Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Jepeto87
Member
+38|5770|Dublin
What about rape victims? Should they be forced to have the child..

Abortions are more like wasted potiential than murder in my opinion. People who say "Hey Jep what if you were aborted you'd never get to rant on online forums!" but id never expect anything from life, ignorance is bliss if you get me?

Being aborted would be like winning the lottery but never knew you had, you wouldn be disappointed.

Im pro-choice/abortion but it still pisses me off to see people having several abortion, there just idiot but then idiots shouldnt raise children.

Cheers.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5801
agree w/ u on rape victims, i think abortion should only be availible to rape victims and teens who had sex w/o condom... sometimes thats a major mistake
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|5732

Spark wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Spark wrote:


Between the fetus and the woman? The fetus should die. Becuase IF the MOTHER dies, there's a good chance the baby will die too. Your 'hope for the best' would destroy the chance of the mother ever giving birth again.
Well, if the mother goes through with it, the baby would live. The mothers death does not mean the childs death.
WTF? If the mother dies, then the baby has no life support. End.

For those who say that a fetus is not a living person, what would you define it as?

It is a living entity of cells with human DNA.  So, I would considder a fetus a person.
I would say the same. So you have no problem with mass murdering animals by the thousand, but you have a problem with killing ONE unborn baby?
Animals are not humans. By that theory it is ok to kill humans at any stage of life.
herrr_smity
Member
+156|5713|space command ur anus

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:


Well, if the mother goes through with it, the baby would live. The mothers death does not mean the childs death.
WTF? If the mother dies, then the baby has no life support. End.

For those who say that a fetus is not a living person, what would you define it as?

It is a living entity of cells with human DNA.  So, I would considder a fetus a person.
I would say the same. So you have no problem with mass murdering animals by the thousand, but you have a problem with killing ONE unborn baby?
Animals are not humans. By that theory it is ok to kill humans at any stage of life.
what about cutting your hair. A strain of hair has human DNA. a fetus is NOT a sentient being its no more then a cluster of cells.
And you better not be masturbating small "humans" comes out at the end.
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|5732

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

dubbs wrote:

I have a question for all the people that are for abortion.
I don't think anyone here is "for abortion" (I may be wrong though)

dubbs wrote:

If the soon to be mother is killed, and the fetus also dies, the killer is charged with two counts of muder.  That law is saying that a fetus is a person and can be killed.  Tell me what the difference is when a mother willingly allows a doctor to kill the fetus inside of her?  Why do people overlook some laws, and try to justify other ones?
The law that defines a fetus as a living being for murder was created over 25 years after Roe v. Wade.  A woman's right to dictate the outcome of her pregnancy is seen as a human right in the American culture.  You are not a woman, you do not know what it is like to carry a living being inside of you.  It is easy to sit back and say, "I'm Pro-Life, killing babies is bad."  Everyone agrees babies should not be killed.  Reality is, some people cannot afford to bring offspring into this world.  All you people that are "pro-life/anti-abortion," can you afford to take another human into your household?  If so, then do it.  If not, then you know the situation some people are in.

Edit: I just noticed I rambled a little, must be the beers talkin'
Again, this has NO impact on whether abortion should be legal or not. Stop playing the only a certain life is worth living card. It doesn't fly.
XanKrieger
iLurk
+60|5743|Bournemouth Uni
Ok my fetal experience is something like this, No concious thought until i was THREE!, considering i was a second attempt due to miscarrage i would have to say pro-choice because:

The be a living entity you must understand or have a sense of exsistance, now i dunno about you guys but did you have the power of thought or self will between conception and the age of 2? i'm not saying we should kill 1-2 yr olds but early pregnacies yes as technicaly from a philosopical standing the fetus isnt a living being but rather a object in development and to abort would or could be considered a form of euthanasia as the child may be unloved and so on.

I'm dislexic fyi
dubbs
Member
+105|5717|Lexington, KY

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

dubbs wrote:

I have a question for all the people that are for abortion.
I don't think anyone here is "for abortion" (I may be wrong though)

dubbs wrote:

If the soon to be mother is killed, and the fetus also dies, the killer is charged with two counts of muder.  That law is saying that a fetus is a person and can be killed.  Tell me what the difference is when a mother willingly allows a doctor to kill the fetus inside of her?  Why do people overlook some laws, and try to justify other ones?
The law that defines a fetus as a living being for murder was created over 25 years after Roe v. Wade.  A woman's right to dictate the outcome of her pregnancy is seen as a human right in the American culture.  You are not a woman, you do not know what it is like to carry a living being inside of you.  It is easy to sit back and say, "I'm Pro-Life, killing babies is bad."  Everyone agrees babies should not be killed.  Reality is, some people cannot afford to bring offspring into this world.  All you people that are "pro-life/anti-abortion," can you afford to take another human into your household?  If so, then do it.  If not, then you know the situation some people are in.

Edit: I just noticed I rambled a little, must be the beers talkin'
The law that I am talking about is still in effect today.  It was not erased from the "books" after the Roe v. Wade case.  Look for Ashley Lyons, she was killed when she was pregnant, her boyfriend was charged with two count of murder, from what I understand.  This happend recently in Kentucky, not within the 25 years before the Roe v. Wade case.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|5747|USA

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:


Well, if the mother goes through with it, the baby would live. The mothers death does not mean the childs death.
WTF? If the mother dies, then the baby has no life support. End.

For those who say that a fetus is not a living person, what would you define it as?

It is a living entity of cells with human DNA.  So, I would considder a fetus a person.
I would say the same. So you have no problem with mass murdering animals by the thousand, but you have a problem with killing ONE unborn baby?
Animals are not humans. By that theory it is ok to kill humans at any stage of life.
Humans ARE Animals.....
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|5747|USA

dubbs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

dubbs wrote:

I have a question for all the people that are for abortion.
I don't think anyone here is "for abortion" (I may be wrong though)

dubbs wrote:

If the soon to be mother is killed, and the fetus also dies, the killer is charged with two counts of muder.  That law is saying that a fetus is a person and can be killed.  Tell me what the difference is when a mother willingly allows a doctor to kill the fetus inside of her?  Why do people overlook some laws, and try to justify other ones?
The law that defines a fetus as a living being for murder was created over 25 years after Roe v. Wade.  A woman's right to dictate the outcome of her pregnancy is seen as a human right in the American culture.  You are not a woman, you do not know what it is like to carry a living being inside of you.  It is easy to sit back and say, "I'm Pro-Life, killing babies is bad."  Everyone agrees babies should not be killed.  Reality is, some people cannot afford to bring offspring into this world.  All you people that are "pro-life/anti-abortion," can you afford to take another human into your household?  If so, then do it.  If not, then you know the situation some people are in.

Edit: I just noticed I rambled a little, must be the beers talkin'
The law that I am talking about is still in effect today.  It was not erased from the "books" after the Roe v. Wade case.  Look for Ashley Lyons, she was killed when she was pregnant, her boyfriend was charged with two count of murder, from what I understand.  This happend recently in Kentucky, not within the 25 years before the Roe v. Wade case.
Most states have 14 week maximum carriage to abortion....meaning after 14 weeks its a bit too late for a mother to abort by law. Ms Lyons was in her 22nd week so I would surmise that is the consideration for charging the felon with 2 murders. Though I would bet if she were 10 weeks or 14 weeks pregnant the assailant would STILL be charged for both murders. Just due to the fact that it is a brutal crime.

Congratulations! You have stumbled upon yet ANOTHER gray area of the abortion issue.
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|5732

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Well, if the mother goes through with it, the baby would live. The mothers death does not mean the childs death.
WTF? If the mother dies, then the baby has no life support. End.


I would say the same. So you have no problem with mass murdering animals by the thousand, but you have a problem with killing ONE unborn baby?
Animals are not humans. By that theory it is ok to kill humans at any stage of life.
Humans ARE Animals.....
You must be a vegetarian. I'm guessing you have never killed a bug either... MURDERER!!!

Are you seriously comparing human rights to be equal to animals?
pers0nah
Waste Kid
+271|5667|MANCHESTERRR
Im in favour of the decision. A baby can either make life better or worse and if you arnt ready to have a baby then why put yourself through it? plus the fact, YOU ARE NOT going to be the best mother u possibly can because your heart isnt in it.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|5747|USA

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:


Animals are not humans. By that theory it is ok to kill humans at any stage of life.
Humans ARE Animals.....
You must be a vegetarian. I'm guessing you have never killed a bug either... MURDERER!!!

Are you seriously comparing human rights to be equal to animals?
NO man. Read further back...I am PRO_CHOICE....and for the killing of animals...Im hungry.

Im just stating a fact....Humans are Mammals. Mammals are animals. It is fact. Just saying.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,926|5717|949

dubbs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

dubbs wrote:

I have a question for all the people that are for abortion.
I don't think anyone here is "for abortion" (I may be wrong though)

dubbs wrote:

If the soon to be mother is killed, and the fetus also dies, the killer is charged with two counts of muder.  That law is saying that a fetus is a person and can be killed.  Tell me what the difference is when a mother willingly allows a doctor to kill the fetus inside of her?  Why do people overlook some laws, and try to justify other ones?
The law that defines a fetus as a living being for murder was created over 25 years after Roe v. Wade.  A woman's right to dictate the outcome of her pregnancy is seen as a human right in the American culture.  You are not a woman, you do not know what it is like to carry a living being inside of you.  It is easy to sit back and say, "I'm Pro-Life, killing babies is bad."  Everyone agrees babies should not be killed.  Reality is, some people cannot afford to bring offspring into this world.  All you people that are "pro-life/anti-abortion," can you afford to take another human into your household?  If so, then do it.  If not, then you know the situation some people are in.

Edit: I just noticed I rambled a little, must be the beers talkin'
The law that I am talking about is still in effect today.  It was not erased from the "books" after the Roe v. Wade case.  Look for Ashley Lyons, she was killed when she was pregnant, her boyfriend was charged with two count of murder, from what I understand.  This happend recently in Kentucky, not within the 25 years before the Roe v. Wade case.
Look at what I posted...."The law that defines a fetus as a living being for murder was created over 25 years after Roe v. Wade."  Thank you for misreading my post.  Makes you look ignorant, which I don't think you are.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-24 12:58:33)

KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,926|5717|949

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Again, this has NO impact on whether abortion should be legal or not. Stop playing the only a certain life is worth living card. It doesn't fly.
I never said a only a certain life is worth living.  I said that some people cannot take care of a baby financially.  Some people are not responsible enough to take care of a child, even though they are pregnant.  One of the reasons abortion is still legal is the financial impact hundreds of thousands of bastard children would have on the social system in the U.S.  Tell me the argument for/against abortion as you see it, seeing as you know exactly how this works.  We can argue whether or not we think abortion is wrong or right, but the bottom line is that right now it is legal.  If you are against abortion, arguing until your face is blue is still not going to affect that.  There needs to be REAL solutions/alternatives for abortions before any laws are going to get repealed.
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|5732

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Again, this has NO impact on whether abortion should be legal or not. Stop playing the only a certain life is worth living card. It doesn't fly.
I never said a only a certain life is worth living.  I said that some people cannot take care of a baby financially.  Some people are not responsible enough to take care of a child, even though they are pregnant.  One of the reasons abortion is still legal is the financial impact hundreds of thousands of bastard children would have on the social system in the U.S.  Tell me the argument for/against abortion as you see it, seeing as you know exactly how this works.  We can argue whether or not we think abortion is wrong or right, but the bottom line is that right now it is legal.  If you are against abortion, arguing until your face is blue is still not going to affect that.  There needs to be REAL solutions/alternatives for abortions before any laws are going to get repealed.
That's fine, laws should be in effect to help support children such as better adoption agencies. Mothers still have the option of adoption as it is now. I doubt anyone would just abandon a baby after it was born and let it die. Saying abortion is ok to be legal just because people are irresponsible is still a poor excuse. Babies don't have to be aborted because people think growing up in poverty or with bad parents isn't worth it. Life is what we make of it. Unless they are going to die as a child because of no food or poor chare, then any life is worth living.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,926|5717|949

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

I doubt anyone would just abandon a baby after it was born and let it die.
I think you are giving too much credit to Americans, as this happens all the time.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Saying abortion is ok to be legal just because people are irresponsible is still a poor excuse. Babies don't have to be aborted because people think growing up in poverty or with bad parents isn't worth it. Life is what we make of it. Unless they are going to die as a child because of no food or poor chare, then any life is worth living.
I never said Abortion should be legal because people are irresponsible.  I am saying that abortions happen for that reason.  I think abortions should be legal because I believe it is ultimately the woman's decision, and I am not comfortable with telling everyone what they can and can't do.  I do not agree with abortions, and would do anything I could do to raise a kid if I was put into that situation.  I do not believe that the argument for the legality of abortions is based upon when life is created, because a lot of people, including supreme court judges who voted against allowing abortions, are pro-death penalty.  How can you say that you are against abortion because you are killing a living thing, and then be for capital punishment?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,927|5857|USA

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

For those who say that a fetus is not a living person, what would you define it as?

It is a living entity of cells with human DNA.  So, I would considder a fetus a person.
you must still hve a tail then
https://www.nmssolutions.com/images/coccyx.gif
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|5732

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

I doubt anyone would just abandon a baby after it was born and let it die.
I think you are giving too much credit to Americans, as this happens all the time.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Saying abortion is ok to be legal just because people are irresponsible is still a poor excuse. Babies don't have to be aborted because people think growing up in poverty or with bad parents isn't worth it. Life is what we make of it. Unless they are going to die as a child because of no food or poor chare, then any life is worth living.
I never said Abortion should be legal because people are irresponsible.  I am saying that abortions happen for that reason.  I think abortions should be legal because I believe it is ultimately the woman's decision, and I am not comfortable with telling everyone what they can and can't do.  I do not agree with abortions, and would do anything I could do to raise a kid if I was put into that situation.  I do not believe that the argument for the legality of abortions is based upon when life is created, because a lot of people, including supreme court judges who voted against allowing abortions, are pro-death penalty.  How can you say that you are against abortion because you are killing a living thing, and then be for capital punishment?
That's a different issue. Babies are innocent creatures.  Death row immates have taken lives away maliciously.

Secondly a baby isn't sole property of the mother. It takes two people to create it. It's the fathers child just as much as it is the mothers. It's no more the mothers decision than it is the fathers. Women know that if they have sex, they're the one who will have to carry the child. That's their responisibilty to know that.

Lastly, any law is a denile of the choices we are allowed to make. Laws against theft take away our choice to steal. Laws against murder take away our choice to kill. I'd like to think that the laws our society makes are based on our code of morals as human beings. I fine abortion to be morally wrong, therefore, it should take away our choice to kill your unborn child. You could also say that because it's their child that they can abort it whenever they want. Of course if you say that then you would have to agree that the parent would be allowed to do whatever they pleased with the child after it was born. After all, it's their child. Of course, we as a society do not allow parents to harm their children. Unfortunately people seem to think that this only applies after you are born and not before. Way too many double standards if you ask me.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,926|5717|949

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

That's a different issue. Babies are innocent creatures.  Death row immates have taken lives away maliciously.
So now you are the judge to decide who lives and who dies, and for what reasons?  Plenty of people previously on death row have been released because they are innocent.  What makes you more qualified than anyone else?

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Secondly a baby isn't sole property of the mother. It takes two people to create it. It's the fathers child just as much as it is the mothers. It's no more the mothers decision than it is the fathers. Women know that if they have sex, they're the one who will have to carry the child. That's their responisibilty to know that.
That may be the case, but legally, the mother decides.  People know that if they have sex, a child can be born.  Why are there unplanned pregnancies?

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Lastly, any law is a denile of the choices we are allowed to make. Laws against theft take away our choice to steal. Laws against murder take away our choice to kill. I'd like to think that the laws our society makes are based on our code of morals as human beings. I fine abortion to be morally wrong, therefore, it should take away our choice to kill your unborn child. You could also say that because it's their child that they can abort it whenever they want. Of course if you say that then you would have to agree that the parent would be allowed to do whatever they pleased with the child after it was born. After all, it's their child. Of course, we as a society do not allow parents to harm their children. Unfortunately people seem to think that this only applies after you are born and not before. Way too many double standards if you ask me.
After making my way through the horrible grammer, this is what I have to say;  Laws against theft DO NOT TAKE A WAY OUR CHANCE TO STEAL.  They punish those who do.  I still can make the choice to steal, I just have to deal with the consequences if caught.  Some laws are based on morals, I agree, but not all.  Furthermore, socially accepted morals have changed in the 200+ years we have been a country, and are constantly changing.  Your reasoning is flawed, because taking away the legal right to have an abortion will not take away the choice to have it; People wanting to have an abortion could just do so outside the law.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-24 14:55:39)

Brasso
member
+1,549|5716

i believe it is spelled "fetus."
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|5732
Bad grammar? Most of that seems pretty coherent but ok.

I don't understand your last point. People will always have the choice to break the laws. It doesn't mean they should be legal just because they break them. Or are you just making a point that it will always be a choice. Either way I don't get how it makes my arguement flawed.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|5729
I dont see how you can justify the death penalty but not support a womans right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.  Who are you to decide which lives are we to take and which lives are we to spare.  If you say that taking a human life should be forbidden then why do have capital punishment
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|5739
Reading through this thread I see many people with similar opinions to my own, but here's the way I look at it:

I think that you can't outlaw abortion because people will do it themselves.  A bottle of gin and hot bath is the classic, or there's the coathanger technique, not to mention that consuming every drug you can get your hands on to the borderline of overdose does the trick.  In my opinion it's not right to pass laws which make people resort to these inhumane backstreet methods.  I'm pro-abortion for humanitarian reasons.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-04-24 15:44:40)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,927|5857|USA

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Reading through this thread I see many people with similar opinions to my own, but here's the way I look at it:

I think that you can't outlaw abortion because people will do it themselves.  A bottle of gin and hot bath is the classic, or there's the coathanger technique, not to mention that consuming every drug you can get your hands on to the borderline of overdose does the trick.  In my opinion it's not right to pass laws which make people resort to these inhumane backstreet methods.  I'm pro-abortion for humanitarian reasons.
Pretty much like saying that you can't outlaw murder because people will do it anyway. Plenty of evidence there.

Maybe we should just have government-funded murder houses where people can go kill their victims in a safer, cleaner fashion rather than in back alleys with a rusty knife. For humanitarian reasons, of course. And then bodies could just be thrown away like so much dog crap.

The dangerous thing about this is that if you establish the legal foundation that certain kinds of people (in this case, pre-birth infants) are not really human, then you open up a whole new realm for the chewing and nibbling away of civil rights. It could eventually develop into an ugly case of enforced eugenics policy.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-04-24 16:36:53)

UON
Junglist Massive
+223|5739

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Reading through this thread I see many people with similar opinions to my own, but here's the way I look at it:

I think that you can't outlaw abortion because people will do it themselves.  A bottle of gin and hot bath is the classic, or there's the coathanger technique, not to mention that consuming every drug you can get your hands on to the borderline of overdose does the trick.  In my opinion it's not right to pass laws which make people resort to these inhumane backstreet methods.  I'm pro-abortion for humanitarian reasons.
Pretty much like saying that you can't outlaw murder because people will do it anyway. Plenty of evidence there.

Maybe we should just have government-funded murder houses where people can go kill their victims in a safer, cleaner fashion rather than in back alleys with a rusty knife. For humanitarian reasons, of course. And then bodies could just be thrown away like so much dog crap.
I'm trying to understand your view point, but I just can't see any connection between abortion and your analogy.   

But let's assume that a fetus can be considered a human being and not simply a fetus, and make a slightly different comparison:  There are plenty of forms of legalised killing, the only difference between a soldier killing and an abortion is whether or not the law chooses to see it as murder.  If killing in self defence was declared illegal tomorrow, a soldier doing their job would be at high risk of being unfairly charged with murder.  Obviously that would be ridiculous, and place them in great risk of life imprisonment for no good reason.  A bit like forcing women to risk severe internal bleeding, infection and infertility by outlawing them for making very hard decisions which will affect the rest of their life.

But let's assume your comparison stands, and take this example:  A woman doesn't know she is pregnant, and continues a lifestyle which leads to the premature abortion of the pregnancy, is that then manslaughter?  Maybe we should ban women from drinking and smoking once they hit puberty, just to be on the safe side.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard