PDA

View Full Version : Why is Abortion such a huge issue in America?



Harpy
17th May 09, 07:55 PM
As (Global) President Obama takes to the stage at Notre Dame university and the anti-abortionists turn up to scream 'don't kill our children', one wonders why the topic even gets this much airtime in America.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30782728?GT1=43001

Can one of the Yanks tell me if they would vote for a president based strongly on their pro-life or pro-choice stance and why this has any bearing on how a president is going to run the country.

Also why do people feel so vehemently about it that they are willing to make death threats/assassination attempts in the name of their cause?








(Anyone who suggests that I be post-natally aborted needs to die)

Cullion
17th May 09, 08:05 PM
Because the American electorate includes a substantial demographic that basically doesn't really exist in Western Europe, or as far as I can tell, Australia. Politicially organised fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist Christians consider abortion of an unborn foetus (or cluster of embryonic cells) to be murder, and hence consider themselves to be engaged in a desperate battle to protect innocent human lives against a brutally materialistic system of state-sanctioned murder.

To get a handle on how much less secular their culture is, Americans still have serious (and noisily contentious) public debates on whether government funded schools should teach the literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis alongside modern evolutionary theory in highschool biology class. (and we are the ones who still have an official state religion, remember).

I sort of like the way it pisses off squawky, priviledged left-wing feminists off, but obviously I see the need for caution.

It's not like Sydney or London.

This country has the most powerful military the planet has ever seen, so I think it's important they develop a coolly detached view of these issues.

Robot Jesus
17th May 09, 08:08 PM
if you accept that human life begins at conception it's a pritty logical position.

why you would consiter that thing alive before two days after birth however, that is a mystery.

Likewise, women using the "rhythm method" are relying on the endometrial effect...only they do nothing to prevent conception, relying on the time of the month they allow sex to prevent implantation.

WarPhalange
17th May 09, 08:14 PM
why you would consiter that thing alive before two days after birth however, that is a mystery.

What.

Anyway, it's exactly what Cullion said. We still have these kinds of people around:

(Big image)
http://www.thepaincomics.com/Jesus%20vs.%20Jeezus.jpg

And also this:

LACyLTsH4ac

Cullion
17th May 09, 08:15 PM
if you accept that human life begins at conception it's a pritty logical position.

Yes, it is.



why you would consiter that thing alive before two days after birth however, that is a mystery.

<double take> huh?

Dagon Akujin
17th May 09, 08:36 PM
You know what really pisses Christians off? Telling them about invitro. Yeah, pro-lifers, tons of babies are killed in the name of making familes every fucking day.


All those frozen, frozen babies. I feel like making a slushie.



http://i.somethingawful.com/goldmine/12-31-2002/CrazedGranny.jpg

f4n4n
17th May 09, 08:59 PM
Because in a country that was founded on the very basis that everybody could follow their free and own believes, enforcing your own believes on others is a big deal.

mrm1775
17th May 09, 10:11 PM
Okay. I'll bite.

As (Global) President Obama takes to the stage at Notre Dame university and the anti-abortionists turn up to scream 'don't kill our children', one wonders why the topic even gets this much airtime in America.
The Notre Dame thing was pretty weak. Fortunately it was a minority, but it made other pro-lifers looks just as petty by association.

As for why its a big deal, there are a couple of reasons. The first is because it is a big moral issue for a lot of people. Americans have a history of trying to change laws they disagree with through grass roots movements and that in and of itself is a good thing. The other big reason is because both sides use the issue as a vote-getter. The right wing uses it to raise increase their appeal among religious voters while the left tries to make it a feminist issue. Politicians in both camps seem more interested in keeping the issue alive so they can bludgeon each other with it, rather than finding a solution.

Can one of the Yanks tell me if they would vote for a president based strongly on their pro-life or pro-choice stance and why this has any bearing on how a president is going to run the country.I'm not a one issue voter, and I doubt that most other Americans are. My dad actually voted for Obama despite being pro-life. We have had pro-life presidents since Roe v. Wade and the law is still in place.

Also why do people feel so vehemently about it that they are willing to make death threats/assassination attempts in the name of their cause?That's actually exceedingly rare. Pro-lifers represent one of the largest political movements in the country and yet they have been overwhelmingly non-violent and have been vocal in their opposition to such tactics. Unfortunately, there are a few crazies out there who are looking for a reason to hurt someone. People like that will either find a pet issue or make one up on their own.

(Anyone who suggests that I be post-natally aborted needs to die)I hope that you are never post-natally aborted, Lil.

3moose1
17th May 09, 10:20 PM
Because everyone here is fucking stupid, and would rather some old, wrinkled white guy in washington telling them how to control their own bodies.

Abortion legislation is wrong. Tumours are living tissue, right? But its not illegal to have them removed. Pro choice, dawg. Just because abortion is legal, doesn't mean you have to strap your girl to the table and introduce her to the spoon...

But this is America, and if you don't believe the way someone else believes, they hate you, and attempt to force their will on you. Might as well re-name their views to Kobe, because like it or not, it'll get pushed on you.

Get it?

elipson
17th May 09, 10:23 PM
Don't fool yourself into thinking that it's just religious people who are against abortion. I have more than a few friends who have nothing to do with religion and see an unborn baby as being alive, and therefore it's murder to them. I don't know if I agree or disagree with them, but it's not hard to understand their position. To them it's the systematic and accepted ending of a human life. If we systematically ended human life by the decision of a single person in any other realm of life, we'd all be up in arms about it. Not hard to understand why they get pissed off really.

If 20% (or whatever percent) of pregnancies end in miscarriage, doesn't that make god the biggest abortionist in history?

HappyOldGuy
17th May 09, 10:24 PM
It's not because we are religious nutjobs.

We are, but that's not what it's about.

It's mostly just another tribal signpost for the blues and reds.

theotherserge
17th May 09, 10:27 PM
shallow people, shallow politics; +or-

Dark Helmet
17th May 09, 10:41 PM
Because in a country that was founded on the very basis that everybody could follow their free and own believes, enforcing your own believes on others is a big deal.
Beliefs??

mrm1775
17th May 09, 11:04 PM
Don't fool yourself into thinking that it's just religious people who are against abortion. I have more than a few friends who have nothing to do with religion and see an unborn baby as being alive, and therefore it's murder to them. I don't know if I agree or disagree with them, but it's not hard to understand their position. To them it's the systematic and accepted ending of a human life. If we systematically ended human life by the decision of a single person in any other realm of life, we'd all be up in arms about it. Not hard to understand why they get pissed off really.
^This.

I am pro-life, but I don't consider it specifically a religious issue. I have never heard a logical argument to convince me that a developing fetus does not qualify as a human life. Since I am against the unnecessary taking of any human life (I also deplore the death penalty), it follows that I would object to abortion.


If 20% (or whatever percent) of pregnancies end in miscarriage, doesn't that make god the biggest abortionist in history?One could argue that the natural process of the body rejecting a non-viable embryo and the act of knowingly destroying that life are two different things, just as someone dying from swine flu and being shot in the head are also different.

Harpy
17th May 09, 11:16 PM
^This.

I am pro-life, but I don't consider it specifically a religious issue. I have never heard a logical argument to convince me that a developing fetus does not qualify as a human life. Since I am against the unnecessary taking of any human life (I also deplore the death penalty), it follows that I would object to abortion.

What if a couple weren't planning for a child or were not ready? Are you saying its still 'right' to go through with the pregnancy, have the child and then let the child suffer a lifetime of ill-prepared parent/s? Wait, you're going to tell me that they child services and adoption agencies are there to 'protect' these kids right?

Hedley LaMarr
17th May 09, 11:47 PM
What if a couple weren't planning for a child or were not ready? Are you saying its still 'right' to go through with th I e pregnancy, have the child and then let the child suffer a lifetime of ill-prepared parent/s? Wait, you're going to tell me that they child services and adoption agencies are there to 'protect' these kids right?
If they didn't want to have a child, they should have they should of thought of that before they created one. They knew the risks of having sexual intercourse. It's a matter of personal responsibility. Now if it was a case of impregnation by rape that's a whole other ball game.

I guess that would be ther argument I would make if I was a pro-lifer. I'm pretty much undecided on this issue; it's too complicated for my small mind. Personally I'm just doing my best to stay out of a situation in which I have to choose whether a fetus turns into a baby or gets vacuumed out.

I'd have to say this is probably one of the only good issues the right has on their side these days.

WarPhalange
17th May 09, 11:49 PM
Do you agree that a small lump of cells =/= a baby? Because that's all it is for quite some time after being conceived. Last minute decisions are a no-no, but something like that I am fine with.

FriendlyFire
18th May 09, 12:00 AM
What if a couple weren't planning for a child or were not ready? Are you saying its still 'right' to go through with the pregnancy, have the child and then let the child suffer a lifetime of ill-prepared parent/s? Wait, you're going to tell me that they child services and adoption agencies are there to 'protect' these kids right?

So you get to kill someone if their mother was a whore? Why stop with embryos, why not just kill infants of single mothers sucking up well fare. Wait, that would be wrong, you earn your right to life when you pass through a vagina. Sucks for C-section kids.

That is not my personal stance, it is the stance of a atheist friend of mine, who is well past the bell curve and likes to make fun of religion. Abortion is not just an issue with religious nut bags in america. Personally I am torn, you kill someone to benefit the lives of others.

It really is just a matter of where you draw the line. Because no one thinks every egg cell has a right to life, otherwise each period is murder. Also almost no one thinks you should be able to abort infants: I did read of one guy who believed that infants did not develop mentally enough till age 1, and should be abortable post-birth. Still, nothing magical happens when someone is born, it is the exact same entity, just in a different environment.

f4n4n
18th May 09, 12:14 AM
That brings us to the old philosophical question, how many lifes are worth more than one life? Is one developed life worth more than the life that is uncertain? Is the suffering of the couple worth more than the "suffering" of the baby? Is the baby allowed to bring this suffering to the couple (and maybe even more people) for such an prolonged period? Is abortion tolerable when the kid would be handicapped? Is adoption the better way than abortion? Is male masturbation mass murder?

I say I would not want to make such a decision my self/alone(And I am sure that none of those woman who decides to have an abortion made this decision quick and without hesitation and a long emotional struggle.) but I am of the opinion that every woman should feel free to do what she thinks is the best for her in her personal, individual situation.
Who are you to enforce your will on her life when you don't tolerate her to enforce her will on the "potential" life?

WarPhalange
18th May 09, 12:20 AM
Your atheist friend is an idiot. You can tell him I said that. He totally ignores (probably on purpose) the idea of "what if" vs. "it's already happened".

You can say you don't want to go on a trip with Friend A, but instead hang out with Friend B. You get confused and end up at Friend A's house. Right now you want to bail and hang with Friend B. But, it turns out that the trip with Friend A was pretty damn cool. At that point it wouldn't make sense to want to bail on FA and go with FB. It's too late. It's over.

So you can't think of doing an abortion after the kid is born. That doesn't make sense. The whole point is so that it is never born. People get hung up on the life/death issue when it's really all about time.

What does your friend think about condoms and birth control pills? Sperm is alive and it wants to become a baby sooo bad! Who are you to deny them life? Fucking savage.

Harpy
18th May 09, 12:21 AM
[quote=FriendlyFire]So you get to kill someone if their mother was a whore? Why stop with embryos, why not just kill infants of single mothers sucking up well fare. Wait, that would be wrong, you earn your right to life when you pass through a vagina. Sucks for C-section kids.

If someone who is pregnant feels they cannot raise a child then they would be better off having the choice to abort the foetus. Your friend sounds like a rabid dog.


Personally I am torn, you kill someone to benefit the lives of others. Where is the 'benefit'?? You are not killing 'someone'.



It really is just a matter of where you draw the line. Because no one thinks every egg cell has a right to life, otherwise each period is murder.
Nice post I think?

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 12:24 AM
Where is the 'benefit'?? You are not killing 'someone'.

Of course you are. You're just killing someone that can't whine about it or stare up at you with big sad puppy eyes.

Dark Helmet
18th May 09, 12:25 AM
A better question would be: do you guys masturbate? 'cause every sperm is sacred. Don't you know?

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 12:29 AM
A better question would be: do you guys masturbate? 'cause every sperm is sacred. Don't you know?

That's a lame question. Here is a much better one. What is it about human beings that makes them too valuable to kill.

Cause I have a list.

Harpy
18th May 09, 12:30 AM
Of course you are. You're just killing someone that can't whine about it or stare up at you with big sad puppy eyes.

Look, life is sacred to me too but I think this needs to be weighed up using commonsense as well.

Lets say you're pretty much destitute, on drugs, jobless and you fall pregnant. Its all good and well for the pro-lifers to say 'have the child, we're here to help' but the kid is going to be as good as dead and living half a life with a parent like that. So you're not really choosing 'death' so much as 'eternal life' for a baby when you choose to terminate.

Harpy
18th May 09, 12:31 AM
Cause I have a list.

Please share the list with us on this thread.

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 12:32 AM
Look, life is sacred to me too but I think this needs to be weighed up using commonsense as well.

Lets say you're pretty much destitute, on drugs, jobless and you fall pregnant. Its all good and well for the pro-lifers to say 'have the child, we're here to help' but the kid is going to be as good as dead and living half a life with a parent like that. So you're not really choosing 'death' so much as 'eternal life' for a baby when you choose to terminate.

I know quite a few folks who were that kid.

Harpy
18th May 09, 12:34 AM
All I'm saying is it is the parent's choice whether they go through the pregnancy or not.

As for the people you know who were 'that kid', any descriptions, comments about them?

FriendlyFire
18th May 09, 12:34 AM
If someone who is pregnant feels they cannot raise a child then they would be better off having the choice to abort the foetus. Your friend sounds like a rabid dog.


He was pretty aggressive with his debating.



Where is the 'benefit'?? You are not killing 'someone'.


Like you just said, it benefits someone who is pregnant and feels they cannot raise the child.



Nice post I think?


Yea, quote just part of an idea to mock it. Do you work for FOX or something? I will even make it easy for you to read.


It really is just a matter of where you draw the line. Because no one thinks every egg cell has a right to life, otherwise each period is murder. Also almost no one thinks you should be able to abort infants: I did read of one guy who believed that infants did not develop mentally enough till age 1, and should be abortable post-birth. Still, nothing magical happens when someone is born, it is the exact same entity, just in a different environment.

nihilist
18th May 09, 12:55 AM
Jesus wants the little crack addicted babies to be raised by single mom-whores.
Suffering is very beautiful and noble. Just ask Mother Theresa.

Artful Dentures
18th May 09, 01:04 AM
I would have a lot more sympathy for the pro-life movement if they were pragmatically against unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Getting Sarah Palins teenage mother daughter to tell teans to simply abstain from sex is BS.

Denying women better maternity leave is BS

Denying better social benefits for impoverished women is BS

The anit-abortion movement is total crap and what ever valid points they make is totaly invalidated by their hypocritical stance on sex education, welfare and support of women.

most people are anti-abortion they're also anti-government telling people what to do with their bodies.

f4n4n
18th May 09, 01:06 AM
Okay, lets turn this matter a little, or watch it with a different type of lens.
Should Hitlers mom have had an abortion?
And to twist matters even more, who are you to force life on somebody? What gives you the right to force this world we live in on somebody? Who is this refuge woman in Rwanda that thinks it is fit to have a kid in this world? To make it suffer for the entire time the kid "somehow is on this planet" until it dies of starvation/disease?

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 01:14 AM
Jesus wants the little crack addicted babies to be raised by single mom-whores.
Suffering is very beautiful and noble. Just ask Mother Theresa.

I support a womans right to chose.

You're why.

nihilist
18th May 09, 01:17 AM
Why should women get maternity leave?
First off if she has to work for a living who is going to raise the child? Daycare?

I am against people having children they cannot afford. It's child abuse.

Why should everyone who decides not to overpopulate the planet subsidize Ms. working Mom's whim to get knocked up and take time off while everyone else picks up the slack for her?

It's bullshit.

nihilist
18th May 09, 01:18 AM
I support a womans right to chose.

You're why.

There's still a little sand left in that pussy of yours.

Harpy
18th May 09, 01:30 AM
Why should women get maternity leave?
Generally in Australia its' three months of paid leave. Obviously good 'parents-to-be' would have planned their finances, work and care strategies before a child is born but I'd say 12 weeks off to bond and care for a newborn is not asking for too much.


First off if she has to work for a living who is going to raise the child? Daycare? First you're asking why women should get maternity leave then you're getting riled up about children being put in daycare (which is not the only option btw)? Where the hell is the father in all this?


I am against people having children they cannot afford. It's child abuse. Yes to the first sentence though you know there'll be mental people debating what 'afford' means. I agree with the second sentence too but it seems like wearing all that stage makeup has brought out the drama in you.


Why should everyone who decides not to overpopulate the planet subsidize Ms. working Mom's whim to get knocked up and take time off while everyone else picks up the slack for her? Why are you always attacking the 'mother' in your rants?

AAAhmed46
18th May 09, 01:36 AM
What.

Anyway, it's exactly what Cullion said. We still have these kinds of people around:

(Big image)
http://www.thepaincomics.com/Jesus%20vs.%20Jeezus.jpg

And also this:

LACyLTsH4ac


What exacly does it mean to speak in tongues?

Is it some strange language? Or something totally made up?

What the hell IS it, why is it used in a reliigous context?

Toby Christensen
18th May 09, 01:39 AM
As said in my contribution to the "Political Views" thread:
Leave it up to the Mum.

As an addition, leave it up to the Dad as well.

I think stamping out various militant movements (the "Christians", militant homosexuals, rednecks etc etc) would help the world a lot more.

Choose your battles.

nihilist
18th May 09, 02:08 AM
Generally in Australia its' three months of paid leave. Obviously good 'parents-to-be' would have planned their finances, work and care strategies before a child is born but I'd say 12 weeks off to bond and care for a newborn is not asking for too much. Yes it is asking too much. Having children is a choice. If people decide to spit out youngins it is not up to society to hold their place in line. Someone needs to raise the kid. handing off the kid to whoever when they decide to go back to work is BAD PARENTING.


First you're asking why women should get maternity leave then you're getting riled up about children being put in daycare (which is not the only option btw)? Where the hell is the father in all this?

Who knows? he could be knocking up women on the other side of town for all I know.
He sure as hell ain't bringing home the bacon or the poor woman wouldn't have to be holding down a job.


Yes to the first sentence though you know there'll be mental people debating what 'afford' means. I agree with the second sentence too but it seems like wearing all that stage makeup has brought out the drama in you.

If a woman has to work, she can't afford children. Children become fucked up by part-time parents. Statistics prove this.


Why are you always attacking the 'mother' in your rants?

I attack bad parenting. Perhaps what I say hits a little too close to home...

mrm1775
18th May 09, 03:20 AM
What if a couple weren't planning for a child or were not ready? Are you saying its still 'right' to go through with the pregnancy, have the child and then let the child suffer a lifetime of ill-prepared parent/s? Wait, you're going to tell me that they child services and adoption agencies are there to 'protect' these kids right?
Just because someone is born into unfortunate circumstances does not mean they are unworthy of life. By the same token a young woman can't throw her newborn in a dumpster because she isn't ready for the responsibility, nor can she drown her toddler when she no longer has money to feed it. Besides, poor parenting does not necessarily mean that a person is screwed for life.

Better to be alive in an imperfect world than dead.

You would be surprised how much I am in agreement with Goju - Joe. Reducing unwanted pregnancies needs to the first priority and the pro-life movement is seriously lacking in this department. They concentrate so much on getting the practice banned outright (a goal they know they can't realize any time soon) that they don't put effort into measures that would reduce the overall number of abortions in the short term. Given a choice between having abortion remain a common procedure in the face of an absolutist and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to eliminate it or having it remain legal but become rare, I would pick the latter as being closer to my goals. At least something would be accomplished.

Leon S Kennedy
18th May 09, 04:26 AM
What exacly does it mean to speak in tongues?

Is it some strange language? Or something totally made up?

What the hell IS it, why is it used in a reliigous context?

The whole "speaking in tongues" deal is supposed to be as though you have been "struck by the Holy Spirit" and you are speaking to God in a language only you and God understand.

In actuality you're just getting caught up in the moment and start making random sounds.

elipson
18th May 09, 05:06 AM
My actual position is this:

I don't ACTUALLY know what I would do in that situation, but I do know that I wouldn't force my choice on this matter onto someone else, so I'm pro-choice by default.

I think abortion clinics should be required to provide additional counselling and information about adoptive services, and that anti-abortion nuts who are also against sex-ed and contraception are fucking morons. At the end of the day if a woman really wants an abortion, she'll find a way. Making it illegal just makes it more dangerous.

socratic
18th May 09, 05:09 AM
I'm pro-choice because the following are pretty much undebatable facts: 1. People want to fuck. As a general rule. 2. People will thus, eventually, even if they've sworn to God every morning that they won't, fuck. 3. Fucking can result in pregnancy. 4. Therefore unplanned fucking will result at times in unplanned pregnancy. 5. Thus of the unwanted pregnancies some will seek a means to be rid of it. 6. A means to be rid of it is always available, even if it is a seriously dangerous one.

Unplanned pregnancy is a fact of life. It ain't going anywhere unless everyone becomes sterile. And thus abortions will continue to happen, NO MATTER WHAT LEGISLATION IS PASSED. You stop hospitals and medical professionals doing it and you'll have amateur midwives and idiots doing it out the back of their houses where the lives of women are seriously at risk.

You cannot stop pregnancy occurring, you cannot stop abortion occuring, so even if you're AGAINST abortion you might as well at least give everyone the chance to have it done right so they don't BOTH die.

And besides, if you're against abortion? DON'T HAVE A FUCKING ABORTION. Simple as that. Just because it's legalised doesn't mean a gang of nurses will tackle you to the ground in the parking lot and abort your precious precious childrens. Fuck, this is so simple you'd think more people would have figured it out by now. It's like trying to legislate against drug usage thinking it'll just go away.

Virus
18th May 09, 05:13 AM
If the state is going to subsidize other people's breeding then I want it to subsidize my home cinema setup. It's far cheaper than a kid too.

George Carlin had the r34l:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/play/704824/

Cullion
18th May 09, 06:20 AM
What if a couple weren't planning for a child or were not ready? Are you saying its still 'right' to go through with the pregnancy, have the child and then let the child suffer a lifetime of ill-prepared parent/s? Wait, you're going to tell me that they child services and adoption agencies are there to 'protect' these kids right?

If you believe the unborn child is alive, then to such a person what you've just asked is morally equivalent to:-

"Surely it's ok to kill a 2 year old you've decided you don't want to look after them, I mean the kid's going to be unhappy if you let it live, right?"

That's not to say this is what I believe, but it's how a staunch pro-lifer would see it.

Virus
18th May 09, 07:07 AM
Q: Why is abortion such a huge issue in America?

A: Religion.

mrblackmagic
18th May 09, 07:56 AM
No. Abortion is a huge issue in America because it's always on television.

I've been back and for on both sides of the issue. I was pro-choice because it was necessary for an enlightened society to give people the right to choose. Then I actually understood how human beings develop, how the process works, how the body reacts to the process, how the fetus reacts to the process; the side effects of getting an abortion. I changed my stance. Ultimately, I realized it was a necessary evil. Simple to say the issue isn't as black and white as how you feel about the issue.

Artful Dentures
18th May 09, 09:02 AM
The only legitimate answer to abortion is more sex education and access to birth control and a better social system from support to adoption for people who have unwanted pregnancy's

The fact that the religious right is against all this as well is the biggest indicator of their douchbagginess

Cullion
18th May 09, 09:07 AM
The only legitimate answer to abortion is more sex education and access to birth control and a better social system from support to adoption for people who have unwanted pregnancy's

The fact that the religious right is against all this as well is the biggest indicator of their douchbagginess

The religious right isn't against adoption and the 'moar sex education' argument is one of those liberal canards that has pretty much totally failed wherever it's tried.

It just sounds right to secular liberals because it's all about non-judgementalism and education. We've been doing ever more of it for decades in the UK, as you have in the US, and the rate of bastardy just keeps going up.

Just because the religious right believe in fairy tales, doesn't mean they're wrong about everything.

Kein Haar
18th May 09, 09:09 AM
I'll tell you why it's such a huge issue.

-So many pregant ladies have cheated on their husbands with me, including wives of congressmen and stuff.

-My wang is so big, it just kinda jars everything loose up there.

All those old, rich, white men thought their women are getting abortions (abortions don't matters in the ghetto).

BUT IT'S ME.

I've stopped doing that, because I don't think it's a terribly important issue.

Toby Christensen
18th May 09, 09:14 AM
You're an idiot.

Kein Haar
18th May 09, 09:17 AM
How do you think you got all fucked up?

Sometimes the job goes unfinished.

That's right, I made love to YOUR mother.

Toby Christensen
18th May 09, 09:28 AM
If anyone touched my mother they would be mouldering in our top paddock by now.

Remember, at my childhood home (assuming the original layout) I know where the firearms, kitchen knives, pokers, gardening tools and woodaxe are.

Virus
18th May 09, 09:29 AM
No. Abortion is a huge issue in America because it's always on television.



And it's on television because of religious dickheads.

FriendlyFire
18th May 09, 09:38 AM
And it's on television because of religious dickheads.

It's funny, because I have not seen one of the people against abortion in here reference anything religious. Anyone who thinks abortion is clear cut pro-choice without any hesitations is as ignorant as pro-life abstinence only teaching bible thumpers.

Also, I have seen multiple people say "They have the right to an abortion, it doesn't effect you." Of course not, I am not the person being killed. Before you even yell you are not killing someone but something, realize we are back to the true issue in abortion, when does someone earn the right to life.

Ajamil
18th May 09, 10:31 AM
It's a difficult subject, and grudgingly I always fall on the side of pro-choice. You are taking something that - when left alone - will be alive. Whether you consider a lump of cells "alive" or not is irrelevant (aren't YOU just a lump of cells?) - the potential is there and abortion ends that potential.

That being said, what's wrong with ending the life? It's already been mentioned that some situations don't make a life worth living. Some people think that ANY life is worth living compared to not living.


Better to be alive in an imperfect world than dead.

I'm not entirely certain I agree with this.

I agree that the best thing would be a more effective contraception education. Teaching people that condoms don't always work so abstinence is better is leading some people to simply never use condoms because they "don't work." If I really wanted to go totalitarian on this, I'd say put contraceptives in the water and air then let people apply for a baby permit from the courts.


You cannot stop pregnancy occurring, you cannot stop abortion occuring, so even if you're AGAINST abortion you might as well at least give everyone the chance to have it done right so they don't BOTH die.

How does this not apply to everything legislated against? Had speeding stopped though you get a ticket? Has stealing or raping or killing or bribery or perjury stopped because we said it was illegal? I'm not trying to equate abortion with these things - mostly because abortion IS legal - but to say that things should be legal because they'll still go on even if you ban them is a silly idea.


And besides, if you're against abortion? DON'T HAVE A FUCKING ABORTION.
And if you're against people sexually fondling their daughters, then don't sexually fondle your daughter. Simple isn't it?

Ultimately, though, I agree with you that there's no legislating morality. It didn't work with alcohol, it isn't working with the war on drugs, and it wouldn't work with abortion. I don't ever think it should be made illegal, but that doesn't mean I'll ever praise it.

I also don't really like pro-lifers too much though. Usually this is realized about the time I ask them why it's so important to stop blatocysts from getting sucked away yet it's cool that billions of lives are extinguished for their picnic protest hot dogs. Then they give me "that look" and I know trying to explain that humans aren't the only living things would be fruitless.


And it's on television because of religious dickheads.
Now that we have reiterated your stance on religion. Care to join us on the topic of abortion and give your views? Or did they actually stop at, "Religion is teh suck?"

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 10:33 AM
I work next office over from an abortion clinic. Two random factoids.

1) A ridiculous percentage of the women arriving for treatment are pushing strollers.

2) We had exactly one guy protest us one time during the entrety of the last two years I worked here. Once Obama got elected, the protests started up the week of the inauguration and have been regular since.

Antifa
18th May 09, 10:59 AM
questions:

Why is it that most health insurance covers viagra but not the pill?

Why is it so hard to even get a morning after pill?

Why is it that the birth control pills that can be "stacked" to make a morning after pill so hard to get?


-------------------------------------

Abortion is a big deal in America because it allows the religous right to inject itself into a certain point of politcs.

Remember that the right to an abortion is based on the 4th ammendment right to privacy. IE a woman's reproductive system is her private sphere.

By definition, if legistlation is passed against abortion and stands, the government has essentially said that this is no longer the private sphere but the public one.

Consider the implications.

So invigourated by such a success and legal precidnet, what would keep them from extending their intrusion into other formally private spheres with legistlation?

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 11:11 AM
So invigourated by such a success and legal precidnet, what would keep them from extending their intrusion into other formally private spheres with legistlation?

The fact that there is no right to privacy in the 4th amendment?

Cullion
18th May 09, 12:44 PM
questions:

Why is it that most health insurance covers viagra but not the pill?

Why is it so hard to even get a morning after pill?

Why is it that the birth control pills that can be "stacked" to make a morning after pill so hard to get?

I honestly don't know. Why do you think that is ?



Remember that the right to an abortion is based on the 4th ammendment right to privacy. IE a woman's reproductive system is her private sphere.

By definition, if legistlation is passed against abortion and stands, the government has essentially said that this is no longer the private sphere but the public one.

Consider the implications.

So invigourated by such a success and legal precidnet, what would keep them from extending their intrusion into other formally private spheres with legistlation?

My home is my private sphere, it doesn't mean I have carte blanche to kill people in it.

Shawarma
18th May 09, 02:04 PM
What a ridiculous comparison.

I am pro abortion. Not pro-choice, pro abortion. Many people have NO business having children and raise them to become completely messed up, ruining both their own and the child's life in the process and sometimes burdening social services as well.

A fetus doesn't even have the intellectual or emotional development of a cockroach. I have no qualms with killing cockroaches.

Cullion
18th May 09, 02:13 PM
What a ridiculous comparison.

If you say so, Dr. Shawarma.



I am pro abortion. Not pro-choice, pro abortion. Many people have NO business having children and raise them to become completely messed up, ruining both their own and the child's life in the process and sometimes burdening social services as well.

That's also true if the child has just been born, but you don't espouse killing newborns for this reason.



A fetus doesn't even have the intellectual or emotional development of a cockroach. I have no qualms with killing cockroaches.

It depends what stage of development it's at. You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. For a change.

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 02:17 PM
What a ridiculous comparison.

I am pro abortion. Not pro-choice, pro abortion. Many people have NO business having children and raise them to become completely messed up, ruining both their own and the child's life in the process and sometimes burdening social services as well.

A fetus doesn't even have the intellectual or emotional development of a cockroach. I have no qualms with killing cockroaches.
Your parental hatred and self loathing aside. Why do your prejudices about what makes a particular human life valuable give you leave to end the ones you don't value.



P.S. I am pro choice, but the way that some people casually toss aside the very messy ethical dilemmas involved is borderline sociopathic.

Shawarma
18th May 09, 02:30 PM
Although I consider myself to be a reasonably ethical human being, in this case, I am unbelievably unconcerned about any ethical considerations other people might have. Not your fetus? Not your business.

And no, I don't advocate child abuse.

I'm also very pro-death penalty. Some people have no business raising children, some people have no business drawing breath.

Guess you could call me very pro-death in general. And I don't even like deathmetal.

Kein Haar
18th May 09, 02:54 PM
... is borderline sociopathic.

Nah. Just teenaged.

kracker
18th May 09, 03:05 PM
It's either cold blooded murder of the innocent and helpless or it's not. It's completely black and white in that no sane person would say that fetuses are alive but abortion is OK. In a similar way no sane person would say that fetuses are not alive but abortion is still wrong.

elipson
18th May 09, 03:32 PM
And besides, if you're against abortion? DON'T HAVE A FUCKING ABORTION. Simple as that. Just because it's legalised doesn't mean a gang of nurses will tackle you to the ground in the parking lot and abort your precious precious childrens. Fuck, this is so simple you'd think more people would have figured it out by now.

Devils advocate here: That's equivalent to saying "if you don't like killing people, DON'T KILL PEOPLE!!"

It may not be the same thing to you, but to those who oppose abortion, IT IS.

elipson
18th May 09, 03:43 PM
The religious aspect of this is fucked up just in general. Somewhere along the line, some religious guy debated this the same way we are here and said
"No! Life starts at conception!" and used his god given religious authority to impress this decision upon all his followers, and then other religious figures saw this and decided it was good moral high ground to stand on and joined in. The fact that they are more vocal than others abortion opponents says more about their unity and devotion, both aspects that are stronger amongst religious groups than they are amongst individuals who oppose abortion.

It would be a very different story today if some church official had once shouted "No! Life starts at Birth!"

Robot Jesus
18th May 09, 04:08 PM
the best part is even Aquinas didn't think life started at conception.

Shawarma
18th May 09, 04:13 PM
To better understand why religious people are revolted by things like gay marriage and abortion, consider this scenario:

You build a time machine and head back to ancient Greece. Here, it is common practice to fondle young boys. You point out that this is disgusting to the locals and they look at you funny and say "Jeez, dude, have some tolerance for our way of life, you backwards bigot."

Some people are genuinely offended by homos and abortion, it's not because of an evil desire to control society they protest. Of course, I say "fuck them," but I realise why they may feel that way.

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 04:14 PM
You build a time machine and head back to ancient Greece. Here, it is common practice to fondle young boys. You point out that this is disgusting to the locals and they look at you funny and say "Jeez, dude, have some tolerance for our way of life, you backwards bigot."


Actually, they probably execute you for impiety.

Cullion
18th May 09, 04:31 PM
the best part is even Aquinas didn't think life started at conception.

No, he believed the soul arrived 40 days after conception for males and 80-90 days for females. I've not encountered anybody in real life who's felt a 2nd trimester foetus kicking in response to a human voice or music who thinks it isn't alive.

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 04:40 PM
I've not encountered anybody in real life who's felt a 2nd trimester foetus kicking in response to a human voice or music who thinks it isn't alive.

Thank god for the internet!

Cullion
18th May 09, 04:42 PM
Thank god for the internet!

I haven't heard anybody on here say that either, actually. I just assume that Shawarma hadn't experienced it and/or didn't think before he typed.

Shawarma
18th May 09, 04:55 PM
I'd have no issue with aborting that either. That's for the parents to decide. I would, however, most likely not abort it if it was mine at that stage. Wouldn't be able to stomach it. Unless I knew it would be severely mentally handicapped. Physical handicaps I'd be fine with.

Cullion
18th May 09, 04:58 PM
I'd have no issue with aborting that either. That's for the parents to decide.
I would, however, most likely not abort it if it was mine at that stage. Wouldn't be able to stomach it. Unless I knew it would be severely mentally handicapped. Physical handicaps I'd be fine with.

What makes it not murder at that stage ?

Shawarma
18th May 09, 05:01 PM
Cuz I say it ain't. And actually, I have no problem with that definition either.

Call it what you will. The right to abortion should not be regulated IMO.

Cullion
18th May 09, 05:07 PM
That's a circular argument. Is it OK for me to define killing somebody in my own home as 'not murder' because 'I say so' and 'it's my home' ?

Shawarma
18th May 09, 05:12 PM
We've already established that's not really an argument, Cul. Neither is my "Cuz I say so."

I don't really need an argument either. It's just how I feel about it. Shrill cries of "babykiller" do nothing to alter that.

Cullion
18th May 09, 05:16 PM
Oh, it's not that I think you'll have to worry about getting somebody pregnant anytime soon.

Shawarma
18th May 09, 05:18 PM
Thank god for that.

Harpy
18th May 09, 05:18 PM
P.S. I am pro choice, but the way that some people casually toss aside the very messy ethical dilemmas involved is borderline sociopathic.

HOG, I apologise if any of my comments seemed callous. Did not want to get too deep into the debate of morality, ethics, my personal views...just wanted to keep it about who's right it is to make such a decision.

Cullion
18th May 09, 05:21 PM
HOG, I apologise if any of my comments seemed callous. Did not want to get too deep into the debate of morality, ethics, my personal views...just wanted to keep it about who's right it is to make such a decision.

I don't see how it's possible to debate that without discussing morality or ethics.

If somebody believes it's murder (at a certain stage of development), how can they still conclude 'well it's her private business I guess' ?

Now, you can debate that the stage of development in question occurs anywhere from 'conception' until 'after a live birth'.

Harpy
18th May 09, 05:29 PM
We can all have opinions about things however I believe one can stand back and be objective about this and respect the privacy of an individual. I actually had a friend who was jilted by her husband (8 years her junior), she was 40 at the time and had no children as he had kept telling her 'later'. She became so bitter about the issue and would rant on quite venomously about women who went through with abortions, not to mention younger women like me who were 'choosing not to have children immediately after marriage'. I couldn't handle the vitriol after a while.

My stance is that the pregnant woman should have the right to decide and have the options available to her.

At the end of the day, if a government were to make abortions illegal, do you think that there won't be health care providers who will still help people go through the process?

What are people's thoughts about who foots the bills for the abortion?

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 05:29 PM
HOG, I apologise if any of my comments seemed callous. Did not want to get too deep into the debate of morality, ethics, my personal views...just wanted to keep it about who's right it is to make such a decision.

Don't apologize. If you're nice then I have to stop trolling Shawarma, and then what do I do instead of working.

Cullion
18th May 09, 05:37 PM
We can all have opinions about things however I believe one can stand back and be objective about this and respect the privacy of an individual.

Again, it depends at what point you believe the foetus becomes and independent life. You may believe that's after it's born, which is fine. But if you think it's alive before that, it's kind of burying your head in the sand about murder to just say 'it's a private thing' or 'its personal'.



My stance is that the pregnant woman should have the right to decide and have the options available to her.

My current stance is that it's homicide in the late 2nd or the 3rd trimester.
It may be justifiable homicide in certain circumstance, but outside of those I consider it to be criminal homicide and not a private matter no matter how inconvenient or emotionally distressing for the woman concerned.



At the end of the day, if a government were to make abortions illegal, do you think that there won't be health care providers who will still help people go through the process?

I think there will always be 40 year old men looking to pay to have sex with 12 year olds. I don't think that should be legal either, and here we're talking about taking a human life.



What are people's thoughts about who foots the bills for the abortion?

Depends on the reason for the abortion and the financial circumstances of the mother and father.

Harpy
18th May 09, 05:50 PM
Again, it depends at what point you believe the foetus becomes and independent life. You may believe that's after it's born, which is fine. But if you think it's alive before that, it's kind of burying your head in the sand about murder to just say 'it's a private thing' or 'its personal'..
So lets say the government publishes some guidelines about when the foetus is considered an independent life form. Pretty much everyone will be debating it, disagreeing with parts of it. I think the role of the government in this is to provide safe options (eg. hospital, adoption, childcare services, abortion etc.) for a mother who wants or doesn't want the child (at whatever stage).




My current stance is that it's homicide in the late 2nd or the 3rd trimester.
It may be justifiable homicide in certain circumstance, but outside of those I consider it to be criminal homicide and not a private matter no matter how inconvenient or emotionally distressing for the woman concerned.

Are you serious? Would you rather a child be born to a woman who really is not emotionally/mentally prepared? This sounds like a male conspiracy to control the bodies and choices of women.

Cullion
18th May 09, 06:01 PM
So lets say the government publishes some guidelines about when the foetus is considered an independent life form. Pretty much everyone will be debating it, disagreeing with parts of it. I think the role of the government in this is to provide safe options (eg. hospital, adoption, childcare services, abortion etc.) for a mother who wants or doesn't want the child (at whatever stage).

I won't vote to allow third trimester abortions for reason of avoiding career/social/emotional distress.




Are you serious? Would you rather a child be born to a woman who really is not emotionally/mentally prepared? This sounds like a male conspiracy to control the bodies' and choices of women.

Nice trolling.

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 06:06 PM
Are you serious? Would you rather a child be born to a woman who really is not emotionally/mentally prepared? This sounds like a male conspiracy to control the bodies' and choices of women.

The conspiracy to control the bodies' and choices of women involves getting them to watch porn and feel insecure about their attractiveness so that they start to explore their bisexual sides forour benefit. Abortion has nothing to do with it.

Harpy
18th May 09, 06:09 PM
Where did I say I was okay with 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions?!



Nice trolling.

One tries :)

nihilist
18th May 09, 06:17 PM
Question for all the pious atendees of today's service:

Can you tell me a story about any trauma, pleasure, thoughts, anyfuckingthinatall during your stay in the womb?

No?

Fuck off then.

HappyOldGuy
18th May 09, 06:23 PM
Question for all the pious atendees of today's service:

Can you tell me a story about any trauma, pleasure, thoughts, anyfuckingthinatall during your stay in the womb?


I don't actually remember, but it musta been pretty good. I've been trying to get back in ever since.

Cullion
18th May 09, 06:23 PM
Question for all the pious atendees of today's service:

Can you tell me a story about any trauma, pleasure, thoughts, anyfuckingthinatall during your stay in the womb?

No?

Fuck off then.

Can you remember anything from you first year after being born?

No?

Oops.

Harpy
18th May 09, 06:23 PM
[quote=Reese]Yes it is asking too much. Having children is a choice. If people decide to spit out youngins it is not up to society to hold their place in line. Someone needs to raise the kid. handing off the kid to whoever when they decide to go back to work is BAD PARENTING. I don't totally disagree however most people justify it by saying things like 'if we don't have two incomes how will I maintain a good lifestyle for my child', 'how am I going to pay for private schooling' etc.



He sure as hell ain't bringing home the bacon or the poor woman wouldn't have to be holding down a job.

I fully agree with you on this.



If a woman has to work, she can't afford children. Children become fucked up by part-time parents. Statistics prove this.

What about if a woman chooses to work even if she doesn't need to. My siblings and I were raised by a host of live-in nannies (for close to a decade), we turned out fine.



I attack bad parenting.
No problem with that except you also seem to hold quite a rigid and traditional view of the child rearing model.

Antifa
18th May 09, 06:29 PM
[QUOTE=Cullion
My home is my private sphere, it doesn't mean I have carte blanche to kill people in it.[/QUOTE]

And thats the difference between England and...

Texas

nihilist
18th May 09, 06:32 PM
I don't totally disagree however most people justify it by saying things like 'if we don't have two incomes how will I maintain a good lifestyle for my child', 'how am I going to pay for private schooling' etc.

See: "being able to afford children before you get knocked up" now available in paperback.







What about if a woman chooses to work even if she doesn't need to.

Where I come from that is known as a selfish yuppie bitch.



No problem with that except you also seem to hold quite a rigid and traditional view of the child rearing model.
I am for gay couples raising children. Would you say that is "traditional"?

Cullion
18th May 09, 06:35 PM
See: "being able to afford children before you get knocked up" now available in paperback.

So what you're saying is, the generations and generations of wealthy kids who had nannies, governesses, and/or were sent to boarding schools, or those whose mothers died when they were young were all badly brought up and dysfunctional and they'd have been better off dead.

You're trolling the shit out of this thread. I see you.

nihilist
18th May 09, 06:42 PM
You are putting words in people's mouths aren't you?

Why yes you are!

Cullion
18th May 09, 06:43 PM
It's not that I think you said those things, I'm just explaining to you the obvious implications of what you typed out before thinking.

nihilist
18th May 09, 06:48 PM
No, you drew conclusions without thinking, or asking...

Cullion
18th May 09, 06:50 PM
I'm right though. I also want to know what you can remember between being born and your first birthday.

And don't lie, because I'll know.

Robot Jesus
18th May 09, 06:58 PM
No, he believed the soul arrived 40 days after conception for males and 80-90 days for females. I've not encountered anybody in real life who's felt a 2nd trimester foetus kicking in response to a human voice or music who thinks it isn't alive.
how can it be alive if it has no name, and it canít be named until two days after the birth; but I digress.


one point that hasnít been brought up is the central disconnect.

individual groups definition of what a human is.

the anti abortion crowd generally define humanity in the physical sense, a human being is a living organism with a particular genome. a lump of cells can be called human because it fits this description.

the pro abortion group generally define humanity as personhood, someone who can think and feel and the like. this leaves the destruction of those cells very easy to do.

This is a very general treatment of the subject and I am far from an authority; these are just my thoughts.

nihilist
18th May 09, 07:00 PM
I'm right though. I also want to know what you can remember between being born and your first birthday.


Sorry but I never stated about anyone being better off aborted. That statement was introduced by the guy who follows you around the board sucking hind tit.

Secondly, you must establish relevance before I answer any more of your tedious questions.

nihilist
18th May 09, 07:02 PM
God gave man dominion over the animals so you can eat as many eggs and fuck as many goats as you desire.

Cullion
18th May 09, 07:04 PM
Question for all the pious atendees of today's service:

Can you tell me a story about any trauma, pleasure, thoughts, anyfuckingthinatall during your stay in the womb?

No?

Fuck off then.

This is what you said Reese.

The relevance of my question is that if your point here was meaningful, then it would surely apply to the period after you left the womb, for which you also have no memories.


Jesus wants the little crack addicted babies to be raised by single mom-whores.
Suffering is very beautiful and noble. Just ask Mother Theresa.

You also said this. I guessed you were either trolling the shit out of thread, or trying to make a pro-abortion point.

Which is it ?

nihilist
18th May 09, 07:56 PM
Please learn the difference between an anti religious zealot point and a happy-fun advocacy of fetus termination.

Harpy
18th May 09, 08:08 PM
See: "being able to afford children before you get knocked up" now available in paperback.
When you say 'afford' I take it you mean both parents and a minimum requirement (eg. be able to house, feed, school, clothe them). What if you want more than that for your child. Also, are you implying that a mother should stay at home till their child is 18 years old?



Where I come from that is known as a selfish yuppie bitch.

I'm glad I have the role model of a mother who worked, had time for us, used her intelligence and education etc. Money is not the only pursuit of work.

I just met up with a colleague who took 5 months off when she had her first child. It is her second day back on the job and she is on top of everything, hasn't lost a beat. She's working 3 days a week (her parents care for the child) and is an at-home mother 4 days a week. She doesn't work for the money as such, more the love of the job, interaction with people, a sense of self and pride which all translate into making her a better wife and mother.



I am for gay couples raising children. Would you say that is "traditional"?
Not my issue. What you were stating is that one adult (the mother) in the relationship should not go to work and be the primary caregiver to the child while the other partner is the 'provider'. You have very traditional views about the provider and caregiver roles.

nihilist
18th May 09, 08:37 PM
When you say 'afford' I take it you mean both parents and a minimum requirement (eg. be able to house, feed, school, clothe them). What if you want more than that for your child. Also, are you implying that a mother should stay at home till their child is 18 years old?


Daycare and nannies are bandaids for self-inflicted wounds.
And your last question is as usual, ridiculous.






I'm glad I have the role model of a mother who worked, had time for us, used her intelligence and education etc. Money is not the only pursuit of work.
Work is not the pursuit of good parenting.


I just met up with a colleague who took 5 months off when she had her first child. It is her second day back on the job and she is on top of everything, hasn't lost a beat.
Should I be impressed by a woman who can juggle developing minds and a career and puts her parenting responsibilities on her parents? Magic 8-ball says "Not Fucking Likely"


What you were stating is that one adult (the mother) in the relationship should not go to work and be the primary caregiver to the child while the other partner is the 'provider'. Perhaps you should work on your comprehension skills.

I don't give a flying fuck which parent raises the child.

Single-working mom/ single working dad /both parents working is not an acceptable family plan.

If someone decides to have children that they cannot totally provide for then they are tourist pieces of selfish shit.

Look at all the stupid selfish bastards who left their children at hospitals this past year.

It's nauseating.

Harpy
18th May 09, 08:58 PM
[quote=Reese]Daycare and nannies are bandaids for self-inflicted wounds.

I consider those things as support services to be used in conjunction with primary care from the parents.


And your last question is as usual, ridiculous.
When you state that one parent should stay home and look after the child, the implication is until the child is no longer a minor. I can only imagine what such a child would turn out to be like (Shia Lebeouf?).



Work is not the pursuit of good parenting.

When one becomes a parent is that the only role in one's life that one should dedicate themselves to? No. Essentially I agree with you that it is better not to bring a child into this world if you can't take responsibility and care for the child. I am pro-choice. Work can be part of a whole approach to good parenting. If you can plan it, talk things out with your partner and come up with a strategy then it can work. I am not advocating work as an avoidance of parenting, don't mistake the two.



Should I be impressed by a woman who can juggle developing minds and a career and puts her parenting responsibilities on her parents? Magic 8-ball says "Not Fucking Likely"

Is this coming from your own experience?



Perhaps you should work on your comprehension skills.

As I've pointed out before, its your lack of comprehension skills. I am talking about your assertion that one parent needs to be a full-time carer and the other the 'provider'.


If someone decides to have children that they cannot totally provide for then they are tourist pieces of selfish shit. I hope you are talking about the developed world here. As to 'sufficiently providing' for a child, what is your definition of this?



Look at all the stupid selfish bastards who left their children at hospitals this past year.

It's nauseating.
Not sure if you're talking about abandoned children here. Again, I support the pro-choice stance so that such things will not occur.

Robot Jesus
18th May 09, 09:40 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Lily again.
reese STFU, supervision=/=parenting

both my parents worked all my life and the only psychological baggage I have is from knowing where my preference for slim yet chesty women comes from (fuck you Freud, it’s not Oedial it’s imprinting damn it)

although some might consider this baggage, I’m somewhat distant from my parents, I don’t.

FriendlyFire
18th May 09, 10:56 PM
knowing where my preference for slim yet chesty women

Lets be honest here, what man doesn't have a preference for slim yet chesty women...

Harpy
18th May 09, 11:21 PM
Can you remember anything from you first year after being born?

No?

Oops.

Not to get too personal but I remember things from my first year, probably by around 6 months. I've had this verified by my nanny (yeah, she's still my nanny, she won't let go).

nihilist
18th May 09, 11:22 PM
supervision=/=parenting

Where did I say that supervision was tantamount to parenting ?

Here's a clue: I didn't.


Both my parents worked all my life and Iím somewhat distant from my parents...


Thanks for making my point for me.

Harpy
18th May 09, 11:26 PM
Who knew you could be such a drama queen Reese? Irrelevant points, wild assumptions, such vehemence in your judgement of people who choose to raise their children in a non-traditional manner...

socratic
18th May 09, 11:33 PM
The religious right isn't against adoption and the 'moar sex education' argument is one of those liberal canards that has pretty much totally failed wherever it's tried.

It just sounds right to secular liberals because it's all about non-judgementalism and education. We've been doing ever more of it for decades in the UK, as you have in the US, and the rate of bastardy just keeps going up.

Just because the religious right believe in fairy tales, doesn't mean they're wrong about everything.

Isn't your population shrinking like the rest of the 'enlightened west'?


How does this not apply to everything legislated against? Had speeding stopped though you get a ticket? Has stealing or raping or killing or bribery or perjury stopped because we said it was illegal? I'm not trying to equate abortion with these things - mostly because abortion IS legal - but to say that things should be legal because they'll still go on even if you ban them is a silly idea.

This is my point exactly. Making something illegal won't make it stop happening entirely, and making abortion illegal will just make those really determined to get one (and it's not something anyone does lightly) more at risk of injury and death. You can't equate abortion to any of those things (strawman lolololol) because as you said, abortion isn't a criminal act. Maybe a better metaphor would be drugs or something because when administered in a safe, government-controlled environment the risk is minimal but when made illegal the danger increases exponentially.


And if you're against people sexually fondling their daughters, then don't sexually fondle your daughter. Simple isn't it?

Fondling your daughter is a sexual behavior, an abortion is a medical procedure. You're smarter than this, my ex-hindu friend.


Ultimately, though, I agree with you that there's no legislating morality. It didn't work with alcohol, it isn't working with the war on drugs, and it wouldn't work with abortion. I don't ever think it should be made illegal, but that doesn't mean I'll ever praise it.

I'm not asking you to and no one else is asking you to. The debate is on whether something that's necessary should be made illegal. There are no benefits to doing so beyond the sense of ignorant satisfaction you get when you piss all over everyone else [thanks for ruining the baby killing party, jebustards :(]. Oh, and killing teenagers, I guess that's a benefit.


I also don't really like pro-lifers too much though. Usually this is realized about the time I ask them why it's so important to stop blatocysts from getting sucked away yet it's cool that billions of lives are extinguished for their picnic protest hot dogs. Then they give me "that look" and I know trying to explain that humans aren't the only living things would be fruitless.

Don't ever try and bring vegetarianism into a dabate with nonvegetarians about human-centric morality. It won't work and they'll think you're loopy or they'll be annoyed at your vegie-rhetoric. If I was a pro-lifer I'd be telling you to go chew your tofu and leave the jayzus-baby-savin' alone.



My home is my private sphere, it doesn't mean I have carte blanche to kill people in it.

Good luck proving to that an embryo/early stage foetus is a full human and deserves full human rights. And your body is not politically anologous with your home or land, you also know this. Come on old boy, you can do better than this.



It may not be the same thing to you, but to those who oppose abortion, IT IS.

That's because they've made a baseless assumption. Any significant intellectual will tell you the jury's still out (and has been for a long, long time) as to what and when is a right-holding indvidual. Heh, we just talked about this at my last Philosophy lecture. Rights are messy, messy business, but being an American you're already entrenched in a foundationalist view...

So out of curiousity, has the anti-abortion crowd actually got an argument or just false assumptions and strawmen?

nihilist
18th May 09, 11:44 PM
I consider those things as support services to be used in conjunction with primary care from the parents.

It is extremely unlikely that parents who work full time can provide what can be considered "primary care". I'm not saying it can't or doesn't happen.

I personally know working parents who stagger their working hours and give their children shitloads of attention, but they are the exception rather than the rule.



When you state that one parent should stay home and look after the child, the implication is until the child is no longer a minor.

Your lobotomy was a complete success.



When one becomes a parent is that the only role in one's life that one should dedicate themselves to?

The children or the career which do you think should take precedence?
Many kids are being raised by computers, video games, nannies and mentally preoccupied career whores who's children's needs come after their own.
Perhaps in the land of Oz superparents grow on trees. In the US they do not.



Essentially I agree with you that it is better not to bring a child into this world if you can't take responsibility and care for the child.

Now you are talking sense.



Is this coming from your own experience?

My dad was a workoholic and my mother was a "free spirited" hippie.

They were good people but sadly lacking in the skills needed to raise a human being.



As I've pointed out before, its your lack of comprehension skills. I am talking about your assertion that one parent needs to be a full-time carer and the other the 'provider'.

That was one of the things I said one of the other things was the need of a child to have a parent PRESENT who can provide for them. there are many ways to accomplish this. I can give you a list if you need one.




I hope you are talking about the developed world here. As to 'sufficiently providing' for a child, what is your definition of this?

Jesus I think I have answered about enough of your blather.



Not sure if you're talking about abandoned children here. Again, I support the pro-choice stance so that such things will not occur.

Let's take it a step further and sterilize poor idiots who have no business breeding in the first place.

nihilist
18th May 09, 11:50 PM
Irrelevant points, wild assumptions ...

Oh? Please list them so I can go over their relevance and factual existence with you.

Robot Jesus
19th May 09, 12:16 AM
I want to kill you reese.

this is new emotion for me

I've had people insult my mother before, but only on banial topics like sexual promisuity and the like. however you insult her on her choice of being the first person in her side of the famly to have a degree. expect my blade.


this is the most offended I've ever been; it's a sureal expereance.

elipson
19th May 09, 12:29 AM
Anyone else here think Reese wishes he had been aborted?

nihilist
19th May 09, 12:33 AM
I want to kill you reese.

this is new emotion for me

I've had people insult my mother before, but only on banial topics like sexual promisuity and the like. however you insult her on her choice of being the first person in her side of the famly to have a degree. expect my blade.


this is the most offended I've ever been; it's a sureal expereance.

When did I insult your mother's choice to get a degree?

Seriously, lay off the drugs, son.

nihilist
19th May 09, 12:40 AM
Anyone else here think Reese wishes he had been aborted?

I have the ability to self-abort any time that seems fitting.

Unfortunately for you that time may never come.

Anyway, I just got a death threat from the child of a mother who did a wonderful job parenting.

How ironic.

Harpy
19th May 09, 12:41 AM
That was one of the things I said one of the other things was the need of a child to have a parent PRESENT who can provide for them. there are many ways to accomplish this. I can give you a list if you need one.


I actually would be interested in a whole thread on the topic from the Sociocide parent-collective. I do agree with you regarding the provision of care/security etc. to one's child but too often I see even those deemed 'good prospective parents' muddle through raising their children.

Harpy
19th May 09, 12:44 AM
When did I insult your mother's choice to get a degree?

Seriously, lay off the drugs, son.'

By condemning working mothers you essentially lumped Robot Jesus' mother into this (i.e. first woman in the family to get a degree and work to raise her family).

HappyOldGuy
19th May 09, 12:46 AM
Shrub came from a functional loving family with a stay at home mom.
Obama's dad was absent and mom dumped him off on his grandparents.

Just sayin.

Harpy
19th May 09, 12:50 AM
My dad was a workoholic and my mother was a "free spirited" hippie.

They were good people but sadly lacking in the skills needed to raise a human being.



I may have had a lobotomy but the above explains a whole lot about you.

From your viewpoint I'm surprised you didn't judge your parents more harshly. Your emotional attachment to them makes you justify their decisions by saying 'they were good people but...'. Why not give others the same grace or why not judge your parents by the same yardstick you do the 'crack-addicted mothers'?

Robot Jesus
19th May 09, 12:54 AM
I have the ability to self-abort any time that seems fitting.

Unfortunately for you that time may never come.

Anyway, I just got a death threat from the child of a mother who did a wonderful job parenting.

How ironic.

she did a wonderful job parenting if you ignore your entire worldview; hypocrite.

she worked so by your definition she must be a bad parent. as I've said, arguing like this feels very odd to me.

f4n4n
19th May 09, 01:00 AM
I guess that is why abortion is such a huge issue, people fight with teethes and claws in order to force their opinion/view on to others.

The thing is essentially a question of what are we comfortable with conscious wise.

nihilist
19th May 09, 01:03 AM
'

By condemning working mothers you essentially lumped Robot Jesus' mother into this (i.e. first woman in the family to get a degree and work to raise her family).

I am condemning the idea that children are like houseplants that can thrive on an occasional visit to sprinkle some Miracle Gro around.

There is a daycare by my house where I can see the children getting dropped off in broken-down vehicles at 6am and getting picked up at 6pm.

If this is their idea of being parents then I just don't know what else to say.

I have no idea if robochrist's mom is great or awful.
What I do know is that he lacks self-esteem and is overly-defensive towards people's provocative rhetoric.

nihilist
19th May 09, 01:13 AM
she did a wonderful job parenting if you ignore your entire worldview; hypocrite.

If she did such a wonderful job, why are you so offended and defensive?


She worked so by your definition she must be a bad parent.

It sounds as though you read my posts and hear what you want to hear.

Your mother could be a great caring person for all I know.

Now shut up and stop taking the internet so serious.

Harpy
19th May 09, 01:13 AM
Can we start a 'Good Parenting' thread for real please?

I'm a bit of a hypocrite, as much as I say 'childcare is an option for working parents' I sure as hell am not going to send any child I have there. Of course the reality of things could be very different as my husband could do something like renege on some agreements we make regarding providing for our child during the pregnancy or at any stage after birth. At that point I'd probably divorce him, sell my home, cut him off from our lives and move in with my parents and start working part-time.

I've got it all planned (hypothetically).

nihilist
19th May 09, 01:18 AM
Shrub came from a functional loving family with a stay at home mom.
Obama's dad was absent and mom dumped him off on his grandparents.

Just sayin.
If Shrub's dad was absent and mom dumped him off on his grandparents he probably would have ended up in the pen.

nihilist
19th May 09, 01:38 AM
I may have had a lobotomy but the above explains a whole lot about you.

From your viewpoint I'm surprised you didn't judge your parents more harshly. Your emotional attachment to them makes you justify their decisions by saying 'they were good people but...'. Why not give others the same grace or why not judge your parents by the same yardstick you do the 'crack-addicted mothers'?

Firstly, Judging couples from the 1960s by today's standards is ludicrous on it's face.
My mother got married as soon as she could (16yrs) to escape an abusive family situation.
To her credit, she broke the abuse cycle and has never whipped either my sister or myself.

My father on the other hand was taught that if you "spare the rod, you spoil the child".
I could tell that it was difficult for him emotionally to dole out corporal punishment as he was taught and so I forgave him for doing what he thought was best for me.

In the late 50's and early 60's it was almost an obligation (socially speaking) to get married and raise a family. Today, in many churches, that same mindset pervades.
My parents were both into health food and exercise so tell me why I should measure them with a crack-whore yardstick.

Btw, do you have one handy?

Harpy
19th May 09, 01:57 AM
My parents were both into health food and exercise so tell me why I should measure them with a crack-whore yardstick.

Btw, do you have one handy?

ZOMG, like wow, your parents liked carrots?

As for the crack-whore yardstick, I am sure someone in your family has one handy.

nihilist
19th May 09, 02:08 AM
Discourse with you is what I would imagine it would be like to shove turds back into my ass so I could shit them back out into the toilet over and over again.

Sirc
19th May 09, 03:18 AM
As (Global) President Obama takes to the stage at Notre Dame university and the anti-abortionists turn up to scream 'don't kill our children', one wonders why the topic even gets this much airtime in America.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30782728?GT1=43001

Can one of the Yanks tell me if they would vote for a president based strongly on their pro-life or pro-choice stance and why this has any bearing on how a president is going to run the country.

Also why do people feel so vehemently about it that they are willing to make death threats/assassination attempts in the name of their cause?








(Anyone who suggests that I be post-natally aborted needs to die)

BECAUSE YOUNGER BIRTHS ARE BECOMING MORE PREVALENT AND THE ISSUE AT HAND IS ENDING THE LIFE OF A CHILD THAT NEVER GOT TO START IT. I KNOW YOU'RE A STUPID WHORE, BUT THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING EVEN YOU COULD UNDERSTAND.

Please lock this thread, ban Lily and be done with it.

honesty
19th May 09, 03:28 AM
At what point does it become a child though? At conception? A few weeks after when the it's still just a collection of cells? 8 weeks when the foetus stage starts?

Cullion
19th May 09, 03:42 AM
Isn't your population shrinking like the rest of the 'enlightened west'?

The single mother on welfare demographic isn't. What's your point?



This is my point exactly. Making something illegal won't make it stop happening entirely, and making abortion illegal will just make those really determined to get one

You could use this stupid argument with any crime.


(and it's not something anyone does lightly)

That's not actually true.



You can't equate abortion to any of those things (strawman lolololol) because as you said, abortion isn't a criminal act.

Abortion of a late second or third trimester foetus outside of certain tightly defined justifications is a criminal act, that's my point.



Maybe a better metaphor would be drugs or something because when administered in a safe, government-controlled environment the risk is minimal but when made illegal the danger increases exponentially.

You're equating the risk somebody takes with their own body to indulge in hedonism with homocide of an infant.



I'm not asking you to and no one else is asking you to. The debate is on whether something that's necessary should be made illegal.

It's not necessary.



Good luck proving to that an embryo/early stage foetus is a full human and deserves full human rights.

Nobody here has attempted this yet.



And your body is not politically anologous with your home or land, you also know this.

Come on old boy, you can do better than this.

It was a response to people attempting to use constitutional 'private sphere' arguments.



That's because they've made a baseless assumption. Any significant intellectual will tell you the jury's still out (and has been for a long, long time) as to what and when is a right-holding indvidual. Heh, we just talked about this at my last Philosophy lecture. Rights are messy, messy business, but being an American you're already entrenched in a foundationalist view...

Well, if intellectuals have decided for you, I guess the case is closed then.

How old are you, out of curiosity?


So out of curiousity, has the anti-abortion crowd actually got an argument or just false assumptions and strawmen?

Yes, a really simple one. A kicking baby that responds to music is a living being, and therefore should not be put to death for the social convenience of either parent. This argument does not apply to first trimester embryos.

Toby Christensen
19th May 09, 03:45 AM
I'm just interested in the Eugenics Movement and its apparently random sterilisation of people in North America and possibly elsewhere.

Why would such an important social tool be wielded with seemingly NO control?

And during the Nazi regime people with non-genetic disabilities were seen as genetically "unclean" (which shows a lack of understanding of basic biology).

Can anyone in the know fill me in ?!

Sirc
19th May 09, 04:07 AM
At what point does it become a child though? At conception? A few weeks after when the it's still just a collection of cells? 8 weeks when the foetus stage starts?

That doesn't matter so much as you're destroying a person's future.

Sirc
19th May 09, 04:08 AM
I'm just interested in the Eugenics Movement and its apparently random sterilisation of people in North America and possibly elsewhere.

Why would such an important social tool be wielded with seemingly NO control?

And during the Nazi regime people with non-genetic disabilities were seen as genetically "unclean" (which shows a lack of understanding of basic biology).

Can anyone in the know fill me in ?!

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CRIPPLED SHITHEAD. THIS IS ABOUT ABORTION. NOT YOU. START YOUR OWN THREAD.

Virus
19th May 09, 04:26 AM
I think people should be licensed to breed and people that breed without a license should be fined. The license consists of passing a written test and there should also be a means test to make sure the parents can provide for the kid. Parents should also pay a carbon tax to discourage breeding and men that get t3h snip should be given assloads of money for not burdening the planet.

honesty
19th May 09, 04:27 AM
Now and again I agree with Sirc. The above is one of them.


That doesn't matter so much as you're destroying a person's future.

Does that mean that the morning after pill should be considered in the same light as abortions then?

At some point this is true, but there has to be a point when this becomes so, and I dont believe thats within the first trimester. It really comes down to when you say this person comes into being though.

Sirc
19th May 09, 04:50 AM
Now and again I agree with Sirc. The above is one of them.



Does that mean that the morning after pill should be considered in the same light as abortions then?

At some point this is true, but there has to be a point when this becomes so, and I dont believe thats within the first trimester. It really comes down to when you say this person comes into being though.

Just because you're an irresponsible whore, doesn't mean you're pregnant. Nice try though. Pregnancy = life. Aborting that pregnancy = aborting that person's future.

It doesn't matter where in the time stream life should start. That's just fluff and doesn't matter.

honesty
19th May 09, 05:48 AM
You've just contradicted yourself there haven't you?

One of the ways the morning after pill works is by stopping a viable fertilised egg from embedding on the lining of the womb. This is still within the time stream even if its right near the start.

socratic
19th May 09, 07:50 AM
The single mother on welfare demographic isn't. What's your point?

"You need those babies because your population is shrinking"


You could use this stupid argument with any crime.
The difference being murder, rape, theft have always been illegal and abortion hasn't and isn't in the same class at all. I'm not talking about "Shoot the baby in the face when contractions begin" here, I understand that at a certain point a baby (as per commonsensical views) is a human, but there's certainly a defined period in which it is not definitely a human and the ability to abort at all (and specifically in this non-human period) is what we're discussing legalising.


That's not actually true.

I find it hard to believe that people say "Guess I'll just stroll down for an ol' abortion. Whoops! I changed my mind, fancy that." People probably get scared/guilty and change their mind but it doesn't mean they weren't serious to start with.


Abortion of a late second or third trimester foetus outside of certain tightly defined justifications is a criminal act, that's my point.

At what point did I say I wanted to murder babies? As Lily said, no one ever said "Fuck kids, let's kill 'em at any point".


You're equating the risk somebody takes with their own body to indulge in hedonism with homocide of an infant.

No I'm not, I'm equating the risk somebody takes with their own body to indulge in hedonism with the risks somebody takes with their own body to purge themselves of unwanted consequences which we have the technology to do relatively safely, and no real medical reason why it should be prevented.


It's not necessary.

You're a family man so I'm expecting you to not face this kind of dilemma at least for another 5 years [you know, when your kids start fucking without thinking], but imagine for a second the effects having a child has on a promising teenage life.


Nobody here has attempted this yet.

Because it's a big black fucking philosophical hole which no one in the world an argue their way out of with current knowledge, unless they've got the power o' hayzeus on their mind.


It was a response to people attempting to use constitutional 'private sphere' arguments.

What you do to your body is private.


Well, if intellectuals have decided for you, I guess the case is closed then.

Substitute 'scholars' then.


How old are you, out of curiosity?

Twenty. And this is why we disagree, because you don't need the service and thus can't see why anyone would need the service [just yet at least] and I'm in the demographic [sexually active young people who are unmarried] that just, if God hates us, might.


Yes, a really simple one. A kicking baby that responds to music is a living being, and therefore should not be put to death for the social convenience of either parent. This argument does not apply to first trimester embryos.

Of course. But if abortions are illegal then first-trimesters are ruled out, too, aren't they?


I think people should be licensed to breed and people that breed without a license should be fined. The license consists of passing a written test and there should also be a means test to make sure the parents can provide for the kid. Parents should also pay a carbon tax to discourage breeding and men that get t3h snip should be given assloads of money for not burdening the planet.

Go to China. They loooooove comparitively-rich aodaliya there. They do it even better, they will forcibly abort 3rd trimester babies.

HappyOldGuy
19th May 09, 10:16 AM
If Shrub's dad was absent and mom dumped him off on his grandparents he probably would have ended up stoned on his couch posting in CTC.

obFixed

Toby Christensen
19th May 09, 12:46 PM
I think people should be licensed to breed and people that breed without a license should be fined. The license consists of passing a written test and there should also be a means test to make sure the parents can provide for the kid. Parents should also pay a carbon tax to discourage breeding and men that get t3h snip should be given assloads of money for not burdening the planet.

Yes.

This.

Breeding licenses based on people's behaviour and genetic testing.

For example I know some people who have poor genes, but are "salt of the Earth" and others who have poor genes but are scumbags.

"It takes a license to keep a DOG, Toby."- Cathy, academic.

Dagon Akujin
19th May 09, 01:10 PM
At what point did I say I wanted to murder babies? As Lily said, no one ever said "Fuck kids, let's kill 'em at any point".



Um... you are very wrong about that. I work with 13 year olds. There are plenty of them that will only ever be massive burdens on society and I really wish there were laws so we could abort a few of them. There are a number of parents who need to get the old "saline to the brain" treatment as well, before being sucked apart with a vacuum hose.

If we put that to a vote, I'd stick a big yes to "aborting the dregs of society at any age". Darwinism just doesn't work fast or effectively enough.




Go to China. They loooooove comparitively-rich aodaliya there. They do it even better, they will forcibly abort 3rd trimester babies.
In their "Bodies" exhibits there are fetuses at different stages of development. When I saw them, I said very loudly, "Hey, you can see the needle marks where these babies were aborted!" People at the exhibit got very uncomfortable. But there they were, very visible little poke holes in the skulls.

Cullion
19th May 09, 02:21 PM
"You need those babies because your population is shrinking"

Is this supposed to be you arguing in favour or against abortion? And, umm, our population has grown with every census, but whatever,



I'm not talking about "Shoot the baby in the face when contractions begin" here, I understand that at a certain point a baby (as per commonsensical views) is a human, but there's certainly a defined period in which it is not definitely a human and the ability to abort at all (and specifically in this non-human period) is what we're discussing legalising.

No, we're not. Part of the term in which it is already legal in the UK and US overlaps with the period in which I consider it definitely human. You may not. I don't agree with you. At no point have I said I consider it 'definitely human' from the point of conception, so if you're trying to engage me on that point, you're arguing with a castle in the air.



I find it hard to believe that people say "Guess I'll just stroll down for an ol' abortion. Whoops! I changed my mind, fancy that." People probably get scared/guilty and change their mind but it doesn't mean they weren't serious to start with.

I don't care what you believe, I've known people personally who have casually had abortions.



At what point did I say I wanted to murder babies? As Lily said, no one ever said "Fuck kids, let's kill 'em at any point".

It would depend how late into term you're willing to allow abortions.



No I'm not, I'm equating the risk somebody takes with their own body to indulge in hedonism with the risks somebody takes with their own body to purge themselves of unwanted consequences which we have the technology to do relatively safely, and no real medical reason why it should be prevented.

Looked at that way, without defining at which point in the pregnancy you think this should no longer be allowed, there's no real medical reason why you shouldn't be allowed to euthanize somebody against their will.

I am not arguing that human life begins at conception, am I arguing that the laws in my country allow abortion to occur for social reasons after the point at which I consider human life to have already begun. I consider this homicide.



You're a family man so I'm expecting you to not face this kind of dilemma at least for another 5 years [you know, when your kids start fucking without thinking], but imagine for a second the effects having a child has on a promising teenage life.

What makes you think I haven't encountered this already in adult life, more than once ?

I'm the child of a 15 year old mother.

I'll teach my kids about all the other options.



Because it's a big black fucking philosophical hole which no one in the world an argue their way out of with current knowledge, unless they've got the power o' hayzeus on their mind.

That's sophistic bullshit. Attempting to substitute 'scholars' just showed how absurdly dim and abstract your grasp of this is.



What you do to your body is private.

A connection via umbilical cord and storage space doesn't make a living being that reacts to music and moves in response part of your body or 'property' in that sense.



Twenty. And this is why we disagree, because you don't need the service and thus can't see why anyone would need the service [just yet at least] and I'm in the demographic [sexually active young people who are unmarried] that just, if God hates us, might.

Your life experience is insignificant. Don't presume to lecture me about what I can and can't see. Ever comforted a woman through a miscarriage? Ever raised children? Ever felt your own child kick in somebody else's womb?

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and the little you think you do know is taken from absurd abstractions.



Of course. But if abortions are illegal then first-trimesters are ruled out, too, aren't they?

No, and your reading comprehension is as lacking as your life experience. Less talking and more living and reading for you, young man.

JohnnyCache
19th May 09, 02:25 PM
if you're against abortion, please explain how to fairly force pregnant women to carry to term and how to fairly punish women that lose babies.

Cullion
19th May 09, 02:30 PM
if you're against abortion, please explain how to fairly force pregnant women to carry to term

Are we talking about women far enough into the term for the foetus to be considered alive?

If so: Kill it and we charge you with homicide.


and how to fairly punish women that lose babies.

We don't need to, because that's accidental, not homicide.

You're about to ask 'but how will we know whether they're self-aborting'?
I can feel it.

Fearless Ukemi
19th May 09, 02:33 PM
Because most people don't even know what abortion actually entails. Once people find out by having one, they usually feel pretty shitty about it afterwards.

But given our present society, it is a necessary evil.

Cullion
19th May 09, 02:35 PM
The most humane answer is to make it very convenient and private for women to check whether they are pregnant or not, and teach young girls to do this regularly enough that we almost never have to worry about whether aborting a second or third trimester foetus is moral or not.

HappyOldGuy
19th May 09, 02:35 PM
We don't need to, because that's accidental, not homicide.

You're about to ask 'but how will we know whether they're self-aborting'?
I can feel it.

Actually, I think he meant 'lose' as in 'at the mall.' Those annoying ladies who run around the store crying because they forgot whether they left junior in the cosmetic aisle or in front of the kettle corn cart.

Cullion
19th May 09, 02:36 PM
Oh I see what you're saying.

Tracker chips implanted at beginning of second trimester. Leave them turned on after birth in case they grow up to be terrorists.

Harpy
19th May 09, 05:14 PM
Discourse with you is what I would imagine it would be like to shove turds back into my ass so I could shit them back out into the toilet over and over again.

Oh really? Some gems from you:



"Children become fucked up by part-time parents. Statistics prove this."

"My parents were both into health food and exercise so tell me why I should measure them with a crack-whore yardstick.

Btw, do you have one handy?"

"Your lobotomy was a complete success."

"Jesus wants the little crack addicted babies to be raised by single mon-whores"

"Daycare and nannies are bandaids for self-inflicted wounds"

"Why should women get maternity leave? Why should everyone who decides not to overpopulate the planet subsidize Ms. working Mom's whim to get knocked up and take time off while everyone elese picks up the slack for her?"

"Work is not the pursuit of good parenting"

"Many kids are being raised by computers, video games , nannies and mentally preoccupied career whores who's children's needs come after their own."

"Now shut up and stop taking the internet so serious"


Very intellectual.

Sirc
19th May 09, 06:44 PM
You've just contradicted yourself there haven't you?

One of the ways the morning after pill works is by stopping a viable fertilised egg from embedding on the lining of the womb. This is still within the time stream even if its right near the start.

Still doesn't mean you're pregnant.

Taking the morning after pill just prevents ovulation. Doesn't make it abortion.

Cullion
19th May 09, 06:54 PM
No, it doesn't just prevent ovulation. It stops a fertilised egg from embedding in the womb. It's like a super-early stage forced miscarriage, i.e. what's sometimes happening naturally when a woman's period is late.

Dark Helmet
19th May 09, 06:59 PM
I think people should be licensed to breed and people that breed without a license should be fined. The license consists of passing a written test and there should also be a means test to make sure the parents can provide for the kid. Parents should also pay a carbon tax to discourage breeding and men that get t3h snip should be given assloads of money for not burdening the planet.
Heinlein approved.

nihilist
19th May 09, 07:41 PM
Very intellectual. Maybe for you.

Too bad you don't have a logical argument,
Just rhetoric and flaccid contempt.

Harpy
19th May 09, 07:52 PM
Too bad you don't have a logical argument,
Just rhetoric and flaccid contempt.

Congratulations, you've just described yourself.

Harpy
19th May 09, 08:15 PM
Better off aborted?

US man accused of biting out son's eye

A four-year-old California boy may be permanently blinded after police say his father bit out one of his eyes and mutilated the other.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/815559/us-man-accused-of-biting-out-sons-eye

Robot Jesus
19th May 09, 08:38 PM
If she did such a wonderful job, why are you so offended and defensive?





because you are attacking her desier to seek an education and improve herself, something that she impressed upon me as important early in my life. you are attacking her as being a bad parent because she demonstrated something that is nessecary to sucseed in life. I feel like I'm arguing with a hutterite.

nihilist
19th May 09, 10:20 PM
because you are attacking her desier to seek an education and improve herself...
No moron I did not .
Show me where I attacked people seeking education.

nihilist
19th May 09, 10:21 PM
nanny-nanny- so are you.

socratic
19th May 09, 10:59 PM
Abortions in the first trimester are abortions (no shit), and would be included under the procedures made illegal under the whole 'abortion is illegal' thing. If you're arguing only to make abortions in the 2nd/3rd trimester illegal then you're going to have to argue why, and why at this point the entity suddenly becomes a rights-endowed human being. I agree that after a certain point in a pregnancy an abortion is wrong, but you're acting like your grizzled ass has the simple answers to the questions the entire applied ethics community is debating about this very second. At what point is a foetus a human, Cullion, and why is it that a foetus should have human rights when its capabilities are so severely below that of a developed, legal-entity human? Because it can react to physical stimuli? If the foetus has the same right to life as its mother is it okay to abort a foetus in the 2nd or 3rd trimester for medical reasons [e.g. birth would kill the mother]? Since I'm just a neophyte and you're clearly both a doctor and a philosopher I'd just love to hear your professional opinion on the matter.

Now that I think about it, a good yard-stick used to be 'don't abort past the age at which the child could live outside the womb' but obviously that age is decreasing as medicine advances.



If we put that to a vote, I'd stick a big yes to "aborting the dregs of society at any age". Darwinism just doesn't work fast or effectively enough.

Hahahaha.


In their "Bodies" exhibits there are fetuses at different stages of development. When I saw them, I said very loudly, "Hey, you can see the needle marks where these babies were aborted!" People at the exhibit got very uncomfortable. But there they were, very visible little poke holes in the skulls.

If you're married to a Chinese man the government reserves the right to abort your child at any point, and they probably will if you have more than 2 or 3.

Ajamil
22nd May 09, 03:52 PM
I think people should be licensed to breed and people that breed without a license should be fined. The license consists of passing a written test and there should also be a means test to make sure the parents can provide for the kid. Parents should also pay a carbon tax to discourage breeding and men that get t3h snip should be given assloads of money for not burdening the planet.

You have no idea how nice it feels to have something in common with you, Virus.

Religiously though, I have a weird stance on this. Reincarnation allows abortion not to end the life, just kinda put someone at the back of the line. It's more the idea of not caring about the soul that would have inhabited the aborted fetus that's the bother.

Robot Jesus
22nd May 09, 04:41 PM
the only truly fair way to effect eugenics is economically. pay people not to have children. pay $2000 or so for anyone who wants it to get a vasectomy.

the poor will take advantage of it more than the rich, but it's still reversible; so for a price one could change their minds.

The program will pay for its self in about 40 years.

Cullion
22nd May 09, 05:03 PM
Abortions in the first trimester are abortions (no shit), and would be included under the procedures made illegal under the whole 'abortion is illegal' thing.

You're not actually arguing with what I said here.



If you're arguing only to make abortions in the 2nd/3rd trimester illegal then you're going to have to argue why, and why at this point the entity suddenly becomes a rights-endowed human being.

Because it has a heartbeat and moves in reaction to human voices. That's the point I consider it a human being.



I agree that after a certain point in a pregnancy an abortion is wrong, but you're acting like your grizzled ass has the simple answers to the questions the entire applied ethics community is debating about this very second.

I don't give a shit. That's not how democracy works. I totally reserve the right to completely ignore the opinion of some philosophy dorks.


Because it can react to physical stimuli? If the foetus has the same right to life as its mother is it okay to abort a foetus in the 2nd or 3rd trimester for medical reasons [e.g. birth would kill the mother]? Since I'm just a neophyte and you're clearly both a doctor and a philosopher I'd just love to hear your professional opinion on the matter.

You would have already done if you'd bothered reading the whole thread.



Now that I think about it, a good yard-stick used to be 'don't abort past the age at which the child could live outside the womb' but obviously that age is decreasing as medicine advances.

I don't agree with that yardstick. An embryo may one day be able to survive outside the womb, it won't mean I consider it a living human.

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd May 09, 05:22 PM
Abortion is a big deal in this country because it helps establish and entrench political camps on both sides and thus, keeps campaign contributions a-flowin'

nihilist
29th May 09, 10:43 PM
One look at Britney Spears tells us that Human Life is not at all sacred.

f4n4n
29th May 09, 10:44 PM
This comeback took you a week?

nihilist
30th May 09, 01:08 AM
No. I've been waiting to release it in hopes that some retard would have something worthless to say so I could chastise him for it.

f4n4n
30th May 09, 01:15 AM
I see... keep waiting.

nihilist
30th May 09, 01:17 AM
Too bad there's no such thing as a triple facepalm.

Cullion
30th May 09, 01:53 PM
No. I've been waiting to release it in hopes that some retard would have something worthless to say so I could chastise him for it.

I'd do Britney now she's in shape again.

nihilist
30th May 09, 05:50 PM
And get Federline all over your wanger?

Cullion
30th May 09, 05:58 PM
I'm just not as fussy as you.

nihilist
30th May 09, 10:37 PM
The password is discerning.

Ajamil
30th May 09, 11:51 PM
I discern a general lack of real smutty sex in my life. Therefore, I'd do her too.