I agree, which is a very moderate view. But just to add though, should a mother abort a child if it will be born retarded? Caring for a handicapped child can be physically, and emotionally stressful, as well as expensive. Just a thought.ThomasMorgan wrote:
I'm pro-choice in the sense that if either the baby or mother will be put at risk or if it's a case of rape or incest, then abortion should be allowed. It should not be allowed as a form of birth control if the mother decides she is unfit to be a parent or just decides she doesn't want a child.
Q. What's easier to unload a trunk full of bowling balls or dead babies?
A. Dead babies because you can use a pitchfork
"I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win." ----- Quote from Maddox
A. Dead babies because you can use a pitchfork
"I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win." ----- Quote from Maddox
You must be either blind or retarded, I can read his sentence just fine.Trel wrote:
Form a coherent sentence and argument, then come back.
Until then, stfu.
And yes, it is. They are imposing their own selfish views on the entire country, and anyone who disagrees with them they call baby murderers and all sorts of other shit. But they're just hypocrites, for hundreds of years they've been doing the exact same thing, the only thing that's different this time is that they can't kill/torture anyone who disagrees, and they don't control (all of) America.
Of course, the same people would purge homosexuals from the country if they had the chance. And they're too ignorant to know that homosexuality isn't a choice, and probably 1/10 of embryos/babies aborted would be homosexual once they fully developed.
Instead of banning/outlawing it, why not attack the root of the problem? Sex ed maybe? You really think that getting rid of abortion will just make it stop? Hell no. People resort to abortion because they know life would suck with the baby. Getting rid of it won't stop irresponsible parents, it'll just worsen the problem.
I like to compare this kinda issue to the gun control issue : Will outlawing guns stop murder? Will outlawing abortion stop irresponsible parents from having kids?
Answers : No, and hell no
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-08-21 18:11:39)
No human being should ever have to live it's life with a mental/physical handicap. Especially if it's parents/mother knew that he/she would be like that before they were even born.Hellogoodsir wrote:
I agree, which is a very moderate view. But just to add though, should a mother abort a child if it will be born retarded? Caring for a handicapped child can be physically, and emotionally stressful, as well as expensive. Just a thought.ThomasMorgan wrote:
I'm pro-choice in the sense that if either the baby or mother will be put at risk or if it's a case of rape or incest, then abortion should be allowed. It should not be allowed as a form of birth control if the mother decides she is unfit to be a parent or just decides she doesn't want a child.
I respect your good idea but strictly, a viewpoint is conservative if it seeks toKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
im pro life, and am not a member of the religious right, so no.
preserve the status quo . In this literal sense, it is the
"pro-choice" view, of course, that is conservative, and the pro-life
view is, rather, progressive. The "pro-choice" position wants to
preserve business as usual, but the pro-life view aims at a
far-reaching reform of the ideals and policies of our country.
Yeah, thats a great idea. Lets make it legal to kill anyone under the age of 3, since they wont be able to remember it. Do you truly believe it should be ok to kill humans as long as they dont feel pain? Even if they have the potential to be some of the most important people in the world?=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
To all those "pro-life" guys, can you tell me the earliest thing you can remember? Chances are it'll be 2 or 3 years old at the earliest and we are talking about undeveloped babies that have no sense of life, emotion, pain or anything......
That's completely, and absolutely what I've been saying. It's ridiculous to kill a child. Who cares if they can't think, it's still LIFE. The only time, as said that it would be appropriate to kill a child is if you knew the baby was going to be harmed tue to incest or if the baby was a product of rape.ThomasMorgan wrote:
I'm pro-choice in the sense that if either the baby or mother will be put at risk or if it's a case of rape or incest, then abortion should be allowed. It should not be allowed as a form of birth control if the mother decides she is unfit to be a parent or just decides she doesn't want a child.
That sounds so fucking selfish its funny...Hellogoodsir wrote:
I agree, which is a very moderate view. But just to add though, should a mother abort a child if it will be born retarded? Caring for a handicapped child can be physically, and emotionally stressful, as well as expensive. Just a thought.
The epitome of modern fucking culture; make YOUR life EASIER...
Disgusting...
Oh really? You think most, well, yes Im gonna say it, retards would feel the same?Spearhead wrote:
No human being should ever have to live it's life with a mental/physical handicap. Especially if it's parents/mother knew that he/she would be like that before they were even born.
You think retards dont appreciate life?
You think retards dont have people who love them?
I would like you to tell a retard that you think he shouldnt have to live, and that you advocate a type of birth control that would have put him out of his misery before he would have had to endure it...
Im really not sure what you are trying to say...Spearhead wrote:
Instead of banning/outlawing it, why not attack the root of the problem? Sex ed maybe? You really think that getting rid of abortion will just make it stop? Hell no. People resort to abortion because they know life would suck with the baby. Getting rid of it won't stop irresponsible parents, it'll just worsen the problem.
I like to compare this kinda issue to the gun control issue : Will outlawing guns stop murder? Will outlawing abortion stop irresponsible parents from having kids?
Which side are you on?
Did you think that pro lifers want to stop stupid parents from existing by banning abortion?
Also just for the record, I agree with the abstinence view...
i just read a book called "freakenomics" or something like that, relating abortion (lack of) to crime
a woman aborts a baby because of some reason: heres a few
- she forgot (or does not use birth control)
- she cannot take care of it (her point of view)
- she wont take care of it (worst case)
if you force her to keep her baby, it wont be treated/taken care of the same way as a "wanted" baby (yah this is cruel thought, but its true)
if you think "the state" can take care of a child, whos the mother and father now? the tax payer?
----------
if a baby is a product of rape, its still a baby, your still killing a child (and the word "appropriate" was used above for killing a child) - what you spoke of here "poseidon" is just political, if you want to "save" a babies life, then save it, dont discount it.... what if its going to be a product of a bad environment? (isnt that worse then being a product of rape?)
dont you think THEN its appropriate for mothers to make there own choice if they think they can bring a new child into this world properly?
-----------
not communism:
please take care about when you say "should" or "must"
"you must have a child" - sounds rough? in fact, i find it sounds more like a punishment, as most ppl think of it... that child will be brought up as a good and productive member of society...
----------------
ppl are stupid:personal view
- ppl who get pregnent and dont want the baby are stupid, there were cheaper methods that dont cause political drama... education is imporant, and not that "abstiance" crap... (bluntly, stupid ppl are more likely to get pregnent then smart people)
- leave abortion legal (cept 3rd trimester), with emphasis on the first part, make ppl smarter
- abortion is a bad thing
- its political, votes are on the line, polititions say whatever it takes, i could be racist but there is no point
----------
lets ban abortion!
- poor ppl get screwed (but ppl are gonna pull the "your an idiot" card here, we get it)
- rich ppl still can get abortions, elsewhere...
- the poor ppl are unable to raise there children well, population and "stupid" grow (leads to a new generation of criminals!)
i speak lightly
a woman aborts a baby because of some reason: heres a few
- she forgot (or does not use birth control)
- she cannot take care of it (her point of view)
- she wont take care of it (worst case)
if you force her to keep her baby, it wont be treated/taken care of the same way as a "wanted" baby (yah this is cruel thought, but its true)
if you think "the state" can take care of a child, whos the mother and father now? the tax payer?
----------
if a baby is a product of rape, its still a baby, your still killing a child (and the word "appropriate" was used above for killing a child) - what you spoke of here "poseidon" is just political, if you want to "save" a babies life, then save it, dont discount it.... what if its going to be a product of a bad environment? (isnt that worse then being a product of rape?)
dont you think THEN its appropriate for mothers to make there own choice if they think they can bring a new child into this world properly?
-----------
not communism:
please take care about when you say "should" or "must"
"you must have a child" - sounds rough? in fact, i find it sounds more like a punishment, as most ppl think of it... that child will be brought up as a good and productive member of society...
----------------
ppl are stupid:personal view
- ppl who get pregnent and dont want the baby are stupid, there were cheaper methods that dont cause political drama... education is imporant, and not that "abstiance" crap... (bluntly, stupid ppl are more likely to get pregnent then smart people)
- leave abortion legal (cept 3rd trimester), with emphasis on the first part, make ppl smarter
- abortion is a bad thing
- its political, votes are on the line, polititions say whatever it takes, i could be racist but there is no point
----------
lets ban abortion!
- poor ppl get screwed (but ppl are gonna pull the "your an idiot" card here, we get it)
- rich ppl still can get abortions, elsewhere...
- the poor ppl are unable to raise there children well, population and "stupid" grow (leads to a new generation of criminals!)
i speak lightly
Last edited by Bluenu (2006-08-21 22:00:57)
and isn't your view pretty narrow-minded, my friend??????Wizardspike wrote:
Isn't the pro-life view is sectarian? It is a narrow, conservative view, that can only be attractive to
members of the religious right.
Is it in any way inaccurate though?comet241 wrote:
and isn't your view pretty narrow-minded, my friend??????Wizardspike wrote:
Isn't the pro-life view is sectarian? It is a narrow, conservative view, that can only be attractive to
members of the religious right.
Is anyone who is pro-life atheist? I think not, or at least the vast majority are not - which is what makes it a sectrian viewpoint.
Or have a Gene that create's super AIDS and kills everyone. Now you advise us about tons of programs that the government takes your "HARD EARNED MONEY" for, so why aren't you pro abortion? might be able to save you a few dollars in the long run, or adopt so you can use them as a tax right off.Canin wrote:
Unwanted babies ruin lives? Just think of all the aborted babies there have been, and just one of them may have been able to cure a whole list of ailments down the line. As for abortion versus having to live a poor life, boohoo, your poor. The government has tons of programs for the poor, I know because they take my hard earned money to pay for them in the form of taxes. And as far as nine months is too short a time for an adoption, you do know that any state hospital must take in and deliver a child, and also that most if not all states now allow a child within a certain time frame to be left at a hospital, church or police station, no questions asked. Seems to me there are a great number of options other than abortion. And fass, your right, the only 100% guarantee of not getting pregnant is abstinence, so freckin what. Abstinence and virginity are virtues lost in this world right now. On the whole the world would probably be mush better off if more people had those virtues.
I'm not sure what you were saying about the nine month thing, could you please clarify? Abstinence and virginity aren't virtues that are lost in this world right now, they are virtues that have never existed...
So basically what your saying is wearing a condom is murder? And by your theory Blood in your body is alive as well. So why are you even worried about single abortions when ever time a teen fires off to his dad's playboy it's murdering Millions of babies.. "quick go catch them in your mouth and transport them to the hospital". This is why I love to voice my opion on this subject, because it isn't your option and has nothing to do with you at all.|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:
Get over it...cpt.fass1 wrote:
Yes but the only way to truely prevent birth that is 100% is abstinance. Every other way has a chance of getting pregnant.
Well you usually find out about the pregnacy with in 1-2 months, so no adoption alot of the times isn't even an option. There are cost involved with being pregnant and caring the fetus for the full 9 months.
The government will pay the costs out of the insurance plan you payed for every time you pay your taxes on anything...
So will private organizations...Yes, I think almost everyone should know that it depends on what you think is a life...Bertster7 wrote:
What's wrong with abortions? Admittedly they are something you would strive to avoid, but I see them essentially as just another form of contraception - just a bit further down the line. It all just depends on where you draw the line, 3, 4, 5 months into a pregnancy, who cares - it's not a person yet. Unwanted babies ruin lives.
I believe there is life at contraception, your damn semen is alive...
If life were to stop at any point from contraception to birth there would be no baby...
Im pro abortion, but I believe the doctors should be tried for murder and the parents tried as accomplices...
I think Iv said it before on these forums, the only time I advocate abortion is when lives are threatened...
Or of course there is the morning-after pill, if you want to be like that and if you have been raped...
And about the 9 months thing, even during the period of time the baby hasn't been born the mother needs to take more care of herself and needs to pay for additional supplies. Also during the later periods of time work will not be an option because she is pregnant, she will also lose periods of time where she can't work.
I kinda disagree with this one, because they're so cute, and funny. I'm really not being mean, some mental handycap people seem to not have that bad a quality of life.Spearhead wrote:
No human being should ever have to live it's life with a mental/physical handicap. Especially if it's parents/mother knew that he/she would be like that before they were even born.Hellogoodsir wrote:
I agree, which is a very moderate view. But just to add though, should a mother abort a child if it will be born retarded? Caring for a handicapped child can be physically, and emotionally stressful, as well as expensive. Just a thought.ThomasMorgan wrote:
I'm pro-choice in the sense that if either the baby or mother will be put at risk or if it's a case of rape or incest, then abortion should be allowed. It should not be allowed as a form of birth control if the mother decides she is unfit to be a parent or just decides she doesn't want a child.
ahhh, buddy, prepare to meet your first atheist pro-lifer.... ME! I went to catholic school for 10 years, which is why I am now an atheist. But I have morals and standards. High ones too. Im far from blowing smoke up my ass, Im just saying that I live by a high set of standards. I think abortion in the current sense is wrong. it's being used as a form of birth control. what ever happened to learning from your mistakes???? My dad raised me in that way, let me make my own choices in life, he will support me, but if I make a mistake, I deal with it. Advice can only get you so far, you have to choose to take it too. That's a rough version of it, but sums it up nicely I feel.Bertster7 wrote:
Is it in any way inaccurate though?comet241 wrote:
and isn't your view pretty narrow-minded, my friend??????Wizardspike wrote:
Isn't the pro-life view is sectarian? It is a narrow, conservative view, that can only be attractive to
members of the religious right.
Is anyone who is pro-life atheist? I think not, or at least the vast majority are not - which is what makes it a sectrian viewpoint.
So, yea, you can be an antheist and still be pro-life. In fact, you can even be a very religious person and still be pro-choice. The church can only tell you what to do, you make the choices from there.
So, him labeling everyone who is pro-life as narrow minded is indeed narrow-minded itself. I more middle-right and far from being associated with any religious organization.
Yup your dad let you make your own choices, so why not let people who you don't even know maker their own choices?
if their choice didn't affect the life of the child inside, fine. otherwise, it's not your life to make those choices for. Like I said, it was a rough description. I basically feel do anything you want as long as it doesn't affect others, i dont care. so: Don't drink and drive, dont commit any crimes that will affect others such as robbery or fraud, you know what I mean there, and dont take the life of someone else because you couldn't reach for a flipping condom. there are so many forms of birth control out there now, and many of them can be provided for free, so why should somebody else, the kid, suffer because you were too lazy to use one of them? so yea, abortion may be your choice, but it affects another life in a drastic, and negative way, so it is no longer your choice anymore.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Yup your dad let you make your own choices, so why not let people who you don't even know maker their own choices?
Why is the child inside yours Did any part of you get into it? I'm from both my parents and their choice to keep me is the reason I'm alive.. If they choice other wise I'd be dead, I'm eventually going to be dead anyway. The baby doesn't have a choice if after it's born and the mother decides not to feed it, is the baby going to get up and make the decision to get food?
The irony is that 'patriotic freedom lovers' these days want to strip their society of basic freedoms of choice.
and the point is.....cpt.fass1 wrote:
Why is the child inside yours Did any part of you get into it? I'm from both my parents and their choice to keep me is the reason I'm alive.. If they choice other wise I'd be dead, I'm eventually going to be dead anyway. The baby doesn't have a choice if after it's born and the mother decides not to feed it, is the baby going to get up and make the decision to get food?
My point is the child doesn't get a choice it's the Parents Decsion not yours, not the childs. Teens suicides are already up in the past ten years, why don't we try to save them first?
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-08-22 10:41:59)
But why isn't it the childs choice is my point? Why is it that the second it leaves the womb the mother does have to feed it (as you mentioned earlier) or face jail time, but before that we can simply kill it off because it is a problem for us?
Why does the child not have a choice in the matter is my question? why shouldn't it?
On a related topic, why doesnt the father have a say as well? Isn't it rightfully his as much as the mothers as well. Shouldn't this be like launching a nuke here, both parties have to turn the key at the same time?
If you have failed to use every single free form of birth control out there, and you still wanna fuck, and you still get pregnant, isn't there always adoption if you still dont want the child?
I have seen several calls for freedom of choice and personal rights, but what about the freedom and rights of the unborn child???? who says they dont get a say?
Why does the child not have a choice in the matter is my question? why shouldn't it?
On a related topic, why doesnt the father have a say as well? Isn't it rightfully his as much as the mothers as well. Shouldn't this be like launching a nuke here, both parties have to turn the key at the same time?
If you have failed to use every single free form of birth control out there, and you still wanna fuck, and you still get pregnant, isn't there always adoption if you still dont want the child?
I have seen several calls for freedom of choice and personal rights, but what about the freedom and rights of the unborn child???? who says they dont get a say?
Because the child can't choose.. They say they don't get a say because they don't have a voice. And without a voice they can't be heard, and even if they had a voice they don't have a brain till a certain point so they couldn't even use it, not only that but it's not the instant it's born that it has rights it's after the 3rd month I belive.
Adoption sucks and it's a stupid choice that's way more irresponsable then an abortion.
Adoption sucks and it's a stupid choice that's way more irresponsable then an abortion.
I'm adopted you ass hole, and adoption is in no way more irresponsible than abortion. At least this way the child has a chance to live a life even if their conception was a mistake. Do some research and find out that most kids who are adopted are loved by their parents, some times even more so than kids who are not adopted. Oh, and have you even seen the statistics on the wait list for parents waiting to adopt, or the application process the parents have to go through? It guarantees that the parents of the adopted children are prepared a capable for caring for a child. Last I checked the only qualifications that the parents of unadopted children need was the ability to get laid, not have to jump through legal hoops to prove that they are capable of caring for a child. So explain to me again how exactly adoption is more irresponsible than abortion?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Because the child can't choose.. They say they don't get a say because they don't have a voice. And without a voice they can't be heard, and even if they had a voice they don't have a brain till a certain point so they couldn't even use it, not only that but it's not the instant it's born that it has rights it's after the 3rd month I belive.
Adoption sucks and it's a stupid choice that's way more irresponsible then an abortion.
What about the orphans that are never adopted?mcgid1 wrote:
I'm adopted you ass hole, and adoption is in no way more irresponsible than abortion. At least this way the child has a chance to live a life even if their conception was a mistake. Do some research and find out that most kids who are adopted are loved by their parents, some times even more so than kids who are not adopted. Oh, and have you even seen the statistics on the wait list for parents waiting to adopt, or the application process the parents have to go through? It guarantees that the parents of the adopted children are prepared a capable for caring for a child. Last I checked the only qualifications that the parents of unadopted children need was the ability to get laid, not have to jump through legal hoops to prove that they are capable of caring for a child. So explain to me again how exactly adoption is more irresponsible than abortion?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Because the child can't choose.. They say they don't get a say because they don't have a voice. And without a voice they can't be heard, and even if they had a voice they don't have a brain till a certain point so they couldn't even use it, not only that but it's not the instant it's born that it has rights it's after the 3rd month I belive.
Adoption sucks and it's a stupid choice that's way more irresponsible then an abortion.