Abortion

I live in LA and right now, they are trying to pass a bill outlawing all abortions with the exception that it was cause by rape or incest and if it jeprodizes the mothers life.

Why is the government compromized mainly of white, old men who represent a small amount of the population. I don't think men should be able to make laws governing what a woman does with her body. I see early term abortions as getting rid of some very unwanted cells growing in ones body. What if I don't have the means of raising a child, what if I don't have the time to take away  from school to go through a few months of hell only to give up a child who makes me exponentially uglier and looser, what if I'm a crackwhore who would only make the child grow up the be fuck up and have a horrible, depressing life like all those /b/tards. I'm really scared that this law will be passed seeing how I live in a backwards, uber consevative state.

And also, North Caroline (maybe South I forget) is trying to pass a bill to ban all abortions that don't jeprodize the mothers lifes. WTF?

I'M A NIGGA LADY I LOVES ME SOME ABORTIONS

>>2

You joke, but nationalizing people bodies and shit? = One step closer to the BAD kind of communism.

I'm glad you say LA- as in Louisana. Because I live in Los Angeles and nearly pissed myself. Your only option is to get the fuck out of the hick states.

>>3
Devaluing human life = one step closer to totalitarianism.

>>4

Then I guess we've teetered over the edge because we don't value life whatsoever and haven't truly valued it for thousands of years. Not letting women remove a growth from their womb isn't going to change that.

And let me guess- you're for captial punishment right?

Fucking moron.

>>5
Nope.  Lock them up and throw away the key.  Besides, the capital punishment argument doesn't r eally work...  A fetus has committed no crime.  A grown person who's in jail and on death row HAS. 

I'm not for the war or anything.  I don't believe war's an acceptable way to solve your problems except when the enemy is bringing the fight to you.  But still, it's a little different than what I'm talking about.

In war, there's a precedent of honor, valor, all those stupid things.  They give meaning and value to deaths in combat, and combat deaths are usually accompanied by some ceremony, at least to make the people involved feel better about it.

With all this eugenics and genetic engineering, there's no remorse.  Not even consideration.  People as objects, to be manipulated as the experimenter sees fit.

>>6
BTW, I think it's worth noting that I'm "Nice Racist" from the race thread.

>>6
Note: They're not people, they are clumps of cells which have the potential to grow into nearly anything. Saying "oh but it could be a person" is stupid as it could also be come a frog through (albeit a lot) genetic modification.

>>8
then why in California did a recent murder case (ie Scott Petterson) he get convicted for a double count of murder for killing his wife and un-born fetus. Clearly a fetus is considered a living human by the courts.

>>9
It all depends on the age of the 'baby'. If it has just recently been fertalized then it is as I refered to it in >>8; however, if it is more than a month or two old then yes, it should be consitered human, or human-like at the very least.

Most abortion - about 97 percent - happen within the first 2 trimesters, and about 74 percent happen in the first trimester. About 1 in 3 women in the US will have at least one abortion in their lifetime - I've seen this number even higher on some .org sites. No birth control method is 100% full proof but abstinance. Abortions will happen no matter what the law may be. Making a law like the one trying to be passed in my backwards ass state will only put the health and safety of many women at risk - the ones who will go to any length to get an abortion. Should women without the means to have a child get an abortion in  an unsterile and unsafe environment? Should more children be thrown into the adoption system while so many other children are waiting for a family?

And some of the people rallying for this shitty law are hypocrites. I have a family friend who's parents are strict pro-lifers and even go protest in front of the abortion clinics. The second their unmarried, young daughter gets pregnant, they can bend their beliefs and insist she get an abortion - they didn't want their reputation as a good christian family to be tarnished.

>>6


Capital Punishment argument works when you bring the "sancitity of life" into the mix. I say: Kill them all. Born and Unborn.

I'd rather that they kill the niggers while the can't steal my bike than when they can.

>>13

you never even had a bike, did you?

>>13
*hugs* poor e-racist, don't worry, we'll buy you a new one with our mootxico monies. ;_;

>>15
Wouldn't that be someone who believes in erasing things?  o_O;

I can see it now, this is what's going to happen:  all the retarded southern and midwestern states will successfully outlaw abortion and make a ton of other retarded laws that revoke people's freedom, then all the non-religious people with half a brain in their heads will slowly but surely migrate to other states.  The conservative states will collapse due to a lack of intelligent people and a sheer lack of people in general, and, well, things will have to change.  I've got to admit, it'll be funny watching entire states full of retards going down in flames.

>>17
Orson Scott Card suggested this.

In which book? The "Fringe Folk"? (Not sure if that's the name) or Ender's game?

>>9
The reason is because the court made a very stupid judgement that does not tackle in any way the rationality of the declaration made by the the poster you quoted.

only blacks should be allowed the priviledge of abortion

>>17

Lol @ undeserved egotism. 

You are probably just another community college dipshit who fancies himself an intellectual.

For the women of South Dakota: an abortion manual

http//mollys/...

>>22

you know what...people who consider themselves intellectual are annoying. but I think I favor a bunch of people TRYING to be smart over a bunch of people living FOR stupidity

Real quick argument of allowing a form of abortion even if life begins at conception:

If we assume that life begins at conception then the child is deserving of rights afforded to adults, including the right to life.  This is the typical start of the pro-life movement, but they do not explore this side fully.  Now does an adult have the right to live off another when that person does not want it?  This is clearly not a right that adults have, so why should an unborn human have it?

Now it is clear that the mother can get remove/evict the child,  but there should probably some limitations to how you can do this.  Think of this analogy, a person walks on to your lawn and starts living there.  Do you have the right to shoot him in the head?  Probably not, unless this person poses a threat to you, your family, or your property.  But you could begin by asking him to leave.  So for abortion this means that you would be able to remove the child, but you couldn't actively kill it, such as in some of the ways horrific ways described by the pro-life movement that I won't go into. 

>>25 Now does an adult have the right to live off another when that person does not want it?  This is clearly not a right that adults have

lol, somebody tell the twenty million negers on welfare.

>>25
the fetus is not an adult, it's a child, you moron.

>>27 It's neither; it's a bunch of tissue, you moron

>>28
that depends on who you ask, you moron.

>>29
Only as mush as your own comment does, you dumbass.

>>30
That post didn't even make any sense, you sad bastard.

Disagreeing with abortion when the foetus is only a bunch of cells is made of totalitarianism and fail.

I bet y'all anti-abortion faggots eat eggs.

>>I bet y'all anti-abortion faggots eat eggs.

You fail it so hard.

That’s like saying people who are against murder shouldn’t eat fish, which only makes sense if you if you are some PETA bitch.

Not to mention the eggs people eat are unfertilized. But what do you care? You’re just some emo kid who calls everything he doesn’t like “totalitarianism” hoping that people will not realize what a simpleton you are.

>>32
Everything is just a bunch of cells.  If a fetus is not human, then what is it?  If

>>27
A child can only have the same rights as an adult.  So a child just like an adult does not have the right to live off of and unwilling person.  This does NOT mean that the unwilling person has the right to do anything they want with the child.  The guardian of the child must take reasonable steps to finding someone to take care of the child.  Yes I know this last statement is very vague, but there really is no objective way of determining what are reasonable steps to take.  The actual terms of reasonable steps are best handled by common law

You are a bunch of cells.  Let's kill you.  It isn't murder; you're just a bunch of cells.

Someone please make a good argument for abortion so we can have a decent debate.

The Church should adopt all the orphans in the world and then talk about abortion.  Let's just hope none of the kids get molested.  You know how the priests are...

All children should be aborted.

>>38
In before...

let's see here, there are eceptions for rape, incest, and if it threatens the life of the woman giving birth.

so, what are we so worried about with this? all that's left is intentional births, and women who go around having casual sex.

should it be okay to kill unborn children just because you happen to choose to make the act of procreation into your plaything?

>>40
BUT I WANT TO FUCK EVERYTHING IN SIGHT AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES!

>>40

yes. you patriarchal male chauvinist. who are you to say we shouldn't make the act of procreation into our plaything? fucking religous fanatics.

secular government helps its people, not some unborn fetus. pro-choice instead of reinforcing your religous view on people.   assholes. 

>>42
Not religious.  We've been over this.

High economic freedom, yet low personal freedom. Top_Cat is a scary guy.

Guys, UTOPIA is this way --->

I just have a quick point.  The arguement I most often hear from the pro-choice side, is that abortion gives women the right to choose.  However, aside from the extreme cases such as rape, hasn`t the woman already made her choice when she had sex?

>>45

No.

>>43

Who cares if you're not religious, dipshit? The patrirachal male chauvinist shit applies. Father doesn't fucking know best- he tried that remember? And turns out dad is a fucking idiot.

>>47
Needs more use of the word "fucking."

Still nobody has answered my question.  If a fetus is not a human, then what is it?

The only answer I have seen so far is "it is a bunch of cells".  Everything is a bunch of cells. 

So if a fetus is a human being, is there any human that can live off of the efforts of an unwilling party? 

>>49

It's a parasite.

Yeah, I said it.

True, but most humans are, reguardless of age, amirite?

>>45 yes

and that's the point i'm trying to make.

sex is thaere to make babies, so if you're going to go around having casual sex, be prepared to face the consequenses.

given the exceptions for rape, all you're aguing with pro-aborion isn't thre right to make a choice, it's the right to make a choice and not deal with the consequenses of it.

and declaring that unborn lives are worth nothing, or at least they aren't worth enough to have the mother go though the birthing process.

"i just killed an unborn human being, but at least a don't have stretch marks!"

you're not arguing for human rights, you're arguing for murder for the sake of removing personal resposibility.

let me guess, if you were to go without your seat belt, and say, lose an arm in a crash, despite the fact that maybe you should have strapped yourself in, it should be okay to rip somone's arm off before they even know what's happening and sow it on yourself right?

Since the other choice to abortion is adoption, are YOU going to pay for this baby upbringing when the mother doesn't want it?  There's plenty of children out there who need a good home.

>>53 personally i think both parties involved with the creation of said child should be the ones supporting that child, they're the ones who created that child in the first place.

adoption is another easy way out, which, come to think of it, probably shouldn't be so easy. the act of abandoning a child should be taken with less open arms. maybe fines for abandoning at an orphanage. it's a crime to abandon a child any other way, so shouldn't they at least be forced to pay for the convinience of anding that baby off?

this is about personal responsibility, if you can't afford to care for a child, DON'T MAKE THE BABY IN THE FIRST PLACE!

there are other forms of entertainment aside from sex, and if you can't choose another one, the least you could do is take resposibility for the results.

While I agree that people are slutty, I hope you know that birth control is not 100% effective or do they not teach about birth control in your neck of the woods.  Going the adoption route is NOT abandonment.  I think it takes great courage for them to give their child up to another family because they know that they cannot take care of the child.  And I'm not talking about people who just dump their children at a church.  I'm talking about people who do it the right way.

Unless you have adopted some of needy children in the overburdened system, who are you to tell other people not to get an abortion?

>>55

pah! questioning my morality when you try to justify the killing of unborn children for the sake of convienience?

and while surrendering a child for adoption may be a much better alternative, here's the best route, and i'm going to repeat it a few times because apparently you missed it the first time:

If you can't afford to care for a child, DON'T MAKE THE BABY IN THE FIRST PLACE!

There are other forms of entertainment aside from sex, and if you can't choose another one, the least you could do is take resposibility for the results.


If you can't afford to care for a child, DON'T MAKE THE BABY IN THE FIRST PLACE!

There are other forms of entertainment aside from sex, and if you can't choose another one, the least you could do is take resposibility for the results.

If you can't afford to care for a child, DON'T MAKE THE BABY IN THE FIRST PLACE!

There are other forms of entertainment aside from sex, and if you can't choose another one, the least you could do is take resposibility for the results.

>>47
"Father doesn't fucking know best"
Mother doesn't seem to know much either, from what I've seen.

>>56

DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE UNBORN.  WORRY ABOUT THE CHILDREN THAT ARE HERE RIGHT NOW!

>>58

does that somehow mean it's okay to "dispose" of children in some way to evade responsibilites resulting from casual sex?

or more likely, is this just a total dodge of the issue?

>>59
It means baby is the new white meat. Mmmmm babeh.

The vast majority of pro-lifers are pro-lifers because their church told them to be.  Just like many pro-choicers, they choose their sides without thinking it over.  "I'm pro-choice because my political party will say I'm not affiliated with them if I'm pro-life." 

"Life begins at conception".  Typical oversimplified concept designed to tug at emotions rather than reason.  What is life?  When you rinse your mouth with Listerine or whatever, the alcohol is killing thousands of microorganisms in your mouth.  You're committing "murder".  These microorganisms aren't human life, but is a newly concieved cell "life"?  The bacteria in your mouth are probably more complex than the single cell we start out as.  A newly concieved cell is just a terribly fragile membrane bound sack of DNA and the mother's mitochondria.  Ignore the cascade of events that lead to the cell's development.  How is that single cell treated as "life" in equality to a fully developed infant?

Now we progress further into the zygote's development.  When will it be considered "life"?  Is it when it forms a blastocyst (which is when a stem cell researcher would cultivate)?  When it develops body segments?  When it differentiates a myocardium?  How about when its heart starts beating?  When its CNS is developed enough for it to feel pain? 

Then there's a question of dependency.  The fetus depends on its mother for survival.  Does the mother have the power to cut off the support she's granting?  Does an elderly patient in palliative care have the right to die at his or her children's discretion?  Both the elderly patient and the fetus have neither the capacity to speak for themselves, nor do they have the capacity to live without outside support.

>>61
Also forgot to mention: if abortions are illegal, then why not imprison mothers who have miscarriages?  Miscarriages are abortions.  The only difference is whether it's voluntary or involuntary.  Voluntary, go to the clinic and have the abortion.  Involuntary...well, a genetic hiccup on the fetal end, or pain killers/alcohol/smoking/obesity/whatever on the mother's (arguably voluntary). 

Should this be viewed in the same way as manslaughter?  Let's look at the difference in prison sentences.  Voluntary manslaughter: up to 15 years.  Involuntary: possibly nothing.  So if a mother consumes alcohol, smokes, or is overweight during pregnancy - is this voluntary manslaughter?

Sorry, posts >>1-62 are tl;dr but let me just ask this.

Conceding the point that abortion is manslaughter...what's so bad about that? Given the rising poplation problems aren't any solutions that work towards reducing the population better than nothing?

>>59

You're the one dodging the issue.  Why don't you take care of the children that we (the society) DO have instead of worrying about children we MIGHT have?  Can't answer that one, can you?  What have you done lately for the these precious children that you care about?  It's pretty easy sitting there damning everybody.

Pro-choice doesn't mean everybody is going to get abortions.  It just means you have that option available if and when you need it.  There are plenty of Pro-choicers who don't have abortions.

Unwanted children become unwanted people.
Check abortion rates against crime rates from about 20 years later. You'll notice something.

>>65
correlation, causation, etc.
check abortion rates against inflation.

Like it was said before, abstinance is the only method that 100% affective for not concieving - even the most sure proof methods like IUDS are not entirely 100% foolproof. And if your telling me to stop having sex, forget it - only someone who doesn't have the means of getting good sex is going to tell me that even though I practice very safe sex yet don't have the means of having a child that I should stop having sex because if by some freak accident I got pregnant I would in fact get an abortion. And I am not having "casual sex", I have one partner that I have been with for a decent amount of time.

>>67

Get married.

Abort everything.  Man, woman, child.  It doesn't matter who.  It doesn't matter how old they are.

Right, >>68, getting married would solve everything. I don't even know what to say to that moronic response. More than 1/5 of abortions are by women who are married.

So, that means that 4/5 of abortions are done by those who are single.

Abortion being banned now can basically be blamed on Bush being in office. Bush has sucessfully appointed too pretty conservative people to the court and the swing vote in Roe Vs Wade , Ruth Ginsburgh(sp?), has said she is considering retiring. If she retires while Bush is office or while another jack ass (Republican) is in office we can see some terrible changes coming to America

>>71 Wow, your math skills are impeccible. Fucking idiot.

>>73 had 10 abortions.
 

>>74
12 if you count the 2 miscarriages caused by valium and alcohol.

I'm curious if these bans would include the selling of the morning after pill - which would be ridiculous because the morning after pill is just a slightly higher dose of birth control.

ya just can't let go of your sex, can you? my argument is that if your recreational sex creates life, you should have to deal with it, simple is that. can you REALLY say you angle is anything other than wanting to be able to remove personal resposibility?

and telling me i should take resposibility for unwanted babies as a result? i'm not the one who used sex as a toy. instead of pointing a finger at me, for wanting these unborn humans to be slaughterd in the name of nothing other than convienience and comfort, try looking at the people who are CREATING these unwanted babies in the first place.

>>76 "try looking at the people who are CREATING these unwanted babies in the first place."


Yeah, go look at who needs this to not be passed - young girls who don't know better who have there whole life ahead of them, women who are just getting their career started and don't have their life fully situated, women who don't have someone that can support and help them when they can't help themselves. Some of these women who want/need an abortion will go to any lengths to make it happen. And if this law was to be passed, women who don't have the money to travel might go about getting an abortion in an unsafe way. Do you want these women to risk their lives?

Sex is not only for what you call recreational or procreation - it's human behaviour; for me it's affection, showing my absolute love, and relieving stress. I'm sure your limp dick/sandpaper vagina has never touched anything but your loving hand if you are saying that I can't just let go of sex. Either that or you are asexual (that's not meant to be a mean remark, some have no sex drive). And I do hold personally responsibility in what I am doing, that is why I practice sex in the safest way possible - but even with that, there is this tiny margin of women who by some freak accident still get pregnant. That's why, if by that small chance, it happened to me - I would want to know that if I really can't deal with it for whatever reason, I could get an abortion.

So you basically want to have a backup plan since you have no actual self-control?  Do you hate yourself so much that you would kill a life inside you just because you don`t think you could deal with it?

Well, there's another option to just have your tubes tied.  Then you could have all the sex you want without any of the consequences.  Same goes for guys, it's really a quicker procedure on them (outpatient and local, as opposed to inpatient and general for women)

I`m sorry if what I say offends you, but it does seem that you may hate yourself if you think the only way to show your love is to make love, and believe that you have no control over that aspect of your life.

>>78
seconded. you ALWAYS have the option of not having sex.

going back to the abortions illegalized by this law, it only cuts off abortions to those who can't deal with the consequenses of thier actions and want to kill the baby to save themselves of a burden they brought upon themselves.

>>78
>>79

The '50s called.  They want you back.

I think metal coat hangers will be in vogue soon.

>>80 Finally someone actually makes sense.

No I don't think the only way to show my love for someone is by sex. Just because you believe something (i.e. that a bunch of cells that resemble every other mammal embryo on earth up until a couple months is a human "life") doesn't mean I believe the same thing. I don't think of an abortion as killing a life. And you must remember that procedures such as tying your tubes is a surgery - which means it has risks involved as well as cost a goodly amount of money. And I am going to stick with my gut instinct and say >>78 is either asexual or never had sex in your life - which means you don't understand what sex can mean to some people. Sex is an important part of a relationship - if your waiting until marriage to have sex, you are an idiot. How shitty would it be to be stuck with someone you have no chemistry with - a good relationship without attraction and sex is just a friendship. A good relationship with attraction - sexual, physical, and mental - is love.

A with those beliefs, I would probably assume that you are religious - and if you are, what the fuck are you doing on an page associated with 4chan?

Abortion: It's a woman's right. Lol.

>>81
"if your waiting until marriage to have sex, you are an idiot."

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.  People nowadays are really slutty spreading their STDs everywhere.  If after marriage you find out your partner is not what you thought he or she is, there's a thing called "divorce".  I'm pretty sure that's still legal.

>>81
Marriage isn't about love, it's about responsibility.  Even protected sex comes with the risk of procreation, and marriage provides a basic framework to support and raise a child.  I'm not waiting for marriage before having sex because i'm an idiot, I'm doing so because I'm willing to take responsibility for my actions.

It's irresponsible people like you that make abortion an issue at all.  Murder is wrong, plain and simple.  Trying to justify it so you can continue your hedonistic lifestyle is plain selfish.

>>84
You fail, murder involves a living human being. Performing an abortion is no more murder than is removing cancerous tumours.

Hedonism needs no justification; it's everything else which needs an excuse.

Sex as entertainment. Interesting. So why is sex entertainment? Sex is pleasurable... it's also an activity.... Eating can also be pleasurable and it's also an activity... So eating must also be entertainment.
Now I know 'basic psychology' says that sex isn't a 'need' so much as breathing, eating and sleeping. But it is one of the four basic things we do. People are more less made to procreate, as much as we love it, it's also part of our system. And so it's only natural that we follow through with this act, even if often times in situations where we would not. The fact that it is pleasurable only helps to insure that we are 'instilled with an addiction' that makes us want to procreate as much if not more than 'needed' for survival.

Except with all things in modern civilization we have developed ethics, and morals and behaviours... things that aren't so natural that they exist without effort. Combined with the fact that life isn't as simplistic as say cave dwelling beings.

The problem here is that things aren't so simplistic and savage these days. We try to bear responsibilities, but we cannot ignore our very essence that tells us to procreate. So we need to do both. This creates a conflict where it's not beneficial to have a child. This is why birth control and abortions exist. To add a control mechanism so that we can try to continue with society where things aren't cut and dry.
So the point. Abortion is a natural extension, a tool to help society deal with issues where it's generaly problematic. The problem is that other people now have a problem with this extension because of it's 'finality' and seemingly cruelness. When letting a person live could be considered as cruel.

Also if your going to argue murder how bout you go argue murder to the point that it is so specifically defined that no one could make an argument against murder in general before we apply it an 'unknown' case.

>>84
Abortion IS taking responsibility for your own actions. Please don't confuse otherwise.

>>84
Murder is wrong yet we still have wars today... wars for particuliar reason. Animals 'MURDER' people for food. That must also be wrong. Animals 'MURDER' animals for food... We could play the game all day, but murder isn't wrong or right. Even wrong or right is complicated itself.
By our very nature we strive for survival, so whatever we do for survival is by it's very nature right.
This doesn't work so well in this day and age, there's reasons for what we do ethically/morally, but being 'right' isn't one of them.

>>87

Getting rid of the problem by getting rid of it's source.  Great idea, I should be able to do that whenever I get tired of my kids.  Should be totally legal to leave my children in a car and send them into a lake.  Or drown them in a tub.  Or dope them up and leave them in a burning house.

>>86

A lot of people find murder entertaining.  It's also a natural part of our heritage, our progenitors used to kill each other all the time.  And it would probably help your other point, 'letting a person live could be considered as cruel'...

>>89

No, you should abort yourself.  See?  Abortion is the answer.

Pro-lifers make no sense.

>>87
it's easy to take responsibility for your own actions if it doesn't involve you being the one to pay the consequences, right?

Have you looked that countries with strong Catholic ties?  Do they look prosperous to you or are they a Turd World country?  You're forgetting that resources are limited.  Maybe you should pay for other people's tubal ligations and vasectomies too since you care so much about what they do to their bodies.

Have a child should be a well thought out decision where the soon to be parent(s) believe they have the best suited environment and abilities to raise a child. If someone gets pregnant and believes they do not have the best possible means for raising a child, the options are giving the child up for adoption or getting an abortion. If you were to look up the statistics on how many children are waiting for a family, who really really need that love and support of a responsible person(s), you would be appalled that so many child are going through their childhood unloved and are growing up in an environment that can possible make them a threat to society or a unproductive citizen. We should be taking care of these children who are waiting and not just be adding more and more to the system. Abortion is neccessary in our society today whether you believe it or not and it will be happening whether or not it is legal.

Too many kids need adoptions, and there are too many abortions happening. 

Maybe everyone should stop having sex?

"OH NOES WE CAN`T STOP HAVING TEH SEXXORS!"

Fuck off.  Have yourself castrated if you want sex that much.  It solves the problem.  People who think sex is their right and don`t actually think of it as a privilege have no idea how much of a burden they place on society.  Not just with abortions and too many children; the exponential growth of STDs is just as bad.

>>96

Look up the word "castrated" in the dictionary and see what it means.

>>96
I've no STDs, have 1 partner, and pratice safe sex. I'm sure you're just bitter because you can't get any, so you think everyone else should be doing what your doing.

>>96
Sex isn't a priveledge.

>>93
The person getting the abortion has to pay for it. Like I said getting an abortion IS taking responsibility.

>>99
sex can be made a priveledge

100GET!!!

sex is a right, amirite?

>>17
That's a possibility.  Then again, the states that outlawed abortion will probably have more children than those that didn't outlaw abortion.

people saved by anti-abortion laws will vote for the party that allowed them to live in the futar

>>1
Not old white men, old jewish men and they want to encourage white women to abort, not the other way round.

why exactly is it you can't even consider cutting back on the frivoulous sex? and maybe even replace it with something more productive? or at least something that doesn't generate more unwanted babies?

and don't get started on the overabundance of unwanted babies now. they're there in the first place because of people making babies when they shouldn't.

>>105

because we don't fucking want to. Why is that so hard to understand? ABORTION IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY. You think abortion is easy for people? It's not. it's a hard fucking decision, made harder by people like you who think you have a say in what other people should be doing with their bodies. unless you're planning on paying for the social programs these people are going to need to take care of these surprise pregnancies then you get no fucking say what so ever.

I know you THINK that abortion is some type of new thing. but killing off babies in the womb has been around for a quite a fucking while. nature was less forgiving of surprise lives back then and abortion was barbaric. it involved butcher of the womb, or simply watching your baby die. things are better now- abortion is safer.

you need to start thinking harder and better on this issue. you're never going to stop people from fucking when they want how they want in a million fucking years.

why can't you just be concerned with yourself?

>>why can't you just be concerned with yourself?

Thank you! That’s what I told the judge when I beat my wife to death. But that right-wing fascist started throwing around words like "murder" and "25 to life". Why does the government have to but into my personal life? Stay out of my bedroom (which is where the beating took pace)!!

She is my wife and it’s my decision.

Typical of pro-lifers.  Always concerned about the unborn but capital punishment and wars are okay.

>>108

That's because:

People that murder and rape little children deserve what they get, including the electric chair.

Wars are okay if you are protecting your own limited interests (no wars of unlimited interest, like 'the war against terrorism' which can be simplified down to 'the war against war', terrorism being the poor man's (without support of the state) way of waging war and not fighting a war to support a foreign interest.

>>109

How many orphanages have you visited?

>>106
If you actually believed it's a human life you're taking, it would be murder, plain and simple.  The only way abortion can be justified at all is by claiming that this parasitic bundle of unwanted cells is not, in fact, a human life.

If that's the case and it isn't actually a life, why's it so hard a decision?  Would you torment over the decision to kill off a tumour as well?  Or clip a hangnail, even?

>>108
Why do you think babies deserve to die? If a baby can survive out side the womb and you murder it, what do you think would happen to you if you were locked inside a room for 5 minutes with the father?

>>110

2.

Two children were quite happy to be adopted. Not every story is good, but you don't even have a chance at having a happy ending if you are dead.

>>113

Good.  Now, adopt some more.  Perhaps, when you can't afford any more children, you'll realize why some people choose the abortion route.

>>114
Afford children? If starving Africans can have six children a pair...

>>21
Wow, if that ain't racist I dunno what is.

>>115

Duh, that's why there should be more abortions!  Do their children look well nourished?

What pisses me off (I'm >>113) is that so many people go and adopt kids from places like Asia and Africa, when we've got so many white children left to the state here. It's like white children are second rate. Pisses me off. It's like being white makes you unworthy or something.

>>118
oh fuck off and get over it. it seems to me you're a racist, pro-life, religious, average stupid american republican. do you honestly think capital punishment solves any problem? why is it acceptable to take people's life away while condeming the abortion of an unborn fetus when clearly your religion has branded it with the sin of the father? if in fact abortion is murder then you're on double standards. dickhead. get a life and move to netherland. crimes, abortion rate are lowest.

it is definitely people like you that make my stomach turn.

>>119
Capital punishment takes a life when someone has done something criminal which warrants it.  Abortion takes a life when an unborn child does nothing more than exist.  Hardly the same thing at all.

>>120
taking someone's life "warrants" it? an eye for an eye? goddamn it , you dicks claim to be all religous, "god save america" blah blah yet it is perfectly ok to take someone's life away, regardless of their innocence. this is mob antics and we've moved way passed that since the middle ages.

I'm >>118 and >>113.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any religion or God, because I'm not too particularly interested in believing things I can't prove or disprove. My god is my observation. I simply call them as I see them.

There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,...
...God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed...
...In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine!
And mine!
And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

lol.

seriously though, i think it's sick the way you are not only discounting the value of these lives, but compare them to a tumor or parascite.

would it be okay to give birth to the child, and toss it in a dumpster? or drown it in the lake?

i kind of doubt you would so easily be in the favor of killing one once they've left the womb, so what's so different about a unborn child that makes it perfectly fine to kill it immediately?

and once again, since i know you'll go back to the whole "there's too many unwanted children already"

but how many times have i pointed out that maybe people should stop having sex if they're unprepared to raise whatever children emerge as a result.

as for abortion being a way of taking responsibility? that's a twisted way of dealing with that resposibility. instead of rising to the occasion, and giving that child the best life you can give it, be it by yourself, or by finding a loving home for it, the alternate choice is made, and the decision is made to eliminate that life.

that's not taking responsibility, that's eliminating it.

>but how many times have i pointed out that maybe people should stop having sex if they're unprepared to raise whatever children emerge as a result.

Your argument doens't hold water. Just because sex can lead to child-birth does not mean that it has to lead to child birth. Responsible people take precautions or engage in whatever medical procedures are required to circumvent childbirth.

>as for abortion being a way of taking responsibility?

Is exactly right. Sorry; the whoel problem is that the christians are told by their imaginary sky-friend that a lump of flesh in a womb is a person.

It isn't. From the point of cognitive development, the issue doesn't become anything close to a person until months after they've left the womb.

Therefore, using contraception to prevent an unwanted birth -wether it is wearing a rubber or engaing in extraneous tissue removal- is accepting responsibility.

>>Sorry; the whoel problem is that the christians are told by their imaginary sky-friend that a lump of flesh in a womb is a person.

To imply that a fetus isn’t alive is nonsense. It means we would have to completely rewrite our definition of that life is as it goes through all the life processes. And they call it a human fetus for a reason. But all you can do is bash religion (I am not a Christian and I am against abortion) and throw around loaded words.

I would respect the pro-abortion side so much more if they just admitted abortion is murder but still thought it did more good then harm, rather then thinking up nonsense about how fetuses are parasites that magically appear in a womans womb. 

What about birth control?  People dying of AIDs is okay?  Seems they value the sperm rather than the person.  Pretty damn hypocritical.

"Wah, wah but what about the fetus?  It's a HUMAN!"  Those Pro-Forced Children Into Poverty love to talk about other people's bodies but haven't done a damn thing to minimize the suffering of children they see begging in the streets.

>>118
I'm sure there are plenty of white children being adopted as well.  The only difference is that those who are adopting probably aren't celebrities, which is why you don't hear about it.

I'm so glad that I'm a fag.

>>127

let me cut your whole argument off there with the fact that there wouldn't be so many of these unwanted babies around if people didn't make them unprepared to care for them.

what the hell makes the idea of abstinence so damn unthinkable in your mind? frivolus sex is the SOURCE of the fucking problem. if people would'nt go around having meaningless sex, there wouldn't even be these unwanted unborn babies to kill. we wouldn't have to debate whether it's better they be put up to adoption or killed, be cause women wouldn't go around getting knocked up just for the sake of a night of "entertainment"

>>130

Married couples have accidental pregnancies too, you know.

Some benefits of sex and why frivilous sex will not end as long as human beings exist:
    
      Lower mortality rates.

      Reduced risk of prostate cancer.

      Improves posture.

      Boosts self esteem.

      Makes a person feel younger.

      Firms tummy and buttocks.

      Keeps spouses connected emotionally.

      Offers pain-relief.

      Gives people a positive attitude on life.

      Reduced risk of heart disease.

      Makes a person more calm.

      Improves fitness level.

      Makes a person less irritable.

      Reduced depression.

      Improved sense of smell.

If you are suggesting frivilous sex should end, then you're either not getting any or your junk doesn't work properly.

I want frivilous sex

      Lower mortality rates.
That sounds like a spurious correlation.

      Reduced risk of prostate cancer.
Sure, I'll take this one. By how much?

      Improves posture.
... Not necessarily.

      Boosts self esteem.
... For some people. Some people don't need it, and with some relationships factors related to sex can REDUCE self-esteem.

      Makes a person feel younger.
... For women maybe. Orgasms make me feel like I just cast Haste and aged a year.

      Firms tummy and buttocks.
... Depends on what kind of sexual activity. This is another spurious correlation. This is related to fitness, and you can go for a jog or lift weights instead.

      Keeps spouses connected emotionally.
... Not necessarily. People can have sex and feel very emotionally disconnected, even spouses. It doesn't 'Keep' anything although it could possibly help. You could do just as much or MORE by actually paying attention to what your spouse has to say and acting on it.

      Offers pain-relief.
... Temporarily. After the refraction period there is a time of INCREASED sensitivity to pain, like getting off of a high.

      Gives people a positive attitude on life.
...Not necessarily. Could make somebody more pessimistic about life. Depends on what your ideas and attitude on sex are, and why you are with your partner... etc.

      Reduced risk of heart disease.
Ok.

      Makes a person more calm.
...Ok?

      Improves fitness level.
Any sort of exercise does this, and you aren't going to lose 50 pounds with sex anytime soon.


      Makes a person less irritable.
For women. Men after the moneyshot start getting more irritable afterwards.

      Reduced depression.
For women.

      Improved sense of smell.
Ok?


Not mentioned:

Sexual fluids, especially in men, are very similar in composition to cerebrospinal fluid. So, you waste alot of the stuff that you use to keep your brain moist and energized.

Addiction. Sex is addictive. Sexual addiction can screw up somebody's life.



However all of this is moot because I like too sex too much anyway.

Guys, we all have reproductive systems with the potential to make babies.  I propose we all have unprotected sex around the clock, because to do otherwise would be killing the chances of each sperm and each egg to produce a child.  Masturbating and discarding the sperm is murder too.  Those sperm could be cute little babies.  Whenever a woman has a period or a miscarriage, send them to prison.  They're wasting potential human lives.

Oh and fertility clinics should be burned to the ground.  They store embryos, and they also throw some away.  Throwing away fertilized eggs.  Throwing away potential human lives.  Send the doctors and workers to the electric chair, we're trying to have a culture of life here.

>>135

Go back to 8th grade biology fag and realize why your pathetic attempt at satire is retarded. 

>>135->>136

LOL

>>137

Christians don't believe in science.  ;_;

>>137
Go back to 3rd grade english and look up "ad hominem".

>>138
Einstein believed in God.

>>140
lol no he didn't check his quotes faggot

There are lots of scientists, engineers, mathematicians who are extremely religious.

>>141
lol ur a fag lol lol do u suck cocks wait u must cuz ur a fag ha ha ha

Einstein wanted to be a Buddhist.

http://www.armyofgod.com

only a clump of cells nothing to see here move along

>>120

The same thing according to who? You? I don't agree and neither does God, nor do the absolute dynamics of ethics and morals. Yours is the dumb opinion. If People deserve murder in ANY instance and to you these babies are people- then there you go. Dead babies.

Regardless, if this is YOUR belief, then YOU should be the one to exercise it. You don't have the right, nor responsibility to tell anyone else what to do with their body. Getting your tubes tied kills potential babies as well- you're going to stop women from doing that?

You want to know the real reason America, or rather the WEST will NEVER outlaw choice when it comes abortion? Because outlawing abortion would be nationalizing a woman's body in the most definitive sense of the word. And frankly, that far too close to communism for the likings of a capitalist society.

>>145
When does a clump of cells become human? Do you decide that?

>>146

I am not >>120

So you are saying that the death penalty is wrong?

Ok that's fine and so those who oppose abortion are hypocrites if they support the death penalty. right?

So what does that make those who oppose the death penalty yet vehemently support abortion? I would take a gander that many who are pro abortion are also anti death penalty since they are both issues found on the "left" side of the spectrum.

I think I would rather be a hypocrite on the side of innocent babies rather than a hypocrite on the side of murdering scum.

Now your next argument is the same ridiculous shit that the apologists for infanticide always spew, "oh no you are forcing your views on to my body"

I believe I can kill whom ever I want to, can I? Why can't I "exercise" my belief? Wait I also want to have sex with any hot chicks I see, by force if necessary, that is my belief, can I "exercise" that? Why not?

No one is talking about "potential" babies, it is not "potential babies that are being chopped up into little bits just because some woman thinks she can't afford it, its real living babies.

What is the difference between a baby an hour before birth and one an hour after? Only difference is the former can be legally murdered the latter cannot.

Increasingly medical advances make it possible for severely premature babies to survive and lead very normal lives, so again what is the difference in that case except the mother's choice?

So if the mother has choice over her "property" why was it wrong for blacks to be kept as slaves, why is it wrong for women to murder their children after birth,  toddlers are no less dependant on their parents or other adults for survival than a baby in the womb. Why do women need the vote at one time they were considered the "property" of their husbands? Now they turn around and want the baby to be considered their property "my body" the almighty ME. The whole point is that the baby is not the woman’s body, it is a separate human being that happens to spend 9 months in there.


The only silver lining is that these selfish murderers are eliminating themselves from the gene pool with every abortion!

>>148

"...why was it wrong for blacks to be kept as slaves... Why do women need the vote at one time they were considered the "property" of their husbands?"

Hmmm, I seem to remember people using the Bible to justify these ills.

>>148
No, they are not hypocrites. This argument has been repeated over nad over like 50 times already. Here it is, take it or continue to be a fagtroll.

"Mr. A believes a fetus is a human being and that criminals deserve to die. A fetus is a human being and not a criminal. Ergo: A fetus does not deserve to die."

Actually change that to...

"Mr. A believes a fetus is a human being and that people who commit extremely evil crimes deserve to die. A fetus is a human being and not a criminal. Ergo: A fetus does not deserve to die."

first of all, http://www.armyofgod.com & #039;s version of abortion is completely and utterly wacked. the abortion -  "baby killers" -  pictures illustrated on site clearly shows a baby to be viable. the term viability in this case means that the unborn child is into the third trimester, and you fellow american wacks, have deemed abortion at that stage to be illegal. mothers can only abort at this stage if carrying the baby is hazardous to health, not by their own choice or initiative. These evangelical fuckers twisted the truth and sited zero reference to these pictures for the sole purpose of strenghening their own beliefs.

fucking right wing conservative fucks. why are you on 4chan looking up porn and hentai shit? go back to your bible study classes!

>>148

Blah blah blah. There's a difference between PREVENTING CRIME and NATIONALISING PEOPLE BODIES, as well you know. Doing something to yourself, by yourself, for yourself shouldn't be a crime. You can talk about the morality of it all you want- but that is precisely my point. If YOU want to live under those rules- then find other people in other states who live under those rules and DO SO. But trying to make everyone conform to your unintelligent viewpoints = NO FUCK YOU. Your argument doesn't work here. Sorry: IT JUST DOESN'T. Yours is the dumb opinion because you try and say "fetus" when we aren't even killing fetuses.

Is killing a plant wrong? It's "Alive" and has commited no crime. What about the innocents of war and poverty? What about the innocent victims of strife that American foreign policy creates? They're alive- is that wrong? Should we outlaw that?

There's a conflict here you're purposefully trying to glaze over- but your argument doesn't work in today's world. SORRY. gb2/1940 when America needed to out birth the rest of the world for upcoming wars. We don't need to do so now.

Seems to me you know the people who end up in these situation and end having the kid are the middle and lower classes this = more soliders and this = more death. If you are against death, you should be against it all forms. If you love children so much, you should be taking care of the unwanted ones. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? People like YOU are the reason people get abortions and not give up their kid for adoption.

You REFUSE to address the reality that orphans aren't great contributers to society at large. They usually waste away.

>>152

"fucking right wing conservative fucks. why are you on 4chan looking up porn and hentai shit? go back to your bible study classes! "

Gee I guess if you like "hentai and porn and shit" then you automatically like to kill babies? WTF are you talking about this is not a religious issue, it has been made so by those living off of dead babies, it is a human rights issue, what do you say to the atheist who is against abortion, there are many? "zomg GTFO back to you bible study"? retard.

>>153

You fail yet again at stating another convoluted argument that contradicts itself, paraphrasing here the general argument made:

"These are unwanted children and they will have a shity life"

So the other part of you argument is that for the most part the people who procure abortion are poor etc.. that is they *already* lead the kind of life you forsee for the unborn child. Do you see the lack of logic in that argument?

Do you think they would rather be dead or lead their "shitty" lives? Why are there even poor people in the world then, if it is so much better to be dead rather than leading a "shitty" life, they should all be commiting mass suicide.

So obviously it is another vaporous argument put forth by those profitting from dead babies.

Death is very permanent, poverty is not, where there is life there is hope to do something better.

>>154

You lying sack of crap.  It's the Bible thumpers that are protesting outside of abortion clinics.

>>155

You ignorance is appalling.  Take a basic econ class, retard.  There are so many poor people because they don't know how to control their finances while the other poor people in the world are poor due to their country's incompetence and/or corruption. 

A responsible parent shouldn't bring a kid in this who has to beg on the streets.

>>156

A responsible parent wouldn't kill their children.

Where was I ever talking about the reason why there are poor? I am merely stating that if being poor is such a suffering that the baby who might "potentialy" be poor should be killed, then all the poor people should be killing themselves, but they aren't so your (i.e. arbortion proponents) argument that babies should be aborted because their lives would be worse otherwise is fail, because obviously being alive and poor is still a better choice than being dead.

What makes you think they're not dying in droves? 

>>158
The poor are dying in droves? ...in America, the poor are fat.

>>159

Wrong. You're thinking of the middle class and the upperclasses that aren't star fuckers. You need to move to a city right away so that you know how stupid you are.

>>160
inner city lol

>>158

What are you retarded? Lets make this as simple as possible for your pea brain.

THE POOR ARE NOT KILLING THEMSELVES, I.E. THEY CHOOSE A LIFE OF POVERTY OVER DEATH - (I never stated anything about them dying from other causes, exagerated as that is in the USA, go to india or africa and witness actual poverty)

And who decides what is "poor". To Bill Gates we're all poor, should he put us all out of our missery?

The "poor" in America would be considered wealthy in many parts of the world, heck they get food, water, shelter, some form of transportation, electrcity, etc.

So whose definition of "poor" do we use to kill babies?

And so you cannot justify killing a baby because its going to be "poor", you have no right to decide that babies fate nor does the mother. Because if being poor were worse than death then all "poor" people would kill themselves.

is that clear now?

>>156

yes yes of course anything that doesn't fit you narrow selfish world view is a lie

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Hmm another news article that highlights the absurdity of abortion:

Jury FindsThree Guilty of Beating Pregnant Woman
The Associated Press
Published: April 5, 2006
SACRAMENTO—Three people have been found guilty of beating a pregnant woman in an effort to kill the fetus her boyfriend did not want her to carry to term.

A Sacramento County jury convicted Terry Buford, Titenesha Russell and Dwayne Curry in the Sept. 25, 2004, attack, district attorney Jan Scully’s office said Tuesday.

The victim was 7 1/2 months pregnant with Buford’s child when the three took the victim to a park under the pretense of going to the movies, Scully’s office said. Instead, they beat her with a baseball bat, a metal flashlight, a garbage can and their hands and fists, causing serious head injuries.

As she lay unconscious, the defendants stripped her and searched her for money. They eventually dumped her by the side of a road, where she was found and taken to a hospital.

Doctors delivered the baby through an emergency Cesarian section and were able to resuscitate it.

Buford, Russell and Curry were convicted Monday of attempted murder of a fetus, assault with a deadly weapon to terminate a pregnancy, attempted robbery and kidnap for purposes of robbery. Buford and Russell also were found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

All three face up to life in prison at a May 4 sentencing

*********

So how can you be charged with "attempted murder of a fetus" and allow abortion in the same country? The only difference is the mothers choice? Is this some kind of magic then? If a mother chooses to have the baby it is suddenly a person but if not by magic it is not one?

Pretty amazing mental blindness from those on the left who are always so much smarter and elite than the rest of those dumb plebs on the right.

>>163
"yes yes of course anything that doesn't fit you narrow selfish world view is a lie"

Actually, that sounds like you.  No need to click a link that was obviously made by a religious nut.

If you care so much, pay for other people's vasectomies.

>>155

NO. Wrong again Mr. Dumb Opinion! Stop "paraphrasing"- all you're doing is trying to distill down the mountain sized nugget of truth you refuse to address. It is a statistical *fact* that orphans very rarely become productive members of society. This includes children who's mothers decided to have them- father figure be damned.

It's sick and twisted that you SELFISHLY want these children to live to kill, rob and death-suckle other members of society to satisfy *your* need to feel like you're "Defending the innocents". Your ideals are flimsy and only half of a philsophy. If you're against evil, death, and the callous destruction of innocence then you should unilaterally against it. You should replace talk with action. IF you really care about children, you would be adopting all these unwanted kids. It's clear to any reasonable human being that in light of your willingness to explain away this ethical truth- you care more about seeing your ideals win out over everyone else's than you do about the subject itself- INNOCENT CHILDREN.

Practice what you preach, son. Otherwise: Why should any one listen to you and what you have to say?

And the people against against casual sex? All I have to say is that the proponent of this argument made the orgasm analogous to a spell from a fucking Square RPG game! Come the fuck on, guys. "HASTE"? Aging from an orgasm? HAHAHA- that's the gayest nerd shit I've heard since the fag-furry movement.

>>166

Are you a god?

How do you know what these children are going to grow up to be.

And can you not see the hypocrasy in your own statements?

So I am sick and evil beccause I want to defend life only to defend my point of view, but you want to kill babies to defend yours? Who is sicker?

Guess you should be out there personally protecting every murder victim or every rape victim, etc., if you can't personally protect each and everyone of them then murder nor rape are wrong, this is what you call an argument?

So what you are saying is that if someone else doesn't want to take responsibility for your failings then you can do whatever you want.

All I say is be honest about it then, don't say they are not human, say we the superior ones want to wipe out the inferior or potentialy inferior humans, come out and say it. WE WANT TO KILL INFERIOR HUMAN BEINGS SO THEY DON'T MUG US IN THE FUTURE.

Not as easy to sell the truth is it?

Stop hiding behind "choice" cowards.

>>165

You're and idiot and fail at even basic reading, that is the link to the web page for the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, thus the very term "godless" in their URL.

Look at me!  I can give out links too!  Wheee

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
http://www.rcrc.org/resources/sermons_prayers/roe_christian_sermon.htm
http://www.rcrc.org/resources/sermons_prayers/rev_veazey_march_remarks.htm

>>168

what's you point? My link was to in response to being called a liar for saying there were non religious people opposed to abortion as well?

And everyone knows and stats back it up that the majority of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy women with a perfectly healthy fetus for nothing more than convenience, thus selfish to the utmost.

So while attempting to be compeling the sob story you link to is not the norm.

Besides you only help make my point that making this a religious issue is a smoke screen, why is outright murder wrong then, sure it says so in the bible, but is that why it is in the law?

And I can only shake my head at that first page, so because "god made all creatures" the guy claims we can't claim that the human fetus is gee guess what human? WTF is he on.

Maybe he missed something about how we even have rights against animal cruelty, leaving the finality of the death aside, abortion is quite painful, for some time now it has been well known that the unborn feels pain and many other sensations, so even on that level it is wrong.

>>169

There are also people who are non-religious who are pro-choice and pro-death penalty.  What's your point?  I don't know where you live but the majority of the abortion protesters use Bible verses on their signs.  Don't try to say it's not a religious issue to most of these Pro-lifers.

>>167

Are you god?

Compared to you? YES.

How do you know what these children are going to grow up to be.

Facts, statistics, you know: More than some pathetic notion of hope that one orphan out of the millions will go to college and get a liberal arts degree and be "alright". Like I said: I don't see you refuting the facts about these kids. Maybes, the perception of "protecting babies" and wishful FEELINGS does not void the COLD HARD reality of what happens to a VAST majority of these unwanted kids. Save your emotional arguments for the Oprah Winfrey show, faggot.

And can you not see the hypocrasy in your own statements?

You can't even spell hypocrisy! The thing is: YOU don't know what these kids will be, but HISTORY, FACTS and STATS blow all that shit you're spewin' out of the fucking water.

The thing is: The kinds of abortions YOU'RE talking about don't even fucking exist anymore. These aren't the 60's! We don't abort humanoid growths past a certain term. How the fuck would the growth feel pain when it doesn't even have a BRAIN?

I hope you're trolling and not actually this fucking retarded.

>>171

Care to point out to me the law where abortion is limited to a certain term, and what term would that be?

IIRC even the "partial birth" abortion ban was thrown out so you can abort pretty much up to birth.

And go read freaking biology book while you are busy correcting my spelling on hte interweb of all places, last refuge of the argument less, start picking on typos how lame.

"At 3.5 weeks: the fetus will have formed the heart, begins development of the brain and spinal cordstarts forming the gastrointestinal tract "

"At 8.5 weeks: the embryo now resembles a human facial features continue to develop beginnings of external genitalia form anal passage opens, but the rectal membrane is intact circulation through the umbilical cord is well developedlong bones begin to form"

3.5 weeks is pretty much when you even notice you are pregnant if you don't take a test etc, so you are telling me most abortions happen before 3 week of gestation? go fail some more.

So statistics also tell us there are a lot of poor people all over the planet already living should we go kill them all? Since poor = automaticaly criminal to you? And again I ask you whose definition of poor are we to use.

And anyway your argument seems to be on a different level you accept these are 'kids' but they should be killed anyway since they are poor?

>>170

So why is murder illegal, just because it says so in the Bible and probably most religious people feel it is wrong because of that, does it make it any less wrong if it was not in the Bible?

Just because religious people use their religous convictions to say something is wrong does not mean it is not wrong on just a human level.

>>172

You must not live in America. 1995 AND 2003 called:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

Secondly, brain or no brain, babies still can't feel pain. It's a well known consensus in the scientific community that a fetus needs certain synaptic connection within the brain and nervous system. And they aren't formed until the THIRD TRIMESTER. And hey, idiot, guess which type of abortions require you to be in the Thrid Trimester? PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS.

The only people who think contrary to this are pro-lifers who can't be trusted for an objective opinion by proxy of their retarded bias.

Did I say kill all poor people, you fucking idiot? Newflash: It's the mother that is poor- not the baby. It is the lack of funding to state ophanages that make them poor- not the baby.

And hey, did I say poor = criminal? No, I said: Poor, no father/no parents = more of a probability of being a criminal. You can keep building strawmen you little child, I'm just going to keep kickin' em over like their sand castles at the beach and then I'm going to spend the rest of the afternoon throwing empty cans of beer at your mishapen, hick- head.

Face it: You fail, bitch.

And in addition you got totally owned.

TOTALOWNED

>>173

There's a place where religion allows murder.  It's called the Middle East.

>>175

Remember: It's also called America.

>>176

If you kick out all the religious freaks, it will be paradise.

>>174

Ok so your argument is that a baby born to a poor familly is "probably" going to be poor itself and probably become a criminal and so should be killed?

So the inference from that is that poor people will probably become cirminals and so should also be killed. Or do you not see the conclusions of your own arguments? Are you still reduced to playing games with words?

Here is a little definition for you then:

probably

adv 1: with considerable certainty; without much doubt

Which if your addled brain can't quite fathom means you said most people born to poor famillies and thus poor people will be criminals.

I am being childlike? You still have not even answered my first statement, you are in fact agreeing that the unborn is a child and only should be killed because it will "probably" grow up to be a criminal, just like the Nazi's killed a bunch of Jews because they probably were up to no good.

And so from everything you say and write I see you are just a smug elitist who things you know what is good for everyone else, looking down on the poor because gee they are all going to be criminals "probably" so their ofspring should be wiped out. And anyone who disagrees with you is immediately a "hick" and dumb lol. I'm not even white dumbass.

And talking about trust, so I should trust those who speak from the arbortion industry making millions through the death of innocents but not trust pro-lifers because oh no they must have a bias, how comical is that, of course only those on the left are beholden to the truth, only they are enlightened enough to guide us poor dumb sobs.

And just to cover more of the "pain" issue it is not so clear as you make it sound:

1997: Statement by Dr. Paul Ranalli:
Dr. Ranalli is a neurologist at the University of Toronto, in Toronto Canada. He is acting president of the de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. He gave a presentation called "Pain, Fetal Development, and Partial-birth abortion" on 1997-JUN-27 to the House Judiciary Committee of the State of Ohio. 2,3 He has concluded that the "spino-thalamic" system is fully developed at about 12 to 14 weeks of gestation. This is the system that conveys pain signals from pain receptors throughout the body to the thalamus. He apparently believes that the thalamus can feel pain, even though a connection between it and the cortex is missing.

To support his belief that a fetus in the second trimester can feel pain, he cites three signs:

 A fetus will "withdraw from painful stimulation"
 Two types of stress hormones which are detected in adults who are feeling pain are also found in a fetus from when a blood sample is withdrawn. He quotes:  Nicholas Fisk of London, England who observed this reaction as early as 19 weeks 4, and
 J Partch of Kiel, Germany who observed it at 16 weeks.
 



2000: Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience:
The House of Lords in Britain conducted an inquiry into "fetal sentience." 5 One part of the study dealt with the ability of a fetus to feel pain. Conventional wisdom among researchers is that the brain's cortex is the only location where pain can be felt. However, they mention recent evidence that if an adult suffers from an injury or disease which causes the cortex to function poorly, that some sensation may be felt from an area lower in the brain. They speculate that a fetus may be able to sense some "form of pain sensation or suffering" before the cortex is linked to the lower levels of the brain. They note that babies who are born with a major brain defect can sometimes feel pain. This includes babies born with hydranencephaly in which "the cerebral hemispheres are substantially or entirely absent at birth" and anencephaly, in which "the cerebral hemispheres and the top of the skull may be absent."

They concluded:

 "After 23 weeks of growth, higher areas of the brain are active and starting to form connections with nerves that will convey pain signals to the cortex."
 "By 24 weeks after conception the brain is sufficiently developed to process signals received via the thalamus in the cortex."
 "While the capacity for an experience of pain comparable to that in a newborn baby is certainly present by 24 weeks after conception, there are conflicting views about the sensations experienced in the earlier stages of development. The current scientific understanding is that 6 weeks after conception the elements of the nervous system start to function. Most scientists currently agree that this marks the earliest possible point at which sensation might occur."6



2000: Statement by Vivette Glover:
Professor Glover of Queen Charlotte and Chelsea hospitals in London, UK, believes that there is a possibility that a fetus aged 18 weeks can feel pain. On 2000-AUG, she recommended that late pregnancy terminations be done under anesthetic. She suspects that the fetus would not respond to sensations in the same way as newborns. It is unlikely to produce the feelings of anxiety that people have. 10



2001: Statement by a panel of experts in the UK:
The issue of fetal pain was addressed by a working group appointed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom. The panel consisted of experts in fetal development, law and bioethics. Dr. Anne McLaren headed the group. She commented: "Fetal awareness of pain is a very emotive topic, of particular concern to pregnant women, but we have tried to approach it without preconceptions, to examine the scientific evidence dispassionately, and to identify areas where further research is urgently needed.'' 1

The group determined that pain can only be felt by a fetus after nerve connections became established between two parts of its brain: the cortex and the thalamus. This happens about 26 weeks from conception.  Professor Maria Fitzgerald of University College London, author of the working group's report, says that "little sensory input" reaches the brain of the developing fetus before 26 weeks. "Therefore reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as feeling or perceiving pain." 10

They recommended that the administration of painkillers should be considered before an abortion for any fetus which is 24 or more weeks since conception. This would give a 2 week safety factor in case the date of conception is incorrectly calculated.

Recent statistics show that of the 177,225 abortions performed in Britain during a recent year, only 92 (0.05%) occurred after 24 weeks.



2001: Statement by the Medical Research Council at Edinburgh University, UK:
According to Fox News for 2001-AUG-31, the Council's study revealed that "a fetus was absolutely aware of pain by 24 weeks." This is earlier than the 26 weeks previously generally accepted by medical specialists.

>So the inference from that is that poor people will probably become cirminals and so should also be killed. Or do you not see the conclusions of your own arguments?

I don't honestly see the problem; you're certainly not in favor of keeping them on welfare and allowing them to breed like the roaches they are, are you?

>>178

Listen and listen very carefully. My argument is exactly what it is. By "inferring" and constantly asking
"what my argument is"- you're purposefully not paying attention to the facts and purposefully trying to re-frame the debate. You must respond to my argument at FACE VALUE and not what you "think" it is.

READ AND RESPOND:

LIFE

The unborn isn't a child/baby/human. You don't get to decide what's "human". You certainly don't get to decide what's "alive" in the humanistic sense of the word. Building upon this point- the growth in the womb is a life in the same sense that a plant is living or animals are living.

Should we stop killing cows and chopping down trees and digging up carrots because they are "living"? No, of course not because the end justifies the means. This line of thinking works whenever a war pops up or we speak about capital punishment. We kill innocents now, where are their defenders? Lack of funding to social programs leave children and their families to starve- here and abroad. And when this child, lacking of a proper upbringing, goes on a rampage of rape and murder- will you be willing to take his life?

The thing is, as proven by human history: The idea of human life having value is flimsy at best, BECAUSE people like you refuse to make it absolute. If human life has value, then ALL human life has value. As long as you adhere to capital punishment you put the concept of human life having value in doubt. This is why your argument continuosly fails. You expect people to conform to the inherant value in being alive, when you implictly don't believe that yourself.

These are things you refuse to confront in yourself out of fear of their implications. Basically: You're a coward.

Here is a link to statistics of these unborn children: http://www.divorcereform.org/crime.html

I doubt you'll have anything to say.

Like I said about Pain: The only people who utter these outright lies about the ability for the human growth to feel pain are pro-lifers. Every other objective reasearcher says otherwise. It IS clear cut- it is not some foggy assertion because a couple of wackos feel like saying otherwise.

>>178

I also have one more question for you: I know you said you're not religous and that's fine...but I'm interested in something.

Do you believe that human beings have souls?

It's a loaded question, I'll admit. But it must be answer before we continue.

>>181
Nope.

>>182
Yes.  Science has found no reason to believe that there's anything other than phenomena of the meat going on with regards to consciousness.  We've found bits of meat for every emotion known to man, and for most of the logic functions. 

>>183
You still haven't found one particular center of the brain that controls conscoiusness though.

>>184
What a stupid statement.  Consciousness includes every part of the brain we know about; consciousness is a construct formed by memory, executive functions, and sensation going on at the same time.  We don't need to find a "center" of consciousness to know that it's a function of the flesh. 

>>182
>>183
>>184

What? Guys, guys, guys...can you all, like, shut the fuck up for a second? I'm asking >>178.

>>173, >>175
yep. america

>>The unborn isn't a child/baby/human.

Yes it is, but you keep lying to yourself. Fetuses go through all the life processes, to say they are not alive means to completely rewrite the definition of what life is. And it’s called a human fetus for a reason retard.  People don’t give birth to frogs contrary to some of the posts in this thread.

>>As long as you adhere to capital punishment you put the concept of human life having value in doubt. This is why your argument continuosly fails.

This is how it works. If a person doesn’t do anything wrong they are allowed to live in society. But when they rape and murder a 5 year old they lose their value because they are fuckwads. Is that so hard to understand? 

>>Here is a link to statistics of these unborn children:

This from the same person who made hundreds of posts defending blacks? By your logic let’s kill all the blacks; after all they commit crime at a much higher rate then Asians or Whites.

Basically: You're a coward.
 

>>188

Your agrument fails really hard. What the fuck does the race thread have to with this one? OMG Izzat a strawman? Your argument is weak as fuck and in no way refutes a fucking word of what is said in those links. I'll take this as your omission of and apology for ultimate failure.

This is how it works. If a person doesn’t do anything wrong they are allowed to live in society. But when they rape and murder a 5 year old they lose their value because they are fuckwads. Is that so hard to understand?

Either human life has value or it doesn't. I'm not talking about fucking rapists, you dipshit. I'm talking about other innocents who you could give a shit less about. Innocents that are living in America. Innocents that are subject to numerous abuses due to your sick obsession with what a woman does with her own womb. You don't want your girlfriend or wife to abort your kid- then fine- let's talk. But you and you kind don't own a strange woman's womb and to pretend otherwise is an infringement on her human right.

AND before you say it: the unborn don't have any rights unless the father want it to live. It's not human, the only people disagree are pro-lifers who will NEVER listen to science.

If you feel capital punishment and abortion are exclusive then your brain should be *just* big enough to grasp that you can enforce murder laws- but nationalising a person's body and controlling it are two exlusive ideals. It's immeasurably shortsighted and hypocritical of you to be for "letting these children live" and then against social programs that would stop them from becoming rapist.

Why is it so hard to understand that most of the people who commit crimes worthy of capital punishmeant COME FROM FUCKED UP FAMILIES WHERE THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN ABORTED. Is that so hard to understand?

Apparently so.

>> OMG Izzat a strawman?

Nope retard, it isn’t. You posted those crime statistics to back up your argument about abortion. So why not kill all niggers too? After all they commit more crime.


>>Either human life has value or it doesn't.

It does until someone squanders it. Paintings have value until you take a dump on it, and people have value until they squander it as well.


>>infringement on her human right.

Lolz I call evything I want a human right lololol


>>It's not human, the only people disagree are pro-lifers who will NEVER listen to science.

You are the one who is ignoring science. Fetuses go through all of the life processes so it’s living by any working definition. And they call it a human fetus for a reason. People don’t give birth to cats and dog.

You can burry your head in the sand all you want but you are still retard.

>>it's immeasurably shortsighted and hypocritical of you to be for "letting these children live" and then against social programs that would stop them from becoming rapist.

You know what social program I am for or against?

NICE MIND READING!11!1

>>Why is it so hard to understand that most of the people who commit crimes worthy of capital punishmeant COME FROM FUCKED UP FAMILIES WHERE THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN ABORTED. Is that so hard to understand?

Once aging lets kill all the niggers, or at least force them all to have abortions.

Oh wait your just one of those hypocrites who wants to murder anyone they find inconvenient, even if they are the source of the inconvenience.

>>190

Too bad this subject isn't about "niggers", my white supremacist friend. It's about abortions- not race. So guess what? [b]It's a fucking strawman, stupid.

Second: You aren't a good judge of when someone "Squanders" their life. It's subjective, not objective. That's why you keep ignoring any argument that says it's OK for you not to have an abortion while at the same time it's OK for someone to have one. It's why you keep ignoring statement pretaining to a woman's body being nationalized. People are not the property of the state. The state is the property of the people.

*I* call everything I want a "human right"? NO. YOU call everything you want a human right. You argument would be apt if we considered anything before the third trimester to be human, but we (the scientific community) don't- so it looks like you're  shit out of luck, son.[ "Life processes" does not a life make.

And yet AGAIN, you refuse to address the fact that birthing these fetuses into an environment where the chances of them harming society and filling up prisons because they're unwanted or raised by idiots- is a form of torture.

You refuse to address the fact that your protection doesn't extend to innocents who are alive and kickin'. What about other things that are alive, but we kill anyway out of convenience, hum? See: You will ALWAYS lose when you can't adequately address these issues.

Finally, you don't seem to understand the argument. This isn't about mandatory abortions. This is about choice. The choice of whether to have an abortion or not. You're trying to deny choice and that's why you're seen as a fucking whack job who's sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.

>>190


By the way, I know what social programs you are for and against by proxy of your inability to address the fact that living innocents are dying and you're not stick up for them. I know what you're all about because you believe in capital punishment. You're liberal use of the word nigger and you're against the fundamental RIGHT for someone to make a choice.

You're FOOLISH enough to think abortions are just going to stop at the drop of a hat. Women were aborting their fetus in anicent GREECE, you stupid retarded fuckbrain.

>>190

You're from the Bible Belt, aren't you?  Please worry about your unemployment problem first.  $$$ = More food for the babies!

>>*I* call everything I want a "human right"? NO. YOU call everything you want a human right.

I have not even used that word fag face. Nice try.

>>but we (the scientific community) don't- so it looks like you're  shit out of luck, son.[ "Life processes" does not a life make.

Lol, you are not part of the scientific community, you just some fuck on 4chan. Get back to reality you self absorbed twit.

And the statement “’Life processes’ does not a life make.” is retarded even by 4chan standards. Then what does oh great master scientist of the universe?


>>And yet AGAIN, you refuse to address the fact that birthing these fetuses into an environment where the chances of them harming society and filling up prisons because they're unwanted or raised by idiots- is a form of torture.

Then why not kill kids who are alive and in bad homes? Surely they are being tortured and we should put this to an end.

>>You refuse to address the fact that your protection doesn't extend to innocents who are alive and kickin'.

WTF does that even mean. Half of your post is just nondescript shit to hide your stupidity.

>>What about other things that are alive, but we kill anyway out of convenience, hum? See: You will ALWAYS lose when you can't adequately address these issues.

What the fuck are you talking about? Killing animals is not the same as killing people PETA fag.

>>By the way, I know what social programs you are for and against by proxy of your inability to address the fact that living innocents are dying and you're not stick up for them.

Not sticking up for whom? This just fucking retarded. I have only made two posts in this thread so if you are trying to connect me to someone else you fail it retard.

>>Women were aborting their fetus in anicent GREECE, you stupid retarded fuckbrain.

What does the time of something have to do with rather or not it is wrong? No point in making arson illegal, after all its being going on 10000000000000 years right? You stupid cock.

>>You're from the Bible Belt, aren't you? 

Upstate New York fag, you fail for trying to be some geographical snob fag.  

Then why not kill kids who are alive and in bad homes?

Because they're alive, you fuckbrain!!

Upstate New York fag

Yep, that about sums it up. You're a kike faggot from upstate. Newflash: People in your own state fucking hate your guts.

>>195

lol best reply you could muster. I’m glad you just game up retard.

Now go on about how you already won, and how smart you are, and all the other bullshit you fool yourself into believing.

>>192
You're FOOLISH enough to think abortions are just going to stop at the drop of a hat. Women were aborting their fetus in anicent GREECE, you stupid retarded fuckbrain.

LOL so dumb. Just replace abortion with murder (or anything there are laws against, for that matter) and see how that argument holds up.

You know, you could probably have a more coherent discussion without so many ad hominem insults.

>>197

Capital punishment is still legal in America.

>>199
So killing people who murder others is murder? Moral relativism is a wonderful thing!

>>200

I thought you were against murder, hypocrite.

>>196

There is literally no way to respond to the rest of your post without repeating myself. Unlike you I don't need to reassert my position over and over and over until it's magically made true.

does it matter? world doesnt need no more people, and fetuses can't say no, or defend themselves!

>>80


Good! IF they can't keep their legs closed and want an abortion badly enough, let them murder their child the HARD WAY!

>>203

I rest my case.

There just admit it fetus are human but we will kill them anyway out of convenience, just stop being hypocritical and try to make baby murder sound like some altruistic higher goal of giving the woman rights over her body, news flash, the fetus is NOT her body.

>>205

News flash, the fetus is connected to her body and uses her for sustenance.

>>204

How about the guys keeping their legs closed too?

>>205

This isn't the issue, child.

>>207

This is. If you're going stop women from making the choice to abort, no matter how you feel about it...then why don't you make it so that men can't have sex without concieving? If we were talking about a man's right- this would be an entirely different matter and so-called "pro-lifers" know this.

It fails so hard that I don't even feel like addressing it. The fetus isn't what people call "human" and it doesn't matter how many times you shout "baby murderer" you still don't get to dicate what some woman does with her womb.

The problem with the abortion movement is that you don't want compromise, you want control. You can shout out loud about what you think is a human or not, but the woman is going to do whatever she wants to do and the West isn't going to adhere to a policy that has all the dressings of communism.

>>208
communism? what the fuck. get out, please.

>>209

think about what he's saying about nationalising people bodies and compare it to china's communism and you'll see he's right

a prolifer shouting "murder" has the same effect as when a vegetarian shouts "murder" at some guy eating me. human life isn't important, shit LIFE isn't even all that important. we literaly rape our planet everyday and you people are worry about babies that we as a society don't even take care of?

GET A FUCKING CLUE ALREADY

>>211
You think that the planet is more important than the life upon it?  GB/2 MARS

>>206

So why can't a woman kill her infant children and get away with it? They are still just as dependant on adults for sustenance, just the means are different.

>>208
"People" didn't consider blacks as being human either.
"People" thought it was just fine to go around the world and colonize everyone elses land.
"People" didn't think women should vote.

Just because "People" don't consider the fetus to be human doesn't mean its true.

>>210
News flash ever hear about China's forced abortion policy, you know one child etc.? Yup opposing baby murder = communism O.o.

>>211
Again that's fine, just state that though, don't give people BS about oh noes woman's rights, just say it out loud we want to kill the babies of poor people cause they are going to grow up and ruin my country club some day.

>>213
I LIEK TO EAT BABY UNBORN FETI YUM YUM

>>213

"People" didn't consider blacks as being human either.
"People" thought it was just fine to go around the world and colonize everyone elses land.
"People" didn't think women should vote.

Newsflash!  The religious establishment was ALL in favor of these things.  Go read a damn history book.

>>215
How is that relevant?

>>215

Like >>216 said, what they heck does that have to do with anything? The point is a lot of things that "people" said were right at one time were not, abortion being no different.

The point is most of these Pro-lifers are religious freaks.

>>218

That still makes no sense, so religous people supposedly supported slavery, colonization and keeping women from voting in the past all of those wrong things, so now if they support to right to life for the unborn this means what exactly?

And I say "supposedly" because if you even bother to read a history book you will see that it was infact religious people who brought an end to all those evils anyway.

>>219

THIS MEANS THEY ARE WRONG YOU FUCKING IDIOT. And "religious people" didn't bring an end to shit. You really need to read more.

>>220
everyone doubts god once in their life. you only hear the famous people say it.

>>220
No this means you fail at understanding anything at all and throwing in religion yet again which has no bearing on this argument:

Slavery was allowed because blacks were labled as non human. But it was wrong.

Women were not allowed to vote because they were not considered fully human or equal to men. That was wrong.

Colonizing the lands of other people was allowed because they were considered lesser humans. That was wrong.

And just like that abortion is allowed because the fetus is considered not to be human. This is also wrong.

Do you get it now or are you still getting your panties in a not over zomg religion!!!111!

BTW take your own advice and read more, religious people does not necessarily = white people. Ghandi was very religious, he ended colonialism in India.

You're an idiot, Abortion's mainstay has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is human. That's YOUR arugment, not ours. Our is about choice- doesn't even matter what subjective term you've got for the fetus.

>>222

Don't bother trying to pull a Ghandi.  America is not predominately Hindu.

Interestingly, the call for people to be more concerned about those who are currently living, and working to improve health and living standards, can often make the entire abortion debate a moot point.  People are less likely to have abortions when they are well educated, affluent, and feeling comfortable with their lives.  By embracing a more egalitarian approach to social issues, many of the 'moral' problems that people tend to complain about, such as abortions, are rendered less and less important, because people do not take actions that are considered to be devient by one group or another when they are successful in the overall society that they have been raised in.  Deviency by its scientific definition tends to arise when one can not succeed given the opportunities presented to them in their current overall society.

If you are opposed to abortion, but are willing to let things such as health care, legislations that hold corporations to a higher level of standards, enviornment protection, and pretty much a large number of the other standards that are the exact opposite of what is on the current administration's agenda slide, then you can not make your argument for being pro-life based upon any sort of moral issue.

Many people who are pro-choice, except for the most extreme members of that group, would be happy if there were no more abortions, because of sufficient education, and readily available birth control and emergency contraceptives.

If you are not willing to go the full mile to support equal rights to work, sustinence, shelter, pay, entertainment, and opportunities, all that supporting a pro-life agenda shows is that you are seeking a way to punish people who do not live up to your moral standards.  Because no action takes place without some measure of self benefit, as described by the rational actors theory, one must assume that you in some way see people being able to control the number of children that they are bearing as a threat to your own welfare.  Is it because, deep down, you believe that if someone has more children than they were intending, they will be stretched further, thus not allowing them to allocate sufficient resources to each child?  This isn't an unrealistic reason for being pro-life, even if few will admit it - for those who are willing to punish people by denying them abortions, and who restrict themselves due to culture or creed from having many children, it means that their children will have greater opportunities in life, as more resources can be devoted to their upbringing, giving them better education, opportunties, and chances to get ahead in life.  Ultimately, anti-abortion legislation can be seen as a small part of a much larger movement by the WASP (that's White Anglo Saxon Prodestant) portion of the society to provide themselves with additional advantages, while repressing people of other cultures and social classes.

Do you think that this is an unreaslistic assumption?  Remember, institutionalized racism and other forms of institutionalized discrimination can take place with very few people actually having discriminatory feelings.  Just by buying into the propaganda, you are supporting such discrimination - just look deep down, and ask yourself, why ARE you so concerned with what other people do?  You are not concerned for no reason - saving 'innocent' people is not a rational decision, because ultimately other people are competition for limited resources.  Please examine the reasons for why you feel the need to be a prick about something that does not affect you, and then see if you can identify in truth what it is you want to accomplish.

no you are wrong

Hey, here's an idea. Let's ban abortion and force the anti-abortionists to pay for the kids schooling, healthcare, accomodation and feeding costs. Anti-abortionists don't get the point until it happens to them.

>>227
Or neuter poor people.

>>228
you are poor (in intelligence) let's start with you.

>> 226 Please examine the reasons for why you feel the need to be a prick about something that does not affect you,

Probably has something to do with killing little kids.  THAT'S What's got anti-abortinists angry.  It's called empathy, and if you were almost aborted you'd understand. 


But you make some good points;  people who can't support their kids would have some problems.  I'd gladly pay, to be honest with you, to keep someone alive on a personal level.  Like, if my sister wanted to abort and I had the means to support a kid I would contribute to that. 

But on a societal level, it makes no sense, because all those unwanted kids do tend to clog the system. 

So in other words, it's too complicated an issue to resolve down to "You're being mean!", "No, you're being mean!"

I guess abortion could, in many cases (except the "oops! Honey call the fetus flushers!") be acceptable as sort of a form of just natural death... you know, cutting your losses when it would likely kill you otherwise.

Probably has something to do with killing little kids.  THAT'S What's got anti-abortinists angry.  It's called empathy, and if you were almost aborted you'd understand.

What fool? Didn't he just say: "Protecting the innocents" isn't very valid. These aren't "little kids" with personalities, words or even feelings. Is the seed of a tree, an actual tree? NO. Same with humans. You're just scared of reducing us to precisely all that we are: Highly intelligent carbon based lifeforms.

What you don't understand is that your point of view is as subjective as if it's right to kill in war, or if it's right to make war in the first place. If you can't outlaw war, or poverty or anything else that supposedly "kills innocents", then what makes you think abortion should be outlawed? Give it a rest already- if it doesn't affect you- then don't worry about it. If you want to live around people who care about this issue so much then move to a state where you don't get a choice.

But don't sit here and imply that everyone should live under this rule because of your subjective, convienant and mutable sense of morality.

>>231 These aren't "little kids" with personalities, words or even feelings

Eh, you don't know that.

>> if it doesn't affect you- then don't worry about it.

That's a great idea.  People are getting gunned down in the street; doesn't affect me, I'm inside.  People are dying of this strange new disease.  Doesn't affect me, I don't have it. 

The primary reason why I'm against abortion is because it leads to some seriously scary shit; what if someone decides that anyone with an IQ below 130 doesn't have "personalities, [significant] words, or even feelings"?  I mean, it's highly possible, think how genetically engineered mental supermen would look at us. 

Don't sit here and imply that everyone should live under this rule because of your subjective, convienant and mutable sense of morality.

>>232

"Eh, you don't know that."

Eh, yes I do. I certainly have a better idea than you do. Your entire point of view is based on the possibility that they might, MAYBE have a personality or feelings. The thing has feelings in the same way a cow has feelings right before you hit it with an air gun and butcher it raw. It's not human until it looks up at me with those huge eyes that scream: Protect me! Until then, it's a seed. I.E - just a growth.

"Gun down in the street blah blah blah"

I'm sick of this argument. It doesn't apply. Stop using it. The "slippery slope" argument is the same one they used with vaccines and airplanes and spaceships and indoor plumbling and computers and democracy. It's a dumb attempt at ignoring the facts that abortions, like these other inventions, aren't going to completely destroy society like you *think* it will. People have been aborting their pregnancies since before the middle ages- *pats self down*...hm....I don't FEEL like society has been destroyed. Anyone else?

And then there's the classic "Throw his words back in his face." tactic...Great going, fuckhead!

Except for one thing: I'm not implying that everyone should live under "this rule"...I'm saying there should be a CHOICE. Don't like abortion? Don't have an abortion. Think you need one because there's no fucking way you can raise a kid and turning him over to the state is a fate worse than death? Then do have an abortion.

It's that fucking simple. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. That's what you dumb fucking idiots don't seem to get. You think pro-life means everyone else must be pro-death. How boorish! How so completely fucking retarded.

>>233
agreed. couldn't have said it better meself.

In order to get in the position to warrent an abortion you have to be irresponsible in the first place. My girlfriend and I have don't support abortions, and we've never needed one. Why? Because we practice safe sex. What's even worse is that someone who was being irresponsible by having unprotected sex when they didn't want a child is going to have an abortion, and kill a living being they brought to life because it's inconvient for them.

The child they brought to life, which they decided to 'abort' (which is a really PC way of saying murdering a living being, whether you consider children in the womb to be human enough or not to deserve life) is put to death for their own foibles.

In the end, I'm not quite sure if I support the freedom to do murders in the womb or not. I mean, should irresponsible people like that be having children in the first place? What I do know for certain is, that anyone who gets an 'abortion' done, except possibly in the case of rape, should be totally and completely ashamed of themselves. They are total and complete human scum.

>>233 It's a dumb attempt at ignoring the facts that abortions, like these other inventions, aren't going to completely destroy society like you *think* it will.

Stupid ass propaganda.  I think you're only capable of thinking in propaganda, anti-chan. 

Anyway, people have also been gunning each other down in the street for generations... does that mean we should support it?  I mean, hey, it hasn't destroyed society yet, has it?

Besides the fact that your post is full of fucking dumb ass propaganda, you do make one point:

"Think you need one because there's no fucking way you can raise a kid and turning him over to the state is a fate worse than death?"

This, I can understand.  This is the true reason abortions should be done; because there's no life for the fetus after birth.  What I oppose is your stupid ass "choice" argument, where "It's my body I do what I want!" Where abortions would be performed as a method of "Oops birth-control".  Why not have safe sex and all that?  Why do you want to shirk all responsibility for your actions?

Please don't respond with some insipid ass YOU THINK I'M PRO DEATH I'M PRO CHOICE.

I love how the laws say it's legal in case of rape or incest. But a fetus is a fetus amirite? It's not the fetus's fault how it was concieved. If you are taking the moral high ground, you have to be consistent all across, otherwise noone is going to take you seriously. No exceptions, either ban it outright, or legalize it outright.

THIS THREAD IS SHIT

>>236

"Stupid as propaganda"

Huh? Clarify, fuckwit.

"People have been gunning..."

This is the same thing as the "People getting gunned down in the street" argument. It doesn't apply. This isn't what we're discussing. So stop using it as an argument. It just doesn't work. 

"Your post is full of propaganda"

Again, what parts and why are you unable to refute anything I've said? How is saying "people should get a choice" or that "people thought vaccines and computers and guns and nuclear energy was a 'slippery slope" propaghanda? You know who considers choice as propaganda? COMMUNIST CHINA.

"Why shirk repsonsbility"

Having the kid anyway because you can't take the burden of your mistake IS, in fact, the easy way out. Good for you and your sense of "morals"- but statstically shown to be BAD for the kid.

Abortions aren't easy- only a man thinks this- a woman who's actually had one will tell you otherwsie. Having an abortion IS taking responsibility. Sometimes condom's break, sometimes people get drunk, sometimes lust overtakes rationale, we're HUMAN.

The debate you're having and the one I'm having are totally different: You're dictating how people should live. You are saying that they should live their life under a certain set of ideals (a program). YOUR ideals and by the way YOU see things. Because "Father knows best."

I'm merely saying however you live- you should be the one making the choices, you should take responsibility and do what you feel is best because you know what? You're not a fucking CHILD. You aren't a machine, you don't exist to pass down others ideals, you exists to pass down your own. No person throughout time has followed another group's program and they never will.

What's next? No more violent games? No more drinking? No more dancing? (Because dancing leads to sex)...no more choices?