What should abortion laws be?

[Ipsl]

So now you're advocating homicide because we have to kill the children to protect the children from too many children?


Seriously?

To a certain degree yes. If you'd like to word it in order to degenerate the conversation that's fine. So you don't have a counter point?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Why not just kill, Ispl, then? Are we to begin deciding who should live and who should die for not transgression for some vague 'greater good' or sick 'morality'? America did something similar in the 20's. Should we focus on the poor, since they can't 'contribute' and are, therefore, part of 'the problem'? What about the feebleminded, the crippled, and undesirable races and children of criminals.

America already went that route....

 

[Ipsl]

Why not just kill, Ispl, then? Are we to begin deciding who should live and who should die for not transgression for some vague 'greater good' or sick 'morality'? America did something similar in the 20's. Should we focus on the poor, since they can't 'contribute' and are, therefore, part of 'the problem'? What about the feebleminded, the crippled, and undesirable races and children of criminals.

America already went that route....

good and evil (transgressions) are just as subjective as "the greater good"

However overpopulation and human effects on the world are very objective.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Why not just kill, Ispl, then? Are we to begin deciding who should live and who should die for not transgression for some vague 'greater good' or sick 'morality'? America did something similar in the 20's. Should we focus on the poor, since they can't 'contribute' and are, therefore, part of 'the problem'? What about the feebleminded, the crippled, and undesirable races and children of criminals.

America already went that route....

good and evil are just as subjective as "the greater good"

However overpopulation and human effects on the world are very objective.

Let the record show Ispl does not deny that (s)he's no different than the eugenicists of the 20's and (s)he supports choosing who's worthy of life.

 

[Ipsl]

Why not just kill, Ispl, then? Are we to begin deciding who should live and who should die for not transgression for some vague 'greater good' or sick 'morality'? America did something similar in the 20's. Should we focus on the poor, since they can't 'contribute' and are, therefore, part of 'the problem'? What about the feebleminded, the crippled, and undesirable races and children of criminals.

America already went that route....

good and evil are just as subjective as "the greater good"

However overpopulation and human effects on the world are very objective.

Let the record show Ispl does not deny that (s)he's no different than the eugenicists of the 20's and (s)he supports choosing who's worthy of life.

Again your dramatics and false assumptions only show your inability to have mature debate.

But to respond to your retort, you do the same thing as well every time you do or do not donate to certain charities. In fact, you've already stated that its OK to kill at certain times.

 

[AllieBaba]

The environment has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Yes it does. If you agree that the environment has some control over our well being than it surely has.

Overpopulation can lead to disastrous effects on the bio-sphere. If someone doesn't want a child, and that child will cause damage to the environment, I don't see why they should not be allowed to abort.

We all damage the environment. That doesn't mean it's right to kill each other.

 

[Ipsl]

The environment has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Yes it does. If you agree that the environment has some control over our well being than it surely has.

Overpopulation can lead to disastrous effects on the bio-sphere. If someone doesn't want a child, and that child will cause damage to the environment, I don't see why they should not be allowed to abort.

We all damage the environment. That doesn't mean it's right to kill each other.

This is where the fundamental difference is. I don't look at early abortions as killing. Right and wrong are only dictated by the populous of that particular society. Prohibition used to be considered right until the population changed their view.

 

[Yukon]

Factoid:

ABORTION UP = FEWER NEGROS = DECREASE in CRIME

 

[☭proletarian☭]

good and evil are just as subjective as "the greater good"

However overpopulation and human effects on the world are very objective.

Let the record show Ispl does not deny that (s)he's no different than the eugenicists of the 20's and (s)he supports choosing who's worthy of life.

Again your dramatics and false assumptions only show your inability to have mature debate.

But to respond to your retort, you do the same thing as well every time you do or do not donate to certain charities. In fact, you've already stated that its OK to kill at certain times.

You're comparing not being able to donate to every charity on earth to homicide?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sperm and eggs don't "like" anything, because they aren't organisms, and are incapable of thought or emotion. Biology 101.

Sperm and eggs are "alive" no? Sperm does have instinct to find the egg!

Oh, for crying out loud unprintably! Is it at ALL possible that you uneducated dimwits could enroll in a frigging remedial biology class somewhere and stop expecting me to explain scientific facts so basic that my kids knew and understood them in elementary school? In my state, adult educators get $30-40k a year for doing what you expect me to do for free here.

Yes, body cells are alive. They are not organisms. They are PARTS of organisms. They do not think or "have instinct" in the same sense that an organism does. That's like saying your white blood cells think because they "find" germs and destroy them. Performing their basic cellular function does not indicate any level of thought, not even that of instinct.

I find your attitude of "killing someone is okay, because once they're dead, they don't know the difference" to be intriguing, to say the least.

That is twisting what I said. I am a firm support of abortion in the 1st term! The second term only in the special circumstances (rape, incest or mother's life is in danger). And only in the 3rd term under the rarest circumstances (mother's life is in danger or a genetic defect is discovered).

In other words, you believe exactly what I said you did, which is that some people are disposable because you've determined that they don't know the difference, anyway.

See you don't see view the sperm and egg as alive, when technically both are. My opinion is I don't consider a fetus in as a person (in the first trimester) in the same sense you do, so I don't see it as murder.

Of course I view body cells as alive. I don't view them as separate organisms, because they aren't . . . and because I passed my biology classes in school.

I don't give a rat's ass what your "opinion" is of what a fetus is or isn't, because it's not a matter of opinion. I'm not asking if you think pink or blue is a prettier color. A fetus is what he is, and that's a matter of fact, not up for a vote.

However, in the context of putatively responding to my post, it's irrelevant and non-responsive. You appear to feel that death is better than adoption.

No rather, I feel its best to allow a women to choose freely (during the first trimester and limit it as the pregnancy goes on).

No, you appear to think that death is better than adoption. Don't try to change the subject. This is what you said:

You still have to account for a teen's lack of full maturity and inability to provide for a family.

Please demonstrate to me that, in the context of the conversation that was occurring at that time, that you were NOT saying that being aborted was a better choice for the child than being adopted, since that is the obvious choice - for those of us who don't view babies as disposable, anyway - when a teenager gets pregnant.

I have 3 kids myself and never thought about abortion. Nevertheless, I still think its a right people should have.

Am I supposed to give you a brownie because you only believe in killing OTHER PEOPLE's kids? Is that supposed to be a laudable, praiseworthy attitude? You're actually proud of what a good person you are because you never considered killing your kids?

I pointed out that real, living people who were adopted would be very surprised by that opinion. I didn't say anything about what fetuses, aborted or not, might think.

I have a few cousins who have been adopted and they are firm (to my dismay) liberal Democrats. They support abortion. So go figure.

I didn't say anything about adopted kids being abortion proponents. I said they'd be surprised to hear that THEY, PERSONALLY, would have been better off dead than adopted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

JD,

My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.

Aint that the truth! Honestly, the more facts I give them, the worse of a person I seem to become, lol.. Its quite entertaining, though!!

That would be because the only actual fact you have to offer is that you are a sick, twisted puppy . . . or is that puppy-screwer? I forgot you believe your dog can impregnate you.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I don't look at early abortions as killing.

Because you're retarded. It's killing something by definition.

 

[Cecilie1200]

JD,

My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.

The only thing funnier (and more pathetic) than that post is that JD(who believes in invisible people and talking bushes) thanked you for it.

Does she believe in invisible people and talking bushes? I thought she just believed that her dog could impregnate her.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

JD,

My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.

The only thing funnier (and more pathetic) than that post is that JD(who believes in invisible people and talking bushes) thanked you for it.

Does she believe in invisible people and talking bushes? I thought she just believed that her dog could impregnate her.

FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Its not my place to tell someone else to do to their body.

Why do people keep making this asanine argument? Im pretty libertarian myself I don't believe in laws whos only purpose is to protect people from their own stupidity. Do whatever the fuck you want to do yourself. I don't give a shit. Stop with the sanctimonious drivel above. No one is arguing agaisnt it.

I, and socities governed by laws in general, give a shit when what you do to yourself starts to negatively effect OTHER people. This isn't about what I think woman should be able to do to themselves. It's about what they can do to OTHERS.

It clearly IS about what one woman is goign to do to her body. If you want to have the "at what time is the fetus a person" debate is another issue. But to say its just wrong because of a persons religious beliefs is wrong.

Would you please link for us the point where anyone made an argument against abortion based on telling a woman what to do with her body, or JUST because of religious beliefs? If not, would you please sit down, shut your gaping cakehole, and stop interjecting arguments which are not taking place into the thread? Thank you so much.

On the other point if a life form can not live a sustained life on its own with out the using another lifeforms' energy, its usually defined as a parasite.

Shockingly, Science Boy, definitions often rely on more points than just your personal understanding thereof. Here's the ACTUAL definition of "parasite" - not that it makes any difference to this discussion:

Parasite - an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Parasitism - an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

You might notice that a lack of "useful or adequate return" and "usually injures" are included in the definition.

I would also rather see less babies suffering.

And your solution is to kill them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It clearly IS about what one woman is goign to do to her body. If you want to have the "at what time is the fetus a person" debate is another issue. But to say its just wrong because of a persons religious beliefs is wrong.

My opinions about abortion have little to do with my relgious beliefs. I have yet to see a compelling argument that a baby is less of a human being moments before birth to moments after. If just doing something to one's own body is all this was about I would be right with you. But that isn't what abortion is. Abortion is doing something to another body that happens to reside within you.

I have yet to say a single thing about religion in any abortion thread, except in response to someone ELSE bringing it up. Noticeably, it's almost always the pro-aborts who bring religion into the topic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Mass murder is being committed every day in Iraq. Bombs are being dropped on innocent men, women, and children.

Let the record show this is not a denial.

That's not anything at all. What the hell is his response even supposed to mean?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What the hell is JD babbling about now?

As long as it's not more blather about women in Mexico giving birth to puppies. Sometimes, her posts are like reading The Weekly World News.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We just spent 40 pages discussing personhood, Bern the troll and I did, and guess what? Bern claims that peer reviewed medical research is worthless, because "he cant understand it", and thus, it does not "do anything to further my point", etc, etc. Cecile is the same way, as is pro.
In fact, Pro posted a ton of websites on here, all of which he obviously googled, which I copied and pasted relevant information from, which negated HIS points (they are saying that a fetus is a person!!) and supported mine (I am pro choice all the way). Of course, posts like that get drowned out by all the flaming and trolling this extremely long winded thread has seen.. but I guess that is just how the antis roll...

Don't waste your time, lol.. These guys aren't worth it!!

Where did any peer reviewed medical research you posted ever broach the subject of personhood? I explained to you none of this is subjective. A person is defined is an alive human. You agreed a fetus is human. The definition of alive is not dead according to the dictionary. That is pretty clear cut that a a fetus is a person at some point in the womb.

By this logic, a sperm cell is a person...

Sperm is human... sperm is not dead... Sperm is a person. Fucking idiot. Try Try again...

Try some gingko biloba for your memory, so that we don't have to recite every single freaking point in every single freaking post, okay? By this point, the fact that a fetus is an organism as well as alive, where a sperm cell is not an organism in addition to being alive should not require constant repetition to be understood.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I tried ginko.... but I kept forgetting to take it