Pro Life, or Pro Choice?

@0Megabyte,

0Megabyte;14523 wrote:

You know, I had a long post arguing you point for point, but forget it.

You support chaining people to walls and making them support other humans, regardless of their wishes.

You wish to punish people for things that are not crimes.

You deride the rights of other PEOPLE, and claim they are fake.

You claim truth is propaganda, and twist history to suit your false beliefs.

Instead of seeing objective truth, you continue living in a subjective, moralistic fantasy world.

I can't talk to you. You're evil. We have no common ground.

Thank God this country's society is built up the way it is, for if we were in a state of nature the only possibility when you encounter someone who holds no common ground with you, and whose beliefs and goals exactly contradict your own is conflict.

I take this to mean you either have a problem with me trying to debunk your perfection or I'm right and you can't argue against that. You know, you were actually pretty good, I've debated worse. Then you had to go and pull out the insult list.

Support other humans? Are you for real? It's a baby damnit, and their own baby, so yeah, they have to support it. It's not my problem you have no freakin' heart.

Sorry people disagree with you and, God forbid, want to vote for people that hold they're own views.

There's no abortion right or gay marriage right if that's what you mean.

As for the evil thing... I guess you've figured me out. I am evil... very evil. Roar.

We don't have common ground you're right. I live in the real world where most Americans are against abortion in some way, you, apparantley, live in a liberal convent where you talk to Jesuits about how the Bible sucks and search the fine print of the Constitution for rules about gay marriage and abortion.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;14541 wrote:

I live in the real world where most Americans are against abortion in some way,.

any way to back that statement up?

1 Reply

@LukeN,

I agree with Brian pretty much 99%. I don't believe everyone on welfare is a handout, some people actually can't work.

And I really like the celebrities adopting foreign kids comment, I was railing about this at work the other day. Fix America, then worry about the rest of the world. There's plenty of adoptable children in America for Angelia to plant a sloppy collagen goodnight kiss on.

I've always found it funny that most arguments about abortion are between men that have never and will never be able to bear children. You really have no say in it, other than wanting to enforce some religious bullshit beliefs on someone elses body. When the clump of cells can survive outside the womb than it can be an issue, till then it's the womans descision.

0 Replies

@LukeN,

Quote:

I've always found it funny that most arguments about abortion are between men that have never and will never be able to bear children.

Why does that negate us from the arguement? With out us there are no children to bear. You do not consider being responcible for it's physical well being pre and post natle child bearing? The female is a host of the sex they have shared, it is an intended result. The object of there infectious act is to conceive a child. Both at minimum are invested 50/50 if they are supposedly equal under the law. As most opinions go on this and other forums, most will let the female have the deciding factor. This IMO is not equal. The male is being discrimnated against because he does not physically carry the child nine months prenatle. But most do a fine job postnatel for a law required 18 years? Would you not agree that a male in this situation would be at least 50% responcible, no matter what she/they decide to do with what may eventualy be a human being?

Quote:

till then it's the womans descision.

If that were so then the man would be totally free of financial responcibility, before and after the fact. And as we all know, that is NOT so!

1 Reply

@LukeN,

Actually today women can have children without men. They are called artificially inseminated pregnancies. I agree with you, the responsibilities after and during child birth give men a right to have just as must "authority" in the fate of the child in question.

1 Reply

@markx15,

markx15;14602 wrote:

Actually today women can have children without men. They are called artificially inseminated pregnancies. I agree with you, the responsibilities after and during child birth give men a right to have just as must "authority" in the fate of the child in question.

think about what you just said. in no way can a child be born without both a woman and a man.

0 Replies

@LukeN,

Why not be able to legally kill the babe outside the womb? In? Out? What's the difference

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;14600 wrote:

Why does that negate us from the arguement? With out us there are no children to bear. You do not consider being responcible for it's physical well being pre and post natle child bearing? The female is a host of the sex they have shared, it is an intended result. The object of there infectious act is to conceive a child. Both at minimum are invested 50/50 if they are supposedly equal under the law. As most opinions go on this and other forums, most will let the female have the deciding factor. This IMO is not equal. The male is being discrimnated against because he does not physically carry the child nine months prenatle. But most do a fine job postnatel for a law required 18 years? Would you not agree that a male in this situation would be at least 50% responcible, no matter what she/they decide to do with what may eventualy be a human being?

50/50? Not even close. Just because a man bust a nut in some chick doesn't mean he is half of the process of child birth. Conception, yes. As far as responsibility postnatel, it is irrelevent till the birth has occured, hence postnatal. No matter how responsible some fathers are after birth, it doesn't negate the fact that many would be parents are irresponsible, and not capable of caring for a child. I personally don't see the point of bringing another child into this world if it isn't going to be cared for, simply because it's "immoral" to terminate the pregnancy.

Quote:

If that were so then the man would be totally free of financial responcibility, before and after the fact. And as we all know, that is NOT so!

Since many men think they are, instead of sticking the would be mother with it, than she should reserve the option to terminate. If there is a responsible father waiting in the wings than this really isn't an issue, as more than likely the pregnancy will be carried to term anyway. It's a fact that condoms break, birth control fails, women get raped, niave women are taken advantage of etc...

0 Replies

@NOOTRAC22,

NOOTRAC22;14586 wrote:

any way to back that statement up?

Yes. Two 2005 polls:

Los Angeles Times Poll:
This was taken on 2005-JAN-14 to 18. They asked 1,118 randomly selected American adults the question: "Which comes closest to your view on abortion: abortion should always be legal, or should be legal most of the time, or should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life, or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?"

Results:

41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
24% favored making abortion always legal
19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
12% favored making abortion totally illegal.

Margin of error ?3% percentage points.

CBS News Poll:
This was taken on 2005-MAR-21 & 22. They asked 737 randomly selected American adults the question: "Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."

Results:

37% favor stricter limits.
35% favor general availability.
25% favor no abortion access.

Margin of error ?4

1 Reply

@LukeN,

Quote:

I personally don't see the point of bringing another child into this world if it isn't going to be cared for, simply because it's "immoral" to terminate the pregnancy.

I'm sure the child would rather live if you could ask it's opinion.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;14624 wrote:

I'm sure the child would rather live if you could ask it's opinion.

But, since it hasn't formed into a conscience, self sustaining being yet, you can't.

0 Replies

@LukeN,

Any animal wants to live, even if they can't tell you. The child has a brain very soon after conception and surelyw would have the basic desire to live, as manifested by the perpetual carrying out of life processes.

2 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;14630 wrote:

Any animal wants to live, even if they can't tell you. The child has a brain very soon after conception and surelyw would have the basic desire to live, as manifested by the perpetual carrying out of life processes.

Well, humans can be in a constant vegatative state with no hope of recovery and still have chemically functional processes. Of course no one will ever know if there is a conscienceness or not.

One question though, how many of the prolifers in this thread actually have a child? A pregnant spouse or girlfriend?

0 Replies

@LukeN,

Quote:

Well, humans can be in a constant vegatative state with no hope of recovery and still have chemically functional processes. Of course no one will ever know if there is a conscienceness or not.

However their brain would have to be at least semifunctional for the processes to be carried out. If the person did not have the fundamental instinct to live, these processes would not happen (I'm not talking about living wills that are usually made if the person is horrified at the thought of being in such a pitiful state or putting costs on their family.)

No child here.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;14633 wrote:

However their brain would have to be at least semifunctional for the processes to be carried out. If the person did not have the fundamental instinct to live, these processes would not happen.

Chemical reaction to enviromental input doesn't mean there is a will to live present.

0 Replies

@LukeN,

It is not a will to live, but an instinct.

0 Replies

@LukeN,

Earthworms have instinct to recoil from something that would do them harm, as matter of fact, very few creatures in nature don't. I don't see anyone abhorring the use of earthworms when we stab them with a hook and throw them callously into the water to be eaten during their last painful moments alive. If we are talking about instinct, a few of natures mothers abandon or straight kill their young when the situation calls for it, at least with abortion the act is carried out before a fully conscience being is born.

0 Replies

@LukeN,

But they are earthworms and the fetus is human.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;14623 wrote:

Yes. Two 2005 polls:

Los Angeles Times Poll:
This was taken on 2005-JAN-14 to 18. They asked 1,118 randomly selected American adults the question: "Which comes closest to your view on abortion: abortion should always be legal, or should be legal most of the time, or should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life, or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?"

Results:

41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
24% favored making abortion always legal
19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
12% favored making abortion totally illegal.

Margin of error ?3% percentage points.

CBS News Poll:
This was taken on 2005-MAR-21 & 22. They asked 737 randomly selected American adults the question: "Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."

Results:

37% favor stricter limits.
35% favor general availability.
25% favor no abortion access.

Margin of error ?4

How does that equate to "most" Americans when that isn't even the population of the high school I went to? Maybe most of the newspapers readers that were asked thought so, but that is so far from an actual cross section of what "most" of America thinks it isn't even funny.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;14639 wrote:

But they are earthworms and the fetus is human.

Right, but don't you think the other earthworms in the can are sitting around in absolute horror as their friend is being mecrilessly put to death? Relating to your own species is natural, I know where you're coming from, but it just doesn't stick.

0 Replies

Pro Life, or Pro Choice?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know