Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

"What I'm saying is- you can't just keep repeating that it's murder and that it's wrong over, over and over when it's already been proven that it isn't murder up until a certain point (3rd trimester)."

Review. It hasn't been proven. That makes it murder.

"You can't insist that a child is any one person's responsibilty when that "person" hasn't even exited the womb, yet."

Could this reasoning be anymore scattered? If it's in the womb of SOMEONE, then it's logically concluded that it's said SOMEONE's responsibility.

"Your attitude toward women is entirely fucked up. Referring to her as "An irrsponsible bitch" is very telling of the kind of sexually repressed world you live in."

But it IS the case. I'm sorry if you're such an over the top feminist that you can't see it, but one who has sex without the intent of having children should make sure they won't have them as an end result. No amount of 'your hate for women disgusts me,' will deflect the fact that she wasn't being careful. You can only operate on the assumption that a child doesn't live for so long until you realize that abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control for someone.

"Also, your comment in regards to abortion being "the easy way out" shows an ignorance and a common misconception that abortion is easy. No one who I know that has had an abortion has termed it as "easy", or acted as if it was this "fix it, quick" procedure that you seem to think it is."

What are you trying to accomplish with this? Are you going to try and say that they go through so much pain to get rid of the fetus and thus they shouldn't be yelled at? Well I know many mothers who've gone through infinitely more pain than they have throughout their lives of having kids. Perhaps you should take them into mind before you try to use abortion as a comparison of hardship.

"Finally, you keep arguing this in the direction of "I'm more right then you are". When all I'm saying is that humans have a choice between right and wrong."

Yes yes, I know, "morals aren't the issue." Perhaps you'd prefer living in an anarchy, but I sure as hell don't. The legalization of abortion and the logic behind its process is a clear cut violation of the foundation of ethics that this country is built--You may want to associate those ethics with religion if you wish, but that will just show how ignorant you are and how much you want to go out of your way to pull the "zealot" card. Political ethics aren't morals.

"All citizens in a society have varying degrees of responsibility for the state of their society. Acting on society acts on the people, acting on other people as deterrance doesn't work (capital punishment springs to mind)"

Bull. Whenever society's thriving, it's the people who are responsible. On the other hand, when it's crumbling, it's still the people. Thus, focusing on their attribument is the logical thing to do. Do you really want mass murderers cluttering up the prisons when the tolerance of their incurable animosity is a risk of more death?

"What is the cause of irresponsible people?"

Oh, there's many sources of carlessness these days. Socialism, modernist feminism, etc.. But that's pretty much irrelevent in light of the relativity throughout the respective characters of society. The only thing that needs to be noted is that they have the ability to be more disciplined and responsible and yet they aren't doing anything of the sort. The funniest part of all this is that you want to tolerate it.

"but the very reason America's prison situation is so bad is because people tried to deter criminals."

Wow. I'd really love to hear your reasoning behind this.

"Neither you nor I wanted that murder to occur, so we are free of hostile intent towards the victim. If we tried to remove the perpetrator or the means of the perpetration we would have to harm principles of freedom in order to wipe our hands of bad conscience and then we are not innocent anymore."

I'd be more apalled by this statement if I wasn't totally convinced you were a lunatic. Apparently, I was right the first time around; you're an anarchist.

"That is a very common view in the land of the free"

Perhaps because it's true.

Only problem with it is that when a country lives free too long, the let it go to their head and they take everything for granted. You and all of the women who abort their children for example.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by America not being "meritocratic." If anything, this is the most meritocratic country in the world. For more than a century, it's been rewarding people for their abilities. Capitalism's history in North America is the greatest example of this.

>>118
Americas prison system is bad because of the drug war, and the prison-industrial complex. 

Review. It hasn't been proven. That makes it murder.

Yes it has. And even if it hasn't that wouldn't make it murder. Sorry. You lose again.

Could this reasoning be anymore scattered? If it's in the womb of SOMEONE, then it's logically concluded that it's said SOMEONE's responsibility.

Right. Someone, being: Not you. Not the state. Not the government. Abortion is responsibility.

But it IS the case. I'm sorry if you're such an over the top feminist that you can't see it, but one who has sex without the intent of having children should make sure they won't have them as an end result. No amount of 'your hate for women disgusts me,' will deflect the fact that she wasn't being careful. You can only operate on the assumption that a child doesn't live for so long until you realize that abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control for someone.

Once again: Shit happens and men are everybody bit as responsible for birth control as women are. Most abortions take place at the request of the male or at the inate fear that the male wouldn't accept his responsiblity to raise the child, or society or the government would remove it's responsiblity to assist through welfare. Since, you know, that government is so dead set on the woman having the baby-  even the though the child will be raised in an environment where he'll be more likely to become a criminal and subject to capital punishment or be impoverished to the point of joining the army and being killed in a war.

I'm not a feminist, because the term itself is pretty stupid. I just think equality, liberty and fairness are more important than treating women like "irresponsible bitches". You're basically trying to legislate vaginas, meanwhile you do nothing to address the numerous of condomless cocks that help make those babies. It's this one sidedness that is show is shown in Chinese, Muslims and Catholics. All have overpopulation problems. I don't think this is coincidence and I think you know this. This is why you continue to not address this point.

What are you trying to accomplish with this? Are you going to try and say that they go through so much pain to get rid of the fetus and thus they shouldn't be yelled at? Well I know many mothers who've gone through infinitely more pain than they have throughout their lives of having kids. Perhaps you should take them into mind before you try to use abortion as a comparison of hardship.

Why? They had a choice and made it. I find your willingness to eliminate this choice outright very suspicious, seeing as how we live in a democracy and all. The thing is liberty means being free to "fuck up" or be "irresponsible" in the eyes of others without some muslim or catholic fuck chiming in with this intelligence that has been formed directly from the bible. My point is that you make abortion to be this sinful, irresponsible , quick-fix kind of act. But it's not. Sorry if that destroys the entire premise for your argument. But you're still wrong.

Yes yes, I know, "morals aren't the issue." Perhaps you'd prefer living in an anarchy, but I sure as hell don't. The legalization of abortion and the logic behind its process is a clear cut violation of the foundation of ethics that this country is built--You may want to associate those ethics with religion if you wish, but that will just show how ignorant you are and how much you want to go out of your way to pull the "zealot" card. Political ethics aren't morals.

Exactly! You're slow starting to admit it, I see. Political ethics aren't morals. So "morals" shouldn't be DOGOMATICALLY enforced upon the masses via politics. It's a simple premise, one that has kept us from becoming communists or theocratic states. Stop ignoring the philosophical aspects of this debate. 

>>119
"What I'm saying is- you can't just keep repeating that it's murder and that it's wrong over, over and over when it's already been proven that it isn't murder up until a certain point (3rd trimester)."

I agree, it's not really murder.  But to the extent that the human has developed, is to the extent that it's murder.  If the human is 25% developed, they should be charged for murder to that extent.  Exceptions should be made in the case of obvious situations such as when it is necessary for the woman's health, or in situations like rape.  All I'm saying is that it should be regulated - rather than that you should be able to have an abortion whenever you feel like it. 

"You can't insist that a child is any one person's responsibilty when that "person" hasn't even exited the womb, yet."

It was their responsibility from the moment they had sex and didn't bother to use any of the many, easilly accessable methods of birth control availible. 

"If this was truly about ethics and morals, you would be able to examine the reasons for unwanted pregnanices (poverty, uneducation, certain culture's views on sex, the psychology of sex) and seek to utterly eliminate those reasons."

That's like saying I should examine the reasons why people are killing people rather than punishing people for killing people. 

So if some guy gets mad, and kills someone, we should "examine the reasons for unwanted murders and seek to utterly eliminate those reasons", rather than punishing for the actual crime committed. 

"If you actually cared about life or the potentiality of life, you would be able to examine and express a will to eliminate anything that infringes on that right to life- whether that person is a newborn or a 32-year old arab that crashed a plane in a building (or thousands of dead palestinians, or millions of dead ANYONE)."

I'm not pro-war, if that's what you are getting at. 

"Your attitude toward women is entirely fucked up. Referring to her as "An irrsponsible bitch" is very telling of the kind of sexually repressed world you live in."

If they are irresponsible and bitchy enough to have sex without using birth control and then just have abortions as they see fit, I think the term "irresponsible bitch" is fitting."

"Also, your comment in regards to abortion being "the easy way out" shows an ignorance and a common misconception that abortion is easy."

I never said it was the easy way out.  You must be quoting someone else. 

"if that is your experience, then the woman was probably just trying to piss you off because she knows that you become such an asshole when it comes to abortion."

As opposed to women who are too irresponsible to use birth control? LOL

"You're desperately trying to make abortion itself seem irresponsible, when abortion itself IS, in fact, part of "taking responsiblity"."

If they had "taken responsibility", they'd have used birth control in the first place, and the need for an abortion would be nonexistant.

"Even so, you act as if women can just have babies by themselves. You make no mention of the fact that men have every same bit of birth control as women."

The woman can check to make sure the man is wearing a condom.  The woman can take any of the god knows how many methods of birth control or contraception out there.  Why am I saying this? Because if she doesn't the consequences are HERS to deal with.  It's HER body, and thus SHE should handle it. 

"You also make no mention of the fact that many time women get abortions at the goading of MEN. But, hey, whatever right? Those're just details to you."

Why should it be mentioned? I don't care why she got it.  Irresponsible unnecessary abortions shouldn't be allowed.  Period. 

"Finally, you keep arguing this in the direction of "I'm more right then you are". When all I'm saying is that humans have a choice between right and wrong. I think the reason you don't want the states to decide is because you secretly know that your zealous attitude doesn't really fly here in America anymore."

That kind of zealous attitude is a large part of the reason the last set of candidates got elected.  I'd say that kind of "zealous attitude" actually DOES fly here in america. 

"It doesn't matter if you're religious or not or whatever. You will never be able to ignore the implications of an anti-abortion law. It is immediately giving jurisdiction of the unborn, and of women's sex lives over to the state. That just not what we do in a democracy unless there's an actual crime involved."

Now you get to an actual worry.  However, I see the developing human being as just that - a developing individual.  In my opinion, the rights involved here are not just the woman and her right to her body - but the right of the developing being to .. develop normally.  If the woman didn't want to be put in a situation where she had to give birth, she should have used birth control, or any of the other numerous safe and effective methods of contraception. 

>>123
"Once again: Shit happens and men are everybody bit as responsible for birth control as women are."

No they fucking aren't.  Whose body is it? Whose responsibility is it?

...

It's no more the man's responsibility to insure that she doesn't get pregnant than it is the man's responsibility to brush her teeth or wipe her ass after she takes a shit. 

It's her body, SHE should take care of it.

>>121 "Wow. I'd really love to hear your reasoning behind this." War on drugs. Capital punishment. Incarceration over treatment policies. Three strikes you're out for misdemeanors. All of these things were intended to deter crime. And they didn't work, it was just a way for unpatrotic, non-caring yet morally appalled Americans to feel better about themselves by cutting people out of society.
>>124 This is incredible. There is not an ounce of basic philosophy or constructive thinking here. You are kinda like a human except your mental pickup is jumping on the vinyl and some DJ is scratching all over the place and occasionally crossfading you with the voice of some insane misogynist. Hi-thrysting-larious.
>>123 >>122 Finally someone discussing besides me and Lester Maddox here.

>>125 You're one of those real, commonsensical men who are not afraid to speak his mind and doesn't care if some bi, knee-jerk, socialist, latte-drinking fruit gets upset. Kewl. If I get a daughter I should remember to teach her martial arts and handling a knife, considering there is a slim probability that you'll/have procreated (perish the thought) a son and given him your own values.

>>127
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that statement.  All you god damn feminists are always saying "MY BODY MY BODY I OWN IT I OWN IT" etc etc. 

Well guess what? If that's the case, it's YOUR job to take care of it. 

>>126
There's nothing wrong with incarceration.  Yeah, I'll agree, the drug war is bad.  As for real crimes though, like murder for ex, we should remain tough on the penalties. 

Another considerable option is restitution, if you understand & are familiar with that concept. 

Three strikes laws suck, Capital Punishment... hmm not sure.  Again, I think I'd prefer restitution as a victim as opposed to capital punishment.  Also, if we are going to incarcerate for crimes (i'm not saying this is bad) we should aim to prevent a lot of the abuses that go on in prisons, such as rapings, beatings (both between prisoners, and between cops and prisoners), etc.

>>123

"Yes it has. And even if it hasn't that wouldn't make it murder. Sorry. You lose again."

No. It hasn't.

No amount of saying, "It's been proven" is going to make you right. Perhaps you should take a few courses on the difference between "falsifiable" and "unfalsifiable" before you argue the subject.

"Right. Someone, being: Not you. Not the state. Not the government. Abortion is responsibility."

The people are the responsibility of the state just as the child is the responsibility of the mother. You are unable to prove the child does not live and thus the state must take the children into mind as actual people and tell them the mothers that they need to make sure the children are cared--Whether by her or someone else.

"Once again: Shit happens and men are everybody bit as responsible for birth control as women are."

Wrong. Women are holding all the cards in this arena. I agree with you that guys should be more abstinent(sp) and develop more discipline, but because women are the most affected in this regard, they're the ones who have to be the most careful. I mean, if a guy uses a condom and it's top of the line, which then breaks you're probably going to say it's his fault--Which is totally unreasonable. In which case, by your own logic, the girl would be more at fault for having sex in the first place (which is my entire view on the situation in general, but because you have a skewed idea of what "responsible" means, I'm forced to abide your ideas of normalcy for the sake of argument).

"Since, you know, that government is so dead set on the woman having the baby-  even the though the child will be raised in an environment where he'll be more likely to become a criminal and subject to capital punishment or be impoverished to the point of joining the army and being killed in a war."

It's really great to know that this is your entire criteria for mass murder. Seriously, it is....I mean, even though I was put up for adoption after my mother decided she didn't want me and didn't really end up commiting any crimes, but.....Still, it's good to know you think that way.

"You're basically trying to legislate vaginas, meanwhile you do nothing to address the numerous of condomless cocks that help make those babies."

Legislate vaginas? What does that even mean? I don't expect those babies to become government officials, I just expect them to have an opportunity. I'd rather women would just be more careful and decide not to be so stupid with said vaginas. Those "condomless cocks" you talk about for example: If you think guys are so stupid and women so smart and unblemished on this issue, then it only makes sense that they'd be the ones to make sure guys wear condoms. If they choose to risk the size of their euteris by not having protection on either side of the equation, then it's obviously their fault.

"Why? They had a choice and made it."

Uh huh, and the problem here is that you're trying to compare the hardship of that choice to the "hardship" of abortion, which doesn't even begin to make sense here.

"The thing is liberty means being free to "fuck up" or be "irresponsible" in the eyes of others without some muslim or catholic fuck chiming in with this intelligence that has been formed directly from the bible."

Yes, we already know that you hate religion, but you can't claim that freedom and liberty is all about "fucking up." In fact, I find that phrase to be a dramatic understatement in relation to the issue of abortion. Last I checked, people were allowed to suffer a few mistakes in the US, but that doesn't mean they're allowed to recoup their losses through unethical means. Just because a guy loses in the stock market, that doesn't mean he's allowed to rob a bank. Just because a woman has a baby she doesn't want or isn't prepared for, that doesn't mean she can just kill it.

"Exactly! You're slow starting to admit it, I see. Political ethics aren't morals. So "morals" shouldn't be DOGOMATICALLY enforced upon the masses via politics. It's a simple premise, one that has kept us from becoming communists or theocratic states. Stop ignoring the philosophical aspects of this debate."

What are you going on about now? What I said was that you're puting too much emphasis on what's not being said. No one here is talking about morals except for you simply because you want to go out of your way to play the "religous fanatic" card. You increasingly lecture us about the fruitlessness of morals and don't seem to realize that-that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about ETHICS, a secular concept use by any philosophy, including religion (but you don't understand that religion's not the issue here). It is unETHICAL to tolerate and/or allow abortion.

"I'm not exactly sure what you mean by America not being "meritocratic." If anything, this is the most meritocratic country in the world. For more than a century, it's been rewarding people for their abilities. Capitalism's history in North America is the greatest example of this." I think capitalism has made America what it is today, but America today is as such not the best PR for capitalism. It is not the most meritocratic country in the world either. If you are born in a certain quintile you are staying there. Also, Bush's appalling fiscal policy has caused a lot of economic volatility, which is not a good thing.

"
Wrong. Women are holding all the cards in this arena. I agree with you that guys should be more abstinent(sp) and develop more discipline, but because women are the most affected in this regard, they're the ones who have to be the most careful. I mean, if a guy uses a condom and it's top of the line, which then breaks you're probably going to say it's his fault--Which is totally unreasonable. In which case, by your own logic, the girl would be more at fault for having sex in the first place (which is my entire view on the situation in general, but because you have a skewed idea of what "responsible" means, I'm forced to abide your ideas of normalcy for the sake of argument)."

Thankfully there are still intelligent people in the world.  Dumb shits saying it's the man's responsibility... yet claim it's her body.  If it's her body, it's HER responsibility to take care of it. 

>>126

"War on drugs."

The war on drugs isn't a deterrent.

"Capital punishment."

You're kiddin me right? Most criminals nowadays realize that CP is impotent due to individuals like you who take away the power of state to execute people who execute others. Philosophies such as yours have tainted CPs statistic.

"Incarceration over treatment policies."

So you'd rather violent schizophrenics be put in a home that's easily escapable rather than cell where they're liable to not harm anyone? Treatment can only go so far in most case and you can only expect so much from it. It's like trying to raise a wolf you've known all your life that you expect to never bite you.

"Three strikes you're out for misdemeanors."

In SOME cases, I think the idea is bullshit, but it has been successful in putting away some truly dangerous people. Most often cops don't hand out strikes to criminals who they know don't really deserve it.

"All of these things were intended to deter crime. And they didn't work,"

It's really amazing to me that because you feel crime cannot be stopped that we should just stop caring...Of course crime cannot be stopped. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying. I think even you would realize the end result of that.

I lived in a terrible neighborhood once upon a time, which was just beginning to open up to drug dealers. Just when people were starting to buy into LSD and crack, a no tolerance policy was enacted and the most consistent drug dealers were forced out AWAY from my younger siblings. So, as you can imagine, the war on drugs "detterent," as you like to call, helped me and my family.

>>127
I won't have to worry, since your good ol' democraps will make sure that any knives long enough to worry about, weapons that look too scary, or guns that might protect her will be illegal. 

>>131
"If you are born in a certain quintile you are staying there."

Do you mean in a certain "class"? Yeah right.  America has the most & best rags to riches stories of just about any country.  They call this the "land of opportunity" for a fucking reason, you know. 

Taxes and recent big-government have been getting in the way of economic mobility recently.  Certainly, voting for the democraps isn't going to help this. 

Face it: You don't care about proof. If you haven't thought to seek that proof out, that's your problem. I'm not going to rail off a bunch of links just for you to tell me they're bullshit. This isn't LINK WARZZZ this is a debate.

That's like saying I should examine the reasons why people are killing people rather than punishing people for killing people. So if some guy gets mad, and kills someone, we should "examine the reasons for unwanted murders and seek to utterly eliminate those reasons", rather than punishing for the actual crime committed."

....and the problem with that is...what, exactly? Finding out the source of a problem and fixing it would take as much beaucracy as "fixing" the problem (in the way that you suggest) adnausuem. The difference here is that the "fix" would be permanent.

Wrong. Women are holding all the cards in this arena. I agree with you that guys should be more abstinent(sp) and develop more discipline, but because women are the most affected in this regard, they're the ones who have to be the most careful. I mean, if a guy uses a condom and it's top of the line, which then breaks you're probably going to say it's his fault--Which is totally unreasonable. In which case, by your own logic, the girl would be more at fault for having sex in the first place (which is my entire view on the situation in general, but because you have a skewed idea of what "responsible" means, I'm forced to abide your ideas of normalcy for the sake of argument).

Are you catholic, or perhaps muslim? From the east or raised in an eastern household? Just wondering. As for your points: Men have the option to not have sex in the first place just like women. Therefore, the condom breaking makes the woman just as "innocent" as the man. Women are not "the most effected". Both parents are needed to raise a rational, reasonable human being. I suppose your foster upbringing explains why you don't understand this.

It's really great to know that this is your entire criteria for mass murder.

Everytime you say something like this, it equals to extremism. Are you going to strap a bomb to yourself and blow us both up, next? I suppose my death wouldn't be a murder would it? Or how about yours?


Uh huh, and the problem here is that you're trying to compare the hardship of that choice to the "hardship" of abortion, which doesn't even begin to make sense here.

It doesn't matter. It's completely subjective as to which is harder. You and I, being men will never know anyway. Personally, I think there should be an end to "subjective laws", regardless.

Last I checked, people were allowed to suffer a few mistakes in the US, but that doesn't mean they're allowed to recoup their losses through unethical means.

But, the means aren't unethical. Prove that abortion will utterly destroy the fabic of society, please. If you can't then you fail.


You increasingly lecture us about the fruitlessness of morals and don't seem to realize that-that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about ETHICS, a secular concept use by any philosophy, including religion (but you don't understand that religion's not the issue here). It is unETHICAL to tolerate and/or allow abortion.

Re-Read please: "Political ethics aren't morals. So "morals" (<==== Note the sarcastic quotations) shouldn't be DOGOMATICALLY enforced upon the masses via politics.

REPEATING AGAIN.

Political ethics are not morals, nor are they ethics in a philosophical sense. That ends the moment it becomes policy or legislature. Therefore, these ethics (or morals) should not be dogmatically and unilaterally enforced upon a mass of logical and peaceful dissenters via POLITICS.

>>137
Fail.  Our laws are based on morals you dumb fuck.  Why is murder illegal? It's immoral.  Same with stealing, raping, and many other of the basic core laws. 

The debate should be on whether abortion is immoral. 

BTW, I'm an atheist, so lets not pull that "morals are for religious people, you are legislating your relgion on me!" card.

Abortion can be seen as morally dubious (at best) by people of just about any religion or mental variety.

if the parents are unfit, the child is unborn.

what part of this don't you anti-abortionists don't womb....oops ,  I mean, understand.

>>138

lol, you must be retarded.

Please re-read this again: Political ethics are not morals, nor are they ethics in a philosophical sense. That ends the moment it becomes policy or legislature. Therefore, these ethics (or morals) should not be dogmatically and unilaterally enforced upon a mass of logical and peaceful dissenters via POLITICS.

jesus fucking christ if you haven't been to college, you should not be on these forums, seriously. anti-chan is basically saying that the only thing that assuredly moral or ethical is freedom, liberty and choice. that means that anything taking away liberty from the entire american population is immoral. and that's all that matters in THIS country. (don't like it, go somewhere else). his stance isn't an anarchist one, it's libertarian

the only truly humane thing to do in this instance is to leave the choice to the individual and this "individual" can only be addressed fairly in this case by a state. it's humane for the child (alive or not), the woman (responsible or not) and most of all it doesn't run alien to democracy. if you think our country was founded on "political ethics" then you need to either stop trolling, stop failing or lurk moar. american slowly became this way, it was never meant to be this way. NEVER

>>141
What about the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the sentient fetus?

>>142
Precisely.

>>140
A fetus is a developing human being.  I'm for government protection of said developing human beings, just like I'm for government protection from murderers and rapists. 

The moment the fetus is sentient it should be protected by law. 

>>141
"the only truly humane thing to do in this instance is to leave the choice to the individual"

I don't think women who are too irresponsible to prevent pregnancy using birth control should be allowed abortions as solutions to their irresponsibility. 

"Humane"? You want to leave it up to the individual (who may or may not give a fuck about the developing fetus), whether or not to kill it? (regardless of whether it is sentient/can feel pain?

>>146
I guess the liberals are "bleeding hearts" about everything BUT developing human beings...

>>142

It still doesn't matter. Capital Punishment takes lives and there are people who don't like it. So that's why it's left up to the states to decide. I personally, don't think the state or society has a right to end the life of any human being under any circumstances what-so-ever. We do not have the right to end a life, we did not create. We do not have the right to control a life, we did not create.

So you're not going to see me out there protesting and becoming a zealot of internet message boards, nor start pointing fingers at "conservatives" or "liberals". The matter is left up to the states and that's the best option with Capital Punishment. Lack of liberty, freedom and choice are the only things that matter in this country and the only time this country (or the people in it) is acting immorally is when these three items are restricted or denied outright.

My advise to anyone pushing to illegalize abortion is to petition their states or to leave the country entirely. (This goes out especially to the Muslim guy, who posted earlier.)

>>148
Capital punishment is even up for debate only because of the fact that you are only doing it to proven criminals.  Abortion is destruction of an innocent. 

"Face it: You don't care about proof. If you haven't thought to seek that proof out, that's your problem. I'm not going to rail off a bunch of links just for you to tell me they're bullshit. This isn't LINK WARZZZ this is a debate."

Translation: I have no proof and, therefore, will not attempt to post any.

"....and the problem with that is...what, exactly? Finding out the source of a problem and fixing it would take as much beaucracy as "fixing" the problem (in the way that you suggest) adnausuem. The difference here is that the "fix" would be permanent."

That's the problem. You have a very warped definition of what "fixed" means. You think that the way to cure over-population is to downsize on said population even--And all of this is being said whilst quoting the law! Lawful ethics do not entail murder. Moreover, no one here has even bothered to prove that their is an over-population problem. All you've done is pointed out the existence of poor people. I didn't realize that being jobless equaled overpopulation. As a compliment to this farcical logic, you have still been unable to prove non-life of a fetus.

"Are you catholic, or perhaps muslim? From the east or raised in an eastern household? Just wondering."

Yes, I notice you like stereotyping religion quite a bit even though religion has nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm a theist. I do not, however, belong to any particular religion. I believe got the ball rolling an walked away. I also believe your retard if you base the validity of a person's arguments on their religion and not the arguments themselves.

"As for your points: Men have the option to not have sex in the first place just like women. Therefore, the condom breaking makes the woman just as "innocent" as the man."

Not if the woman knows it would be wiser not to continue. The male doesn't know everything that's going on with the female's body.

"Women are not "the most effected"."

So guys can give birth to kids too?

"I suppose your foster upbringing explains why you don't understand this."

I can see I'm wearing you down now that you're resorting to personal insults. Next time, be sure to type the word "fail" as an addendum to any comment you may have about my childhood. That way, I'll know I've made you have to use your trump card.

"Everytime you say something like this, it equals to extremism."

And your abondonment of secular ethics within law isn't a form of extremism? I've already shown you how your toleration of abortion is murder and aside from actually denying the truth, you've even bothered to say that population-control is an acceptable policy as a double front that hypothetically advocates the idea(fact) that killing fetuses is murder.

"Are you going to strap a bomb to yourself and blow us both up, next?"

Why would I do that exactly?

"I suppose my death wouldn't be a murder would it?"

Why would I think that exactly?

"Or how about yours?"

Why would I want to kill myself exactly?

"It doesn't matter. It's completely subjective as to which is harder. You and I, being men will never know anyway."

You say this after you've already attempted to derail the labors of a mother with the apparent hardship of an abortionist. And I'm not exactly sure how we'll "never know." Raising children is oviously harder than disposing of them.

"But, the means aren't unethical. Prove that abortion will utterly destroy the fabic of society, please. If you can't then you fail."

I've already proved that abortion destroys one of the main tenets of our society. And without it, it puts said society in danger of collapse. If abortion is murder (and it is), and murder is against the law, and law was their so we could live in peace with tolerating anti-life problems like murder, and the anathema of murder was exposed of, then we leave our principles of law to die--And this, in turn, leaves our society open to tolerating the downsizing of "unuseful" citizens.

"Re-Read please: "Political ethics aren't morals. So "morals" (<==== Note the sarcastic quotations) shouldn't be DOGOMATICALLY enforced upon the masses via politics."

I never said MORALS should be enforced. I said ETHICS should be enforced. If you're confusing "ethics" for "morals", then you have problems. And I'm not sure how ethics can inspire dogma.





Oh, right!

Fail.

"We do not have the right to end a life, we did not create. We do not have the right to control a life, we did not create."

Holy crap!

Are you inferring that a mother or father has a right to kill their kids anytime they want simply because they created them??

Forget zealotry. You're fucking crazy!

That ends the moment it becomes policy or legislature.

Where exactly do you the idea that a policy isn't ground in a particular philosophy?

>>130 "It's really great to know that this is your entire criteria for mass murder. Seriously, it is....I mean, even though I was put up for adoption after my mother decided she didn't want me and didn't really end up commiting any crimes, but.....Still, it's good to know you think that way." We are SO getting to the core of the issue.
"Legislate vaginas? What does that even mean? I don't expect those babies to become government officials, I just expect them to have an opportunity. I'd rather women would just be more careful and decide not to be so stupid with said vaginas. Those "condomless cocks" you talk about for example: If you think guys are so stupid and women so smart and unblemished on this issue, then it only makes sense that they'd be the ones to make sure guys wear condoms. If they choose to risk the size of their euteris by not having protection on either side of the equation, then it's obviously their fault." Hilarity. Men and Women are equally guilty and it's not the man who has to GIVE FUCKING BIRTH. I've said this before- sort out destructive gender differences, then we can talk.
"Thankfully there are still intelligent people in the world.  Dumb shits saying it's the man's responsibility... yet claim it's her body.  If it's her body, it's HER responsibility to take care of it." It's them man's responsibility and obligation to be a decent intruder.
"The war on drugs isn't a deterrent." Um, isn't the point with any punishment to harm those that are doing the same thing. It was MEANT to be a deterrent (like abortion laws will be to becoming pregnant, in your world) but it just didn't work.
"You're kiddin me right? Most criminals nowadays realize that CP is impotent due to individuals like you who take away the power of state to execute people who execute others. Philosophies such as yours have tainted CPs statistic." Once a again, come and say that when America has a better record for killing people that a bunch of college kids proved innocent. Idiot. DP is actually counter-efffective (probably the liberals fault) and is just a way for the morals n' values folks to extend a hand (voting slip) to the more murderous and undeveloped part of America.
"So you'd rather violent schizophrenics be put in a home that's easily escapable rather than cell where they're liable to not harm anyone? Treatment can only go so far in most case and you can only expect so much from it. It's like trying to raise a wolf you've known all your life that you expect to never bite you." Well, I'm not suggesting that treatment should be carried out in a greenhouse. Stop making strawmen out of everything. Treatment works better and is cheaper, but once again the isolated and quivering families (and the mythological 'utilitarian-libertarians') choose to rid themselves of their society's underside for as long as possible.
"It's really amazing to me that because you feel crime cannot be stopped that we should just stop caring...Of course crime cannot be stopped. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying. I think even you would realize the end result of that." All of these policies have either killed innocents, given the right to murder to the state, destroyed perpetrators of victimless crimes and costs America a lot more than a "bleeding-heart" stance would do. What type of libertarian are you?
"I lived in a terrible neighborhood once upon a time, which was just beginning to open up to drug dealers. Just when people were starting to buy into LSD and crack, a no tolerance policy was enacted and the most consistent drug dealers were forced out AWAY from my younger siblings. So, as you can imagine, the war on drugs "detterent," as you like to call, helped me and my family." As if your neighbourhood is the only front of the crusade on drugs. I wonder what is going to protect your siblings from all the crimes caused by alcohol consumption.
"Do you mean in a certain "class"? Yeah right.  America has the most & best rags to riches stories of just about any country.  They call this the "land of opportunity" for a fucking reason, you know. Taxes and recent big-government have been getting in the way of economic mobility recently.  Certainly, voting for the democraps isn't going to help this." What we have here are a bunch of total right-wingers who have inflicted insane hurt on the economy via misaimed tax cuts and are as we speak completing a war tribunal that could put american citizens in jail without trial. Is this a case against the left? Really? You're stretching so much I can see muscle tissue. The tax cuts have failed, privatization of Soc Sec will fail and the amount of people under the poverty level have risen since Bush took over. This is sad.
"Capital punishment is even up for debate only because of the fact that you are only doing it to proven criminals.  Abortion is destruction of an innocent." Uninformed. CP has been carried out on many innocent people over the years, and it does more harm than good.
"I don't think women who are too irresponsible to prevent pregnancy using birth control should be allowed abortions as solutions to their irresponsibility." Your syntaxial skills blow me away. Where did you go to school, Mexico?
>>148 Fail. If you can't allow abortions then you can't allow the DP. I'm all for DP, the states that you use it build up the crime rates in that state and that means more pro-lifers and DP-proponents dead.
>>149 Fail Fail Fail
>>150 "Not if the woman knows it would be wiser not to continue. The male doesn't know everything that's going on with the female's body." Oh holy shit. Are you real or am I having a nightmare?
"So guys can give birth to kids too?" No, which is the entire point here.
"I can see I'm wearing you down now that you're resorting to personal insults. Next time, be sure to type the word "fail" as an addendum to any comment you may have about my childhood. That way, I'll know I've made you have to use your trump card." The issue is that we just don't respect you. I know for a fact that adopted children fare just as well as any other kid. You are the exception that affirms the rule.
"I've already proved that abortion destroys one of the main tenets of our society. And without it, it puts said society in danger of collapse. If abortion is murder (and it is), and murder is against the law, and law was their so we could live in peace with tolerating anti-life problems like murder, and the anathema of murder was exposed of, then we leave our principles of law to die--And this, in turn, leaves our society open to tolerating the downsizing of "unuseful" citizens." Abortion helps society. We're going to see problems in South Dakota now that they are cutting the leaves without tending to the roots. We shall see, of course but I am hoping that they're all going to suffer.
"Holy crap! Are you inferring that a mother or father has a right to kill their kids anytime they want simply because they created them?? Forget zealotry. You're fucking crazy!" You inferred what you wanted to hear you undeveloped shitcrust.

*yawn*

Don't waste your time people, your words have no effect on the real world. Keep your answers concise.

"We are SO getting to the core of the issue."

This means what exactly? Are you gonna play the bias card now because I was adopted?

"Hilarity. Men and Women are equally guilty and it's not the man who has to GIVE FUCKING BIRTH. I've said this before- sort out destructive gender differences, then we can talk."

Thank you for that non-sequitur. Now what does your outburst have to do with the fact that women have the most reason to be careful and check themselves because they "give fucking birth"?

"It's them man's responsibility and obligation to be a decent intruder."

Yes. The guy shoudl ask the girl if she has any great risk of getting pregnant before they have intercourse. In which case, the girl needs to be the one to know since it's in here body that all the chemical reactions prelude.

"Um, isn't the point with any punishment to harm those that are doing the same thing. It was MEANT to be a deterrent (like abortion laws will be to becoming pregnant, in your world) but it just didn't work."

The war on drugs has more to do with sanctions than with punishment. Law enforcement was given more freedom to bust dealelrs and cartels. More time served for narcotics is just icing.

"Once a again, come and say that when America has a better record for killing people that a bunch of college kids proved innocent. Idiot. DP is actually counter-efffective"

SOoooooooo.....You're saying that every single individual that fries in the chair or gets put under the needle is going to be innocent?

I don't like innocents being executed anymore than you do, but chinks in the system are bound to happen, and because said system strives for perfection, even though it never will be, we have no choice but to tolerate the injustice that slips through it. That's why we reinforce the law as opposed to destroying one of its cornerstones (as you are suggesting).

"Stop making strawmen out of everything."

There's no strawman here. The logical conlusions of your assertion is to tolerate the imbalanced and almost certifiably incurable nature of psychopaths. There are select few rare occasions where sociopaths were actually able to grund themselves with ethics (although they have to struggle every day), but generally they're all dangerous.

Furthermore, last I checked it was your side of the argument that was making points for disposing of non-utilitarian sentients (see also: 'Abortion is better for society because the kids will only end up criminals anyway' argument"). What I find funny is that you're willing to dispose of them when they're not contradicting your self-righteous diatribe about rights to live and choose. However, now that they're not controversial lumps of flesh who's existence could diffuse your way of thinking, they're useful to you as mascots against the DP.

"Treatment works better and is cheaper,"

Oh my god, you are fucking cracked.

"All of these policies have either killed innocents, given the right to murder to the state, destroyed perpetrators of victimless crimes and costs America a lot more than a "bleeding-heart" stance would do. What type of libertarian are you?"

Window-dressing. What you haven't proven with the WAD, DP, and the Insanity Plea, you haven't even addressed for the 3 Strikes policy. I'm also pretty sure you mean drugs when you say "victimless crime." You've obviously never hung out in Hollywood or South Central LA.

As for what kind of Libertarian I am: I'm a practical one.

"As if your neighbourhood is the only front of the crusade on drugs. I wonder what is going to protect your siblings from all the crimes caused by alcohol consumption."

That's the way Xel! Change the subject! While you're at it, why don't you take about potheads who drive while they're high.

My living space may not have been the only front of the WAD, but the point is that it did save lives. Saying that couldn't save more is ignorant.

"The tax cuts have failed, privatization of Soc Sec will fail and the amount of people under the poverty level have risen since Bush took over. This is sad."

On the contrary, the tax cuts have been bringing in a cumulatively largeer amount of money each year. It's more than eaten away at the deficit caused by Clinton's reign (the man who turned me away from the left forever after 8 years of idleness and stupidity) and 9/11. The only reason Clinton was able to achieve a surplus towards the end of his terms was because the GOP pressured him to enact taxcuts in 97. Then, after he spent as much as he could on social programs, the debt immediately went up hill just as Bush took office. To add insult to injury, 9/11 happened:

Historically, the United States government has tended to spend more than it takes in, with national debt that was close to $1,000,000,000 at the beginning of the 20th century. The budget for most of the 20th century followed a pattern of deficits during wartime and economic crises, and surpluses during periods of peacetime economic expansion. This pattern broke from fiscal years 1970 to 1997; although the country was nominally at peace during most of this time, the federal budget deficit accelerated, topping out (in absolute terms) at $290 billion for 1992. In 1998 - 2001, however, gross revenues exceeded expenditures. Subsequently the budget has returned to a deficit basis; the estimated U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2004 was $412.6 billion.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_surplus](From Wikipedia)[/url]

Bush, quite frankly, didn't have a chance to spend anything. He was doing a lot of interesting, but small things, in attempt to help the economy.

Cutting taxes often leads to [url=http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=48]more[/url], not less, revenue for the government.

Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s. Aside from Reagan's first year of Reaganomics, which caused the economy to move very slowly, the last three years of his first term had the economy moving faster than it had in 30 years.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 25%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period).

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

Furthermore, there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes.

Finally: Poverty rates are the same as they ever were. Job rates, on the other hand, have been sky-rocketing lately.

Taxcuts work. Deal with it.

"Oh holy shit. Are you real or am I having a nightmare?"

That's not a response. Your snarkiness wins you no points. It doesn't even win you an internet.

"No, which is the entire point here."

So you understand that all of the general understanding about whether or not the female risks pregnancy is empirically on her observations and not the male who can't ovulate?

"The issue is that we just don't respect you. I know for a fact that adopted children fare just as well as any other kid. You are the exception that affirms the rule."

More snarkiness, but no substance.

"Abortion helps society."

I gotta give this a shot........Fale!

DAMMIT!

"You inferred what you wanted to hear you undeveloped shitcrust."

No. Anonymous clearly differentiates the right to kill based on the origin of what or who you're killing.

>>155 "This means what exactly? Are you gonna play the bias card now because I was adopted?" I'm implying that you are mentally ill and/or too emotionally involved in this discussion. I think that the fact that adopted kids fair as good as others is a point against abortion, but it's not strong enough.
"Thank you for that non-sequitur. Now what does your outburst have to do with the fact that women have the most reason to be careful and check themselves because they "give fucking birth"?" Both have equal responsibility because both provide half the material for the foetus. Also, if men can't provide condoms then everything else is moot. I guess that if women keep schedules it would also be great but since simplicity is so holy here I guess condoms is the best solution. Then you can say that women are dumb/drunk/irresponsible if they let a non-clad cock say hello to the cervix but then I can say that men shouldn't do that anyway if they had some moral fiber.
"The guy shoudl ask the girl if she has any great risk of getting pregnant before they have intercourse. In which case, the girl needs to be the one to know since it's in here body that all the chemical reactions prelude." I wonder how many dudes would ask that and refuse to hop in if the girl was not completely sure. You can't have kids without jizz (at least for now. But pretty soon we'll be able to make babies out of the gentic material of two eggs and then all the christians will be puking with horror)
"The war on drugs has more to do with sanctions than with punishment. Law enforcement was given more freedom to bust dealelrs and cartels. More time served for narcotics is just icing." It has also allowed them to go berserk on personal freedom, security, the right to fair scrutiny of the law, the sanctity of the American homes and property (what kind of libertarian approve of government forfeiture of property of people who has committed victimless crimes)raised penalties on crimes without victims (get stopped with Mary in Oklahoma and you get a longer sentence than for manslaughter), damaged the constitutional rights of people (in many states getting caught with minuscule amounts of dope strips you of more rights than the average rapist), has been used to damage the voting rights of minorities especially (oh no of course a black man getting caught with drugs has the same chance of prosecution and gets the same sentence as a white one, no really). You are further from libertarianism then the French.
"SOoooooooo.....You're saying that every single individual that fries in the chair or gets put under the needle is going to be innocent?" More strawmen. Did your lazy mother happen to be a relative of Ayn Rand? I'm simply saying that killing people when it only raises crime and has been proven to be the end results of very poor investigations and jurisprudence is symptomatic of the same vindictive, vengeful, selfish and lazy mentality you are so perfectly demonstrating.
"I don't like innocents being executed anymore than you do, but chinks in the system are bound to happen, and because said system strives for perfection, even though it never will be, we have no choice but to tolerate the injustice that slips through it. That's why we reinforce the law as opposed to destroying one of its cornerstones (as you are suggesting)." Well, one in a hundred is acceptable, but when a society can't provide adequate evaluations of cases, when college kids can, it has not deserved the privilege of killing people. Plus, racial profiling is damning when the end result could be death. There will be no perfection of the system until the people operating in it becomes better people. There are no examples of such improvement being made, especially in DP states.
"There's no strawman here. The logical conlusions of your assertion is to tolerate the imbalanced and almost certifiably incurable nature of psychopaths. There are select few rare occasions where sociopaths were actually able to grund themselves with ethics (although they have to struggle every day), but generally they're all dangerous." Where is you certificate that pro-choicers are psychopaths or that they share the same characterisitcs in their argumentation? We don't threaten abortionists, nor do we try to blow up the 'family first' organisations that try to destroy the effects of enlightenment.
"Furthermore, last I checked it was your side of the argument that was making points for disposing of non-utilitarian sentients (see also: 'Abortion is better for society because the kids will only end up criminals anyway' argument"). What I find funny is that you're willing to dispose of them when they're not contradicting your self-righteous diatribe about rights to live and choose. However, now that they're not controversial lumps of flesh who's existence could diffuse your way of thinking, they're useful to you as mascots against the DP." The approval of abortions are not based on utilitarian principles from my position (not that I doubt that the right to abortions help civilization). Plus, my position against DP is that american jurisprudence is composed of adults and proffesionals that should be prepared to make it very certain that the individual that may be killed is very very guilty. Unfortunately they either lack the resources or the moral fiber to do this, and until American society is capable of making its jurisprudence adequate the right to impose death should be taken from them. Until a society acknowledges the causes of unwanted pregnancies and aims its anger at them then they do not have the moral ground to ban the removal of unwanted pregnancies.
"Oh my god, you are fucking cracked." It is cheaper, since treatment limits the probability of relapses in criminals. I'll retract on the "better" claim for now.
"Window-dressing. What you haven't proven with the WAD, DP, and the Insanity Plea, you haven't even addressed for the 3 Strikes policy. I'm also pretty sure you mean drugs when you say "victimless crime." You've obviously never hung out in Hollywood or South Central LA." I'm simply saying that policies that ignore the actual, cultural and socio-economic causes of a problem and sometimes worsen them will either make things worse or do nothing at all. The reason gang wars exist is because the only people providing drugs are those that lack the moral fiber to breach the law, when these laws are not moral in themselves. It is a clause that works on guns and it works here.
"As for what kind of Libertarian I am: I'm a practical one." The main reason I'm pro-choice is that I take a far more pragmatic, utilitarian stance than you do.
"That's the way Xel! Change the subject! While you're at it, why don't you take about potheads who drive while they're high." I think DYI should be punished harshly, and that if you illegalize a drug then you should illegalize alcohol too, which is addictive, lowers self-consciousness and acts as a barbiturate. You can't have one without the other if you say you are a civilization.
"My living space may not have been the only front of the WAD, but the point is that it did save lives. Saying that couldn't save more is ignorant." The only reason drug trade spawns deaths is that competition is so lucrative and people who want drugs can only turn to people already entrenched in crime. The fact that these drug-dealers got put in jail isn't going to help when all the causes of their being able to make business still exist.
As for the tax cuts, I am temporarily stumped. You win for now. Take a bow for links and such. I don't liek Clinton either, the last three presidents have been the worst since Carter and Nixon.
Regarding me having no substance in my attacks against you I wasn't really making claims of substance.
Anonymous was making a strawman when he suggested that we pro-lifers approve of murder of born children. As soon as the foetus has achieved a unique consciousness he is his own and the fact that his body and brain is built by the blueprint provided by his parents does not necessarily allow them to kill him. It's consciousness, albeit minimal, is now an actuality rather than a potentiality. Now we look to the root causes of pregnancies, which you have failed to do.

I see alot of men that think that women should take responsibilty for theit actions and that abortion should be banned. The weird thing is that theres NO laws that forces men to take ANY form of responsibilty towards their kids. But responsibilty is a violation against male human rights, right? As long as you lazy fucks can't even take responsibilty for your selves, you have no right to tell other to to take responsibilty. YOU are the reason i think abortion should be every woman's right.

>>153
Hit enter/return once between their comment, and yours, or else I'm not even gonna bother reading this shit.  That is just too damn confusing.  Saying your writing lacks clarity would be a fucking understatement.  I get a headache just LOOKING at that fucking mess.

"It's them man's responsibility and obligation to be a decent intruder."

Men are not "intruders".  To intrude would be to enter forcefully, without consent, which is not being done. 

The definition of "intruder" is: 

"To put or force in inappropriately, especially without invitation, fitness, or permission"

To rape her would be an intrusion.  In this case, your point may be valid.  However, in the case of your average consensual sexual encounter, both invitation and permission have been given, it is not "innapropriate," and lastly, it was not forced in against the woman's will. 

Clearly, the man is not intruding, unless he is raping her.  Thus, in all other sexual encounters, the man is there only by the woman's consent, permission, and possibly invitation.  It is clearly up to the woman to take care of her own body.

>>158 Okay, semantically poor choice of words. Then again, since half a kid belongs to the fellow, and the foetus is taking the woman's nutrients not to mention coming out of her (80 % chance of tearing, weight gain, emotional upheaval), I still think that abortions are something civilization will have to settle with until it learns a few lessons. But, hey, my conception was unintended, it's just *I* wouldn't have been killed per se if my parents wouldn't have wanted me. I am a completely random landscape of intendations, traumas, memories and satan knows what else. Without these I have no unique personality, no sense of 'self' (the main reason babies touch stuff is to see what is 'me' and what is not) and no uniqueness at all. Then again, considering babies do move inside the womb if they are feeling uncomfortable, and that I did find silent shout quite a moodkiller (the infamous video, not the unbeatable techno album by The Knife) I do think there should be some kind of punishment for women who didn't care to investigate whether they were pregnant until their foetuses had nerves and what could be called consciousness.

>>157
"I see alot of men that think that women should take responsibilty for theit actions and that abortion should be banned. The weird thing is that theres NO laws that forces men to take ANY form of responsibilty towards their kids."

Yes there are.  It's called child support laws.  Not that I'm saying they should be there, as it's the woman's body, and it's her responsibility to take care of it. 

In having sex, the woman is taking an action.  In this case, that action is giving permission.  Thus, she is inviting the consequences, and should have to bear them.  Her body parts have the qualities necessary to produce children when this action has been taken, and sex had by both parties, not the man's. 

In taking this action, the woman invites the consequence of having children, or becoming pregnant, unless she is using some form of birth control to control the functions of her body. 

It is the woman's problem, not the man's.  It is her body, not his, and she should deal with it, not him. 


"As long as you lazy fucks can't even take responsibilty for your selves, you have no right to tell other to to take responsibilty."

How are males not taking responsibility for themselves?

"YOU are the reason i think abortion should be every woman's right."

So, because of a few people, whom you seem to think are being irresponsible, you think that destroying developing human beings  that they (the women) are responsible for creating should be every woman's right?

hahahah

So it has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is a sentient developing human being that can feel pain or not, right? As long as us "lazy fucks" that are "irresponsible" exist, it should be her 'right' to destroy that developing being, that she clearly is responsible for creating?

Look, if I eat some food, my body will digest it, and produce shit and urine.  If I voluntarilly consume some food, and produce shit and urine, whose responsibility is it to take care of it? The company that sold me the food?

MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY, SCREAM THE FEMINISTS! Both the company that sold me the food to eat, and myself should be held responsible for the creation, handling, and disposal of my waste products!