88 replies to this topic

[Golan]

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:08, said:

A potential? I'm not sure what you mean there.

A human indivudal can change the world. It doesn´t do so necessarily, but it should at least be given a try (if it missbehaves, you can still shoot it...).

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:22, said:

What makes the government allowed to force a woman to go through a lot of pain and even putting a child upon her that she may not even be able to afford or want to take care of. Adoption isn't something you do easily either, there is always an emotional scar. Giving up a baby after it's born can be very hard, however if you keep it then it changes your life forever.

Killing an unborn leaves in fact an even grater emotional scar.
What allows the government to force a pregnant women into this is the fact that it doesn´t decide about her fate, but about the fate of both of them.

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:46, said:

Then I think abortions are being done quite differently in your country o_O.

He´s talking about aborting a highly developed foetus. Somewhen after 7th month I´d guess. This one is usually done only when there are medical concerns.

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:46, said:

Also, it changes the woman's life forever as she'll have to take care of it. The child will need someone around 24/7, as well as it costs a lot of money. People may not be able to afford to stop working and buy all kinds of stuff the baby needs.

The point of adopting out the child has been stated often enough I guess...

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:37, said:

What happens when people have used protection but it fails, as it does in some small percentage of all cases?

The pope is happy to have another example for his policies...

Edited by Golan, 26 April 2007 - 19:52.

[Athena]

Golan, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:51, said:

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:08, said:

A potential? I'm not sure what you mean there.

A human indivudal can change the world. It doesn´t do so necessarily, but it should at least be given a try (if it missbehaves, you can still shoot it...).

What makes you think animals can't?

Golan, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:51, said:

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:22, said:

What makes the government allowed to force a woman to go through a lot of pain and even putting a child upon her that she may not even be able to afford or want to take care of. Adoption isn't something you do easily either, there is always an emotional scar. Giving up a baby after it's born can be very hard, however if you keep it then it changes your life forever.

Killing an unborn leaves in fact an even grater emotional scar.

How would you know that?

Golan, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:51, said:

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:46, said:

Then I think abortions are being done quite differently in your country o_O.

He´s talking about aborting a highly developed foetus. Somewhen after 7th month I´d guess. This one is usually done only when there are medical concerns.

Normally that is not allowed unless in emergency cases as you say. So I don't think we need to discuss it much.

Golan, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:51, said:

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:46, said:

Also, it changes the woman's life forever as she'll have to take care of it. The child will need someone around 24/7, as well as it costs a lot of money. People may not be able to afford to stop working and buy all kinds of stuff the baby needs.

The point of adopting out the child has been stated often enough I guess...

That still forces the woman to go through the pain of labour. Also she is not be able to work much for at least over a month.

Golan, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:51, said:

The pope is happy to have another example for his policies...

I personally find I disagree with the pope on most cases and I certainly don't feel he holds much authority and medical knowledge on this field.

Edited by Blaat85, 26 April 2007 - 19:58.

[Golan]

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:54, said:

Golan, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:51, said:

A human indivudal can change the world. It doesn´t do so necessarily, but it should at least be given a try (if it missbehaves, you can still shoot it...).

What makes you think animals can't?

Well they lack certain needed factors like global infrastructure they could rely on, complex communication capabilities (no, not ze interned) and so on...

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:54, said:

Golan, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:51, said:

Killing an unborn leaves in fact an even grater emotional scar.

How would you know that?

How would I not?
Killing an unborn usually leaves behind a live-long feeling of guilt. While the consequences of not aborting a child can be determined at ease by a woman, she´ll usually having to live through "what if I did not kill him/her?"-depressions, complexs of not having had the right to judge about her child´s life etc. .

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:54, said:

Golan, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:51, said:

He´s talking about aborting a highly developed foetus. Somewhen after 7th month I´d guess. This one is usually done only when there are medical concerns.

Normally that is not allowed unless in emergency cases as you say. So I don't think we need to discuss it much.

I think we do. As Leatherneck stated this would have allmost have apllied to him [Leatherneck, if you think this is too personal too discuss then please say so], so it´s not like it would be a negligible mistake.
Also, keep in mind that many pre-natal diagnostics can´t be apllied in the earlier stages of a pregnancy, so this isn´t necessarily bound to medical emergencies.

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:54, said:

Golan, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:51, said:

The point of adopting out the child has been stated often enough I guess...

That still forces the woman to go through the pain of labour. Also she is not be able to work much for at least over a month.

True. I´ll think about that.

Blaat85, on 26 Apr 2007, 19:54, said:

Golan, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:51, said:

The pope is happy to have another example for his policies...

I personally find I disagree with the pope on most cases and I certainly don't feel he holds much authority and medical knowledge on this field.

Yeah, he isn´t that trustworthy with his zombie-stare.
I´m probably gonna get lynched for this comment (otherwise, I formulated it really badly) but hey, life´s risky. If you accept its risks, accept the consequences aswell.

Edited by Golan, 26 April 2007 - 20:23.

[Whitey]

Quote

QUOTE(Blaat85 @ 26 Apr 2007, 19:54)
QUOTE(Golan @ 26 Apr 2007, 21:51)
He´s talking about aborting a highly developed foetus. Somewhen after 7th month I´d guess. This one is usually done only when there are medical concerns.
Normally that is not allowed unless in emergency cases as you say. So I don't think we need to discuss it much.
I think we do. As Leatherneck stated this would have allmost have apllied to him [Leatherneck, if you think this is too personal too discuss then please say so], so it´s not like it would be a negligible mistake.

Sorry, wasn't implying that I almost underwent a partial-birth abortion, but I was certainly well-developed enough to the point that it would still have to be quite brutal.

Anyway, abortions leave a lot of lasting effects including chances of failed future births among others. THe emotional scarring is less immediate, but still worse, according to a few sources that I once used to argue this in debate.

And Blaat, what are you talking about? Abortions done pretty much the same all over (in the West atleast). Are you inferring that they go through a ton of risks to insert drugs into the fetus? Because I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that would be more dangerous than well, most of that "stuff".

A child is a human being, and this can best be expressed in the following manner: When the child grows, it may even kill its own parents, proving that the parents do note have complete control of the hcild. Not to sound brutal but it is true, children become their own person, unattached but emotionally to their parents.

What is ONE day of pain for a careless person to perhaps give birth to the next Ghandi? (Or Hitler, but that is what the fall of facism is for)

[AllStarZ]

I'm pro-30 day abortions. It takes at least over a month to get some neural activity. Before that time I consider the foetus to be as insubstantial as an egg or a sperm. Prove me wrong.

Its cute you know? You're talking about pain to a child and to a human being, and potential. How many Iraqis has your mess killed? How many potential intellectuals have gotten killed? There are more of your ilk supporting more actions against countries like Iran, which would result in more bloodshed.

Furthermore, besides preceding the child, what other relation is there between a foetus or child? And it all depends on your definition of humanity, whether it is upon conception, upon sentience, upon birth. What makes a human a human? The ability to speak? The ability to make decisions? Its chromosomes?

And consider this. What happens if during pre-birth examinations, the child had a serious physical or mental defect which it would carry with it for its entire life? Furthermore what would happen if it were physically unable to survive outside the mother? Then it'll be dead anyways.

Edited by AllStarZ, 26 April 2007 - 21:37.

[Whitey]

1: I agree
2: Just shut up. Totally different. We aren't murdering the babies SPECIFICALLY so that their mothers can live.
3: Human DNA makes for a human... a nervous system makes for pain.
4: There are obviously those rare conditions. But if it would otherwise be perfectly healthy, why PURPOSELY kill it?

[BillyChaka]

A child can be the greatest thing in the world to people. But it's a lot of work. If a girl gets knocked up or something, and she can't afford to take care for a child... you don't think they're better off dead?

[AllStarZ]

There's always orphanages, but those aren't supported by the State or Federal government.

[Sgt. Nuker]

BillyChaka, on 26 Apr 2007, 20:22, said:

...and she can't afford to take care for a child... you don't think they're better off dead?

To say someone is "better off dead" is a completely selfish way to look at another's life. That baby deserves to have a life, regardless if it'll have a defect (physical or mental). There is treatment nowadays and facilities to help kids with disabilities.

It still flabbergasts me that everyone that is pro-choice is alive to begin with. You all talk about how people should have a choice on whether or not that baby gets to live so the woman doesn't have to deal with the pain. You all should go to your parents and thank them for 1). not aborting you when they had the chance, and 2). thank your mother especially for dealing with the pain of birth. Don't give me this "what if" nonsense. You're alive because your parents didn't dare think of aborting you. Shame on you for being pro-choice. It's a slap in the face to your parents to say "I'm pro-choice because I want to decide whether or not my child or someone else's child lives". How selfish is that? How can someone be self righteous enough to say that?

For the most part, it isn't those women who've been raped that abort their child. It's those who're careless and can't keep their legs shut. If you don't want to care for a child, don't have sex, it's as simple as that.

I will, and forever will be, PRO-LIFE. Nothing that has been said, or will be said will change this fact.


Regards,

Nuker

[Dr. Strangelove]

Just a couple of statements:

Fact: A cow in the slaughter house suffers much more pain than a baby does in any type of abortion in any situation.

If you don't think aborting in any situation is moral(with the notable exceptions of rape and emergancies), you should really give a damn when somebody swats a fly on the wall because

Fact: Flies have about 10X as many braincells as 30 day old fetuses.

And a concluding statement:

Descions not to have an abortion gave us Joseph stalin, Adolf Hilter, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Himler, Nero...

That was my counter to the continually used "human potential argument".

SEMI pro choice

[CodeCat]

Nuker, shame on you for not respecting the values of others!

[Sgt. Nuker]

Don't try and put the shame on my head when you are ready to support the eradication of a human life that has no other choice than to take a drill to the head.

I do respect the values of others, but this is where I draw the line. I will always support life over choice.


Regards,

Nuker

[Overdose]

I'm neither pro-life or pro-choice.

I can never honestly find a reason within me to decide on a question that regards a gender that I'm not even a part of. I just can't tell someone how to run their life in such a profound way. Women alone should be the ones who have any say on this, especially if she's a single pregnant mother. Until I'm a father, I can't really comment on this.

If all women gathered in the world and took a majority stance on this I'd be happy with either decision.

[CodeCat]

I'm pro-choice simply because as a male I have no say in the matter. It's not my unborn babies. If males start forcing their beliefs on females like this, then the reverse should also be true. People should mind their own business and stop interfering with things that aren't their concern.

[Athena]

Major Nuker, on 27 Apr 2007, 02:34, said:

You're alive because your parents didn't dare think of aborting you. Shame on you for being pro-choice.

I live because my parents planned to have a baby. I was wanted and planned at the right time in their life. Shame on you for telling women what they can and can't do with what is theirs and for forcing women to go through a lot (definately in rape cases), while your gender has the easy way.

Major Nuker, on 27 Apr 2007, 02:34, said:

For the most part, it isn't those women who've been raped that abort their child. It's those who're careless and can't keep their legs shut. If you don't want to care for a child, don't have sex, it's as simple as that.

This is not true as far as I know. Also, did it occur to you it takes two to tango.. Why are you blaming the woman only while it is definately also the males 'fault'..

[CodeCat]

And if you say that the baby isn't yours, then why not? What makes a baby not yours but something like, say, germs or food, is? I apply a pretty simple rule here: if it's in my body, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. I can kill it, digest it, absorb it, reject it, whatever I like. It's mine. It doesn't have a life of its own until it's no longer in my body. The fact that its DNA is different from mine matters little. My food has different DNA from me too.

[Mathias]

Major Nuker said:

You're alive because your parents didn't dare think of aborting you.

No, I am alive because my parents wanted to have a child to care for and cherish. Because they PLANNED to spend the next 18 years of their life on raising and supporting a new human being. This, however, is usually not true for those who choose to have an abortion.

Najor Muker said:

Shame on you for being pro-choice.

At times like these, I understand why there can't be ideologies without war.

Edited by Mathias, 27 April 2007 - 12:53.

[Sgt. Nuker]

I just love how my words have been twisted. It seems inherent for either side to do if their part of the argument (however flawed or correct) is to have any chance at all.

@Blaat: Yes I know it takes two to tango. Tell me where in my argument that I say it doesn't.

To all who refuted my "you're alive because your parents didn't dare think of aborting you", congratulations, you've just said the same thing I have. By saying you were planned and cherished is the same thing as saying abortion was as far as far can be from your parent's minds.

And this whole thing about males not having a say in the matter: bull. you're the other half of the equation. Yes the woman has to carry the child and deal with the birthing, but since it does take "two to tango", the guy DOES have half the say.

@The Outsider: So how do you know a cow in the slaughter house suffers more than a baby targeted for abortion? Have you asked the cow or baby how much pain it was in? (yes, this question is absurd, but it exists just like abortion).

By the way, Happy Pro-Life T-shirt Day .


Regards,

Nuker

Edited by Major Nuker, 27 April 2007 - 13:32.

[Athena]

Major Nuker, on 27 Apr 2007, 15:04, said:

@Blaat: Yes I know it takes two to tango. Tell me where in my argument that I say it doesn't.

I'm referring to your comment: "can't keep their legs shut." No where you talked about how males should keep it in their pants or however you'd say it. You only mentioned the woman.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Then how about a blanket comment such as this: Both parties should keep their clothes on if they don't want to have to be responsible for a child.

Abortion = the easy way out.

[LCPL Carrow]

Mathias said:

No, I am alive because my parents wanted to have a child to care for and cherish. Because they PLANNED to spend the next 18 years of their life on raising and supporting a new human being. This, however, is usually not true for those who choose to have an abortion.

Emphasis added
So don't have sex! If you don't want to risk a baby, then don't perform the act that makes them! Duh! Rocket science FTW!

@ Blaat: In the US, if you father a baby, you are responsible for the financial well-being of it and its mother, regardless of your marital status, and if you are older than 16 but the girl isn't, then you have to find a way to do that from inside jail, because that's where statutory rape will land you. Males don't have it easy, at least not in a non-socialist society.

@ food/fly on the wall argument: What, prithee, is that food or that fly on the wall ever going to amount to? What would it even have the potential to amount to? Your arguments are void because a fly is never going to accomplish any great achievement, nor is a cow, or a pig, or a chicken, or a corn plant, or a wheat plant, or a...you get the picture. It's not that human life is necessarily more important than other life, but human lives are the ones with the ability and the potential to affect the world. I'd just love to see a double whopper with cheese find a cure for cancer or aids.

EDIT:
@ Blaat's newest post: As I was reading the topic, I decided that I was gonna say to "keep it in your pants," but Nuker beat me to it with a statement that says the same thing, just in reference to the opposite gender. By no means is it only the women that are to blame for anything related to this debate, but that is also why it shouldn't be only the woman's choice whether or not to abort a baby. It's the dad's kid, too. He DID have an equal part - "fault" I think you said - in creating it, did he not?

Edited by LCPL Carrow, 27 April 2007 - 13:23.

[Mathias]

Abortion and this entire argument exists BECAUSE it isn't as simple as "DON'T HAVE SEX LOL".

[CodeCat]

I'd rather be aborted than cast away by my own mother.

[Sgt. Nuker]

You do truly live in Insanity, don't you? That comment is insane, because by the time you realize you were adopted (assuming you were adopted by age one, and therefore little if any memory of the adoption agency), you wouldn't realize you were adopted unless your adopted parents told you. Even then, you'd have been living for at least 16 years and with a loving family.


Regards,

Nuker

[TehKiller]

Its not like anyone knows if a child wants to be cast away or not.Every person has the right on life even if he is going to be given to some other person that arent his parents he still has the right to live.It shouldnt be the choice of people who got drunk and had sex.....only though in some exceptions when a mother is going to die or the child could die if it gets borned abortion should be allowed

Edited by TehKiller, 27 April 2007 - 15:41.