Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice Where do you stand?

[DoubleTech]

I've heard the arguments from both sides, and after being on the fence for a bit, I'm now leaning towards pro-choice.

I truly believe in ONLY bringing a child into this world when you are 100% mentally and physically able to support that child. There are far too many children in this world can't/don't go to school or eat properly or have a roof over their heads at night. A lot of these kids were brought into this world simply because their parent(s) "wanted children".

If there is a chance you can prevent millions of children from being brought into this world only to live in poverty, you do it. That doesn't mean that everyone is going to abort their child... but if a woman truly believes she can't give her future child the support it needs, she should have the option. If a woman gets raped, she should have the option. If a young woman in university has a condom break and her options are drop out of school and raise the kid or abort it and stay in university, she should have the option.

Where do you guys stand on this touchy subject?

[Lakerlove420]

choice

[paperstreet]

Pro-Choice

I am not sure what I would do if my girl got knocked up, but I don't believe it's right for the government or anyone else to tell someone they can't have an abortion. It's pushing their values and beliefs on someone else.

Also, if it is illegal, some women will still want to get them, and it becomes much less safe.

[1manfastbreak]

pro choice. but at the same time ppl need to learn. thats how my bruh learned 3 kids by 19 not fun

[White Chocolate]

Definitely choice. There's many valid reasons to terminate a pregnancy. Rape, pregnant even with protection and unable to support the child, sonogram shows the baby will have a disability(ex: Down Syndrome), not emotionally ready for the child. Now I know many people will say put the baby up for adoption, but that can be even worse than aborting it. Knowing that you gave up your child is traumatizing enough.

[Showtime]

My personal viewpoint is this: the system heavily favors the female, and thus isn't impartial. For example:

Scenario 1: woman wants to keep child, man doesn't want child. In this situation, the woman can, despite the wishes of the father, have the child. Now, if the man doesn't want the child, it doesn't matter, and he's still on the hook for child support and all the legal hassell that comes along with it, and he can't get out of that unless he signs away parental rights.

Scenario 2: man wants child, woman doesn't. Now, despite the man wanting the child and willing to support the child, the woman can eliminate that possibility with no say from the father.

For me, even if I eliminate the entire "where life begins" argument, and just look at a fertilized fetus as biological material, then said material is still half the male's, as it takes his genetic "contribution" for that fetus to even exist. So I disagree how the system treats the male and totally eliminates any position of "ownership" and yet still forces upon him the responsibility. Pick one. You shouldn't be denied rights to the "woman's body" and still be obligated by law to be responsible for it. You can debate when a human becomes a human, but you can't say that something is entirely a woman's "body" and then a few months later say it's now equally shared.

[Nanners]

choice

[Hawker]

Pro-choice but I can understand why people are Pro-life. Nothing wrong with not wanting fetuses/babies die.

[InspiredLebowski]

Pro-choice but I can understand why people are Pro-life. Nothing wrong with not wanting fetuses/babies die.
Same. I just hate when people who're "pro life" refer to "pro choice" people as "pro abortion." There's not one person in the entire world that wants an abortion to happen.

[BRabbiT]

ask this dude's mother:lol :lol :lol



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZP4Ugev82I

[SayTownRy]

pro choice. keep it safe, legal, and accessible.

[boozehound]

ask this dude's mother:lol :lol :lol



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZP4Ugev82I
that was pretty silly

[LJJ]

I would be all for a system where when you get an abortion, you also lose your right to conceive.

[thejumpa]

Pro life....be smart, responsible, and account for your own actions. There is a always a risk but you have to willing to acknowledge and accept the consequences then abortion shouldn't be an option.

Still, I see the other side of the argument. No one wants to kids growing up in unstable homes, poverty, etc....

[DoubleTech]

I would be all for a system where when you get an abortion, you also lose your right to conceive.

Even if a girl is raped? How does that make sense?

I'd agree with you if some chick was on her 3rd abortion due to careless sex practices.

[Nanners]

I would be all for a system where when you get an abortion, you also lose your right to conceive.

That would be very hard to regulate and enforce.

[Meticode]

I'm pro-life here.

[LJJ]

Even if a girl is raped? How does that make sense?

I'd agree with you if some chick was on her 3rd abortion due to careless sex practices.

Obviously there are exceptions. Raped, if you are underage... I always feel like the rape card is pulled too often in these kind of arguments. Lets be real: Most abortions are just the result of irresponsibility. And I'm kind of big on being a responsible, sensible adult.

If you are an adult, and you have sex, you need to be able to live with the consequences. Be a little responsible.
Especially if you are a women; you know you can get pregnant right? So when you are the type that likes to sleep around a bit, take birth control. It's not hard, it's not far fetched, most young women do it. If it was a spur of the moment thing, and you didn't think of using birth control? You can still get a prevention pill that will work within what? 48 hours? A week? Something like that.

But say all that went wrong and you still got pregnant. Now, if you really want to have a kid, you'll have it. And if you don't want it you don't. But you have to choose.
You can't use some petty reasoning like "I don't like the father" (but you had sex with him anyway huh), "It's not the right time". If that's how you feel about your own children?
"It's inconvenient right now, I'll just try again later?" You shouldn't have that option again.

[boozehound]

I would be all for a system where when you get an abortion, you also lose your right to conceive.
thats just ****ing dumb. SO, a girl who had a gagortion at age 14 cause she knew she couldnt be a good mother shouldnt be able to have a kid at 30? Talk about gov't interference with reproductive rights. What would you do, sterilize her? Force her to have an abortion the 2nd time?

[DoubleTech]

I'm pro-life here.

Welcome to the debate. Why are you pro-life? We've heard an awful lot from the pro-choice crowd.

[Meticode]

Welcome to the debate. Why are you pro-life? We've heard an awful lot from the pro-choice crowd.
Nothing positive has every come from me debating why I'm pro-life versus pro-choice. I just wanted to state I'm pro-life and that would be the end of it. It's a pretty touchy subject for me.

The people who stated they're pro-choice, they're going to remain pro-choice. And I've heard every reason why in the world people are pro-choice and the replies in the thread are what I've heard before a million times. Obviously people are pro-life because they feel it's wrong to control life in that aspect.

Nothing new or profound will come from debating it.

[boozehound]

Nothing positive has every come from me debating why I'm pro-life versus pro-choice. I just wanted to state I'm pro-life and that would be the end of it. It's a pretty touchy subject for me.

The people who stated they're pro-choice, they're going to remain pro-choice. And I've heard every reason why in the world people are pro-choice and the replies in the thread are what I've heard before a million times. Obviously people are pro-life because they feel it's wrong to control life in that aspect.

Nothing new or profound will come from debating it.
whats your take on things like the morning after pill? Or natural remedies (found in cultures all over the world) that will induce miscarriage? Not trying to pick or anything, just interested in what you think of these types of measures.

[xcesswee]

pro-choice. However, this doesn't mean I'm for abortion. I just think it should be the choice of the parents on whether they want to have a child or not. Too many times irresponsible parents try to raise kids when they have no clue how to. A child should be born with loving and responsible parents who can provide a stable life for the kid. However, i think their should be a limit on how many abortions you can get in a lifetime. Abortions should not be used as birth control. You shouldn't be allowed to do an abortion after a certain amount(more than 4).

[rufuspaul]

I think abortions are pretty terrible things yet I still feel it's the woman's choice. I don't think it should be an easy thing to do just to sweep a pregnancy under the rug, but if it's going to happen it should be legal and safe.

Please don't tell my priest I posted this.:ohwell:

[Poodle]

Pro Choice. the fact that people in America are always trying to tell others what they can/can't do based on someone elses moral values is so f'd up. otherwise i wouldn't even care about this issue. but the basic principal idea that a segment of our country loves to throw their beliefs on everyone else and make it law just really pisses me off. especially when a lot of them are grounded in religion.

and the way a lot of you pro life talk you act like its some perfect world, or some expectation it should be, more than realizing the world or our country for what it is. kids have the ability to make babies, kids are dumb, kids have sex, and no they shouldn't all be forced into having them based on your ideal utopia of responsibility :banghead:

i don't even get why it needs to go all the way to rape extremes, when its such a personal choice for the individual based on their life, their body being torn up, what can/can't work in their life/job, what they want to do in their future(if raising a kid is even possible for them), and that 99% of everyone else pushing their morality on them is completely ignorant of.

[LJJ]

thats just ****ing dumb. SO, a girl who had a gagortion at age 14 cause she knew she couldnt be a good mother shouldnt be able to have a kid at 30? Talk about gov't interference with reproductive rights. What would you do, sterilize her? Force her to have an abortion the 2nd time?

Didn't read my second post? I'm not saying it should be like that under every circumstance. Being underage or having been raped would definitely be exceptions.

But if you are an adult there is no reason to get pregnant after consensual sex, unless you want to get pregnant. At least, not where I am from. Where things like birth control and morning after pills are readily available, and everyone knows where to get them, anonymously if they need too.

And obviously you would get sterilized when you get an abortion. That would be the method. I know it's harsh, but an abortion is not something you should get for free with a pack of cornflakes either.

[DoubleTech]

I think abortions are pretty terrible things yet I still feel it's the woman's choice. I don't think it should be an easy thing to do just to sweep a pregnancy under the rug, but if it's going to happen it should be legal and safe.

Please don't tell my priest I posted this.:ohwell:

I just sent this post to his twitter... you're ****ed!

[Meticode]

whats your take on things like the morning after pill? Or natural remedies (found in cultures all over the world) that will induce miscarriage? Not trying to pick or anything, just interested in what you think of these types of measures.
Personally using a contraceptive that can induce a miscarriage is wrong to me. I won't go any further into explaining that, I'll just say it's the way I feel.

Personally I've only ever used condoms and pulling out which for me has worked every time. My daughter wasn't planned, but that's because I didn't take the responsibility on using the condom.

Luckily for me, it was the greatest ill-responsible decision I ever made.

[Poodle]

But if you are an adult there is no reason to get pregnant after consensual sex, unless you want to get pregnant. At least, not where I am from. Where things like birth control and morning after pills are readily available, and everyone knows where to get them, anonymously if they need too


so what age would that apply? because i think heat of the moment and irresponsibility doesn't really have an age limit where anyone is flawless.

[Poodle]

Personally using a contraceptive that can induce a miscarriage is wrong to me. I won't go any further into explaining that, I'll just say it's the way I feel.

Personally I've only ever used condoms and pulling out which for me has worked every time. My daughter wasn't planned, but that's because I didn't take the responsibility on using the condom.

Luckily for me, it was the greatest ill-responsible decision I ever made.


lucky for you, since theres probably 10 others for each one of you that is in a foster home, and end up a menace to society

[Meticode]

lucky for you, since theres probably 10 others for each one of you that is in a foster home, and end up a menace to society
I don't know the total statistics on that. I've personally never saw any studys done to where majority of kids that are adopted away or given away by the mother end up in foster homes. It just seems people throw it out there assuming.

But it could be totally right they most do end up in foster homes for a very long time if not all their childhood.

Besides that, I still feel it's wrong to abort a child unless the mother is in major danger of losing her life doing so.

[Black Joker]

Pro-choice but I can understand why people are Pro-life. Nothing wrong with not wanting fetuses/babies die.
+1

[Poodle]

I don't know the total statistics on that. I've personally never saw any studys done to where majority of kids that are adopted away or given away by the mother end up in foster homes. It just seems people throw it out there assuming.

But it could be totally right they most do end up in foster homes for a very long time if not all their childhood.

Besides that, I still feel it's wrong to abort a child unless the mother is in major danger of losing her life doing so.


but do you really believe in making that a law? i can sympathize with having that view, but its different when you want to make it an across the board law for everyone. and the law is a lot more black and white than we are when discussing these things.

[Meticode]

but do you really believe in making that a law? i can sympathize with having that view, but its different when you want to make it an across the board law for everyone. and the law is a lot more black and white than we are when discussing these things.
That's where I contradict myself. I don't think it should be law, I think people have that right to make that choice for themselves. The only thing it's effecting is the mother and the possible life inside her. It doesn't really externally effect anyone else.

So in saying that, it pretty much says I'm pro-choice, but I don't think it's right to abort in most cases.

It's kind of like saying, let people decide if they want to drink alcohol or not, but I think personally it's wrong to do so.

[LJJ]

But if you are an adult there is no reason to get pregnant after consensual sex, unless you want to get pregnant. At least, not where I am from. Where things like birth control and morning after pills are readily available, and everyone knows where to get them, anonymously if they need too


so what age would that apply? because i think heat of the moment and irresponsibility doesn't really have an age limit where anyone is flawless.

Just, adult. 18 or 21. That's technicalities though. I'm not a politician, I'm not getting ready to implement this or anything, it's just a thought.

That's the way things should be as an adult. If you are irresponsible to a fault that has a consequence. If I am being irresponsible, buy 20 cars that I can't afford, I can't just go and "abort" that debt. If I throw a rock from my apartment and someone gets killed, they send my ass to jail.

But you probably thing that is normal. Then it suddenly doesn't matter if it's a "heat of the moment" thing.

Abortion after a certain stage, it may not technically murdering someone. Not according to the law. But you are definitely killing something, or doing something very close to that. That should not be something that you can just do.

[bladefd]

This pro-life vs pro-choice debate brings another issue into the picture. Should an unborn baby (whether we are talking 1 week into pregnancy or 6 months in) be considered human? Can they be given human rights to the point where abortion would be considered first-hand murder?

If one considers an unborn baby a human, they would support the pro-life stance (much more so than not). It is not so true the other way around. I personally do not think an unborn baby in fetus form is the same as a born baby. There is a difference between the two, but I know there are a lot of people out there that believe the moment the egg and sperm meet, it is considered a human (I think that early stage is called blastula or something). Even abortion at that stage, they consider to be murder.

I don't know, tough issue.....

[boozehound]

Didn't read my second post? I'm not saying it should be like that under every circumstance. Being underage or having been raped would definitely be exceptions.

But if you are an adult there is no reason to get pregnant after consensual sex, unless you want to get pregnant. At least, not where I am from. Where things like birth control and morning after pills are readily available, and everyone knows where to get them, anonymously if they need too.

And obviously you would get sterilized when you get an abortion. That would be the method. I know it's harsh, but an abortion is not something you should get for free with a pack of cornflakes either.
yeah, I hadnt read your second post. I still disagree with you wholeheartedly. WHats the difference between the Morning After Pill (or other types of contraception that terminate a fertilized egg) and an abortion? I dont see a difference.

[dkmwise]

I would find it hard to ever go 100% to either side of this issue. You need to take into account things like rape. You also need to look at if it is allowed, you need to inform the parents when the child is 15, you need to bring the father into the decision, there should be some counciling before you do this. Besides the aborted child this is much riskier for the mother than most people realize.

The worste part is that people try to take the stigma away from abortion. Even if it is legal it shouldn't be looked at as no big deal, it is a big deal. And the father should have the same rights. It is his child too and if the child is kept he will be repospisible for it then, and maybe he wants to keep it and reaise it himself.

[Meticode]

Abortion would be so much of an easier subject to talk about if you could just mail the baby to Russia and everything would be okay.

[boozehound]

I always find it funny when a bunch of guys get on their high horse about womens reproductive rights. I would be willing to bet that close to half of all the women each and every one of you know has had an abortion.

and, yes, abortions can have long term health consequences for women. So can taking birth control pills. But that is relatively rare (for both).

[dkmwise]

yeah, I hadnt read your second post. I still disagree with you wholeheartedly. WHats the difference between the Morning After Pill (or other types of contraception that terminate a fertilized egg) and an abortion? I dont see a difference.

Medically there is a huge difference. Morally I guess that is up to the individual. My wife works for an infertility clinic and she has explained to me many times the vast differenct between what you mentioned. I don't know jack about medical stuff so I would not be good at explaining it, but talk to someone who deals with that stuff and they can tell you.

[dkmwise]

I always find it funny when a bunch of guys get on their high horse about womens reproductive rights. I would be willing to bet that close to half of all the women each and every one of you know has had an abortion.

and, yes, abortions can have long term health consequences for women. So can taking birth control pills. But that is relatively rare (for both).

I'm confused, did woman suddenly learn how to reproduce by themselves?

Parental rights.

[boozehound]

Medically there is a huge difference. Morally I guess that is up to the individual. My wife works for an infertility clinic and she has explained to me many times the vast differenct between what you mentioned. I don't know jack about medical stuff so I would not be good at explaining it, but talk to someone who deals with that stuff and they can tell you.
if life begins at conception (which is the argument frequently used), there is no difference. Sure, stopping it from implanting on the uterine wall is medically different than the various types of gagortions, but from an ethical viewpoint of ended the life of a wee human, its the same thing.

[LJJ]

yeah, I hadnt read your second post. I still disagree with you wholeheartedly. WHats the difference between the Morning After Pill (or other types of contraception that terminate a fertilized egg) and an abortion? I dont see a difference.

Though point to argue, because I'm not a biologist. I guess this just boils down to what is culturally acceptable heh? I guess when you start calling a fertilized egg a fetus, that would be a nice cut off point.

[DoubleTech]

I always find it funny when a bunch of guys get on their high horse about womens reproductive rights. I would be willing to bet that close to half of all the women each and every one of you know has had an abortion.




WHAT?! you must have mistyped that somehow.

[boozehound]

I'm confused, did woman suddenly learn how to reproduce by themselves?

Parental rights.
primary biological caregiver. until a baby gestates from 2 zygotes to an actual breathing, bloodpumping mammal capable of sustaining its own life inside of you, you (and I) really have no say in what a woman does with her body.

[boozehound]

WHAT?! you must have mistyped that somehow.
nope. the stats all say about 1 in 3 women will have a gagortion before they are 45. Personally, I think it is higher than that. Sure, if you live in a cultural environment where teens are expected to have babies when they make a mistake, it may not be true, but in most environments in the US (especially among youngsters, which most of you are), the abortion rate is probably closer to 50% than 33%

[dkmwise]

primary biological caregiver. until a baby gestates from 2 zygotes to an actual breathing, bloodpumping mammal capable of sustaining its own life inside of you, you (and I) really have no say in what a woman does with her body.

So then when it is born would you argue a woman is solely responsible for caring for it since she soley gets to decide on it's existence?

[dkmwise]

primary biological caregiver. until a baby gestates from 2 zygotes to an actual breathing, bloodpumping mammal capable of sustaining its own life inside of you, you (and I) really have no say in what a woman does with her body.

To say a father has no say in his child's life is the most insane thing I have ever heard.


And I really hope if you are so into the right for terminating the life of an unborn child you support the death penalty for mass murderers and rapists.

[boozehound]

So then when it is born would you argue a woman is solely responsible for caring for it since she soley gets to decide on it's existence?
unfortunately thats not how the law works. But I dont really think a man should have a say on whether or not she has to keep a fetus. He has one chance to make that choice, and thats when he decides to come in her. After that, its beyond his control IMO.


On a sidenote, I know a young lady who kept the fetus cause her BF said he would leave her if she terminated. Fast forward 3 years, neither parent wants the kid (always at a grandmas or other secondary caregiver), they cant stand each other, and this kid has a woefully underdeveloped intellect and doesnt get the love and attention she deserves. Now, whats better?

[boozehound]

To say a father has no say in his child's life is the most insane thing I have ever heard.


And I really hope if you are so into the right for terminating the life of an unborn child you support the death penalty for mass murderers and rapists.
in his childs life yes. But while still in the womb, its not a child yet. its an obligate extension of the woman's body.

[boozehound]

To say a father has no say in his child's life is the most insane thing I have ever heard.


And I really hope if you are so into the right for terminating the life of an unborn child you support the death penalty for mass murderers and rapists.
I support the destruction and illegalization of fertility clinics if thats any consolation to you.

[LJJ]

I support the destruction and illegalization of fertility clinics if thats any consolation to you.
:oldlol:

Really?

[dkmwise]

unfortunately thats not how the law works. But I dont really think a man should have a say on whether or not she has to keep a fetus. He has one chance to make that choice, and thats when he decides to come in her. After that, its beyond his control IMO.


On a sidenote, I know a young lady who kept the fetus cause her BF said he would leave her if she terminated. Fast forward 3 years, neither parent wants the kid (always at a grandmas or other secondary caregiver), they cant stand each other, and this kid has a woefully underdeveloped intellect and doesnt get the love and attention she deserves. Now, whats better?

While I am for abortion in some cases, and would be ok with it in others as long as both parents are involved and both know the risks, I would always argue that a neglected child is better than a dead child.
I would rather be underdeveloped at my grandma'a than dead.

[Eldrunko247]

Pro life..All unwanted and retarded babies welcome.

[dkmwise]

I support the destruction and illegalization of fertility clinics if thats any consolation to you.

oh geez, I didn't realize you were so deep into the kool-aid. I guess a reasonable discussion is not worth trying for here.

So a woman reproductive rights allow her to do anything she wants when it comes to terminate a pregnancy, but when it comes to becoming pregnant, she doesn't have that right.

You know what, i'm not even gonna bother.

You don't by chance live in Nancy Pelosi's district do you?

[Showtime]

primary biological caregiver. until a baby gestates from 2 zygotes to an actual breathing, bloodpumping mammal capable of sustaining its own life inside of you, you (and I) really have no say in what a woman does with her body.
You can't change ownership. You can't say, post-fertilization, that the entire being is totally and unequivocally part of her "body", and deny the male any ownership, and then say later that the male is responsible because of his role in fertilization. If one wants to take the position that it's "her body, her decision", then any and all responsibility on the part of the male should be voided automatically in the eyes of the law.

[DonDadda59]

Double Tech bringing the heat the past 24 hrs :applause:

As for my stance- I think that it's a legal issue and not a moral one, or at least it should be because certain people's morals are based on religion and as we know- this country was founded on the principle of church and state being separate entities.

If the highest courts/laws of the nation say that a fetus is human at X interval, then women should have the right to abort the fetus before that stage and it should be illegal and punishable to do so afterwards (Unless of course giving birth would endanger the life of the mother). So in my mind the major question isn't should a woman have the right to choose, it's more so when is a fetus considered human/alive...

[ZenMaster]

Didn't read my second post? I'm not saying it should be like that under every circumstance. Being underage or having been raped would definitely be exceptions.

But if you are an adult there is no reason to get pregnant after consensual sex, unless you want to get pregnant. At least, not where I am from. Where things like birth control and morning after pills are readily available, and everyone knows where to get them, anonymously if they need too.

And obviously you would get sterilized when you get an abortion. That would be the method. I know it's harsh, but an abortion is not something you should get for free with a pack of cornflakes either.

So what if you're one of the unlucky ones taking pills as birth control and it doesn't work? Happens about 5% of the time...

Rather interesting:

Condoms have a failure rate of 14%
Withdrawal before ejection has a failure rate of 19%
Not too much of a difference.

[Showtime]

Double Tech bringing the heat the past 24 hrs :applause:

As for my stance- I think that it's a legal issue and not a moral one, or at least it should be because certain people's morals are based on religion and as we know- this country was founded on the principle of church and state being separate entities.

If the highest courts/laws of the nation say that a fetus is human at X interval, then women should have the right to abort the fetus before that stage and it should be illegal and punishable to do so afterwards (Unless of course giving birth would endanger the life of the mother). So in my mind the major question isn't should a woman have the right to choose, it's more so when is a fetus considered human/alive...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that there have been cases where a murderer killed women while pregnant with a child that has not yet reached the "deadline", and had murder charges for the unborn child. So that means that in the eyes of the law, they consider what is or is not a "human" based upon the intention of the parent, and not a principal. That is entirely wrong.

[Take Your Lumps]

Double Tech bringing the heat the past 24 hrs :applause:

As for my stance- I think that it's a legal issue and not a moral one, or at least it should be because certain people's morals are based on religion and as we know- this country was founded on the principle of church and state being separate entities.

If the highest courts/laws of the nation say that a fetus is human at X interval, then women should have the right to abort the fetus before that stage and it should be illegal and punishable to do so afterwards (Unless of course giving birth would endanger the life of the mother). So in my mind the major question isn't should a woman have the right to choose, it's more so when is a fetus considered human/alive...

Exactly.

In my opinion, it should be when brain function kicks in.

We classify people as being "dead" once brain function ceases. I think applying this same logic to the beginning of life is the safest, and most humane way to go about it.

[PowerGlove]

lucky for you, since theres probably 10 others for each one of you that is in a foster home, and end up a menace to society

STFU.

I have known mutliple foster kids that were better than kids in stable homes. They dont all end up a menace to society.

[monkeypox]

Should be legal, but also should be properly considered pre-natal euthanasia. It isn't like a cyst removal, it isn't just a lump of cells. Life should be respected and should be given it's proper respect. Abortion should be a choice along the lines of pulling the plug. In fact it should be worse than euthanasia given you're ending a life with an almost certainty of living on.

We in this country have the death penalty, which basically says that strangers can decide the life an death of another human being based on what society at the time considers justice. Given this, If anyone should have the right to decide the life and death of another human being, it seems to me that mother who's child is still a part of her should have that right.

[dkmwise]

Should be legal, but also should be properly considered pre-natal euthanasia. It isn't like a cyst removal, it isn't just a lump of cells. Life should be respected and should be given it's proper respect. Abortion should be a choice along the lines of pulling the plug. In fact it should be worse than euthanasia given you're ending a life with an almost certainty of living on.

We in this country have the death penalty, which basically says that strangers can decide the life an death of another human being based on what society at the time considers justice. Given this, If anyone should have the right to decide the life and death of another human being, it seems to me that mother who's child is still a part of her should have that right.

Hmm, said pretty well. I think I mostly agree with you here

[DonDadda59]

Life should be respected and should be given it's proper respect.

I can already see where this sentence will take this thread :D

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/07/us/slaughterhouse_span.jpg

[monkeypox]

I can already see where this sentence will take this thread :D



(Ugh I totally didn't notice the redundant use of respect there.)

Lol, I don't give a shit about animals really outside of how delicious they are. I oppose animal cruelty though, primarily on the grounds of what it means to human society to be such assholes.

[boozehound]

You can't change ownership. You can't say, post-fertilization, that the entire being is totally and unequivocally part of her "body", and deny the male any ownership, and then say later that the male is responsible because of his role in fertilization. If one wants to take the position that it's "her body, her decision", then any and all responsibility on the part of the male should be voided automatically in the eyes of the law.
can that little fetus live as a distinct entity outside of that woman's body and without her oxygen/nutrient load in the blood?

[Showtime]

can that little fetus live as a distinct entity outside of that woman's body and without her oxygen/nutrient load in the blood?
Can a fetus even exist without being fertilized with sperm?

Again, you can't deny ownership and then expect responsibility. One or the other. If it's entirely her body, then it's her body and she assumes full responsibility. If the laws demand the male bear responsibility, then they must acknowledge ownership. The way the system is run now, the women have all the power and the men have none.

[rufuspaul]

Can a fetus even exist without being fertilized with sperm?

Again, you can't deny ownership and then expect responsibility. One or the other. If it's entirely her body, then it's her body and she assumes full responsibility. If the laws demand the male bear responsibility, then they must acknowledge ownership. The way the system is run now, the women have all the power and the men have none.

Or putting it another way men are free to continue with their lives while a woman is bound to the fetus for 9 mos. I think there is a reason why ownership is skewed in the womans favor during the pregnancy.

[Showtime]

Or putting it another way men are free to continue with their lives while a woman is bound to the fetus for 9 mos. I think there is a reason why ownership is skewed in the womans favor during the pregnancy.
False. I am not saying that abortion should be illegal and that women should be forced into having children. I am for reforming the system to where it is not totally biased against men.

[boozehound]

False. I am not saying that abortion should be illegal and that women should be forced into having children. I am for reforming the system to where it is not totally biased against men.
how exactly do you propose to do that? Either the woman wants to have the kid or doesnt. If the man disagrees, what can you do? Theres no compromise between the two. if she doesnt want to carry it (or does and you dont want her to), what would you have the court do to enforce the man's right?

[gigantes]

Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice Where do you stand?
neither- i'm pro-death.

human beings are a disease on the face of the planet and our numbers need to go down... way, way down. at least for even a fraction of the present global biodiversity to have a chance to survive in the coming years.

unfortunately, i do not believe humans will be able to control their birth rates any more than they've been able to control their increasingly rapid march towards species-wide suicide.

so most animals and plants are going to go down the drain when we do, and that makes me sad. :(

[rondo9]

Life, give the kid a chance even if his life is miserable its better than not knowing.

[DCL]

definitely pro-choice or i'd be stuck with countless child support payments by now. :lol

[shortlunatic]

Pro-life

It

[boozehound]

[QUOTE=shortlunatic]Pro-life

It

[shortlunatic]

you clearly know nothing about the adoption process. There are millions of unwanted kids available for adoption who will never have that opportunity.

and its not just a year of your life (spoken like someone who isnt a parent). Having a kid drastically changes your entire life trajectory and available options, even more so for the woman.

Unwanted kids are not the same as newborn babies. Newborn babies are in a much higher demand than say a 2 or 3 year old from a foster home.

Okay, one year wasn't enough, I can say that was my fault. It was a rther quick thought and I posted before thinking. But ultimately, if you give up the child for adoption, you think it does that much damge to the point where the babies life just isn't worth it?

Please adress the point at hand. It is a human life...

[DeuceWallaces]

Pro Choice all the way. You should be able to do anything to your body. It's the woman's right to choose, no one else's business besides her and the father.

[crisoner]

Pro Choice

Her body her choice.

[boozehound]

kids die every day (and in greater #s than gagortions) due to starvation and inadequate access to clean drinking water. what about those human lives? Or the high incidences of cancer and death associated with exposure to pesticides and fertilizers across many areas of the world. that is people profiting off of endangering other's life.


Why should I care if some lady I dont know doesnt want to be a mommy.

[bladefd]

Unwanted kids are not the same as newborn babies. Newborn babies are in a much higher demand than say a 2 or 3 year old from a foster home.

Okay, one year wasn't enough, I can say that was my fault. It was a rther quick thought and I posted before thinking. But ultimately, if you give up the child for adoption, you think it does that much damge to the point where the babies life just isn't worth it?

Please adress the point at hand. It is a human life...

A Newborn baby may be in higher demand than a 2 or 3 year old, but at the end of the day, adoption is not in high demand today. Maybe it was 15-20 years ago, but today it is NOT in high demand. With sperm banks and safe pregnancy (along with child-birth) nowadays, it is not in a great demand. Why do you think so many end up in foster homes? If the parent is not able to find somebody willing to adopt, the kid ends up in a foster home.

[Showtime]

how exactly do you propose to do that? Either the woman wants to have the kid or doesnt. If the man disagrees, what can you do? Theres no compromise between the two. if she doesnt want to carry it (or does and you dont want her to), what would you have the court do to enforce the man's right?
I want consistency.

On one hand, the courts say that a fetus under a certain time period does not have basic human rights (right to life). Then the same courts can charge a person for murdering that same human life if it along with the mother are killed. It's not human life, except when you murder it. It seems the definition of what a human life is is subjective to the intention of the parent. If the mother doesn't want it, it's not human life. If she does and it's taken from her, it is a human life. No consistency.

On one hand, the courts say that a man has no ownership of a fetus, and that it's part of a woman's body, and on the other hand, they claim the father has a responsibility for caring for this part of a woman's body once it reaches a certain point. So they dismiss the man's contribution in creating a life when it comes to rights, but enforce it when it comes to responsibility. Again, no consistency.

What I want is for society to stop these unfair double standard BS rulings and finally come to a coherent and consistent way to handle this issue. If you think it's entirely a woman's body, and you remove a man's rights, then you must also remove a man's responsibility. If you think a man should be responsible, then you must also enforce his rights to ownership which is the basis of said responsibility. You can't have it both ways. It's one or the other.

Personally, I think the entire "woman's body" excuse is bullsh!t because neither the man or woman chose to have our reproductive systems function in such a manner. Both consenting adults KNEW that's how the human body works, and both adults KNEW that having sex could result in pregnancy, so the excuse that "Oh, it just so happens I have a uterus so I get all the rights" is just plain unjust.

[shortlunatic]

kids die every day (and in greater #s than gagortions) due to starvation and inadequate access to clean drinking water. what about those human lives? Or the high incidences of cancer and death associated with exposure to pesticides and fertilizers across many areas of the world. that is people profiting off of endangering other's life.


Why should I care if some lady I dont know doesnt want to be a mommy.

What a douchy answer. This forum is ridiculous.

How about because its a human life!! So you justify not caring for one humans life because millions of other are suffering a similar fate??!! This is what you consider logical thinking?? I forgot who said it, but an author once wrote, "the death of one is a tradgedy, but the death of many is a statistic." It's just to bad you guys are shallow enough to make that statement true.

Way to dodge the point at hand anyways. So you casically admit that the fetus is a human life, but that it is still ok to kill it since the woman doesn't want to take responsibiltiy for her actions?

[shortlunatic]

A Newborn baby may be in higher demand than a 2 or 3 year old, but at the end of the day, adoption is not in high demand today. Maybe it was 15-20 years ago, but today it is NOT in high demand. With sperm banks and safe pregnancy (along with child-birth) nowadays, it is not in a great demand. Why do you think so many end up in foster homes? If the parent is not able to find somebody willing to adopt, the kid ends up in a foster home.


The fact of the matter is that the adoption process tends to take a lot longer for certain types of adoptees. The wait that it takes to adopt a newborn baby can often be as long as two years. In addition, because so many people who are considering adoption want to adopt a newborn baby, there are often stricter requirements on prospective adopting parents

Even if it that were the case where the child ends up in a foster home, that is worse than his death?

[Poodle]

STFU.

I have known mutliple foster kids that were better than kids in stable homes. They dont all end up a menace to society.


name them, and name all of the ones that ended up f'd up or unwanted, while we're taxed for their care. its funny to me how its popular for people to adopt overseas these days instead of here. wonder why that is...

the what if scenario's with this debate is what makes it retarded. its always portrayed like what if that aborted kid became the next MLK. sure if you want to play rare what if exceptions, instead of being realistic that kids that are unwanted, and go through parentless childhoods in unstable environments are much more likely to have major issues.

and yeah kids in stable homes can end up f'd up too, but that sure as hell doesn't make it the norm.

[boozehound]

What a douchy answer. This forum is ridiculous.

How about because its a human life!! So you justify not caring for one humans life because millions of other are suffering a similar fate??!! This is what you consider logical thinking?? I forgot who said it, but an author once wrote, "the death of one is a tradgedy, but the death of many is a statistic." It's just to bad you guys are shallow enough to make that statement true.

Way to dodge the point at hand anyways. So you casically admit that the fetus is a human life, but that it is still ok to kill it since the woman doesn't want to take responsibiltiy for her actions?
what a douchey religion. Look, until the fetus can live without being a blood parasite, its not a human life IMO. and yes, the fact that there are billions of people on this planet who life lives in abject poverty and exposed to death on a daily basis in addition to our incredible overuse of resources beyond any sense of balance or sustainability means that I have no problem with a person deciding they dont want to bring a child into this world. If only your mom had been so forward thinking. life sucks, people die and a fetus isnt some gift from heaven.

[Poodle]

False. I am not saying that abortion should be illegal and that women should be forced into having children. I am for reforming the system to where it is not totally biased against men.

theres a more reasonable middle ground here that still favors the woman, while giving the man some say. imo something like 80/20 would be reasonable given how much crap the female goes thru, and it being her body she's ruining. i agree with your point that child support costs should be consistent with the male/females say in having the child, and maybe there should be a law that factors in the man not wanting it while the woman does that absolves him from most of the child support payments. i just think there should be SOME penalty for men running around knocking every female up as a deterrence to it. it already happens way too often even with the child support payments deterrence these days.

[shortlunatic]

what a douchey religion. Look, until the fetus can live without being a blood parasite, its not a human life IMO. and yes, the fact that there are billions of people on this planet who life lives in abject poverty and exposed to death on a daily basis in addition to our incredible overuse of resources beyond any sense of balance or sustainability means that I have no problem with a person deciding they dont want to bring a child into this world. If only your mom had been so forward thinking. life sucks, people die and a fetus isnt some gift from heaven.

And who said anything about religion? See, it is here in plain site. People get pissed at me all the time because they say I am forcing my religion on others promoting slef righteousness when thats not the case at all. You have clearly bated me into it and if I were to go on with it to defend myself, it would somehow be my fault. But for the sake of others, I won't even continue on that line of thinking.

As to the original point, it is still a douchy answer. It is a human life, not because religion says so, but because it just is. If a fetus moves away from the device that is about to end its life, is it not living? Does this not matter to you? Of course not. Because its all about you. Forget another life, they are just not important.

[D-Rose]

I'm against abortion but it doesn't really affect me if someone I don't know is doing it ("ordinary" murders happen too, can't stop everyone from doing wrong). If it's my wife/gf or even sister I'm Pro-Life. No explanation needed, just my belief.

[momo]

I would be all for a system where when you get an abortion, you also lose your right to conceive.

That's the stupidest thing I have read in a long time. Free will. Look it up.

For the record, pro choice.

[Poodle]

Even if it that were the case where the child ends up in a foster home, that is worse than his death?


if we play make believe that nobody is paying for these unwanted children's care while they're being shopped, or that there isn't a glut of kids waiting to be adopted, and that they all live happy, fulfilling lives while jumping from foster homes and never are a burden on anyone, or themselves, then sure.

but if you want to play the real world card where things aren't always some faerie tale that kids without direction are likely to be a burden to society, go through depression, act out agsint society, the reality of nobody ever wanting them, etc. then sometimes never being born(which isn't death btw) is the better decision.

like i said earlier the what if scenarios with this issue is what makes it retarded. its always some faerie tale portrayal of some productive famous figure getting aborted, and never mentioning the harsh reality how unlikely that is vs whats the most likely and realistic scenarios.

[Poodle]

And who said anything about religion? See, it is here in plain site. People get pissed at me all the time because they say I am forcing my religion on others promoting slef righteousness when thats not the case at all. You have clearly bated me into it and if I were to go on with it to defend myself, it would somehow be my fault. But for the sake of others, I won't even continue on that line of thinking.

As to the original point, it is still a douchy answer. It is a human life, not because religion says so, but because it just is. If a fetus moves away from the device that is about to end its life, is it not living? Does this not matter to you? Of course not. Because its all about you. Forget another life, they are just not important.


i just REALLY wonder if you are this passionate about human life in general, more than just fetus's based on the popularity of this issue in religion. i find most people who are so fetus protective are more brainwashed by their church and parents, which is why they are inconsistent when it comes to the value they place on fetus's vs the death of everyone else in this world.

hope you shed a tear each time someone dies in this world :P

[shortlunatic]

...

I never said anything about a what if. I said it is valuable regardless of what he or she turns into in life. Whether they become the next Obama or just your normal worker earning a decent living, the life is valuable. On top of that, how is what you are doing any different? You say "what if" makes it retarded, yet you are the one saying what if they become menaces to society. But do you know this? No. But I guess in your eyes, better safe than sorry? :confusedshrug:

That's aside from my main point. It is a human life. Place whatever mumbo jumbo technical jargon you want, you can't play down the fact that it is a murder.

[shortlunatic]

i just REALLY wonder if you are this passionate about human life in general, more than just fetus's based on the popularity of this issue in religion. i find most people who are so fetus protective are more brainwashed by their church and parents, which is why they are inconsistent when it comes to the value they place on fetus's vs the death of everyone else in this world.

hope you shed a tear each time someone dies in this world :P

Human life in general. I have not been brain washed by anyone, I am only a Christian of 11 months. Do I shed a tear? No. However, my heart goes out to all the people who suffer.

And if it means anything, I don't just talk it, I live it out. I do not look at mooney the same anymore. Everyday I think to myself how blind we as a common person truly are. We so easily spend $90 on a pair of shoes that do nothing but help us walk on pavement when that money could have been much better used keeping a starving child alive for another week. But unfortunatley, we are born with a mindset where it is always ourselves over others...

[Poodle]

I never said anything about a what if. I said it is valuable regardless of what he or she turns into in life. Whether they become the next Obama or just your normal worker earning a decent living, the life is valuable. On top of that, how is what you are doing any different? You say "what if" makes it retarded, yet you are the one saying what if they become menaces to society. But do you know this? No. But I guess in your eyes, better safe than sorry? :confusedshrug:

That's aside from my main point. It is a human life. Place whatever mumbo jumbo technical jargon you want, you can't play down the fact that it is a murder.


you can't just keep talking about how valuable all life is without mentioning the downsides of every newborn whose parents didn't want them, and what they go through in that situation. its like you're some idealist without the practicality to go with it. how productive they likely become, or how much of a burden they are IS very relevant to this issue. especially for those of us on the outside looking in and paying for their upbringing.

is something unborn a human life? thats not mumbo jumbo, its talking in realistic terms. you can't keep playing a guilt trip based on that calling it murder when it was never born. born as in coming out of the womb, hatching from a egg, and actually seeing this world to know what they missed out on . if they're whole world was a womb and know nothing else are they really alive? if you die right then does it really matter since ignorance is bliss?

i also hope you have adopted kids or plan to. i hope everyone that is pro life does, but its funny to me most of them don't seem to when i ask. but yet portray their human life value meter to extreme sympathetic lvls that seem inconsistent with their actions.

[Poodle]

Human life in general. I have not been brain washed by anyone, I am only a Christian of 11 months. Do I shed a tear? No. However, my heart goes out to all the people who suffer.

And if it means anything, I don't just talk it, I live it out. I do not look at mooney the same anymore. Everyday I think to myself how blind we as a common person truly are. We so easily spend $90 on a pair of shoes that do nothing but help us walk on pavement when that money could have been much better used keeping a starving child alive for another week. But unfortunatley, we are born with a mindset where it is always ourselves over others...


are you really as motivated in action as you are in words and sympathy? thats really what i truly wonder when i read stuff like this from the pro life people. its easy to talk like you care so much about everyone, every human life, but its just hard to believe a lot of you live your daily lives so sympathetic to all of the tragedy that occurs every day.

if you are consistent in your actions with your words/sympathy then more power to you. its just difficult for me to believe that is true for anyone because you'd be sad and depressed every single day. its just not a realistic way to live imo, and its hard for me to believe the ones who make these very sympathetic to all human life arguments are truly living that way, and doing stuff like helping every other human in any way they can because they supposedly value it so much.

i don't know. i meet a lot of religious people who can talk it up, but their actions are rarely consistent with being as religious as they claim to be. its the same imo with the people who say they value all human life so much, when so much tragedy occurs that there is no way you don't become somewhat numb to it at some point. And its not like people don't have enough to worry about in their own personal lives.

[EroticVanilla]

I can already see where this sentence will take this thread :D

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/07/us/slaughterhouse_span.jpg
We already went through that debate yesterday, no need to stir the pot again.


On a sidenote, I know a young lady who kept the fetus cause her BF said he would leave her if she terminated. Fast forward 3 years, neither parent wants the kid (always at a grandmas or other secondary caregiver), they cant stand each other, and this kid has a woefully underdeveloped intellect and doesnt get the love and attention she deserves. Now, whats better?
It's stories like this that are ultimately the reason I support abortion. The kid is basically f*cked for life, and it had no say in the matter.

LJJ mentioned that people should take responsibility for the life they help create, which is true, but doesn't always happen. Just because something should happen one way doesn't mean it will, it's called living within the confines of your reality, and reality says some people aren't ready or worthy of being parents and won't give a child the proper care or attention that it deserves.

[GatorKid117]

name them, and name all of the ones that ended up f'd up or unwanted, while we're taxed for their care. its funny to me how its popular for people to adopt overseas these days instead of here. wonder why that is...

and yeah kids in stable homes can end up f'd up too, but that sure as hell doesn't make it the norm.

It's popular to adopt overseas because of the system, not because of the kids. It doesn't take years, costs a lot less and the standards are much less severe. The American adoption system is a complete mess.

And your right, foster kids are more f-ed up. But a decent portion of that is because of the amount of abuse and neglect that goes on in foster homes. And once they hit 18, they are thrown out with no resources to succeed. They are not given an environment to develop. I've met a few foster kids at the camp I work out and its pretty sad what they tell me. There is no love or stability and they never feel wanted. Now one of the kids was there because both his parents had been killed but same thing nonetheless. Just like the adoption system, the foster child system could use some serious renovation. They say its better to stay in abusive household with your parents than to be put into foster care....



like i said earlier the what if scenarios with this issue is what makes it retarded. its always some faerie tale portrayal of some productive famous figure getting aborted, and never mentioning the harsh reality how unlikely that is vs whats the most likely and realistic scenarios.

Like Tim Tebow?

[shortlunatic]

you can't just keep talking about how valuable all life is without mentioning the downsides of every newborn whose parents didn't want them, and what they go through in that situation. its like you're some idealist without the practicality to go with it. how productive they likely become, or how much of a burden they are IS very relevant to this issue. especially for those of us on the outside looking in and paying for their upbringing.

I didn't say don't mention the downsides, but the downside is all assumption. You are taking human lives and making assumptions that some or most will not become productive members of society. It is upon this assumption that you are trying to make a valid decision on whether keeping them alive is worth the risk.

Is there anything humane about that logic? Since some MAY hurt the future, NONE deserve the chance. These aborted babies would have grown up to be people just like you and me, yet you somehow feel you have the right to deny them the same opportunity we are given due to lack of responsibility their mother’s have.

Yes, they may be a burden, but are you that cold hearted to a point where that burden is to much? Is your money more important? Having a car, nice TV, going on vacation is all more important to you than a human life?


is something unborn a human life? thats not mumbo jumbo, its talking in realistic terms. you can't keep playing a guilt trip based on that calling it murder when it was never born. born as in coming out of the womb, hatching from a egg, and actually seeing this world to know what they missed out on . if they're whole world was a womb and know nothing else are they really alive? if you die right then does it really matter since ignorance is bliss?

Realistic terms? If an unborn fetus attempts to move away from the vacuum that is about to tear it to shreds, does that not mean that it must realistically feel pain? If it feels pain, then is it not alive? I am not playing a guilt trip on you, you just refuse to accept the guilt of what you are condoning.


i also hope you have adopted kids or plan to. i hope everyone that is pro life does, but its funny to me most of them don't seem to when i ask. but yet portray their human life value meter to extreme lvls that seem inconsistent with their actions.

I in no way plan to adopt kids. That is a terrible point when it comes to me valuing a life. Part of a family is to get married and raise kids. I would like to have kids of my own flesh and blood. That makes me a hypocrite? You don’t just adopt kids because they are there, you adopt them because it’s something you feel called to do. But if that’s what you resort to in order to make pro lifers sound hypocritical, I am not surprised. Hopefully your eyes are opened soon.

I already said, the demand for newborn babies is still there. If you make it known that you do not intend to keep your child, there will be suitors.

EDIT: sorry I posted this in a rather confusing way...will try to fix...

[shortlunatic]

are you really as motivated in action as you are in words and sympathy? thats really what i truly wonder when i read stuff like this from the pro life people. its easy to talk like you care so much about everyone, every human life, but its just hard to believe a lot of you live your daily lives so sympathetic to all of the tragedy that occurs every day.

if you are consistent in your actions with your words/sympathy then more power to you. its just difficult for me to believe that is true for anyone because you'd be sad and depressed every single day. its just not a realistic way to live imo, and its hard for me to believe the ones who make these very sympathetic to all human life arguments are truly living that way, and doing stuff like helping every other human in any way they can because they supposedly value it so much.

i don't know. i meet a lot of religious people who can talk it up, but their actions are rarely consistent with being as religious as they claim to be. its the same imo with the people who say they value all human life so much, when so much tragedy occurs that there is no way you don't become somewhat numb to it at some point. And its not like people don't have enough to worry about in their own personal lives.

Because you learn how to deal with it. As a human, there is only so much I can do to help. However, it does not mean I will stop. Put it like this. There are millions of people out there who are starving, so If I were to give lets say, $100 in donations, that would hardly put a dent in that number. But is that how we are supposed to believe? So if I keep a child alive for an extra week with my $100, is that nullified since there are millions more starving? Is that child's life impacted any more or less based on whether I save millions or just one? That is how I look at life, and that fact is enough to keep me going.

Unfortunately, I have been without a job for some time. But in recent times, money has lost much of its original importance in my life. If I were to get as job now, I gurantee a majority of it is going to others who need it, whereas before I viewed my money as my reward. Spend it on whatever made me happy. Now, I can't help but look at my purchases as selfish desire. If I have a pair of shoes, why do I need two? Thats basically saying me having 2 pairs of shoes is better than keeping a childs life going, even if it just for another couple days. My goal is for money to basically lose all its value in my life. I am not strong enough to give it all up now, but I will do my best to give up what I feel I should.

EDIT: and to the point about personal lives, the whole basis of my faith is others over yourselves. If I live my current life in which I am fed, clothed, adnd have a roof on my head and consider that "hard", then how much worse is it for others? To forget them and focus on myself is purely selfish. There are plently of people much worse off than I am. They deserve my help if it is available.

[Nanners]

im against abortion, but pro killing babies


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_j99VUrX25a4/SX_dtQHhf_I/AAAAAAAAD1c/7ROKt0C6am4/s320/regressive1.gif

[Eldrunko247]

Because you learn how to deal with it. As a human, there is only so much I can do to help. However, it does not mean I will stop. Put it like this. There are millions of people out there who are starving, so If I were to give lets say, $100 in donations, that would hardly put a dent in that number. But is that how we are supposed to believe? So if I keep a child alive for an extra week with my $100, is that nullified since there are millions more starving? Is that child's life impacted any more or less based on whether I save millions or just one? That is how I look at life, and that fact is enough to keep me going.

Unfortunately, I have been without a job for some time. But in recent times, money has lost much of its original importance in my life. If I were to get as job now, I gurantee a majority of it is going to others who need it, whereas before I viewed my money as my reward. Spend it on whatever made me happy. Now, I can't help but look at my purchases as selfish desire. If I have a pair of shoes, why do I need two? Thats basically saying me having 2 pairs of shoes is better than keeping a childs life going, even if it just for another couple days. My goal is for money to basically lose all its value in my life. I am not strong enough to give it all up now, but I will do my best to give up what I feel I should.

EDIT: and to the point about personal lives, the whole basis of my faith is others over yourselves. If I live my current life in which I am fed, clothed, adnd have a roof on my head and consider that "hard", then how much worse is it for others? To forget them and focus on myself is purely selfish. There are plently of people much worse off than I am. They deserve my help if it is available.
STFU! Others over yourself? That's why you're pro life? How about you just spewing religious propaganda? I see it as you being selfish over the needs of others. People make mistakes and accidents happen. Abortion should be a viable option. You have nothing to do with someone else's life. Don't pretend to act as if you care. It's a moral religious victory for you to stop abortion. At the same time you could care less what happens to that child thereafter. Every loud mouth crying about abortion should be ready, able, and willing to adopt an unwanted baby otherwise hush!

[Meticode]

Because you learn how to deal with it. As a human, there is only so much I can do to help. However, it does not mean I will stop. Put it like this. There are millions of people out there who are starving, so If I were to give lets say, $100 in donations, that would hardly put a dent in that number. But is that how we are supposed to believe? So if I keep a child alive for an extra week with my $100, is that nullified since there are millions more starving? Is that child's life impacted any more or less based on whether I save millions or just one? That is how I look at life, and that fact is enough to keep me going.

Unfortunately, I have been without a job for some time. But in recent times, money has lost much of its original importance in my life. If I were to get as job now, I gurantee a majority of it is going to others who need it, whereas before I viewed my money as my reward. Spend it on whatever made me happy. Now, I can't help but look at my purchases as selfish desire. If I have a pair of shoes, why do I need two? Thats basically saying me having 2 pairs of shoes is better than keeping a childs life going, even if it just for another couple days. My goal is for money to basically lose all its value in my life. I am not strong enough to give it all up now, but I will do my best to give up what I feel I should.

EDIT: and to the point about personal lives, the whole basis of my faith is others over yourselves. If I live my current life in which I am fed, clothed, adnd have a roof on my head and consider that "hard", then how much worse is it for others? To forget them and focus on myself is purely selfish. There are plently of people much worse off than I am. They deserve my help if it is available.
I completely understand where you're coming from and you make good points. That of which I agree with mostly.

[VishaltotheG]

Choice. This is the only stance I take against conservatives.

[mattevans11]

wow this has sent mixed messages to even post in this thread but after reading through the first 7 pages of this thread there is a lot that is good going on in here and a lot of dumb ones as well.

first things first the religious nutjob... you dont belong in this thread... propaganda does not belong in a discussion thread like this.

i agree that the double standard of the males role is not completely fair (i think sowtime was saying this), but i also htink it is impossible to meet half way between here. the woman is more invested in the process than the man, even in a relationship where both parties are doing the responsible thing.

for the guy that said the woman should lose their right to have children later.. you are officially DUMB.... so should the men that father these children also have to get their nuts cut? dont be stupid.

i believe that it is the woman's decision untill the baby is born then the man has to step up at that point and do the responisble thing. that being said, the man is in a predicament due to the fact of being stuck with a child support payment even though the courts RARELY side with a man when fighting for custody.....

i am pro choice because of what a lot of people said..... i do understand that it is better to be well prepared for outcomes when you are having sex, but things happen...beers fly down your throat... and you get your willy wet in the wrong girl(might not even know her name).... yes it would be better to adopt in some cases but i would not argue with a mother that wanted to terminate it.... its not as if i can carry the baby for her if she wants nothing to do with it.....

[Moan]

since when do males really have a choice? really it's the female who makes this decision. They should really have a form that excuses the male if the female wants to go through with it.

[Mista Kool]

Both.

I'm pro-choice, referring to the choice not to be inseminated that every woman has (outside of rape). However I'm also pro-life, meaning that once fertilization has taken place, all of the genetic makeup of a human being is in place and development has begun, ending the pregnancy is unequivocally murder.

[DoubleTech]

Both.

I'm pro-choice, referring to the choice not to be inseminated that every woman has (outside of rape). However I'm also pro-life, meaning that once fertilization has taken place, all of the genetic makeup of a human being is in place and development has begun, ending the pregnancy is unequivocally murder.


So you agree that abortion shouldn't be illegal. Nice.

[shortlunatic]

STFU! Others over yourself? That's why you're pro life?

No, I

[shortlunatic]

first things first the religious nutjob... you dont belong in this thread... propaganda does not belong in a discussion thread like this.

You can

[DonDadda59]

Sex makes babies, is this new to anyone?

:raises hand: :(

I thought people were made by Jesus and his helper angels in their Creation workshop in the North Pole.

[shortlunatic]

I completely understand where you're coming from and you make good points. That of which I agree with mostly.

thank you...I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees a purpose in keeping others in mind...

[shortlunatic]

:raises hand: :(

I thought people were made by Jesus and his helper angels in their Creation workshop in the North Pole.

lol azzhole...(in a joking way)

[Mista Kool]

:raises hand: :(

I thought people were made by Jesus and his helper angels in their Creation workshop in the North Pole.
Reproduction is a brilliantly designed process which operates under automation (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/automation); i.e, without the need for any intervention.

What's amazing is that the entire growth of the human being, from infant to fully-grown adult, comes about via internal processes. All of these microscopic pieces of machinery, operating inside of our cells, controlling our physical existence. Just breath-taking technology, far exceeding mankind's own, made only more alarming by the fact that it's hundreds of millions of years old.

The moral of this lesson? When it comes to pure lunacy, God-denialism is at the very top of the list.

[DonDadda59]

Reproduction is a brilliantly designed process which operates under automation (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/automation); i.e, without the need for any intervention.

What's amazing is that the entire growth of the human being, from infant to fully-grown adult, comes about via internal processes. All of these microscopic pieces of machinery, operating inside of our cells, controlling our physical existence. Just breath-taking technology, far exceeding mankind's own, made only more alarming by the fact that it's hundreds of millions of years old.

The moral of this lesson? When it comes to pure lunacy, God-denialism is at the very top of the list.

Well first things first- you really need to get your story straight. One day you're posting some laughable bullshit about Noah's ark being discovered and how this confirms the bible being the most accurate historical text ever written (meaning the Earth is only a few thousand years old) and then you say the 'technology' of cell replication is hundreds of millions of years old... which is it?

Secondly if this 'technology' was created by God, why is it flawed in so many cases? How does this perfect, Godly automated system produce such flaws as cancer, down syndrome, a host of birth defects, bad eye sight, etc?

And just so I can much more effectively and efficiently rip your whole belief system to shreds... what religion/denomination do you adhere to?

[DeuceWallaces]

Reproduction is a brilliantly designed process which operates under automation (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/automation); i.e, without the need for any intervention.

What's amazing is that the entire growth of the human being, from infant to fully-grown adult, comes about via internal processes. All of these microscopic pieces of machinery, operating inside of our cells, controlling our physical existence. Just breath-taking technology, far exceeding mankind's own, made only more alarming by the fact that it's hundreds of millions of years old.

The moral of this lesson? When it comes to pure lunacy, God-denialism is at the very top of the list.

The only pure lunacy here are your posts. It almost rivals the comic nature of them due to your total ignorance on all thing biological. You being too stupid to comprehend molecular biology does not prove the existence of God.

[WBynumToTheHole]

The only pure lunacy here are your posts. It almost rivals the comic nature of them due to your total ignorance on all thing biological. You being too stupid to comprehend molecular biology does not prove the existence of God.

we should meet sometime. IRL. i like your hair.






ok I knew this guy that claimed he knew a guy who used to eat aborted fetesus to get high off their brain chemicals. i personally don't believe him. but he bet me money on it. we each put 10 dollars down and then I got ripped off because the guy "lost" the 10 dollars and I heard they used to buy drugs.

[gigantes]

most replies here just back up my point- i.e., the only ethical answer to this archaic question is "euthenasia" or being "pro-death."

i.e., if you're still debating whether "pro-life" or "pro-choice" applies to fetuses, then you're living in the past. and you're hilarious, whether you realise it or not.

because every poster here (including myself) continues to use up more earth resources than can be sustained, and this has gone on for so long that that is why civilisation is going to collapse very soon. (the scientific signs are all around us)

and at that time, fetuses will be gorged on like chocolate-sprinkled desserts. because desperately hungry people won't care whether a baby is a christian or an athiest.

[jbot]

Choice. let God* sort 'em out.

[Black Joker]

most replies here just back up my point- i.e., the only ethical answer to this archaic question is "euthenasia" or being "pro-death."

i.e., if you're still debating whether "pro-life" or "pro-choice" applies to fetuses, then you're living in the past. and you're hilarious, whether you realise it or not.

because every poster here (including myself) continues to use up more earth resources than can be sustained, and this has gone on for so long that that is why civilisation is going to collapse very soon. (the scientific signs are all around us)

and at that time, fetuses will be gorged on like chocolate-sprinkled desserts. because desperately hungry people won't care whether a baby is a christian or an athiest.
a modest proposal:confusedshrug:

[Nanners]

and at that time, fetuses will be gorged on like chocolate-sprinkled desserts. because desperately hungry people won't care whether a baby is a christian or an athiest.
:roll: :roll:



but seriously, sadly you are entirely correct. Continued exponential growth of the human species will inevitably result in a mass die off.

[EroticVanilla]

:roll: :roll:



but seriously, sadly you are entirely correct. Continued exponential growth of the human species will inevitably result in a mass die off.
Fred Pearce (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-21-2010/fred-pearce) seems to think that exponential growth is coming to an end.

[GatorKid117]

Fred Pearce (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-21-2010/fred-pearce) seems to think that exponential growth is coming to an end.

Interesting. I was surprised to hear the average number of births in the world is around 2 just like it is in the US. I thought India, China and sub-saharan African would bump that up. But I guess when 15+ countries in Europe have no or negative population growth it makes up for it.

[bballer]

pro life

[shortlunatic]

most replies here just back up my point- i.e., the only ethical answer to this archaic question is "euthenasia" or being "pro-death."

i.e., if you're still debating whether "pro-life" or "pro-choice" applies to fetuses, then you're living in the past. and you're hilarious, whether you realise it or not.

because every poster here (including myself) continues to use up more earth resources than can be sustained, and this has gone on for so long that that is why civilisation is going to collapse very soon. (the scientific signs are all around us)

and at that time, fetuses will be gorged on like chocolate-sprinkled desserts. because desperately hungry people won't care whether a baby is a christian or an athiest.

That in no way gives you the right to end a person's life. Denying others the possibility for life because you want to hold your own is flat out selfish. Murder has and never should be condoned on the basis of "myself over you". If you care so much about the world and future generations, then kill yourself and save some resources.

[EroticVanilla]

That in no way gives you the right to end a person's life. Denying others the possibility for life because you want to hold your own is flat out selfish. Murder has and never should be condoned on the basis of "myself over you". If you care so much about the world and future generations, then kill yourself and save some resources.
I have a question, say you and 1 other person were the stuck on a deserted island, and their was a shortage of food for whatever reason, would you give up eating to save the other person or would you try to keep the food for yourself?

[shortlunatic]

I have a question, say you and 1 other person were the stuck on a deserted island, and their was a shortage of food for whatever reason, would you give up eating to save the other person or would you try to keep the food for yourself?

the first...whether you believe me or not is up to you. I would however find it extremely difficult if the person I was with was willing to take it without even trying to share anyways. But in the end, it is still the first.

[Jailblazers7]

I agree with the food sacrifice. Idk if I was put in that situation but right now I would say I could take the food over another.

[EroticVanilla]

I agree with the food sacrifice. Idk if I was put in that situation but right now I would say I could take the food over another.
I'm not sure what you mean with this wording... Are you saying you'd take the food from another or not.

and Shortlunatic from all of your posts you at least seem to stick to your convictions so I'll believe you (or at least I believe that you truly believe you;d sacrifice yourself).

[shortlunatic]

I'm not sure what you mean with this wording... Are you saying you'd take the food from another or not.

and Shortlunatic from all of your posts you at least seem to stick to your convictions so I'll believe you (or at least I believe that you truly believe you;d sacrifice yourself).


I should note, that I have taken into account what you have said about sounding self righteous, and even though I don't agree with it, I should still make sure that is not the way I am portrayed. The only reason I believe and am able to go to such extremes (or at least in today's society they are) is by the grace of God, not by my own works. I will refrain some saying anymore to avoid another unwanted and unneeded debate from other posters. Just thought I would point out the reason why I never and never will see myself as greater than any man.

[Jailblazers7]

I'm just a little drunk lol. I meant to say i could not take the food over another viewing it from and outside prospective.

[EroticVanilla]

I should note, that I have taken into account what you have said about sounding self righteous, and even though I don't agree with it, I should still make sure that is not the way I am portrayed. The only reason I believe and am able to go to such extremes (or at least in today's society they are) is by the grace of God, not by my own works. I will refrain some saying anymore to avoid another unwanted and unneeded debate from other posters. Just thought I would point out the reason why I never and never will see myself as greater than any man.
Thats an admirable opinion, and really goes in the face of what we are condition to believe as humans. If more people understood that their not something special and that everyone is essentially the same I think the world would be much better.

You should read "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005)", by Alan Watts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts)

Watts uses Eastern philosophy and modern physics to explain his viewpoint on life on Earth, it's one of the best books I've ever read, though It's harsh on it's perspective on Organized Religion, but I still think you would enjoy it, one of the most thought provoking pieces of literature I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

Edit: Anyone who likes philosophy should pick this up.

[shortlunatic]

Thats an admirable opinion, and really goes in the face of what we are condition to believe as humans. If more people understood that their not something special and that everyone is essentially the same I think the world would be much better.

You should read "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005)", by Alan Watts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts)

Watts uses Eastern philosophy and modern physics to explain his viewpoint on life on Earth, it's one of the best books I've ever read, though It's harsh on it's perspective on Organized Religion, but I still think you would enjoy it, one of the most thought provoking pieces of literature I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

Edit: Anyone who likes philosophy should pick this up.

Perfect. Thanks for the recommendation, I have actually really taken an interest in philosophy recently and am on the lookout for some good reads, so I will definitely check it out. I actually just finished the book Status Anxiety by Alain De Botton which I really enjoyed.

And it's ok that its harsh on faith. Though I am deeply devoted and passionate about my faith, I am always open to other ideas and viewpoints that others have. As a Christian, I understand that from the outside, my views to some are ludicrous. But I tend to find that those who criticize my faith have never spent the time to actually openly engage themselves in trying to understand the depth of what the message truly was before judging it, and instead have based all their assumptions from what they could only see on the surface or the outside, which is a terrible approach. So it is in that sense that I feel it is only fair that I too approach every idea and way of life with an open mind and willingness to understand, regardless of how frowned upon it may be in accordance to my faith or how ridiculous it may sound to me. Otherwise if I did not, where would I get off thinking others should do it for mine?

[lefthook00]

You get to choose ONCE. If you screw up again, you should keep the baby.

[RoTM]

If we legalize abortion were just choosing to admit were animals imo. The state setting a minimum age limit exception for murder is beyond stupid.

[miller-time]

[QUOTE=shortlunatic]If you look at that and still believe it is not alive, then that

[Junny]

Right in the middle. Neither is "wrong" for me. I'm the guy politicians target for votes. As of this moment right now, I'm swaying towards pro-life. I may very well come back tomorrow and say pro-choice.

Note: I've already edited my post 3 times, and it hasn't even been 5 minutes.

[shortlunatic]

a baby doesn't even have sensory connections in its brain until 30 weeks.. at 12 weeks it has as much ability to dodge medical instruments as a person who has been dead for 12 weeks.

Did you watch the documentary?

[DoubleTech]

If we legalize abortion were just choosing to admit were animals imo. The state setting a minimum age limit exception for murder is beyond stupid.

abortion is already legal.

[miller-time]

Did you watch the documentary?

yes, it is stupid and misleading. i maintain that the fetus does not have the ability to move around beyond autonomic movements. it is not a human like you or i or even a new born.

it's just propaganda dude.

[shortlunatic]

yes, it is stupid and misleading. i maintain that the fetus does not have the ability to move around beyond autonomic movements. it is not a human like you or i or even a new born.

it's just propaganda dude.

Ok well don't you have anything else to back that statement up? Calling it stupid and misleading doesn't really count, or that could be said about anything people disagreed with. Are you just denying the video? Or do you believe the video itself is fake?

[Fallguy20]

Pro-choice but I can understand why people are Pro-life. Nothing wrong with not wanting fetuses/babies die.


dis

[miller-time]

Ok well don't you have anything else to back that statement up? Calling it stupid and misleading doesn't really count, or that could be said about anything people disagreed with. Are you just denying the video? Or do you believe the video itself is fake?

the video of the abortion isn't fake. the way the doctor describes what is happening in the video is extremely inaccurate. i already told you, babies don't move around in reaction to external stimuli at 12 weeks (they may have autonomic reactions, but this is different from deliberately dodging medical equipment as the doctor likes to claim).

i think it is misleading because both the doll and the monitor disort the actual size of the 12 week old baby to misappropriate feelings one would have for a new born to the fetus. i've seen a 2 inch fetus in a removed uterus (the uterus had a tumor) and trust me it is nothing like a new born baby.

it is valid and fine to promote pro-life material and while i am pro-choice i definitely think it should be a last resort option. it's shouldn't be a tool used to alleviate responsibility. but promoting pro-life is different from saying whatever the hell you want to gain sympathy for your cause.

[shortlunatic]

the video of the abortion isn't fake. the way the doctor describes what is happening in the video is extremely inaccurate. i already told you, babies don't move around in reaction to external stimuli at 12 weeks (they may have autonomic reactions, but this is different from deliberately dodging medical equipment as the doctor likes to claim).

i think it is misleading because both the doll and the monitor disort the actual size of the 12 week old baby to misappropriate feelings one would have for a new born to the fetus. i've seen a 2 inch fetus in a removed uterus (the uterus had a tumor) and trust me it is nothing like a new born baby.

it is valid and fine to promote pro-life material and while i am pro-choice i definitely think it should be a last resort option. it's shouldn't be a tool used to alleviate responsibility. but promoting pro-life is different from saying whatever the hell you want to gain sympathy for your cause.

Ok, I can respect that. So in your opinion, you believe everything in the film was just exaggerated. But does seeing that still not signify that a human life is present? Or does that fact that it's just an automatic reaction seem to negate it?

At what point do you consider a fetus a human life, like that of a newborn?

[travelingman]

Bump. And pro-choice.