I'm pro abortion
I thought putting my views on the abortion topic that's so hotly argued over in the states might put a spark back in this forum.
I'm pro abortion, not pro choice. Pro abortion.
I think given the choice far too many women ( I say women not couples because ultimately it's their choice) make the wrong decision and don't abort.
Do you think people shouldn't have the choice and it should be forced up people?
No, that's not acceptable. I just think the stigma must be lifted around it, it should be a more accepted option.
You mention that you think women make the wrong choice, are you a misogynist?
No, I think men are to blame also, but I also think that they don't get anywhere near the say in the matter they desearve. Can this be fixed? Should there be a legal framework for the fathers opinion to influence abortions? No, at the end of the day it's the womans body, she has to go through the pregnancy/birth/abortion. I think that is a tougher question than the abortion question (by far) hopefully this debate will morph on to that subject.
Considering people here appear to love "debates", I'm surprised this forum isn't riddled with flames already :o
My opinion is that I think abortion is more than okay, and the women should be given the choice. However, if the male mate doesn't want it and she does, he should be able to legally revoke all connection to that baby.
What if she's poor and can't support the baby without his aide? Does she have to abort, then she has no choice.
Bringing up a baby without a father and/or knowledge of his biological father is damaging to it's life. It's not fair to never tell the child who their father is as some people need to be able to "know how they are".
At the end of the day, if for religious reasons she doesn't want to /can't abort then what is she to do?
If he didn't want a baby he should have used protection/ better protection if it failed.
wolfmankurd wrote: I think given the choice far too many women ( I say women not couples because ultimately it's their choice) make the wrong decision and don't abort.
You're arguing a high level topic without defining the concepts on the base level. What is the right decision, and what makes that decision right?
And honestly, you've chosen a poor target audience for this debate since about 95% of us are male, and it's really not our choice (assuming a choice is given).
And I've never understood why people feel so strongly about topics like this and gay marriage and other such personal matters. People are too interested in other people's affairs. I'd rather focus on the decisions that affect my life.
Right decision: Abort Why: Too many babies. Most abortions are by women who couldn't support a child, those children would (if allowed to live) have a higher risk for being a criminal. I think there is even some interesting statistics about legalised abortions in the US and a drop in crime rate some decades later.
Some people consider feotus's alive, so abortion murder as far as they are concerned. Most people( perhaps unlike you) don't feel they could sit idling by while overs commit legalised murder, thats why they feel the need to interfer in others affairs.
Granted that;s mainly crazy catholics.
wolfmankurd wrote: What if she's poor and can't support the baby without his aide? Does she have to abort, then she has no choice.
Bringing up a baby without a father and/or knowledge of his biological father is damaging to it's life. It's not fair to never tell the child who their father is as some people need to be able to "know how they are".
At the end of the day, if for religious reasons she doesn't want to /can't abort then what is she to do?
If he didn't want a baby he should have used protection/ better protection if it failed.
"he should have used protection/ better protection if it failed". What if he used the best protection? There is no sex protection, other than not having sex, that is guaranteed 100% to always work. Men shouldn't have to enter sex thinking they could get tied down for the rest of their lives, at least that's not the way society views it anymore, so the government rules should reflect that.
Yes, If she is unable to support the child, I don't think the father should have to pay. Because even with him paying, he's not involved in the child's life if he doesn't want to be. You can make payments while ignoring the kid if you'd like, so why force the payments? If she can't support the baby on her own, that's not the fathers problem. The father shouldn't have to pay, especially if he gets/wants nothing back.
And yes, she does have the choice to get an abortion, no matter what the restrictions (not enough money on her own, religious, doesn't want to) she has the "ability" to get the abortion. Maybe, in her opinion, not the choice, but in the governments view if she has the ability to get one, that's okay with me.
Okay, not to be rude, but I don't really feel like debating abortion. I'm not backing out or being pissed off at you, it's just I left my opinion and wasn't really wanting to get into a full fledged debate :)
wolfmankurd wrote: those children would (if allowed to live) have a higher risk for being a criminal.
Granted that;s mainly crazy catholics.
being poor doesn't make you significantly more likely to commit violent crimes. and there are a lot of religous groups and people with 4 TV's that are against anykind of testing/abortion.
did you know that if you smoke dried sperm you can get high? thought this might be an ok place for a rumor.
ShadyTyrant wrote: [quote]maug wrote: did you know that if you smoke dried sperm you can get high? thought this might be an ok place for a rumor.
We should all flood myth busters with this idea lol[/quote]
Lol, I bet I could trick my science teacher into showing that episode in class, directly after one of his "drugs are bad" lectures :D
wolfmankurd wrote: Right decision: Abort Why: Too many babies. Most abortions are by women who couldn't support a child, those children would (if allowed to live) have a higher risk for being a criminal. I think there is even some interesting statistics about legalised abortions in the US and a drop in crime rate some decades later. By your logic, the "right decision" is abstinence, not abortion.
Some people consider feotus's alive, so abortion murder as far as they are concerned. Most people( perhaps unlike you) don't feel they could sit idling by while overs commit legalised murder, thats why they feel the need to interfer in others affairs. It may make me sound like a bastard, but I honestly don't care if people go around murdering each other as long as they don't kill anybody I like or have use for.
Apophis wrote:
By your logic, the "right decision" is abstinence, not abortion.
Nah can't stop people having sex, but they should de-stigmatise abortion.
Anyways this thread has crashed and burned.
Also korg, this part of the forum is is on "anything and everything"? Nobody post anything but challenge questions, and no body likes giving challenge help cause usually it amounts to spoilers… If people can't make general threads then this forum will always be dead.
Honestly I'm against abortion but it's not my place to delve into the matters of others, your choice and your life are yours, not mine. If you can go on with an abortion and be able to sleep at night then good for you.
I just believe it serves no point to argue over others decisions especially when the Christian faith isn't meant to be a free-for-all access card to the judges seat. Personally I believe God is the one to judge and any Christian that thinks the service is given to them needs to reexamine their faith…
I don't intend to play the entire God isn't real game either, I have my reasons and I leave it at that.
Compromise wrote: [quote]ynori7 wrote: I suspect that most people here don't really care one way or the other.
insert joke about nerds not having sex[/quote]
Haha that's just what I was thinking!
Like I said, I believ in not interfering with outhers matters. Gay marriage/ bum love etc etc… but some people think abortion is murder, and if they truely believe that then I think it's fair for them to put up some resistance to it.
Someone said they don't mind so long as it doesn't interfer with their own lives, but at the end of the day that's why all laws exists. No one cares than someone on the otherside of the world was murdered, it's the thought of it happening to you/a loved one that makes you want to prevent murders…
Wolfmankurd wrote: I'm pro abortion, not pro choice. Pro abortion.
I think given the choice far too many women ( I say women not couples because ultimately it's their choice) make the wrong decision and don't abort. I'm afraid I don't understand your opinion on tha matter. You state that you are pro abortion but not pro choice. If I would be pro choice what would I hold? If I was pro abortion what would I hold? At first it sounded that they should be forced as that is the next step above having a choice. But you then state that you don't think it should be forced. Please clarify exactly the difference between "choice" and "abortion".
cyb3rl0rd1867 wrote: I'm afraid I don't understand your opinion on tha matter.
I think the term "pro choice" tries to sugar coat the view. I don't think there is anything to sugar coat. It is what it is. It's abortion. I hate the pro life/pro choice shit.
It's, though, fair to say "pro choice" is a subset of "pro abortion".
Also I wanted to show that in my opinion, we need more abortions.
wolfmankurd wrote: I think the term "pro choice" tries to sugar coat the view. No, it's a completely different view. From what I gathered, you want abortions to become mandatory (I'm assuming only for certain circumstances). This is pretty much the shittiest possible solution to the rising population. If you want there to be fewer kids, a more efficient solution would be mandatory vasectomies.
But of course those things are very intrusive. You could always go China's way and institute a one-child law. Or require a permit to have children. There are plenty of better solutions.
This is my take on it, wolfs logic is infallible however i see it from a different angle. I believe a child is 50% of the mother and 50% of the father, the woman only carry's it (this is very true on a genetic level). I also believe abortion from the moment of conception is ethically wrong. The baby has the full potential from the moment of contraception to become everything it was designed to be. For example if it is to have blond curls or straight black hair. You could argue that if you took that baby/fetus away from its mother that it would die. but wouldn't the same thing happen to a 2 month old baby?
When it comes to the 'choice' argument, i would say given the above is true where is the baby's choice?
To wolf's argument of 'to many baby's' Australia has a static birth rate. True some parts of the world are absolutely booming but I think that its better problem handled with contraception and education.
MoshBat wrote: I think you should always drown the little shits with FUCKLOADS of booze. That way, they either pop out retarded, or dead.
Someone had to say it.
I think meth or heroin would be a better choice for a miscarriage.
Or do it like they did back in the times of discount abortions and punch her in the stomach really hard…. Relives built up tension and get rid of the "little shit". lol kill two birds, erm… one baby and anger issues, with one stone(fist).
MoshBat wrote: [quote]techb wrote: [quote]MoshBat wrote: I think you should always drown the little shits with FUCKLOADS of booze. That way, they either pop out retarded, or dead.
Someone had to say it.
I think meth or heroin would be a better choice for a miscarriage.
Or do it like they did back in the times of discount abortions and punch her in the stomach really hard…. Relives built up tension and get rid of the "little shit". lol kill two birds, erm… one baby and anger issues, with one stone(fist).[/quote] FALCON PUNCH![/quote] If you hold a knife/sword in that fist/hand, you could kill a maximum of 402 birds with one stone(fist/hand/sword/knife). [average no. of eggs a woman releases in her entire lifetime is 400 + 1 anger issues + 1 wife] :D
I'm not sure where I stand on this debate really, on one hand; Younger people tend to ignore precautions occasionally thus the misstake happens that some gets knocked up. Now, a 16 year old girl might have the possibility to be a good mother, but the fact that she lacks the level of experience and time considering they should atleast go to shool makes it hard to believe. So I rather see her take the responsibility in the matter that she removes it than trying to be adult and keep it.
But on the other hand, abortion is just a legal way of murder since it is a human, not just fully developed at the time being.
And my title Lord Abortion is not because I'm pro abortion.
Pro-choice. My lover was pregnant and we were underage, I told dad that she and her grandmother went to the doctor and had found out she was pregnant. We could not raise the child because I was sixteen and she was thirteen. I had never had a job in my life. I manned up and told my father, he talked with me about it, and we ended up pitching in half of the abortion.
500 dollars to save my life.
500 dollars is well worth it. It was performed by a legitimate doctor in a legitimate clinic, with proper sanitation, and with safe equipment.
Outside of my case.
What if a girl is raped by a family member? Then what?
Point is, before the end of the first trimester should be the limit to aborting life from its carriage.
ellipsis wrote: Pro-choice. My lover was pregnant and we were underage, I told dad that she and her grandmother went to the doctor and had found out she was pregnant. We could not raise the child because I was sixteen and she was thirteen. I had never had a job in my life. I manned up and told my father, he talked with me about it, and we ended up pitching in half of the abortion.
500 dollars to save my life.
500 dollars is well worth it. It was performed by a legitimate doctor in a legitimate clinic, with proper sanitation, and with safe equipment.
Outside of my case.
What if a girl is raped by a family member? Then what?
Point is, before the end of the first trimester should be the limit to aborting life from its carriage. You have to pay for abortions?!
Playing devils advocate, but if you believe a feoeus/zygot is alive then abortion is murder and no matter how they came to be alive they shouldn't be punished for it?
wolfmankurd wrote: I would think any reasonable country would offer it free. If you are too poor to afford an abortion you are definitely too poor to support a baby. Pretty sure nobody offers any medical procedures for free. If operations that save lives aren't free it wouldn't make sense to make abortions free.
ynori7 wrote: [quote]wolfmankurd wrote: I would think any reasonable country would offer it free. If you are too poor to afford an abortion you are definitely too poor to support a baby. Pretty sure nobody offers any medical procedures for free. If operations that save lives aren't free it wouldn't make sense to make abortions free.[/quote] The NHS offers free abortions but you need two consultants to sign off. (some will do this in a heatbeat some wont). You can pay for private treatment also.
I think it's even possible to get the morning after pill for free.
MoshBat wrote: [quote]ynori7 wrote: [quote]wolfmankurd wrote: I would think any reasonable country would offer it free. If you are too poor to afford an abortion you are definitely too poor to support a baby. Pretty sure nobody offers any medical procedures for free. If operations that save lives aren't free it wouldn't make sense to make abortions free.[/quote] It would make sense to prevent back street abortions.[/quote] I think this was the original reasoning about making abortions legal? I'm not sure it's a good reason, it's like making drugs legal to save junkies
wolfmankurd wrote: I think this was the original reasoning about making abortions legal? I'm not sure it's a good reason, it's like making drugs legal to save junkies
Most drugs should be legal. Just very/pretty expensive, but legal. (Also, applying the apparent negative connotation you colorized the word "drugs" with to abortions really, -really- undermines some of the basic thought presented in this thread. You shouldn't see abortions as a bad thing, ie. "like drugs".)
spyware wrote: [quote]wolfmankurd wrote: I think this was the original reasoning about making abortions legal? I'm not sure it's a good reason, it's like making drugs legal to save junkies
Most drugs should be legal. Just very/pretty expensive, but legal. (Also, applying the apparent negative connotation you colorized the word "drugs" with to abortions really, -really- undermines some of the basic thought presented in this thread. You shouldn't see abortions as a bad thing, ie. "like drugs".)[/quote]
I see both sides of the argument, you know my thoughts on abortions I started this thread (hint: read the title) however, I see the logic of.
Abortions are bad → street abortions are specially bad.→ legalise abortions. and Drugs are bad→ street drugs are especially bad→legalise drugs.
My own opinion doesn't effect my ability to see it form both sides. People against abortions see abortions far worse than drugs, some see it as plain old murder.
COM wrote: [quote]wolfmankurd wrote: Abortions are bad → street abortions are specially bad.→ legalise abortions.
You lost me at the very first assumption there.
Drugs are bad→ street drugs are especially bad→legalise drugs. Same once again.[/quote]
That's cause you are blinded by your own opinion if you'd like to further your self this is where to start as it's your major failing.
wolfmankurd wrote: [quote]COM wrote: [quote]wolfmankurd wrote: Abortions are bad → street abortions are specially bad.→ legalise abortions.
You lost me at the very first assumption there.
Drugs are bad→ street drugs are especially bad→legalise drugs. Same once again.[/quote]
That's cause you are blinded by your own opinion if you'd like to further your self this is where to start as it's your major failing.[/quote] Couldn't understand what you were trying to say. Were you saying that his habit of only thinking about his opinion is his failing or is the failing his personal opinion itself?
goluhaque wrote: [quote]wolfmankurd wrote: [quote]COM wrote: [quote]wolfmankurd wrote: Abortions are bad → street abortions are specially bad.→ legalise abortions.
You lost me at the very first assumption there.
Drugs are bad→ street drugs are especially bad→legalise drugs. Same once again.[/quote]
That's cause you are blinded by your own opinion if you'd like to further your self this is where to start as it's your major failing.[/quote] Couldn't understand what you were trying to say. Were you saying that his habit of only thinking about his opinion is his failing or is the failing his personal opinion itself?[/quote] Well, obviously his opinion is just clearly better than my opinion and he felt insulted by my lack of realization about that point. Wait… I wasn't even expressing an opinion, I was wondering what would make drugs or abortions bad. Guess I'm the one who fails by wanting to hear his reason for that opinion. Of course maybe he was just making an assumption without base as often done in math to get to a proof and just misinterpreted the fact that I misinterpreted it.
Interesting thread so far …
I'll start by saying that I'm very anti-abortion.
I don't believe it's wrong because I'm catholic (which I am) and the Pope said so, or even because I think it's murder. From my point of view, no one on earth knows exactly when life begins; therefore, we don't have the right to gamble with someone's life.
Someone said the first trimester should be the cut-off for abortion. Well what's the difference between one day after and one day before the end of the trimester? Is whatever is inside the womb any more or less alive because of one day? Does it make it somehow wrong because the baby is now 91 (approximating 3 months) days old instead of 90?
I understand entirely all of the arguments coming from the pro-abortion side. I get that people do not always have the financial stability or the knowledge and maturity to raise a child. I just think that since we don't know when life begins, it's never going to be alright to take that chance. Therefore the only solution here would be to keep your pants on until you can. It shouldn't be any more complicated than that.
Not trying to slam anyone, that's just the way I feel. Would love to continue the debate! :evil:
Twinkee wrote: From my point of view, no one on earth knows exactly when life begins; therefore, we don't have the right to gamble with someone's life. Would you care to elaborate on what exactly you mean by that? More specifically, I don't understand what you mean by the word "gamble", it's not Russian roulette.
Well what's the difference between one day after and one day before the end of the trimester? Two days.
Is whatever is inside the womb any more or less alive because of one day? Well, since it's a continuous growth into a (hopefully) fully functioning baby, yes.
Does it make it somehow wrong because the baby is now 91 (approximating 3 months) days old instead of 90?
As decided for the purpose of actually being able to maintain some sort of order, yes. This isn't strictly because something magically happens there, but rather because as with everything like this, we need a limit. Just to illustrate what I mean, think of a simple scenario like this: you put sugar in your coffee (or tea or whatever beverage, I don't care), you put it in one little crystal at a time. Will one tiny little part ever really make difference to you? Of course not. But we still stop at x amounts of sugar cubes because by the logic of one small part not making a difference, we could keep adding forever and claim that there was no difference. Mathematically speaking, it's like saying that a+1=a, I'm sure you can see the problem with this. So limits are almost never there because it magically makes a big difference, it's because we usually need a limit somewhere and make a rough estimate on where.
Not trying to slam anyone, that's just the way I feel. Would love to continue the debate! :evil: Just saying, that evil smiley doesn't exactly make that first part believable.
-
Just what it means! I don't believe that we have the right to take the life of an unborn child. Now, since neither you nor I can establish with any certainty and validity that a child IS a live being at any point in time, I don't believe that an abortion should occur at any stage of pregnancy. It's a gamble because it's not for certain whether or not you're taking a life. Would anyone here really be alright with it if they knew for absolute fact that the baby was alive at the moment of conception? Taking a life is taking a life isn't it? Are we all equal or are some more equal than others?
-
How'd you get 2? My calculations came to -75.314. God damn calculators. Haha.
-
So in your opinion, you define life as a fully functioning baby. Is it therefore less human at 8 months than 9? What about premature births? Are those 7 month old births not really human babies? Is that breathing, squirming thing not a child? If I drown it, did I drown a pile of cells rather than a child? How do we establish when to make the cut-off? If it has developed hair? If you can tell its sex? If we're going by that, are people born without parts, or for that matter with deformities, not human or not alive? What about people who lost parts during life?
-
See above. Also, the coffee analogy somehow reminds me of PETA comparing KFC and chickens to Hitler and the Holocaust.
-
Yeah that occurred to me, I just like evil smilies.
Twinkee wrote:
- Just what it means! I don't believe that we have the right to take the life of an unborn child. Now, since neither you nor I can establish with any certainty and validity that a child IS a live being at any point in time, I don't believe that an abortion should occur at any stage of pregnancy. It's a gamble because it's not for certain whether or not you're taking a life. Would anyone here really be alright with it if they knew for absolute fact that the baby was alive at the moment of conception? Taking a life is taking a life isn't it? Are we all equal or are some more equal than others?
Thank you, that cleared it up very nicely. However, now I find your argument strange because you present life as being objective. If you do not find it a subjective matter, then howcome you present a baby's humanity even being possible to be perceived differently? If it's subjective then it's not really any question of gambling, you either have the opinion that it is life or you have the opinion that it isn't life. On the other hand if it's objective, then it shouldn't be a problem with since things should be provably clear then. Also, something being "more equal" is in every way a wrong term, something cannot be more equal, you mean superior.
- So in your opinion, you define life as a fully functioning baby. Is it therefore less human at 8 months than 9? What about premature births? Are those 7 month old births not really human babies? Is that breathing, squirming thing not a child? If I drown it, did I drown a pile of cells rather than a child? How do we establish when to make the cut-off? If it has developed hair? If you can tell its sex? If we're going by that, are people born without parts, or for that matter with deformities, not human or not alive? What about people who lost parts during life?
I never defined life as a fully functioning baby. Furthermore, my stance on this is irrelevant. I'm just curious about what you have to say and presented an answer that is technically correct according to the presentation you made of a child's life developing.
the coffee analogy somehow reminds me of PETA comparing KFC and chickens to Hitler and the Holocaust. I merely made one comparison that was neutral in nature, if you'd like we could compare it to stealing a penny being the same as stealing billions of dollars, or murdering one person being the same as the holocaust you mentioned. Whichever the comparison, the point in it remains: while the minor change at the moment may not seem like big of a deal, the border is there because we feel a need to have it and we know that it will make a difference in the long run.
COM wrote: Well, obviously his opinion is just clearly better than my opinion and he felt insulted by my lack of realization about that point. Wait… I wasn't even expressing an opinion, I was wondering what would make drugs or abortions bad. Guess I'm the one who fails by wanting to hear his reason for that opinion. Of course maybe he was just making an assumption without base as often done in math to get to a proof and just misinterpreted the fact that I misinterpreted it.
I was annoyed that you took it to be my opinion. The post (perhaps though only in the context of my other posts) makes clear that I was simply saying I understand the logic behind "the abortions are bad but back street abortions are dangerous so we should to legalise it" thought train. This would be okay but your douchey reply got on my nerves.
I don't think abortions are bad that is why I created a thread titled "I'm pro abortion" and said I think we're not having enough of them because people associate some sort of stigma with it.
Just an FYI I do think some drugs are bad, I see no perks to crack use but not all "drugs" are like crack.
No matter where you are in the US, there is always going to be a pregnancy clinic near by and they will offer free testing. Also planned parenthood will give you a year of birth control pills, other contraception to try out, and emergency contraception (morning after pill).
There are a lot of herbal ways to force abortion, like pennyroyal tea or everclear (babies have weak livers). There's so many ways to force abortion, people do it unintentionally all the time. Honestly I think an herbal abortion sounds a bit more humane than breaking the skull and sucking the brain out with a vacuum.
I think US medical care is ranked over 30th. Ain't no free lunch here.
The biggest benefit for legalizing it's always going to be dangerous and the women do need medical observation.
I fucking hate politics. I'm done here.
maug wrote: No matter where you are in the US, there is always going to be a pregnancy clinic near by and they will offer free testing. Also planned parenthood will give you a year of birth control pills, other contraception to try out, and emergency contraception (morning after pill).
There are a lot of herbal ways to force abortion, like pennyroyal tea or everclear (babies have weak livers). There's so many ways to force abortion, people do it unintentionally all the time. Honestly I think an herbal abortion sounds a bit more humane than breaking the skull and sucking the brain out with a vacuum.
I think US medical care is ranked over 30th. Ain't no free lunch here.
The biggest benefit for legalizing it's always going to be dangerous and the women do need medical observation.
I fucking hate politics. I'm done here.
herbal ways like everclear? HAHAHAH
@ COM
Yes, one's opinion can be subjective. You can believe that an unborn child is alive, dead, inanimate, a squirrel, or whatever else. Now, aside from not being a squirrel, we cannot say without a shadow of a doubt what an unborn child is, and when it becomes something else. What you believe it to be doesn't change what it actually is though.
You say that it isn't gambling if life is subjective. Well, it is one's opinion on what is life that is subjective – the reality of it is not. It either is alive or it isn't. My belief that it is alive doesn't make it alive, and someone else's belief that it isn't doesn't make it not alive. I'm merely trying to stress that we do not know when life begins, and therefore we should not take the risk of depriving someone of life.
About "more equal": Have you read Animal Farm? If you have you should know what I meant by that sentence.
When I said you defined life as a fully functioning baby, that's what I interpreted this as, although I see that that may have been drawing conclusions:
[quote]Is whatever is inside the womb any more or less alive because of one day? Well, since it's a continuous growth into a (hopefully) fully functioning baby, yes. [/quote]
Finally:
I merely made one comparison that was neutral in nature, if you'd like we could compare it to stealing a penny being the same as stealing billions of dollars, or murdering one person being the same as the holocaust you mentioned. Whichever the comparison, the point in it remains: while the minor change at the moment may not seem like big of a deal, the border is there because we feel a need to have it and we know that it will make a difference in the long run.
I do understand that, I just enjoy giving people a hard time. However, what in your opinion, is the purpose and reason behind having the limit? And what is the "difference" in the long run?
@wolfie: I never meant for a "douchey" answer. I maintain that your post wasn't all that well presented, but I did rush reading it.
@Twinkee: While truth is truth, everything in your entire life is technically just what you believe it to be. So it is completely irrelevant what the truth is at the moment, what matters to anyone is what they believe it to be as to them it is truth. I'd say you're taking such a safe stance with your answer because you're simply afraid of directly or even indirectly being a part of something that you're afraid could be horrible. You don't want to risk the thought that you somehow might have blood on your hands, but don't want to risk an ignorant opinion either that is just based on emotions. I would apologise for potentially stepping out of line with that, but I would reckon you to be more amused by it than upset.
I have not read "Animal Farm", I saw a movie they made based on it though, it was actually very nice. Also, not in English. So obviously I don't know what you meant by that sentence, but considering the context now I guess I can just say fair enough.
Now finally, based on this: "I just enjoy giving people a hard time", I don't see your question as anything you genuinely would care about and you should stop being such a cheeky little bitch. Especially as I already told you that my opinion on this matter is irrelevant. In fact, I think it's obvious that I don't believe in humans reproducing at all and thus can't have an opinion on this matter. But, I'll give you an equally pointless answer to your second question. We first define the smallest amount as 1 and for the sake of argument, another amount X as X>huge which is to represent repetition. This gives the difference of 1*X-1=more than huge minus one. In case you're bad at math, that's a pretty big fucking difference.
MoshBat wrote: [quote]maug wrote: [quote]MoshBat wrote: [quote]maug wrote: alright, organic or natural. Did you know both Heroin and Alcohol are organic, and natural?[/quote]
Heroin is not natural. It's refined/processed opium, that has been extracted from a plant. And organic only means that it is made of a carbon chain.[/quote] Purified. You can chomp on the poppies and still get an, albeit mild, effect.[/quote] it's esterifmacated of the natural stuff
MoshBat wrote: I'm assuming that you meant to write an actual word, but I'll try to answer anyhoo. Natural stuff like Codine and Morphine?
Ester is R¹-C=O-O-R² In heroin it's CH3-C=O-O- that's ester using acetic acid and the result is an acetyl group. Heroin is what happens when you add two of these acetyl groups to the natural stuff.
I don't think you get any heroin in nature.
Really dude? Calm down.
Furthermore, the entire stance that I have promoted and attempted to explain in this thread is meant to be a compromise that would persuade one who doesn't believe in God or life at conception to oppose abortion. When arguing abortion, one is pitted against (generally) those who don't believe in the two aforementioned subjects. Since they don't believe in those, arguing with logic based in them will obviously have no effect, and rightly shouldn't. Therefore, the argument must be brought to a different level on which everyone agrees. I would seriously hope that everyone here agrees that murder, when not in the form of defense, is morally or at least humanly wrong. Yes, defense is permissible. That is another topic, however.
Yes, it is a,"ride the fence, don't piss anyone off," argument. It was not developed out of fear of having an ignorant opinion, however. I merely do not intend to base my argument solely on religion and beliefs. I believe in life at conception, but I do not believe that everyone has to; conversely, I should not have to believe that life does not occur at conception which is what current (American) law is essentially saying. This is especially outrageous if my tax dollars are going to government funded abortions.
This whole argument is pointless anyways, as it could be solved at step one if anyone in the world actually took responsibility for their actions. Instead of, "Uh-oh, knocked my girl up. We can't raise this kid, let's just get rid of it," we should be saying: "Hey, I can't raise a family. I should probably wait until I can."
Then again, I'd hate to be burdened by having to be responsible. I hear that's kinda hard.
And by the way COM, this is a debate so I don't really care if you think your "opinion" is irrelevant or not. You're making assertions and I disagree with them, and I would like you to explain your reasoning so that I can further support why I believe that my view is correct.
@Twinkee Bit cranky, are we? I wonder what in my post could've possibly presented me as not calm. Damn it I even added the word "cheeky" in my post, there's no way a post with that word in it could be anything but relaxed. Ah well.
Whether you say it is a stay in the middle type of argument, it's nonetheless a stay in the middle type of argument with influence from what you personally believe. So in simpler terms: it's neutral with inclination towards the anti-abortion side. You're seeing the lack of proof that it isn't a human life, a pro-abortionist might to the same argument see the lack of proof that it is a human life and subsequently doesn't think he should gamble with the consequences of not doing something. There is no way to stay out of the argument and say that only one side might have awful consequences since no matter which side we're on, we're making a decision about a life. A life snuffed out can be awful, a life left to live can be worse. We cannot know, either action is a gamble and ultimately leads to what you personally feel. And no matter what, we're now still back at the life is a subjective thing argument. If we agree on that, then there isn't a gambling in any way since it is impossible to prove that it is or isn't life by the very fact that it is subjective.
Would you not say that abortions might in many cases be the act of taking responsibility and keeping it the act of not doing so? Emotionally, an abortion might even be a harder thing to ultimately decide at for some and it would've been an easier think to just keep it if we're considering responsibility into the matter.
Hmm, I don't know if you meant to be insulting or not with opinion being between quotation marks. Anyhow, if you insist, here's a little insight into the mind of the person you're conversing with.
I would seriously hope that everyone here agrees that murder, when not in the form of defense, is morally or at least humanly wrong. To this I say no. But, I will not discuss that further here. Anyhow, if you're really insisting that this is a debate and that that means that we have to just argue with each other, then I'm really disappointed in you. Personally I was just enjoying having a conversation where I could get to know someone's stance that I find genuinely interesting and not get into little pissy disagreements with the person. Meanwhile everyone gets a fuller view on your stance on the matter in this thread and anyone who wishes can always start arguing with you about it. So if you're maintaining that just because this is a debate we have to be doing some petty arguing, then I'm sorry to have to say that my participation in this conversation is now over. Enjoy your further arguments. COM
MoshBat wrote: People don't often think that carefully, and after all, killing something that has yet to know what a breath of air feels like is better than it living a shit life, ending when it kills itself. And killing yourself puts you in Hell, right?
That might be, but I'm sure that killing yours31f will grant you a place in heaven.
In the 70's abortion was legalised in some parts of the US. The majority of those seeking these now legal abortions were teenagers or other "unsuitable" parents.
About 20 years later crime dropped in these parts. Including violent crime. This landed in the 90's but rather than attribute it to the lower number of 16-25's (the main practitioners of crime) people just put it down to better govenrance.
Abortions save lives.
MoshBat wrote: [quote]maug wrote: [quote]MoshBat wrote: [quote]maug wrote: alright, organic or natural. Did you know both Heroin and Alcohol are organic, and natural?[/quote]
Heroin is not natural. It's refined/processed opium, that has been extracted from a plant. And organic only means that it is made of a carbon chain.[/quote] Purified. You can chomp on the poppies and still get an, albeit mild, effect.[/quote]
Opium is the tar that comes out of the slits in live opium poppies. There's a ton of mind-altering chemicals there, including psychedelic hallucinogens. Once you have opium, you can extract the morphine. H is "purified" 10 more times and is certainly not natural, seeing as you have to mix it with acids and solvents. Making a quid like you would with cocoa or salvia is a waste. Grind it up, make a tea. If you want to smoke it, filter then evaporate the water. This is called "cooked opium" which is the opium that most of china smokes.
God dammit. See what happens when we talk about abortion?
And any "people need simply need to stop making stupid decisions" argument is void. Accidents happen, there needs to be an "in the event everything should go horribly wrong plan" and there isn't anything else. This link is somewhat related.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/elizabeth_pisani_sex_drugs_and_hiv_let_s_get_rational_1.html