# How do you feel about abortion?



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Apr 20, 2018)

I get sick to my stomach hearing about it. If they were like just getting settled then ok, But be safe next time But when you can give birth at any moment or the baby is forming then thats when you look at adoption!


----------



## Mikemk (Apr 20, 2018)

Abortion is murder.  Discussions about legalizing abortion are discussions about legalizing murder.  Except in cases where carrying the child puts the mother's life in jeopardy, in which case it's self defense.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 20, 2018)

If I give my honest opinion, will ya'll promise to hear me out and not massacre me so long as I can give good reason for everything I say?


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2018)

Complicated. An abortion IS a human life being ended, and it doesn't matter if the fetus is viable yet or not. But for the abortion, the potential is there for a person to live a full life. Not calling that intervention the ending of a life is like pretending you didn't waste a cake when you take it out of the oven when it just started baking and just dump it in the garbage instead.

But, it's none of the government's business. The government shouldn't involve itself in charging anyone who has or performs an abortion with a crime, at least not if the abortion is done in compliance with Roe and Casey. Nor should the government be subsidizing the procedure (that does happen though, through funding Planned Parenthood and direct payment for the procedure via Medicaid in some states).

It gets more difficult when the father's rights wrt: abortion are considered. Basically, he has none. If the mother decides to have an abortion, he can't stop it. If she refuses to have an abortion, he can't force it. But either way, his life is affected in a major way. Either the child he wanted is terminated, or the child he didn't want becomes his financial liability for 18 years. It's easy to say, 'her body, her choice,' but her choice affects more lives than just her own. The law gives a pregnant woman a way out if she wants it. The 'pregnant man' is helpless.

Fortunately I've never had to confront the issue in my personal life. Anyone who thinks it's a simple issue hasn't really thought about it much.


----------



## Kigiru (Apr 20, 2018)

It should be legal only in few special cases like pregnancy by rape or incest, pregnancy being dangerous for mother and if the children is confirmed to have health issues so serious that they will not be able to live more than few hours.

In other situations it should not be a thing.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 20, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> The 'pregnant man' is helpless.


I understand the point you're trying to get across, but there is no "we" in pregnancy, and the phrase "pregnant man" in this context is an oxymoron. Yes, the male in the relationship may have an emotional investment in the pregnancy, but it's not him that has to deal with all the physical hardships of carrying a child. Sure, it would be polite to have his opinion considered in the discussion of whether or not the child is kept, but in the end it's SOLELY up to the mother. Her body, her choice, in that regard.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Kigiru said:


> It should be legal only in few special cases like pregnancy by rape or incest, pregnancy being dangerous for mother and if the children is confirmed to have health issues so serious that they will not be able to live more than few hours.


Since I've given myself permission to speak on the matter: what's the difference between aborting the fetus of a rape victim vs literally anyone else, morally and/or physically speaking?


----------



## Kigiru (Apr 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Since I've given myself permission to speak on the matter: what's the difference between aborting the fetus of a rape victim vs literally anyone else, morally and/or physically speaking?



No woman should be realy forced to be pregnant, simply to put. No woman should also bear a very complicated reminder that they were raped. I think that it is logical that pregnancy by rape is not good at all and can lead woman to some serious mental issues.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I understand the point you're trying to get across, but there is no "we" in pregnancy, and the phrase "pregnant man" in this context is an oxymoron. Yes, the male in the relationship may have an emotional investment in the pregnancy, but it's not him that has to deal with all the physical hardships of carrying a child. Sure, it would be polite to have his opinion considered in the discussion of whether or not the child is kept, but in the end it's SOLELY up to the mother. *Her body, her choice*, in that regard.



If there's no "we" in the 9 months of pregnancy, then why is there a "we" for 18 years of child support?

As long as that choice you're talking about includes allowing the father to opt out of financial responsibility (other than the cost of the abortion, if that's what happens) within a certain amount of time after being informed of the pregnancy, then sure, her body, her choice. Her choice shouldn't take his financial support as a given if he doesn't want the baby. The mother's allowed to wash her hands of it if she wants to, the father should also have that opportunity, within certain conditions. Equal protection and treatment under the law. I know I'm pissing in the wind to even suggest that, but it's how I feel about it.




TotalInsanity4 said:


> Since I've given myself permission to speak on the matter: what's the difference between aborting the fetus of a rape victim vs literally anyone else, morally and/or physically speaking?



Fair question, but I think the answer again is about responsibility. Consensual sex includes the risk of pregnancy, non-consensual sex _imposes_ the risk of pregnancy.

Again, I'm not an abortion hardliner. I'm fine with the standards from Roe and Casey. Up to a certain point in the fetus' development, I support the mother's right to opt out. I'm just addressing your question, i.e. how can rape be differentiated.


----------



## slaphappygamer (Apr 20, 2018)

It’s the woman’s choice to choose. It’s a personal choice. Im not going to tell someone else what they should do with their body. I’m a dude. I really have no say, unless it’s our baby.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2018)

slaphappygamer said:


> It’s the woman’s choice to choose. It’s a personal choice. Im not going to tell someone else what they should do with their body. I’m a dude. I really have no say, unless it’s our baby.




You have no say even if it is your baby.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> You have no say even if it is your baby.


Legally he has no say. But ethically he should have some say about what happens to his child - if the decision to have a child was consensual.


----------



## Jayro (Apr 20, 2018)

Abortions RULE! We need them, and they need to be mandatory for people with more than 2 kids on welfare. We're over-populated as fuck, so we should start regulating babies like China does. Besides, kids are annoying fuckbags anyways. They're gross, whiny, needy, they stink, they're dumber than rocks, and expensive as fuck to raise. No thanks... ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

Jayro said:


> Abortions RULE! We need them, and they need to be mandatory for people with more than 2 kids on welfare. We're over-populated as fuck, so we should start regulating babies like China does. Besides, kids are annoying fuckbags anyways. They're gross, whiny, needy, they stink, they're dumber than rocks, and expensive as fuck to raise. No thanks... ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!


Uh, wow. I hope this is some parody.

That way lies the path to the dark side. Forced abortions? No thanks. The state should have no say in matters of medicine like this. Nanny state much?


----------



## dpad_5678 (Apr 20, 2018)

"_Life is precious until it's born. Then fuck it._" - conservatives


----------



## kuwanger (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> But ethically he should have some say about what happens to his child



The problem is it's hard to argue the abortion--ie, a form of murder--is ethical.  Ethics presume a sort of code of conduct that as axioms includes a variety of unrealistic principles at times*.  Add to that that it's very rarely, if ever, possible to argue that you have an ethical say in the workings of another person's body.  I mean, I understand the point you're trying to raise, but you wouldn't have a discussion about the ethics of whether a father has any say on whether a mother murders her one year old.

* Ethics tries to get around this by introducing things like self-defense, for example.  Or has to include situations like whether you should lie to protect someone who you presume will be murdered if you tell the truth.


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Apr 20, 2018)

I think after 4 months thats when you can't abort 
you had enough time to go now put it up or keep it


----------



## Searinox (Apr 20, 2018)

I see abortion opposition as the result of people's rigid views about what is human, or living, clashing with the biological reality of life development. Once they found out that pregnancy starts out quite a while before any belly bulge and that the egg is microscopic in size, they were willing to coin that as much of a person as any other.

Yet we have situations where we legally discuss quality of life of persistently vegetative state people and where we take away some rights of mentally ill people that clearly show we are best handling a human being and its basic rights on the capabilities they possess at that time. We also discussed similar rights of ethics and cruelty to animals based on their exhibited intelligence and ability to feel. For example we added octopi to a list of considerations just because they were more sentient than other cephalopods and had some debates on dolphins. I believe the personhood of a developing fetus should be handled in much the same way.

I believe the standard should be defined around this emerging consensus tying intelligence and ability to grasp their surroundings and state to determine personhood. As such, I could only ever see problems with late-term abortions. Being us trying to determine a standard for an emergent, evolving process for whom biology didn't care to delimit for us, I don't think there's ever going to be a way that pleases everyone but current standards about fetus viability seem appropriate to me.

Nothing was made perfect. We were made to kill in order to live by construction in order to feed. Even if we could solely eat vegetables and survive it'd still be taking life. Even as we walk we may crush living things. We are by construction presented with some moral dilemmas to life and taking it. We make an exception for our own species, an exception that seems hypocritical but NECESSARY to us, and even then we struggle as we defend other lifeforms from unnecessary cruelty. Yes in an ideal world we wouldn't need to take life ever, but we live in the real world, and compromises must be found.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> The problem is it's hard to argue the abortion--ie, a form of murder--is ethical.  Ethics presume a sort of code of conduct that as axioms includes a variety of unrealistic principles at times*.  Add to that that it's very rarely, if ever, possible to argue that you have an ethical say in the workings of another person's body.  I mean, I understand the point you're trying to raise, but you wouldn't have a discussion about the ethics of whether a father has any say on whether a mother murders her one year old.
> 
> * Ethics tries to get around this by introducing things like self-defense, for example.  Or has to include situations like whether you should lie to protect someone who you presume will be murdered if you tell the truth.


Personally I believe early in pregnancy - particularly at the morula stage - when the embryo is still a mass of unorganized cells - that abortion does not constitute murder. It's not much different than removing a mole at that point. Here an abortion seems much less about deciding life and death, and more akin to deciding whether or not to sell the family car etc.

But I can see your point about thinking this is an amoral situation. I personally think morals are relative, and so you could have a moral/ethical debate about matters some traditionally think to be completely outside the realm of morals entirely.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 20, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> If there's no "we" in the 9 months of pregnancy, then why is there a "we" for 18 years of child support?


You cannot seriously be equating the burden of pregnancy with the responsibility of parenthood



> Fair question, but I think the answer again is about responsibility. Consensual sex includes the risk of pregnancy, non-consensual sex _imposes_ the risk of pregnancy.


Now hang on, something you need to understand is that bringing someone into this world should not be a _consequence_. Someone should only birth a child if they feel as though they are ready to take care of one. If you see carrying a pregnancy to term as "punishment" for sex, especially if the parents are, for instance, financially unable to support a child, then there are bigger issues that need to be addressed on top of that. Especially the fact that that "punishment" WILL trickle down to the child

Another thing, though, is that I find that there's a moral inconsistency in your argument that I HOPE you realize isn't there. In your above argument, you say that the father should be able to opt out of child support if he didn't support keeping the child, which implies that you're forgiving him for having unsafe sex with his partner. However, below that, you then state that if a mother chooses to have consensual sex and conceives, she should take responsibility. I hate to pull the term "sexist" out and wave it around, because I really hate using "isms" in arguments because many people think that it's a buzzword, but even if you yourself are not intending it to be so, I'd say that your argument is rooted in an incredibly sexist thought process


----------



## XDel (Apr 20, 2018)

I think there are a lot of benefits.

1. Maintain your girly figure.
2. No nagging brats hanging at your ankle.
3. Nothing to hold you back from your career.
4. Satisfy that life long curiosity; get out there and see what this abortion business is all about!
5. With abortion, there is zero reason not to walk scantly clad through a high crime neighborhood.
6. Give the middle finger to God, or Nature, or what ever it is that people make up and worship.
7. Nothing else to do.
8. Become a Hero.


----------



## kuwanger (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Personally I believe early in pregnancy - particularly at the morula stage - when the embryo is still a mass of unorganized cells - that abortion does not constitute murder. It's not much different than removing a mole at that point.



I understand what you're arguing at one level, but moles don't grow into a separate human being.  That's pretty much the dividing line to me:  there's simply not a process that moles, cancer, etc will become intelligent, and so we have to treat an embryo or a fetus like we would a whole human.  We don't tend to argue that dolphins that are young enough don't qualify as dolphins, so we can kill them as we please.

I mean, as far as being able to survive and general intelligence, how old does a human tend to have to be to make it alone?  At least five or six years?  Humans are pretty insanely defenseless as very young children, even in a very benign environment.  It seems pretty clear we're conveniently twisting our standards to overcome the moral objects of ending a human's life, yet we don't spend remotely the same effort to kill a more intelligent animal--pick just about any non-primate at one year old.

So, yea, if we as a society recognize we'd rather have abortions than have more unwanted/abused/neglected children,  then that's really a pragmatic compromise we're making.  If we're argue it's just a matter of instantaneous biology on intelligence or viability of life without support, we need to make some actual standard and apply it across the board.  Maybe that means a one year old pig has more right to live than a one year old human.  Then again, I don't think humans are any more special than humans make themselves to be, at the behest of defense from other humans most often.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Now hang on, something you need to understand is that bringing someone into this world should not be a _consequence_. Someone should only birth a child if they feel as though they are ready to take care of one. If you see carrying a pregnancy to term as "punishment" for sex, even if the parents are, for instance, financially unable to support a child, then there are bigger issues that need to be addressed on top of that. Especially the fact that that "punishment" WILL trickle down to the child
> 
> Another thing, though, is that I find that there's a moral inconsistency in your argument that I HOPE you realize isn't there. In your above argument, you say that the father should be able to opt out of child support if he didn't support keeping the child, which implies that you're forgiving him for having unsafe sex with his partner. However, below that, you then state that if a mother chooses to have consensual sex and conceives, she should take responsibility. I hate to pull the term "sexist" out and wave it around, because I really hate using "isms" in arguments because many people think that it's a buzzword, but even if you yourself are not intending it to be so, I'd say that your argument is rooted in an incredibly sexist thought process




Pregnancy IS a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. Not a punishment, but it is a potential consequence. Simple cause and effect of the human condition. You can inject laws and medical procedures to erase that consequence, but if one party to creating the pregnancy is allowed by law to end the consequence to themselves, then the other party should have that same opportunity. That approach IS morally consistent. If a pregnancy results from consensual sex then the woman has the choice to terminate the pregnancy and her parental obligation, within the conditions set by law. The male should have the same opportunity, but I didn't say it was absolute. If he is informed of the pregnancy, he should have a limited time in which to decide if he's going to be on board. Maybe a month. Maybe less. If he doesn't opt out before the time runs out, then he's "in," irrevocably, for parental rights, child support, etc. If he decides he doesn't want to take part in raising the child or providing financial support for the child, then he's out, but she still has the choice to have the baby or not. They both took part in the consensual act that created the pregnancy. If one has the right to decide whether it affects their future or not, that choice should extend to both. Nothing sexist about it. If anything, the way things work now is "incredibly sexist."


----------



## xpoverzion (Apr 20, 2018)

Abortion is great!!  Humans are a destructive cancer to the earth.   The last thing the earth needs is more destructive, cancerous humans.  The more abortions, the better!


----------



## invaderyoyo (Apr 20, 2018)

It's absolutely the woman's choice. The fetus's neural pathways aren't even formed, yet.

Even if it was a person, a woman's right to her own body trumps the fetus's rights. It's literally inside the woman. If she no longer wants it in there, it has to go.

It may sound harsh to "pro life" people, but that's how I see it.

George Carlin does a great routine on abortion. 



Spoiler: George Carlin on abortion


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 20, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> I understand what you're arguing at one level, but moles don't grow into a separate human being.  That's pretty much the dividing line to me:  there's simply not a process that moles, cancer, etc will become intelligent, and so we have to treat an embryo or a fetus like we would a whole human.  We don't tend to argue that dolphins that are young enough don't qualify as dolphins, so we can kill them as we please.


You seem to be conflating the idea of a fetus with the that of a child that's already been born (or whatever you're trying to get across with your "dolphin" argument, I honestly don't understand it). The reality of the matter is that until roughly 22 weeks into the pregnancy, the thing that's inside a woman's body ISN'T human; or at least not a separate biological entity capable of surviving without being connected directly to the mechanisms meant to keep it alive inside the womb. Until that point, a fetus is effectively a grouping of stem cells that has no conscious thought or idea of what goes on in its surroundings. And saying "it grows into a human" is simply a non-argument, due to the fact that not only are there many times throughout the early pregnancy stages where a "fetus" could self-terminate without the mother even knowing (a prime example of this would be a fertilized egg dislodging from the uterine wall and leaving the body with the next period), you're also effectively saying that every sperm cell and every egg has a right to life. Which is absurd, there's nothing that would classify either of those as "human," despite that they are what multiply into an embryo.



> I mean, as far as being able to survive and general intelligence, how old does a human tend to have to be to make it alone?  At least five or six years?  Humans are pretty insanely defenseless as very young children, even in a very benign environment.  It seems pretty clear we're conveniently twisting our standards to overcome the moral objects of ending a human's life, yet we don't spend remotely the same effort to kill a more intelligent animal--pick just about any non-primate at one year old.


You're implying that the responsibility of taking care of your birthed child is in any way equivalent to the involuntary process a woman's body goes through to develop offspring throughout the stages of pregnancy; it isn't.



> So, yea, if we as a society recognize we'd rather have abortions than have more unwanted/abused/neglected children,  then that's really a pragmatic compromise we're making.  If we're argue it's just a matter of instantaneous biology on intelligence or viability of life without support, we need to make some actual standard and apply it across the board.  Maybe that means a one year old pig has more right to live than a one year old human.  Then again, I don't think humans are any more special than humans make themselves to be, at the behest of defense from other humans most often.


You seem to think that the idea you're proposing is absurd, when really it's quite practical. I don't see why you brought pigs into the argument, though


----------



## SG854 (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Legally he has no say. But ethically he should have some say about what happens to his child - if the decision to have a child was consensual.



I wish guys can say the same. For women its my body my choice. For the male draft its my body not my choice. Or even when it comes to abortion.
Its your body when you have to work a job support that child. Its your body when you have to expose yourself to the dangers of work. Some guys that don't have a college degree have to work and are pushed to a higher paying more dangerous job so that can make enough to support that child. And dangerous jobs more often males take and suffer majority of work related injuries and death. Pregnancy and delivery may last nine months, but try a dangerous job for 18 yrs. Women may provide the womb. But men provide the financial womb.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 20, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Pregnancy IS a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. Not a punishment, but it is a potential consequence. Simple cause and effect of the human condition. You can inject laws and medical procedures to erase that consequence, but if one party to creating the pregnancy is allowed by law to end the consequence to themselves, then the other party should have that same opportunity. That approach IS morally consistent. If a pregnancy results from consensual sex then the woman has the choice to terminate the pregnancy and her parental obligation, within the conditions set by law. The male should have the same opportunity, but I didn't say it was absolute. If he is informed of the pregnancy, he should have a limited time in which to decide if he's going to be on board. Maybe a month. Maybe less. If he doesn't opt out before the time runs out, then he's "in," irrevocably, for parental rights, child support, etc. If he decides he doesn't want to take part in raising the child or providing financial support for the child, then he's out, but she still has the choice to have the baby or not. They both took part in the consensual act that created the pregnancy. If one has the right to decide whether it affects their future or not, that choice should extend to both. Nothing sexist about it. If anything, the way things work now is "incredibly sexist."


Hm...

That's an interesting addition. I'll have to think on that one a bit


----------



## dpad_5678 (Apr 20, 2018)

Mother wants to abort child because of tough financial issues > abortion is illegal > mother asks for benefits from the government > gets called a skank and a moocher


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Hm...
> 
> That's an interesting addition. I'll have to think on that one a bit




It's okay. I never ask or expect anyone to agree with me. Just responding to what you said, and I thought about it before responding too. Even if you and I disagree on a lot of things I always respect that you have thought about your position and feel strongly about it.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> I understand what you're arguing at one level, but moles don't grow into a separate human being.  That's pretty much the dividing line to me:  there's simply not a process that moles, cancer, etc will become intelligent, and so we have to treat an embryo or a fetus like we would a whole human.  We don't tend to argue that dolphins that are young enough don't qualify as dolphins, so we can kill them as we please.
> 
> I mean, as far as being able to survive and general intelligence, how old does a human tend to have to be to make it alone?  At least five or six years?  Humans are pretty insanely defenseless as very young children, even in a very benign environment.  It seems pretty clear we're conveniently twisting our standards to overcome the moral objects of ending a human's life, yet we don't spend remotely the same effort to kill a more intelligent animal--pick just about any non-primate at one year old.
> 
> So, yea, if we as a society recognize we'd rather have abortions than have more unwanted/abused/neglected children,  then that's really a pragmatic compromise we're making.  If we're argue it's just a matter of instantaneous biology on intelligence or viability of life without support, we need to make some actual standard and apply it across the board.  Maybe that means a one year old pig has more right to live than a one year old human.  Then again, I don't think humans are any more special than humans make themselves to be, at the behest of defense from other humans most often.



Sure moles don't grow into separate human beings on their own. But actually it's possible to create a human being from a mole. You can insert the nucleus from a mole in an unfertilized egg and produce something capable of becoming human. Further - if you supplied the right growth factors to a mole cell itself you could ditch the fertilized egg entirely.

Now let's talk about a sperm. Given the right circumstances it too can create human life. Does it matter that it's only one half? Should we be concerned with protecting the life of a sperm?

Viewed from this angle - the early embryo is nothing more than simple cellular machinery. No more special than any other machinery. 

I get your dolphin point - but we kill other animals all the time for meat so I don't think it's very significant. Not to mention literally no one would be upset about a dolphin abortion, especially early in pregnancy. 

I understand your point about the shifting line for children - and when it's okay to kill them. But with all due respect I don't think that has much to do with basic faceless cellular machinery resembling a mole. But with regard to that - there were times in human culture when it was normal to leave a child to die even after birth. - This isn't wrong or right, such terms don't exist universally. In the relative morality of the day it was right. But there is no universal right. We would most likely say this is wrong today, but our judgement has little bearing on how others lead their lives. 

As for abortion for economic and criminal reduction - I don't think there are many people advocating this idea. Most of the arguments for abortion are more about the choice of the mother.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I wish guys can say the same. For women its my body my choice. For the male draft its my body not my choice. Or even when it comes to abortion.


Funny you should bring the draft into it, because I think you'll find that the people who support a women's right to abortion also coincide with people who think that the draft should be dismantled


> Its your body when you have to work a job support that child.


As many women do


> Its your body when you have to expose yourself to the dangers of work. Some guys that don't have a college degree have to work and are pushed to a higher paying more dangerous job so that can make enough to support that child.


Correct. That's another issue entirely, though, that I think you'll find has been exhaustively discussed in the "Capitalism vs Communism" thread


> And dangerous jobs more often males take and suffer majority of work related injuries and death. Pregnancy and delivery may last nine months, but try a dangerous job for 18 yrs. Women may provide the womb. But men provide the financial womb.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I wish guys can say the same. For women its my body my choice. For the male draft its my body not my choice. Or even when it comes to abortion.
> Its your body when you have to work a job support that child. Its your body when you have to expose yourself to the dangers of work. Some guys that don't have a college degree have to work and are pushed to a higher paying more dangerous job so that can make enough to support that child. And dangerous jobs more often males take and suffer majority of work related injuries and death. Pregnancy and delivery may last nine months, but try a dangerous job for 18 yrs. Women may provide the womb. But men provide the financial womb.


Thing is this is a medical procedure. 

The "my body my choice" thing applies to medical procedures for both men and women. No one can take your organ for example.

Let's say you have a child who needs a kidney to survive, you're a perfect match, and you decide not to give the kid your kidney. It's a decision similar to abortion - you let your child die because you didn't want to make a bodily sacrifice. Men are allowed to not give their children their kidneys - and so I would say the matter is fair on both sides.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Funny you should bring the draft into it, because I think you'll find that the people who support a women's right to abortion also coincide with people who think that the draft should be dismantled
> 
> As many women do
> 
> Correct. That's another issue entirely, though, that I think you'll find has been exhaustively discussed in the "Capitalism vs Communism" thread



Not a different issue when you have to support that child.

*"And dangerous jobs more often males take and suffer majority of work related injuries and death. Pregnancy and delivery may last nine months, but try a dangerous job for 18 yrs. Women may provide the womb. But men provide the financial womb."*

I don't see anything wrong with this at all. Males suffer majority of work related injures and suffer 93% of job deaths.


----------



## ov3rkill (Apr 20, 2018)

Abortions should be legal up to 10 years old. or 15? or 18? maybe? haha j/k 

On a serious note, it should be legal under certain circumstances like choosing the life between the mother and the child.
If the life of the mother is in danger of giving birth and abortion is the only option so she could live, then I think abortion is fine.
If it's 50-50, then it's a tough choice for the couple, but for me, I'd choose my wife.
If the survivability is in favour of the child, then I'm gonna choose the life of the child.
There are issues. It sucks. That's life. It will probably fuck anyone's mind when it comes to that.

As for rape victims, they should just consider adoption.
There are people who want children but aren't blessed with.
That way it won't eat up with their conscience.

At the end of the day, it's a woman's choice or the couple.
People should just respect that and not make a big fuzz about it.
I don't know how the world will end be it overpopulation, nuclear war, pollution, global warming, all of the above, etc.
Just enjoy life. Live it. Procreate. Natural selection will find its way. 

Anyone saw the movie 'What Happened to Monday'?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2018)

Mikemk said:


> Abortion is murder.  Discussions about legalizing abortion are discussions about legalizing murder.  Except in cases where carrying the child puts the mother's life in jeopardy, in which case it's self defense.


Abortion is, has been, and must be legal.  It's an option, not a requirement, and a much-needed option in areas of the country where sex ed isn't granted or contraceptives are frowned upon for some stupid reason.  Before it was legal, people would go to back-alley abortionists if they were desperate, and (obviously) the rate of medical complications/malpractice were much higher.

What I dislike about the anti-abortion crowd is that they're all too often eager to send 18-year-olds fresh out of high school to their deaths in unnecessary wars, and it's usually the disenfranchised kids *without *any other option.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

ov3rkill said:


> Abortions should be legal up to 10 years old. or 15? or 18? maybe? haha j/k
> 
> On a serious note, it should be legal under certain circumstances like choosing the life between the mother and the child.
> If the life of the mother is in danger of giving birth and abortion is the only option so she could live, then I think abortion is fine.
> ...


Honestly the best cure for overpopulation is birth control. Look at Western Europe. When given the choice people seem to prefer not to have kids.

I almost think the world could end with underpopulation - unless we develop artificial wombs. In which case this whole abortion debate can finally be done with.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Apr 20, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Pregnancy IS a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. Not a punishment, but it is a potential consequence. Simple cause and effect of the human condition. You can inject laws and medical procedures to erase that consequence, but if one party to creating the pregnancy is allowed by law to end the consequence to themselves, then the other party should have that same opportunity. That approach IS morally consistent. If a pregnancy results from consensual sex then the woman has the choice to terminate the pregnancy and her parental obligation, within the conditions set by law. The male should have the same opportunity, but I didn't say it was absolute. If he is informed of the pregnancy, he should have a limited time in which to decide if he's going to be on board. Maybe a month. Maybe less. If he doesn't opt out before the time runs out, then he's "in," irrevocably, for parental rights, child support, etc. If he decides he doesn't want to take part in raising the child or providing financial support for the child, then he's out, but she still has the choice to have the baby or not. They both took part in the consensual act that created the pregnancy. If one has the right to decide whether it affects their future or not, that choice should extend to both. Nothing sexist about it. If anything, the way things work now is "incredibly sexist."


I can understand this, but I feel like more risk goes to the woman. Maybe the couple was planning on raising a kid together, but the guy gets cold feet and wants out. Now the woman is stuck in a crappy situation. If the woman gets cold feet, there's no real risk for the guy.


----------



## DKB (Apr 20, 2018)

I say it's fine until the baby is viable (20-24 weeks?), afterwards, no.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 20, 2018)

@TotalInsanity4 And I never said women didn't work. But the difference is the types of jobs males and females take. With males more often going to the dangerous professions. And financial womb wasn't meant to be literal, its metaphorical.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> @TotalInsanity4 And I never said women didn't work. But the difference is the types of jobs males and females take. With males more often going to the dangerous professions. And financial womb wasn't meant to be literal, its metaphorical.


To be clear though, men choose those jobs. Yes they are over represented - but that's because they prefer the higher pay that usually accompanies the more dangerous jobs. Men also tend to go more into STEM, which is a very safe field. Most politicians are men too.

Bottom line - you can't blame women for men's decisions. Just as you can't blame men for women's. We're not the reason women choose lesser paying careers and perpetuate the gender pay gap.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> I can understand this, but I feel like more risk goes to the woman. Maybe the couple was planning on raising a kid together, but the guy gets cold feet and wants out. Now the woman is stuck in a crappy situation. If the woman gets cold feet, there no real risk for the guy.



I understand. As things are now (and aren't likely to change - this is just philosophy really) the guy is the one with the risk of 'getting stuck.' This is pregnancy we're talking about, so there are no easy solutions but since we're just talking about it, I'm discussing some thoughts I've had on the subject re: fairness. When it comes right down to it, this is a situation where an ounce of prevention is available and cheaply. Even the 'morning after pill' is a minor inconvenience compared to the potential harm of letting an unwanted pregnancy occur. And as with most any other part of life, poor judgment has consequences.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> To be clear though, men choose those jobs. Yes they are over represented - but that's because they prefer the higher pay that usually accompanies the more dangerous jobs. Men also tend to go more into STEM, which is a very safe field. Most politicians are men too.
> 
> Bottom line - you can't blame women for men's decisions. Just as you can't blame men for women's. We're not the reason women choose lesser paying careers and perpetuate the gender pay gap.


I'm just saying males should also have a say in abortion. And I don't know if being pushed into a higher paying field to support a family is really a choice. There have been many males that say they work dangerous jobs because if they didn't then they wouldn't be able to have a family.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I understand. As things are now (and aren't likely to change - this is just philosophy really) the guy is the one with the risk of 'getting stuck.' This is pregnancy we're talking about, so there are no easy solutions but since we're just talking about it, I'm discussing some thoughts I've had on the subject re: fairness. When it comes right down to it, this is a situation where an ounce of prevention is available and cheaply. Even the 'morning after pill' is a minor inconvenience compared to the potential harm of letting an unwanted pregnancy occur. And as with most any other part of life, poor judgment has consequences.


Some crazies even say the morning after pill shouldn't be used.

This is because it paralyzes the cilia in the fallopian tubes - thus inhibiting a potentially fertilized egg in the tube from traveling to the uterus. 

This is called an abortifacient method of birth control. So...what are you gonna do about it. Some people are really convinced that an embryo 1 cell big needs to be protected at all costs - despite the fact that the body spontaneously aborts 50% of pregnancies itself.


----------



## mammastuffing (Apr 20, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> I understand what you're arguing at one level, but moles don't grow into a separate human being.  That's pretty much the dividing line to me:  there's simply not a process that moles, cancer, etc will become intelligent, and so we have to treat an embryo or a fetus like we would a whole human.  We don't tend to argue that dolphins that are young enough don't qualify as dolphins, so we can kill them as we please.
> 
> I mean, as far as being able to survive and general intelligence, how old does a human tend to have to be to make it alone?  At least five or six years?  Humans are pretty insanely defenseless as very young children, even in a very benign environment.  It seems pretty clear we're conveniently twisting our standards to overcome the moral objects of ending a human's life, yet we don't spend remotely the same effort to kill a more intelligent animal--pick just about any non-primate at one year old.
> 
> So, yea, if we as a society recognize we'd rather have abortions than have more unwanted/abused/neglected children,  then that's really a pragmatic compromise we're making.  If we're argue it's just a matter of instantaneous biology on intelligence or viability of life without support, we need to make some actual standard and apply it across the board.  Maybe that means a one year old pig has more right to live than a one year old human.  Then again, I don't think humans are any more special than humans make themselves to be, at the behest of defense from other humans most often.


A sperm can potentially grow into a human. Is masturbation mass murder then?


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I'm just saying males should also have a say in abortion. And I don't know if being pushed into a higher paying field to support a family is really a choice. There have been many males that say they work dangerous jobs because if they didn't then they wouldn't be able to have a family.


Obviously access to education and good jobs are a factor here too.

Of course no one has to have a family either. 

I realize there are inequalities in who gets what jobs, but in the end it's a choice - because most jobs are equal opportunity. Women can be high wire repair techs - they just don't choose that job as the risks outweigh the benefits.

Ultimately things are not entirely fair. I agree men should have some sort of choice in abortion, but I think this should have more to do with having a sound relationship and a woman who will take your concerns to heart than a government mandated right.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Obviously access to education and good jobs are a factor here too.
> 
> Of course no one has to have a family either.
> 
> ...


At the same time having sex is also a choice. The question is that not all men get into dangerous type jobs. And all women feel birth pains, which have been reduced with the advancement of medical science. The thing is the future is hard to predict so you don't know if certain male that is in desperate need of money will be pushed into a dangerous job. So which males have a say in abortion and which don't? I would assume a male that picks a dangerous job definitely has a say in abortion. But at the same time how do you know if a current male who is not in a dangerous job will or will not go into one in the future?


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 20, 2018)

It should be legal and it should be safe. It's a choice with plenty of valid reasons and outlawing it only outlaws the safe practice for it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Bottom line - you can't blame women for men's decisions. Just as you can't blame men for women's. We're not the reason women choose lesser paying careers and perpetuate the gender pay gap.


I was on board, but you lost me here. While there are definitely situations in which this is the case, the majority of the "pay gap" comes from women not being promoted at the same rate as men even when showing equal or greater qualifications

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaro...-widening-heres-how-to-close-it/#441a5284236d


----------



## deinonychus71 (Apr 20, 2018)

Jayro said:


> Abortions RULE! We need them, and they need to be mandatory for people with more than 2 kids on welfare. We're over-populated as fuck, so we should start regulating babies like China does. Besides, kids are annoying fuckbags anyways. They're gross, whiny, needy, they stink, they're dumber than rocks, and expensive as fuck to raise. No thanks... ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!



I believe the quote you're looking for is: "they're noisy, they're messy, they're expensive. They smell, some of them smell, babies smell."


----------



## Kigiru (Apr 20, 2018)

Jayro said:


> Abortions RULE! We need them, and they need to be mandatory for people with more than 2 kids on welfare. We're over-populated as fuck, so we should start regulating babies like China does. Besides, kids are annoying fuckbags anyways. They're gross, whiny, needy, they stink, they're dumber than rocks, and expensive as fuck to raise. No thanks... ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!



Woah, i mean - I share your opinion about overpopulation and children being a nightmare, but eve i'm not that hardcore and decided to fight against overpopulation in a more humane way and just don't fuck at all.


----------



## Jayro (Apr 20, 2018)

Kigiru said:


> Woah, i mean - I share your opinion about overpopulation and children being a nightmare, but eve i'm not that hardcore and decided to fight against overpopulation in a more humane way and just don't fuck at all.


Well people these days don't even TRY to use condoms or anything but the pull out method, so what else is there to do?


----------



## matthi321 (Apr 20, 2018)

i dont care what other people do with their body


----------



## Viri (Apr 20, 2018)

To be honest, I honestly don't know how to feel about abortions. I'm not a girl, and can never get knocked up. I'm pretty conflicted on the subject.


----------



## linuxares (Apr 20, 2018)

It should always be legal and a valid option. Not as a mean to use as "protection". I known some people that was getting pregnant every other month and just made abortions. I so hope they get sterile, the genepool don't need them.

Never the less, when does the embryo start to count as a human? Is it when the brain is developed? Is it when the nerve system is fully built?
I'm not sure, but I have to let scientices decide. Their should still not be any shame if you wanna do an abortion. I'm even so "liberal" that if they child have a sickness/disorder, I would ask the mother to abort it. Else it can be a life long dependency of care for the person. Also it's it fair for the person being born to live with that?


----------



## AdamFX990 (Apr 20, 2018)

I feel like I'd rather have been aborted than raised by irresponsible parents. Though I'm defiantly not ok with the idea. In an ideal world, idiots wouldn't have unprotected sex, rape wouldn't happen and all that jazz. I feel like outlawing it would do more harm than good though.  :/

EDIT: I'm not saying my parents are irresponsible or I wish I'd never been born. Just in case that wasn't clear!


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2018)

Curious that most of the people here with strong opinions are American, granted it is only just becoming daytime in much of Europe as I clicked on this.
It really does seem to be an issue for that country, most other places that are not Republic of Ireland or possibly Poland (or Vatican city but... yeah) have it as a complete non issue and just dealer's choice. That or "if you don't like them then don't have one" suffices.
I would also wonder if it remains as such a talking point in the US not for actual reasons but as a kind of red herring.

Anyway no problem with the general concept -- I can't see a foetus as a life and actually find it quite strange that some people do. The "potential" thing for me makes about as much sense as the fart I just did being an abortion as it presumably changed the location of so nitrogen, oxygen and carbon that could well have become life with enough effort but now shall never meet. No bother whether it is because they can't be arsed to do the whole raising a spawn thing or there is a serious medical issue. "but adoption" is a choice, don't see why it wants to be the only one.
Would also go one further and consider people that choose not to have an abortion to treat their cancer or something as very silly.
Should a country choose to not have abortions then OK I guess, should that also not include it in the case of rape, medical reasons, incest and such I would find that to be abhorrent.

Limits of viability for me... better medics and medical ethicists than I would want to do national laws but baseline for me would be viability without serious medical intervention a decent chance of living a normal life. Yes this does also mean there is an overlap between what is technically possible and what is legally allowable, I am OK with this and were I a medic doing such things I would not have a problem either.

Maladies in the case of the theoretical child, especially as detection capabilities rise, is a fun one. Quality of life is an important thing and I am happy for medics to suggest if for various conditions. Lines can get very blurry here, I recall many years ago in New Scientist there being a discussion about what might happen if a test for autism was made that worked in the womb, it then also being noted that in the more hardcore areas of maths and physics and the like there were considerable numbers of those with quite serious versions of the condition. As far as modifiers for the viability limits I am OK with it increasing it over what might be offered for the can't be arsed (or socio economic reasons if we are using the term taught in high school religious studies).

Could one be legally compelled to do such a thing? For instance could a judge (presumably a trained one, or one with the guidance of an ethics panel) order a serious drug addict to get one? There are various places that can compel a sterilisation under various circumstances and this presumably follows from that.
Going again. I am allowed to leave a "living will/advance directive" to say if I am in a coma then pull the plug with both hands. By similar token would I be allowed to leave one saying if I am in a coma then fire up the womb vacuum and then have it overridden by say my parents with power over medical decisions and the means to take care of the thing?

Including it as an option in national/state healthcare if such a thing exists, or otherwise having governments pay for it. Both from a philosophical/ethical and pragmatic (abortions will happen, you really don't want coathanger ones) absolutely fine with that, including for said socio economic reasons. This would also include making health insurance give it for free, including said socio-economic, just like they do various vaccinations.
I would also go so far as to say banning it under my reading of US law would take a constitutional amendment level of change. I view this as a good thing. By similar token I view the hamstringing of abortion clinics (moving the goalposts, death by a thousand red tape cuts sort of thing) in various parts of the US as fucking disgusting. If we are back to funding things then those "pregnancy wellness centres" that twist words, medical facts and the like I find the governmental funding of to be quite disturbing.

As far as "the say of the man" then absolutely have baseline laws say it is all the woman's choice*, only possible modifiers being surrogacy (which I will need to further consider) and incapability which is fairly standard in the field of medical ethics. That said the law is the bare minimum here and not involving the man is likely enough to be a dick move. There have been discussions of a "financial abortion" wherein all parties agree to absolve one or more parties** of financial responsibility but I can't see that getting anywhere any time soon.

*when artificial wombs become a thing this will then have to change, I can see such things happening in my lifetime as well. Reproductive ethics is already running into the earlier versions of this issue -- a woman has her eggs extracted and frozen, then gets divorced. What do? Said gamete is fertilised. What do?

**It is possible to have three genetic parents these days (mitochondrial DNA transplants are a thing in humans now, right now it is for medical reasons but I can see it being a thing in the future along with other types of genetic engineering).

On "incapability" then I would also say anybody or any age -- if some unfortunate 13 year old wanders into a clinic then no questions asked, it might also be a modifier for the viability limits but I would have to consider where I might start to draw lines here.
I occasionally see people picture themselves as some kind of ninja Rambo character for some cause or goal, this despite them possibly getting winded by running up three flights of stairs. I find this bizarre in most instances (as per the "traditional" version my weapons and I are unlikely to be heading to the middle east any time soon) but I could very much see myself going there for those that would have a pop at medics. Fortunately that is not a thing in the UK, or indeed really outside the US from what I have seen.

There is a lot more to consider (do you do waiting periods, what sort of questions do you ask, will you provide but encourage keeping..., though for those then no, medical and no) but I will leave it there for now.

As the Carlin sketch was already taken I will go with a favourite song


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Some crazies even say the morning after pill shouldn't be used.
> 
> This is because it paralyzes the cilia in the fallopian tubes - thus inhibiting a potentially fertilized egg in the tube from traveling to the uterus.
> 
> This is called an abortifacient method of birth control. So...what are you gonna do about it. Some people are really convinced that an embryo 1 cell big needs to be protected at all costs - despite the fact that the body spontaneously aborts 50% of pregnancies itself.


What are the side effects of it lt? What if your not pregenat?


----------



## kuwanger (Apr 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You seem to be conflating the idea of a fetus with the that of a child that's already been born (or whatever you're trying to get across with your "dolphin" argument, I honestly don't understand it). The reality of the matter is that until roughly 22 weeks into the pregnancy, the thing that's inside a woman's body ISN'T human; or at least not a separate biological entity capable of surviving without being connected directly to the mechanisms meant to keep it alive inside the womb. Until that point, a fetus is effectively a grouping of stem cells that has no conscious thought or idea of what goes on in its surroundings.



My point with the dolphin analogy is that using intelligence as an argument is that an adult dolphin has more intelligence than a one day old, yet killing a dolphin isn't illegal.  As far as not being a separate biological entity, that's true until birth yet nominally that's not how long until abortion is considered legal.  The actual viability of premature infants is not as simple as viable or not viable, even with intervention.  We don't consider those who die as not human.  I will agree, though, that being biologically linked is a clear distinction, but I wonder what our standard will be in the future if we develop an artificial womb capable of supporting a fetus from even the earliest of stages.  Will abortion still be a legal thing, or will we mandate a transfer to an artificial womb? 



TotalInsanity4 said:


> And saying "it grows into a human" is simply a non-argument, due to the fact that not only are there many times throughout the early pregnancy stages where a "fetus" could self-terminate without the mother even knowing (a prime example of this would be a fertilized egg dislodging from the uterine wall and leaving the body with the next period), you're also effectively saying that every sperm cell and every egg has a right to life. Which is absurd, there's nothing that would classify either of those as "human," despite that they are what multiply into an embryo.



Neither a sperm cell nor an egg alone has the ability to grow into a human alone, so they're no more a human than a mole is.  As far as self-terminating fetuses, there's also plenty of infants who self-terminate because of congenital defects.  We don't consider them non-human.  I think it's disingenuous to conflate self-termination through a biological process with intentional termination through an outside process.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> You're implying that the responsibility of taking care of your birthed child is in any way equivalent to the involuntary process a woman's body goes through to develop offspring throughout the stages of pregnancy; it isn't.



Nominally, the process of pregnancy makes you responsible for the birth child, for which we have a standard legal process of alleviating oneself of that responsibility of which murder is not a part of it.  And nominally, the process of sex makes you responsible for pregnancy--rape excluded, although some would also include birth control failures--, for which we have a standard legal process of alleviating oneself of that responsibility of which murder is a part of it.  If you prefer manslaughter or some other term, that's up to you.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> You seem to think that the idea you're proposing is absurd, when really it's quite practical. I don't see why you brought pigs into the argument, though



It's not that I think it's absurd.  It's that we clearly don't hold this standard universally.  Until we do, we're conveniently using intelligence as a standard and ignoring it when it's inconvenient.



x65943 said:


> Sure moles don't grow into separate human beings on their own. But actually it's possible to create a human being from a mole. You can insert the nucleus from a mole in an unfertilized egg and produce something capable of becoming human. Further - if you supplied the right growth factors to a mole cell itself you could ditch the fertilized egg entirely.
> 
> Now let's talk about a sperm. Given the right circumstances it too can create human life. Does it matter that it's only one half? Should we be concerned with protecting the life of a sperm?



If you actually create a human from a mole and implant it into a womb and it's at least as probably viable as one nominally created, I'd say it's a human.  If the odds of a human being born are astronomical, I'd tend to say it's not human.  Taking a viable embryo out of a womb makes it non-viable, and when it's a conscious act, then it's murder/manslaughter/whatever.    With sperm:  it can't alone produce a viable human and even introduced into the vicinity of an egg, it's not guaranteed to fertilize it.  Knowingly terminating viable fertilized eggs in a vial before implantation would not be murder, I guess.  I'll readily admit it's a gray area, like a lot of questions are.  But putting out hypothetical could-be-made-into-a-human isn't reasonable anymore than was-going-to-die-eventually-anyways to say whether something is human or not or something intentional terminated is human or not.  Regardless, it should all stay legal because it's currently the most acceptable pragmatic choice.

Anyways, that's the general gist of my feelings.


----------



## linuxares (Apr 20, 2018)

DRAGONBALLVINTAGE said:


> What are the side effects of it lt? What if your not pregenat?


Pretty much a birth control pill on crack. It's really no big sized effects from them, more than the standard once. An ex of mine needed to take one because of the condom broke, and it happened once with my current girlfriend. So abort away!


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> but I wonder what our standard will be in the future if we develop an artificial womb capable of supporting a fetus from even the earliest of stages.  Will abortion still be a legal thing, or will we mandate a transfer to an artificial womb?
> 
> 
> 
> Neither a sperm cell nor an egg alone has the ability to grow into a human alone, so they're no more a human than a mole is.  As far as self-terminating fetuses, there's also plenty of infants who self-terminate because of congenital defects.  We don't consider them non-human.  I think it's disingenuous to conflate self-termination through a biological process with intentional termination through an outside process.



The future question is a fun one.
I would go with
Assuming viable embryos are not a rare commodity wherever you are at, or you are in a location where for religious/cultural reasons it is the case, then I don't see why it would be.

Probably a shift as things go from possible, slightly risky and expensive through to not only possible but less risky than biological and finally "it is odd that you would even consider naturally". Main modifiers being where robots capable of raising children are at and how far along into the post scarcity thing were are at, possibly also serious life extension but that starts going way off into science fiction for this particular discussion.

I don't think I can get to disingenuous, if nothing else "why don't we investigate every miscarriage as a potential murder?" comes into play.

Equally "Neither a sperm cell nor an egg alone" then technically two eggs can merge into one and has been the case for a while http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1431489.stm


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> The future question is a fun one.
> I would go with
> Assuming viable embryos are not a rare commodity wherever you are at, or you are in a location where for religious/cultural reasons it is the case, then I don't see why it would be.
> 
> ...


They discuss this is in the article, but the most challenging part is dealing with imprinting in egg/egg fusion. Certain genes are deactivated in the testes and ovaries - so that effectively only one parent passes os certain genes. This is the body's natural defense against parthenogenesis (because it tends to represent a child produced by the mother alone in nature, which is evolutionarily very disadventageous). 

We have to solve imprinting before we can start producing two egg embryos, but I don't think this is too far off. We somehow just need to demethylate the certain silenced genes. Funny thing is essentially you would still have to choose which mom is the "dad" to modify one of these eggs


----------



## osm70 (Apr 20, 2018)

I want someone who opposes abortion to answer this:

Is abortion "less bad" than giving birth and then throwing the child into a trash can?

Actually, you know what? Feel free to answer even if you support abortion.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

osm70 said:


> I want someone who opposes abortion to answer this:
> 
> Is abortion "less bad" than giving birth and then throwing the child into a trash can?
> 
> Actually, you know what? Feel free to answer even if you support abortion.


Depends on the stage of development. 

That sucker is 1 cell big and you plan-b'd it out of existence? Not bad in any way.

Got a partial birth abortion? Exactly the same as throwing it in a dumpster.

In the middle? It's all gray m8.


----------



## DeoNaught (Apr 20, 2018)

Okay, But it's a life. When you Fuck, you know you are going to have a baby, it's the point of Sex. Sex is so you have a baby, so in their action, they know what's going to happen, and it disgusts me, that "Oh, we'll just have an abortion" like it's _nothing._
When you have sex, without anything in the middle, you know what is going to happen, it's not like "I put my weenie in your hole, and your having a baby!?!?".

On raping(Or incest), It's still the same life, "Don''t make the child pay for the Father's sin" works here. it's not the Child's fault he/she got brought into the world by rape, it's not, we shouldn't pin the punishment of death on the Child. But I do think that Rape victims and the like should have Financial, and emotional support(if they need it), If they really don't want the child, I hate to say it, but Orphanage.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Jayro said:


> Abortions RULE! We need them, and they need to be mandatory for people with more than 2 kids on welfare. We're over-populated as fuck, so we should start regulating babies like China does. Besides, kids are annoying fuckbags anyways. They're gross, whiny, needy, they stink, they're dumber than rocks, and expensive as fuck to raise. No thanks... ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!


that's just stupid to be honest, Over population is a myth at the moment, you know how many people die a day? it keeps most of the Population in check, however sad that is.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> Okay, But it's a life. When you Fuck, you know you are going to have a baby, it's the point of Sex. Sex is so you have a baby, so in their action, they know what's going to happen, and it disgusts me, that "Oh, we'll just have an abortion" like it's _nothing._
> When you have sex, without anything in the middle, you know what is going to happen, it's not like "I put my weenie in your hole, and your having a baby!?!?".
> 
> On raping(Or incest), It's still the same life, "Don''t make the child pay for the Father's sin" works here. it's not the Child's fault he/she got brought into the world by rape, it's not, we shouldn't pin the punishment of death on the Child. But I do think that Rape victims and the like should have Financial, and emotional support(if they need it), If they really don't want the child, I hate to say it, but Orphanage.


You know condoms break, and birth control fails. So there are a lot of unwanted pregnancies that were not due to negligence.

You think rape victims should have to bring a child to term? Do you support abortion at all in the first trimester? Most abortions are first trimester and kill underdeveloped cell masses. The body spontaneously aborts half of all embryos itself - is that wrong?


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Got a partial birth abortion?



That itself is a politically interesting term and is more of a technique than a time limit, though one typically done at later points in time. Equally most medics don't call it that, though it could be by design (see also why morons see us no longer call it a nuclear magnetic resonance test and instead magnetic resonance imaging test when it is done on animals).

That said depends entirely upon the stage of development. Also as mentioned in the longer thing I did earlier could well be modified by conditions either the host or the parasite might suffer.

Edit


DeoNaught said:


> When you Fuck, you know you are going to have a baby, it's the point of Sex. Sex is so you have a baby


Sex provides a serious bonding and pleasure component in humans and many other animals.

Equally "the point"... says who?

Also I don't "know" that I will have a baby -- female fertility rates are not 100%. It is entirely possible for two fertile humans with the relevant set of equipment between to have sex and not end up pregnant.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Apr 20, 2018)

What if all the parents of the people in here supporting abortion would have had an abortion? 
I guess I only support abortions of fetuses that are going to grow up to become abortion supporters.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> What if all the parents of the people in here supporting abortion would have had an abortion?
> I guess I only support abortions of fetuses that are going to grow up to become abortion supporters.


Is that a useful "what if" question?

I can't particularly see it being one. Unless it is to say you really truly oppose such things, though you have not really given any reasons why and that is not great debate.


----------



## DeoNaught (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> You know condoms break, and birth control fails. So there are a lot of unwanted pregnancies that were not due to negligence.
> 
> You think rape victims should have to bring a child to term? Do you support abortion at all in the first trimester? Most abortions are first trimester and kill underdeveloped cell masses. The body spontaneously aborts half of all embryos itself - is that wrong?


Honestly, I didn't think of that, but I stand with my opinion, it might not be negligence, but really, putting up for adoption would be better, Sadly "another mans trash, is another mans treasure."

I do think they should bring the child to term, I don't support murder at all. if I poison the water stream, and if about %90 is immune, I still end the %10. (I'm not sure if that fully portrays what I want to portray, but I hope you get the gist.)
I know it will be hard for the Women(Not how hard, but I know it is hard.) That's why I think they should get support, for the pregnancy.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Apr 20, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Is that a useful "what if" question?
> 
> I can't particularly see it being one. Unless it is to say you really truly oppose such things, though you have not really given any reasons why and that is not great debate.


Is "is that a useful "what if " question?" a useful question?
Maybe because I don't think there's anything to debate about murdering babies.


----------



## lafleche (Apr 20, 2018)

My two cents: You can all feel what you want, have religieus motives or not, morals or not ... Abortion (and to throw another one in: eutanasia) is and should be an individual choice on no other person nor governement nor church...whatever should interfere. 

Of course some rules must be made (like fetus not older then...., medical condition without any chances to get better) but other then that: stay away from other peoples own choice.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 20, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> Okay, But it's a life. When you Fuck, you know you are going to have a baby, it's the point of Sex. Sex is so you have a baby, so in their action, they know what's going to happen, and it disgusts me, that "Oh, we'll just have an abortion" like it's _nothing._
> When you have sex, without anything in the middle, you know what is going to happen, it's not like "I put my weenie in your hole, and your having a baby!?!?".
> 
> On raping(Or incest), It's still the same life, "Don''t make the child pay for the Father's sin" works here. it's not the Child's fault he/she got brought into the world by rape, it's not, we shouldn't pin the punishment of death on the Child. But I do think that Rape victims and the like should have Financial, and emotional support(if they need it), If they really don't want the child, I hate to say it, but Orphanage.
> ...


No one casually has an abortion, it's a last resort. Sex also isn't about making a kid, that's literally why there's methods to prevent that from happening. This is also why we need proper education and easier access to things like condoms and birth control to ensure people are both educated about safe sex and also able to practice safe sex.

I am just going to flat say, how dare you. A woman shouldn't be forced to carry a baby from rape, that's just flat wrong and life ruining thing. She didn't choose to have that situation happen and shouldn't have to live with a reminder of that situation. Of course an off spring from rape isn't guilty of the father's sin, but at the same time shouldn't be forced into the world with a parent who didn't want them in the first place, that child will never live a normal nor healthy life. That is not how a life should never be brought into this world. Incest can increase the risk of an extremely unhealthy child, be it physically or mentally. There's literally never going to be a normal life for a child born out of incest. You are basically suggesting ruining lives for the sake of your own believes on this matter. 

Over population isn't a myth, we are losing resources and people aren't slowing down. This is also coupled with the fact that just because someone dies, doesn't change anything unless a massive number of people die all at once.


----------



## leon315 (Apr 20, 2018)

many italian's hospitals are against abortion, to resolve this there's a open clinic for neo-moms where can leave anonymously new-borns at hospital, so social assistances can find them a better family for babies.

but if moms has clinically checked and sure that her fetus is genetically flawed or affected pathologically by some virus or diseases then abortion in this case is an Act of Mercy to spare unwanted pain and suffering for both family and child.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> Is "is that a useful "what if " question?" a useful question?
> Maybe because I don't think there's anything to debate about murdering babies.


Yet most countries, medical ethicists, general ethicists and the like seem to hold it is a morally acceptable thing to do under many conditions.

The onus is then on you to explain why they are wrong, much less universally wrong. You may also wish to define where the line starts -- contraception, morning after pill, something that reduces the chances of conception, fertilised egg?

This is also leaving aside the misuse of terms there, though I can leave that for now as a hyperbolic statement.


----------



## DeoNaught (Apr 20, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> No one casually has an abortion, it's a last resort. Sex also isn't about making a kid, that's literally why there's methods to prevent that from happening. This is also why we need proper education and easier access to things like condoms and birth control to ensure people are both educated about safe sex and also able to practice safe sex.


Do you have any numbers? Just curious.
"Safe sex" How... you say Safe sex, like Having a baby is a bad thing.



Lilith Valentine said:


> I am just going to flat say, how dare you. A woman shouldn't be forced to carry a baby from rape, that's just flat wrong and life ruining thing. She didn't choose to have that situation happen and shouldn't have to live with a reminder of that situation. Of course an off spring from rape isn't guilty of the father's sin, but at the same time shouldn't be forced into the world with a parent who didn't want them in the first place, that child will never live a normal nor healthy life. That is not how a life should never be brought into this world. Incest can increase the risk of an extremely unhealthy child, be it physically or mentally. There's literally never going to be a normal life for a child born out of incest. You are basically suggesting ruining lives for the sake of your own believes on this matter.


Okay, The baby Shouldn't be forced to give up his/hers life either, should they? and do you know for a _fact _that the child will have a horrible life? my parents were told I was gonna have Down sydrome, with some other problems, and suggested they aborted. I don't have down syndrome, and I don't have the problems.
It shouldn't, but it's still Life, is it not?



Lilith Valentine said:


> Over population isn't a myth, we are losing resources and people aren't slowing down. This is also coupled with the fact that just because someone dies, doesn't change anything unless a massive number of people die all at once.


Okay, but aren't Japanese, Or chinese populations going down? due to Abortion, and other problems?


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Apr 20, 2018)

Yeah, sure, an incomplete dump of cells is totally "a baby" or "a human being" /s


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> Do you have any numbers? Just curious.
> "Safe sex" How... you say Safe sex, like Having a baby is a bad thing.
> 
> 
> ...


My most important question for you is: when does life begin?


----------



## Zyvyn (Apr 20, 2018)

DRAGONBALLVINTAGE said:


> I get sick to my stomach hearing about it. If they were like just getting settled then ok, But be safe next time But when you can give birth at any moment or the baby is forming then thats when you look at adoption!





XDel said:


> I think there are a lot of benefits.
> 
> 1. Maintain your girly figure.
> 2. No nagging brats hanging at your ankle.
> ...


I assume you are joking right because I feel you should at least still have the baby and put it up for adoption


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Apr 20, 2018)

So sure, you could question abortion at a late pregnancy stage, like more than 4 months maybe? But questioning it like it's implemented, i.e. at an early stage when you only have a random dump of unfunctional, unspecialized cells is beyond ridiculous.


----------



## DeoNaught (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> My most important question for you is: when does life begin?


At conception.
When does life begin for you?

if a baby dies before the baby is born,  does the mother still not grieve?

isn't it still a life, even if potential?


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> At conception.
> When does life begin for you?
> 
> if a baby dies before the baby is born,  does the mother still not grieve?
> ...


Personally I would not choose conception.

I think life begins when the mind is complex enough to first become conscious. Which is not an easily identifiable time mind you. Although it does mean I don't consider embryos to be protectable human lives which have yet to form brains.

The mourning status of a mother does not confer life. A mother might think that she was pregnant - and she really wasn't, and so she believes she has a miscarriage - and mourns. This example showcases how emotions should not get in the way of defining life. As they are inherently flawed/divorced from logic.


----------



## Zyvyn (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Personally I would not choose conception.
> 
> I think life begins when the mind is complex enough to first become conscious. Which is not an easily identifiable time mind you. Although it does mean I don't consider embryos to be protectable human lives which have yet to form brains.
> 
> The mourning status of a mother does not confer life. A mother might think that she was pregnant - and she really wasn't, and so she believes she has a miscarriage - and mourns. This example showcases how emotions should not get in the way of defining life. As they are inherently flawed/divorced from logic.


I think of it as Take responsibility for your actions if you are going to be a parent then thats on you though if you are sure you cannot take care of the child then at least give it a chance at life with someone else


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

Zyvyn said:


> I think of it as Take responsibility for your actions if you are going to be a parent then thats on you though if you are sure you cannot take care of the child then at least give it a chance at life with someone else


I agree that if the child is close to term you should birth it and give it up for adoption.

However if the embryo is so rudimentary that it could scarcely be called life - do as you will.

2nd trimester abortions are not really justifiable in my opinion. You get 3 months to make your decision.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 20, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> Do you have any numbers? Just curious.
> "Safe sex" How... you say Safe sex, like Having a baby is a bad thing.
> 
> 
> ...


Do I have any numbers for what? People who don't casually have abortions? I don't see why I need numbers for that as I doubt numbers are even kept or accurately represented.
Having a child is a bad thing if someone can't provide the means of taking care of that child. I would be an example of someone who shouldn't have a child. I have several medical conditions that can be passed down, including an immune system disorder that has been slowly destroying my nervous system. I am more than likely going to die before I hit 50. I also have bipolar disorder that makes it hard to even feed myself, let alone be able to take care of a child. I am just one example of countless people who shouldn't have kids. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to have sex, it means we should be able to use safe sex to prevent ourselves from having kids.

A early stage fetus isn't a life and has no emotions, no feelings, no brain, it's a cluster of cells. You really think someone forced to carry a baby created out of rape is going to be ok? You really think they are going to be fine seeing a child who's going to have some resemblance to their rapist "father" is going to be dealing well with that? No, they are not going to be ok. You need to consider how the parent is going to have to deal with this situation and the long term effects something like this would leave on a woman. Being raped is a horrible thing, but being forced to live with a reminder of that rape is just cruel. I don't see how your situation relates to this, but given if they did abort, then you simply wouldn't exist. That's simply a fact, your life simply wouldn't exist. If my mother aborted me, then I wouldn't exist. There's really nothing more to that, there's no spirit/ghost.

In Japan the population is going due to an aging population dying off and a younger population not wanting to have kids. China is multiple issues with culture and politics. Regardless they aren't losing large portions of their population due to abortions and also you still aren't getting the point. The only literal way death can actually effect the population to a noticeable rate, would be if literally millions of people suddenly died all at once. There's countless people dying, yes, but not a massive amount to completely offset babies being born.
I do have a question though. What is better, a safe doctor's office where medical staff, clean tools, etc are available to provide a safe abortion or a back ally? Because abortions are always going to happen, just the location is going to change


----------



## Zyvyn (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> I agree that if the child is close to term you should birth it and give it up for adoption.
> 
> However if the embryo is so rudimentary that it could scarcely be called life - do as you will.
> 
> 2nd trimester abortions are not really justifiable on my opinion. You get 3 months to make your decision.


Ah I feel that you shouldnt at all but then again I have very different feelings when it comes to relationships in general. When I first started dating when i was around 16  I Mainly looked forward to sex and things like that obviously that is not something you should expect now I am in it for the bonds and happiness you make with people


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> At conception.
> When does life begin for you?


Why conception? I struggle to visualise a line of logic that leads there, or at least why there and not a bit later at implantation, or a bit earlier before the gametes have fused.


----------



## DeoNaught (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Personally I would not choose conception.
> 
> I think life begins when the mind is complex enough to first become conscious. Which is not an easily identifiable time mind you. Although it does mean I don't consider embryos to be protect able human lives which have yet to form brains.


Not when the heart starts beating? If your heart stops beating, you are most likely dead.



x65943 said:


> The mourning status of a mother does not confer life. A mother might think that she was pregnant - and she really wasn't, and so she believes she has a miscarriage - and mourns. This example showcases how emotions should not get in the way of defining life. As they are inherently flawed/divorced from logic.


I like your point, it's legitimate, and emotions shouldn't Effect anything, emotions change, but truth won't.



x65943 said:


> 2nd trimester abortions are not really justifiable on my opinion. You get 3 months to make your decision.


Should it be Persecuted as a crime of murder(after 2nd trimester)? like, even if it's told as a crime, people will still do it, so what would be punishment?

Question, Big bang theory, weren't we just a jumble of cells at one point, but yet we consider it the beginning of life?

(also @x65943 You're very civil)



Lilith Valentine said:


> Do I have any numbers for what? People who don't casually have abortions? I don't see why I need numbers for that as I doubt numbers are even kept or accurately represented.
> Having a child is a bad thing if someone can't provide the means of taking care of that child. I would be an example of someone who shouldn't have a child. I have several medical conditions that can be passed down, including an immune system disorder that has been slowly destroying my nervous system. I am more than likely going to die before I hit 50. I also have bipolar disorder that makes it hard to even feed myself, let alone be able to take care of a child. I am just one example of countless people who shouldn't have kids. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be disallowed to have sex, which means we should be using safe sex to prevent ourselves from having kids.


Okay, but isn't the basis of sex to have kids?



Lilith Valentine said:


> A early stage fetus isn't a life and has no emotions, no feelings, no brain, it's a cluster of cells. You really think someone forced to carry a baby created out of rape is going to be ok? You really think they are going to be fine seeing a child who's going to have some resemblance to their rapist "father" is going to be dealing well with that? No, they are not going to be ok. You need to consider how the parent is going to have to deal with this situation and the long term effects something like this would leave on a woman. Being raped is a horrible thing, but being forced to live with a reminder of that rape is just cruel. I don't see how your situation relates to this, but given if they did abort, then you simply wouldn't exist. That's simply a fact, your life simply wouldn't exist. If my mother aborted me, then I wouldn't exist. There's really nothing more to that, there's no spirit/ghost.


Okay, I have reminders of horrible shit that's happened to me, I have to live with it too. Being raped is a horrible thing, No one is disagreeing with you. Take the child at nine months(when born), and then the mother doesn't have to see the thing that reminds her of what happened to her.
My point is, That I was told I was going to have certain problems, and they suggested Abortion, so I wouldn't have to live with the problems, I don't have those problem. Though in your case, they will most likely be inherited, because you have it first hand. and it's dominate.

When is it okay to abort for you?



FAST6191 said:


> Why conception? I struggle to visualise a line of logic that leads there, or at least why there and not a bit later at implantation, or a bit earlier before the gametes have fused.


Even if it's possible life, it's still life?


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> Even if it's possible life, it's still life?



It is possible to make life from scratch these days 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762
https://www.nature.com/news/minimal-cell-raises-stakes-in-race-to-harness-synthetic-life-1.19633

Equally is rubbing one out a mass murder? Does a woman having a period count?

Why use potential as the marker? Why not potential to experience suffering?


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Apr 20, 2018)

Yup. The argument for "possible life" is completely ridiculous nowadays. You can get life from skin cells by de-evolving them into stem cells and re-evolving them into gametes. So what? If you touch your skin, making thousands of skin cells fall, you're killing babies?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 20, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> At conception.
> When does life begin for you?
> 
> if a baby dies before the baby is born,  does the mother still not grieve?
> ...


No, it's not. It is categorically not life if the thing you're analyzing is not capable of breathing, thinking for, or feeding itself on its own, it _is not alive_. Anti-abortion stances are always based on religious or scientific misconceptions (no pun intended) in that regard, and it seems like you not only have no clue what the biological sciences behind pregnancy is, but given your comments on sex I would have to say that your grasp on sex ed isn't that firm, either. Finally, I'd like to take the opportunity to say that I firmly stand behind everything Lilith just said, especially since you seem to be of the mind that preventing a birth would be in any way worse than the pain a child would face in a household not capable of taking care of it; how would that be less of a punishment than a procedure that, when done early enough, causes no harm to the mother and causes no pain to the "potential child" (given the fact that the bundle of cells wouldn't have even developed a functional nervous system yet). And, furthermore, if you have the audacity to suggest that people considering an abortion go through with the birth and give the child to an adoption agency, I have exactly two things to say: 1) do you have any idea how much TRAUMA that puts on the mother, not only going through with a birth that she wasn't planning for, but also giving up what IS NOW an actual LIVING, BREATHING human being to a third party?, and 2) if you so much as THINK that adoption is a viable alternative, I would encourage you to live within the adoption system for a year and come back and tell that to my face. I haven't personally experienced it myself, but I know people who have been in the system and have heard (and on a few occasions witnessed) the horror stories of underfunded, oversaturated adoption systems that end up holding onto kids for a full 18 years without them ever having a parent figure. Again I ask, how is THAT more humane?


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> Not when the heart starts beating? If your heart stops beating, you are most likely dead.
> 
> 
> I like your point, it's legitimate, and emotions shouldn't Effect anything, emotions change, but truth won't.
> ...


Personally I think the heart beating does not confer life either. This is why the "brain dead" are considered dead, even if their hearts continue to beat. The brain dead are generally harvested for organs. The organ donor registry can only receive organs from the brain dead - because those without a beating heart will have dead organs as well.

Sure we tend to call someone's time of death based on the heart ceasing to beat, but we know the brain usually survives a few minutes longer. This is why you can shock someone's heart back into pumping, and they can survive. 

There are even people with heart replacement pumps that cause blood to flow. Bottom line - the one organ you can never replace is the brain. It's what makes you, you.

Brain death is the true death - if someone's brain is gone there is no coming back.

As for prosecution. I think the practitioners should be the ones prosecuted - not the vulnerable women. I think drug and sex trafficking should be prosecuted the same way - get the dealers not the users.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Personally I think the heart beating does not confer life either. This is why the "brain dead" are considered dead, even if their hearts continue to beat. The brain dead are generally harvested for organs. The organ donor registry can only receive organs from the brain dead - because those without a beating heart will have dead organs as well.
> 
> Sure we tend to call someone's time of death based on the heart ceasing to beat, but we know the brain usually survives a few minutes longer. This is why you can shock someone's heart back into pumping, and they can survive.
> 
> ...



As far as the heart stuff goes you might have seen too many medical TV shows there -- you don't shock asystole (a flat line) https://acls-algorithms.com/asystole/ . Shocks are for beats not doing what they should. Similarly you will usually see/hear "down for" in the discussion surrounding it, that being because the heart has not been beating sufficiently for so long that the brain is gone.

Also while I agree with the "brain is you" bit (any magic time travelling medics reading this please absolutely ensure you save my brain's info before you save any other part of me) there is a very long line of contemplation of the human condition that also considers the body it is in. The whole nature vs nurture, limitations and such all contributing massively to the psychology of the brain -- part of my risk taking might well because I am male but at the same time I am fairly tall, strong and physically fit with reasonable reactions/awareness and a pain tolerance that makes some wonder, not to mention living in the modern world with some pretty sweet medicine, all leading me to routinely come out the other side of things people tell me are risky or hard and this informs quite a few things for how I approach the world.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> As far as the heart stuff goes you might have seen too many medical TV shows there -- you don't shock asystole (a flat line) https://acls-algorithms.com/asystole/ . Shocks are for beats not doing what they should. Similarly you will usually see/hear "down for" in the discussion surrounding it, that being because the heart has not been beating sufficiently for so long that the brain is gone.
> 
> Also while I agree with the "brain is you" bit (any magic time travelling medics reading this please absolutely ensure you save my brain's info before you save any other part of me) there is a very long line of contemplation of the human condition that also considers the body it is in. The whole nature vs nurture, limitations and such all contributing massively to the psychology of the brain -- part of my risk taking might well because I am male but at the same time I am fairly tall, strong and physically fit with reasonable reactions/awareness and a pain tolerance that makes some wonder, not to mention living in the modern world with some pretty sweet medicine, all leading me to routinely come out the other side of things people tell me are risky or hard and this informs quite a few things for how I approach the world.


You don't shock asystole, but you do shock hearts that stop beating. Asystole is absence of all electrical signals. However, your heart can stop beating with vfib or other erratic electrical patterns. Hence why you can be pulseless during vfib.

Oh yeah I do things all the time that I would never consider if there was no modern medicine. I would probably never roller blade because even a scrape on my leg could lead to bacteremia and sepsis. I definitely would not be heading to Vietnam this summer where malaria reigns free either.


----------



## slaphappygamer (Apr 20, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> You have no say even if it is your baby.


By having a “say”, I just meant to be included in a discussion. I wouldnt give a hard “no” or “yes”.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Apr 20, 2018)

How is abortion killing a human life, if the fetus isnt considered alive until certain months and after the brain starts functioning?

I mean, dont shitstorm me on that, but isnt it like a fact and what only prevents abortion from being legalized in most countries are the religion itself and its morals and "facts" from like 99999999999 years from the past?


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> How is abortion killing a human life, if the fetus isnt considered alive until certain months and after the brain starts functioning?
> 
> I mean, dont shitstorm me on that, but isnt it like a fact and what only prevents abortion from being legalized in most countries are the religion itself and its morals and "facts" from like 99999999999 years from the past?


>if the fetus isnt considered alive
This is the crux of the issue. No one can say when life starts - and so no one can really be right in this debate. This is why the issue is ongoing. It's subjective.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> >if the fetus isnt considered alive
> This is the crux of the issue. No one can say when life starts - and so no one can really be right in this debate. This is why the issue is ongoing. It's subjective.


It is far from subjetive if there are a lot of lecture that points if the brain activity ends, life ends there and that also when brain activity starts, life starts there. I dont know how much hard that is to understand.


----------



## JellyPerson (Apr 20, 2018)

Abstinence=best birth control

Imo you should only have sex with the intent to make a child, but you know not everyone may agree with me.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> >if the fetus isnt considered alive
> This is the crux of the issue. No one can say when life starts - and so no one can really be right in this debate. This is why the issue is ongoing. It's subjective.



While we may never be able to reach a physics style level of certainty I would say we can draw enough parallels from everything else we consider just and righteous as far as willingness to accept and inflict suffering* to allow it, as indeed most countries and ethics groups appear to have. That might be close to an argumentum ad populum there but I would like to think it the result of a considered debate before then.

*life starts is not the best phrase from where I sit, mostly because of the overlap issue I mentioned earlier.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 20, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> It is far from subjetive if there are a lot of lecture that points if the brain activity ends, life ends there and that also when brain activity starts, life starts there. I dont know how much hard that is to understand.


The fact that some professors say life begins and ends with the brain is far from objective. No matter of consensus concerning a purely subjective topic will ever produce an objective fact.

Consider this - the bacterium has no brain whatsoever - yet it is living, yes?

So you can't say a human life is defined objectively. 

I see your point, and I happen to agree. My opinion also is that human life starts with brain development. However - you must admit our opinions are opinions, and it ends at that. We can't pretend that the debate can be settled through reason alone.


----------



## JellyPerson (Apr 20, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Do I have any numbers for what? People who don't casually have abortions? I don't see why I need numbers for that as I doubt numbers are even kept or accurately represented.
> Having a child is a bad thing if someone can't provide the means of taking care of that child. I would be an example of someone who shouldn't have a child. I have several medical conditions that can be passed down, including an immune system disorder that has been slowly destroying my nervous system. I am more than likely going to die before I hit 50. I also have bipolar disorder that makes it hard to even feed myself, let alone be able to take care of a child. I am just one example of countless people who shouldn't have kids. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to have sex, it means we should be able to use safe sex to prevent ourselves from having kids.
> 
> A early stage fetus isn't a life and has no emotions, no feelings, no brain, it's a cluster of cells. You really think someone forced to carry a baby created out of rape is going to be ok? You really think they are going to be fine seeing a child who's going to have some resemblance to their rapist "father" is going to be dealing well with that? No, they are not going to be ok. You need to consider how the parent is going to have to deal with this situation and the long term effects something like this would leave on a woman. Being raped is a horrible thing, but being forced to live with a reminder of that rape is just cruel. I don't see how your situation relates to this, but given if they did abort, then you simply wouldn't exist. That's simply a fact, your life simply wouldn't exist. If my mother aborted me, then I wouldn't exist. There's really nothing more to that, there's no spirit/ghost.
> ...



Dude if they're raping a women they would wear a condom as to not get their semen all over the woman's panties/vag so they won't get caught


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> Abstinence=best birth control
> 
> Imo you should only have sex with the intent to make a child, but you know not everyone may agree with me.


So the bonding and social aspect which is well documented in humans and other animals is pointless (or such a base concern that it is obviated by a moral one)? Sex with a knowingly infertile or menopausal person of the opposite sex is essentially masturbation? Sex with the same sex is equally pointless? Sex while the woman pregnant is pointless? Is sex at times of a woman's cycle where pregnancy is rather unlikely to result a bad thing?

Equally a favourite thing in similar discussions is to look at the efficacy of the pill for women. Taken properly it is as good as it gets. Screw ups exist so the net effect over a population is somewhat less than that. Such logic applied to abstinence only... I suspect it would be less effective still.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> It is far from subjetive if there are a lot of lecture that points if the brain activity ends, life ends there and that also when brain activity starts, life starts there. I dont know how much hard that is to understand.



Electrical brain activity begins at about week 5. Your point is pointless.


----------



## JellyPerson (Apr 20, 2018)

IMO abortion is legal murder


----------



## dAVID_ (Apr 20, 2018)

Having a pregnancy is not something you should be forced into, it's a very personal matter.
I think that abortions are perfectly fine as long as the fetus isn't really conscious.
And even so if we break down everything to its core, it come down to cells. Said cells , when broken down, are chemical reactions.
Would killing artificial intelligence then be ethic? The thing is, there is no right answer for this question, because the answer is based on morals, unlike mathematics, that follows a set of rules.
When you break down moral rules, you realize there is no way you can actually justify them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> Electrical brain activity begins at about week 5. Your point is pointless.


"Your *point *is *pointless". *lol


----------



## aykay55 (Apr 20, 2018)

My opinion is that "freedom of abortion", or abortion because the parents just don't want a child, is allowed as long as the child is in the embryonic stage, the first trimester as it is called. Technically there is a time to say when the baby is a human life, which is once the embryo becomes a fetus. After that, abortion should be prohibited except for two reasons: 
1. Harm to the mother
2. Harm to the child (not necessarily right at birth)
In other words, abortion should be illegal after the first trimester except in the two above cases.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Even in cases of rape.


----------



## bi388 (Apr 20, 2018)

I believe it is wrong to kill any sentient life without good reason. However, fetuses arent really sentient. They arent aware of their 'self'. I dont think species matters, so much as intelligence and sentience. A human is worth no more than any other intelligently species that might exist in the universe. So labeling the fetus as human means nothing to me. If its ok to kill most sentient animals according to most people, then i dont see why killing a fetus is wrong. The only logic i can follow for abortion being wrong is 1. if youre assuming there is a god and that he made humans inherently superior to all other beings in the universe or 2. if youre against killing all sentient life including all animals


----------



## DeslotlCL (Apr 21, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Electrical brain activity begins at about week 5. Your point is pointless.


Then abort in week 4?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



x65943 said:


> The fact that some professors say life begins and ends with the brain is far from objective. No matter of consensus concerning a purely subjective topic will ever produce an objective fact.
> 
> Consider this - the bacterium has no brain whatsoever - yet it is living, yes?
> 
> ...


Well i can certainly agree with you on that. The problem however, is that even both sides are opinions, but one side is deciding for the pregnant mother what she can and what she cant do with her body, and the other side is deciding for the supposed living child if it lives or not... So, in the end of the day, no body respect each other and both sides trash to each other because there cant be a conversation or mid-agreement to the problem.


----------



## osm70 (Apr 21, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> Having a pregnancy is not something you should be forced into, it's a very personal matter.
> I think that abortions are perfectly fine as long as the fetus isn't really conscious.
> And even so if we break down everything to its core, it come down to cells. Said cells , when broken down, are chemical reactions.
> *Would killing artificial intelligence then be ethic?* The thing is, there is no right answer for this question, because the answer is based on morals, unlike mathematics, that follows a set of rules.
> ...




Define "intelligence". If the thing is "alive" or "sentient" (or it appears that way to us - because there's no way to actually know for sure (can you say for sure that you are "alive" or "sentient"?)) then killing it is wrong.


----------



## bi388 (Apr 21, 2018)

osm70 said:


> Define "intelligence". If the thing is "alive" or "sentient" (or it appears that way to us - because there's no way to actually know for sure (can you say for sure that you are "alive" or "sentient"?)) then killing it is wrong.


You say killing living sentient beings is wrong, then are you against killing animals (for any reason other than self defense)?


----------



## osm70 (Apr 21, 2018)

bi388 said:


> You say killing living sentient beings is wrong, then are you against killing animals (for any reason other than self defense)?



In a way... sort of.

Alright, let's take a look at possible reasons to kill animals:

1. For fun - yeah, that's terrible, don't do that

2. It's trying to kill me - justified, I would say

3. For non-meat products - Yeah, I really don't need my jacket to contain real animal skin... we have non-animal versions, just use those. Don't kill animals for that.

4. For food - Well, we need something to eat. You might say that I should go vegan instead, but there are some nutrients that you can't get from non-meat products... This point is debatable, but I guess we can all agree that this world is fucked up. (Besides, plants are "living" things too. You literally cannot survive without killing something.)


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 21, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> Dude if they're raping a women they would wear a condom as to not get their semen all over the woman's panties/vag so they won't get caught


If your age is right, then you've should have not had to a reason to put on a condom. I say this because there an extremely small amount of cases where a rapist wears a condom and this is because condoms are not easy to put on. There actually requires some effort and focus to put on condom on and 9 out of 10 times it always starts out upside-down and needs to be flipped. That all being said, most cases of rape are impulsive and a condom would take too much time and effort.


JellyPerson said:


> Abstinence=best birth control
> 
> Imo you should only have sex with the intent to make a child, but you know not everyone may agree with me.


I am just going to flat say that teaching abstinence doesn't work and states that require teaching it is proof of that. States that teach abstinence over proper safe sex education have far higher teenage pregnancies compared to states that do have proper health classes.



DeoNaught said:


> Okay, I have reminders of horrible shit that's happened to me, I have to live with it too. Being raped is a horrible thing, No one is disagreeing with you. Take the child at nine months(when born), and then the mother doesn't have to see the thing that reminds her of what happened to her.
> My point is, That I was told I was going to have certain problems, and they suggested Abortion, so I wouldn't have to live with the problems, I don't have those problem. Though in your case, they will most likely be inherited, because you have it first hand. and it's dominate.
> 
> When is it okay to abort for you?
> ...


You have literally no idea what you are going on about nor the long term psychological effects all of this would have on a person. It seems more like you are the one who's casually suggesting a woman carries a baby, something that will forever effect her body, for a man who raped her, just to appease your believes in life. Your ignorance is extremely harmful.
It doesn't matter what could have happened, your parents made the choice to accept whatever outcome they got. You are acting like your parents were being pressured into aborting you, when it was most likely a single question asked when they found some form possibly life threatening abnormality. Your parents accepted that you could have those problems and brought you into this world with hopefully the expectation of raising you despite the issues. Your example is example of a parent's choice, not a case against abortion. As for mine, the immune disorder only popped up late in my life and it turned out that my has signs of the same disorder, but not to the extreme that I have them. It's something that wasn't intentionally done, but since I am aware of the extreme stage that I have, then I've made the choice to not risk another life having it.
If a woman feels the need to do so and it's within the legal time frame, then it's ok. Their reason is none of my business and something I can only assume came as a last resort.
I noticed you missed my question, but which is better.
An abortion being held in a doctor's office with properly trained medical staff, clean tools, and other safe methods? Or a dirty motel/random home/back ally, and being preformed in an unclean environment by someone with little to no medical training? Because abortions are always going to happen regardless of what the law says, they will simply move to a different location though.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 21, 2018)

osm70 said:


> In a way... sort of.
> 
> Alright, let's take a look at possible reasons to kill animals:
> 
> ...


There are no nutrients that you can only get from meat products. Just to be clear on that point. There is no real debate there.


----------



## osm70 (Apr 21, 2018)

x65943 said:


> There are no nutrients that you can only get from meat products. Just to be clear on that point. There is no real debate there.


https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants


----------



## x65943 (Apr 21, 2018)

osm70 said:


> https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants


Only one of those nutrients cannot be produced by the human body/taken from plants - Vitamin B12.

However B12 can be synthesized in a lab easily, with no animal death necessary. I would say this qualifies as a "non-meat product".


----------



## bi388 (Apr 21, 2018)

On your last point, plants aren't sentient like animals are so comparing it isn't accurate, and even if they were sentient, we feed 10x as much plant food to animals as we get back, so it would be the lesser evil to eat only 1/10 as much sentient plant as if we eat animals. I think killing is justified if you need to to survive (call me hobbesian in that regard) but I wouldn't call this a live or die situation for most people.


----------



## osm70 (Apr 21, 2018)

bi388 said:


> *On your last point, plants aren't sentient like animals are so comparing it isn't accurate, and even if they were sentient, we feed 10x as much plant food to animals as we get back, so it would be the lesser evil to eat only 1/10 as much sentient plant as if we are animals.* I think killing is justified if you need to to survive (call me hobbesian in that regard) but I wouldn't call this a live or die situation for most people.



Good point


----------



## orangy57 (Apr 21, 2018)

I think it should be their choice, when people abort a child the kids are still at a developmental point where they aren't actually able to think, so it's like removing a parasite i guess


----------



## osm70 (Apr 21, 2018)

There's also something else no one brought up yet.

Now keep in mind this is not my opinion and does not reflect what I think or how I feel.

Some people who are in a bad life situation (for example being extremely poor and not even having a place to live) might think that the (potential) child might be better off dead than living like that.


EDIT: In case it's not clear, I am not talking about killing said child after it is born. I meant aborting for that reason.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Apr 21, 2018)

Unless the mother's life is in peril, I think all abortion is wrong. This includes babies from rape. Some will disagree, but just how it was wrong and unfair for the woman to be attacked, it is wrong and unfair to end someone's life who had nothing to do with the situation


----------



## bi388 (Apr 21, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> Unless the mother's life is in peril, I think all abortion is wrong. This includes babies from rape. Some will disagree, but just how it was wrong and unfair for the woman to be attacked, it is wrong and unfair to end someone's life who had nothing to do with the situation


A disagree that abortion is wrong, but I totally agree with your logic here. If I thought abortion was wrong, I would probably also have that exact same opinion.


----------



## HamBone41801 (Apr 21, 2018)

ok first: wtf guys. some of you need to take a step back and look at what the fuck you just typed.

Now, for my thoughts on the matter: Anyone who thinks outlawing abortions is a good idea is kidding themselves. Desperate and scared girls will and have resorted to deadly alternatives when safe abortions were not available.


----------



## aykay55 (Apr 21, 2018)

Orangy57 said:


> I think it should be their choice, when people abort a child the kids are still at a developmental point where they aren't actually able to think, so it's like removing a parasite i guess


Why do people say that? Yes, they do think, they are learning, after they develop into a fetus they are already thinking and learning. They are learning how to breathe and other vital stuff. That's why newborns somewhat remember what the womb was like, and they enjoy white noise, and according to some scientists playing music for your developing human life increases the size of the hippocampus and essentially makes them smarter.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osm70 said:


> There's also something else no one brought up yet.
> 
> Now keep in mind this is not my opinion and does not reflect what I think or how I feel.
> 
> ...


Adoption? And you are literally saying death is better than life, no matter how terrible. Depriving a 1-in-a-million chance of living a life.


----------



## Thanatophobia (Apr 21, 2018)

This question is a tough one for me to answer...

I do consider an unborn fetus to be a living person, and I do believe that abortions is murder. I think that if a couple had consensual sexual intercourse that led to a normal pregnancy, regardless if the pregnancy was unplanned or if they weren't ready to have children, I don't think they should abort. If they didn't wanted to have kids, they should've been prepared in the first place. If they were irresponsible when they were having sex, then they should deal with the responsibility of having a kid. And I think it's selfish for that fact.

However, I do believe that a mother's life is more important than the fetus. If a pregnancy, for example an ectopic pregnancy, threatens the life of the mother, then I believe that abortion should be justified for the mother's well being. I also feel that is an infant is to be born with defect that are so severe it would cause more suffering if it was born then I think abortion should be justified.

I have mixed opinions with aborting pregnancies that resulted from unconsensual sex (rape), incest or between an adult and a child. One side of me says that the mother has the right to abort the baby because she didn't consent to the pregnancy and that the baby might end up being a reminder of that rape, but then I think that it's not the child's fault and that if the pregnancy isn't endangering the mother's life she should've kept it. I think in this situation, adoption is best.

And even though I am against abortion in most situations, I do believe that abortion should remain legal, not because I support babies being unnecessarily killed off, but because at least from the mother's part it is much safer. If it was illegal, there would still be abortions but would often involve methods that can cause complications on the mother's part.


----------



## XDel (Apr 21, 2018)

Zyvyn said:


> I assume you are joking right because I feel you should at least still have the baby and put it up for adoption



I am adopted and when I met my biological mother she was a tab over weight, which made me feel very sad for her and I wish that she'd just aborted me so that she did not have to sacrifice her figure. 

Also, have you seen how much aborted babies go for on the black market?!?!?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 21, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> Abstinence=best birth control
> 
> Imo you should only have sex with the intent to make a child, but you know not everyone may agree with me.


Curious, but how old are you?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



aykay55 said:


> Adoption? And you are literally saying death is better than life, no matter how terrible. Depriving a 1-in-a-million chance of living a life.


If more people actually adopted children (and not just "non-problem" children), that might be a viable option.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Apr 21, 2018)

The problem is not abortion, it is unwanted pregnancy. Plain and simple. Focusing solely on the banning or allowing of abortions completely misses the root of a problem which is that a baby is being made that is unwanted. Instead of outright banning abortions, it's best to eliminate the causes of unwanted pregnancies so that abortions never become an issue. That means proper sex education, genetic screening, support networks, and trustworthy adoption services; if it comes to that.


I should note that the places with the highest number of abortions are also usually areas with little to no proper sex/prevention education and more limited medical and social assistance.


Once we prevent the conceiving of as many unwanted babies as possible and find ways to make the rest wanted, then we will only be left with a few cases of extenuating circumstances - such as medical situations where a fetus is found to be nonviable or birth will be lethal to the mother. Then we can focus on those individual cases and come up with an objective decision.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Curious, but how old are you?


According to his bio, 13. His libido will soon run over him like a steamroller.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 21, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> The problem is not abortion, it is unwanted pregnancy. Plain and simple. Focusing solely on the banning or allowing of abortions completely misses the root of a problem which is that a baby is being made that is unwanted. Instead of outright banning abortions, it's best to eliminate the causes of unwanted pregnancies so that abortions never become an issue. That means proper sex education, genetic screening, support networks, and trustworthy adoption services; if it comes to that.
> 
> 
> I should note that the places with the highest number of abortions are also usually areas with little to no proper sex/prevention education and more limited medical and social assistance.
> ...


ThAnK yOu

Although you forgot "easy and affordable access to birth control"


> According to his bio, 13. His libido will soon run over him like a steamroller.


Yeah, that's kinda what I figured. The only people, in my experience anyway, that say "abstinence is the best form of birth control" are either underage or hypocrites


----------



## x65943 (Apr 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ThAnK yOu
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's kinda what I figured. The only people, in my experience anyway, that say "abstinence is the best form of birth control" are either underage or hypocrites


It's like saying the best way to lose weight is to not eat. While technically true, it's not exactly practical.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Apr 21, 2018)

I just thought of a metaphor for my line of thinking.

Here's the thing, NOBODY wants an abortion. No little girl plays with her Barbie doll with it's clothes its house... and it's coathanger. Abortions are always a traumatic event that everyone (except for a few sickos) would have preferred to avoid, but feel they can't.


Imagine you have a dog, and your dog pukes on your carpet all the time. You have three choices how to deal with it.

1. Ignore it, and let your dog puke on the carpet all the time.
2. Severely punish your dog for puking, and clamp it's mouth shut if you catch it trying.
3. Find out why your dog is puking, and make changes such as switching out his food or training him not to eat random crap off the floor.


----------



## tatripp (Apr 21, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Complicated. An abortion IS a human life being ended, and it doesn't matter if the fetus is viable yet or not. But for the abortion, the potential is there for a person to live a full life. Not calling that intervention the ending of a life is like pretending you didn't waste a cake when you take it out of the oven when it just started baking and just dump it in the garbage instead.
> 
> But, it's none of the government's business. The government shouldn't involve itself in charging anyone who has or performs an abortion with a crime, at least not if the abortion is done in compliance with Roe and Casey. Nor should the government be subsidizing the procedure (that does happen though, through funding Planned Parenthood and direct payment for the procedure via Medicaid in some states).
> 
> ...



Of course it is the government's business. The United States was founded on the principle of inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is ending a life; therefore, it is the government's responsibility.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 21, 2018)

tatripp said:


> Of course it is the government's business. The United States was founded on the principle of inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is ending a life; therefore, it is the government's responsibility.


It's not ending a life so much as preventing one from happening


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Apr 21, 2018)

I am pro life, but my pain in the ass children are getting me to reevaluate my stance.

Lol. I tell that to my kids when they are pissing me off.


----------



## Navonod (Apr 21, 2018)

Abortion doesn't bother me. There are to many people alive anyway.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 21, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I am pro life, but my pain in the ass children are getting me to reevaluate my stance.
> 
> Lol. I tell that to my kids when they are pissing me off.


You understand that that isn't how it works, correct? I mean I know that this is clearly satire, but I hope you understand you're misrepresenting the issue


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Apr 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You understand that that isn't how it works, correct? I mean I know that this is clearly satire, but I hope you understand you're misrepresenting the issue


Lol. I know. I didnt want to go full out detailing my belief on the subject typing from my phone.

I like saying semi cruel things to my kids, in a joking type manner. Like i said to them the other day "have i told you guys that i love you today? Yeah, well think about that for a bit".


----------



## orangy57 (Apr 21, 2018)

aykay55 said:


> Why do people say that? Yes, they do think, they are learning, after they develop into a fetus they are already thinking and learning. They are learning how to breathe and other vital stuff. That's why newborns somewhat remember what the womb was like, and they enjoy white noise, and according to some scientists playing music for your developing human life increases the size of the hippocampus and essentially makes them smarter.



Yeah, but fetuses can't feel pain, hear, or have a connection from their brain to their body until around 26 weeks, and babies are not allowed to be aborted past 24 weeks in most states in the US because of this. If they can't even think or comprehend anything at the time they're aborted, what makes the baby different from a lump of cells?


----------



## JellyPerson (Apr 21, 2018)

TBH I don't understand why people are saying it's ok to kill it early because it's just a bunch of cells

It turns into a human later though.
I was joking earlier with abstinence, it's ok to have protected sex
But I am against abortion.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 21, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> TBH I don't understand why people are saying it's ok to kill it early because it's just a bunch of cells
> 
> It turns into a human later though.
> I was joking earlier with abstinence, it's ok to have protected sex
> But I am against abortion.


This is the whole point - to destroy the cells before it turns into a human. Not too different from using barrier protection - to stop the sperm from uniting with the egg so that they cannot form a human. The sperm then die in the condom and the egg is expelled via menstruation. They are just cells at this point so no one is too upset.

However religious people have picked up on this - this is why the Catholic Church also condemns condoms and masturbation. Because essentially they are also killing "potential humans".

Look there's a big difference between "can become human" and human. And that's why we think it's better to abort early. 

50% of all pregnancies undergo spontaneous abortion by the mother anyhow - the human body itself seems to recognize that early embryos are not very important, and kills any with major defects (like triploidy).


----------



## Pacheko17 (Apr 21, 2018)

Unless there is a really good reason, it IS murder.
You can't just abort because you forgot prevention. 

Also, some people on here are really insane.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 21, 2018)

I don't believe a fetus is a person, and if a fetus were a person, I don't believe that causes a woman to lose her right to bodily autonomy.


----------



## JellyPerson (Apr 21, 2018)

A fetus is a person
It kicks
It has a brain
It looks like a person
It turns into a baby
Bodily autonomy? The fuck?
Killing a fetus is almost the same as killing a fellow human


----------



## osm70 (Apr 21, 2018)

Pacheko17 said:


> *Unless there is a really good reason, it IS murder.*
> You can't just abort because you forgot prevention.
> 
> Also, some people on here are really insane.




I am not saying that I agree. Let me just point out the contradiction you made.

What you say implies that it isn't murder if there's a really good reason. In reality, it is murder that was committed for a really good reason.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 21, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> A fetus is a person
> It kicks
> It has a brain
> It looks like a person
> ...


First, I don't believe anything you said makes a fetus a person. If anything, your qualifier "almost the same" shows that you don't even think a fetus is actually a person.

Second, hypothetically, if a fetus were a person, that doesn't take away a woman's right to bodily autonomy, even if it results in the death of a person. If you want to argue the fetus is a person and abortion results in the death of the person (I respectfully disagree), okay, but that's not technically murder.

If a person dying from failing kidneys requires you to donate your kidney in order to save his or her life, that doesn't take away your right to bodily autonomy and your ability to decline. If the person dies because you decline and because you were the only compatible match, that's not murder.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 21, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> A fetus is a person
> It kicks
> It has a brain
> It looks like a person
> ...


If it is almost the same then we have scope to consider whether it is acceptable.
Most of the world seems to think it is acceptable.

I can't say I find your points terribly useful in deciding why it might not be acceptable though.

Many things could turn into a baby -- you can print DNA these days, inject DNA into cells and otherwise do all sorts of things. If you are going to argue for it being more likely (and considerably so) than the nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and such ( https://www.thoughtco.com/chemical-composition-of-the-human-body-603995 ) then it is not an untenable position. The question then becomes what about ovulation, or masturbation to completion? What about some of the fertility treatments where you freeze an embryo?

As far as kicking. That is surely a later stage of development. Same for brains.
A rock outside my door looks like a person too, and again it is another of those later stages thing.

Bodily autonomy is the name for the right to do what you like with your body and attempt to treat your conditions. As pregnancy, birth and then maybe raising a child for a couple of decades is potentially unpleasant or hard when the ability to painlessly and simply remove things and forgo all that is an option it becomes a fairly potent argument from where I sit.

Edit.


Futurdreamz said:


> Here's the thing, NOBODY wants an abortion. No little girl plays with her Barbie doll with it's clothes its house... and it's coathanger. Abortions are always a traumatic event that everyone (except for a few sickos) would have preferred to avoid, but feel they can't


When working on a job site I will try very hard to be safe but should it go wrong I have superglue, stitches, bandages and such.
I have met a few women that have the similar mindset of "I will do all the sex and try to be safe, should it fail I will go get it vacuumed out of me".

I don't find that mindset troubling from a moral perspective.


----------



## osm70 (Apr 21, 2018)

Lacius said:


> First, I don't believe anything you said makes a fetus a person. If anything, your qualifier "almost the same" shows that you don't even think a fetus is actually a person.
> 
> Second, hypothetically, if a fetus were a person, that doesn't take away a woman's right to bodily autonomy, even if it results in the death of a person. If you want to argue the fetus is a person and abortion results in the death of the person (I respectfully disagree), okay, but that's not technically murder.
> 
> If a person dying from failing kidneys requires you to donate your kidney in order to save his or her life, that doesn't take away your right to bodily autonomy and your ability to decline. If the person dies because you decline and because you were the only compatible match, that's not murder.




Yeah, if we talk about donating organs, it gets interesting.

Imagine this situation: 5 people are injured and they need new organs to survive. Each one of them needs a different organ. You are completely healthy and you are a perfect match for all five. Now, forcing you to "donate" those organs (and actually committing murder by forcibly taking those organs from you) is OBJECTIVELY the right thing to do. After all, they save 5 lives by sacrificing one. (And yeah, I do realize that's fucked up. I am not saying that's the moral thing to do or that I agree it should be done. I'm just trying to be objective here.)


----------



## Lacius (Apr 21, 2018)

osm70 said:


> Yeah, if we talk about donating organs, it gets interesting.
> 
> Imagine this situation: 5 people are injured and they need new organs to survive. Each one of them needs a different organ. You are completely healthy and you are a perfect match for all five. Now, forcing you to "donate" those organs (and actually committing murder by forcibly taking those organs from you) is OBJECTIVELY the right thing to do. After all, they save 5 lives by sacrificing one. (And yeah, I do realize that's fucked up. I am not saying that's the moral thing to do or that I agree it should be done. I'm just trying to be objective here.)


Forcing you to die to save those five people is *not* the objectively right thing to do. 

Edit: To explain, forcing you to die is murder. Allowing the five people to die is not murder.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 21, 2018)

osm70 said:


> Yeah, if we talk about donating organs, it gets interesting.
> 
> Imagine this situation: 5 people are injured and they need new organs to survive. Each one of them needs a different organ. You are completely healthy and you are a perfect match for all five. Now, forcing you to "donate" those organs (and actually committing murder by forcibly taking those organs from you) is OBJECTIVELY the right thing to do. After all, they save 5 lives by sacrificing one. (And yeah, I do realize that's fucked up. I am not saying that's the moral thing to do or that I agree it should be done. I'm just trying to be objective here.)


"Is objectively the right thing to do."

There can be no objectivity in morals. There is no way to scientifically prove what is right or wrong.

There is no logically sound reason why it is more right to consider murder evil than good.

As strange as it sounds - it's all relative.

See here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism


----------



## osm70 (Apr 21, 2018)

Lacius said:


> Forcing you to die to save those five people is *not* the objectively right thing to do.
> 
> Edit: To explain, forcing you to die is murder. Allowing the five people to die is not murder.





x65943 said:


> "Is objectively the right thing to do."
> 
> There can be no objectivity in morals. There is no way to scientifically prove what is right or wrong.
> 
> ...




Not talking about morality. Morality is all subjective. I was just taking the very binary (and flawed) stance of "saving as many lives as possible". I am not saying doing that is the right decision.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 21, 2018)

osm70 said:


> Not talking about morality. Morality is all subjective. I was just taking the very binary (and flawed) stance of "saving as many lives as possible". I am not saying doing that is the right decision.


By saying it was objectively "right" you made a moral statement.

"Right" is a word which only has value in a moral schema. Right and wrong are inherently moral concepts. Here you chose the moral "to save the most lives". So yes if that is the moral you ascribe to, then killing the one person is objectively the best way to achieve that. However you have to make it clear when you are predicating your statement on a moral idea that is not exactly universal.


----------



## osm70 (Apr 21, 2018)

x65943 said:


> By saying it was objectively "right" you made a moral statement.
> 
> "Right" is a word which only has value in a moral schema. Right and wrong are inherently moral concepts. Here you chose the moral "to save the most lives". So yes if that is the moral you ascribe to, then killing the one person is objectively the best way to achieve that. However you have to make it clear when you are predicating your statement on a moral idea that is not exactly universal.




Yeah, I worded that wrong. My mistake.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 21, 2018)

x65943 said:


> "Is objectively the right thing to do."
> 
> There can be no objectivity in morals. There is no way to scientifically prove what is right or wrong.
> 
> ...


If we very specifically define what it means to be moral first, objective morality can exist.



osm70 said:


> Not talking about morality. Morality is all subjective. I was just taking the very binary (and flawed) stance of "saving as many lives as possible". I am not saying doing that is the right decision.


When you're talking about something being the "right thing to do," you're talking about morality.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Apr 22, 2018)

You do not kill a killing fetus. Most people against abortion seem to ignore everything about the rules and the laxs about abortion. There is a quite strict time limit about when you can do that. And trust me, you wouldn't be able to flush a fetus that's already capable of kicking. We're talking about lifeless lumps of unspecialized stem cells.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Anyways, this thread reflects how ultraconservative GBATemp, and the US in general, are. In France even the far-rightists aren't questioning th fundamental right to abortion. But well, different cultures I guess...


----------



## osm70 (Apr 22, 2018)

Why are we talking about politics here?

Look, I don't know what's going on in the US, but here in the Czech Republic we have one or two political parties that oppose abortion, seven or so that approves and the rest (about 70) doesn't even bother putting it in their political plan.

So, abortion isn't even close to being a political issue here.

(We have 88 political parties as of today - April 22nd, 2018.)


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 22, 2018)

Abortion is no more murder than masturbation is.

Some history is required to understand why people think abortion is murder.

back in the day, people weren't very knowledgeable about biology at all. The believed the entirety of the person was in the man's sperm. The woman's womb was just where the baby was grown. They thought it was like crops. Man had the seed, the woman had the ground. This is why we still say women are "barren", which is a agricultural term for ground that can't grow stuff. Also terms like "bear fruit" and "sewing your wild oats/seeds", etc., etc. come from this conceptual understanding.

So, with that established, let's move into religion doctrine. the catholic church took that cultural concept and made masturbation a crime against their god. if the entirety of the person was contained in the sperm, then surely not having it put in a place that could be planted was a crime against god. on a related note, this is also why so many people circumcise in the US. Kellogg (yes that Kellogg) thought circumcision would reduce the evil evil act of masturbation. You can also blame the catholic church and related religions for a large chunk of cultural hangups on masturbation.

Eventually we got to the point we understand genetics and that women contribute half of the genetic material. But even now, we still use those antiquated terms and concepts, so that culture and those concepts are still around in bits and pieces. There's still this concept that the "whole" of the person is contained there, just people adapted it to include the woman's half. So now rather than sperm, it's on the moment of conception. But that's still just an adaptation of that antiquated concept. It is not in line with biology.

What *actually* happens, based in biology, is sperm and eggs contain *~blueprints~*. a fertilized egg is not a person, it does not contain a "whole" person, but rather general instructions for the building of a person. (I say general because it's not exact, and the plans change quite a bit depending on the environment of the mother/fetus. They're adaptive blueprints and are not of a certain final product). They are an instructional code for the body to begin construction of a person. The man has half of the code, the women has the other half. When both are combined, the body begins the process of building based on those blueprints.

BUT it doesn't start out from the beginning with the bits that make a person a person. No, first the mother's body starts by creating a...vessel (to keep in line with the religious talk) for the person. The body. Eventually, after about the third trimester (29-40 weeks), the blueprints ask for the final bits to be installed; the important brain stuff. It is at this point most people agree an actual person has been grown. Pretty much no one thinks abortion should happen at this stage. Only before those stages the blueprints have asked for the "person" bits to be start being added do people think abortion to be viable. The closer to the "planning/conception" stage, the better for most people.

You can add whatever soul or religious context you'd like, but that's the sciency bit of what's happening.


----------



## osm70 (Apr 22, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> Abortion is no more murder than masturbation is.
> 
> Some history is required to understand why people think abortion is murder.
> 
> ...



I have never heard any of those terms.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 22, 2018)

osm70 said:


> I have never heard any of those terms.


They're English terms, so that may be why. Any native speaker will have heard these terms. usually "seed" or "barren" are the most common for non-native speakers.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 22, 2018)

osm70 said:


> I have never heard any of those terms.


The terms are biblical in origin. I associate them mainly with the book of Genesis.


----------



## osm70 (Apr 22, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> They're English terms, so that may be why. Any native speaker will have heard these terms. usually "seed" or "barren" are the most common for non-native speakers.




Well, I heard seed (assuming it means sperm). We actually use that word in Czech.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 22, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> Abortion is no more murder than masturbation is.
> 
> Some history is required to understand why people think abortion is murder.
> 
> ...


You missed "fruit of my loins," in reference to a father speaking of his offspring


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 22, 2018)

x65943 said:


> The terms are biblical in origin. I associate them mainly with the book of Genesis.


Certainly how that culture and thinking has been allowed to continue to propagate, for sure. Though it didn't coin the term, it just kind of locked down the culture of the time period.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 22, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> Certainly how that culture and thinking has been allowed to continue to propagate, for sure. Though it didn't coin the term, it just kind of locked down the culture of the time period.


I think the most significant thing here is that the bible was translated quite literally - and these terms, like seed, come from the greek and hebrew. We have since moved past translating these words so literally in most other texts, but the bible in English continues to borrow heavily from 16th century translations - if you are not literally still reading those old translations (many still read KJB).


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 22, 2018)

If we are doing old terms then I will have to bring it back to Aristotle and his theory of "haematogenous reproduction"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14735853

Equally I have been reading Malleus Maleficarum of late as my book for when waiting around in the world (the book the Roman Cathlolic church made to go after witches and detail their ways). It quite extensively covers abortion by "witch midwives" throughout it. 
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/mm01_11a.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/mm02a06a.htm

If we are sticking with antiquity then we have to also cover silphium. A contraceptive and abortion inducing plant that was driven extinct it was so well used.
http://allthatsinteresting.com/silphium


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 23, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> If we are doing old terms then I will have to bring it back to Aristotle and his theory of "haematogenous reproduction"
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14735853
> 
> Equally I have been reading Malleus Maleficarum of late as my book for when waiting around in the world (the book the Roman Cathlolic church made to go after witches and detail their ways). It quite extensively covers abortion by "witch midwives" throughout it.
> ...


I think I'm in love.


----------



## cots (Apr 23, 2018)

Terminating another persons life is murder. I don't care if you've been raped, if you can't afford the baby or all of the other reasons why it's legal to kill children.


----------



## YamiZee (Apr 23, 2018)

A fetus is far dumber than a chicken which we have no problem slaughtering because they taste good. We kill them because we enjoy what we gain from killing them. Similarly we enjoy not having to deal with being pregnant for months and giving birth to a child, both which greatly reduce quality of life, by far more than killing any chicken would benefit us. Being pregnant and giving birth are not easy. The babies being "murdered" by abortions are dumber than most animals because they aren't babies but fetuses. If you are fine with killing any animals for the sake of livelihood then there is no reason for you to be against aborting fetuses, which are by far the most beneficial "animals" to kill.


----------



## osm70 (Apr 23, 2018)

cots said:


> Terminating another persons life is murder. I don't care if you've been raped, if you *can't afford the baby* or all of the other reasons why it's legal to kill children.


So, you would rather have the child and make it live on the street because you can't afford a house?


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 23, 2018)

(note: I haven't read all replies, and I think it's better not to reply to most that I have read)

I consider abortion a necessary evil. You can spin the situation how you want, but the bottom line is some people/couples simply aren't cut out to be parents. They don't have the money, time, space, maturity or any other means to properly raise a child. Birth control methods aren't perfect (unless you happen to hate sex), but I honestly don't see why those who find that out firsthand should be punished for that.

I know: "raising children" isn't often spoken about in terms of punishment, but a pregnancy (especially an unwanted one) can ruin careers and suck the quality right out of life. Ever since my brother became dad of two kids, for example, him and his girlfriend are in survival modus. They had to buy a larger house in a better environment (because "think of the kids"), which meant working longer hours to pay off the alimony and at the same time spend more time at home because children can just do something lethal if you look the other way for five seconds...and those were wanted children.

What I, curiously enough, haven't seen mentioned: unwanted children grow up to be unwanted adults. This is of course a bit of an exaggeration, but the general line is true. And that's not my opinion but a measured fact. In the early nineties, crime in the USA suddenly took a nosedive. Of course lots of theories for this good news were presented, but none were really plausible. That is, until two guys pointed out that the decline in crime in the different states correlated nicely with the time period years before that abortion was legalized in these states. In other words: a lot of crimes never happened because the criminals were never born in the first place.

IMHO: that's the sort of perspective you should have on the topic: one that sees the society as a whole. In the ideal world, abortion can be made illegal because all the world's inhabitants have all the requirements needed to raise children. But as it stands, there's still plenty of things that prevent that utopia: many are either too poor in money in time to properly raise children with the caring, respect and maturity these children deserve.

It may be my own subjective bias, but I feel that most hardline anti-abortionists (or pro-life, so you will) are taking a rather dogmatic approach. I don't presume to convince them (threads like these are debates; not discussions), but I wonder...is my impression correct that the whole of your opinion is a strong gut feeling against abortion?


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 23, 2018)

I'm fine with abortion
If somebody is raped they should be allowed to not have the child
If a student gets too kinky they should be allowed to get an abortion
If the person can't afford the child they should be allowed to get aborted
Its really not bad until the child develops a conscious
Iirc its developed ~6 months after birth but its been awhile since I read the thing on it
But if someone has been pregnant long enough for the child to develop past the turtle fetus looking thing phase they should look at adoption
Its pretty stupid how people thing abortion is murder
The child is also attached to you like an organ so your really just removing an organ you don't need
Its a shame there's so many gullible people in the world who listen to the bullshit churches spread
Aborting a child who isn't technically alive yet is "murder"
Some random drunk who was killed "came back to life" even though around the time it "happened" we had no medical knowledge an even up to recent (within 200 years) we were burrying people alive when they were just unconscious and thought to be dead
Sex is apparently bad even though its a natural thing
Some insane guy was out in the middle of a desert and was talking to a burning bush and is considered a hero
Some old guy heard voices in his head and attended to murder his son "in gods name"
Some other guy was eaten by a whale and not digested

I don't understand why people believe this shit
If abortion is murder then why are they not saying oral sex is cannibalism?


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Apr 23, 2018)

cots said:


> Terminating another persons life is murder. I don't care if you've been raped, if you can't afford the baby or all of the other reasons why it's legal to kill children.


That's why no "child" is "killed".


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 23, 2018)

ov3rkill said:


> As for rape victims, they should just consider adoption


But women can die during birth and its actually more common than you would think
Would you want to die giving birth to a child you never wanted to have and were forced to because someone raped you and abortion was illegal?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 23, 2018)

cots said:


> Terminating another persons life is murder. I don't care if you've been raped, if you can't afford the baby or all of the other reasons why it's legal to kill children.


Which is why people terminate pregnancies long before what is inside them could biologically be considered a child


----------



## bi388 (Apr 23, 2018)

Fun fact, the Catholic church was ok with early aboritions for most of history, they changed their opinion in the 1800s based off of a lie where some scientists claimed that they saw that a fetus looked like a mini baby from the moment it is formed.


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 26, 2018)

Abortion has always been tough for me. I can understand in cases of rape and incest, but it's despicable in any other case. If a woman couldn't afford to have a child, she should have kept her legs closed or used birth control. Using abortion as a form of birth control is digusting and cruel.


dpad_5678 said:


> "_Life is precious until it's born. Then fuck it._" - conservatives


"Life is only precious until after the child is born." - liberals


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 26, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Abortion has always been tough for me. I can understand in cases of rape and incest, but it's despicable in any other case. If a woman couldn't afford to have a child, she should have kept her legs closed or used birth control. Using abortion as a form of birth control is digusting and cruel.
> 
> "Life is only precious until after the child is born." - liberals


And what if the condom breaks or birth control fails? There's many reasons for abortions and failed birth control is one of them. It's not a woman's fault that something went wrong and she shouldn't be made to carry that mistake.
Side note, your quote is honestly just flat wrong, considering pro-life is a very Conservative stance. You seem to want to have this very "anti-Liberal" stance to the point where you will literally just clump anything you don't like as "liberal."

As well I would like to note that the pro-life stance is an extremely shortsighted stance. Abortions are always going to happen regardless or "religious" or "legal" stances on the matter. They will simply be moved out of safe locations and be brought back underground. It's extremely stupid to believe that "pro-life" movement actually cares about the safety and well being of women when it's so extremely forgetful of the past and unwilling to see the dangerous future they pose for women.


----------



## DinohScene (Apr 26, 2018)

If I was a girl, I'd get an abortion just as a fuck you to all the naysayers.

Also, fuck having children.
Filthy leeches.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 26, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Abortion has always been tough for me. I can understand in cases of rape and incest, but it's despicable in any other case. If a woman couldn't afford to have a child, she should have kept her legs closed or used birth control. Using abortion as a form of birth control is digusting and cruel.
> 
> "Life is only precious until after the child is born." - liberals


you're assuming a fertilized egg is a child. This is biologically incorrect. It is more accurate to think of a fertilized egg as a set of fuzzy blueprints for a human. The woman's body starts giving resources to the building of a future child based on the blueprints and you don't start getting an actual human child until around the 3rd trimester. The human child that results can vary wildly from the blueprints, given the environment the mother is in and other factors.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Apr 26, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> "Life is only precious until after the child is born." - liberals


Ha, liberals don't _like _abortion. Nobody does. Whatever happens in a woman's body is her business and her business *ONLY*. It's not up to 50-60 white men behind closed doors to decide whether or not a woman has the rights to do what she wants with her own body. Also find it funny how pro-lifers and the righties believe that the unborn (and unconscious) child's "life" is more important than the mother's, because more often then not, woman have abortions to save their own life.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 26, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Abortion has always been tough for me. I can understand in cases of rape and incest, but it's despicable in any other case. If a woman couldn't afford to have a child, she should have kept her legs closed or used birth control. Using abortion as a form of birth control is digusting and cruel.l


I've asked it earlier in this thread and I'm going to ask it again, since it seems like you just got here; what is the moral and/or physical difference between aborting in the case of rape and incest, and aborting for virtually any other reason?

I DON'T like abortion, and to me free and accessible birth control is the OBVIOUS solution, but until then... I see the above stance as an excuse. Either it's murder or it isn't. The only difference in my eyes (having been there) is that in the case of rape or incest, you allow yourself to place yourself in the girl/woman's shoes, whereas you refuse to otherwise


----------



## Subtle Demise (Apr 26, 2018)

I wonder what's worse, never being born; or being born into a world where you aren't wanted. Hmm I really don't think the choice is that difficult. Death kind of loses its effect if you were never conscious to begin with.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Apr 26, 2018)

Jayro said:


> They're gross, whiny, needy, they stink, they're dumber than rocks, and expensive as fuck to raise. No thanks... ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!


I'm sure you were the smartest infant born who shit roses and didn't need anything after the umbilical cord was cut.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Apr 26, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> she should have kept her legs closed


I've never had a debate with a conservative about abortion where this specific argument _wasn't _used.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 26, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I've never had a debate about with a conservative about abortion where this specific argument _wasn't _used.


Be nice, there are definitely liberals and moderates that are against abortion as well.

But yes, that is a common "argument" among them


----------



## dpad_5678 (Apr 26, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Be nice, there are definitely liberals and moderates that are against abortion as well.
> 
> But yes, that is a common "argument" among them


I understand, but the classic conservative debate tactic is blame the victim/minority:


The black kid _should've_ kept his hand away from his pocket - (deserved to be shot)
The woman _should've _closed her legs - (doesn't deserve rights to an abortion)
The gay man _shouldn't _be displaying any sort of homosexuality in public - (shouldn't be oppressing Christians in public (lol))
The immigrant _should only_ fly an American Flag - (shouldn't be "disrespecting" the USA by flying a foreign flag)
The single parent working two full time jobs to feed, house and clothe three kids _shouldn't _ask for benefits - (for some invalid reason, they don't deserve it and they're moochers)
Conservatives generally have an extremely narcissistic attitude.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 26, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> and to me free and accessible birth control is the OBVIOUS solution


condoms - small hole in it from bad manufacturing or someone going in with a needle (its actually really easy to do without it being noticed, and i have not done it to mess with people, only to see how difficult it would be for someone to do)
pills - different bodies are different bodies, not all work the same, theres a girl at my school that is uneffected by birth control pills
spermicide - its like antibiotics, works on most but some have restances and are uneffected
cleaning out sperm - just no... why would anyone think that would work? thats how the 9y/o girl down the street got pregnant
dodging periods - 2 words, surprise babies


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 26, 2018)

Eix said:


> condoms - small hole in it from bad manufacturing or someone going in with a needle (its actually really easy to do without it being noticed, and i have not done it to mess with people, only to see how difficult it would be for someone to do)
> pills - different bodies are different bodies, not all work the same, theres a girl at my school that is uneffected by birth control pills
> spermicide - its like antibiotics, works on most but some have restances and are uneffected
> cleaning out sperm - just no... why would anyone think that would work? thats how the 9y/o girl down the street got pregnant
> dodging periods - 2 words, surprise babies


Agreed, obviously we've got to keep legal access to an abortion around, but at the very least better sex education and free access to birth control will reduce the number of abortions significantly


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 26, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Agreed, obviously we've got to keep legal access to an abortion around, but at the very least better sex education and free access to birth control will reduce the number of abortions significantly


yeah
im all for abortion because it should be up to the mother/accidentally pregnant womans decision
but it should still be used as a plan b for when birth control fails

it would be kinda weird for someone to goto an abortion clinic every few days XD


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 26, 2018)

Eix said:


> yeah
> im all for abortion because it should be up to the mother/accidentally pregnant womans decision
> but it should still be used as a plan b for when birth control fails
> 
> it would be kinda weird for someone to goto an abortion clinic every few days XD


And that virtually never happens, even now


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Apr 26, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> better sex education


Indeed. For teens and young adults. Not like that channel "queer kid stuff" which is too far beyond education. Reminds me of my social worker as a kid that grabbed some human model dolls like those that have the furniture accessories and full family house and asked "Did your mommy and daddy ever do this?" and he'd start humping the two together on a bed. HE FLIPS IT, get this, then ask if I'd ever seen that, and I sit there. Confused. With an uncomfortable feeling that I still remember. My case was dropped as suspected to be slander on my family but that was the weirdest shit as a boy. He might as well should have got on his knees and did jerking motions then ask "Did you ever see mommy do this?". God... xD lol



TotalInsanity4 said:


> free access to birth control


Whatever happened to teaching our kids not to be sluts?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 26, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> Indeed. For teens and young adults. Not like that channel "queer kid stuff" which is too far beyond education.


... What are you talking about?



> Whatever happened to teaching our kids not to be sluts?


Wow, way to come across as a dick. Hate to break it to you, but if you have a teenager they're definitely out being a "slut" (read: having sex, even if it's in a committed relationship) anyway. Wouldn't you rather that they do it in a safe manner with as little risk of pregnancy possible? 

And even if they aren't having sex, do they not have the right to fully understanding both their own and the opposite sex's anatomy?


----------



## Jayro (Apr 26, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> I'm sure you were the smartest infant born who shit roses and didn't need anything after the umbilical cord was cut.


Oh no no no, I was truly an awful child. I don't want anyone to repeat my parent's mistakes.


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 26, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I've never had a debate with a conservative about abortion where this specific argument _wasn't _used.


Conservative? Haha! I depise them just as much as I despise liberals.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



dpad_5678 said:


> I understand, but the classic conservative debate tactic is blame the victim/minority:
> 
> 
> The black kid _should've_ kept his hand away from his pocket - (deserved to be shot)
> ...


Classic for you leftists to bring race into everything.

A person who steals should be arrested, not shot. However, if the robber pulled out a gun on a person and threaten to shoot. The police are justified in shooting him or her.

I never said a woman does not deserve abortion rights. I think it's morally wrong to kill an unborn living being. Birth control exists and should always be used above abortion.

Homosexuals can display affection in people. It does not bother me as long as I am not affected by it.

Immigrants should be able to fly whatever flag they may choose. They should however stand for the pledge.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 26, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Classic for you leftists to bring race into everything.
> 
> A person who steals should be arrested, not shot. However, if the robber pulled out a gun on a person and threaten to shoot. The police are justified in shooting him or her.


We wouldn't bring race into it if that weren't the case, but even branching out of racist behavior I'd like to remind you of the time that the cops shot a white guy holding a Wii remotes while he answered the door. Police these days are WAY too trigger-happy and it's not a good thing for ANYONE, but @dpad_5678 is right; conservative talk shows ALWAYS justify the killing of an unarmed black person



> I never said a woman does not deserve abortion rights. I think it's morally wrong to kill an unborn living being. Birth control exists and should always be used above abortion.


I don't think there's a single person in this thread (that isn't being intentionally cynical) that would disagree with the last sentence



> Immigrants should be able to fly whatever flag they may choose. They should however stand for the pledge.


Why, if I might ask? No one's REQUIRED to, and I can see why many people, immigrant or no, might either specifically chose not to or not specifically chose to


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 26, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> We wouldn't bring race into it if that weren't the case, but even branching out of racist behavior I'd like to remind you of the time that the cops shot a white guy holding a Wii remotes while he answered the door. Police these days are WAY too trigger-happy and it's not a good thing for ANYONE, but @dpad_5678 is right; conservative talk shows ALWAYS justify the killing of an unarmed black person
> 
> 
> I don't think there's a single person in this thread (that isn't being intentionally cynical) that would disagree with the last sentence
> ...


To prevent further derailment of this topic, please DM me if you would like to discuss this further. Thank you.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Apr 26, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Immigrants should be able to fly whatever flag they may choose. They should however stand for the pledge.


You're basically saying immigrants have to "make up" for being immigrants by standing for the pledge. No one has to stand for that useless chant. It's actually unpatriotic to force someone to stand for it.


----------



## Armadillo (Apr 26, 2018)

Legal here, doesn't bother me. Let people do what they want.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 26, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> To prevent further derailment of this topic, please DM me if you would like to discuss this further. Thank you.


If you feel the need to PM me you can, but I gotta be honest I don't think this thread's going anywhere that it can't be pulled back to currently. I'm also not exactly "arguing to win" so much as both trying to understand your position and relate it back to my own experiences, so.... *shrug* your call, I guess


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 27, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Ha, liberals don't _like _abortion. Nobody does.



I do. I find it an extremely valuable service, or indeed convenience, that the modern world can provide, one that helps a lot of people and society at large. I attach no greater moral burden to the process than I might someone going to the dentist, and would similarly offer to give someone a lift to and fro just as I might for that.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 27, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I do. I find it an extremely valuable service, or indeed convenience, that the modern world can provide, one that helps a lot of people and society at large. I attach no greater moral burden to the process than I might someone going to the dentist, and would similarly offer to give someone a life to and fro just as I might for that.


To that end, though, it's not something you ENJOY, correct, just something you have no objection to? You have to be careful, otherwise you'll end up playing into the hypothetical (but not realistic) "hooker that goes to an abortion clinic on a weekly basis because she doesn't care about birth control" stereotype


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 27, 2018)

Earlier I saw it phrased as "necessary evil" where I don't consider it an evil, not even close. That is where I was heading.

It is a positive service, a positive thing a person can do and can happily treat it lightly with friends just like a bad hangover.


----------



## supersega (Apr 27, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Earlier I saw it phrased as "necessary evil" where I don't consider it an evil, not even close. That is where I was heading.
> 
> It is a positive service, a positive thing a person can do and can happily treat it lightly with friends just like a bad hangover.



I find this hard to believe. It is really just murder, and if people can't see that, they have been desensitized by societal norms. Abortion should only be allowed if it endangers the life of the mother. Any other case? If the mom does not want the kid, they put them up for adoption; you did the crime, you do the pain. God has a plan for every one of us, including those not born yet, and its wrong when we try and play God, as proven by Jontron.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 27, 2018)

supersega said:


> I find this hard to believe. It is really just murder, and if people can't see that, they have been desensitized by societal norms. Abortion should only be allowed if it endangers the life of the mother. Any other case? If the mom does not want the kid, they put them up for adoption; you did the crime, you do the pain. God has a plan for every one of us, including those not born yet, and its wrong when we try and play God, as proven by Jontron.


It's a little foolish to say that the mother is the only one that is emotionally punished by putting a child up for adoption. There's definitely another party that I don't think you're thinking of there


----------



## supersega (Apr 27, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's a little foolish to say that the mother is the only one that is emotionally punished by putting a child up for adoption. There's definitely another party that I don't think you're thinking of there



Meant that as "you had sex with a person you didn't want kids with, you have to have the pain of childbirth." Sorry, I'm quite tired.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 27, 2018)

supersega said:


> Meant that as "you had sex with a person you didn't want kids with, you have to have the pain of childbirth." Sorry, I'm quite tired.


No, you're fine, it's getting late. But you do have to consider the fact that the adoption system is rough on a kid, even in a best case scenario, downright traumatizing in the worst. I'm definitely not knocking all the people who have adopted children, because in my mind they're heroes, but I would never want to force a child into the system, especially given how crowded it is already

Granted, newborns have a much higher rate of adoption, but if they aren't adopted early, the above statement holds


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 27, 2018)

supersega said:


> It is really just murder, and if people can't see that, they have been desensitized by societal norms.


Societal norms thousands of years old? The Romans had the ability to effect a chemical one and purportedly kept massive stockpiles, see the silphium stuff we were on about earlier http://allthatsinteresting.com/silphium . It sort of went away for a little bit after that in Europe, though it was still done in one form or another. On the flip side these societal norms have seen us living in one of the best times in human history, similarly http://worldabortionlaws.com/map/



 
Is that abortion laws or best places to live? We could go a little further and look at timelines for introduction and various crime stats but I will skip that one for now.
Might then the logic that says it is murder be an antiquated one? We already have many examples of others that were once considered fundamental truths and are now look back upon with heads being shaken and promises of "never again". The world's finest legal minds and ethicists have seemingly repeatedly upheld the notion as well, how does that play into this?

Equally I am back on "when does it count?". Is contraception bad? Is contraception that prevents the implantation of a fertilised egg bad? Does it go further back and is masturbation bad? Is having a tubal ligation (or a hysterectomy which is the removal of the whole system in women, a just the ovaries version also exists) or vasectomy bad? Once implantation happens? Before one cell becomes two? Two becomes four? Why is the model in which "it is not a human but the blueprints and some building blocks, albeit one more predisposed than most other things, to create one" incorrect?

"God has a plan for every one of us" holds no water for me (from where I sit it is an imaginary being shared by a few religions and branches thereof, thus of no real relevance to the way I live my life). To quote a philosoraptor image though "if the gods have a plan for every one of us then isn't an abortion their plan?".


----------



## osm70 (Apr 27, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> *... What are you talking about?*
> 
> 
> Wow, way to come across as a dick. Hate to break it to you, but if you have a teenager they're definitely out being a "slut" (read: having sex, even if it's in a committed relationship) anyway. Wouldn't you rather that they do it in a safe manner with as little risk of pregnancy possible?
> ...




Pretty sure they meant this:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCecsVoeJcsXbAra7Sl4mOPw/videos

It's a terrible video series about teaching LGBT things to children.

I'm not sure if the creators suck, or if they are trying to mislead intentionally.


----------



## Minox (Apr 28, 2018)

Reminder: This is not the topic to start talking about politics - stick to the topic at hand.


----------



## Megadriver94 (May 3, 2018)

I have little to no problem with allowing babies that are either conceived from rape or found to have substantial-pervasive mental and physical handicaps to be aborted(the former only permitted from zygote stage up to probably the start of the 2nd trimester).


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 3, 2018)

Megadriver94 said:


> I have little to no problem with allowing babies that are either conceived from rape or found to have substantial-pervasive mental and physical handicaps to be aborted(the former only permitted from zygote stage up to probably the start of the 2nd trimester).


Why not any other circumstance, then?


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 3, 2018)

i don't even understand why there should be a debate on the matter.
if it's not in your body or not your baby then what in the world makes you think you've got the right to mingle?

* you don't know what's the state of mind of another human beïng.
* you don't know her history.
* you don't know how she got pregnant.

what makes your oppinion worth that much?

yes abortion is ending hope for an unborn life, but that doesn't make it your problem.
for all you know she might not had a free will in getting pregnant in the first place, it could've been rape, abuse, or (having the idea of) not having any other option at beforehand.
she might know she's carrying a deathly desease so there's no hope for her to be born baby to have a happy life.
or what if she's not able to give the primairy needs for a baby?

even if it's none of these, then still what's your excuse to have to mingle?


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 3, 2018)

Abortion is wrong, just wrong.
I think that if women don't want to have a risk of getting pregnant then they shouldn't have sex, plan and simple, if they do then they have to take responsibility for that action, as for rape, well it would be the woman's choice whether or not she has a abortion or not but it is morally wrong, of course I don't think it's a good idea to just say "because life gave me a bad card hand I should just toss them out," why? Because *everyone* has been handed a bad card hand sometime in their life, they've dealt with pain, loss, guilt, or abuse. And those abused people go on to live there lives. So when you play a card game, you make the most of the cards you were dealt, you don't opt out of the game, much like life, you do what you can do, and don't worry about anything else. I don't think it's right to kill the baby/s that a woman has because it is unwanted, there are many things that are unwanted in this life such as abuse, but people deal with it.

And all that aside, abortion comes from one thing: unwanted pregnancy. So don't make it unwanted, work to help protect women from rapist, and women shouldn't willingly have sex if they're not ready for a pregnancy, simple, and guys need to stop bothering women so much about...it, I mean women are women, I think guys need to leave them alone, and let them live there lives and stop being so...if you know what I mean, childish, I mean it's okay for a guy to think a woman is cute or sexy, but they should leave it at that, if there not ready to really love and *sacrifice* for her. (I wish guys loved women by taking care of them and putting them number 1 in this life, instead of always being concerned about big number 1 which is themselves, women aren't sex tools after all, they're so selfish, a man should sacrifice for his lover, and I mean *sacrifice, *but the woman should be so sweet and lovely that she deserves it, and she should want to be, but there are a lot of women out here who aren't like that, thus they aren't really bride material, and that's okay, 'cause they're just being them.)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 3, 2018)

I appreciate the message of most of your second paragraph, but...


Fates-Blade-900 said:


> and women shouldn't willingly have sex if there aren't ready for a pregnancy, simple


Why not?


----------



## osaka35 (May 3, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Abortion is wrong, just wrong.
> I think that if women don't want to have a risk of getting pregnant then they shouldn't have sex, plan and simple, if they do then they have to take responsibility for that action, as for rape, well it would be the woman's choice whether or not she has a abortion or not but it is morally wrong, of course I don't think it's a good idea to just say "because life gave me a bad card hand I should just toss them out," why? Because *everyone* has been handed a bad card hand sometime in their life, they've dealt with pain, loss, guilt, or abuse. And those abused people go on to live there lives. So when you play a card game, you make the most of the cards you were dealt, you don't opt out of the game, much like life, you do what you can do, and don't worry about anything else. I don't think it's right to kill the baby/s that a woman has because it is unwanted, there are many things that are unwanted in this life such as abuse, but people deal with it.
> 
> And all that aside, abortion comes from one thing: unwanted pregnancy. So don't make it unwanted, work to help protect women from rapist, and women shouldn't willingly have sex if there aren't ready for a pregnancy, simple, and guys need to stop bothering women so much about...it, I mean women are women, I think guys need to leave them alone, and let them live there lives and stop being so...if you know what I mean, childish, I mean it's okay for a guy to think a woman is cute or sexy, but they should leave it at that, if there not ready to really love and *sacrifice* for her. (I wish guys loved women by taking care of them and putting them number 1 in this life, instead of always being concerned about big number 1 which is themselves, women aren't sex tools after all, they're so selfish, a man should sacrifice for his lover, and I mean *sacrifice, *but the woman should be so sweet and lovely that she deserves it, and she should want to be, but there are a lot of women out here who aren't like that, thus they aren't really bride material, and that's okay, 'cause they're just being them.)


Why do you feel it's wrong? Do you feel a fertilized egg is a person? why do you believe this to be the case?


----------



## dAVID_ (May 4, 2018)

*As many have said before me*, prohibiting abortions will only make it worse. If you remove the option to have a safe abortion with proper equipment and medical attention, then there's a good chance the abortion will be done safely. If we prohibit abortions it'll be done illegally with persons that might not have proper medical training or the right equipment. The decision to give life or to not give life should completely rely on the woman.


----------



## Sheimi (May 4, 2018)

I know what my answer is and it would attract a lot of hate.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 4, 2018)

Sheimi said:


> I know what my answer is and it would attract a lot of hate.


We have had basically variation on theme from "under no circumstances" to "very select circumstances" to "do it if you have to but try not to" to "Default to why not? Probably make your life better if you do" and much discussion of the qualifications for any of those. Throughout all that we seem to have remained civil, maybe slightly provocative if someone has not providing reasoning or has a massive hole in their logic but that is why it is called a discussion/debate.




Fates-Blade-900 said:


> And all that aside, abortion comes from one thing: unwanted pregnancy.


Others have taken the other parts but that is wrong. There have been plenty of cases where a pregnancy is sought but it ended up ectopic (risk to both host and parasite), with serious congenital defects, in cases of multiple pregnancy leaving all them to mature would put one or more of them at risk or the host, the mother has maybe subsequently been diagnosed with something for which the treatment will damage the foetus but waiting many months will be too long to save the mother) and I could probably carry this on for a while. Unless you want to argue those are all wanted, just not wanted enough then yeah.
That said go with the other calls for expansion first.


----------



## Lord M (May 4, 2018)

Its a shame, life is not a toy, but i think it depend on cases:
better an abortion instead to give to that kid a horrible life.


----------



## gamesquest1 (May 4, 2018)

honestly I'm in 2 minds, I can see the case in some circumstances such as children (under the age of 18), incest, rape etc and probably for very early abortions so people can rectify honest mistakes( i.e ripped condoms etc)

personally I think anyone over 18 should have the cognitive understanding to use protection if they want to be getting it on there is a huge range of options at this point, I feel at some point some women decided abortion is a form of contraceptive where they can play a game of chance and shirk responsibility for their actions/choices, and as some have mentioned if women are allowed to shirk responsibly for their sexual choices then men also should be allowed to say "unless I sign up for the child I'm not responsible" both sides should agree to the responsibility of a child if that's the way the game is going to be from now on

that said the case of it being ok for rape victims opens up the door to the women who just want abortions to say "oh yeah I was raped again for the 17th time abortion pl0x" which would do nothing but inflate rape figures with baloney cases just so people could get abortions

personally I should think there should be more education about responsibility of women to take precautions when having sex if they don't want to get pregnant (and I'm sure someone will say "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MAN".......well I rebuttal with the "her body, her choice" sentiment people are so keen of), and the system needs to be updated to acknowledge that unless a man is in a long term relationship with someone or actively trying for children that liability for children should be held to a much lower tier unless men get equal opportunity to be granted custody of children, maybe even have the ability to be exempt if contested unless the mother agrees to a paternity test as there are way to many stories I have seen in the US of men driven into poverty and homelessness or even arrested over child maintenance who weren't even the biological father which is insane


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> Why do you feel it's wrong? Do you feel a fertilized egg is a person? why do you believe this to be the case?


1)Because God made life, and it's sin for us to take it, "Thou shalt not kill".
2)Yes I do.
3)Because God made life, and it's sin for us to take it, "Thou shalt not kill".

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I appreciate the message of most of your second paragraph, but...
> 
> Why not?


They shouldn't because they aren't ready for pregnancy, if a woman is not ready for pregnancy they shouldn't have sex willingly, without condoms of course.


----------



## osaka35 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> 1)Yes I do.
> 2)Yes I do.
> 3)Because God made life, and it's sin for us to take it, "Thou shalt not kill".
> 
> ...


No, why do you feel a fertilized egg is a person? This thinking is not biblical and it's not scientific. So why believe it?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> They shouldn't because they aren't ready for pregnancy, if a woman is not ready for pregnancy they shouldn't have sex willingly, without condoms of course.


Well yeah, obviously not without at least two forms of birth control ideally, but that's not what you said


----------



## FAST6191 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> 3)Because God made life, and it's sin for us to take it, "Thou shalt not kill".



The translation I always saw of that was murdering ain't cool. If the state has legalised it then it is not murder.

That said you have repeatedly said morally wrong so I will assume you will go with "if you don't like them then don't get one yourself" and can leave it at that.


----------



## Whole lotta love (May 6, 2018)

abortion is bad. outlawing abortion is worse.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 6, 2018)

Whole lotta love said:


> abortion is bad. outlawing abortion is worse.


Agreed with the second bit. For all the anti-abortion folks, I'd like to point you in the direction of Finland, where not only is abortion legal, but also totally free (socialized healthcare 'n all that). In spite of that (or even, many would say BECAUSE of that), abortion rates are incredibly low compared to the population, due to the fact that sex ed is actually competent and pregnancy centers also hand out contraceptives free of charge

All outlawing abortion would do is increase people who are desperate and seeking illegal operations that in some cases might even be life-saving


----------



## The Catboy (May 6, 2018)

supersega said:


> I find this hard to believe. It is really just murder, and if people can't see that, they have been desensitized by societal norms. Abortion should only be allowed if it endangers the life of the mother. Any other case? If the mom does not want the kid, they put them up for adoption; you did the crime, you do the pain. God has a plan for every one of us, including those not born yet, and its wrong when we try and play God, as proven by Jontron.


Abortion isn't murder and a fetus isn't a person. This argument was created when "scientist" told the Catholic church that extremely early stages of fetuses (when abortions are already legal now) looked like little people and the Church flipped their stance on abortions. 
We could take God out of the argument as not everyone believes in God and or believes in the same God. Honestly the whole "God has a plan" argument only applies to a select few people and honestly is a weak argument used by those actually can't think of anything better to say. You don't know the reason why someone is getting an abortion and thus by your own argument you need to police every women getting abortion. Before that the church was actually pro-abortion and didn't believe fetuses were people.
Also the "put them up for adoption" argument is just shortsighted. There's literally millions of kids up for adoption right  now and no adopting them. There's also just as many kids born into homes that don't want them and or lack the resources to take care of them. Our world is literally overrun with kids that people simply don't want or can't take care of, yet people think putting them up for adoption is still the merciful answer. You aren't really looking at the bigger picture here, you are only looking at some small pixel of what's presented to you and making an idea from that.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> No, why do you feel a fertilized egg is a person? This thinking is not biblical and it's not scientific. So why believe it?


Well, when a egg is fertilized it is sent down to the mothers womb and hatches into a cell and that cell becomes the embryo if I'm not mistaken, so as long that egg is fertilized and sent to the mothers womb and is growing, having a abortion kills that child and that's not right.


----------



## DeslotlCL (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Well, when a egg is fertilized it is sent down to the mothers womb and hatches into a cell and that cell becomes the embryo if I'm not mistaken, so as long that egg is fertilized and sent to the mothers womb and is growing, having a abortion kills that child and that's not right.


but that thing you described is still not a child, smh...


----------



## Ricken (May 6, 2018)

If the fetus has barely developed, then I see no harm in abortion...
But if it's like 8 months in that's kinda a jerk move


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> but that thing you described is still not a child, smh...


I believe as soon as the egg is fertilized and sent to the mother's womb it's a child plain and simple.


----------



## DeslotlCL (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> I believe as soon as the egg is fertilized and sent to the mother's womb it's a child plain and simple.


It is not, and no matter if you believe it or not, it is just a plain simple fact.


----------



## Navonod (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Well, when a egg is fertilized it is sent down to the mothers womb and hatches into a cell and that cell becomes the embryo if I'm not mistaken, so as long that egg is fertilized and sent to the mothers womb and is growing, having a abortion kills that child and that's not right.


I'd rather abort the child than to have it possibly live in poverty or going into abusive homes which happens more often than not. You do know that foster homes are over crowded to right? Because you're the same people who wont let gay people adopt. If you really cared about the children then you should be more worried about the ones already alive and suffering.


----------



## pustal (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Well, when a egg is fertilized it is sent down to the mothers womb and hatches into a cell and that cell becomes the embryo if I'm not mistaken, so as long that egg is fertilized and sent to the mothers womb and is growing, having a abortion kills that child and that's not right.



Abortion can only be done in the first 12 weeks, coincidentaly, the brain is only formed at the 12th week. Before that there's a nervous sistem in place, but here is absolutelly no way to be a sentient being in there, even though I'd argue you could call it that until much after. If it is not sentient, by definition it's not a person and it cannot be murdered the same way you do not murder plants when you sieze their life activities. Any belief against it is religious or misinformed driven, I'm sorry.

I'd say abortion is much perferable than bring a child to a mother that does not want or cannot raise a child. And as much as adoption sounds like an alternative, bear in mind that the woman will have to endure all the suffering of biological motherhood for a child she will not raise, and the separation of a living, breathing child from a mother leaves far more trauma than a yet-to-live one.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I'd rather abort the child than to have it possibly live in poverty or going into abusive homes which happens more often than not. You do know that foster homes are over crowded to right? Because you're the same people who wont let gay people adopt. If you really cared about the children then you should be more worried about the ones already alive and suffering.


Bud those homes were going to be filled either way, if not by that child then by another, but by finding abusive homes we can do something about them, people ALWAYS complain that the child will "go to a abusive home" why is that? Where is the people who won't let that happen? And I do care about the people who're still alive today but the babies are the ones not getting a chance to live.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 6, 2018)

Ricken said:


> If the fetus has barely developed, then I see no harm in abortion...
> But if it's like 8 months in that's kinda a jerk move


As far as I'm aware there's not a single clinic on Earth that would do an abortion that late into the pregnancy

Also, fun fact, I'm over in Europe right now and just found out that Iowa's sitting governer just signed a "Heartbeat Bill" into place, which both means that if a heartbeat is detected you can't abort the pregnancy and also implies that sentience can be effectively measured by whether or not something has a pulse (which it can't)

Like good lord, can't you guys at least wait for me to get back before fucking up legislature? At least I'll be back by November, when governer Reynolds is up for re- (although really her first) election



Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Bud those homes were going to be filled either way, if not by that child then by another, but by finding abusive homes we can do something about them, people ALWAYS complain that the child will "go to a abusive home" why is that? Where is the people who won't let that happen? And I do care about the people who're still alive today but the babies are the ones not getting a chance to live.


They're not babies, and while they TECHNICALLY aren't getting the chance to live, they haven't lived yet anyway. Fetuses prior to ~14-22 weeks aren't even capable of thinking, let alone making a decision of whether they would want to continue developing and eventually be born vs ceasing to exist before conciousness, so that decision then falls to the host in which they reside who is equally impacted by the pregnancy


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

pustal said:


> Abortion can only be done in the first 12 weeks, coincidentaly, the brain is only formed at the 12th week. Before that there's a nervous sistem in place, but here is absolutelly no way to be a sentient being in there, even though I'd argue you could call it that until much after. If it is not sentient, by definition it's not a person and it cannot be murdered the same way you do not murder plants when you sieze their life activities. Any belief against it is religious or misinformed driven, I'm sorry.
> 
> I'd say abortion is much perferable than bring a child to a mother that does not want or cannot raise a child. And as much as adoption sounds like an alternative, bear in mind that the woman will have to endure all the suffering of biological motherhood for a child she will not raise, and the separation of a living, breathing child from a mother leaves far more trauma than a yet-to-live one.


A mother has a guide book for how to be a mother, and I know that it isn't a easy thing being a single mother but it is her responsibility, the only time adoption should be a option is if the mother is REALLY too young to take care of the child, maybe that should be a teaching tool for other young girls, not to get pregnant in their early lives which can be prevented by not having sex willingly, plain and simple, even with safety precautions to not get pregnant if they do, they need to take care of that baby, it's not the babies fault she had sex, it's hers she needs to deal with it and take accountability, but accountable to who? To *GOD, *if there is no God it would be fine for a woman to have a abortion, but He says "thou shalt not kill", and you end a life when you have a abortion, so if you say I believe in the bible I would say yeah, but I would also say who doesn't because any type of morality in this world is from God.


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 6, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> As far as I'm aware there's not a single clinic on Earth that would do an abortion that late into the pregnancy
> 
> Also, fun fact, I'm over in Europe right now and just found out that Iowa's sitting governer just signed a "Heartbeat Bill" into place, which both means that if a heartbeat is detected you can't abort the pregnancy and also implies that sentience can be effectively measured by whether or not something has a pulse (which it can't)
> 
> ...


forgot to mention one really good reason to do abortion, my collega's wife died almost when giving birth to her latest boy and although she servived it (she's unconscious for about a week)
she now knows that if she'll get pregnant again it will about 100% certain cause her to die.
so what's it worth so much to have a baby if there's not gonna be mother?


----------



## onibaku (May 6, 2018)

Personally, Im a dude and would never ask my partner to abort unless she chose to do it but even then I would suggest against the abortion. I should've taken the appropriate measures to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. As for child support, I would feel obliged to support my child, regardless of the law on the matter or my relationship with the mother. It is a human that is a partly me. 

For me, my life has had its ups and downs but overall I'm much happier to have lived than to not have lived at all and I'm sure my potential child would feel the same way..


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> A mother has a guide book for how to be a mother, and I know that it isn't a easy thing being a single mother but it is her responsibility, the only time adoption should be a option is if the mother is REALLY too young to take care of the child, maybe that should be a teaching tool for other young girls, not to get pregnant in their early lives which can be prevented by not having sex willingly, plain and simple, even with safety precautions to not get pregnant if they do, they need to take care of that baby, it's not the babies fault she had sex, it's hers she needs to deal with it and take accountability, but accountable to who? To *GOD, *if there is no God it would be fine for a woman to have a abortion, but He says "thou shalt not kill" so.


Well, as long as he didn't say "thou shalt not abort" it looks like we're in the clear.  The problem I find with your reasoning is that god doesn't have to make choices that will affect him for a lifetime, only people do.  These decisions shouldn't be taken lightly, but the fact is that some people are not in a stable enough place, either financially or emotionally, to have children.  Force that decision on them anyway, and watch three lives get ruined.  That cycle has caused a lot of poverty and mental health issues in America.  Eventually we'll also have overcrowding and scarcity in our resources.


----------



## osm70 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> A mother has a guide book for how to be a mother, and I know that it isn't a easy thing being a single mother but it is her responsibility, the only time adoption should be a option is if the mother is REALLY too young to take care of the child, maybe that should be a teaching tool for other young girls, not to get pregnant in their early lives which can be prevented by not having sex willingly, plain and simple, even with safety precautions to not get pregnant if they do, they need to take care of that baby, it's not the babies fault she had sex, it's hers she needs to deal with it and take accountability, but accountable to who? To *GOD, *if there is no God it would be fine for a woman to have a abortion, but He says "thou shalt not kill", and you end a life when you have a abortion, so if you say I believe in the bible I would say yeah, but I would also say who doesn't because any type of morality in this world is from God.



Two things:

1 - You don't end a life when you abort. You prevent one from starting.

2 - Morality comes from God? In that case, explain this: How come different people have different opinions on what is right or wrong? If God decided morality, shouldn't everyone agree on the same moral code?


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well, as long as he didn't say "thou shalt not abort" it looks like we're in the clear.  The problem I find with your reasoning is that god doesn't have to make choices that will affect him for a lifetime, only people do.  These decisions shouldn't be taken lightly, but the fact is that some people are not in a stable enough place, either financially or emotionally, to have children.  Force that decision on them anyway, and watch three lives get ruined.  That cycle has caused a lot of poverty and mental health issues in America.


make that world wide will you...


Fates-Blade-900 said:


> A mother has a guide book for how to be a mother, and I know that it isn't a easy thing being a single mother but it is her responsibility, the only time adoption should be a option is if the mother is REALLY too young to take care of the child, maybe that should be a teaching tool for other young girls, not to get pregnant in their early lives which can be prevented by not having sex willingly, plain and simple, even with safety precautions to not get pregnant if they do, they need to take care of that baby, it's not the babies fault she had sex, it's hers she needs to deal with it and take accountability, but accountable to who? To *GOD, *if there is no God it would be fine for a woman to have a abortion, but He says "thou shalt not kill", and you end a life when you have a abortion, so if you say I believe in the bible I would say yeah, but I would also say who doesn't because any type of morality in this world is from God.


not every girl or women for the matter has a guide into being a mom, here close to me in one month 2 mothers killed thier baby while in perfect health because they didn't understand it's basic needs.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well, as long as he didn't say "thou shalt not abort" it looks like we're in the clear.  The problem I find with your reasoning is that god doesn't have to make choices that will affect him for a lifetime, only people do.  These decisions shouldn't be taken lightly, but the fact is that some people are not in a stable enough place, either financially or emotionally, to have children.  Force that decision on them anyway, and watch three lives get ruined.  That cycle has caused a lot of poverty and other issues in America.


Um no sir, not taking responsibility has been the issue, people don't know what there doing these days, especially parents, some of them just come in and think they know they're children and don't even know the first thing about them, why? Because they don't know how to take responsibility as parent, they don't really even know what being a parent is, they think they do but they don't, so they assume how a parent is supposed to be, like a abuser may assume that abusing a child is the way to love the because they were abused, we need a final authority that will say this is right that is wrong so we can be all on the same sheet of music.


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Um no sir, not taking responsibility has been the issue, people don't know what there doing these days, especially parents, some of them just come in and think they know they're children and don't even know the first thing about them, why? Because they don't know how to take responsibility as parent, they don't really even know what being a parent is, they think they do but they don't, so they assume how a parent is supposed to be, like a abuser may assume that abusing a child is the way to love the because they were abused, we need a final authority that will say this is right that is wrong so we can be all on the same sheet of music.


so you agree on my opinion then!


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Jack Daniels said:


> make that world wide will you...
> 
> not every girl or women for the matter has a guide into being a mom, here close to me in one month 2 mothers killed thier baby while in perfect health because they didn't understand it's basic needs.


The internet or libary is their friend no excuses for them.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Um no sir, not taking responsibility has been the issue, people don't know what there doing these days, especially parents, some of them just come in and think they know they're children and don't even know the first thing about them, why? Because they don't know how to take responsibility as parent, they don't really even know what being a parent is, they think they do but they don't, so they assume how a parent is supposed to be, like a abuser may assume that abusing a child is the way to love the because they were abused, we need a final authority that will say this is right that is wrong so we can be all on the same sheet of music.


Precisely.  So why would you recommend having a baby to a clueless couple who neither know how to be parents nor want to be parents?  Assuming they accidentally get pregnant anyway, the responsible choice in that case would be abortion.  Not having an unwanted baby that would likely end up abused or neglected.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

osm70 said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1 - You don't end a life when you abort. You prevent one from starting.
> 
> 2 - Morality comes from God? In that case, explain this: How come different people have different opinions on what is right or wrong? If God decided morality, shouldn't everyone agree on the same moral code?


2) Because people go against their God given conscience, and of sorts silences it by searing it's mouth with a hot iron. (The bible prophesies that would happen to people.)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Um no sir, not taking responsibility has been the issue, people don't know what there doing these days, especially parents, some of them just come in and think they know they're children and don't even know the first thing about them, why? Because they don't know how to take responsibility as parent, they don't really even know what being a parent is, they think they do but they don't, so they assume how a parent is supposed to be, like a abuser may assume that abusing a child is the way to love the because they were abused, we need a final authority that will say this is right that is wrong so we can be all on the same sheet of music.


Would you call a person who takes no responsibility for their children emotionally stable? You sound pretty argumentatively confident for a guy that's basically agreeing with the other


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Precisely.  So why would you recommend having a baby to a clueless couple who neither know how to be parents nor want to be parents?  Assuming they accidentally get pregnant anyway, the responsible choice in that case would be abortion.  Not having an unwanted baby that would likely end up abused or neglected.


The bible is everyone's friend if they read it, and believe in Jesus, repent turn away from there sins, and therefore accept the gift of grace then anyone can be the best father or mother, the bible carries all the good virtues of a father or mother.


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The internet or libary is their friend no excuses for them.


you really do think you know all people because you understand the basics in life, because you can read, because you've got the right god, because you've got internet, because you can trust your own brain... it makes me a bit angry to see how selfish you must be in telling how simple the world and all life should be.
no sir, there are a lot of people who can't trust thier brain, have no real freedom, do see life in a different way, can't read, have no internet.
if you can read so good try read other books then the bible for once and you'd know a bit more of the world surrounding you...
you've got your life to consider and i don't think it's wrong you have your moral in life guided by god, but stop forcing it onto other people please.


----------



## osm70 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> 2) Because people go against their God given conscience, and of sorts silences it by searing it's mouth with a hot iron. (The bible prophesies that would happen to people.)



The Czech Republic is a very atheistic country. About 79% of our population doesn't believe in God. I was 12 years old the first time I ever heard of God or religion or whatever.

Kinda difficult to go against something I don't know much about in the first place, don't you think?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> 2) Because people go against their God given conscience, and of sorts silences it by searing it's mouth with a hot iron. (The bible prophesies that would happen to people.)


How can you go against a "God given conscience" if you 100% believe that morally, you are right? I can think of a lot of things that people have done in the name of God that are objectively heinous, as well as a lot of things done just because a person thought they were right when they clearly weren't. Similarly, there are plenty of people on Earth that don't believe in a higher power and have a perfectly functional moral compass


----------



## ut2k4master (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The bible is everyone's friend if they read it, and believe in Jesus, repent turn away from there sins, and therefore accept the gift of grace then anyone can be the best father or mother, the bible carries all the good virtues of a father or mother.


who even takes this guy seriously here? lol


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Jack Daniels said:


> you really do think you know all people because you understand the basics in lif, because you can read, because you've got the right god, because you've got internet, because you can trust your own brain... it makes me a bit angry to see how selfish you must be in telling how simple the world and all life should be.
> no sir, there are a lot of people who can't trust thier brain, have no real freedom, do see life in a different way, can't read, have no internet.
> if you can read so good try read other books then the bible for once and you'd know a bit more of the world surrounding you...
> you've got your life to consider and i don't think it's wrong you have your moral in life guided by god, but stop forcing it onto other people please.


Do you believe it's wrong to kill?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The bible is everyone's friend if they read it, and believe in Jesus, repent turn away from there sins, and therefore accept the gift of grace then anyone can be the best father or mother, the bible carries all the good virtues of a father or mother.


Have YOU read it? Like, all the way through??


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Have YOU read it? Like, all the way through??


No, I just say what I know just like all you guys here think you know, have you?


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Do you believe it's wrong to kill?


depends on reason, king david killed a lot! even the priest of the old testamony killed a lot o people. god kills milions of people each month (if you'd believe in him to be real).


Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The bible is everyone's friend if they read it, and believe in Jesus, repent turn away from there sins, and therefore accept the gift of grace then anyone can be the best father or mother, the bible carries all the good virtues of a father or mother.


well not in the old testamony got wasn't everyones friend, and he still isn't. have you ever read about people killing for god? have you ever read about punishment for not beleving in god? belevers were the reason they killed jesus you know? what a great god it must be to kill his own born child at late adult age...


----------



## osm70 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The bible is everyone's friend if they read it, and believe in Jesus, repent turn away from there sins, and therefore accept the gift of grace then anyone can be the best father or mother, the bible carries all the good virtues of a father or mother.



Yes, of course. The Bible teaches how to be a good parent. Let's take a look, shall we?



			
				The Bible said:
			
		

> If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.



 - Deuteronomy 21:18-21 New International Version (NIV)

So, in summary, stone your children to death if they don't obey you.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The bible is everyone's friend if they read it, and believe in Jesus, repent turn away from there sins, and therefore accept the gift of grace then anyone can be the best father or mother, the bible carries all the good virtues of a father or mother.


No offense, but that'd be just about the worst parenting guide out there.  While we're on the Bible, though, AFAIK it doesn't say anything specifically about abortion, except for maybe how to perform one in olden times.  What evidence does anyone have that the Christian god is truly against abortion?


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Jack Daniels said:


> depends on reason, king david killed a lot! even the priest of the old testamony killed a lot o people. god kills milions of people each month (if you'd believe in him to be real).


All that was prophesied it had to be done, just like all you were prophesied, how you are, as a matter of fact how this whole world is right now, that's how I know that God is real, I see him everyday in you and everyone else, even if I and you and everyone else is sinners I still see Him.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osm70 said:


> Yes, of course. The Bible teaches how to be a good parent. Let's take a look, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." So they wouldn't do it again.


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The bible is everyone's friend if they read it, and believe in Jesus, repent turn away from there sins, and therefore accept the gift of grace then anyone can be the best father or mother, the bible carries all the good virtues of a father or mother.





Fates-Blade-900 said:


> All that was prophesied it had to be done, just like all you were prophesied, how you are, as a matter of fact how this whole world is right now, that's how I know that God is real, I see him everyday in you and everyone else, even if I and you and everyone else is sinners I still see Him.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


you know these so called prophecies didn't excist untill after the killings right, and those who were to prove were long death...


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

osm70 said:


> The Czech Republic is a very atheistic country. About 79% of our population doesn't believe in God. I was 12 years old the first time I ever heard of God or religion or whatever.
> 
> Kinda difficult to go against something I don't know much about in the first place, don't you think?


Everyone always has their God given conscience no matter how twisted it could be.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Jack Daniels said:


> you know these so called prophecies didn't excist untill after the killings right, and those who were to prove were long death...


I'm going to assume you meant that the prophesies didn't exist until after the killings, and that is incorrect, the prophesy is long before the time of David, I don't have all the answers but if you want the explanation for how parents can be abusive and stuff: it's sin, and ours at that, like mine, like when we try to justify abortion, we say that we get to live in this sin infested world and get a chance to change it for the better, but not unexpected babies...


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Yep, jackpot.  Here's what the Bible actually says about abortion:



> _Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life._
> 
> If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23
> _
> ...



http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html


----------



## osm70 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Do you believe it's wrong to kill?



Depends on the circumstance. There are some cases where killing is acceptable. (Although those are rare.)

But generally... yeah, I think killing is wrong.


----------



## GhostLatte (May 6, 2018)

It's funny how conservatives are quick to say abortion is murder while supporting the death penalty.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yep, jackpot.  Here's what the Bible actually says about abortion:
> 
> 
> 
> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html


Um that seems to be all punishments to me, your point?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osm70 said:


> Depends on the circumstance. There are some cases where killing is acceptable. (Although those are rare.)
> 
> But generally... yeah, I think killing is wrong.


If you hated me would you kill me?


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Um that seems to be all punishments to me, your point?


My point is that the Bible essentially says abortion is fine and you can kill any kid up to five years old if he's annoying you.  It's political leaders that are lying and telling people god and the Bible have a problem with abortion.  It's been a regular occurrence even as far back as Jesus' time.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> My point is that the Bible essentially says abortion is fine and you can kill any kid up to five years old if he's annoying you.  It's political leaders that are lying and telling people god and the Bible have a problem with abortion.


How exactly does that prove that? Like I said it seems to be all punishments to me.


----------



## SG854 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> A mother has a guide book for how to be a mother, and I know that it isn't a easy thing being a single mother but it is her responsibility, the only time adoption should be a option is if the mother is REALLY too young to take care of the child, maybe that should be a teaching tool for other young girls, not to get pregnant in their early lives which can be prevented by not having sex willingly, plain and simple, even with safety precautions to not get pregnant if they do, they need to take care of that baby, it's not the babies fault she had sex, it's hers she needs to deal with it and take accountability, but accountable to who? To *GOD, *if there is no God it would be fine for a woman to have a abortion, but He says "thou shalt not kill", and you end a life when you have a abortion, so if you say I believe in the bible I would say yeah, but I would also say who doesn't because any type of morality in this world is from God.


Not every one believes in the same religion. 

I have a better solution. Make abortion legal and let people decide for themselves if they want an abortion or not. That way we can respect all beliefs. And not prevent abortions for people who don’t believe in religion. And let the religious folks give birth to all the babies they want and argue over their own interpretation of their bible, because it seems like not even all Christians can agree on if abortion is ok or not. That’s why you have different sects and different interpretation of the same book because no one knows what their God is trying to really say.

So leave the non religious folks out of this. Even if abortion is legal nothing is stopping you for carrying out your Gods wishes and giving birth to a baby.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> How exactly does that prove that? Like I said it seems to be all punishments to me.


Yeah, and one of the punishments is literally forced abortion if the woman cheats on the man.  You'd think if the Bible was anti-abortion it would be mentioned at least once.  Instead all it mentions is examples of how/when to abort.  It's very clearly pro-abortion.

This one in particular:

_And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. _-- Leviticus 27:6

Means we've been doing it all wrong.  You can kill your kid up to five years old as long as you pay five schmeckles.


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 6, 2018)

the bible doesn't really take a stance on killing, in law it's forbidden, in practice it's okay to kill whoever is differend minded.


----------



## osm70 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> If you hated me would you kill me?



No


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, and one of the punishments is literally forced abortion if the woman cheats on the man.  You'd think if the Bible was anti-abortion it would be mentioned at least once.  Instead all it mentions is examples of how/when to abort.  It's very clearly pro-abortion.


It's seems to be punishment NOT pro-Abortion, the death penalty is allowed but not supported, in the bible.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osm70 said:


> No


Why not? I mean if you hate me or loathe me you should so why not? Do you feel the need not to?


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> It's seems to be punishment NOT pro-Abortion, the death penalty is allowed but not supported, in the bible.


"Punishment."  It doesn't say eternal damnation or anything like that.  It says you gotta pay $5 to kill your kid, so not much of a punishment.  Even a modern abortion clinic costs more than that.


----------



## ut2k4master (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Why not? I mean if you hate me or loathe me you should, so why not? Do you feel the need not to?


would you? i dont need a "god" to tell me not to go around killing every person i dont like...


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Not every one believes in the same religion.
> 
> I have a better solution. Make abortion legal and let people decide for themselves if they want an abortion or not. That way we can respect all beliefs. And not prevent abortions for people who don’t believe in religion. And let the religious folks give birth to all the babies they want and argue over their own interpretation of their bible, because it seems like not even all Christians can agree on if abortion is ok or not. That’s why you have different sects and different interpretation of the same book because no one knows what their God is trying to really say.
> 
> So leave the non religious folks out of this. Even if abortion is legal nothing is stopping you for carrying out your Gods wishes and giving birth to a baby.


Aren't you religious by saying it's right to kill a baby


Xzi said:


> "Punishment."  It doesn't say eternal damnation or anything like that.  It says you gotta pay $5 to kill your kid, so not much of a punishment.  Even a modern abortion clinic costs more than that.


Yes but there was a punishment for those sins in that time, one we no longer have to do to, save them from "eternal damnation". (Which isn't even eternal mind you.)


----------



## osm70 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Why not? I mean if you hate me or loathe me you should so why not? Do you feel the need not to?



3 reasons (not ordered in any way)

1. It's illegal and I could get in trouble.

2. It's too much work. Ignoring you is easier.

3. I'm pretty sure you don't want to be killed and I don't think I should harm others.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Yes but there was a punishment for those sins in that time, one we no longer have to do to, save them from "eternal damnation". (Which isn't even eternal mind you.)


Wait...so we can just kill 5-year-olds without the service fee now?  Huzzah, thanks Bible!

It doesn't even mention abortion as a sin FYI.  It's more like a how-to guide.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

osm70 said:


> 3 reasons (not ordered in any way)
> 
> 1. It's illegal and I could get in trouble.
> 
> ...


Then your God given conscience is still alive, as in you haven't seared it's mouth so it can't speak to you, but a lot of people have, even some so-called Christians have.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Wait...so we can just kill 5-year-olds without the service fee now?  Huzzah, thanks Bible!
> 
> It doesn't even mention abortion as a sin FYI.  It's more like a how-to guide.


It's still a sin you know, and don't most abortion clinics make you pay?...


----------



## ut2k4master (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Then your God given conscience is still alive, as in you haven't seared it's mouth so it can't speak to you, but a lot of people have, even some so-called Christians have.


sorry but youre a nutcase xD


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

ut2k4master said:


> sorry but youre a nutcase xD


Well I think YOUR cool being you. But have you ever wondered why parents just come in then go out of their house for 17 years and all of a sudden notice that their children are the age 15, 16, 17, or 18? It's because they are kinda just letting life take them were it pleases instead of taking the wheel for themselves, bible says that would happen too.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> It's still a sin you know, and don't most abortion clinics make you pay?...


I dunno man, I feel like the Bible is usually pretty clear about what is and isn't a sin, and it's not mentioned in reference to abortion at all.

And yeah, abortion clinics make you pay, but they'll only perform the abortion up to a certain point.  The Bible Abortion™ OTOH, lets you kill those brats up to five years old.


----------



## Navonod (May 6, 2018)

Lol. I feel like this guy is trying to be a troll. He can't be serious.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I dunno man, I feel like the Bible is usually pretty clear about what is and isn't a sin, and it's not mentioned in reference to abortion at all.
> 
> And yeah, abortion clinics make you pay, but they'll only perform the abortion up to a certain point.  The Bible Abortion™ OTOH, lets you kill those brats up to five years old.


You say you dunno, maybe you should go to the Book that has all the answers because we waste our lives on I dunno, no disrespect, if I became a Father and said to my child I screwed you up because I don't know how to be a Father then, I failed miserable and there would be no excuse for it, as the bible tells me how to be a father if I'm willing to listen to it.

I don't want this to drag on, not in this thread, the man didn't make it for these banters if anyone has something to talk about I guess we could PM each other, it would childish to continue this conversation I would say.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> You say you dunno, maybe you should go to the Book that has all the answers


I'm listing off Bible quotes to you right now, but that's the problem with it.  It's vague and open to interpretation.  Therefore it can't have all the answers.  It has is some of the answers some of the time, like any book.

If you don't have any further musings on the verses I quoted, I'm going to take them at face value and assume the Bible is mostly pro-abortion.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> How exactly does that prove that? Like I said it seems to be all punishments to me.


They're "punishments" on either the mother or the father. If your argument held any water then all those passages would be saying the child themselves did something wrong and they would be born blind, mute, or leprous, which is what was actually considered a divine punishment of the time. To say that the child is paying for the sins of the parent is not only asinine, it completely contradicts the entire teachings of Jesus in the New Testament


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I'm listing off Bible quotes to you right now, but that's the problem with it.  It's vague and open to interpretation.  Therefore it can't have all the answers.  It has is some of the answers some of the time, like any book.
> 
> If you don't have any further musings on the verses I quoted, I'm going to take them at face value and assume the Bible is mostly pro-abortion.


No it has all the answers to understanding life, try reading the EXB and the AKJV and compare the two, it will help you understand if you want to understand, and read about Jesus' life if you would.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> You say you dunno, maybe you should go to the Book that has all the answers because we waste our lives on I dunno, no disrespect, if I became a Father and said to my child I screwed you up because I don't know how to be a Father then, I failed miserable and there would be no excuse for it, as the bible tells me how to be a father if I'm willing to listen to it.


If it had all the answers you would have read it


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If it had all the answers you would have read it


If you want the answers you would read it with open eyes. I'm done. (The bible prophesies that people would blind their eyes so they couldn't see the truth.)


----------



## ut2k4master (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> No it has all the answers


damn, if only i had the bible when i was in school, homework wouldve been so easy


/s


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> No it has all the answers, try reading the EXB and the AKJV and compare the two, it will help you understand if you want to understand, and read about Jesus' life if you would.


I've been through the whole thing more than I wanted to, I went to a Christian middle school.  The Bible is barely relevant to modern society by now, and my teacher didn't have satisfying answers to the Bible's plot holes either.  One example being the dinosaurs, which I was told Satan created even having been told previous Satan can't create anything.

I'm agnostic now, and I've seen science do a lot more good for the world than mysticism or wishful thinking (prayer).  It's also worth noting that Christianity is simply a remix of other religions that came before it.


----------



## osm70 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> If you want the answers you would read it with open eyes. I'm done. (The bible prophesies that people would blind their eyes so they couldn't see the truth.)



If the Bible says that some people will not believe it, doesn't that kinda imply that the creators knew (or at least suspected) that the whole thing is bullshit?


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (May 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I've been through the whole thing more than I wanted to, I went to a Christian middle school.  The Bible is barely relevant to modern society by now, and my teacher didn't have satisfying answers to the Bible's plot holes either.  One example being the dinosaurs, which I was told Satan created even having been told previous Satan can't create anything.
> 
> I'm agnostic now, and I've seen science do a lot more good for the world than mysticism or wishful thinking (prayer).


I told you people would sear there conscience or blind there eyes to the truth, those ''teachers" don't know what there talking about because they don't want to, read the word for yourself, seek the truth for yourself, and you will find it, "seek and you will find" everyone else is included in this too. Okay I'm really done now.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> I told you people would sear there conscience or blind there eyes to the truth, those ''teachers" don't know what there talking about, read the word for yourself, seek the truth for yourself, and you will find it, "seek and you will find". Okay I'm really done now.


I found nothing but boredom and old cautionary tales in the Bible.  Again, tales that aren't really relevant to modern times.  It's a whole different type of getting stoned now.


----------



## Navonod (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> I told you people would sear there conscience or blind there eyes to the truth, those ''teachers" don't know what there talking about because they don't want to, read the word for yourself, seek the truth for yourself, and you will find it, "seek and you will find" everyone else is included in this too. Okay I'm really done now.


He clearly said he has read it before. You're the one with the blind eyes. Lol


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> I told you people would sear there conscience or blind there eyes to the truth, those ''teachers" don't know what there talking about because they don't want to, read the word for yourself, seek the truth for yourself, and you will find it, "seek and you will find" everyone else is included in this too. Okay I'm really done now.


... Have you tried that yourself? I mean, there's virtually nothing saying you aren't on the wrong side of what you're saying right now... I HAVE read the entire old testament and most of the new, and I've gotta tell you, apart from the message of peace and hope that the Bible's portrayal of Jesus brings, it's all either Hebrew poetry or straight up violence and hatred


----------



## osm70 (May 6, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ... Have you tried that yourself? I mean, there's virtually nothing saying you aren't on the wrong side of what you're saying right now... I HAVE read the entire old testament and most of the new, and I've gotta tell you, apart from the message of peace and hope that the Bible's portrayal of Jesus brings, it's all either Hebrew poetry or straight up violence and hatred




I heard some people say that reading the Bible is the fastest way of becoming an atheist.


----------



## SG854 (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Aren't you religious by saying it's right to kill a baby


No i’m not.


----------



## bitjacker (May 6, 2018)

People that choose an abortion should have their ovaries taken out/ testicles removed. They should fund wic.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2018)

osm70 said:


> I heard some people say that reading the Bible is the fastest way of becoming an atheist.


It's the hubris of man that gets me.  As if, out of the infinite possibilities, we definitely guessed the right god in three tries.  It's not the first time I've heard the "all the answers are in the Bible" line either, which is blatantly false.  If all the answers were in the Bible, we would've been living in a perfect society for over 2000 years by now.  The Bible doesn't tell us how to establish a corruption-free government, or how to neutralize greenhouse emissions and store nuclear waste properly.  It doesn't tell us how to manage automation and healthcare.  It doesn't give us advice on 99% of modern issues, and that's because it was written by people. People can't see into the future.


----------



## pustal (May 6, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> A mother has a guide book for how to be a mother, and I know that it isn't a easy thing being a single mother but it is her responsibility, the only time adoption should be a option is if the mother is REALLY too young to take care of the child, maybe that should be a teaching tool for other young girls, not to get pregnant in their early lives which can be prevented by not having sex willingly, plain and simple, even with safety precautions to not get pregnant if they do, they need to take care of that baby, it's not the babies fault she had sex, it's hers she needs to deal with it and take accountability, but accountable to who? To *GOD, *if there is no God it would be fine for a woman to have a abortion, but He says "thou shalt not kill", and you end a life when you have a abortion, so if you say I believe in the bible I would say yeah, but I would also say who doesn't because any type of morality in this world is from God.



a) You are proving my point that this is mostly a religious view. You just disregarded any scientifically base moral discussion to uphold your view based on an interpretation of a 2k year old text which is by itself a base of a group of different religions among several other groups. See a problem in this? Adding the fact that when you discuss against a religious view, you are discussing against dogma, like you implied; And "if there was no God", you are assuming there is a God and it is the one you believe, disregarding any other supposition and believes. If you do not discuss base on facts and proven knowledge, you have no discussion. I go further to show you how it can be a problem: taking a full fundamentalist interpretation on the Bible, can you live your life without killing, killing any form of life whatsoever, being animal or plant? I challenge you to.

b) So should one needlessly suffer in defence of moral high ground of others? Yes, it's one's responsibility of having sex without protection, excluding rape, but carrying out a child that will not be loved or raised properly is ok? Should the child suffer because her mother was deprived of the hability to prevent it from ever existing as a person? Should we prepetuate a circle of poverty? Don't know if it's your case, but many religious advocates claim that contraception is also wrong, is it sex also wrong to start with? Should the women suffer for being human? What about the men?


----------



## Megadriver94 (May 6, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Why not any other circumstance, then?


I also find it permissible(though not mandatory in any way) for abortion as a last resort to save the female's life and many certain incest cases. 3rd Trimester abortions are almost never okay in my book.


----------



## Judas18 (May 6, 2018)

I believe that a person has the right to their own body. As cold as it is a foetus is symbiotic, if a person decides that they do not wish to use their body as a vessel for life then that is their choice and their choice alone. No one should be forced to carry a baby if they do not wish to, though I do believe that it is a decision that should be thought through properly as it is a very drastic decision to make.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2018)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> I told you people would sear there conscience or blind there eyes to the truth, those ''teachers" don't know what there talking about because they don't want to, read the word for yourself, seek the truth for yourself, and you will find it, "seek and you will find" everyone else is included in this too. Okay I'm really done now.


I've actually spent a good part of my life (about 16 years) studying, reading, and researching the Bible and other religious text. Part of my studies have included different religion's stances on abortion. It's worth noting that through out history the Catholic church used to have a very different stance and often saw it as something they didn't like, but weren't against. Only Pope Sixtus V was the first Pope to declare abortions to be murder and his successor later changed it back to no longer being murder. It really wasn't until the late 19th centenary did the Church start having an actual anti-abortion stance. 
What I am getting at is that it only appears to be religious organizations pushing an anti-abortion stance and not the Bible. In fact someone has already posted several pro-abortion (and even pro-child killing) parts of the Bible. The Bible is even pro-murder, pro-rape, pro-slave, and so much more that is often overlooked. This actually causes a lot of contradictions when you consider a religious stances on most subjects. Effectively looking at the Bible, it's fine to kill a child for cursing at their parents, but it's not fine to have an abortion? Where does God draw the line on this subject? And even so God has committed literally millions of acts of murder and even pushed for murder to be preformed in God's name. So why is this acceptable, but abortion is too far? Using the Bible as an argument only opens the book to deeper scrutiny.


osm70 said:


> I heard some people say that reading the Bible is the fastest way of becoming an atheist.


An interesting note, the Bible is actually part of the reason why I am not a Catholic anymore. I am not an Atheist however and I do have a blog post about my believes.


----------



## Whole lotta love (May 7, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Agreed with the second bit. For all the anti-abortion folks, I'd like to point you in the direction of Finland, where not only is abortion legal, but also totally free (socialized healthcare 'n all that). In spite of that (or even, many would say BECAUSE of that), abortion rates are incredibly low compared to the population, due to the fact that sex ed is actually competent and pregnancy centers also hand out contraceptives free of charge
> 
> All outlawing abortion would do is increase people who are desperate and seeking illegal operations that in some cases might even be life-saving



I only say abortion is bad because I don't think we should kill any animals. That said, human fetuses can only experience suffering in the third trimester (most abortions occur in the first and second) and the suffering humans experience from unwanted children is far greater than that experienced by a third trimester fetus.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 7, 2018)

osm70 said:


> I heard some people say that reading the Bible is the fastest way of becoming an atheist.


On that same not, I have heard becoming a convicted felon or being faced with a terrible issue, like alcoholism or cancer, is the quickest way to become a christian.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 7, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> On that same not, I have heard becoming a convicted felon or being faced with a terrible issue, like alcoholism or cancer, is the quickest way to become a christian.


For the former I am told it is Islam these days -- you get better food.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 7, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> For the former I am told it is Islam these days -- you get better food.


Thats just racist yo. I identify as a toaster and we dont make better food for anyone. We burn all yo bread.

/belligerence


----------



## FAST6191 (May 7, 2018)

Relevant


As I missed it last time/to make it vaguely on topic


bitjacker said:


> People that choose an abortion should have their ovaries taken out/ testicles removed. They should fund wic.


That is a rather punitive approach to the world. Care to elaborate some?
Equally there is some evidence that would appear to say abortions don't result in fewer children, just a delay of them.
Also as we are an international discussion here you might not want to just leave it at an acronym
https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/about-wic


> The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children - better known as the WIC Program - serves to safeguard the health of low-income pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk by providing nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating including breastfeeding promotion and support, and referrals to health care.


----------



## cmdwedge (May 7, 2018)

Anyone outside of the States who needs to understand how Trump won the election, read this thread. Fucking Seppos.


----------



## Dvdxploitr (May 7, 2018)

I'm on the fence about it.  If you don't wanna have a kid, then you have options.  You can wear protection or you can not have sex.  If you willingly have sex and get pregnant, then you shouldn't be able to get an abortion.  If it's a case of rape, then I think it should be legal to get an abortion.  Granted, it's not the babies fault that a woman gets raped and the baby cannot be given a chance at life.  But the woman that is a victim of rape would already be traumatized by what happened to her and have to carry around a baby for 9 months and take care of the kid for years.  What if she is addicted to drugs?  Think she's going to stop using drugs after being raped and knocked up?  Very little odds of that happening.  So she's pregnant and still doing drugs which is going to harm the baby health-wise or kill the baby in the womb.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 7, 2018)

People keep saying "not having sex" like it is a viable option and I find it utterly ridiculous really, almost to the point of being dumbfounded. I shall spare a pondering of whether it is a legacy of somewhere that considers "abstinence only" worthy of being followed by education beyond this sentence, though much like my earlier comment on it being a regional issue... it lines up well.

With self fertilisation being so vanishingly rare, and I am not sure what the viability of sperm is for the dirty toilet seat concept but not terribly long, then obviously it works if your only end goal is don't get pregnant. For most people though there is a massive drive to have sex and it is a massive part of life/living as part of a society or having a relationship for most as well. To forgo it can have some rather unpleasant effects on a person's psyche (prisons, religious orders, other forms of isolation, in many cases the military, frontier work/mining and what have you all providing heaps of data on the matter) and said relationships. To suggest it as a viable course of action seems counter productive if you are going to consider the wellbeing of the person in question as part of that.
Do it or don't, that matters little from where I sit -- I would encourage people to eat right and exercise regardless but would fall back to the psychiatric side of things with a "is it causing distress to the person in question or those surrounding them" type approach that is the basis of that world. To suggest forgoing it for the general populous as some kind of moral or viable path for reasons just sounds like so much pseudo religious drivel and as easily dismissed.


----------



## Navonod (May 7, 2018)

cmdwedge said:


> Anyone outside of the States who needs to understand how Trump won the election, read this thread. Fucking Seppos.


Lol. I've never been called a Seppo before. Got anymore good ones?


----------



## bitjacker (May 7, 2018)

Sex is great. I have had lots of it. I have not busted a nut all over anyone's fallopian tubes, though. Punative? How so? A free surgery? Someone else's lack of self control should not be coming out of my paycheck. Have 1 kid. There are way too many humans around trashing the planet, fighting, and trolling the internet. I am all for protecting life, but shitting out 18 kids is fucking selfish! Immagrate to where you want, but dont leave other people to pick up your slack. If you are gonna have a kid, man the fuck up and love that kid. The full responsibility should rest on the parents. Poor people should try as hard as they can to get a higher wage, having a kid in that circumstance is really stupid and should be prevented. I would rather have a persons education paid for than fund the product of irresponsibility/ NEGLECT.
If you cant stand on your own 2 feet, you are lacking the proper dna to advance the human race, so dont reproduce.
I am not going to have kids because I do not make enough money to support them. I suck at math too.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 7, 2018)

bitjacker said:


> Sex is great. I have had lots of it. I have not busted a nut all over anyone's fallopian tubes, though. Punative? How so? A free surgery? Someone else's lack of self control should not be coming out of my paycheck. Have 1 kid. There are way too many humans around trashing the planet, fighting, and trolling the internet. I am all for protecting life, but shitting out 18 kids is fucking selfish! Immagrate to where you want, but dont leave other people to pick up your slack. If you are gonna have a kid, man the fuck up and love that kid. The full responsibility should rest on the parents. Poor people should try as hard as they can to get a higher wage, having a kid in that circumstance is really stupid and should be prevented. I would rather have a persons education paid for than fund the product of irresponsibility/ NEGLECT.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> If you cant stand on your own 2 feet, you are lacking the proper dna to advance the human race, so dont reproduce.



If you are denying someone the option to reproduce then that gets to be tricky under ethics, especially if that screw up which ends in an abortion comes in say their early 20s when they are still getting a career/education that you seem to so value but come a bit later when they have some resources and the reasonable expectation that they will be able to make more and it is a very different matter. The 18 kids part was not part of your original post or my example, I don't know if you were aiming for a strawman or what there. Never mind the parts on immigration and overpopulation.

Do you make your health insurance stop paying for some fat bastard's heart attack? What about a job known to be stressful (you seldom meet retired bank managers or retired fire fighters after all), do you ask your insurance to stop covering them?

Going further the bit about education being a preferable thing to fund over simple childcare or something would be the argument I would make in favour of such things -- more cheap and easy abortions leading to lower childcare handouts, people being better positioned to contribute to society and in turn freeing up some funds for research/education/something cool. Similarly why just poor people -- I am quite content for a person potentially set to make £100K a year not having their wings clipped and only being able to take a £50k a year position (average annual salary is some £27-28K) owing to spawning just as I am someone pulling down far less than that. In terms of pure money said £100K example is a far better investment.


----------



## bennyman123abc (May 7, 2018)

Imo, it's the mother's decision. Beyond that, it doesn't affect me. The end. That's my 2 cents.


----------



## bitjacker (May 7, 2018)

Ok forget i said 18. 2. 2 is too many. I dont care if you can afford it. Have 1 kid that you take care of. Ethics dont mean anything if you are expecting others to pick up your slack. Less government. Flat tax. Meaning a percentage (and not paying for stupid shit like a military or feeding able bodied people) the government needs to ratchet itself back and let free market take care of the rest. Unless you are in a wheelchair or something like that (this should be funded by churches like it used to be when the church was collecting taxes) you dont take free money. Have some backbone. Man the fuck up. There shouldn't be funds to free up if everyone pulled their own weight. Healthcare should be one's own responsibility. Are old people on social security an asset or a liability, especially considering the FACT i have paid in and the payout keeps getting reduced. In 20 years there is not going to be shit. I'm fucked. Funny joke. There is no straw man because this is all related. So have your bleeding heart. Thanks for what you contribute, but dont impose that on others who work hard to make ends meet. Abortion is murder.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 7, 2018)

Dvdxploitr said:


> I'm on the fence about it.  If you don't wanna have a kid, then you have options.  You can wear protection or you can not have sex.  If you willingly have sex and get pregnant, then you shouldn't be able to get an abortion.  If it's a case of rape, then I think it should be legal to get an abortion.  Granted, it's not the babies fault that a woman gets raped and the baby cannot be given a chance at life.  But the woman that is a victim of rape would already be traumatized by what happened to her and have to carry around a baby for 9 months and take care of the kid for years.  What if she is addicted to drugs?  Think she's going to stop using drugs after being raped and knocked up?  Very little odds of that happening.  So she's pregnant and still doing drugs which is going to harm the baby health-wise or kill the baby in the womb.


Protection doesn't always work. I had a girlfriend who got pregnant because she was ill a week before that and her pills "didn't work"*, and I've had it that I came so much that it literally flowed out of the condom.


I'm not so sure why you bring up the drugs argument when you're pro-life. You're basically saying "yeah, women shouldn't get an abortion unless it was rape**", but at the same time admit they can just kill or mutilate their unborn kids in very different ways.


*mind you: this is her version of what happened. There's a long and terrible background story behind this, but I'd summarize it as "she wanted to trick me into paying her alimony for the rest of my life".
**it'll probably be a controversial opinion, but if that'll be the only legal reason, but I think women will just start calling consensual sex rape if they accidentally get pregnant. Do you really want to force women who aren't ready to have kids to choose to either ruin their partner's life or their own?


----------



## DBlaze (May 7, 2018)

This thread turned out to be a train-wreck, as expected from discussions of "controversial" topics.
I honestly can't say i'm against it, but i'm also not entirely in favor of it.

It all depends on the circumstances of the entire situation and how far advanced the pregnancy is.
People who are absolutely against it, even in case of rape disgust me. No one should be forced to have a child that is the result of rape.
You'd rather have a child grow up being unwanted or brought up in a broken home by default, really?

And then there's the amount of teenagers that don't have the slightest clue it only takes once for pregnancy to happen. "we only did it once".
That's all it takes. Really.
Why are these people not better educated that doing that causes babies?

I understand that accidents happen, no protection is 100%, and in such cases I can't say i'd be against abortion either, if you do literally everything to prevent it and it happens either way, then I don't feel like they should be forced to keep it.
Then again for such cases there's the morning-after pill.

Speaking of which, what do you pro-life, anti-abortion people think of the morning-after pill anyway? Or that doesn't count in your book?

i say we start selective breeding, if you want a child you have to pass a test 
i'm just kidding.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 7, 2018)

DBlaze said:


> This thread turned out to be a train-wreck, as expected from discussions of "controversial" topics.



You call this a train wreck?
Everything seems fairly civil here, no mass deletions, no harsher moderator activity, there is a bit of back and forth and discussion. Fairly successful debate from where I sit.


----------



## DBlaze (May 7, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> You call this a train wreck?
> Everything seems fairly civil here, no mass deletions, no harsher moderator activity, there is a bit of back and forth and discussion. Fairly successful debate from where I sit.


suppose train wreck was a bit much, but I meant more as in that there's a lot of politics and religion thrown into the mix in the back and forth, while the question was just a simple "how do you feel" about it


----------



## FAST6191 (May 7, 2018)

I would usually read "how do you feel" as an invitation to a debate, something which almost necessarily includes politics and ethics, which for some would then bring in religion. If not then feels matter far less than reals.


----------



## dimmidice (May 7, 2018)

Forcing someone to go through 9 months of pregnancy when they have no interest in having a child is just insanity. Forcing a kid to be born when they're not wanted is also insanity. Abortions should be easily accessible for anyone that wants them because they can prevent so much suffering. Plus you know there's too many people in the world anyway.


Also really pathetic how many of these anti abortion nutters are against sexual education in schools. Against condoms. Against more wellfare for single mothers. Basically they don't care about the children once they're born. They only care about protecting the embryos and fetuses. Just insanity.


----------



## AdenTheThird (May 8, 2018)

Abortion is the worst crime in history. It's murder. It amazes me how stupid people are to try and legalize it


----------



## pustal (May 8, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> Abortion is the worst crime in history. It's murder. It amazes me how stupid people are to try and legalize it



So preventing a human being from existing before it is born, before it even has a brain is worse than actualling killing someone who is sentient? Wow, I sure was stupid to believe otherwise? /s


----------



## AdenTheThird (May 8, 2018)

pustal said:


> So preventing a human being from existing before it is born, before it even has a brain is worse than actualling killing someone who is sentient? Wow, I sure was stupid to believe otherwise? /s


Yes because it does have a brain. It IS a body. It's just... smaller.


----------



## pustal (May 8, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> Yes because it does have a brain. It IS a body. It's just... smaller.



It DOESN'T. The human brain is developed at the 12th week of pregnacyp and a woman can only safely have an abortion until the 12th week. And even then it doesn't have scentient thoughts for a while.

It amazes me rather how one can fight the legal battle against abortion without even understanding it.


----------



## AdenTheThird (May 8, 2018)

I understand abortion well. You're still killing something that will BECOME something with a brain. You're killing a person, an entire lifetime, while that person is in a more vulnerable state.

And as for telling me I don't know how to fight the legal battle, DON'T even go there.


----------



## Deleted User (May 8, 2018)

Why should life be judged just by their development? I am staunchly pro-life. Abortion is wrong. The process of abortion, especially very very late abortions is awful, and I don't know how anybody can support abortion after looking into abortions. Abortions should only be allowed if it is a life-threatening situation. It sickens me to no end that women travel from Ireland to get an abortion. People tweeting acting like abortions are just another fashion accessory. "Just boarded a plane to america to get a fetus ripped out of my uterus, yaaaa gurll" While I don't agree with Ireland on MOST things, I do agree with their abortion law. An unborn child/fetus/whatever you want to call it has the right to live.


----------



## x65943 (May 8, 2018)

VinLark said:


> Why should life be judged just by their development? I am staunchly pro-life. Abortion is wrong. The process of abortion, especially very very late abortions is awful, and I don't know how anybody can support abortion after looking into abortions. Abortions should only be allowed if it is a life-threatening situation. It sickens me to no end that women travel from Ireland to get an abortion. People tweeting acting like abortions are just another fashion accessory. "Just boarded a plane to america to get a fetus ripped out of my uterus, yaaaa gurll" While I don't agree with Ireland on MOST things, I do agree with their abortion law. An unborn child/fetus/whatever you want to call it has the right to live.


"why should a life be judged on its development"

But you are oversimplifying it. The key issue is - what is life?

And no one can agree. So you have this whole debate.

You are starting out calling it life. This shows that you misunderstand the central issue - or you do not hope to have a constructive conversation.

Offer reasoning for calling a 2 week old fetus life.


----------



## pustal (May 8, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> I understand abortion well. You're still killing something that will BECOME something with a brain. You're killing a person, an entire lifetime, while that person is in a more vulnerable state.
> 
> And as for telling me I don't know how to fight the legal battle, DON'T even go there.



For that kind of reasoning every time you don't have sex you're taking away the life of someone who yet to be. That makes no sense.

Instead focus on the misery you're preventing from a child of we're it to be would not be welcome, would not be loved or would not have the proper conditions to be raised. Or a cycle of poverty you are prepetuating. Many times preventing the mother from having an education and a career to get to a point in life were she has the actual means to raise a son. Or rape victims who would have a living reminder of what they been through.

And read again, I'm not saying you don't know how to fight the legal battle, but that people like you are fighting it without understanding basic human biology.


----------



## AdenTheThird (May 8, 2018)

pustal said:


> For that kind of reasoning every time you don't have sex you're taking away the life of someone who yet to be. That makes no sense.
> 
> Instead focus on the misery you're preventing from a child of we're it to be would not be welcome, would not be loved or would not have the proper conditions to be raised. Or a cycle of poverty you are prepetuating. Many times preventing the mother from having an education and a career to get to a point in life were she has the actual means to raise a son. Or rape victims who would have a living reminder of what they been through.
> 
> And read again, I'm not saying you don't know how to fight the legal battle, but that people like you are fighting it without understanding basic human biology.


That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you've just given life to someone via conception, and immediately taken it away with abortion. If you really don't want the child, put him/her up for adoption so they'll at least have a CHANCE at getting a nice life. Would you commit suicide just because your life isn't perfect? That's what you're doing to the unborn baby-committing the ultimate crime to save them from lesser ones. You have it backwards-by committing abortion, you aren't doing them a favor by saving them from the troubles of life! God forbid, no! You're killing them. And that is taking away the opportunity of life from them forever. Yes, rape, poverty, poor living conditions are all pretty significant things. I don't blame you for not wanting a child to experience that. But the difference between all those things and abortion is that all those other things create scars. Sometimes those heal, and sometimes they don't. But abortion is different. Abortion means that the baby will never see the light of day. it will never feel, have feelings, touch, taste, smell. It will never grow up and have a life of it's own. And why? Because someone didn't want to keep it! That's just my opinion on abortion and why I think it's so terrible. I'm sorry for being such a hothead and rushing in like that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



x65943 said:


> "why should a life be judged on its development"
> 
> But you are oversimplifying it. The key issue is - what is life?
> 
> ...


Life doesn't begin at birth. It begins at conception. I can't say any more without getting into a whole religious debate. It's really a fuzzy line between most people if life begins at birth or not, but I believe that it starts at conception. You can't 'offer reasoning' to something like life. So, to you I ask you the same question- what is life?


----------



## Deleted User (May 8, 2018)

x65943 said:


> "why should a life be judged on its development"
> But you are oversimplifying it. The key issue is - what is life?
> And no one can agree. So you have this whole debate.
> You are starting out calling it life. This shows that you misunderstand the central issue - or you do not hope to have a constructive conversation.
> Offer reasoning for calling a 2 week old fetus life.


I feel like we are playing a game of semantics here.
It grows, it feeds off it's mother, it is _living_. The sperm and the egg create an alive organism, the fetus. The fetus is _living _off the mother's nutrients, is it not? If you cut the cord, it _dies._ Bacteria is alive, plants are alive, humans are alive. 
What is living? This can get into a wormhole of sorts. You don't need to see something to know it's alive. Some people say living is being able to sustain self, being conscious. A fetus can sustain self from it's mother in the womb. If we pull up the point of consciousness, that brings up the point of are plants conscious? Are bacteria conscious? It also gets at a spiritual side. We can make the argument that the fetus has a spirit even before it is 2 weeks old. The fetus could first be a sparkle in God's eyes before the sperm even gets to the egg.


----------



## x65943 (May 8, 2018)

VinLark said:


> I feel like we are playing a game of semantics here.
> It grows, it feeds off it's mother, it is _living_. The sperm and the egg create an alive organism, the fetus. The fetus is _living _off the mother's nutrients, is it not? If you cut the cord, it _dies._ Bacteria is alive, plants are alive, humans are alive.
> What is living? This can get into a wormhole of sorts. You don't need to see something to know it's alive. Some people say living is being able to sustain self, being conscious. A fetus can sustain self from it's mother in the womb. If we pull up the point of consciousness, that brings up the point of are plants conscious? Are bacteria conscious? It also gets at a spiritual side. We can make the argument that the fetus has a spirit even before it is 2 weeks old. The fetus could first be a sparkle in God's eyes before the sperm even gets to the egg.


And so you see the point. It's all semantics and subjective.

You can say anything has a soul or draw lines wherever you want. But there will never be facts to backup opinions. So we are left in a place without clear answers. This breeds disharmony and the debate begins.


----------



## AdenTheThird (May 8, 2018)

VinLark said:


> I feel like we are playing a game of semantics here.
> It grows, it feeds off it's mother, it is _living_. The sperm and the egg create an alive organism, the fetus. The fetus is _living _off the mother's nutrients, is it not? If you cut the cord, it _dies._ Bacteria is alive, plants are alive, humans are alive.
> What is living? This can get into a wormhole of sorts. You don't need to see something to know it's alive. Some people say living is being able to sustain self, being conscious. A fetus can sustain self from it's mother in the womb. If we pull up the point of consciousness, that brings up the point of are plants conscious? Are bacteria conscious? It also gets at a spiritual side. We can make the argument that the fetus has a spirit even before it is 2 weeks old. The fetus could first be a sparkle in God's eyes before the sperm even gets to the egg.


THANK YOU! That's everything I wanted to say but couldn't find the right words for! You're amazing man (:


----------



## Dax_Fame (May 8, 2018)

We are human. We make mistakes and sometimes things go wrong. If you're in no position to raise a child it's irresponsible to try and bring them up based on stupid made up moral taboo. You will ruin your own life and the entire life of the child. It is an unfortunate position to be put in, a difficult decision to make and an extremely hard thing to go through but you must do what is best for the people involved and the child to be or not to be, not what will please some pie in the sky fairy tale. I've seen both sides. Don't be a hero, be smart.


----------



## pustal (May 8, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you've just given life to someone via conception, and immediately taken it away with abortion. If you really don't want the child, put him/her up for adoption so they'll at least have a CHANCE at getting a nice life. Would you commit suicide just because your life isn't perfect? That's what you're doing to the unborn baby-committing the ultimate crime to save them from lesser ones. You have it backwards-by committing abortion, you aren't doing them a favor by saving them from the troubles of life! God forbid, no! You're killing them. And that is taking away the opportunity of life from them forever. Yes, rape, poverty, poor living conditions are all pretty significant things. I don't blame you for not wanting a child to experience that. But the difference between all those things and abortion is that all those other things create scars. Sometimes those heal, and sometimes they don't. But abortion is different. Abortion means that the baby will never see the light of day. it will never feel, have feelings, touch, taste, smell. It will never grow up and have a life of it's own. And why? Because someone didn't want to keep it! That's just my opinion on abortion and why I think it's so terrible. I'm sorry for being such a hothead and rushing in like that.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Do you have any idea of the difference in trauma to a woman to have a living breathing baby removed from her from having a yet-to-born taken away, want it or not? Or rather, you going to force a mother to go through all the pains of motherhood to not raise her child? How sexist that is. And to put one more child to the thousands that are already in orphanages? That sounds like a solid plan to you?

And yes, abortion mean that it won't see the life of day, and it's done before it's scentient, when it's state is nothing above what a plant is, there is no individuality there.

Taking away the choice to keep or not the child extremely underminds the power of women in society. A father can simply leave or deny fatherwood, a women cannot and has to suffer all the process. Why, because of religious and superticious beliefs over something that is not yet a person in detrimental to a person that already is - the mother. 

A child is expensive, requires maturity, requires stability and requires love. The crime is to bring a child to this world laking any of that. If you are pro-life consider the people (including babies) that are already alive, born and scentient and their suffering, rather than the potential life of someone that isn't.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 8, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you've just given life to someone via conception, and immediately taken it away with abortion. If you really don't want the child, put him/her up for adoption so they'll at least have a CHANCE at getting a nice life. Would you commit suicide just because your life isn't perfect?
> 
> Life doesn't begin at birth. It begins at conception. I can't say any more without getting into a whole religious debate. It's really a fuzzy line between most people if life begins at birth or not, but I believe that it starts at conception. You can't 'offer reasoning' to something like life. So, to you I ask you the same question- what is life?



Simply not perfect? No. Can see a path to it though. Equally might that be a poor analogy? Potentially decades of experiences, connections and such compared to potentially nothing and in all but the most extreme cases then effectively nothing.

So you reckon conception (as opposed to simple gametes, or implantation -- the egg may be fertilised long before it is implanted in the uterus, the being methods also to prevent implantation) is the line? You say it is a religious debate. I don't believe in your religion and general philosophy of law these days is keep religion out of it, and while people to free to vote being influenced by their religion there are fundamental aspects of said law that will override what an implementation of the religion would see put in place on the grounds of various kinds of freedom. Why then is your religion, or indeed your interpretation of a religion, relevant to me or the law of the land? When then not got with "If you don't like one then don't have one"? Equally on the face of it your religion is potentially thousands of years old and unchanged during that time, and features all sorts of things one might find extraordinarily distasteful today, to lean into that would surely be an odd thing to do.
It is possible that it is the case but "muh religion" does not work for me in this. We can come to an agreement that stealing items is bad because it deprives the owner of their resources, no need to worry about what some old books or groups of people that like to read old books say. 

Either way I find lessening suffering to be the better choice for figuring out something, and it is the thing that informs most of everything else in finance, philosophy, law and indeed much of religion for that matter if you are coming from there. This is also why we end up with a more complicated process that looks at the potential troubles for the host and the would be unborn.

"You can't 'offer reasoning' to something like life"
Humans can create it in a lab now -- https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form
Stack enough inert chemicals together and you have something that conforms to most definitions of life used -- reproduction, consumption of fuel, response to stimuli deriving internally ( http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/potter_life.html ).


----------



## AdenTheThird (May 8, 2018)

pustal said:


> Do you have any idea of the difference in trauma to a woman to have a living breathing baby removed from her from having a yet-to-born taken away, want it or not? Or rather, you going to force a mother to go through all the pains of motherhood to not raise her child? How sexist that is. And to put one more child to the thousands that are already in orphanages? That sounds like a solid plan to you?
> 
> And yes, abortion mean that it won't see the life of day, and it's done before it's scentient, when it's state is nothing above what a plant is, there is no individuality there.
> 
> ...


What happens i


pustal said:


> Do you have any idea of the difference in trauma to a woman to have a living breathing baby removed from her from having a yet-to-born taken away, want it or not? Or rather, you going to force a mother to go through all the pains of motherhood to not raise her child? How sexist that is. And to put one more child to the thousands that are already in orphanages? That sounds like a solid plan to you?
> 
> And yes, abortion mean that it won't see the life of day, and it's done before it's scentient, when it's state is nothing above what a plant is, there is no individuality there.
> 
> ...


So you're basically saying that abortion is justification for men being able to walk out on a family? I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that killing your child-to-be just for gender equality is a good thing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> Simply not perfect? No. Can see a path to it though. Equally might that be a poor analogy? Potentially decades of experiences, connections and such compared to potentially nothing and in all but the most extreme cases then effectively nothing.
> 
> So you reckon conception (as opposed to simple gametes, or implantation -- the egg may be fertilised long before it is implanted in the uterus, the being methods also to prevent implantation) is the line? You say it is a religious debate. I don't believe in your religion and general philosophy of law these days is keep religion out of it, and while people to free to vote being influenced by their religion there are fundamental aspects of said law that will override what an implementation of the religion would see put in place on the grounds of various kinds of freedom. Why then is your religion, or indeed your interpretation of a religion, relevant to me or the law of the land? When then not got with "If you don't like one then don't have one"? Equally on the face of it your religion is potentially thousands of years old and unchanged during that time, and features all sorts of things one might find extraordinarily distasteful today, to lean into that would surely be an odd thing to do.
> It is possible that it is the case but "muh religion" does not work for me in this. We can come to an agreement that stealing items is bad because it deprives the owner of their resources, no need to worry about what some old books or groups of people that like to read old books say.
> ...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have to be honest in saying that some of this is personal belief. If you're religious, you believe that life is created by God and not duplicate able. Since this is what I believe, I disagree with scientists in saying that life can be created in a lab (the key word here being "'most' definitions of life used"). If you are Atheist, nonreligious, or otherwise, then you agree with the above in stating that life can be created in a lab, that it begins at birth, etc. As long as religion is not in unison, we will keep disagreeing, arguing, and countering. I didn't reply on this thread to start a fight. I just came to state my opinion. I don't think I'm alone in this. It's tiring to reply over and over again to this thread, so I'm going to state my opinion and leave the debate to someone else. I know what I believe, and nothing is going to change that. I know I am not the only one feeling that, so the real question is:

Why on Earth are we still arguing?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 8, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have to be honest in saying that some of this is personal belief. If you're religious, you believe that life is created by God and not duplicate able. Since this is what I believe, I disagree with scientists in saying that life can be created in a lab (the key word here being "'most' definitions of life used"). If you are Atheist, nonreligious, or otherwise, then you agree with the above in stating that life can be created in a lab, that it begins at birth, etc. As long as religion is not in unison, we will keep disagreeing, arguing, and countering. I didn't reply on this thread to start a fight. I just came to state my opinion. I don't think I'm alone in this. It's tiring to reply over and over again to this thread, so I'm going to state my opinion and leave the debate to someone else. I know what I believe, and nothing is going to change that. I know I am not the only one feeling that, so the real question is:
> 
> Why on Earth are we still arguing?



Depends what religion but yes many religions do seem to have a belief that their supernatural pantheon (or single supernatural being) were the ones to create life. Similarly many would claim that life itself is endowed with a special "spark" that man can not recreate, though this is less common than the former (though by no means terribly uncommon). To be a religion, or indeed religious, does not necessitate beliefs in either of those, though to be irreligious probably does.

""most" definitions" refers more to the virus that the same people created in a lab some 15 years ago now http://www.nature.com/news/1998/031110/full/news031110-17.html
Whether a virus is alive is a debatable thing in biology, bacteria however, which the original link covers, is not questioned seriously by anybody about being alive.
If you want to go further back in history then a similar logic was once applied to organic chemistry, http://www.pasteurbrewing.com/organic-chemistry-and-the-idea-of-the-molecule/ with the ideas of a guy named Berzelius being the foundation of a lot of that if you want to go further. A patently absurd and demonstrably false notion today. The stuff linked earlier it still relatively new, and indeed many thought it some time before it would or could happen (if it ever would) before Venter and co said "hold my beer".

At the same time there are religions and interpretations which change, religions with multiple broad and narrow interpretations (possibly to the point that they are separate religions), there are religions which excise sections of various texts, proclaim sections outdated and otherwise come to an opinion that is different than the ones held before.

State your opinion, many others have, however if in said opinion you are going to accuse me (and most of the world, and systems of laws and ethics) of being immoral or draw an equivalence to an immoral act then I am going to take exception. If you provide no reasoning for this, especially after being asked, then your opinions would have to be dismissed which I don't want to have to do. Similarly if you are so staunch in your beliefs I would like to know how you get there -- I have many unanswered questions and things to consider on this subject, the existence of an apparently immovable position then holds some serious allure and is worth exploring.

A choice thought at this junction. A man may state that his wife is the most beautiful in the world. Some have argued that religion should be treated the same way. Others still have argued that the former is a statement of your internal mind where I do not live, if however the religion declares something about the workings of the universe then as I live in the universe I have a stake in it and thus is can be debated.

If you are going to remain in a fixed philosophy on the nature of the universe and morality, one fundamentally different from my own, then barring my suddenly aligning with that (an unlikely event as the broad strokes of your apparent philosophy is not exactly a new concept to me) we are going to have to first take a long time to establish a framework before we can reasonably discuss this issue.

To answer the final question. I am always up for learning something new or gaining new understanding -- it seems to be a thing I greatly enjoy in life. If someone seemingly can offer that then I am going to ask questions.


----------



## pustal (May 8, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> What happens i
> 
> So you're basically saying that abortion is justification for men being able to walk out on a family? I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that killing your child-to-be just for gender equality is a good thing.
> 
> ...



Not for gender equality but to provide the mother the means over to properly get her life straight before and if she wants a child, instead of being imprisoned to one that isn't yet.

Providing women with choice and contraception and you are effectively providing tools not only to equality but to fight poverty and misery. Pay attention to the works of Melinda Gates and the effect her project has on people.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2018)

pustal said:


> Do you have any idea of the difference in trauma to a woman to have a living breathing baby removed from her from having a yet-to-born taken away, want it or not? Or rather, you going to force a mother to go through all the pains of motherhood to not raise her child? How sexist that is. And to put one more child to the thousands that are already in orphanages? That sounds like a solid plan to you?
> 
> And yes, abortion mean that it won't see the life of day, and it's done before it's scentient, when it's state is nothing above what a plant is, there is no individuality there.
> 
> ...


In the states a Father cannot avoid being responsible for his kids. There’s child support and alimony. If he doesn’t support his kids he can go to jail.

And a women can avoid legal, moral and financial responsibility of the kids and opt out of motherhood after the baby is born. She doesn’t have to be forced to take care of the kid if she doesn’t want to.

If a women has a kid but doesn’t want it she can opt out and give the baby up for adoption.

A women can also give up a baby to the state under Safe Haven laws, remain legally anonymous and won’t be charged with abandonment.

Depending on state kids can be 78 hrs to 18 yrs old. If the man tries to give up the baby under Safe Haven laws without the mother’s consent he can be arrested for kidnapping and is likely to be forced to pay child support.



VinLark said:


> I feel like we are playing a game of semantics here.
> It grows, it feeds off it's mother, it is _living_. The sperm and the egg create an alive organism, the fetus. The fetus is _living _off the mother's nutrients, is it not? If you cut the cord, it _dies._ Bacteria is alive, plants are alive, humans are alive.
> What is living? This can get into a wormhole of sorts. You don't need to see something to know it's alive. Some people say living is being able to sustain self, being conscious. A fetus can sustain self from it's mother in the womb. If we pull up the point of consciousness, that brings up the point of are plants conscious? Are bacteria conscious? It also gets at a spiritual side. We can make the argument that the fetus has a spirit even before it is 2 weeks old. The fetus could first be a sparkle in God's eyes before the sperm even gets to the egg.


People have no problem killing “living” bugs, bacteria (with hand sanitizers), eating plants, killing animals for food, and killing pests like rodents. Life is not a concern for us unless it’s human life, except for a few peta. And even peta doesn’t mind killing bacteria and germs.

A plant is not conscience like humans because it doesn’t have neurons. Bacteria are not conscience either.

The whole abortion debate surrounds  religion, when does a fetus starts to have conscience, is it wrong to abort something that has a conscience, and is it ok for the baby to be born if the biological parents don’t want to be parents.

People don’t really care about the life of a snail, ant, or bacteria. And most doesn’t even care about the life of conscience creatures like cows or pigs. They kill them all time. Most peoples only concern is humans.


----------



## AdenTheThird (May 8, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Depends what religion but yes many religions do seem to have a belief that their supernatural pantheon (or single supernatural being) were the ones to create life. Similarly many would claim that life itself is endowed with a special "spark" that man can not recreate, though this is less common than the former (though by no means terribly uncommon). To be a religion, or indeed religious, does not necessitate beliefs in either of those, though to be irreligious probably does.
> 
> ""most" definitions" refers more to the virus that the same people created in a lab some 15 years ago now http://www.nature.com/news/1998/031110/full/news031110-17.html
> Whether a virus is alive is a debatable thing in biology, bacteria however, which the original link covers, is not questioned seriously by anybody about being alive.
> ...


Okay. I'll stick with my opinion quietly then. Thank you for your support.


----------



## pustal (May 9, 2018)

SG854 said:


> In the states a Father cannot avoid being responsible for his kids. There’s child support and alimony. If he doesn’t support his kids he can go to jail.
> 
> And a women can avoid legal, moral and financial responsibility of the kids and opt out of motherhood after the baby is born. She doesn’t have to be forced to take care of the kid if she doesn’t want to.
> 
> ...



A father can have sex with the mother and never been seen again, without a trace. A mother cannot do the same thing, for starters. A father can be father without anyone knowing who's the father (even himself), a mother cannot do that for the next 9 months.

And again, adoption is no way a same weighted option as an abortion. A mother has to go to all the pregnancy, risk all the complications, and be subjected to a trauma much bigger than one left by an abortion.

On your second part, again, for you to have a conscience, you need a brain, and a brain is only formed after the 12th week. A woman can only safelly abort until he 12th week, coincidentally. This is a non-issue.


----------



## bitjacker (May 10, 2018)

To have a conscience, you need to have a soul.


----------



## Soilboi (May 10, 2018)

Abortion is not something that should ever be looked at lightly, it is not a proud moment, but when it happens in any circumstance it is necessary. 
I was a staunchly against abortion growing up, but, after much research and talking with women in person about why they have had abortions I can tell you that each one of those women had no other choice. In our society even if you have the kid and plan to adopt it out you are strapping yourself with debt that will keep you a member of the lowest dregs of society for the rest of your life. If you keep the child you then keep them in the same cycle. The only way to break out of this cycle is to control your fertility, which has been done throughout history with abortient herbs. Wet nurses used to kill newborns if they thought a family had too many children to feed.  As an ethnobotanist I could walk down the street and tell you half a dozen plants to make a tea with that would cause a miscarriage. The problem with this is there is no way of knowing what other damage these herbs will do to you, so safer options are needed. 
The only people you hurt are those are the poor and already ashamed when you deny them access to a safe medical procedure. Abortions will and have happened, please give people dignity in their darkest moments.


----------



## ChaoticCinnabon (May 14, 2018)

I don't like it but people have reasons... i'd support it in two cases however

Rape.

And if birth is going to kill you.


----------



## granville (May 16, 2018)

I'm opposed to abortion, exceptions being made for rape or in cases where there's a serious health issue present making the birthing dangerous.

I should also note that i'm an atheist, my perception is not being driven by religious dogma. And i'm otherwise generally "left" leaning. I also support socialized free health care, including birth control.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 16, 2018)

granville said:


> I'm opposed to abortion, exceptions being made for rape or in cases where there's a serious health issue present making the birthing dangerous.
> 
> I should also note that i'm an atheist, my perception is not being driven by religious dogma. And i'm otherwise generally "left" leaning. I also support socialized free health care, including birth control.


Legitimate question, but if you can make an exception for rape or health reasons, why not just allow it in any case that a woman deems necessary?

Or, on the flip side, if you have such a moral objection to it, why even make the exceptions in the first place?


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 16, 2018)

ChaoticCinnabon said:


> I don't like it but people have reasons... i'd support it in two cases however
> 
> Rape.
> 
> And if birth is going to kill you.





granville said:


> I'm opposed to abortion, exceptions being made for rape or in cases where there's a serious health issue present making the birthing dangerous.


I used to have these 2 same viewpoints until I took an ethics class and these situations came up. After stating my stance when it comes to a woman whom is raped, my professor challenged me by asking "Does one injustice deem it alright to do another?", and it got me thinking. He is right. If the woman can't handle riasing a child that was born due to a rape then she should give the child up. Killing the child will not take the rape away. And by aborting the child she may suffer even more now knowing that she killed an innocent child.

Even if my wife was pregnant and there was a good likelihood that going through with the birth could kill her, I would still want her to do it. I see no reason why an innocent child should die. If that is the cards that were handed to me then it must be fate and who am I to say that a child should not have a chance at life. I would have far too much guilt.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 16, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I used to have these 2 same viewpoints until I took an ethics class and these situations came up. After stating my stance when it comes to a woman whom is raped, my professor challenged me by asking "Does one injustice deem it alright to do another?", and it got me thinking. He is right. If the woman can't handle riasing a child that was born due to a rape then she should give the child up. Killing the child will not take the rape away. And by aborting the child she may suffer even more now knowing that she killed an innocent child.
> 
> Even if my wife was pregnant and there was a good likelihood that going through with the birth could kill her, I would still want her to do it. I see no reason why an innocent child should die. If that is the cards that were handed to me then it must be fate and who am I to say that a child should not have a chance at life. I would have far too much guilt.


I'd bring up the argument of how the fetus isn't even sentient until well into the second trimester, but I'd be repeating myself and something tells me you really won't care. However, I will say that I think your ethics professor definitely has it backwards, especially since it seems like he's using the assumption that abortion is morally wrong as fact (which, clearly that is not the case, from a universal standpoint. It's a very grey issue to some people, and even morally neutral to others). Instead of thinking of "does one wrong justify another wrong", you need to think of "does one wrong disqualify a woman from having a optional, but safe, operation, that effectively is a preventative to childbirth rather than killing a living child?"

Or, if you even want to use the same argument as he, "does one wrong (rape) justify another wrong (telling a woman what to do with her own body before a fetus is developed to the point of a "living" classification)?


----------



## _Chaz_ (May 16, 2018)

I'm a big fan of abortion. I wish it was more popular.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'd bring up the argument of how the fetus isn't even sentient until well into the second trimester, but I'd be repeating myself and something tells me you really won't care. However, I will say that I think your ethics professor definitely has it backwards, especially since it seems like he's using the assumption that abortion is morally wrong as fact (which, clearly that is not the case, from a universal standpoint. It's a very grey issue to some people, and even morally neutral to others). Instead of thinking of "does one wrong justify another wrong", you need to think of "does one wrong disqualify a woman from having a optional, but safe, operation, that effectively is a preventative to childbirth rather than killing a living child?"
> 
> Or, if you even want to use the same argument as he, "does one wrong (rape) justify another wrong (telling a woman what to do with her own body before a fetus is developed to the point of a "living" classification)?


I know exactly what you are saying, but your viewpoint is different than mine. I feel abortion is wrong. I am entitled to my opinion as well as you are. Lets just hope that neither one of us gets put in a position of a loved one that gets pregnant from a rape.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 16, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Lets just hope that neither one of us gets put in a position of a loved one that gets pregnant from a rape.


I'd hope not under ANY circumstances


----------



## ChaoticCinnabon (May 16, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I know exactly what you are saying, but your viewpoint is different than mine. I feel abortion is wrong. I am entitled to my opinion as well as you are. Lets just hope that neither one of us gets put in a position of a loved one that gets pregnant from a rape.



I truly do wish that won't happen.


----------



## fernas (May 16, 2018)

This is a "moral" discussion, not a rational one. So, there will never be a final statement or a final solution.

When you have a moral discussion each one of us use our personal values (learned by believes, breeding, religion, historical context, etc.), and is very difficult to move from our personal values to a new ones. So, there will never be a final resolution to this problem.

My personal thought: I'm against abortion because I love having kids. I have a daughter and I love her very much. But I believe, since this is a moral discussion, that the governments don't have to impose their decision. So, I believe that every woman must have the freedom to choose and to deal with the consequences of their decision. And also, everyone has the right to express their point of view, by protests, education programs, etc.


----------



## GreatCrippler (May 16, 2018)

18 Pages and counting. Amazing how many teenagers have an opinion on this. >.> If you are a man. You don't get a say. You can't have an abortion. If you're a woman. Your body, your choice. It is as simple as that.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 16, 2018)

If teenagers are disproportionally negatively affected by pregnancy then surely they would be in a prime position to have an opinion. Equally what about being a teenager would render their opinions less useful?

"If you are a man. You don't get a say. You can't have an abortion."
As far as legal things go then sure (though even then if you are in the position of medical decision maker for someone else...), at least pending cheap and easy fetal transplants (presumably also an artificial womb). Morally I can well see it being a dick move to not involve he what provided the sperm in many cases (personally I would be delighted if a significant other got pregnant, got it aborted just like going to get a haircut or something; keeper material that is. At the same time I would view it as perfectly reasonable grounds for ending a relationship for someone else).
As far as a general discussion on the ethics of the concept. No reason not to be involved really, unless you truly are indifferent I guess.



DeadlyFoez said:


> I am entitled to my opinion as well as you are.


That always feels like a cop out in discussions like this. We can surely try to establish some common ground as far as ethical principles (for instance for these purposes I would not care if we are both about preventing suffering but yours comes from a line in an ancient book and mine from some kind of biological drive from being a social ape and lot more consideration) and then thrash out some results of that.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 16, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> That always feels like a cop out in discussions like this. We can surely try to establish some common ground as far as ethical principles (for instance for these purposes I would not care if we are both about preventing suffering *but yours comes from a line in an ancient book* and mine from some kind of biological drive from being a social ape and lot more consideration) and then thrash out some results of that.



 
Really? Do you know who you are talking to? I am the complete opposite of a religious person. None of my principles are in any way shape or form influenced by religion. My principles are based off of logic and the heart that I have grown to have since being a father.

The fact is,  no one will ever all agree on anything... ever. So there is no common ground that can be met at. I have already debated this topic numerous times and it would take quite a lot for me to budge from my position at this point as I have already previously refined my stance and only once had a small change of view.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 16, 2018)

It was a hypothetical and pretty clearly phrased as such. I don't know if you are attempting to take offence or something but I stand by what I wrote there.

If nobody is going to agree on anything then what is the point? That is not a great position to take as clearly we can get many places.

Logic then. Mind running me through yours? I would hold my position is born of logic and a sense of empathy and we would appear to still have radically different approaches, or at least end results.

As a curio though. You say "since becoming a father". It is noted that child having is an expensive hobby whether you are talking about calories from hunting, farming in a field or working your arse off in the modern world. It is then a biological imperative that sees both high sex drive and fondness/protectiveness for children, one that increases considerably if you are lumped with those of your own (or possibly if you lack them at developmental stages). Several other imperatives are no longer as relevant in the modern world, for instance the one that says "fat, sugar and salt are good stuff, find them where you can", so might your fatherhood be something to... overcome?


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 16, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> It was a hypothetical and pretty clearly phrased as such. I don't know if you are attempting to take offence or something but I stand by what I wrote there.
> 
> If nobody is going to agree on anything then what is the point? That is not a great position to take as clearly we can get many places.
> 
> ...


Do you really think that just because my conclusion is based upon logic that my conclusion has to be the same as yours??? All things decided upon logic must be the same? Sorry man, my thinking is obviously far different than yours. I see things in a much different perspective. And before you make a joke, my perspective is not from a view up my ass. 

There is absolutely no reasoning with you.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 16, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Do you really think that just because my conclusion is based upon logic that my conclusion has to be the same as yours??? All things decided upon logic must be the same? Sorry man, my thinking is obviously far different than yours. I see things in a much different perspective. And before you make a joke, my perspective is not from a view up my ass.
> 
> There is absolutely no reasoning with you.


He said that his decision was born out of what he sees logical, he said nothing of yours other than that he wanted to hear your thought process behind it. Saying that his conclusion was reached through logic doesn't mean that yours wasn't reached the same way, but with different supporting evidence


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 16, 2018)

Ehh. I stated what I believed. I feel no need to go into a huge discussion of how and why I came to what I believe and then have a bunch of people tear it apart and try to belittle me just because they disagree. Figure I will take the high road before I end up getting pissed off over this discussion.

Have a good day guys.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 16, 2018)

Does not have to be, we can have different tolerances of risk, different analyses of the baseline concept (I use lessening suffering, others seem to get hung up on what is and what is the value of life at various points, others still go in for development) and a multitude of other factors that can influence things. However are you not curious how two people with essentially the same approaches to a concept wind up with so very different end results? The discussion of such things I find to be productive (far more so than "because my book says so", though even there as mentioned earlier a framework for a discussion can still be established, and kind of has to be if we are doing societies like we presently do) and what I seek in threads like this.

There is always reasoning with me, at least assuming I have time and we are sitting across a table or behind keyboards. I can not say I pride myself on the notion but it is certainly something I would consider a fundamental aspect of my character and approach to the world at large. Indeed I am not entirely sure how you came to the opposite conclusion. I can be fairly relentless in it and try to always argue from a strong position, something which some find tiring, but that is somewhat besides the point.

Edit
"I feel no need to go into a huge discussion of how and why I came to what I believe and then have a bunch of people tear it apart"
A pity, I kind of like a good discussion.


----------



## Deleted User (May 16, 2018)

Deleted


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 16, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Does not have to be, we can have different tolerances of risk, different analyses of the baseline concept (I use lessening suffering, others seem to get hung up on what is and what is the value of life at various points, others still go in for development) and a multitude of other factors that can influence things. However are you not curious how two people with essentially the same approaches to a concept wind up with so very different end results? The discussion of such things I find to be productive (far more so than "because my book says so", though even there as mentioned earlier a framework for a discussion can still be established, and kind of has to be if we are doing societies like we presently do) and what I seek in threads like this.
> 
> There is always reasoning with me, at least assuming I have time and we are sitting across a table or behind keyboards. I can not say I pride myself on the notion but it is certainly something I would consider a fundamental aspect of my character and approach to the world at large. Indeed I am not entirely sure how you came to the opposite conclusion. I can be fairly relentless in it and try to always argue from a strong position, something which some find tiring, but that is somewhat besides the point.
> 
> ...


The thing is, I am reeeaaalllyyy hung over right now and my brain is not working so well. So half of what I am reading is just not making too much sense to me at the moment. So a proper discussion is out of the question at this time.


----------



## granville (May 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Legitimate question, but if you can make an exception for rape or health reasons, why not just allow it in any case that a woman deems necessary?
> 
> Or, on the flip side, if you have such a moral objection to it, why even make the exceptions in the first place?


Curious, but would you RATHER I be on the "no abortions, no exceptions" side?

I figured with the debate centering around "choice", the different contexts and morals of consensual sex vs rape would be fairly clear. A woman consenting to sex made a deliberate choice, acknowledging all associated risks, including a possible pregnancy. In rape, choice, the ability to consent and accept the consequences and responsibility are thrown out entirely. The woman is forced into the situation, it's the reason we punish men who rape women. And I side with having empathy in the exception where an unwilling victim was forced into a situation they couldn't control. Similar situation if giving birth is determined to be life threatening for the mother, I consider the mother's life a higher priority in that case. It's not that I don't still view abortion as horrid regardless, i simply try for a more nuanced position on the matter than the no-exceptions hard yes or hard no. Not sure if I could explain my reasoning any better.

There's not any analog to this situation either. I had several other analogies I considered bringing up, but none really factor in the termination of a developing human and so aren't exactly fair to compare.

Incidentally, an interesting aspect about the debate on abortion was reading up on Norma McCorvey, AKA Jane Roe from the Roe vs Wade case that changed US abortion laws. Norma McCorvey became pregnant as a teen in what she then claimed was rape. She filed a lawsuit to try to obtain an abortion. What is interesting is how the lawsuit ended up diverting course away from her and her wishes. She apparently didn't have much involvement in the courtrooms even early on (I don't even know if she ever appeared) and she became upset with her lawyers and felt they were lying to her. Norma eventually gave birth during the proceedings and changed her mind about abortion entirely. Her lawyers proceeded with the case however and continued to use her given pseudonym to promote the legalization of abortion. In the 1980s, McCorvey ended up confessing that she had lied about the rape (though I don't think she or her legal team received any punishment for lying to the courts) and she became an outspoken voice for the pro-life argument. I'm not personally interested in using her as an example against abortion (I fundamentally disagree with her on some key aspects). But the details of her life behind the scenes are still very interesting. Especially her legal team and many others pushing her "Jane Roe" identity as the mascot for the movement icon. And continuing to do so decades after she changed sides.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 17, 2018)

granville said:


> Curious, but would you RATHER I be on the "no abortions, no exceptions" side?
> 
> I figured with the debate centering around "choice", the different contexts and morals of consensual sex vs rape would be fairly clear. A woman consenting to sex made a deliberate choice, acknowledging all associated risks, including a possible pregnancy. In rape, choice, the ability to consent and accept the consequences and responsibility are thrown out entirely. The woman is forced into the situation, it's the reason we punish men who rape women. And I side with having empathy in the exception where an unwilling victim was forced into a situation they couldn't control. Similar situation if giving birth is determined to be life threatening for the mother, I consider the mother's life a higher priority in that case. It's not that I don't still view abortion as horrid regardless, i simply try for a more nuanced position on the matter than the no-exceptions hard yes or hard no. Not sure if I could explain my reasoning any better.
> 
> ...


I mean, I wouldn't, but I'm trying to find a consistency in your position, since until recently I held more or less the same one until someone brought something up to me: if you can accept that a woman has a choice to get an abortion if she's been raped, you can accept that a woman has a choice to keep the child, period. Every woman that seriously considers having an abortion has her own personal reasons for wanting one, and even though there are times where people may regret it later, that doesn't take away from the fact that in the end, the choice remains theirs

The bit on Roe v Wade is interesting, though, I wasn't aware of that aspect of the case specifically (although I had heard of the "Jane Roe is now pro-life so how about THAT" argument before now), but in the end, other than a gross and unethical overstep of her personal interests by her lawyers, if that is the case, I really don't think that in the grand scheme of things it really changes anything, at least not morality-wise


----------



## FAST6191 (May 17, 2018)

granville said:


> A woman consenting to sex made a deliberate choice, acknowledging all associated risks, including a possible pregnancy.



The modern world affords many tried and tested methods to avoid pregnancy though and they get to be considered in that, why then is the ability to end it if prevention failed (it is cheap and easy after all) not a part of that analysis?
That then lands us back at the "what is bad about it and what lines might you draw and why?" discussion.


----------



## RandomUser (May 19, 2018)

I may be old fashioned, but the way I see it, if she cannot keep her legs shut, then she should bare the burden of having a child regardless if pregnancy is voluntary or involuntary. Wile may not able to 100% prevent pregnancy, their is drugs to prevent this.
The same for guys, if he cannot think with his big head and let his little head rule over him, then he should bare the burden of having a child regardless if pregnancy is voluntary or involuntary. Unless sperm jacking happens, then that is a whole 'nother issue and falls on the woman's responsibility when she used the said sperm to impregnate herself with.


----------



## cots (May 19, 2018)

Jack Daniels said:


> i don't even understand why there should be a debate on the matter.
> if it's not in your body or not your baby then what in the world makes you think you've got the right to mingle?
> 
> * you don't know what's the state of mind of another human beïng.
> ...



I agree with you about it being none of anyone else's business. It seems to be okay now to tell other people what to do with their own bodies; too much government control if you ask me. I also believe that abortion is murder and the reasoning behind the murder makes no difference. If you murder someone in self defense it's justified, but it's still murder and the person responsible still has to live with that for the rest of their life.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 19, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> I may be old fashioned, but the way I see it, if she cannot keep her legs shut, then she should bare the burden of having a child regardless if pregnancy is voluntary or involuntary. Wile may not able to 100% prevent pregnancy, their is drugs to prevent this.
> The same for guys, if he cannot think with his big head and let his little head rule over him, then he should bare the burden of having a child regardless if pregnancy is voluntary or involuntary. Unless sperm jacking happens, then that is a whole 'nother issue and falls on the woman's responsibility when she used the said sperm to impregnate herself with.


I think you addressed this yourself: there are very effective forms of birth control that allows a person to have sex recreationally rather than for reproductive purposes. However, there is also an incredibly small chance that the birth control will fail, in which case a woman shouldn't be expecting to carry out a pregnancy that she neither wanted nor was planning for. Now, that doesn't automatically mean that a pregnancy should be terminated, but the woman should have the choice as to whether or not she should have to carry the pregnancy to term


----------



## RandomUser (May 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I think you addressed this yourself: there are very effective forms of birth control that allows a person to have sex recreationally rather than for reproductive purposes. However, there is also an incredibly small chance that the birth control will fail, in which case a woman shouldn't be expecting to carry out a pregnancy that she neither wanted nor was planning for. Now, that doesn't automatically mean that a pregnancy should be terminated, but the woman should have the choice as to whether or not she should have to carry the pregnancy to term


Well, I did say I may be old fashioned. That is how I was raised, marriage first then sex later. But now that birth control drugs are available, this allows both men and women to be reckless, given that every women should know that there is a small chance of failure, should not excuse her from having the baby even by a small margin she did get pregnant. This is the risk he and she has to take if they want sex, simple as that, and no take back, or a shortcut way out. Kinda like gambling, you can expect to lose money, but should not expect the casino or establishment to give you back the money you lost. That isn't how gambling work. Essentially you would be taking a gamble when having sex. Therefor abortion isn't needed, unless life or death situation and perhaps even rape.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 19, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> Well, I did say I may be old fashioned. That is how I was raised, marriage first then sex later. But now that birth control drugs are available, this allows both men and women to be reckless, given that every women should know that there is a small chance of failure, should not excuse her from having the baby even by a small margin she did get pregnant. This is the risk he and she has to take if they want sex, simple as that, and no take back, or a shortcut way out. Kinda like gambling, you can expect to lose money, but should not expect the casino or establishment to give you back the money you lost. That isn't how gambling work. Essentially you would be taking a gamble when having sex. Therefor abortion isn't needed, unless life or death situation and perhaps even rape.


So... You feel as though having a child should be something like a punishment for having sex?...


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 19, 2018)

cots said:


> I agree with you about it being none of anyone else's business. It seems to be okay now to tell other people what to do with their own bodies; too much government control if you ask me. I also believe that abortion is murder and the reasoning behind the murder makes no difference. If you murder someone in self defense it's justified, but it's still murder and the person responsible still has to live with that for the rest of their life.


yes, i agree... but understand, if you end a life iand you're in the right mind even if you don't know the person it will be a burden...
yes it's possible to abort a pregnancy, but it will come with a price to most people that will haunt them the rest of her life...
each time the person sees another kid growing up it will somehow think back of how this kid she never met would've be if she didn't abort.
ifyes you can abort, and it should be a right of the person to do so, just don't forget that it's gonna cost a lifetime...
murder is a hard word to use, i'd say kill. Since i still stand by the idea it never been alive if done within law, so it's the end of a dream to be.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 19, 2018)

Jack Daniels said:


> yes, i agree... but understand, if you end a life iand you're in the right mind even if you don't know the person it will be a burden...
> yes it's possible to abort a pregnancy, but it will come with a price to most people that will haunt them the rest of her life...
> each time the person sees another kid growing up it will somehow think back of how this kid she never met would've be if she didn't abort.
> ifyes you can abort, and it should be a right of the person to do so, just don't forget that it's gonna cost a lifetime...


Which is exactly why hotline networks like Exhale exist


----------



## FAST6191 (May 19, 2018)

"but it will come with a price to most people that will haunt them the rest of her life..."
Only in the same way that some people seem traumatised by dentists, injections, contact lenses and similar such things. Indeed I would assign about as much mental energy to getting an abortion as I would any of those things mentioned (important to do properly, hopefully not enough to permeate your every thought).

If someone is so afflicted then absolutely do treat it as per standard practices but expecting it to be a normal/common outcome... nope, not even close and I dare say the stats and practices of abortion clinics (they don't typically recommend counselling or similar for run of the mill abortions) would back it.

Equally there is a line of logic (the freakonomics people that did the frequently referenced abortions vs crime thing) that says abortions don't result in fewer babies, just them being delayed a few years. That might then make being paralysed by what ifs an even sillier thing to do.


----------



## RandomUser (May 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So... You feel as though having a child should be something like a punishment for having sex?...


Something like that, but if it was planned to have a child then it would be a joyous occasion. There is options that can be done to outright 100% prevent pregnancy, that man and women can do, but the bad is that it tends to be permanent, but hay if you support women riding the cock carousel, that fine I am not going to judge and you're entitled to your opinion.
More bluntly put:
If you cannot handle the consequences, then don't do it. It is just that simple. That child should have the right to live regardless if unborn or not. Like all things in life some actions have consequences, and like always if you don't want the consequences, again don't do it unless you know for 100% certain the outcome is favorable to you.
So if both partners want sex, then they should expect even by a small chance to have a child. After all, that is what sex is originally intended for, reproduction by nature.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 19, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> Something like that, but if it was planned to have a child then it would be a joyous occasion. There is options that can be done to outright 100% prevent pregnancy, that man and women can do, but the bad is that it tends to be permanent, but hay if you support women riding the cock carousel, that fine I am not going to judge and you're entitled to your opinion.
> More bluntly put:
> If you cannot handle the consequences, then don't do it. It is just that simple. That child should have the right to live regardless if unborn or not. Like all things in life some actions have consequences, and like always if you don't want the consequences, again don't do it unless you know for 100% certain the outcome is favorable to you.
> So if both partners want sex, then they should expect even by a small chance to have a child. After all, that is what sex is originally intended for, reproduction by nature.


I mean... I understand your sentiment, but I hope you realize that if a child is a punishment for something, either the child will treat themselves as such or the mother will treat herself that way. A kid is a rather permanent thing to have, and if a parent isn't capable of taking care of one properly they should have the choice to _not
_
And I know you're going to say "adoption", but I'd say that before we even think about opening that up as an option, we need to work through a good chunk of the kids that are in the system already first


----------



## FAST6191 (May 19, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> If you cannot handle the consequences, then don't do it. It is just that simple. That child should have the right to live regardless if unborn or not. Like all things in life some actions have consequences, and like always if you don't want the consequences, again don't do it unless you know for 100% certain the outcome is favorable to you.
> So if both partners want sex, then they should expect even by a small chance to have a child. After all, that is what sex is originally intended for, reproduction by nature.



Is not a consequence that you need to get an abortion? Why is that not an option in the decision tree?

When does this thing become a child that is worthy of protection and whatnot?

Also why do I care what nature "intended"? Most of human technology and progress aims at rendering nature almost obsolete, or maybe just a small component of a larger whole.


----------



## Lacius (May 19, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> If you cannot handle the consequences, then don't do it. It is just that simple.


Sex is not consent to carry a baby to term. Nothing, including engagement in consensual sex, violates bodily autonomy rights.

Edit: Even if sex carried a 99% pregnancy risk, that wouldn't violate bodily autonomy rights.



RandomUser said:


> That child should have the right to live regardless if unborn or not.


An embryo or fetus doesn't have anymore rights than an unfertilized egg and a sperm together in a petri dish. It's not a person.



RandomUser said:


> Like all things in life some actions have consequences, and like always if you don't want the consequences, again don't do it unless you know for 100% certain the outcome is favorable to you.
> So if both partners want sex, then they should expect even by a small chance to have a child. After all, that is what sex is originally intended for, reproduction by nature.


I agree wholeheartedly that a person needs to be able to accept the possible consequences of an action before willfully engaging in an action. That doesn't negate the existence of mitigation strategies. A possible consequence of sex is contracting an STI, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to take penicillin.



RandomUser said:


> After all, that is what sex is originally intended for, reproduction by nature.


Over 99.9% of the human sex that happens on this planet is for purposes unrelated to reproduction. It's not the primary purpose of sex. Using the phrase "intended for" is also a misnomer, because that implies agency where there is none.


----------



## RandomUser (May 25, 2018)

Lacius said:


> Sex is not consent to carry a baby to term. Nothing, including engagement in consensual sex, violates bodily autonomy rights.
> 
> Edit: Even if sex carried a 99% pregnancy risk, that wouldn't violate bodily autonomy rights.


It may not violate the right, but you cannot change biology. If you have 99% chance of pregnancy risk, and don't want children, then people should be looking for something else and more productive things to do with their time.



Lacius said:


> An embryo or fetus doesn't have anymore rights than an unfertilized egg and a sperm together in a petri dish. It's not a person.


Fair enough



Lacius said:


> I agree wholeheartedly that a person needs to be able to accept the possible consequences of an action before willfully engaging in an action. That doesn't negate the existence of mitigation strategies. A possible consequence of sex is contracting an STI, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to take penicillin.


So what happens when said strategy fails?



Lacius said:


> Over 99.9% of the human sex that happens on this planet is for purposes unrelated to reproduction. It's not the primary purpose of sex. Using the phrase "intended for" is also a misnomer, because that implies agency where there is none.


Are you sure? The very primary purpose of sex is reproduction, without it, you wouldn't even be on alive and on this forum. Pleasure from sex is not a primary function, it is more of a reward system then anything else.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> It may not violate the right, but you cannot change biology. If you have 99% chance of pregnancy risk, and don't want children, then people should be looking for something else and more productive things to do with their time.
> 
> Are you sure? The very primary purpose of sex is reproduction, without it, you wouldn't even be on alive and on this forum. Pleasure from sex is not a primary function, it is more of a reward system then anything else.



Riding my skateboard I am fairly confident in saying carries a 100% chance of getting cut and bruised, possibly some broken bones and more besides. Frequently fatal even a century ago, today a minor inconvenience and thus I have a fun activity. Might there be a parallel here?

What is/who gets to define a primary purpose and might it have changed in the modern world? Why not skip the function and take the reward?

On a different note it seems artificial wombs are further along than I thought
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...elps-premature-lamb-fetuses-grow-for-4-weeks/
The creating life from base chemicals was viruses and bacteria which is certainly fascinating but I can see where people have a logical disconnect. The above is complex mammalian life and in some of the stories they reckon human trials might only be a few years out.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> It may not violate the right, but you cannot change biology. If you have 99% chance of pregnancy risk, and don't want children, then people should be looking for something else and more *productive* things to do with their time.


You mean they should find something more _productive_ but less _re-productive_? 

But seriously, my point was that, regardless of the odds of an accidental pregnancy, sex is not consent to be pregnant, and nothing about the odds nor the possible consequences of one's actions changes that.



RandomUser said:


> So what happens when said strategy fails?


I'm not sure what your point here is. A person with syphilis, for example, has a right to healthcare and treatment options, regardless of whether or not it's a drug-resistant strain of syphilis.



RandomUser said:


> Are you sure? The very primary purpose of sex is reproduction, without it, you wouldn't even be on alive and on this forum. Pleasure from sex is not a primary function, it is more of a reward system then anything else.


For some people, the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. For most people, however, the primary purpose of sex is social bonding, pleasure, etc.—in other words, non-reproductive purposes. If you want to look at human sex as a whole on this planet, 99.999% of the sex we're having is for non-reproductive purposes, so that's why I confidently said the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. You need only look at infertile couples, elderly couples, gay couples, etc. to see that the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. The fact that I wouldn't be here if it weren't for sex that resulted in reproduction is irrelevant to sex's primary purpose.

Honestly, the conversation about the purpose of sex can and should end here, since a thing only has as much purpose as we subjectively give it. However, if you want to talk about the evolution of sex in humans, it should be noted that the evolution of sex in humans happened in conjunction with our evolution to become social animals. Sex is an important part of that social bonding. It's pleasurable, it causes the brain to do all sorts of things related to social bonding, and human women specifically evolved the ability to have sex even when they're infertile or already pregnant. A person who says the primary purpose of sex is reproduction probably isn't doing it right.


----------



## RandomUser (May 25, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Riding my skateboard I am fairly confident in saying carries a 100% chance of getting cut and bruised, possibly some broken bones and more besides. Frequently fatal even a century ago, today a minor inconvenience and thus I have a fun activity. Might there be a parallel here?
> 
> What is/who gets to define a primary purpose and might it have changed in the modern world? Why not skip the function and take the reward?
> 
> ...


The issue you're describing is different from the issue at hand. What you're describing is often self inflicted and generally does not end life, especially in modern time. The fetus in this case doesn't have a choice and relies on the mother to make a choice for it. Ending life should not be an option regardless of how it came to be. This abortion fiasco allows one to not have to take consequences regardless of the outcome. People are just simply looking for the easiest way out (not that I can blame them), instead of facing the music.
Except where abortion should only be carried out if in a life and death situation and rape as well, as it was *forced* upon the women.
It is a step in the right direction for artificial womb, and probably be good for women whom have lots of miscarriage via natural way, or am I missing something here?



Lacius said:


> You mean they should find something more _productive_ but less _re-productive_?
> 
> But seriously, my point was that, regardless of the odds of an accidental pregnancy, sex is not consent to be pregnant, *and nothing about the odds nor the possible consequences of one's actions changes that.*


I see what you did their
*That's true, yet people keeps saying it's a ok to keep on doing it*.



Lacius said:


> I'm not sure what your point here is. A person with syphilis, for example, has a right to healthcare and treatment options, regardless of whether or not it's a drug-resistant strain of syphilis.


I didn't imply that nobody has no right to treatment options, they them self can decide for themselves. The fetus or the baby cannot decide. It is like saying it is okay to kill your child because he/she is sick, just because you didn't want to foot the co-pay or whatever.
If the anti-pregnancy countermeasure strategy fails, oh lets just kill it mentality.



Lacius said:


> For some people, the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. For most people, however, the primary purpose of sex is social bonding, pleasure, etc.—in other words, non-reproductive purposes. If you want to look at human sex as a whole on this planet, 99.999% of the sex we're having is for non-reproductive purposes, so that's why I confidently said the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. You need only look at infertile couples, elderly couples, gay couples, etc. to see that the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. The fact that I wouldn't be here if it weren't for sex that resulted in reproduction is irrelevant to sex's primary purpose.
> 
> Honestly, the conversation about the purpose of sex can and should end here, since a thing only has as much purpose as we subjectively give it. However, if you want to talk about the evolution of sex in humans, it should be noted that the evolution of sex in humans happened in conjunction with our evolution to become social animals. Sex is an important part of that social bonding. It's pleasurable, it causes the brain to do all sorts of things related to social bonding, and human women specifically evolved the ability to have sex even when they're infertile or already pregnant. A person who says the primary purpose of sex is reproduction probably isn't doing it right.


I supposed I didn't look at it as a whole. Didn't think about the infertile couples among others. So you may have a point.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> I didn't imply that nobody has no right to treatment options, they them self can decide for themselves. The fetus or the baby cannot decide. It is like saying it is okay to kill your child because he/she is sick, just because you didn't want to foot the co-pay or whatever.
> If the anti-pregnancy countermeasure strategy fails, oh lets just kill it mentality.


The difference is a child is a person, and a fetus is not a person.

If we ignore that difference for a moment, it also doesn't matter. If a person needed to latch onto you physically and share your blood flow for 9.5 months in order to survive, the fact that it's a person still wouldn't violate one's right to bodily autonomy. You have the legal right to say _no_, even if it means that person will die.


----------



## gameboy (May 25, 2018)




----------



## the_randomizer (May 25, 2018)

Really want my opinion? Fine, not holding back: 

- If you've been raped and need to go through healing, therapy and adoption isn't an option, then by all means. That's understandable.
- If people are getting knocked up for the fun of it, and then decide to avoid all responsibilities of raising a child, either wear a condom/take birth control, etc. Don't take the coward's way out if you've been messing around and are trying to avoid all forms  of responsibility of raising a newborn. Yeah, not sorry. 

There, I said it.


----------



## OctolingRift (May 25, 2018)

We are way too overpopulated as it is, we can definitely afford to loose unborn babies.  I don't normally stand with type of stuff but in this case I stand with abortion as we need to keep the population under control.  I _*AM*_ however against 3rd term abortion.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I don't care weather you are for or against, that's just my opinion on the matter


----------



## RandomUser (May 25, 2018)

Lacius said:


> The difference is a child is a person, and a fetus is not a person.
> 
> If we ignore that difference for a moment, it also doesn't matter. If a person needed to latch onto you physically and share your blood flow for 9.5 months in order to survive, the fact that it's a person still wouldn't violate one's right to bodily autonomy. *You have the legal right to say no, even if it means that person will die.*


This I just cannot agree with, *you are condoning outright murder.* I'm not going to judge you, you have your opinion and I have mine.



the_randomizer said:


> Really want my opinion? Fine, not holding back:
> 
> - If you've been raped and need to go through healing, therapy and adoption isn't an option, then by all means. That's understandable.
> - If people are getting knocked up for the fun of it, and then decide to avoid all responsibilities of raising a child, either wear a condom/take birth control, etc. Don't take the coward's way out if you've been messing around and are trying to avoid all forms  of responsibility of raising a newborn. Yeah, not sorry.
> ...


This person gets it. This is the point I have been trying to get across.
However I do like to add that even if pregnancy happens even with condom/drugs, then the responsibility should still rest on the people engaging in such activity. After all a risk is a risk, there is always the bad and the good. You can't have one without the other.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 25, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> This I just cannot agree with, *you are condoning outright murder.* I'm not going to judge you, you have your opinion and I have mine.
> 
> 
> This person gets it. This is the point I have been trying to get across.
> However I do like to add that even if pregnancy happens even with condom/drugs, then the responsibility should still rest on the people engaging in such activity. After all a risk is a risk, there is always the bad and the good. You can't have one without the other.



I didn't want to say that because people would say "well why should the rape victim be responsible for caring for the child?" I can smell that a mile away, but yeah, I'm not a fan of abortion, I don't care what people say about my opinion, I'm just done caring.


----------



## Paulsar99 (May 25, 2018)

Abortion is murder. It's not the kids fault why he/she had shitty parents who doesn't want to raise him. Why does the baby have to die for that?


----------



## DaFixer (May 25, 2018)

I think it's good for some reason, some poeple are not made to have/get children. I see this alot when I was working in a workplace for disable poeple.
I have seen that some off my old co workers get chrilderen and they can't take care off it, and then there is another child's life fuckt up.
Last time I was at a food seller, I saw 2 teens (about +/-15 years old) having a baby....

And I know alot off those disable poeple they are forced to do a sterilization operation, that is a better option then do a abortion.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> This I just cannot agree with, *you are condoning outright murder.* I'm not going to judge you, you have your opinion and I have mine.



By that logic I could be compelled to give up a kidney, slice of my liver, my blood, slice of my skin... any number of organs or slices thereof where I could still function just fine/regrow what was lost.

Volunteer such a thing by all means but I would not care to live in a society where it could be compelled.

"but ending a life"
I am yet to see why I should call it life in that sense.


----------



## RandomUser (May 25, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> By that logic I could be compelled to give up a kidney, slice of my liver, my blood, slice of my skin... any number of organs or slices thereof where I could still function just fine/regrow what was lost.
> 
> Volunteer such a thing by all means but I would not care to live in a society where it could be compelled.
> 
> ...


Way to twist that meaning. I wouldn't like to live in a society where all forms of murder is legal (like on that movie called purge). Again nobody is being *forced* to have sex so their is that.



the_randomizer said:


> I didn't want to say that because people would say "well why should the rape victim be responsible for caring for the child?" I can smell that a mile away, but yeah, I'm not a fan of abortion, I don't care what people say about my opinion, I'm just done caring.


I have heard of withdrawn consent _after_ the consented activity been performed, which is then considered rape. That is what I would consider false rape and would not qualify for abortion. But yeah, I agree with you on this.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> Way to twist that meaning. I wouldn't like to live in a society where all forms of murder is legal (like on that movie called purge). Again nobody is being *forced* to have sex so their is that.


I don't consider that a twisting of meaning or similar such fallacy. Just the logical conclusion of the thing you posted, but if you want to split standards then so be it.

As far as being forced then the biological drive is rather high for most people -- if I walked into my doctor and sought help for losing weight (the drive to eat is also rather high and can come with negatives) they would still help me. Likewise it still does not cover the "so what? why not still provide such things" issue from earlier.

As for the false thing... I would say there is more nuance than that. For one it fails to account for sexual hygiene.


----------



## RandomUser (May 25, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I don't consider that a twisting of meaning or similar such fallacy. Just the logical conclusion of the thing you posted, but if you want to split standards then so be it.
> 
> As far as being forced then the biological drive is rather high for most people -- if I walked into my doctor and sought help for losing weight (the drive to eat is also rather high and can come with negatives) they would still help me. Likewise it still does not cover the "so what? why not still provide such things" issue from earlier.
> 
> As for the false thing... I would say there is more nuance than that. For one it fails to account for sexual hygiene.


That is true, however you're thinking for yourself. an unborn child do not have the option to go to the doctor and what not. So you're okay with killing things that cannot think for themselves, even puppies? So by your logic it is okay to kill a deformed person, just because he/she is deformed or disabled in some ways.
I supposed at this point sterilization will be necessary then.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2018)

I am still not sure the foetus counts as alive or at least should be accorded the same rights in the same way a puppy or deformed person is -- it is a ball of cells (you yourself said it can't think), compared to its host which will likely have had thousands of hours of time, effort and huge volumes of resources invested in them. Equally if I can abide the male chicks being slaughtered and various animal shelters doing their thing I would have to extend that to puppies (by the way that could fall under the appeal to emotion idea, also a puppy may well have some agency of its own).

The deformed person thing goes on a case by case basis and is usually determined by quality of life that they enjoy. Equally yes we or indeed I have stood back or prevented medical intervention that may have allowed certain people to continue living, and I would similarly support euthanasia. As a general societal practice then that requires a lot of thought, probably only exists on the extreme end (I have similarly seen many people with some hideous conditions still manage to enjoy some life which makes "by default" a harder thing), and has a lot of overrides should those with powers have a say.


----------



## YukiYolo (May 25, 2018)

I just wish men had a say say in regards to financial burden since they will never be able to impact whether or not their child is brought to term. This is all totally imbalanced to the point that men really need to be careful.


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 25, 2018)

YukiYolo said:


> I just wish men had a say say in regards to financial burden since they will never be able to impact whether or not their child is brought to term. This is all totally imbalanced to the point that men really need to be careful.


you were teached to be carefull already you know, from the moment you left primary school you know that.
you already been teached about protection, about consequences. maybe you didn't learn about finances, but most likely a child costs more than your parents needed for you.
and since you had chance to learn there...
the girl on the other hand has more to say since she's gonna carry the child in her womb, she'll be the first to feed him, and since the child to be is for 9 months in her body, she gets to get attached to this child to be.
you as a father on the other hand might like or dislike the idea of this child, but you had your chance in thinking about protection.
now if you didn't do it there, you'll gotta understand that everything you do has consequences.
and come on, even the people i know without any degree or diploma, they still could do the finances, just you gotta know what rights you have.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> This I just cannot agree with, *you are condoning outright murder.* I'm not going to judge you, you have your opinion and I have mine.


You can argue that the morally right thing to do in this hypothetical situation is allow the person to be bonded with you in order to save his or her life, and I might even agree with you, but don't call it _murder_ it someone chooses not to.

If a person needs a kidney and is matched to you, it's not murder to say _no_. A person will never be obligated to hand over his or her kidney to someone else, and that's because of one's right to bodily autonomy.

As I've already said, this is all beside the point as well when a fetus is not a person. My above point was that it also wouldn't matter if a fetus were hypothetically a person, which it's not.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 25, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Really want my opinion? Fine, not holding back:
> 
> - If you've been raped and need to go through healing, therapy and adoption isn't an option, then by all means. That's understandable.
> - If people are getting knocked up for the fun of it, and then decide to avoid all responsibilities of raising a child, either wear a condom/take birth control, etc. Don't take the coward's way out if you've been messing around and are trying to avoid all forms  of responsibility of raising a newborn. Yeah, not sorry.
> ...


I don't think _anyone_ gets "knocked up for the fun of it". Yeah, a lot of us have sex because it feels good, and so long as we've had a decent education on sex and protection (which is unfortunately NOT guaranteed in this country), we're careful and use at least two forms of protection, but I have yet to meet a person that gets pregnant just for the thrill of it and then wants to abort past the 22-week threshold


----------



## the_randomizer (May 25, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't think _anyone_ gets "knocked up for the fun of it". Yeah, a lot of us have sex because it feels good, and so long as we've had a decent education on sex and protection (which is unfortunately NOT guaranteed in this country), we're careful and use at least two forms of protection, but I have yet to meet a person that gets pregnant just for the thrill of it and then wants to abort past the 22-week threshold



And then again, I may take back my opinion because it clearly was out of place. Go fig. I still think some people may use it as an excuse to not be responsible and try to wuss their way out of taking care of a child, but whatever. I don't agree with abortion.


----------



## Glyptofane (May 25, 2018)

People are free to do whatever they want regarding abortion as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I'd never again date someone who has had one and would leave them if they did, but that's just my take on it.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> People are free to do whatever they want regarding abortion as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I'd never again date someone who has had one and would leave them if they did, but that's just my take on it.


That sounds like an arbitrary distinction to me. It's like someone saying he or she wouldn't be with someone who has successfully pulled out before.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 25, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> And then again, I may take back my opinion because it clearly was out of place. Go fig. I still think some people may use it as an excuse to not be responsible and try to wuss their way out of taking care of a child, but whatever. I don't agree with abortion.


Come on, dude, you're always so quick to back out of an argument if someone presents something even resembling a disagreement  try either defending your opinion or critically thinking about the alternative, rather than using the "grenade" approach


----------



## the_randomizer (May 25, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Come on, dude, you're always so quick to back out of an argument if someone presents something even resembling a disagreement  try either defending your opinion or critically thinking about the alternative, rather than using the "grenade" approach



Well, abortion is a very sensitive topic, to me, and I just don't see any real point to it. There'a adoption, there are people who can help the people raise the child, there are lots of ways of dealing with rape, and to me, I see abortion as an easy way out. Yes, rape is a serious issue, don't get me wrong, but denying a chance for another human to live by aborting a fetus, to me, just seems wrong. There, that's my two cents, and if people are gonna crap on me for saying abortion is wrong, fine, that's their thing I guess. *sigh*.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Well, abortion is a very sensitive topic, to me, and I just don't see any real point to it. There'a adoption, there are people who can help the people raise the child, there are lots of ways of dealing with rape, and to me, I see abortion as an easy way out.


You're ignoring the physical and emotional burdens of a pregnancy. If you can't use _adoption _as a reason against the use of birth control, then you can't use it as a reason against abortion.



the_randomizer said:


> Yes, rape is a serious issue, don't get me wrong, but denying a chance for another human to live by aborting a fetus, to me, just seems wrong.


Condoms and other types of birth control do just as much, if not more, to _deny a chance for another human to live_. Are you against these things too?



the_randomizer said:


> There, that's my two cents, and if people are gonna crap on me for saying abortion is wrong, fine, that's their thing I guess. *sigh*.


You have as much a right to your vocal opinion as others have to their vocal rebuttals. If you don't like conflict, don't post. Regardless, don't act like a victim.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 25, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Well, abortion is a very sensitive topic, to me, and I just don't see any real point to it. There'a adoption, there are people who can help the people raise the child, there are lots of ways of dealing with rape, and to me, I see abortion as an easy way out. Yes, rape is a serious issue, don't get me wrong, but denying a chance for another human to live by aborting a fetus, to me, just seems wrong. There, that's my two cents, and if people are gonna crap on me for saying abortion is wrong, fine, that's their thing I guess. *sigh*.


Basically what Lacius said in his first two responses :b plus, I hardly seem why abortion being an "easy way out" would be a bad thing, even if it _were_ an easy choice in today's political climate


----------



## the_randomizer (May 25, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Basically what Lacius said in his first two responses :b plus, I hardly seem why abortion being an "easy way out" would be a bad thing, even if it _were_ an easy choice in today's political climate


What's it going to take to get people to agree to disagree? And I didn't see what he said because I have him blocked.


----------



## Glyptofane (May 25, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Well, abortion is a very sensitive topic, to me, and I just don't see any real point to it. There'a adoption, there are people who can help the people raise the child, there are lots of ways of dealing with rape, and to me, I see abortion as an easy way out. Yes, rape is a serious issue, don't get me wrong, but denying a chance for another human to live by aborting a fetus, to me, just seems wrong. There, that's my two cents, and if people are gonna crap on me for saying abortion is wrong, fine, that's their thing I guess. *sigh*.


Try looking at it as a blessing. I'm not going to go into the whole rape angle which may actually be a justifiable excuse, but it represents such an infintesimal percentage of abortions. That's simply not why most people choose to have it done. Generally speaking, most who choose to have an abortion are low grade, selfish, morally defunct monsters who lack the instincts necessary for parenthood. It is a shame for the unborn child, but perhaps they are doing society a favor by preventing one more poorly raised future criminal.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> Try looking at it as a blessing. I'm not going to go into the whole rape angle which may actually be a justifiable excuse, but it represents such an infintesimal percentage of abortions. That's simply not why most people choose to have it done. Generally speaking, most who choose to have an abortion are low grade, selfish, morally defunct monsters who lack the instincts necessary for parenthood. It is a shame for the unborn child, but perhaps they are doing society a favor by preventing one more poorly raised future criminal.


A majority of people (61%) who have abortions are already mothers.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 25, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> What's it going to take to get people to agree to disagree? And I didn't see what he said because I have him blocked.


I fail to see why me stating my opinion in response to yours is in some way more egregious and/or anxiety-inducing than you posting yours in the first place... but, again, in response, so long as people decide that protesting abortion clinics by doing everything from throwing paint at people entering them to _bombing them_ is a viable option, I honestly don't think there's much room for agreeing to disagree, at least on the pro-choice end

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> A majority of people (61%) who have abortions are already mothers.


He does definitely have a point, though, even if his way of stating it was incredibly misguided


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> He does definitely have a point, though, even if his way of stating it was incredibly misguided


Yes, he does have a point that crime plummeted a couple of decades after _Roe v. Wade_ because a lot of women from low socioeconomic backgrounds were no longer mandated to have kids they couldn't take care of. However, that's neither a reason for nor against legal abortion.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 25, 2018)

Lacius said:


> Yes, he does have a point that crime plummeted a couple of decades after _Roe v. Wade_ because a lot of women from low socioeconomic backgrounds were no longer mandated to have kids they couldn't take care of. However, that's neither a reason for nor against legal abortion.


I'd say it's a great case for keeping abortion legal. It just can't be mandatory. Again, it's all about choice


----------



## bitjacker (May 25, 2018)

Having sex without a condom feels better. Thats a good incentive to knock up a lady.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 25, 2018)

bitjacker said:


> Having sex without a condom feels better. Thats a good incentive to knock up a lady.


Fuck off


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 25, 2018)

bitjacker said:


> Having sex without a condom feels better. Thats a good incentive to knock up a lady.


Where is the dislike button.


----------



## osm70 (May 25, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> What's it going to take to get people to agree to disagree? *And I didn't see what he said because I have him blocked.*




This:



Lacius said:


> You're ignoring the physical and emotional burdens of a pregnancy. If you can't use _adoption _as a reason against the use of birth control, then you can't use it as a reason against abortion.
> 
> 
> Condoms and other types of birth control do just as much, if not more, to _deny a chance for another human to live_. Are you against these things too?
> ...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 25, 2018)

osm70 said:


> This:


If you block people you can't see quotes, either. He's going to have to just click the "show ignored content" button


----------



## osm70 (May 25, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If you block people you can't see quotes, either. He's going to have to just click the "show ignored content" button


There: Copied and pasted:

Lacius said:

You're ignoring the physical and emotional burdens of a pregnancy. If you can't use _adoption _as a reason against the use of birth control, then you can't use it as a reason against abortion.


Condoms and other types of birth control do just as much, if not more, to _deny a chance for another human to live_. Are you against these things too?


You have as much a right to your vocal opinion as others have to their vocal rebuttals. If you don't like conflict, don't post. Regardless, don't act like a victim.


----------



## geodeath (May 25, 2018)

DeoNaught said:


> Okay, But it's a life. When you Fuck, you know you are going to have a baby, it's the point of Sex. Sex is so you have a baby, so in their action, they know what's going to happen, and it disgusts me, that "Oh, we'll just have an abortion" like it's _nothing._
> When you have sex, without anything in the middle, you know what is going to happen, it's not like "I put my weenie in your hole, and your having a baby!?!?".
> 
> On raping(Or incest), It's still the same life, "Don''t make the child pay for the Father's sin" works here. it's not the Child's fault he/she got brought into the world by rape, it's not, we shouldn't pin the punishment of death on the Child. But I do think that Rape victims and the like should have Financial, and emotional support(if they need it), If they really don't want the child, I hate to say it, but Orphanage.



Well, in your example though, you pass a miserable fact (the sin of the father for example) to the mother carrying it. How would YOU carry a child knowing it is NOT wanted the way it came? How would you be able to separate yourself emotionally from a born child, even if you don't love it at first and it came as a result of rape? Mothers are not machines to make children. They are people and it is VERY handy for somebody who is not involved to make decisions for others, that do not affect them. It is not YOUR life that will be damaged irreparably but the life of the mother and the child. You essentially pass a bad event down the line. With an abortion, the mother might still feel bad about it but it will cut the 'series of bad events' right at the beginning, where in your suggestion, the mother will always have in her mind that there is a person somewhere that grew up in horrible conditions, without a family and all that BECAUSE of a religious view of the sanctity of life?

I agree with you that abortions should not be used like lollipops or instead of preventative measures (condoms, other forms of protection etc) BUT sex in 2018 is NOT just to make children. Yes, biologically speaking it is. But biologically speaking, we are not supposed to cook food, we are not supposed to shave or cut our hair and we are not supposed to be bathed, cleaned or wear clothes. Not supposed to drive cars or take medicine. All these things happened to make our lives better by giving us *choices*. Abortions are a choice. Not a nice choice at all and don't worry about it, women who abort DO carry it on their mind forever and it is not a decision they take lightly, even if it seems so. But to offset this with an even bigger burden, just because they happen to have a vagina and not a penis and because they crossed the street with a stranger who wants to have non consensual fun, or to bring a child to life only to live off state support in an orphanage, sorry, it is really the wrong thing. You do not correct a bad thing by making 2 new ones, simply because a man or woman in the sky said so.

In the same sense like you say, don't make the woman or the child pay for the sins of the father. Growing up in an institute is no joke. Bringing a child to life that will not be loved in a family or losing its tracks forever is no joke either. When you think of abortions, you have to put the mother in focus first (as she is the victim here), then the child (which is a secondary victim). Any decision that brings more burden and hardships is an unrealistic one and only as good as ostriches putting their head in the sand thinking everything is ok.

If aborting is murder, how come it is not murder to send troops to be killed and how come it is not murder to use the death penalty? Surely if it is murder and a sin, it is an equal murder and sin if you kill a grown up man or a woman. Funny thing is that most pro-life (whose life though - this is what matters) people are strong supporters of gun use and possession, army and trigger happy people and supporters of the death penalty, go figure. Most pro-choice people do not openly advise getting abortions or allowing abortions up to the last minute, but suggest that it is a choice that is carefully allowed within limits for when there are reasons, be it health, support wise or even of a personal choice. Not allowing them at all is one end of the extreme, why go there? We are not advocating going to the other either, just the middle ground where it is right now.

Conservative governments are the ones usually speaking about outlawing abortions but they are the first to cut child support, benefits and other social structures needed to keep this child to life in case we are talking about an abortion because of not being able to afford it (ie single parent, no family, poor etc). If they keep a consistent stance, then we can speak about it. At the moment it is just cherry picking policies to align to party supporters.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 25, 2018)

bitjacker said:


> Having sex without a condom feels better. Thats a good incentive to knock up a lady.



Wow, that's the most bullshit argument I've heard today. Sod off.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> If you block people you can't see quotes, either. He's going to have to just click the "show ignored content" button


I couldn't care less about what he thinks, we had a falling out, why the hell should I care with what he replies?


----------



## SG854 (May 25, 2018)

Lacius said:


> For some people, the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. For most people, however, the primary purpose of sex is social bonding, pleasure, etc.—in other words, non-reproductive purposes. If you want to look at human sex as a whole on this planet, 99.999% of the sex we're having is for non-reproductive purposes, so that's why I confidently said the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. You need only look at infertile couples, elderly couples, gay couples, etc. to see that the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. The fact that I wouldn't be here if it weren't for sex that resulted in reproduction is irrelevant to sex's primary purpose.
> 
> Honestly, the conversation about the purpose of sex can and should end here, since a thing only has as much purpose as we subjectively give it. However, if you want to talk about the evolution of sex in humans, it should be noted that the evolution of sex in humans happened in conjunction with our evolution to become social animals. Sex is an important part of that social bonding. It's pleasurable, it causes the brain to do all sorts of things related to social bonding, and human women specifically evolved the ability to have sex even when they're infertile or already pregnant. A person who says the primary purpose of sex is reproduction probably isn't doing it right.



I don’t think Durex Performax Intense condoms was available to our ancestors Australopithecus Africanus.

Most sex was done without any pills or birth control stuff we have today. So you  always had a risk of pregnancy. So a lot of sex was for reproduction. And people had an average of 9 kids back then.

Having as many kids as you can increased the survival chance of our species when population was lower. And when kids had higher chance of dying because of predators, harsh environment, and low food. Populations didn’t really explode until recently during the agriculture revolution.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I don’t think Durex Performax Intense condoms was available to our ancestors Australopithecus Africanus.
> 
> Most sex was done without any pills or birth control stuff we have today. So you  always had a risk of pregnancy. So a lot of sex was for reproduction. And people had an average of 9 kids back then.
> 
> Having as many kids as you can increased the survival chance of our species when population was lower. And when kids had higher chance of dying because of predators, harsh environment, and low food. Populations didn’t really explode until recently during the agriculture revolution.


Not that any of this is relevant to whether or not abortion should be legal, but it's highly unlikely that there was any point in human history when, globally, sex wasn't for non-reproductive purposes 99.9% of the time, despite what the pregnancy risk was or how many kids women gave birth to. A lot of the sex that has occurred throughout all of human history has also had a 0% chance of pregnancy, including but not limited to sex while the woman isn't ovulating, infertility, menopause, homosexuality, sex acts that aren't PIV, and sex while the woman is already pregnant.

While the primary purpose of sex may vary from person to person or even encounter to encounter, the primary purpose of human sex worldwide is definitely not reproduction, and it never has been.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2018)

Blocking people on a site like this feels akin to admitting defeat but play it how you will.



the_randomizer said:


> What's it going to take to get people to agree to disagree?


If you are advocating for legal changes to a very useful concept or that their morality/ethics are seriously questionable then quite a lot. You are almost inevitably going to have to start from the fundamentals of why you might hold the position you do, and as a common one here is "it's life" which is something I find to be quite absurd (from where I sit then it is merely the potential to be life, and if you are going to advocate for other methods then I am curious why sperm and eggs are free to be blocked and destroyed all you like but fertilisation or possibly implantation somehow changes things) then it tends to take a little while.
Sadly a lot of the fundamental differences in base position boil down to "I just believe", "I was raised" or "because my religion (or the interpretation I was told to have of it) apparently says so" which is not very persuasive but I press on in the hope that something else may arise. We started getting somewhere in the "what is life?", "is life a meaningful term?" and "what is suffering and is that a better metric?" discussions but they seem to have stalled for the time being.


There are debates where we can differ on percentages, likelihoods and more in our considerations and numbers we run where we try to figure out how to maximise benefits for a given cost, possibly going on to figure out where the savings would be better spent or levels of acceptable harms (ethics is so very rarely easy). Some had something like that here when discussing time limits and edge cases but if you are starting with a fundamentally different assessment of the situation then we are back to figuring out why the positions held are the ones being held. I can't speak for others but never the less feel comfortable bundling them in this but I want to hear something new as far as arguments/reasoning, I want to see a solid run of reasoning whether it aligns with my own or not, I want someone to take a run at mine and attempt to show where my reasoning might be flawed, where the reasoning used by the governing structures might be flawed or in need of refinement and so forth. A good way to do that is if someone posts a brief assessment or statement of their opinions that you start pulling it apart, posing hypotheticals that might show a flaw or contradiction in the reasoning given, and it seems many are doing just that. Being as that is arguably the point of a discussion/debate then yeah.


----------



## bitjacker (May 25, 2018)

Ok what are you going to do to get people to use rubbers? ask them nicely? You gonna rally like minded people to beg the government to take away peoples freedom? Anyone who is not presenting the solution should refrain from commenting. Go ahead and tell me off. you are so tough sitting behind your computer. pussy.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2018)

Does there need to be a "solution", and indeed is it a concept that can even see one? An idea of the thoughts, logic and discussion current state of affairs is, or at least could be, a useful thing and we have seemingly have that, debates as to the usefulness may have to be left for later.


----------



## PoppaDre (May 25, 2018)

I think it’s stupid used as birth control. Shouldn’t be used by girls who don’t use other forms of protection. But also I don’t want a kid. At least not yet so I’m for it if it is in my favour. Otherwise I’d rather it didn’t happen. But there are also stupid people out there that should be sterilized. But that’s another topic


----------



## FAST6191 (May 25, 2018)

While I agree this would be a fine example of "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure", and similarly would absolutely encourage the use of viable preventative methods and chastise someone for using it as their primary means, I can't get beyond it being a quick and easy medical procedure, one about as morally troubling as going to the dentist. The very same logic that allows it to happen in the first place (it optionally not being counted as life for the purposes of medicine) would seem to lead to that position.


----------



## bitjacker (May 25, 2018)

Why is there so much value placed on a life? People get murdered all the time.


----------



## x65943 (May 25, 2018)

bitjacker said:


> Why is there so much value placed on a life? People get murdered all the time.


yes, but murder is illegal. 

I really don't understand your point. 

If you're equating abortion to murder, then they should be punished equally.

(Not my own opinion, just the logical conclusion of yours)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 25, 2018)

bitjacker said:


> Ok what are you going to do to get people to use rubbers? ask them nicely? You gonna rally like minded people to beg the government to take away peoples freedom? Anyone who is not presenting the solution should refrain from commenting. Go ahead and tell me off. you are so tough sitting behind your computer. pussy.


I have a great idea that everyone is going to hate for some reason:

Just give the suckers out for free. No, seriously. It works. Other countries have proven it. Just make it part of a public health initiative to pass out free birth control


----------



## guitarheroknight (May 26, 2018)

Abortion is tricky. But everyone should be able to do whatever they want to do with their own body.


----------



## bitjacker (May 26, 2018)

Is a life that is dependent on its host any less of a life? Is a person who has been born who needs meds to survive any less a citizen? Tell me the logic. Who gets to be the decider? We (humans everywhere) are screwed if we let insurance be a decider. My pops needs oxygen. The va decides his fate. Someday when I am ill they will decide mine too. With abortion illegal, there will still be abortions happening in bad ways that kill both host and parasite (or mother and baby).
No solution. Legalization equals insurance being a decider on who gets to live. Illegal equals a black market.
I guess I dont know what to think about anyones stance because it is a sort of a paradox. The government needs no power over our lives.


----------



## Smoker1 (May 26, 2018)

Should ONLY be for Victims of Rape, Incest, or if the Pregnancy will result in harm to the Mother and/or the Baby. That's it.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (May 26, 2018)

I am fully pro life, except for @garyopa's parents. He should have been aborted.


----------



## emigre (May 26, 2018)

Interesting seeing this thread as it looks like Ireland have voted to liberalise their abortion laws in a landslide. Catholicism's grip on Irish society is slipping hard and fast.

Personally, I'm pro-choice. I think women should have the right to be able to access safe legal abortions and have the support if they choose to continue the pregnancy. I wouldn't judge anyone if they decided to have an abortion, making a decision like that is hard and one I'm glad I won't ever be in.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (May 26, 2018)

Anti-abortion campaign concedes defeat in Ireland

see: https://news.sky.com/story/irish-abortion-vote-live-we-will-make-history-11385747


----------



## emigre (May 26, 2018)

Now that's what I call the will of the people! The general thinking was it would be very close. I don't think anyone foresaw the landslide.


----------



## elliwigy (May 26, 2018)

it should be for whatever the mother decides to do with her own body..

one day there will be so many ppl in the world abortions will be mandatory lol


Smoker1 said:


> Should ONLY be for Victims of Rape, Incest, or if the Pregnancy will result in harm to the Mother and/or the Baby. That's it.



If you're not first you're last!


----------



## FAST6191 (May 26, 2018)

Interesting results in Republic of Ireland. I did also wonder what would happen. Breakdown of the results seems within reason as well.


bitjacker said:


> Is a life that is dependent on its host any less of a life? Is a person who has been born who needs meds to survive any less a citizen? Tell me the logic. Who gets to be the decider? We (humans everywhere) are screwed if we let insurance be a decider. My pops needs oxygen. The va decides his fate. Someday when I am ill they will decide mine too. With abortion illegal, there will still be abortions happening in bad ways that kill both host and parasite (or mother and baby).
> No solution. Legalization equals insurance being a decider on who gets to live. Illegal equals a black market.
> I guess I dont know what to think about anyones stance because it is a sort of a paradox. The government needs no power over our lives.


Is it a life in the first place?
Even if it was though I would usually use suffering that might be caused to host and parasite, capacity for choice and the like to start to make decisions. "less of a life" is then a fairly meaningless concept here for me.

Citizen? Do you mean person? I am not sure it is a particularly useful thought experiment and if running through the suffering thing before -- before a certain point the foetus lacks the capacity to feel things, presumably have any kind of thoughts and so forth.

I don't think insurance particularly decides abortions and ethics thereof, I imagine they are pretty much for it though (simple and cheap procedure vs the cost of a pregnancy, far higher and more serious complications and the whole birth thing -- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/why-does-it-cost-32093-just-to-give-birth-in-america ). Similarly many places seem to do abortions for out of pocket type charging scenarios and thus insurance is not involved. Though I would agree if you allow a concern to handle healthcare decisions that is primarily interested in its bottom line it is going to get messy, as indeed it demonstrably has.


----------



## Sheimi (May 26, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I have a great idea that everyone is going to hate for some reason:
> 
> Just give the suckers out for free. No, seriously. It works. Other countries have proven it. Just make it part of a public health initiative to pass out free birth control


But then big pharma wouldn't get any money.

I couldn't have kids because it would kill me. It is up to the mother who wants a abortion.


----------



## RandomUser (May 28, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I am still not sure the foetus counts as alive or at least should be accorded the same rights in the same way a puppy or deformed person is -- it is a ball of cells (you yourself said it can't think), compared to its host which will likely have had thousands of hours of time, effort and huge volumes of resources invested in them. Equally if I can abide the male chicks being slaughtered and various animal shelters doing their thing I would have to extend that to puppies (by the way that could fall under the appeal to emotion idea, also a puppy may well have some agency of its own).
> 
> The deformed person thing goes on a case by case basis and is usually determined by quality of life that they enjoy. Equally yes we or indeed I have stood back or prevented medical intervention that may have allowed certain people to continue living, and I would similarly support euthanasia. As a general societal practice then that requires a lot of thought, probably only exists on the extreme end (I have similarly seen many people with some hideous conditions still manage to enjoy some life which makes "by default" a harder thing), and has a lot of overrides should those with powers have a say.


Well, I was going by your previous reply based on the logic that you presented in your previous reply. It sounded like even if a child have a cleft lip, the mother has the right to kill the child even thought it is treatable/fixable via surgery. Perhaps I may have misinterpreted but that is what it sounded like to me.



Lacius said:


> You can argue that the morally right thing to do in this hypothetical situation is allow the person to be bonded with you in order to save his or her life, and I might even agree with you, but don't call it _murder_ it someone chooses not to.
> 
> If a person needs a kidney and is matched to you, it's not murder to say _no_. A person will never be obligated to hand over his or her kidney to someone else, and that's because of one's right to bodily autonomy.
> 
> As I've already said, this is all beside the point as well when a fetus is not a person. My above point was that it also wouldn't matter if a fetus were hypothetically a person, which it's not.


Well, this time you presented your point across better then all the previous reply, but I still stand by my own opinion that abortion is not needed. Even though that @TotalInsanity4 brought up some good points about the child will treat themselves as a punishment, but I hold no sympathy for the mother. Keep in mind that abortion could really throw the women in for a spin as far as hormone department goes.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 28, 2018)

kindda ironic how conservitives (some of them not all) are pro war without provocation but are against abortion talk about a double standard, like Iraq had initially no part of 9/11 but we attacked them anyways which was a bad move cause it led to IS rise to power in the region due to instability


----------



## Lacius (May 28, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> Well, this time you presented your point across better then all the previous reply, but I still stand by my own opinion that abortion is not needed. Even though that @TotalInsanity4 brought up some good points about the child will treat themselves as a punishment, but I hold no sympathy for the mother. Keep in mind that abortion could really throw the women in for a spin as far as hormone department goes.


Really, this whole conversation can be distilled down to a few quick points.

Do you think abortion should be legal? Your opinion about abortion doesn't concern me nearly as much as your opinion about abortion law.
If no, how can you reconcile a world where one cannot receive a legal abortion but also isn't legally mandated to donate kidneys?
In addition, how can you argue that a fetus is a person without citing a religious belief, which would in essence be legislating your religious beliefs onto others?
That's really all there is to it.


----------



## RandomUser (May 28, 2018)

Lacius said:


> Really, this whole conversation can be distilled down to a few quick points.
> 
> Do you think abortion should be legal? Your opinion about abortion doesn't concern me nearly as much as your opinion about abortion law.
> If no, how can you reconcile a world where one cannot receive a legal abortion but also isn't legally mandated to donate kidneys?
> ...


Lacius, give it up already, you're not going to change my opinion law or no, I even stated in previous post that in certain circumstances abortion is okay, go back and re-read it if you want. As much as you're trying to shove your opinion down my throat, you're failing miserably at it. Their is other preventive measure that can be taken place and ergo renders abortion not needed, except for that said certain circumstances.
as far as 3. is concerned, umm, the child is the fetus? Seriously everyone knows this. Heck even you started out as a fetus, no need to cite religious belief when it is proven by observable reality.


----------



## Lacius (May 28, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> Lacius, give it up already, you're not going to change my opinion law or no, I even stated in previous post that in certain circumstances abortion is okay, go back and re-read it if you want. As much as you're trying to shove your opinion down my throat, you're failing miserably at it.


My primary goal isn't to change your opinion. My goal is to understand where you're coming from, hence the questions. If you're going to call my posts _shoving my opinion down your throat_, you should a.) look in a mirror, because I haven't done anything you haven't done, and b.) get out of the _discourse_ business.



RandomUser said:


> Their is other preventive measure that can be taken place and ergo renders abortion not needed, except for that said certain circumstances.


Contraception is rarely 100% effective, and there are many reasons why a pregnancy might need to be terminated despite not using contraception.



RandomUser said:


> as far as 3. is concerned, umm, the child is the fetus? Seriously everyone knows this. Heck even you started out as a fetus, no need to cite religious belief when it is proven by observable reality.


It's not as simple as you think. When does something become a _child_? Is it when the sperm hits the egg? Is it when the baby is born? Is it when unspecialized cells become specialized? Is an embryo consisting of eight cells a child? If I have an embryo in a petri dish, is that a child? If I have a sperm and egg in a petri dish, seconds away from coming together, is that a child? I started out as all of these things, so I'm not sure where you're drawing the line.

I would honestly love to continue having this polite conversation with you. However, in order to be able to do that, you are going to need to do two things for me:

Please don't hypocritically say I'm shoving my opinion down anybody's throat, particularlly when the post you're responding to merely asks three questions.
Please answer the questions in this post and my last one.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 28, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> Keep in mind that abortion could really throw the women in for a spin as far as hormone department goes.


Not to be crass, but there are a lot of things that can throw a lot of people's hormones for a spin. Again, that's why services like Exhale exist


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

Jayro said:


> Abortions RULE! We need them, and they need to be mandatory for people with more than 2 kids on welfare. We're over-populated as fuck, so we should start regulating babies like China does. Besides, kids are annoying fuckbags anyways. They're gross, whiny, needy, they stink, they're dumber than rocks, and expensive as fuck to raise. No thanks... ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!


You were a kid once lmao abortion should be legal but not mandatory and to do with the father situation that is simply not right


----------



## Lacius (May 28, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Not to be crass, but there are a lot of things that can throw a lot of people's hormones for a spin. Again, that's why services like Exhale exist


Oh, thank you. I meant to respond to this but got distracted.



RandomUser said:


> Keep in mind that abortion could really throw the women in for a spin as far as hormone department goes.


I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, so please note that I'm not accusing you of anything nor putting words in your mouth, but I can think of two likely options.

You're arguing that abortion has a detrimental physiological effect on women, despite a.) abortion being proven time and time again to be a relatively safe medical procedure, and b.) abortion being much safer than pregnancy/childbirth.
You're arguing that abortion leads to hormonal changes that have an effect on the emotional state of women, and since women can't be trusted with getting overly emotional, legal abortion shouldn't exist.
I really hope you meant the former.


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

Think about this, If you crush an egg moments before a chick comes out its its fine but the moment it does it's murder


----------



## RandomUser (May 28, 2018)

Lacius said:


> My primary goal isn't to change your opinion. My goal is to understand where you're coming from, hence the questions. If you're going to call my posts _shoving my opinion down your throat_, you should a.) look in a mirror, because I haven't done anything you haven't done, and b.) get out of the _discourse_ business.


*a.) look in a mirror, because I haven't done anything you haven't done*
Are sure about that?
*b.) get out of the discourse business.*
My my who died and made you king? Did you kill your own king to become one?
*My goal is to understand where you're coming from*
Answered your question as well, so what are you missing?



Lacius said:


> Contraception is rarely 100% effective, and there are many reasons why a pregnancy might need to be terminated despite not using contraception.


Sure their is, it just not practice very much today like it was back then.



Lacius said:


> It's not as simple as you think. When does something become a _child_? Is it when the sperm hits the egg? Is it when the baby is born? Is it when unspecialized cells become specialized? Is an embryo consisting of eight cells a child? If I have an embryo in a petri dish, is that a child? If I have a sperm and egg in a petri dish, seconds away from coming together, is that a child? I started out as all of these things, so I'm not sure where you're drawing the line.
> 
> I would honestly love to continue having this polite conversation with you. However, in order to be able to do that, you are going to need to do two things for me:
> 
> ...


Therein lies the problem, no one really knows. So it is better to assume life, even if not yet developed.
As for the questions, Already did answered your questions.
To be frank I'm glad their is some form of laws regarding to abortion, especially beyond the 22 weeks maternity. Having some laws is better then having none. If we had no laws, then it would be possible for women to have abortion even in their last trimester. At 24 weeks it is possible for the fetus to feel pain. However they *may* begin to feel something in as little as 7.5 and 15 weeks of pregnancy, at least for the receptors to develop.
Again I will repeat: The child or fetus cannot think for themselves, whereas the donor can and are generally are informed of the choice. The fetus cannot be informed of the choice to live or die, and yet the people engaging the activity are informed of the possible of pregnancy. Their is 100% way to prevent pregnancy, however it appears that nobody practice that anymore.
Does this help further answer your question?


Lacius said:


> Oh, thank you. I meant to respond to this but got distracted.
> 
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, so please note that I'm not accusing you of anything nor putting words in your mouth, but I can think of two likely options.
> ...


Welp I guess that went over your head. Re-read my previous reply, I did say abortion is okay for certain circumstances, not okay for recreational uses. I don't know how you missed that.


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Pregnancy IS a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. Not a punishment, but it is a potential consequence. Simple cause and effect of the human condition. You can inject laws and medical procedures to erase that consequence, but if one party to creating the pregnancy is allowed by law to end the consequence to themselves, then the other party should have that same opportunity. That approach IS morally consistent. If a pregnancy results from consensual sex then the woman has the choice to terminate the pregnancy and her parental obligation, within the conditions set by law. The male should have the same opportunity, but I didn't say it was absolute. If he is informed of the pregnancy, he should have a limited time in which to decide if he's going to be on board. Maybe a month. Maybe less. If he doesn't opt out before the time runs out, then he's "in," irrevocably, for parental rights, child support, etc. If he decides he doesn't want to take part in raising the child or providing financial support for the child, then he's out, but she still has the choice to have the baby or not. They both took part in the consensual act that created the pregnancy. If one has the right to decide whether it affects their future or not, that choice should extend to both. Nothing sexist about it. If anything, the way things work now is "incredibly sexist."


Males shouldn't be able to force an abortion but they should be able to give up visitation and child support and the mother should have the same opertunity both parties should agree on abortion


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 28, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> Sure their is, it just not practice very much today like it was back then.


You... Actually think there was a time when abstinence was actually practiced?...


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You... Actually think there was a time when abstinence was actually practiced?...


Uh yes


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 28, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> Uh yes


Oof


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oof


Lol you didn't specify by how many and for how long


----------



## Axido (May 28, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> Lol you didn't specify by how many and for how long



Fair point tbh.


----------



## netovsk (May 28, 2018)

Next thing I know we are talking about not ejaculating for reasons other than to procreate and treating wasted sperm as potential "great citizens" of the future.

Weird right? This is how the conservative agenda goes on, inch by inch advancing against individual liberties.

The fact that some people are considering reasonable arresting women for abortion goes beyond reason. Are they arresting the potential father too? Or is it supposed to be only against women?

If i'm not mistaken the reason abortion was made legal in the United States was because women would abort anyways, so they better do it with the proper medical attention rather than with a butcher (for those who are poor).

Seeing this kind of discussion in 2018 makes feel like we are winding the clock back half a century.


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

netovsk said:


> Next thing I know we are talking about not ejaculating for reasons other than to procreate and treating wasted sperm as potential "great citizens" of the future.
> 
> Weird right? This is how the conservative agenda goes on, inch by inch advancing against individual liberties.
> 
> ...


As a rule of thumb as soon as it can do anything a living organism can do it's a living organism and it becomes murder


----------



## Lacius (May 28, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> Are sure about that?


I'm very sure, yes.



RandomUser said:


> My my who died and made you king? Did you kill your own king to become one?


My point was that if you don't want to hear my thoughts on something, don't participate in _discourse_, the exchange of thoughts and ideas. It's not an unreasonable point to make.



RandomUser said:


> Answered your question as well, so what are you missing?


You skipped a lot of my questions.



RandomUser said:


> Sure their is, it just not practice very much today like it was back then.


I'm a strong proponent of contraception and will tout its efficacy all day long if provoked, but I'd like to hear about your magical contraception method that is 100% effective, easily accessible to all socioeconomic backgrounds, and effectively ends any need for an abortion. Two quick points:

That's not going to happen, as a world with such a method of contraception still doesn't account for cases of pregnancy that were initially intended, becoming pregnant during a sexual encounter against one's will, etc.
If _abstinence_ is your magical contraception method, you're mistaken. It might work for some people, and it's a perfectly fine thing to choose for oneself, but as far as its efficacy on society, it's one of the worst forms of birth control. It was also never widely practiced.



RandomUser said:


> Therein lies the problem, no one really knows. So it is better to assume life, even if not yet developed.


Ignoring for a second that the time personhood begins is irrelevant because one's right to bodily autonomy still exists, I have a couple points to make:

We don't make policy based on imaginary things that might or might not exist.
If you can't answer the question about when something becomes a child, then you probably shouldn't advocate for policy that's contingent upon such a definition. If you're going to impose restrictions on reproductive rights, such a classification needs to be defined. Depending on how you answer the question, pulling out could be illegal.



RandomUser said:


> As for the questions, Already did answered your questions.


You didn't answer some of my questions. I'll repeat the ones you didn't answer, if you want me to.



RandomUser said:


> To be frank I'm glad their is some form of laws regarding to abortion, especially beyond the 22 weeks maternity. Having some laws is better then having none. If we had no laws, then it would be possible for women to have abortion even in their last trimester. At 24 weeks it is possible for the fetus to feel pain. However they may begin to feel something in as little as 7.5 and 15 weeks of pregnancy, at least for the receptors to develop.


Are you saying now that it's not a child before 22-24 weeks of pregnancy? I'm confused where you stand.



RandomUser said:


> Again I will repeat: The child or fetus cannot think for themselves, whereas the donor can and are generally are informed of the choice.


You seem to have misunderstood the comparison. The organ donor is analogous to the pregnant woman, not the fetus. The person who needs the organ transplant to live is analogous to the fetus.

Edit: You're touting the importance of the donor to become informed of the choice and make the choice himself/herself. Considering the donor is analogous to the pregnant woman, that's kind of my points.



RandomUser said:


> Their is 100% way to prevent pregnancy, however it appears that nobody practice that anymore.


As I said above, abstinence is a perfectly fine choice to make. However, we've evolved to have sex, and it's a good thing one shouldn't deprive oneself of if he or she wants to have it. Considering the biological drive that exists to have sex, it's unrealistic to say the existence of abstinence as a choice is reason enough not to have legal abortion. It works for some individuals, but abstinence is a failure globally.



RandomUser said:


> Does this help further answer your question?
> 
> Welp I guess that went over your head. Re-read my previous reply, I did say abortion is okay for certain circumstances, not okay for recreational uses. I don't know how you missed that.


You skipped a lot of my questions about when something becomes a child, rationalizing a worldview that forbids abortion but allows for voluntary organ donation, etc.


----------



## netovsk (May 28, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> As a rule of thumb as soon as it can do anything a living organism can do it's a living organism and it becomes murder



I just murdered a fly a few days ago.

Now honestly I think it's too easy for us men to discuss about that. Are we the ones carrying the fetus inside us?

Hell many men aren't even responsible enough to provide for their children. They just move away from any obligations as a father. 

A pregnant woman has little choice and still risks hurting her career or plans, amongst other things.

Shouldn't we discuss mass adoption of abandoned children before we decide if women should be treated as criminals for abortion?

If you found out your mother aborted before she had you, would you be ok with her being arrested for years?


----------



## Lacius (May 28, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> Males shouldn't be able to force an abortion but they should be able to give up visitation and child support and the mother should have the same opertunity both parties should agree on abortion


Males do not and should not have any legal say-so regarding whether or not a woman can have an abortion. It's not his body.



netovsk said:


> Now honestly I think it's too easy for us men to discuss about that. Are we the ones carrying the fetus inside us?
> 
> Hell many men aren't even responsible enough to provide for their children. They just move away from any obligations as a father.
> 
> ...


If men could get pregnant, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Abortion would be as uncontroversial as the legal consumption of salads.


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

netovsk said:


> I just murdered a fly a few days ago.
> 
> Now honestly I think it's too easy for us men to discuss about that. Are we the ones carrying the fetus inside us?
> 
> ...


I never said it was ok heust


Lacius said:


> Males do not and should not have any legal say-so regarding whether or not a woman can have an abortion. It's not his body.
> 
> 
> If men could get pregnant, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Abortion would be as uncontroversial as the legal consumption of salads.


You are killing his child though


----------



## Lacius (May 28, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> You are killing his child though


A couple of points:

It's not a child. It's an embryo or a fetus.
Even if it were a fully formed four year-old boy who could say _Hi Daddy,_ the mother has a right to bodily autonomy. You can't force her to carry the man's _child_ anymore than you can force her to give her kidney to his child. The man has no legal rights regarding the pregnancy.


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

Lacius said:


> A couple of points:
> 
> It's not a child. It's an embryo or a fetus.
> Even if it were a fully formed four year-old boy who could say _Hi Daddy,_ the mother has a right to bodily autonomy. You can't force her to carry the man's _child_ anymore than you can force her to give her kidney to his child. The man has no legal rights regarding the pregnancy.


Fine fucking future child are you some fucking child killer who wants parents to make his life easier


----------



## Lacius (May 28, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> Fine fucking future child are you some fucking child killer who wants parents to make his life easier


I didn't understand a word of what you were trying to say.


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

Lacius said:


> I didn't understand a word of what you were trying to say.


I said I meant future child and you probably know it and your so pro abortion you sound like a child killer who wants parents to help


----------



## netovsk (May 28, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> Fine fucking future child are you some fucking child killer who wants parents to make his life easier



You see this is what is so hard about defending individual liberties.

You just labeled whoever is pro-choice a "child killer".

It's hard to have a healthy discussion when it goes this way.

So if I defend legal recreational drugs does that make me a hardcore stoner? 

Or maybe just a concerned citizen that came to realize that the war against drugs failed?


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

netovsk said:


> You see this is what is so hard about defending individual liberties.
> 
> You just labeled whoever is pro-choice a "child killer".
> 
> ...


I'm pro choice but lol he forces it down your throat saying it's not your child and shit like that I proposed a solution that allows for abortion and allows the woman's career to progress


----------



## Lacius (May 28, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> I said I meant future child and you probably know it and your so pro abortion you sound like a child killer who wants parents to help


I don't want children to die. I don't believe a fetus is a child.

I also don't believe that a person's bodily autonomy should be violated. This means a woman can't be forced by the state and/or father to carry a pregnancy to term, and since a fetus isn't a person, it's not that big a deal. This also means a person cannot be forced by the state to donate one's organs.



tunip3 said:


> I'm pro choice but lol he forces it down your throat saying it's not your child and shit like that I proposed a solution that allows for abortion and allows the woman's career to progress


If you're going to say a fetus is a child, you need to show me. Otherwise, what I'm saying isn't terribly controversial, by definition.

If a person wants to use a religious belief to argue that a fetus is a child, that's fine, and I'm probably not going to argue against that, but we don't legislate religious beliefs onto others, so there's no need for me to argue against it.


----------



## tunip3 (May 28, 2018)

Lacius said:


> I don't want children to die. I don't believe a fetus is a child.
> 
> I also don't believe that a person's bodily autonomy should be violated. This means a woman can't be forced by the state and/or father to carry a pregnancy to term, and since a fetus isn't a person, it's not that big a deal. This also means a person cannot be forced by the state to donate one's organs.
> 
> ...


All I said was a soon as living organism does something a living organism does its alive


----------



## Lacius (May 28, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> All I said was a soon as living organism does something a living organism does its alive


Are you saying that we should have laws protecting all living organisms no matter what? I don't follow.

Edit: That's also not all you said. You advocated for some crazy policies, including letting a man choose if a woman has an abortion, and that and other things are what I responded to.


----------



## Chary (May 28, 2018)

It takes two to tango, so both parties are responsible. But at the end of the day, the guy doesn't have to basically suffer for 9 months straight. So, much as the male might want the kid, it doesn't matter, even if it's sad, because the female should totally have the right to control what goes down in her body.

Really though, they shoulda used contraceptives from the outset in this hypothetical situation. Abortion makes me uncomfortable, but a third party controlling what I'm able to theoretically do with my body makes me even more uncomfortable.


----------



## tunip3 (May 29, 2018)

Lacius said:


> Are you saying that we should have laws protecting all living organisms no matter what? I don't follow.
> 
> Edit: That's also not all you said. You advocated for some crazy policies, including letting a man choose if a woman has an abortion, and that and other things are what I responded to.


How do you feel about this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research
 Tbh honest I think something like this https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjACegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw06qMdV_iK79QzIbZ6m3NbB would be ideal as well the father can have a child but the mother doesn't have to go through child birth


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 29, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> How do you feel about this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research
> Tbh honest I think something like this https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjACegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw06qMdV_iK79QzIbZ6m3NbB would be ideal as well the father can have a child but the mother doesn't have to go through child birth


That's the ideal scenario, but only if pro-lifers re-instate the ability to remove a fetus intact and the father pledges a legal oath to raise the child as his own even if he is a single parent


----------



## lordkaos (May 29, 2018)

if people care so much about potential life, then why don't they make the same ruckus about fertilized eggs being freezed in cryogenic labs, most of them won't be used.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 29, 2018)

lordkaos said:


> if people care so much about potential life, then why don't they make the same ruckus about fertilized eggs being freezed in cryogenic labs, most of them won't be used.


A lot of them do. And even if they don't there's still the argument that they COULD be viable, still. That "potential" hasn't been squandered


----------



## RandomUser (May 29, 2018)

Lacius said:


> I'm a strong proponent of contraception and will tout its efficacy all day long if provoked, but I'd like to hear about your magical contraception method that is 100% effective, easily accessible to all socioeconomic backgrounds, and effectively ends any need for an abortion. Two quick points:
> 
> That's not going to happen, as a world with such a method of contraception still doesn't account for cases of pregnancy that were initially intended, becoming pregnant during a sexual encounter against one's will, etc.
> If _abstinence_ is your magical contraception method, you're mistaken. It might work for some people, and it's a perfectly fine thing to choose for oneself, but as far as its efficacy on society, it's one of the worst forms of birth control. It was also never widely practiced.


There is another option, but it would violate the bodily autonomy that you have been preaching.



Lacius said:


> Ignoring for a second that the time personhood begins is irrelevant because one's right to bodily autonomy still exists, I have a couple points to make:
> 
> We don't make policy based on imaginary things that might or might not exist.
> If you can't answer the question about when something becomes a child, then you probably shouldn't advocate for policy that's contingent upon such a definition. If you're going to impose restrictions on reproductive rights, such a classification needs to be defined. Depending on how you answer the question, pulling out could be illegal.



We also don't make policy based on the unknown either.
The same could be said about you, you shouldn't promote, see two can play this game, it goes both ways. Because I doubt you know either.



Lacius said:


> Are you saying now that it's not a child before 22-24 weeks of pregnancy? I'm confused where you stand.


Who me? Of course not. The law did or whom ever wrote the law. I didn't create the law, I don't know why you thought I did. Like I have stated before, a law is better then no law, making compromises here I guess.



Lacius said:


> You seem to have misunderstood the comparison. The organ donor is analogous to the pregnant woman, not the fetus. The person who needs the organ transplant to live is analogous to the fetus.


That true, but in this case it doesn't help both parties here, the fetus has to die. In organ donation, the organ(s) are not wasted and put to use, by another person needing the said transplant. But if you put it that way, I guess there isn't much of a difference.



Lacius said:


> As I said above, abstinence is a perfectly fine choice to make. However, we've evolved to have sex, and it's a good thing one shouldn't deprive oneself of if he or she wants to have it. Considering the biological drive that exists to have sex, it's unrealistic to say the existence of abstinence as a choice is reason enough not to have legal abortion. It works for some individuals, but abstinence is a failure globally.


You're pro abortion, good for you. More power to you I guess.



Lacius said:


> You skipped a lot of my questions about when something becomes a child, rationalizing a worldview that forbids abortion but allows for voluntary organ donation, etc.


Well, we sure have come to a complete circle. Yes, I have answered these questions, you're simply refusing to acknowledge it or just don't like the answer.
Good day sir.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> You... Actually think there was a time when abstinence was actually practiced?...


Okay, after re-reading my post, I realized I didn't word it very well.
But yes, perhaps back in ancient times and mostly for religious belief.


----------



## JellyPerson (May 29, 2018)

Lacius said:


> Even if it were a fully formed four year-old boy who could say _Hi Daddy,_ the mother has a right to bodily autonomy.


b-b-b-but lacius-sama does this mean i can legally kill my 4 year old child if i were a mother with a four year old kid?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 29, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> That true, but in this case it doesn't help both parties here, the fetus has to die. In organ donation, the organ(s) are not wasted and put to use, by another person needing the said transplant. But if you put it that way, I guess there isn't much of a difference.


So we have a dead foetus. Is that something of value that was lost?



RandomUser said:


> "As I said above, abstinence is a perfectly fine choice to make. However, we've evolved to have sex, and it's a good thing one shouldn't deprive oneself of if he or she wants to have it. Considering the biological drive that exists to have sex, it's unrealistic to say the existence of abstinence as a choice is reason enough not to have legal abortion. It works for some individuals, but abstinence is a failure globally."
> You're pro abortion, good for you. More power to you I guess.


How is that a useful response to the quoted part?



RandomUser said:


> Okay, after re-reading my post, I realized I didn't word it very well.
> But yes, perhaps back in ancient times and mostly for religious belief.


Ignoring the perhaps part you think fucking went out of style at one point?


----------



## tunip3 (May 29, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> So we have a dead foetus. Is that something of value that was lost?
> 
> 
> How is that a useful response to the quoted part?
> ...


You do know in some countries to this day if have a child out of marriage you can be killed


----------



## FAST6191 (May 29, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> You do know in some countries to this day if have a child out of marriage you can be killed


Don't know if I could point to any examples of that but it is not outside my expectations given some of the other laws and things dealing with similar matters I could point at. What does that mean in relation to anything I said there, or to this in general? Or if you prefer so some countries and locales have some horrifically unjust laws or de facto laws, what relevance is that here?


----------



## tunip3 (May 29, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Don't know if I could point to any examples of that but it is not outside my expectations given some of the other laws and things dealing with similar matters I could point at. What does that mean in relation to anything I said there, or to this in general? Or if you prefer so some countries and locales have some horrifically unjust laws or de facto laws, what relevance is that here?


You said has fucking ever gone out of fashion in some countries it's gone out of fashion with the ruling party


----------



## FAST6191 (May 29, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> You said has fucking ever gone out of fashion in some countries it's gone out of fashion with the ruling party


I would argue precisely the opposite. If killing is a "punishment" and it still happens anyway then clearly not.


----------



## tunip3 (May 29, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I would argue precisely the opposite. If killing is a "punishment" and it still happens anyway then clearly not.


No but I said it had gone out of fashion with the ruling party not the general public


----------



## FAST6191 (May 29, 2018)

I am at a loss as to where you are going with this, and either way I don't think we are likely to hold up such places and times as examples of enlightened thinking, rather actually incredibly barbarous and backwards.


----------



## tunip3 (May 29, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I am at a loss as to where you are going with this, and either way I don't think we are likely to hold up such places and times as examples of enlightened thinking, rather actually incredibly barbarous and backwards.


You said has fucking ever gone out of fashion the awnser is yes with those rulers that is the awnser to your question


----------



## FAST6191 (May 29, 2018)

I did, and I am prepared to reiterate it and find no counter examples presently or in history.
Going further your example, even if I take it at face value, still does nothing for most of the same, almost invariably people doing a horrible take on a given religion, are very concerned with the amount and efficacy of the fucking their followers are doing -- after all most of the time the only way you get new followers is to breed them. Just in this case they would rather the people doing it are married and don't share the same type of genitals.


----------



## Deleted User (May 29, 2018)

Menstruation is murder.
Women who waste precious eggs should all go to jail.


----------



## tunip3 (May 29, 2018)

Snugglevixen said:


> Menstruation is murder.
> Women who waste precious eggs should all go to jail. /S


Fixed


----------



## FAST6191 (May 29, 2018)

Snugglevixen said:


> Menstruation is murder.
> Women who waste precious eggs should all go to jail.


What if your menstruations do not coincide with an ovulation?
Equally how do we define precious eggs?

http://www.ecology.com/birth-death-rates/ reckons 131.4 million births per year, we will half that to get women (even if they are slightly overrepresented). http://www.infertile.com/beating-biological/ reckons "Women are born with approximately two million eggs in their ovaries" so that makes 1.314×10¹⁴ eggs made each year. We get to multiply that by a few if we are considering the world supply.
Equally how valuable are any of those eggs? If nature plays a huge part in things and greatness is then in some way hereditary then bug a small fraction of that. Do we value a potential shiftless layabout? Though actually I consider that the epitome of existence so maybe said egg when combined with an equally worthless sperm (mating being a rather selective ritual) would potentially grow up to be a politician or something.


----------



## Deleted User (May 29, 2018)

Once upon a time a worthless egg and a worthless sperm combined their powers to become a fetus. It wasn't aborted and so Hitler was born.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 29, 2018)

Snugglevixen said:


> Once upon a time a worthless egg and a worthless sperm combined their powers to become a fetus. It wasn't aborted and so Hitler was born.


That is a hilariously bad argument and you know it


----------



## Deleted User (May 29, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That is a hilariously bad argument and you know it


It's only an argument if you don't believe in the holocaust.


----------



## MadonnaProject (May 29, 2018)

An unwanted baby destroys three lives, an abortion saves two.


----------



## Lacius (May 29, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> There is another option, but it would violate the bodily autonomy that you have been preaching.


If it violates bodily autonomy, then it's not a viable option.



RandomUser said:


> We also don't make policy based on the unknown either.
> The same could be said about you, you shouldn't promote, see two can play this game, it goes both ways. Because I doubt you know either.


We know that an embryo/fetus is not a child. If you're going to argue that it is, then you need to demonstrate it, and I've never seen anyone attempt to do so without evoking religion.

Also, again, whether or not something is a child doesn't negate a woman's right to bodily autonomy. See my kidney-donation analogy.



RandomUser said:


> That true, but in this case it doesn't help both parties here, the fetus has to die. In organ donation, the organ(s) are not wasted and put to use, by another person needing the said transplant. But if you put it that way, I guess there isn't much of a difference.


You seem to have misunderstood the hypothetical scenario.

Let's say the federal or state government contacts you by phone and says you are required by law to donate your kidney to a compatible stranger whom you've never met. The stranger will die if you don't do it, and you will be breaking the law if you don't do it. Should the government be allowed to do that, or should you have a choice in the matter?



RandomUser said:


> You're pro abortion, good for you. More power to you I guess.


I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. If I were a woman, I probably wouldn't have an abortion under most circumstances, but I would still want the option.



RandomUser said:


> But yes, perhaps back in ancient times and mostly for religious belief.


While many societies have touted abstinence and condemned promiscuity, abstinence has never actually been widely practiced. A good analogy is an abstinence-only school district. While the school only teaches abstinence and publicly touts abstinence as a core value of the community, it's not widely practiced.

Edit: A person who wants to have sex and has the means to have sex generally has sex, even if he or she is abstinent. While it works for some and it's a perfectly fine choice to make, it's generally an unreliable and ineffective method of birth control.



JellyPerson said:


> b-b-b-but lacius-sama does this mean i can legally kill my 4 year old child if i were a mother with a four year old kid?


You seem to have missed the point.

You can't legally murder your four year-old kid, no. The existence of the kid does not violate your right to bodily autonomy. However, you shouldn't be required by the law to donate an organ to the child; that would violate your right to bodily autonomy.



tunip3 said:


> How do you feel about this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research
> Tbh honest I think something like this https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjACegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw06qMdV_iK79QzIbZ6m3NbB would be ideal as well the father can have a child but the mother doesn't have to go through child birth


A woman's right to bodily autonomy means she would have to consent to the kind of procedure that would allow this to happen. Just because a man ejaculated inside of a woman doesn't mean he gets any legal right over anything about or inside the woman's body.


----------



## bitjacker (May 29, 2018)

I need some help here. Is there any way to post multiple polls? I want a poll of each hot point presented in this debate. I only want raw data, not arguements or rationale.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 29, 2018)

bitjacker said:


> I need some help here. Is there any way to post multiple polls? I want a poll of each hot point presented in this debate. I only want raw data, not arguements or rationale.


You can post a single-question poll with I think up to 15 potential answers

Plus you have to have editing rights to the OP to post one


----------



## bitjacker (May 29, 2018)

everyone pm me questions they feel are hot points! i think i only want yes/no <thread hijack complete>


----------



## Yumi (May 29, 2018)

I'd like to add my 2 cents on this.

I'm pro-choice. No doubt about that. I like having a choice over whether I keep the baby or not. I know that sounds cold but that's just how I feel. I'm happy that some of people are willing to keep the baby and commit themselves to that for that baby's lifetime until adulthood. Now if I accidentally do get pregnant and know that i wouldn't be ready, and this is after thinking hard about it like seriously looking over any financial or living conditions, then I'd have to abort BUT that is something I wish to not happen ever and I like to think of that as a 5% chance of ever happening. I'd prefer to adopt anyways.

Now there are women who make the right call on aborting the baby because of difficult situations surrounding them. Why put their child through misery living in poor conditions?? I wouldn't. "But there's government aid and everything" sure but not everywhere in the world has that.

A human is responsible to their own body, not someone else. You cannot tell me what I can do or can't do with my body. That is final.

** Also, I would take my partner's view into consideration as well.


----------



## Old (May 30, 2018)

HER body, HER choice.  Simple enough.   Those withOUT vaginas & repressed 'conservative' trash need to be minding their own business.  They stand in their pulpits and at their podiums and spout bullshit about "the sanctity of human life" while bathing in blood-soaked *military* dollars.  The hypocrisy is nauseating.  This has never been about unborn babies -- what about the MILLIONS of unwanted/homeless kids already living miserable lives?? -- it's always been about repugnant old white males attempting to *control* women.  Point blank.

The state/gov opting for *control* over what we do with our genitalia is a very slippery and frightening slope.


----------



## granville (May 30, 2018)

Why assume everyone who is pro-life is also a conservative, warmonger, or even male? A significant percentage of the female population thinks abortion should be illegal. And very few people in general, even pro-choice, think abortion is without any moral dilemma or are legitimately comfortable with it (even when they think women's right to it are paramount over anything else).

In most if not all other aspects of my life I am decidedly liberal. I'm an atheist, pro-LGBTQ, anti war (whenever avoidable), anti torture, support stricter gun regulation, support assistance for the poor or homeless, a socialized healthcare system for everyone, generally against the death penalty and support making contraception much easier and cheaper to get (or even free).

I will still call out people who say or do stupid and hypocritical crap regardless of whether they're liberal or conservative (plenty of nonsense across all party lines). But I generally adhere to decidedly liberal principles in most aspects of my life. It probably won't help to explain my perspective, but I am opposed to death and killing as a whole, and I try to remain as consistent as possible in that aspect throughout my moral compass.


----------



## Deleted User (May 30, 2018)

Why does this even need to be a debate? People who are against it aren't affected by it.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2018)

> Those withOUT vaginas need to be minding their own business.


No.
It is a concept that can be discussed by anybody, being in possession of a womb holds no particular bearing on your capability or suitability to do so here.



Snugglevixen said:


> Why does this even need to be a debate? People who are against it aren't affected by it.


While I would agree "if you don't like one then don't get one" works for me there could be scope for a debate. Historically many dominant religions and philosophies have been against it but eh. More suited to a modern debate would be whether the foetus counts as alive and if in turn abortion counts as killing something that should not be killed, or indeed if it does count then might there still be scope to allow it under various circumstances as part of a greater good type thing. Similarly there is also a discussion for the points at which it becomes questionable.


----------



## Old (May 30, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> No.
> It is a concept that can be discussed by anybody, being in possession of a womb holds no particular bearing on your capability or suitability to do so here.



_Discussion_ is one thing, *meddling* - which is obviously what I was referring to - is quite another.   When a council of elderly out-of-touch women begin telling me what I can and cannot do with my own cock you'll be the first to know, eh?  Hypocrisy personified.


----------



## leon315 (May 30, 2018)

WEIRD, how did this topic live so long? something like this always degenerates into arguments then get closed by mods...

The civility here is insanely civil, remarkable.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2018)

leon315 said:


> WEIRD, how did this topic live so long? something like this always degenerates into arguments then get closed by mods...
> 
> The civility here is insanely civil, remarkable.


Par for the course around here really.



Old said:


> _Discussion_ is one thing, *meddling* - which is obviously what I was referring to - is quite another.   When a council of elderly out-of-touch women begin telling me what I can and cannot do with my own cock you'll be the first to know, eh?  Hypocrisy personified.


If the result of the ethical ponderings, as done by whomever, came back as "not acceptable" then I would accept it. At the same time though the rigour I apply to the results of such a pondering is somewhat akin to a scientific enquiry-- reals over feels all day long in all things.


----------



## YukiYolo (May 31, 2018)

Jack Daniels said:


> you were teached to be carefull already you know, from the moment you left primary school you know that.
> you already been teached about protection, about consequences. maybe you didn't learn about finances, but most likely a child costs more than your parents needed for you.
> and since you had chance to learn there...
> the girl on the other hand has more to say since she's gonna carry the child in her womb, she'll be the first to feed him, and since the child to be is for 9 months in her body, she gets to get attached to this child to be.
> ...


Lets not use the 'everything' has consequences excuse when the issue I brought up is an imbalance cause by one sex having the ability to avoid them after the fact. None of this would be a problem if people were responsible but that is clearly not the case.

Also, the child support system is trash. No way to ensure funds going where they should(IE: They don't primarily benefit the child in my indirect experience.)

Because of rape and health concerns, I accept that it needs to be a thing. That people should have bodily autonomy in general. 

The real shitty thing though is that the primary reasons for abortion are simply to avoid parenthood(Too young, not financially stable, don't want the child to interfere with studies, don't like the mate, just don't want kids, etc) rather than a strong feeling of wanting to end the pregnancy as a medical condition. Men have the same concerns but don't have a convenient excuse to take advantage of and thus there is an unfair imbalance in regards to their ability to impact their future after the act. But the primary reason this is the case is simply an issue of money. Someone has to foot the bill and so fairness and such gets tossed out the window. Who else besides the father would be able to? The Government/Taxpayers but that is an entirely separate can of worms. 

Talking about ethics and morality in relation to this subject is weak anyway given where society already is.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 31, 2018)

YukiYolo said:


> The real shitty thing though is that the primary reasons for abortion are simply to avoid parenthood(Too young, not financially stable, don't want the child to interfere with studies, don't like the mate, just don't want kids, etc) rather than a strong feeling of wanting to end the pregnancy as a medical condition.



I am still not convinced it is a shitty thing. Eat too many sweets and don't brush your teeth properly and you are going to need fillings, best not to get to that point but no big deal if you do. I would assign the exact same logic and moral/ethical "value" to it.


----------



## Jack Daniels (May 31, 2018)

YukiYolo said:


> Lets not use the 'everything' has consequences excuse when the issue I brought up is an imbalance cause by one sex having the ability to avoid them after the fact. None of this would be a problem if people were responsible but that is clearly not the case.
> 
> Also, the child support system is trash. No way to ensure funds going where they should(IE: They don't primarily benefit the child in my indirect experience.)
> 
> ...


why not, it's simple you come from the same country as i do, so you should've gotten the same system and teachings as i do.
you countradict your own words in the last part, first you wanna warn fathers to be for the financial part, and then you wanna cut the rope to escape.
a child needs a lot more then you think it needs, and though you say it doesn't primairly benefit the child to be, that's not true.
you see:
taxes that will come are put to fight legally (industrial) waste wich is a problem for the future of your to be child, is put in eductional progress wich is for a better future for your child, is used to pay our policeman to fight for low criminallety wich means the chances of your child of having a father and a mom throughout his life is higher, is used to pay our soldiers to keep a borderline a bit secured and so keep other countries from taking what's not thiers to begin with and to ensure, there's a ballanced country with room for your kid to find work when he's old enough.
since you and your child wanna be payed enough for doing work so you can spend it on basic needs of life means that the shop you get your daipers need a fair amount of money for the daipers to support thier personel, your now is also his or her future.
this brings the mothers side of the story, she'll need support to be healthy as can be to ensure milk quality, walking with the child, helping the child to explore the world and understand... not all teachings are teaced in school, some are in the garden, some at a sport, most of this will cost money to learn, bet without these lessons there's no real chance of a fair chance in his life to actual getting to face the world.
now comes the price of the health industrie, this is somewhat tricky cause there's a fine line... some docters are not really honest about chances for treatment being the cure, so i do understand if you take them out of th quotation, but i doubt you do.

the way you want it to be isn't fair to yourself and the girl you knocked over.
yes she might have volunteered in to the act, but so did you.
so you should see: action means responsibility you donated your part to her and started (might've been out of love, might've been for fun) the whole thing there.
since you it's your part combined to hers it's as much your problem as it is for her.
without your sperm injection gotten unprotected in to her womb there wouldn't be pregnancy to begin with.
this is not gonna mean she's fully ready to be mother, and it seems to me the same counts in your case for the father.

if you don't have the option to abort here, you make it the child to be's problem that either one of his or hers parents are unfit.
talking about being unresponsibility.
i'm furious that you say that father to be should have the right to eliminate the child to be when he's not even caring the child to be.
i'm moreso furious that you missing the brain part to see that the child to be is nothing more in the first weeks then a kidney is in her body.
you don't let your parents tell you when you donate a kidney do you?
this kidney has a the power to get to have a body around itself and think for itself in time.
but if one parent isn't gonna give ground to grow this way, why wait till it dies eventually.


yes you have to pay much for a child, but not doing so means you're not fair to the child.
not paying it's mom is just as evil.
not giving her a say about what's in her body... i don't have words to say how evil i think you must be.
thinking you have the right to tell her what's right and wrong when she's pregnant is even worse.


----------



## RandomUser (Jun 5, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> So we have a dead foetus. Is that something of value that was lost?
> 
> 
> How is that a useful response to the quoted part?
> ...


You knew at what point the fetus died or knew what point it becomes alive?

@Lacius That is the best post you have made, in regarding to my post. I wouldn't like the government telling me what I can and cannot do, however in reality, they are telling people what they can do and can't do, albeit in a more subtle ways.
Curious though, why does a female have more right to her bodily autonomy, then a male does to his bodily autonomy? The effect on the male will last a lifetime compared to just 9 months.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> You knew at what point the fetus died or knew what point it becomes alive?
> 
> @Lacius That is the best post you have made, in regarding to my post. I wouldn't like the government telling me what I can and cannot do, however in reality, they are, albeit more subtle ways.
> Curious though, why does a female have more right to her bodily autonomy, then a male does to his bodily autonomy? The effect on the male will last a lifetime compared to just 9 months.


None of what we're talking about has anything to do with a man's right to bodily autonomy. Respectfully, do you know what a _right to bodily autonomy_ means?

Edit: In other words, I'm saying men and women each have an equal right to their own bodily autonomy.


----------



## RandomUser (Jun 5, 2018)

Lacius said:


> None of what we're talking about has anything to do with a man's right to bodily autonomy. Respectfully, do you know what a _right to bodily autonomy_ means?
> 
> Edit: In other words, I'm saying men and women each have an equal right to their own bodily autonomy.


Maybe my definition may not align up to yours. I cannot speak for other countries, however here male born babies do *not* have the same rights as female born babies do. Although it is declining in practice though.


> Body autonomy basically says that no one, other than the person himself, has a right to his or her body, and no one has the right to use someone else’s body without his or her full consent. This is the law, and why compatible donors cannot be forced to donate, even if he or she would save the life of the other person.
> People do have a right to their own bodies before anyone else does, and yes, that’s the law.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 5, 2018)

RandomUser said:


> Maybe my definition may not align up to yours. I cannot speak for other countries, however here male born babies do *not* have the same rights as female born babies do. Although it is declining in practice though.


Given our agreed upon definition of what it means to have a right to bodily autonomy, I don't know what you're referring to with this part of your post:


RandomUser said:


> Curious though, why does a female have more right to her bodily autonomy, then a male does to his bodily autonomy? The effect on the male will last a lifetime compared to just 9 months.


When are you saying a man's right to bodily autonomy is violated?


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jan 18, 2019)

The other thing you don't hear feminists talking about is human baby murders which is 100% perpetrated by women and  which is now the leading cause of death in the world. 
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/08/02...of-death-surpassing-heart-disease-and-cancer/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> People got tired of social justice creeping into everyday life. People got tired of being called alt right when they support all groups of people.
> 
> It is a fun thread for laughs. And I wanted to see how many people will come to try to defend what obviously shouldn’t be defended. Academic integrity should always be above bias. I like seeing people go at it in the comments. It’s entertaining.
> 
> Just look at the dislike ratio on this recent commercial and you’ll see people are tired of this stuff that starts in colleges creeping into every day life.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jan 18, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> The other thing you don't hear feminists talking about is human baby murders which is 100% perpetrated by women and  which is now the leading cause of death in the world.
> https://www.lifenews.com/2018/08/02...of-death-surpassing-heart-disease-and-cancer/
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



well this is how I feel about abortion as it pertains to feminists hence why I posted in the feminist thread. but OK.


----------



## mrdude (Jan 18, 2019)

Jings, it's a woman's body - woman's decision and is no one else's business apart from hers.

Next people will be wanting to ban masturbation, saying people that do are all mass murderers, because at one time the sperm was alive :-)


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jan 18, 2019)

mrdude said:


> Jings, it's a woman's body - woman's decision and is no one else's business apart from hers.
> 
> Next people will be wanting to ban masturbation, saying people that do are all mass murderers, because at one time the sperm was alive :-)


it's not the woman's body, it's the baby's body attached to the woman by the umbilical cord for nutrients. Saying the baby is the woman's body is like saying the egg is the chicken's body. The fact that you don't understand the difference between a sperm and a developing human says a lot.


----------



## osm70 (Jan 18, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> The other thing you don't hear feminists talking about is human baby murders which is 100% perpetrated by women and  which is now the leading cause of death in the world.
> https://www.lifenews.com/2018/08/02...of-death-surpassing-heart-disease-and-cancer/
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------





Let me quote a part of the article you linked:

"Yet, despite the* universal acknowledgement that the act of abortion results in a death*, abortion is not reported as a cause of death in the vital statistics system in the United States."

Not universal. Not at all. Many people disagree with abortion causing death, because the unborn baby isn't alive in the first place.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jan 18, 2019)

osm70 said:


> Let me quote a part of the article you linked:
> 
> "Yet, despite the* universal acknowledgement that the act of abortion results in a death*, abortion is not reported as a cause of death in the vital statistics system in the United States."
> 
> Not universal. Not at all. Many people disagree with abortion causing death, because the unborn baby isn't alive in the first place.


What part  of the baby''s heart, brain and a trillion other cells do you think are not alive? Idiots disagree that murdering babies doesn't cause death because they're idiots. It'a good to know that you probably won't reproduce and if you did you will kill your baby, because we need less people in this world that think killing unborn human beings is ok.


----------



## osm70 (Jan 18, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> What part  of the baby''s heart, brain and a trillion other cells do you think are not alive? Idiots disagree that murdering babies doesn't cause death because they're idiots. It'a good to know that you probably won't reproduce and if you did you will kill your baby, because we need less people in this world that think killing unborn human beings is ok.



Putting the insult aside, let's go over what you just said.

Just because someone thinks abortion is OK doesn't mean they will abort. What if someone wants a child, but still sees nothing wrong with aborting?


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jan 18, 2019)

osm70 said:


> Putting the insult aside, let's go over what you just said.
> 
> Just because someone thinks abortion is OK doesn't mean they will abort. What if someone wants a child, but still sees nothing wrong with aborting?


Anybody that has children, which I do,  knows how delicate life is specially in the early stages of development. Any couple who've suffered a miscarriage, which I have,  know the pain of the loss of life that has occurred. The only people that don't understand this are too self absorbed to see the truth. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.


----------



## supermist (Jan 18, 2019)

Pretty sure Jesus is quoted in the book of Job that life begins with the first breath.

Not to mention, the trial of bitter water and a miscarriage being defined as "property" by Moses in the OT.

Check out http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/the-bible-tells-us-when-a-fetus-becomes-a-living-being


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 18, 2019)

supermist said:


> Pretty sure Jesus is quoted in the book of Job that life begins with the first breath.
> 
> Not to mention, the trial of bitter water and a miscarriage being defined as "property" by Moses in the OT.
> 
> Check out http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/the-bible-tells-us-when-a-fetus-becomes-a-living-being



I totally agreed with you but be careful because some people don't believed in Bible. It is not worth to a argument over it. It is endless. that's why I read and I backed off. It is not going to change people's opinion about abortion.. well, not most people anyway. 



mrdude said:


> Jings, it's a woman's body - woman's decision and is no one else's business apart from hers.


Actually, I totally disagreed. It can be her body but part of it is part of her that killing is wrong, no matter. That's why I am not argument at all.

Human being is an odd creature who doesn't understand about themselves at all. The corruption is here and it is staying here. Nobody is going to resolve it at all. Human killing human, period. Sad!


----------



## supermist (Jan 18, 2019)

I had only posted it because a majority of anti abortionists typically cite religion for their reasoning.


----------



## osm70 (Jan 18, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> Anybody that has children, which I do,  knows how delicate life is specially in the early stages of development. Any couple who've suffered a miscarriage, which I have,  know the pain of the loss of life that has occurred. The only people that don't understand this are too self absorbed to see the truth. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.



Then... what about the people who already have a child but still abort the next one?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 18, 2019)

supermist said:


> I had only posted it because a majority of anti abortionists typically cite religion for their reasoning.



Actually, some atheist doesn't support abortion at all but dont target it at religion. To my understanding, religion understand babies better than people who think its okay. Whatever.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 18, 2019)

I don't like the idea, so I feel bad about it I guess.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jan 18, 2019)

When a woman's carrying another life it's no longer a case of "It's my body, my decision" but if she decides to abort then she's effectively murdering a person.


----------



## xpoverzion (Jan 18, 2019)

I'm all for abortion.  

Too many people on the planet as it is.  I also wouldn't consider a small fetus in the womb to be a human any more than a tumor that grows on your ass to be a human being. Both are just a clump of cells with no consciousness.  You're a human when you are born into the world, and your senses begin to take in information that begins to form you mentally and spiritually as a human.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 18, 2019)

xpoverzion said:


> I'm all for abortion.
> 
> Too many people on the planet as it is.  I also wouldn't consider a small fetus in the womb to be a human any more than a tumor that grows on your ass to be a human being. Both are just a clump of cells with no consciousness.  You're a human when you are born into the world, and your senses begin to take in information that begins to form you mentally and spiritually as a human.



Abortion is not going resolve too many people on the planet. You think you are all for abortion then you are the killer and a murderer. That's simple as that. As I said human is the corruption and the worse scum on the Earth.


----------



## osm70 (Jan 19, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Abortion is not going resolve too many people on the planet. You think you are all for abortion then you are the killer and a murderer. That's simple as that. As I said human is the corruption and the worse scum on the Earth.



Let's say you are right and abortion is murder.

In that case, accepting abortion wouldn't make me a murderer. It would make me a murder apologist. The people who do the act of aborting would be the murderers, no?


----------



## ov3rkill (Jan 19, 2019)

I abortion to be legalized up to the age of 17.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jan 19, 2019)

I'm for abortion, especially in cases of incest and rape. However, I'm against those who use it as a form of birth control. Those people should undergo counseling.


----------



## YamiZee (Jan 19, 2019)

We have no qualms about killing unintelligent life, and that's exactly what we're aborting


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 19, 2019)

YamiZee said:


> We have no qualms about killing unintelligent life, and that's exactly what we're aborting


It's weird that you put it like that, because you know it is not the same. 

We in general don't seem to care too much about killing non-human animals to eat, I agree, but we don't care how intelligent they are, we go all the same killing dumb chickens, and quite more intelligent pigs and octopus.

I mean, we don't go killing brain dead people to eat either, and they are as dumb as one can get already.


----------



## YamiZee (Jan 19, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> We in general don't seem to care too much about killing non-human animals to eat, I agree, but we don't care how intelligent they are, we go all the same killing dumb chickens, and quite more intelligent pigs and octopus.



It's because we see them as inferior in both intelligence and morality. If we saw them equal then I doubt we would keep killing them. Babies and especially fetuses have far fewer intelligence and no morality.

At this point we have to realize we have a bias toward humans, and that biases are not based in fact. And what's not based in fact should not become law. If we are fine with unintelligent life dying, then we have to look past our biases and accept abortion which is the same thing. If we don't accept abortion, we should not accept killing rats or octopi, much less dumber animals.

Doing otherwise would be hypocritical.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jan 23, 2019)

YamiZee said:


> It's because we see them as inferior in both intelligence and morality. If we saw them equal then I doubt we would keep killing them. Babies and especially fetuses have far fewer intelligence and no morality.
> 
> At this point we have to realize we have a bias toward humans, and that biases are not based in fact. And what's not based in fact should not become law. If we are fine with unintelligent life dying, then we have to look past our biases and accept abortion which is the same thing. If we don't accept abortion, we should not accept killing rats or octopi, much less dumber animals.
> 
> Doing otherwise would be hypocritical.


B-but humans are intelligent!
B-but only humans can really understand life!


----------



## comput3rus3r (Feb 1, 2019)

Of course it's all based on a lie.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Feb 1, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> Of course it's all based on a lie.



Even if one lied (didn't watch the video, but I'm sure it's out of context and/or misconstrued), it doesn't invalidate the rape argument. Forcing a woman to carry a rape baby to term makes someone just as guilty as the rapist.


----------



## duwen (Feb 1, 2019)

Personally, I'm pro-choice.
Accidents happen, and no one should feel forced (or at least obliged) to radically alter their life for a long period of time (whether that be just for the duration of the pregnancy or for a lifetime) due to a 'mishap' - or worse, a pregnancy from being raped.


----------



## chaoskagami (Feb 1, 2019)

My opinion is as follows: It's only murder if the kid could survive if detached or if it's too developed to safely abort. Otherwise, it's simply a parasite and part of the mother's body. Just like it's my own choice if I wanted to chop off my own arm, it's the mother's choice if she does so. Because at that point, it IS her body and the kid is a parasite that's sapping nutrition and causing a slew of inconveniences.

Aside from that, murder is "killing another person." I think that an undeveloped half-organism that has neither a functional body nor brain (and therefore, lacks any form of conscious perception) fails to qualify as a "person." This is less about intelligence and more about completeness. A half-assembled car can't be driven, right? It's the same thing. A half-assembled person isn't capable of intelligence or operating as a person.

Also, if a woman were raped, why should she have to raise that kid? That's just fucking stupid. You're saying essentially that that woman should be denied her entire career because of an asshole. Just no. If you're one of those freaks who considers this case to be acceptable, then you're a rape apologist and should be ashamed of yourself.

During the time period in which abortions were illegal, people had abortions done illegally by back-alley doctors, and people died due to inadequate safety in the procedure (read: coat hangers.) So regardless of legality, people will get abortions. The question is more do you want adequate medical treatment or do you want people dropping dead from quack doctors.



YamiZee said:


> It's because we see them as inferior in both intelligence and morality. If we saw them equal then I doubt we would keep killing them. Babies and especially fetuses have far fewer intelligence and no morality.
> 
> At this point we have to realize we have a bias toward humans, and that biases are not based in fact. And what's not based in fact should not become law. If we are fine with unintelligent life dying, then we have to look past our biases and accept abortion which is the same thing. If we don't accept abortion, we should not accept killing rats or octopi, much less dumber animals.
> 
> Doing otherwise would be hypocritical.



While we're at it, let's also stop killing plants - I mean, they feel pain after all. What does that leave us with? Salt? We'd dry up. Test tube burgers? Scratch that, we shouldn't be eating the byproduct of scientists playing god. Fruits that naturally drop off trees? But wait, oh my god, fruits are the unborn child of a tree so that's eating babies. Aaaaah!

My point to this line of nonsense: Humans being omnivores has nothing to do with abortion.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Feb 1, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> (didn't watch the video, but I'm sure...


lol bias confirmation much? No wonder you think the way you do.


----------



## YamiZee (Feb 1, 2019)

chaoskagami said:


> My point to this line of nonsense: Humans being omnivores has nothing to do with abortion.


What? I never said anything about being an omnivore. Also theres no proof plants feel pain, and even if they did, they are on the low end of the concious spectrum. Insects are a little higher...etc.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 1, 2019)

Here's my unpopular take on it, unless there is a legit empirical threat of human life, as in, the mother is 100% guaranteed to die in childbirth, and as long as it is the mother's decision, not pressured by asshole government intervention or douchebag lover, then and only then should it be made. But also, if it is known well before late term, like say, within the first trimester and the mother is a victim of rape, and adoption is not an option, they are to use their best judgment in this case. Consult with competent medical professionals. But if you really want to know my opinion, here's what I have to say: 

NY Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and his late-term abortion bill can both fuck off.


----------



## heraymo (Feb 2, 2019)

womens choice


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 2, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> lol bias confirmation much? No wonder you think the way you do.


From what I saw your video link was discussing some specifics of the plaintiff in the initial supreme court case* (the lady in which has gone on to variously retract her positions in later years, and be somewhat active in the anti abortion sphere). Subtle Demise's position was however that even if the test case was flawed in the way described that the underlying legal logic is still valid. As nothing on the video was relevant to that, and such a thing was a valid enough assumption to make and stated, then I am not seeing the problem.

*never mind that various states already had things on the books prior to it, as did many other countries of similar legal traditions/philosophies.


----------



## Sir_Mix_A_Lot (Feb 2, 2019)

I'm not a fan. I'm all for a woman's right to choose, but I don't like the idea of allowing late term abortion. But if it's a matter of life or death (or rape) for a woman, I understand it even if I don't like it.


----------



## fiis (Feb 9, 2019)

Up to the couple / mom to decide if it's the right choice for THEM


----------



## comput3rus3r (Feb 13, 2019)

"perfectly describes a D&E “uterine evacuation” procedure. What he left out was the fact that an anesthesiologist, scrub tech, circulating nurse, and sonographer must also be present during the procedure. I’ve seen this because I was forced (in my job) to assist in a D&E. I had no idea what it was until I got to the OR room. I was told to place the ultrasound probe on the mother’s pelvis and live scan the entire procedure. I watched the baby recoil and try to hide in the top (fundus ) of her mother’s uterus as the catheter was thrust into the amniotic sac. Then I watched the clamp go in and grab her tiny leg as she writhed around in pain trying to break free. Then the doctor pulled hard until her leg was ripped from her body. She recoiled and curled herself in a tight ball. But it was no use, the clamp grabbed her arm and she struggled, a little less because she was dying, as he pulled her arm off of her body. It was hard to see by this time because I had tears rolling down my cheeks. The baby again curled into a tight ball but again had her leg ripped from her body. By now, her heartbeat had slowed significantly but she was still alive. Then the clamp grabbed her last limb and ripped it off. She wiggled and writhed around and then her heart finally stopped beating. That is when I announced that there was no more cardiac activity. The remaining body parts were removed, placenta was removed, and a final look with ultrasound revealed all products of conception were removed. I was told I could leave the room at that point. I removed the ultrasound machine from the room and went to the women’s locker room and threw up. I refused to ever take part in another one of these procedures. Everyone in that room was horrified and nothing could have prepared me for it.

If you think this is a good “choice” unfriend me now because I want nothing to do with you."


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 13, 2019)

Humans tend to equate things acting, and reacting, like humans to be humans. A worm, touched, writhes around the ground to try and get away. Is it scared? Is it fearful? Is it in pain? When you pluck a leaf off a tree, the tree "feels" it. Should we avoid plucking fruit off a tree because it could cause the tree pain? What if the tree recoiled from having its fruit plucked? These are not humans, but when we imagine what we would perceive if it was happening to us, we hurt. It's empathy. It's a good thing we can identify with others pain. But it is a pain we create inside ourselves, because we personally identify with something as being human-like.

In this case, a well-developed fetus can look, act, and react, much like the worm, much like the human, and much like most things with the equivalent to a nervous system. The further along in development, the more human-like it becomes. Generally it's only when the fetus has a functioning and viable brain do we start considering it an actual life. Before that it's still just plans for a human. Two draft blueprints smushed together, given biological parts by the mom, with plans changed every step of the way because of of the environment, until you get a viable brain, a viable human. If the brain never develops, if the brain hasn't developed, no matter how it acts or reacts, it is not a person.That's the simple definition. We are our brains.

I feel for those who identify with fetuses. They ascribe to them person-hood, they ascribe things that do not belong, and so feel empathy for it. They feel for it as if it were really a person, and so feel the pain of that loss just as greatly as if it were true. Which, frankly, must suck. that's got to be gut-wrenching and feel like a terribly immoral thing to do. Which, if it were true, would be accurate. But it's not reality. It's not how things, how our biology, actually are. It is not your fault, and it is not your burden. It's okay to let go of that guilt and responsibility. You're good.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Feb 13, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Humans tend to equate things acting, and reacting, like humans to be humans. A worm, touched, writhes around the ground to try and get away. Is it scared? Is it fearful? Is it in pain? When you pluck a leaf off a tree, the tree "feels" it. Should we avoid plucking fruit off a tree because it could cause the tree pain? What if the tree recoiled from having its fruit plucked? These are not humans, but when we imagine what we would perceive if it was happening to us, we hurt. It's empathy. It's a good thing we can identify with others pain. But it is a pain we create inside ourselves, because we personally identify with something as being human-like.
> 
> In this case, a well-developed fetus can look, act, and react, much like the worm, much like the human, and much like most things with the equivalent to a nervous system. The further along in development, the more human-like it becomes. Generally it's only when the fetus has a functioning and viable brain do we start considering it an actual life. Before that it's still just plans for a human. Two draft blueprints smushed together, given biological parts by the mom, with plans changed every step of the way because of of the environment, until you get a viable brain, a viable human. If the brain never develops, if the brain hasn't developed, no matter how it acts or reacts, it is not a person.That's the simple definition. We are our brains.
> 
> I feel for those who identify with fetuses. They ascribe to them person-hood, they ascribe things that do not belong, and so feel empathy for it. They feel for it as if it were really a person, and so feel the pain of that loss just as greatly as if it were true. Which, frankly, must suck. that's got to be gut-wrenching and feel like a terribly immoral thing to do. Which, if it were true, would be accurate. But it's not reality. It's not how things, how our biology, actually are. It is not your fault, and it is not your burden. It's okay to let go of that guilt and responsibility. You're good.


except we're not talking about worms, we're talking about a human baby with a heartbeat a brain and a face. What sucks more is being so completely detached from reality that you think ripping a baby apart inside a womb is ok. I foresee a very sad future for you unless you develop a conscience.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

It reminds me of the atrocities commited by the Japanese and also the Koreans and Chinese to each other's. Killing babies and raping women and beheading men with swords.

All these atrocities were committed by Japanese and also Chinese, Japanese with swords and chinese killed OTHER chinese in terrible ways too but with the weapon of communism. I have seen the testimonies and they are heart breaking to the core, that is how I FEEL about abortion.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 13, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> except we're not talking about worms, we're talking about a human baby with a heartbeat a brain and a face. What sucks more is being so completely detached from reality that you think ripping a baby apart inside a womb is ok. I foresee a very sad future for you unless you develop a conscience.


The brain part is the important bit. Or did you just stop reading at some point? It's much easier to just say everyone else must be without a conscious for even possibly feeling differently than you than it is to bother trying to understand why they might actually feel the way they do. There's more to it than what you're allowing yourself to see.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> except we're not talking about worms, we're talking about a human baby with a heartbeat a brain and a face. What sucks more is being so completely detached from reality that you think ripping a baby apart inside a womb is ok. I foresee a very sad future for you unless you develop a conscience.



What these people pro-choice need is a BIG injection of REALITY and a heart that pumps in their own cold fucking chest!

Look at this testimony from a chinese survivor, this is what is all about, it made me cry, and I am like a stone these years.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Feb 13, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> The brain part is the important bit. Or did you just stop reading at some point? It's much easier to just say everyone else must be without a conscious for even possibly feeling differently than you than it is to bother trying to understand why they might actually feel the way they do. There's more to it than what you're allowing yourself to see.


well given that we disagree at a fundamental level, that being the fact that I believe In God and that I have a soul and you don't. I'm assuming you don't because the soul comes into the body at the moment of conception so you can talk about whether or not the brain is developed enough for your standards but it doesn't take away the fact that it is a person. The most obvious evidence is the fact that we both went through that stage of our lives and luckily no unconscionable person ripped us apart.


----------



## codyjo (Feb 13, 2019)

My thoughts on this matter are best summed up a catchy tune titled "Get Dat Fetus, Kill Dat Fetus" by the modern pop legend Sextina Aquafina.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

codyjo said:


> My thoughts on this matter are best summed up a catchy tune titled "Get Dat Fetus, Kill Dat Fetus" by the modern pop legend Sextina Aquafina.



You people are sick and insane.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 13, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> well given that we disagree at a fundamental level, that being the fact that I believe In God and that I have a soul and you don't. I'm assuming you don't because the soul comes into the body at the moment of conception so you can talk about whether or not the brain is developed enough for your standards but it doesn't take away the fact that it is a person. The most obvious evidence is the fact that we both went through that stage of our lives and luckily no unconscionable person ripped us apart.


yours is based on bronze-age understanding of reality, where the entirety of the person was in a dude's sperm, his "seed", and a woman's womb was just where it took root and flowered. did you know that's why the catholic church decided we got our soul at conception? This is a poor way to make a moral decision. To never question or think critically of it. Even those who consider themselves religious have moved past this ancient belief. I personally look at the science of today and philosophy of the matter and let reality be my guide. You can call it disagreement if you'd like, but I still feel sorry for you to shoulder that imagined burden.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> What these people pro-choice need is a BIG injection of REALITY and a heart that pumps in their own cold fucking chest!


It's pro-lifers that aren't living in reality.  Rapes, unwanted pregnancies, and threats to the pregnant mother's life are all events that occur on a regular basis.  These things don't go away just because you ban abortion through the law, we'd simply revert to back-alley abortions instead.  Ultimately it's a necessary medical service to have available, whether you like the idea or not.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's pro-lifers that aren't living in reality.  Rapes, unwanted pregnancies, and threats to the pregnant mother's life are all events that occur on a regular basis.  These things don't go away just because you ban abortion through the law, we'd simply revert to back-alley abortions instead.  Ultimately it's a necessary medical service to have available, whether you like the idea or not.


same weak argument. only 1.5% off all abortions are attributed to rape and incest. The majority of the time murdering the baby is just more convenient.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's pro-lifers that aren't living in reality.  Rapes, unwanted pregnancies, and threats to the pregnant mother's life are all events that occur on a regular basis.  These things don't go away just because you ban abortion through the law, we'd simply revert to back-alley abortions instead.  Ultimately it's a necessary medical service to have available, whether you like the idea or not.



A medical service, my God... if they want to kill, fine, but make it illegal like any other murder. God made us free to do as we will, wether is right or wether wrong, yet the consequences of our actions and our responsibilities as human beings should never be wiped or erased, or throw under the rug. But that is what sick people like you want, trying to make wrong right and right wrong, complete satanism and I am not even that religious.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> same weak argument. only 1.5% off all abortions are attributed to rape and incest. The majority of the time murdering the baby is just more convenient.


Source?  And I also mentioned unwanted pregnancies (accidents) and threats to the mother's life, not just rape.  Nobody gets an abortion because "it's convenient," most of the time they just don't have the resources to raise a child in the first place.  This just proves my point that pro-lifers are out of touch with reality.



nashismo said:


> A medical service, my God... if they want to kill, fine, but make it illegal like any other murder. God made us free to do as we will, wether is right or wether wrong, yet the consequences of our actions and our responsibilities as human beings should never be wiped or erased, or throw under the rug. But that is what sick people like you want, trying to make wrong right and right wrong, complete satanism and I am not even that religious.


Oh give me a fucking break.  This shit is so cringy.  Classic "holier than thou" attitude until the baby is actually born and the mother needs maternity leave/welfare to support the child.  Then it's, "pull yourself up by the bootstraps."  Or even better, "raise him to 18 then we'll send him to die in another pointless war."  Assuming he doesn't die from cancer, climate change, issues stemming from overpopulation, or anti-vaxxer parents first.  All of which are issues the 'pro-life' crowd refuses to address, making the 'pro-life' title about as hypocritical as it gets.

Roe v Wade is settled law, and the only reason one side keeps bringing it up is so they can play the fake moral outrage card.  Nobody is forcing you to get an abortion, and nobody is forcing you to think about abortions.  Yet I'd be willing to bet that the 'pro-life' crowd gets abortions at about the same rate everyone else does.


----------



## codyjo (Feb 13, 2019)

Murder.. What!? Do you possess a uterus? Do you remember rolling around in your mom's uterus with a conscience?


----------



## Jayro (Feb 13, 2019)

I am ALL for it! People need to STOP HAVING BABIES!!! This world is GROSSLY over-populated by about 3 billion people, and people's stupid-ass religions forcing them to disregard any form of birth control isn't helping matters. Please have pets instead of kids, thanks.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

I'm not even sure where people got the idea that abortion was "sinful" and "murder" to begin with.  The bible doesn't say that.  As a matter of fact, the bible has a how-to guide for abortion in it, and I'm fairly sure we already discussed it within this thread.  Thus the abortion debate is entirely a political one, as people aren't willing to take Christianity's true view on it into consideration.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 13, 2019)

Jayro said:


> I am ALL for it! People need to STOP HAVING BABIES!!! This world is GROSSLY over-populated by about 3 billion people, and people's stupid-ass religions forcing them to disregard any form of birth control isn't helping matters. Please have pets instead of kids, thanks.



Kinda agree with that...

You can talk about murder all you want but with overpopulated and the resources of the planet being depleted too fast, we're heading to mass suicide anyway.

And seriously. Whoever is using religion to influence politics need to be reminded that we don't have listen to them. Cults are and have been the cancer of societies for ages, and have caused more murders than the sum of all abortions there ever was.


----------



## codyjo (Feb 13, 2019)

My first post in this thread was completely of a satirical nature. I wanted to see what kind of reaction I could stir up. In all seriousness, I do not possess a vagina nor uterus and thus do not find it right for me to proclaim any right or wrong in which way a woman chooses to deal with a pregnancy. I have been in a relationship where this issue occurred and was told after the fact by my partner at the time that the pregnancy had been terminated. That was her right and in any non-retarded ass backward country, the law agrees.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

Jayro said:


> I am ALL for it! People need to STOP HAVING BABIES!!! This world is GROSSLY over-populated by about 3 billion people, and people's stupid-ass religions forcing them to disregard any form of birth control isn't helping matters. Please have pets instead of kids, thanks.



This is an endless debate and of course a disagree with abortions, and I will take from you are saying the most important fact. What fact? The fact that today more than ever there exist a multiple of ways of preventing pregnancy!

Today more than ever abortion should not be excused! How can someone say he couldn't avoid it? You have all these tools to prevent pregnancy and you are still irresponsable enough to get pregnant, only to then kill that life that is within you?!

Irresponsible and more ridiculous than ever.

And I am sorry to all those speaking about US laws, I cannot argue back because I am working enough already speaking in a language that is not my own, and with people that are completely different than me/us here in south america.

But I think is good for you all to know the opinion and thinking of other people of the world. Please consider my last opinion on the subject, just don't get pregnant! Avoid killing a life for no reason then! Is that so hard?

Cheers and good night.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> I'm not even sure where people got the idea that abortion was "sinful" and "murder" to begin with.  The bible doesn't say that.  As a matter of fact, the bible has a how-to guide for abortion in it, and I'm fairly sure we already discussed it within this thread.  Thus the abortion debate is entirely a political one, as people aren't willing to take Christianity's true view on it into consideration.



So if the Bible doesn't tell me that cutting someone elses dick is a sin, that means that is not? And that means that is OK! Get the fuck out of here, the Bible is simple, you shall not kill, simple.

And to not do to others what you don't want to be done to you! That amasses every fucking thing! You look like those lawyers looking for the tinniest ridiculous things within the code of law to get away with shit that is clearly WRONG!

And quote me the passage of the "bible" that tells me that abortion is just OK and not a sin etc. Bullshit man, just bullshit, come on, quote it.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> So if the Bible doesn't tell me that cutting someone elses dick is a sin, that means that is not? And that means that is OK! Get the fuck out of here, the Bible is simple, you shall not kill, simple.


The bible does not consider abortion to be killing/murder.

A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).

The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).

God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).

Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12).

King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16).

Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18).

For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8).

God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).

For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).

Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).
https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/25602-abortion-rights

Here's more on the bible's own how-to guide on abortions performed by priests, and sanctioned by god himself, in the book of Numbers:

https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2008/10/bibles-guide-to-abortion.html


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 13, 2019)

Why does it matter what the bible say?
We're in 2019. Can humanity grow up? At least kids eventually learn that Santa is not real.

Most abortions are done before the fetus even get a functioning brain with a single electrical signal. Legally, they're all done before the fetus is considered "awake".
Of course that doesn't matter for believers and their dear cults. But thankfully, morality doesn't have to be dictated by religion anymore. We have actual science now.

However, there are living creature that are killed by millions and religions don't give a single shit about them. They have been proved to feel emotions and pain. If you think i'm a monster for pointing out the hypocrisy because I dare comparing this case to animals, so be it.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

deinonychus71 said:


> Why does it matter what the bible say?


It matters because the 'pro-life' side never had any logic-based arguments for limiting women's freedoms to begin with.  So they took the moral/religious high ground angle instead, but even that is based  on a lie.  As I said before, this debate is rooted entirely in politics, and it's for that reason alone it remains a hot-button issue.  I think the vast majority of Americans were ready to move on from it twenty years ago or so.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It matters because the 'pro-life' side never had any logic-based arguments for limiting women's freedoms to begin with.  So they took the moral/religious high ground angle instead, but even that is based  on a lie.  As I said before, this debate is rooted entirely in politics, and it's for that reason alone it remains a hot-button issue.  I think the vast majority of Americans were ready to move on from it twenty years ago or so.



Even calling themselves "pro-life" is absurd. The planet is dying of overpopulation, which means everyone is dying. If you care about life, then make sure that future generations will be able to survive, make sure that as many species as possible survive. Limit the population is the way forward.

The second they bring religion into an argument, it's a red flag that a person shouldn't be trusted as they're purposely ignoring facts. There is no excuse in this day and age to believe in Santa before Science.


----------



## erikas (Feb 13, 2019)

Women have so many forms of birth control there is literally no excuse for abortion later than one week. Even if the woman was raped, the morning after pill exists. I cannot think of any reason why women are absolved of all responsibility to the point where abortion is tax funded. And if something is tax funded, the government does get a say, your body or no. The recent development of 3rd trimester abortions becoming legal just shows how pervasive gynocentrism is, what was the woman doing for the last 6 months that abortion in the 3rd trimester is necessary?


----------



## Burorī (Feb 13, 2019)

why is this on gbatemp?


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The bible does not consider abortion to be killing/murder.
> 
> A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).
> 
> ...



You just quoted this so easily? You are a genius! Never met one before.

Sadly, all you wrote is a lie. Don't have time to argue every point, but only I will cite the bible, something you haven't!

You are just stating *opinions *of what someone or you thinks the bible says on those passages! A total deceiver.

Just the first one, (Exodus 21:22-25): "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take *life for life*, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The punishment is eye for an eye, right there God is telling you that if you kill a fetus, you are to be KILLED dont you get it dumbass, the bible says "give birth prematuraly" it does not say the baby was born dead, and then it says if there is injury (could be the woman or the child) there is eye for an eye.


Thank you for beating yourself. Still, the old testament is irrelevant now and is almost ALL that you wrote, because those were laws for the jews in the past. Everything changed with Jesus and the rules to follow are more simple and clear and for everyone.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Feb 13, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> well given that we disagree at a fundamental level, that being the fact that I believe In God and that I have a soul and you don't. I'm assuming you don't because the soul comes into the body at the moment of conception so you can talk about whether or not the brain is developed enough for your standards but it doesn't take away the fact that it is a person. The most obvious evidence is the fact that we both went through that stage of our lives and luckily no unconscionable person ripped us apart.





nashismo said:


> A medical service, my God... if they want to kill, fine, but make it illegal like any other murder. God made us free to do as we will, wether is right or wether wrong, yet the consequences of our actions and our responsibilities as human beings should never be wiped or erased, or throw under the rug. But that is what sick people like you want, trying to make wrong right and right wrong, complete satanism and I am not even that religious.


So here we have undeniable proof that the only argument against even early-term abortion is a religious one, meaning it is automatically unconstitutional for it to be illegal. The first amendment forbids the establishment of a state religion. The United States is not a theocracy and for as long as I'm still alive, it never will be! So tell me this, when a man masturbates, does that mean all those sperm are lost souls?  What does it mean when a woman miscarries after just a few weeks? Did God perform his own abortion? Why are babies stillborn? Why did he create birth defects?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



nashismo said:


> You just quoted this so easily? You are a genius! Never met one before.
> 
> Sadly, all you wrote is a lie. Don't have time to argue every point, but only I will cite the bible, something you haven't!
> 
> ...


But Jesus actually said to keep his father's laws.


----------



## Pleng (Feb 13, 2019)

erikas said:


> Even if the woman was raped, the morning after pill exists.



Yes I'm sure after enjoying a nice little rape, immediately sourcing a morning after pill is the first thing on a victim's mind...


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 13, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> well given that we disagree at a fundamental level, that being the fact that I believe In God and that I have a soul and you don't. I'm assuming you don't because the soul comes into the body at the moment of conception so you can talk about whether or not the brain is developed enough for your standards but it doesn't take away the fact that it is a person. The most obvious evidence is the fact that we both went through that stage of our lives and luckily no unconscionable person ripped us apart.


The bible specifically says you're not a living person with a soul until your first breath.


----------



## Kigiru (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's pro-lifers that aren't living in reality.  Rapes, *unwanted pregnancies*, and threats to the pregnant mother's life are all events that occur on a regular basis.  These things don't go away just because you ban abortion through the law, we'd simply revert to back-alley abortions instead.  Ultimately it's a necessary medical service to have available, whether you like the idea or not.



The bolded one is truly one of the major reasons why women want right to abortion and i'll say it right fucking now - Abortion is not an anticonception, if women forget to take the pills, put condom on her partner's dick or use one of hundreds of other ways of anticonception then abortion should not be a thing, especialy if paid from others' taxes.
Also, speaking of dicks - I think that it should be obvious that for pregnancy there's needed a man and if we realy need to have so open law for abortion then only if we talk about making it possible only if BOTH parents declare that they want and allow for it. No "my utherus, my choice" bs.


----------



## erikas (Feb 13, 2019)

If you can't think, don't waste oxygen. Bad things happen to people all the time, that's no excuse to shut down and stop functioning and letting the situation get worse. If it's too much you can ask for help, which should be the first thing you do anyway, if not to avoid pregnancy then going to doctor and checking for STD's. Again, why are women absolved of all responsibility all the fucking time.


----------



## notimp (Feb 13, 2019)

Calm down, they arent. Also please remove STDs from your thought process for the purpose of this thread. I know it fits together nicely with the emotional underpinning of moving those concepts in a certain corner, but it doest help the actual argument at hand.

If you learn to separate pure emotion from talking about issues the entire process is helped.

Also, if you can - please dont hate half of the world population on matters of "ingroup - outgroup" stuff. Even if they are not "with you" as a gender, that ought to be silly.  Those 'groups' are simply created in peoples minds. You can just not believe in those camps - and solve another problem...


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

For me abortion should be legal up to birth. Until then it is just another part of the woman's body. Practical reasons mean that after 24 or so weeks it makes sense to try and deliver it and perhaps put it up for adoption. But for me this is a practical issue and should not be a criminal issue.

Also I believe that men should be able to unilaterally give up rights to a child giving up contact, information rights (and the need to pay child support) until the child is 16+ and then he can make his own choice. This augments the mothers unilateral right to abort the pregnancy.

This is the fairest way to deal with the issue giving both the mother and father the ability to absolve them of the unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

Abortion is wrong. PERIOD!!!

The only way that I can see that abortion should be legal is if the parents of the child agree to get sterilized and lobotomized after the abortion.

Don't have sex if you don't want children.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



codyjo said:


> Murder.. What!? Do you possess a uterus? Do you remember rolling around in your mom's uterus with a conscience?


Do you remember being 1 week old?

What kind of a stupid argument is that?


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Abortion is wrong. PERIOD!!!
> 
> The only way that I can see that abortion should be legal is if the parents of the child agree to get sterilized and lobotomized after the abortion.
> 
> Don't have sex if you don't want children.



Ludicrous. Same argument could be made about erasers. 

DON'T WRITE ANYTHING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE!!!


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> Ludicrous. Same argument could be made about erasers.
> 
> DON'T WRITE ANYTHING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE!!!


WTF are you on? That would be a stupid argument. Mistakes when writing happen. A woman doesn't just accidentally slip and fall on someones dick and get pregnant. The majority of the time it is consensual sex that both parties agreed to.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> WTF are you on? That would be a stupid argument. Mistakes when writing happen. A woman doesn't just accidentally slip and fall on someones dick and get pregnant. The majority of the time it is consensual sex that both parties agreed to.



Parties may not have agreed to have a child though.

Abortion hurts no one since it only causes injury to the woman's body who consents to it. Like clipping nails or cancer surgery.

Until the umbilical cord is cut and the child is breathing air. There is no child, only a parasite.


----------



## Bedel (Feb 13, 2019)

Some people here may had to be aborted in the first place. 
Back to the topic: no, abort is not wrong. And any (no, anyone) of you have the right to say something about it. Only the person who's pregnant have the right to do so (and no, no other woman. I mean exactly the one in the position and ant the exact moment). 
I whish some of you get raped (or your child), pregnant, and came to you with tears in the saying he/she doesn't wanna give birth to a monster's child. That would teach some of you.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

Bedel said:


> Some people here may had to be aborted in the first place.
> Back to the topic: no, abort is not wrong. And any (no, anyone) of you have the right to say something about it. Only the person who's pregnant have the right to do so (and no, no other woman. I mean exactly the one in the position and ant the exact moment).
> I whish some of you get raped (or your child), pregnant, and came to you with tears in the saying he/she doesn't wanna give birth to a monster's child. That would teach some of you.



The drive to abolish negative liberty is the tragedy of the 21st century.

Everyone is trying to tell people how to live.

No one has anymore right to tell someone if they can have an abortion than they do telling someone if they should take a dump.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> Parties may not have agreed to have a child though.
> 
> Abortion *hurts no one* since it only causes *injury to the woman's body* who consents to it. Like clipping nails or cancer surgery.
> 
> Until the umbilical cord is cut and the child is breathing air. There is no child, only a parasite.


Read that again... a little slower.



 
This dude is the result of a failed abortion. Tell me again how it hurts no one... but somehow only injures the mother.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Read that again... a little slower.
> View attachment 157801
> This dude is the result of a failed abortion. Tell me again how it hurts no one... but somehow only injures the mother.



That picture is a perfect example of why abortions should be legal. Unable to get a legal abortion a woman had to wing it.

Tragedy could have been avoided if abortion was cheap, legal with easy access.

Maybe Hitler would have been aborted then and WWII would be avoided entirely.


----------



## Bedel (Feb 13, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> The drive to abolish negative liberty is the tragedy of the 21st century.
> 
> Everyone is trying to tell people how to live.
> 
> No one has anymore right to tell someone if they can have an abortion than they do telling someone if they should take a dump.


Yeah that's what I meant. No one has the right to decide. And no one should even hace the right to discuss this. It's not ours to decide; only the person with the thing inside.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

Bedel said:


> I whish some of you get raped (or your child), pregnant, and came to you with tears in the saying he/she doesn't wanna give birth to a monster's child. That would teach some of you.


For real? I triple dog dare you to actually say that to a loving fathers face and then see what happens to your face. You only have the balls to say that online, not in person.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Fragcula said:


> That picture is a perfect example of why abortions should be legal. Unable to get a legal abortion a woman had to wing it.
> 
> Tragedy could have been avoided if abortion was cheap, legal with easy access.
> 
> Maybe Hitler would have been aborted then and WWII would be avoided entirely.


That was a legal failed abortion, you idiot. Try doing some research before running your mouth.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 13, 2019)

Oh boy. There we go again... Drama. SMH.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

The single most effective intervention to curtail climate change is increased abortion rates. Did you know that?



DeadlyFoez said:


> For real? I triple dog dare you to actually say that to a loving fathers face and then see what happens to your face. You only have the balls to say that online, not in person.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



You got no come back to the fact if Hitler could have been avoided.

Have you ever wondered why you have this ridiculous idea that you should tell people who to live their lives?


----------



## Bedel (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> For real? I triple dog dare you to actually say that to a loving fathers face and then see what happens to your face. You only have the balls to say that online, not in person.


I've already done it lmao. You really think I only say this here, and only for you to answer that? Putting in that situation make people think twice. Obviusly not you, but I didn't expect any further.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 13, 2019)

Just leave it rest. This thread need to be closed. Stop argument and stop being drama. Let it go! Jeez!


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> Have you ever wondered why you have this ridiculous idea that you should tell people who to live their lives?


Are you really this stupid?
Let me guess, you also think that people should be allowed to steal and murder and just have a lawless world since laws just exist to tell people how to live their lives?

Also, I do not tell people how to live their lives. I have never told anyone that they aren't allowed to get an abortion. I know plenty of people that have had abortions. But I don't talk to them anymore.

One thing that I have learned from all the people that I know that have had abortion is that it usually eats them up inside for the rest of their lives knowing that they had their own flesh and blood killed for silly selfish reasons. So yes, it does hurt people, especially mentally.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Are you really this stupid?
> Let me guess, you also think that people should be allowed to steal and murder and just have a lawless world since laws just exist to tell people how to live their lives?



That sentence doesn't even make sense...

So I'll clarify. Capacitous adults should be able to do anything to themselves. 

Terminating a pregnancy is no different.

Since it's part of her body until the umbilicus is cut and the foetus begins to breath becoming a child. Women should be able to abort pregnancy right up until this point.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

And now Fragcula is on my ignore list. I am all set with dealing with someone that just wants to troll.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> And now Fragcula is on my ignore list. I am all set with dealing with someone that just wants to troll.



This is a good sign, it indicates that the cognitive dissonance is breaking down in your mind. 

When we pent up hate against others like you are with your misogyny the person you are really hurting is yourself. When you hate what others do which is no business of your own what you really hate is what you are doing yourself.

This is the first step on your journey to an open mind. Good luck!


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Read that again... a little slower.
> This dude is the result of a failed abortion. Tell me again how it hurts no one... but somehow only injures the mother.



It predominantly injures nobody but the expected medical effects upon the pregnancy carrier. I am sure you can find someone that died as a result of have a tooth filling but it does not seem like a good reason to stop those.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> It predominantly injures nobody but the expected medical effects upon the pregnancy carrier. I am sure you can find someone that died as a result of have a tooth filling but it does not seem like a good reason to stop those.


It kills a child. Whether the child was born yet or not does not matter to me.

What is quite funny is I have heard so many pro-choice people go and start bitching that "Meat is murder" and become vegans. Rather ironic.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> It kills a child. Whether the child was born yet or not does not matter to me.


I can't reach that position through logic. Care to highlight a path?


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I can't reach that position through logic. Care to highlight a path?


When it has a brain and a heartbeat I consider it a human being whether or not it is inside a womb. I am not telling anyone that this is the definition that everyone should follow, but that is my own personal feelings about it.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

People pro abortion are a completely lost case. Is like those people that when kids you have to teach them that stealing is BAD, that lying is bad, that killing is bad.

In summary, from what I have been able to tell, there is a tremendous level of autistic population among english speaker, people born without a conscience and without a soul. I mean if you have to explain them why is wrong, there were lost a loooong time ago already.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 13, 2019)

it is incorrect


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> People pro abortion are a completely lost case. Is like those people that when kids you have to teach them that stealing is BAD, that lying is bad, that killing is bad.
> 
> In summary, from what I have been able to tell, there is a tremendous level of autistic population among english speaker, people born without a conscience and without a soul. I mean if you have to explain them why is wrong, there were lost a loooong time ago already.


^^^
The most intelligent thing said in this thread thus far.

... at least for what I have read. I am not going to bother reading 30+ pages of mostly trolls.


But, no need to talk shit about autistic people. I am on that spectrum but I still understand wtf murder is.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

It's a shame that even in 2019 much of the world has backwards ass views they inherited from oral tradition that is likely 5000 years old.

Can we get a few hands who self-identifies as having their views influenced by religion?


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> So here we have undeniable proof that the only argument against even early-term abortion is a religious one, meaning it is automatically unconstitutional for it to be illegal. The first amendment forbids the establishment of a state religion. The United States is not a theocracy and for as long as I'm still alive, it never will be!
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



You can shove your amendments up your ass, I am not american and the WORLD is not the USA. We are talking about a universal subject, in the Internet, where people from all around the world talk to each other.

I don't care about your laws and your pathetic stance, is about what is right and what is wrong, as simple as that. And like I said before, if you people have to be taught like little children about it, that means you are lost already and there is no sense speaking to souless dolls without conscience.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> You can shove your amendments up your ass, I am not american and the WORLD is not the USA. We are talking about a universal subject, in the Internet, where people from all around the world talk to each other.
> 
> I don't care about your laws and your pathetic stance, is about what is right and what is wrong, as simple as that. And like I said before, if you people have to be taught like little children about it, that means you are lost already and there is no sense speaking to souless dolls without conscience.



Where do you get your morals from may I ask?


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> ^^^
> The most intelligent thing said in this thread thus far.
> 
> ... at least for what I have read. I am not going to bother reading 30+ pages of mostly trolls.
> ...



I don't think you are autistic, at least from what I know, being autistic means that you are "unable" to understand the suffering of others, and you clearly do understand! Again I am sorry if I said something hurtful, my understanding of things is different, because I am from south america.

Take care and have a great day friend, today there is a Nintendo direct, hope we get some awesome games 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Fragcula said:


> Where do you get your morals from may I ask?



You really don't know? You are born with a CONSCIENCE! I never had to be taught about it! But this life has surprised me, knowing so many people without this basic knowledge, simpathy for another, love in your heart, you have it or you don't, and I was born with that. I pity some people in all honesty.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> I don't think you are autistic, at least from what I know, being autistic means that you are "unable" to understand the suffering of others, and you clearly do understand! Again I am sorry if I said something hurtful, my understanding of things is different, because I am from south america.
> 
> Take care and have a great day friend, today there is a Nintendo direct, hope we get some awesome games
> 
> ...



I'm sorry I can see from the icon in your profile English is likely not your first language so this is not really meant to be sarcastic. But what are you saying?

Specifically "God please... really?" What does this mean?

If you are born with a conscience then presumably others may have different consciences? What makes your personal one so important? Simple arrogance?


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> So here we have undeniable proof that the only argument against even early-term abortion is a religious one


I am agnostic, and I still feel abortion is wrong.

It doesn't bother me one bit if someone uses the morning after pill or plan b pill, but an abortion after the first trimester I feel is definitely murder.

The real funny thing is, if you kill a pregnant woman then most places in the US now considers it that 2 people were murdered and the criminal will have 2 murder charges. The law is finally catching up on what is a human and alive.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



nashismo said:


> I don't think you are autistic, at least from what I know, being autistic means that you are "unable" to understand the suffering of others, and you clearly do understand! Again I am sorry if I said something hurtful, my understanding of things is different, because I am from south america.


I don't want to get off topic too much here, but as a father on the spectrum with 2, possibly 3 children that are autistic, what you described is not what autism is. What you are describing is a psychopath or sociopath.

And, don't worry. You didn't hurt my feelings. I am not some pansy millenial that needs a safe space.


----------



## dimmidice (Feb 13, 2019)

DRAGONBALLVINTAGE said:


> I get sick to my stomach hearing about it. If they were like just getting settled then ok, But be safe next time But when you can give birth at any moment or the baby is forming then thats when you look at adoption!


yeah, you do. Because abortion isn't after X weeks (depends a little from place to place) But nowhere (in the western world) can you get a legal abortion when "you can give birth any moment"


----------



## Subtle Demise (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> You can shove your amendments up your ass, I am not american and the WORLD is not the USA. We are talking about a universal subject, in the Internet, where people from all around the world talk to each other.
> 
> I don't care about your laws and your pathetic stance, is about what is right and what is wrong, as simple as that. And like I said before, if you people have to be taught like little children about it, that means you are lost already and there is no sense speaking to souless dolls without conscience.


"Because God/Jesus/Muhammad/etc. said so" is not a valid reasoning for anything. I'm sorry that you don't live in a place where there is freedom of (and from) religion, but I guess those who have never experienced liberty won't ever know what they're missing. Much the same way a person who has never achieved consciousness won't miss that either.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 13, 2019)

I wish I was aborted.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I am agnostic, and I still feel abortion is wrong.
> 
> It doesn't bother me one bit if someone uses the morning after pill or plan b pill, but an abortion after the first trimester I feel is definitely murder.
> 
> ...



Ah ok, I was completely wrong then, had no idea. And I was saying I was sorry but not because of being politically correct, it was because a TRULY feel like doing it! 

I am sorry for being an ignorant, and I am glad that autism is not what I thought it was (here we don't see those cases very often at all, that's why I was ignorant about it I think).

Ok then, I am thankful to know people like you, I dont have to ask more things, I know you are a great person in my heart.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> The real funny thing is, if you kill a pregnant woman then most places in the US now considers it that 2 people were murdered and the criminal will have 2 murder charges. The law is finally catching up on what is a human and alive.


Using US law as a measuring stick for morality is troublesome at best.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

Reading through this entire 30+ page thread I've made an interesting discovering in the trends.

There are definitely 3 groups of people who oppose abortion


Those that probably rarely have sex, if at all or are not in a stable relationship. i.e. People who subconsciously fear knocking a girl up will be the only way they will get to reproduce.
Those that are opposed to abortion because it's easy to be. i.e. Likely those who could never understand the need -- mostly men, or those without many children and likely living in a socialist state where they will receive benefits.
Those who have never thought for themselves and inherited cultural/religious views.

But the real issue here is that most of those want to IMPOSE their view on others. That is disgraceful. Understandable if you come from a authoritarian state (it's all you know) but otherwise you need to read about libertarianism.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> Using US law as a measuring stick for morality is troublesome at best.


I think you missed my point.

But I don't want to get into an argument with you anyways as we have always been on rather good terms.


----------



## notimp (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> You can shove your amendments up your ass, I am not american and the WORLD is not the USA. We are talking about a universal subject, in the Internet, where people from all around the world talk to each other.
> 
> I don't care about your laws and your pathetic stance, is about what is right and what is wrong, as simple as that. And like I said before, if you people have to be taught like little children about it, that means you are lost already and there is no sense speaking to souless dolls without conscience.


I'll try this one.

At the heart of this argument lies "is life sacred" and the answer to that is no. Talking about a whole bunch of concepts like war, or risk management (life and death situations), or law even (death penalty in some countries)...

So if its not sacred there have to be rules around it to especially protect the ones who cant protect themselves.

One of those rules in concept f.e. is to minimize harm. Abortions specifically are legal up to the point where the fetus develops most of its sensory ability and then its prohibited.

If you are asking, why you cant make this illegal from the start, the answer is, just because something is illegal, it wont prevent people from doing it. Especially in this case, there is simply no way. So as a responsible legislator, you provide legal and safe venues for it, not to generate more harm.

Now. Giving birth to a child is a monumental moment in someones life, and if its layered with bad emotions or trauma, no one is helped. Especially not the child. Now - the argument goes, that you can always give away your newborn - if you feel, that you cant handle the situation, but thats the parents choice as well. So I'll punch anyone in the mouth who dares to give them good tips, on how those children should end up in care facilities.

People who "fight" for the LIFE of every child, usually couldnt care less about a mother who has just given birth to their first child, and is now supposed to give it away, because they are unable to care for it. They are done with here, once the child is in "caring hands" so to speak. And thats causing trauma as well.

Because you are seen by the parents, and by society as only being interested in new life, and not in the 'old'. Yes you've found it extremely easy to say that you could care about a new life better than someone who has though about abortion. But thats a low bar even by your definition. You dont care how people get into that situation. You dont care to help them, and if you are part of the religious right you are mostly out there to help to create this situation, by also marching against safe sex on your off days.

People can be ruined by having to give their newborns away, because they have to admit, that they cant care for it sufficiently. People can be ruined by growing up in families, that couldnt make the decision to give away their newborn just because.

Pregnancies can start by chance, and be unwanted. And not every pregnancy story ends like a conservative wishfullfillment novel - with the prospective parents dealing with it and growing stronger.

The only acceptable conclusion is, that there has to be a way to terminate pregnancies at the wish of the mother - up to a certain point in the pregnancy - where you start to elevate the rights of the unborn child above the ones of the mother.

All of that is in place in western democracies. And there is no way around it. Because people will always get themselves into the situation where they dont know what to do next - and because considering abortion will always be part of what they will do. Regardless of legality.

If you keep it legal up to a point, you can "force them" to at least be informed about other potential options and think about those. Thats all you can do. That and not advertising for the "easyness of early abortion" which also is illegal at least in the country I am from.

Also - get your religious crazed friends of the "safe life" movement out of the part of the process where women are informed about their options. People can smell a religious nut who wants them to birth a baby. Thats another thing that falls under minimizing harm.

Now - I was an unwanted child, according to some stories of my parents. And they dealt with the situation and it wasnt all roses. Yet I'm still glad, that I'm living. 

Leave that decision in the hands of the prospective parents. Dont get into fantasies about the "just" action of saving babies lives. Take a turn somewhere before that - you are helping no one - looking at the bigger picture. Could I interest you in animal rights, for example?  I mean - you wont go home gloating, having "saved" a babies life everyday... But if thats your motivation for doing advocacy - you have bigger issues. (God complex.)


----------



## dimmidice (Feb 13, 2019)

XDel said:


> I think there are a lot of benefits.
> 
> 1. Maintain your girly figure.
> 2. No nagging brats hanging at your ankle.
> ...


You're fucked in the head.


----------



## GilgameshArcher (Feb 13, 2019)

I think its a must, less people born is better.

Less criminals, less poor ppl, less suffering


----------



## mattytrog (Feb 13, 2019)

At the end of the day, its a womans choice.
However, in my eyes, it is murder. And they deserved to be treated as such.

The only exception are babies who have zero chance of survival. Or abuse victims. Then the woman has my sympathies. And they have to do what needs to be done, in the best interests of the child & mother. Whatever that may be. Nobody would think any less of her for doing so.

The most terrible terrible thing are those abortions VERY late. A metal spike / hook & a vacuum.
When she looks the big man in the eye come judgement time, lets hope he can forgive.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Feb 13, 2019)

Ive been noticing more conservatives on GBAtemp.How the hell did this even happen? I remember 3 years ago people were getting banned for not being liberals on here.Weird.


----------



## notimp (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Or abuse victims. Then the woman has my sympathies.


Thats not how this works. 

In essence, no one cares about sympathies or well wishes, or understanding. This is a matter of minimizing harm. When or where society thinks it is rectified, plays absolutely no role in it. (For as long as society is still pro having 'intelligent people' ruling over them.)

(Is a women now supposed to prove that she was raped, before being allowed to have an abortion?)

Society can take their morals and suck on them so to speak. You make this a universal right - up to a point - to minimize harm, not to cater to peoples moral believes.

Because on a bad day, they believe in etherial beings raigning them from the sky - giving them instructions on what to do morally, on stone tablets.

Leave that part out of it. At least out of the process. If you have to judge a women for having an abortion after it, we cant prevent it.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Ive been noticing more conservatives on GBAtemp.How the hell did this even happen? I remember 3 years ago people were getting banned for not being liberals on here.Weird.



Goal posts have changed. People call me conservative. I'm about as liberal as they get.

Some others call me liberal.... 

It's getting harder and harder to be a centralist.


----------



## haxan (Feb 13, 2019)

if the mother was having complications and having a child would endanger her life then i do agree with abortion. if the parents can afford to take care of the baby but just "feel" like they are not ready then its not okay. this includes underage teen moms as well, they can easily take care of the baby with their parents or even put the child for adoption. 
I don't know about other situations but i hope you guys can enlighten me if i said something wrong.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> The most terrible terrible thing are those abortions VERY late. A metal spike / hook & a vacuum.


Abortion is legal precisely so people don't have to get it done in a back alley with a hook and a vacuum.  And late-term abortion isn't legal anywhere unless the mother's life is endangered.  As I said before, this is settled law, and the only reason it continues to come up is because it's one of two issues that keep the Republican party from fading entirely into irrelevancy.  Abortion and immigration.  I have no idea how they square their 'compassion' on the topic of abortion with their hatred of immigrant children, but it is what it is I guess.


----------



## mattytrog (Feb 13, 2019)

notimp said:


> Thats not how this works.
> 
> In essence, no one cares about sympathies or well wishes, or understanding. This is a matter of minimizing harm. When or where society thinks it is rectified, plays absolutely no role in it.
> 
> ...


The title of the thread is "How do you feel about abortion".

Thats my feeling. Unless there is medical need or from rape / abuse, abortion is wrong in my eyes. They should have been on birth control.

A long time ago, when I was a young lad, a woman I was seeing got pregnant. All went well, so I thought. Until one day when I came home from work, she said the baby is gone. Just like that.

Her excuse? She "didn`t want to be taking a kid to school at 40".

So... sorry, not much sympathy.

Repeating myself again, medical need, or abuse / rape circumstances, that is somewhat different. 

The rest of them, not exactly wife material are they? And they should be hanged from a lamppost accordingly.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Thats my feeling. Unless there is medical need or from rape / abuse, abortion is wrong in my eyes. They should have been on birth control.
> 
> A long time ago, when I was a young lad, a woman I was seeing got pregnant. All went well, so I thought. Until one day when I came home from work, she said the baby is gone. Just like that.


And you bare no responsibility for not wearing a condom?  AFAIK they even have birth control pills for men now, don't just put the decision in someone else's hands and feign innocence.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> And you bare no responsibility for not wearing a condom?  AFAIK they even have birth control pills for men now, don't just put the decision in someone else's hands and feign innocence.


reading comprehension fail?


----------



## notimp (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Thats my feeling. Unless there is medical need or from rape / abuse, abortion is wrong in my eyes. They should have been on birth control.



I'm trying to lay out, why it is not a good idea to have this decided by most peoples feelings.

Simply because if I tell you, that its for the children, and babies have to be saved - people even are in favor of starting wars (quite recently actually..  ). Everything goes for most people, at that point.

Some of the laws are written from a position if inevitability not of "people need to become good and just by moral standards".

Its fine for you to discuss morals standings - but the pro life advocacy groups in the US also try to have political impact - and at that point it becomes an issue.

Because you cant argue with people who believe that their god made it their mission to safe baby lives. To them everything is clear as day already.

In reality its more complicated.

Birth control can fail. Also people arent always the best judges of action, when it comes to having sex. Stuff like that will always happen, you cant prevent it even with the best education, and access to free birth control. You can minimize it though.

But then you write laws to deal with it, not to please the public, or god.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> The title of the thread is "How do you feel about abortion".
> 
> Thats my feeling. Unless there is medical need or from rape / abuse, abortion is wrong in my eyes. They should have been on birth control.
> 
> ...


Going around, spreading your legs for the first shaft that comes your way.. I can't sympathize. I agree with you. There's really only extenuating circumstances that could be justified. The thing that gets me is that some wait until the last trimester to do it. It's sick.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> reading comprehension fail?


I don't see how, he said it was a woman he "was seeing."  I'm pretty sure he got her pregnant, not somebody else.  Clearly she wasn't ready to have a child, so that's probably something they should've discussed before he knocked her up.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> They should have been on birth control.



Too many women are having sex on birth control for this to be a legitimate consideration.

Take the pill for example, 97% effective. This is women-years so not as intuitive as you might imagine.

It sounds good until you realise that this means for every 100 women using it as birth control a year 3 of them will get pregnant.

That's a fuck tonne of pregnancies to says "Whelp should have been using birth control!"


----------



## mattytrog (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> And you bare no responsibility for not wearing a condom?  AFAIK they even have birth control pills for men now, don't just put the decision in someone else's hands and feign innocence.


A condom? Lol
Rather different when you are in a committed relationship and have discussed such things. We discussed it many times and everyone was actually rather pleased after the initial shock.

25 years ago there was no male pill. And it was left stupidly late.

The male should take some responsibility for birth control, I agree.

But he doesn't exactly get a lot of say in it. Regarding what happens after.
Does he.


----------



## Owenge (Feb 13, 2019)

I'm going to be real here:
The whole reason they are legal is because women would go to 3rd parties (not certified clinics because there was none at the time) and most women that would die after the operation was done. So if the US did happen to make abortions illegal, women would have to go though these 3rd parties instead of the safe method. Look back on alcohol prohibition, it just made alcohol more expensive and expanded the market. Overall we don't need another ban on items that most people still use/need i.e. abortions/guns

p.s: this is just my opinion, please inform me if anything I said is wrong (fact wise). Thank you and have a great day 
- Owenge


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> A condom? Lol
> Rather different when you are in a committed relationship and have discussed such things. We discussed it many times and everyone was actually rather pleased after the initial shock.


Wait, what?  So you discussed it and decided an abortion would be fine if she did get pregnant?  Or did she say she'd keep it and then changed her mind after getting pregnant?



mattytrog said:


> The male should take some responsibility for birth control, I agree.
> 
> But he doesn't exactly get a lot of say in it. Regarding what happens after.
> Does he.


If it's a healthy relationship he does.  If it isn't, then abortion or adoption are probably for the best anyway.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 13, 2019)

Some things to keep in mind:

- contraceptives fail all the time. They increase the chances of not getting pregnant, they do not negate it. 
- The conversation is about bodily autonomy. At what point do fuzzy blueprints for a human get bodily autonomy? At what point does that override the mother's autonomy?
- You can do everything right and still not succeed. This is not a failure, this is just life. Someone getting pregnant does not mean someone did something wrong and need to be punished. Even if they did, punishment is a silly way to deal with the topic
- This conversation touches on 1) inherent rights, 2) morality, 3) legality, 4) religion, 5) politics, 6) health. Know what category you're appealing to and know what category someone else is speaking on.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

Owenge said:


> I'm going to be real here:
> The whole reason they are legal is because women would go to 3rd parties (not certified clinics because there was none at the time) and most women that would die after the operation was done. So if the US did happen to make abortions illegal, women would have to go though these 3rd parties instead of the safe method. Look back on alcohol prohibition, it just made alcohol more expensive and expanded the market. Overall we don't need another ban on items that most people still use/need i.e. abortions/guns
> 
> p.s: this is just my opinion, please inform me if anything I said is wrong (fact wise). Thank you and have a great day
> - Owenge


100% correct.  It's a necessity to keep abortion legal, because the demand for abortions doesn't magically go down when you outlaw them.  GOP Senators would just take their mistresses/hookers to back alleys again instead.


----------



## mattytrog (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I don't see how, he said it was a woman he "was seeing."  I'm pretty sure he got her pregnant, not somebody else.  Clearly she wasn't ready to have a child, so that's probably something they should've discussed before he knocked her up.


What if I told you we had discussed it? And it didn't stop her having young sons before this event. Yep. Already a mother.

Like I say, it was a relationship. That's what happened.

The last thing I'll do is justify myself to any prick on here, but I will say this... There is no reason to leave it so late.

That late, it is a baby in there. Developed brainstem, cortices, can respond to stimuli. By then, it is tough shit in my eyes.

"Pro-life" or "Pro-choice"... I'm Pro life.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Wait, what?  So you discussed it and decided an abortion would be fine if she did get pregnant?  Or did she say she'd keep it and then changed her mind after getting pregnant?
> 
> 
> If it's a healthy relationship he does.  If it isn't, then abortion or adoption are probably for the best anyway.


That's the reason I guessed there was a reading comprehension failure, perhaps it was mine either.
What I understood from the post is that it was kind of decided that they were going to have the baby, but then suddenly unilaterally a different choice was made.

My understanding of the post anyway...


----------



## mattytrog (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Wait, what?  So you discussed it and decided an abortion would be fine if she did get pregnant?  Or did she say she'd keep it and then changed her mind after getting pregnant?
> 
> 
> If it's a healthy relationship he does.  If it isn't, then abortion or adoption are probably for the best anyway.


No... We discussed birth control. Do you really think we discussed abortions? It wasn't happening.

We were both dead against that.

Or so I thought.
Anything else?


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> You can shove your amendments up your ass, I am not american and the WORLD is not the USA. We are talking about a universal subject, in the Internet, where people from all around the world talk to each other.
> 
> I don't care about your laws and your pathetic stance, is about what is right and what is wrong, as simple as that. And like I said before, if you people have to be taught like little children about it, that means you are lost already and there is no sense speaking to souless dolls without conscience.



Right back at ya. I am not religious and the WORLD doesn't have to deal anymore with the bullshit spat out of a fantasy book. We don't have to bend the knee to sectarianism and cult bullshit. The Spanish inquisition is over, has been for a long time.

Haven't you heard the news? The Human Rights aren't just a thing of the US. https://www.hrw.org/legacy/women/abortion.html

Get off of your high ground. You can believe the Earth is flat all you want but there is no place in public debate for superstitious propaganda anymore.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

So many people in this thread, presumable men, presumable rarely laid, seem to think of sex as negative. As though having sex is a bad thing.

It aint.

People are allowed to fuck, it's pretty much the only simple joy we have left in this world.

With condoms and abortions it's very harmless too.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> No... We discussed birth control. Do you really think we discussed abortions?
> 
> We were both dead against that.
> 
> ...


Nothing else.  If she lied to you about a topic that serious, then the relationship probably wasn't that healthy/stable and it was best for you to move on anyway.  Who knows what other lies she was covering up, and bringing a child into the middle of that likely would've ended up a lot worse for everybody.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> So many people in this thread, presumable men, presumable rarely laid, seem to think of sex as negative. As though having sex is a bad thing.
> 
> It aint.
> 
> ...



The only joy for souless men, of course. If you don't have anything else that can make you feel joy, then is true, but it is sad.

Still I don't see anyone anyone in this thread saying sex is bad, we are only against the murdering of little babies and the pathetic worms that defend this barbaric behavior.


----------



## mattytrog (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nothing else.  If she lied to you about a serious topic that serious, then the relationship probably wasn't that healthy/stable and it was best for you to move on anyway.  Who knows what other lies she was covering up, and bringing a child into the middle of that likely would've ended up a lot worse for everybody.


Yep. Very possibly.

It says something about my ignorance when I didn't see there was a problem.

But yes. Terminated without my knowledge, in spite of discussing far earlier in the pregnancy. Bear in mind we are talking months here.

Through the grapevine, I heard many years later that she was still in love with her "ex" and didn't want the young un.

But it was a long long time ago. Who knows? It might have made her ill mentally.

Didn't change the fact that a real baby lost its life for no good reason. Most young lads would be grateful that they weren't "shackled with a kid". So... Each to their own.

Should abortion be outlawed? No. Because stupid women will get it done with a knitting needle or castor oil or whatever. Leading to further risk. So it needs to be regulated and the clinics should attempt to educate these idiots.


----------



## notimp (Feb 13, 2019)

"But then I'm pro life." Is probably the stupidest phrase ever uttered. As long as you are not trying to change law for the worse, no one even cares, that you have to play armchair coach for every teen girl in your neighborhood.

If you do - people most likely think that you are crazed. And If you are starting to gain political traction, people ought to struck you down asap - because you still dont know what you are doing here.

If you are arguing on the level of "but it wasnt even her first child, it was her fourth" - I'm also leaving you to talk to yourself - because I've lost any grasp of what strand of the argument you are after here.

(Thats the reason why you grant it as a universal right, and not have "moral councils" that would grant it - selectively. Idiot.)
-

Here is the essential argument.

If you are still at the "young girls also have responsibility" and "they spread their legs for the first shaft that comes along" stage of "moral arguing" -- you are stuck at some odd stage of wanting to deny people to get some, and sharing it with the world. I couldnt care less.

Thats all "moral playschool" and you can do that until the word grows old if you must.

I'm thinking about how conceptually people deal with life they cant care about, or induced trauma - because of forced separation, or because of neglect, or an inability to handle the situation. Because sadly those are things that exist as well, and don't go away, simply because you tell a girl to shut her legs - which approx 40% of people in here would like to do - at some point in their lives.

If you then argue, that those are your feelings and your feelings cant be wrong - I might lose it.

But only as far as the legal position is concerned. If you want to judge people you know nothing about on your days off - be my guest. Don't try to change the law, or "help" women in their second trimester by telling them about your religious friends. Thats all I'm asking.

Also, may I inform you, that if you are against teenage pregnancies, you are #winning, because close to every developed country in the world is experiencing a decline of birth rates.  (Your morals tell you to be for something and against something at the same time, how about that..)

Its not that the catholic church has exclusive rights to be against birth control and against abortions at the same time. They even have moral superiority on it. They call it a sin. How novel.

Still doesnt make it go away.

"But I'm pro life!"

And I'm pro grow a brain, if you have time to. The problem is more complicated than people not having the right kind of morals. So argue morals all you want - just know, that thats only part of the problem at most.


----------



## mattytrog (Feb 13, 2019)

I suppose the bigger question is, as males, our opinion is irrelevant.

So should we be making judgement at all?

May be best to keep our feelings to ourselves in these subjects.

Edit: glad to see our resident leftylefty with his wall of text. How you doing notimp?


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> I suppose the bigger question is, as males, our opinion is irrelevant.
> 
> So should we be making judgement at all?
> 
> May be best to keep our feelings to ourselves in these subjects.



I don't agree really because in a democracy everyone equally gets to make the rules...

I do agree with the spirit of what you're saying though, but I would take it further. No one, not men, not women, not the father of the child has an significant opinion in the matter of a woman having something done to her body.

Be that a nipple piercing or an abortion.

That's pretty much the core principle of negative liberty libertarians.


----------



## spectral (Feb 13, 2019)

I find it amusing that people from a country with the death penalty try to play the legalised murder card.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 13, 2019)

spectral said:


> I find it amusing that people from a country with the death penalty try to play the legalised murder card.


Which country?


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> I suppose the bigger question is, as males, our opinion is irrelevant.
> 
> So should we be making judgement at all?
> 
> May be best to keep our feelings to ourselves in these subjects.


There's no issue with having an opinion on the topic, but ultimately it does make very little difference.  As I said before, I'd bet that pro-life individuals have abortions at about the same rate as pro-choice individuals.  Hell, Sarah Palin's family alone probably makes up half of the abortion stats in Alaska.  



spectral said:


> I find it amusing that people from a country with the death penalty try to play the legalised murder card.


The death penalty is only legal in a few states, not nationwide.  Personally I think being locked away for life is a much harsher sentence to deal with than having it ended for you in an instant.  Especially since there's always a chance of being raped/murdered during hard jail time anyway.


----------



## spectral (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There's no issue with having an opinion on the topic, but ultimately it does make very little difference.  As I said before, I'd bet that pro-life individuals have abortions at about the same rate as pro-choice individuals.  Hell, Sarah Palin's family alone probably makes up half of the abortion stats in Alaska.
> 
> 
> The death penalty is only legal in a few states, not nationwide.  Personally I think being locked away for life is a much harsher sentence to deal with than having it ended for you in an instant.  Especially since there's always a chance of being raped/murdered during hard jail time anyway.



The point wasn't so much how harsh a punishment it is, just that is literally legalised murder.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 13, 2019)

spectral said:


> The point wasn't so much how harsh a punishment it is, just that is literally legalised murder.


I think every country has an army, or some sort of armed police. What's the difference?


----------



## spectral (Feb 13, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> I think every country has an army, or some sort of armed police. What's the difference?


Good point, so then why do people get so hell bent that abortion is unforgivable because it is just legalised murder. Governments legalise murder all the time.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

spectral said:


> Good point, so then why do people get so hell bent that abortion is unforgivable because it is just legalised murder. Governments legalise murder all the time.


Beats me, some people seem to think that unborn fetuses have far more value than people who are already alive and walking the planet.  If I had to guess, it probably has something to do with struggling against our own animal nature.  We see animals kill or even eat their own newborns in the wild all the time, so our reverence for fetuses and newborns is likely a reactionary position based on the perceived 'evils' of nature.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Unless there is medical need or from rape / abuse, abortion is wrong in my eyes.


I agree with 99.99% of what you have said. I used to feel exactly like how you feel about abortion.

I was in an ethics class and abortion came up as a topic. I stated the same thing that I agree with abortion if it was the result of a rape or similar. My ethics professor asked me at that point "How does doing one injustice fix another?"
That got me thinking. And he was exactly right. It is not the childs fault for being conceived, even if it was rape, why should the child have to be killed? If it was true rape not just some brainless blond withdrawing consent after sex or whatever stupid shit people do these days, then there is still the morning after pill. In most cases, when a woman goes to get a rape kit done, the hospital staff do administer the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy.


Just trying to hopefully open your eyes to another thought that you may have not considered previously.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



spectral said:


> Good point, so then why do people get so hell bent that abortion is unforgivable because it is just legalised murder. Governments legalise murder all the time.


There is a huge difference between murdering a serial murder through lethal injection versus an innocent child that never once did anything wrong.


----------



## spectral (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I agree with 99.99% of what you have said. I used to feel exactly like how you feel about abortion.
> 
> I was in an ethics class and abortion came up as a topic. I stated the same thing that I agree with abortion if it was the result of a rape or similar. My ethics professor asked me at that point "How does doing one injustice fix another?"
> That got me thinking. And he was exactly right. It is not the childs fault for being conceived, even if it was rape, why should the child have to be killed? If it was true rape not just some brainless blond withdrawing consent after sex or whatever stupid shit people do these days, then there is still the morning after pill. In most cases, when a woman goes to get a rape kit done, the hospital staff do administer the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy.
> ...


Yeah you keep telling yourself that no one innocent ever got executed


----------



## osm70 (Feb 13, 2019)

spectral said:


> Yeah you keep telling yourself that no one innocent ever got executed


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

spectral said:


> Yeah you keep telling yourself that no one innocent ever got executed


I never once said that. But please tell me of a single instance that a baby in the womb committed a crime that is punishable by being executed.

Oh, you can't. Well garsh.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

In summary there is only one thing agree,

We should ABORT this thread. It makes me loose hope in people


DeadlyFoez said:


> I agree with 99.99% of what you have said. I used to feel exactly like how you feel about abortion.
> 
> I was in an ethics class and abortion came up as a topic. I stated the same thing that I agree with abortion if it was the result of a rape or similar. My ethics professor asked me at that point "How does doing one injustice fix another?"
> That got me thinking. And he was exactly right. It is not the childs fault for being conceived, even if it was rape, why should the child have to be killed? If it was true rape not just some brainless blond withdrawing consent after sex or whatever stupid shit people do these days, then there is still the morning after pill. In most cases, when a woman goes to get a rape kit done, the hospital staff do administer the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy.
> ...



Don't waste your time man. These people are crazy, there is no arguing with people like this, it is a waste of time. I am thankful that I live in Chile and that even though there are a lot of socialist here, they are not as insane as these people.

Some people I know are literally afraid of americans because of how cold they are, some are armed to the teeth and others are satanic abortists pieces of shit (the way people see them here).

Cheers.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I never once said that. But please tell me of a single instance that a baby in the womb committed a crime that is punishable by being executed.
> 
> Oh, you can't. Well garsh.


Conversely, you probably can't find a criminal who's been executed that didn't have a fully formed/functional brain, heart, and lungs.  Thus it's kind of silly to compare the two scenarios at all, apples and oranges.


----------



## spectral (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I never once said that. But please tell me of a single instance that a baby in the womb committed a crime that is punishable by being executed.
> 
> Oh, you can't. Well garsh.



Carrying a child to term can in some instances kill the mother. Also my point was more that people claim abortion is wrong BECAUSE its legalised murder, yet like mentioned murder is legalised for all sorts of reasons. There are other reasons to be for or against. For me personally it would be once it has formed any part of the brain as that is the person, the personality. While its still a blob of cells I'd have no more guilt than taking antibiotics for an infection.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> Some people I know are literally afraid of americans because of how cold they are, some are armed to the teeth and others are satanic abortists pieces of shit (the way people see them here).


Believe it or not, true honest satanists agree that abortion is murder. Satanism is soooooo much different than what people think it is. Most satanists are very good people. It's psychopaths that do terrible things and not care, and there are psychopaths in every demographic.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> Don't waste your time man. These people are crazy, there is no arguing with people like this, it is a waste of time. I am thankful that I live in Chile and that even though there are a lot of socialist here, they are not as insane as these people.


What the fuck does abortion have to do with Socialism?  You're really grasping at straws now.  Despite your preachiness, Chile has legalized abortion for several different scenarios.  So has the vast majority of the civilized world.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 13, 2019)

I'm going for my popcorn.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 13, 2019)

Death penatly is wrong.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 13, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Death penatly is wrong.


Actually I agree, but I get the feeling this was a sarcastic comment.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What the fuck does abortion have to do with Socialism?  You're really grasping at straws now.  Despite your preachiness, Chile has legalized abortion for several different scenarios.  So has the vast majority of the civilized world.



Yes, because of a socialist government that would not listen to his own people, most people disagree with abortion (now that government is no more). Also, abortion legalized but only from rape or life threatening defects.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



sarkwalvein said:


> I'm going for my popcorn.


I'll grab a cig.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 13, 2019)

Personally, the only time I would ever consider abortion as being morally alright to do is if the pregnancy could kill the mother. But, even if that was the actual case scenario with my pregnant wife, I would still want her to keep the baby and take our chance. Doctors are wrong all the time.
My wife and I did discuss this before, and she 100% agrees with me on it. Why take away the life of an innocent child?
Even if we did take our chance and the baby survived while my wife passed away, I would be confident that I made the right choice. To me, my own flesh and blood has a higher priority over someone that I choose to love and marry.

That is just my personal opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


----------



## osm70 (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Personally, the only time I would ever consider abortion as being morally alright to do is if the pregnancy could kill the mother. But, even if that was the actual case scenario with my pregnant wife, I would still want her to keep the baby and take our chance. Doctors are wrong all the time.
> My wife and I did discuss this before, and she 100% agrees with me on it. Why take away the life of an innocent child?
> Even if we did take our chance and the baby survived while my wife passed away, I would be confident that I made the right choice. To me, my own flesh and blood has a higher priority over someone that I choose to love and marry.
> 
> That is just my personal opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.



What if you 100% knew that she will die if she gives birth? Like, no possibility of survival at all.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> Yes, because of a socialist government that would not listen to his own people, most people disagree with abortion (now that government is no more). Also, abortion legalized but only from rape or life threatening defects.


So the majority of people disagree with abortion, but it's kept legal in the country anyway?  Sounds like your country has discovered the same answer that I've been harping on all along: it's oftentimes a medical necessity and has to stay legal, even if people don't like the thought of it.

Again though, Socialism and abortion are not a package deal.  Pick any form of government in the world, and chances are they have or have had legal abortion.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Believe it or not, true honest satanists agree that abortion is murder. Satanism is soooooo much different than what people think it is. Most satanists are very good people. It's psychopaths that do terrible things and not care, and there are psychopaths in every demographic.



You know what? I was thinking the same thing this morning! I mean, I would be OK with someone admitting something is wrong, and yet CHOOSING to follow that path (maybe a satanist would fit that) accepting the consequences. What pisses me off is people trying to bend whats wrong and excusing it like is OK and a good thing.


----------



## osm70 (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> You know what? I was thinking the same thing this morning! I mean, I would be OK with someone admitting something is wrong, and yet CHOOSING to follow that path (maybe a satanist would fit that) accepting the consequences. What pisses me off is people trying to bend whats wrong and excusing it like is OK and a good thing.



What you think is wrong and what I think is wrong doesn't necessarily have to be the same thing. People disagree on right and wrong all the time.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 13, 2019)

Why do I see double? Must be the work of Satan! I hate this shit, damn that's the reason I wasn't playing videogames today.


----------



## notimp (Feb 13, 2019)

I tend to want to agree that this is a people watching too much FOX news issue.

This is literally a problem, of people in sound family structures, getting outraged at the thought of others having sex - without permission (marriage, too young, ... whatever). Because society tells them to replicate their social structures. And also, that they cant have sex with everyone they want to. So they are angry - and complacent at the same time.

Now enter FOX news, that tells them that their morals is the most important guideline of judgment they should have in their lives - and so are their emotions. And all of a sudden you have a bunch of idiots at hand, that - first and foremost are against free sex and against dealing with unwanted consequences in a way, that doesnt take nine months and a child away from a women, that doesnt want to go that path.

And then they think, that the real question here is, that as males, should we even talk about those issues, because the real decision lies with the women...

Are you legally allowed to vote? Have you ever held an argument you didnt just go into with your feelings? Do you understand the concept of thinking about stuff, that doesnt affect you personally. Are you able to follow this logically?

So - and after you have all layed out your concepts of sex after social permission, and everyone get into conservative family structures - and hate on teenagers, while watching FOX news, and getting into politics, because of morals and feelings - let me lay out one thing to you.

You didn't even take one second to try to understand the notion, that there are individuals in broken family structures, that have no support there, whom might not be mentally ready for additional challenges at the point in their lives they are at, who despair at the notion of having to raise a child, and at the same time at just giving it away after birth. Who might be pressured into marriages or relationships if they keep the child, beaten if they mention it to their own parents, getting into abusive tendencies, because of societal pressures on how to deal with this "properly", or simply unable to accept the responsibility that comes with raising a child.

Let that sink in for a moment, before you are duplicating FOX news messaging again.

Those situations arent going away. Your grandmother isn't going to help them. Neither is all of the peach tea you could produce over your lifetime.

Challenges can be overcome, and mastered, and it is good to encourage people to try to do it - but if they cant - you dont leave them and announce "I cant deal with your decision based on moral grounds". Then you are just another ahole.

You deal with this by having legal venues that allow people to get abortions no silly, demeaning, nonsense questions asked.

They have to deal with the bunch of you peach tea sipping folks for the rest of their lives for 'what they have done' - but you have no power to influence their decisions, in the moment, directly.

Ideally.

And thats the correct opinion from a humanistic point of view. Eff morals, because they are still used as replacement for people having to think for their own. So they are very popular. Coincidentally they are also used to farm peoples votes based on familiarity with certain slogans.

(FOX news pundits and conservative talk show mavens really ought to go to hell for what they are doing knowingly here. But of course there is no devine judgement or justice. Sadly.)

If you get away from the opinion that all life is sacred you are trying to have this dealt with in ways that are not inducing more harm, or selfharm, or suffering.

We in Europe often think that americans are some deranged kind of sociopaths that point at a flag, whenever they've done stuff the entire world thinks makes them look deranged, and the "pro LIFE" advocacy movement taking away legal abortions from people is one such thing.

We have conservatives as well. Ours are content with making sure that you cant advertise abortions, and have strict rules for when the rights fo the unborn child actually override the rights of the mother. And that people have to pay for their abortions in full on their own (In other countries in europe they dont have to). No one sane is questioning the right of people to have legal abortions here. Leave that to our crazed neighbors watching FOX news overseas.

Freaking hell. Talking about social norms. I wouldnt even talk to someone in my country, holding that opinion without calling them a radical. But I always have to make exceptions, because of americans who were unable to keep their religious right under control right?

Peaches.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 13, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> Actually I agree, but I get the feeling this was a sarcastic comment.



I know but I am saying it anyway. LOL!

And this thread is no point of return. It needed to be end. More drama. Jeez!


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> In summary there is only one thing agree,
> 
> We should ABORT this thread. It makes me loose hope in people
> 
> ...



I'm born and raised European. European countries legalized abortion. No point spitting your hate on Americans for that. I know that's the popular thing to do in the black & white world we live in today, but that just makes a very poor argument.

Your whole argumentation is "morality", but this "morality" is basically a repeat from a book that you read (or not) and decided that it was truth for everyone and there was no way it could be questioned. And that weights nothing for whoever thinks pragmatically.
Morality has changed, the world changes as it's freeing itself from superstition, and abortion is now considered a right for women. 

Science isn't just another religion, it is backed up by facts and understanding of our world. Your beliefs however are backed up by obscurantism.
Science proves that a fetus isn't capable to feel and isn't a person till much later during pregnancy. Facts, which means it can't just be countered by opinion, even less a religious one.

There you have it. You can still choose to insult people who aren't adopting your views, but you're barely more than a preacher at this point.

Don't cry in a few decades when the world will be so overpopulated that actual people will die everyday of disease, lack of proper food and weather conditions because you'd rather focus on the yet-to-live rather than the living.
Whole species need saving right now, that's a critical battle to fight if you're looking for something to bitch at against Americans and the occidental world.


One final thing. NOBODY takes abortion lightly, as a casual thing. It is NEVER a "GREAT" experience, a great thing to do. It is always painful. But it's sometimes necessary.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

osm70 said:


> What you think is wrong and what I think is wrong doesn't necessarily have to be the same thing. People disagree on right and wrong all the time.



There is right and there is wrong, there is love and there is hate, there is evil and there is goodness. This has been since the beginning, is not a matter of "opinion". Only hypocrites go around the bushes and look for reasons to excuse their *unmerciful* acts.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> You know what? I was thinking the same thing this morning! I mean, I would be OK with someone admitting something is wrong, and yet CHOOSING to follow that path (maybe a satanist would fit that) accepting the consequences. What pisses me off is people trying to bend whats wrong and excusing it like is OK and a good thing.


Necessity =/= 'good thing.'  This is why I think pro-lifers are out of touch with reality.  They literally believe people be out here getting abortions every other day because it feels good.

Ultimately I think both sides are just trying to be empathetic, but we disagree on who deserves the empathy.  Pro-choice people empathize with the teenage mother who can't afford a child and doesn't want to go through childbirth, whereas pro-life people empathize with the fetus and prioritize its rights over the mother's, often regardless of circumstance.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Necessity =/= 'good thing.'  This is why I think pro-lifers are out of touch with reality.  They literally believe people be out here getting abortions every other day because it feels good.
> 
> Ultimately I think both sides are just trying to be empathetic, but we disagree on who deserves the empathy.  Pro-choice people empathize with the teenage mother who can't afford a child and doesn't want to go through childbirth, whereas pro-life people empathize with the fetus and prioritize its rights over the mother's, often regardless of circumstance.



I child to be, a person to be, wether he/she suffers or not when he/she is aborted is not what I discuss (I know you are not speaking of that now but still). The point is that the person to be, has all the right to exist as anyone else, to experience this life for good or for worse, we were given this opportunity and I think they should have that right too.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 13, 2019)

deinonychus71 said:


> One final thing. NOBODY takes abortion lightly, as a casual thing. It is NEVER a "GREAT" experience, a great thing to do. It is always painful. But it's sometimes necessary.


That's what I fear actually. People thinking of it like just a walk in the park, not something to think about seriously,  not something that should be discussed. I don't like that easy going way out of people nowadays that refuse to think about things seriously and discuss things. 

TBH, I don't like the idea of abortion but I think it should be legal, making it illegal makes things worse really. But I fear people trivialize it.


----------



## Phenj (Feb 13, 2019)

It is ok, 3 months limit.


----------



## notimp (Feb 13, 2019)

nashismo said:


> I child to be, a person to be, wether he/she suffers or not when he/she is aborted is not what I discuss (I know you are not speaking of that now but still). The point is that the person to be, has all the right to exist as anyone else, to experience this life for good or for worse, we were given this opportunity and I think they should have that right too.


And this right is exclusive and should exist regardless of potential consequences, outcome, suffering, social preassure - from the moment of conception?

In europe this isn't even a point of question any longer. We gave you the last six months before birth - then your argument counts. Before that - we dont act by a single word of what you are proposing.

As entire societies by the way.

I'm growing tired of always having to explain to deranged americans, that their believes are ancient - compared to the entire rest of the developed world.

If I'm allowed to bring in our societal standards - I pronounce everyone even questioning the need for abortion rights a radical nutter, and call it a day - because that would be how the discussion goes over in most of the civilized world.

No FOX news where I'm from, I'm afraid. No Gretchen Whatchamacallit, and far less old men wanting to control young womens sex life, by telling them to look at the conservative blonde on TV. Not even one pitcher of sweet peach tea if I'm honest. We hate that stuff.

No school shootings either, I might add, we dont give assault rifles to minors.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 13, 2019)

notimp said:


> If I'm allowed to bring in our societal standards - I pronounce everyone even questioning the need for abortion rights a radical nutter, and call it a day - because that would be how the discussion goes over in most of the civilized world.


That's not a discussion. Discussions should always exist in a civilized world, otherwise it's just a totalitarian echo chamber dystopia.


----------



## notimp (Feb 13, 2019)

Morals dont replace rational thought. Thats the end of discussion.

People trying to win this on moral grounds - simply cant. Religion says 'its a sin'. They cant win "more better" on moral grounds. Now half of the people in here try to do "mo better", by saying - but I'm more liberal, I allow it in the case of rape.

Is that a discussion?

And still based on humanistic considerations, you tell those people - to go suck on their morals - we'll still do whats the right thing to do here. As an educated people actually writing laws (Which I'm not, come to think of it..  ). Not based on what any moral position, or god, or their feelings want us to do.

People have to learn, that "morals" are not what should guide judgement, and if this is the first time they are presented with that thought, so be it. Ever trying to educate folks.

They can fiddle around moral reasoning until the sun goes down, we are not changing abortion law, based on those notions.

At least not in the civilized world. And if the US wants to become more like the middle east - so be it. Lets make friends with China then. Leave them to their FOX news.
--

Here is what morals are at the end of the day.

Social guidelines on how people should behave in the opinion of a community. Most often, so the community can replicate or grow bigger as a result.

Church saying that birth control and abortion is sin again? Guess what - they gain a member for life with every new child that is born into their communities. Huh. Quick - ask the man with the vow to never have sex in his life what to do with my child to be. Huh. He'll ask his four pro lifer friends, to give me a Powerpoint on the other options I'd have as a women unsure if she is ready to take on the responsibilities of motherhood.

At what point do you say eff those morals, I'm doing whats right instead? (Give women an actual opportunity to decide, give them options (legal), give them assistance if they request it, give them privacy as well. Also protect the rights of the unborn child (not a legal person), after a reasonable amount of time. Don't make considering an abortion an absolute (SIN! murder!). Minimize harm. For everyone, not just the child.)


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 13, 2019)

You're missing the point. What I told you, just another one of my fears in these times, is that you should not ban or cut out discussions, the only thing you do when you cut discussions abruptly without reaching a conclusion that convinces the parts is to alienate people.

If you put yourself on a high pedestal and avoid talking of topics you consider obvious, those "uncivilized" people you cut discussion with grow in number and grow disconformed, and thus even in this beautiful "civilized" Europe e.g. the amount of anti-vac idiots grow strong every day. Good work on the let them talk avoid discussion policy.


----------



## Deleted member 412537 (Feb 13, 2019)

Alongside parenthood, society should also embrace/invest more in tubal ligation and getting a vasectomy. So that perhaps the negative effects of abortion can be put to rest. But no, the whole world would rather pick and choose what's right or wrong. Wonderful. :/


----------



## nashismo (Feb 13, 2019)

notimp said:


> Morals dont replace rational thought. Thats the end of discussion.
> 
> People trying to win this on moral grounds - simply cant. Religion says 'its a sin'. They cant win "more better" on moral grounds. Now half of the people in here try to do "mo better", by saying - but I'm more liberal, I allow it in the case of rape.
> 
> ...



Aren't you from Japan? Also, I am not an american, I am south american, I am chilean, it is there in my flag. You hide yourself like all hypocrites do on flags that are not yours, and you hardly now how to write in proper english.

I respect my english bros, so I try and write discernible sentences at least, and also try not littering the thread with walls of text, which seem to be your expertise.

All your walls of texts are full of stereotypes and pre-conceive notions of realities that exist only in your brain.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 13, 2019)

deinonychus71 said:


> One final thing. NOBODY takes abortion lightly, as a casual thing. It is NEVER a "GREAT" experience, a great thing to do. It is always painful. But it's sometimes necessary.



I am going to have to be the dissent here. It is a procedure I assign about as much moral turpitude to as having a filling or something -- would have been better had you not gobbled all those sweets but easy enough to sort so why make a big deal? As far as being painful that might depend upon the method and timeframe, but a chemical one I can see being no big deal at all.


----------



## notimp (Feb 13, 2019)

Also, here is your prospect sample case, you were missing so far.

Young teen gets pregnant, because her boyfriend wanted sex and so did she. Her boyfriends parents offer to pay for the abortion, because they have bigger plans for their boy. Her father will call her a slut for the first six months after giving birth. For the first year, if it isnt a boy. Her neighbors start talking as soon as her belly starts to grow - and really, what if the father doesnt accept responsibility - I mean she a young single mother? At that age? Grandmother died last year. Goodbye to your notions of getting a higher education, the money is not there.

And now think about our uneducated friends in here, championing the notion of "but I am pro life" and also "I never needed a higher education" and "teenage girls should fuck less".

I mean - what discussion?

Just because FOX news tells that, that pro life is good - it doesnt make the actual issue at hand less problematic.

So how do you deal with that?

By building "morality councils" that decide in each case if a women is allowed to have an abortion?

By asking rape victims if they have been raped sufficiently?

By making abortions illegal in your state?

Eff this. Watch less FOX news folks. Thats your solution right there.

Oh and what a wonderful baby it could have been. Pet hair. Pinch cheek. Thank you for your wonderful morals. They've added so much flavor.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 13, 2019)

I think you are missing a little thing, most the people you're discussing don't even live in s country where FOX news even exists. I don't know why you go once and again to the FOX rhetoric. 

PS: and the other guy, ad hominem kills your credibility.


----------



## orangy57 (Feb 13, 2019)

I don't know why anybody here even gets into arguments about this, like most of the people on this forum are dudes anyway so why would a woman getting rid of a fetus even affect you? It's the woman's choice whether to keep a baby or not. That clump of cells fetus has no rights until it can actually be alive and form a thought, it's literally the equivalent to a house plant for the first 21 weeks of gestation. The argument against abortion is just a huge circlejerk backed up by zero facts or evidence.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 14, 2019)

Orangy57 said:


> I don't know why anybody here even gets into arguments about this, like most of the people on this forum are dudes anyway so why would a woman getting rid of a fetus even affect you? It's the woman's choice whether to keep a baby or not. That clump of cells fetus has no rights until it can actually be alive and form a thought, it's literally the equivalent to a house plant for the first 21 weeks of gestation. The argument against abortion is just a huge circlejerk backed up by zero facts or evidence.



While you and I might agree on timeframes and rationales thereof then if it is an issue of morality, and while I will ultimately dismiss any moral concerns from the basic early stage act there is still plenty of scope to initially ask the question, then anybody can form an opinion on it and engage in debate. Such is generally how this all works. I much prefer if people bring evidence or a consistent line of logic to the debate rather than going with emotion or "just me" but hey.

"has no rights until it can actually be alive and form a thought"
Fetal abuse cases can come fairly early on. I will have to look up the specific timeframes but it need not be tied to abortion timeframes.


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Feb 14, 2019)

dimmidice said:


> yeah, you do. Because abortion isn't after X weeks (depends a little from place to place) But nowhere (in the western world) can you get a legal abortion when "you can give birth any moment"





 

Thought this thread died


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 14, 2019)

If you had sex with a family member and you didnt pull out,then go for it.


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 14, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> except we're not talking about worms, we're talking about a human baby with a heartbeat a brain and a face. What sucks more is being so completely detached from reality that you think ripping a baby apart inside a womb is ok. I foresee a very sad future for you unless you develop a conscience.


He identifies as a worm though. Even still, I have difficulty hooking those when put in a situation where fishing is required.

Also, I don't believe worms abort one another.


----------



## Jayro (Feb 14, 2019)

nashismo said:


> So if the Bible doesn't tell me that cutting someone elses dick is a sin, that means that is not? And that means that is OK! Get the fuck out of here, the Bible is simple, you shall not kill, simple.
> 
> And to not do to others what you don't want to be done to you! That amasses every fucking thing! You look like those lawyers looking for the tinniest ridiculous things within the code of law to get away with shit that is clearly WRONG!
> 
> And quote me the passage of the "bible" that tells me that abortion is just OK and not a sin etc. Bullshit man, just bullshit, come on, quote it.


The Bible is just a book of _FICTION_, and should *NOT *be used as a way to live your life. As a non-religious person, women have the right to abort. It's their body, so it's their choice, and _theirs alone_. (I can't believe I even have to _say _that, but yeesh, here we are...)


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 14, 2019)

Jayro said:


> The Bible is just a book of _FICTION_, and should *NOT *be used as a way to live your life. As a non-religious person, women have the right to abort. It's their body, so it's their choice, and _theirs alone_. (I can't believe I even have to _say _that, but yeesh, here we are...)


I agree that the bible is fiction, but i also feel that people that live by the word of the bible tend to morally be much better people. If it a great book for someone to follow in the direction of how they should live their life.

Sadly, the vast majority of those that follow those religions only use the bible as a weapon and they are complete hypocrites.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 14, 2019)

I feel people that say the bible is fiction miss the point. Of course it is fiction, but it is also a fictionated book of history very roughly based on real events, a study of ethics of an ancient group of people, and sort of historical law code of an ancient civilization... who here even discusses it is as fictionated as the Odyssesy or the Iliad? Or the Mio Cid...


----------



## nashismo (Feb 14, 2019)

Jayro said:


> The Bible is just a book of _FICTION_, and should *NOT *be used as a way to live your life. As a non-religious person, women have the right to abort. It's their body, so it's their choice, and _theirs alone_. (I can't believe I even have to _say _that, but yeesh, here we are...)



So by you logic, my mother could come into my bedroom with a knife and kill me in my sleep anytime she wants. Because essentially, I am all her, every muscle, bone, etc in my body was indeed part of her and came from her.

You are FUCKING CRAZY


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 14, 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47240100

The best case for abortion IMHO.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 14, 2019)

nashismo said:


> So by you logic, my mother could come into my bedroom with a knife and kill me in my sleep anytime she wants. Because essentially, I am all her, every muscle, bone, etc in my body was indeed part of her and came from her.
> 
> You are FUCKING CRAZY


That is not even a strawman but a drawing of a strawman.

The general idea is when a woman gets pregnant she has functionally gained a parasite until it either aborts itself, gets eaten by another parasite, she dies or it completes that part of the life cycle and gets born. Once it is born is it no longer part of her and thus not subject to the same possibilities as it was when it was still a parasite.

Also depending upon how philosophical you want to get then a massively high (some might even go 98% annually) of atoms in your body get replaced on a routine basis. Therefore you of a few years old will likely not be part of her any more than I am my dog as I have probably inhaled some of his dander and thus have that inside of me.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 14, 2019)

A woman has as much right to abort a pregnancy as I do to take a dump.

Until born the foetus is no more than a parasite and abortifacients no more than de-worming medication.

Practical concerns mean that at some point in the pregnancy live birth makes sense. Women should also have the right to induce delivery at any time.

If they have the money of course.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 14, 2019)

People talking about parasites now, it is disgusting, you people are disgusting. You are a minority though, no matter how much you yell that abortion is OK, it won't make it right. Is like someone screaming the sky is green, it won't change the fact that is blue.

Normal good people will continue to do what's right and you pieces of shit will continue to do horrible things, and it is OK, it is a free world, but don't make me swallow your shit and say it tastes good, because it doesn't. Is the only metaphor I could come up with right now and fits perfectly.

Edit: I dont know why I keep getting notifications of this putrid thread with putrid people on it, when I've unsubscribed/unwatch plenty of times already.


----------



## Conex (Feb 14, 2019)

Most of you guys should have been abortions


----------



## nashismo (Feb 14, 2019)

Conex said:


> Most of you guys should have been abortions



In essence, this could be the solution to erase the planet from this low life's DNA. They will end up finishing themselves over, still even their own kids are not to blame for the unmerciful heart their parents had, that's why abortion is bad, they have the right to live, who are we to take that right from them?


----------



## Conex (Feb 14, 2019)

nashismo said:


> In essence, this could be the solution to erase the planet from this low life's DNA. They will end up finishing themselves over, still even their own kids are not to blame for the unmerciful heart their parents had, that's why abortion is bad, they have the right to live, who are we to take that right from them?


Who are we to force them to live in this shithole of a world either!


----------



## nashismo (Feb 14, 2019)

Conex said:


> Who are we to force them to live in this shithole of a world either!



Don't lose hope man, don't you ever do that! The most coward of dogs are the ones who bark the loudest (chilean saying). And they don't represent the people of the world!

There are wonderful people in this world, and have met many, I will never lose hope in this world and that there are people with love in their heart, no matter how corny it sounds, this sums it up for me. Take care man.


----------



## spectral (Feb 14, 2019)

nashismo said:


> People talking about parasites now, it is disgusting, you people are disgusting. You are a minority though, no matter how much you yell that abortion is OK, it won't make it right. Is like someone screaming the sky is green, it won't change the fact that is blue.
> 
> Normal good people will continue to do what's right and you pieces of shit will continue to do horrible things, and it is OK, it is a free world, but don't make me swallow your shit and say it tastes good, because it doesn't. Is the only metaphor I could come up with right now and fits perfectly.
> 
> Edit: I dont know why I keep getting notifications of this putrid thread with putrid people on it, when I've unsubscribed/unwatch plenty of times already.


Yes it is legal in most countries in the world yet MOST people are against it? I don't think so. Your little echo chamber is not most people, despite what you like to think.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 14, 2019)

spectral said:


> Yes it is legal in most countries in the world yet MOST people are against it? I don't think so. Your little echo chamber is not most people, despite what you like to think.



Like if countries LAWS states and politics would actually represent the people lol Tell that to millions of Venezuelans starving to death because of it's government.

People in most cases are good and rightful, your 70's shit pro abortion laws should be erradicated as they are barbaric and should not exist in a world where we have all the technology to prevent pregnancy more than ever before.


----------



## spectral (Feb 14, 2019)

nashismo said:


> Like if countries LAWS states and politics would actually represent the people lol Tell that to millions of Venezuelans starving to death because of it's government.
> 
> People in most cases are good and rightful, your 70's shit pro abortion laws should be erradicated as they are barbaric and should not exist in a world where we have all the technology to prevent pregnancy more than ever before.


Luckily its not your choice to make. Killing a little blob of cells is not barbaric, its not a person. I do agree once it is it shouldn't be allowed though, unless carrying to term would kill the mother. It's also not simply old laws left in place from a bygone era, places such as Ireland only recently allowed it, because its the antiquated laws based on fairy tales rather than reason that banned it that are backwards.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 14, 2019)

spectral said:


> Luckily its not your choice to make. Killing a little blob of cells is not barbaric, its not a person. I do agree once it is it shouldn't be allowed though, unless carrying to term would kill the mother.



Yes, it is my choice to make and in my country we never made abortion legal, only because of rape and problems were the mother's life is at stake. We made the deal with the devil worshippers from the left to make it so, because wether we want or not, they are part of this society. Still, the left in my country is small, they just bark the loudest. The mass of people are always silent about this subjects, because they disagree and don't want to deal with leftist violent pro abortion fanatics.

I don't have a problem fighting for what's right though, thank you very much.


----------



## spectral (Feb 14, 2019)

nashismo said:


> Yes, it is my choice to make and in my country we never made abortion legal, only because of rape and problems were the mother's life is at stake. We made the deal with the devil worshippers from the left to make it so, because wether we want or not, they are part of this society. Still, the left in my country is small, they just bark the loudest. The mass of people are always silent about this subjects, because they disagree and don't want to deal with leftist violent pro abortion fanatics.
> 
> I don't have a problem fighting for what's right though, thank you very much.



Lol, devil worshippers. Lost any respect I may have had with you there. A womans welfare shouldn't be decided my ancient fairy tales.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 14, 2019)

spectral said:


> Lol, devil worshippers. Lost any respect I may have had with you there. A womans welfare shouldn't be decided my ancient fairy tales.



Respect? You never respected me from the beginning, and I would never care for your respect. I fight for what's right, not to win your heart, I am not a dishonest politician who wants everyone to love them.

Also, it was a joke, well kind of, there may actually be some devil whorshippers there probably! You never know!  hahaha


----------



## spectral (Feb 14, 2019)

Fair enough, if I took you too literally I apologise, tone is difficult to discern in text. As for respect, I do actually, you're standing for what you believe. It's just a stance I happen to disagree with.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 14, 2019)

spectral said:


> Fair enough, if I took you too literally I apologise, tone is difficult to discern in text.



Yes well, maybe I am not the best comedian out there, I admit it. Take care and please try to understand, it is my point of view and it may be different as I am chilean, maybe it can help somehow.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 15, 2019)

Here's more comedy: You would make a good american politician. No argumentation whatsoever beside "I'm righteous and your moral is shit" with nothing but an escalation of violence.
It's just... funny, that the people who always pretend having the moral high ground are continuously attacking actual arguments with ad hominem.

Kind of a SJW... but of the extreme opposite of the political spectrum.

Fight the arguments, not the people.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 15, 2019)

Jayro said:


> As a non-religious person, women have the right to abort. It's their body, so it's their choice, and _theirs alone_. (I can't believe I even have to _say _that, but yeesh, here we are...)



That's true. Now, they are called murderers anyway. Since it is part of their body and they are guilty of killing unborn. And yes, they are absolutely wrong, period.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 15, 2019)

deinonychus71 said:


> Here's more comedy: You would make a good american politician. No argumentation whatsoever beside "I'm righteous and your moral is shit" with nothing but an escalation of violence.
> It's just... funny, that the people who always pretend having the moral high ground are continuously attacking actual arguments with ad hominem.
> 
> Kind of a SJW... but of the extreme opposite of the political spectrum.
> ...



Ad hominem means attacking on a personal level right? Well, sadly I am not a hypocrite, and people appreciate that from me, there are no 2 sides of the coin in me.

And it is not about attacking just because, it simply pisses me off to witness such irresponsible arguments. Life does not belong to you, even if it is only fetus, he has the right to live! I mean for the love of God aren't you people humanitarian?

And I am totally a jerk sometimes so I cannot say I am good, but at least I believe in something better and that I can be better. In the end what separates us from highly intelligent computers is our ability to love, if you don't have that, you are no better than the latest i7, or i9


----------



## spectral (Feb 15, 2019)

nashismo said:


> Ad hominem means attacking on a personal level right? Well, sadly I am not a hypocrite, and people appreciate that from me, there are no 2 sides of the coin in me.
> 
> And it is not about attacking just because, it simply pisses me off to witness such irresponsible arguments. Life does not belong to you, even if it is only fetus, he has the right to live! I mean for the love of God aren't you people humanitarian?
> 
> And I am totally a jerk sometimes so I cannot say I am good, but at least I believe in something better and that I can be better. In the end what separates us from highly intelligent computers is our ability to love, if you don't have that, you are no better than the latest i7, or i9



I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head with where the views digress. It's humanitarian, but a non sentient blob of cells isn't human, but the mother is and she should be able to choose if she wishes to endure the trauma turning those into a human is going to take on her. Until the brain forms its no more a person than a bacteria is.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 15, 2019)

spectral said:


> I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head with where the views digress. It's humanitarian, but a non sentient blob of cells isn't human, but the mother is and she should be able to choose if she wishes to endure the trauma turning those into a human is going to take on her. Until the brain forms its no more a person than a bacteria is.



But that's not the point, it is not what he is, but what he will be! And this is not metaphorical or like we all come from star dusts then we should take care of dust and be loving with dust particles hahhhaha no.

What I mean is that this fetus will "effectively" become a person! No doubt about it. Also, and this is something else, but hardships is what molds our character, is what takes the worst OR the best from us! And believe me, most of the time, people are better than what they thought they were going to be.

Hardships developes love, how can you call having a baby a trauma! Then you are surprise when I use the ad hominem thing? But even then, like I said, only through difficulties and hardships a man or woman can mold his character, can find new meaning for his life, can love with a love he didn't know he had. And so many other beautiful things that come not from easy things, but from difficult situations.

Everything has a reason to exist in this world. Sometimes when I see the 1 world country's people, they are so de attached from reality, and this makes them cold, incapable of understanding simple things. Maybe is because you've always had it all, maybe, in in a way your societies hide the bad crap, that YOU as individuals should take care of personally. And THAT would make you better people.

If following this logic, I would be OK with abortions as long as the mother herself opens his womb and take his baby with her own hands. Do you understand why I say this?


----------



## spectral (Feb 15, 2019)

Under that rationale every time a woman ovulates and doesn't get herself pregnant thats also murder since that could potentially be a human. I also don't agree with your premise that everything has a reason to exist, what reason? Why should something that only has the potential to be a human take priority over actual human woman?

It's not a detachment from reality, it's going by literal reality. At that point it is not a human life, it's a small collection of cells that have the potential to become that. So the reality is as in real observable facts, that there is no person there yet.

I call it a trauma in the literal sense, the process of growing a human is physically traumatic to the mothers body.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 15, 2019)

spectral said:


> Under that rationale every time a woman ovulates and doesn't get herself pregnant thats also murder since that could potentially be a human. I also don't agree with your premise that everything has a reason to exist, what reason? Why should something that only has the potential to be a human take priority over actual human woman?
> 
> It's not a detachment from reality, it's going by literal reality. At that point it is not a human life, it's a small collection of cells that have the potential to become that. So the reality is as in real observable facts, that there is no person there yet.
> 
> I call it a trauma in the literal sense, the process of growing a human is physically traumatic to the mothers body.



What reason? Learning, something you haven't, at least not by someone (in this case me) trying to convince you. Only through real experiences people learn.

If a woman would be made abort herself with her means, then and only then she would realise if she is doing something wrong or something right, by real experience, VERY real.

I guess then I disagree mostly with the *automatization* of abortion, this makes people irresponsible and unfeeling. But in every sense and in everything in life this *automatization* is bad for societies and well, try to understand my last post, read it well, it comes from my entire life of learning, I give that to you freely I guess. Maybe it helps someone reading at least.


----------



## spectral (Feb 15, 2019)

Not agreeing is not the same as not learning. I've learnt another point of view, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Blindly following what others say is the opposite of learning since you wouldn't be thinking for yourself. You have an opinion and from your standpoint it is correct, I appreciate that. However I simply don't believe there is a reason for everything, that implies there is a design which again I don't believe there is. Stuff just happens, some good, some bad, some in between. I simply don't believe that something with only the potential for life should get priority over the mother who is already an actual life.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 15, 2019)

spectral said:


> Not agreeing is not the same as not learning. I've learnt another point of view, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Blindly following what others say is the opposite of learning since you wouldn't be thinking for yourself. You have an opinion and from your standpoint it is correct, I appreciate that. However I simply don't believe there is a reason for everything, that implies there is a design which again I don't believe there is. Stuff just happens, some good, some bad, some in between. I simply don't believe that something with only the potential for life should get priority over the mother is is already an actual life.



Ok, but you know that the learning part is not the important thing I was trying to explain. In essence is that we should "accept" all in life and not hide from it or run from it (or let a government do it for us). Taste the bitter, and taste the sweet, and only then you will appreciate one over the other. 

Well take care then, I believe that we can be better and above all, discover new things, me, sure, but also you.


----------



## spectral (Feb 15, 2019)

nashismo said:


> Ok, but you know that the learning part is not the important thing I was trying to explain. In essence is that we should "accept" all in life and not hide from it or run from it. Taste the bitter, and taste the sweet, and only then you will appreciate one over the other.
> 
> Well take care then, I believe that we can be better and above all, discover new things, me, sure, but also you.



You see thats the point. You see it as life, I dont. At that point its not a life and I don't think it should garner the same rights purely on potential. Once it has grown to the point where it is a life, thats another matter entirely.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 15, 2019)

spectral said:


> You see thats the point. You see it as life, I dont. At that point its not a life and I don't think it should garner the same rights purely on potential. Once it has grown to the point where it is a life, thats another matter entirely.



You are still not understanding me  I get all profound sometimes hahaha. You are fixed on the abortion thing and where life begins etc. I am going beyond that whole discussion.

I am not calling you a fool or anything, is only that you really don't understand me at all hahhaha, but that's ok, even in spanish some people don't understand me, only the most wise hahahha or the most fool


----------



## spectral (Feb 15, 2019)

nashismo said:


> You are still not understanding me  I get all profound sometimes hahaha. You are fixed on the abortion thing and where life begins etc. I am going beyond that whole discussion.
> 
> I am not calling you a fool or anything, is only that you really don't understand me at all hahhaha, but that's ok, even in spanish some people don't understand me, only the most wise hahahha or the most fool



I understand where you are trying to come from I think. Part of the problem really is me, I am a very literal personality type. I don't believe there is a reason behind existence, meaning of life stuff.


----------



## notimp (Feb 15, 2019)

nashismo said:


> Life does not belong to you, even if it is only fetus, he has the right to live!


Thank you for taking the time to publicly figure out what ad hominem means. I enjoyed it very much.

The fetus has not the right to live against the decision of the parent in the first (depending on where you live) three months. While we do see them as living, we dont count them as individual human beings with inseperable rights yet. We allow abortion.

Stop this feaver dream of yours, where you shout "I'm saving babies!", while women have been proven to go through insufferable length to end pregnancies they dont want to carry out. Like applying preassure to the womb until they have a miscarriage. Like killing themselves.

This is the other side of the coin you refuse to look at while still gloating "I'm saving babies lifes!".

By all reasonable accounts you are saving a piece of organic mass, who has yet to develop any sensory ability or consciousness. And what you are doing by playing theres only one side of the coin on that - is to refuse women any right to end pregnancies in a reasonable timeframe, after a considerable amount of deliberation.

Furthermore. If you play idiot hardliner on this (life, life, LIFE), and want to safeguard life from the moment of conception - you really drive women into "judgment tribunals" of what counts as rape and what does not - where 50% of your hardliner friends would 'allow' abortion because they want to feel reasonable as well. And cause more harm in the process.

Furthermore. If you see 'power relationships' playing into sex and procreation at all, you are refusing women recourse on what has to happen with their bodies, from them moment of conception. Thats a freaking bad idea as well.

Furthermore. If you've saved another unwanted child, to then be able to live a life of neglect and abuse - thats on you as well. Anything that somehow lessens the likelyhood of this happening, for the child, for the parents, for the future children of the child, within certain parameters, where we agree on not having to protect the childs life over the decisions of the mother about her own body - is good, not bad.

If you neglect all that, and that making abortion illegal will not make it go away. You are a terrible person, a worse parent, and not even a very good human being. Reasoning - because you dont show empathy with people equally, and because you are unable to retreat from an extreme position, even though people tell you - you are wrong legally, ethically, humanistically, factually (just looking at the process, and how many you would be "saving" by making abortion illegal) even morally (thats a what the majority thinks thing), and still cant back away from a position, thats soley guided by a feeling.

Without holding the empathy of looking at all the other feelings involved.

If you somehow - have convinced yourself, that everything relating new life is rosey, plushy, positive, a miracle, gods creation, wonderful and uplifting - consider looking at other parts of the occasion again. I wish everyone for this to be the case. For giving birth to be the uplifting miracle everyone should experience it as. But we have to look at the cases where those are not the feelings involved - and try to minimize those.

Not even by all means. The opposite. We still try to convince mothers who want to have an abortion, to think about it for a reasonable amount of time, to consider the alternatives, to consider whats best for her child, we give support to her and her unborn child if need be. As a society. But we are humane enough to consider it her decision and her body ultimately. And not yours or the one of your religious friends ('He has the right to live!'). At least not up to a point. And the point is chosen to protect the new human being, from the moment where most of us would consider it becoming a cognisant human being, and not just a bunch of cells.

And yes - we drew a hard line there. That should not be moved lightly.

Now go on to tell teenagers who to have sex with and when again. You're kind is so good at that. Its really like you've found a calling.

If you ever get a concept, of the child being part of the mothers body for 9 months, and the mothers decisions affecting whatever happens to her child as well - and a combined concept, that if that spirals into despair, no one is helped - you've undersstood our side of the argument. You simply cant devide them, and put the unborn child separate for the childs sake. You have no idea what women will take upon themselves to decide what happens to their bodies in less than ideal situations like that. We try to deal with that in a way thats at least somewhat reasonable.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 15, 2019)

nashismo said:


> People talking about parasites now, it is disgusting, you people are disgusting. You are a minority though, no matter how much you yell that abortion is OK, it won't make it right. Is like someone screaming the sky is green, it won't change the fact that is blue.
> 
> Normal good people will continue to do what's right and you pieces of shit will continue to do horrible things, and it is OK, it is a free world, but don't make me swallow your shit and say it tastes good, because it doesn't. Is the only metaphor I could come up with right now and fits perfectly.
> 
> Edit: I dont know why I keep getting notifications of this putrid thread with putrid people on it, when I've unsubscribed/unwatch plenty of times already.




I would direct you to this graphic regarding abortion, by 19 years old more than 1 in 50 girls have had an abortion.

Abortion rates have been increasing rapidly since the 70s and thankully more of the world drops it's authoritarian views and legalises it. Republic of Ireland case in point.

I'm going to try and dig up an enlightening article I saw by a young lady who got pregnant to experience and document the process of abortion. Fascinating stuff.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Ive been noticing more conservatives on GBAtemp.How the hell did this even happen? I remember 3 years ago people were getting banned for not being liberals on here.Weird.


Propaganda is powerful.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 15, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Propaganda is powerful.



A big part of the issue is also that these days people use political terminology poorly.

Conservatives have traditionally been liberal (case in point being the Republican party in the US opposing slavery). The opposite of conservative is progressive. And true liberals interested in classical liberalism are libertarians. i.e. what many call conservative.

Yet many in these times, apparently including you, consider liberals and conservatives opposites.

I have no idea how this flip happened.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 15, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> I would direct you to this graphic regarding abortion, by 19 years old more than 1 in 50 girls have had an abortion.
> 
> Abortion rates have been increasing rapidly since the 70s and thankully more of the world drops it's authoritarian views and legalises it. Republic of Ireland case in point.
> 
> I'm going to try and dig up an enlightening article I saw by a young lady who got pregnant to experience and document the process of abortion. Fascinating stuff.



Do you now how to turn notifications off for replies? I cannot find it. Thank you.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 15, 2019)

nashismo said:


> Do you now how to turn notifications off for replies? I cannot find it. Thank you.


Click bell in top corner, near bottom is "Alert Preferences".

Then on that page you can alter general alert preferences.

On left side look for "People you ignore".

Click that and enter names to ignore people (and associated alerts) selectively.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> A big part of the issue is also that these days people use political terminology poorly.
> 
> Conservatives have traditionally been liberal (case in point being the Republican party in the US opposing slavery). The opposite of conservative is progressive. And true liberals interested in classical liberalism are libertarians. i.e. what many call conservative.
> 
> ...


Sure, I agree with your first point, many people do indeed throw terms around. It's a natural reaction for people to categorize things without much thought.
However, your brief overview of some historical use of such terms was hardly supporting of your claim and is, quite frankly, ironic, as you boldly define large groups, "true liberals", without considering the nuance of political alignment. Isn't such gate-keeping part of using political terminology poorly?
Also, I would love for you to quote me where I said liberals and conservatives are opposites, because I don't remember posting that.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Feb 15, 2019)

Here in Austria we have an "hot" discussion with this topic at the moment.

(German text)
https://vorarlberg.orf.at/news/stories/2964937/

In detail it says:

If a foetal is affected by "down syndrom",it´s LEGAL to do an abortation til birth means an late-time abortion.....


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> If you ever get a concept, of the child being part of the mothers body for 9 months, and the mothers decisions affecting whatever happens to her child as well - and a combined concept, that if that spirals into despair, no one is helped - you've undersstood our side of the argument. You simply cant devide them, and put the unborn child separate for the childs sake. You have no idea what women will take upon themselves to decide what happens to their bodies in less than ideal situations like that. We try to deal with that in a way thats at least somewhat reasonable.


Many people abhor aborting fetuses before birth, yet simultaneously could not care less what quality of life will be experienced by the born. Adoption is hardly an answer, seeing as far too many orphaned children in the US alone are neglected and abused, not adopted, and suffer mental trauma and illness that they will likely never get adequate care for thanks to our for-profit medical system. That only leaves us with having the mother keep the child, but if it is shown that, for whatever reason, she feels she is inadequate to raise it (she wanted an abortion in the first place) then is it very likely that the child will not be raised with the proper care it needs. I'm sure not many would argue against the notion that children need a loving, stable home with proper care and attention. This is demonstrably false with adoption, and likely not to occur in the household that considered not carrying the child to term in the first place.

It is this that I consider abortion a humane solution for preventing further suffering, mental illness, and poverty, regardless of whether it is considered murder or not. And this is not even considering where abortion is medically necessary for the mother or the fetus.


----------



## nashismo (Feb 15, 2019)

alexander1970 said:


> Here in Austria we have an "hot" discussion with this topic at the moment.
> 
> (German text)
> https://vorarlberg.orf.at/news/stories/2964937/
> ...



And it just so happens that "down syndrome" people are one of the most wonderful people you'll ever known. Some will say it is a burden (pieces of shit) and others will say it is a blessing to have them. 

I think the governments should not promote abortion, it is sick and people should stop defending it with the "women have the right, etc" If they want to kill, do it, no one is stopping them, but the consequences should be there for killing someone who cant do nothing about it, it makes it even more sick when you think about it like that.


----------



## notimp (Feb 15, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> it very likely that the child will not be raised with the proper care it needs


Thats too harsh. There's still the possibility, that she (her family) can manage. Thats a chance that people might take. And thats not bad.

But as soon as the decision for not wanting the child has manifested, and can not be met, we are straight into trauma inducing territory. (Disassociation, separation, societal pressures telling her the exact opposite of what she believes thats needed, ... - Good luck.) Thats what needs to be prevented/mitigated.

On the other hand, and lets at least mention that aspect as well, I'm absolutely against advertising the 'easiness' of abortion towards a younger demographic, f.e. it should be seen as an end of the line option, but it has to be there.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> Thats too harsh. Therese still the possibility, that she (her family) can manage. Thats a chance that people take. And thats not bad.
> 
> But as soon as the decision for not wanting the child has manifested, and can not be met, we are straight into trauma inducing territory. (Disassociation, separation, societal pressures telling her the exact opposite of what she believes thats needed, ... - Good luck.) Thats what needs to be prevented/mitigated.
> 
> On the other hand, and lets at least mention that aspect as well, I'm absolutely against advertising the 'easiness' of abortion towards a younger demographic, f.e. it should be seen as an end of the line option, but it has to be there.


I believe the possibility that the mother can manage to provide basic necessities for the child exists, but I am largely skeptical that there is a good chance the child will have ALL needs taken care of that leads to a comfortable, trauma-free life. I agree with your following points.


----------



## granville (Feb 15, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> A big part of the issue is also that these days people use political terminology poorly.
> 
> Conservatives have traditionally been liberal (case in point being the Republican party in the US opposing slavery). The opposite of conservative is progressive. And true liberals interested in classical liberalism are libertarians. i.e. what many call conservative.
> 
> ...


The flip happened gradually and over the course of decades worth of change. But a major catalyst was the fallout of the Civil Rights era and passing of the anti-racist legislation during the 60s. Many racist southern Democrats turned on their party, Richard Nixon (and other GOP leaders) jumped on the chance to court these people to vote for him. It was called the Southern Strategy, it succeeded in beginning to reshape the Republican party to what it is today in terms of social issues.

The words conservative and liberal are just convenient political labels. Their meanings as words may be clear, but as political ideologies they have always been shifted around to fit whatever people want them to mean.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 15, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Sure, I agree with your first point, many people do indeed throw terms around. It's a natural reaction for people to categorize things without much thought.
> However, your brief overview of some historical use of such terms was hardly supporting of your claim and is, quite frankly, ironic, as you boldly define large groups, "true liberals", without considering the nuance of political alignment. Isn't such gate-keeping part of using political terminology poorly?
> Also, I would love for you to quote me where I said liberals and conservatives are opposites, because I don't remember posting that.



It's what I inferred from your response to the guy saying that GBAtemp was full of conservatives and is now full of liberals. I assumed you were agreeing with him when you responded about propaganda. But if you take conservativism and liberalism to be orthogonal concepts it doesn't make sense.

But you know what they say about assumptions so I fully accept I might inferred incorrectly.

Still, conservatism is about sticking to traditional values "conserving", the opposite is progressivism which is about reform and change.

Liberalism is about liberty which has no bearing on the conservatism/reformist spectrum.

The opposite of Liberalism is Authoritarianism.

These are the general polsci definitions of the terms. Without getting into the prescriptivist/descriptivist debate about language.

A true liberal prizes personal liberty (either positive or negative liberty).



TL;DR Political Science definition of terms are very different from current usage which makes the idea that liberals are increasing at the expense of conservatives nonsensical.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



alexander1970 said:


> Here in Austria we have an "hot" discussion with this topic at the moment.
> 
> (German text)
> https://vorarlberg.orf.at/news/stories/2964937/
> ...




I think it's sad, and perhaps we can all agree, that eugenics is becoming conflated with the right to bodily autonomy.

Legislation should not make mention of the purpose of abortion.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2019)

nashismo said:


> Some will say it is a burden (pieces of shit) and others will say it is a blessing to have them.


This is quite harsh. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's safe to assume you have no idea what it is like to raise a child that requires such immense, constant support. I'm sure you know and like the persons you know, but you are not with them 24/7. You are not taking care of them 24/7, either. It is a colossal obligation and I applaud families that do spend the rest of their lives constantly taking care of the handicapped. But I also believe that it is natural to have feelings of burden. It is their entire life and daily concentration put into one entity. They have to forgo every freedom they otherwise would have had were it not for constantly taking care of the child. I would not call them pieces of shit, unless they were to neglect or abuse the child.

Onto the point of murder, assuming abortion can be deemed as such, you are saying you prefer a fetus develop the conscious and sentient ability to experience pain and suffering just to endure a lifetime of such pain and suffering? Wouldn't it make sense to curb the potential suffering by preventing it, before the fetus can experience it?
Additionally, what makes abortion murder? Is it the termination of life? The definition of life is already dubious and philosophically debated. How can we definitely make laws about something that is not widely agreed upon in the first place?
Do you consider viruses and bacteria living? According to the current scientific definitions of life, viruses are not alive since they cannot self-reproduce; they require hijacking the structures of other self-reproducing lifeforms (bacteria, animals, etc.). Does this make them lifeless? Do they have a soul? Do the lifeforms they hijack have a soul? The viruses are organic and move on their own, so shouldn't it follow that all organic beings are considered life? The definition of life is really quite hard to pinpoint. Following that, how can you be sure something is murder if you are not sure the victim is even a person, let alone "life"?

Ultimately, is a single cell a person? Where is the line drawn? Can a single cell even "suffer"? Does a life have to have x number of cells before being considered a person able to suffer? Is Plan B murder? Is male masturbation involving the death of millions of sperm murder? If we do not know the answer, how can we say what is or isn't ethical? How can we say what should or shouldn't, nay, CAN or CANNOT be done without fear of legal punishment?


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 21, 2019)

Abortion is between a woman and her body.

No one else.

I can have my ear wax cleaned out. No difference.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> Abortion is between a woman and her body.
> 
> No one else.
> 
> I can have my ear wax cleaned out. No difference.


Tough I dislike the idea of abortion, I agree that it should be legal to avoid the worse real consequence of clandestine abortion.

That said I consider the "not my business" attitude an irresponsible coward cop out.

I don't see that attitude any different than e.g. answering to "black people being persecuted and homosexuals being hanged" with an attitude like "not my business, I am white and straight".


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 21, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> Tough I dislike the idea of abortion, I agree that it should be legal to avoid the worse real consecutive of clandestine abortion.
> 
> That said I consider the "not my business" attitude an irresponsible coward cop out.
> 
> I don't see that attitude any different than e.g. answering to "black people being persecuted and homosexuals being hanged" with an attitude like "not my business, I am white and straight".



Not my business is the backbone of libertarianism is it really worth throwing it out?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> Not my business is the backbone of libertarianism is it really worth throwing it out?


Yep


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> Abortion is between a woman and her body.
> 
> No one else.
> 
> I can have my ear wax cleaned out. No difference.



Why did women open their legs for ? STUPID AND DUMBASS!

Really? Then a woman is a killer and a murderer. She has no right to abortion something inside her body. What a scum they are if they wants to abortion it. Disgusting human being like that. Sad!


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Why did women open their legs for ? STUPID AND DUMBASS!
> 
> Really? Then a woman is a killer and a murderer. She has no right to abortion something inside her body. What a scum they are if they wants to abortion it. Disgusting human being like that. Sad!



I'm hearing a lot of anger and it seems directed at sex and those who have it.

What's the root of that? 

Because imho there is nothing wrong with having sex and it's far from purely procreation in humans.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Why did women open their legs for ?


You can have sex with legs closed


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> Not my business is the backbone of libertarianism is it really worth throwing it out?


Possibly not but is it actually a case of "not my business"? I still maintain there is scope for a debate on the initial concept, and while I (and seemingly most of the legislators in the developed world) ultimately would say there is nothing there and it is not life as much as matters for these purposes I still have to acknowledge the logical scope for the initial question.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> You can have sex with legs closed



LOL!




PrettyFly said:


> I'm hearing a lot of anger and it seems directed at sex and those who have it.
> 
> What's the root of that?
> 
> Because imho there is nothing wrong with having sex and it's far from purely procreation in humans.



Come on.. Condom exists or birth control. They can used it. No excuse.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Come on.. Condom exists or birth control. They can used it. No excuse.



Both are far from perfect, the pill has real world effective rates of ~91%.

That means 1 pregnancy per year for every 10 women using it as birth control.

Ignoring that for a moment, this is a debate about abortion not reasons for abortion. So the birth control idea, or the no sex before marriage idea, or only having sex to procreate ideas are all irrelevant.

Again it just sounds like the is an underlying desire that having sex should have consequences, or run a risk and not purely be for fun.

That strikes me as odd.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> Both are far from perfect, the pill has real world effective rates of ~91%.
> 
> That means 1 pregnancy per year for every 10 women using it as birth control.
> 
> ...



I understand but they should anyway! My three sisters used birth controls and dont have a problem and they got married and have children after. So it is effective. No excuse, really. I dont care about women's own bodies. They are dumbass and they are an idiot.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

Jayro said:


> Abortions RULE! We need them, and they need to be mandatory for people with more than 2 kids on welfare. We're over-populated as fuck, so we should start regulating babies like China does. Besides, kids are annoying fuckbags anyways. They're gross, whiny, needy, they stink, they're dumber than rocks, and expensive as fuck to raise. No thanks... ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!


Imagine If you were that baby! They have a right to life, like you do, how would you feel if I said you suck so DIE! DIE! DIE! And then you just die? Wouldn't be fair would it? (Don't you think they deserve a chance to live, like you have a chance?)


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> I understand but they should anyway! My three sisters used birth controls and dont have a problem and they got married and have children after. So it is effective. No excuse, really. I dont care about women's own bodies. They are dumbass and they are an idiot.


Three people is a good start for a sample but not something you can really base such things on, though as mentioned it is not terribly relevant to the matter at hand -- while abortions are a far more expensive, time consuming and otherwise annoying thing than some pills or a rubber the question still remains are they a valid thing to be doing? If not then why not?



Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Imagine If you were that baby! They have a right to life, like you do, how would you feel if I said you suck so DIE! DIE! DIE! And then you just die? Wouldn't be fair would it.


Imagine you were that sperm or egg that ultimately wound up being flushed away because someone had a period instead, or rubbed one out. Why is a foetus any different here?


----------



## Jayro (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Imagine If you were that baby! They have a right to life, like you do, how would you feel if I said you suck so DIE! DIE! DIE! And then you just die? Wouldn't be fair would it? (Don't you think they deserve a chance to live, like you have a chance?)


Nah. That's how chance and fate work my dude.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Three people is a good start for a sample but not something you can really base such things on, though as mentioned it is not terribly relevant to the matter at hand -- while abortions are a far more expensive, time consuming and otherwise annoying thing than some pills or a rubber the question still remains are they a valid thing to be doing? If not then why not?
> 
> 
> Imagine you were that sperm or egg that ultimately wound up being flushed away because someone had a period instead, or rubbed one out. Why is a foetus any different here?


Because the fetus is a life that's why.



Jayro said:


> Nah. That's how chance and fate work my dude.


What do you mean chance and fate? it would be my decision.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Because the fetus is a life that's why.


How do you figure?


----------



## Jayro (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Because the fetus is a life that's why.


Not alive until brain activity.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> How do you figure?





Jayro said:


> Not alive until brain activity.



Because of DNA, at the time the Fetus appears the DNA of the child is already decided, which means it's very much a life.


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Because of DNA, at the time the Fetus appears the DNA of the child is already decided, which means it's very much a life.



No it isn't. DNA is the blueprint for life, not life itself. It's like saying a building already exists because someone designed the blueprint.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> No it isn't. DNA is the blueprint for life, not life itself. It's like saying a building already exists because someone designed the blueprint.


So you're saying the look of the child isn't already decided at the time it's a fetus, that doesn't work because when it's born it already has the set eyes, hair, and skin color, which comes from DNA, it's just developing in the womb.


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> So you're saying the look of the child isn't already decided at the time it's a fetus, that doesn't work because when it's born it already has the set eyes, hair, and skin color, which comes from DNA, it's just developing in the womb.



Thats the same as a blueprint, its the design of the life. But it doesn't have those eyes or hair or skin colour yet, its a few cells of goop, no more alive than a bacteria is. There is a big difference between what something IS and what it can become. Until the brain develops there is no person there to kill.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> Thats the same as a blueprint, its the design of the life. But it doesn't have those eyes or hair or skin colour yet, its a few cells of goop, no more alive than a bacteria is.


Correct, but as long as the blueprint is there that is a life, a life doesn't come from just breathing and existing it comes from being an alive body and spirit which is very much what a fetus is, it carries the spirit and look of a person, which makes a person. The body is being worked on, but the spirit and body is there so that's a person.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Because of DNA, at the time the Fetus appears the DNA of the child is already decided, which means it's very much a life.


Even ignoring my misgivings with the concept (again how do you figure?) but a sperm can meet an egg, a zygote to use the biological term, and not be implanted, indeed there are methods with prevent implantation (see Intrauterine device (IUD)) or things like the morning after pill which cause the lining to be shed and prevent implantation) and it is far from a rare occurrence in the observed world as well.

Edit fast moving thread. Spirit? Does such a thing even exist, and if so you are invited to prove it or show somewhere where they did.


----------



## huma_dawii (Feb 21, 2019)

I approve. As long as the "life" is less than a month old.


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Correct, but as long as the blueprint is there that is a life, a life doesn't come from just breathing and existing it comes from being an alive body and spirit which is very much what a fetus is, it carries the spirit and look of a person, which makes a person. The body is being worked on, but the spirit and body is there so that's a person.



Show me where on the body this mythical spirit is? Or are you just basing womens well being on a fairy tale?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

Each cell in a body is alive, that include the many cells in my fingertips that I am killing due to striking my keyboard keys as I type... wait, what was I talking about?

Hmmm.... no idea... but actually, those cells I killed contain quite a bit of my generic material, not sure if enough to reverse engineer my DNA and create a clone, hmmm...


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> Show me where on the body this mythical spirit is? Or are you just basing womens well being on a fairy tale?


The Bible says in Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man _of_ the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a _living soul_." this proves that there IS a soul in the body.


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The Bible says in Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man _of_ the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a _living soul_." this proves that there IS a soul in the body.


So you are basing it on a fairy tale.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> So you are basing it on a fairy tale.


The Bible isn't a fairy tail, try explaining the fine tuning of the universe to me without the Bible? Try explaining how the universe even began without the Bible? Try explaining all the planets and stars and cosmos to me without the Bible? You can't do any of it, and you and I know that. So you should call it a "fairy tail" off of your own personal beliefs.


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The Bible isn't a fairy tail, try explaining the fine tuning of the universe to me without the Bible? Try explaining how the universe even began without the Bible? Try explaining all the planets and stars and cosmos to me without the Bible? You can't do any of it, and you and I know that.



Not knowing something doesn't automatically make something else true. You also don't know any of it all you have is an old book written by  men. You may as well base your beliefs on lord of the rings, since they are both works of fiction written by fantasy authors.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> So you are basing it on a fairy tale.



I dont agreed with you. What if you wrote the diary of your life and does that mean your diary is a fairy tale ? No ? Then this bible is like a diary. So it is not a fairy tale since it is a true story. Dont blame the religion.. Blame the corrupt people who make up their religion and doesn't followed the Bible at all.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> Not knowing something doesn't automatically make something else true. You also don't know any of it all you have is an old book written by  men. You may as well base your beliefs on lord of the rings, since they are both works of fiction.


(*sigh* apologies every one) God wrote the Bible through men, which means it's His words if He says there's a soul there's a soul.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The Bible isn't a fairy tail, try explaining the fine tuning of the universe to me without the Bible? Try explaining how the universe even began without the Bible? Try explaining all the planets and stars and cosmos to me without the Bible? You can't do any of it, and you and I know that.


Oh... god... oh...
The Bible is a great semi-fictional history book based on real events, with a lot of tales of wisdom of peoples of the past... it did a good job, but I see nowadays it does more harm than good, people take it too literal.

I prefer the creation story from the poetic edda.
The universe was created from the blood of giants.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> The Bible says in Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man _of_ the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a _living soul_." this proves that there IS a soul in the body.


The big book of FAST6191 says that did not happen.

How do we resolve this?



huma_dawii said:


> I approve. As long as the "life" is less than a month old.


How did you arrive at the one month thing?


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> I dont agreed with you. What if you wrote the diary of your life and does that mean your diary is a fairy tale ? No ? Then this bible is like a diary. So it is not a fairy tale since it is a true story. Dont blame the religion.. Blame the corrupt people who make up their religion and doesn't followed the Bible at all.


Its not a diary, its a story. There is no proof any of it actually happened. You only believe its true.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Fates-Blade-900 said:


> (*sigh* apologies every one) God wrote the Bible through men, which means it's His words if He says there's a soul there's a soul.


Of course he did, Santa clause helped him. Sorry but laws shouldn't be based on your imaginary friend in the sky.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 21, 2019)

You guys can disagree, but let's be a bit more respectful of people's beliefs.


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> You guys can disagree, but let's be a bit more respectful of people's beliefs.


Why? Religious people aren't respectful of atheist beliefs


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> Why? Religious people aren't respectful of atheist beliefs


Atheists dont have beliefs...


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> You guys can disagree, but let's be a bit more respectful of people's beliefs.


Yeah, starting for recognizing that belief is not fact and no base for law on a western society.
Looking down on the argumentation of other people due to it "not matching your belief" and not due to facts makes no sense.
Playing higher moral stand due to your belief is also idiotic.

Unless you want to segregate people you can't base law on "belief".


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> Atheists dont have beliefs...


Sure they do, they just don't believe in a divinity. The believe there is no god, which is in itself is a belief.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



sarkwalvein said:


> Yeah, starting for recognizing that belief is not fact and no base for law in a western society.
> Looking down on the argumentation of other people due to it "not matching your belief" and not due to facts makes no sense.
> Playing higher moral stand due to your belief is also idiotic.
> 
> Unless you want to segregate people you can't base law on "belief".


 But thats exactly what you are doing. Saying abortion is wrong because it goes against your religious beliefs. My beliefs says there is no soul .Yours say there is a soul. There is no proof either way.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> But thats exactly what you are doing. Saying abortion is wrong because it goes against your religious beliefs.


Nope, I think abortion should be legal.

I don't like the idea from a personal point of view and would suffer if faced with the situation, but this shouldn't affect its legality.

Also, I don't think I have any strong religious affiliation.


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

Yeah, my bad. Misread the thread a little. Apologies.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> Its not a diary, its a story. There is no proof any of it actually happened. You only believe its true.



There is no proof any of it actually happened ? You are lacking of research some more. And because you are not looking harder quite enough. A bible is the people in it who actually witness what's going on about 2,500 years old or so and wrote it like a diary. So it is not a story. 

Anyway, I respect your belief.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> There is no proof any of it actually happened ? You are lacking of research some more. And because you are not looking harder quite enough. A bible is the people in it who actually witness what's going on about 2,500 years old or so and wrote it like a diary. So it is not a story.
> 
> Anyway, I respect your belief.


Yeah, we all know it. It -is- a semi-fictional book based on real events, many of the tales on it are actually old wisdom put into somewhat metaphorical tales with a lot of components based on real events. It is not 1:1 at all, and it is a book that served it's purpose. It has value, historical value mostly.

I still hold that,


sarkwalvein said:


> people that say the bible is fiction miss the point. Of course it is fiction, but it is also a fictionated book of history very roughly based on real events, a study of ethics of an ancient group of people, and sort of historical law code of an ancient civilization... who here even discusses it is as fictionated as the Odyssesy or the Iliad? Or the Mio Cid...



But it is IMHO not to be taken literal, and not a guidebook for today, it was useful millennia ago, some wisdom can still be extracted from it, only a stubborn person will use it as a literal guidebook.


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> There is no proof any of it actually happened ? You are lacking of research some more. And because you are not looking harder quite enough. A bible is the people in it who actually witness what's going on about 2,500 years old or so and wrote it like a diary. So it is not a story.
> 
> Anyway, I respect your belief.



Any proof that's who wrote it? Or do you just believe that's what happened? My problem is lack of any real evidence. Just because something claims to be true doesn't make it true.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> Any proof that's who wrote it? Or do you just believe that's what happened? My problem is lack of any real evidence. Just because something claims to be true doesn't make it true.


Prove physics to me. You really can't, (I could say an invisible man comes and knocks down a heavy ball, but scientist say it's laws.) you can only go off of what's felt, seen, touched etc. to make it true and it's true that everything in the bible adds up in the human senses and its literature so... it's extremely likely (or absolutely,) right about what it says, plus the fine tuning of the universe really says it all...

P.S. I'm hopefully done, if anyone has anything to say to me PM me.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> Any proof that's who wrote it? Or do you just believe that's what happened? My problem is lack of any real evidence. Just because something claims to be true doesn't make it true.



There are names in the Bible. Obviously you never read the Bible at all. How do you say such things like that if you haven't read the Bible and find the names of people in it ? Its right in front of you if you read the Bible.

Need any real evidence ? You a little faith. Look around you.. Who create things ? It didn't appear to be evolution itself because there is no evidence about it also. Who created the house ? You did. So something out there obviously created around us. Just like something out there created us and miracle in women's pregnancy developed a amazing baby inside the woman's stomach. Thats something going on. And it is not evolution if you believe it.


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Prove physics to me. You really can't, (I could say an invisible man comes and knocks down a heavy ball, but scientist say it's laws.) you can only go off of what's felt, seen, touched etc. to make it true and it's true that everything in the bible adds up in the human senses and its literature so... it's extremely likely (or absolutely,) right about what it says, plus the fine tuning of the universe really says it all...



But at least that has observable results of cause and effect. You can see one thing effecting the other and repeat the results. The proof, they used it to make the device you are using, the internet.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Prove physics to me. You really can't, you can only go off of what's felt, seen, touched etc. to make it true and it's true that everything in the bible adds up in the human senses and its literature so... it's extremely likely (or absolutely,) right about what it says, plus the fine tuning of the universe really says it all...


There's this thing called the scientific method that goes about a systematic method of observation, formulation of hypothesis, repeatable measurement, test, proofs and reformulation. It's purpose is to remove the bias and extract facts thus proving things (and physics) in an unbiased repeatable way, I would recommend you to research on it.


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> There are names in the Bible. Obviously you never read the Bible at all. How do you say such things like that if you haven't read the Bible and find the names of people in it ? Its right in front of you if you read the Bible.
> 
> Need any real evidence ? You a little faith. Look around you.. Who create things ? It didn't appear to be evolution itself because there is no evidence about it also. Who created the house ? You did. So something out there obviously created around us. Just like something out there created us and miracle in women's pregnancy developed a amazing baby inside the woman's stomach. Thats something going on. And it is not evolution if you believe it.


I could claim to have writen my name at the end of any book out there and claim to have written it, it doesn't mean I did. People lie and it was written by people. Something happening is not proof a god did it.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> There's this thing called the scientific method that goes about a systematic method of observation, formulation of hypothesis, repeatable measurement, test, proofs and reformulation. It's purpose is to remove the bias and extract facts thus proving things (and physics) in an unbiased repeatable way, I would recommend you to research on it.


This thread isn't about the SM though I know about that, we need to stay on topic PM me or something.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> I could claim to have write my name at the end of any book out there and claim to have written it, it doesn't mean I did. People lie and it was written by people. Something happening is not proof a god did it.



You didn't read what I said about the Earth around you. Can you proof who created things around you ? Who created us ? Why are we here on Earth ? On what purpose ? Can you answer that ? Who created the house ? You re not answering my questions. Nothing to do with your name claim write at the end of any book out there. You haven't read the Bible then you dont know what you are talking about.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> I could claim to have writen my name at the end of any book out there and claim to have written it, it doesn't mean I did. People lie and it was written by people. Something happening is not proof a god did it.





azoreseuropa said:


> You didn't read what I said about the Earth around you. Can you proof who created things around you ? Who created us ? Why are we here on Earth ? On what purpose ? Can you answer that ? Who created the house ? You re not answering my questions. Nothing to do with your name claim write at the end of any book out there. You haven't read the Bible then you dont know what you are talking about.


Maybe discuss this through PMs?


----------



## spectral (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> This thread isn't about the SM though I know about that, we need to stay on topic PM me or something.


But asked to prove physics. SM is more proof in it's favour than has ever been shown of god or intelligent design theory


----------



## PanTheFaun (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> But asked to prove physics. SM is more proof in it's favour than has ever been shown of god or intelligent design theory


You really believe that the Earth, Sun, planets, stars, humans, animals etc just came from nothing? We were just placed in a certain area where the sun is able to provide life out of chance? No intelligent design? There are tons of ancient writings depicting a god/gods or something of the sort that created us. I doubt that all these people from different countries and such just made up very similar stories of creation by chance.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

spectral said:


> But asked to prove physics. SM is more proof in it's favour than has ever been shown of god or intelligent design theory


Study how physics, floating planets, planets etc. are made, and you'll see that the SM is actually IN the existence of Gods favor because those are all intricate things, no random explosion that came from nothing which is impossible, in the beginning could have made that, plus you and I, are an intricate creation, plus my PM question to you.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> I understand but they should anyway! My three sisters used birth controls and dont have a problem and they got married and have children after. So it is effective. No excuse, really. I dont care about women's own bodies. They are dumbass and they are an idiot.



For all you know they all had multiple abortions.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> You really believe that the Earth, Sun, planets, stars, humans, animals etc just came from nothing? We were just placed in a certain area where the sun is able to provide life out of chance? No intelligent design?


Nobody said that... but it is an interesting hypothesis, now prove it.



PanTheFaun said:


> There are tons of ancient writings depicting a god/gods or something of the sort that created us. I doubt that all these people from different countries and such just made up very similar stories of creation by chance.


That's an interesting hypothesis, prove it.

The first thing you should do is accept you are ignorant.
Then you can start asking yourself questions.
Looking for knowledge in old writings is a good idea, but you never should just trust whatever you read.
Put everything to test with scrutiny, eliminate bias, retain observable facts, build knowledge.

It is quite common in history of people to sell snake oils, and write tales... why would you just trust out of the blue something that you were "told" was truth after you were born no matter the source? That's naive, put everything to test.

PS: Like the person with Miles Edgeworth avatar said, this is going way too off-topic.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 21, 2019)

There is no reason to think a god exists or that the Bible is true.
The Bible is open to interpretation when it comes to abortion, not that it matters due to Point #1.
The United States and many other countries are secular nations, so the religious belief that abortion is wrong is not a good enough reason to make it illegal.
There's no reason to think an embryo is a conscious person.
If an embryo were a conscious person, that still wouldn't be enough to violate a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
A lot of the people who hate abortion are the same people who increase the number of abortions by fighting against things like sex education and access to contraception.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Feb 21, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> Nobody said that... but it is an interesting hypothesis, now prove it.
> 
> That's an interesting hypothesis, prove it.
> 
> ...


I never claimed to know how it came to be but I also don't believe it came from nothing but from a higher being/beings.

You can check from this wikipedia page to see numerous similarities between creation stories and such - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology
I'm not ignorant but you're an idiot for making an assumption.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

I'm saying that making abortion illegal will really make people stop having intercourse till marriage (jaws drop I guess?), which will make it much more enjoyable. (Plus happy couple :] I'm talking about male and female only)


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> You can check from this wikipedia page to see numerous similarities between creation stories and such - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology
> I'm not ignorant but you're an idiot for making an assumptions.


I didn't say you are ignorant, but your attitude is actually proving the point of what I really said.

You/me/one should never put themselves in a pedestal.
One should always accept their ignorance, that's the first step to be able to ask oneself questions.
"I know that I know nothing" - From another ancient text full of wisdom

If one is full of themselves and believes in their fake wisdom, one cannot take the first step to build real knowledge.

That is what I said, but you interpreted it as me saying that *you *(not you/me/one) were ignorant, and responded that you were actually full of wisdom.... hmmmm....


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> I'm saying that making abortion illegal will really make people stop having intercourse till marriage (jaws drop I guess?), which will make it much more enjoyable. (Plus happy couple :] I'm talking about male and female only)



They sell abortifacents online now, even on the dark web costs like $50 - $100 depending on whether you want a consult or to just take it.

There were even a few cases of people sneaking the pills into other peoples drinks.


----------



## dAVID_ (Feb 21, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> You really believe that the Earth, Sun, planets, stars, humans, animals etc just came from nothing? We were just placed in a certain area where the sun is able to provide life out of chance? No intelligent design? There are tons of ancient writings depicting a god/gods or something of the sort that created us. I doubt that all these people from different countries and such just made up very similar stories of creation by chance.


I can't find an explanation, therefore god.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Feb 21, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> I didn't say you are ignorant, but your attitude is actually proving the point of what I really said.
> 
> You/me/one should never put themselves in a pedestal.
> One should always accept their ignorance, that's the first step to be able to ask oneself questions.
> ...


Haha buddy... I don't believe that I have any sort of wisdom at all. All I'm saying is that I am skeptical that we came from nothing and that ancient texts show that there are similarities between creation stories and such.



dAVID_ said:


> I can't find an explanation, therefore god.


I say that it's possible for it to be made by a god/gods due to numerous ancient texts that say exactly that.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

dAVID_ said:


> I can't find an explanation, therefore god.


Off topic... plz PM


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2019)

dAVID_ said:


> I can't find an explanation, therefore god.



Interesting. You are a Mexican therefore there are many Mexican in Mexico who believed God and most of them are Catholic. You do not believe in God ? As I said to someone else that who design us ? Who made the house ? Who design around us on Earth ? Why are we here ? On what purpose ? There must be reasons.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Interesting. You are a Mexican therefore there are many Mexican in Mexico who believed God and most of them are Catholic. You do not believe in God ? As I said to someone else that who design us ? Who made the house ? Who design around us on Earth ? Why are we here ? On what purpose ? There must be reasons.


That's pretty much how I look at it.


----------



## osm70 (Feb 21, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> Haha buddy... I don't believe that I have any sort of wisdom at all. All I'm saying is that I am skeptical that we came from nothing and that ancient texts show that there are similarities between creation stories and such.
> 
> 
> I say that it's possible for it to be made by a god/gods due to numerous ancient texts that say exactly that.




So, you are saying that since all those stories are similar, it must be true? Because There's no way multiple civilizations would come up with the same story like that? Am I understanding you right?



Fates-Blade-900 said:


> I'm saying that making abortion illegal will really make people stop having intercourse till marriage (jaws drop I guess?), which will make it much more enjoyable. (Plus happy couple :] I'm talking about male and female only)




And I say that making abortion illegal will make people abort illegally in unsafe environments.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Interesting. You are a Mexican therefore there are many Mexican in Mexico who believed God and most of them are Catholic. You do not believe in God ? As I said to someone else that who design us ? Who made the house ? Who design around us on Earth ? Why are we here ? On what purpose ? There must be reasons.


Those are all questions. Not even hypothesis.

One should doubt about those kind of questions even more because they are human-centric, that is they are made to put the human in the center of it all "there shall be a reason for the human, etc", and those questions are being postulated by humans, so the -possible- source of bias is quite clear.

It would be great, from the human-centric point of view, that humans and everything around them have a purpose, it is such a convenient thing for humans if it is like that, that if humans postulate it you should be very skeptic about it (due to probable bias).

Again, it is not impossible, but without a proof it is as possible as the contrary, that is "no purpose, no reason, all chaotic". Faith is cool, but it is not a fact.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osm70 said:


> And I say that making abortion illegal will make people abort illegally in unsafe environments.


Unfortunately your "prediction" is backed up by statistics.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> Those are all questions. Not even hypothesis.
> 
> One should doubt about those kind of questions even more because they are human-centric, that is they are made to put the human in the center of it all "there shall be a reason for the human, etc", and those questions are being postulated by humans, so the -possible- source of bias is quite clear.
> 
> ...



Wow. I respect your belief. One day, you will see. One day.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Feb 21, 2019)

osm70 said:


> So, you are saying that since all those stories are similar, it must be true? Because There's no way multiple civilizations would come up with the same story like that? Am I understanding you right?


I'm not saying that it is true but that it's possible that it may be true due to various similarities. Anything is possible.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 21, 2019)

osm70 said:


> So, you are saying that since all those stories are similar, it must be true? Because There's no way multiple civilizations would come up with the same story like that? Am I understanding you right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I doubt that... it could put their life at stake, it would just simply be better for the female to not worry about intercourse till she's ready (AKA Marriage).


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Wow. I respect your belief. One day, you will see. One day.


Or not.
All that I am saying is that people should scrutinize, otherwise you go back to the middle ages, you can't build up knowledge if you don't put into doubt that which you can't prove.


----------



## Jayro (Feb 21, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> (*sigh* apologies every one) God wrote the Bible through men, which means it's His words if He says there's a soul there's a soul.


Oh geez, you're one of those gullible religious nuts. Why do pro lifers always need to drag their imaginary friends I to debates like this? It's up to the MOTHER to decide if she wants to abort because it's her body, end of story.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> Or not.
> All that I am saying is that people should scrutinize, otherwise you go back to the middle ages, you can't build up knowledge if you don't put into doubt that which you can't prove.



I said nothing. There is circle and circle of argument at endless. Ok, forget it. I know two things already: Abortion is wrong and God does exists. As I said who design the house ? Cars ? We did so we are called intelligence design. Who design Earth, animals, trees, and etc ? Intelligence design out there did it. Not evolution or anything changed itself. Nonsense. So one day.. As bible said one day there will be reveal and people who dont believe will regret according to the Bible. Abortion is absolutely 5,000% very very wrong. Human corrupt, indeed. Thanks for the discussion. It ends here. Thanks. Cheers.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Feb 21, 2019)

Jayro said:


> Oh geez, you're one of those gullible religious nuts. Why do pro lifers always need to drag their imaginary friends I to debates like this? It's up to the MOTHER to decide if she wants to abort because it's her body, end of story.


It's imaginary to you but not to others.
I don't agree with you on this. I feel that a father should have certain rights as well and have part in deciding if a couple should have an abortion due to it being his child as well.


----------



## AkGBA (Feb 21, 2019)

Why did I think the gamers' community would be a progressive environment...


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 21, 2019)

Personally, I would never get an abortion. But I am very much pro-choice.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> I said nothing. There is circle and circle of argument at endless. Ok, forget it. I know two things already: Abortion is wrong and God does exists. As I said who design the house ? Cars ? We did so we are called intelligence design. Who design Earth, animals, trees, and etc ? Intelligence design out there did it. Not evolution or anything changed itself. Nonsense. So one day.. As bible said one day there will be reveal and people who dont believe will regret according to the Bible. Abortion is absolutely 5,000% very very wrong. Human corrupt, indeed. Thanks for the discussion. It ends here. Thanks. Cheers.


So preached the terrorists that put a plane into the WTC, expecting to be welcome into the other world.

People that follow without questioning and scrutinizing are just fanatics, no matter the religion. And I don't mean that people can't have faith, not at all, faith is alright, but being fanatic leads to being lead up like a sheep by others. That is not good for a society based on western ideals of freedom.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 22, 2019)

Petraplexity said:


> Personally, I would never get an abortion. But I am very much pro-choice.



You ought to try one out. It's kind of taboo, kind of a rush. Makes you feel powerful.


----------



## Jayro (Feb 22, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> You ought to try one out. It's kind of taboo, kind of a rush. Makes you feel powerful.


Especially if you don't bleed out using a coat hanger and a bucket of ice.


----------



## notimp (Feb 22, 2019)

Whats the ice for, just curious...

On a more serious note - I see what you are doing. STOP iT.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Feb 22, 2019)

AkGBA said:


> Why did I think the gamers' community would be a progressive environment...


Having free thought can be such a drag, right?


----------



## jkjj (Feb 22, 2019)

Omg Darwin would be shitting his britches.

Who cares? ...bunch of virtue signaling autismos. 90% of you won't be in any kind of reality to make a mature decision about this. As a young child who went to Sunday school I also felt this way.

Grow up. go back to bashing TX.
Also. Babies are gay. Dont you care about the survival of the species? In many places the population is already not sustainable. 
Is this well considered?

We cannot afford to be led around by a bunch of mewlings. Congratulations you are susceptible to D-level propaganda.

And one more thing- no one asks a BB whether they'd consent to being murdered.
But neither has anyone received permission to give birth. How do you reconcile this? you can't.

I wish the person who started this thread had been aborted. Bunch of 's



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayro (Feb 22, 2019)

jkjj said:


> Omg Darwin would be shitting his britches.
> 
> Who cares? ...bunch of virtue signaling autismos. 90% of you won't be in any kind of reality to make a mature decision about this. As a young child who went to Sunday school I also felt this way.
> 
> ...


We're vastly overpopulated as it is, so I say abortions for everybody for the next 10 years until we get this population shit under control a bit.


----------



## notimp (Feb 22, 2019)

Thats not how you solve that. 

And you'd have to build a heck load more hospitals in the following states:






src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

Sorted by UN projected growth rates from 2015-2020.

With aid money from other states. Wouldnt go over too well... 

The issue usually is provisioning for old age - in failed states, which is one of the main drivers of getting kids in those regions.

The big perspective issue is, that population growth has decoupled from economic growth. So 30 years back, population growth was coupled with economic growth. So you got more children, if the economy was better. Those have decoupled in the last centuries. With an inverse trend. So poorer countries grow more.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 22, 2019)

Let's try a thought experiment.

Actually think about how much of your hard earned dollar you are willing to pay to enact your view point.

I.e. if your view is that abortion should be banned. Just how much are you contributing to this kid.

And should they turn to crime how much are you willing to pay to incarcerate them.

And if you would think of death penalty how much would to sacrifice for this.


No matter what you think. It maybe thath women have an abortions manlybe

How would you pay for it?

.

And for the people who don't care...why?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 22, 2019)

I am not sure why so many people are so money driven, or stingy perhaps.
I don't think money in this case would make that much of an impact on my opinion.

Actually if we decided to tax ourselves more to make the place I live in better and make the society I live in better, I would happily pay the added tax. If for some reason putting some extra money was some kind of solution I welcome it, but it is not.

My conclusion is not made based on money really. I mean, sure you have to consider the economics of a given suggestion, but that is not exactly the weak point of this one suggestion.


----------



## Negatronic (Feb 23, 2019)

There are 2 million deer in the US and they say we need to hunt them because they are overpopulated.  But there are 300,000,000 humans.  People seem to think humanity is special.  Sanctity of life is Santa Claus for adults.  Believe in it all you want, but don't try to inject your beliefs into other peoples lives.  The truth is there are way too many humans on the planet.  No one is coming to save us.  There has been life here for 2 billion years, and we're about to end it all because we think we're better than what we came from.


----------



## AkGBA (Feb 23, 2019)

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that as a man, I shouldn't be asked this question.
I'll never have to grow a baby inside me, and if I want, I can abandon my family (more men than women do that) without a lot of consequences.

So this debate about abortion must be done, yes, but only between women.
Women only, as a whole, should debate, decide and legislate about this issue (and other women only issues).


----------



## notimp (Feb 23, 2019)

Thats only if you want to tackle the problem "morally" then you might ask yourself "can I really 'feel' like the women in that situation", and then might want to withdraw from inserting you opinion into a discussion.

But then to tackle the problem morally is about the worst thing you an do. One simple truth is, that there is no "debate". Even if everyone thinks, that they have to inject their opinion.

Because even if you look at this pragmatically - you end up at the point where you can objectively say abortion needs to be allowed (in some form), to reduce objective pain and suffering.

Its also a good example for why law isn't supposed to be moral, or emotional. In my country for example, we currently have a populist government, that has just hiked up sentences for all kinds of crimes, that people find morally appaling. As soon as they did, you have legal pundits coming forth to tell them, that what they are doing is wrong, because there will be no further effect of deterrence, and the only thing they are doing is to increase suffering, to satisfy the sadistic 'needs' of the general public.

There is a similar argument to be made in this case. You look at the 'bad' situations unwanted pregnancies can produce. People having psychological breakdowns over not wanting to birth a child for differing reasons. People dissociating from their child, because they simply are unable give them the emotional care that society is nudging them to give. (Leads to neglect.) People willing to resort to serious self harm to end the situation and you decide - regardless of what civil society thinks, that you have to give people recourse in those cases - or you are actively inducing really bad situations.

Then you also look at the wellbeing of the child, and come up with a compromise. A compromise is, when neither side is absolutely correct, and we still have to somehow deal with that.

You will arrive at this conclusion logically. On humanistic grounds. (Which is also a kind of moral structure, but at least not a popular one.. )

Another lesson to be learned from this is that "mass believes" are a horrible judge of anything really.

Thats why even with democracy we've ended up with "representative democracy". Meaning - the people supposed to judge issues are the ones who understand the respective issues. And you are not supposed to have any direct influence on it. You can basically only vote for "change" or "four more years". (At least in the american system..  )

Thats the theory. You can call that elitist. But then others can call catering to your needs populistic. (Which is always much easier to satisfy, because you give them a bouncy ball, and they are entertained for hours, until the next story comes along. Thats part of human nature.)


But then you have instances like late term abortions in the case of your child having a gene defect, and being born disabled. Which almost cant be explained in objective terms. (Inalienable rights, equal in front of the law...) So either you accept, that the potential 'suffering' this event is causing in the parents lives is so much higher, than in any other case - or you are inclined to see it as a corrective measure, where you acknowledge, that society at some level inherently doesnt want to care for people that are out of the norm. So this decision almost looks "more political" compared to the question "if abortions should be allowed on some level".

The answer to the second one is always yes. If you are not a religious hardliner. And those are the people that have to be "right" morally, because otherwise it destroys their sense of self. Those are the people you always smile and nod at, and then never do what they actually ask. Preferably. For the good of the many.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 23, 2019)

AkGBA said:


> The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that as a man, I shouldn't be asked this question.
> I'll never have to grow a baby inside me, and if I want, I can abandon my family (more men than women do that) without a lot of consequences.
> 
> So this debate about abortion must be done, yes, but only between women.
> Women only, as a whole, should debate, decide and legislate about this issue (and other women only issues).



Even if you were a woman. You will never be *that* woman.

Which is why the law should stay out of most things and abortion is solely the choice of the woman who’s pregnant.


----------



## AkGBA (Feb 23, 2019)

Society in itself can legislate on it, I would think. Can, not must.
But let's, as men, just shut the f up about it.


----------



## Vhestal (Feb 23, 2019)

Mikemk said:


> Abortion is murder.  Discussions about legalizing abortion are discussions about legalizing murder.  Except in cases where carrying the child puts the mother's life in jeopardy, in which case it's self defense.



Exactly. I can't fathom others would say otherwise. It's an act against morality and coincidentally an act against rights, a draconian act pre se.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 23, 2019)

AkGBA said:


> Society in itself can legislate on it, I would think. Can, not must.
> But let's, as men, just shut the f up about it.



That’s sexism yo.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Vhestal said:


> Exactly. I can't fathom others would say otherwise. It's an act against morality and coincidentally an act against rights, a draconian act pre se.



That line of reasoning leads to the dumb Catholic Church stances such as condoms being murder.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 23, 2019)

AkGBA said:


> The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that as a man, I shouldn't be asked this question.
> I'll never have to grow a baby inside me, and if I want, I can abandon my family (more men than women do that) without a lot of consequences.
> 
> So this debate about abortion must be done, yes, but only between women.
> Women only, as a whole, should debate, decide and legislate about this issue (and other women only issues).



Ultimately I would leave any ultimate legal decision it to the individual woman (pending fun and games with artificial wombs in the coming decades anyway -- https://www.newscientist.com/articl...elps-premature-lamb-fetuses-grow-for-4-weeks/ ) or their medical proxy, even in cases of surrogacy, but I still maintain you can ask the question for the concept as a whole.
Said question being what does the act of abortion entail, what rights/status do we reckon the foetus is accorded, does the destruction of said same represent anything that would be contrary to said rights or general morality/law making concepts, and the things that follow from all of those as far as timeframes and medical conditions that might modify things as there are many. None of that need be exclusive to owners of functioning womb (or the female sex as a whole if for some reason those that can not undergo it somehow need a place at that debate table despite it not applying to them).
In the end I would agree with most of the nicer places to live in the world in making it readily available and considering it a bunch of parasitic cells happily able to be scraped out or have some fun with chemistry but the morality and logic underpinning it all is something that the species as a whole can debate, and should be allowed to do so. Restricting it to one sex... don't see why I would.

Walking away from the results is an option for everybody though (ish, the law still says some things if it catches up to you), stats here being of marginal interest at best (it is far from unheard of for the woman to bugger off, and even if it was an absolutely minute fraction it is still eminently possible under the laws of physics), so that is largely immaterial.

Edit


Vhestal said:


> Exactly. I can't fathom others would say otherwise. It's an act against morality and coincidentally an act against rights, a draconian act pre se.


What rights? Where did a foetus gain rights and by what virtue did it accomplish such a feat? Might its rights conflict with those of the host?

If I delicately extract a foetus before a certain timeframe then even with the finest medical science available it is not going to grow into a human, under general care of the average human it definitely won't. It will probably even lack a central nervous system capable of processing pain and can't then be said to suffer. Why would I accord it any rights over a fully grown human?

"but potential" you might say. https://www.thoughtco.com/chemical-composition-of-the-human-body-603995 for the chemical composition of the human body. I can assemble all those well enough from a basic chemical supply company, same proportions even, indeed I can probably do that with my kitchen cabinet. If I decide to have a little burning session instead then have I just murdered someone? We have been able to turn inert chemicals into life forms for nearly a decade at this point https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form , and depending upon what you want to count viruses as then the better part of two decades https://www.nature.com/news/2003/031114/full/news031110-17.html
You do also have the what do you count IUDs as? The prevent implantation of things which are very possibly a fertilised egg (zygote) which is starting to divide, and you can happily induce a period in a woman that might even take out an implanted embyro. By similar token you were already asked what do we count barrier contraception as?


----------



## notimp (Feb 23, 2019)

Makes me smile.  You are pitching sexism (social concept) against morality (social concept) against law (shouldnt be too restrictive), most of them because those are popular buzzword concepts you grew up with, but still its a beginning. You guys are politically interested. And you are arguing again. 

Law usually is seen as something thats not "overly intrusive", but a state of undebatable guidelines thats hard to change "too fast" and that on the flipside "doesnt change fast enough". Without law you have no rights.  Without rights you have no protections. Rule of law is actually a pretty good thing. 

Prevents to have to beg your chiefton for intervention personally all the time.  But usually law isnt supposed to be "moral" (in a public opinion sense) thats the thing. You hardly ever have both of those on the same side..


----------



## Clydefrosch (Feb 23, 2019)

there should be some limit (as there generally is literally everywhere) but it shouldn't be as early as constantly proposed in certain us states that you literally couldn't get one by the time you have a chance to realize you're pregnant.
where you'd need to get an abortion every other week just to make sure there's nothing growing in there.

and i love how you all bring in adoption as an alternative, when at least the us adoption system is pretty much a hellhole of child abuse, child molestation and child neglect.
too few adoptions, too many for profit foster homes and only in for the money foster families.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 23, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> there should be some limit (as there generally is literally everywhere) but it shouldn't be as early as constantly proposed in certain us states that you literally couldn't get one by the time you have a chance to realize you're pregnant.
> where you'd need to get an abortion every other week just to make sure there's nothing growing in there.
> 
> and i love how you all bring in adoption as an alternative, when at least the us adoption system is pretty much a hellhole of child abuse, child molestation and child neglect.
> too few adoptions, too many for profit foster homes and only in for the money foster families.



The limit should be at birth. Before then it's should have no more rights than a tick does.


----------



## notimp (Feb 23, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> The limit should be at birth. Before then it's should have no more rights than a tick does.


And what does speak against giving women a reasonable time for their decision (first three months of a pregnancy), that also allows them to catch that they are pregnant by reasonable standards, that allows them to make informed decisions ("counceling sessions" are mandatory in my country for women seeking an abortion), but also the time to actually deliberate and make a decision. But then to also look at the unborn and also make some provisions there to protect "life" thats unable to do so on its own.

You will never change the sentiments of people that children have to be protected, and you will never change the sentiments, that as soon as a human being can feel distress, or pain - going forward with an abortion is akin to "killing". I dont totally agree, but those feelings are out there and they are probably in the majority.

The time when most western countries outlaw abortion is linked to when the fetus develops most of its sensory perception. Luckily enough, this still gives the mother some time to decide.

Here you really look at all the parties involved, and try to minimize harm all around. Thats a compromise, actually worth of holding the term. 

Not every past law in the book is worth being challenged, just because someone thinks his feels are superior and starts lobbying for his/her side.

All this has been from my perspective is people wanting to change perceived issues, when most of them havent actually properly thought about the problem an all positions involved. Arguments have to be very refined, and very precise - to hold an informed discussion, because they already were in the past. You are adding nothing new. You were just born later.. 

Thats part of the crux I have with this generation. It has plenty of new issues to tackle (and yes I include climate change in there, but only as one of many... take economic developments, demographic developments, globalization, change in global power structures, ...), and it chooses the most bland emotional outrage baits to argue about, while ignoring whats actually happening to them as societies.

Why on earth, do we have to hold religious conservative debates, over something that was decided decades ago, and hasn't changed one bit  - just because the religious conservatives have been one of the power groups, that helped to decide past elections.

Pick any of the "newer" issues instead, and preferably get educated about those. There some real change probably would be needed. Istead you are fighting teath and nail over issues of the past, no one has a real interest in changing at all. (I bet not even the people who are igniting the debates.)

Reason "to save the babies". How moral and honest. And then, as always you try to win by voicing your feelings..  Its a good example to learn from at least.. 

All imho of course.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Feb 23, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> The limit should be at birth. Before then it's should have no more rights than a tick does.



so you're one of those 10 comment sockpuppets just in it to disrupt any actual discussion eh?


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> And what does speak against giving women a reasonable time for their decision (first three months of a pregnancy), that also allows them to catch that they are pregnant by reasonable standards, that allows them to make informed decisions



*False.* Most women wont "show" a pregnancy until second trimester. In particular younger women with no previous pregnancies will show late. Chances are of the 1 in 10 women who gets pregnant a year using the oral contraceptive pill, none of them would know in the first trimester unless they have morning sickness.



> The time when most western countries outlaw abortion is linked to when the fetus develops most of its sensory perception



*False. *The most common period abortion is allowed for is up to 12 weeks (3 months because it is a round number) and 24 weeks (6 months rationalised as being the point at which live birth is reasonably possible "50% survival").

None base it on "Sensory perception" bullshit.
*
*
The issue is you provide long messages but they are mostly non-sense. As though you need to hit a word limit for a presentation you have to give at school that day.



How I imagine you write your replies on here.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Clydefrosch said:


> so you're one of those 10 comment sockpuppets just in it to disrupt any actual discussion eh?



Says the guy who provides no rebuttal.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 23, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> The limit should be at birth. Before then it's should have no more rights than a tick does.


Don't know if I would go that far. I quite like the without serious medical intervention thing with extensions for medical necessity (host or eventual life of the parasite) we have now, and see no issue with the overlap between premature births either. If you stand a decent chance (75% for an initial position but open to change there) of a normal life with the equipment potentially carried in the back of an ambulance (oxygen/nasal cannula, IV and/or feeding tube, heating lamp and light box to sort jaundice sort of thing) if delivered by C section at that point in time then medical necessity or late diagnosis of something shitty would be the limits I go with. Where things go as far as demanding said c section for a "normal" pregnancy I am not sure.

As far as "showing" or not then I would have gone with the lack of periods probably being a good starter. While not flawless, especially if people want to be as fat as they presently seem to be, it works as a baseline.


----------



## notimp (Feb 23, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> *False.* Most women wont "show" a pregnancy until second trimester. In particular younger women with no previous pregnancies will show late. Chances are of the 1 in 10 women who gets pregnant a year using the oral contraceptive pill, none of them would know in the first trimester unless they have morning sickness.


They would be missing their period at least twice. Here I'm starting to talk out of my depth so if you can present any studies, or factualized statements, I will look at them.

What I gleaned in a few minutes of googling is that many women dont realize that they are pregnant until six weeks into the pregnancy (src: https://www.bustle.com/p/when-do-wo...-would-severely-limit-abortion-access-3195694 ) this still allows for some time to act - if you draw the arbitrary three months line.

On the individual level, this doesnt help and things can be different - but afaik the three months line in many western countries is drawn with the concept in mind, that most women could catch that the are pregnant, and act within the timeframe - if they decide on having an abortion.

On the second point - most sensory development kicks in in the second trimester (see: https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/ ) - but the survival rate argument is actually pretty astonishing, if thats actually what people argued for having the hard line of legal abortion set. Because it would play with the concept of induced birth - which I dont want to even think about in that context. Sounds too pragmatic to me. Surely someone packaged that with better arguments.. 

But you have a point in that abortion is legal in the west up to the first or second trimester (in normal cases), depending on which country you are in. So yes, thats a thing.

I used the first trimester mark to argue for a minimum timeframe to begin with. (Before most women know that they are pregnant, its hard for them to decide, If they want to have an abortion. Pragmatically.)


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 23, 2019)

You know what would solve a lot of problems including abortion? If they made contraception legally mandatory. Then you had to apply, obtain a license, get background checks and be held financially to a loan in order to have a child. I need a license to carry a gun, drive a car, even operate certain equipment, but anyone can bring people into the world?


----------



## notimp (Feb 23, 2019)

Wouldnt help with birth rates in the west. Wouldnt be accepted in poorer countries, where - again, part of the reason to have children is to have someone to care about you when you are older. (This goes hand in hand with different family structures, different values around the role of families, ...)

Also the decision to want to have a child is a personal one, not one the state will ever have a role on deciding. (Even china, allowed everyone at least one. Two or more if you paid.) People will never accept that.

And then there is the fact, that in most cases forced sterilization was thought about in the past - the actual arguing was actually pretty off. Meaning - you mostly made sure, that societal problem groups wouldnt replicate - and alienated them even more.

Incentive structures are the solutions (marketing and easing taxes) for the numbers issue. The rest you can hopefully catch with societal programs.

Solution for having a poor foster care program in a country > make a better one.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> They would be missing their period at least twice. Here I'm starting to talk out of my depth so if you can present any studies, or factualized statements, I will look at them.



On the pill... No periods on a pill, if you have a 21/7 contraceptive pill then you will have a 7 day withdrawal bleed that 1) is not a period 2) does not mean you are not pregnant 3) will not effect a pregnancy if you do bleed.

The 6th week of pregnancy rule applies to all pregnancies, of which the vast majority are not on birth control.

If you are on birth control pregnancies are discovered far later.

i.e. the people who might want to have an abortion are typically those who will be the last to find out.


Just to reiterate. If you are on the pill with a 7 day "off" phase you *will* have a bleed (most women think of this as a "period") and it does not mean you are not pregnant.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> You know what would solve a lot of problems including abortion? If they made contraception legally mandatory. Then you had to apply, obtain a license, get background checks and be held financially to a loan in order to have a child. I need a license to carry a gun, drive a car, even operate certain equipment, but anyone can bring people into the world?



Nah abortions solve the problem far better without interfering with sex and without causing everyone constantly taking the pill and having pregnancy tests anyways.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Feb 23, 2019)




----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 23, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Don't know if I would go that far. I quite like the without serious medical intervention thing with extensions for medical necessity (host or eventual life of the parasite) we have now, and see no issue with the overlap between premature births either. If you stand a decent chance (75% for an initial position but open to change there) of a normal life with the equipment potentially carried in the back of an ambulance (oxygen/nasal cannula, IV and/or feeding tube, heating lamp and light box to sort jaundice sort of thing) if delivered by C section at that point in time then medical necessity or late diagnosis of something shitty would be the limits I go with. Where things go as far as demanding said c section for a "normal" pregnancy I am not sure.
> 
> As far as "showing" or not then I would have gone with the lack of periods probably being a good starter. While not flawless, especially if people want to be as fat as they presently seem to be, it works as a baseline.



The problem is that birth control means that periods either don't really happen (progesterone only will cause random bleeds or suppress them entirely) and combined pills will either fully supress a period or force bleeds during the off phase which does not stop a pregnancy or mean you are not pregnant.

Obviously if you are fat you might not spot a pregnancy at all.

But if you've ever seen a fit woman pregnant you might notice that actually they show very late as their abs are tight and haven't been split by previous pregnancies and the baby tends to be smaller due the mum's better metabolic control.

Really I would say we need a rule that works and is not based on changing science and not based on vague ideas like risk to mothers life (women have died in Ireland as the doctors did not agree the process that killed the mother was enough of a risk to her life).

All those systems are broken and don't work.

Really until the foetus is born it's just part of the mum. It's not even as sentient as say a pig is when slaughtered. 

Given that the woman can just get pregnant again and the world is already set for the number of humans...

Why all this faff about abortions? The shocking fact is people seem to get more riled up about abortions than interest in providing money for already born living people.


----------



## notimp (Feb 23, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> On the pill... No periods on a pill, if you have a 21/7 contraceptive pill then you will have a 7 day withdrawal bleed that 1) is not a period 2) does not mean you are not pregnant 3) will not effect a pregnancy if you do bleed.
> 
> The 6th week of pregnancy rule applies to all pregnancies, of which the vast majority are not on birth control.
> 
> ...


I thought of that as a "period" as well. Thank you for the correction then. Also I was not aware, that you can have a withdrawal bleed and still be pregnant. As I said, completely out of my depth on this one.  (And not proud of it.  )

edit: Closed that embarrassing knowledge gap just now. If anyone else wants to read up on it:
https://www.healthline.com/health/withdrawal-bleeding#Why-does-withdrawal-bleeding-occur?


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 23, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> The problem is that birth control means that periods either don't really happen (progesterone only will cause random bleeds or suppress them entirely) and combined pills will either fully supress a period or force bleeds during the off phase which does not stop a pregnancy or mean you are not pregnant.
> 
> Obviously if you are fat you might not spot a pregnancy at all.
> 
> ...



You would not be the first person to note the odd quirk with the , however we linked George Carlin way back at the start of the thread 

I am not sure the Republic of Ireland makes for a great case study here -- their general history and reluctance with the concept speaking to much there. It is much akin to looking at how vaccinations fare in the middle east and assuming that applies to the population at large.

As far as sentience then the same applies to a 1 day old baby as well -- human developmental milestones, and the general human pregnancy timings as far as pelvis to head ratios and all that.

I am not sold on the "until it pops out of you" concept. I will continue to defer to existing concepts in the UK for this one as far as time limits, guided by the baseline meds and probability thing I mentioned before. Whether that means you can elect to have a c section at your chosen point either privately or not probably then being the next position for me. Effects of hormone driven birth control are a complicating factor but not one I reckon wants to override other things.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Feb 23, 2019)

I was going to post a snarky comment here about how this thread will go well, but this is a post from last year, so...


----------



## notimp (Feb 23, 2019)

Next person to show up with a "but I am pro life and you've got to save the babies" stance in 3, 2, 1 ...



But then this also has a current political component, since the current administration in the US feels the need to return favors to the religious right.

( https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...-restrict-federal-funding-clinics/2951875002/ )


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 23, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> You would not be the first person to note the odd quirk with the , however we linked George Carlin way back at the start of the thread
> 
> I am not sure the Republic of Ireland makes for a great case study here -- their general history and reluctance with the concept speaking to much there. It is much akin to looking at how vaccinations fare in the middle east and assuming that applies to the population at large.
> 
> ...



It somewhat sounds like you're saying, "I think it works so long as you interpret the rules precisely how I do."

That's not a realistic prospect for an effective law. The problem is everyone believes that all with different interpretations. There is always a wider variety intrapopulation than there is between mean views interpopulation.

Regarding the it applies to 1 day old baby... It does. This is why in late stage (18weeks +) abortions the foetus is killed similar to a lethal injection (usually using a potassium chloride injection into it's heart).

And then the abortion happens. There is no purpose of that injection other than to ensure the foetus dies before delivery.

Why is that legal? Well because before birth the foetus is part of the mother. Once born it is not.

So it doesn't make sense to compare a baby to a foetus.

Similarly all those ultrasound scans on facebook don't count as child porn. It aint a child until born.


----------



## notimp (Feb 23, 2019)

Last sentence almost is free association and unnecessary. (If a pediatrist sees a child nude, thats not pederastic either... context.)

With late term abortions this almost seems to be necessary. If you induce delivery and then leave it to chance - if the child lives, that would be freaking horrible, empathically speaking. But im sure that with going into detail here, you've made up the minds of a few more folks... 

Its not an easy decision, legal concept or process. Its still necessary though to have it somehow legally rectified. It wont just stop, just because you make it illegal.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> Last sentence almost is free association and unnecessary. (If a pediatrist sees a child nude, thats not pederastic either... context.)
> 
> With late term abortions this almost seems to be necessary. If you induce delivery and then leave it to chance - if the child lives, that would be freaking horrible, empathically speaking. But im sure that with going into detail here, you've made up the minds of a few more folks...
> 
> Its not an easy decision, legal concept or process. Its still necessary though to have it somehow legally rectified. It wont just stop, just because you make it illegal.



The facts remain the same, birth is the watershed when a foetus (stops being a foetus becomes a baby and) gains human rights.

Trying to give those human rights to a foetus is ludicrous.


----------



## notimp (Feb 23, 2019)

Legally you may be right, strictly speaking, but trust me, this is not how people feel about it. You are tempting faith (and political pushback) by not mediating the message. You dont have to hold a hardliner mentality here, law is on your side. Its not wrong to show some empathy as well.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> Legally you may be right, strictly speaking, but trust me, this is not how people feel about it. You are tempting faith (and political pushback) by not mediating the message. You dont have to hold a hardliner mentality here, law is on your side. Its not wrong to show some empathy as well.



There is definitely a vindictiveness about peoples views on abortion.

People act like the women getting them are having the time of their lives in the clinic. So people stigmatise the process and women feel the need to cry and shit take on some sort of sick role.

If you're saying that was required to make it palatable to the public. That's possible.

I don't agree though.

Stigmatising gays didn't make it become legal, the pursuit of negative liberty is what did the trick. The "Mind your own business" crowd.

If anything normalising the process and removing the stigma is what lead to the law change by making people realise it isn't their business what consenting adults do.

Same thing there. The stigma is what makes it hard to change the laws.


----------



## notimp (Feb 23, 2019)

Thats a tangent, but the thing is, I can understand the 'mind your own business' crowd. Its the easy way out. Sometimes thats necessary as well.

Still, I agree. With the entirety of your last post.

LGBs changed social norms by appealing to morals and reason, over a long long time. Not by agitating. Thats important as well. Wouldnt be my first choice either, but thats how you do it. (According to Steven Fry.  )


----------



## dAVID_ (Feb 23, 2019)

jkjj said:


> Omg Darwin would be shitting his britches.
> 
> Who cares? ...bunch of virtue signaling autismos. 90% of you won't be in any kind of reality to make a mature decision about this. As a young child who went to Sunday school I also felt this way.
> 
> ...


Boy, we sure are overpopulated!


----------



## jkjj (Feb 23, 2019)

are you so challenged? why do you imagine the birth rate dwindles in their models? I have to look at gay meme line website to know it is a dwindling amount of land, resources, clean water etc.
Let's just not anyone get an abortion..
then the sub 100 iq pro-life parents can give rise to a sub 90 iq pro-life generation, gen X47.

Have you been to a city lately? The mutants hopping around are alarming.

It's a completely asinine position.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk


----------



## dAVID_ (Feb 24, 2019)

jkjj said:


> are you so challenged? why do you imagine the birth rate dwindles in their models? I have to look at gay meme line website to know it is a dwindling amount of land, resources, clean water etc.
> Let's just not anyone get an abortion..
> then the sub 100 iq pro-life parents can give rise to a sub 90 iq pro-life generation, gen X47.
> 
> ...


You're a troll.


----------



## notimp (Feb 24, 2019)

From 1970 to 2020 the worlds population more than doubled. Stuff like that isnt sustainable. Abortions arent even connected to a solution though. I'll state it more simply this time around, It would be like bringing five times the amount of aid money financed clinics to a third world country, and then telling them "you get them for abortions".

People would cough you something, and rightly so. You have to regulate over incentives, and basic conditions within a country.

That exponential growth (especially oil fueled one) usually isnt sustainable , is an easy lesson. So its almost expected for growth to peter out over time. Again the tough parts as always are the transitions.

Abortions are almost entirely unconnected though, I'd asume - so dont make that the big topic nowadays - if you dont have to.

I'd assume they are about as closely connected as - if you've gotten most of your female citizens into the workforce for productivity to be high enough, so a couple could sustain a living wage, and raise a child - along the way decisions are necessary as to when they'd want to have children, and in cases their planning to have children at a certain point in their careers fails, they are also bound to have abortions.

Meaning, there are other factors, that are much more closely related to a reduction of birthrates in urban environments in the developed world than abortions. Abortion I'd assume don't count for any significant amount of that. Contraception does. Different aspects of family planning ("want to travel more...") do. Considerations as to when you'll be able to afford children do. And so on and so forth.

You dont solve an exponential growing curve issue with one time "now lets all promote abortion" drives. Thats just silly. I know that 'on the box' it says that abortions are killing babies (fetuses), but conceptually thats still not the solution to overpopulation.

Also, thats not necessarily the aspects of society you 'should' be concerned about. If push comes to shove and basic humanitarian aid doesnt solve the situation anymore (because of climate change lets say, and a related decline in food production), developed countries have shown, that they are willing to "wall" themselves in. Maybe start some wars... Then those are the 'solutions' we are talking about. So not stuff the average person should think about on a daily basis.

You have other issues to tackle in my opinion.  Lets start with "how to not let political decisions be decided by baby boomers - almost all your life" for starters.  Or lets talk about the issue of wealth accumulation in globalization and zero growth economies. Issues much more related to your daily lives.

Sadly you cant "save the babies" outrage logic, those... 

Or in simpler terms. You cant just always announce that Trump is an idiot, and then bite at every idiotic calculated distraction his party throws at you - "because of saving the babies". Abortion is NOT a hot topic of the day, because there would be pressing decisions that have to be made.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 24, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> My ethics professor asked me at that point "How does doing one injustice fix another?"



Good ethical professors tend to ask questions to push you to a deeper understanding, to make sure you're not just taking the path of least resistance. Doesn't necessarily mean that was the end-point your professor had in mind. They try to always make sure you're questioning your assumptions. 

the professor answered through defining the question. Or rather, the assumption of the answer was baked into the question, which is a logical no-no, and intentionally malformed I'm guessing. Could be the professor was picking up on something that needed to be addressed? He was begging the question, so he'd have to be.

But basically, it being an injustice or not is what the entire point of this thread X'D. More specifically, who involved could be considered injusticed? (lol injusticed). And how do we balance injustices?


----------



## Cylent1 (Feb 24, 2019)

Honestly in my opinion and I am sure it will piss alot of people off is...
If the left want to kill all of their own offspring that is a good thing.  We do not need them bringing more people like them on the earth!
Not only that, what is the point in bringing a child into this world in this day and age? I would not bring in another child into this leftist, communist, resisting, "America was never Great", montrosity!
Your common sense and morals are wacked out!


----------



## notimp (Feb 24, 2019)

America was never great in your lifetime.

Those are your achievements so far: The "father of the internet" wants the web to start over. Mark Zuckyboys industry mentor has just released a "I'm very disapointed in all this" tellall book. Some wars you've started and all lost. And on top of it, you decided to cut some taxes for the rich, shortly after bailing them out in a financial crtises, you've exported to the world. You suck. You still laugh at cowfart jokes, when people talk about global warming.

Also, as you've said - because you will be the only ones still having children, you've solved the problem. Just dont let your children ever become leftists. Start with getting them no higher education.

Maybe buy them some MAGA hats if they behave.

edit: Also Hollywood movies are almost unwatchable at the moment. 

On a more serious note, if you debate issues based on two fixed political camps positions all your lives, you've become very well domesticated. Have a child on me, for that.  You are representing, literally just repeating what FOX news broadcasts. You arent even fit for democracy at that point. Because all your life, you'll be thinking in camps, and not issues.

And yet you get a vote.

AM er ICA great, something, something...


----------



## LowEndC (Feb 24, 2019)

let her/them choose.
not everything is always black and white or absolute.

that is probably my only liberal view in my body.




XDel said:


> I think there are a lot of benefits.
> 
> 1. Maintain your girly figure.
> 2. No nagging brats hanging at your ankle.
> ...



Most metal thing I've heard, 2019.
This is gonna be hard to beat..


----------



## notimp (Feb 24, 2019)

Tangent: Its hopeless. Every american still thinks, that their feelings on this issues are important - then they'll go see a fun Disney movie - that literally tells them -

quote


> I: Vers?
> V: Intelligence.
> I: Your commander insists that you are fit to serve.
> V: I am.
> ...



To see more idiotic banter, added to this kind of propaganda, watch a few seconds of the Late Show I just clipped.

https://streamable.com/3gnzr

I'm watching stuff like this with disgust at the moment. Somehow - It still makes folks in the US laugh though.


----------



## J-Machine (Feb 24, 2019)

we got 7.7 billion people in the world. if you want the abortion get it. there's enough people here that we don't need to worry about what a woman does with her body


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 24, 2019)

It’s honestly shocking that people are so upity about an abortion but a school shooting is mostly accepted these days.

You can tell antiabortion views tend to be skin deep because we still have a huge number of children in care waiting for adoption.

Ron Paul would have been the US president already if he didn’t have such moronic views on abortion.

Three random facts to blow your mind this morning.


----------



## notimp (Apr 28, 2019)

The US at the UN is now pro rape being used as a weapon of war:


What a wonderful administration.

You know what? The US are despicable.

What an asshole country.


----------



## notimp (Apr 28, 2019)

Oh I see, gameboy is doing those on purpose.

You are a sick person.

Trump voter, of course. And a fully fledged US american.


----------



## Bedel (Apr 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> Let me actually do a repost, because I refuse to get this be burried, by a non sequitur commentless clip posting of the Bruno movie.
> --
> 
> The US at the UN is now pro rape being used as a weapon of war:
> ...



People think they have more privileges than their enemy in a war. It's not only the US. It is the people that cannot think farther than their bellys. This post is full of people like this, and they are from many countries.


----------



## notimp (Apr 28, 2019)

The 2Pac video hit the nail on its head in one regard though.

Remember when 2Pac had his fake beef with Biggie, that was conjured up so idiots would buy more records, because "any news are good news (attention)"?

And this all ended, by one of them getting killed, so it wasn't funny anymore?

This is the US for you in a nutshell.

Pitch people against each other with a fake emotionally loaded issues (thats all the political landscape in the US is right now). Then count on them bashing each others heads in until one person crys. Then post dank memes on the internet calling them a crybaby.

I leave you with another great illustration of MAGA:






edit: Also, do you see the Amal Clooney in the video thumbnail above? Thats Gorge Clooneys wife, whos a human rights lawyer. God, you are messed up as a country, when not even that counts for anything in the public eye anymore - because you can always borrow it with more Pepe memes, and character tweets. Or another 20 hastily produced shows on the netflix.


----------



## gameboy (Apr 28, 2019)

Abortion is good bro


----------



## notimp (Apr 28, 2019)

See, thats not the point... The point is, and always was, that "I'm pro life" is just too easy of a cop out, because what you cause, by making this your hardline believe - heavily depends on the circumstance.

And when not even rape victims in war, or sex slaves are allowed to abort their pregnancies, because your administration is downright misogynistic - "I'm pro life" ran out of its emotional charge about five steps past.

Dont be a hardliner on matters you dont undertstand, is the message here. Dont side with China and Russia, and no one else in the world on this matter, because in your mind you are seeing this becoming a PR problem in the next wars you will engage in.

If you do, you are assholes.

Also - dear pro lifers, childhood mortality decreased from 24% in the 1940s to 4% in 2017, so by any stretch of the imagination, women are able to have more children, than at any time in history before. So why be the hardliner, that has to throw a hissy fit at "but EVERY child should be born", and insist, that they are morally right - when refusing to look any of the circumstances, or the womens, and the childs life thereafter.

Being trapped in an emotional catch 22 for your whole life isnt a virtue - and no, you are not a victim, for being called an asshole, because you cant get off of your high horse of "saving them babies". How about helping a real person instead. Instead of playing a hardliner on an issue probably not effecting you ever, on the intertthewebs.

Stats from: https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality


----------



## gameboy (Apr 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> See, thats not the point... The point is, and always was, that "I'm pro life" is just too easy of a cop out, because what you cause, by making this your hardline believe - heavily depends on the circumstance.
> 
> And when not even rape victims in war, or sex slaves are allowed to abort their pregnancies, because your administration is downright misogynistic - "I'm pro life" ran out of its emotional charge about five steps past.
> 
> ...



most humans on all of earth need to be eradicated


----------



## notimp (Apr 28, 2019)

Yeah, thats why the entire global elite is out to eradicate childhood mortality and raise living wages all over the world, except for the countries they actually made their money in.

If I can have a little of your time to actually think a few things through.

"Limits to growth" is an actual issue, if the world population more than doubled over the last 50 years (https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth), oil is running out (which is used to make fertilizers), and raising temperatures make food production yields decline.

Now. In ALL of the developed countries we've actually "stabilized" population growth (think of chinas one child policy - they managed as well). Cynical as it sounds, now we are out to teach the rest of the world how to do it - because of some hard logic I'll explain at the end of this posting.

We do it the following way. We raise wages in poorer countries. We introduce family planing (Abortions, abortions, everyehere! Yes, but also contraception, the principal of womens rights, and so on.). We make those countries think about state financed elder care systems. For those, you need "stable societies". Meaning - if there is a war every 15 years, all your pension plans dont matter zilt.

Why do we do it that way - because the main reason population growth decoupled from income growth in those countries (people in poorer countries getting far more children, even though "they cant affort to" and we then attend to them through "aid") is - wait for it - old age security. In those countries, a child just dying is more common place than in more developed societies, so you better plan in more than one. And if you plan in 10 the chances, of one of them making it and then attending to your need at an old age just get higher. So better plan in 10 then - because your old age support structure - is your family.

So raise womens rights - they refuse to have ten. Reduce childhood mortality - the need to "better get another one" drops. Raise living wages - they tend to be able to plan more. Give them 401k plans and hope for stability - and the number of children a married couple gets - sinks. To basically two.

If you dont.

You get entire societies, that consist of mainly young people, without food (limits to growth), without jobs (non developed countries), that are hungry (no food), and angry (no opportunities). So if you ask them if they want to eat, or fight - they choose to fight. Because they want opportunity more, than they want to "just get by".

Now - at the same time societies in the developed world are getting "older" (whole bunch of trends, contraception being one of the main ones), because there are no more baby booms (This difference will "grow itself out" so you will not always have more old folks proportionally).

Now the young, and hungry societies, want to go to war even more. Because they now also see it as freaking unjust, that they have nothing and all those old white dudes have "everything", even taking their oil. Oh yeah, and they do, because everyone of them has a smartphone by now (Power of media.  ).

Here is what follows now.

They rebell. We nuke them. US military be like "that was great", but everyone else will tremble in horror.

So there are efforts going on at the international stage to prevent that outcome by any means possible.

Thats the great conspiracy against human life.

People are actively working on lowering the growth rate of humanity. For a reason.
--

Now we look at this from the viewpoint of a fundamential religious person.

Religions are social institutions, that pronounce people members by birth. So they get more members (and more importance), if... More people are born.

Historically to be "allowed" by the state, they had to serve a social function (be beneficial to the state), so they usually attended to the poor, which the earlier forms of states had no interest in attending to.

From that derives the notion, that everything a religion does is just and moral - because, god. Kind of a beatdown argument that one - but beats everything.

Turns out that thats BS as well and religions where the cause of some of the most horrific shit that occurred in the history of human civilization, but lets not blame that on religion, lets just say - thats humans. Ever being forgetful, ever driven by urges to get power, or advance.

So at some point, a few people chose to actually call "dipshit" we dont want to believe in eternal rules anymore - an those where in large part who founded the US to begin with. After a few wars, because the US initially was a UK colony starting out. The religious doctrine stuff they tackled by stating, that every man (not slave), should be able to believe in what they want to believe in. Kind of passive agressive, but effective.

Now as soon as the US became independent, they engaged in THE most bloody civil war in the history of the world (because humans), and killed all the indians, and then finally settled into what they had. Because god.
--

Then everything went well for a few centuries, and a few gambles pulled off, and then Einstein and his posse faked out everyone and made it impossible for many nations in the world to go to war with each other at all.

So many babies were saved.

Now just dont be a hardliner and fight for the life of every unborn child - while ignoring literally all of the circumstances of how his life is likely to turn out - and we are good. Thats all anyone is asking.

Of course you could also have it your way, of saving all them babies, and then nuke entire nations, because they start to move, and start to bomb, and start to recruit, at which point you always start to call them terrorists, for some reason.  Because they are young, and our societies, not so much.
--

You can also look at this the other way. You just started an experiment of what it would look like, if an idiot pro life hardliner became your leader of state, and made some of the important decisions. And it is a freaking horror show - let me tell you.

So this is definitely not a the "good" people against the "bad people" here - even if some of them are for abortion, and contraception. And also, you arent good, just because you believe in god. You might be delusional, or need some certainty in your life you cant get otherwise - but thats about it. Let everyone believe in what they want to believe in. But then not act like assholes, but as at least somewhat decent human beings.

Think of George Clooney if you have to.


----------



## mattytrog (Apr 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> Yeah, thats why the entire global elite is out to eradicate childhood mortality and raise living wages all over the world, except for the countries they actually made their money in.
> 
> If I can have a little of your time to actually think a few things through.
> 
> ...



Old "wall-of-text" is back.

There are some that don't support a particular person. But rely on their gut feelings.

You always have to ram your left wing liberal rantings down everyone's throats. And yell "Trump supporter" to those who disagree with your globalist agenda. You can stick it up your globalist arse mate.

There are certain circumstances when abortion should be allowed or even considered.

Rape
Birth defects

The point is for most sane people is this... should a whore who has a higher sperm count than a typical male be allowed to just abort at will? Is life really that disposable?

People need to learn there are consequences for their actions.

On the flip side though, if it were criminalised, back Street idiots armed with knitting needles would be doing the procedure.

So, while I do not agree with abortion in every circumstance... It should be legal and an option. If only to save the idiot whores from themselves.

The big man upstairs will take action accordingly at the right time.

If ladies have had to have an abortion through rape or defects or ectopic pregnancies, then my heart goes out to you.

For the "ladies" having unprotected sex with many different partners without protection, and relying on abortion to get them out of trouble,  get some self respect.


----------



## notimp (Apr 28, 2019)

None of this is a left wing position.
(Mainly because its geopolitic, so there isn't really a left or right, in that field you usually call the poles within fractions hawks and doves.. )



> The big man upstairs will take action accordingly at the right time.


The big man upstairs doesnt exist.

Its a construct to make people get over hard times, or follow doctrine without questioning.
Also nobody is asking for your heart that goes out, if you are a religious fundamentalist.
In my experience people rather stay away from you. Unless the church calls for mess, in which case everyone congregates, but thats a societal function.

Now the thing is that I, or anyone in general usually doesnt confront you with that reality, because we dont know what breaks down for you, If we take that concept away from you. So the usual answer to any thing you say is "good, be happy with your believes". Until you start to want to make them political doctrine. Then we have to debate, because - you litterally come from a point of


> The big man upstairs will take action accordingly at the right time.



Thats religion explained by a post enlightenment human being in two paragraphs. Do you know the stories, of children, that play with imaginary friends? Its the same principal. You arent supposed to take them away from them, its a manefestation of their psyche, its a compensation cycle their brain runs. Thats what a neuroscientist would tell you.  It also can be god, its entirely fine. Just dont try to sculpt the world in that image - we went through that as societies already. A little less fundamentalist, everyone wins.

You can refute this as babel, I will not push on this point any more - religious believe is an individual decision.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Apr 28, 2019)

I don't know why I still click on these. Guess I'm an @sshole


----------



## notimp (Apr 28, 2019)

You are probably what you'd call a nationalist. Someone thats so invested in your countries national myth (exceptional, chosen people, greatest nation on earth, american dream (of working two jobs just to get by, and not having health insurance)), that you cant believe that the rest of the world thinks that you are outright asses at the moment.

Like - the world would have been better off, if america hadnt taken any initiative in the last 20 years.

You were so invested in thinking about an imaginary border with mexico, that you forgot, what your actions would result in geopolitically. You lost the feeling of the difference between national politics (trying to get people to vote for you by any means possible (currently populism)), and international politics - where you are supposed to act like rational actors.

Dont side with the rape as a weapon of war folks at the UN and we are fine. The amount of slack the rest of the world is willing to cut you is endless. And by god you know it.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Apr 28, 2019)

You gathered all that from 2 sentences?


----------



## gameboy (Apr 28, 2019)

there is no such thing as an elite, anyone can be wiped from this earth with a simple squeeze oof a finger. And if you were really "pro life" you understand that there are way too many humans on this earth and that the Japanese killed off the entire pacific ocean and all of them should be wiped out. The chinese account for most of the worlds pollution and should probably be wiped out too. There are lots of other living things out there other than humans. The africans wiped out entire forest populations and extinct everything they touch and should be wiped out.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 28, 2019)

gameboy said:


> there is no such thing as an elite, anyone can be wiped from this earth with a simple squeeze oof a finger.


You have been watching too many movies.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Apr 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> Trump voter, of course. And a fully fledged US american.


Was that necessary? Don't general people like that. There are shit heads on both sides of the political spectrum.


----------



## gameboy (Apr 28, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> You have been watching too many movies.



the elite of the elite arent human


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> The US at the UN is now pro rape being used as a weapon of war:
> 
> 
> What a wonderful administration.
> ...



i dont support rape but that video says "rape is a form of genocide"
how is non consensual reproduction a form of killing off a population?
its quite the opposite


----------



## Nerdtendo (Apr 28, 2019)

imagine thinking overpopulation is a serious issue and wanting to solve it through homicide. Thanos is a villian for a reason. 

I can't stand when people think society is a list of statistics that keep us running systematically. There is very little science behind humanity. There are a set of self-evident truths that are frequently twisted by large people or people groups for their own personal agendas.

When we make society about numbers, we lose any kind of humanity we have left.


----------



## WeedZ (Apr 28, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> imagine thinking overpopulation is a serious issue and wanting to solve it through homicide. Thanos is a villian for a reason.
> 
> I can't stand when people think society is a list of statistics that keep us running systematically. There is very little science behind humanity. There are a set of self-evident truths that are frequently twisted by large people or people groups for their own personal agendas.
> 
> When we make society about numbers, we lose any kind of humanity we have left.


A person is important. Individuals have lives and feelings and contribute in their own ways. Humans, however, humans are making the planet uninhabitable and driving other species to extinction. So theres that too.


----------



## notimp (Apr 28, 2019)

Eix said:


> i dont support rape but that video says "rape is a form of genocide"
> how is non consensual reproduction a form of killing off a population?
> its quite the opposite


Do you know what rape does to a rape victim? No? Well let me educate you.

It eradicates their sense of self ( https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/...le.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1180&context=etd ) it fucks with your identity - it makes people husks of their former selfs if its done repeatedly. Its a known 'technique' in war to break societal resistance. It destroys personal and societal identity.

Here is why. Its repeat induced trauma. After a while your consciousness goes bye bye for you to be able to survive. Its loss of the perception that your body is yours. This fucks with your sense of self and being. That makes you basically shed a sense of character, or you as an individual being.

Its often used that way in tribal conflicts (captured and abducted women, that then are being force 'integrated' into other tribes). Rape and destroying cultures often go hand in hand.


----------



## spectral (Apr 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> Do you know what rape does to a rape victim? No? Well let me educate you.
> 
> It eradicates their sense of self ( https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/...le.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1180&context=etd ) it fucks with your identity - it makes people husks of their former selfs if its done repeatedly. Its a known 'technique' in war to break societal resistance. It destroys personal and societal identity.
> 
> Its often used that way in tribal conflicts (captured and abducted women, that then are being force 'integrated' into other tribes). Rape and destroying cultures often go hand in hand.



Yes, it's horrific. But none of that is what genocide means.


----------



## notimp (Apr 28, 2019)

> But that’s begun to change. Rape may be a common war tactic, but it was only prosecuted as a crime against humanity in 1998, by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, following the discovery of the rape camps used by Serb soldiers during the Bosnian war. At the same time, Rwandan officials were also charged with rape as a war crime during that country’s 1994 genocidal conflict. Widespread media coverage of both trials drew international condemnation. Talking about rape in war became less taboo.
> 
> Most recently, harrowing revelations about ISIS’s sale of Yezidi women as sexual slaves in Iraq and Syria, and Boko Haram’s abduction of hundreds of schoolgirls for forced marriages in Nigeria, have pushed survivors and activists to demand a real global response to a war crime with consequences so enduring it all but precludes peace.


http://time.com/war-and-rape/

This is what the US just prevented at the UN.

There are also personal accounts of Yazidi women (the one next to Amal Clooney f.e.) on youtube. Several newschannels rebroadcast the footage in my country.


--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



spectral said:


> Yes, it's horrific. But none of that is what genocide means.


Eradication of a populace, a folk, a tribe. Its not just killing. A populace is a shared sense of being (a culture). You can fuck that up with rape - and its routinely done in war to break local resistance.

Humans did this for hundreds of years, btw - two tribes went at each other, winner killed all the men and got the women of the other tribe - which then seized to exist. Thats genocide.


----------



## spectral (Apr 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> http://time.com/war-and-rape/
> 
> This is what the US just prevented at the UN.
> 
> ...




That doesn't make the act itself genocide. Its a weapon used in genocide along with others, not genocide itself.


----------



## aykay55 (Apr 29, 2019)

I can’t believe my own country can’t figure out how the hell to get a dumb orange racist filthy-rich businessman out of the White House before he screws up something else.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Apr 29, 2019)

I have a conservative friend that's extremely anti-abortion (I don't call them pro-life since they support the death penalty and call UHC "communism").

She got an abortion in February (14 weeks into the pregnancy) because the birth of the child most likely would have killed her. I asked her if other women should be allowed to get an abortion if it threatened their life, the same way this pregnancy threatened hers. 

I was told that her situation was unique compared to everyone else's and she didn't _want_ to have an abortion. 
As if abortions are something that people _enjoy_ having. Supporting rights to have an abortion, and _liking _abortions are two totally different things.


----------



## notimp (Apr 29, 2019)

spectral said:


> That doesn't make the act itself genocide. Its a weapon used in genocide along with others, not genocide itself.


The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]

Words.  (Its not just killing.)


----------



## gameboy (Apr 29, 2019)

notimp said:


> The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]
> 
> Words.  (Its not just killing.)



you're only seeing surface level things. Its hard to say if abortion is right or wrong. But governments are keeping the fetus' for maniacal experimental purposes which is wrong.


----------



## notimp (Apr 29, 2019)

They do what? 

They dont. I promise. Neither do the privately run clinics, or doctors offices you usually have an abortion at.

Next question.

edit: If you want reasoning against your "over the edge" presumption - every medical study in western countries has to go through something called an "ethics board". Those are people that are incentivized to find everything wrong with your concept proposal and make you run in circles until you get it right. Every study goes trough those, and they are especially there to prevent unethical overreach. Which starts far lower than the idea you brought forward. If you dont have their approval, you cant publish your study in any known journal, which means its useless to you as a researcher.


----------



## gameboy (Apr 29, 2019)

surface level


----------



## notimp (Apr 29, 2019)

Troll.


----------



## Windowlicker (Apr 29, 2019)

Why do people never talk about how the baby has no say as to whether it actually WANTS to exist in the first place? That's of course because it is unable to form a preference. The baby has no personality and thus killing it is not murder. What about accidents then? Of course, protection should always be used, but what about when these happen? Should the parents' lives be ruined over a huge burden? And to be honest, 7.5 billion people and counting is kind of a large number, is it not, eh man? I'd say we should be responsible with our actions, but also learn to be smart whenever something wrong happens. End of.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 29, 2019)

dpad_5678 said:


> I have a conservative friend that's extremely anti-abortion (I don't call them pro-life since they support the death penalty and call UHC "communism").
> 
> She got an abortion in February (14 weeks into the pregnancy) because the birth of the child most likely would have killed her. I asked her if other women should be allowed to get an abortion if it threatened their life, the same way this pregnancy threatened hers.
> 
> ...



There is a phrase those interacting with the anti abortion advocates (be they providers, escorts or otherwise interested parties) see in action if nothing and it is that among the anti abortion types then "the only moral abortion is my abortion" is a frequent occurrence. I will have to try to find the website that listed them (think notalwaysright but with a focus on this sort of thing, or maybe a subsection thereof).

I think my favourite was rich ladies with little else to do picket clinic, as is their right I guess (most providers and thus story writers seemed to consider it part and parcel of it all and as long as things did not get rowdy then all good). One of their teenage sons knocks up the housekeeper (that kind of rich). She then more or less gets pressured into having one by the rich picketer, and they attempt to leaflet the waiting room while they do.

That said your one offers an intriguing insight into things. Not unexpected (you meet such things among the ill informed but still protesting commonly enough) but not one I had really met here before.


----------



## Bonehead (Apr 29, 2019)

I get at least one abortion a month just in case I'm pregnant and don't know it yet.

#MAGA


----------



## notimp (Apr 30, 2019)

1/2 OT: The elder council of the Yazidi has just decided, that displaced (/obducted) yazidi women, can only return home, if they dont bring along a child, that was fathered by a member of ISIS. This specifically also includes all victims of rape.

src: https://derstandard.at/2000102251607/Ein-hartes-Urteil-fuer-vergewaltigte-Jesidinnen (source in german, but if you are interested searching for Nadia Murad (the women in the video at the UN) should lead you to english comments on the matter)

So bare with me - now, those women cant count on medical assistance according to international law (paid for abortions), and they cant return home with a child, if they choose to keep it. (Which is not out of the question - its a personal decision.) Because they wouldnt be accepted by their own tribe.

Yeah. There is nothing more to say about that. Thats moral law for you. (Law isn't supposed to be moral.) Yazidi, btw. are only supposed to marry within their tribe, because of - wait for it - religion.

Now answer me this:

Should their religion (their "church") pay for the forced abortions.


----------

