|
On April 28 2011 21:20 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights  . God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions. Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway. And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life.
Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
|
On April 28 2011 21:01 Maxwell3 wrote:
Then the mother should have closed her damn legs. The baby has no say in this, and that is wrong.
It's in human nature to enjoy sex, and that alone is the reason why most sexual encounters even happen.
As long as there are means to prevent and resolve unpleasant consequences (and modern medicine provides those means), I can't see the reason anybody should close her "damn" legs if she doesn't want to. The only real concern here are health issues for the people involved in the sexual act.
|
On April 28 2011 21:22 scouting overlord wrote:Edit: If it makes you feel any better, the little frustrations you feel over an internet message board are nothing compared to the physical and mental pain of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, something you are completely insulated from
Those pains are nothing compared to the physical, mental and financial pains, as well as the investment of time I would go through to raise that child should the woman not want it. This is why I think men should have a choice in this matter.
|
On April 28 2011 21:26 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:22 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:20 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights . God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions. Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway. And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life. I'm challenging opinions, I'm sorry if this makes your little brain hurt because the nasty man said you were wrong. It's got a good side effect of annoying sensitive people, which makes them say flat out monstrous things like:
Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing.
Thanks for showing your true colors What colours was I hiding? (proclamation voice) I SHALL NOW ANNOUNCE, I AM PRO LIFE. I do not support killing a baby, life according to the subjective meaning of the word. I believe that any woman who is making a decision of such weight should see the consequences of her actions in the most effective way possible in order to ensure she has considered everything in making an informed decision. So be it.
Misogyny, you know, forcing a woman through a humiliating, inhumane, expensive and unnecessary ritual procedure in order to perform an abortion? Not out of need, but because you think it makes sense, so it must be the right.
|
On April 28 2011 19:48 scouting overlord wrote:
The language he used was clearly misogynistic and placed the blame of pregnancy on the woman.
Oh no not at all. It takes two retards to produce a kid. But thanks to advances in medical technology and the legal system, the father is prevented from running away from responsibility, whereas the mother is essentially encouraged to force a large part of the burden on the father, or simply terminate the problem, lest she be inconvenienced for nine months. And thus the focus is on the latter, quite understandably. If you think the criticism of the enormous double standards surrounding the issue amount to misogyny, then be it, I'm a misogynist. Oh, a male with an opinion, how repugnant!
Sorry if this hurts your precious little feelings, expendable male #21415986
No problem. But in the future when the world and your country is overpopulated, and your single functionality loses all of its significance, making you more useless and expendable than trash, please, please, remember me 
|
i'm just going to re post this so that all you guys thinking you're doing something will stop wasting your time.
![[image loading]](http://critical-thinkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg)
|
On April 28 2011 21:30 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:22 scouting overlord wrote:Edit: If it makes you feel any better, the little frustrations you feel over an internet message board are nothing compared to the physical and mental pain of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, something you are completely insulated from Those pains are nothing compared to the physical, mental and financial pains, as well as the investment of time I would go through to raise that child should the woman not want it. This is why I think men should have a choice in this matter.
Hahah you're arguing that pregnancy and childbirth is harder on the man, and that the man is effected as much, if not more than the woman. I don't think you're at any risk of having a child yet, don't worry about your precious 'finances' .
|
On April 28 2011 21:32 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:30 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 21:22 scouting overlord wrote:Edit: If it makes you feel any better, the little frustrations you feel over an internet message board are nothing compared to the physical and mental pain of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, something you are completely insulated from Those pains are nothing compared to the physical, mental and financial pains, as well as the investment of time I would go through to raise that child should the woman not want it. This is why I think men should have a choice in this matter. Hahah you're arguing that pregnancy and childbirth is harder on the man, and that the man is effected as much, if not more than the woman. I don't think you're at any risk of having a child yet, don't worry about your precious 'finances' .
What are you talking about? I'm talking about the 18 or so years where you are legally entitled to provide for that child. Read the post before rushing to trash it.
|
On April 28 2011 21:31 Frigo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 19:48 scouting overlord wrote:
The language he used was clearly misogynistic and placed the blame of pregnancy on the woman. Oh no not at all. It takes two retards to produce a kid. But thanks to advances in medical technology and the legal system, the father is prevented from running away from responsibility, whereas the mother is essentially encouraged to force a large part of the burden on the father, or simply terminate the problem, lest she be inconvenienced for nine months. And thus the focus is on the latter, quite understandably. If you think the criticism of the enormous double standards surrounding the issue amount to misogyny, then be it, I'm a misogynist. Oh, a male with a worldview and an opinion, how repugnant! Show nested quote +Sorry if this hurts your precious little feelings, expendable male #21415986 No problem. But in the future when the world and your country is overpopulated, and your single functionality loses all of its significance, making you more useless and expendable than trash, please, please, remember me
"Inconvenienced for 9 months". That's what you think pregnancy is, an inconvenience. You think a small % of monetary value is a 'large burden' of child bearing. I don't even need to say anything to prove how stupid your opinions are.
There are no double standards regarding the 'issue' other than the ones in your head.
|
On April 28 2011 21:29 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:20 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights . God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions. Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway. And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life. Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric.
At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
|
On April 28 2011 21:39 MagmaRam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:29 SpiffD wrote:On April 28 2011 21:20 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights . God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions. Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway. And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life. Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric. At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
When it's born and the umbilical cord is cut you 'very special snowflake'. You know, when the female body naturally gives birth and the now vestigial connection between bodies is cut?
Edit: it's nice to see you just ramble in thought though, it shows how disconnected you are from the reality of abortion or women's rights in general
|
Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
|
On April 28 2011 21:41 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:39 MagmaRam wrote:On April 28 2011 21:29 SpiffD wrote:On April 28 2011 21:20 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights . God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions. Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway. And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life. Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric. At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that. When it's born and the umbilical cord is cut you 'very special snowflake'. You know, when the female body naturally gives birth and the now vestigial connection between bodies is cut?
And so you have no problem with abortions a very short time before birth (as in less than one week), because they're not a person, right? It doesn't matter because they haven't been born yet, right?
Also, what the hell is the 'very special snowflake' for? It's just condescending. Quit being an asshole and act like you're equal to other humans for once.
|
On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote:
Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do.
|
On April 28 2011 21:39 MagmaRam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:29 SpiffD wrote:On April 28 2011 21:20 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights . God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions. Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway. And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life. Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric. At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
Wow, i love this kind of argument. Let me see if i understand how this works: You take what the other person wrote wrote, add a lot of stuff they never mentioned and then tell them what the consequences will be of what they (never) wrote. Nice.
In all seriousness in modern societies we use ethics to determine this. The limit for abortions in many countries is set before the fetus is believed to become a person. To determine this we use this thing called science.
|
On April 28 2011 21:44 MagmaRam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:41 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:39 MagmaRam wrote:On April 28 2011 21:29 SpiffD wrote:On April 28 2011 21:20 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights . God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions. Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway. And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life. Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric. At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that. When it's born and the umbilical cord is cut you 'very special snowflake'. You know, when the female body naturally gives birth and the now vestigial connection between bodies is cut? And so you have no problem with abortions a very short time before birth (as in less than one week), because they're not a person, right? It doesn't matter because they haven't been born yet, right? Also, what the hell is the 'very special snowflake' for? It's just condescending. Quit being an asshole and act like you're equal to other humans for once.
It's a euphemism friend.
My opinions regarding week before birth abortions don't matter, as week before abortions aren't being discussed by anyone in this thread, or Indiana .
|
On April 28 2011 21:15 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:10 vetinari wrote:On April 28 2011 20:58 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 20:56 vetinari wrote:
If women have the sole right to choose, should she not have the sole burden of responsibility?
Note how on all of these imagined and highly biased 'well if i wuz in this position' provided, the woman always runs off with the child . Thanks for responding to the question, mate. ... Really. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that you are a troll.  Do you think I'm trolling because I don't show your opinions respect or something? They don't deserve it, the question you asked is irrelevent to the discussion of abortion, unless you're making the point that if a woman has the sole right to abortion, then she should raise the child on her own as well? That if born, and the father leaves her, he wouldn't have to pay child support by this logic right? I imagine this is the crux of what you're trying to get across, and it's reprehensible .
Yes. By not showing respect to other people, you debase yourself and the position for which you stand. By denigrating all who disagree with you, no matter how slight to point of contention, you prove yourself to be an person who has no place in civil society. You will note, if you bothered to read, instead of skimming the thread and quote mining, that I am firmly in the pro-choice camp.
Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility. This would have the three fold benefit of:
women would be discouraged from having children outside of marriage (a net public good, as single parents unfortunately do not do well at raising children, statistically speaking*).
men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave.
Children are much more likely to be born into families where they are wanted, as marriage would only occur if both parties wanted children at some point.
*children raised by single parents are on average less educated, earn lower incomes later in life and more criminal. Ironically enough, children raised by single mothers do far more poorly on each of these metrics than those raised by single fathers.
|
On April 28 2011 21:39 MagmaRam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:29 SpiffD wrote:On April 28 2011 21:20 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights . God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions. Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway. And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life. Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric. At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that.
a baby is a baby when you could remove it from the womb, and with current medical technology it has a reasonable chance to survive. at that point, like everyone else it can be considered a person. before that a baby is no different from a cancer or a parasite.
|
On April 28 2011 21:49 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:15 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:10 vetinari wrote:On April 28 2011 20:58 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 20:56 vetinari wrote:
If women have the sole right to choose, should she not have the sole burden of responsibility?
Note how on all of these imagined and highly biased 'well if i wuz in this position' provided, the woman always runs off with the child . Thanks for responding to the question, mate. ... Really. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that you are a troll. Do you think I'm trolling because I don't show your opinions respect or something? They don't deserve it, the question you asked is irrelevent to the discussion of abortion, unless you're making the point that if a woman has the sole right to abortion, then she should raise the child on her own as well? That if born, and the father leaves her, he wouldn't have to pay child support by this logic right? I imagine this is the crux of what you're trying to get across, and it's reprehensible . Yes. By not showing respect to other people, you debase yourself and the position for which you stand. By denigrating all who disagree with you, no matter how slight to point of contention, you prove yourself to be an person who has no place in civil society. You will note, if you bothered to read, instead of skimming the thread and quote mining, that I am firmly in the pro-choice camp. Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility. This would have the three fold benefit of: women would be discouraged from having children outside of marriage (a net public good, as single parents unfortunately do not do well at raising children, statistically speaking*). men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave. Children are much more likely to be born into families where they are wanted, as marriage would only occur if both parties wanted children at some point. *children raised by single parents are on average less educated, earn lower incomes later in life and more criminal. Ironically enough, children raised by single mothers do far more poorly on each of these metrics than those raised by single fathers.
"Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. "
Never said this, not even hinted at it . It's almost like you have some kind of unconscious bias, how strange.
"I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility."
This is fucking disgusting, the poor man and his precious ~wedlock~. Marriage was historically used to oppress women in society, just a heads up.
"men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave."
At this point you're so crazy I don't need to say anything. Those poor, poor single men, when will they ever get a break?
|
The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
