Abortion problem solved.

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

>>79 An interesting factor.

>>80
"If dependance was the issue killing hobos would be justified, but we don't do that because we drew the line at foetuses."

We shouldn't have drawn the line where you say though.

"So much for the disrespect of life angle, the freedom to have abortions didn't make people think "well this dude isn't helping society so let's kill him as well"."

We haven't had legal abortions for too long.  Wait a couple centuries. 

Anyways, the spreading disrespect for life is very evident in you.  Lets see...: 

"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."

"I actually consider the accumulated oppression of all the world's women to be a greater shame of humanity than the 50 million or so lumps of meat that has a mere sliver of conscience. Once again, suck them out, experiment on their tissue and use the remainders for crop irrigation, special effects in Hellraiser 9 and objet d'arts. I ACTUALLY WILL NOT CARE."

"I stand for the liquifying and rejection of defenseless humans. So sic that cognitively challenged evangelical of yours at me."

“Continue making smoothies out of them. My gut will not twitch.”

There's a lot more, but I don't feel like going and digging them up. 

"We shouldn't have drawn the line where you say though." I just blunted one of your points, but hey, ignore that.
"We haven't had legal abortions for too long.  Wait a couple centuries." How about guns? If people are allowed to have guns what liberties will they demand next? And if we allow gays to become actual citizens they will be encouraged to enforce bestiality and pedophilia upon us all! And potsmokers turn to cocaine after a while! Wait a pikosecond - All of those positions have been proven to be donkey/elephant-crap.

""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."
"I actually consider the accumulated oppression of all the world's women to be a greater shame of humanity than the 50 million or so lumps of meat that has a mere sliver of conscience. Once again, suck them out, experiment on their tissue and use the remainders for crop irrigation, special effects in Hellraiser 9 and objet d'arts. I ACTUALLY WILL NOT CARE."
"I stand for the liquifying and rejection of defenseless humans. So sic that cognitively challenged evangelical of yours at me."
“Continue making smoothies out of them. My gut will not twitch.”

Unlike you I am not afraid to admit the factual implications of what I stand for and am also ready to accept the esthetical results of my stance. You've operated in a non-societal, selfish and two-dimensional philosophy throughout the entire discussion, and the only reason I phrased myself so controversially is to upset people like you. I find this less and less challenging, but I should thank you for taking the knee-jerk out of me; once you've seen the depths of misoginy it is easier to take a balanced view on the surfaces of it.
What age are you, BTW? My name is Axel and I am 17. I've always found it easier to discuss things once I've introduced myself to my 'adversary'

>>83
I'm a 16yr old american. 

I pretty much agree with the libertarian party on everything but abortion.

>>84 Unfortunately this is what most protestants are doing with the bible - using the parts of the foundation that they like. You just can't cut and paste principles.

>>85

Seriously. If you don't like it. Leave. America is built differently than other countries. Sex laws like anti-abortion would trample on the very foundation of this country's ideals. And if you say one more time: "My ideals were what this country was build on." - I'm going to ask you to clairify those ideals- because what America was build upon/what it is supposed to be and what America has become are two different things entirely.

All I want is proof that abortion "will destroy the stability of society". If you don't have that, you can pretty much fuck off because your entire argument is a pile of shit.

>>85
Says the 'libertarian' social security & welfare advocate? LOL

>>85
I think abortion should be illegal if the being is sentient, and furthermore, whether the libertarian party agrees with me on that or not, I could care less. 

By their own principles, it should be.  If the fetus becomes sentient and can feel pain, it becomes a separate individual in my book. 

The government exists to protect individuals from other individuals.  The constitution exists to protect individuals from the government.

Whether or not the libertarian party happens to be pro-choice or not doesn't mean shit to me.  I'm an individual, and I don't need other people to think for me.  If the fetus is sentient and can feel pain, the government should be there to protect it. 

>>86
The stability of society isn't what is in question. 

"Therefore, everything (in spite of the fact that she can't reproduce on her own) that she does is wrong and sexual legislation should work only to control her and her slutty ways."

Where exactly have I said that we should control the mating habits of people? Please point out where I said anything of the sort.

The most I've said regarding women having sex, or their "sluty ways" as you like to call it, is that I wanted them to be more careful and not consider abortion as a means of birth-control, but rather they should actually make sure they won't have the child before they decide to have sex. Whether that means insuring the guy wear a condom or taking a pill or wearing a diaphram, it doesn't matter--They should be sure.

"The woman knows about as much as the man."

Really?

.....So......The guy knows when the woman is ovulating?

"Like I said. You're a zealot. No amount of proof will ever seem reasonable to you because you can not be reasoned with."

And you keep this view, yet....You continue arguing with me--A "zealot". It's because you know that "zealotry" isn't the problem here. The real reason you keep typing is because I'm diffusing your typecast insanity.

"Fail. All you have to do is prove to me that abortion directly effects the stability of society."

As I said previously: It destroys our principles as a society. It's basically your claim that the state shouldn't be allowed to control peoples' lives except, in this case, the state isn't giving people the right to legally kill others.

"I don't even really care about over-population, I care about liberty and human lives not being owned by the state (unborn or not)."

Precisely. Babies' lives shouldn't be owned by the state.

"The problem with your argument is that over-population has been in-fact proven to be the downfall of many dead cultures and societies. And it doesn't take a Hitler or a Hussein to figure this out. It does however, take a team of scientist using observation and empirical evidence."

Uh huh. Where? Show me exactly where there was a situation that over-population killed a society. Furthermore, please tell me how it couldn't have been avoided by actually working for a living.

"But you don't care about silly things like that, do you?"

Yes, I'm sure you think you're the only one who's ever heard of the term "empirical evidence," but you're wrong as usual. What I find most here though is the fact that you coin the phrase and yet offer none at the same time.

"Exactly my point. Just because the idea that "abortion = murder" exists doesn't mean it will be legislated by every culture."

Your absolutely right. That's why we have cultures like China...

But this is all getting off tangent: You were trying to rationalize abortion by saying the idea's been around as long as birth. Your logical fallacies are astoundingly imputent.

"Especially this one in America where we care about liberty, freedom and choice."

We also have something called "freedom of life." That's inalienable(sp).

It's really comforting to know that you'd give someone to the right to "choose" to kill someone else.

Nobody owns the baby, but it can't take care of itself! Surely "ownership" in this context is purely legal in nature. Parents must have power over the baby or else they couldn't raise it. If that is not ownership I don't know what is.

As to whether they have the right to abort, well, there's no simple solution it seems. I would say no, but to be honest I can't think of a single, logically watertight argument. 

How come nobody mentioned that birth control devices/drugs are not guaranteed and proper usage may still result in unwanted pregnancies? It's not like people don't know this... or perhaps they really are dumb.

".....So......The guy knows when the woman is ovulating?"

That's my point. It's his responsibility to know that, if he doesn't want a child. Go ahead and keep pressing this point, buddy. You're digging your thesis deeper and deeper into it's own grave. 

"The real reason you keep typing is because I'm diffusing your typecast insanity."

Keep reaching for that rainbow.

As I said previously: It destroys our principles as a society. It's basically your claim that the state shouldn't be allowed to control peoples' lives except, in this case, the state isn't giving people the right to legally kill others.

Prove that the destruction of what you percieve to be "the principles of our society" will undo society. Prove to me that (and how) illegalizing abortion is going to improve society.

Precisely. Babies' lives shouldn't be owned by the state.

"I care about liberty and human lives not being owned by the state (unborn or not)."

Show me exactly where there was a situation that over-population killed a society. Furthermore, please tell me how it couldn't have been avoided by actually working for a living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island

"The civilization of Easter Island was long believed to have degenerated drastically during the 100 years before the arrival of the Dutch, as a result of overpopulation, deforestation and exploitation of an extremely isolated island with limited natural resources."

It's really comforting to know that you'd give someone to the right to "choose" to kill someone else.

Abortion isn't murder. Everytime you come at someone pro-choice screaming "murderer", you make yourself seem more irrational. The fetus isn't sentient until the third trimester, thusly there are no "post 3rd trimester" abortions. Problem solved. Sleep well.

"If dependance was the issue killing hobos would be justified, but we don't do that because we drew the line at foetuses."

The line was drawn at sentience, but for some reason you harbour the irrational belief that not all humans with brain activity are sentient.

"Also, if a mother has waited that long to squish the little lump then she should give birth to it."

Is the "lump" sentient or not? Why did you refer to a baby as a "lump"? If you have some huge problem with babies and 6-8 month old fetuses (can survive outside the womb) being treated as human tell us and save us the trouble of guessing why. If it is because it has brain activity, but no or few memories, surely the same could be said of any baby, or someone sufferring from brain damage, will you admit you believe it is ok to kill them? Do you know enough about the workings of sentience to prove your assertions? It is obvious that if there is no brain activity in a human the human is dead, this is the most accurate definition for whether something is sentient or not.

"A majority of abortions occur shortly after the woman discovers that she is late"

The pregnancy bump is obviously visible after 28 weeks, by this time the person must know that they are pregnant. Do you think that abortion should be banned if the fetus can survive outside the womb?

"so too bad that I won't teach my hypothetical daugher to pee on a piece of plastic after every sexual encounter"

You are willing to miseducate your daughter to increase the likelyhood of her experiencing teenage pregnancy to prove a political point to some random person across the internet?

P.S. I'm not a christian fundamentalist christian so you can't avoid this argument using the extremist tactic of claiming all your critics are the opposite extreme. In my view extremists such as yourself and christian fundamentalists are 2 cheeks of the same ass, if you feel differently seperate this issue from your answer to my other points. My political opinion is largely utilitarian-libertarian if you want to know.

child comes out of the vagina = sentient
child has not come out of the vagina =  not sentient

If you asked me, anything that hasn't been given birth to is liable to be destroyed accordingly without repercussions!

>>87 I reliaze that doesn't work. I believe in a molding of American society and economy until everybody can get jobs and meritocratic values reign. Until then, soc sec and welfare are unfortunately justified in a moral sense, but not philosophically.
>>86 Why exactly are you telling me this?
>>89 It's basically the only issue there is here.
>>93 Good refuting.
>>94 "Do you think that abortion should be banned if the fetus can survive outside the womb?" No I don't, but I would accept such a law to avoid hypocrisy. Also, you are on the opposite side of the spectrum, regarding this issue. Your syntax is also also a bit off off.
>>95 Stop giving the "utilitarian-libertarian" more ammo.

>>96
""Do you think that abortion should be banned if the fetus can survive outside the womb?" No I don't, but I would accept such a law to avoid hypocrisy. Also, you are on the opposite side of the spectrum, regarding this issue. Your syntax is also also a bit off off."

I'll assume you refuse to answer the rest of the very simple questions in my post and that you are an extremist. It's final then. You would kill a baby that can survive outside the womb because it hasn't left the vagina yet. Thanks for at least having the balls to clarify that.

"but I would accept such a law to avoid hypocrisy."

I'd prefer it if you would acknowledge or contend the merits of my argument in a rational manner. The argument that since it is not for certain and just a safe bet to assume a fetus is sentient at 20 weeks, it might be worth raising the limit to 24 weeks so that women who did not know they were pregnant can get an abortion when they realise they are pregnant has been brought up. Though I would expect the woman to know they were pregnant when they stopped having periods..

"Stop giving the "utilitarian-libertarian" more ammo."
Lol? Ammo to do what, prove you have no care for sentient life when it suits you to destroy it? Your bigotry does that alone. This thread is now just another thread about the causes of evil and extremism with you as a test subject.

"I'll assume you refuse to answer the rest of the very simple questions in my post and that you are an extremist. It's final then. You would kill a baby that can survive outside the womb because it hasn't left the vagina yet. Thanks for at least having the balls to clarify that." I have either answered those questions already or I just couldn't spend so much time on it. I am not trying to fisk myself to a pinnacle of immovable conviction here, nor am I defending myself in front of a tribunal. I have already said I can not decide whether sentience is the throwing issue or what level of sentience puts a stop on abortion. I am simply saying that unless a society cleans up its act it has no right and nothing to gain from a ban. I think the limitations on abortion suffice, considering how morally disgusting the alternative is.
"Though I would expect the woman to know they were pregnant when they stopped having periods.." A lot of women are doing their best to prevent abortions, but pills wreak havoc on their hormonal and emotional balance, so I think it is fair that men carry latex all the time.
"Lol? Ammo to do what, prove you have no care for sentient life when it suits you to destroy it?" Once again, we need to set a very scientifical and bipartisan limit here. Saying that the issue relies on the physical position of being outside/inside is not scientifical or sufficient, and saying that any chance of sentience means that the mother is screwed is also stupid. I am ready to flex in order to create a long-lasting, effective and decent set of regulations regarding this. The only reason I speak in such esthetical extremes is to demonstrate I am not knee-jerking, that you are archaic and dense and to prod you into more paroxysms of ethical indignation (the only way a debate with a pro-lifer can cause amusement).
"This thread is now just another thread about the causes of evil and extremism with you as a test subject." There comes the e-bombs, the last refuge of all fundamentalists whether they are religious or not. The only reason I speak in such upseeting terms about babies is because I am not afraid of what my stance entails. Plus I want to make people like you angry; there is no way in heaven my words are going to change you for the better, I might as well hurt you. Being pro-abortion means that foetuses get turned into soup and I have to stand for that. You avoid all moral implications of your stance, argumenting completely without subjection to causation, civilization's responsibility and gender differences.

[b]That's my point. It's his responsibility to know that, if he doesn't want a child. Go ahead and keep pressing this point, buddy. You're digging your thesis deeper and deeper into it's own grave.[b]

No. You see, the reason we have all of these abortions is because of people who don't make sure of their own security (or just can't stop having sex--Either works). Suppose a guy did ask if the girl was running too high a risk of getting pregnant before intercourse (as oppose to you assuming that they never ask) and she says no, but they end up getting pregnant anyway, are you still going to put the bulk of the blame on the male when the female is in the best position to know what's going on with her own body? Of course you will...

Prove that the destruction of what you percieve to be "the principles of our society" will undo society. Prove to me that (and how) illegalizing abortion is going to improve society.

It's very simple: Read a history book.

Before Iraq was dictatorial, it was a republic. When Saddam Hussein was eventually elevated from his position as Secretary General to house chairman, he was given the ability and authority to allow things to slip. Eventually, without a majority exercise of republican philosophy, which was of course tweaked for the sake of representing of every faction in social conflict of the time, the true principles of what the government first enacted broke down, and power was slowly sliding more and more into Hussein's direction. The citizens didn't pressure the Iraqi government to stick to its system and, as a result, they suffered a dictatorship that costed thousands of lives. If the repubic of Iraq had stayed intact, Hussein would have never gotten the country all to himself.

The same story is pretty much played out with Lenin, who gave Stalin his inheritance.

I care about liberty and human lives not being owned by the state (unborn or not).

Okay, you just repeated what you already said. I guess I'll just respond in kind!

"Precisely. Babies' lives shouldn't be owned by the state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island

You're kidding me right? What happened to Easter Island is just as nebulously defined as what happened at Roanoke...Or perhaps Rome would be a better example; everyone seems to want to blame its downfall on one particular source when there were many destructive variables involved. Hell! On that same page you linked me to, it was revealed that overpopulation wasn't the problem since an expedition led there found that their island was very fertile. i.e. the famine was a footnote. And if you're also referring to wars fought on it, than you're presenting yet another fallacious argument. Wars are not caused by overpopulation, but rather by conflict.

Finally, even if I were to advocate the belief that the island was dreadfully crowded, I don't see how their options to continue living as a society were used up. What you've spelled out for me is that a bunch of people who didn't want to deal with eachother anymore and had a rough patch of weather decided to go fight amongst themselves. That doesn't mean the situation was hopeless.

[quote]The fetus isn't sentient until the third trimester,[/quote]

And yet again, the word "sentient" is thrown around like so much toilet-paper when you can't even seem to stand the definition.

The fetus has active cells and nerves just as a post trimester baby does and both sets of tissue react to certain stimulation. If you're going to play the "consciousness" card, then you're not going to get very far since a post 9 month baby barely has any to speak of except that of his or her most basic receptors.

thusly there are no "post 3rd trimester" abortions. Problem solved. Sleep well.

Actually there are. But since you already consider that wrong, we won't get into that.

>>98 I searched and within minutes I found URL's that lambasted Bush's fiscal policy to a large extent. I think your sources were of real quality but at the moment I can't really decide.
>>99 Um, Bush created a shadow government, treats the constitution and the bill of rights like toilet paper and has completed a war tribunal that allows him to throw American citizens in custody and throw away the key at the drop of a hat. The last presidents have been boiling frogs, and you are worrying that abortions (that have been around for a while) are the real problem? I don't think current abortion legislation is perfect but get some priorities.

From now on all abortion discussions go on in this thread because the other thread has turned into a stagnated conservative vs liberal ego masturbation thread. Continue posting there if you are interested in that kind of thing, if you want to discuss the facts post here.

>>98
I understand that you write about 15 paragraphs a day on this abortion issue, but you don't have to answer those questions if you wish to admit you enjoy the comfort of believing in whatever you want to believe.

""Though I would expect the woman to know they were pregnant when they stopped having periods.." A lot of women are doing their best to prevent abortions, but pills wreak havoc on their hormonal and emotional balance, so I think it is fair that men carry latex all the time."

I agree. I should remind you that because you have made one correct point it does not mean other points I have made which may be completely unrelated are wrong. If for instance I said 37+16 = 43 and 1+1=2 and you pointed out that 37+16 = 53, it does not mean 1+1=/=2. I believe everyone makes mistakes and that when mistakes crop up the worst thing you can do is not realise you have made a mistake, an idea you should pick up.

My argument is very simple, don't kill anything that is sentient. From what science can tell us sentience first becomes probable when the brain of a fetus becomes active which is at a minimum of 20 weeks. If you have an argument as to why this should be increased or you views of the intricacies of this argument I want to hear it. I'll be nice and give you a kick-start. Because the brain of a 20 week old fetus is much smaller than a baby's brain, it is worth waiting for a week after the pregnancy becomes obvious to the mother, so that she has a chance to abort if she was unaware of being pregnant before-hand.

I do not care whether you think I am a fundamentalist christian or some kind of fundamentalist closet-christian or how much bigotry you can fit into one sentence when discussing fetus' and babies as this does not relate to the discussion or invalidate any of my arguments. Only a logical counter-proof will invalidate my arguments. My ethics system is utilitarian in nature, it revolves around sentient beings and the good and evil they commit and experience. My ethics gives me reason to oppose the sufferring a sentient being is experiencing, or will experience, that I can do something to stop. You have no rational argument against my use of the concept of "evil". Killing a fetus that can survive outside the womb is as evil as killing a baby.

"Plus I want to make people like you angry; there is no way in heaven my words are going to change you for the better, I might as well hurt you. Being pro-abortion means that foetuses get turned into soup and I have to stand for that. You avoid all moral implications of your stance, argumenting completely without subjection to causation, civilization's responsibility and gender differences."
Anger does strange things to the mind. You are angry enough to by-pass logic in your desperation to alleviate your frustration. As long as wonderful people like me keep on reminding you how wrong you are, eventually you will learn that you are better off siding with the truth instead of with the extremists. I am not angry with you, I am aware that there a billions of people like you in the world, to be angry at you would be like getting angry that I will eventually die.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/027a.php
Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.

Laird Wilcox must be a fundamentalist then, he used the word "evil". I guess anyone who disagrees with you must be a fundamentalist. Oh and before you claim it is extreme of me to claim you are an extremist, don't whine about it, prove me wrong by no longer getting angry during rational debate.

I will continue to ask rational simple questions and produce clear cut arguments, it is up to you whether you start being rational or trip over yourself in an attempt to dismiss legitimate questions and deny reality.

>>101 I don't think there is anything wrong with being an extremist. I do believe all claims made regarding reality without reference to facts or sources are unnecessary, so we are both a bit guilty. I am not at all impressed with your sitting down in a lotus position and suddenly saying that you are not angry with me, as if I can be forgiven for my alleged slight of logic or sense. My attacks on you were not to the improvement of my position or my arguments, but they are very reflective of my distaste for anti-feminists and people without sociological considerations. It has been done before, and while I appreciate the change of tone, don't try to elevate yourself with it. Regarding your analogy with the calculations you have a point, but do not forget that we both have chipped away at our arguments at the loss of our credibility. Lastly, I think the real issue would be sentience, or the level of survivability outside the womb. Then again, I think the real problem are the causes leading up to the unwanted pregnancy, and that banning abortions now without any real planning or way forward is to trample on the citizens. It is the equivalent of putting all responsibility and criticizm on a vase which have been molded by an imperfect hand,  like killing of murderers simply in order to take revenge. I am not really claiming that you are a christian, I am pointing out that trying to improve society via a ban on abortion is akin to removing uncomfortable humans through capital punishment, a result of the vindictive perversion of protestantism that reign among the DP supporters and pro-lifers.
Regarding my alleged conviction that you are evil, I am very reluctant to use that word at all. No one does things that she thinks is completely evil, so that word is completely redundant to me. You used it. http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/abortion.html   
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/080206WA.shtml    
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/073106WA.shtml
I'll end with these, and now wish this thread dead. Some other poor soul can pick this up if he/she wishes to do so. I got some things I don't regret getting under my belt, had some fun whipping dumb people up a little and understood the logical faults of some of my argumentation. I didn't reach complete philosophical conviction for either stance but has failed to see how the current iteration of abortion is harming/improving society. Now I shall by new linen pants for myself. Salve!

Before Iraq was dictatorial, it was a republic. When Saddam Hussein was eventually elevated from his position as Secretary General to house chairman, he was given the ability and authority to allow things to slip. Eventually, without a majority exercise of republican philosophy, which was of course tweaked for the sake of representing of every faction in social conflict of the time, the true principles of what the government first enacted broke down, and power was slowly sliding more and more into Hussein's direction. The citizens didn't pressure the Iraqi government to stick to its system and, as a result, they suffered a dictatorship that costed thousands of lives. If the repubic of Iraq had stayed intact, Hussein would have never gotten the country all to himself.

No. This is that 'round about' logic you've been trying to use since your first post. The idea of proof isn't actual proof. I want to see proof that abortion has caused the downfall of any society or culture. If you can't show me that and exactly that, then I'm sorry but: You fail. Give me Sparta, give me anything. But don't tell me that over-population has never caused the downfall of a society, because that's entire false.

There are hundreds of civilization which were destroyed by over-population. And the notion of you marginalizing Easter Island (something that's already been proven in the scientific community) shows me that proof and facts are small matters to you indeed. I could've left links to Middle Age European countries and South Amerindian societies that have had problems with over-population as well and the response I would get is "You're kidding me right"? As if you can't believe that I would dare bring empirical evidence into a debate about "the chillens"

Finally, those of you that think you're standing up for a life- need to get a fucking grip and get over yourselves. You aren't doing shit and you haven't done shit. For you, this fight is already lost because America knows that banned abortion outright is a giant leap towards communism that would truly undo the fabric of our liberty-based society.

WHO EVER WINS, WE LOSE

" I am not at all impressed with your sitting down in a lotus position and suddenly saying that you are not angry with me, as if I can be forgiven for my alleged slight of logic or sense."
What does guilt have to do with this debate? The states of mind generated by innocence, victimhood and guilt are used by extremists who often escalate the biases generated to pathological levels. You are guilty of nothing but freedom of speech.s

I get the general idea that you think aborting a baby that can survive outside the womb is wrong and a certain amount of social services is needed to help women learn how to detect and deal with pregnancy before they find themselves 7 months pregnant and wanting an abortion. However I get the mild impression you believe that because the sufferring of a sentient fetus is inconsequential, this justifies abortion. This would be morally akin to enslaving weak and stupid people of no consequence, which supposedly you disagree with.

"The states of mind generated by innocence, victimhood and guilt are used by extremists who often escalate the biases generated to pathological levels." What is it talking about? I was saying that your sudden posing as the taker of the highway was very tame.

The second paragraph is actually what I am after. I don't believe that the suffering is inconsequential or deniable, but the very idea that this suffering (that occurs in the minority of the cases) is sufficient to ban abortions is dumb.

>>106

The second paragraph is actually what I am after. I don't believe that the suffering is inconsequential or deniable, but the very idea that this suffering (that occurs in the minority of the cases) is sufficient to ban abortions is dumb.

Exactly. At this point, it would be like trying to ban all poverty, all war, all strife, all choice (towards whatever is "good" or "evil" <==== Both subjective) as we know it. Xel, is right. You position is dumb and in a way disingenuine because you're not actually addressing everyone's right to life, just hypothetical baby that, in actuality, we can't really protect until the life is indoctrinated into society.

Even so, protection by the government is possession by the government. And an outlaw of abortion would be precisely that, possession of another persons body by the state. This is immoral in a democracy, even if that possession takes place in the name of an innocent life. That's a hard pill to swallow, but you seem to be doing fine with letting poverty and war happen.

"It'll undo society"! , you scream. Yet, you have zero proof that abortion has ever undone society and the lost of principals you speak of, have historically only served to not eliminate that society completely- but instead have served to create an alternative society. There isn't "one society" that you can protect through banning abortion. Only your own. That is why this matter should be left up to the states. If you want abortion outlaw, talk to your governor. The reason you are against this is because your value system needs the validation of millions of others who feel just as strongly as you do, but don't agree with you. Maybe you know that you're a minority in this thought and this scares you to the point where you're willing to circumvent the entire notion of liberty just to see your world view win out.

Plus, further claims that the responsibility is the 100% the woman's has led me to believe that your views on the sexual relationships of men and women, have been perverted by whatever value system that has been instilled into you from an early age. These are the root values of lack of woman's rights and the cause of sexual relationships that result in unwanted pregnancies. The idea that the man isn't responsible, despite providing half of the genetic material for the baby is so fucking laughable that I'm convinced that you've stepped out of the 50's.

""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."

Think about why birth control wasn't used. Ever thought about the lack of availability or the amount of difficulty it is to obtain contraceptives in some places? Some pharmacists deny contraceptives on their personal biases. Ever thought about whether or not people are educated on how to use contraceptives? Probably not. (I believe this abstinence-only education is pure bullshit, it's putting A LOT of people at risk for unwanted pregnancies and STD's/STI's. People are still going to have sex whether or not you tell them how to go about with their bed manners.) Overall, the vast majority of abortions are done by those whom are extremely poor and can't afford contraceptives or are uneducated on how to use them correctly.

"Some people think that banning an outcome, abortion, is a solution. But you really can't ban an outcome. You have to address the issues that lead to that outcome." - quoted for the truth. You have to put prevention first before anything can be done beforehand. Women are still going to have abortions whether or not the procedure is banned or harder to get.


"We have a breakthrough:  the liberals are for destroying sentient life at the whim of some bitch who didn't bother to take birth control pills to prevent the necessity."

Since when is a fetus classified as a sentinent life? By FAR, a fetus is not a sentinent life. The brain of the fetus doesn't develop until the third trimester. Geez. (Abortions in the third trimester are EXTREMELY rare and account for less than 1% of abortions in America. Abortions done in this stage were for health reasons.)

Let me say another thing. A fetus ISN'T a child. To call a seven year old a child a 'fetus' would be one major insult. Random Example: "Shut up you rambuncious fetus!"  Also, a fetus ISN'T a baby. A baby is a newborn that has breathed its first breath of air after being born from its mother with the umbelical cord cut. And, a baby ISN'T a child.

>>107 >>108 F-I-N-A-L-L-Y! It's like I´ve wandered around in a cloud of cluttering dust with only one lung and then, one week, later, been thrown onto the highlands of Scotland on a dewy foggy morning, with fresh clothes, new lungs and a slim chick by my side. A new lease on life. Jeebuz.

>>106
"The second paragraph is actually what I am after."
That was sort of the point of the 1st paragraph. =/

abortion is f***ing wrong you guys what the f*** is wrong with you! the economy is going to crash if abortion is made legal. if there are no unwanted babies that are born, how will the meat packing industries made delicious sausage? we can't just TAKE babies and turn them into delicous sausage, thats what the terrorists do. we cant be like them, they are horible people

This is all bullshit.  We shouldn't pander to criminals and wrongdoers.  If we made abortion illegal, and put hefty punishments on it, nobody would do it out of fear of the consequences, just like not many people murder nowadays because of fear of getting caught and thrown in the slammer.  The law would teach them responsibility, and make them more careful. 

We shouldn't fucking pander to criminals, we should jail them.  Often I have been angry at people, but I never assaulted them or anything because... HELLO, it is the law, and I'd run the risk of getting caught & punished..  There is no problem to address at the root, and we should toughen up on crime.  It works.  It worked on me and others, and fuck, everyone else in society by and large too. 

Why does nobody commit crime? Why is crime so low in Japan? They are fucking TOUGH on crime.  Here we have yet another embarassment revealed by the left:  they wish to pander to criminals instead of punish them. 

>>111 troll

No. This is that 'round about' logic you've been trying to use since your first post. The idea of proof isn't actual proof. I want to see proof that abortion has caused the downfall of any society or culture. If you can't show me that and exactly that, then I'm sorry but: You fail.

"Round about." Heh. You must pluck this stuff from a hat.

There is no absolute proof Anonymous. One who prides himself so much in knowing the definition should understand that. What we have is called "empirical evidence." You have none whatsoever that says lack of population control led to the downfall of societies--Mainly because you can't prove that a society didn't have anymore options left to figure out what to do with their population. In which case, what you'd really be pointing out is the existence of lazy people.

Give me Sparta, give me anything. But don't tell me that over-population has never caused the downfall of a society, because that's entire false.

And your hypocrisy shines forth with more hearsay.

There are hundreds of civilization which were destroyed by over-population. And the notion of you marginalizing Easter Island (something that's already been proven in the scientific community) shows me that proof and facts are small matters to you indeed.

*yawn*

Padding your posts with insults will do you no good. As I pointed out before, you have no "absolute proof."

The very article that you posted for me said, "--was long believed to--" I'm not sure if you realize this, but that's not an absolute.

I could've left links to Middle Age European countries and South Amerindian societies that have had problems with over-population as well and the response I would get is "You're kidding me right"? As if you can't believe that I would dare bring empirical evidence into a debate about "the chillens"

Finally, those of you that think you're standing up for a life- need to get a fucking grip and get over yourselves. You aren't doing shit and you haven't done shit.

More self-righteous banter.

For you, this fight is already lost because America knows that banned abortion outright is a giant leap towards communism that would truly undo the fabric of our liberty-based society.

Actually, the most prominently known communist countries in the are/were advocates of population control. If anything, it's you who's representing Communism.

>>108

If a person who wants to have sex but can't get ahold of birth control, than the solution is simple: Don't have sex.

If you don't want a baby, just jerk off--Or if you're so obsessed with human contact, there's other alternatives routes.

>>103

Your inability to actually address the citation is prevalent of how unable you are to deal with reality

Even so, protection by the government is possession by the government.

It is no such thing. We live in a Federalist Republic, not a Communist state. It is precisely because the constitution contends that the individual, especially one in the US, has certain inalieanable rights that we do not belong to the government. No amount of resorting to Devil's Advocate as a way to fight off the 'living fetus' argument will logically outline that our government actually owns us--Because it most certainly does not.

That's a hard pill to swallow, but you seem to be doing fine with letting poverty and war happen.

Quite the bitter one I see.

"It'll undo society"! , you scream. Yet, you have zero proof that abortion has ever undone society and the lost of principals you speak of, have historically only served to not eliminate that society completely- but instead have served to create an alternative society.

No amount of saying we're an "alternative society" will extinguish the fact that societies can't survive under certain conditions. Even you, a dumbass, should be able to acknowledge that. Current societies today are suffering from selective birth and mass execution (although there both the same, but since I'm talking to an idiot). It doesn't take a genius to realize that an attempt at mass control of the constituence will only bring it closer to destruction...Or are you going to try and argue that close to destruction isn't actual destruction? In any event, you still have numerous society's from the renassaince(sp) that serve as good examples (but you'll probably ignore them.

There isn't "one society" that you can protect through banning abortion. Only your own. That is why this matter should be left up to the states. If you want abortion outlaw, talk to your governor.

A lot of people wanted to "talk" to Stalin. Guess what happened to them.

The reason you are against this is because your value system needs the validation of millions of others who feel just as strongly as you do, but don't agree with you. Maybe you know that you're a minority in this thought and this scares you to the point where you're willing to circumvent the entire notion of liberty just to see your world view win out.

You not only assume to know me and what my "values" are, but you also attempt to be an advocate of liberty after you've demonstrated patently Communist views--Views that have absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the individual and only to do with his or her subserviance to the state. Your a stuffed shirt.

Plus, further claims that the responsibility is the 100% the woman's has led me to believe that your views on the sexual relationships of men and women, have been perverted by whatever value system that has been instilled into you from an early age. These are the root values of lack of woman's rights and the cause of sexual relationships that result in unwanted pregnancies. The idea that the man isn't responsible, despite providing half of the genetic material for the baby is so fucking laughable that I'm convinced that you've stepped out of the 50's.

I've already refutiated all of these repetitive and self-indulgently phrased claims you've written and you haven't responded to them, so I feel no need to further indulge you with another drawn out response to this.

>>107

"Even so, protection by the government is possession by the government."

No it isn't. 

"And an outlaw of abortion would be precisely that, possession of another persons body by the state."

No, it would be protection of a person's body (and thus their life) from harm by other individuals.  This is the proper function of government. 

The proper function of government is to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. 

"This is immoral in a democracy, even if that possession takes place in the name of an innocent life."

Are you saying that laws against murder are immoral?

"Plus further claims that the responsibility is the 100% the woman's has lead me to believe that your views on the sexual relationships of men and women, have been perverted by whatever value system that has been instilled into you from an early age."

It is pretty simple.  The final decisions involved in the process of becoming pregnant, which are necessary to become pregnant, are all the woman's. 

Here is where you chime in:  "but the man is contributing too!", which is true, but the fact is is that the man is doing something to the WOMAN's body, WITH HER CONSENT.

Both are well aware from the start that the consequences of this action, if birth control is not used, will effect the woman, and not the man. 

The woman has the ultimate say in whether birth control is used, and is the only one that has the responsibility to make sure it is used (or a condom or something), because it is quite simply her body that will be effected, and will be producing the fetus.

Since it is HER body, it is clearly not the responsibility of the MAN to care for it, or, more specifically, to provide methods of contraception for her.  It is her body, and thus she must handle the situation, not the man. 

"These are the root values of lack of woman's rights and the cause of sexual relationships that result in unwanted pregnancies."

Firstly, women have equal rights today in the United States. 

Nextly, the cause of unwanted pregnancies is that the woman is not taking responsibility for her own body.  If she was, she would obviously have used some method of contraception before she had sex, and thus would not need an abortion in the first place. 

Abortions are not necessary, especially now that contraceptives are widely availible, and are not prohibitively expensive.  Moreover, the fetus should have the right to continue to develop, and to be born.

"The idea that the man isn't responsible, despite providing half of the genetic material for the baby is so fucking laughable that I'm convinced that you've stepped out of the 50's."

The man is not responsible even though he provided half the genetic material because it is the woman's body, not his.  Since it is the woman's body, it is her responsibility to take care of it, not his.  Thus, it is her responsibility to make sure contraceptives are used to prevent unwanted pregnancies, since if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, it is her, and her body that will be effected, not the man and his. 

>>116 I am no longer part of the debate as of now. It may be a seceding of my principles to let my opposition get W/O but I have already said my part. I am resolved and I hope someone benefited from the debate.

I don't particularly care about the rest of the argument here, but I'd love if someone could please explain the reasoning behind the assertion that "protection by the government is possession by the government"? Just saying it so isn't true.

Bonus points if you can develop a valid argument tree!

>>118
The statement is wrong, but the intentions are honourable. Sometimes malicious governments will create laws which protect citizens from threats (real or perceived) and do not protect the citizens from the government.

no, u