PDA

View Full Version : You all knew it was comming... ABORTION


Pages : [1] 2

«Artos»
01-04-2006, 11:53 AM
I think its wrong because, although many would argue that a fetus is techically and legally not alive (not like i would care if the law says its alive or not), Your taking the life of a child before its even started. And its not humaine either, most abortions involve cutting the baby into pieces, and remember, this is at a stage where its nervous system is almost fully developed, so it DOES feel pain.

OG
01-04-2006, 12:10 PM
lol....i knew it.....i'll wait for others to respond before taking a side....
but i'll throw in...

morals?..........

Matonly1T
01-04-2006, 12:19 PM
I'm pro-choice women should have a right to choose. If the woman was unable to care for the child due to financial problems what kind of life would that be for the child? Plus nowadays theres a new machine or something <dunno what it is called> which can see if your child is going to be mentally retarded or not, and guess what <i dont the name> but theres a group who wants to stop that from happening because it wouldnt be in the best interests for the already retarded. Can you believe that? <Mainly because of financial probems the group would suffer if there werent any retards> do you know what kind of life the mentally defunct live? unless your in a big family usually after the parents die the kid is sent to some hospital where they are mistreated constantly. If i was a women i wouldnt want the kid and i doubt any woman would. All the kid wold be is a big drain on your money with no reward. With a regular kid they reward you with accomplishments in life.

corbenk
01-04-2006, 01:46 PM
I'm pro-choice women should have a right to choose. If the woman was unable to care for the child due to financial problems what kind of life would that be for the child? Plus nowadays theres a new machine or something <dunno what it is called> which can see if your child is going to be mentally retarded or not, and guess what <i dont the name> but theres a group who wants to stop that from happening because it wouldnt be in the best interests for the already retarded. Can you believe that? <Mainly because of financial probems the group would suffer if there werent any retards> do you know what kind of life the mentally defunct live? unless your in a big family usually after the parents die the kid is sent to some hospital where they are mistreated constantly. If i was a women i wouldnt want the kid and i doubt any woman would. All the kid wold be is a big drain on your money with no reward. With a regular kid they reward you with accomplishments in life.


Wow, that is like saying we should abort all jewish people so they don't have to suffer discrimination. I am all for choices, but i believe you should make them for yourself. I am anti-abortiong.

On the other hand, I believe that you should have the freedom to choose when you die, if you want to commit suicide, you should be able to. I mean, it is YOUR LIFE. Now, if you tried to take someone else with you against their will, then I'd be against it

Matonly1T
01-04-2006, 01:50 PM
Wow, that is like saying we should abort all jewish people so they don't have to suffer discrimination. I am all for choices, but i believe you should make them for yourself. I am anti-abortiong.

On the other hand, I believe that you should have the freedom to choose when you die, if you want to commit suicide, you should be able to. I mean, it is YOUR LIFE. Now, if you tried to take someone else with you against their will, then I'd be against it

First of all i am jewish >were not inbreds = =< (i agree with you on your second paragraph)

Where the hell did discrimination come from? Infact most of jewish community is able to take care of the retarded due to the big families.

Discrimination

n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

corbenk
01-04-2006, 01:58 PM
First of all i am jewish >were not inbreds = =< (i agree with you on your second paragraph)

Where the hell did discrimination come from? Infact most of jewish community is able to take care of the retarded due to the big families.

Discrimination

n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice


Good, we know you can use a dictionary now.

You claimed you should abort a retard because their lives end up terrible because of going to some home or shit after their parents die. How is that any different that saying we should abort all jewish people or some other race or group of people because they might receive discriminative remarks, be bullied, be excluded ect.. That is a crappy life to live, just as living in a mental facility is, but killing the child before it is alive is not the answer.

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-04-2006, 02:01 PM
I'm anti-abortion... bet you think I was for it didn't you? But if the child has an un-curabile illness then I think that abortion is the only choise.

Matonly1T
01-04-2006, 02:03 PM
It has nothing to do with discrimination, would you want a mentally retarded kid? Its not discrimative. How is keeping these people from being born a wrong thing to do? some are in constant pain all their lives. Plus its not a child its a fetus

Fetus

n : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal

Child

n 1: a young person of either sex

and yes i can use a dictionary thanks for noticing

A fetus isnt a person its not Sentient

I'm anti-abortion... bet you think I was for it didn't you? But if the child has an un-curabile illness then I think that abortion is the only choise.

If you had a choice when having a kid would you want a healthy boy or girl? or a mentally retard kid?

corbenk
01-04-2006, 02:05 PM
Would I want a retarded kid? I wouldn't care what he was. He would be my child, he would be my life, I would love him no matter what he was. Besides, I'm sure, with the hardships he'd face, he'd tun out a much better person than anyone "normal" would.


So your not killing a child, but your still killing some one, some thing.

Your right though, women should have the choice, though i am against, I believe that it should be an option.

Matonly1T
01-04-2006, 02:09 PM
oh i see,

1. special treatment
2. special schools
3. special bus
4. special doctors

special doesnt = normal

thats right "thing" not one

you wouldnt be able to truly take care of him unless

1. Your more than finacially secure
2. The government doesnt take him/her away forcefully

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-04-2006, 02:10 PM
If you had a choice when having a kid would you want a healthy boy or girl? or a mentally retard kid?
Yes I would want a metally retarded child but if that child is born with out skin or skin that falls off from every bump, then I don't want them to live in pain.


Corbenks a woman?

Matonly1T
01-04-2006, 02:14 PM
Yes I would want a metally retarded child but if that child is born with out skin or skin that falls off from every bump, then I don't want them to live in pain.


Corbenks a woman?


no i believe hes a "he" i was asking him as if he was a woman

corbenk
01-04-2006, 02:15 PM
Yes I would want a metally retarded child but if that child is born with out skin or skin that falls off from every bump, then I don't want them to live in pain.


Corbenks a woman?


No, but see, when he said want a child, I assumed being a parent would be having the child.

Mat, I plan to be a psychologist so for me, I guess I'd be slightly more finically secure. And if am perfectly fit to have a mentally retarded person as a child, by law, they gov. could not take him or her away.

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-04-2006, 02:16 PM
no i believe hes a "he" i was asking him as if he was a woman
Sorry, I've been confused about corbenk's sex for the longest time

Matonly1T
01-04-2006, 02:17 PM
well good luck to your job, its all word of mouth. Much luck with getting customers. <i dont believe in psychology> it screwed my dad up, prozac made him a living zombie.

corbenk
01-04-2006, 02:17 PM
Sorry, I've been confused about corbenk's sex for the longest time


Bisexuality, and me just being an ass and lying half the time can do that to a person ;)

well good luck to your job, its all word of mouth. Much luck with getting customers. <i dont believe in psychology> it screwed my dad up, prozac made him a living zombie.

That is psychiatry, not psychology, there is a big difference, an entire other degree is needed for psychiatry.

With the way the world is today, psychology is booming, everyone is so insecure and worried that their son or daughter, or that they them selves, have severe problems. Getting customers wont be too hard.

But I am not in it for the money anyways, so..

Matonly1T
01-04-2006, 02:36 PM
but. isnt it weird that more and more people have problems these days? in the past people handled it themselves. The reason why its blooming is because people have one idea of normalcy and anything or anyone not fitting that idea they automatically need pills or therapy.

«Artos»
01-04-2006, 06:49 PM
The big question before we go any farther, What the fuck gives you the right to end the life of another human being? Nothing? Thats what i thought. IMO if some bitch decides that having under age sex would be fun at risk of getting pregnant, than she deserves to die. As for the retarded thing, you have no idea what you'd do. You say you do, but you dont. If you acctuallyl had a retarded kid, a doubt you'd abort it. As for the fetus not being alive. It may not be born yet, but it does have a working nervous system. It can feel the pain of abortion, and like i said, its inhuman the way they do it:

Eight-week pre-born baby

At eight to nine weeks the eyelids have begun forming and hair appears. By the ninth and tenth weeks the preborn child sucks her thumb, turns somersaults, jumps, can squint to close out light, frown, swallow, and move her tongue.

At this early stage of development, suction abortions are performed using a smaller tube, requiring little dilation of the cervix. This is called "menstrual extraction." However, if all the fetal remains are not removed, infection results, requiring full dilation of the cervix and a scraping out of the womb.



Suction Aspiration
The first 12 weeks of pregnancy. General or local anaesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube. The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.

Dilation and Curettage (D&C)

This method is similar to the suction method with the added insertion of a hook shaped knife (curette) which cuts the baby into pieces. The pieces are scraped out through the cervix and discarded [Note: This abortion method should not be confused with a therapeutic D&C done for reasons other than pregancy.]


Twelve-week pre-born baby

By the end of the third month all arteries are present, including the coronary vessels of the heart. Blood is circulating through these vessels to all body parts.

The heart beat ranges during this fetal period from 110 to 160 beats per minute. All blood cells are produced by the liver and spleen, a job soon taken over by the bone marrow. White blood cells, important for immunity, are formed in the lymph nodes and thymus.

Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.



14 weeks - Muscles lenghten and become organized. The mother will soon start feeling the first flutters of the baby kicking and moving inside.

15 weeks - The fetus has an adult's taste buds and may be able to savor the mother's meals.

16 weeks - Five and a half inches tall and only six ounces in weight, eyebrows, eyelashes and fine hair appear. The child can grasp with his hands, kick, or even somersault.

Eighteen week pre-born baby

The fetus is now about 5 inches long. The child blinks, grasps, and moves her mouth. Hair grows on the head and body.

20 weeks - The child can hear and recognize mother's voice. Though still small and fragile, the baby is growing rapidly and could possibly survive if born at this stage. Fingernails and fingerprints appear. Sex organs are visible. Using an ultrasound device, the doctor can tell if the child is a girl or a boy. The one on the left is a baby girl.



Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)

This method is used up to 18 weeks' gestation. Instead of the loop-shaped knife used in D&C abortions, a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb to grasp part of the fetus. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the unborn child. This process is repeated until the fetus is totally dismembered and removed. Usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them.

Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection):

Used after 16 weeks (four months) when enough fluid has accumulated. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.)



Six month pre-born baby

Seen here at six months, the unborn child is covered with a fine, downy hair called lanugo. Its tender skin is protected by a waxy substance called vernix. Some of this substance may still be on the child's skin at birth at which time it will be quickly absorbed. The child practices breathing by inhaling amnionic fluid into developing lungs.


Prostaglandin Chemical Abortion:
This form of abortion uses chemicals developed by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Co. which cause the uterus to contract intensely, pushing out the developing baby. The contractions are more violent than normal, natural contractions, so the unborn baby is frequently killed by them -- some have even been decapitated. Many, however, have also been born alive.



Hysterotomy or Caesarean Section:

Used mainly in the last three months of pregnancy, the womb is entered by surgery through the wall of the abdomen. The technique is similar to a Caesarean delivery, except that the umbilical cord is usually cut while the baby is still in the womb, thus cutting off his oxygen supply and causing him to suffocate. Sometimes the baby is removed alive and simply left in a corner to die of neglect or exposure.



30 weeks - For several months, the umbilical cord has been the baby's lifeline to the mother. Nourishment is transferred from the mother's blood, through the placenta, and into the umbilical cord to the fetus. If the mother ingests any toxic substances, such as drugs or alcohol, the baby receives these as well.

32 weeks - The fetus sleeps 90-95% of the day, and sometimes experiences REM sleep, an indication of dreaming.



Five steps to a partial birth abortion:click for larger image

1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps.

2) The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3) The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head

4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.


5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.



40 weeks - The baby, now approximately seven and a half pounds, is ready for life outside its mother's womb. At birth the placenta will detach from the side of the uterus and the umbilical cord will cease working as the child takes his first breaths of air. The child's breathing will trigger changes in the structure of the heart and bypass arteries which will force all blood to now travel through the lungs.

Pride
01-04-2006, 07:46 PM
The great pride says if you want to have an abortion and murder your child, take your life as well, for the punishment for murder is death.


seriously, what the hell is you peoples problem, now put yourself in this situation, what if YOU were the who got 'aborted' for the women out there looking for true love, what if your true love was 'aborted' you'll never find love now. Think about it, what if the person who just got vacummed out of that womens body could have been the one to sure all forms of cancers? everytime you do that you take away a life that could have amounted to something. so think, when your diagnosed with cancer, know that since you said she should have a choice, YOUR dieing of a cancer that person might have cured.

Dosu189
01-04-2006, 08:01 PM
Wow....that was amazing..No Abortion!! It is horrible!! How could some sick freak do that!! Go to Hell abortionests!!

-Sasuke-
01-04-2006, 08:10 PM
That went alittle to far Dosu.

Yeah abortion is bad, but it is their choice so.. I don't really have anything else to say.

LightDreamer
01-04-2006, 08:49 PM
I think abortion is fine at an early stage in the pregnancy...I don't think it's okay to be at like 8 months..'hmm...maybe it's not such a good idea to have a baby right now'

But then I'm not religious...so I don't really believe in like that stuff. I mean ppl kill flies! and killing a fetus is like killing a fly! And I'm sure not everyone against abortions are vegetarians...all the animals you killed had families too ya know!

But there are risks in getting an abortion, many women go into depression...and there have been cases where the woman has died...

I mean even if these babies are born, it's about being born into an unloving mother's arms, if you deny her an abortion, then she's gonna deny her child love...and that child will be exposed to...things that it should probably not be exposed too.

And about the father thing, I think the father shouldn't be able to tell the girl to get an abortion, becuase like I said, there are chances that the girl could die or go into depression and like suicide. but I think it's okay for the father to say that the girl should have the baby...as long as he promises to help...and stuff o.O I know double-standards...but nothing is going inside the father and removing a living creature >_>'

Matonly1T
01-04-2006, 09:45 PM
Thats why theres a certain time limit as to when you can abort = =,. Its not a human being until after its born. Choice is the main idea here, if women cant choose to do something like get rid of a unwanted baby then the world we live in is as bad as 1984<book read it> we've lost freedom of speech. We the people are losing our rights.

«Artos»
01-05-2006, 12:37 AM
I eat three times the animals everyone else does to make up for vegans. the difference between that and this is that animals arent intellegent, and not human. a fetus is human being. Kill a fetus like you kill a fly? Right, go die.
And where did religion come into this? And when you say its their choice, its not. What right do they have to kill another human? If some bitch had under age sex, or didnt use protection or forgot birth control, she deserves what she gets.

KyoichiKanami
01-05-2006, 12:47 AM
The great pride says if you want to have an abortion and murder your child, take your life as well, for the punishment for murder is death.


seriously, what the hell is you peoples problem, now put yourself in this situation, what if YOU were the who got 'aborted' for the women out there looking for true love, what if your true love was 'aborted' you'll never find love now. Think about it, what if the person who just got vacummed out of that womens body could have been the one to sure all forms of cancers? everytime you do that you take away a life that could have amounted to something. so think, when your diagnosed with cancer, know that since you said she should have a choice, YOUR dieing of a cancer that person might have cured.

But let's take a look at these people who are against abortions. These campaigns, they put ALOT of money into those things. Plus, consider that these people who are "pro-life" opposed Medicare, and the proposition of government child care so that women who already have children can actually provide for them. This is when we can logically say that money could go towards the children that are already here. And then, what about the fact that most of this is religious. We look all the way back, all forms of birth control were illegal for some time. And then finally condoms were legalized, and birth control pills were outlawed. Then they were made legal. Plus, with the Catholic church, abortion was legal for the longest time, so this going against the church thing is fairly recent. Most of this is trying to force your opinion and spiritual beliefs on someone else. But, not everyone who gets pregnant is the same religion as you. And they may not even be religious at all. And, finlly, let's consider the choice factor. A man can go into a hospital and have himself made sterile (I forget the term) without forced notification of anyone or anything. However, a woman who wants an abortion is made to go through so much paperwork, the prcedure happening before it is too late is nearly impossible. And now, they are attempting to propse the mother be forced to hear the child's heartbeat before the procedure. That, in my opinion, is inhumane. Yes, the child may be human. But if you are religious, and believe in reincarnation (as I do), consider that even though the fetus is killed, the spirit of the child will more than likely have a second chance at being born to a mother who loves it/can provide for it. So really, the only logical reasoning behind this is that, like many other things, what may be right/wrong for you isn't always right/wrong for someone else. The world wasn't modeled after a single person, so you can't sanely believe that just because you don't believe something is right/wrong, the whole world is the same way.

«Artos»
01-05-2006, 01:08 AM
Again, im going on morals, not religion. Your killing a human, one way or another, and nothing gives you that right

Matonly1T
01-05-2006, 09:03 AM
Again, im going on morals, not religion. Your killing a human, one way or another, and nothing gives you that right

your morals or the worlds?

«Artos»
01-05-2006, 12:26 PM
The world has no morals. People abort babies, invade countries, bomb innocent people for personal gain...

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-05-2006, 03:33 PM
For the people who are still for abortion want to see photos of the babies?


Well I have a lot of abortion photos.

You may not like this photos

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y287/ME2UJus4Free/ab1h.jpg & http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y287/ME2UJus4Free/rose.jpg

sheik
01-05-2006, 04:36 PM
HUMAN'S LIVES DOESN'T COMPARE TO INSECT LIVES!!! -Leon, RE4

I think that Abortion is kinda bad in a way. THe person can just get a ADOPTION! YES, YOU CAN DO THAT INSTEAD OF KILLING YOUR OWN CHILD!!!! HOOBLAH!!!!!!!

Matonly1T
01-05-2006, 05:18 PM
The world has no morals. People abort babies, invade countries, bomb innocent people for personal gain...

welome to earth, population : you and everyone else

flareofdragon
01-05-2006, 05:45 PM
Abortion is ok. When you hit a great depression and you know that if another thing comes, you are going to go in spite rage, go for it. Abortion should be a choice.

But wtf. This brings social, psychological, and physical trauma. Guess what? Birthing is a natural process following sex. If the body, which is hardwired to go through this fetus stage after a seed implants, does not detect the thing that it is supposed to have, it IS going to debalance the mind. This is especially traumatic for the mother thus should be her decision.

I think women/men should also follow their responsibilities. If you agreed to have sex, you have agreed to create a baby. Still, abortion should be a choice.

«Artos»
01-05-2006, 06:19 PM
welome to earth, population : you and everyone else
Now explain what that had to do with anything? Nothing? I thought so. I was anwsering YOUR question. idiot

Matonly1T
01-05-2006, 07:45 PM
Now explain what that had to do with anything? Nothing? I thought so. I was anwsering YOUR question. idiot


The world has no morals. People abort babies, invade countries, bomb innocent people for personal gain...

I was responding to this, so when you say the world has no morals your also talking about yourself. So tell me do you think it was wrong to execute ted bundy, the man who killed over 50 young women? for your info that was in reference to Again, im going on morals, not religion. Your killing a human, one way or another, and nothing gives you that right

KyoichiKanami
01-05-2006, 08:02 PM
Again, im going on morals, not religion. Your killing a human, one way or another, and nothing gives you that right

As far as morals go, you think that human beings have anymore right to take away another's freedom of choice because what they would choose is not the same as their own? Human beings were given minds and such intelligence so that we could choose how to live, instead of crawling around naked like animals. It's alright to have morals, but what good are they when they're used as masks for control of others?

Matonly1T
01-05-2006, 10:08 PM
As far as morals go, you think that human beings have anymore right to take away another's freedom of choice because what they would choose is not the same as their own? Human beings were given minds and such intelligence so that we could choose how to live, instead of crawling around naked like animals. It's alright to have morals, but what good are they when they're used as masks for control of others?

bingo

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-05-2006, 10:12 PM
Abortion is ok. When you hit a great depression and you know that if another thing comes, you are going to go in spite rage, go for it. Abortion should be a choice.

But wtf. This brings social, psychological, and physical trauma. Guess what? Birthing is a natural process following sex. If the body, which is hardwired to go through this fetus stage after a seed implants, does not detect the thing that it is supposed to have, it IS going to debalance the mind. This is especially traumatic for the mother thus should be her decision.

I think women/men should also follow their responsibilities. If you agreed to have sex, you have agreed to create a baby. Still, abortion should be a choice.
Did you not see my abortion photos? You sadistic bastard.

corbenk
01-05-2006, 10:18 PM
Makoto, I saw them, and as disgusting as they were I still think it should be available. Have you ever seen an animal being killed and chopped up into meat? It is just as gross as that is.

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-05-2006, 10:21 PM
Makoto, I saw them, and as disgusting as they were I still think it should be available. Have you ever seen an animal being killed and chopped up into meat? It is just as gross as that is.
Yes I have and I still ate it. :D It was yummy!

Matonly1T
01-05-2006, 10:29 PM
Did you not see my abortion photos? You sadistic bastard.


Those photos were only pictures of abortions from the third trimester. the first two trimesters arent as bad looking showing the worse pictures of something is a form of propaganda

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-05-2006, 10:42 PM
Those photos were only pictures of abortions from the third trimester. the first two trimesters arent as bad looking showing the worse pictures of something is a form of propaganda
then do you want to see a man eat a baby?

Matonly1T
01-05-2006, 10:44 PM
then do you want to see a man eat a baby?

im sorry, but that didnt make any sense at all can you try again? do you have a picture of a man eating a baby? o___O though i dont see how its relevant

«Artos»
01-05-2006, 11:25 PM
As far as morals go, you think that human beings have anymore right to take away another's freedom of choice because what they would choose is not the same as their own? Human beings were given minds and such intelligence so that we could choose how to live, instead of crawling around naked like animals. It's alright to have morals, but what good are they when they're used as masks for control of others?
Your completly short of the point, yet again.You say i "control others", but you dont see me out there stopping people from having abortions, and i dont say we should restrict their choices because their not the same as my own, and you'd have to be retarded to possibly think that. I think that abortions are wrong because no one has the right to take anothers life without concequence, so lets say all those who kill a fetus suffer the penalty of death. Killing a fetus is still killing a human, regardless of weather its out of the womb or not. No one wants to beat around the bush, whether its techically murder or not, the fact is clear, you KILLED another human for personal gain, meaning you should suffer as they did. Meaning death sentence for abortion.

corbenk
01-05-2006, 11:29 PM
Your completly short of the point, yet again.You say i "control others", but you dont see me out there stopping people from having abortions, and i dont say we should restrict their choices because their not the same as my own, and you'd have to be retarded to possibly think that. I think that abortions are wrong because no one has the right to take anothers life without concequence, so lets say all those who kill a fetus suffer the penalty of death. Killing a fetus is still killing a human, regardless of weather its out of the womb or not. No one wants to beat around the bush, whether its techically murder or not, the fact is clear, you KILLED another human for personal gain, meaning you should suffer as they did. Meaning death sentence for abortion.


Except, most places in the world have gotten rid of the death sentence.

Matonly1T
01-05-2006, 11:35 PM
No one wants to beat around the bush, whether its techically murder or not, the fact is clear, you KILLED another human for personal gain

you can sell a fetus O_______O = =. Thats not personal gain, its a last resort. One reason why theres alot of people against abortion is because of financial reasons. Our tax money pays for those abortions which i think is outrageous. Abortions were illegal in the past but middle class and upper class women got them anyway <Vera Drake; good movie>. It was not meant for the poor which now is the majority of people who get abortions.

flareofdragon
01-05-2006, 11:51 PM
Killing a fetus whatever. Personally its more of a decision to: are you responsible for your actions?

And no, I would take care of the baby if it came down to it. Just because I support the choice of abortion does not mean I personally would want to use it.

Matonly1T
01-05-2006, 11:54 PM
understandable, ditto for me i want tons o children.

palmereap
01-06-2006, 01:17 AM
true you are stop a life tha could have been born and there could have been more genuis anyway i thinks its bad and you should a least give it up for adoption

«Artos»
01-06-2006, 09:23 AM
Killing a fetus whatever. Personally its more of a decision to: are you responsible for your actions?

And no, I would take care of the baby if it came down to it. Just because I support the choice of abortion does not mean I personally would want to use it.
Its not a personal decision. The baby isnt you. You dont die from abortions, lol.
Your decision dectates whether or not a human lives or dies, but it was never YOUR decision to make. I dont know how may times ive had to say this, but, again, what gives you the right?

DarkAztek
01-06-2006, 02:09 PM
Let me address more of the common pieces people have said in here:

"It could be born as a genius, so killing it will be like killing off the guy who discovers the cure for AIDs!" Yeah, that argumental fallacy can be applied the other way around. Imagine a world where Adolf Hitler had been aborted. Where Osama bin Laden had been aborted.

"It is alive!" No. A fetus has no electrical activity (brain activity) in its spinal cord and its head until about 6 weeks or so have passed. Only then can that lump of flesh be considered to be "alive." Before those six weeks, it is NO different than my appendix.

"It has a soul!" That is purely a religious belief based upon opinion and cannot be made to determine whether or not abortion should be allowed. Furthuremore, by the definition of a soul (a person's personality and "living" after death), does not occur until later in life... The personality of a baby forms through its enviornment and we remember it for the actions it took, which is "living" after death.

"The parents aren't taking responsability!" No, that is pure speculation. I know that whenever I have sex, I use a spermicidal condom and I happen to own the "day after" pill. Am I not taking responsability because I do not want to have a child right now? What if I had a vasectomy and had sex with my wife and she got pregnant? Am I still not responsable?

Or what about a high school girl who wants to have sex? It is not your right to say that she is not mentally and physically ready for it. She gets pregnant because the condom tore (about 1 in 200 chance if used properly). If she has the kid, then her entire life will be ruined. She will never be able to go to college and might not be able to graduate high school. Is SHE not taking responsability?

And what of an extremely poor person who is unable to raise the child?

"But she can give it to adoption lollerskatez!" This argument can go either way... After carrying a baby for nine months and having your hormones raging over it, you don't want to just give away your baby. I've been to enough psychological group therapy meetings on grief counseling for mothers who give away their children to know exactly how hard it is. Giving away something that you carried for almost a year inside of you and you protected it means that you grow attached to it immediately.

Now the counter argument to what I just said could be that aborting the fetus will cause just as much grief. True, in some cases, it can cause a mother to fall into depression. So can giving it away. Which is "worse"? That is hard to say. But I do recognize that putting the child up for adoption is a good idea... But then again we arrive to one of the biggest arguments for allowing abortions:

It is the MOTHER'S right to choose. (And yes, the father should have no say in it. Why? Because he does not have to invest in the child the same way that the mother does. Ever. He cannot give birth to it and cannot carry it. Therefore, it is entirely the mother's decision.) She can say if she does not want it and no other person has the right to say that she cannot. It is not murder. If we counted abortion as murder, then we would have to count self mutilation as murder as well.

"Who gives the mother the right!?" She does. The United States recognizes that parents have full control over a child's habits until the age of 18. It also dictates that a mother can live how she desires and can decide if she wants to raise a child or not. Those are basic foundations of our government. The fetus is not alive and cannot choose if it wants to enter the world or not and, just like the rest of us, cannot choose how or when it will leave the world too. The mother is a piece of the baby until it is born. The mother pretty much has a symbiotic relationship with the fetus.

"Religion morality!!!1!" Pardon me, but the Old Testament clearly states that it is not a crime to abort a fetus until the baby's head is outside of the mother and it has its first breath of air. The OT teaches that with the first breath of air, its soul enters its body. Life (or really, a soul's life) does not begin at conception. But as we all know anyway, religion has no place in government... At least, not in the US's government.

"Look at deese abortion photos!" Okay. Great. Nothing like shock value trying to gross out people. I guess that proves you are right, roflcopter?! No, wait. That's pure lunacy. I could prove to you that measures need to be taken to ensure all gay rights by showing you photos of the dead body of Matt Shepard. What about the death penalty? Or hunting? Or surgury? Or anal sex? Shall I show you pictures of severally depressed women to sway you? Shock value proves nothing.


Now here is where the hypocrisy lies that I have been DYING to point out: For those of you who are against abortion, are you also against the death penalty? Because if you aren't, then you're a huge fucking hypocrite.

KyoichiKanami
01-06-2006, 02:12 PM
Your completly short of the point, yet again.You say i "control others", but you dont see me out there stopping people from having abortions, and i dont say we should restrict their choices because their not the same as my own, and you'd have to be retarded to possibly think that. I think that abortions are wrong because no one has the right to take anothers life without concequence, so lets say all those who kill a fetus suffer the penalty of death. Killing a fetus is still killing a human, regardless of weather its out of the womb or not. No one wants to beat around the bush, whether its techically murder or not, the fact is clear, you KILLED another human for personal gain, meaning you should suffer as they did. Meaning death sentence for abortion.

First of all, I called out no names, as I rarely do. As far as the rest of the post, you contradict yourself. You're now saying we shouldn't take away the choice of abortion because you don't have the same beliefs. If that's the case, what's the point of this argument. The whole reasoning behind all this is because some people believe life begins at conception, and others do not. You believe that a life begins at conception, and by the time it has become a fetus, it is already human. I, however, think that life only begins at birth. Therefore, in my eyes, it's quite fine for abortion to happen. And you think it is the murder of a human being. It was the same in the rap post. People were turning on one another and insulting and this and that because their beliefs aren't the same. There will never be a time when everyone truly believes the exact same thing in the exact same way. Plus, with the death sentence, you contradict yourself again. You say no human has the right to take another's life. If this is the case, how can you support the death penalty, which is simply murdering someone?

@Dark Aztek: I didn't see your post till after I had posted, but you hit exactly what I was trying to say.

k-strife
01-06-2006, 03:23 PM
If you had a choice when having a kid would you want a healthy boy or girl? or a mentally retard kid?

So basically you're saying that if you had a mentally retarded kid you would love them less than you would a regular kid.

If I had a mentally retarded kid i would not LOVE him/her ANY less. Some parents really want to have a boy but yet they get a girl. Just because they didn't get what they want, should they just discard them?

I actually have a close friend who has had an abortion. It's something that she regrets immensely. I don't agree with abortion and I find it wrong... instead of taking the easy way out why don't you grow up and accept the responsibilities for your actions.


Now here is where the hypocrisy lies that I have been DYING to point out: For those of you who are against abortion, are you also against the death penalty? Because if you aren't, then you're a huge fucking hypocrite.

Tell me, what crime has the child committed? I'm all for "an eye for an eye". Which is why i think you should really think twice before you have an abortion.


"The parents aren't taking responsability!" No, that is pure speculation. I know that whenever I have sex, I use a spermicidal condom and I happen to own the "day after" pill. Am I not taking responsability because I do not want to have a child right now? What if I had a vasectomy and had sex with my wife and she got pregnant? Am I still not responsable?

Or what about a high school girl who wants to have sex? It is not your right to say that she is not mentally and physically ready for it. She gets pregnant because the condom tore (about 1 in 200 chance if used properly). If she has the kid, then her entire life will be ruined. She will never be able to go to college and might not be able to graduate high school. Is SHE not taking responsability?

And what of an extremely poor person who is unable to raise the child?


You do all that stuff KNOWING there is still a chance to get pregnant. If you don't want a child then you SHOULDN'T be doing it int he first place. oh so your condom broke, boo f*cken hoo, you took that chance. There are OTHER ways BESIDES vaginal intercourse that you can get pleasure and still show affection. You should only have sex if you believe you are READY and willing to ACCEPT the results. THAT is what responsibility is.

flareofdragon
01-06-2006, 05:10 PM
Its not a personal decision. The baby isnt you. You dont die from abortions, lol.
Your decision dectates whether or not a human lives or dies, but it was never YOUR decision to make. I dont know how may times ive had to say this, but, again, what gives you the right?
I do not care? I am owning up to my actions, that is A PERSONAL decision. I am saying that if I ever make that mistake (unprotected sex, which I am not planning on anyway), I will take responsibility of my action. ;) Killing fetuses, whatever. Its about making a mistake (like having sex for sex) and owning up to the situations that came up. That is a decision.

And if I died from an abortion.... I died from an abortion. I do not really mind considering I would not have seen the world yet.

Matonly1T
01-06-2006, 05:55 PM
So basically you're saying that if you had a mentally retarded kid you would love them less than you would a regular kid.

If I had a mentally retarded kid i would not LOVE him/her ANY less. Some parents really want to have a boy but yet they get a girl. Just because they didn't get what they want, should they just discard them?

I actually have a close friend who has had an abortion. It's something that she regrets immensely. I don't agree with abortion and I find it wrong... instead of taking the easy way out why don't you grow up and accept the responsibilities for your actions.

k-strife please dont put words into my mouth, but tell me which would you prefer? a healthy girl or boy or a retarded kid. <thats what i was asking> & just for your information even if i had a retarded kid id always love him or her.

«Artos»
01-06-2006, 06:24 PM
First of all, I called out no names, as I rarely do. As far as the rest of the post, you contradict yourself. You're now saying we shouldn't take away the choice of abortion because you don't have the same beliefs. If that's the case, what's the point of this argument. The whole reasoning behind all this is because some people believe life begins at conception, and others do not. You believe that a life begins at conception, and by the time it has become a fetus, it is already human. I, however, think that life only begins at birth. Therefore, in my eyes, it's quite fine for abortion to happen. And you think it is the murder of a human being. It was the same in the rap post. People were turning on one another and insulting and this and that because their beliefs aren't the same. There will never be a time when everyone truly believes the exact same thing in the exact same way. Plus, with the death sentence, you contradict yourself again. You say no human has the right to take another's life. If this is the case, how can you support the death penalty, which is simply murdering someone?

@Dark Aztek: I didn't see your post till after I had posted, but you hit exactly what I was trying to say.
You dont uderstand what i posted, i said i dont want their choises restricted because of MY personal beliefs, i want their choices restricted because of common morality. Would you murder a one month old baby? No, so how can you kill a fetus? Death senence for abortion, simple enough, i see no contradictions. as for the rest of you think about this, whos life is more important, that of a soon to be born childs, or your life?

KyoichiKanami
01-06-2006, 06:38 PM
You dont uderstand what i posted, i said i dont want their choises restricted because of MY personal beliefs, i want their choices restricted because of common morality. Would you murder a one month old baby? No, so how can you kill a fetus? Death senence for abortion, simple enough, i see no contradictions. as for the rest of you think about this, whos life is more important, that of a soon to be born childs, or your life?

Okay, but it's the same basically. They're morality is not the same as yours, so it boils back down to the belief that all people have the same standards. You can't call any set of morality issues or beliefs common because not everyone in the world will believe the same things you do. It's nice and all that you cna consider it a murder, but let's think of it from the child's position. Quite personally, I'd rather be killed if I knew there was no hope for me to have a decent life. If my parent(s) did not love me, if I would simply be dumped in some place to either die or live in the worst possible conditions, I would want to not be brought into this world. All you can ever do is account for yourself. And you keep missing the contradiction about the murder sentence. You say killing period is wrong, correct? Then why kill someone who's killed another? What makes you any better than the murderer? Because you're killing for justice or punishing someone? No murder can be justified as a punishment. The way things are today, it seems, the government feels the need to take away all free choice of the people.

k-strife
01-06-2006, 07:17 PM
k-strife please dont put words into my mouth, but tell me which would you prefer? a healthy girl or boy or a retarded kid. <thats what i was asking> & just for your information even if i had a retarded kid id always love him or her.

I wouldnt care really, i'd take whatever was given to me.

You say that you'd love your retarded kid, but yet you have a problem with them being retarded. It contradicts itself.

«Artos»
01-06-2006, 07:27 PM
Okay, but it's the same basically. They're morality is not the same as yours, so it boils back down to the belief that all people have the same standards. You can't call any set of morality issues or beliefs common because not everyone in the world will believe the same things you do. It's nice and all that you cna consider it a murder, but let's think of it from the child's position. Quite personally, I'd rather be killed if I knew there was no hope for me to have a decent life. If my parent(s) did not love me, if I would simply be dumped in some place to either die or live in the worst possible conditions, I would want to not be brought into this world. All you can ever do is account for yourself. And you keep missing the contradiction about the murder sentence. You say killing period is wrong, correct? Then why kill someone who's killed another? What makes you any better than the murderer? Because you're killing for justice or punishing someone? No murder can be justified as a punishment. The way things are today, it seems, the government feels the need to take away all free choice of the people.
Note the word "common" in my post, its like common sence for morals. you see, an example of a common moral, is somthing like this. You dont and murder other humans. Simple isnt it? You assume that everyone who is sane knows not to kill others. That my friend, is a common moral. It applies here.

Off topic: You could be Emo, seek help. :D

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-06-2006, 07:52 PM
Let me address more of the common pieces people have said in here:

"It could be born as a genius, so killing it will be like killing off the guy who discovers the cure for AIDs!" Yeah, that argumental fallacy can be applied the other way around. Imagine a world where Adolf Hitler had been aborted. Where Osama bin Laden had been aborted.

"It is alive!" No. A fetus has no electrical activity (brain activity) in its spinal cord and its head until about 6 weeks or so have passed. Only then can that lump of flesh be considered to be "alive." Before those six weeks, it is NO different than my appendix.

"It has a soul!" That is purely a religious belief based upon opinion and cannot be made to determine whether or not abortion should be allowed. Furthuremore, by the definition of a soul (a person's personality and "living" after death), does not occur until later in life... The personality of a baby forms through its enviornment and we remember it for the actions it took, which is "living" after death.

"The parents aren't taking responsability!" No, that is pure speculation. I know that whenever I have sex, I use a spermicidal condom and I happen to own the "day after" pill. Am I not taking responsability because I do not want to have a child right now? What if I had a vasectomy and had sex with my wife and she got pregnant? Am I still not responsable?

Or what about a high school girl who wants to have sex? It is not your right to say that she is not mentally and physically ready for it. She gets pregnant because the condom tore (about 1 in 200 chance if used properly). If she has the kid, then her entire life will be ruined. She will never be able to go to college and might not be able to graduate high school. Is SHE not taking responsability?

And what of an extremely poor person who is unable to raise the child?

"But she can give it to adoption lollerskatez!" This argument can go either way... After carrying a baby for nine months and having your hormones raging over it, you don't want to just give away your baby. I've been to enough psychological group therapy meetings on grief counseling for mothers who give away their children to know exactly how hard it is. Giving away something that you carried for almost a year inside of you and you protected it means that you grow attached to it immediately.

Now the counter argument to what I just said could be that aborting the fetus will cause just as much grief. True, in some cases, it can cause a mother to fall into depression. So can giving it away. Which is "worse"? That is hard to say. But I do recognize that putting the child up for adoption is a good idea... But then again we arrive to one of the biggest arguments for allowing abortions:

It is the MOTHER'S right to choose. (And yes, the father should have no say in it. Why? Because he does not have to invest in the child the same way that the mother does. Ever. He cannot give birth to it and cannot carry it. Therefore, it is entirely the mother's decision.) She can say if she does not want it and no other person has the right to say that she cannot. It is not murder. If we counted abortion as murder, then we would have to count self mutilation as murder as well.

"Who gives the mother the right!?" She does. The United States recognizes that parents have full control over a child's habits until the age of 18. It also dictates that a mother can live how she desires and can decide if she wants to raise a child or not. Those are basic foundations of our government. The fetus is not alive and cannot choose if it wants to enter the world or not and, just like the rest of us, cannot choose how or when it will leave the world too. The mother is a piece of the baby until it is born. The mother pretty much has a symbiotic relationship with the fetus.

"Religion morality!!!1!" Pardon me, but the Old Testament clearly states that it is not a crime to abort a fetus until the baby's head is outside of the mother and it has its first breath of air. The OT teaches that with the first breath of air, its soul enters its body. Life (or really, a soul's life) does not begin at conception. But as we all know anyway, religion has no place in government... At least, not in the US's government.

"Look at deese abortion photos!" Okay. Great. Nothing like shock value trying to gross out people. I guess that proves you are right, roflcopter?! No, wait. That's pure lunacy. I could prove to you that measures need to be taken to ensure all gay rights by showing you photos of the dead body of Matt Shepard. What about the death penalty? Or hunting? Or surgury? Or anal sex? Shall I show you pictures of severally depressed women to sway you? Shock value proves nothing.


Now here is where the hypocrisy lies that I have been DYING to point out: For those of you who are against abortion, are you also against the death penalty? Because if you aren't, then you're a huge fucking hypocrite.
Wow copy and paste fun, ne?

Matonly1T
01-06-2006, 09:23 PM
I wouldnt care really, i'd take whatever was given to me.

You say that you'd love your retarded kid, but yet you have a problem with them being retarded. It contradicts itself.

you didnt answer the question which would you rather prefer? theres no middle ground to that question. i never said i had a problem with retarded kids just i rather prefer to have normal kids

DarkAztek
01-07-2006, 01:47 PM
Tell me, what crime has the child committed? I'm all for "an eye for an eye". Which is why i think you should really think twice before you have an abortion.

That is some messed up logic. Abortions are not punishment and cannot be compared to the criminal justice system. The only way you can put the two together is if you believe that having an abortion is killing a person and then connect that to capital punishment.

You do all that stuff KNOWING there is still a chance to get pregnant. If you don't want a child then you SHOULDN'T be doing it int he first place. oh so your condom broke, boo f*cken hoo, you took that chance. There are OTHER ways BESIDES vaginal intercourse that you can get pleasure and still show affection. You should only have sex if you believe you are READY and willing to ACCEPT the results. THAT is what responsibility is.

You seem to miss the one bit I gave about a VASECTOMY. Those are supposed to be 100%... But there are still some cases where sperm somehow gets through. A vasectomy is the ultimate step in having sex and not wanting a child. They took responsability.

Ha ha ha ha! No, not really. You think responsability only falls into that area. I cannot take care of a child both physically and financially. Having sex is not and should not be about taking a risk. You're wrong in that respect. You also seem to think that vaginal intercourse is only for creating a new life, which it is not. Sex, as the United States Supreme Court has ruled, is a private affair between people. It cannot be infringed upon. That is why sodomy laws have been abolished.

common morality

Ah. And that is where all of your logic fails. There is no such thing as common morality. I've proved it in other threads here and I'm not going to explain it again. Morality is subjective and there is no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

LightDreamer
01-07-2006, 06:44 PM
I eat three times the animals everyone else does to make up for vegans. the difference between that and this is that animals arent intellegent, and not human. a fetus is human being. Kill a fetus like you kill a fly? Right, go die.
And where did religion come into this? And when you say its their choice, its not. What right do they have to kill another human? If some bitch had under age sex, or didnt use protection or forgot birth control, she deserves what she gets.


Woah sorry didn't come back, didn't realize someone actually got ticked off by what I said. Dude...I never said I'm a vegetarian, I didn't need to know the amount of meat you eat.

I'd bet my life that a pig has a higher intelligence then a fetus. I mean it's not like they kill it painfully like they do chickens. Oh..I bet you didn't know that huh? Chickens have their beaks seared off without any pain reducing medicine, and at early birth Mcdonald's chicks are stuck with a feeding tube right in their side and a bunch of other gross stuff that I refuse to memorize. However I will tell you that they go through a hell of a lot more pain then a fetus does before it dies.

The thing with religion is...I don't believe in souls. And I believe the best way to die, is the least painful way. So...killing this fetus...is not like killing a human, they have no heart, they have no remnince of a brain. I think you're human when you have the ability to show emotion and intelligence...and probably a bunch of other things. They're not human. It depends on your definition of human. Human's are of 'higher intelligence' that's what makes us 'humans' greater than other species, well if this fetus shows no form of 'intelligence' how is it human? You possibly believe in souls, or wat not, and as soon as the sperm enters egg, it has a soul? I dunno -.- but it is not the definition of human to me.

Deserves what she gets? Okay, a girl gets raped, lucky for her the guy doesn't kill her, she tells the police, and the guy goes to jail. Oh but wait, she is pregnant. Now what? Well, maybe she wants an abortion, so it DOESN'T RUIN HER LIFE. but oh no, ppl like you says it's her fault for being raped, now she's stuck with a child, won't have a life and possibly no future.

And it's called a mistake? oh becuase I'm sure you've never made a mistake before. I understand being stuck with the consequences, but if there's a chance where you can stop it from RUINING your life, like say...an abortion? I say go for it. let the girl fix her damn mistake.

And sperm are living things too! They are half the DNA in a human. Yet every time someone has sex, millions of them die. Are you saying, since they are technically part human, that one should not ejaculate unless they are sure to make a baby in the process? I doubt that's fair, or deemed possible...ppl like their sex.

k-strife
01-07-2006, 09:19 PM
you didnt answer the question which would you rather prefer? theres no middle ground to that question. i never said i had a problem with retarded kids just i rather prefer to have normal kids

Yes i did, i said i would not care. Meaning i would not hold preference of one over the other.

The only viable reason I can see for someone wanting their kid to be regular is so that THEIR kid won't have to go through the struggles/hardships that retarded kids may go through. But you yourself said "All the kid wold be is a big drain on your money with no reward. With a regular kid they reward you with accomplishments in life."

That is some messed up logic. Abortions are not punishment and cannot be compared to the criminal justice system. The only way you can put the two together is if you believe that having an abortion is killing a person and then connect that to capital punishment.

And yet you were the one that brought up the death penalty in an abortion thread. And yes, I do think abortion = killing, is it not?

Ha ha ha ha! No, not really. You think responsability only falls into that area. I cannot take care of a child both physically and financially. Having sex is not and should not be about taking a risk. You're wrong in that respect. You also seem to think that vaginal intercourse is only for creating a new life, which it is not. Sex, as the United States Supreme Court has ruled, is a private affair between people. It cannot be infringed upon. That is why sodomy laws have been abolished.

Yes i do think that sex is for procreating, because it is. Sorry but the reason guys have a penis and the reason women have a vagina, and the whole reason for sex is to procreate. It is nature. BUT humans get pleasure from it but they do not want the responsibility of bearing a child so they make counter-measures. Is this not true? Sure i'll admit that sex has other purposes as well but the whole reason for sex is to procreate is it not?

DarkAztek
01-07-2006, 09:45 PM
And yet you were the one that brought up the death penalty in an abortion thread. And yes, I do think abortion = killing, is it not?

If you carefully read what I wrote, you can see how I can play both sides of the field. I, for one, do not consider abortions to be murder. You do. Since you do, then that MUST mean you are against the death penalty.

Yes i do think that sex is for procreating, because it is. Sorry but the reason guys have a penis and the reason women have a vagina, and the whole reason for sex is to procreate. It is nature. BUT humans get pleasure from it but they do not want the responsibility of bearing a child so they make counter-measures. Is this not true? Sure i'll admit that sex has other purposes as well but the whole reason for sex is to procreate is it not?

I'm sorry, but who told you what purposes we have those organs for? Who told you again? Who set that standard? I'm sorry, who? Oh. My mistake. I thought you actually had a real reason to believe that they are for nothing but procreating.

Nature is also pleasure. Despite the bullshit you may read in chain letters on the internet, the majority of animals have sex just for pleasure all of the time. Monkeys males have been observed to have sex with a very pregnant female and have been found to have sex with one another. You are not the person to say who or what sex is for and can be with when it comes to people of consent. Otherwise, as I have said before, Lawrence v. Texas would never have occured.

I don't have to have sex if I want to procreate. All I need now is to masturbate into a test tube.

Until the fetus is born, it is a part of the mother.* The mother has control over her own body according to the United States government. Is it morally right? You decide for yourself. Morality is subjective.


*That is, until the 3rd trimester. That is Roe v. Wade and that decision itself is a compromise.

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-08-2006, 02:27 AM
If you carefully read what I wrote, you can see how I can play both sides of the field. I, for one, do not consider abortions to be murder. You do. Since you do, then that MUST mean you are against the death penalty.
I consider abortion to be murder and I'm for the death panalty. Plus WHY THAT FUCK WHOULD YOU COMPER ABORTION TO THE DEATH PENALTY? They're two diffrent things. Sex always have the after math for a menutes of pure heaven you 1. Get to be you mates dinner and 2. You have a offsring and sure if you kill some one you should get what's coming but what the fuck did something you are to love and care for ever done to you? Mother is the name that is gaven to a womenly figer who a child loves and looks up to. If there was ment to be abortion don't you think other animals would kill there unborn child? Sure they may eat them but you don't see them kill em' before birth, now do you? Mr. I'm Dark Aztek I Think I Know EveryThing Because I'm a Toally Asshole Who Likes to Cut and Paste. NEVER COMPER THE DEATH PENALTY TO ABORTION.


And this is coming from a woman who like to laugh at people who post dead photos of their dead babie online and mock them as well.


As a close friend of mine would say. "Di di"

Oh and anwser one question for me Mr. Aztek if you girlfriend are whatever (though I doubt you have one.) doesn't want to keep your mistake. Whould you tell her to go ahead or whould you tell that she's crazy? If you anwer "Go ahead and kill it." Then that will prove that you are a toal bastard that should be beaten with used tempounds.

Yes that's right I said USED TEMPOUNDS

Sorry if this post is sloppy I'm sleppy right now.

«Artos»
01-08-2006, 11:35 AM
Woah sorry didn't come back, didn't realize someone actually got ticked off by what I said. Dude...I never said I'm a vegetarian, I didn't need to know the amount of meat you eat.

I'd bet my life that a pig has a higher intelligence then a fetus. I mean it's not like they kill it painfully like they do chickens. Oh..I bet you didn't know that huh? Chickens have their beaks seared off without any pain reducing medicine, and at early birth Mcdonald's chicks are stuck with a feeding tube right in their side and a bunch of other gross stuff that I refuse to memorize. However I will tell you that they go through a hell of a lot more pain then a fetus does before it dies.

The thing with religion is...I don't believe in souls. And I believe the best way to die, is the least painful way. So...killing this fetus...is not like killing a human, they have no heart, they have no remnince of a brain. I think you're human when you have the ability to show emotion and intelligence...and probably a bunch of other things. They're not human. It depends on your definition of human. Human's are of 'higher intelligence' that's what makes us 'humans' greater than other species, well if this fetus shows no form of 'intelligence' how is it human? You possibly believe in souls, or wat not, and as soon as the sperm enters egg, it has a soul? I dunno -.- but it is not the definition of human to me.

Deserves what she gets? Okay, a girl gets raped, lucky for her the guy doesn't kill her, she tells the police, and the guy goes to jail. Oh but wait, she is pregnant. Now what? Well, maybe she wants an abortion, so it DOESN'T RUIN HER LIFE. but oh no, ppl like you says it's her fault for being raped, now she's stuck with a child, won't have a life and possibly no future.

And it's called a mistake? oh becuase I'm sure you've never made a mistake before. I understand being stuck with the consequences, but if there's a chance where you can stop it from RUINING your life, like say...an abortion? I say go for it. let the girl fix her damn mistake.

And sperm are living things too! They are half the DNA in a human. Yet every time someone has sex, millions of them die. Are you saying, since they are technically part human, that one should not ejaculate unless they are sure to make a baby in the process? I doubt that's fair, or deemed possible...ppl like their sex.

Its called adoption dude. lol
as for the last paragraph...HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHA! Thats fuckin jks:D

EDIT:

Quote:
common morality

Ah. And that is where all of your logic fails. There is no such thing as common morality. I've proved it in other threads here and I'm not going to explain it again. Morality is subjective and there is no ifs, ands, or buts about it

Thats bull. Thats just crap, theres nothing else to it. Unless your reallly fucked up, for the most part, its hardwired into our brains. Simple things like not killing people, and that. Those are common morals, you cant deny they exist. Would you go out and kill someone youve never met? i doubt it.

DarkAztek
01-08-2006, 01:55 PM
I consider abortion to be murder and I'm for the death panalty. Plus WHY THAT FUCK WHOULD YOU COMPER ABORTION TO THE DEATH PENALTY? They're two diffrent things. Sex always have the after math for a menutes of pure heaven you 1. Get to be you mates dinner and 2. You have a offsring and sure if you kill some one you should get what's coming but what the fuck did something you are to love and care for ever done to you? Mother is the name that is gaven to a womenly figer who a child loves and looks up to. If there was ment to be abortion don't you think other animals would kill there unborn child? Sure they may eat them but you don't see them kill em' before birth, now do you? Mr. I'm Dark Aztek I Think I Know EveryThing Because I'm a Toally Asshole Who Likes to Cut and Paste. NEVER COMPER THE DEATH PENALTY TO ABORTION.

I'll try not to laugh at all of the logical fallacies you just said and I won't point out the more asinine ones... I'll just get right to the meat and potatoes of the argument.

You consider that abortion is the taking of a life. You are against wanton killing of life, right? How is that any different than killing a person who is already born if you consider a fetus to be a person?

What did I cut and paste? I took the arguments in this thread and shut them down with my own logic and reasoning and facts that I have learned while studying political science. (And yes, I am reporting you for flaming. If you cannot keep your calm in a debate, then you shouldn't be here. "Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance." ~ Robert Quillen)

(Btw: Animals DO kill unborn babies. Take any species of primate that has a somewhat large social group. But I'm sure we cannot adapt to "the unnatural," just like we have not adapted to air conditioning, electricity, and frozen foods.)

Oh and anwser one question for me Mr. Aztek if you girlfriend are whatever (though I doubt you have one.) doesn't want to keep your mistake. Whould you tell her to go ahead or whould you tell that she's crazy? If you anwer "Go ahead and kill it." Then that will prove that you are a toal bastard that should be beaten with used tempounds.

First off: Why is it assumed to be MY mistake?

Second: If my wife does not want to keep the baby, then I will and must accept it. It is half my child genetically, but it is a part of her. If she does not feel ready and I do, I might try to convince her otherwise, but it is ultimately her decision. I would support her decision when it is final and I would be right by her side. See, that is what you do in marriage.

Tempounds? ...What? Do you mean TAMPONS?

Thats bull. Thats just crap, theres nothing else to it. Unless your reallly fucked up, for the most part, its hardwired into our brains. Simple things like not killing people, and that. Those are common morals, you cant deny they exist. Would you go out and kill someone youve never met? i doubt it.

What is hard wired into our brains? Morality? No. Morality is completely subjective. I bet you can give me a number of reasons when killing a person might be justified. I can justify it differently. Some people think the death penalty is wrong because it is killing. Some think abortion is wrong because they think it is killing. I think neither.

If you actually want to read (instead of the typical McDonald's Syndrom I come across often on this board), then please go to this (http://www.narutolounge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8884)thread[/url]. More specifically, start from this post (http://www.narutolounge.com/forums/showpost.php?p=271987&postcount=21) that I made. Morality is subjective through and through. There is no such thing as a single "moral" decision. As I have said thousands of times in other threads, read Lord of the Flies. Read Deliverance. Read Crime and Punishment. Read a basic philosophy book!

k-strife
01-08-2006, 03:24 PM
If you carefully read what I wrote, you can see how I can play both sides of the field. I, for one, do not consider abortions to be murder. You do. Since you do, then that MUST mean you are against the death penalty.



I'm sorry, but who told you what purposes we have those organs for? Who told you again? Who set that standard? I'm sorry, who? Oh. My mistake. I thought you actually had a real reason to believe that they are for nothing but procreating.

Nature is also pleasure. Despite the bullshit you may read in chain letters on the internet, the majority of animals have sex just for pleasure all of the time. Monkeys males have been observed to have sex with a very pregnant female and have been found to have sex with one another. You are not the person to say who or what sex is for and can be with when it comes to people of consent. Otherwise, as I have said before, Lawrence v. Texas would never have occured.

I don't have to have sex if I want to procreate. All I need now is to masturbate into a test tube.

Until the fetus is born, it is a part of the mother.* The mother has control over her own body according to the United States government. Is it morally right? You decide for yourself. Morality is subjective.


*That is, until the 3rd trimester. That is Roe v. Wade and that decision itself is a compromise.

LoL do I really need to say more? The reason behind sex is not to procreate? You seem like a smart guy but this is not rocket science... You say that there are no set defined term/standard, yet for your arguments, you base it on PEOPLE'S CASES. Hypocritical don't you think?

Really I think the issue is whether or not the child is considered a person.

Here is how I see it... An example, so you can see it from my eyes.

The way I see it... the fetus is much like a caterpillar. If you loved butterflys could you see yourself killing them in their caterpillar stage? The fetus will become a child, much like a caterpillar will become a butterfly. It is one of the most beautiful things in life in my opinion. What irks is me that people take away that chance and the fetus never has the opportunity to ever go through that beauty.

I don't see how people can live with themselves knowing they killed something that could have been beautiful. It is a selfish act in my opinion.

«Artos»
01-08-2006, 08:50 PM
I simply called it morality for lack of a better word. I suppose Common Sence would work too, but, in essence, it is the basic philosophy that there are certian acts that for what ever reason, socity conditions people to reject. Theres no denying that, for the most part, you dont want to get up and randomly commit a felony for no reason. I agree though, somtimes killing is justified, but your missing my point. Through this entire argument, ive been saying the same thing...Whos life is more important? The mothers, or that of the child?

Freshgrease
01-08-2006, 09:14 PM
I'm Dark Aztek I Think I Know EveryThing Because I'm a Toally Asshole Who Likes to Cut and Paste.Sssshh......Makoto I know where you are comming from and I agree, but calling people assholes (even as just as it may seem) is not appropriate. Please, despite personal feelings against him, dont call people names.

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-08-2006, 10:43 PM
I'll try not to laugh at all of the logical fallacies you just said and I won't point out the more asinine ones... I'll just get right to the meat and potatoes of the argument.

You consider that abortion is the taking of a life. You are against wanton killing of life, right? How is that any different than killing a person who is already born if you consider a fetus to be a person?

What did I cut and paste? I took the arguments in this thread and shut them down with my own logic and reasoning and facts that I have learned while studying political science. (And yes, I am reporting you for flaming. If you cannot keep your calm in a debate, then you shouldn't be here. "Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance." ~ Robert Quillen)

(Btw: Animals DO kill unborn babies. Take any species of primate that has a somewhat large social group. But I'm sure we cannot adapt to "the unnatural," just like we have not adapted to air conditioning, electricity, and frozen foods.)



First off: Why is it assumed to be MY mistake?

Second: If my wife does not want to keep the baby, then I will and must accept it. It is half my child genetically, but it is a part of her. If she does not feel ready and I do, I might try to convince her otherwise, but it is ultimately her decision. I would support her decision when it is final and I would be right by her side. See, that is what you do in marriage.

Tempounds? ...What? Do you mean TAMPONS?



What is hard wired into our brains? Morality? No. Morality is completely subjective. I bet you can give me a number of reasons when killing a person might be justified. I can justify it differently. Some people think the death penalty is wrong because it is killing. Some think abortion is wrong because they think it is killing. I think neither.

If you actually want to read (instead of the typical McDonald's Syndrom I come across often on this board), then please go to this (http://www.narutolounge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8884)thread[/url]. More specifically, start from this post (http://www.narutolounge.com/forums/showpost.php?p=271987&postcount=21) that I made. Morality is subjective through and through. There is no such thing as a single "moral" decision. As I have said thousands of times in other threads, read Lord of the Flies. Read Deliverance. Read Crime and Punishment. Read a basic philosophy book!
So what's your effin point about bringing up me thread? I don't care about moral or effin philosophy. Do I look like the type of person who gives a flying eff that a unborn baby is just a lump of flesh? No I don't, but I still think that lump of flesh should have a life before they kill them self because the kids at school pick on the poor bastard and yes you do cut and paste. Man I can't tell you how many fuckers out there that sounds just like you.

Mr. Aztek you are being

::IGNORED::

Thank You and good night. :)

Oh, and if you qoute this post you should be beaten with a skined rabbit.


EDIT By Aruko: Once is okay if you're joking. But using the f word 4 times in one sentence, and not joking, is not accepted. This is a warning. One more time, as I was told you've been previously warned, and you'll be banned.

Azumi
01-09-2006, 01:13 AM
what are u guys talking about? i'm a catholic and abortion is really Immoral, no matter what u say. abortion is equivalent to homicide, as u were killing ur own baby. what an oaf! if ur not sure to have a baby u better keep ur pants tight and ur zippers up.

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-09-2006, 02:19 AM
what are u guys talking about? i'm a catholic and abortion is really Immoral, no matter what u say. abortion is equivalent to homicide, as u were killing ur own baby. what an oaf! if ur not sure to have a baby u better keep ur pants tight and ur zippers up.Agree

If you don't want to have a baby. Keep your legs closed! Just because you want to have a good time while you're still young, dosen't mean you kill your unborn childthen.You whore. (I not calling you a whore, okay?)

kakashi1300
01-09-2006, 03:22 AM
now, let's say abortion has been legalized. now what? couples everywhere will start having sex carelessly. "so what? if i become pregnant, i can just throw this away." see what i mean? sex will just become an object for pleasure. we, humans, must never be compared to animals, for we have REASON. and that is the most important thing that separates us from them. having sex for pleasure only is very animalistic. it degrades us. i agree with k-strife. sex is for procreation. this is the reason why nature designed us the way that our brain is above our heart and above our sex organs, unlike animals who have them leveled.

as for the issue of whether or not the unborn child is already human, i say yes.

The thing with religion is...I don't believe in souls. And I believe the best way to die, is the least painful way. So...killing this fetus...is not like killing a human, they have no heart, they have no remnince of a brain. I think you're human when you have the ability to show emotion and intelligence...and probably a bunch of other things. They're not human. It depends on your definition of human. Human's are of 'higher intelligence' that's what makes us 'humans' greater than other species, well if this fetus shows no form of 'intelligence' how is it human? You possibly believe in souls, or wat not, and as soon as the sperm enters egg, it has a soul? I dunno -.- but it is not the definition of human to me.


so you say infants/newborn babies are'nt humans? why, they have no intelligence nor emotions yet. so if you dislike it you'll just kill it off? and i think according to science, life begins after a couple of minutes from fertilization.

Azumi
01-09-2006, 04:02 AM
Agree

If you don't want to have a baby. Keep your legs closed! Just because you want to have a good time while you're still young, dosen't mean you kill your unborn childthen.You whore. (I not calling you a whore, okay?)

yeah, i understand, alright? it seems for the first time we agreed on the same thing, knowing your'e so obnoxious (lol!)


now, let's say abortion has been legalized. now what? couples everywhere will start having sex carelessly. "so what? if i become pregnant, i can just throw this away." see what i mean? sex will just become an object for pleasure. we, humans, must never be compared to animals, for we have REASON. and that is the most important thing that separates us from them. having sex for pleasure only is very animalistic. it degrades us. i agree with k-strife. sex is for procreation. this is the reason why nature designed us the way that our brain is above our heart and above our sex organs, unlike animals who have them leveled.

as for the issue of whether or not the unborn child is already human, i say yes.



so you say infants/newborn babies are'nt humans? why, they have no intelligence nor emotions yet. so if you dislike it you'll just kill it off? and i think according to science, life begins after a couple of minutes from fertilization.

and yeah, nii-san, your'e definitely correct on that one. life is born after a minute or so of fertilization. so when u abort a baby inside u, u r a killer! (DAMN YOU!)

DarkAztek
01-09-2006, 01:37 PM
LoL do I really need to say more? The reason behind sex is not to procreate? You seem like a smart guy but this is not rocket science... You say that there are no set defined term/standard, yet for your arguments, you base it on PEOPLE'S CASES. Hypocritical don't you think?

I do not need to have sex to procreate. As society changes, so do standards. Sex is not just for procreation. That's what I said. Please take some time to read again what I wrote.

The way I see it... the fetus is much like a caterpillar. If you loved butterflys could you see yourself killing them in their caterpillar stage? The fetus will become a child, much like a caterpillar will become a butterfly. It is one of the most beautiful things in life in my opinion. What irks is me that people take away that chance and the fetus never has the opportunity to ever go through that beauty.

And that is pure opinion. Others do not see it as such.

I don't see how people can live with themselves knowing they killed something that could have been beautiful. It is a selfish act in my opinion.

*BUZZER* Don't fall into this trap again. The child could be something beautiful when it matures, but it has an equal chance of being something horrible.

I simply called it morality for lack of a better word. I suppose Common Sence would work too, but, in essence, it is the basic philosophy that there are certian acts that for what ever reason, socity conditions people to reject. Theres no denying that, for the most part, you dont want to get up and randomly commit a felony for no reason. I agree though, somtimes killing is justified, but your missing my point. Through this entire argument, ive been saying the same thing...Whos life is more important? The mothers, or that of the child?

Name the certain acts that every person, let alone every society, in the world believes in. Careful, the hyperbole police are going to get you for that one.

So what's your fucking point about bringing up me thread? I don't care about moral or fucking philosophy. Do I look like the type of person who gives a flying fuck that a unborn baby is just a lump of flesh? No I don't, but I still think that lump of flesh should have a life before they kill them self because the kids at school pick on the poor bastard and yes you do cut and paste. Man I can't tell you how many fuckers out there that sounds just like you.

What is the point? You were the one that said it was against certain morals to abort a fetus. I proved to you that there is no such thing as a common morality. And if you don't care what an unborn baby is, then why the hell are you in the abortion thread?

Cut and paste? Please show me what I cut and pasted and from where. I never plagarize. And again, you're being reported for flaming. Keep it in your pants if you cannot debate with me.

Mr. Aztek you are being

::IGNORED::

Thank You and good night.

Oh, and if you qoute this post you should be beaten with a skined rabbit

So you are just taking the fancy route to saying that you have no way to counter my arguments. I understand.

Was QUOTING a person a copy and paste job? In a sense, yeah. I hit ctrl-c and then ctrl-v. But I QUOTED people and then replied with my own words. That is how you HAVE A DEBATE ON A FORUM. Otherwise, people get confused as to what you are responding to if you want to take things point by point.



Abortion is legal in the United States. Roe v. Wade. People have the right to have sex however they want in the privacy of their own homes so long as it takes place between consenting adult people. That has also been made into a law by the Supreme Court.

Azumi and Makoto: Okay. You're Catholic and find it immoral. Super. I'm not. I don't find it immoral. In fact, I find forcing a woman against her will to have a child to be completely unethical. Now this comes down to "he said / she said." You might argue that God is on your side. Oopes! You immediately lose on that battle in the secular United States.


and yeah, nii-san, your'e definitely correct on that one. life is born after a minute or so of fertilization. so when u abort a baby inside u, u r a killer! (DAMN YOU!)

That is an incorrect assumption. What separates an apple from a person? Or, for argument's sake, let's just say a tree from a person. What separates the two organisms? Do they both have living cells? Yes. Which one is sentient? A person. A tree is not sentient in the least bit. Now let us get down to the nitty gritty of WHEN a person becomes sentient. Oh, that's right! About week 3 or 4 of pregnancy does electrical impulses appear in the brain and spinal cord, allowing for the most minor and insignificant forms of thought. That is sentience. Until that point, it is no different than cutting down a tree.

Right after an egg is fertilized, it is NO different than a cancerous cell in a person's body. Both grow and multiply. They are not separately sentient.

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-09-2006, 02:38 PM
Oh to clear it up for people I'm not Catholic of part of any major cluts/religions. I don't believe that unborn babies have souls. I don't like babies... no, I hate babies. I do believe people who get abortions are sluts and stupid whores. I do believe that you should give that lump of flesh that you carried around for nine months a chance of living be fore they become one of those emo pricks (though emo guys are cute.) and kill them selfs.

Shino
01-09-2006, 02:52 PM
Oh to clear it up for people I'm not Catholic of part of any major cluts/religions. I don't believe that unborn babies have souls. I don't like babies... no, I hate babies. I do believe people who get abortions are sluts and stupid whores. I do believe that you should give that lump of flesh that you carried around for nine months a chance of living be fore they become one of those emo pricks (though emo guys are cute.) and kill them selfs.
For your sake, I hope that there arent any women here who have had one and reads your post.

Technically your not flamming, but calm down, debating isnt a game to see who can scream obscenities the loudest, its about stating your opinion and, if possible, backing them up with facts.

Pride
01-09-2006, 03:00 PM
Technically your not flamming, but calm down, debating isnt a game to see who can scream obscenities the loudest, its about stating your opinion and, if possible, backing them up with facts.


in todays fucked up world it is.

«Artos»
01-09-2006, 04:29 PM
Name the certain acts that every person, let alone every society, in the world believes in. Careful, the hyperbole police are going to get you for that one.
Not EVERY Socity, but at least the ones we live in where abortions are avalable. Socity conditions people to not commit felonys. Killing is a felony, so essentally, so is abortion.

k-strife
01-09-2006, 04:33 PM
I do not need to have sex to procreate. As society changes, so do standards. Sex is not just for procreation. That's what I said. Please take some time to read again what I wrote.



And that is pure opinion. Others do not see it as such.



*BUZZER* Don't fall into this trap again. The child could be something beautiful when it matures, but it has an equal chance of being something horrible.


You don't need to have sex to procreate? What other NATURAL way is there? Tell me please, I'd like to hear.

You're telling me that you REALLY have no feelings if you were to see an unborn baby die??

Is there REALLY that much of a difference between a child inside a womb and a child outside? How can you be okay to having something that is ALIVE and inside a womb killed but yet totally appalled when it is outside of the womb and killed. I could easily say a baby outside of a womb could also "grow up to be horrible", would you be appalled if i killed it?

Tell me, does the child inside the womb not feel just as it would outside the womb? Does it not have fingers and toes? Does it not have eyes? Does it not have the shape/body of one? Does it not suck it's thumb? Does it not have hair? Does it not move? Does it not deserve the same chance of life as everyone else?

Freshgrease
01-09-2006, 09:58 PM
IMO don't put your twanger in a girl's jukebox till you'r ready to be a father. Go masturbate and be done with it. Once ready to be a father, go hump like a dog. A baby is a human no matter what stage of LIFE it is in. Whould it be right for me to kill a grandma of the age of 110 because she was gonna die or she is a burden to her family? Fuck no. That baby may be a burden, but think about it's feelings and don't make the decision to abort because it whould be too much trouble for you to raise it. People such as that are thoughtless and selfish.

Matonly1T
01-09-2006, 10:33 PM
IMO don't put your twanger in a girl's jukebox till you'r ready to be a father. Go masturbate and be done with it. Once ready to be a father, go hump like a dog. A baby is a human no matter what stage of LIFE it is in.

these are the way life lessons that should be taught

DarkAztek
01-10-2006, 12:26 AM
Not EVERY Socity, but at least the ones we live in where abortions are avalable. Socity conditions people to not commit felonys. Killing is a felony, so essentally, so is abortion.

Abortion is available in every country... It is available and often used in PRIMATE societies, so there is no way that humans are any differnet.

You don't need to have sex to procreate? What other NATURAL way is there? Tell me please, I'd like to hear.

Masturbate into a girl's vagina. No penetration != sex.

You're telling me that you REALLY have no feelings if you were to see an unborn baby die??

Where did I say that? Please quote me.

Is there REALLY that much of a difference between a child inside a womb and a child outside? How can you be okay to having something that is ALIVE and inside a womb killed but yet totally appalled when it is outside of the womb and killed. I could easily say a baby outside of a womb could also "grow up to be horrible", would you be appalled if i killed it?

Yeah. There is a huge difference. One is sentient.

No, you couldn't. Because it goes both ways. It count be the next Ghandi as well as the next Hitler. I was just pointing out your logical fallacy.

Tell me, does the child inside the womb not feel just as it would outside the womb? Does it not have fingers and toes? Does it not have eyes? Does it not have the shape/body of one? Does it not suck it's thumb? Does it not have hair? Does it not move? Does it not deserve the same chance of life as everyone else?

No, it cannot feel. That's impossible when you're not SENTIENT. No, it does NOT have fingers and toes. It does NOT have eyes. It does not even really have the shape of a human. It doesn't have a thumb to suck. It does not have hair. It is not really all muscle movement. It is not alive. Why? Because this is 3-4 weeks into a pregnancy maximum. Guess what that means! It is not SENTIENT.

Whould it be right for me to kill a grandma of the age of 110 because she was gonna die or she is a burden to her family?

A grandmother is sentient. Unborn fetus... Not quite even near where the lowest form of sentience can be considered. Hm.

FreshGrease, you also need to consider that not every abortion is even because it is hard on the mother and/or father. Ever think it could be for the child's benefit?

LightDreamer
01-10-2006, 12:36 AM
Its called adoption dude. lol
as for the last paragraph...HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHA! Thats fuckin jks:D


ahaha I'm sure it's hilarious. But you realize the girl has to be pregnant 9 months before she gives birth? 9 months is a long time. She'll have to drop out of school, she'll be ridiculed and other horrible things by horrible people. And then when she does give birth to the baby, there are high chances she'll become emotionally attached to the baby. So now what, now she's a teenage girl with a baby, with cut short education, and possibly no counter part to help her. Is she gonna live with her parents forever? Become a prostitute maybe. Because that's so much better than being given a second chance at life, and being successful. I doubt if she gets an abortion she'll make the same mistake of getting unwantedly pregnant again. And what of the baby of the prostitute? Well if social services find out, they'll prolly end up taking her now emotionally attached child, give it to a relative or something. But that poor child is going to be juggled around a lot, and wat are they gonna tell it when they grow up. Oh your mom got knocked up when she was about 15, gave birth to you, then disowned you. Yup, that would make me feel good too.

Getting an abortion is a little more discrete then wearing a lot of sweaters to cover up your new bulge, she'll be able to continue highschool, or whatever education she was getting, and if she wasn't getting one, well at least now she has the chance to restart that.

See you guy's keep saying that this baby could become something beautiful, well what about the mother? She could become something wonderful too, maybe an actor, maybe a singer, maybe she'll travel the world helping those less fortunate, like the kids in Africa. How much of a chance do you think she'll have now that she has a child? She's 15 years old, she's still got her whole life ahead of her too.

Azumi
01-10-2006, 12:38 AM
Azumi and Makoto: Okay. You're Catholic and find it immoral. Super. I'm not. I don't find it immoral. In fact, I find forcing a woman against her will to have a child to be completely unethical. Now this comes down to "he said / she said." You might argue that God is on your side. Oopes! You immediately lose on that battle in the secular United States.




That is an incorrect assumption. What separates an apple from a person? Or, for argument's sake, let's just say a tree from a person. What separates the two organisms? Do they both have living cells? Yes. Which one is sentient? A person. A tree is not sentient in the least bit. Now let us get down to the nitty gritty of WHEN a person becomes sentient. Oh, that's right! About week 3 or 4 of pregnancy does electrical impulses appear in the brain and spinal cord, allowing for the most minor and insignificant forms of thought. That is sentience. Until that point, it is no different than cutting down a tree.

Right after an egg is fertilized, it is NO different than a cancerous cell in a person's body. Both grow and multiply. They are not separately sentient.

NOT IMMORAL? in what sense? will you be happy if your mother aborted you? will you say " I'm proud of you mama, papa, coz you made me and let me slipped on a toilet bowl.. Oh.. it's really nice down here!" HUH? Is it fair for the child in the mother's womb to let him die "defenseless" againsts his oaf of a mother? well, you may never know, the one you are killing is the future president of your country and might bring the fortune you sorely want to have in the future.

and btw, maybe you're talking about "miscarriage", that for sure is immoral, in the sense that the mother is "unconscious" of hers and her baby's condition.

Abortion is legal in the United States. Roe v. Wade. People have the right to have sex however they want in the privacy of their own homes so long as it takes place between consenting adult people. That has also been made into a law by the Supreme Court.

that's bullshit.... sex is only done by married people who had plans for their family, on when to be pregnant, and when not to be pregnant. the problem is that the people in your place are so into S-E-X that even the morality of premarital sex is taken for granted...

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-10-2006, 12:49 AM
Think about it. Q&A

Q. If you are anti-abortion and your kid has a uncurable dease that will eat away at there body. Whould you get an abortion?

Me. Yes I would get an abortion I don't want my kid to grow up knowing nothing but pain. It would hurt that I no longer have my unborn child but it whould brake my heart to see them in pain every waking hour.

Q. So you want abortion to be banned but are you for the death penalty?

Me. Yes. I know i'm a hippocratic yadda yadda yadda.

Q. If you are for the death penalty, why do you want the death penalty?

Me. Because in my mind I beleive that if you killed and raped 20 young boys that you should be beheaded but they don't do that anymore *sigh*.

Q. You are for the death penalty but agianst abortion. Are they not the same?

Me.No they are not. The person who is going to die by hanging or whatever had a life of which they fucked up. A unborn baby however did not at least let that lump of flesh have a lfe even if they grow up to be an asshole. (like some one that has lots of enmies on this thread but I'm not going to say names.)

DarkAztek
01-10-2006, 01:22 AM
NOT IMMORAL? in what sense? will you be happy if your mother aborted you? will you say " I'm proud of you mama, papa, coz you made me and let me slipped on a toilet bowl.. Oh.. it's really nice down here!" HUH? Is it fair for the child in the mother's womb to let him die "defenseless" againsts his oaf of a mother? well, you may never know, the one you are killing is the future president of your country and might bring the fortune you sorely want to have in the future.

and btw, maybe you're talking about "miscarriage", that for sure is immoral, in the sense that the mother is "unconscious" of hers and her baby's condition.

According to the teachings of Judaism, it is not taking a life. In fact, at one point in the OT, it says that a baby's soul enters it durings its first breath. Additionally, from my more scientific outlook that I have upon the world, I do not believe what biology tells me that it is not sentient until later on.

You are asking loaded questions that are fallacies. I have addressed all of them before. But keep making them, they don't prove your point.

No, I am not talking about just shocking the mother to abort the child. Taking 3 of the estrogen pills used as birth control and it will be aborted. Have you never heard of the multiple ways that people abort it? If they CHOOSE to give themselves a miscarriage, then that is an abortion... Or do you think that if abortions could be okay if we just pushed the mom down some stairs?

that's bullshit.... sex is only done by married people who had plans for their family, on when to be pregnant, and when not to be pregnant. the problem is that the people in your place are so into S-E-X that even the morality of premarital sex is taken for granted...

That's opinion. The United States, as I have already cited, has (follow me here please) NO CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS IN THE BEDROOM SO LONG AS IT IS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS.

No they are not. The person who is going to die by hanging or whatever had a life of which they fucked up. A unborn baby however did not at least let that lump of flesh have a lfe even if they grow up to be an asshole. (like some one that has lots of enmies on this thread but I'm not going to say names.)

Ah, then if you really believe that, then don't just say that you are against murdering fetuses. That is completely different from what you said here with THIS reasoning: The unborn child deserves a chance at living.

Okay... And what next? If the child has its chance and messes it up as well as all of the people around it, THEN it is okay to kill?

(like some one that has lots of enmies on this thread but I'm not going to say names.)

*Giggle!* Whomever could you mean? Would you like some more tea? I have assam!

«Artos»
01-10-2006, 02:11 AM
You know there are many forms of abortion, such as Saline poisoning, that happen late in pregnacy, where the baby can feel, think, and move. It isnt that far gone from a born baby and is certanly sentient.

@ MDW
Exactly! A baby has committed no crimes. It doesnt deserve to be killed.
Thats what makes me NOT a hypocrite when i say death sentences for abortions, because sometimes a death is justified.

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-10-2006, 02:43 AM
You know there are many forms of abortion, such as Saline poisoning, that happen late in pregnacy, where the baby can feel, think, and move. It isnt that far gone from a born baby and is certanly sentient.

@ MDW
Exactly! A baby has committed no crimes. It doesnt deserve to be killed.
Thats what makes me NOT a hypocrite when i say death sentences for abortions, because sometimes a death is justified.
Please just call me Makoto.

Like I stated before I really don't babies but I do think they are weird and cute (like me) but I really don't think they should be cut up in to peaces before they can even hear their mothers voice.

When you get the chance watch NeoGeo's In The Womb.

DarkAztek
01-10-2006, 11:16 AM
You know there are many forms of abortion, such as Saline poisoning, that happen late in pregnacy, where the baby can feel, think, and move. It isnt that far gone from a born baby and is certanly sentient.

Why do you always miss the fact that I keep saying abortion is okay up to that 4 week period in all cases? Until the fetus becomes sentient, it CANNOT feel pain, think, or move on its own volition.

g4ara
01-10-2006, 10:24 PM
Huh ... think 1st before you doit cause you might regret it later on ...

Azumi
01-11-2006, 02:51 AM
According to the teachings of Judaism, it is not taking a life. In fact, at one point in the OT, it says that a baby's soul enters it durings its first breath. Additionally, from my more scientific outlook that I have upon the world, I do not believe what biology tells me that it is not sentient until later on.
judaism follows moises' laws. but we catholics follow Jesus', so if your'e saying that abortion is okay with your religion, i dont believe it. because as far as i know, moses was handed by God the ten commandments. and what's the 5th commandment say? "Thou shall not kill." So let us say you made a mistake, and your'e months all the way, but you never wanted the baby, so you will abort him coz you dont feel like having a "baby". Isn't it killing? unless your'e baby died "naturally", meaning of natural cause, inside your womb and you have to abort him so it wont poison your body, that is where abortion is look up as not immoral.
Why do you always miss the fact that I keep saying abortion is okay up to that 4 week period in all cases? Until the fetus becomes sentient, it CANNOT feel pain, think, or move on its own volition.

does because the baby does not feel any pain or dont move on its own violation means you can actually abort a baby? can you please go beyond that situation. a life starts after the fertilazation, meaning, after the sex cells united. and if you "consiously" abort the baby, you are killing it. in heaven when you meet (or if you do meet) him, there you will hear millions of accusations the baby will throw into you for not giving him a chance of seeing the world.

DarkAztek
01-11-2006, 03:33 AM
judaism follows moises' laws. but we catholics follow Jesus', so if your'e saying that abortion is okay with your religion, i dont believe it. because as far as i know, moses was handed by God the ten commandments. and what's the 5th commandment say? "Thou shall not kill." So let us say you made a mistake, and your'e months all the way, but you never wanted the baby, so you will abort him coz you dont feel like having a "baby". Isn't it killing? unless your'e baby died "naturally", meaning of natural cause, inside your womb and you have to abort him so it wont poison your body, that is where abortion is look up as not immoral.

#1 - The Commandments are not our only laws.

#2 - A body without a soul is simply what is known in Jewish lore as a golem. (No, for real. Google the origins and you'll read all about it.) Until the child takes its first breath, it has no soul. Please, I study Judaism regularly.

#3 - If we say abortion is not moral because of the 5th Commandment, then guess what? You're fucked policially. That's right, the United States has declared itself again and again to be secular. The US has a SBCaS that prevents us from making laws based upon religion's rules.

does because the baby does not feel any pain or dont move on its own violation means you can actually abort a baby? can you please go beyond that situation. a life starts after the fertilazation, meaning, after the sex cells united. and if you "consiously" abort the baby, you are killing it. in heaven when you meet (or if you do meet) him, there you will hear millions of accusations the baby will throw into you for not giving him a chance of seeing the world.

It is not a PERSON yet! You are arguing yourself in circles by ignoring key facts.

Azumi
01-11-2006, 04:13 AM
#1 - The Commandments are not our only laws.

#2 - A body without a soul is simply what is known in Jewish lore as a golem. (No, for real. Google the origins and you'll read all about it.) Until the child takes its first breath, it has no soul. Please, I study Judaism regularly.

#3 - If we say abortion is not moral because of the 5th Commandment, then guess what? You're fucked policially. That's right, the United States has declared itself again and again to be secular. The US has a SBCaS that prevents us from making laws based upon religion's rules.


ok. so you are jewish, im a catholic. we'll never convince each other. last sem, we took up theo. 3, which is about the morality of life. are you saying that because a baby in a womb dont have a soul of its own, he has no right, definitely no right to live? do you mean that a mother can have all the freedom to abort every baby she could have because "oh i dont mind, this child has no soul..." is that what you mean? well. you know what? Your'e so bias! You never look on either side, or even think of the consequences of killing a baby. only because "it has no soul" does not mean you can abort! i'm telling you, a baby on a womb do have a soul! its faulse that only on the time the baby first breath will he have soul! that fucking idea! a baby dont breath inside the womb because he's lungs aren't working yet. he's getting all the air from his mother. the baby's life depends upon the mother carrying him.

ok, shall we say, a month after the conception, or even earlier than that, a baby has already a life of its own. dont you go comparing a baby from, what is it? " a seed of a tree" is that right? well, a seed dont need to have a mother for him to be born, he has just to be thrown in a soil to burst forth. a baby dont. he needs his mother. what the mother do will affect him.

It is not a PERSON yet! You are arguing yourself in circles by ignoring key facts
rofl... your'e too narrow minded. just because a fertilized egg does not look like you does not mean that he's not a person. he will be! in due time. because he was alive. a person undergo developments, like from being a toddler to maturism. it so happens that a baby on the womb was the first to be develope, so he should have undergo changes and development, but he is too a person! an undeveloped, un-matured person!
That's right, the United States has declared itself again and again to be secular. The US has a SBCaS that prevents us from making laws based upon religion's rules.
that's the reason why Bush's opponent during his second candidacy for presidency did not win, because he favors abortion.

DarkAztek
01-11-2006, 12:36 PM
ok. so you are jewish, im a catholic. we'll never convince each other. last sem, we took up theo. 3, which is about the morality of life. are you saying that because a baby in a womb dont have a soul of its own, he has no right, definitely no right to live? do you mean that a mother can have all the freedom to abort every baby she could have because "oh i dont mind, this child has no soul..." is that what you mean? well. you know what? Your'e so bias! You never look on either side, or even think of the consequences of killing a baby. only because "it has no soul" does not mean you can abort! i'm telling you, a baby on a womb do have a soul! its faulse that only on the time the baby first breath will he have soul! that fucking idea! a baby dont breath inside the womb because he's lungs aren't working yet. he's getting all the air from his mother. the baby's life depends upon the mother carrying him.

This debate is getting more and more stupid. It doesn't matter what either of our religion's think. Religion cannot be taken into thought when we decide what to do with abortion. I've already told you why more than once.

I'm biased? Don't you mean "I have a different view"? I am not a judge on a criminal court right now, so how can there be bias? We're freakin' having a debate. A DUH, we're both are opinionated. Oh noesch!

And yeah, I do look to see how others feel. How else do you think I came to the conclusion that I did today? I've heard evidence from both sides and went with the stronger one. If it was proved that sentience occured upon fertilization, then I would probably be more on the other side. So don't go flinging names around just because you cannot argue with my logic.

rofl... your'e too narrow minded. just because a fertilized egg does not look like you does not mean that he's not a person. he will be! in due time. because he was alive. a person undergo developments, like from being a toddler to maturism. it so happens that a baby on the womb was the first to be develope, so he should have undergo changes and development, but he is too a person! an undeveloped, un-matured person!

Yeah, you're right that it doesn't look like us and that should not be a reason to decide if a fetus can be aborted. Know what IS a reason? Sentience. And a mother's choice / need.

A fetus in the womb cannot be compared to a born child developing. The born child has sentience. It's as simple as that.

that's the reason why Bush's opponent during his second candidacy for presidency did not win, because he favors abortion.

Or it was because he never took a clear stance on anything and had the personality of a rock... And yet he STILL came close to winning and would have won if people in the 18-23 category had more people getting out and voting. But hey, make all the assumptions and bogus assertations that you want. It doesn't make it true.

g4ara
01-11-2006, 07:17 PM
Yes its not ok .. because abortion meaning taking another life eventhough it isnt in a complete form yet .

Azumi
01-12-2006, 02:48 AM
Yes its not ok .. because abortion meaning taking another life eventhough it isnt in a complete form yet .
yeah, you are right. abortion is taking one's life, no matter what you say. all the religions, except yours, believe that abortion is killing. and dont say that religion is not to be taken in thought when it comes to abortion coz it is to be judge by morality. the morality of the woman, and the morality of what she is doing. what do you think would happen to the morality of the society if in case abortion is legalized? ppl killing their babies? well, as i'd said, there are situations where aborting a child is considered, such as when the child died in natural cause inside the womb, or if the baby would threaten the life of the mother so he should be aborted. but aborting the child without a reason, or maybe the mother is afraid or not ready to have a baby, is another case. you got that?

DarkAztek
01-12-2006, 01:28 PM
Uh oh! Hyperbole police!

All of the religions view abortion as taking a life? Oh no, no. That simply is not true. It all depends upon interpretation of each religion. I see how the Torah tells me that a baby's first breath has its soul enter it, but other Jews might see it differently than I do. Catholics too. All types of religions.

But again, as you always seem to forget, religion should never equal law in the US. Why do you think there are so many people who think abortion SHOULD be allowed? Why do you think women at protests chant "Get your rosearies off my ovaries!" and such? Separation of Church and State. US declared itself secular. Laws cannot be made upon a religion's decision.

Morality is subjective.

Azumi
01-12-2006, 09:07 PM
yes. but the laws of the government are not only laws that we should follow. there's the law of the Church. but of course, you would not consider that.
A fetus in the womb cannot be compared to a born child developing. The born child has sentience. It's as simple as that.

"sentience" my ass. there are stages of development for humans, as our biology and psychology professors told us. the first stage is the pre-natal. and you know exactly what happens during the pre-natal. believe it or not, me, you, all of us here come from two single cells, which are the sperm and the egg cell. so if your'e saying that a fetus or embryo abortion is okay up to that 4 week period in all cases? well, you are wrong. we are talking about humans here. not damn animals!

LightDreamer
01-12-2006, 09:50 PM
Mmk, abortion is clearly not my forté...in fact I really don't have one of those. I know that we all come from 2 cells, yes. but every month girls from the approx the ages of 12-46...[o.O guessing don't remember all my sex ed] lose 4 of 1 of those cells [of course only 1 is uhh wats the word...well good] and guys loose millions every time they have sex. So what's ur point?

And if these pregnant girls at the age of 15 really don't want to have a baby, how much of a chance do you think there is that she's gonna just sit there for 9 months letting something grow in her. Why do you think babies are getting thrown into garbage bags? Drowning babies? Killing babies? My cousin went into a public washroom at her university and she saw a girl shoving a knife up her cunt screaming "I'm not having a baby". Hormones make you do funny things...or sad. you know, that works too. Abortion was created for a reason, I'm assuming it's safer than trying to shove a knife into your uterus.

In your eyes abortion could be 'killing' a lot of babies, but it's also hypothetically saving a lot of lives. [I don't know how old you are so I'm just gonna take a stab at you being in highschool] Say you got raped by...a neighbour...and you were in ovulation, so you got pregnant. Are you saying you would be perfectly okay with delivering this baby? Even if you had to drop out of highschool? Get a job so you can take care of it? Dashing possibly all dreams you've ever had. Possibly losing all friends you've ever had? Being called a whore, because when ppl see you. They're not gonna think, oh poor girl only [insert age here] and already with a baby. They're gonna think, whore. It may be your resposibility to bring up the child, but it's also your responsiblity to ensure your future, and having a baby would probably kill a lot of futures for a lot of pregnant girls. If they can fix they're future by getting an abortion, don't you think it's likely that they get it?

Not religious. Don't believe in souls. I think it's wrong to kill someone someone-else loves. And if the 'mother' of the fetus doesn't love it, then death be to it. Don't go and talk about hobos, becuase I don't think they should be killed either becuase other hobos probably love them. but if I were a hobo I'd probably suicide. o.O =D and don't tell me god loves it, because how certain am I that there is a god? and like DA said earlier, there is a good chance it will turn into something great, there is an equal chance it will turn into something horrible.

nma
01-12-2006, 10:50 PM
Meh, I'm against abortion. Except under some circumstances, i.e rape. Other than that, tough luck.

Azumi
01-13-2006, 02:30 AM
Mmk, abortion is clearly not my forté...in fact I really don't have one of those. I know that we all come from 2 cells, yes. but every month girls from the approx the ages of 12-46...[o.O guessing don't remember all my sex ed] lose 4 of 1 of those cells [of course only 1 is uhh wats the word...well good] and guys loose millions every time they have sex. So what's ur point?

my point is that two cells that united. that's conception. and what that loosing of cells every months for girls is menstruation. it's common and natural. and healthy.
And if these pregnant girls at the age of 15 really don't want to have a baby, how much of a chance do you think there is that she's gonna just sit there for 9 months letting something grow in her. Why do you think babies are getting thrown into garbage bags? Drowning babies? Killing babies? My cousin went into a public washroom at her university and she saw a girl shoving a knife up her cunt screaming "I'm not having a baby". Hormones make you do funny things...or sad. you know, that works too. Abortion was created for a reason, I'm assuming it's safer than trying to shove a knife into your uterus.



well, i believe that's the consequences of premarital sex. abortion only becomes an option if premarital sex is done (if the girl is preggy)
sex is a gift from God. it is sacred. Not all ppl can produce their own baby. so we should give importance to that. babies are only given to you because you deserve it. that's your destiny. do you think God would be happy if He sees you cutting yourself with a knife to loose the baby? well, not. there's a reason behind that. because the girl commited herself to premarital sex, she had to pay its consequences, that is, to bear th child with her. no one told her to that (premarital sex), so she should face her problem.
In your eyes abortion could be 'killing' a lot of babies, but it's also hypothetically saving a lot of lives. [I don't know how old you are so I'm just gonna take a stab at you being in highschool] Say you got raped by...a neighbour...and you were in ovulation, so you got pregnant. Are you saying you would be perfectly okay with delivering this baby? Even if you had to drop out of highschool? Get a job so you can take care of it? Dashing possibly all dreams you've ever had. Possibly losing all friends you've ever had? Being called a whore, because when ppl see you. They're not gonna think, oh poor girl only [insert age here] and already with a baby. They're gonna think, whore. It may be your resposibility to bring up the child, but it's also your responsiblity to ensure your future, and having a baby would probably kill a lot of futures for a lot of pregnant girls. If they can fix they're future by getting an abortion, don't you think it's likely that they get it?
and do you think abortion is the perfect solution about that?
no. it may may get worst. Im 18, btw. abortion is only an option to reserve your pride. what's the problem if you got pregnant? ppl will understand. "your'e raped!" that is it. not "you are a whore"
and besides, it will haunt you for the rest of your life. what if aborting the child got you ill? what if it conplicated your health, and at the time you wanted a baby, you can never have anymore because you got ill from abortion?
Not religious. Don't believe in souls. I think it's wrong to kill someone someone-else loves. And if the 'mother' of the fetus doesn't love it, then death be to it. Don't go and talk about hobos, becuase I don't think they should be killed either becuase other hobos probably love them. but if I were a hobo I'd probably suicide. o.O =D and don't tell me god loves it, because how certain am I that there is a god? and like DA said earlier, there is a good chance it will turn into something great, there is an equal chance it will turn into something horrible.

religion is to be considered here because wer'e talking about humans here. morality should one of the basis of our life. not just human laws.

DarkAztek
01-13-2006, 02:42 AM
yes. but the laws of the government are not only laws that we should follow. there's the law of the Church. but of course, you would not consider that.

No, I obviously wouldn't because A) I'm not Catholic and B) when debating on whether or not abortion should be allowed in the USA, we must us the Constitution as a base to help decide if it is legal or not.

"sentience" my ass. there are stages of development for humans, as our biology and psychology professors told us. the first stage is the pre-natal. and you know exactly what happens during the pre-natal. believe it or not, me, you, all of us here come from two single cells, which are the sperm and the egg cell. so if your'e saying that a fetus or embryo

Great, you've taken high school level classes that explain only brief amounts about what happens when a fetus develops. Ask your teachers exactly when electrical impulses begin in the brain and spinal cord of a developing baby. Once a fetus has those, it can truly be considered an animal that is more complex than a tree.

well, you are wrong. we are talking about humans here. not damn animals!

A) I'm not wrong. Check for yourself.

B) Humans ARE animals.



Azumi, what LD is saying is that you are lamenting the loss of potential life. You've only said that a million times... And sperm and egg cells ARE potential life. You just seem to think that once conception occurs, only then is it a potential.

Azumi
01-13-2006, 03:11 AM
Humans ARE animals.

well, if your'e talking about human cows, i must have been wrong. human is an animal, yeah right, my mistake about that. but do you consider yourself animal? it is only science that says wer'e animals. it's because of evolution. but i dont believe in evolution, coz how the fuck did charles darwin knew that humans came from apes. was he an ape himself back then? but that's not the point of this thread. your'e only concern about laws of man, the laws of science. i did say a bit about science, but the morality of aborting the baby is my main point.
Great, you've taken high school level classes that explain only brief amounts about what happens when a fetus develops. Ask your teachers exactly when electrical impulses begin in the brain and spinal cord of a developing baby. Once a fetus has those, it can truly be considered an animal that is more complex than a tree.

so you think without those, the baby is not considered human, right? as far as i know, the aborted child is about 3 months. that's the maximum period where symptoms of pregnancy occurs. how the hell will you abort a child less than a week or so? the baby usually aborted is about 3 months, so it has already the necessary organs. your'e talking about brains? do you think babies after birth could already send electric pulse on his brain? no. their senses are not yet developed after birth. it takes time. humans develop. that's what i'm trying to say.

Kyoko-_**
01-13-2006, 04:21 AM
Everything about this thread is really disturbing... but I'll still write my opinion. This thread is not about us humans but about the immorality of aborting a baby human. It's just not right. And If a pregnant woman aborts her baby, she has some reasons. like for example... She can't afford to raise the baby. Or the baby, when it grows up and had a mind of its own, would probably be just too unfortunate because the family he/ she is born into is a poor one. The mother is just thinking of the baby's future. But it's still not right in choosing abortion as the only thing to do because the baby wouldn't have any future then, right?

I also have to add... the baby doesn't feel any pain. He/ she still can't use his/ her undeveloped brain yet. I know... coz my mom tried abortion when I was just in her womb. she was really sorry for what she did. you know what happened? i was born blind. The good thing was... the family I was born into wsn't a t all poor or really needy. She was just afraid of the anger that gramps might express. Good thing was when I was 10, I got my eyes transplanted. i can now see. the world was really beautiful. it was totally different when I was still blind. I was just really lucky...
Those babies that were killed... I'm really sorry for them...

I'm sorry to you, too, guyz!!! I got so sentimental about the topic...
Really sorry...
*sob*

kakashi1300
01-13-2006, 04:41 AM
well, i'm against abortion because (in no particular order) 1. it promotes careless sex, which might lead to widespread of STDs. i know, there are counter-measures, but are we sure that all of them are available in every society? at least without abortion, couples will still know there's still a word called committment. 2. as countless of people has already stated, i'm against it because of the future deprived out of the child. the child has just been a victim of careless choice. now is it just? 3. particularly in our country, and perhaps other countries, the availability of advanced methods of abortion is out of reach. the life of the mother will just be endangered because of false and unsanitized methods of abortion. i've heard many cases of death because of these careless choices. 4. i'm a religious person, and i observe morals. i believe abortion is a moral/religious issue. i'm against it because it is against my religion and the morals that i know.

are we debating if abortion should be allowed in the US? if so, then i'm lost. i know nothing about US laws. and they are different from our laws. one particular is that we do not promote divorce here.

sperm and egg cells are indeed potential lives. but unless those two meet, no issue occurs. because other than that (ex. menstruation) is beyond our control. that's ok if nature allows it because it really occurs naturally. but to make those two meet is within human control. the role of responsiblity now comes here.

Masturbate into a girl's vagina. No penetration !=sex
funny. do you think pregnancy can occur with that?

«Artos»
01-13-2006, 07:58 AM
There are NO good reasons other than rape to abort a baby, period. Cant support the baby? Adoption. Think the baby will have a bad future? Again adoption. Could die from giving birth? Those are the concequences of having underage sex.
Since when was this about weather it should be law in the US? I could give a shit weather its a law. The law has no say in somthing like this. I dont care if the LAW says its ok to abort a baby. Sentience begins early after conception. It can move, think, and for the most part has a fully working nervous system. It CAN feel pain, and it DOES think. Theres nothing sentient about it. As for all these pro-abortionists. What would you do in that situation?

master mazaki
01-13-2006, 08:43 AM
i perosnnal think its wrong to abort at any stage of a pregnancy!

master mazaki
01-13-2006, 08:44 AM
unless it were by rape!!!

master mazaki
01-13-2006, 08:45 AM
it would be very wrong to bring a child into the world to find out that it was concived by a force entry

«Artos»
01-13-2006, 09:03 AM
Use the EDIT button!

DarkAztek
01-13-2006, 01:47 PM
well, if your'e talking about human cows, i must have been wrong. human is an animal, yeah right, my mistake about that. but do you consider yourself animal? it is only science that says wer'e animals. it's because of evolution. but i dont believe in evolution, coz how the fuck did charles darwin knew that humans came from apes. was he an ape himself back then? but that's not the point of this thread. your'e only concern about laws of man, the laws of science. i did say a bit about science, but the morality of aborting the baby is my main point.

Yeah. We're animals. No need to glorify humans as some form of god like creatures like you seem to be doing. If you are going to disagree with evolution, you probably should do some research on it first. Try starting with Google.

so you think without those, the baby is not considered human, right? as far as i know, the aborted child is about 3 months. that's the maximum period where symptoms of pregnancy occurs. how the hell will you abort a child less than a week or so? the baby usually aborted is about 3 months, so it has already the necessary organs. your'e talking about brains? do you think babies after birth could already send electric pulse on his brain? no. their senses are not yet developed after birth. it takes time. humans develop. that's what i'm trying to say.

Care to provide some statistics that prove this idea of yours? From all that you've written, I can tell that you are not a reliable source of information.

1. it promotes careless sex, which might lead to widespread of STDs. i know, there are counter-measures, but are we sure that all of them are available in every society? at least without abortion, couples will still know there's still a word called committment. 2. as countless of people has already stated, i'm against it because of the future deprived out of the child. the child has just been a victim of careless choice. now is it just? 3. particularly in our country, and perhaps other countries, the availability of advanced methods of abortion is out of reach. the life of the mother will just be endangered because of false and unsanitized methods of abortion. i've heard many cases of death because of these careless choices. 4. i'm a religious person, and i observe morals. i believe abortion is a moral/religious issue. i'm against it because it is against my religion and the morals that i know.

1.) This is not your call. Sex is a private matter, as it has been ruled by the courts. Additionally, there is no proof that being able to have an abortion means that you are more likely to have careless sex.

2.) I worry about the future GIVEN to a child.

3.) No, that is only when an abortion is not done in a clinic. There are plenty of clinics across the US and in other parts of the world. It only becomes dangerous if a mother tries to take it into her own hands.

4.) You "observe morals." No, you follow the ethics set down by your religion. There is no standarized morals. But it is fine if you are against it because of your religion... But that must not be a determining factor when deciding whether or not abortion should be legal or not in the United States.

funny. do you think pregnancy can occur with that?

Yeah. You can. People get pregnant when they have anal sex and the semen drips down into the vagina. People can get pregnant naturally in a number of ways other than vaginal penetration.


Artos: You seriously think if the mother's life were in danger, she must at least try to have the baby? So instead of one death, we get two. How is that more "moral" by your own beliefs?

«Artos»
01-13-2006, 03:05 PM
More often then not, the mother dies AFTER birth. Babies life > Mothers, i think. A baby has a whole life ahead of it, while the mother may only have 20 - 30 years. Seems a selfish decision.

LightDreamer
01-13-2006, 07:36 PM
my point is that two cells that united. that's conception. and what that loosing of cells every months for girls is menstruation. it's common and natural. and healthy.

Sex is also common, and natural, and very much healthy. In fact, so is death. except for the healthy part. If I met someone who was immortal, I'd probably be a little freaked out.


well, i believe that's the consequences of premarital sex. abortion only becomes an option if premarital sex is done (if the girl is preggy)
sex is a gift from God. it is sacred. Not all ppl can produce their own baby. so we should give importance to that. babies are only given to you because you deserve it. that's your destiny. do you think God would be happy if He sees you cutting yourself with a knife to loose the baby? well, not. there's a reason behind that. because the girl commited herself to premarital sex, she had to pay its consequences, that is, to bear th child with her. no one told her to that (premarital sex), so she should face her problem.

Girl, there are way too many ppl having sex before marriage that your preaching is getting you no where. Sex is many things, sex is a stress reliever, sex is pleasure, sex is getting away from life, sex can also be a bond of love between two people. If sex is a gift from god, what are cramps and back aches? I'm sure those are gifts too. There are only few species on this planet earth that have pleasure when having sex, dolphins and monkeys are 2 of them. [I sorta think it's ironic how they come close to being as smart as us xD] Does god favour dolphins and monkeys? If sex is a gift, then god gives us a hell of a lot of other shit we don't need as well.


and do you think abortion is the perfect solution about that?
no. it may may get worst. Im 18, btw. abortion is only an option to reserve your pride. what's the problem if you got pregnant? ppl will understand. "your'e raped!" that is it. not "you are a whore"
and besides, it will haunt you for the rest of your life. what if aborting the child got you ill? what if it conplicated your health, and at the time you wanted a baby, you can never have anymore because you got ill from abortion?

Oh I see, you're gonna wear a shirt that says. "I'm not a whore, I got raped." It doesn't work that way, people can't read your mind. Unless you plan to lock yourself up in your room and never come out until there's a broadcast that specifically tells everyone you got raped so they 'don't' think you're a whore. Sorry girl, but if you had gotten raped at age 15 and had a child before your 16th birthday, people are going to think you're a whore. They're not giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Please, you don't think there is a possibility of complication when pregnant with a child? If so, you are daft. There's thousands of cases where the mother has died after giving birth to a new born baby. Personally, I don't really want children when I grow up, I suppose it comes from my background with 'family'. But even still, I doubt I'm the only one, soo...you aren't allowed to say 'it'll haunt me for the rest of my life' becuase...honestly, do you know me? AT ALL? not really!


religion is to be considered here because wer'e talking about humans here. morality should one of the basis of our life. not just human laws.

o.O...of all the human's in the entire world, do you honestly think the majority of them are christian and see things your way? I'm just thinking randomly here, but of 5 of my friends, I'd say 1 of them believes in god. and if I asked her if she thinks it's okay to get an abortion, she'd probably say yes. and I believe this is do you think abortion is right yes or not and state your reason why, debate/thread. Not, after considering each and every religion do you think abortion is right. Just because religion plays a big part in your life, doesn't mean it has to play one in mine. Besides, even if morality is one of the basis of our life, doesn't mean my morality is the same as yours. perhaps I think it is 'immoral' to force a girl to be pregnant 9 months before pushing a football sized creature from her mouth sized uterus opening. She may or may not have psychological problems afterwards.

Makoto_Duke_War_IV
01-13-2006, 09:28 PM
i perosnnal think its wrong to abort at any stage of a pregnancy!


unless it were by rape!

it would be very wrong to bring a child into the world out that it was concived by a force entery

You do know that you could have put in to one post and not THREE!

And don't you think that's closed minded? Would you like it if your mom had aborted you because your father raped her? No you wouldn't so

STFU N00B!

DarkAztek
01-13-2006, 09:32 PM
More often then not, the mother dies AFTER birth. Babies life > Mothers, i think. A baby has a whole life ahead of it, while the mother may only have 20 - 30 years. Seems a selfish decision.

Says who? First off, a mother can die months in advance before she gives birth. Secondly, who says that the baby's life is worth more than the child's life? The mother, during those times, could have children and could have as much as 70 years left to live. Who the hell are you to say that some woman's life does not matter?

yes, it's natural. but you can have it daily, weekly, monthly or not one in ten years. you can or can't have it, depending on the circumsances. we consciously control it, thus, making us responsible for the circumstances it will bring. our bodily processes, on the other hand, cannot be undone regardless of the circumstances.

One can argue that conscious choices in life determine when we die... Maybe I shouldn't have gone on that bacon cheeseburger diet for five years, hmm?

The fact of the matter is that sex does not and should not have to lead to a child.


@darkaz: i believe you said something about the OT stating it's right to have abortion. can you please give the book and verse so i'll have something to read?

If I had a good way to quickly look it up, I would give it to you right now. Give me a bit of time to try and find it. Deal?

kakashi1300
01-13-2006, 09:38 PM
1.) This is not your call. Sex is a private matter, as it has been ruled by the courts. Additionally, there is no proof that being able to have an abortion means that you are more likely to have careless sex.

2.) I worry about the future GIVEN to a child.

3.) No, that is only when an abortion is not done in a clinic. There are plenty of clinics across the US and in other parts of the world. It only becomes dangerous if a mother tries to take it into her own hands.

4.) You "observe morals." No, you follow the ethics set down by your religion. There is no standarized morals. But it is fine if you are against it because of your religion... But that must not be a determining factor when deciding whether or not abortion should be legal or not in the United States.

1. that's in the US. things are different here. you must be careful especially if you're a male and not yet married to your partner, and her parents don't agree to your affair. chances are you'll be sued for rape, even with consent.

2. if you worry, i care.

3. yeah, but the main problem is that more abortions are done outside clinics, especially here. the services inside the clinic are still not affordable. the mother's life is put into more risk.

4. first of all, are we really debating whether or not it should be legal in the US? because hell, i don't care if it is. same thing with divorce. it's legal in your country and not in mine but i don't whine about it. i will care if abortion will become legal here. again, i will say i don't know your constitution nor any of your laws.


Yeah. You can. People get pregnant when they have anal sex and the semen drips down into the vagina. People can get pregnant naturally in a number of ways other than vaginal penetration.

i don't disagree to the possibility. but the probabilty of having conception is greatly reduced, because the number of sperm cells are also reduced. why do you think some men care about sperm counts? because a certain number is required to achieve conception. i heard cases of conception without penetration, but that's very rare. i don't even know if it's true.

Sex is also common, and natural, and very much healthy. In fact, so is death. except for the healthy part. If I met someone who was immortal, I'd probably be a little freaked out.

yes, it's natural. but you can have it daily, weekly, monthly or not one in ten years. you can or can't have it, depending on the circumsances. we consciously control it, thus, making us responsible for the circumstances it will bring. our bodily processes, on the other hand, cannot be undone regardless of the circumstances.

o.O...of all the human's in the entire world, do you honestly think the majority of them are christian and see things your way? I'm just thinking randomly here, but of 5 of my friends, I'd say 1 of them believes in god. and if I asked her if she thinks it's okay to get an abortion, she'd probably say yes. and I believe this is do you think abortion is right yes or not and state your reason why, debate/thread. Not, after considering each and every religion do you think abortion is right. Just because religion plays a big part in your life, doesn't mean it has to play one in mine. Besides, even if morality is one of the basis of our life, doesn't mean my morality is the same as yours. perhaps I think it is 'immoral' to force a girl to be pregnant 9 months before pushing a football sized creature from her mouth sized uterus opening. She may or may not have psychological problems afterwards.

christianity is the most common and widespread religion, and roman catholicism is the most widespread denomination in christianity. combined with islam, who also consider abortion as a grave sin, i'll presume the majority is against it. i have hundreds of friends and all of them believe in God. i know this is not the issue. i just want to bring this one.

care for some facts? read this: http://www.abortionfacts.com/effects/effects.asp

@darkaz: i believe you said something about the OT stating it's right to have abortion. can you please give the book and verse so i'll have something to read? and also sorry for the post i deleted. this is actually the message i intended to post but i edited lots of mistakes of mine.

LightDreamer
01-13-2006, 10:13 PM
You do know that you could have put in to one post and not THREE!

And don't you think that's closed minded? Would you like it if your mom had aborted you because your father raped her? No you wouldn't so

STFU N00B!

Uhh that's where you're wrong, I don't have a choice in the matter do I. But yes I rather would have been aborted if my dad was a rapist. YOu know why? Because my dad was an EFFING RAPIST. That's why.


yes, it's natural. but you can have it daily, weekly, monthly or not one in ten years. you can or can't have it, depending on the circumsances. we consciously control it, thus, making us responsible for the circumstances it will bring. our bodily processes, on the other hand, cannot be undone regardless of the circumstances.

Ahh you see that's where you're wrong. Science has brought us a long way you see. You can now have your ovaries removed, taking all chances of getting pregnant away, and thus removing the process of menstration. But you see, by doing this you ALSO take many chances of human life away, for you might have had 5 thousand children for all you know had you not had the procedure done. Abortion is immediately taking the life away. One is post pregnancy, one is before.

When someone has sex, [like I said before] it could be for many reasons, one for pleasure, or 2 becuase they want a child. Just becuase you have sex does not mean you do it because you want a child. The child could be the result of a torn condom or slipped condom. Therefore, in such a case you do not control the circumstances. When you can control every single factor affecting the result of pregnancy. Ranging from, sperm fertility, ovulation, to 100% for sure birth control, then MAYBE when you control for certain whether or not the girl gets pregnant, will I admit you're right. Becuase it's ALL UNDER CONTROL!

christianity is the most common and widespread religion, and roman catholicism is the most widespread denomination in christianity. combined with islam, who also consider abortion as a grave sin, i'll presume the majority is against it. i have hundreds of friends and all of them believe in God. i know this is not the issue. i just want to bring this one.

care for some facts? read this: http://www.abortionfacts.com/effects/effects.asp

If christianity was sooo world wide spread, why is abortion even legal? Well?

Christianity is the most world wide spread religion. Agreed. My statement wasn't do you think christianity is dominant of the religions. It was, do you think the majority of people in the world think the way you do. My answer? No. Clearly shown by just the legalization of the process.

What was the site for? How does that in any way back up your statement? You were talking about religion and then you give me a site on what an abortion does to you. No thanks, I'm good.

DarkAztek
01-13-2006, 10:21 PM
1. that's in the US. things are different here. you must be careful especially if you're a male and not yet married to your partner, and her parents don't agree to your affair. chances are you'll be sued for rape, even with consent.

I don't care. I'm debating for the legality of abortion in the United States. My reason still stands.

2. if you worry, i care.

I worry BECAUSE I care. I would never want my child to grow up in squalor and that is why my wife and I won't try to have a baby until we're well enough off to support it. However, you have no right to say that we cannot have sex. And should she get pregnant now and choose that she does not want a child yet, then it is completely within her rights not to have one for the reasons that we would not be able to support one quite yet.

3. yeah, but the main problem is that more abortions are done outside clinics, especially here. the services inside the clinic are still not affordable. the mother's life is put into more risk.

Prove me wrong and show me where it says that more abortions occur outside of clinics than in them and then I might believe you. I've visited clinics and talked to the doctors before and I'm fairly sure that they are a good source of information. As for the price of an abortion? The first trimester (the time that most abortions occur) is about $200 or so. However, medical insurance in most states actually COVER abortion. Sorry. That's capitalism.

But guess what? There are also prescribed abortions that within the first week or two a mother can take... Probably later too. All the mother has to do is take enough estrogen pills. The morning after pill is actually an abortion. It pumps so much estrogen into the mother than the zygote is aborted. They are fairly cheap. If you don't have one, you can even just take four or so of the pills used for preventing menstruation in women.


4. first of all, are we really debating whether or not it should be legal in the US? because hell, i don't care if it is. same thing with divorce. it's legal in your country and not in mine but i don't whine about it. i will care if abortion will become legal here. again, i will say i don't know your constitution nor any of your laws.

I am. I've said that. Multiple times in the past bunch of my posts.

(Divorce isn't legal in your country? Where are you from?)


As for the OT quote, see the post above yours. (Why did you delete your post and not just use the EDIT button?)

sasuke gurl's sister
01-14-2006, 12:52 AM
lol some of these avatars are funny

kakashi1300
01-14-2006, 03:21 AM
I don't care. I'm debating for the legality of abortion in the United States. My reason still stands.

ok. i don't want to comment on that.


I worry BECAUSE I care. I would never want my child to grow up in squalor and that is why my wife and I won't try to have a baby until we're well enough off to support it. However, you have no right to say that we cannot have sex. And should she get pregnant now and choose that she does not want a child yet, then it is completely within her rights not to have one for the reasons that we would not be able to support one quite yet.

why did you marry in the first place, if you're not financially ready for a family? see,there are many ways to support a child. you may not be able to think about it for a while, but when it comes out solutions will also come. we always tend to make decisions that is close to us that's why we end up doing that carelessly. plus, you can have sex without getting pregnant. that's why we have contraceptives.


Prove me wrong and show me where it says that more abortions occur outside of clinics than in them and then I might believe you. I've visited clinics and talked to the doctors before and I'm fairly sure that they are a good source of information. As for the price of an abortion? The first trimester (the time that most abortions occur) is about $200 or so. However, medical insurance in most states actually COVER abortion. Sorry. That's capitalism.

But guess what? There are also prescribed abortions that within the first week or two a mother can take... Probably later too. All the mother has to do is take enough estrogen pills. The morning after pill is actually an abortion. It pumps so much estrogen into the mother than the zygote is aborted. They are fairly cheap. If you don't have one, you can even just take four or so of the pills used for preventing menstruation in women.

in my country, in particular. all the methods you have mentioned are very expensive for us. try living in a poor country like this then perhaps you'll understand.


I am. I've said that. Multiple times in the past bunch of my posts.

(Divorce isn't legal in your country? Where are you from?)

see my location. if you're lazy to read, i'm from the philippines.


If christianity was sooo world wide spread, why is abortion even legal? Well?

Christianity is the most world wide spread religion. Agreed. My statement wasn't do you think christianity is dominant of the religions. It was, do you think the majority of people in the world think the way you do. My answer? No. Clearly shown by just the legalization of the process.

What was the site for? How does that in any way back up your statement? You were talking about religion and then you give me a site on what an abortion does to you. No thanks, I'm good.

legal? might be legal in your country but far will be in our country. and fyi that site is not just for you and it's not to prove my point about religion. it's for everybody.

DarkAztek
01-14-2006, 03:43 AM
why did you marry in the first place, if you're not financially ready for a family? see,there are many ways to support a child. you may not be able to think about it for a while, but when it comes out solutions will also come. we always tend to make decisions that is close to us that's why we end up doing that carelessly. plus, you can have sex without getting pregnant. that's why we have contraceptives.

Why does marriage have to lead to kids? I can get married and have kids, not have kids, not get married and have kids, and etc. I married my wife because I love her and want to live with her the rest of my life.

And yeah. I thought we had gone over this. Now you're just agreeing with me. What happens when I use contraceptives correctly and she still gets pregnant?

in my country, in particular. all the methods you have mentioned are very expensive for us. try living in a poor country like this then perhaps you'll understand.

The morning after pill only costs about $10.

Su philipino? Quiubo huevon?

kakashi1300
01-14-2006, 04:57 AM
Why does marriage have to lead to kids? I can get married and have kids, not have kids, not get married and have kids, and etc. I married my wife because I love her and want to live with her the rest of my life.

And yeah. I thought we had gone over this. Now you're just agreeing with me. What happens when I use contraceptives correctly and she still gets pregnant?

go on with it. let the child live.



The morning after pill only costs about $10.

Su philipino? Quiubo huevon?

$10 is already much. we are lucky to earn it in a day. see, only a dollar here is worth risking our lives.

and care to translate about the spanish thing?

Mal
01-14-2006, 01:56 PM
Ok, I really dislike debating abortion, so I'm just going to give you all something to think about:

Have any of you seen the movie "Minority Report"? I'm talking mainly about the part near the begging when the main character rolls the ball around the glass thing and the other guy catches it. Here's basicly how the dialouge goes:

Main Character: "Why did you catch it?"
Other Guy: "It was going to fall."
MC: "Exactly, just because something doesn't happen, doesn't mean it wasn't goin g to."

I'm sure I'm way off on the details, but that's the jist of it. So here's my stand on Abortion: Just because a fetus "isn't alive" doesn't mean it wasn't going to be. Like Minority Report, just because the people they arrested didn't actually commit the murder, didn't mean they weren't going to.

Sure you may see some flaws in my belief, but I really couldn't care less, that's what I believe, you don't have to agree with me.

Edit: DarkAztec, I'm wondering why I'm described in your sig as "being stubborn to the point of being blind and refusing to even look at another possibility."?

corbenk
01-14-2006, 03:11 PM
No, what DA mean is "I disrespect aruko" because he is "being stubborn to the point of being blind and refusing to even look at another possibility."

LightDreamer
01-14-2006, 11:35 PM
legal? might be legal in your country but far will be in our country. and fyi that site is not just for you and it's not to prove my point about religion. it's for everybody.

=T okay...then are forced abortions illegal too? Will you get arrested? I really don't think you can stop them. It's your own body.

kakashi1300
01-15-2006, 12:44 AM
=T okay...then are forced abortions illegal too? Will you get arrested? I really don't think you can stop them. It's your own body.

you might be surprised you will, and that's chargeable of a grave sentence. it might be your own body, but that's not your own life that you've disposed of. see, abortion here is a grave sin considered by anybody, so i cannot see it will be legalized in the near future.

LightDreamer
01-15-2006, 12:50 AM
Soo...if you fall down the stairs and lose your fetus. You get charged...

kakashi1300
01-15-2006, 12:54 AM
oh! sorry, my bad. you mean accidental abortions? hell NO! i misunderstood that forced abortion thing. as long as it's proven to be accidental, no problem about it. but of course, careful investigation has to take place because it's still a serious matter.

LightDreamer
01-15-2006, 01:13 AM
I think if a girl has the ability to shove a knife into her uterus, I think she can throw herself down a set of stairs, and prove it was 'accidental'. I've fallen down stairs before, it's not hard.

kakashi1300
01-15-2006, 01:21 AM
as i've said, careful investigation has to take place. you cannot just say "i accidentally fell" then it's over. no. but just like many crimes, there are many ways to mask this one. but that's not a proving point to legalize this.

LightDreamer
01-15-2006, 01:25 AM
And how exactly would you prove it to be none accidental? What's the big clue that gives it away.

It's easy to weep, all she has to do is say she slipped on her sock [wear big socks that day] her butt hit the second step before she went head first tumbling over. Landing painfully on her backside. She called ems immediately but they told her she lost her baby. It's simple.

kakashi1300
01-15-2006, 01:42 AM
i'm not an investigator, you know. but what's the point? are you trying to say that just because abortion is illegal here every women who want to abort their child will just try to fall off from a ladder? see, the mothers life is even endangered. you cannot just try to put it all at your hands. you have tried it? well, why not try it when you're pregnant (not sure if you're a he or a she but i'll assume a she)? see, you are different from a pregnant mother. when her child accidentally dies, her life is also endangered.

LightDreamer
01-15-2006, 01:57 AM
If I was pregnant at 15 which is currently my age [yay my birthday was last wed] and I wasn't allowed to have an abortion, yes I would throw myself down the stairs o.O If a girl really doesn't want to have a child, she WILL go to extreme lengths to get rid of it.

Like I said before, a girl is no going to sit around for 9 months if something is growing inside her and she really doesn't want it too.

kakashi1300
01-15-2006, 02:18 AM
at least read the link i provided (the one you mistook) before doing it (i'll assume your the person you stated). making careless decisions like that often mess up our lives even more rather than make it orderly.

LightDreamer
01-15-2006, 02:32 AM
o.o are you saying ur more of a 15 year old girl than I am? Because if so, please take center stage on the issue of what a 15 year old girl in desperation would do. Careless decisions come in close contact with anxiety and deteriorating sensibility. Which btw comes with being pregnant at 15 when you really don't want to be.

I can't read the site you posted, there's a bunch of links all over the place, the first page is just a page that leads into more pages. I don't know WHAT you want me to read.

kakashi1300
01-15-2006, 02:48 AM
oh come on! why would you think that way? i'm not portraying something like i'm a better 15 year-old girl than you, because seriously i'm a 19 year-old male. see, what i've said about the making careless decisions thing does not apply only to this case. but for all things, we are created with our brain above our heart, which means it should rule no matter what. i've heard many cases of making careless decisions and ending up in deep regret, and that affects more our sanity than any other.

btw, in that link, it's ok if you're not gonna read. the links on the first page were actually to direct you to the different subtopics on the effects of abortion. some of them are the biological and mental effects of abortion. i suggest you read all under the section of effects on mental health.

DarkAztek
01-15-2006, 02:59 AM
$10 is already much. we are lucky to earn it in a day. see, only a dollar here is worth risking our lives.

Wait... If $10 is too much money, then how the hell are you on the internet? The most basic package costs at least $9.99 (see $10) a month.


The thing is, if a woman gave herself an abortion and then called it accidental, there is no way to prove her wrong. "I fell down the stairs. Here's the bruises." Okay... Now what? Not much you can do to prove her wrong. At all. If people say that she had been talking about how she didn't want the child, then that still will never stand in a court of law. "I said I didn't want it but I never would abort a child! I'm a pro-lifer!" Ta da.

And here's another question: Who the hell keeps track of people being pregnant? The police are never going to notice if a woman is pregnant and gives herself an abortion. "Excuse me ma'am, but I noticed a few days ago that you were with child and suddenly you appear to not be pregnant any longer. I'm here to investigate." No dice. (Especially because it is not their jobs to do such a thing... Even more so in the US, where abortion is LEGAL.)

LightDreamer
01-15-2006, 03:05 AM
oh come on! why would you think that way? i'm not portraying something like i'm a better 15 year-old girl than you, because seriously i'm a 19 year-old male. see, what i've said about the making careless decisions thing does not apply only to this case. but for all things, we are created with our brain above our heart, which means it should rule no matter what. i've heard many cases of making careless decisions and ending up in deep regret, and that affects more our sanity than any other.

btw, in that link, it's ok if you're not gonna read. the links on the first page were actually to direct you to the different subtopics on the effects of abortion. some of them are the biological and mental effects of abortion. i suggest you read all under the section of effects on mental health.


Why do I think that way...wat? I don't think about how I think before I think. If we rule with our brains over our hearts, don't you think it's more logical to get an abortion and continue on with your life, without making the same mistake again. As opposed to not getting an abortion and possibly destroying your life, just becuase ur supposed to 'take responsibility' which apparently rules over taking responsibility about your future. I think you meant heart over brain -.-

A lot of things affect your mental health, it's not like having an abortion will indefinitely effect your mental health. And there's help for that anyways.

kakashi1300
01-15-2006, 03:28 AM
Wait... If $10 is too much money, then how the hell are you on the internet? The most basic package costs at least $9.99 (see $10) a month.

lol, i'm on dial-up, and i buy prepaid card. one costs $2 for 25 hours. i spend two every month.


The thing is, if a woman gave herself an abortion and then called it accidental, there is no way to prove her wrong. "I fell down the stairs. Here's the bruises." Okay... Now what? Not much you can do to prove her wrong. At all. If people say that she had been talking about how she didn't want the child, then that still will never stand in a court of law. "I said I didn't want it but I never would abort a child! I'm a pro-lifer!" Ta da.

ta da what? so you assume it's over? abortion is a "crime" that the simple statement of the one responsible will never get her out of this. the law on abortion here is being upheld that the matter like this cannot go uninvestigated. and, like i've said, a few would choose the stairs to end their babies. it's already you who said the safest method will be in the clinics. unluckily for them it's illegal here.


And here's another question: Who the hell keeps track of people being pregnant? The police are never going to notice if a woman is pregnant and gives herself an abortion. "Excuse me ma'am, but I noticed a few days ago that you were with child and suddenly you appear to not be pregnant any longer. I'm here to investigate." No dice. (Especially because it is not their jobs to do such a thing... Even more so in the US, where abortion is LEGAL.)

a very lame question. did you even consider in the question how old the baby is already when the police noticed the mother's pregnancy? "i'm no longer pregnant because my child is already born. here he is! now get lost, a$$h0l3!" lol don't take this seriously. j/p

assuming you meant what you really meant, the police isn't stupid enough to do that. he must be careful because we have also libel case here. the fetus must truly be found so that an investigation can occur.

please, don't ask me questions like "how do we find out..." or "how do we know...", because i'm not an INVESTIGATOR. what's important is that intentional/induced abortions are illegal. they have ways to investigate on that.

LightDreamer
01-15-2006, 03:33 AM
So =T how do you differentiate between a mother who actually did fall down the stairs accidentally and a mother who did it on purpose? Or are both going to be found 'disgusting'. You forget how simple the matter of falling down stairs is. Heck you could even say someone bumped into her at the top of the stairs which caused her to tumble down accidentally.

kakashi1300
01-15-2006, 03:39 AM
Why do I think that way...wat? I don't think about how I think before I think.

lol i only asked you that because you assumed i'm acting a better 15 yr old girl than you. funny thought, if you ask me.


If we rule with our brains over our hearts, don't you think it's more logical to get an abortion and continue on with your life, without making the same mistake again. As opposed to not getting an abortion and possibly destroying your life, just becuase ur supposed to 'take responsibility' which apparently rules over taking responsibility about your future. I think you meant heart over brain -.-

A lot of things affect your mental health, it's not like having an abortion will indefinitely effect your mental health. And there's help for that anyways.

seriously, if you let your brain rule over your heart you wouldn't attempt on letting yourself fall of the stairs to abort your child. and why would allowing the child to be born destroy your life? whereas if you allowed abortion, the effects which i'm talking about will also become your problem.

indeed, a lot of things affect our mental health. some of them are regret and conscience. don't deny you don't have it. well, the main problem is that conscience attacks us only after we had done the act and it cannot be undone. in that way we wouldn't know whether we have conscience or none. and about the help thing, i've rarely heard cases of a person recovering from insanity.

So =T how do you differentiate between a mother who actually did fall down the stairs accidentally and a mother who did it on purpose? Or are both going to be found 'disgusting'. You forget how simple the matter of falling down stairs is. Heck you could even say someone bumped into her at the top of the stairs which caused her to tumble down accidentally.

well, if a mother was found to have fallen from the stairs everyone would presume it would be accidental, because neither of us here will think that anyone who is sane enough will never try to abort by intentionally falling from it. if proven to be intentional, she will go directly under mental examinations. if proven to be sane, she will suffer the penalties imposed on our penal laws.

DarkAztek
01-15-2006, 12:15 PM
lol, i'm on dial-up, and i buy prepaid card. one costs $2 for 25 hours. i spend two every month.

And yet you said it was worth risking your life for ONE dollar. So yeah, something about you just doesn't add up.

ta da what? so you assume it's over? abortion is a "crime" that the simple statement of the one responsible will never get her out of this. the law on abortion here is being upheld that the matter like this cannot go uninvestigated. and, like i've said, a few would choose the stairs to end their babies. it's already you who said the safest method will be in the clinics. unluckily for them it's illegal here.

1) It is not a crime here.

2) My point was that in your country, where abortion is not allowed, there is no way to prove if a woman gave herself an abortion on purpose or not. Hell, even an eye witness to a woman falling down stairs would have trouble saying whether she did it on purpose or not.

a very lame question. did you even consider in the question how old the baby is already when the police noticed the mother's pregnancy? "i'm no longer pregnant because my child is already born. here he is! now get lost, a$$h0l3!" lol don't take this seriously. j/p

assuming you meant what you really meant, the police isn't stupid enough to do that. he must be careful because we have also libel case here. the fetus must truly be found so that an investigation can occur.

please, don't ask me questions like "how do we find out..." or "how do we know...", because i'm not an INVESTIGATOR. what's important is that intentional/induced abortions are illegal. they have ways to investigate on that.

It actually is a very good question. A) IF the police notice (and that is a big fuckin' IF) that a woman is pregnant and suddenly she is not, then all the woman has to say, with tears in her eyes, that she fell down really hard and the child was aborted. B) You cannot tell a woman is pregnant for the first few weeks by physically looking at her. C) There is NO WAY to prove that the fetus was not aborted by accident less than a woman getting caught in the act with a coat hanger.



Now back to the US: Despite the pleas of religious protestors (get your rosearies off my ovaries!), the fact of the matter is that since the fetus is not BORN yet, it is not a living person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, we can conclude that the mother has the right to do whatever she wishes.

LightDreamer
01-15-2006, 01:44 PM
lol i only asked you that because you assumed i'm acting a better 15 yr old girl than you. funny thought, if you ask me.

Only because you acted like you understood the circumstance better than me.


seriously, if you let your brain rule over your heart you wouldn't attempt on letting yourself fall of the stairs to abort your child. and why would allowing the child to be born destroy your life? whereas if you allowed abortion, the effects which i'm talking about will also become your problem.

I don't think it's 'just' your heart that freaks out when you find out you're pregnant. Like I said, you forget how simple falling down stairs is. I never said many flights of stairs, I just said stairs. If I really felt like it, I could probably make myself fall down stairs too, just for kicks! I said it could possibly destroy your life, if you're really well off and your parents don't mind nurturing you and taking care of you for the rest of your life perhaps it's not ruined. But you could be 15 years old! You would have to drop out of school at grade 9 or 10, there is no future for you.


indeed, a lot of things affect our mental health. some of them are regret and conscience. don't deny you don't have it. well, the main problem is that conscience attacks us only after we had done the act and it cannot be undone. in that way we wouldn't know whether we have conscience or none. and about the help thing, i've rarely heard cases of a person recovering from insanity.
Not true, conscience can also stop you from doing something you'll regret later. You're going too into Macbeth, they killed real people to put them higher in rank. This is about keeping your life together. There may be cases where the girl has fallen in the state of mental health, but there's also a lot of girls who don't.

Uhh it's called depression [that's usually what the mothers go into] and yes many recover.



well, if a mother was found to have fallen from the stairs everyone would presume it would be accidental, because neither of us here will think that anyone who is sane enough will never try to abort by intentionally falling from it. if proven to be intentional, she will go directly under mental examinations. if proven to be sane, she will suffer the penalties imposed on our penal laws.

=T are you saying I'm insane, becuase I did think of it in the first place. So how exactly would you get the consent of the mother to even start the investigation. Get a warrant, becuase this girl fell down the stairs! Like I said, if many people fell down the stairs, how would you know which one to investigate into? Would you do all of them? And how would it weigh on your 'conscience' if you sent an innocent clumsy person to jail?

kakashi1300
01-16-2006, 03:15 AM
And yet you said it was worth risking your life for ONE dollar. So yeah, something about you just doesn't add up.

lol, when did i ever say I'M prepared to risk my life for a dollar? but i'd tell you there are very few ones like me here. i'm speaking in general terms when i said that. i listen, read and watch the news everyday, you know.



1) It is not a crime here.

2) My point was that in your country, where abortion is not allowed, there is no way to prove if a woman gave herself an abortion on purpose or not. Hell, even an eye witness to a woman falling down stairs would have trouble saying whether she did it on purpose or not.



It actually is a very good question. A) IF the police notice (and that is a big fuckin' IF) that a woman is pregnant and suddenly she is not, then all the woman has to say, with tears in her eyes, that she fell down really hard and the child was aborted. B) You cannot tell a woman is pregnant for the first few weeks by physically looking at her. C) There is NO WAY to prove that the fetus was not aborted by accident less than a woman getting caught in the act with a coat hanger.



Now back to the US: Despite the pleas of religious protestors (get your rosearies off my ovaries!), the fact of the matter is that since the fetus is not BORN yet, it is not a living person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, we can conclude that the mother has the right to do whatever she wishes.


only one response to all of this: you have no right to question how we uphold our laws here.


Only because you acted like you understood the circumstance better than me.

lol.



I don't think it's 'just' your heart that freaks out when you find out you're pregnant. Like I said, you forget how simple falling down stairs is. I never said many flights of stairs, I just said stairs. If I really felt like it, I could probably make myself fall down stairs too, just for kicks! I said it could possibly destroy your life, if you're really well off and your parents don't mind nurturing you and taking care of you for the rest of your life perhaps it's not ruined. But you could be 15 years old! You would have to drop out of school at grade 9 or 10, there is no future for you.

ok, ok, i'm over with this. you seem to take our argument into an emotional warfare. there are many girls younger or older than you who don't think that way. as for parental relationships, things like underage pregnancy is not enough reason to banish their child. at least here.


Not true, conscience can also stop you from doing something you'll regret later. You're going too into Macbeth, they killed real people to put them higher in rank. This is about keeping your life together. There may be cases where the girl has fallen in the state of mental health, but there's also a lot of girls who don't.

Uhh it's called depression [that's usually what the mothers go into] and yes many recover.

true, but in most cases it's the other way around. and to note, macbeth is fiction.




=T are you saying I'm insane, becuase I did think of it in the first place. So how exactly would you get the consent of the mother to even start the investigation. Get a warrant, becuase this girl fell down the stairs! Like I said, if many people fell down the stairs, how would you know which one to investigate into? Would you do all of them? And how would it weigh on your 'conscience' if you sent an innocent clumsy person to jail?

i've said this already to darkaztek, never question how we uphold our laws here. as long as it's illegal, then that's it. period. no matter how i explain, you'll never understand.

@darkaztek: remember my point about the causal relation of STD and abortion? you might want to consider this: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:4JRtVqkiGncJ:mason.gmu.ed u/~jklick/std.pdf+abortion+STD+correlation&hl=en

DarkAztek
01-16-2006, 11:49 AM
lol, when did i ever say I'M prepared to risk my life for a dollar? but i'd tell you there are very few ones like me here. i'm speaking in general terms when i said that. i listen, read and watch the news everyday, you know.

Great. You made your country out to look like it was extremely poor, but you are obviously not poor. That was a mistake on my part.

only one response to all of this: you have no right to question how we uphold our laws here.

Telling me this is retarded. Come on, we're in the DEBATE forum. You've been questioning why the US has legal abortion, which is why you're scolding me now for questioning how you can keep abortion illegal.

So yeah, as long as you keep posting in here, I DO have a right to question your ways.


The study you posted is inherently flawed, seeing as how they create values that are not standard for the world, let alone the country being studied. It also assumes causation to be the same as correlation, which is extremely far from the truth. STD increase, according to the books that I've read, is due mainly to prostitution getting more and more rampant.

Another statistical flaw in the analysis of the correlation between STDs and abortions is the time frames that they used. The latest they go is to the 80s, despite the fact they are quoting and using research that was done more than 20 years after that. 30 years for the siph part. During the 70s and 80s, there was a large increase in the amount of people getting STDs. Don't believe me? Google it yourself.

STD counts have dropped considerably. Gonorhea and siphylus are not quite as prevelant today. Today's #1 STD is chylmidia, which is cureable and occurs mostly with really young kids who are too foolish to understand the importance of using a condom.

Even the conclusion is not a real conclusion. For you see, "While much attention has been focused on its effect with respect to the reduction in unwanted pregnancies, there has been little work that examines the consequences of the increase in sexual activity that likely followed legalization." Emphasis mine.

But finally, I have to throw out your little research on the grounds that the government does not care about STD increase or decrease. It has been PROVEN by studies that if prostitution were legalized, the STDs would go down by as much as 50% in the first 10 years. It is funny how we're not going to do that.

LightDreamer
01-16-2006, 12:05 PM
lol.

ok, ok, i'm over with this. you seem to take our argument into an emotional warfare. there are many girls younger or older than you who don't think that way. as for parental relationships, things like underage pregnancy is not enough reason to banish their child. at least here.

true, but in most cases it's the other way around. and to note, macbeth is fiction.

i've said this already to darkaztek, never question how we uphold our laws here. as long as it's illegal, then that's it. period. no matter how i explain, you'll never understand.


The majority of 'girls' [not women] who will not freak out when they find out they're pregnant when they're not planning to be, is a lot less than the amount of girls who will.

I don't see a fetus as a child yet, so there.

No my conscience stops me from doing stupid things all the time!

Then why did Banquo's sons become kings?

But it's legal here, and you're still jabbering on and on about why abortion shouldn't be allowed, aren't you being hypocritical? If you're so content with obeying every single law ever made, then if you come here then is abortion suddenly okay? We're allowed to question whatever law we want, whether it applies to us or not.

What makes us think you understand us? I get it, you see a human as something as soon as sperm hits egg, I don't. It all depends on your perception, just becuase my perception doesn't match yours doesn't mean I 'don't understand'

kakashi1300
01-17-2006, 03:01 AM
Great. You made your country out to look like it was extremely poor, but you are obviously not poor. That was a mistake on my part.

oh yeah. every country, no matter how poor it is, still has rich, middleclass, and poor people. luckily i'm on the middleclass side.


Telling me this is retarded. Come on, we're in the DEBATE forum. You've been questioning why the US has legal abortion, which is why you're scolding me now for questioning how you can keep abortion illegal.

So yeah, as long as you keep posting in here, I DO have a right to question your ways.



so what if i answer every query you have in mind? does it prove your point? i mean what point is there to prove if intentional abortions like in that case cannot be proven? (don't mistake me for saying that it can't really be proven). our laws are constructed following certain principles. and one of them is "what cannot be done directly cannot be also done indirectly". and i never questioned why it's legal in your country. did you forget? I DON'T CARE if it is.

now when i really want to answer your query the investigators might look into how the woman who got aborted in that case got pregnant. and of course her past. then the courts can just put all the events and facts constructively to arrive in a conclusion. still has some loopholes? of course, no law is ever perfect.

i'm still waiting for the biblical quote, you know.

and about the research thing, i just brought it to you so can see what you'll gonna say. i don't care if you squash it with facts that i don't if it's really true but still it makes sense to me. now if you think you're smarter than the researchers go conduct your own.


The majority of 'girls' [not women] who will not freak out when they find out they're pregnant when they're not planning to be, is a lot less than the amount of girls who will.

I don't see a fetus as a child yet, so there.

did i ever say they will never freak out? ALL of them will. still, not enough to let themselves fall from the stairs. brain over heart. you say it's easy? well i don't. there's risk of getting your neck broken. i said you think of trying it when you're pregnant. huh?


No my conscience stops me from doing stupid things all the time!

that's not conscience. that's common sense.


Then why did Banquo's sons become kings?


i don't have any idea on who the hell they might be. i don't know macbeth. it has no relevance here because it's FICTION.


But it's legal here, and you're still jabbering on and on about why abortion shouldn't be allowed, aren't you being hypocritical? If you're so content with obeying every single law ever made, then if you come here then is abortion suddenly okay? We're allowed to question whatever law we want, whether it applies to us or not.

What makes us think you understand us? I get it, you see a human as something as soon as sperm hits egg, I don't. It all depends on your perception, just becuase my perception doesn't match yours doesn't mean I 'don't understand'

is it hypocrisy? if ever i become a citizen in your country (which i would love to) then i have to follow every laws in your country. if ever i'll whine about your laws don't you think i can do something about it? it's just being practical. and personally i think your perception is very odd, considering how you could compare killing a fetus like killing a fly. i'm sorry to tell you this and not meant to offend you or something but i really felt sick when i thought about it.

Azumi
01-17-2006, 04:49 AM
you guys are really into different views.. well, these are few facts about abortion....
webster's dictionary
abortion n: the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy, accompanied by, resting in, or closely followed by deathof the embryo or fetus...

so if your'e saying, dark aztek, that i do not have any valuable information, eat dung.

embryo n: a living thing at its earliest stages of development

so if you are saying, dark aztek, that an embryo is not alive, eat shit....

same goes to..
fetus n: a developing human being in the uterus from usually 3 months afterpregnancy occurs to birth.

so again, if a fetus being aborted is not a human, well, your'e a cow.

you wouldnt know your'e pregnant unless you are 3 months pregnant. and in that 3 months, a baby is already a fetus. and a fetus is a human. what can you say about that?

DarkAztek
01-17-2006, 10:41 AM
so what if i answer every query you have in mind? does it prove your point? i mean what point is there to prove if intentional abortions like in that case cannot be proven? (don't mistake me for saying that it can't really be proven). our laws are constructed following certain principles. and one of them is "what cannot be done directly cannot be also done indirectly". and i never questioned why it's legal in your country. did you forget? I DON'T CARE if it is.

The only way I'll stop asking you questions would be if I changed you onto the pro-choice side. That is the PURPOSE OF A DEBATE.

And actually, you DO question why it is legal in my country when you keep going on and on about how it should be illegal.

i'm still waiting for the biblical quote, you know.

And I'm still trying to find a source so that I can look up Jewish laws. Right now, the best I've got is my own torah, which is a pain in the ass to go through, in case you didn't know.

and about the research thing, i just brought it to you so can see what you'll gonna say. i don't care if you squash it with facts that i don't if it's really true but still it makes sense to me. now if you think you're smarter than the researchers go conduct your own.

I never said I was smarter than the researchers... But the fact remains that any person who has taken statistics or even an introductory level psychology course can see all of the flaws in the study. It is an extremely flawed and biased analysis. I'm sure the researchers are aware of that as well.

so if your'e saying, dark aztek, that i do not have any valuable information, eat dung.

Uh huh. You DON'T. You're quoting a dictionary and using that as an ethical guide as to whether or not abortions should be allowed. Good job.

you wouldnt know your'e pregnant unless you are 3 months pregnant. and in that 3 months, a baby is already a fetus. and a fetus is a human. what can you say about that?

...Says who? Even if you are not expecting it, morning sickness and etc. can occur within only a few days after gestation begins.

LightDreamer
01-17-2006, 07:04 PM
did i ever say they will never freak out? ALL of them will. still, not enough to let themselves fall from the stairs. brain over heart. you say it's easy? well i don't. there's risk of getting your neck broken. i said you think of trying it when you're pregnant. huh?

It's called desperation. Look it up.



that's not conscience. that's common sense.

DENIED!
con·science n. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.

prefer as in to choose right over wrong, it can just as much be used before a wronged deed is done. So eat it.


i don't have any idea on who the hell they might be. i don't know macbeth. it has no relevance here because it's FICTION.
OMG -.- my point WAS that the tale was based on history. -.- I'm sorry I didn't realize you didn't know Macbeth, my point was you're acting like ppl who get abortions are like Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, which is soo totally wrong. [In the end Macbeth and Lady Macbeth go insane with guilt, but only after they killed many innocent ppl so they could reign over scotland. NOT save their futures and lives.]


is it hypocrisy? if ever i become a citizen in your country (which i would love to) then i have to follow every laws in your country. if ever i'll whine about your laws don't you think i can do something about it? it's just being practical. and personally i think your perception is very odd, considering how you could compare killing a fetus like killing a fly. i'm sorry to tell you this and not meant to offend you or something but i really felt sick when i thought about it.

What are you talking about! you're the one who was all.

i've said this already to darkaztek, never question how we uphold our laws here. as long as it's illegal, then that's it. period. no matter how i explain, you'll never understand.

If you're allowed to say that, why can't we just tell you to buzz off and never question our laws? [btw I live in Canada] that's like us saying. Abortion is legal here. THat's it. No buts. Stop talking. You clearly are still talking. We clearly are still talking, IT'S CALLED A DEBATE. WE'RE ALLOWED TO QUESTION W/E THE HELL WE WANT.

THAT MY FRIEND, is hilarious hypocrisy.

P.S flies are considered pests, look up pests. I kill flies.

you wouldnt know your'e pregnant unless you are 3 months pregnant. and in that 3 months, a baby is already a fetus. and a fetus is a human. what can you say about that?

I don't get it...wth do you think the menstruation cycle does? I'll give you a hint, think refresh unused and eggs o.O When you're pregnant, you tend to throw up a lot. Which will probably make you go see a doctor if you don't already know you're pregnant, and then they will tell you you're pregnant! And i'm betting if you're throwing up for more than 3 days tops, you'll already have booked an appointment with your doctor, or at least have taken a pregnancy test.

typhoon_4434
01-17-2006, 07:34 PM
abortion? One could argue that it stops crime. Because most people who get abortion, are people whom do not want that child, and unwanted children mostly become criminals. so yeah, theirs my meager point.

kakashi1300
01-18-2006, 02:37 AM
The only way I'll stop asking you questions would be if I changed you onto the pro-choice side. That is the PURPOSE OF A DEBATE.

And actually, you DO question why it is legal in my country when you keep going on and on about how it should be illegal.

unluckily it would take you more than that to convert me into a pro-choice one. so go on with your queries.



And I'm still trying to find a source so that I can look up Jewish laws. Right now, the best I've got is my own torah, which is a pain in the ass to go through, in case you didn't know.

ok then. but be sure it would really be from the bible, and not jewish laws.

It's called desperation. Look it up.

desperation are for fools who use heart over brain. just like those fools who, in desperation, takes away their own life.


DENIED!
con·science n. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.

prefer as in to choose right over wrong, it can just as much be used before a wronged deed is done. So eat it.

right again, but to a deeper context. we use our conscience to make moral decisions, to judge what is morally wrong and right, according to your definition.

common sense
n.

Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

so yeah, we need this to distinguish what will be stupid or not. and to choose what will be betwen the two, conscience or common sense, that i will use before trying to make myself fall from the stairs, i'll use my common sense. to abort or not to abort, my conscience.



What are you talking about! you're the one who was all.

i didn't get you here. don't you understand what i said?


If you're allowed to say that, why can't we just tell you to buzz off and never question our laws? [btw I live in Canada] that's like us saying. Abortion is legal here. THat's it. No buts. Stop talking. You clearly are still talking. We clearly are still talking, IT'S CALLED A DEBATE. WE'RE ALLOWED TO QUESTION W/E THE HELL WE WANT.

THAT MY FRIEND, is hilarious hypocrisy.

P.S flies are considered pests, look up pests. I kill flies.

but i already answered your questions, about how we investigate the matter. hypocrisy? you really make me laugh. and basically you just copied what darkaztek had said. nice touch.

who don't kill flies? right, flies are pests, and fetuses are like flies, so fetuses are like pests?

LightDreamer
01-18-2006, 12:01 PM
desperation are for fools who use heart over brain. just like those fools who, in desperation, takes away their own life.

Buddy, whether you like it or not desperation is a human emotion. It highly highly doubt you've never done an act in desperation.



right again, but to a deeper context. we use our conscience to make moral decisions, to judge what is morally wrong and right, according to your definition.

common sense
n.

Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

so yeah, we need this to distinguish what will be stupid or not. and to choose what will be betwen the two, conscience or common sense, that i will use before trying to make myself fall from the stairs, i'll use my common sense. to abort or not to abort, my conscience.

Like I said it's all perception, just becuase you think aborting a fetus is a 'stupid' choice. I think it's a smart one.



i didn't get you here. don't you understand what i said?

My point was, you said we shouldn't question your laws, yet here you are questioning ours. It's a debate.



but i already answered your questions, about how we investigate the matter. hypocrisy? you really make me laugh. and basically you just copied what darkaztek had said. nice touch.

I've never read your conversations between DA and yourself. So I'm sorry if anything I've said is similar to what he's said. If I had read his points, I wouldn't be so stupid to restate them. or would have at least said 'like DA said' Thanks for thinking so well of me [sarcasm]

BTW,you didn't answer any of my questions. Everytime I asked you a question you said 'I'M NOT AN INVESTIGATOR. BEJEEZES'


who don't kill flies? right, flies are pests, and fetuses are like flies, so fetuses are like pests?

Did you not read the part where I said. 'Look up pests' here lemme do it for you.

pest-something resembling a pest in destructiveness; especially : a plant or animal detrimental to humans or human concerns An annoying person or thing; a nuisance.

tada. To someone pregnant, and they really don't want to be. It's a nuisance, it's unwanted, it's uneeded. it's a pest. Just because it's human, doesn't make it less of a pest.

Rockshmo
01-18-2006, 09:04 PM
I'm pro-choice women should have a right to choose.
Ditto.

Though I think there should be a period of the development where it should be "illegal" to abort due to a developed brain/nervous system/etc. I'm pretty sure there is actually.. anytime after the first tri-mester (first 3 months). Though our Government doesn't think that should be the law across the Country so you have states like New York that allow it all the way up to the 9th month of development. So I guess that's what I was saying.. it should be illegal throughout the Country after the first tri-mester.

I don't care what you pro-life/anti-abortion advocates say.. scientific studies have proven that there are absolutely NO signs of life during the first tri-mester therefore labeling it "unliving."

Do you feel like you're taking a life away everytime you fry up some eggs and pile on the ketchup? I bet you don't, technically it doesn't make you any better than abortion clinics. Actually.. it makes you worse, you're "eating" an unborn creature. Think twice about what you stand for..

Azumi
01-18-2006, 10:43 PM
...Says who? Even if you are not expecting it, morning sickness and etc. can occur within only a few days after gestation begins.

Says science. symptoms of pregnancy occurs during or before the 3rd month (a week or two). like morning sickness, etc. that is because the fetus is already feeding in your body. morning sickness or vomiting is the usual reaction for that.

I don't get it...wth do you think the menstruation cycle does? I'll give you a hint, think refresh unused and eggs o.O When you're pregnant, you tend to throw up a lot. Which will probably make you go see a doctor if you don't already know you're pregnant, and then they will tell you you're pregnant! And i'm betting if you're throwing up for more than 3 days tops, you'll already have booked an appointment with your doctor, or at least have taken a pregnancy test.
what cant you understand about that? its simple. dark aztek here is saying that the aborted child is not alive or what he said "not a person", so i gave the meaning of embryo and fetus, which are the ones being aborted. it said there that an embryo or a fetus is a living thing and that when theyr'e aborted, they will actually die.
about that menstruation thing, when you menstruates and you haven't been in a sexual intercourse, the egg that has been released from the ovum goes to the uterus, then goes out your body as blood. only a single cell is released durinf menstruation. you will refresh an unused egg, you'll going to withdraw. that's part of women's cleansing.

flareofdragon
01-18-2006, 10:46 PM
Do you feel like you're taking a life away everytime you fry up some eggs and pile on the ketchup? I bet you don't, technically it doesn't make you any better than abortion clinics. Actually.. it makes you worse, you're "eating" an unborn creature. Think twice about what you stand for..

Chicks only happen if a rooster mated with them. A little science there buddy. Otherwise they just lay eggs.

And fetuses aren't pests per say. Well, in the sense of children, yeah. But you do not go killing the children. A fetus is not living (before 3 months). Period. That means if the situation requires a person to abort, fine, as long as they are not in emotianal trauma (that can happen).

Azumi
01-18-2006, 11:04 PM
And fetuses aren't pests per say. Well, in the sense of children, yeah. But you do not go killing the children. A fetus is not living (before 3 months). Period. That means if the situation requires a person to abort, fine, as long as they are not in emotianal trauma (that can happen).

says who? the law? and how exactlt will u know if your'e pregnant or not? of course, during the 3rd month. look at my post above!

LightDreamer
01-18-2006, 11:26 PM
what cant you understand about that? its simple. dark aztek here is saying that the aborted child is not alive or what he said "not a person", so i gave the meaning of embryo and fetus, which are the ones being aborted. it said there that an embryo or a fetus is a living thing and that when theyr'e aborted, they will actually die.
about that menstruation thing, when you menstruates and you haven't been in a sexual intercourse, the egg that has been released from the ovum goes to the uterus, then goes out your body as blood. only a single cell is released durinf menstruation. you will refresh an unused egg, you'll going to withdraw. that's part of women's cleansing.

Perception of what a human being/person is. ect. ect. Changes your views on Abortion, obviously my percetions of a person is different from yours. I highly highly doubt you've never killed a living thing in your entire life, even by accident. Heck statistics show that humans eat an average of 10? or 11 spiders a year or something. or 7...it was a number.

You still menstrate after you have sex, that's only if you're pregnant that you don't menstrate. I'm not confused about your conversation with DA, I don't know half of it. You said you don't know you're pregnant until 3 months after intercourse, I'm saying you're wrong. Becuase a female menstrates ever 4 weeks approx. So if you don't menstrate for 3 months, you can probably assume you're pregnant. Plus the whole morning sickness thing.

GAma_Oyabun
01-18-2006, 11:51 PM
i dont support it, it becomes a lifeform once the sperm fertilizes the egg. i wouldnt count it as murder but its very wrong to be irresponsible in the first place and then throw away a potential baby

kakashi1300
01-19-2006, 02:22 AM
Buddy, whether you like it or not desperation is a human emotion. It highly highly doubt you've never done an act in desperation.

yeah, i have done. but they're neither stupid nor insane acts. i think first before i act.




Like I said it's all perception, just becuase you think aborting a fetus is a 'stupid' choice. I think it's a smart one.

no, aborting a fetus for me is morally wrong, and trying to abort it in letting yourself fall from the stairs is the stupid one. please, try to distinguish what is morally wrong from the stupid one. conscience is deeper, much deeper in context than common sense. you wouldn't use your conscience while thinking to whether pick a fight with a guy larger than you or not. we use our common sense there.




My point was, you said we shouldn't question your laws, yet here you are questioning ours. It's a debate.

you have already made your point, so don't repeat it. i know asking questions in a debate is inevitable, but please try to make it as relevant as possible. you're trying to question me how things are done which is already beyond my knowledge. i'm taking up ACCOUNTANCY, and not LAW nor CRIMINOLOGY. did i ever ask you questions like "how do you know" or "how do we find out..."? did i ever ask you how your law operates? of course i won't do that considering you may not know all of your laws yourself.




I've never read your conversations between DA and yourself. So I'm sorry if anything I've said is similar to what he's said. If I had read his points, I wouldn't be so stupid to restate them. or would have at least said 'like DA said' Thanks for thinking so well of me [sarcasm]

BTW,you didn't answer any of my questions. Everytime I asked you a question you said 'I'M NOT AN INVESTIGATOR. BEJEEZES'

at least take time to read ALL of my posts before bombing me with already-said points. how do i know you're not actually reading my conversation with darkaztek, when i made all of my replies to both of you in a single post? it's hard for me to answer two people at once. if you'll just gonna read i already answered your question.

ok here it is for your convenience, mademoiselle:


now when i really want to answer your query the investigators might look into how the woman who got aborted in that case got pregnant. and of course her past. then the courts can just put all the events and facts constructively to arrive in a conclusion. still has some loopholes? of course, no law is ever perfect.



questions? keep it going. one thing: our laws also provide an exception to the rule on abortion. i.e. when the mother's life is endangered when the fetus will continue to remain on the mother's womb, then that's the only time abortion will be allowed.


Did you not read the part where I said. 'Look up pests' here lemme do it for you.

pest-something resembling a pest in destructiveness; especially : a plant or animal detrimental to humans or human concerns An annoying person or thing; a nuisance.

tada. To someone pregnant, and they really don't want to be. It's a nuisance, it's unwanted, it's uneeded. it's a pest. Just because it's human, doesn't make it less of a pest.

well, i just brought your statements into a logical syllogism, if you know what i mean. and true, humans could be pests. but fetuses, no matter how much nuisance they bring, are still innocent. so please spare them from our careless decisions. but if that's what you think, then it's up to you. i can't change your perception when it's as worse as that.

Azumi
01-19-2006, 03:53 AM
You still menstrate after you have sex, that's only if you're pregnant that you don't menstrate. I'm not confused about your conversation with DA, I don't know half of it. You said you don't know you're pregnant until 3 months after intercourse, I'm saying you're wrong. Becuase a female menstrates ever 4 weeks approx. So if you don't menstrate for 3 months, you can probably assume you're pregnant. Plus the whole morning sickness thing.

well, delay of menstrual flow does not necessary mean ur a pregnant. ur still suspecting ur pregnant. that's the difference between predicting pregnancy from confirming pregnancy. you might actually come into conclusion that your'e just having an abnormal menstrual cycle, and you will not directly go to an abortionist just because your menstrual cycle is delay.

Rockshmo
01-19-2006, 09:40 PM
Chicks only happen if a rooster mated with them. A little science there buddy. Otherwise they just lay eggs.
I wasn't going for technical because.. well honestly I don't think many here could handle it. It was more of an example..

@kakashi1300: Don't discuss morals in this thread.. it has absolutely nothing to do with it because no one person's morals are the same. Do you think the KKK feels it's morally wrong to beat and kill African American's because of their color? Well if they did there sure wouldn't be a KKK. And stop quoting everyone for christ's sake.. you don't HAVE to reply to every single sentence in each person's post that disagrees with you..

Also sense when did this become an issue of whether you know you're pregnant or not.. True azumi149 just because the menstrual cycle is in delay doesn't mean the female is pregnant. There could be something else wrong.. like a cyst on an ovary or something else. BUT taking into the consideration if the female is under 18, doesn't want a child, and willingly has sex with a boyfriend, I'm sure if she was late on a period she'd be scared shitless and get it checked out.. Plus females don't just wake up in the middle of the night and puke their intestines out for a week straight out of nowhere..

Anyway back to abortion.. it pretty much comes down to personal opinions.. that's why there are pro-life activists and pro-choice activists. For one a female should have the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy BEFORE the first tri-mester has ended. The only problem is a lot of girls will know they're pregnant but will be too afraid to come out and tell somebody due to pro-life activists who demean abortion and make it seem like a moral sin. Maybe if this didn't happen then young girls WOULD goto an abortion clinic and get the operation done instead of waiting untill it's too late, thus giving birth to an unwanted child. I'm pretty sure the world doesn't need anymore neglected Ed Gein's running around..

GAma_Oyabun
01-19-2006, 09:46 PM
this is true. i think they would choose abortion because its the easier option. they're usually still in school and a baby would one use up money and two take up their time. getting rid of it at an early stage would be easier and no one would know about it thus making parents and other stuff less of a problem

Rockshmo
01-19-2006, 09:50 PM
It creates so many problems too..

1. More Highschool/College dropouts
2. More "white trash" towns due to lack of income
3. Abandoned females left with a child
4. Unwanted, neglected children that grow up with serious issues
5. Higher taxes for more Financial Aid/Welfare programs
6. etc etc

The list goes on but I digress..

GAma_Oyabun
01-19-2006, 10:03 PM
exactly so the problems not abortion but people having sex without protection

Rockshmo
01-19-2006, 10:06 PM
Even then accidents can happen.. then again I'm sure the parent of that child would be glad to give birth to him/her/it considering the lawsuit they'll most likely get a buttload of cash from.

DarkAztek
01-19-2006, 10:37 PM
I already have won this debate over and over again, but I might as well point out one thing:

In every country in the world where proper sexual education is given to children about when they are hitting puberty, the amount of abortions and young pregnancies is SIGNIFICANTLY less. However, in America, where sexual education is foolishly scapegoated as being the cause of all of the young pregnancies, abortion rates and teen pregnancy rates are the highest. Face it: Just saying that abstinence is best is the worst possible answer.

If the Catholic Church really wanted to put a dent into the people who get abortions, then they should just sponser safe sex. However, because they make sex out to be a horrible thing that should only occur when you want to procreate, they cause sex to become a taboo that is wanted more than anything by hormone crazed teenagers.

LightDreamer
01-19-2006, 10:52 PM
hum hum humm I'll make this quick, I have 5 exams to study for.

yeah, i have done. but they're neither stupid nor insane acts. i think first before i act.

Your perception of stupid and insane = different than mine


no, aborting a fetus for me is morally wrong, and trying to abort it in letting yourself fall from the stairs is the stupid one. please, try to distinguish what is morally wrong from the stupid one. conscience is deeper, much deeper in context than common sense. you wouldn't use your conscience while thinking to whether pick a fight with a guy larger than you or not. we use our common sense there.

When given the choice of giving birth to an unwanted baby, and falling down a couple of steps. I would probably choose falling down a couple of steps. The later doesn't not sound stupid considering the situation I am in [not being able to get an abortion in the first place.] It may not be the smartest choice in the world, but I would not say it is a stupid one nor an insane one. You obviously have never met an insane person. I dunno wat you're going on about conscience and common sense, but sure jabber on good fella!


you have already made your point, so don't repeat it. i know asking questions in a debate is inevitable, but please try to make it as relevant as possible. you're trying to question me how things are done which is already beyond my knowledge. i'm taking up ACCOUNTANCY, and not LAW nor CRIMINOLOGY. did i ever ask you questions like "how do you know" or "how do we find out..."? did i ever ask you how your law operates? of course i won't do that considering you may not know all of your laws yourself.

My points aren't relevant? I'm sorry mr CONSCIENCE MUST RULE YOU!!! OH NOEESSS!!! boo. The entire point mostly I believe is the fact that you CANNOT prove when someone falls down the stairs on purpose or not. I REALLY doubt anyone would even take the time to take a case like that into consideration with an impossible to figure out case like that, unless you find some mind reader, becuase you need consent before you can take a lie detector test in the first place. And i may not know everything about the laws here and the way things work, but I'm not the one using them in a debate. =] tada.


at least take time to read ALL of my posts before bombing me with already-said points. how do i know you're not actually reading my conversation with darkaztek, when i made all of my replies to both of you in a single post? it's hard for me to answer two people at once. if you'll just gonna read i already answered your question.

Noo! I don't have that much time on my hands! I'm giddy with the absurd reason that you feel it necessary to take hits on my pride =P it's funny honest. You and you're 'well you're just copying DarkAztek so there xP' speech. Cute. Well you shouldn't assume that I do read all your posts, you should use the knowledge that you already have, which is knowledge that you know I'm reading the posts directed to myself. It's easy to answer two ppl at once on a forum...maybe not in real life. I'll help you figure out how me and darkaztek are different, I have a frilly girly signature thingy, and I talk with really immature words like thingy, and other nonsense.


ok here it is for your convenience, mademoiselle:
You spelt...madamoiselle wrong...why would you use a french word on a person from Canada...when you don't speak the language. and it's not convienient ur making me read MORE GUH! x.X


questions? keep it going. one thing: our laws also provide an exception to the rule on abortion. i.e. when the mother's life is endangered when the fetus will continue to remain on the mother's womb, then that's the only time abortion will be allowed.

Well so technically a baby would not endanger the mother's life. But it will endanger the mother's life...in terms of her future =] tada...


well, i just brought your statements into a logical syllogism, if you know what i mean. and true, humans could be pests. but fetuses, no matter how much nuisance they bring, are still innocent. so please spare them from our careless decisions. but if that's what you think, then it's up to you. i can't change your perception when it's as worse as that.

=] my theory on babies are that they stop being innocent as soon as their lip touches their mother's breast, becuase they become bias towards there mother. But that's just me. ANyways that's irrelevant. How many things have you killed that are innocent? What is your definition of innocent?

Very few things get my sympathy. Why should you expect an unborn fetus to recieve it? Why not the mother of the unborn fetus? Sorry, but I give her my sympathy.

It's ironic how you want to change my perception, when it's your perception that it's 'bad' in the first place. Don't touch my perception. It will bite you.

Azumi
01-20-2006, 01:36 AM
@kakashi1300: Don't discuss morals in this thread.. it has absolutely nothing to do with it because no one person's morals are the same. Do you think the KKK feels it's morally wrong to beat and kill African American's because of their color? Well if they did there sure wouldn't be a KKK. And stop quoting everyone for christ's sake.. you don't HAVE to reply to every single sentence in each person's post that disagrees with you..

Also sense when did this become an issue of whether you know you're pregnant or not.. True azumi149 just because the menstrual cycle is in delay doesn't mean the female is pregnant. There could be something else wrong.. like a cyst on an ovary or something else. BUT taking into the consideration if the female is under 18, doesn't want a child, and willingly has sex with a boyfriend, I'm sure if she was late on a period she'd be scared shitless and get it checked out.. Plus females don't just wake up in the middle of the night and puke their intestines out for a week straight out of nowhere..


well, it's the woman's fault that she got pregnant. why do you think women take abortion? because she's afraid. why is she afraid? because she know she did something wrong, that is, pre-marital sex. why is it wrong? because she and her partner aren't married. so that's it. a pregnent woman as young as 18 should take the consequences of having pre-marital sex. pre-marital sex is absolutely wrong, for according to the church, no two people cannot have sex without marriage. (but of course,if you have a religion as liberated as dark aztek's you wouldn't consider that)
scientifically, as what you guys are trying to say, the babies that are being aborted are not alive. ok fine.
but morally, the one your'e trying to terminate is a gift from God. it has life. we come from a fertilized egg, and it follows development until it reached the age of what we are now. in our country, most aborted babies are being thrown in garbage cans or toilet bowl. and they are all fetus! a fetus has already life! do you think that is fair for those unborn babies? conscience man, conscience. ppl are being hypocrite for accepting abortion because morality is being ignored. they just want to have an easy life, like having sex without any excuse, that's human selfishness. greediness for flesh satisfaction. and the one who's to endure and suffer the consequences is the baby. socially it is accepted, but morally, it is not. it is only human greediness and selfishness that accepts abortion.
I already have won this debate over and over again, but I might as well point out
you didn't... your'e just imagining you had won, but you didn't.

DarkAztek
01-20-2006, 11:32 AM
A) Why is it the woman's fault? Did the man suddenly not have sex with her and she got emaculately pregnant?

B) Are people not allowed to be afraid any more? I suppose human emotions should hold no sway over decisions?

C) Pre-marital sex is not for you to say wrong. According to the US Supreme Court, sex is a private matter in which the government cannot interfere so long as it only involves people who are of the age of consent. To use that pre-marital sex is wrong only undermines your own argument.

D) She is dealing with the consequences in quite a mature manner by having an abortion. Who says is is running? That's pure speculation. She got pregnant and because she knows she is not capable of raising a child in any way, she has an abortion.

E) God. Oopes! You already lost your argument right there. Sorry, laws are not, and cannot be made in the United States based upon religious principles. We have declared ourself a secular country and have a separation of church and state to prove it.

And yeah, I have won. You have yet to prove any point I have made wrong. I will readily admit when I am proven wrong and I'm usually the first to say so. If you knew how to properly debate this topic, you could possibly win. However, you just keep screaming about morals and religion, which is political suicide when having a debate about current laws.

sheik
01-20-2006, 04:05 PM
ADOPTION!!!!!!!!



If they can't do that then leave the baby on steps of a loving family instead of killing him with a hanger!

typhoon_4434
01-20-2006, 04:13 PM
that happens in stories Shiek, people will give their child to an adoption agency, then a loving family will adopt him/her.

sheik
01-20-2006, 04:49 PM
Let the gay people adopt the children since they want children really bad.

DarkAztek
01-21-2006, 02:43 AM
Ah. Because of the adoption compromise, I find it very hard to argue against abortion. I wonder... If we can allow abortion within the first few weeks, would it then be okay? Any time after that, adoption can and should be used, eh? I don't see anyone debating against the Morning After Pill (which works for a long time after only the morning after).

kakashi1300
01-21-2006, 07:18 AM
I wasn't going for technical because.. well honestly I don't think many here could handle it. It was more of an example..

@kakashi1300: Don't discuss morals in this thread.. it has absolutely nothing to do with it because no one person's morals are the same. Do you think the KKK feels it's morally wrong to beat and kill African American's because of their color? Well if they did there sure wouldn't be a KKK. And stop quoting everyone for christ's sake.. you don't HAVE to reply to every single sentence in each person's post that disagrees with you..

just want to defend myself, ok? first of all i'm not discussing morals. i was clearly illustrating the difference of conscience and common sense. and about the last part. LOL up to a million decibels. you have nothing to do with my conversation with others. we were discussing so many points that i need to defend every statement of mine. and no rule in this forum states that i have no right to quote everyone i like.

since someone is complaining about me, i'll just quote what's important. others are nonsense.


My points aren't relevant? I'm sorry mr CONSCIENCE MUST RULE YOU!!! OH NOEESSS!!! boo. The entire point mostly I believe is the fact that you CANNOT prove when someone falls down the stairs on purpose or not. I REALLY doubt anyone would even take the time to take a case like that into consideration with an impossible to figure out case like that, unless you find some mind reader, becuase you need consent before you can take a lie detector test in the first place. And i may not know everything about the laws here and the way things work, but I'm not the one using them in a debate. =] tada.


what differentiates negligent homicide from murder? that's right, the intention to kill. why do we have to differentiate them? because murder is subject to reclusion perpetua or in worst cases, death penalty, while in negligent homicide only a lighter sentence. how do we prove the intention to kill? impossible? the principles on how they investigate the matter must also apply here. seriously personal consent or intention is not that impossible to prove.

Well so technically a baby would not endanger the mother's life. But it will endanger the mother's life...in terms of her future =] tada...

just like i thought, you would say that. you really are sooo naive. i'm talking about the danger to the PHYSICAL LIFE of the mother, and not futures or anything. haven't heard about ectopic pregnancy? if you do then you know what i mean.

the basis of that added exception is this:
"The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception ..."

Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines



off-topic: and fyi i got the correct spelling of mademoiselle. and why i used that? just felt like it. even if i'm not french i have the right to say that, since no law prohibits me to do so. and you seem to got fired up after my cute little line "which hit your pride". sorry 'bout that. i don't know you're too sensitive.

@darkaztek: i really admire the way you defend your points, so i have here another one and let me see what you're gonna say(this link might also be interesting not just for darkaztek but to any other pro-choicers out there):http://www.morningafterpill.org/whendoes.htm the most interesting parts are the myth-facts part.

DarkAztek
01-21-2006, 04:54 PM
@darkaztek: i really admire the way you defend your points, so i have here another one and let me see what you're gonna say(this link might also be interesting not just for darkaztek but to any other pro-choicers out there):http://www.morningafterpill.org/whendoes.htm the most interesting parts are the myth-facts part.

Now, I know that the morning after pill is an abortion in its earliest stages. I have no problem with it. Do you?

I agree with parts of that article, but it assumes quite a bit. Yeah, a person who is brain dead is a person genetically. However, because they cannot think and have to rely upon outer influences to keep it alive, I do not even consider it to exist. Until the fetus has the remotest of brain synapses, then it can be started to be called a human being. A human genetically is different than a human actually. Unfortunately, now we are getting into more of a philosophical debate.

The article comments on my thoughts on this... But it makes the mistake by saying brain "death." It is not a dying brain, it is a non-functioning brain, which IS no different than someone who is brain dead. Also, I know that it is not the actual brain when neurons are forming and starting to work. The brain is much more complex than that. But the article questions my logic asking if certain people who have some form of brain abnormality are only human beings and not human persons.

Yeah. They are only human beings. (Although I'm not sure I understand the diabetes, parapalygics, and physically disabled ones. This only applies for those who are completely incapable of sentience, such as people in a persistant vegetative state and the brain dead.) That is why I supported the Terri Schiavo case in allowing her to die. But I'd like to ask that we not go into that area to debate when talking about abortion.

kakashi1300
01-21-2006, 08:32 PM
Now, I know that the morning after pill is an abortion in its earliest stages. I have no problem with it. Do you?

I agree with parts of that article, but it assumes quite a bit. Yeah, a person who is brain dead is a person genetically. However, because they cannot think and have to rely upon outer influences to keep it alive, I do not even consider it to exist. Until the fetus has the remotest of brain synapses, then it can be started to be called a human being. A human genetically is different than a human actually. Unfortunately, now we are getting into more of a philosophical debate.

The article comments on my thoughts on this... But it makes the mistake by saying brain "death." It is not a dying brain, it is a non-functioning brain, which IS no different than someone who is brain dead. Also, I know that it is not the actual brain when neurons are forming and starting to work. The brain is much more complex than that. But the article questions my logic asking if certain people who have some form of brain abnormality are only human beings and not human persons.

Yeah. They are only human beings. (Although I'm not sure I understand the diabetes, parapalygics, and physically disabled ones. This only applies for those who are completely incapable of sentience, such as people in a persistant vegetative state and the brain dead.) That is why I supported the Terri Schiavo case in allowing her to die. But I'd like to ask that we not go into that area to debate when talking about abortion.

of course i know you know about the MAP. it just happens that the article is on a site on MAP. the only argument about it is that whether it's actually an abortion pill or a contraceptive. since this is an abortion thread, and you're a pro-abortion, then no argument about that.

i don't agree brain death is similar to being brain dead. brain death, according to that article, is a natural and continuous process as a person grows old. it is continuous degenaration, so it explains why persons in their old years are suffering from memory loss, etc. brain dead, on the other hand, is a condition reported to persons wherein their cerebrum is not functioning anymore. they have no rational attributes and sentience. anyway this is not the point.

and i don't think a distinction between human "persons" and human "beings" should be made. first of all do we distinguish between the two when making laws? that the state must only protect those who are categorized as human "persons" more than those who are considered only as human "beings"? i don't know about your laws but this is perfectly clear on our laws.

@all pro-choicers: i also want to hear your say on this, so you might also want to read that. here again is the link: http://www.morningafterpill.org/whendoes.htm

DarkAztek
01-22-2006, 07:34 PM
i don't agree brain death is similar to being brain dead. brain death, according to that article, is a natural and continuous process as a person grows old. it is continuous degenaration, so it explains why persons in their old years are suffering from memory loss, etc. brain dead, on the other hand, is a condition reported to persons wherein their cerebrum is not functioning anymore. they have no rational attributes and sentience. anyway this is not the point.

Oh no, no. You are misinterpreting me a bit. I did not say "brain death" = "brain dead." The article just uses brain death INSTEAD of brain dead to argue their point, which is not the same. It is not death because it is not dying. It is dead. Past tense. It does not exist. Just because it CAN exist is not a reason to keep it going in my own opinion. At least (I know I am a bit of a hypocrite in this sense) not in all cases.

and i don't think a distinction between human "persons" and human "beings" should be made. first of all do we distinguish between the two when making laws? that the state must only protect those who are categorized as human "persons" more than those who are considered only as human "beings"? i don't know about your laws but this is perfectly clear on our laws.

Well shouldn't we distinguish when we make laws? It is, after all, an extremely important call to make. A person can tip onto either side of this debate depending upon their definition of a person and of a being. If the government can come up with a way to define each one well enough, then we can probably change the abortion laws in one way or another. Yes?


Unfortunately, there is another problem you have to deal with kakashi. Women's. Choice. She can decide what she thinks is best, for she IS the mother, after all, so she DOES get the final say. Despite what we know genetically, as we see the law currently, until the baby is born (a change of enviornment), it is just a part of her. She then gets to choose whether or not she wants it to remain a part of her.

Azumi
01-22-2006, 09:36 PM
Now, I know that the morning after pill is an abortion in its earliest stages. I have no problem with it. Do you?


MY ASS. YOU ARE WRONG!
morning pills is not abortion.
the use of morning pills (or sometimes taken everynight)prevent conception, that is, the fertilization of two reproductive cells. so there's really no pregnency that occurs. u got that? but even that is not recognized by the catholic church. for them the best way is the natural family planning.

C) Pre-marital sex is not for you to say wrong. According to the US Supreme Court, sex is a private matter in which the government cannot interfere so long as it only involves people who are of the age of consent. To use that pre-marital sex is wrong only undermines your own argument.

E) God. Oopes! You already lost your argument right there. Sorry, laws are not, and cannot be made in the United States based upon religious principles. We have declared ourself a secular country and have a separation of church and state to prove it.

i dont care about that. amarica's just ONE country. dont make the whole thing general just because you based the laws of America. america's an open country. very liberated. no wonder there's a lot of broken families and unwanted children in there because of America's material laws...

Rockshmo
01-22-2006, 09:40 PM
i'll just quote what's important. others are nonsense.
Thanks, that's all I wanted. Some of the stuff you typed wasn't even relevant or coherent and I'd rather just stick to the issues and what's important.

DarkAztek
01-22-2006, 10:25 PM
MY ASS. YOU ARE WRONG!
morning pills is not abortion.
the use of morning pills (or sometimes taken everynight)prevent conception, that is, the fertilization of two reproductive cells. so there's really no pregnency that occurs. u got that? but even that is not recognized by the catholic church. for them the best way is the natural family planning.


Read with me now: The morning AFTER pill. Not THE pill. Two different things.

Azumi, you know that I am arguing FOR abortion rights, right?

Azumi
01-22-2006, 10:36 PM
Read with me now: The morning AFTER pill. Not THE pill. Two different things
so? still the same. when you take pills, you wont get pregnant. when you dont get pregnant, there's no option for abortion.
ok. i exagge on the pill part. sorry. but that's not my point, really. read the first paragraph! ;o)

LightDreamer
01-22-2006, 11:39 PM
i dont care about that. amarica's just ONE country. dont make the whole thing general just because you based the laws of America. america's an open country. very liberated. no wonder there's a lot of broken families and unwanted children in there because of America's material laws...

=I i was sorta exuded [o shut up I know I didn't spell the word rite] from this debate earlier. so i only wanna say a couple of things.

You're talking about AMERICA having broken families BECAUSE of their marital laws? Have you even CONSIDERED all the other countries? Africa's families are more broken up then you can imagine, when the father sells his daughters out to go become prostitutes, will incidentally probably make them catch STDs. and China! They're only allowed to have 1 child per family, so what happens when a family has MARITAL sex and they still get pregnant with a second child? Well? They HAVE to get abortions, if they don't get abortions, they WILL throw their children out, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW to have more than 1 child. Okay, so adoption is obviously the second choice for them. SWEETY life IS NOT a fairytale, you don't put a child on a doorstep and expect the child to be taken in. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. THE CHILD WILL EITHER BE DROWNED, THROWN OUT, KILLED, W/E. and when the government finds out you have 2 children, you get a hefty fine. Have you ever lived in China? cut your room into 1/4 of wat it actually is, that MIGHT be how big their room is, look in your closet that MIGHT be how big their washroom is. Do you know how many orphans there already are in China? A LOT a LOT a LOT. Adoption ISN'T always an option.

LIBERATED marital laws? Sometimes, it's not about 'I don't love him anymore' sometimes it's cause the guy cheats on the girl. Oh but she should just live with it. Or sometimes the girl gets beaten by the guy when he's drunk, oh no but she should just live with it. Look at that the girl just got raped, oh but she should just live with it. It's not super star divorces you see on tv, sometimes it's real people needing a second chance at life, Maybe they need to find a second love of their life, maybe they need a second chance at finishing being a teenager before a child is thrown at them.

You might say it's unethical to abort, I say it's unethical to take away the girl's teenage years, her sophmore years, her prom, her college, her first apartment, her first real job; but hey it's her responsibility. WELL somebody made it their responsibility to find a way around it. Responsibility comes in many different ways. I say it's unethical to make a child come out into a world where it is unwanted. Do you think it's the children who grow up with drunk fathers and broken mother that are the ones who were wanted? It's the children who are wanted coming into life, that get a better chance at it.

Life is life, it's not a magical thing granted by pixies to bring magic into peoples homes. And hey! Sometimes it does! and sometimes it doesn't, you have to differentiate the two.

Azumi
01-23-2006, 04:07 AM
You're talking about AMERICA having broken families BECAUSE of their marital laws? Have you even CONSIDERED all the other countries? Africa's families are more broken up then you can imagine, when the father sells his daughters out to go become prostitutes, will incidentally probably make them catch STDs. and China! They're only allowed to have 1 child per family, so what happens when a family has MARITAL sex and they still get pregnant with a second child? Well? They HAVE to get abortions, if they don't get abortions, they WILL throw their children out, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW to have more than 1 child. Okay, so adoption is obviously the second choice for them. SWEETY life IS NOT a fairytale, you don't put a child on a doorstep and expect the child to be taken in. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. THE CHILD WILL EITHER BE DROWNED, THROWN OUT, KILLED, W/E. and when the government finds out you have 2 children, you get a hefty fine. Have you ever lived in China? cut your room into 1/4 of wat it actually is, that MIGHT be how big their room is, look in your closet that MIGHT be how big their washroom is. Do you know how many orphans there already are in China? A LOT a LOT a LOT. Adoption ISN'T always an option.

hey, if u compare Africa to America, you'll see a big difference, right? Africa's not even consider half of america, the wealthiness, that is. that's why african ppl have to sell even their own children just for money. they dont have any choice. unlike America, even if you have no job, u still can feed your family!
and china, china's a very populated country. what would u expect? limit the number! self discipline is the key value to that!
You might say it's unethical to abort, I say it's unethical to take away the girl's teenage years, her sophmore years, her prom, her college, her first apartment, her first real job; but hey it's her responsibility. WELL somebody made it their responsibility to find a way around it. Responsibility comes in many different ways. I say it's unethical to make a child come out into a world where it is unwanted.
i told you, it's the girl's fault that she got pregnant so she must take the consequences of that. the question to that is "why rush into sex, when sex is a thing supposedly and should only be done by married ppl who have plans for their family and children?" it's not unethical when you make an unwanted child come out. its you being unethical. everybody has a right to live, and if you yourself cant give that to your own child, your better be dead.
and btw, according to Family Planning Code, there's no unwanted baby. it is just that, the mother or father is not ready yet to have a child, but definitely they should accept the child, as part of the HUMAN RIGHTS...

kakashi1300
01-23-2006, 06:16 AM
Well shouldn't we distinguish when we make laws? It is, after all, an extremely important call to make. A person can tip onto either side of this debate depending upon their definition of a person and of a being. If the government can come up with a way to define each one well enough, then we can probably change the abortion laws in one way or another. Yes?


Unfortunately, there is another problem you have to deal with kakashi. Women's. Choice. She can decide what she thinks is best, for she IS the mother, after all, so she DOES get the final say. Despite what we know genetically, as we see the law currently, until the baby is born (a change of enviornment), it is just a part of her. She then gets to choose whether or not she wants it to remain a part of her.

at least we must limit the choices she can do to her child, unborn or not. as stated on the article, the zygote is already an individual. it's not already a part of the mother, or just a blob of tissue. therefore we must wait for that individual to make the decision for himself/herself, whether to fuck his life out or not. if we allow all the liberty of choice to the mother then it may also tantamount to giving the mother the right to kill her born child, since it's her choice. our laws do not distinguish an unborn child from the born one. we don't consider them as part of the mother because scientifically, it isn't. therefore, they are also covered in our human rights laws.

LightDreamer
01-23-2006, 08:57 AM
hey, if u compare Africa to America, you'll see a big difference, right? Africa's not even consider half of america, the wealthiness, that is. that's why african ppl have to sell even their own children just for money. they dont have any choice. unlike America, even if you have no job, u still can feed your family!
and china, china's a very populated country. what would u expect? limit the number! self discipline is the key value to that!.
And is abortion not a choice? If you have no money...what kind of life are you going to bring to your child?
Accidents happen -.-' sometimes the condom rips, or the pills don't work. Accidents happen.


i told you, it's the girl's fault that she got pregnant so she must take the consequences of that. the question to that is "why rush into sex, when sex is a thing supposedly and should only be done by married ppl who have plans for their family and children?" it's not unethical when you make an unwanted child come out. its you being unethical. everybody has a right to live, and if you yourself cant give that to your own child, your better be dead.
and btw, according to Family Planning Code, there's no unwanted baby. it is just that, the mother or father is not ready yet to have a child, but definitely they should accept the child, as part of the HUMAN RIGHTS...

Uhh...Becuase sex isn't for married people who have plans for their family and children? I think DarkAztek told you like a bazillion times that...bleeh I can't repleat exactly what he said, but the point is it's not for you to decide what sex is for. NO! not everybody has the right to live, that's why they created execution. The girl is better dead? Can you tell the future? Do you know for a fact that her child will lead a better more influential life then the girl ever would have? I didn't think so.

Well then, there's no need to call a child unwanted, if they aren't born! xP I don't get wat you're going on about Human Rights, they don't apply to something that's growing on the inside of a girl.

Shikamaru_IQ
01-23-2006, 09:16 AM
Are you talkin about Stem Cells When they take the baby in process Embryo..
The Get a paralyzd man and heal his wounds with the embryo then they throw the embryo away???
Yea i think that is really wrong from killin a embryo when they have never ever ben in the outside world...
Well i think when u have sex u need a condum...
unless ur married..lol

DarkAztek
01-23-2006, 10:36 AM
so? still the same. when you take pills, you wont get pregnant. when you dont get pregnant, there's no option for abortion.
ok. i exagge on the pill part. sorry. but that's not my point, really. read the first paragraph! ;o)

NO, they are NOT the same. The morning after pill you take AFTER sex. It is a huge concentration of estrogen that kills the zygote. The pill is a contraceptive you take BEFORE sex which ends the pre-menstrual cycle. It's two different things.

at least we must limit the choices she can do to her child, unborn or not. as stated on the article, the zygote is already an individual. it's not already a part of the mother, or just a blob of tissue. therefore we must wait for that individual to make the decision for himself/herself, whether to fuck his life out or not. if we allow all the liberty of choice to the mother then it may also tantamount to giving the mother the right to kill her born child, since it's her choice. our laws do not distinguish an unborn child from the born one. we don't consider them as part of the mother because scientifically, it isn't. therefore, they are also covered in our human rights laws.

Well, no. It is GENETICALLY an individual. It is NOT an individual yet in these sense of being a person. It's a human being. Until it changes its enviornment to grow outside of the womb, it is not an organism that will have its own personality yet. Having an abortion is NOT like killing a born child.

Inside the mother, the baby is, as we've talked about already, a being, not a person. It is legally the mother's choice because it is a part of her still.

kakashi1300
01-24-2006, 12:12 AM
Well, no. It is GENETICALLY an individual. It is NOT an individual yet in these sense of being a person. It's a human being. Until it changes its enviornment to grow outside of the womb, it is not an organism that will have its own personality yet. Having an abortion is NOT like killing a born child.

Inside the mother, the baby is, as we've talked about already, a being, not a person. It is legally the mother's choice because it is a part of her still.

well, it really depends on how your laws define a human being. do they provide a definition for that? the exact characteristics that differentiates it from an individual genetically? i really compare the relationship of the mother and the child as commensalism. well, you cannot blame the zygote for being dependent for mother's support. our laws have really different views on this matter. still, i can say in our laws, what's important is that you're a human, regardless of whether you can be considered a person or just an individual genetically.

just came to my thought, i wanna raise two questions:
1. what was the basis of the statement in your law that says "the zygote or fetus is still a part of the mother"?

2. was there really a clear definition that separates individuals genetically and a person? in your law i mean?

Azumi
01-24-2006, 05:07 AM
NO, they are NOT the same. The morning after pill you take AFTER sex. It is a huge concentration of estrogen that kills the zygote. The pill is a contraceptive you take BEFORE sex which ends the pre-menstrual cycle. It's two different things.

well, as far as i know, the contraceptive pills are taken to prevent the maturity of the egg cell, preventing them to be fertilized during the intercourse...
Well, no. It is GENETICALLY an individual. It is NOT an individual yet in these sense of being a person. It's a human being. Until it changes its enviornment to grow outside of the womb, it is not an organism that will have its own personality yet. Having an abortion is NOT like killing a born child.

there u are again... haven't i told you that we humans undergo developments? haven't you taken psychology 2? that we humans come from that zygote and that we undergo development for us to have the form that we have now. it's not like just because babies inside the womb look the same as what we are now, they are not to be consider an individual.
and yes, abortion is like killing a baby. just because your too narrow minded on seeing that an embryo or the fetus is not technically alive doesn't mean abortion is right. what do yoy call that PRE-NATAL DEVELOPMENT?

DarkAztek
01-24-2006, 11:39 PM
Azumi, until the fetus becomes a human person and not just a human being, then there is not much wrong with getting rid of it. If we saved all potential humans, then yeah. We WOULD make laws against masturbating. All sperm need is an egg and a womb, so a child could EASILY be made! Potential != current.

well, it really depends on how your laws define a human being. do they provide a definition for that? the exact characteristics that differentiates it from an individual genetically? i really compare the relationship of the mother and the child as commensalism. well, you cannot blame the zygote for being dependent for mother's support. our laws have really different views on this matter. still, i can say in our laws, what's important is that you're a human, regardless of whether you can be considered a person or just an individual genetically.

I'm pretty sure that there is a definition of a human being in our laws somewhere. I dunno. I'll have to look that up.

Yeah, the relationship between the mother and fetus is kinda like parasitism... I guess the only thing that the mother gets in return is a baby, isn't it? So what if she doesn't WANT the baby? Then it'd definately be parasitism. And it IS a part of her until it changes enviornments and is born, is it not?

I got that bit from Roe v. Wade, actually. As for genetic differences, again, I'm not sure yet. I've got to check on that.

kakashi1300
01-25-2006, 03:07 AM
I'm pretty sure that there is a definition of a human being in our laws somewhere. I dunno. I'll have to look that up.

Yeah, the relationship between the mother and fetus is kinda like parasitism... I guess the only thing that the mother gets in return is a baby, isn't it? So what if she doesn't WANT the baby? Then it'd definately be parasitism. And it IS a part of her until it changes enviornments and is born, is it not?

I got that bit from Roe v. Wade, actually. As for genetic differences, again, I'm not sure yet. I've got to check on that.

no, it will not be parasitism, either. in parasitism, an organism called the parasite is getting benefit from another organism called the host, which in doing so the parasite physically harms the host. it will only be parasitism when the fetus will be a threat to the life of the mother, just like in the case of ectopic pregnancy, in which case the fetus must be removed. yeah, that is the only case where abortion is permitted here. our state laws doesn't care if it will harm the honor or pride of the mother, or whether she likes the baby or not, but if it will harm her life, then proper actions must be taken.

Azumi
01-25-2006, 05:01 AM
Azumi, until the fetus becomes a human person and not just a human being, then there is not much wrong with getting rid of it. If we saved all potential humans, then yeah. We WOULD make laws against masturbating. All sperm need is an egg and a womb, so a child could EASILY be made! Potential != current.

human laws...
potential humans...
parasitism...
my ass!
so are you saying that the relationship between you and your mother is parasitism?
no. it is love. human has to discipline in order to protect himself from unwanted pregnancies. we're not the ones who gave life to ourselves. dont forget that there's God who is the One who gave us life. we do not have any fucking right to take something thatis bound to have life, potentially or not.
and we humans just want to make life easy for us, so we deny the fact that wasting life, potential or not, is not right. masturbating, if you ask me, is just an effect of a man's orgasm either he is sexually aroused by watching pornos or having a sexual fantasy, and morally, it is not right.
i have the right to include morality in here bacause after all, we humans are just a creation of the Creator.we did not make ourselves alive. someone up there did it. and yoy should be gratefull about that. we humans have emotions. life is not just physically. conscience comes after abortion. the baby inside the womb is not just a part of the mother, it has it's own cell, it's own structure.

DarkAztek
01-25-2006, 11:08 AM
Kakashi, I'll get back to debating with you once I check up some more on the laws.

so are you saying that the relationship between you and your mother is parasitism?

Esentially... Yeah. It is an organism growing inside another organism. It gets its nurishment and gives nothing good back to the mother. In fact, the fetus makes life MISERABLE for the mother. (A parasite does not necessarily have to kill its host. Take having worms or crabs for example. Those won't kill you.) The only good that can be deemed is that it is born and therefore the mother passes on its genetic material. However, if the mother does not WISH to do this, then yeah. It's parasitism by the very definition of the word. (You too, kakashi.)


So then we should outlaw masturbation? Mmhmm... Sorry, we have privacy in sex laws. You're not going to impede on my rights, thank you very much.

But please, go ahead and keep talking about God. You only weaken your argument when we're talking US laws.

Rockshmo
01-25-2006, 07:34 PM
God should in no way be included in this thread. Mainly because people have differing views of God, whether he/she/it exists or not.. so you're pretty much asking everyone who doesn't believe in God to sway to the opposite side of your arguments.

I'm with DarkAztek on this one.. mainly because I agree with everything he's posted as well as he's the only one that's making any sense in this thread.

Debates are all about opinion, sure you can get factual about it, but when it comes down to it opinion wins overall. So kakashi and azumi stop repeating your own opinions and changing the topic to try and convince someone who has a different opinion. It just makes a lot of useless spam..

I bet neither of you have had any experience with abortion and are just going by what you think is "right." I guess that's how stubborn people are though.. hey I got an idea.. let's get you a girlfriend for about 2 years then find out she missed her period and may be pregnant. I bet $10 saying you'd support abortion then..

GAma_Oyabun
01-25-2006, 09:57 PM
i'd bet more then 10 bucks

Azumi
01-25-2006, 11:04 PM
Debates are all about opinion, sure you can get factual about it, but when it comes down to it opinion wins overall. So kakashi and azumi stop repeating your own opinions and changing the topic to try and convince someone who has a different opinion. It just makes a lot of useless spam..

why, is dark aztek the only one who has the right to depend his side. that's stupid.
THIS IS DEBATE, IDIOT!

Satoku
01-25-2006, 11:06 PM
aren't the aborted babies used for stem cell research?

Azumi
01-26-2006, 02:07 AM
aren't the aborted babies used for stem cell research?

i've got no idea about that.
my point in here is that a baby is a baby. a baby is a person undergoing developments. commonly, the aborted babies are between 3-3 and a half months. so that means, the baby is already a fetus. a fetus has already organs that are able to sense what is happening outside, although he has no idea what that is.
DA, you dont actually abort a baby that is only a blood. the title of this thread is "you knew it was coming... ABORTION" so you know that your'e pregnant, and you are aware that you are going to deliver a baby after a few months.
a baby inside the womb is like a flower. a bud, that is. it is still close, but intimes it will bloom, and that is like what we are now. we have to wait for our blooming day for us to be call a flower (though im not comparing ourselves to flower, im just setting an example)
so a bud, or a seed(if you like), if thrown away, not needing for it to grow, is like a baby being aborted. the seed , that has to be a flower someday is wasted. and that's what i see for the baby.

kakashi1300
01-26-2006, 07:02 AM
Debates are all about opinion, sure you can get factual about it, but when it comes down to it opinion wins overall. So kakashi and azumi stop repeating your own opinions and changing the topic to try and convince someone who has a different opinion. It just makes a lot of useless spam..

reply to a nosy person:
am i stating opinions? for goodness' sake please try to read the link i have given to darkaztek. that's where i base all of my statements. and wtf is the purpose of a debate? try to ask darkaztek that question and you'll eat your words. if you want to debate against me one-on-one then go on. stop nosing around my posts or other people's posts if you're not the one being talked to.

back to topic:
@darkaztek: i'm still firm with my word about the mother-fetus relationship as not being parasitism even when the mother doesn't like the baby, as long as the baby is not physically harming the mother. it's commensalism for me, just like the orchid-tree relationship. the orchid benefits but the tree neither benefits nor gets harmed. and alright, you can always take time to get your facts ready.

LightDreamer
01-26-2006, 08:52 AM
i've got no idea about that.
my point in here is that a baby is a baby. a baby is a person undergoing developments. commonly, the aborted babies are between 3-3 and a half months. so that means, the baby is already a fetus. a fetus has already organs that are able to sense what is happening outside, although he has no idea what that is.
DA, you dont actually abort a baby that is only a blood. the title of this thread is "you knew it was coming... ABORTION" so you know that your'e pregnant, and you are aware that you are going to deliver a baby after a few months.
a baby inside the womb is like a flower. a bud, that is. it is still close, but intimes it will bloom, and that is like what we are now. we have to wait for our blooming day for us to be call a flower (though im not comparing ourselves to flower, im just setting an example)
so a bud, or a seed(if you like), if thrown away, not needing for it to grow, is like a baby being aborted. the seed , that has to be a flower someday is wasted. and that's what i see for the baby.

Yes usually aborted babies will be used for stem cell research with the consent of the mother. Here they can grow many vital organs needed by patients who can't get the heart transplant, or etc, they need to survive.
You're acting as if they torture the fetus before they remove it. They don't. It doesn't work like that.
Or you know...a weed. A dandelion maybe, though has the chance to be 'beautiful' when it adults, it's a nuisance, unwanted. And oh oh! Will be removed, most likely, unless you have something against removing weeds? Like DarkAztek said....parasite. =] That seeed has the chance to save someone else's life too -.-

Azumi
01-27-2006, 05:11 AM
But please, go ahead and keep talking about God. You only weaken your argument when we're talking US laws.

what will that stupid law do if there's no God. (i know you know that)
even laws are unlawfull (try to site examples yourself)
Esentially... Yeah. It is an organism growing inside another organism. It gets its nurishment and gives nothing good back to the mother. In fact, the fetus makes life MISERABLE for the mother. (A parasite does not necessarily have to kill its host. Take having worms or crabs for example. Those won't kill you.) The only good that can be deemed is that it is born and therefore the mother passes on its genetic material. However, if the mother does not WISH to do this, then yeah. It's parasitism by the very definition of the word. (You too, kakashi.)


your mother must be ashame of you...
or maybe you have had a miserable experience from your mother that's why your'e saying that.. oh well, it's psychology...
again, im anti-abortion, because you're taking someone else's life against their will... (no matter what that stupid law you have, it's like your'e back from paganism...)

GAma_Oyabun
01-27-2006, 07:55 AM
seriously, parasite? so u thought u were a parasite. the mother is creating(for lack of a better term) a baby. she is reproducing , its part of life. humans eat, shit, and then what else? they reproduce. thats the basis of life. the core. what humans would do if u toss everything else.

DarkAztek
01-27-2006, 11:23 AM
Debates are all about opinion, sure you can get factual about it, but when it comes down to it opinion wins overall. So kakashi and azumi stop repeating your own opinions and changing the topic to try and convince someone who has a different opinion. It just makes a lot of useless spam..

Kakashi and I ARE having a debate. We're exchanging ideas in a relatively friendly way. He's one side, I'm another. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he isn't legitimately discussing a topic.

@darkaztek: i'm still firm with my word about the mother-fetus relationship as not being parasitism even when the mother doesn't like the baby, as long as the baby is not physically harming the mother. it's commensalism for me, just like the orchid-tree relationship. the orchid benefits but the tree neither benefits nor gets harmed. and alright, you can always take time to get your facts ready.

I've already cited how a baby DOES harm the mother while she is pregnant. It feeds off of her, causes vomiting, causes her to urinate, crave foods, have terrible cramps, makes her emotions go crazy, limits her ability to walk, swells up parts of her body, etc. If you didn't know I was talking about pregnancy, you'd probably think I was having a discussion about elephantitis. It's parasitism.

what will that stupid law do if there's no God. (i know you know that)
even laws are unlawfull (try to site examples yourself)

...What? I am almost always confused by your posts.

If there if no God, then okay. Laws still apply. And? If there IS a God, then laws STILL apply. AND?

Yeah, there are some laws that are unlawful. You think abortion laws are and I do not. That's why we're having a debate.

your mother must be ashame of you...
or maybe you have had a miserable experience from your mother that's why your'e saying that.. oh well, it's psychology...
again, im anti-abortion, because you're taking someone else's life against their will... (no matter what that stupid law you have, it's like your'e back from paganism...)

Personal attacks get you no where. Just because you do not agree with my own philosophy is no means to attack me. Assuming shit will get you nowhere. If you can't debate without being insulting, then get the futch out of here.

Dosu
01-27-2006, 11:26 AM
I'm not to sure on this topic, I generally just try to stay out of it, it just seems like no matter what way you go with it your wrong

kakashi1300
01-27-2006, 08:53 PM
I've already cited how a baby DOES harm the mother while she is pregnant. It feeds off of her, causes vomiting, causes her to urinate, crave foods, have terrible cramps, makes her emotions go crazy, limits her ability to walk, swells up parts of her body, etc. If you didn't know I was talking about pregnancy, you'd probably think I was having a discussion about elephantitis. It's parasitism.

true, those inconveniences really occur naturally during pregnancy. but the question is do they really count as "harm"? here's a nice link to quash away the mother-fetus relationship as parasitism:
http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html


I'm not to sure on this topic, I generally just try to stay out of it, it just seems like no matter what way you go with it your wrong

what do you mean?

Dosu
01-27-2006, 09:54 PM
what do you mean?

what I mean is this, If I say that a woman should have the right to choose, then I'm a horrible person who advocates murder, but if I go the opposite and say that the child should be allowed to live, then I'm a male shovanest pig, I can't win, so I just shut the hell up and let other people decide

Azumi
01-29-2006, 10:34 PM
Personal attacks get you no where. Just because you do not agree with my own philosophy is no means to attack me. Assuming shit will get you nowhere. If you can't debate without being insulting, then get the futch out of here.

well, literary, it's a personal attack. but i'm having you as an example. we are not parasites. we are humans. we have soul. consider that. your mother wouldn't love to hear she has a parasite for a son.
you better read the link k1300 gave you...

LightDreamer
01-29-2006, 11:12 PM
well, literary, it's a personal attack. but i'm having you as an example. we are not parasites. we are humans. we have soul. consider that. your mother wouldn't love to hear she has a parasite for a son.
you better read the link k1300 gave you...

Once you have the ability to sustain your own life, you are no longer a parasite. :eek:

ha, umbilical cord: The flexible cordlike structure connecting a fetus at the abdomen with the placenta and containing two umbilical arteries and one vein that transport nourishment to the fetus and remove its wastes.

Yah, the mother is housing the child, feeding the child, nourishing the child, keeping the child alive. The fetus is taking nourishment the mother takes into her own body and uses it for itself, the mother could have used that nourishment for herself, but the fetus took it; used it for itself.

If a mother wants to be pregnant, than sure, she probably wouldn't be throwing around words like parasite when talking about her precious baby. But a person who doesn't want to have a baby has every right to call it a parasite. yah. When a person is about to abort their baby, they obviously don't want it, it's a parasite, it's taking nourishment into their body that the mother could have used.

You can't say that DA's mother should be ashamed of him, what the hell kind of logic is that? I'm gonna take a stab here, but I'm guessing she wanted her baby boy. You have no right here lady. Could I be sitting here saying that your mother should be ashamed of you because you're going around insulting other people? Damn, that's low girl.

kakashi1300
01-30-2006, 02:19 AM
Once you have the ability to sustain your own life, you are no longer a parasite. :eek:

ha, umbilical cord: The flexible cordlike structure connecting a fetus at the abdomen with the placenta and containing two umbilical arteries and one vein that transport nourishment to the fetus and remove its wastes.

Yah, the mother is housing the child, feeding the child, nourishing the child, keeping the child alive. The fetus is taking nourishment the mother takes into her own body and uses it for itself, the mother could have used that nourishment for herself, but the fetus took it; used it for itself.

If a mother wants to be pregnant, than sure, she probably wouldn't be throwing around words like parasite when talking about her precious baby. But a person who doesn't want to have a baby has every right to call it a parasite. yah. When a person is about to abort their baby, they obviously don't want it, it's a parasite, it's taking nourishment into their body that the mother could have used.


HALT! who said that while the fetus is taking nourishment from the mother it will be called a parasite? i think you should have considered the definition of parasitism, not the umbilical cord.

ok, when dealing with things like this, we should be technical. even if the mother doesn't want to have a child, it would not be parasitism if the baby is not doing physically any harm to the mother. we should define harm as "threat to the life". we should not consider other variables such as "harmful to the future, etc" because they are subjective. naturally, of course, the fetus is dependent on the mother's support, and it's taking nourishment that the mother could have used for herself. but if that's the ground to prove parasitism then all fetuses, whether the mother likes it or not, will be parasites?

of course, if the mother doesn't want to have a child, she will call the baby as a parasite. in fact, even if the baby is born she will continue to call him a parasite if she hates the child. she can call her lazy husband a parasite because he's not working for the welfare of the family. she can call anyone she wants as parasites if she hates them. we have no control over that. but technically, it is not parasitism. therefore, it's not enough reason to kill someone just because we regard them as "parasites".

Azumi
01-30-2006, 03:23 AM
You can't say that DA's mother should be ashamed of him, what the hell kind of logic is that? I'm gonna take a stab here, but I'm guessing she wanted her baby boy. You have no right here lady. Could I be sitting here saying that your mother should be ashamed of you because you're going around insulting other people? Damn, that's low girl.

well, i'm not insulting others...
if you are DA's mother, and DA would tell you that you has a parasite for a son, would you be happy?
of course, if the mother doesn't want to have a child, she will call the baby as a parasite. in fact, even if the baby is born she will continue to call him a parasite. she can call her lazy husband a parasite because he's not working for the welfare of the family. we have no control over that. but when dealing things technically, it's not parasitism.

right you are...

DarkAztek
01-30-2006, 08:38 AM
Finally, I read that link. Here's my problems with it.

2b) No, it DOES come from outside the mother. The sperm must come from a man. Otherwise, the fetus cannot exist, yes? So it IS from an outside source.

3b) Yeah, it does cause harm. The man is ignoring quite a bit to say that no harm is caused.

4a) Not all parasites make contact that way. Virual parasites, for example.

5a) Not all parasites do this either. (The article admits to it as well.)

6b) Often times, in cases of accidental miscarraige, a baby can be aborted because of human anti-bodies or because of too much of a certain type of chemical that occurs naturally in a woman's body.

7b) True. It is necessary. But again, the man who wrote this article is ignoring all of the side effects that come with pregnancy.

8a) That is NOT TRUE. A number of parasites do not live forever off of a host. Take a stomach worm for an example.


But even the discussion of whether or not babies are parasites is not the deciding factor in whether or not abortions should be allowed. I want to know why women should not be granted the right to choose. "Because it kills a life!" you say? Well that life, as far as the law is defined, is under their control. They have the right to deny it or grant it.



Azumi, you really should stop using the "peepul have souls!" and religion defense against me. Religion cannot be applied when making laws in the United States. All you are doing is cutting your own legs from under you.

LightDreamer
01-30-2006, 02:12 PM
well, i'm not insulting others...
if you are DA's mother, and DA would tell you that you has a parasite for a son, would you be happy?

Obviously had DA's mother wanted DA, wanted a son, then no I would not like it if someone called him a parasite. However if she didn't want him as a son, and she wanted to get an abortion but was not allowed too, then yes she has every right to call him a parasite, because he is taking nourishment from her body, and growing inside of her, she is housing it without her consent...technically.

Edit: I'm having a slow day -.- shut up

Oh yah I think telling someone their mother should be ashamed of having them as a child is over the line of 'insulting others'

Rockshmo
01-30-2006, 04:06 PM
azumi, I'm not going to quote your reply and try to talk down to you as if you were an ignorant child or try to make you look bad. But what I will say is that you obviously misunderstood what I meant by what you quoted and replied to. I'm not saying DarkAztek is the only one who can voice his opinion and back it up, I'm saying you and kakashi are the only ones who rabble on about random things that don't relate to abortion, then have DA or someone else prove you wrong, and jump to another irrelevant subject. That's all..

kakashi, as far as I'm concerned.. I'm every bit a member here as you are, and untill threads are "private" between one person and another, I'm going to continue to read whatever post I want and reply how I see fit.

DA, I know you guys are debating, I'm not saying he should just stop posting because I don't agree with what he thinks. It's just that some of the posts I've read are completely off point and have no relevance to abortion. Maybe I just have nothing else to say since you basically covered everything I could think to post... you bastard... :p

In any case, continue the debate, I'll bite my tongue and read on untill I come across something worth debating. Sorry for any disturbance I may have caused.

Azumi
01-31-2006, 12:24 AM
Azumi, you really should stop using the "peepul have souls!" and religion defense against me. Religion cannot be applied when making laws in the United States. All you are doing is cutting your own legs from under you.

what if i debate you using our country's law about abortion? you talk as if the US law is the general law... i have my own country! stop using that law-law thing! argue in general!
then yes I have every right to call him a parasite, because he is taking nourishment from my body, and growing inside of me, I am housing it without my consent...technically.

then why pregnant, then? if you dont want parasites in yoy body, then dont get pregnant... have you read the link kakashi1300 gave DA? well, better read. nothing more to say...
azumi, I'm not going to quote your reply and try to talk down to you as if you were an ignorant child or try to make you look bad. But what I will say is that you obviously misunderstood what I meant by what you quoted and replied to. I'm not saying DarkAztek is the only one who can voice his opinion and back it up, I'm saying you and kakashi are the only ones who rabble on about random things that don't relate to abortion, then have DA or someone else prove you wrong, and jump to another irrelevant subject. That's all..

bah! have you read the whole thread? or at least half of the thread? well, better start reading...

LightDreamer
01-31-2006, 12:34 AM
Uhh...the point is...most ppl who get an abortion probably didn't COUNT on getting pregnant o.O thus the creation of the ability to abort! muahahaha. The reason ppl get pregnant in the first place is to have children. o.o to procreate! Unwanted fetuses fit the definition of a parasite, who are you to undermine definition o____@ :D

Azumi
01-31-2006, 12:46 AM
Uhh...the point is...most ppl who get an abortion probably didn't COUNT on getting pregnant o.O thus the creation of the ability to abort! muahahaha. The reason ppl get pregnant in the first place is to have children. o.o to procreate! Unwanted fetuses fit the definition of a parasite, who are you to undermine definition o____@

oh.. are you talking about teenage sex or premarital sex. coz mostly, yes. all those type of sex activity usually bring unwanted pregnancies. married ppl mostly dont take a damn about having a baby coz what would they expect? babies! so they have to care for the baby no matter what.

kakashi1300
01-31-2006, 02:20 AM
But even the discussion of whether or not babies are parasites is not the deciding factor in whether or not abortions should be allowed. I want to know why women should not be granted the right to choose. "Because it kills a life!" you say? Well that life, as far as the law is defined, is under their control. They have the right to deny it or grant it.

yeah, and that's really the problem i'm having with your laws. right to choose? does it really have to prevail over the right to life? and what do you mean by that "life is under the mother's control?". your law must be definitive about that, as i may mistake that infanticide is also legal there (definitely the infant is under the mother's control, because it's his son/daughter after all). as i have pointed out, the fetus is already an individual, and not a part of the mother (again, how do you define being part of the mother?). see, the problem is that i consider a fetus (from conception) already as a human and no different from a newborn. if you can give better distinctions between the two then go on. and i agree with you that whether or not the babies are parasites must not be a deciding factor to legalize this.

azumi, I'm not going to quote your reply and try to talk down to you as if you were an ignorant child or try to make you look bad. But what I will say is that you obviously misunderstood what I meant by what you quoted and replied to. I'm not saying DarkAztek is the only one who can voice his opinion and back it up, I'm saying you and kakashi are the only ones who rabble on about random things that don't relate to abortion, then have DA or someone else prove you wrong, and jump to another irrelevant subject. That's all..

kakashi, as far as I'm concerned.. I'm every bit a member here as you are, and untill threads are "private" between one person and another, I'm going to continue to read whatever post I want and reply how I see fit.

DA, I know you guys are debating, I'm not saying he should just stop posting because I don't agree with what he thinks. It's just that some of the posts I've read are completely off point and have no relevance to abortion. Maybe I just have nothing else to say since you basically covered everything I could think to post... you bastard... :p

In any case, continue the debate, I'll bite my tongue and read on untill I come across something worth debating. Sorry for any disturbance I may have caused.

see, that's the problem with you. you do not have a SINGLE idea on what i'm talking about. i acknowledge the fact that you are also a member here. but from what i see your attacks against me after all have nothing to do with abortion. so better bite your tongue because actually you're the one SPAMMING.

Azumi
01-31-2006, 05:11 AM
see, that's the problem with you. you do not have a SINGLE idea on what i'm talking about. i acknowledge the fact that you are also a member here. but from what i see your attacks against me after all have nothing to do with abortion. so better bite your tongue because actually you're the one SPAMMING.

gee.. i forgot to reply about that attack on us. but it doesn't matter.
walang kwenta kausap 'tong mga to. parang tanga...

Shad0w_Hunter
01-31-2006, 06:41 AM
pro-choice. Gotta problem with that?

kakashi1300
01-31-2006, 06:51 AM
pro-choice. Gotta problem with that?

yeah, i have. defend why you're pro-choice and i'll defend why i'm pro-life.

DarkAztek
01-31-2006, 09:48 AM
Azumi, you really need to watch it with the name calling. If you can't handle an intelligent discussion, then leave.

what if i debate you using our country's law about abortion? you talk as if the US law is the general law... i have my own country! stop using that law-law thing! argue in general!

That's super. Go ahead. I can't argue that much with your own country. However, seeing as how the first post of this thread was about American abortion rights, I think we need to us US laws. I've been debating US abortion laws. Don't like it? Then debate abortion laws for ANOTHER country.

There is no "general" law in the world. You and I may find killing a person to be awful, but in some Muslim countries in the world, it can be acceptable under the right circumstances. (For example, if a woman cheats on a man while they're married. They bury her up to her neck in sand and then stone her to death... Without a judge and jury to decide her fate.)

yeah, and that's really the problem i'm having with your laws. right to choose? does it really have to prevail over the right to life? and what do you mean by that "life is under the mother's control?". your law must be definitive about that, as i may mistake that infanticide is also legal there (definitely the infant is under the mother's control, because it's his son/daughter after all). as i have pointed out, the fetus is already an individual, and not a part of the mother (again, how do you define being part of the mother?). see, the problem is that i consider a fetus (from conception) already as a human and no different from a newborn. if you can give better distinctions between the two then go on. and i agree with you that whether or not the babies are parasites must not be a deciding factor to legalize this.

It's not infanticide until the baby is born or another party (not the mother) kills the baby.

While the baby is inside the mother and relies on the mother for even its most basic needs (I'm citing oxygen here), I consider it to be a part of the mother. While a woman's chemicals inside her body can decide the outcome of the fetus, I still consider it to a part of her.

(Before you reply to this post, let me edit it. I'm out of time now and I have much more to add.)

Shad0w_Hunter
01-31-2006, 01:00 PM
yeah, i have. defend why you're pro-choice and i'll defend why i'm pro-life.
Okay fine. I'm pro choice because it's the woman's body. Say you had a 14 year-old daughter who got raped, would YOU want her to go through the pains of childbirth at that age? I really doubt it. Also, how many girls are there these days who just have the baby and put it in a dumpster? Instead of being thrown in jail why not just get an abortion? Yeah yeah I know what you're saying. They can bring it to a hospital, school, or police station with no questions asked. But the simple fact is, they DON'T. Also, in some cases, it's better to keep the baby from ever living instead of forcing it into adoptions or foster homes. As we all know, dyphus sucks.

Personal expirience:

My friend got raped a while ago. Her parents were religious nuts and wouldn't let her get an abortion. They wanted her to quit school to take care of the baby.

This girl had a 3.9 GPA and had a scholarship to yale, if she dropped out, all that would be gone. Her whole life would be over.

I drove her to a clinic and practically FOUGHT off the crazed religious nuts who were protesting out front. She got the operation and everything was fine. Her parents flipped. But seeing as she was getting almost a full ride to yale everything worked out.

And please, if you're going to use the whole "religious deal" on me. try to find a better reason.

And my friend is now at Yale studying to be a pediatrician

Rockshmo
01-31-2006, 08:15 PM
Glad to hear that about your friend Shad0w, don't worry, I think you did the right thing.

kakashi: I in no way attacked either you or azumi, I was simply trying to put the topic back on task. Did you ever once see me say "kakashi you dumbass stfu and stop posting here." No, I didn't, and don't think you know who I am by what I post in a Debate on an ANIME FORUM.

azumi: Flaming in a different language is still flaming, remember that. Now if you two are done, which you should be because if anything else is directed towards me I won't reply so it's useless, let's get back on topic here.

We could debate laws in every Country in the world.. but it wouldn't matter as our opinions about abortion or anything else would still be the same. So let's drop the whole laws thing.. who follows laws anyway?

Like I said a few pages ago.. I feel abortion should only be executed when the fetus has not developed to the point that is considered being "alive." I know in the US, Roe v. Wade says that abortion is legal in every state up to the 1st tri-mester. So up to the end of the 3rd month, but I'm not entirely sure if after the 3rd month is when the fetus develops human qualities. Maybe we could develop some type of medical way to tell if the fetus has developed a sense of life, and based on that it could be aborted, or not.

Science is definitely the way to go though.. I mean religion is a completely different debate which I don't feel like going back to.. but I just don't see how people can let something like religion determine the fate of their life, or someone's child's life, like in Shad0w's friend's case. It just sickens me to see that parents are willing to throw their child's life away over religion.

LightDreamer
01-31-2006, 10:14 PM
oh.. are you talking about teenage sex or premarital sex. coz mostly, yes. all those type of sex activity usually bring unwanted pregnancies. married ppl mostly dont take a damn about having a baby coz what would they expect? babies! so they have to care for the baby no matter what.

I cannot translate what you're trying to say...so I'm not gonna try...and girl-power preggy? I don't even know what you're talking about. I'm not pregnant if that's what you're talking about -.-'' I'm not in the 'up and up' with this new slang w/e. Heck I even looked it up, I got nothing. In fact, I DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS!!!


HALT! who said that while the fetus is taking nourishment from the mother it will be called a parasite? i think you should have considered the definition of parasitism, not the umbilical cord.

I did look up parasite o.O and then azumi ignored my definition and said something about me having no right to call a baby a parasite, and then I said I never called a baby a parasite I called a fetus a parasite, and THEN I got ignored so I looked up umbilico cord too for her. For the one who assumes that I read everything he says, should note that he doesn't read everything I do.


ok, when dealing with things like this, we should be technical. even if the mother doesn't want to have a child, it would not be parasitism if the baby is not doing physically any harm to the mother. we should define harm as "threat to the life". we should not consider other variables such as "harmful to the future, etc" because they are subjective. naturally, of course, the fetus is dependent on the mother's support, and it's taking nourishment that the mother could have used for herself. but if that's the ground to prove parasitism then all fetuses, whether the mother likes it or not, will be parasites?

We should not...hmmm again your perception not mine. WHy do you insist on telling me what to do? Threat to the life...I remember a certain person named azumi who said even if you knew you were going to die you should still have the baby becuase that baby deserves a chance at life. Or maybe it wasn't her I can't remember. Heck it can either die without taking it's first breathe being called a parasite, or be born being called a bastard for the rest of it's life. Unfortunately you didn't look at the factor of their being a giant mound in front of the mother's stomach, she can't see her feet, it's hard to go pee, and incredibly bad for her back. Though technically it's not harmful to the way of her life in parasitical terms, but it is harmful to her life. It is harmful to every mother's life, my mom was pregnant with me and she said she caught a high fever but wouldn't allow herself to take any drugs for fear of MY life while endangering her own. But that's what good mothers do, right? it's still housing something that depends on your nourishment to survive. and yes whether you want to be pregnant or not it can endanger your life.


of course, if the mother doesn't want to have a child, she will call the baby as a parasite. in fact, even if the baby is born she will continue to call him a parasite if she hates the child. she can call her lazy husband a parasite because he's not working for the welfare of the family. she can call anyone she wants as parasites if she hates them. we have no control over that. but technically, it is not parasitism. therefore, it's not enough reason to kill someone just because we regard them as "parasites".

Yes, but a fetus actually fits the definition of a parasite o.o It is not a someone till it's born, till then it's an it. and here all we need to kill an it is the mother's consent. San kyu. 39 ;) OH YAH jap rules xD

Azumi
02-01-2006, 02:22 AM
Threat to the life...I remember a certain person named azumi who said even if you knew you were going to die you should still have the baby becuase that baby deserves a chance at life
did i say that, huh?
you sure? quote it.
i said that abortion can be optional especially during cases that the baby may cause harm for the mother, maybe because the baby is already dead, or the mother is ill so she should not have a baby. that's what i said. i dont remember saying the mother should die literary die so that her baby can live. the mother can choose whether to live or die for her child, but only for certain situations like the ones i said.
azumi: Flaming in a different language is still flaming, remember that. Now if you two are done, which you should be because if anything else is directed towards me I won't reply so it's useless, let's get back on topic here.

did i now? i didn't flame anybody. kakashi1300 could tell that.
and btw, dark aztec used other language against k1300, can you consider that flaming?

kakashi1300
02-01-2006, 02:52 AM
Azumi, you really need to watch it with the name calling. If you can't handle an intelligent discussion, then leave.

oh, i'm the one saying "I'm sorry" for her. she's my sister. don't worry, i'll tell her off it.


It's not infanticide until the baby is born or another party (not the mother) kills the baby.

While the baby is inside the mother and relies on the mother for even its most basic needs (I'm citing oxygen here), I consider it to be a part of the mother. While a woman's chemicals inside her body can decide the outcome of the fetus, I still consider it to a part of her.

(Before you reply to this post, let me edit it. I'm out of time now and I have much more to add.)

i hear ya... but what i'm pointing out is this: abortion is legal, infanticide is illegal. if both involve killing then why one is legal and the other one is illegal? what is really the variable that sets the difference between a fetus and a newborn?

see, i'm playing around with the aristotelian concept of substance and accident. because a zygote and a newborn is the same substantially, but different accidentally. if laws grant protection to others and not to another, the they must be substantially different. so i'm looking for the substantial difference between the newborn and a fetus (or a zygote).

and there's something worth quoting...


I did look up parasite o.O and then azumi ignored my definition and said something about me having no right to call a baby a parasite, and then I said I never called a baby a parasite I called a fetus a parasite, and THEN I got ignored so I looked up umbilico cord too for her. For the one who assumes that I read everything he says, should note that he doesn't read everything I do.

leave azumi out of our discussion. even if she's pro-life like me she has a different view of things. and parasitism in the first place involves "two organisms that belong to different species". so i think we should not regard the mother-fetus relationship as a symbiotic relationship. it doesn't apply.



We should not...hmmm again your perception not mine. WHy do you insist on telling me what to do? Threat to the life...I remember a certain person named azumi who said even if you knew you were going to die you should still have the baby becuase that baby deserves a chance at life. Or maybe it wasn't her I can't remember. Heck it can either die without taking it's first breathe being called a parasite, or be born being called a bastard for the rest of it's life. Unfortunately you didn't look at the factor of their being a giant mound in front of the mother's stomach, she can't see her feet, it's hard to go pee, and incredibly bad for her back. Though technically it's not harmful to the way of her life in parasitical terms, but it is harmful to her life. It is harmful to every mother's life, my mom was pregnant with me and she said she caught a high fever but wouldn't allow herself to take any drugs for fear of MY life while endangering her own. But that's what good mothers do, right? it's still housing something that depends on your nourishment to survive. and yes whether you want to be pregnant or not it can endanger your life.

that's just mediocre factors any mother (willing or unwilling) can cope with. i'll say it again, if it threatens the life of the mother, abortion will be allowed. the exact rationale is that if the fetus will still be allowed to live under that circumstance, the mother will die, which will bring about the death of the fetus. that's a lose/lose situation that our laws don't want to happen. and even if the fetus is really a parasite that must not be the defining factor to legalize abortion.



Yes, but a fetus actually fits the definition of a parasite o.o It is not a someone till it's born, till then it's an it. and here all we need to kill an it is the mother's consent. San kyu. 39 ;) OH YAH jap rules xD

prove to me, that it is not a "someone". how do you define being a "someone"? give exact charactersitics that differentiate the two.


Science is definitely the way to go though.. I mean religion is a completely different debate which I don't feel like going back to.. but I just don't see how people can let something like religion determine the fate of their life, or someone's child's life, like in Shad0w's friend's case. It just sickens me to see that parents are willing to throw their child's life away over religion.

i've been pointing out that scientifically the fetus (from conception) is already a human. give me the exact differences that separates a fetus from a newborn. alright, let's drop out our useless discussions earlier. i just got pissed by you accusing me of presenting irrelevant topics when in fact i do present good ones. i mean how do you know i really do not? i'm not debating with you after all.

Azumi
02-01-2006, 03:24 AM
oh, i'm the one saying "I'm sorry" for her. she's my sister. don't worry, i'll tell her off it.


oops... i forgot. gomen. gomen...

that's just mediocre factors any mother (willing or unwilling) can cope with. i'll say it again, if it threatens the life of the mother, abortion will be allowed. the exact rationale is that if the fetus will still be allowed to live under that circumstance, the mother will die, which will bring about the death of the fetus. that's a lose/lose situation that our laws don't want to happen. and even if the fetus is really a parasite that must not be the defining factor to legalize abortion.



that's what i'm trying to say...

Rockshmo
02-01-2006, 03:58 PM
fe-tus
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

new-born
1. Very recently born: a newborn baby.
2. Born anew: newborn courage.

I guess we could say the only real difference between a fetus and a newborn is that "it" is considered a fetus from the end of the eigth week of conception to it's birth, and a newborn when it is born.

The only real catch is when it is considered a human which can't be explained simply by definition. Now, I'm not a scientist, nor do I feel like looking up scientific facts right now but I guess we could say that when it's considered a human can be based on many things.. religion, your opinion, facts, etc.

LightDreamer
02-01-2006, 05:41 PM
leave azumi out of our discussion. even if she's pro-life like me she has a different view of things. and parasitism in the first place involves "two organisms that belong to different species". so i think we should not regard the mother-fetus relationship as a symbiotic relationship. it doesn't apply.

What? I don't remember having a discussion with you, I remember having a discussion with azumi, then you came and started arguing with something I said to her, therefore I have every right to include azumi in my reasoning of my answers, seeing as how they were directed TO HER! If you want to have a discussion with me NOT including her, I suggest not quoting me on something I said to her. DUR. Okay, dandelion, and daisy. They are both plants =O NO WAY. One is a weed, one is a flower. One steals nutrients the other needs. Stop saying I think we should not, you can think that all you want doesn't do shit to me.



that's just mediocre factors any mother (willing or unwilling) can cope with. i'll say it again, if it threatens the life of the mother, abortion will be allowed. the exact rationale is that if the fetus will still be allowed to live under that circumstance, the mother will die, which will bring about the death of the fetus. that's a lose/lose situation that our laws don't want to happen. and even if the fetus is really a parasite that must not be the defining factor to legalize abortion.

Well my laws differ, appparently.




prove to me, that it is not a "someone". how do you define being a "someone"? give exact charactersitics that differentiate the two.

Humans, people, persons, are someones. How do you define human?

Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4. Having the form of a human.


How many of these definitions fit that of a fetus? I'll tell you, maybe 1. Fragility/weakness. Perhaps. Other than that, fetus = not human according to definition. Therefore fetus are not 'someones'


i've been pointing out that scientifically the fetus (from conception) is already a human. give me the exact differences that separates a fetus from a newborn. alright, let's drop out our useless discussions earlier. i just got pissed by you accusing me of presenting irrelevant topics when in fact i do present good ones. i mean how do you know i really do not? i'm not debating with you after all.

Haha, see how this is not your discussion with me? Well lemme butt my head in. Fetus, need umbilico cords connecting themselves to their mothers to survive. Babies don't, in fact you don't even need the mother after the baby is born, you can buy baby milk. Fetus at 3 weeks don't look like newborns. Babies shit and pee all by themselves [usually] where as fetus need their mothers to remove their waste for them. Babies breathe oxygen, fetus don't. Etc. Etc.

To AZUMI: hmm...maybe you didn't say it...maybe it was that matonly o.o something like that person. sorry. bad memory...wat are you gonna doo.

kakashi1300
02-02-2006, 06:06 AM
fe-tus
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

new-born
1. Very recently born: a newborn baby.
2. Born anew: newborn courage.

I guess we could say the only real difference between a fetus and a newborn is that "it" is considered a fetus from the end of the eigth week of conception to it's birth, and a newborn when it is born.

The only real catch is when it is considered a human which can't be explained simply by definition. Now, I'm not a scientist, nor do I feel like looking up scientific facts right now but I guess we could say that when it's considered a human can be based on many things.. religion, your opinion, facts, etc.

NO! it is explained scientifically. zygotes already contain the required genetic material to be called humans. humans contain 46 sets of chromosomes, a special feature already present from the moment of conception to a zygote. in fact, even at conception, the sex of the zygote can already be determined. if the X-chromosome from the egg meets with an X-chromosome sperm, the zygote is a female. if the egg meets with a Y-chromosome sperm, it will be a male one. and another thing, does the timely difference really matter? a fetus is a human only about months to be born, so it must lose it's right to live when the mother wants to dispose off it? quote everything i said that states opinions or morals or religion...

if you want (i hope you are not lazy to read) you can read this:
http://www.morningafterpill.org/whendoes.htm

contains everything and has a clearer elaboration of what i have said.

What? I don't remember having a discussion with you, I remember having a discussion with azumi, then you came and started arguing with something I said to her, therefore I have every right to include azumi in my reasoning of my answers, seeing as how they were directed TO HER! If you want to have a discussion with me NOT including her, I suggest not quoting me on something I said to her. DUR. Okay, dandelion, and daisy. They are both plants =O NO WAY. One is a weed, one is a flower. One steals nutrients the other needs. Stop saying I think we should not, you can think that all you want doesn't do shit to me.

well, aren't we having a discussion? you're quoting me and i'm quoting you, then what do we have? don't you forget i'm talking to you earlier?




Humans, people, persons, are someones. How do you define human?

Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4. Having the form of a human.


How many of these definitions fit that of a fetus? I'll tell you, maybe 1. Fragility/weakness. Perhaps. Other than that, fetus = not human according to definition. Therefore fetus are not 'someones'

1. first of all, a fetus is a Homo sapiens. if it's not then what it is?
2. you cannot butt in definitions that are useless. first of all, can you name those characteristics mentioned in the definitions? the traits that makes us human, different from animals, etc.? making conclusions from definitions constitute a very weak argument.
3. lemme ask you again, how many of those definitions fit a newborn?




Haha, see how this is not your discussion with me? Well lemme butt my head in. Fetus, need umbilico cords connecting themselves to their mothers to survive. Babies don't, in fact you don't even need the mother after the baby is born, you can buy baby milk. Fetus at 3 weeks don't look like newborns. Babies shit and pee all by themselves [usually] where as fetus need their mothers to remove their waste for them. Babies breathe oxygen, fetus don't. Etc. Etc.


fetus don't breathe oxygen? ha ha vairy funny. well, BREATHING is not limited to the lungs. haven't heard of "cell breathing"? and yet, does the differences you've mentioned really justify enough reasons to kill it off? fetuses don't look like humans, fetuses need the mother for survival, fetuses are really dependent from the mother. so what does it matter? does this differences make a fetus a non-human from a newborn?

in fact, at some point in Roe vs. Wade (only got these from Wikipedia), the Supreme Court justices agreed that if a fetus is already a person, then the case of Roe, the appellant, will collapse because the right to life of the fetus will prevail as guarnteed in the Fourteenth Ammendment. so the main issue is that: is the fetus already a person?

@all pro-choicers: again, what i don't understand about your arguments is the woman's right to choose. she has a right to choose because after all, it's her body. how about a rapist? doesn't he has a right to choose to rape a woman? it's his body, after all, that he will use to rape the woman. but the fact is that the woman's right is ignored. that's my point. if the right to choose will violate the rights of others, especially the right to life, then that right to choose must not prevail. restrictions must be done because we cannot do anything we want.

Azumi
02-03-2006, 03:06 AM
To AZUMI: hmm...maybe you didn't say it...maybe it was that matonly o.o something like that person. sorry. bad memory...wat are you gonna doo.

it's ok. and forgive me for calling you names, i regret it.

Haha, see how this is not your discussion with me? Well lemme butt my head in. Fetus, need umbilico cords connecting themselves to their mothers to survive. Babies don't, in fact you don't even need the mother after the baby is born, you can buy baby milk. Fetus at 3 weeks don't look like newborns. Babies shit and pee all by themselves [usually] where as fetus need their mothers to remove their waste for them. Babies breathe oxygen, fetus don't. Etc. Etc.

it's because the baby is still under the development period of what they call pre-natal development. babies use to depend on what their mother could give them, e.i., the nutrition from what the mother eats.
the new born babies undergo developments called natal develpment. there they start to use their senses for the outside environment, e.i., to see things, to hear things around them, to feel their mother, to smell them, things like that. it is diffferent from their sense development inside the womb because they have a new environment already.
and babies do not breath with the use of their lung inside the womb. actually, their lungs dont function during that time, unless they are out of the womb. you know why doctors try to make babies cry after they got out? to make them get a lot of air to fill their lungs.
babies get oxygen through the umbilical cord. maybe the oxygen is directed to their blood so they wont have to breath (honestly, how can you breath if u r inside the womb)
@all pro-choicers: again, what i don't understand about your arguments is the woman's right to choose. she has a right to choose because after all, it's her body. how about a rapist? doesn't he has a right to choose to rape a woman? it's his body, after all, that he will use to rape the woman. but the fact is that the woman's right is ignored. that's my point. if the right to choose will violate the rights of others, especially the right to life, then that right to choose must not prevail. restrictions must be done because we cannot do anything we want.

right you are, nii-san.
in fact, i believe (accrdng to my observations) that most of the pro-abortion here thinks that there are lots of cases of irrationalities (i mean choosing abortion of abortion). Remember: NOT ALL PREGNANCIES ARE UNWANTED. many are still happy to have a child. and i connect that to DA and LD calling babies parasites. i think the relationship bet. a baby and his mother is mutual. both benefit from each other. the baby gets everything he needs for develoment. the mother is happy for her life would be complete coz she will have a baby to raise with, or she can give her husband a child to prove her love for him, therefore strenghtening their realtionship.
and cases of unwanted pregnancies due to teenage sex, unsafe sex, premarital sex, and so many reasons, well, you have a choice, right?
you chose to have sex, so therefore you can also choose not to abort the baby. after all, it's all because of you that the baby is made, right?
dont waste a life just because of irrationality that "omg, i will lost my teenage life" wtf! it's all your fault, isn't it? it's not the baby's!
or "omg, i can't have the baby coz he wont marry me..." wtf! confide in him and tell him of your situation.
or your raped... well, obviously, the woman's right is violated, but between violation of life or violation of rights, the life comes first, isn't it? like what k1300 had said. life comes first before rights.

LightDreamer
02-03-2006, 07:24 PM
well, aren't we having a discussion? you're quoting me and i'm quoting you, then what do we have? don't you forget i'm talking to you earlier?

Yes, only after you put your head into a discussion you hadn't been invited into.




1. first of all, a fetus is a Homo sapiens. if it's not then what it is?
2. you cannot butt in definitions that are useless. first of all, can you name those characteristics mentioned in the definitions? the traits that makes us human, different from animals, etc.? making conclusions from definitions constitute a very weak argument.
3. lemme ask you again, how many of those definitions fit a newborn?


o.o an IT! Since when have definitions ever been useless? Kindness, empathy, sympathy, distaste. All human emotions. I watched these 2 birds flying together, one flew into my window, it died, the other one watched and waited for it to get up, when it realized it wasn't getting up, it flew away. Now had a human watched a fellow companion get hit by a car on the way home, do you think it would just wait long enough to see if it were dead before walking away? no? I call that sad. I'd look up the definition for you, but you seem to be against them. If you are against documented definition, I can only suppose you must make up your own. Which constitutes a 'weak' arguement. Newborn = homosapiens, have human form, show acts of weakness / fragility, show acts of sadness [ie crying], show acts of happiness [ie laughing]. I'd say plenty of those definitions fit a newborn.


fetus don't breathe oxygen? ha ha vairy funny. well, BREATHING is not limited to the lungs. haven't heard of "cell breathing"? and yet, does the differences you've mentioned really justify enough reasons to kill it off? fetuses don't look like humans, fetuses need the mother for survival, fetuses are really dependent from the mother. so what does it matter? does this differences make a fetus a non-human from a newborn?

Then what makes a fetus different then a plant? can you give me just reasons to kill a dandelion that don't also conclude reasons to kill a fetus? Heck even a dandelion is bigger and prettier than a fetus. Yes it matters, becuase something so incredibly dependent on another being to live makes it matter. A newborn has a mind, is learning, is breathing, is creating memories every second it lives, it recognizes it's mother, it's father, will eventually learn painful facts of life, like walking into the coffee table is a bad thing as well as standing up underneath one. Whereas a fetus won't do anything at all till it becomes a newborn. A fetus does nothing in comparison to a real human, though has a chance to become a real human, it is not yet one. The only thing you could conclude about a fetus [I]being a human is that it has homo sapien genetics.


in fact, at some point in Roe vs. Wade (only got these from Wikipedia), the Supreme Court justices agreed that if a fetus is already a person, then the case of Roe, the appellant, will collapse because the right to life of the fetus will prevail as guarnteed in the Fourteenth Ammendment. so the main issue is that: is the fetus already a person?
I have no idea wat you're trying to say. You just asked a question answered a million times over.


@all pro-choicers: again, what i don't understand about your arguments is the woman's right to choose. she has a right to choose because after all, it's her body. how about a rapist? doesn't he has a right to choose to rape a woman? it's his body, after all, that he will use to rape the woman. but the fact is that the woman's right is ignored. that's my point. if the right to choose will violate the rights of others, especially the right to life, then that right to choose must not prevail. restrictions must be done because we cannot do anything we want.

It's simple, the guy can't rape the girl becuase that will be violating another human being's rights. The girl can abort the fetus, because she can do that within her own rights as a human being, against something that is growing inside her, that many countries do not see as a human being. That's pretty much it. The fetus in our eyes is not a human being, that is why it is illegal to rape a girl, and not abort. [at least in my country]

GAma_Oyabun
02-03-2006, 08:50 PM
geez...this debate has undergone a nasty turn....anyway, u can look anywhere and it wont say a baby inside the mother's womb is a parasite. as i said before, the mother is making a new being in order to continue the line of species. thats the rule of nature. eat, poop, and then reproduce. The last thing a species wants is to go extinct. a parasite as stated above is something that takes from the host and does not give back in any way, shape or form. the baby continues the line and allows the species to continue to survive

ColaBear_BiteMe09
02-03-2006, 09:01 PM
just depedning. i mean i dont think its right at all. its takeing a life; murder. no mtter how u put it. but i do think if ur raped and are preg. it is ..well not ok..but prehibitable. even tho i still dont agree with it.

kakashi1300
02-03-2006, 09:04 PM
o.o an IT! Since when have definitions ever been useless? Kindness, empathy, sympathy, distaste. All human emotions. I watched these 2 birds flying together, one flew into my window, it died, the other one watched and waited for it to get up, when it realized it wasn't getting up, it flew away. Now had a human watched a fellow companion get hit by a car on the way home, do you think it would just wait long enough to see if it were dead before walking away? no? I call that sad. I'd look up the definition for you, but you seem to be against them. If you are against documented definition, I can only suppose you must make up your own. Which constitutes a 'weak' arguement. Newborn = homosapiens, have human form, show acts of weakness / fragility, show acts of sadness [ie crying], show acts of happiness [ie laughing]. I'd say plenty of those definitions fit a newborn.

a big HA HA HA again. can you present me a valid proof that newborns cry because they are sad? laugh because they're happy? all of those are emotions. can you show me that newborns have already emotions? true emotions, i mean. all of those you've mentioned are just ways of the infant to communicate what they are feeling right now, and they are comfort and discomfort. smiling and crying can be triggered through the brainstem stimulation. so researchers say that it works the same way as in the case of newborns. their smiling and crying are only triggered by their brainstem due to the absence or presence of some stimulus. therfore newborns doesn't fit on that definition of humans. kindness, empathy, sympathy, distaste, are all of them present already on the newborns?



Then what makes a fetus different then a plant? can you give me just reasons to kill a dandelion that don't also conclude reasons to kill a fetus? Heck even a dandelion is bigger and prettier than a fetus. Yes it matters, becuase something so incredibly dependent on another being to live makes it matter. A newborn has a mind, is learning, is breathing, is creating memories every second it lives, it recognizes it's mother, it's father, will eventually learn painful facts of life, like walking into the coffee table is a bad thing as well as standing up underneath one. Whereas a fetus won't do anything at all till it becomes a newborn. A fetus does nothing in comparison to a real human, though has a chance to become a real human, it is not yet one. The only thing you could conclude about a fetus [I]being a human is that it has homo sapien genetics.

1. simple. a dandelion is a plant, a fetus is a human. plants are easily expendable, humans are not. laws protect humans, not plants.

2. a newborn is also dependent on others. can you tell me it can survive on it's own? even you, can you suvive on your own? a fetus has also a chance to learn, will eventually show emotions, will recognize it's parents someday, and all of the cases you've mentioned that will happen to a newborn. the only difference is that a fetus will learn them months later than a newborn.


I have no idea wat you're trying to say. You just asked a question answered a million times over.

as far as i know, that question is not yet answered because all you do is bring up definitions and draw conclusions to that, which is not valid. what i'm trying to say is bring up facts, not definitions. do you think you can use definions only when making conclusions in case studies or thesis reports?



It's simple, the guy can't rape the girl becuase that will be violating another human being's rights. The girl can abort the fetus, because she can do that within her own rights as a human being, against something that is growing inside her, that many countries do not see as a human being. That's pretty much it. The fetus in our eyes is not a human being, that is why it is illegal to rape a girl, and not abort. [at least in my country]

1. a fetus is not a human, you say? if it's not then what organism it is?

2. i've been telling you that your perception of fetuses as not humans has no basis at all. and perceptions does not matter here as much as morals and religions does not matter. it is subjective. do you make your laws based on your perception? now, my point on fetuses are humans is based on science, not on my perception. do you believe in science?

3. that something that is growing inside the mother is no way a part of the mother. it is a completely different individual. she may have a right over her internal organs, but she has no right to kill a human. if she wants to abort the fetus, she's violating the right to life of the fetus.

geez...this debate has undergone a nasty turn....anyway, u can look anywhere and it wont say a baby inside the mother's womb is a parasite. as i said before, the mother is making a new being in order to continue the line of species. thats the rule of nature. eat, poop, and then reproduce. The last thing a species wants is to go extinct. a parasite as stated above is something that takes from the host and does not give back in any way, shape or form. the baby continues the line and allows the species to continue to survive

well, i see you have a point. see, if they are still continuing to argue about fetus-mother relationship then it follows that it's the same to all mammals. but i haven't seen biology regarding it as parasitism.

LightDreamer
02-03-2006, 10:45 PM
a big HA HA HA again. can you present me a valid proof that newborns cry because they are sad? laugh because they're happy? all of those are emotions. can you show me that newborns have already emotions? true emotions, i mean. all of those you've mentioned are just ways of the infant to communicate what they are feeling right now, and they are comfort and discomfort. smiling and crying can be triggered through the brainstem stimulation. so researchers say that it works the same way as in the case of newborns. their smiling and crying are only triggered by their brainstem due to the absence or presence of some stimulus. therfore newborns doesn't fit on that definition of humans. kindness, empathy, sympathy, distaste, are all of them present already on the newborns?

When a newborn baby comes out of the mother's womb, what is the first thing the doctor does after it cuts the umbilico cord? Spanks the baby, to make it cry, so it starts to breathe. There you have it, the first true human emotion, reaction to pain, which evidentally starts life, life invoked by emotion you could say. When a baby eats a food it doesn't like and makes a face, that is distaste. When a baby wakes up in the middle of the night only to realize that it's alone, it starts to cry, why? Because it's lonely, it's scared. I can't honestly say that babies show all emotions, babies are fairly selfish humans. However, there is a video of me as a baby where my mom is trying to feed me and everytime I put food into my mouth I'd pick up another piece of food from my bowl and shove my hand out to her, giving her some. o.o you could say that's irrelevant, and I don't wanna sound proud by saying it, but I'd say that's a show of some very simple form of kindness. Peek-a-boo with a baby; amusement? Does screaming at a baby not make it cry?


1. simple. a dandelion is a plant, a fetus is a human. plants are easily expendable, humans are not. laws protect humans, not plants.
Yeah? And my laws protect humans, not fetus.


2. a newborn is also dependent on others. can you tell me it can survive on it's own? even you, can you suvive on your own? a fetus has also a chance to learn, will eventually show emotions, will recognize it's parents someday, and all of the cases you've mentioned that will happen to a newborn. the only difference is that a fetus is will learn them months later than a newborn.
A fetus is dependent on a significant single other. A newborn is dependent on other human contact. A fetus has a chance to learn as soon as it becomes a newborn, however it is not a newborn. And you were the one asking me the difference between a newborn and a fetus, and i have told you. A fetus does not do human things, until it is a newborn, before then, it does nothing.


as far as i know, that question is not yet answered because all you do is bring up definitions and draw conclusions to that, which is not valid. what i'm trying to say is bring up facts, not definitions. do you think you can use definions only when making conclusions in case studies or thesis reports?

Facts? What facts? I can't prove to you that fetus aren't human by facts, only by definition, which is obviously wat I'm doing, but you're not satisfied, and that my good man is not my problem. Becuase fetus by definition is not human, but you're all...no way man, definition doesn't mean shit. Fetus are homo sapiens purely by their genetics, and nothing else. I can say shit like that too, I have a chance at being the prime minister one day, I have the chance to become a hobo, I have a chance at getting into Queen's university, I have a chance of flunking all my exams. Hell I have a chance at being a boy if I really felt like it and could come up with them money. However, you can't bring things that 'could happen' into an arguement, you have to bring nows, and presents. Presently, fetus have been proven not to be sentient until 3-4 weeks, meaning though it has a 'chance' to be a newborn baby, it is not yet, in fact thus far it is a clump of genetic cells, that science is able to abort, and thus 'has the chance of never existing'



1. a fetus is not a human, you say? if it's not then what organism it is?
iunno, I don't really care.


2. i've been telling you that your perception of fetuses as not humans has no basis at all. and perceptions does not matter here as much as morals and religions does not matter. it is subjective. do you make your laws based on your perception? now, my point on fetuses are humans is based on science, not on my perception. do you believe in science?

Wtf? what are your 'laws' based off of then? you're not allowed to kill ppl becuase it's bad for the economy? Becuase stats say raping ppl causes overall IQ to go down? What exactly ARE your laws based off of if not perception and morals? Laws here are not built off of MY perception, per say. But they are built off of the perception of a community. Hell, the law in your country saying that abortions are illegal is the 'perception' that fetus are human, and are thus protected by the law. Yet the laws here say fetus are part of the girl, therefore is not protected by the law, and can be aborted; that my friend is the perception of the government, and community and overall majority perception. Not by science and statistics.

Science proves that fetus aren't sentient until 3-4 weeks, science can take an aborted fetus and use it to create specific cells to help a dying human being who already exists, who someone already loves, who someone will hurt terribly to see die. See that's where I think it's sick, ppl are stopping girls from getting abortions becuase they see it as a human life yet lived, but what they don't look at is this 'baby' will be born into a life where the mother doesn't even want it in the first place, the dad could have denied being the biological father, it will grow up in a possibly terribly atmosphere, however the aborted fetus could have been used as stem cell research and help save future lives of people who are already loved dearly, who's loved ones are desperately clinging to the hope that science can save them. Do I believe in science? Yes I do.

You are a very religious fellow. Has science ever proved to you that souls exist? That there is life after death? Or do you just have faith? That killing someone will cause you to go to hell? What again is the reason you disagree with abortion? Ah yes, becuase that's a human spirit you've just stopped, and only god can give and take life. Now, do you believe in science?


3. that something that is growing inside the mother is no way a part of the mother. it is a completely different individual. she may have a right over her internal organs, but she has no right to kill a human. if she wants to abort the fetus, she's violating the right to life of the fetus.

If it is a completely different individual then in no way should it have to rely on the mother, oh woops there's where you're wrong. Sorry, she does have a rights over it, becuase she controls it, she's housing it, it's her body. A baby is a completely different individual becuase it does not rely on one person to live or die. If a pregnant lady dies, does the baby not die with her? Therefore, no it is not yet a completely different individual.

kakashi1300
02-04-2006, 12:17 AM
When a newborn baby comes out of the mother's womb, what is the first thing the doctor does after it cuts the umbilico cord? Spanks the baby, to make it cry, so it starts to breathe. There you have it, the first true human emotion, reaction to pain, which evidentally starts life, life invoked by emotion you could say. When a baby eats a food it doesn't like and makes a face, that is distaste. When a baby wakes up in the middle of the night only to realize that it's alone, it starts to cry, why? Because it's lonely, it's scared. I can't honestly say that babies show all emotions, babies are fairly selfish humans. However, there is a video of me as a baby where my mom is trying to feed me and everytime I put food into my mouth I'd pick up another piece of food from my bowl and shove my hand out to her, giving her some. o.o you could say that's irrelevant, and I don't wanna sound proud by saying it, but I'd say that's a show of some very simple form of kindness. Peek-a-boo with a baby; amusement? Does screaming at a baby not make it cry?

i told you, all of the events you've mentioned aren't really emotions. they're just merely the ways of an infant to communicate. because they can't speak. they can't say "mom, i'm hungry." dogs scream when spanked, they show a facial expression similar to a smile when given food. shout to a dog or cat and they will run away. do they have emotions then? does that make them more human than fetuses? scared? lonely? see, emotions are controlled by our cerebrum. but our cerebrum is not yet functioning to it's fullest during the neonatal stage.


Yeah? And my laws protect humans, not fetus.

fetuses are humans.


A fetus is dependent on a significant single other. A newborn is dependent on other human contact. A fetus has a chance to learn as soon as it becomes a newborn, however it is not a newborn. And you were the one asking me the difference between a newborn and a fetus, and i have told you. A fetus does not do human things, until it is a newborn, before then, it does nothing.

do you think means really matter? the fact remains that we are all dependent for support. newborns, us, fetuses, we are all the same. it's just happens that by it's nature, fetuses are dependent by directly taking from the mother nutrients. as newborns, we are taking the money needed to by for our milk that is supposed to be for other means, such as for the pleasure of the mother. the mother also experience discomforts such as having to wake up at night because our dear baby is crying, we need to prepare milk and change diapers, etc. how is that different from a fetus? aristotle's concept of substance and accidents: substantially, we are all dependent; accidentally we have different means of getting support.



Facts? What facts? I can't prove to you that fetus aren't human by facts, only by definition, which is obviously wat I'm doing, but you're not satisfied, and that my good man is not my problem. Becuase fetus by definition is not human, but you're all...no way man, definition doesn't mean shit. Fetus are homo sapiens purely by their genetics, and nothing else. I can say shit like that too, I have a chance at being the prime minister one day, I have the chance to become a hobo, I have a chance at getting into Queen's university, I have a chance of flunking all my exams. Hell I have a chance at being a boy if I really felt like it and could come up with them money. However, you can't bring things that 'could happen' into an arguement, you have to bring nows, and presents. Presently, fetus have been proven not to be sentient until 3-4 weeks, meaning though it has a 'chance' to be a newborn baby, it is not yet, in fact thus far it is a clump of genetic cells, that science is able to abort, and thus 'has the chance of never existing'

aren't we all made up of "clumps of genetic cells"? what makes it different? we have all chances of being killed, you, me, newborns, all of us has a chance of not existing. a fetus existed, so you cannot say it "never existed". and definitions really are useless because philosophy, biology, politics, and other fields of study have different definitions of a same term. i dunno where was your definition based.


Wtf? what are your 'laws' based off of then? you're not allowed to kill ppl becuase it's bad for the economy? Becuase stats say raping ppl causes overall IQ to go down? What exactly ARE your laws based off of if not perception and morals? Laws here are not built off of MY perception, per say. But they are built off of the perception of a community. Hell, the law in your country saying that abortions are illegal is the 'perception' that fetus are human, and are thus protected by the law. Yet the laws here say fetus are part of the girl, therefore is not protected by the law, and can be aborted; that my friend is the perception of the government, and community and overall majority perception. Not by science and statistics.

i don't think it is because of the "general perception" of the government or people that the abortion law is created. review the case of roe vs. wade.


Science proves that fetus aren't sentient until 3-4 weeks, science can take an aborted fetus and use it to create specific cells to help a dying human being who already exists, who someone already loves, who someone will hurt terribly to see die. See that's where I think it's sick, ppl are stopping girls from getting abortions becuase they see it as a human life yet lived, but what they don't look at is this 'baby' will be born into a life where the mother doesn't even want it in the first place, the dad could have denied being the biological father, it will grow up in a possibly terribly atmosphere, however the aborted fetus could have been used as stem cell research and help save future lives of people who are already loved dearly, who's loved ones are desperately clinging to the hope that science can save them. Do I believe in science? Yes I do.

so, you're saying sentience matters? since it's not sentient it's worth expendable? chickens, pigs, and cows are sentient, therefore they should be protected against slaughtering? guinea pigs are sentient, therefore we should create laws against using them as research specimen that involves killing them? and besides, in that stem-cell research thing, no need to cry out the significance of the project in the future because first of all adult cells can be used which will not result in killing them.


You are a very religious fellow. Has science ever proved to you that souls exist? That there is life after death? Or do you just have faith? That killing someone will cause you to go to hell? What again is the reason you disagree with abortion? Ah yes, becuase that's a human spirit you've just stopped, and only god can give and take life. Now, do you believe in science?

i believe in God, i believe in science. they are not opposite things so you can't tell me that i should choose only one. now, most of you here (i dunno about you) said that in debating this thing we should not use religion, morals, or ethics. so i just played their game and used science instead to defend my belief. even catholic leaders debating on this topic used science to defend their point.


If it is a completely different individual then in no way should it have to rely on the mother, oh woops there's where you're wrong. Sorry, she does have a rights over it, becuase she controls it, she's housing it, it's her body. A baby is a completely different individual becuase it does not rely on one person to live or die. If a pregnant lady dies, does the baby not die with her? Therefore, no it is not yet a completely different individual.

it's not her body. it just happens that it is residing inside the mother accidentally, but substantially it's an individual already (aristotle's concept of substance and accidents). and there are chances where the mother dies but the fetuses live to see daylight (esp. if they reach the 6th month). the fetus is not part of her body. if it is then what particular part of her body? what organ? what tissue?

LightDreamer
02-04-2006, 01:35 AM
i told you, all of the events you've mentioned aren't really emotions. they're just merely the ways of an infant to communicate. because they can't speak. they can't say "mom, i'm hungry." dogs scream when spanked, they show a facial expression similar to a smile when given food. shout to a dog or cat and they will run away. do they have emotions then? does that make them more human than fetuses? scared? lonely? see, emotions are controlled by our cerebrum. but our cerebrum is not yet functioning to it's fullest during the neonatal stage.
o.O wat are you talking about...all humans communicate with emotions. that's a fact. Angry face, communicates that you're angry? Get it?

FACT:Humans read body language before they read wat the actual person says. Body language is 80% more read then actual words. When a boyfriend asks a girlfriend 'Are you okay?' and the girlfriend crosses her arms and glares at him putting her weight on one foot and says 'I'm fine.' Is she fine? Body language = form of communication. Therefore you yourself just proved infants are humans, where as plants and fetus and many other animals cannot communicate on this much higher level.


fetuses are humans.
Fetus have human genetics, but lack in human characteristics.


do you think means really matter? the fact remains that we are all dependent for support. newborns, us, fetuses, we are all the same. it's just happens that by it's nature, fetuses are dependent by directly taking from the mother nutrients. as newborns, we are taking the money needed to by for our milk that is supposed to be for other means, such as for the pleasure of the mother. the mother also experience discomforts such as having to wake up at night because our dear baby is crying, we need to prepare milk and change diapers, etc. how is that different from a fetus? aristotle's concept of substance and accidents: substantially, we are all dependent; accidentally we have different means of getting support.

I already answered that; yes. A mother who wakes up in the middle of the night just to hold a crying baby, had the baby intentionally. How much support do you think an unwanted baby will get?


aren't we all made up of "clumps of genetic cells"? what makes it different? we have all chances of being killed, you, me, newborns, all of us has a chance of not existing. a fetus existed, so you cannot say it "never existed". and definitions really are useless because philosophy, biology, politics, and other fields of study have different definitions of a same term. i dunno where was your definition based.
Yes, the difference is we are loved. Fetus aren't, obviously that's why the mom wants an abortion. A human being never existed,a fetus did. Fine, tell me what is the definition of a human in philisophical, biological, and political terms? Hmm? And where exactly does your fetus fit in? Not in philisophical terms, maybe in biological terms, but in my country, not in political terms either.



i don't think it is because of the "general perception" of the government or people that the abortion law is created. review the case of roe vs. wade.

Laws are created so people follow the communities general idea of 'moral vs. immoral'.



so, you're saying sentience matters? since it's not sentient it's worth expendable? chickens, pigs, and cows are sentient, therefore they should be protected against slaughtering? guinea pigs are sentient, therefore we should create laws against using them as research specimen that involves killing them? and besides, in that stem-cell research thing, no need to cry out the significance of the project in the future because first of all adult cells can be used which will not result in killing them.

Fine, you've just further strengthened my point. We can slaughter chickens, pigs, and cows, but you won't let us remove a fetus, that is either loved less or the same as a chicken or cow, and is not sentient. Bravo. 2 joined sex cells are more important, then an animal with a heart. They don't put anesthetics in the animals before they slaughter them you know -_-'


i believe in God, i believe in science. they are not opposite things so you can't tell me that i should choose only one. now, most of you here (i dunno about you) said that in debating this thing we should not use religion, morals, or ethics. so i just played their game and used science instead to defend my belief. even catholic leaders debating on this topic used science to defend their point.
I'm not saying you can't believe in both. The point is you can't use science to prove me wrong, when you're using a religious belief as a point in your arguement. Especially when they contradict. How do you know human's have souls and animals don't? and then tell me that fetus are human. Well I believe fetus aren't human, and I believe if there are such things as souls than animals have them too. Where are your facts?


it's not her body. it just happens that it is residing inside the mother accidentally, but substantially it's an individual already (aristotle's concept of substance and accidents). and there are chances where the mother dies but the fetuses live to see daylight (esp. if they reach the 6th month). the fetus is not part of her body. if it is then what particular part of her body? what organ? what tissue?

Okay a pimple, it is not a vital organ, it's just attached to your skin, it just collects dirt inside of it and sits there. is it still a part of your body? I think so. A baby, not a vital organ, just attached to your umbilico cord, it just sits there and creates more cells. Is it a part of your body? I think so. Well not your body cause you're a guy but you get my point.

Xei
02-04-2006, 02:02 AM
abortion.... in a country i knew it wasn't new to see a fetus thrown in garbages. yakkk!!! i never could imagine how could they do that. an innocent child!!! that's already breathing. it has life!!! Uhhhh..... my blood boils!!!

kumukulo and dugo ko!!

kakashi1300
02-04-2006, 03:19 AM
o.O wat are you talking about...all humans communicate with emotions. that's a fact. Angry face, communicates that you're angry? Get it?

FACT:Humans read body language before they read wat the actual person says. Body language is 80% more read then actual words. When a boyfriend asks a girlfriend 'Are you okay?' and the girlfriend crosses her arms and glares at him putting her weight on one foot and says 'I'm fine.' Is she fine? Body language = form of communication. Therefore you yourself just proved infants are humans, where as plants and fetus and many other animals cannot communicate on this much higher level.

really? well, the fact that you have given me only refers to body language as a form of communication. i agree on that. a smiling face show a happy emotion. but what if i turn hypocrytical and hide my emotion? see, we do not always communicate with emotions. and as i've explained, infants do not have emotions at first. their cries and smiles are just due to the presence or absence of certain stimuli that trigger them. they are just considered "body movements, not emotions". in fact, some researchers say that babies sometimes appear smiling because of muscular cramps on their cheeks. and didn't you know, fetuses are also already moving? they show certain movements like opening their mouths, and limbs, can already be seen. isn't it somehow a way of communication?


Fetus have human genetics, but lack in human characteristics.

what's the difference? do you think newborns already posses the FULL characteristics of humans? it has to be full. if not then it's not human.



I already answered that; yes. A mother who wakes up in the middle of the night just to hold a crying baby, had the baby intentionally. How much support do you think an unwanted baby will get?

i've heard of many cases wherein an unwanted child during pregnancy turns out being wanted at birth. it's not always the case.


Yes, the difference is we are loved. Fetus aren't, obviously that's why the mom wants an abortion. A human being never existed,a fetus did. Fine, tell me what is the definition of a human in philisophical, biological, and political terms? Hmm? And where exactly does your fetus fit in? Not in philisophical terms, maybe in biological terms, but in my country, not in political terms either.

oh, so if you don't love someone he's expendable, is that what it means? do you think all the people in this world has someone loving them? if none then are they expendable too?




Laws are created so people follow the communities general idea of 'moral vs. immoral'.

laws are created to fullfill our needs as rational and as human beings. morality is subjective.




Fine, you've just further strengthened my point. We can slaughter chickens, pigs, and cows, but you won't let us remove a fetus, that is either loved less or the same as a chicken or cow, and is not sentient. Bravo. 2 joined sex cells are more important, then an animal with a heart. They don't put anesthetics in the animals before they slaughter them you know -_-'

sentient or not sentient, a human is more important than animals. i could care less killing a cow than killing a fetus. humans and animals should never be equated, because we are rational and animals are irrational.


I'm not saying you can't believe in both. The point is you can't use science to prove me wrong, when you're using a religious belief as a point in your arguement. Especially when they contradict. How do you know human's have souls and animals don't? and then tell me that fetus are human. Well I believe fetus aren't human, and I believe if there are such things as souls than animals have them too. Where are your facts?

quote me pointing that humans have souls, and using a religious argument. still, i believe humans have souls but am i using them to counter your arguments? i have already given you tons of facts. you're just too lazy to read them.



Okay a pimple, it is not a vital organ, it's just attached to your skin, it just collects dirt inside of it and sits there. is it still a part of your body? I think so. A baby, not a vital organ, just attached to your umbilico cord, it just sits there and creates more cells. Is it a part of your body? I think so. Well not your body cause you're a guy but you get my point.

how about a hookworm. it's attached to your intestines, sucking blood. is it part of you? a virus enters you body and invaded your cells, therefore multiplying itself many times. is it part of you? see, pimples, strictly speaking, is not an organ, but part of an organ, because it is made up of skin cells, too. the difference is just it contains bacteria also, causing it to swell. if a fetus is part of the body then what part is it specifically? what organ if it's part of an organ?

Azumi
02-04-2006, 03:47 AM
When a newborn baby comes out of the mother's womb, what is the first thing the doctor does after it cuts the umbilico cord? Spanks the baby, to make it cry, so it starts to breathe. There you have it, the first true human emotion, reaction to pain, which evidentally starts life, life invoked by emotion you could say. When a baby eats a food it doesn't like and makes a face, that is distaste. When a baby wakes up in the middle of the night only to realize that it's alone, it starts to cry, why? Because it's lonely, it's scared. I can't honestly say that babies show all emotions, babies are fairly selfish humans. However, there is a video of me as a baby where my mom is trying to feed me and everytime I put food into my mouth I'd pick up another piece of food from my bowl and shove my hand out to her, giving her some. o.o you could say that's irrelevant, and I don't wanna sound proud by saying it, but I'd say that's a show of some very simple form of kindness. Peek-a-boo with a baby; amusement? Does screaming at a baby not make it cry?


lmao
the baby cry after he realize he was out the womb not beacause he was scared on what the doctor had done to him, but because the baby feel a new environment. READ with me: BABIES HAVE FEELINGS EVEN INSIDE THE WOMB. you know why there's freud's psychoanalytic theory? and know why there's transactional theory? or gestalt? it's beacuse what the baby felt inside the womb for a number of months affect his personality when he grew up. BABIES FEEL WHAT'S GOING ON OUTSIDE. not literary that he feel his mother walking, or his his dad calling the dog, but he feels it if his mother is exhausted or if his mother is depressed. now if you want to argue with that, better watch Discovery Channel first about human fetus.

GAma_Oyabun
02-04-2006, 09:31 AM
i think i get what u guys are tryin to say. i mostly agree with kakashi though. babies are born with only the primitive side of man. so to speak they have no idea what they are doing. pain causes something in the nerves that triggers u to cry out and shed tears. it not because the baby feels bad. the baby needs to learn these things later on. thats why the baby experiments. it smiles and it sees that u seem happy about that. when it cries u feed it. i mean him. lol i said it. so sad. wtvr. anyway back to my point... babies need to figure out these emotions as they grow. in my opinion i think the first thing the baby realises is that he is happy. u give him something to eat and all of a sudden his brain clicks and he gets this feeling. other reasons that babies have these emotions later is because their brain is less developed. the nerves are still connecting and reconnecting. even a babies vision is upside down until one or two months later.

Glaiza_mei
02-04-2006, 10:00 AM
hello there! well, i'm against abortion period XD

Rockshmo
02-04-2006, 05:59 PM
Kakashi, I'm going into College.. I really don't need Year 1 Biology lessons from you.

Just because Humans contain 46 chromosomes (not 46 sets, it's 23 from the mother and 23 from the father, genius) doesn't necessarily mean any being that contains the same amount of chromosomes is "Human." And what about those that are born with a lack in chromosomes or too many, down syndrome for instance, when the child obtains an extra chromosome from either the mother or father are they not "human" because they don't have exactly 46 chromosomes? Because that's basically what you're saying.. and no I'm not going to read that link you posted because I think I'm done with this debate. Way too much garbage to read through..

GAma_Oyabun
02-04-2006, 11:08 PM
lol, im already in college and im younger than u,so both of u dont give me that!
:) not talking to u rochshmo cuz im supposed to repect my elders...rofl

kakashi1300
02-05-2006, 03:31 AM
Kakashi, I'm going into College.. I really don't need Year 1 Biology lessons from you.

Just because Humans contain 46 chromosomes (not 46 sets, it's 23 from the mother and 23 from the father, genius) doesn't necessarily mean any being that contains the same amount of chromosomes is "Human." And what about those that are born with a lack in chromosomes or too many, down syndrome for instance, when the child obtains an extra chromosome from either the mother or father are they not "human" because they don't have exactly 46 chromosomes? Because that's basically what you're saying.. and no I'm not going to read that link you posted because I think I'm done with this debate. Way too much garbage to read through..

bullshit! just admit you're too lazy for that. or you're afraid that THAT might be a bombshell right your ass. well, i even hate debating people who are too arrogant who believe themselves to be extraordinary when the fact that they're not. what made you think i'm giving you biology 1 lessons? we're on a debate! i don't know how much knowledge or crap are into your mind so if i am to give a fact, i'll assume you don't know it. and yeah, you're right. we're done talking. i'll just ask you not to quote this or any other of my posts. i cannot debate with a person who doesn't know how to debate.

but of course i need to answer first the things that are on topic. yes, sometimes there are cases like that. but what i'm saying is that those 46 chromosomes contain the genetic code that define a human. in those genetic abnormalities mentioned even if one is missing or altered, still it will result to a human. even if a frog could contain 46 chromosomes or a baboon contain the same thing their genetic code is very different from us. but those genetic codes are already present in fetuses. you might be forgetting the real purpose of our chromosomes.

p.s. the 2nd paragraph is not really meant for you. it's for others. i'm really trying hard to be as polite and friendly as possible but i'm quite getting tired of you.

i think i get what u guys are tryin to say. i mostly agree with kakashi though. babies are born with only the primitive side of man. so to speak they have no idea what they are doing. pain causes something in the nerves that triggers u to cry out and shed tears. it not because the baby feels bad. the baby needs to learn these things later on. thats why the baby experiments. it smiles and it sees that u seem happy about that. when it cries u feed it. i mean him. lol i said it. so sad. wtvr. anyway back to my point... babies need to figure out these emotions as they grow. in my opinion i think the first thing the baby realises is that he is happy. u give him something to eat and all of a sudden his brain clicks and he gets this feeling. other reasons that babies have these emotions later is because their brain is less developed. the nerves are still connecting and reconnecting. even a babies vision is upside down until one or two months later.

and that is what they're too blinded about. i mean we all go under development. our humanly characteristics not yet present during our younger days will eventually come as we age. newborns lack human characteristics just like fetuses. how come killing it is illegal while killing a fetus will be legal?

Azumi
02-05-2006, 10:15 PM
Just because Humans contain 46 chromosomes (not 46 sets, it's 23 from the mother and 23 from the father, genius) doesn't necessarily mean any being that contains the same amount of chromosomes is "Human." And what about those that are born with a lack in chromosomes or too many, down syndrome for instance, when the child obtains an extra chromosome from either the mother or father are they not "human" because they don't have exactly 46 chromosomes? Because that's basically what you're saying.. and no I'm not going to read that link you posted because I think I'm done with this debate. Way too much garbage to read through..

what, you're talking about mutants?
even though humans lack chromosomes doesnt mean they are not humans. when we say lack of chromosomes, either a pair lacks from the mother, or from the father. that's why we have gays and lesbians. but all of them have the same 46 chromosomes, only, not evenly distributed(lack of words to describe)...