Abortion problem solved.

fetus < 20 weeks old is not sentient
fetus > or = 20 weeks old is sentient

Liberals read this.

In cuba they kill anything inside the womb even if it can survive outside, which explains their low 'infant' mortality rates which they love to gloat about so much. Killing something because it has little chance of surviving is hardly a socialist attitude. If you liberals want people to take you seriously stop going around saying "AHAHA IM GOING TO SHOOT BABIES WHEN THEIR HEAD FIRST LEAVES THE VAGINA TO PISS OFF CHRISTIANS".


Conservatives read this.

Forcing a 9 year old rape victim to grow a cluster of cells into a baby she will have to have removed via caesarian section is completely immoral. A cluster of cells is not sentient. People are sick and tired of your unrealistic attitude to the universe, if god made it he clearly made it not to test your faith but to test your intelligence. If you want people to take you seriously, realise that extremism within is the greatest threat to your religion, not criticism from without.

>>2
I'm a conservative, and I agree.  What makes you think pro-life conservatives are so extreme? I think abortion should be legal - under certain specific circumstances.  I'm just against the ability to have one whenever the fuck you want, just because you were too fucking irrresponsible to use condoms, birth control pills, whatever.

>>3
I think the real issue is whether the fetus is sentient or can survive outside the womb... I don't want to hear any more stories of women having abortions and their husbands driving the discarded fetus to another hospital to be revived and put in intensive care.

>>4
Well, don't you think it seems kindof cruel? What if the man views the fetus as his child? Should the woman be able to kill it? Yeah, it's in her body, but in my opinion, by not using birth control, she kindof "agreed" to harbor it until it is born. 

>>5
Only the justice for sentient life is relevant. If the fetus is sentient, aborting it is 1st degree murder, if it is not sentient then there is nothing wrong with it. If the intentions of the parents are criminal, then justice will have to be enforced.

>>6
No, there should be some degree of justice for the man.  I disagree.  Women should also not be allowed to just go aborting babies on a whim.  There should be restrictions on when it can be done... i.e. when she's been raped. 

>>7
I don't get it, I believe my idea is logically flawless and can be applied to any situation and be moral. Give me an exmaple of a situation where my idea is applied and is immoral.

>>8
Because it's not just the woman's child, so it shouldn't be ONLY her decision to kill the developing being.  The being is partly, at least partly, the father's. 

To deny him any say whatever in what you do to a fetus that is there because of him, and has his genes in it, is just cruel.  It is partly his. 

The man does not have to carry the child for nine months and does not have to pass it through any orifice of his body.  Let the woman decide.

>>9
If the fetus is not sentient, then it is part of the woman's body so it is her decision. When the man ejaculated into her sexual organs I would think that was the man's decision to part with his semen and the intellectual property of a random 50% of his genes. I guess they would have to compose a contract before making the exchange.

If the fetus is sentient, then it is no longer either the woman's or the man's decision.

>>11
Yeah? Well when the woman had sex and didn't use a damn condom, it was her decision to have the baby and shut up.

>>12
If it's not sentient it's not a baby. It's as much a part of her body as her ovums and no one complains when women flush their period blood down the toilet.

Unless the women and the man signed a contract beforehand stating that the fetus was the man's property, then it is the woman's property.

OF course if the woman is 8 months through pregnancy and wants an abortion then the father is free to have the authorities force her to complete the pregnancy and if she aborts the 8 month fetus which has achieved sentience then it is 1st degree murder.

>>14
Well it fucking better be. 

Anyways, the point is, she can use birth control, and the need for abortions is thus nonexistant.  Abortion is something that is ethically questionable at best. 

Birth control is the solution, not abortions.  If you are too much of a bitch to use birth control because you just don't feel like it and decide to just abort the baby, well fuck you.

This isn't about what people actually think about abortion. It doesn't make a difference if you think it's murder or that the baby isn't human. This is about liberty, freedom and choice. A woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body. The scenario of: "Father wanting baby, Mother wanting an abortion" doesn't exist. And in the rare instances that it does; it's usually a couple of people who shouldn't be fucking-breeding anyway. Come on you know it's true! The only people who I've seen in those situations are hillbillies and niggers.

The world needs more senisible people, not more hillbillies and niggers. The people who get into situations where they need an abortion shouldn't be passing on their genes, anyway.

Pro choicers: You can't expect the pro-lifers to give up on this. Let them make it illegal in their states. Let them saturate their population with ignorant half-breeds. Meanwhile, you can keep your populations reasonably more intelligent. Than say: North Dakota's.

Pro-lifers: It's extreme to call someone who is "pro-choice" an advocate of murder. They aren't advocating the act, but instead the right to commit the act. You have to understand that under any circumstances, even with a moral obligation- illegalifying abortion would nationalize womens bodies and that's a step toward communism. The state doesn't own human beings, human being own the state. You can't give up someone else's fundamental rights just because "you don't like it" that's childish. And you commit yourself to this aim, while you refuse to offer aid to million upon millions of children who come from fatherless families and commit crimes. Generally, you just use capital punishment. How much do you care about life, really?

Maybe if you gave aid to poor, people would buy into your "culture of life". You don't care about the actual lives of human beings or else you wouldn't send them to war or allow the party that supports this ideal to kill innocent children half way across the world. You are a culture of "unwanted life" (metaphysical life), not actual breathing-living human beings. Stop fooling yourselves.

I say we let each state decide for themselves.

>>16 Win win win. Bumps, secondeds and internets for you. Thread over!

>>16

For clairification: When I said "half-breeds", I wasn't talking about race, but intellect.

>>16
>It's extreme to call someone who is an advocate of murder "pro-choice"

fixed

>>19 My tank is fight.

fixed

>>15
How about this. Rape victims get their abortions paid for by the government who get their money back by fining the rapist, aswell as putting him in a jail cell for 15 years with big schlong bubba etc.. If they can't pay up they must perform forced labour until they have earned enough money.

If the woman became pregant through consentual sex and didn't use contraception she has to pay for the abortion. If the woman did use contraception and it didn't work, she has to pay for the abortion, but is encouraged to bad mouth the contraceptive provider in order to reduce their sales.

If any women is 20 weeks into pregnancy abortion is illegal.

>>16
"It doesn't make a difference if you think it's murder or that the baby isn't human."
So even if the baby can survive outside the womb, it is ok to kill it? I'm not going to assume you think that, I would like your proper opinion on the sitaution. 20 weeks is the lowest possible age of a fetus in which it can rationally be called sentient, do you think it is higher?

Can you make the distinction between a cluster of cells and an active brain in a fetus?

The rest of your post is some crude inhumane version of eugenics. If you want humanity to synthesise natural selection, simply persuade parents to have a mouth swab to determine if they carry any genetic disease and to select test tube embryos which do not carry the disease. This is humane and no parent would decide that their kid should get diabetes, sickle cell or cystic fibrosis.

>>16
If there are national laws against murder, there should be national laws against abortion.  It's basically the same thing.  Maybe sentence the people committing the abortion to half sentence or something, since what they are killing is only really part human. 

"If any women is 20 weeks into pregnancy abortion is illegal."

Common sense legislation.


The point is, is that when a woman gets pregnant, she has essentially entered an 'agreement' to harbor the developing being until it is fully born.  If she didn't want to enter this agreement, the answer is obvious:  use birth control. 

You aren't forcing her to do anything except either: 

1.  don't enter such agreements (use birth control, or abstain... it's not that hard.)

or 2.  enter the said agreement, and fullfill it to the end.

It's simple shit really. 

It's not the same as the state having rights to her body.  When she enters into the agreement to harbor the baby, she should harbor it to the fucking end.  If she doesn't want the baby, she should be more fucking careful.

It's not that god damn hard to use birth control, and it shows a hell of a lot more respect for human dignity than, as Xel put it: 

"kill kill kill chop chop chop vacuum vacuum vacuum silentshout silentshout silentshout dumplings dumplings dumplings."

"Abort more foetuses. As many as women deem neccesary. And then when we've sucked the stem cells out of them, put them in water balloons and throw them at the teary-eyed waste of human components that try to harm the practice. Death death death vacuum vacuum vacuum."

>>22 "The point is, is that when a woman gets pregnant, she has essentially entered an 'agreement' to harbor the developing being until it is fully born.  If she didn't want to enter this agreement, the answer is obvious:  use birth control. " You have taken a snapshot of a situation rather than take into account the reasons why unwanted pregnancies crop up. Also, my disrespect of human dignity I seem to express is an attempt to show how the disgust over abortions is a largely aesthetical, knee-jerk issue. Once death has occured it is just any kind of meat, so let's use that effectively as well. I'm not pro-pain, I think there are more constructive solutions to unwanted pregnancies (adopted kids fare well and cesarians are getting progressively safer) but I consider the decisions of the women to be the philosophical superiors here.

"You have taken a snapshot of a situation rather than take into account the reasons why unwanted pregnancies crop up."

They 'crop up' because there was no birth control used.  It's their fault, and they should have to deal with the consequences. 

"Also, my disrespect of human dignity I seem to express is an attempt to show how the disgust over abortions is a largely aesthetical, knee-jerk issue."

A developing human being being destroyed in the process of becoming a human being, if done needlessly, is a ridiculous show of disrespect for humanity and human life in general. 

"Once death has occured it is just any kind of meat, so let's use that effectively as well."

Hmm, I'll have to think about stem-cell research (assuming this is what you are talking about).  I want to be consistant for sure.  Tough call, and I'll definitely have to learn more about it to make an educated decision.  My initial reaction, however, is to do it, for practicality reasons, and because it will benefit the rest of humanity and science in general so much.  If anything, initially, to let it go to waste would seem worse than to use it for something such as stem cell research.  Again, I'm not set in this decision by any means though. 

"I think there are more constructive solutions to unwanted pregnancies (adopted kids fare well and cesarians are getting progressively safer) but I consider the decisions of the women to be the philosophical superiors here."

I too favor personal freedom.  However, I don't think one should have the personal freedom to murder.  Using "murder" to describe abortion is a bit rough, as the being is not fully human yet. 

Certainly though, it should be punishable to the extent that it is human, and certainly should be strongly discouraged and regulated. 

>>23
Why do women get unwanted pregnancies through consentual sex then? Because the contraceptives didn't work? Because they wanted sex there and then and couldn't be botherred to use contraceptives?

What other part of the issue aren't we looking at here?

Xel's ability to think rationally seems to have turned to smoke and blown away. As a libertarian I won't take your "kill kill kill chop chop chop vacuum vacuum vacuum silentshout silentshout silentshout dumplings dumplings dumplings." crap into consideration when judging your arguments as to do so would make me as much of an extremist as you, all I ask is that you explain what the fuck you are talking about!

Do you believe it should be legal for a mother to abort a 8 month fetus which could survive outside the womb and is as mentally active as a newborn baby?

"Abort more foetuses. As many as women deem neccesary. And then when we've sucked the stem cells out of them, put them in water balloons and throw them at the teary-eyed waste of human components that try to harm the practice. Death death death vacuum vacuum vacuum."

>>21

"Human Beings are not property of the government. Government is the property of Human Beings."

>>22

The point is, is that when a woman gets pregnant, she has essentially entered an 'agreement' to harbor the developing being until it is fully born.  If she didn't want to enter this agreement, the answer is obvious:  use birth control.

Who did she enter this agreement with? God? The President of the United States? You? The answer is "D": None of the above. People should be responsible for themselves and what belongs to them and this hypothetical woman does not belong to you. This child, this fetus, this *whatever* is not your property and should be none of your concern.

You are still skirting the innate hypocracy in illegalizing abortion in the name of life in one breath and championing capital punishment, war, a lack of aid to the impoverished in the name of death. And the idea that any person should modify their private, sexual behavior for your hazy form of morality is so twisted and controlling that the illegalization of abortion actually seems more evil than the actual abortion itself.

>>26
I do not support war, capital punishment or eliminating the possibility for someone to lift themselves out of poverty. Therefore I am not a hypocrite when I say that shooting a baby the moment it's head leaves it's mother's vagina is murder and should be treated as such.

"They 'crop up' because there was no birth control used.  It's their fault, and they should have to deal with the consequences. " This one is getting boring.
"A developing human being being destroyed in the process of becoming a human being, if done needlessly, is a ridiculous show of disrespect for humanity and human life in general." I don't know about that. Plus, the real decision-takers are in the moral clear if you ask me.
"and certainly should be strongly discouraged and regulated." Well, I 'm not going to vote for anyone who considers it viable to spend resources on limiting abortions. If abortions go down, it's an encouraged side-effect. If they go up, it's like "meh" for me.

"Do you believe it should be legal for a mother to abort a 8 month fetus which could survive outside the womb and is as mentally active as a newborn baby?" I can't recall any abortions taking place at this stage. Most abortions occur once the foetus is between the size of a dollar-coin and the size of an A5 paper. I stand for what I say otherwise because I am not afraid of the aesthetical implications of the actions I endorse. These potential humans are tuned into borstjts and I do not care. It's like the step between eating cows and eating dogs, most people refrain because of emotional factors instead of looking at the whole picture.

ALL OF YOU WHO OPPOSE ABORTIONS IN THIS THREAD ...

ARE YOU GOING TO PAY ANYTHING TO TAKE CARE OF THE UNWANTED CHILD?
ASK YOURSELF HONESTLY, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO?

NO?

THEN SHUT UP, YOU DO NOT CARE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CHILD.

>>29
Finally. Couldn't you have made this clear to begin with? Scientifically there is no chance of a fetus being sentient if it is younger than 20 weeks. Do you think 20 weeks should be the limit to be sure or that the limit should be pushed up to when the fetus can survive outside the womb in special cases? The abortion issue is about where you draw the line and must be based entirely on the facts so it's not some gay ass ying yang balance.

>>27

We're not talking about babies taking dome shots post-utero.

We're talking about Abortion.

>>30
"ALL OF YOU WHO OPPOSE ABORTIONS IN THIS THREAD ...

ARE YOU GOING TO PAY ANYTHING TO TAKE CARE OF THE UNWANTED CHILD?"

Maybe the mother should have considered this before acting irresponsibly?  Anyhow, yes, I will. 

Anyway, adoption is more and more becoming a feasible response to abortion.  There is no need to have it.  The woman should be held accountable for her actions.  If she didn't want the child, she should have acted like it and shown some responsibility. 

Using birth control isn't hard. 

"ASK YOURSELF HONESTLY, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO?"

Actually, yes.  I adopt children. 


"THEN SHUT UP, YOU DO NOT CARE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CHILD."

But I do care about the child. 

>>33
>There is no need to have it.  The woman should be held accountable for her actions.  If she didn't want the child, she should have acted like it and shown some responsibility.

You're still missing the point. It's simply not your decision to make.

If abortion was murder, it would be covered by the laws that cover murder today. Get a grip.

>>34
"You're still missing the point. It's simply not your decision to make."

The point is to regulate it.  No, it's not quite as bad as outright murder, but it's not necessary, and shows disrespect for life & humanity in general.  Thus, since it is bad, but not quite as bad as murder, we pro-lifers propose laws to regulate it, and sort out which are necessary, and which aren't.  I agree that some are, though many aren't, and these unnecessary ones should be illegal.  Accountability and personal responsibility should be instituted in this area. 

People should use birth control, not have abortions. 

Of course, in the case of rape, and things like this, exceptions would be made. 

>>34
"You're still missing the point. It's simply not your decision to make."

You are missing the point.  Saying this is like saying outlawing murder isn't our decision to make. 

ABORTION SHOWS LESS DISREPECT FOR LIFE THAN A PERSON WANTING TO BRING LIFE INTO THIS WORLD (THAT ISN'T EVEN THEIRS) BUT NOT WANTING TO PAY FOR IT.

>>35


Why do you keep ignoring >>37??? he's entirely right, if you're not will to provide aid, then why do you want these children alive? I really don't get it. when they become adults or late teens, they're just gonna want to commit crimes and depending on the severity of the crime...you'll want to execute them. if I'm wrong, clarify, but it stands to reason that many pro-filers still willing apply the 'eye for an eye, death for a death method' of prisonment. am i the only one that finds this strange?

>>38
Saying I shouldn't care about the child's life, and pass laws to prevent you from taking it because I am unwilling to care for the child's life is like saying I shouldn't attempt to pass laws preventing you from killing homeless people because I don't wish to take care of them either. 

Bump for logic.

Are any of you people trying to justify the killing of sentient life? Just say so, make things easier.