Short version: "pro-life" (parantheses due to hypocrisy) people think the US can take care of another million people in foster-care and orphanages, and that there will be no consequences of allowing this to happen. They have little to no regard as far as I have seen for the lives of born children, only those that have yet to. Pro-choice people however think that one should have a right to choose whether one is ready to have a child or not, and that abortions before three months are up should be legal because the foetus has yet to develop certain things that would allow it to think and feel.As far as I see there is not a single good argument, even after 430 posts, that abortion should be illegal/frowned upon. I'm still waiting for that good argument; "pro-lifers".
Abortions
Started by
Guest_xero212121
, Dec 18 2007 12:33 PM
526 replies to this topic
#426
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:57 PM
#427
Guest_Christlicher Soldat
Guest_Christlicher Soldat
-
- Guest
Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:15 PM
For the SECOND time, now: the thrust of my statement was not a question of whether the child's life would suck. The thrust was whether a rhetoric of "choice" is consistent with what your position actually ends up standing for.You introduced your argument as if it was a new one; namely, the issue of whether the child's life would suck or not.
No, years of reading philosophy and theology texts in my free time, a baccalaureate in general psychology, and my fiancé's constant praises for my knowledge base make me feel real smart. Dinosaurs have nothing to do with it.That thesaurus makes you feel real smart, doesn't it?
And the fact that you and Shadow keep referencing statistics shows that you don't even understand my criticism. You basically say, "I came, I saw a two-to-three-line argument that on the face of things seems to make the same argument I've been shooting down for several pages and felt very proud for dismissing it without any careful consideration."You basically said, I came, I didn't see my argument so I posted it and felt very proud that I defended the life of a fetus online after I posted my overdone argument, and yes, me, shadow, and nazer have all addressed your point and found it to be irrelevant. When we face the question of whether the child will even have a home to live in, his/her happiness is irrelevant.
The Cenozoic, when last I checked.I also love that word. Barb. I also have to ask you, as trance asked me, what era are you from?
#428
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 18 September 2008 - 07:57 PM
For the SECOND time, now: the thrust of my statement was not a question of whether the child's life would suck. The thrust was whether a rhetoric of "choice" is consistent with what your position actually ends up standing for.
I have a suggestion. Put yourself on a pedestal less, and try efficient communication more.And the fact that you and Shadow keep referencing statistics shows that you don't even understand my criticism. You basically say, "I came, I saw a two-to-three-line argument that on the face of things seems to make the same argument I've been shooting down for several pages and felt very proud for dismissing it without any careful consideration."
A bachelor in psychology, studying philosophy/theology on your free time, and your fiancé's opinion makes you think you're smarter than everyone else? Pardon me if I giggle.Was your last sentence meant as a joke? It left that smell of "Hah, you wrote something wrong and this is me correcting it with a snide remark." but it makes no sense.No, years of reading philosophy and theology texts in my free time, a baccalaureate in general psychology, and my fiancé's constant praises for my knowledge base make me feel real smart. Dinosaurs have nothing to do with it.
65 million years is a pretty big era, and I believe he was referring to eras of human civilization (but I'm hoping you knew that, and just decided to make a silly snide remark that reflects your contempt for people you believe know less than you).It would be appreciated of you stated exactly (and as simply as possible, but no simpler) what your argument was.The Cenozoic, when last I checked.
#429
Guest_trumpetwiz
Guest_trumpetwiz
-
- Guest
Posted 18 September 2008 - 10:03 PM
Well, here's an idea. If you're gonna have sex and don't want a child, USE A CONDOM!!! They're these little things the male slips over his penis, and TA-DA! Very small chance of conception. Or, alternatively, There's this magic pill that females can take, and it's used to control births by taking away the chance for conception while taking the pill. This new technology is called "birth control". Honestly, the 2 parties responsible of the conception should be held responsible. If they were, I gaurantee that people not wanting children would take the 10 seconds beforehand to put a condom on. We don't live in an undeveloped country where we don't know where babies come from. The heart of this issue is responsibility. The easiest way to fix all the problems is: When a guy is on a date with a girl, they both keep their underwrar on.With that being said...Child services are paid to do what they do. If they get stressed, they hire more people. Would it be a good idea to shoot a child who needs a new home because his/her parents are abusive because the child services are stressed out? People should be held responsible for what they do, and especially for what they make. Didja notice the only people who support abortion are people who've already been born?You're forgetting a key argument against your stance. Where do all the children go when put in foster homes?There were 523,000 children in foster homes and 278,000 children were adopted 2002, but 295,000 children were admitted that year as well. There were 854,122 legal abortions in 2002. If people were to cease getting abortions, I can only imagine how much more crowded, stressed, and exhausted our child services would become. I'm sure that the government would respond, but can we continue to respond when each year when about 850,000 children are added?I just did a quick search on google for the numbers. They seem to be on par, but if you're skeptical of my statistics, here are the sources.
#430
Shadow
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 841 posts
Asian fetishist and Android fanboy
Reputation: 2
Neutral
Posted 19 September 2008 - 01:52 AM
"Pro- life" translates to "care about people who don't even exist yet and stop giving a crap about the quality of life for those already alive."Short version: "pro-life" (parantheses due to hypocrisy) people think the US can take care of another million people in foster-care and orphanages, and that there will be no consequences of allowing this to happen. They have little to no regard as far as I have seen for the lives of born children, only those that have yet to. Pro-choice people however think that one should have a right to choose whether one is ready to have a child or not, and that abortions before three months are up should be legal because the foetus has yet to develop certain things that would allow it to think and feel.As far as I see there is not a single good argument, even after 430 posts, that abortion should be illegal/frowned upon. I'm still waiting for that good argument; "pro-lifers".
... You're joking, right? Your argument was the EXACT SAME THING as what was asked before! Why would I waste my time using an external source to try and disprove you when your argument has already been nullified within the thread you were posting in?And the fact that you and Shadow keep referencing statistics shows that you don't even understand my criticism. You basically say, "I came, I saw a two-to-three-line argument that on the face of things seems to make the same argument I've been shooting down for several pages and felt very proud for dismissing it without any careful consideration."
I think it was a joke. A really freaking bad joke. I guess he did it purposely. Bad jokes coupled with his inability to realize that he isn't hot sh*t and his use of words that were obviously taken from the thesaurus give him an air of "I have no personality or sense of humor because I'm too busy reading books, and my big words make me look smart in spite of the lack of substance in my argument." Well, they're supposed to have that effect on us. It just makes him look conceited, if you ask me.I have a suggestion. Put yourself on a pedestal less, and try efficient communication more.A bachelor in psychology, studying philosophy/theology on your free time, and your fiancé's opinion makes you think you're smarter than everyone else? Pardon me if I giggle.Was your last sentence meant as a joke? It left that smell of "Hah, you wrote something wrong and this is me correcting it with a snide remark." but it makes no sense.
Aww, does he have to? Seeing him use the word "rhetoric" over and over because the thesaurus doesn't have any more big words for him to use in place of it is just so goddamn amusing. :laugh:I'm not seeing his argument either. I thought I was just missing it, but I'm glad to know he didn't actually bring up any new points.It would be appreciated of you stated exactly (and as simply as possible, but no simpler) what your argument was.
The condom/ birth control idea is unrealistic. If EVERYONE in the world had unprotected sex except when they were ready to have a kid, we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. Also, don't preach abstinence to us except when we have a child. Again, nobody is going to follow that rule, myself included. It's unrealistic, so don't bother. Yes, it's unethical to shoot a child because there's nowhere for him to live, but it's not unethical to kill the fetus, because again, the fetus is NOT ALIVE. It's living, but not "alive." As I said before, no brain, no sentience, no nervous system, no realization of being alive. Really? I never noticed that the only people who supported abortion were already born. I could have sworn I've seen a few pro- choice advocate fetuses protesting in downtown Manhattan the other day. OBVIOUSLY, something that's not alive won't have a say. That's like saying "did you notice that the only people who have ever written a book have already been born? I can't believe a fetus hasn't written a novel yet!"Well, here's an idea. If you're gonna have sex and don't want a child, USE A CONDOM!!! They're these little things the male slips over his penis, and TA-DA! Very small chance of conception. Or, alternatively, There's this magic pill that females can take, and it's used to control births by taking away the chance for conception while taking the pill. This new technology is called "birth control". Honestly, the 2 parties responsible of the conception should be held responsible. If they were, I gaurantee that people not wanting children would take the 10 seconds beforehand to put a condom on. We don't live in an undeveloped country where we don't know where babies come from. The heart of this issue is responsibility. The easiest way to fix all the problems is: When a guy is on a date with a girl, they both keep their underwrar on.With that being said...Child services are paid to do what they do. If they get stressed, they hire more people. Would it be a good idea to shoot a child who needs a new home because his/her parents are abusive because the child services are stressed out? People should be held responsible for what they do, and especially for what they make. Didja notice the only people who support abortion are people who've already been born?
Laziest mod - Shadow
Worst Signature - Milo, Finalage, Shadow
OH MY GOD, I'm becoming black.
#431
Guest_popprs
Guest_popprs
-
- Guest
Posted 19 September 2008 - 01:58 AM
Rapists should start wearing condoms and rape victims should have taken the pill before they were raped. Faulty condoms should all be thrown away too.Well, here's an idea. If you're gonna have sex and don't want a child, USE A CONDOM!!! They're these little things the male slips over his penis, and TA-DA! Very small chance of conception. Or, alternatively, There's this magic pill that females can take, and it's used to control births by taking away the chance for conception while taking the pill. This new technology is called "birth control". Honestly, the 2 parties responsible of the conception should be held responsible. If they were, I gaurantee that people not wanting children would take the 10 seconds beforehand to put a condom on. We don't live in an undeveloped country where we don't know where babies come from. The heart of this issue is responsibility. The easiest way to fix all the problems is: When a guy is on a date with a girl, they both keep their underwrar on.With that being said...Child services are paid to do what they do. If they get stressed, they hire more people. Would it be a good idea to shoot a child who needs a new home because his/her parents are abusive because the child services are stressed out? People should be held responsible for what they do, and especially for what they make. Didja notice the only people who support abortion are people who've already been born?
#432
Guest_trumpetwiz
Guest_trumpetwiz
-
- Guest
Posted 19 September 2008 - 08:59 AM
Morning after pill. If taken after the rape, there won't be a conception. And faulty condoms do occur, but they're nowhere near common. I think child services could handle any unwanted children that occur from those. And ultimately, I still say the best way is to keep your pants on, your chanes drop to 0! (Excluding the case of rape, in which case theres a pill to take to reduse chances to 0.)Rapists should start wearing condoms and rape victims should have taken the pill before they were raped. Faulty condoms should all be thrown away too.
#433
Guest_popprs
Guest_popprs
-
- Guest
Posted 19 September 2008 - 09:10 AM
That's the same thing as abortion. You're killing something that has potential for life.Morning after pill. If taken after the rape, there won't be a conception. And faulty condoms do occur, but they're nowhere near common. I think child services could handle any unwanted children that occur from those. And ultimately, I still say the best way is to keep your pants on, your chanes drop to 0! (Excluding the case of rape, in which case theres a pill to take to reduse chances to 0.)
#434
Guest_trumpetwiz
Guest_trumpetwiz
-
- Guest
Posted 19 September 2008 - 09:17 AM
If nothings been conceived yet, then it's not abortion, it's blocking the conception, just as a condom or birth control would do. An abortion is the removal of a fetus. TFurthermore, the only person I think should have a large say in the matter is somebody who was attempted to be aborted. One person is alive today who survived an abortion, and she's against it. Gee, why do you think that is?That's the same thing as abortion. You're killing something that has potential for life.
#435
Guest_popprs
Guest_popprs
-
- Guest
Posted 19 September 2008 - 10:06 AM
If you put on birth control after, it kills the conjoined sperm and egg. Under your logic that you're killing an unborn life, it is abortion. If that isn't the logic, what do you care if we kill a fetus, it's the same thing as killing a zygote. Both, in their respective states, are not human beings, but potential human beings.If nothings been conceived yet, then it's not abortion, it's blocking the conception, just as a condom or birth control would do. An abortion is the removal of a fetus. TFurthermore, the only person I think should have a large say in the matter is somebody who was attempted to be aborted. One person is alive today who survived an abortion, and she's against it. Gee, why do you think that is?
You don't have recollections of when you were a fetus. It's irrelevant to bring someone on that was attempted to be aborted. You wouldn't have known or cared if you were going to be aborted because as a fetus, you have no consciousness.I think should have a large say in the matter is somebody who was attempted to be aborted.
Keep making up stories. We'll see how effective they are.One person is alive today who survived an abortion, and she's against it. Gee, why do you think that is?
#436
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 19 September 2008 - 02:30 PM
..."Survived an abortion" - doesn't that go against the concept? Maybe she survived a poorly done abortion attempt, but she did not survive an abortion. That would be like surviving death, or life for that matter.
#437
Guest_trumpetwiz
Guest_trumpetwiz
-
- Guest
Posted 20 September 2008 - 02:41 AM
1. A morning after pill isn't the same as birth control, it PREVENTS THE CONCEPTION, not destroying the one already there. 2. Of course it's relevant, whether or not you would remember it isn't important, but if the person who survived the attempted abortion likes life or would have rather never been born.3. YOU owe me an apology. Gianna Jessen was almost aborted at 7 months, but survived it. Read about her story, and many others, here: http://joseromia.tri.../survivors.htmlIf you put on birth control after, it kills the conjoined sperm and egg. Under your logic that you're killing an unborn life, it is abortion. If that isn't the logic, what do you care if we kill a fetus, it's the same thing as killing a zygote. Both, in their respective states, are not human beings, but potential human beings.You don't have recollections of when you were a fetus. It's irrelevant to bring someone on that was attempted to be aborted. You wouldn't have known or cared if you were going to be aborted because as a fetus, you have no consciousness.Keep making up stories. We'll see how effective they are.
#438
Guest_DeinKonig
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 20 September 2008 - 03:02 AM
Just clarification, the morning after pill causes a spontaneous abortion, it's still subject to debate, however, about whether it happens after fertilization.1. A morning after pill isn't the same as birth control, it PREVENTS THE CONCEPTION, not destroying the one already there. 2. Of course it's relevant, whether or not you would remember it isn't important, but if the person who survived the attempted abortion likes life or would have rather never been born.3. YOU owe me an apology. Gianna Jessen was almost aborted at 7 months, but survived it. Read about her story, and many others, here: http://joseromia.tri.../survivors.html
#439
Guest_trumpetwiz
Guest_trumpetwiz
-
- Guest
Posted 20 September 2008 - 03:07 AM
Most people believe that it does fix things before the fertlization, and in any case many people from the pro-life side believe that rape is an exception, one of the only ones. It's that and the mothers life being in danger. Besides that there's no logical reason anybody should NEED to get an abortion.Just clarification, the morning after pill causes a spontaneous abortion, it's still subject to debate, however, about whether it happens after fertilization.
#440
Guest_jony man
Guest_jony man
-
- Guest
Posted 20 September 2008 - 04:11 AM
totally against abortion! if u were aborted would you be here? no you wouldnt and i cherise life a lot so i am really against it.POINTS were deducted for this post by -Mario-Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#441
Guest_c.telle
Guest_c.telle
-
- Guest
Posted 27 September 2008 - 02:38 AM
I don't even think that murder is right...Abortion is 100X worse! They haven't done anything wrong-its your own stupidity for having unprotected sex. Give the child up for adoption if you really don't want him/her that much. You wouldn't kill a 1 day old baby, why would you kill it before?!
#442
Guest_Axiluvia
Guest_Axiluvia
-
- Guest
Posted 27 September 2008 - 02:59 AM
Because maybe it wasn't their choice? Rape does happen, and there is no way in hell I would be keeping that thing in my body. I don't care if it could become a person. I mean, they have these people finding their real parents. How lovely would it be to hear "You dad raped be and I wish he was dead, and I never really wanted you in the first place, so I gave you up the first chance I got."Another thing no one mentions here is the fact there is a DIRECT CORRELATION between birth control and abortion versus crime going down. Read Freakenomics if you don't believe me, and there's other things out there that will back me up.What if you're on the pill, or the shot, and you happen to be the one in a thousand it doesn't work for? Do you really want the kid to have aI don't even think that murder is right...Abortion is 100X worse! They haven't done anything wrong-its your own stupidity for having unprotected sex. Give the child up for adoption if you really don't want him/her that much. You wouldn't kill a 1 day old baby, why would you kill it before?!
life?My parents got divorced because they fought so much because of the kids they had. They had different parenting styles, and so would argue how to raise them. And that was a mild case.However, abortion should NEVER be used for birth control. EVER. It should ONLY be used in extreme circumstances. If you're on the pill, or raped, that's one thing. If you're using abortion instead of a condom, you need to be surgically altered so you can't breed anymore, since you don't have the common sense of a cheese sandwich.
#443
Guest_daniel88888888
Guest_daniel88888888
-
- Guest
Posted 29 September 2008 - 12:39 AM
im split on this one. people should be able to be in charge of their life, make their own decisions, but what about the unborn baby? i really don't know. the burden of a child may be a punishment for unprotected sex, but what will become of the child?POINTS were deducted for this post by -Mario-Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#444
Guest_sinsawicz
Guest_sinsawicz
-
- Guest
Posted 29 September 2008 - 05:30 PM
im against abortion but only because of what ive seen among my friends (or ex-friends). one in particular used abortion as a way to have unprotected sex cos "it is well better". The pill isnt foolproof and she WAS on it but still she had 2 abortions on this train of thought and i eventually just stopped seeing her in disgust. as for the broadview, i just dislike abortion cos its killing something not even given a chance. i only really accept abortion if its going to completely ruin your life (and i dont mean fun either, im talking about if it'll split families up and stuff like that)
#445
Guest_spiralbond
Guest_spiralbond
-
- Guest
Posted 01 October 2008 - 03:52 AM
Personally, I'm pro-choice, but that is a very inadequate way of expressing my view. I support the ability to choose not to bring a child into this world due to the fear of not being able to properly raise the child. However, I am afraid that abortion has become so readily available that some people just screw around without any fear of consequences, hence the high teen pregnancy rate. In my opinion, abortion should not be a solve-all solution in such cases, rather, it should be the last resort, with many alternatives in mind, such as putting a child up for adoption.Abortions are actually a boon in the new age if properly managed, after all, without abortion, can you imagine the situation? People will still be having unprotected sex, unwanted pregnancy will occur. Things that happen to these children born in such circumstances can be horrifying; being dumped on the streets and left to die is a very dramatic, but still very possible scenario. In my country, there are dead babies found being thrown down the rubbish chute, I don't think that this is a better outcome than abortion at all.Also, without abortion, there will be an economic strain on society. The children if abandoned will have to go somewhere, an orphanage. Can you imagine these orphanages bursting with the many tenants that are born into this world due to some stupid mistake being made without a solution to correct it? More orphanages have to be built, tax dollars will have to go into helping these children, there will be an opportunity cost on how resources could have better been spent (this is assuming that the government actually supports the orphanages in the first place). Granted, this is a slippery slope type of argument, but it's still not something totally out of this world. Wow, that's a long argument, but basically, I'm saying that though I believe in the freedom to choose, there has to be proper justification before one turns to abortion.
#446
Guest_'The Spider' Silva
Guest_'The Spider' Silva
-
- Guest
Posted 01 October 2008 - 11:14 AM
I Believe that it depends on the situation. If a girl willing has sex, protected or not, she should have the baby.It is not fair nor morally right to play with human lives. The purpose of sex is to procreate.On the other hand. If the girl was forced into having sex and gets pregnant. She should be able to choose an abortion.Bottom line is people should be aware of the consequences of their actions. If you dont want a baby, dont have sex. Dont play with human life's.
#447
Guest_southerncross4033
Guest_southerncross4033
-
- Guest
Posted 01 October 2008 - 10:09 PM
Personally, I'd say that you shouldn't kill the child past the 6th month, so I'd say that I'm pro life. However, if I were a congressional leader, or a represtentative, I'd say that you shouldn't force your belief upon others... it's the individual's choice. That's what America is about.
#448
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 01 October 2008 - 10:23 PM
I'd hope you wouldn't kill _any_ child over 6 months old. If you're referring to a foetus; that IS illegal, and for a reason. 3 months from conception is the "deadline".Personally, I'd say that you shouldn't kill the child past the 6th month, so I'd say that I'm pro life. However, if I were a congressional leader, or a represtentative, I'd say that you shouldn't force your belief upon others... it's the individual's choice. That's what America is about.
#449
Guest_Kent Vonce
Guest_Kent Vonce
-
- Guest
Posted 02 October 2008 - 02:30 PM
The problem is, if abortion became legal, women might have sex left and right since they're given a way to escape the consequences of their actions. I feel sorry for those who are raped but then that cell deserves the right to live as well. It is alive considering that it's a cell.
#450
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 02 October 2008 - 03:59 PM
...I have to ask you man; in all seriousness, are you just messing with us?I.) Abortion is legal in most countries, and women have no more or less sex in comparison to the countries where it is banned as far as I know. Thanks to the Pope and Catholicism, a lot of countries believe both protection and abortion is wrong; and this leads to a lot of births that lead to a lot of poor people becoming even poorer, and to an overall decline in quality of life. People will have sex regardless of whether abortion is legal or not (I really want to know how you came to the conclusion that women would have sex "left and right"), and they will have abortions whether abortion is legal or not. The difference is that abortions in countries where it is not legal are much more dangerous, and are often not done in sterilized environments, nor by educated professionals.II.) You are saying all life is precious, and that this one cell is important too? Well guess what; you're a mass murderer. Every second, your skin kills living bacteria in numbers I can't even begin to imagine. Oh, and let's not forget all the animals/plants you kill in order to sustain yourself. Got to love those murders.III.) Please stop reiterating arguments without providing anything new to go along with them! It gets on everyone's nerves.The problem is, if abortion became legal, women might have sex left and right since they're given a way to escape the consequences of their actions. I feel sorry for those who are raped but then that cell deserves the right to live as well. It is alive considering that it's a cell.
