That is something I agree with. I just don't think blanket legislation should make people's decisions for them.lowing wrote:
i agree, however, I think a counciler should be sought out to help you understand the decision you are about to make. So you do not live haunted the rest of your life. Lets face it, abortion is used as a form of birth control 2 or 3 times by the same woman, a person with this kinda irresponsible behavior needs to educated as to what she is actually doing to herself and the baby. Offering people the chance to see what their decisions will bring should be allowed. If after seeing what you are going to do, you still are free to decide your own solutions. you will at least be doing it with your eyes wide open.
What do you actually care that someone has abortus? Obviously they don't want a fuckin kid in their live, or maybe they do want one but not at that point, what if a teenage girl gets pregnant, true enough she a fuckin retard for getting in the position in the first place but she can't get rid of the fuckin baby because its unethical to kill a ''human being'', being within quation marks as IMO you can't call a 2 month old thingy an actual human being, anyway then she is doomed to live as a teenage mother because she couldnt have abortion and now you have what you want, you are happy and some teenage mother has a friggin baby and a future which is flushed down the toilet.
Stringray: Here is that article I mentioned before.
Article Summary wrote:
When Does Human Life Begin?
This is a note that may generate some discussion and debate. It was occasioned by a bulletin board set up by a political action group at our college. The board claimed that while philosophy and religion may have different opinions concerning when life begins, science has no such problems. Students were told that biologists were unanimous in agreeing that life starts at fertilization, and that there was no dispute in the scientific literature. Besides being a parody of science (i.e., that scientific facts are the objective truth and that all scientists agree about what these facts mean), it is wrong. I have read a wide range of scientific positions on when life begins, and these positions depend on what aspect of life one privileges in such discussions. Here is my classification scheme concerning when human life begins. You may have others.
- The metabolic view: There is no one point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.
- The genetic view: A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.
- The embryological view: In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as "pre-embryonic." This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning-after" pills, and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.)
- The neurological view: Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) should be defined as when a human life begins. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions).
- The ecological/technological view: This view sees human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 weeks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted.)
- The immunological view: This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.
- The integrated physiological view: This view sees human life as beginning when an individual has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.
I'll resume tomorrow, SenorToeNails. I made a point on page 2, but the pictures violated the rules, which I was not aware of, so it was deleted by a mod who felt it violated the rules. I need to consult with him before re-posting the non-graphic video link.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2008-01-21 13:38:20)
Some times I think parents only want children because it is our instinct to survive and so fore reproduce, I never was asked to brought into this world. How far back would we go? Ban abortion, but then what about all those little spermy things lying about in my prostate (or where ever they are). for me it is a choice, this is a free world right? A demo-crazy? Or is it only when a few decide.
I have no children but lost one about when my ex was was 5 months gone, it was sad and depressing and for me I do not want to ever go through that again.
Pro choice that is the way.
I have no children but lost one about when my ex was was 5 months gone, it was sad and depressing and for me I do not want to ever go through that again.
Pro choice that is the way.
(Forgive the late response).Stingray24 wrote:
Debate if you wish, I was aiming for serious talk. If I wanted debate I would have added much more provocative content. I specifically left that out in my memorial to all the babies that have been killed by abortion. Pardon me if I never considered my children a mass of tissue ...Uzique wrote:
Technically you're not missing out on all of those wonderful images that you posted... you're more realistically missing out on a bunch of molecules and tissue bundled together in early stages of foetal development, with no sentience or sapience.
Is this actually a D&ST topic or is it some anti-abortion agitprop?
If you'd read my post, you would of noted that my point was that the 'mass of tissue' lacked sentience and sapience- something that all children (and indeed, even the later stages of pregnancy) have. I'm not anti-abortion simply because I don't believe that a foetus in the very early stages of development has a conscience/soul/whatever you want to label it.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I think that if you can't ovulate, you should generally shut the hell up about abortion. Anti-abortion legislation directly breaches a woman's right to privacy with her own body.
He speaks the truthMarconius wrote:
I think that if you can't ovulate, you should generally shut the hell up about abortion. Anti-abortion legislation directly breaches a woman's right to privacy with her own body.
For all the pro-lifers out there...
If you want abortion to be banned, start planning out the necessary increases in social programs. We're gonna need them if we ban abortion. That means a lot more tax money for orphanages, welfare, adoption programs, etc. You know, all those things most of your Republican colleagues are against.
If you want to shrink the size of the government, banning abortion is one of the worst things you can do, because it legitimizes a nanny state.
If you want abortion to be banned, start planning out the necessary increases in social programs. We're gonna need them if we ban abortion. That means a lot more tax money for orphanages, welfare, adoption programs, etc. You know, all those things most of your Republican colleagues are against.
If you want to shrink the size of the government, banning abortion is one of the worst things you can do, because it legitimizes a nanny state.
no argument hereSenorToenails wrote:
That is something I agree with. I just don't think blanket legislation should make people's decisions for them.lowing wrote:
i agree, however, I think a counciler should be sought out to help you understand the decision you are about to make. So you do not live haunted the rest of your life. Lets face it, abortion is used as a form of birth control 2 or 3 times by the same woman, a person with this kinda irresponsible behavior needs to educated as to what she is actually doing to herself and the baby. Offering people the chance to see what their decisions will bring should be allowed. If after seeing what you are going to do, you still are free to decide your own solutions. you will at least be doing it with your eyes wide open.
I wasn't aware women spit babies out their asses.CommieChipmunk wrote:
He speaks the truthMarconius wrote:
I think that if you can't ovulate, you should generally shut the hell up about abortion. Anti-abortion legislation directly breaches a woman's right to privacy with her own body.
Win.Turquoise wrote:
For all the pro-lifers out there...
If you want abortion to be banned, start planning out the necessary increases in social programs. We're gonna need them if we ban abortion. That means a lot more tax money for orphanages, welfare, adoption programs, etc. You know, all those things most of your Republican colleagues are against.
If you want to shrink the size of the government, banning abortion is one of the worst things you can do, because it legitimizes a nanny state.
x10.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Or maybe they grew up to be the next Hitler, The next Jeffrey Dahmer, the next annoying fucking domain squatter. AHHH i hate those people. Get your own fucking domain asshole.Stingray24 wrote:
Could one of those little ones have grown up and discovered the cure for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, etc?
15 more years! 15 more years!
Personally, I don't like abortion, but it's none of my business.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
and at the same time most Christians are opposed to sex Ed, and specifically the explanation and promotion of birth control. instead, suggesting abstinance, which is a joke. human beings are sexual by nature, trying to repress it, especially in teenagers, is absurd.
I suppose parents could teach their kids; but most are repressed, embarassed, ashamed, lazy, or simply unavailable to do what is necessary. but at the same time, they dont want their kids learning about sex from school educators. it's far easier to simply demonize the result of no education, unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
beyond that, I cant say it any better that marconius already has.
I suppose parents could teach their kids; but most are repressed, embarassed, ashamed, lazy, or simply unavailable to do what is necessary. but at the same time, they dont want their kids learning about sex from school educators. it's far easier to simply demonize the result of no education, unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
beyond that, I cant say it any better that marconius already has.
You've got to accept that no matter how much you want to change certain things, you may not be able to within the constitutional realm (or you could if you become president and have the members of the Supreme Court that don't agree with you killed). I know it's not the same but my useless fight is flag burning. I'd like to ban it, but the speech argument is fairly solid and deeply rooted.
Since the baby that is about to be torn limb from limb inside his/her mother doesn't have a voice, I will not shut up. What about his/her rights? Oh that's right, you don't think a growing human infant is really human.Marconius wrote:
I think that if you can't ovulate, you should generally shut the hell up about abortion. Anti-abortion legislation directly breaches a woman's right to privacy with her own body.
Did you read that article I linked to? When a fetus is considered 'alive' is a matter of debate and interpretation.Stingray24 wrote:
Since the baby that is about to be torn limb from limb inside his/her mother doesn't have a voice, I will not shut up. What about his/her rights? Oh that's right, you don't think a growing human infant is really human.
As I've already stated, I agree with the genetic point of view: "A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties."
At fertilization, the infant has a unique genetic code and is a distinct human being. From that point of fertilization, the infant develops and will be born unless nature ends the process by miscarriage or a doctor tears him or her from the womb. The only reason to fixate on a different point in infant development is to justify killing him or her. At the very least we should acknowledge the embryological view, because at week 3 the infant has his/her own heartbeat.
The most consistent viewpoint would be the genetic viewpoint. The embryonic viewpoint is that “a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12”. This seems inconsistent to me because the baby already has a unique genetic code, hence a new individual.
The neurological view places the beginning of life at the “acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks)”.
The ecological/technological view sees human life as beginning when it can “exist separately from its maternal biological environment”.
The immunological view sees human life as beginning “when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self, around the time of birth” (which is so vague it’s ridiculous).
These 3 views all ignore the development occurring previous to 27 weeks and the fact that infants survive when delivered as early as 25 weeks.
The integrated physiological view sees human life as beginning “when an individual has become independent of the mother, this is the traditional birthday …”. Yet again, development is ignored and along with the immunological view allows for the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. This is where a baby is delivered until only his/her head is inside the womb, then scissors are stabbed into the back of the head (the baby undoubtedly feels pain) and the brain is suctioned out. This practice has been banned in the US.
Our society devalues the most innocent human life to feel better about our choice to kill the most defenseless among us. Nothing more, nothing less.
At fertilization, the infant has a unique genetic code and is a distinct human being. From that point of fertilization, the infant develops and will be born unless nature ends the process by miscarriage or a doctor tears him or her from the womb. The only reason to fixate on a different point in infant development is to justify killing him or her. At the very least we should acknowledge the embryological view, because at week 3 the infant has his/her own heartbeat.
The most consistent viewpoint would be the genetic viewpoint. The embryonic viewpoint is that “a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12”. This seems inconsistent to me because the baby already has a unique genetic code, hence a new individual.
The neurological view places the beginning of life at the “acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks)”.
The ecological/technological view sees human life as beginning when it can “exist separately from its maternal biological environment”.
The immunological view sees human life as beginning “when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self, around the time of birth” (which is so vague it’s ridiculous).
These 3 views all ignore the development occurring previous to 27 weeks and the fact that infants survive when delivered as early as 25 weeks.
The integrated physiological view sees human life as beginning “when an individual has become independent of the mother, this is the traditional birthday …”. Yet again, development is ignored and along with the immunological view allows for the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. This is where a baby is delivered until only his/her head is inside the womb, then scissors are stabbed into the back of the head (the baby undoubtedly feels pain) and the brain is suctioned out. This practice has been banned in the US.
Our society devalues the most innocent human life to feel better about our choice to kill the most defenseless among us. Nothing more, nothing less.
Stingray, when do you believe a person is 'dead'?
Not sure where you're going with that question. Again, the only time the definition would be debatable is when a person is NOT dead and someone wants to change the definition to make killing them permissible.
hmmm, cute pics. hate to be a downer, but a lot of these mothers might be looking forward to this:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2001/03/ … 10312.html
its comforting to know that many babies are saved from this kind of pathetic wasting and are humanely aborted before their brain develops to the point of understanding and lamenting the sad experience of a desperately impoverished life.
abortion is a method of mitigating pain.
a woman has as much right to abort a fetus from her own body as she does to exhale a breath of air. while i believe women have the right to do with their bodies whatever they will, by no means do i think an abortion should ever be required. mandatory abortions for any reason is just about the most heinous and evil thing i can think of. its much worse than rape.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2001/03/ … 10312.html
its comforting to know that many babies are saved from this kind of pathetic wasting and are humanely aborted before their brain develops to the point of understanding and lamenting the sad experience of a desperately impoverished life.
abortion is a method of mitigating pain.
a woman has as much right to abort a fetus from her own body as she does to exhale a breath of air. while i believe women have the right to do with their bodies whatever they will, by no means do i think an abortion should ever be required. mandatory abortions for any reason is just about the most heinous and evil thing i can think of. its much worse than rape.
Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-01-22 11:15:19)
How can the babies be killed before they were even born and alive?
Also, what if those 47 million babies weren't aborted. Would our poverty rate massively increase because those mothers can't afford to care for children? Would child abuse rates have risen? Would our country be even more overpopulated? Would global warming be an even bigger problem? Would 9/11 still have happened???????
Also, what if those 47 million babies weren't aborted. Would our poverty rate massively increase because those mothers can't afford to care for children? Would child abuse rates have risen? Would our country be even more overpopulated? Would global warming be an even bigger problem? Would 9/11 still have happened???????
Last edited by mtb0minime (2008-01-22 11:11:26)
You asked me the same question yesterday.Stingray24 wrote:
Not sure where you're going with that question. Again, the only time the definition would be debatable is when a person is NOT dead and someone wants to change the definition to make killing them permissible.
Don't you think that the definition of when life begins and when life ends are linked? If life ends at the cease of brain function, then should not life begin at the start of brain activity?
Post a picture of a unwanted baby due to rape. One that is beaten because it reminds the mother of evrything that's bad in the world.