (well, any qualified doctor in this case) can support a baby after it is born, therefore he or she is only socially dependent.

RE: All your little paragraph means is that we can substitute the "provider of fetal needs" with technology. Which means that a fetus cannot live without that support which means it is not independent. I am saying that wile the fetus is in the woman it is dependent on her to provide those needs.

Yes, but it is not dependent /on the mother/. The fetus is only dependent on what the mother provides. It can be supplied by other means, therefore the baby is not dependent on the mother and therefore not merely a part of her. "Wile (sic) the fetus is in the woman" doesn't mean anything because the baby can be removed via a c-section and given to doctors to provide those needs.

RE: Answer this one: If the fetus was so independent why would it stay in the mother for the full nine months? I can tell you: because it needs to. It needs this time in the mother because it is not fully independent.

It does not /need/ that time, otherwise it would be impossible for the baby to survive after 22 weeks as you said. Why does the fetus stay in the full nine months? Because it can and because it is beneficial. Why do you eat as much as you do? Because the human body needs it? I can guarantee there are people who don't see as much food in a week as you eat in a day, yet many of them live well into their 80s. Surely they need that food, too, don't they? But if they needed it, in the strictest sense of the word, they would surely not live that long.

RE: "The fetus cannot survive outside of the womb"

It can, after 22 weeks.

You make two assertions. One is that we don't know what the future will bring, and therefore we don't know in 20 years how soon we'll be able to support a baby outside the womb, and therefore you can't assume the baby is independent because of technology we don't currently have. The other is that the unfavorable odds of survival make the baby still dependent.

To address the latter, the odds of survival are not zero. The fact that it is possible to survive without /the mother/ after 22 weeks make the fetus not dependent /on the mother/, and, should the decision be made to deliver the baby at such time, the baby's chance of survival depends solely on the medical care it is given. Regardless of the odds of survival, the baby /can/ live without the mother, with current technology, at 22 weeks.

To address the former, it is true that we don't know how long before 22 weeks we'll be able to push the bar back. However, after 22 weeks we /must/ assume the baby is perfectly capable of surviving without the mother, because this is a scientifically proven fact. Since the baby is perfectly capable of surviving without the mother, he or she is not dependent /on the mother/, and therefore, the mother does not have the right to terminate the baby's life.

So what about before 22 weeks? If we follow the trend, birthing babies before 22 weeks, even if only by a day, is still a plausible outlook on the evolution of medical technologies. Since we do not know when we will reach an empasse, it is only logical to be cautious and not perform an abortion before then anyway.

RE: I have responded.

You did respond, and I thank you for that. All I said was that I didn't want that particular paragraph to go unresponded to, because you have ignored things/given vague/dodgy answers in the past, including that paragraph the first time I posted it.

beelzebub

05-08-2006, 08:32 PM

Protective environment and critical care would fall under what you described as "social dependence", not physical dependence.

I have no qualms about having a fetus removed as long as the woman agrees and little or no harm would come to the mother and the child (not being raised with gross malformations.) But... dependence is dependence.

Why does the fetus stay in the full nine months? Because it can and because it is beneficial.

"Because it can" - seriously, you could have done better than this - please!.
It is not only beneficial it is necessary to development otherwise it would not happen. Evolution would have eliminated unnecessary time before parturition. Sure, we can provide a similar environment at a certain age but this still shows that the infant is dependent.

To address the latter, the odds of survival are not zero.

That information was taken from W.H.O. & I trust them WAY more than you.

It is true that we don't know how long before 22 weeks we'll be able to push the bar back. However, after 22 weeks we /must/ assume the baby is perfectly capable of surviving without the mother,... blab bla bla blab

Well hell,... I guess we can get rid of the womb all together! Shit its "Brave New World" realized! Thanks GS!

This is your sense of urgency. I am all for a woman choosing to donate her fetus, but if she wants to abort it ... fine by me too. You are the one wanting to mandate laws that govern other people to protect your conscious (on this issue). I am fine with the way things are.

... you have ignored things/given vague/dodgy answers in the past, including that paragraph the first time I posted it ...

I have to say I think the same from you. Perhaps we have been caught up in the emotion of it all. I am fine maintaining a cool head and having more of a logical debate instead of a diatribe. Though both are fun.

General Septem

05-08-2006, 08:58 PM

RE: I have no qualms about having a fetus removed as long as the woman agrees and little or no harm would come to the mother and the child (not being raised with gross malformations.) But... dependence is dependence.

First, dependence is dependence but dependence is not necessarily dependence on the mother. Second, you didn't seem to think dependence is dependence when you wrote:

"What you (anti-choice) fail to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence."

The baby is not solely dependent on the physical body of another life form, because any qualified doctor can provide the same things the mother can provide - after 22 weeks.

RE: "Because it can" - seriously, you could have done better than this - please!.
It is not only beneficial it is necessary to development otherwise it would not happen.

It is /not/ necessary because it's very possible to survive before then. The baby can not be born naturally at 22 weeks (must be c-sectioned) and needs special care, but it is still possible, and therefore the baby is not dependent on the mother.

RE: Evolution would have eliminated unnecessary time before parturition. Sure, we can provide a similar environment at a certain age but this still shows that the infant is dependent.

Dependent, but not on the mother.

RE: That information was taken from W.H.O. & I trust them WAY more than you.

Yes, and they said the possibility is low. Low is more than zero.

RE: Well hell,... I guess we can get rid of the womb all together! Shit its "Brave New World" realized! Thanks GS!

No. Because the remaining nine months are still important to a baby's natural development. All I am saying is, it is possible for a baby to survive outside of the womb, and therefore it is independent of the mother, which negates your statement that the baby's dependency on the mother gives her the right to exterminate him or her.

RE: This is your sense of urgency. I am all for a woman choosing to donate her fetus, but if she wants to abort it ... fine by me too. You are the one wanting to mandate laws that govern other people to protect your conscious (on this issue). I am fine with the way things are.

Just because you are fine with the way things are does not make them right. Millions of murders are happening legally. I cannot allow this, so you can see where I'm coming from.

RE: I have to say I think the same from you. Perhaps we have been caught up in the emotion of it all. I am fine maintaining a cool head and having more of a logical debate instead of a diatribe. Though both are fun.

Fair enough.

el_chupo

05-09-2006, 06:36 PM

General Septem

05-09-2006, 06:40 PM

i did not try to follow the big debate in the last couple of posts,but guess what?condoms break.25 percent of people that use various methods of birth control still conceive.I know everyone else in the first couple of posts knocked out the whole rape thing,but look,not everyone can get ready to shell out money for raising a baby.

bottom line,condoms break,diafragms crack,and birth control can be glitchy.so,abortions should be allowed.it would just be killing something that is psyciology unalive.the fetus wont care,so go ahead and use that bent-up clothes hanger.

So fucking what? Most pople know damn well that their sexual endeavours could end up in pregnancy no matter what they use, and the ones that don't are morons. That's a risk you have to take and you can't simply kill your baby just because the risk happened, and I don't give a fuck why you chose to have sex. If you don't want kids, then don't have sex. Period.

beelzebub

05-09-2006, 07:08 PM

First, dependence is dependence but dependence is not necessarily dependence on the mother. Second, you didn't seem to think dependence is dependence when you wrote:......

That was taken out of context. I was specifically describing physical dependence at that moment.

You keep saying... Dependent, but not on the mother.

You are only speaking of a fetus greater than or equal to 22 months. This is not true of one younger. Therefore THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ONE THE MOTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(remember we are in the present tense so no futuristic bullshit until the future is present)

Over all what I am saying it that the fetus is reliant on others. It cannot maintain its own body functions without being inside the mother or on life support (neo-natal). This makes it a different from other humans especially when it resides inside another human.

General Septem

05-09-2006, 07:19 PM

RE: You are only speaking of a fetus greater than or equal to 22 months. This is not true of one younger. Therefore THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ONE THE MOTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(remember we are in the present tense so no futuristic bullshit until the future is present)

I did not forget about before 22, if you'd read my post you would've found this:

"So what about before 22 weeks? If we follow the trend, birthing babies before 22 weeks, even if only by a day, is still a plausible outlook on the evolution of medical technologies. Since we do not know when we will reach an empasse, it is only logical to be cautious and not perform an abortion before then anyway."

The reason why the future applies is because the very fact that it is possible to sustain a fetus outside of the womb makes it independent from the mother. In other words, a hundred years ago the fetus was still not dependent on the mother at 20 weeks and later, even though the technology was not yet available, the fetus still had all the same abilities as it does today. Therefore, since the fetus can survive outside of the womb today, and the fetus has not changed, the fetus has always been independent from a certain time onward. This is true of future technology as well. The fact that it may be possible to sustain a fetus at any given point makes that fetus independent from the mother, because the fetus will not change and never has.

RE: Over all what I am saying it that the fetus is reliant on others. It cannot maintain its own body functions without being inside the mother or on life support (neo-natal). This makes it a different from other humans especially when it resides inside another human.

When it is in another human is irrelevant because the possibility of early delivery is present. The fact that he or she must be put on life support is irrelevant because a lot of human beings need similar care at potentially any given time in their life.

Would you support the killing of a premature baby?

beelzebub

05-09-2006, 08:32 PM

The reason why the future applies is because the very fact that it is possible to sustain a fetus outside of the womb makes it independent from the mother. In other words, a hundred years ago the fetus was still not dependent on the mother blablablabla............"

This makes no sense whatsoever. Just because the fetus can be sustained outside the womb now, does not lessen its dependence on a mother 100 years ago. The fetus IS dependent. We can now substitute its needs from a mother to a machine but it is still dependent on that support. If it were not then it could crawl out of the womb and run away when the abortionist comes for it. Get real.... you are making NO sense.

For instance; 100 years ago human civilization was dependent on sources of surface water in order to build a city. Now we can drill into the ground or pipe it in from other locations. Just because we can do that now does not mean that we were not at one time dependent on sources of surface water -AND- it does not mean that we are not dependent on water itself.

Another thing… A fetus is dependent and INSIDE another human. I do not want others to start telling other what to do with their body.

Would you support the killing of a premature baby?

Now who is changing topics? Trying to move me away?

I support a woman (or anyone) to choose what happens to ANYTHING inside her body. Once it is outside it becomes subject to broader rules.

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-09-2006, 08:40 PM

Once it is outside it becomes subject to broader rules.

What is the difference from when the child is inside the mother and when it is outside? It's still a living human, it still has the same future in store for it, (less that which had already happened while inside). So why are we allowed to treat it like an intruder while it is inside the body? Look at the laws, they say that a person is not an intruder if he has been invited in. The act of sex is an invitation to this new lifeform, so it ought to be just as illegal to kill the baby as it is to kill an invited guest! (-NOT AN INTRUDER!-)

beelzebub

05-09-2006, 08:44 PM

What is the difference from when the child is inside the mother and when it is outside? bla bla bla....

Uhmmmmmm its outside the mother.

I can see a difference. Can you?

General Septem

05-09-2006, 09:09 PM

Beelzebub, I'm not going to quote your post, but you're bringing up now how humanity was dependent on certain things 100 years ago, namely, sources of surface water to help build a city. Does this dependency lessen their right to live?

The fact that the fetus is dependent on the support is irrelevant because he or she can get that support from sources other than the mother. That makes the fetus not dependent on the mother and therefore negates your logic that she has the right to terminate the fetus because he or she is solely dependent on the mother.

beelzebub

05-09-2006, 09:21 PM

Beelzebub, I'm not going to quote your post, but you're bringing up now how humanity was dependent on certain things 100 years ago, namely, sources of surface water to help build a city. Does this dependency lessen their right to live?

I was illustrating a point. You said that a fetus is not dependent on the mother because we can supply its needs now with technology. I am trying to get you to see that the fetus is not INDEPENDENT of the mother because she supplies its needs regardless of whether or not we can do it instead.

Why is this important? It shows that the fetus is apart of the mother. It is part of her body (not like an arm). She can survive without it but it cannot survive without her (neglecting the technology). Therefore it is he body and she has rights to it, not you.

General Septem

05-09-2006, 09:39 PM

I was illustrating a point. You said that a fetus is not dependent on the mother because we can supply its needs now with technology. I am trying to get you to see that the fetus is not INDEPENDENT ofthe mother because she supplies its needs regardless of whether or not we can do it instead.

Why is this important? It shows that the fetus is apart of the mother. It is part of her body (not like an arm). She can survive without it but it cannot survive without her (neglecting the technology). Therefore it is he body and she has rights to it, not you.

/Nobody/ has the rights to another man's life unless he's unjustfully threatening someone else's life. If the baby was part of the mother, then all mothers would have had four arms, four legs, and half of the time a penis as well. Dependence has never been a prerequisite for being part of something. Ever. Not the kind of dependence we're talking. If someone is hanging off of a cliff and is hanging on for his life by your arm, he is just as dependent on you as the fetus is on the mother. You can't just shoot the guy in the face, nor can you simply drop him without even trying to pull him up. Well it's the same fucking thing. If a crack addict leaves a baby on your doorstep, you can't shoot the baby in the face, nor can you simply leave him there to die. You want to talk dependence? Last time I talked dependence you got all pissed off because I pointed out that even after birth, someone has to feed the baby. Well it's the same thing. Only in this case, the mother doesn't have to be the one to feed the baby, and in the case of the fetus, the mother's basically the only one who under normal circumstances can. After all, they don't normally c-section 20-week old babies unless there's a damn good reason, and "I don't want a fucking child" is not good enough. Unless you've got a legitamate reason to c-section, you're stuck with the baby, you know what? Tough shit.

I don't care if the baby is still in the mother or not.

The baby is capable of surviving without the mother - all the baby needs is what she provides.

The baby is dependent on what the mother provides but not on the mother.

The fact that the baby is not dependent means (by your logic) that the baby is a human life. Of course the baby is human whether or not he or she is dependent, but we're going by your logic.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that supports your claim that dependency is in any way related to humanity, nor is there any evidence, scientific or otherwise, that supports your claim that dependence on another makes one a part of another.

The baby is human and as all humans, the baby is succeptible to the inalienable human rights that we all have - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Convenience at the expense of another's life is /not/ an inalienable human right, nor does it fall under the "liberty" category - because excersizing the right to liberty would infringe on the baby's right to live.

Abortion is, always has been, and always will be bullshit, backed by half-truths, fatual inaccuracies, and unsupported theories.

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-09-2006, 11:56 PM

Uhmmmmmm its outside the mother.

I can see a difference. Can you?

The same amount of difference that I can see between blacks and whites, Straights and Homos. I still argue that THEY ought to live, why should it be any different with a fetus, simply because it's not you?

beelzebub

05-10-2006, 07:47 PM

The same amount of difference that I can see between blacks and whites, Straights and Homos. I still argue that THEY ought to live, why should it be any different with a fetus, simply because it's not you?

Thats great :-). I do appreciate your views, truly.
The main difference that I see between the two examples that you gave and abortion is that they both involve differences between individual humans and abortion concerns one individual and the choices they make over their own body. Black and White, Str8 and Homosexual are distinctions of individual organisms. Social problems surrounding these differences in humans are based on their INDIVIDUAL characteristics that are displayed in SOCIETY.

Abortion involves one INDIVIDUAL that has another growing inside of them. I do not feel we have he right to tell that individual how she is to govern her own body.

General Septem

05-10-2006, 07:52 PM

Abortion involves one INDIVIDUAL that has another growing inside of them. I do not feel we have he right to tell that individual how she is to govern her own body.
Abortion involves one human organism slaughtering another human organism. There's no scientific evidence to support your claims that the unborn baby is not worthy of the inalienable human right to life, nor are there scientific evidence to support your claim that one's dependence governs whether or not they are worthy of the aforementioned inalienable human right to life. Therefore, these babies must be assumed to have this right and therefore to have an abortion is murder.

beelzebub

05-10-2006, 07:59 PM

... There's no scientific evidence to support your claims that the unborn baby is not worthy of the inalienable human right to life.

Well GS......... Science cannot, would not provide an answer to these claims. They are ethics. Science, is seperate from ethics.

General Septem

05-10-2006, 08:08 PM

Well GS......... Science cannot, would not provide an answer to these claims. They are ethics. Science, is seperate from ethics.

There's no proof, scientifically or otherwise, that the unborn baby is not worthy of the right to life. Therefore, it's only logical to assume that the baby is worthy of the right to life.

There is scientific evidence that supports many of my own claims. But when it all comes down to it, you can't kill an innocent human life, no matter how much of an inconvenience he or she is.

beelzebub

05-10-2006, 08:13 PM

There's no proof, scientifically or otherwise, that the unborn baby is not worthy of the right to life. Therefore, it's only logical to assume that the baby is worthy of the right to life.

Once again: "Worthy of Life" is a value assesed by morals or ethics. Science cannot determine this. Logic does not apply to these values or morals or ethics.

There is scientific evidence that supports many of my own claims. But when it all comes down to it, you can't kill an innocent human life, no matter how much of an inconvenience he or she is.

Well I disagree. I think you can kill human life and there are several examples of it happening. Abortion is a special circumstance. Other examples dont really apply.

General Septem

05-10-2006, 08:27 PM

beelzebub

05-10-2006, 08:39 PM

RE: Once again: "Worthy of Life" is a value assesed by morals or ethics. Science cannot determine this. Logic does not apply to these values or morals or ethics. So tell me, why would it be wrong for someone to kill you in cold blood? Is it because it's a convenient wall to hide behind?

I am not sure what you are talking about. I am a seperate individual and another individual killing me is a TOTALLY different conversation.

What are you changing topics?

General Septem

05-10-2006, 08:44 PM

I am not sure what you are talking about. I am a seperate individual and another individual killing me is a TOTALLY different conversation.

Why is your right to not be murdered based on your individuality? Why can't you prove that a baby is not an individual (dependence doesn't count)?

beelzebub

05-10-2006, 09:56 PM

Why is your right to not be murdered based on your individuality? Why can't you prove that a baby is not an individual (dependence doesn't count)?

My right to not be murdered based on my individuality is based in the laws that govern our society.

An infant is not an individual because:
1) It is not a seperate entity. It depends on another for life support.
This is at the heart of the word INDIVIDUAL.

Anything that dependent on another for its existance forfits their individual rights to the entity that provides life.

General Septem

05-10-2006, 10:03 PM

RE: My right to not be murdered based on my individuality is based in the laws that govern our society.

We're talking ethics, not laws.

RE: An infant is not an individual because:

An /infant/? Assuming you mean fetus. Anyway, even if you could prove that a fetus was not an individual, which you can't, that doesn't mean shit. How does not being an individual take away one's rights to live?

RE: 1) It is not a seperate entity.

See, that's what I was talking about when I said "you make claims that cannot be proven, scientifically or otherwise".

RE: It depends on another for life support.

So do hospital patients.

RE: Anything that dependent on another for its existance forfits their individual rights to the entity that provides life.

Forfeits? To forfeit:

1. To suffer the loss of something by wrongdoing or non-compliance

He forfeited his last chance of an early release from jail by repeatedly attacking another inmate.

2. To give up in defeat

The army waved their white flag, signifying their forfeit.

By your reasoning, an unborn baby has no will. It requires will to be guilty of wrongdoing or non-compliance. It requires a will to give up. Therefore an unborn baby by your reasoning cannot forfeit anything.

Weak proof.

beelzebub

05-12-2006, 06:30 PM

See, that's what I was talking about when I said "you make claims that cannot be proven, scientifically or otherwise".

This is what I do not understand of you:The umbilical cord and the placenta are physical attachments of the fetus to the mother are proof the fetus is not seperate. Yet you deny this? The fact that it is inside the mother should be PROOF alone that a fetus is NOT a separate entity. Obviously I must be overestimating you knowledge. Here are two links:
Umbilical Cord
http://www.sdms.org/products/photos/umbcordCD.jpg
Placenta
http://www.thesho.com/EaglezeYe/FETUS.JPG

There,... I have proved that the fetus is not separate. It is attached to the mother and dependent on the mother for essential nutrients for life functions. You must be totally ignorant if you think otherwise.

General Septem

05-12-2006, 09:27 PM

This is what I do not understand of you:The umbilical cord and the placenta are physical attachments of the fetus to the mother are proof the fetus is not seperate. Yet you deny this? The fact that it is inside the mother should be PROOF alone that a fetus is NOT a separate entity. Obviously I must be overestimating you knowledge. Here are two links:
Umbilical Cord
http://www.sdms.org/products/photos/umbcordCD.jpg
Placenta
http://www.thesho.com/EaglezeYe/FETUS.JPG

There,... I have proved that the fetus is not separate. It is attached to the mother and dependent on the mother for essential nutrients for life functions. You must be totally ignorant if you think otherwise.

The fetus is not the umbilical cord nor the placenta, so it doesn't matter whether they're part of the mother or not.

The baby is not dependent on the mother; he or she is only dependent on the essential nutrients for life functions. I don't care if there isn't another way to get it at this point.

Saying that the baby is part of the mother because he or she is inside the mother is like saying fish are part of the ocean. It's a stretch at the very best.

beelzebub

05-12-2006, 10:43 PM

The fetus is not the umbilical cord nor the placenta, so it doesn't matter whether they're part of the mother or not. The baby is not dependent on the mother; he or she is only dependent on the essential nutrients for life functions. I don't care if there isn't another way to get it at this point.

It would seem that you are denying the truth. You desperately want it to not be the truth but IT IS.

Saying that the baby is part of the mother because he or she is inside the mother is like saying fish are part of the ocean.

Nothing like the same. One inside another. Only a fool, like you are proving to be, would argue further.

General Septem

05-12-2006, 10:48 PM

RE: It would seem that you are denying the truth. You desperately want it to not be the truth but IT IS.

Weak.

RE: Nothing like the same. One inside another. Only a fool, like you are proving to be, would argue further.

One inside another. You mean like a mouse inside a snake that just ate it? Or a human inside a perhaps larger snake? Well shit, Jimmy got eaten, but that's OK, the snake has a right to kill him because he's inside the snake now.

beelzebub

05-13-2006, 08:51 AM

eak ... One inside another. You mean like a mouse inside a snake that just ate it?

Obviously you are finished with the discussion. I am too. I cant debate with someone who doesn't have common sense.

General Septem

05-13-2006, 12:01 PM

Obviously you are finished with the discussion. I am too. I cant debate with someone who doesn't have common sense.

I'm not the one who's trying to pass the baby off as less than human, because nobody in the history of time has EVER thought that until farily recently. It's not because of "new scientific evidence" because no such thing exists; it's because people are so hell-bent on doing whatever the fuck they want that what little is left of their conscience is desperate to try and explain away the fact that they're murdering millions of babies in the process.

Abortions have been around for a very long time, but at least they used to acknowledge that they were killing human lives.

Nowadays, it's like Tony Montana said. People need to point their fucking fingers and say, "that's the bad guy". What does that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to lie, how to hide. Me, I don't have that problem. I always tell the truth, even when I lie. So say goodbye to the "bad guy". Rest assured you won't see another bad guy like me.

beelzebub

05-13-2006, 03:05 PM

I'm not the one who's trying to pass the baby off as less than human, because nobody in the history of time has EVER thought that until farily recently. It's not because of "new scientific evidence" because no such thing exists; it's because people are so hell-bent on doing whatever the fuck they want that what little is left of their conscience is desperate to try and explain away the fact that they're murdering millions of babies in the process.

I never said that A baby was less than human. We are talking about a fetus here anyway and I dont think it is less human either. Yes I am hell-bent on doing whatever I want and I am very sure that I do not want to give control over my life to other people.

Abortions have been around for a very long time, but at least they used to acknowledge that they were killing human lives.

I have never said otherwise. It would seem that you are once again... chainging topics and diverting the flow of conversation. "Professional politicians can't fool me with their subject changing and question dodging. So just make it easy on your self and realize that" I have proved my point.

General Septem

05-13-2006, 03:11 PM

RE: I never said that A baby was less than human. We are talking about a fetus here anyway and I dont think it is less human either.

Therefore, to kill him or her is murder. Period. It doesn't matter who they're attached to, what they need, or what their mere presence is causing. You cannot kill an innocent human life.

RE: Yes I am hell-bent on doing whatever I want and I am very sure that I do not want to give control over my life to other people.

Then what's stopping you from robbing a bank? What's stopping you from committing mass-murder?

RE: I have never said otherwise. It would seem that you are once again... chainging topics and diverting the flow of conversation.

I said nothing irrelevant. This statement is clearly an attempt at simply degrading what I say so that you don't have to take it seriously. My point was that nobody has ever in the history of mankind tried to pass an unborn baby off as any less than human, even though some people would kill them anyway.

beelzebub

05-13-2006, 03:22 PM

Therefore, to kill him or her is murder. Period.

GOD THIS IS OLD. I already told you that NO it is not murder because murder has to be unlawful homicide. Abortion is legal therefore it is not murder.
But then again...You don’t agree with abortion so call it whatever you like. Just don’t expect me to follow suite.

Then what's stopping you from robbing a bank? What's stopping you from committing mass-murder?

It must be da Power of Jesus! Praise his holy mane! Naw .....
I don’t do this because it has never crossed my mind to do so and I don’t feel that it is the proper thing to do.

I said nothing irrelevant. This statement is clearly an attempt ....bla bla pompous bullshit ....

My point was that nobody has ever in the history of mankind tried to pass an unborn baby off as any less than human, even though some people would kill them anyway.

Whoopee! Thanks for sharing.

General Septem

05-13-2006, 07:47 PM

RE: GOD THIS IS OLD. I already told you that NO it is not murder because murder has to be unlawful homicide. Abortion is legal therefore it is not murder.

Murder isn't just a legal term, though, which is why you look like an idiot by saying things such as that. It can be a legal term but it can also mean unethical or immoral, as opposed to illegal. Besides which, unlawful doesn't necessarily refer to American law. For instance, it can refer to natural law (ethics & morality).

RE: It must be da Power of Jesus! Praise his holy mane! Naw .....
I don’t do this because it has never crossed my mind to do so and I don’t feel that it is the proper thing to do.

So if you felt like robbing a bank, you'd go ahead and do it then. Am I right? Your only qualm would be the threat of going to jail.

RE: Whoopee! Thanks for sharing.

You're drunk.

beelzebub

05-13-2006, 08:22 PM

Murder isn't just a legal term, though, which is why you look like an idiot by saying things such as that. It can be a legal term but it can also mean unethical or immoral, as opposed to illegal. Besides which, unlawful doesn't necessarily refer to American law.

Ok fine. So you may call it murder if you want. That doesn't mean that I have to agree. I dont see it as murder because I don't see abortion as unethical.

So if you felt like robbing a bank, you'd go ahead and do it then. Am I right? Your only qualm would be the threat of going to jail.

Uhmmmm If I wanted to rob a bank I guess I would. But robbing a bank affects others in that you threaten someone with harm if they do not do what you want. And then you take what is not yours. So therefore I see it as not a very good thing to do. But once again I don’t want to do that mostly because I never think of it as an option. I think of many more ways to make DA MONEY!
Abortion is different in my eyes because it involves someone who is making a decision over her own body. The only think that it affects is the womb & fetus (neglecting the emotional toll).
Now MY MAIN reason I don’t want people to control a woman’s choice is because I think THAT IS MORE IMMORAL than abortion.

General Septem

05-13-2006, 08:41 PM

RE: Ok fine. So you may call it murder if you want. That doesn't mean that I have to agree. I dont see it as murder because I don't see abortion as unethical.

I'm explaining why it is unethical - because the fetus is a human being with its own life.

RE: Uhmmmm If I wanted to rob a bank I guess I would. But robbing a bank affects others in that you threaten someone with harm if they do not do what you want. And then you take what is not yours. So therefore I see it as not a very good thing to do.

And abortion affects others in that it causes the ultimate bodily harm to a fetus who, from his or her point of view, is merely there by chance. In doing so, you take what is not yours; that is, the fetus's life.

RE: Abortion is different in my eyes because it involves someone who is making a decision over her own body. The only think that it affects is the womb & fetus (neglecting the emotional toll).

The fetus, like you said, is not any less than human. He or she is dependent on the mother but that does not make him or her a part of the mother, at least not in such a way that the fetus is no more than the woman's body. I've known a lot of pregnant women and they all seem to feel the same way; that the fetus's body is not her own body. This seems like common sense to me, but whatever.

What this means is that the "decision over her own body" is not limited to her own body, because it affects the fetus whom you yourself said is no less than human.

RE: Now MY MAIN reason I don’t want people to control a woman’s choice is because I think THAT IS MORE IMMORAL than abortion.

In so doing you are ignoring my proposition that the baby is being murdered (that's natural law violation, not American law obviously). Now if someone wanted to murder someone else, would you support this decision because "it's his choice"? Would you think that controling his choice to kill someone else would be more immoral than the murder itself?

beelzebub

05-13-2006, 09:17 PM

I'm explaining why it is unethical - because the fetus is a human being with its own life.

Well sorry. I don’t see it that way. I see a fetus as apart of the mother. And she has priority over the fetus (when it comes to laws). She is the sole decider of what she will do with her body, no one else.

And abortion affects others in that it causes the ultimate bodily harm to a fetus who, from his or her point of view, is merely there by chance. In doing so, you take what is not yours; that is, the fetus's life.

I see this as a woman taking something away from her own body not someone else’s body or things. The fetus is apart of her body and she is in full legal rights to make decisions concerning it.

What this means is that the "decision over her own body" is not limited to her own body, because it affects the fetus whom you yourself said is no less than human.

The fetus does not have priority over the woman. The fetus, due to its dependence, must have the woman. I say that she has the right to refuse giving any support to the fetus if she desires to do so. And, others agree with me, which is why abortion is Legal.

"RE: Now MY MAIN reason I don’t want people to control a woman’s choice is because I think THAT IS MORE IMMORAL than abortion."

In so doing you are ignoring my proposition that the baby is being murdered (that's natural law violation, not American law obviously).

I am not ignoring anything. I am stating why I feel the way I do. I have told you over and over that I don’t feel the fetus has any rights and can be destroyed by the woman if she chooses to do so.

Now if someone wanted to murder someone else, would you support this decision because "it's his choice"? Would you think that controlling his choice to kill someone else would be more immoral than the murder itself?

I have already told you that I do not see abortion as murder. So therefore I do not support someone murdering because it is their choice because that is immoral.

General Septem

05-13-2006, 10:15 PM

RE: I have already told you that I do not see abortion as murder. So therefore I do not support someone murdering because it is their choice because that is immoral.

You would not support the decision to murder someone because you feel that decision is immoral. I am against letting a woman have an abortion because I see that as immoral. The decision comes down to whether or not it is moral to kill an unborn baby.

Fact: abortion is the killing of an unborn baby.

Everything you've said to try and justify the killing of an unborn baby is speculative. You have also given facts but they are inconclusive (i.e., the baby's dependence).

If abortion is murder, it would be far more unethical to have an abortion than to "get in the way of someone's personal choice"; even you agree that murder is immoral and not a person's choice. Logically, in this situation, it should be your responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fetus is not a human being, and that is impossible.

You do not see abortion as murder. I do. In fact, a lot of people do, including many pro-choicers. They see it as murder in their own personal opinion, but for whatever reason choose not to get in anyone else's way, kind of like how some people would not stop their friends from robbing a bank, which is hypocrosy.

The fact remains, that you are in the minority, or at the very least, not in the majority.

If abortion is murder, why are we allowing people do do it?

beelzebub

05-13-2006, 11:16 PM

You have also given facts but they are inconclusive (i.e., the baby's dependence).

You are wrong. The fetus is dependent. I have proven this you just choose to ignore it.

Logically, in this situation, it should be your responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fetus is not a human being, and that is impossible.

Logically I do not need to prove this. All I need to do is to prove, and I have, that the fetus is apart of the mothers body and to make the stance that she alone has the right to choose what happens in her body.

The fact remains, that you are in the minority, or at the very least, not in the majority.

You must be in a cloud. THe VAST majority of people in this country agree with abortion, even if they want it limited in some way.

General Septem

05-13-2006, 11:19 PM

RE: You are wrong. The fetus is dependent. I have proven this you just choose to ignore it.

Whether they are or not, as I said it is inconclusive. dependency doesn't remove one's right to live.

RE: Logically I do not need to prove this. All I need to do is to prove, and I have, that the fetus is apart of the mothers body and to make the stance that she alone has the right to choose what happens in her body.

You have proven no such thing.

RE: You must be in a cloud. THe VAST majority of people in this country agree with abortion, even if they want it limited in some way.

Actually the country is pretty evenly split between pro-life and pro-choice. Although with schools teaching their agenda, who knows what the next generation will entail.

beelzebub

05-13-2006, 11:38 PM

Whether they are or not, as I said it is inconclusive. dependency doesn't remove one's right to live.

A fetus does not have a right to live unless the mother gives it to it.

You have proven no such thing.

Of course I have. You, once again, choose to ignore it because you don’t want it to be so. I am unsure as to the reason but nonetheless you do. You argue that we can with technology to replace the dependence on the mother as proof that the child is independent which is absurd. The fetus is still dependent and a part of the mother’s body (which the physical connection alone is proof enough)

Actually the country is pretty evenly split between pro-life and pro-choice. bla bla bla

Whatever. You obviously don’t keep up. Greater than 60% of Americans want abortion to remain a legal choice.
Oh yeah BTW then if it is evenly split we are NOT a minority like you said earlier.

General Septem

05-14-2006, 07:27 AM

RE: A fetus does not have a right to live unless the mother gives it to it.

That's a highly opinionated presumption.

RE: Of course I have. You, once again, choose to ignore it because you don’t want it to be so. I am unsure as to the reason but nonetheless you do. You argue that we can with technology to replace the dependence on the mother as proof that the child is independent which is absurd. The fetus is still dependent and a part of the mother’s body (which the physical connection alone is proof enough)

I'm not ignoring anything. You've got this weird idea in your head that dependence is exactly the same as being a part of someone's body, which is also not true.

RE: Whatever. You obviously don’t keep up. Greater than 60% of Americans want abortion to remain a legal choice.
Oh yeah BTW then if it is evenly split we are NOT a minority like you said earlier.

I said, "you are in the minority, or at the very least, not in the majority." I'd like to see a source on this claim of yours (the poll on the sidebar of the national gay website doesn't count).

beelzebub

05-14-2006, 08:54 AM

That's a highly opinionated presumption.

I feel the same way about yours.

I'm not ignoring anything. You've got this weird idea in your head that dependence is exactly the same as being a part of someone's body, which is also not true.

GS I think that you read too much into what has been said. We have been discussing only the fetus. The fetus is physically attached to the mother and through this physical attachment it receives nutrients essential for life. The fetus is inside the mother’s body. If I pulled the fetus out of the mother (before 23 weeks) then it would die. This means that the fetus is dependent and a part of the mother’s body.

RE: Whatever. You obviously don’t keep up. Greater than 60% of Americans want abortion to remain a legal choice.
Oh yeah BTW then if it is evenly split we are NOT a minority like you said earlier.

I said, "you are in the minority, or at the very least, not in the majority." I'd like to see a source on this claim of yours (the poll on the sidebar of the national gay website doesn't count).

Bloomberg poll 58% disapprove of the S Dakota Measure
The Harris Poll- 53% in favor of abortion
CBS News Poll. only 4% say never on abortion (this is you GS)

See it for yourself http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Here is another source http://www.sba-list.org/polls08072003.cfm

You are in the MINORITY.

oh and BTW I used independent sourses (no pro-choice) please do the same.

General Septem

05-14-2006, 11:06 AM

RE: GS I think that you read too much into what has been said. We have been discussing only the fetus. The fetus is physically attached to the mother and through this physical attachment it receives nutrients essential for life. The fetus is inside the mother’s body. If I pulled the fetus out of the mother (before 23 weeks) then it would die. This means that the fetus is dependent and a part of the mother’s body.

Whether or not the fetus is dependent is not the issue. I was speaking hypothetically when I said he or she is not dependent, but it doesn't matter anyway becasue the fetus is not part of the mother's body.

RE: Bloomberg poll 58% disapprove of the S Dakota Measure
The Harris Poll- 53% in favor of abortion
CBS News Poll. only 4% say never on abortion (this is you GS)

I distrust CBS and I don't know either of the other two sources well enough to say I trust them either. The former two are more realistic but as with any poll there is always a margin of error. In other words, when I see 53%, that's evenly split to me, and even if it was accurate, 53% is not enough to constitute a vast majority, which is what most people think of when they hear the term.

A lot of people against abortion may choose not to answer a news station's poll because they feel their vote may be used against their opinion in the matter.

When it all comes down to it, everyone could agree that the choice to commit murder is a person's right, but it wouldn't make murder any more acceptable.

It's also worth noting that in that CBS poll only a quarter of people feel it should be the woman's choice in all cases. The greatest percentage is in the "rape, incest, woman's life". (The initial question did not even list "never" as a choice, which may lead many to believe they must choose the next best option, which is "only to save the woman's life".)

The general public is misinformed on all three accounts because of liberal media such as the Associated Press.

Only one or two in every thousand rapes lead to a pregnancy. Most women will not have an abortion if they are raped and concieve, and a great deal of women who have been raped and concieved are personally insulted by people who use their situation to force emotions out of people for the sake of pushing their own agenda. Most people who feel abortion should be allowed for rape victims, if given these facts, will change their mind.

Abortion is as much an attack on incest victims as it is on the unborn. You think a 12-year old girl who gets impregnated by her father would choose to have an abortion? Get real. The father would force her into it so that he can continue to rape her. Most victims of incest that get pregnant will not choose abortion because they see their pregnancy as an out. They know that when people see them pregnant, the father (or uncle or whatever) will be exposed. In over 95% of all incest abortions, the woman was not given a choice, and was forced into having an abortion by whomever was involved in the incestual relationship. If most people knew this about incest and didn't just know what the media teaches about it, they would not feel abortion should be allowed just because the girl was a victim of incest.

Then comes saving the mother's life. There is no such thing. There are no situations in which abortion is a medically recognized treatment. Period. Removing a problematic fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion because the intent is not to kill the baby but to remove the fallopian tube, and the death of the baby is an unfortunate side effect. Removing a cancerous uterus is not an abortion and is allowed because the death of the baby is an unfortunate consequence to the necessary removal of the cancerous uterus. As long as every measure possible is taken to save the baby, which may be nothing, these operations and other similar operations are allowed. Abortion is not allowed because it is the direct killing of an unborn baby. There are no medically recognized situations in which abortion is the treatment. Period. There are no situations in which killing another human being is the medically recognized treatment for saving another human being. Period. The "woman's life" category does not even exist.

beelzebub

05-14-2006, 11:30 AM

Whether or not the fetus is dependent is not the issue. I was speaking hypothetically when I said he or she is not dependent, but it doesn't matter anyway becasue the fetus is not part of the mother's body.

Prove to me that it is not a part of the mother’s body. You have not done this at all.

In other words, when I see 53%, that's evenly split to me, and even if it was accurate, 53% is not enough to constitute a vast majority, which is what most people think of when they hear the term.

Let me see ... 3% of 298,738,198 = 8,962,146 people HUMMMMMM I think that they are rather significant and I do not see that as an even split. You are saying 9 million people are insignificant.

Now you are backtracking on what you said:

The fact remains, that you are in the minority, or at the very least, not in the majority.

Which it TOTALLY WRONG and you wont admit it. This is typical of many other discussions that we have had. You refuse to admit when you are WRONG. I would have much more respect for you if you did. But then again I am speaking to a child?

I distrust CBS and I don't know either of the other two sources well enough to say I trust them either. The former two are more realistic but as with any poll there is always a margin of error. …… A lot of people against abortion may choose not to answer a news station's poll because they feel their vote may be used against their opinion in the matter.

Oh give me a break! You are pathetic! What I see from you is: Polls don’t work the way you want them to, so now you attack their validity. Typical maneuver of someone who knows they have been defeated.

When it all comes down to it, everyone could agree that the choice to commit murder is a person's right, but it wouldn't make murder any more acceptable.

Hey! I did not bring this up. You are the one who mentioned that I was “in the minority or at least not in the majority.” I was just showing you THAT YOU ARE WRONG. That said; I could give a fuck what the vast majority of people want. They though slavery was ok and gays were perverts, and non-Christians deserved to be killed. They just have a bit of pull with the lawmakers.

General Septem

05-14-2006, 11:43 AM

RE: Prove to me that it is not a part of the mother’s body. You have not done this at all.

You have not remotely done the opposite either. Why the double standard?

RE: Let me see ... 3% of 298,738,198 = 8,962,146 people HUMMMMMM I think that they are rather significant and I do not see that as an even split. You are saying 9 million people are insignificant.

Next to three hundred million, 9 million is a drop in the bucket. We're not talking number of people, we're talking percentages. A certain percentage needs to be reached to constitute a vast majority. Three percent margin of error is pretty concievable on this scale, which could mean that the real number is 56%, 50%, or some other number. There aren't exact. They would have to poll everyone and recieve an honest answer from everyone, and damndest thing, I don't recall ever recieving a phone call.

RE: Which it TOTALLY WRONG and you wont admit it. This is typical of many other discussions that we have had. You refuse to admit when you are WRONG. I would have much more respect for you if you did. But then again I am speaking to a child?

Hey, I am no fucking child here. I did admit that in a technical sense, you may or may not be in the majority, but you are certainly not in the vast majority. 3% again is not significant and can merely be a result of error.

RE: Oh give me a break! You are pathetic! What I see from you is: Polls don’t work the way you want them to, so now you attack their validity. Typical maneuver of someone who knows they have been defeated.

Defeated? ROTFL, hardly. I wouldn't care if the number of people who agreed with you was 75%, because 75% would simply be wrong. That's quite feasable since I know for a fact that at least 75% of the population is incredibly stupid.

RE: Hey! I did not bring this up. You are the one who mentioned that I was “in the minority or at least not in the majority.” I was just showing you THAT YOU ARE WRONG. That said; I could give a fuck what the vast majority of people want. They though slavery was ok and gays were perverts, and non-Christians deserved to be killed. They just have a bit of pull with the lawmakers.

Fair enough.

beelzebub

05-14-2006, 12:38 PM

[QUOTE=General Septem] You have not remotely done the opposite either. Why the double standard?/[QUOTE]

Of course I have proven that the fetus is dependent on the mother.
1) It cannot live outside the mother.
2) It receives vital nutrients without witch it will die.
3) It is protected by the mother’s womb which maintains the fetal body temperature.

All of this is based on the fetus that is to be aborted:
The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks (based on the most recent data from 2000). Just over 10 percent are performed between 13 and 20 weeks. Less than one-half-of-one percent occur after 24 weeks

Of course I have proved it is apart of the mothers body:
I provided photographs and documents that clearly show the fetal attachment.

Double standard?

I have made my claim now you make yours!

General Septem

05-14-2006, 02:37 PM

RE: Of course I have proven that the fetus is dependent on the mother. ~snipped~

Dependent. NOT part of her body.

RE: All of this is based on the fetus that is to be aborted:
The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks (based on the most recent data from 2000). Just over 10 percent are performed between 13 and 20 weeks. Less than one-half-of-one percent occur after 24 weeks

I don't give a fuck. This doesn't mean anything. All you've proven is that 99% of abortions are done when the baby is dependent on the mother. But the baby is not a part of his or her mother's body at this point, and never was.

RE: Of course I have proved it is apart of the mothers body:
I provided photographs and documents that clearly show the fetal attachment.

All they show is two human beings that are physically attached by means of a cord that contains not more than two veins and an artery (or the other way around, I forget). Siamese twins are usually physically attached by more than that. Are Siamese twins one human being? Of course not. Can one Siamese twin shoot the other in the head? No. The fact that Siamese twins are not dependent on each other doesn't matter, because dependency has nothing to do with whether or not they are a part of each other.

That's all the relationship between the mother and the fetus is. They are two separate human beings, each with a brain, heart, skeletal system, muscular system and nervous system, who are connected by some physical means.

beelzebub

05-14-2006, 03:08 PM

the baby is dependent on the mother

I'll take this as a "yes, you are correct Beelzebub!" I bow and gracefully receive my laudable declaration.

All they show is two human beings that are physically attached by means of a cord that contains not more than two veins and an artery . bla bla Siamese twins bla bla

The fetus is not only attached with a living chord providing nutrients but it is also INSIDE the female. It this is not an example of something that is a part of her body I don’t know what you could consider to be a part of her body.
I am not debating whether or not this means that it is ONE human being. They are defiantly two humans but one is dependent on the other, drawing nutrients off of the mother, and it is attached, physically with the umbilicus.

That's all the relationship between the mother and the fetus is. They are two separate human beings, each with a brain, heart, skeletal system, muscular system and nervous system, who are connected by some physical means.

They are not separate. Anyone with remote familiarity with placental mammals knows this. I do not understand how or why you keep on denying this. It makes you appear to be maniacal and delusional by your own persistence to prove a point.

A fetus is dependent and part of the Mother’s body. By acknowledging this reality it does not defeat you. It is just accepting what is reality. I am not going to debate this anymore because it is getting quite boring. I am honestly flabbergasted that a young person (of High School Education) would not have the basic knowledge of human Anatomy to know this. You probably went to a private Catholic School where they brainwashed you with pseudoscience teachers.

General Septem

05-14-2006, 04:32 PM

RE: I'll take this as a "yes, you are correct Beelzebub!" I bow and gracefully receive my laudable declaration.

Whatever. I never held to the theory that dependency had anything to do at all with the right to life anyway, so it really makes little difference.

RE: The fetus is not only attached with a living chord providing nutrients but it is also INSIDE the female.

Siamese twins are sometimes inside each other too. For example, there have been cases in which the twins' hearts were one on top of the other.

RE: It this is not an example of something that is a part of her body I don’t know what you could consider to be a part of her body.

Her arms, legs, brain, heart, bones, muscles, organs, nervous system - things of that nature.

RE: I am not debating whether or not this means that it is ONE human being. They are defiantly two humans but one is dependent on the other, drawing nutrients off of the mother, and it is attached, physically with the umbilicus.

If they are "defiantly" two humans, how can one possibly be nothing more than part of the other's body? Maybe we've got two different ideas of what constitutes "part of someone's body" but if you're saying that one human being can be physically a part of another human being yet they can still be two human beings, your idea of what constitutes a "part of the female" is obviously different from mine.

RE: They are not separate. Anyone with remote familiarity with placental mammals knows this. I do not understand how or why you keep on denying this. It makes you appear to be maniacal and delusional by your own persistence to prove a point.

If they are two human beings, they are separate, because the mother is not the fetus and the fetus is not the mother. So obviously as I am realizing, your idea of what makes something a part of your body is different than mine.

RE: A fetus is dependent and part of the Mother’s body. By acknowledging this reality it does not defeat you. It is just accepting what is reality.

As I've said numerous times in my past few posts, yes, the fetus is dependent for all practical purposes of argument before 20 weeks. As I've said since I started posting here, it doesn't mean shit. We're still dependent on food and for a certain time we are dependent on someone to provide that food. We're all dependent. It's a fact of life. Dependency doesn't mean you can kill a human being just because he or she is dependent on you.

Now on to your second statement that the fetus is part of the mother's body. If you define the fetus as being part of the mother merely "because it is there", then in that sense he or she is part of the mother - it is there and I'm not enough of a moron to try and say that the fetus isn't "there". But the fact that the fetus is there doesn't mean you can kill the fetus, because the fetus being part of the mother is not the same as how your arm is a part of you, or how cancer is a part of you. The fetus is its own human being, so just because e (look it up) is there doesn't mean e is part of you in the same way as your arm or leg.

RE: You probably went to a private Catholic School where they brainwashed you with pseudoscience teachers.

Since you brought it up, I thought you might like to know that I went to a Catholic school for third grade. I couldn't handle the psychopath ex-nun they gave me as a homeroom teacher. She was a regular Nurse Ratched. So my mother had me put in this fucking city school where I was almost killed several times. For the last several years I've been homeschooled. I'm smarter than you can imagine (mostly because you have your head up your ass), but I honestly don't care if you believe me or not.

avriethoff

05-14-2006, 11:54 PM

I would just like to point out that there are no medical conditions in which abortion is the medically recognized treatment. I've said this though.

I would like to point out to you that there are at least 1, of not 2, circumstances that would endanger the life of both fetus and mother, if allowed to progess to birth.

1) Incompatible blood types (although not quite positive). I do know that when mother's and baby's blood mixes during the birthing process, if there are differences in type, it will most likely kill both mother and baby. Alas, I am not sure if abortion will prevent the mixture of blood. Just a thought.

2) I do know that if the fetus grows within the fallopian tube, instead of the uterus, it causes damage to the tube and will result in the death of mother and baby if the fetus is not aborted.

Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions, General Septem.

-Anthony Vriethoff

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-15-2006, 01:11 AM

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-15-2006, 01:21 AM

I would like to point out to you that there are at least 1, of not 2, circumstances that would endanger the life of both fetus and mother, if allowed to progess to birth.

1) Incompatible blood types (although not quite positive). I do know that when mother's and baby's blood mixes during the birthing process, if there are differences in type, it will most likely kill both mother and baby. Alas, I am not sure if abortion will prevent the mixture of blood. Just a thought.

2) I do know that if the fetus grows within the fallopian tube, instead of the uterus, it causes damage to the tube and will result in the death of mother and baby if the fetus is not aborted.

Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions, General Septem.

Regardless, this isn't the issue that pro-lifers are fighting. Obviously if the birth is going to kill the mother, then something needs to be changed to save her life. The loss of her life will affect many more people than the loss of the baby's; and the loss of both is obviously worse yet. That's not what we're against, and it has been pointed out many times. It is a very small percentage of the abortion population anyways. This is really more one of those arguments that is created by the pro-choicers to try and dodge the real problems that are being presented, just like the whole rape argument. They're side arguments that need to be dealt with separately from the real issue of women killing a human life just to dodge certain unwanted outcomes of the pregnancy such as: Weight Gain, Stretch Marks, Less Sexual Activity, Less Physical Activity, Changes in Metabolism, Extra Responsibilities, Humiliation from Friends and Family, and probably ALOT more that I haven't taken the time to consider. None of which, even all put together are worth killing someone over.

General Septem

05-15-2006, 07:48 AM

beelzebub

05-15-2006, 07:55 PM

You two need to give up on the entire issue about dependancy and "a part of the mother." From a certain point of view you're both right, but it really doesn't have any weight in the abortion debate anyways. Of course the baby is dependant on the mother, but it will be dependant on someone for a long time after it is born also, so if it's not okay after birth for this reason it shouldn't be okay before birth for the same reason.

I have proved it already, why give up on it. The whole point of discussing these facts is to distinguish abortion as a special case different from other forms of killing. I proved that the fetus is dependent on and a part of the mother to illustrate its relationship. This realtionship means that the mother has sole authority over its existence, not others (in my view).

The only difference is that the responsibility can't be thrown onto someone else's shoulders for the next 9 months. If the laws are adjusted properly, they will say that the woman had made the choice and accepted all 9 months of that responsibility the second that she allowed the penis to penetrate.

This is very narrow-minded.
One could say the same of people who put their child up for adoption. According to your logic; since they had the child they should have to take care of it and accepted all 18 years. Instead of throwing it onto someone else's shoulders for the next 18 years. Should we force them to keep the child?
In application of other responsibilities: One could say the same of a loan. If you get a 30 mortgage you must see it through to the end.
and on and on and on....

As far as all the percents and statistics go, they only show what people feel now, with the majority of them not really thinking much about it. Most of these people are brainwashed by their culture to have certain feelings about things and never try to take the time to actually ponder what it really means.

This is presumptuous. You don’t know what the majority of people are thinking. This is rather arrogant of you as well. I hear you saying: "Because people don't see things the way I do they must not be really thinking at all. They must be brainwashed.

Furthermore I said that personally I didn't put much weight on what the majority said. I was responding to a false claim that GS made.

beelzebub

05-15-2006, 08:14 PM

RE: 1) Incompatible blood types (although not quite positive). I do know that when mother's and baby's blood mixes during the birthing process, if there are differences in type, it will most likely kill both mother and baby. Alas, I am not sure if abortion will prevent the mixture of blood. Just a thought.

This is called Hemolytic disease of the newborn, (also known as HDN and Erythroblastosis) is an alloimmune condition that develops in a fetus when the IgG antibodies produced by the mother and passing through the placenta include ones which attack the red blood cells in the fetal circulation. The fetal disease ranges from mild to very severe and fetal death from heart failure - hydrops fetalis - can occur.

In other words:
If the mommie is RH + and the baby is RH -
or if the mommie is blood type A or B and the baby is O

The mixing that you spoke of happens WITH THE CONNECTION OF THE FETUS IN THE WOMB (an example of how the child is a part of the mother). The mothers antibodies can cause problems with the fetus.

I haven't heard of C-Secton but they:

Before birth - intrauterine transfusion or early induction of labor when pulmonary maturity has been attained. The mother may also undergo plasma exchange to reduce the circulating levels of antibody.

After birth, treatment depends on the severity of the condition, but could include temperature stabilization and monitoring, phototherapy, transfusion with compatible packed red blood, exchange transfusion with a blood type compatible with both the infant and the mother, sodium bicarbonate for correction of acidosis and/or assisted ventilation.

Rhesus negative mothers who have had a pregnancy with/are pregnant with a rhesus-positive infant are given Rh immune globulin (RhIG) during pregnancy and after delivery to prevent sensitisation to the D antigen. A drawback to pre-partum administration of RhIG is that it causes a positive antibody screen when the mother is tested which is indistinguishable from immune reasons for antibody production.

General Septem

05-15-2006, 08:16 PM

RE: I have proved it already, why give up on it. The whole point of discussing these facts is to distinguish abortion as a special case different from other forms of killing. I proved that the fetus is dependent on and a part of the mother to illustrate its relationship. This realtionship means that the mother has sole authority over its existence, not others (in my view).

In your view, the fact that a human being is inside another human being undermines the first human being's right to live. In my view, you are a literal psychopath (look it up). In Hitler's view, the fact that his victims weren't Aryan meant that they weren't even human at all and that he had authority over their existence. In Eric Harris's mind and Dylan Klebold's, the fact that their fellow students at Columbine made fun of them meant they were less evolved than them and they had authority over their existence. Well you can prove the baby's dependence and that the fetus is inside the mother's body, you can prove that Jews and Poles are not Aryan, and you can prove your classmates are making fun of you, but in the end, you're all psychotic.

RE: This is very narrow-minded.
One could say the same of people who put their child up for adoption. According to your logic; since they had the child they should have to take care of it and accepted all 18 years. Instead of throwing it onto someone else's shoulders for the next 18 years. Should we force them to keep the child?
In application of other responsibilities: One could say the same of a loan. If you get a 30 mortgage you must see it through to the end.
and on and on and on....

Terminating a home loan generally doesn't involve choking someone, stabbing someone, or shooting someone in the head, unless your name is Vito Corleone or Luca Brasi and your banker's name is Gestappo. Adoption maybe. >_>

RE: This is presumptuous. You don’t know what the majority of people are thinking. This is rather arrogant of you as well. I hear you saying: "Because people don't see things the way I do they must not be really thinking at all. They must be brainwashed.

Most people /are/ bainwashed. Have you ever heard of school? I quote what a great man once said: "If you want to shape society, you have to get at the core of society. The core of society is the people and their beliefs; without the people there is no society. Problems with society cannot be simply legislated away - if something were to be made illegal, those who believed in it would rebel and do it anyway. Throughout history, every major change to society began with schools teaching students how to "accept" things years and even decades before such things were even made legal. Pachinko knows that. She knows that the time to shape one's heart is when it is young, before it is fully formed. As the president of the Board of Education, she dictates what gets taught and what doesn't. This gives her the power to push whatever agenda she wishes on the whole of society."

General Septem

05-15-2006, 08:22 PM

RE: This is called Hemolytic disease of the newborn, (also known as HDN and Erythroblastosis) is an alloimmune condition that develops in a fetus when the IgG antibodies produced by the mother and passing through the placenta include ones which attack the red blood cells in the fetal circulation. The fetal disease ranges from mild to very severe and fetal death from heart failure - hydrops fetalis - can occur.

Wow, ranging from mild to severe. Sounds rough, better kill it to make sure it's severe.

RE: (an example of how the child is a part of the mother).

In a sense, but still entirely different from your arm or leg.

RE: Before birth - intrauterine transfusion or early induction of labor when pulmonary maturity has been attained. The mother may also undergo plasma exchange to reduce the circulating levels of antibody. (etc.)

So in the end, abortion is not the medically recognized treatment anyway. Fair enough; I was at least half right. I don't claim to be a surgeon but I do know that abortion is not the medically recognized treatment for any condition.

beelzebub

05-15-2006, 08:33 PM

So in the end, abortion is not the medically recognized treatment anyway. Fair enough; I was at least half right. I don't claim to be a surgeon but I do know that abortion is not the medically recognized treatment for any condition.

It is recognized as a treatment for situations in which the fetus has a fatal disease or is still born.

General Septem

05-15-2006, 08:48 PM

It is recognized as a treatment for situations in which the fetus has a fatal disease or is still born.

Doesn't stillborn mean the fetus is already dead? And we're not talking about the fetus's desease here, we're talking about the mother's condition. There's no condition the mother can have that the doctor will say "oh, I see the problem, and an abortion will solve it".

As for treating the fetus's fatal disease, killing someone is not a treatment, it is a euthanisation, in this case a non-consented euthanisation. That would be like saying, "oh look, the fetus has a fatal disease, let's kill it to make sure it's fatal".

beelzebub

05-15-2006, 09:09 PM

Doesn't stillborn mean the fetus is already dead? And we're not talking about the fetus's desease here, we're talking about the mother's condition. There's no condition the mother can have that the doctor will say "oh, I see the problem, and an abortion will solve it".

2.8 % of abortions in the US are performed because the fetus represents a risk to maternal health.
Here are two precise examples where an abortion was used to prevent the mother from dying:

A 25 year old with two previous vaginal deliveries and bleeding placenta previa and a clotting disorder at 20 weeks was referred for termination of pregnancy. After checking her coagulation parameters and making blood available for transfusion, we dilated the cervix overnight with Laminaria and planned uterine evacuation when adequate dilation was achieved or bleeding became too heavy to replace. Within 12 hours cervical dilation was 3 cm and heavy bleeding had begun. We removed the placenta quickly and used the ``intact D&E'' approach to complete the abortion and accomplish quick control of blood loss. The patient required a transfusion of two units of whole blood and was discharged the next day in good health.

A 38 year old with three previous caesarean deliveries and evidence of placenta accreta was referred for pregnancy termination at 22 weeks because her risk of massive hemorrhage and hysterectomy at the time of delivery was correctly estimated at about 75 percent. After SFGH sonographic studies confirmed placenta previa and likely accreta we undertook cervical dilation with laminaria and made blood available in case transfusion was required. To reduce the 75 percent probability of emergency hysterectomy in the situation of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC is quite likely with accreta) we decided to empty the uterus as quickly as possible with the intact D&E procedure and treat hemorrhage, if it occurred, with uterine artery embolization before our patient lost too much blood and hysterectomy was our only option. This approach succeeded and she was discharged in good health two days later.

BTW a D&E is an abortion.

As for treating the fetus's fatal disease, killing someone is not a treatment, it is a euthanisation, in this case a non-consented euthanisation. That would be like saying, "oh look, the fetus has a fatal disease, let's kill it to make sure it's fatal".

It is a treatment for the mother, remember, they are connected.

General Septem

05-15-2006, 09:14 PM

RE: 2.8 % of abortions in the US are performed because the fetus represents a risk to maternal health.

Just because it's a solution doesn't mean it's the medically recognized solution, which it isn't.

RE: It is a treatment for the mother, remember, they are connected.

The mother's not the one with the fatal disease.

beelzebub

05-15-2006, 09:20 PM

Just because it's a solution doesn't mean it's the medically recognized solution, which it isn't.

What the hell are you talking about? I know... you have no idea! It is recognized. Jesus!!?!?!?!

I think you just like to argue. Which is ok... but please get a new line? Every time I show you examples you dispute them without thinking... "I wonder where he got that information"

I got the two case studies from JAMA. They are recognized by the medical community as proper treatment for these and other conditions.

You are starting to sound like the Democrats when they respond to Bush.

General Septem

05-15-2006, 09:59 PM

RE: I got the two case studies from JAMA. They are recognized by the medical community as proper treatment for these and other conditions.

But not the only treatment, and certainly not the only solution (notice I said it is not THE recognized solution). It is inconceivably rare that someone will have a condition in which two patients will die and there's nothing they can do about it short of killing one of the patients. You've listed two situations. That's out of hundreds of millions of abortions that have been performed. In most of your 1.some-odd percent that were to save the mother's life, they likely didn't even try (no, I can't back that up - but I'm familiar enough with society to safely make that claim. Get bent), and it certainly was not the only option - it was the easy option for compromising chickenshits like so many people in the world are.

beelzebub

05-15-2006, 10:12 PM

But not the only treatment, and certainly not the only solution (notice I said it is not THE recognized solution). It is inconceivably rare that someone will have a condition in which two patients will die and there's nothing they can do about it short of killing one of the patients. You've listed two situations. That's out of hundreds of millions of abortions that have been performed. In most of your 1.some-odd percent that were to save the mother's life, they likely didn't even try (no, I can't back that up - but I'm familiar enough with society to safely make that claim. Get bent), and it certainly was not the only option - it was the easy option for compromising chickenshits like so many people in the world are.

That’s fine GS. I didn't say the options you listed were not recognized I just gave two examples where abortion was recognized as THE solution for those cases. My statement was in response to your claim:

There's no condition the mother can have that the doctor will say "oh, I see the problem, and an abortion will solve it".

This is WRONG. There are recognized abortive procedures that are necessary to preserve the mother’s life.

General Septem

05-15-2006, 10:17 PM

RE: Thats fine GS. I didn't say the options you listed were not recognized I just gave two examples where abortion was recgonized as THE solution for those cases in response to the statement:

There's nothing theraputic about an abortion. There's nothing about the abortion that treats the mother's condition at all, the only thing an abortion can and ever will do is kill an unborn baby. Whether or not the absense of the baby helps the mother's situation does not matter.

General Septem

05-15-2006, 10:19 PM

RE: This is WRONG. There are recognized abortive procedures that are necessary to preserve the mother’s life.

What qualifies as an "abortive procedure"? An abortion? Or does removing a fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy qualify as an "abortive procedure" because the baby dies? Because if the latter is the case, that's accepted - it's not an abortion.

beelzebub

05-15-2006, 10:27 PM

There's nothing theraputic about an abortion. There's nothing about the abortion that treats the mother's condition at all, the only thing an abortion can and ever will do is kill an unborn baby. Whether or not the absense of the baby helps the mother's situation does not matter.

You are being narrow again. Stop it, stop it, stop it (I am envisioning myself giving GS a pankin).

Remember that the fetus and the mother are connected. When the fetus, causing the mother's problem, is removed it causes a physiological change in the female. This change is due to the mother’s body not responding to the fetal presence. This is therapeutic because it removes the feedback system created from the fetus' & mothers hormonal systems.

For one that loves life so much you are really cold to the mother with this "Whether or not the absence of the baby helps the mother's situation does not matter."

COLD very very COLD. Narrow and COLD. Narrow

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-15-2006, 10:31 PM

This is very narrow-minded.
One could say the same of people who put their child up for adoption. According to your logic; since they had the child they should have to take care of it and accepted all 18 years. Instead of throwing it onto someone else's shoulders for the next 18 years. Should we force them to keep the child?

No, I don't think that it's the same thing. If there is noone willing to take care of the child, THEN they should have to do it themselves. But there are plenty of people waiting for a child to adopt which will undoubtedly be much better parents than those who wanted to kill the child in the first place. My point is that these people are so irresponisible, that since they are curently unable to pass the responsibility on to someone else they feel the need to murder a living person instead. It shouldn't be legal.

[QUOTE=beelzebub]This is presumptuous. You don’t know what the majority of people are thinking. This is rather arrogant of you as well. I hear you saying: "Because people don't see things the way I do they must not be really thinking at all. They must be brainwashed. [QUOTE]

You're right, it is presumptuous. But from my knowledge of how people think, with myself as a prime example, I feel confident that it very likely is true. I'm not saying that "because they don't see things the way I do they must not be thinking," I'm pointing out that whether or not the population agrees with me the majority of them more than likely aren't really giving it much in depth consideration, especially if it's just some randomly generated survey. The public is brainwashed. It is something that many scholars have pointed numerous times. Schools brainwash us into thinking that the Earth is millions of years old, and the galaxy is billions of years old. They brainwash us to think that America is the best country there is, that we were heroes when we nuked Japan, that Hitler was entirely evil in every way. And we are brainwashed on many other things as well, by schools, the media and our government. I really do think that there are few of us who think deeply and consider the possibility that everything we were told as a child isn't inherently true.

General Septem

05-15-2006, 10:32 PM

RE: You are being narrow again. Stop it, stop it, stop it (I am envisioning myself giving GS a pankin).

...Down, boy. *throws beelzebub a male sex doll*

RE: Remember that the fetus and the mother are connected. When the fetus, causing the mother's problem, is removed it causes a physiological change in the female. This change is due to the mother’s body not responding to the fetal presence. This is therapeutic because it removes the feedback system created from the fetus' & mothers hormonal systems.

That's caused by the absense of the baby, not by the abortion. Therefore the abortion would not help her situation at all.

RE: For one that loves life so much you are really cold to the mother with this "Whether or not the absence of the baby helps the mother's situation does not matter."

I do love life. I never said that people's deaths were not unfortunate. But it's never acceptable to directly kill an innocent human being.

beelzebub

05-15-2006, 10:38 PM

That's caused by the absense of the baby, not by the abortion. Therefore the abortion would not help her situation at all.

Its cause and effect.

I do love life. I never said that people's deaths were not unfortunate. But it's never acceptable to directly kill an innocent human being.

So the innocent mothers life is an acceptable loss while the fetus is not? Remember, in these cases the abortion was done to preserve the mothers life only (not for stopping an unplanned pregnancy).

PS What is a male sex doll? Is it like a voodo doll or something?

General Septem

05-15-2006, 10:47 PM

RE: Its cause and effect.

No, more like cause, effect, and then secondary unintended effect. (yes, unintended, even though the intention of creating the effect was to bring forth the secondary effect, it was not the intention of the cause itself - the abortion)

RE: So the innocent mothers life is an acceptable loss while the fetus is not?

Yeah, good point, except for the unmentioned detail that the mother wouldn't be dying of murder. The same isn't true of the fetus if the abortion is carried out.

RE: Remember, in these cases the abortion was done to preserve the mothers life only (not for stopping an unplanned pregnancy).

You're still performing an act that will directly kill an innocent human being.

RE: PS What is a male sex doll? Is it like a voodo doll or something?

You've never heard of the joke about nerds having "inflatable girlfriends"? That's a reference to cheap sex dolls. You sounded like you were getting horny so in an attempt to keep you off of me, I figured you might dive for one if I threw it at you. D:

beelzebub

05-16-2006, 07:29 PM

It, and then secondary unintended effect. (yes, unintended, even though the intention of creating the effect was to bring forth the secondary effect, it was not the intention of the cause itself - the abortion)

No. The abortion affects her just like excising a tumor affects a patient. The patient is plagued by problems associated with the tumor's presence in the body. The excisyion of the tumor "cures" her problem. Thats the way I see it.

You're still performing an act that will directly kill an innocent human being.

And what? The mother has presedence. In this situation if the fetus is left in they both will die. If the fetus is removed the mother will live.

You've never heard of the joke about nerds having "inflatable girlfriends"? That's a reference to cheap sex dolls. You sounded like you were getting horny so in an attempt to keep you off of me, I figured you might dive for one if I threw it at you. D:

Horny? For you? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA you must be crazy.

General Septem

05-16-2006, 07:41 PM

RE:No. The abortion affects her just like excising a tumor affects a patient. The patient is plagued by problems associated with the tumor's presence in the body. The excisyion of the tumor "cures" her problem. Thats the way I see it.

Abortion is not simply the removal of a baby but the killing of a baby, and that's all it is. Abortion is the killing of an unborn baby, period. The baby's death may affect the mother, but for that matter I know people whose death would affect me too.

RE: And what? The mother has presedence. In this situation if the fetus is left in they both will die. If the fetus is removed the mother will live.

There are two patients on the table. You can't simply kill one of them. They would never do this if there were two adult patients on the table and I don't see why they should do it in this case either.

RE: Horny? For you? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA you must be crazy.

Yeah, and you just better keep it that way. I mean, spanking, wtf? >_>

beelzebub

05-16-2006, 07:58 PM

Abortion is not simply the removal of a baby but the killing of a baby, and that's all it is. bla bla more anti-choice bla bla bla

That’s your take on the issue, not mine.

There are two patients on the table. You can't simply kill one of them. They would never do this if there were two adult patients on the table and I don't see why they should do it in this case either.

Yes you can simply kill one of them. 2 separate human beings would not have to make that choice BECUAUSE they are separate (in other words one is not inside the other) Poor example.

Yeah, and you just better keep it that way. I mean, spanking, wtf?

Oh I forgot... you Catholics have some sexual hang-up when it comes to spanking. What GS - have you fanaticized about a Nun giving you one?
I hope you knew I was trying to add some humor. But I do find your behavior TYPICAL prejudice against gays. I make a comment that you should be spanked for being so narrow-minded and you turn it into a sexual thing. Get real!

General Septem

05-16-2006, 08:48 PM

RE: That’s your take on the issue, not mine.

Oh, so you think abortion doesn't kill the baby? Well you'd know better than I would since you're the academia nut.

RE: Yes you can simply kill one of them. 2 separate human beings would not have to make that choice BECUAUSE they are separate (in other words one is not inside the other) Poor example.

Suppose there were two patients, and both were going to die unless you murdered one of them. Would this be medically acceptable? (I'm not looking for a "that's impossible"; answer the question)

RE: Oh I forgot... you Catholics have some sexual hang-up when it comes to spanking. What GS - have you fanaticized about a Nun giving you one? I hope you knew I was trying to add some humor. But I do find your behavior TYPICAL prejudice against gays. I make a comment that you should be spanked for being so narrow-minded and you turn it into a sexual thing. Get real!

Since when was that a Catholic thing? You've got a lot of weird ideas about us. You do have a point, though, with the exception of people into BDSM, kinky play, casual sex, nightclubbing - wait, make that pretty much everyone, Catholics are the only people who think spanking is a sexual thing. Although I will say this: we only think of it as sexual because that's how everyone else portrays it. Your theory has been thoroughly owned.

I have nothing against gay people. As long as you don't try to kiss me, get undressed around me, act gay around me, or say anything remotely gay in my presence.

beelzebub

05-16-2006, 09:36 PM

Oh, so you think abortion doesn't kill the baby? Well you'd know better than I would since you're the academia nut.

I was speaking on the point of the examples. Remember the point of the discussion? I guess I really do know better.

Suppose there were two patients, and both were going to die unless you murdered one of them. Would this be medically acceptable? (I'm not looking for a "that's impossible"; answer the question)

If you were looking for me to respond then try giving a realistic example.

Although I will say this: we only think of it as sexual because that's how everyone else portrays it. Your theory has been thoroughly owned.

Theory? Try pun. Theory is not an idea it is an understanding of process that is well supported with evidence.

I have nothing against gay people. As long as you don't try to kiss me, get undressed around me, act gay around me, or say anything remotely gay in my presence.

Wow I am sure Hitler said the same thing of Jews. "Acting Gay" that is rather impossible since WE ARE GAY! You are being a complete ass.

General Septem

05-16-2006, 10:00 PM

RE: I was speaking on the point of the examples. Remember the point of the discussion? I guess I really do know better.

I'm sure this made sense to you, but did it occur to you that someone was going to read this?

RE: If you were looking for me to respond then try giving a realistic example.

No. Hypothetically speaking. Say for example some guy was in the hospital for a minor injury and they killed him so they could use his heart in someone else's body. Well hell, they might have both died anyway, so why not save one?

RE: Theory? Try pun. Theory is not an idea it is an understanding of process that is well supported with evidence.

Your assertion then. Your assertion that the idea of spanking as sexual is an inherent Catholic trait.

RE: Wow I am sure Hitler said the same thing of Jews.

Jews don't act gay. And as long as they don't act cheap and whiny around me, I don't have a problem with them either.

RE: "Acting Gay" that is rather impossible since WE ARE GAY! You are being a complete ass.

Not necessarily. I know gay people who don't act gay. But if you're imagining spanking someone, take Michael Corleone's advice: never tell anyone what you're thinking.

mikesg

05-17-2006, 01:47 PM

Mike you are a fucking faggot first of all, and i doubt you even have a wife who is pregnant and if she was i hope and pray she runs with the kids because anybody that is willing to have a baby from you should really consider an abortion in your case.

Let's hope they baby don't end up with downsyndrome considering the father is already effected in some way.
;-)

LOL! you don't even know me punk! But thanks for contributing as your level of intelligence has spoken for itself, as with the rest of your posts. Furthermore, I need not prove anything to a punk jackass such as yourself.

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-17-2006, 03:11 PM

LOL! you don't even know me punk! But thanks for contributing as your level of intelligence has spoken for itself, as with the rest of your posts. Furthermore, I need not prove anything to a punk jackass such as yourself.

Fair enough, he may be presenting himself wrong. But please go back and read the post that I left* just above the post you are replying to here. I'd like to hear how you disagree with my reasoning. I did my best to present it with only my issues in mind and not making any snide remarks. Please take my issues into thoughtful consideration and let me know how you feel they are flawed.

<*Go back to Page 2, second post from top*>

beelzebub

05-17-2006, 06:12 PM

I'm sure this made sense to you, but did it occur to you that someone was going to read this?

Of course but if they had a question then they could go back and read the thread. You should know that as well.

No. Hypothetically speaking. Say for example some guy was in the hospital for a minor injury and they killed him so they could use his heart in someone else's body. Well hell, they might have both died anyway, so why not save one?

I really don’t see the point. I do not intend to respond to something that is so meaningless.

Jews don't act gay. And as long as they don't act cheap and whiny around me, I don't have a problem with them either. …. Not necessarily. I know gay people who don't act gay...

I don’t mind srt8 people just as long as they don’t act str8 around me. I don’t mind Catholics as long as they don’t tell me about their goddess and break out the rosary.
Sounds rather stupid don’t you think? I feel the same way about yours as well. Alas, what can one expect from a child?

jacktheripper

05-19-2006, 03:37 AM

Abortion is just plain wrong. Those that believe that abortion is not wrong should have been aborted themselves.

Interesting view you have there.

1. unless you have been (Insert horrer here) maybe you should rethink what the establishment is having you regurgitate.

2. Abortion is like everything else you do a choice.. It is a PERSONAL choice.
What gives you the right to dictate to others what they can and can not do?

What your saying is .. I dont like it so it should not happen.

Well buddy i dont like it when fools spout BS thats been handed down to them from fear mongers, Hate groups etc.(And established religions are a HATE GROUP) . So Sense i dont like it.. Maybe we could reverse the 1st amendment .. Just to shut people up. .(HEY its exactily the same damn thing you/everyone else is trying to do)

Just cause the subject matter has changed (IE abortion/freedom of speach) doesn't change the fact that you are trying to dictate the actions of others.

My question to you is this JUST WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DICTATE ANYTHING TO ANYONE?
1. your not my father
2. you ARE NOT GOD
3. You are not one of the sitting supream justicies on the supream cort.

And thank god to that..

Society makes the rules.. If society in more then a 50% ammount wanted abortion banned outlawed it would CHANGE the law.. But it hasn't been changed.

(Bahh .. stupidity ensues..Whenever religieous nuts get involved )

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-19-2006, 04:17 AM

(Bahh .. stupidity ensues..Whenever religieous nuts get involved )

I'm no religious nut by any case, but I'm still anti-abortion. Moreso, pro-life. It's a living human being that a person is killing inside of them. You may say that it's choice, but it has gone beyond the case of just personal choice. You made your choice when you had sex. We just think that you should live with the decision that you made, it's much better than murdering someone to dodge the decision.

jacktheripper

05-19-2006, 04:36 AM

I'm no religious nut by any case, but I'm still anti-abortion. Moreso, pro-life. It's a living human being that a person is killing inside of them. You may say that it's choice, but it has gone beyond the case of just personal choice. You made your choice when you had sex. We just think that you should live with the decision that you made, it's much better than murdering someone to dodge the decision.

Hum.. This is a hotly debated topic. When a Fetus becomes a "Living human being" Some say its from the moment the sperm penitrates the egg.. others say a few weeks after.. Others say not untill a few months.. and then you have the crowd who say its not untill the "Fetus" is born...

Me.. I personaly have not really thought about it. Why ? Because this issue will NEVER effect me. I am a man.. I can not give birth. I am also steril.. Hence i will never insiminate a woman.

I take a middle road here and say that a fetus is not a "Living human being" untill like 1-2 months. From what i have read on the issue.

How someone can say you are KILLING a "Living human being" When the object in question (Whatever you want to call it) has no features of a living human being..

I respect others viewpoints, but please do not expect me to agree with them when there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Peace :)

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-19-2006, 04:48 AM

How someone can say you are KILLING a "Living human being" When the object in question (Whatever you want to call it) has no features of a living human being..

Well the argument is that without negative interference it will become a living human being (by anyone's definition of what a living human being is), so you are killing a living human being by not allowing it to naturally become what you consider a living human being. Just because it's different at the moment does not mean that it should be treated differently if the difference in treatment is negative.

jacktheripper

05-19-2006, 04:57 AM

Well the argument is that without negative interference it will become a living human being (by anyone's definition of what a living human being is), so you are killing a living human being by not allowing it to naturally become what you consider a living human being. Just because it's different at the moment does not mean that it should be treated differently if the difference in treatment is negative.

Lol .. I had to read that a couple times

Its like saying what came first ? The chicken or the egg.. lol Mehh

Me it's not really a issue that anyone ANYWHERE should be debateing but those who are directily effected by it.. IE the mother and the father..

Everyone else is nothing more then a spectator trying to impose their belifes and moral values upon others.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-19-2006, 05:09 AM

Me it's not really a issue that anyone ANYWHERE should be debateing but those who are directily effected by it.. IE the mother and the father..

Everyone else is nothing more then a spectator trying to impose their belifes and moral values upon others.

Well you could use the same argument on other murder cases. Noone should involved with it except the murderer and the victim. Everyone else is just a spectator. The difference here is that we are much more able to notice the loss of someone who has already been living for a while and realize that this murder needs to be forbidden. The problem is that people don't see what they are losing from the aborted baby's death, or the life the the aborted baby had missed out on, so it is ignored.

And now the image comes to mind of three monkeys, one covering his eyes, another covering his ears and the last covering his mouth. If we don't witness the evil, then it must not have happened. Very poor reasoning.

beelzebub

05-20-2006, 09:35 AM

Everyone else is nothing more then a spectator trying to impose their belifes and moral values upon others.

You are right, The Anti-Choice people are like that. It is good to see another pro-choice person in the mix. THANKS

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-20-2006, 10:31 AM

You are right, The Anti-Choice people are like that. It is good to see another pro-choice person in the mix. THANKS

...evil extends a welcoming hand....the question is, will you take it?

Don't let his choice of words fool you. He only says Anti-Choice to bring the other side down simply because compared side-by-side Pro-life sounds more righteous than Pro-Choice, and it is. He only says thanks as long as you are agreeing with every twist that he puts on the issues. Once you start to disagree, the mask will come off.

beelzebub

05-20-2006, 10:46 AM

...evil extends a welcoming hand....the question is, will you take it? Don't let his choice of words fool you. He only says Anti-Choice to bring the other side down simply because compared side-by-side Pro-life sounds more righteous than Pro-Choice, and it is. He only says thanks as long as you are agreeing with every twist that he puts on the issues. Once you start to disagree, the mask will come off.

Jesus BBO! I am evil? Surely you jest!?
I use Anti-Choice because that is what "your side" is. You want to control others with laws that parallel your viewpoints. This is because "you know" you are right. Very much like Mussolini knew he was right.

The reason I said "Thanks" is because I have been in the minority on this website. No other reason. However; you are right in a way, anyone who disagrees with me suffers the brunt of my fury (unless they have a better point and explain it to me). However, it is not a mask. I never pretended to be nice! :-)

General Septem

05-20-2006, 02:05 PM

RE: Me it's not really a issue that anyone ANYWHERE should be debateing but those who are directily effected by it.. IE the mother and the father..

So, in a murder, the only persons directly affected by the decision is the killers? That must be some good shit you're on.

RE: Everyone else is nothing more then a spectator trying to impose their belifes and moral values upon others.

The same could be said of any law.

beelzebub

05-20-2006, 07:37 PM

So, in a murder, the only persons directly affected by the decision is the killers? That must be some good shit you're on.

So just because you belive that it is murder everyone else who doesn't belive that must be on durgs?

RE: Everyone else is nothing more then a spectator trying to impose their belifes and moral values upon others.
The same could be said of any law.

Not true.

General Septem

05-20-2006, 07:59 PM

RE: So just because you belive that it is murder everyone else who doesn't belive that must be on durgs?

I don't quite understand. I think I know what you're talking about but I'm unaware of the meaning of the words "belive" and "durgs". Assuming you mean what I think you do, the answer is no - I'm merely saying that trying to protect the lives of the innocent is not "forcing my beliefs on others", any more than telling people not to commit murder is.

RE: Not true.

You only say this because you believe there to be nothing wrong with abortion. What if someone believed there was nothing wrong with robbing a bank? He could theoretically say that the laws against doing so are just as impeding on his rights to choose what he does as laws against abortion would be. And he'd be right; they're not impeding at all.

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-20-2006, 09:54 PM

Jesus BBO! I am evil? Surely you jest!?

It was meant in good fun but don't be fooled, I still believe your position on the issue to be evil.

I use Anti-Choice because that is what "your side" is. You want to control others with laws that parallel your viewpoints. This is because "you know" you are right. Very much like Mussolini knew he was right.

I want to stop mindless murder. I am still pro-choice, but the life of a person is worth more to me than the choice of another person, that is the PRO-LIFE viewpoint that I hold. Freedom needs to be controlled just enough so that everyone has a fair equal chance, if you're killing a person, then that person will never get a fair equal chance. Ipso Facto. I don't think anything that people disagreed with Mussolini on was because he wanted to ensure that people were allowed to live.

jonilaine

05-20-2006, 10:11 PM

Also if people are adult enough to have sex, then they are adult enough to handle their responsibilities. Killing a fetus is just a SELFISH act, and believe me there is a place in hell for these people. There are other alternatives. If you made your bed, you lay on it.

Okay...I am sorry...I just had to say something about this comment.

Having sex isn't fucking rocket science...idiots pull it of everyday!

Raising a child...honestly, it fucking scares me that there are some idiots trying to do this...it scares me...very very much so!!!!

Oh and I am sure there is a place in hell for everyone...including you and me!

Oh and you fucked up the whole "You made your nest, now you have to lay in it" quote...good job!

jacktheripper

05-21-2006, 12:22 AM

RE: Me it's not really a issue that anyone ANYWHERE should be debateing but those who are directily effected by it.. IE the mother and the father..

1. So, in a murder, the only persons directly affected by the decision is the killers? That must be some good shit you're on.

RE: Everyone else is nothing more then a spectator trying to impose their belifes and moral values upon others.

2. The same could be said of any law.

1. Its not murder.. If it were regarded as such then people would be serving time. Don't try to push your religious rehtoric onto me.. If it was murder then It would be illegal and no doctor would be able to perform a abortion.

2. Actuly yes.. :) Aint it a beutifull hipocritical world we live in ?? EH ?

What confuses me more is the nuts who go arround killing abortion doctors saying they are "Saving untold lives" Bullshit. They havent saved a single life.. And they commited a REAL crime of murder..

(Shakes head)

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-21-2006, 12:45 AM

1. Its not murder.. If it were regarded as such then people would be serving time. Don't try to push your religious rehtoric onto me.. If it was murder then It would be illegal and no doctor would be able to perform a abortion.

It is murder, but it's not REGARDED as murder. People don't like to fess up to their decisions when something goes wrong, so they'll hide from their mistake by doing whatever it takes to destroy the evidence of it. Since so many people are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions, they make outrageous arguments telling why abortion isn't murder simply because the child hasn't yet been born...yada yada yada.

What confuses me more is the nuts who go arround killing abortion doctors saying they are "Saving untold lives" Bullshit. They havent saved a single life.. And they commited a REAL crime of murder..

(Shakes head)

Not that I agree with these people, but I understand their logic. They argue that the doctors would otherwise be killing many more people we're better off killing him to stop it, (trade one Adult life for numerous children's lives). Problem here is that the aborting woman is just going to find an different abortion doctor. The only thing that these people are really doing is an attempt to open the eyes of the public, but alas they have not yet been successful.

The only reason they have committed a REAL crime of murder and the abortioners haven't is because our government doesn't recognize abortion as murder. It's still murder, our country just refuses to let the laws realize it.

craka327

05-23-2006, 11:02 AM

I read a few of the earlier post, but not all, so if I am reiterating someone elses idea, sorry.

I say, pass a law against abortion and make a law forcing the father to help support the child.

SO....if you can't keep your fucking pants on, you deal with it. And for the whores who fuck a new guy every night, if the daddy cant be found, tough shit. You shoulda thought about that before fucking #347. Once a guy gets about 3 kids under his belt maybe, just maybe, he'll learn to pull that SOB out or wrap it, or just go jack off. For each new daddy, lets deport and illegal fucker and give the daddy his job if he doesn't have one.

SEX MAKES CHILDREN DUMBASSES!!!!!! It always has, always will. If you say you didn't ask for the kid, well the kid sure as hell didn't ask for you, so show some common courtesy and let em live!

If you're argument was that the kid will mess up your hopes and dreams, once again, TOUGH SHIT!!!! Before sex would have been a good time for that revelation.

In short, yes the world is full of dumbasses. As a matter of fact, they are the majority! But no matter how badly the idiots outnumber you, they are still idiots. Ok, bring on your angry mobs.

sweets

05-23-2006, 09:27 PM

General Septem

05-23-2006, 09:40 PM

you people that think abortions are "wrong" are fuckin stupid! for one abortions should be decided by the mother and if the father is around him too. none of you fuckers run anybodys life but your own lets keep it that way. making abortion illegal would be like making your freedom non-existint we live in a some what free country with freedom of speech and freedom of expression how dare any of you think what some other person decides to do "with their life" wrong. from my option all of you are wrong. im not saying abortions are right im just saying let people make their own decisions and make their own mistakes. i dont believe abortion should be, as you say, a "birth control" tactic but come on we are not communists and do not need to be told what to do. this fuckin world is overpopulated as it is we do not need more people on the world if we can help it.

That's right, the sum of all human freedom is the sole right to kill one's unborn offspring. Which one of us is "fuckin" stupid? At least I can spell, jackass.

craka327

05-23-2006, 10:32 PM

YOU'RE A GODDAMN MORON!!! MURDER IS AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW. from what i've seen here, nobody is disputing the fact that abortion involves a CHILD....A FUCKING HUMAN BEING. At what age does someone have to be before you can leagally murder them. OH WAIT, MURDER IS AGAINST THE LAW. I stand by my plan. Plan "B" involves shipping all the people too stupid to realize what happens when you have sex over to africa, let'em get aids and FUCKING DIE. You shitholes are disgrace to humanity. HELL YEAH....THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. More angry mob please. Abortion, murder, call it what you want. YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD, SWEETS!

craka327

05-23-2006, 10:38 PM

If the world is so overpopulated THEN QUIT FUCKING. It makes more sense that killing babies. Oh I forgot, we are selfish motherfuckers. We would rather kill a baby than sacrifice our pleasure. We're free adults, by God, we can kill 'em if we want. It's a damn shame that free ADULTS are so concerned with themselves.

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-24-2006, 12:02 AM

you people that think abortions are "wrong" are fuckin stupid! for one abortions should be decided by the mother and if the father is around him too. none of you fuckers run anybodys life but your own lets keep it that way. making abortion illegal would be like making your freedom non-existint we live in a some what free country with freedom of speech and freedom of expression how dare any of you think what some other person decides to do "with their life" wrong. from my option all of you are wrong. im not saying abortions are right im just saying let people make their own decisions and make their own mistakes. i dont believe abortion should be, as you say, a "birth control" tactic but come on we are not communists and do not need to be told what to do. this fuckin world is overpopulated as it is we do not need more people on the world if we can help it.

Have you even read any of the arguments against abortion? All the issues that you state are immaterial to the issue that we are arguing against. Instead of making everyone who reads these threads certain that you're an idiot with your random posts, you should read the arguments against abortion, (in other words pro-life), and give some sort thoughtful rebuttal to them.

beelzebub

05-27-2006, 05:35 PM

Have you even read any of the arguments against abortion? All the issues that you state are immaterial to the issue that we are arguing against. Instead of making everyone who reads these threads certain that you're an idiot with your random posts, you should read the arguments against abortion, (in other words pro-life), and give some sort thoughtful rebuttal to them.

Actually BBO before you dismiss her you should read what she wrote:
" ...abortions should be decided by the mother and if the father is around him too. none of you fuckers run anybodys life but your own lets keep it that way. making abortion illegal would be like making your freedom non-existint we live in a some what free country with freedom of speech and freedom of expression how dare any of you think what some other person decides to do "with their life" wrong."

This is exactly what we have been arguing. If she wants to post her thoughts without reading ANY of the other posts that is her prerogative and I welcome it. The only reason you dismiss her is because she is saying something YOU DONT LIKE. Talk about narrow!

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-27-2006, 06:58 PM

This is exactly what we have been arguing. If she wants to post her thoughts without reading ANY of the other posts that is her prerogative and I welcome it. The only reason you dismiss her is because she is saying something YOU DONT LIKE. Talk about narrow!

No, the only reason that I dismiss her, as you call it, was because arguments against hers have been posted many times. I am too exhausted by the issue to start back at the beginning. I wouldn't call that narrow by any means, simply frustration. Stated in other words, you second sentance there is saying that you welcome ignorance, though your posts seem to indicate how much it bothers you!

silvery moon

05-30-2006, 12:28 PM

Well, first of all I think Abortion should be legalized
Because it isn't legalized in America, right? I mean, I wouldn't know, I'm not American
I'm actually Dutch, and we Dutch people think abortion is okay, but only in certain circumstances. I know, I'm probably heartless and a murderer, but hey, we support that too in Holland :p
So, anyway, just wondering.. A lot of you people think that killing a baby is murder, which is sort of true, cause you're actually 'killing' a baby.. yeah
But!, if it's SO wrong to kill an unborn baby who's brains are poorly developed so who doesn't really realise anything and doesn't even know what death or pain is... then why is it okay to kill animals? And not just baby animals, like little lambs and stuff, but also full grown animals, like sheep and cows and stuff.. Unlike the baby, they already got born. Their brains are fully developed, they feel the pain. And also, they're being stuffed in tiny cages along with 30 others of their kind.

Second of all, what if a woman is raped? That happens a lot these days with all those empty headed men walking around. Does she really have to change her entire life just because some guy cruelly abused her? Cause babies are life changing.. You have to give up loads for them.. And what about the emotional damage that keeps on coming back every time the woman looks at her baby and thinks about the rape?

And last but not least, what will happen to the baby when it does get born? How will it grow up? Cause lots of times the mother doesn't want the baby, or she can't afford it or something. So the baby will probably have a hard life and suffer a lot. But, as listed above, the mother will suffer a lot too.
So what's worse? Suffering your entire life? Or dying when not being born and not feeling any pain or having any thoughts?

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-30-2006, 03:46 PM

Well, first of all I think Abortion should be legalized
Because it isn't legalized in America, right? I mean, I wouldn't know, I'm not American

It is legal in America. That is why there is such a big debate on the issue, because those of us with a soul argue that it shouldn't be legal.

But!, if it's SO wrong to kill an unborn baby who's brains are poorly developed so who doesn't really realise anything and doesn't even know what death or pain is... then why is it okay to kill animals?

Because animals aren't people. The problem isn't whether or not they can feel pain or understand what death is etc., it's that you're killing a human. We kill animals for food, nature intends this to happen. A newly born child still doesn't KNOW what death is, and he can be killed without pain, but this is still illegal because even the idiots in society can now recognize that this is a living human.

Second of all, what if a woman is raped? That happens a lot these days with all those empty headed men walking around. Does she really have to change her entire life just because some guy cruelly abused her? Cause babies are life changing.. You have to give up loads for them.. And what about the emotional damage that keeps on coming back every time the woman looks at her baby and thinks about the rape?

A side argument, one that needs to be treated differently. It should not be used to legalize all abortions. However, it is still a living human inside of her, so the life still needs some consideration. The act which created this life needs to be addressed also, but once again should not be a driving reason to make all abortions legal.

And last but not least, what will happen to the baby when it does get born? How will it grow up? Cause lots of times the mother doesn't want the baby, or she can't afford it or something. So the baby will probably have a hard life and suffer a lot. But, as listed above, the mother will suffer a lot too.
So what's worse? Suffering your entire life? Or dying when not being born and not feeling any pain or having any thoughts?

Dying when not even getting a chance is worse. You can easily throw out many what-ifs, and suppose many circumstances. I can throw out just as many for cases in which this child will have an outstanding life if given the chance. Everyone for abortion always talks about how they're against controlling someone's life. You can't control someone's life any greater than you can by killing them before they are really able to start their life. Let's stop controlling people's lives and make it possible for everyone to live and to make their own choices.

silvery moon

05-31-2006, 03:42 AM

Well, it's never been easy to find a compromise on abortion, for it's simply a matter of how you look at it. A matter of different views.

Personally, I consider 'because animals aren't people' a rather lame excuse.. Because to me it seems that humans are awfully egocentric, and think themselves better than other organisms on this planet. Sure, nature wants us to kill animals for food, just like animals kill other animals for food. But does nature truly want us to spread around the world in a way that no other species has ever done, rob all the world's rainforests, make species extinct and put millions and millions of animals in tiny cages so we can be fed? I mean, it's like we humans are a nasty bacteria that keeps on spreading and taking and damaging the world.

But I'm drifting away from the subject.. Anyway, you could say that dying without even getting a chance is worse.. Because the yet-to-become-baby
could live and could have a nice life. But then you might as well say that every sperm cell and egg cell shouldn't be thrown away, because they can become babies with nice lives too. They're also yet-to-become babies, only they're in an earlier stage. Everything 'can become' something. But that doesn't mean that it 'is' something.

But o well, who are you to say that dying without even getting a chance is worse? And who am I to say that it's not?
It's actually very complicated, which makes it simple. Everybody thinks differently about the matter, and everybody has a different view. That's why abortion should remain legal, so that one can decide for him- or herself what's the right thing to do.
If you would make it illegal, you're actually being rather selfish, because you don't respect other people's points of view
And of course, you can still stand for what you think is right by never having an abortion, but do respect others for making that choice

General Septem

05-31-2006, 04:41 AM

But then you might as well say that every sperm cell and egg cell shouldn't be thrown away, because they can become babies with nice lives too. They're also yet-to-become babies, only they're in an earlier stage. Everything 'can become' something. But that doesn't mean that it 'is' something.

Except for one thing. Eggs and sperm may only become human if they are joined together. But the fetus already is human, and that's a scientifically proven fact. You need to consider the unborn baby to already be human, and then it becomes apparent why abortion is bullshit.

silvery moon

05-31-2006, 06:15 AM

General Septem

05-31-2006, 07:16 AM

A scientifically proven fact? I think not.
Calling something 'human' is, in this case, an opinion. For both (the egg/sperm cell and the fetus) have characteristic genes, but lack a working brain and body. Both can, however, develop a working brain and body once they develop. The only difference is that the fetus is a stage ahead of the egg and sperm cells.

There's a big difference between the sperm/egg and the fetus. The minute the sperm and egg come together, their chromosomes join together to create a completely unique DNA, which is neither the mother's nor the father's. It shares characteristics with the mother's DNA as well as the fathers, but as a whole the fetus's DNA is not the same as the mother's or the father's. The fetus has a heartbeat within days of fertilization, often before a woman even knows she's pregnant. The sperm and the egg do not have heartbeats and their DNA is exactly the same as the person they come (pun unintended) from. The fetus grows under its own power; the fetus does not grow under the mother's power any more than we grow off of our food's power. We use the food for energy to grow, but the growth comes from our bodies. The sperm and egg are completely constructed by the mother and father and do not continue to grow after exiting the body until the egg is fertilized.

So to recap, the fetus has a heartbeat, unique DNA, and grows under its own power. All of these are characteristics of something being alive. As for the what species the fetus is, that's simply a matter of studying its genes, and since they do not change after fertilization, and the baby is human at birth, the only possibility is that the fetus is human from fertilization.

Whether or not someone is human is not an opinion. The last person to make that mistake ended up killing 15 people in his school because he was "higher evolved than them".

RE: Abortion is not bullshit. I just don't get why the only link you people see is: fetus + kill = murder = bad .. It's such simple thinking, especially when looking at all those horrible things we humans do that we do approve.

Intentionally and directly killing an innocent human being is wrong in all circumstances, not just before the baby is born.

RE: Also, many people these days seem to think that 'death' is the worst thing possible, and that 'living' is great. But death does not involve pain, suffering, loss, rejection etc.

Death doesn't involve pain, unless of course you consider ripping someone's body limb from limb, corroding their skin away with saline solution, and/or letting them die of exposure a little less than humane, and all of these are abortion procedures. Death doesn't involve joy either.

Something tells me you're just an emo kid who would slit his wrists at the first sign of depression.

RE: Living does, especially when you're living an unwanted life.

Don't they have adoptions in Holland?

RE: In conclusion, since you can't force people to think the way you do, let there be abortion, thus choices.

Would you support someone's decision to kill you as long as they don't believe it's wrong?

silvery moon

05-31-2006, 08:25 AM

Well, well, well.. You're being awfully rude ^^ I know I would never call someone I barely know 'just an emo kid who would slit his wrists at the first sign of depression', because at least I have some respect for people. Actually, I'm just a girl with a certain opinion and who's trying to have a proper discussion in here.
You really are being biased. But o well, I don't mind what you think of me, for you don't know me. Had you known me, and called me like that, at least it would've been real and I would've been insulted, for I am nothing like an emo kid.
I may be only 16 years old, but I'm not the one insulting strangers, so I'm wondering who's the real kid here.

So, let's just pretend like you never rudely insulted me and continue with this discussion. Thank you for just explaining to me that the difference between an egg and a fertilised egg is that the fertisiles egg has created different DNA. But, still, that DNA doesn't have a brain, a body, nor feelings or thoughts. And as to whether that should be called a human or not, remains an opinion. Some people would simply refer to it as 'DNA', for that's what it is. However, it can 'become' a baby by simply waiting, it can become a baby on its own power. Egg cells and sperm cells can become babies too, only not on their own power. The male and female have to take care of that power. But does it really matter 'who deliveres the power'? For some it does, for others it doesn't. They're both the same, because they both need power to become a baby, if you get my drift.

You know as well as I do that some wacko killing 15 people in his school is not the same as abortion. Because those 15 people were humans with bodies, brains, thoughts and feelings. I think it's a bit farfetched to compare that with abortion.

Nah ah, you're still alive if you can feel the 'ripping someone's body from limb to limb, etc. etc.', because you're nervous system is sending messages to your brain, simply to help keeping your body alive. Death simply means that you're body is not alive, so not working anymore. So there's no nervous system sending messages of pain to your brain. However, when abortion is taking place, the unborn baby will not feel any pain, because neither its nervous system nor its brain is developed.

Saying that killing a human is wrong in all circumstances is not true, for who are you to judge about what is wrong and what is right? There is no right or wrong, there's only believing something's right or wrong.

"Would you support someone's decision to kill you as long as they don't believe it's wrong?"
Here we go again... I am alive, I have a brain, I can think, feel pain, walk, talk etc. A fetus can't.

I know it's hard to understand, simply because it sounds so cruel. But really, what many people think is cruelty, is just an illusion.

General Septem

05-31-2006, 08:44 AM

RE: I may be only 16 years old, but I'm not the one insulting strangers, so I'm wondering who's the real kid here.

Haha, well when you're all on about "life is miserable, it's better to just die because there's no pain" - that sounds pretty emo to me. But that was just a lighthearted comment I made, it would almost take an emo kid to get insulted by that ;)

RE: Thank you for just explaining to me that the difference between an egg and a fertilised egg is that the fertisiles egg has created different DNA. But, still, that DNA doesn't have a brain, a body, nor feelings or thoughts.

The fetus has a body right from fertilization, because the one-cell embryo is a complete human body. The brain develops very early on as well. As far as thoughts and feelings go, one wonders just how much an infant thinks, but because infants are so cute, nobody would dare kill them. :rolleyes:

RE: And as to whether that should be called a human or not, remains an opinion. Some people would simply refer to it as 'DNA', for that's what it is.

It's actually not DNA, it's a human cell. DNA are merely strands of protein. The embryo is a completely living human cell, and determining its species is just like how you would determine the species of any living being, by studying its genes. It's an exact science and the fetus is clearly a human.

RE: However, it can 'become' a baby by simply waiting, it can become a baby on its own power.

And the baby will become an adult, but at all of these stages it's still a human. So what's your point?

RE: Egg cells and sperm cells can become babies too, only not on their own power. The male and female have to take care of that power.

The male and female don't actually take care of that power either, unless you consider sex to be that power though that's only an inderect effect. The sperm and egg don't really "become" anything anyway; they join and form a human being, but not on their own. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the sperm and egg are not human.

RE: You know as well as I do that some wacko killing 15 people in his school is not the same as abortion. Because those 15 people were humans with bodies, brains, thoughts and feelings. I think it's a bit farfetched to compare that with abortion.

You're right, it is far-fetched - people get away with abortion.

RE: Nah ah, you're still alive if you can feel the 'ripping someone's body from limb to limb, etc. etc.', because you're nervous system is sending messages to your brain, simply to help keeping your body alive. Death simply means that you're body is not alive, so not working anymore. So there's no nervous system sending messages of pain to your brain. However, when abortion is taking place, the unborn baby will not feel any pain, because neither its nervous system nor its brain is developed.

The fetus can feel pain at 12 weeks, which is around when the more brutal abortion procedures start to become the preferred method. He or she has a brain long before then.

RE: Saying that killing a human is wrong in all circumstances is not true, for who are you to judge about what is wrong and what is right? There is no right or wrong, there's only believing something's right or wrong.

So why would someone killing you be wrong, if you can't prove what is right and wrong?

RE: Here we go again... I am alive, I have a brain, I can think, feel pain, walk, talk etc. A fetus can't.

First of all, that's wrong, and I'll cover that in a minute, and second of all, what if someone else doesn't think it's wrong to kill a human being? You can't prove that's wrong either. Going back to my first statement, a fetus is very much alive, has a brain, can feel pain, and can think. And as for walking and talking, infants and cripples can't either.

silvery moon

05-31-2006, 09:15 AM

You don't have to be an emo kid to see that calling someone 'an emo kid who would slit his wrists at the first sign of depression' is not very likely to be a lighthearted comment ^^ Unless people in your country (dunno where it is you live) find it quite normal to use such words on one another.

It's been proven and it is a fact that a fetus doesn't feel pain for the first three months, because it hasn't got a conscience. The brain is not developed, nor is the nervous system or the body, so it doesn't feel and doesn't experience.

I can keep on defending my own arguments and commenting on yours, but to me it's pretty obvious. Even this debate that doesn't seem to end says enough. Everybody feels different about this single matter, and that's why everyone should decide for themselves whether to have an abortion when they need one, or not.

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-31-2006, 09:57 AM

But I'm drifting away from the subject.. Anyway, you could say that dying without even getting a chance is worse.. Because the yet-to-become-baby
could live and could have a nice life. But then you might as well say that every sperm cell and egg cell shouldn't be thrown away, because they can become babies with nice lives too. They're also yet-to-become babies, only they're in an earlier stage. Everything 'can become' something. But that doesn't mean that it 'is' something.

This is false reasoning. It only has a chance if it is given the chance and then takes the chance. You give it the chance when you insert the sperm into the woman. All these millions of sperm then have the chance, but each must then TAKE that chance. They all try to, but only one can succeed, (in some cases a couple more than that), but this is the way of nature. No sperm or egg is a "yet-to-become" baby, until the two have merged into one. Once this has happened, you know that it will be nothing else than a human, by your definition of it, without a doubt. Blocking this from happening doesn't change the undeniable fact that it would have happened, you just killed it before it could happen.

If you would make it illegal, you're actually being rather selfish, because you don't respect other people's points of view
And of course, you can still stand for what you think is right by never having an abortion, but do respect others for making that choice

On the contrary, I respect others' points of view, but in such a large case about life I feel the need to show them that my point of view needs to be upheld. In the case that one of us were right, it would be much more detrimental if I were right and your point of view were upheld, than if you were right and my point of view were upheld. This is because in the former circumstance you are taking away a person's life, while the latter is only changing a person's life for a small fraction of their lifetime.

General Septem

05-31-2006, 10:38 AM

RE: You don't have to be an emo kid to see that calling someone 'an emo kid who would slit his wrists at the first sign of depression' is not very likely to be a lighthearted comment ^^ Unless people in your country (dunno where it is you live) find it quite normal to use such words on one another.

America, Amsterdam, Afghanistan, Nazi Germany - it's all the same. I unfortunately live in the former.

RE: It's been proven and it is a fact that a fetus doesn't feel pain for the first three months, because it hasn't got a conscience. The brain is not developed, nor is the nervous system or the body, so it doesn't feel and doesn't experience.

The body is there. The body was there from day 1. The body doesn't include a heart until a few weeks after fertilization, but it's still a body. Kind of like how an infant's body is a body even though he hasn't grown teeth yet. 12 weeks is the same as three months, and I already said the baby can feel pain after this time. But there are people alive who can't feel pain. So if you want to say that the fact that humanity is based on feeling pain is your "opinion", go ahead, but in so doing you're denying the existance of people who are already born but can't feel pain as well.

RE: I can keep on defending my own arguments and commenting on yours, but to me it's pretty obvious. Even this debate that doesn't seem to end says enough. Everybody feels different about this single matter, and that's why everyone should decide for themselves whether to have an abortion when they need one, or not.

Well, you're a 16 year old girl. You're going through a rebelious "do whatever you want" time of your life. You say that people should have the right to make choices, but deep down it's all about doing whatever you want. That's not an insult, it's just something everyone goes through. I even went though that (I'm currently 17 by the way), though I never supported abortion; my rebellion manifested itself in other ways.

My point is that when it all comes down to it, the pro-abortion movement as a whole does not care about whether or not the unborn baby is a living human being - science completely refutes any claim otherwise. Sure, even the ones who know what they're talking about will try and twist scientific facts in such ways that they hope can justify what they already want to believe anyway. Pro-abortion is not based on any of these scientific "facts" that they like to pull out of their asses; that's merely an attempt at justification. Nobody even doubted that the fetus was a living human being until fairly recently, and abortions were being performed long before that.

No, they could care less about these "facts". All they care about is doing whatever they want to do. Well you know what? You can't do whatever you want to do. You can't steal, you can't rape people, and you can't murder people, among other things. Don't like it? Tough shit, that's what keeps our society together. If you want proof of that, just come over to about 1 mile east of where I live. Nobody there gives a shit, and the place is a trashcan as a result. Even where I live is a trashcan; it's just a richer trashcan. People in this town not only don't give a shit but they're so obsessed with their image that they have to lie so people think they're good people. The place a mile east of here doesn't have that problem, but when it all comes down to it, nobody gives a shit in either place, and it's all trash as a result. There's things you can't do, and you affect me by doing them anyway.

silvery moon

05-31-2006, 11:23 AM

Ah, I just did some research and something important concerning abortion was on the news not very long ago: For the baby to feel pain it needs to go through a mental development that takes place after birth. But of course, it’s not all about pain. That’s just one of the arguments.

But please, don’t assume that my opinion is formed simply by the rebellious behaviour I should have, because of my age. I know quite a lot about myself, and I can honestly say that I’m not going through a rebellious phase. I really don’t think everyone should do whatever they want, and I know there are limits, but this is simply the way I feel about abortion.
And as for the whole ‘nobody gives a shit in either place, and it’s all trash as a result’, that does sound sort of rebellious and –I-hate-this-world-like to me ^^ But I won’t drop into conclusion, for like you don’t know me, I don’t know you. Let’s not judge each other and put each other in cages based on age.

General Septem

05-31-2006, 12:10 PM

RE: Ah, I just did some research and something important concerning abortion was on the news not very long ago: For the baby to feel pain it needs to go through a mental development that takes place after birth. But of course, it’s not all about pain. That’s just one of the arguments.

That's speculatory. Babies are capable of feeling pain after 12 weeks, and this has been all but proven by the fact that they react to painful stimulus. But again, the unborn baby is a human, and that's just a biological fact, accepted by any sane person who knows what they're talking about. If you're going to be pro-abortion that's one thing, but at least speak the truth.

RE: But please, don’t assume that my opinion is formed simply by the rebellious behaviour I should have, because of my age. I know quite a lot about myself, and I can honestly say that I’m not going through a rebellious phase. I really don’t think everyone should do whatever they want, and I know there are limits, but this is simply the way I feel about abortion.

Then it's a result of other people's rebellion against what they considered to be "rules". They just never grew out of that phase and then taught you to believe the same.

RE: And as for the whole ‘nobody gives a shit in either place, and it’s all trash as a result’, that does sound sort of rebellious and –I-hate-this-world-like to me ^^ But I won’t drop into conclusion, for like you don’t know me, I don’t know you. Let’s not judge each other and put each other in cages based on age.

I don't consider it rebellious to say that my town is a trash can. I think it's just observant, and if you came here you'd feel the same way. I think my attitude is closer to machiavellianism than rebellion. Secondly, there are two types of rebellion. There's rebelling for the sake of it, and there's rebelling for a cause. The former is typical behaviour brought on by puberty and/or emotional baggage, and it's just plain rebelling. But the latter is different in the sense that you're not completely rebelling; you're simply staying more faithful to morality and ethics than you are to the "system".

I wouldn't accuse you of being some "rebel without a cause" type of thing. I'm saying the whole pro-choice thing is nothing more than a bunch of people who are rebelling against "rules" that they claim "oppress their spirit" when in reality the reason they're rebelling against the rules is because they inconvenience them. You aren't necessarily a rebel for buying into their agenda, but when it all comes down to it, that's what the whole movement is about. But I'm not judging you, especially since... well I love girls so much. =D

silvery moon

05-31-2006, 12:41 PM

I do speak the truth. When in the womb, the placenta produces something that makes the baby sleep, though still sensitive to stimulus, which explains the reactions. It is however true that the nervous system has developed after 26 weeks, but in order for a baby to feel pain it needs to get in touch with stimulation and human interaction outside the womb.

“Then it's a result of other people's rebellion against what they considered to be "rules". They just never grew out of that phase and then taught you to believe the same”
Seriously, no-one taught me to be rebellious against the rules ^^ Can’t one have a certain opinion on abortion without being called a rebel? And is supporting something that’s considered legal and is broadly supported in one's society really all that rebellious? Anyway, I don’t think being pro-abortion is the same as rebelling against rules and saying that such things “oppress my spirit”. Apparently you’re jumping into conclusions, because you’re threatened by people with different opinions than yours. Or is it me who’s jumping into conclusion now?

Thanks for saying you’re not judging me, but I’m starting to think your mind already has

General Septem

05-31-2006, 12:53 PM

RE: I do speak the truth. When in the womb, the placenta produces something that makes the baby sleep, though still sensitive to stimulus, which explains the reactions. It is however true that the nervous system has developed after 26 weeks, but in order for a baby to feel pain it needs to get in touch with stimulation and human interaction outside the womb.

That may or may not be the truth and frankly I don't care. The truth to which I am referring is the irrefutable biological fact that an unborn baby is still a living human being, and anyone who says otherwise is either trying to push an agenda or simply doesn't know what they're talking about.

RE: Seriously, no-one taught me to be rebellious against the rules ^^

No, but they taught you that there's nothing wrong with abortion, which is what I was referring to. If people would've accepted the fact that this is one of the things that you just can't do, then there wouldn't be a problem, but now they've got their agenda programmed into their children and grandchildren.

RE: Can’t one have a certain opinion on abortion without being called a rebel? And is supporting something that’s considered legal and is broadly supported in your society really all that rebellious? Anyway, I don’t think being pro-abortion is the same as rebelling against rules and saying that such things “oppress my spirit”.

The right to kill one's unborn offspring is a right that people fought for. It was rebellious at the time but they won. Why is anyone pro-abortion? Because they think it should be the woman's right. Well what's next, should it be someone's right to rob people? Rape? Where do you draw the line? If an unborn baby is a human being, which it has proven to be, then to kill such life is murder.

RE: Thanks for saying you’re not judging me, but I’m starting to think your mind already has

I don't judge anyone. I love everyone. =D

silvery moon

05-31-2006, 02:12 PM

Abortion being one of the things you just can't do, is not a fact.
A fetus being a human being and thus having the same rights as a human being, is not a fact either.
No-one taught me that there's something wrong with abortion, I don't even know how my parents or friends think about the matter. Well, all I know is that my Catholic friends think it's wrong, because the Church says so.
But I respect that, everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, just like I am to mine. Fine, call me rebellious. Call me a heartless emo kid who doesn't know what she wants. But abortion is legal, and if I ever need one, I'll have one. And there's nothing you can do about that.

General Septem

05-31-2006, 03:20 PM

RE: Abortion being one of the things you just can't do, is not a fact.

If you're talking in terms of possibility, then yes, you can have an abortion, just like you can kill a baby who is already born.

RE: A fetus being a human being and thus having the same rights as a human being, is not a fact either.

Actually, yes, it is. Well the first part is a fact. A fetus is a living human being, and this is an irrefutable biological fact. Whoever has what right is up for debate, because I guess from a technical standpoint, you can't prove anyone has rights. But hell, if we're going to make abortion legal, let's go anarchist and make it all legal, because there's no refuting the fact that an unborn baby is a living human being. This is simply a fact. What abilities he or she has is irrelevant.

RE: No-one taught me that there's something wrong with abortion, I don't even know how my parents or friends think about the matter.

What do schools teach you on the matter then? What does the news teach you? You had to've heard about the abortion argument from someone.

RE: Well, all I know is that my Catholic friends think it's wrong, because the Church says so.
But I respect that, everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, just like I am to mine. Fine, call me rebellious. Call me a heartless emo kid who doesn't know what she wants. But abortion is legal, and if I ever need one, I'll have one. And there's nothing you can do about that.

There's no need to get personal here. I already said I wasn't calling you rebellious. I already said I don't judge. If debating this issue is just going to cause a rift between us, then there's no point in that. It's not like the debate's going to change anything anyway. If you want to keep debating, then just don't get personal.

silvery moon

06-01-2006, 08:27 AM

Abortion being on of the things you just can't do, isn't a fact in any possible way, not just when talking about possibilities.
And you're saying that if abortion is legal, we might as well make 'everything' legal, which is a rather foolish thing to say. Abortion is abortion, it's not making people suffer, because the unborn baby isn't 'mentally' alive in a way that it realises that he himself is a baby and is alive, living on a planet called Earth.
And I think it's a bit ironic that it's 'okay' to kill millions and millons of animals in factories, just because they're not labelled as 'human beings' when it isn't okay to 'not start the life' of an unborn baby, because either the mother can't afford it or can't take properly care of it or is raped or something like that. I mean, it's a bit egocentric isn't it? These animals realise that they're alive, living on a planet, they feel pain, they even have thoughts. But one can't label them as 'human beings' so it's okay. I know it's for food, but it's a proven fact that we kill a lot more animals than we need to for food. And what about all those clothes, furniture etc.

Anyway, by saying it's legal and that anyone can have an abortion if they want to, including me, I'm not getting personal, I'm just stating the facts.
Many people have debated on this subject and they've come to the conclusion that abortion should be legal. Now don't you think it's a bit foolish to say that those people simply don't know what they're talking about?
Well, I think this discussion isn't going to help either of us any further, because we both made up our minds, and we're not progressing.

Brains_Behind_Operation

06-01-2006, 10:17 AM

You may say that it's egocentric to put ourselves higher than animals, but that's the way things have been since creation. We value the brain above all else, and find that because ours is much greater than these animals that we can do with them what we wish. You may not like it, but that's the way things are. Things become different when you deal with equals. The baby is an equal, its brain is not yet as powerful as ours, but without negative influence it will be, so it is an equal. Your egocentric argument fails. Though doesn't it sound egocentric to say that I put this baby into my body, so I can get rid of it however I like? Kinda like saying, I invited the neighbor into my home, and now I can get rid of HIM however I like. If you've got a problem with egocentrics, then you should be all for the pro-life side of the issue.

General Septem

06-01-2006, 10:34 AM

RE: Abortion is abortion, it's not making people suffer, because the unborn baby isn't 'mentally' alive in a way that it realises that he himself is a baby and is alive, living on a planet called Earth.

Abortion does make people suffer. Such as incest victims who are forced into getting abortions so that the father or uncle or whatever can continue to rape the girl. I know of counselors who've knwon hundreds of incest victims and not one of them would've chosen abortion, and in the case where they did get abortions, it wasn't their choice. Or the millions of mothers who'd had abortions because they were forced into it by peer pressure or by their parents or boyfriends, and have regretted it ever since? Even gone so far as to try to commit suicide?

How can you say, "you can't prove this is wrong so let people decide", whilst at the same time maintain that all these other things that can't be proven wrong should remain illegal?

RE: And I think it's a bit ironic that it's 'okay' to kill millions and millons of animals in factories, just because they're not labelled as 'human beings'

Animals aren't human beings. Still, I'd rather hunt for my own food than buy meat that was processed in a factory. But that's not something that would stop me from buying meat in the least.

RE: when it isn't okay to 'not start the life' of an unborn baby,

Because it isn't a matter of "not starting the life of". The fetus is already alive, and abortion is killing it. Even pro-abortion people agree about that, although some will sometimes say otherwise even though they know better, because they excel at bullshitting and double talk.

RE: because either the mother can't afford it or can't take properly care of it or is raped or something like that.

Answer my previous question: don't they have adoptions in Holland or wherever you're from?

RE: I mean, it's a bit egocentric isn't it? These animals realise that they're alive, living on a planet, they feel pain, they even have thoughts.

Most sane hunters always kill the animal quckly with no pain. Just because you can kill an animal doesn't mean you can kill a human.

RE: Now don't you think it's a bit foolish to say that those people simply don't know what they're talking about?

They don't; they just don't care. It's not about the debate, it's about ass-kissing your way to the top so you can make it legal no matter what, and the people that did are just self-serving assholes. The legality of abortion was decided by a judge, and if the judge was pro-abortion to begin with, the debate isn't really going to change shit.

Ape-Shit

08-20-2006, 12:03 AM

[QUOTE=General Septem]RE: it's about ass-kissing

Kiss it General....!

Just remember, everytime you eat that hamburger, chicken, duck, pork or whatever, you assisted in the "MURDER" of those poor animals.

Please don't tell me you don't eat meat.

General Septem

08-20-2006, 12:09 AM

RE: [QUOTE=General Septem]RE: it's about ass-kissing

I don't remember ever having said that.

RE: Kiss it General....!
Just remember, everytime you eat that hamburger, chicken, duck, pork or whatever, you assisted in the "MURDER" of those poor animals.
Please don't tell me you don't eat meat.

I eat meat almost exclusively. That's not murder. Killing a human being is. So don't give me this bullshit about "LOL MEAT IS MURDR" (unless you actually believe it), because there isn't a damn rationalization you can give for directly and deliberately killing a human being.

memeroot

08-21-2006, 08:16 AM

Your sitting in a pub having a couple of beers discussing abortion, you have a few to many pints and pass out.

You wake up in hospital lying beside an unconcious stranger. You are attached by iv drips to their arm.
The chap you were chatting to last night walks into the room and expains to you that he is a doctor and that the stranger beside you would surely die without access to your white blood cells. A moment of detachment would kill the stranger.

You will need to remain atached for the next 9 months after which time you can get on with your life and someone else will look after the poor sod.

the doctor explains that he knew that you would be ok about this as you were against abortion.

Ape-Shit

08-21-2006, 03:53 PM

Check out the 600 to 1,000 homeless children in Buenos Aires? These kids roam the streets like a pack of dogs in litter-strewn alleys. This is only one of many cities in the world where the children don't get any assistance. It's dog eat dog, rummaging garbage just to ge a bite to eat, trying just to survive. Children selling themselfs just for food. Many suffer maluntrition while others are HIV positive.

If I had to live as a child like that, I would have never wanted to have been born.

A lot of these children are throw away babys. Can you imagine being thrown away at the age of 12 months?

General Septem

08-21-2006, 03:57 PM

Hey I've got an idea. Rather than trying to help these children, like human beings, let's nuke the city. Fuck 'em all. The hell with trying to help them, they all wish they'd never been born.

It's not like there aren't charity groups trying to help kids like these. If you care, why the fuck don't you go down to Buenos Aires and give someone your coat? Do you give any money to charities to help these people? Do you do anything at all? No, you just sit around and talk about how they shouldn't have been born. Well if that's how you feel, why don't you take a rifle and take a few of them out yourself. You're a dumbass.

Ape-Shit

08-21-2006, 04:23 PM

Before you let your aligator mouth overload your hummingbird behind! I do care, I try to nip it in the bud....!

Re: Taking a rifle and take a few of them out yourself.

Well General, as of this date I have personally been responsible for taking three (3) of them as you say, "OUT"!

A fetus doesn't have a brain and doesn't have feelings. Animals, on the other had do. I suppose its ok for you to kill the cow so you can enjoy that big juicy steak, hugh!

General Septem

08-21-2006, 05:33 PM

Re: Taking a rifle and take a few of them out yourself.

Well General, as of this date I have personally been responsible for taking three (3) of them as you say, "OUT"!

You personally went down to Buenas Aires and shot three homeless kids?

Ape-Shit

08-21-2006, 06:12 PM

What a dumb Fuck you really are. I assisted in flushing them down the toilet!

These poor little guys/girls were in the USA.

Its no worse than you agreeing on murdering animals for your own enjoyment.

General Septem

08-21-2006, 06:14 PM

What a dumb Fuck you really are. I assisted in flushing them down the toilet!

Apparently you didn't catch the little connection I made between that and killing homeless kids. You're completely lost, aren't you?

Ape-Shit

08-21-2006, 06:27 PM

Them... was the fetus, you stupid shit. Now why don't you go kill another cow and eat another hambuger. Its no differnent, with the exception that the cow can feel the pain.

You continue to show your ignorance, you didn't even check out the story about the children, did you? What a piece of Shit you really are...!

Why do you and tin man continually try to put a spin on the subject? Is it perhaps because you don't like facing the facts? Bottom line: It's None of Your Fucking Busniness....! So Fuck Off.....!

General Septem

08-21-2006, 06:29 PM

't even check out the story about the children, did you? What a piece of Shit you really are...!

If you're referring to the story about the children in Buenas Aires, maybe you need to go back and read my response to that. Here's a tip, it's easier to read with your head not up your ass.

Ape-Shit

08-21-2006, 08:29 PM

Why don't you go eat another hamburger and kill another cow....!!!

Moooooooo.......!

General Septem

08-21-2006, 08:31 PM

Why don't you go eat another hamburger and kill another cow....!!!

Moooooooo.......!

Cows are not people. Hell, why don't you shoot yourself in the head? Every time you move, you kill dust mites.

Ape-Shit

08-21-2006, 08:39 PM

A fetus is not a person. However, I perfer to kill a fetus before I kill an animal! Let the dogs roam the streets and the kids will follow.

Go ahead, you can do it, kill a chicken so you can enjoy that sandwitch...! You Sick Puppy You.....!

beelzebub

08-21-2006, 08:43 PM

General Septem

08-21-2006, 08:44 PM

Do you really give a fuck about animals or are you some ultra-sick PETA member or seomthing? Well since you value animals' lives over the life of an unborn human being, we already know you're ultra-sick. Do you eat meat? If you eat meat you need to shut the fuck up about it being murder.

General Septem

08-21-2006, 08:46 PM

Wonderful! Exactly! They are dumbfounded... for sure.
Dumbfounded? I chose not to reply because the only similarity that scenario has to pregnancy is "9 months".

Ape-Shit

08-22-2006, 12:07 PM

Go ahead, have another hamburger. Just remember when you eat it, that you assisted in it's MURDER......!!!!!!!

Animals FEEL THE PAIN...... a fetus doesn't......!

As far as being SICK? Check out all the Catholic Priest who have been molesting children for years. Perhaps thats the strategy, save the unwanted child so the priest can molest it...! I knew there was a motive...!

I say: Brush it - then Flush it.....! It is the Woman's Right, not yours!

General Septem

08-22-2006, 12:33 PM

RE: Go ahead, have another hamburger. Just remember when you eat it, that you assisted in it's MURDER......!!!!!!!

Killing animals isn't murder. Also, animals don't feel pain, not when I personally kill them anyway. One good shot, right in the brain, they never know what hit them. Nice and peaceful. The reason it's so important for the animal not to feel pain is because the adrenaline makes the meat tough and bitter.

RE: As far as being SICK? Check out all the Catholic Priest who have been molesting children for years. Perhaps thats the strategy, save the unwanted child so the priest can molest it...! I knew there was a motive...!

What, all 1% of priests who happen to be perverts? I'll bet you're one of those dumbasses who thinks that's actually common anomg priests.

RE: I say: Brush it - then Flush it.....! It is the Woman's Right, not yours!

It's nobody's right to deliberately and directly kill an innocent human being.

Ape-Shit

08-22-2006, 03:37 PM

!

It's nobody's right to deliberately and directly kill an innocent human being.

It's not your right to dictate to whom what they should or should not do. I've said it before, it is the Womans Right and No One elses. Therefore it is still "NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS"!

ps: tell that to the innocent animals. (of which You Eat)...!

General Septem

08-22-2006, 03:39 PM

It's not your right to dictate to whom what they should or should not do. I've said it before, it is the Womans Right and No One elses. Therefore it is still "NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS"!

You tell me it's my right to commit murder when I'm cracking your head open for saying the word "animal" or "meat" again.

Ape-Shit

08-22-2006, 04:02 PM

General Septem

08-22-2006, 04:05 PM

I asked you to check it out, but you didn't. I'll make it a little easier on you:

http://www.feliceslosninos.org/en/obras/bsasciudad.html

Some of these children are born in the streets. That should make you feel really proud of yourself for trying to dominate what is a Woman's decision and her right.

So kill them. If they're better off dead, why don't you go out on the streets with an M16A2 and start filling homeless children with hollowpoint? They'd be better off, wouldn't they?

By the way, a fetus can feel pain after 12 weeks, which is right around the time when methods such as ripping them apart limb from limb with vaccuum cleaners, abraiding their skin with acid, and a few other humane methods of execution come into play.

rawsugar

08-22-2006, 04:26 PM

Personally I think that in certain circumstances abortion is the best option. Not right as such, but a lesser wrong. For example if the woman is a rape victim, and feels that she could not love the child if she brought it into the world, or if she was not equipped to care for it. Thats just my opinion though.

As for the idiot whos comparing abortion to eating meat...
I'm a vegetarian and I personally don't like the idea of killing animals for food, but I'm not going to force my opinions on other people. Also what gave you the idea that a foetus doesn't feel pain? The nervous system doesn't only develop after the child is born.
Abi

General Septem

08-22-2006, 04:35 PM

Personally I think that in certain circumstances abortion is the best option. Not right as such, but a lesser wrong. For example if the woman is a rape victim, and feels that she could not love the child if she brought it into the world, or if she was not equipped to care for it. Thats just my opinion though.

I certainly see where you're coming from, but I don't think abortion is the best option. There are a lot of better ways of handling it. There's adoption, there's financial support you can get, there's even places here and there where you can just drop the baby off and they'll take care of him and find him a home. I would say just about any option would still be better than killing the baby. I'd say you're relatively reasonable though. :D

rawsugar

08-22-2006, 04:40 PM

I certainly agree that adoption is a viable option, and think that women should be encouraged to consider it. But I think the option of Abortion should be available. The trauma of carrying around a reminder or such an experience for nine months, not to mention the actual birth, which is bad enough if you want the child, should not be forced upon victims.

General Septem

08-22-2006, 04:57 PM

The trauma of carrying around a reminder or such an experience for nine months, not to mention the actual birth, which is bad enough if you want the child, should not be forced upon victims.

It's certainly something that shouldn't be overlooked. I think help should be made available for these victims, and actually there are crisis pregnancy centers that help a lot of women just like these. These women can be given hope, faith, love, courage, and strength, and may even be better for it.

I'm saying this just as much for the women's benefit as for the children's. A lot of women who get abortions in desperate situations never forgive themselves afterward, and often times it's because they were never offered help such as this. These are people who thought they would never get abortions and hated abortion, but all of a sudden were faced with a situation where they thought it was their only choice.

rawsugar

08-22-2006, 05:02 PM

I think that in an ideal world, all women would be offered the help and support you describe, and the vast majority would choose to keep the baby. I still think that there should be the OPTION of abortion though. I don't know about in America but in England the NHS is extremely underfunded, and for the majority of women this help just isn't available.

Also, I don't know if this has been touched upon before but what about in cases where giving birth may seriously threaten a womens health. In my opinion, in cases such as this its a nobrainer, abortion should be allowed. You may have a different opinion though?
Abi

General Septem

08-22-2006, 05:16 PM

RE: I think that in an ideal world, all women would be offered the help and support you describe, and the vast majority would choose to keep the baby. I still think that there should be the OPTION of abortion though. I don't know about in America but in England the NHS is extremely underfunded, and for the majority of women this help just isn't available.

I think making this help available should be a very high priority. As for the option being there. Well, we all have our free will, but it doesn't make our choices any more right or wrong. If I chose to kill someone, I have that option too. By choosing this option I also invite a plethora of equal and opposite reactions to my own action. Whether or not it should be legally allowed is best left up to other people besides myself. I am only saying I believe it is a horrible thing to do.

RE: Also, I don't know if this has been touched upon before but what about in cases where giving birth may seriously threaten a womens health. In my opinion, in cases such as this its a nobrainer, abortion should be allowed. You may have a different opinion though?

That's extremely rare if not non-existent, and I'll tell you why.

We have ectopic pregnancies for example. Rather than implanting on the endometrial wall of the womb, the embryo implants in the fallopian tube. When the fetus grows to a certain point, the tube will burst and both mother and baby will die. In cases like this, it is not wrong to remove the problematic fallopian tube, as the intent of the operation was not to directly and deliberately kill the child. His death is merely a sad and unfortunate side effect of the operation, and as long as every measure possible is taken to keep the fetus alive, which may be nothing, his death is justified. This is, however, not an abortion.

Cases in which a mother will die in childbirth can easily be dealt with by delivering the child through a c-section. If a pregnant woman has uterine cancer and requires a hysterectomy, this is as justified as removing a fallopian tube, because the baby's death is only an unfortnate side effect.

Virtually every possible medical condition that exists can be dealt with by means other than abortion, and even though they too may result in the death of the fetus, they are justified, as the intent and primary effect of the operation was to correct the problem, not to kill the unborn baby.

rawsugar

08-22-2006, 05:18 PM

Haha, you've pretty much told me.

beelzebub

08-22-2006, 07:27 PM

Killing animals isn't murder. Also, animals don't feel pain, not when I personally kill them anyway.

Animals do feel pain. To quote you "This is scientifically proven".

Fetus doesn’t feel pain. One good suck from the tube and the brain is down the toilet.

It's nobody's right to deliberately and directly kill an innocent human being.

Tell that to the people on death row. Death is apart of life (like two sides of a coin). Just a though...

General Septem

08-22-2006, 07:41 PM

RE: Animals do feel pain. To quote you "This is scientifically proven".

Go back and read. Use your mensa brain. I said /when I personally kill them/. One shot right between the eys, they never know what hit them. No fucking shit they feel pain. Great fucking observation. I've had it up to here with that kind of shit.

RE: Fetus doesn’t feel pain. One good suck from the tube and the brain is down the toilet.

Being torn limb from limb isn't painful? Having one's skin corroded off with salt water isn't painful?

RE: Tell that to the people on death row.

I never said I agree with death row.

RE: Death is apart of life (like two sides of a coin). Just a though...

Death is a part of life, but that doesn't make the direct and deliberate killing of another human being acceptable.

beelzebub

08-22-2006, 07:48 PM

You tell me it's my right to commit murder when I'm cracking your head open for saying the word "animal" or "meat" again.

There is a difference between a fetus inside a woman and an individual. Poor example once again.

General Septem

08-22-2006, 07:57 PM

There is a difference between a fetus inside a woman and an individual. Poor example once again.

Again with the blanket statements that can never be proven.

Ape-Shit

08-22-2006, 08:40 PM

You Go Girl....!

Ape-Shit

08-22-2006, 08:42 PM

I Got Bar-B-Que on the Grill. Want some?

General Septem

08-22-2006, 08:43 PM

Haha, you've pretty much told me.
I have everything thought through. :D

General Septem

08-22-2006, 08:46 PM

I Got Bar-B-Que on the Grill. Want some?
No thanks, I just got finished eating two hamburgers. The kind made with beef, pork, veal, and I added some venison from a deer I shot. Want some? :D

Ape-Shit

08-22-2006, 08:54 PM

You're cooking animals?

General Septem

08-22-2006, 08:57 PM

You're cooking animals?

Almost exclusively. :D

Ape-Shit

08-22-2006, 09:25 PM

Please some one help me before I barf..........!

General Septem

08-22-2006, 09:37 PM

Please some one help me before I barf..........!

So you didn't answer my question. Do you eat meat? Or is it "none of my fucking business"?

beelzebub

08-23-2006, 07:40 AM

Again with the blanket statements that can never be proven.

How was that a blanket statement? THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FETUS INSIDE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND A HUMAN BEING WALKING AROUND SEPERATE FROM ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

I can prove that. Any person with a tiny bit of common sense understands that.

Brains_Behind_Operation

08-23-2006, 09:49 AM

The difference is only location and physical stage of development. The fetus is still an individual.

Ape-Shit

08-23-2006, 02:27 PM

The fetus is still an individual.

Tiss Not! A fetus is a fetus! "NOT" an individual!

General Septem

08-23-2006, 02:48 PM

Tiss Not! A fetus is a fetus! "NOT" an individual!

A fetus is a human being. You hear me? A fucking human being.

Ape-Shit

08-23-2006, 03:19 PM

Why don't you just go and eat another hamburger. The Cow wont mind, shes dead, you assissted on killing her...........!

General Septem

08-23-2006, 04:04 PM

Why don't you just go and eat another hamburger. The Cow wont mind, shes dead, you assissted on killing her...........!

You tell me how a cow is a human being.

Ape-Shit

08-23-2006, 04:25 PM

Mmmmoooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brains_Behind_Operation

08-23-2006, 05:04 PM

Tiss Not! A fetus is a fetus! "NOT" an individual!

Tell me what you think makes an individual which limits an unborn child from the category. Please either support your argument with reason or just don't make one.

Ape-Shit

08-23-2006, 08:14 PM

Tell me what you think makes an individual which limits an unborn child from the category. Please either support your argument with reason or just don't make one.

Defination: A fetus is an individual unborn organism carried within the womb for the time major features appear, the unborn young are considered after the eighth week of development.

Thats my story and I'm sticking with it.

So you can see, if the fetus is in the developmental stages past the eight weeks then, Yes it has developed with human features. However, untill that time, it is still simply a fetus.

General Septem

08-23-2006, 08:17 PM

However, untill that time, it is still simply a fetus.

A fetus is a human being. Human being isn't some status, it is a species, and one is a human being, individual or not I don't give a fuck, it is a human being ever since the sperm and the egg meet.

Brains_Behind_Operation

08-23-2006, 10:17 PM

So you can see, if the fetus is in the developmental stages past the eight weeks then, Yes it has developed with human features. However, untill that time, it is still simply a fetus.

So by your definition, it's not a human until it looks like a human to you. That happens to be the same reason that we claimed that the slaves weren't human, because they looked different from us. A true human has white skin....

Ape-Shit

08-24-2006, 06:27 AM

Its Webster's defination, not mine. I just agree with it.

No it is not Human prior to the eight week developement stage.

Dugh? We're not talking about Slaves, Black or White. Perhaps you can start a Racial Thread.

Your information seems to be somewhat lacking credibility.

The only thing that you are voicing is your opinion and everbody has one of them.

General Septem

08-24-2006, 09:11 AM

Its Webster's defination, not mine. I just agree with it.

No it is not Human prior to the eight week developement stage.

Go back and re-read the definition again and tell me it says that. It doesn't. It doesn't say anything about human or not, because the term is used to refer to that of other animals as well. Fetus is a stage of development, just like adult:

A fully-grown human or animal.

Your definition doesn't say anything about any kind of species.

Ape-Shit

08-24-2006, 12:10 PM

Well in that case, I guess the President of the United States is wrong too!

Hate to pop your bubble, but the President signed legislation today which allows women the right to purchase the Morning After Pill WITH OUT A PERSCRIPTION for those 18 years and older.

Females under the age of 18, will have to have a Doctor's permission.

Now, what does that tell you in reference to Pro Choice?

Its not considered Murder and it is Legal......!

Hey Girls: Make a mistake, no problem all you got to do is take a pill....!

General Septem

08-24-2006, 12:12 PM

What's your point? Making something legal doesn't make it right.

Ape-Shit

08-24-2006, 12:17 PM

Can't be wrong if it is legal.

Point is, it is the womans decision and not yours. Those facts are supported by the President of the United States.

You might not be able to save a fetus, but you could save an animal if you quit eating meat!

General Septem

08-24-2006, 12:22 PM

RE: Can't be wrong if it is legal.

Does that apply to countries in which it is legal to rape women too, or just the almighty America you worship?

RE: Point is, it is the womans decision and not yours. Those facts are supported by the President of the United States.

Is this the same guy who thinks FEMA did a "heck of a job" in New Orleans, or the guy that thinks "nookyular" is a word?

Brains_Behind_Operation

08-24-2006, 03:38 PM

Can't be wrong if it is legal.

Okay, so since it's legal to do anything in international waters, it isn't wrong. Won't you join me and my shotgun on my boat out in the Atlantic this weekend?

beelzebub

08-24-2006, 08:27 PM

Okay, so since it's legal to do anything in international waters, it isn't wrong. Won't you join me and my shotgun on my boat out in the Atlantic this weekend?

Ohhhhh big guy uh?

The morning after pill is a great solution for many problems. What? Are anti-choice people going to picket the lines at the drugstore as well?

Ape-Shit

08-24-2006, 09:01 PM

[QUOTE=beelzebub]Ohhhhh big guy uh?

The morning after pill is a great solution for many problems.

Cheers to you Beelzebub, and to the President of the United States and to all of those who supported him in his endevors.

Cheers!!!!!!!

Ape-Shit

08-24-2006, 09:17 PM

Okay, so since it's legal to do anything in international waters, it isn't wrong. Won't you join me and my shotgun on my boat out in the Atlantic this weekend?

Shotguns are not the best weapon to use in international waters. Perhaps a 38 SPL or 30/30.

Listen, I don't make the Rules, but I do abide by them. I understand how you feel, but the majority rules.

Truthfully, you really would not want to face me in international waters. I would definately have the advantage.

General Septem

08-24-2006, 09:24 PM

Shotguns are not the best weapon to use in international waters. Perhaps a 38 SPL or 30/30.

Personally, I'd bring a S&W M500 Performance Center edition. If I did bring a shotgun, I'd bring a sawn-off. :D

Brains_Behind_Operation

08-25-2006, 12:28 AM

Truthfully, you really would not want to face me in international waters. I would definately have the advantage.

That's the same stance that many people have taken against me in face to face confrontations. I hate to be arogant, but they have yet to be right.

Ape-Shit

08-25-2006, 11:32 AM

Personally, I'd bring a S&W M500 Performance Center edition. If I did bring a shotgun, I'd bring a sawn-off. :D

You couldn't hit the water if you fell out of a Boat!

Ape-Shit

08-25-2006, 11:34 AM

That's the same stance that many people have taken against me in face to face confrontations. I hate to be arogant, but they have yet to be right.

YOU ARE WRONG...!

Brains_Behind_Operation

08-25-2006, 04:01 PM

Tell me just where I am wrong and how you could possibly know....

Ape-Shit

08-25-2006, 04:48 PM

Tell me just where I am wrong and how you could possibly know....

Well for one, you need a question mark at the end of your sentence when you are asking a question.

State Waters are 3 km from shore. Federal Waters are from 3 km to 200 km. International Waters are past the 200 km mark. I don't think you would have the balls to enter international waters. Also, I don't think that you have the skills or are knowledgeable enough in that area.

Shotguns are only good for approximately 100 yards. With wave action and or while underway, accurate shots are most difficult to make, even with a shotgun by a skilled shooter.

I on the other hand, have many years at sea. You would be like coming into my back yard as opposed to me going in yours.

So there, I have answered your question.

memeroot

08-27-2006, 01:45 PM

my reference earlier was to Judith Jarvis Thomson's 'A Defense of Abortion'.

To be honest there are a fair number of refutations of the argument.

still if you want to get anywhere with argument you might want to check out some of the moral philosophy on the subject...

beelzebub

08-27-2006, 07:04 PM

Tell me just where I am wrong and how you could possibly know....

BBO - You say this but,... I have seen where you are wrong and when I explain it to you you refuse to accept it - or - dont see it.

Ape-Shit

08-27-2006, 10:03 PM

With the articulated mind set of some of the members on this site concerning Pro-Life vs Pro-Choise, I can't help but to wounder the demensions of their thought process determining their own rational abilities. As the discussions appeared to heat up, so did the tempers. To the point of threats!

This type of behavior in a civilized society is complete unacceptable, yet it continues. Perhaps, to the point of no return. When a person refuses to accept the norm of socitety and turns to violence as a self satisfacton remedy to compensate for his/her short comings, it is rather disturbing.

Will it get to the point, that perhaps, some of our members will snap and take their furstrations out by cowardly stalking and killing the Doctors or other personnel who performs abortions at their clinic's? This type of action has taken place in the past and unfortunately will continue into the future.

Makes me wonder. Our current members who refuse to yeild, do they run a risk of these dangers?

Seems to me there may be a possibility of some mental health issues at hand. Perhaps, those with hatred in their hearts should console some expert advice from reliable sources to assist in accepting every day reality.
I just wounder? Prevention is the best cure......!

MeNotStupid

08-28-2006, 01:25 AM

I must say that abortion is a problem that can't be solved easily. With so many arguments coming from both sides, I'd rather say "let it be!"

Would you like for me to come over to your home and tell you how you should maintain it? Would you like for me to tell you how you should dress, eat, shower, etc.??? Normally, the answer for most of us would be "no!" What I do at home and how I do things are MY privacy, and no one, should dictate how I should live my life. The choices that I make are just that... MINE!!!!

So maybe the same should be said for those who are considering abortion. It should be a choice made by the woman involved, whether it be for health reasons or for matters of "convenience." Those of us who are not directly related to the woman of the situation, should just butt out and let her decide for herself, whether she is making the right choice or not.

This is definitely a very delicate matter, and both sides may have warranted arguments regarding abortion. I say this not as a mother who have had an abortion, but as a male partner who asked his girlfriend to obtain an abortion, simply because I was not ready to be a parent. I never considered her emotional well being after the procedure, I was just concerned about my own emotions.

But now, after raising two wonderful children (a boy and a girl), and watching them graduate from high school and college, I often think about that one child that I had foolishly denied a life to, because I was afraid. Yes... I am living with that regret every day. I have apologized countless times to my wife (who was my girlfriend back then), of forcing her to have that abortion years ago. Although she has forgiven me countless times, I still feel sick about it, but know that it's too late to turn back the hands of time.

Bottom line.... if it doesn't concern you... BUTT OUT!!!