>>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.