Abortion is murder, I tells yah!

[bobaganuesh_2]

i know this is gonna sound harsh, but its not like the child knows what its missing.

Jesus H. Christ man that was so fucking funny i spat my tea out all over the monitor! nice one lol

abortion should not be illegal, cuz if a baby is 'put' in a woman against her will, then the it basically becomes a parasite.

[blackson]

I knew a guy whose parents couldn't support him and had him by accident. He sells crystal meth now and believes in a Godless universe. He gets to go to hell and burn forever. Ahh, sunrise, sunset.

I also knew a guy who ate too much McDonalds and died of a heart attack. They should make McDonalds illegal.

Dude, also, this one time, a girl rejected me when I asked her if she wanted to go out to see Casino Royale. So I became gay and stopped watching movies.

Universal decisions based on isolated cases is really the only way to live, Southpaw.

I remember this one time...

[origami_alligator]

I knew a guy whose parents couldn't support him and had him by accident. He sells crystal meth now and believes in a Godless universe. He gets to go to hell and burn forever. Ahh, sunrise, sunset.

I also knew a guy who ate too much McDonalds and died of a heart attack. They should make McDonalds illegal.

Dude, also, this one time, a girl rejected me when I asked her if she wanted to go out to see Casino Royale. So I became gay and stopped watching movies.

Universal decisions based on isolated cases is really the only way to live, Southpaw.

That's not what I was saying at all.
Nobody was making decisions based on isolated cases, one is just questioning the reasoning behind the beliefs of another.

[blue_tetris]

I knew a guy whose parents couldn't support him and had him by accident. He sells crystal meth now and believes in a Godless universe. He gets to go to hell and burn forever. Ahh, sunrise, sunset.

I also knew a guy who ate too much McDonalds and died of a heart attack. They should make McDonalds illegal.

Dude, also, this one time, a girl rejected me when I asked her if she wanted to go out to see Casino Royale. So I became gay and stopped watching movies.

Universal decisions based on isolated cases is really the only way to live, Southpaw.

That's not what I was saying at all.
Nobody was making decisions based on isolated cases, one is just questioning the reasoning behind the beliefs of another.

I was being ironic, thereby supporting what you were saying to begin with and referencing you.

I was blindly supporting anecdotal evidence in a manner which emphasized its unrelia--meh, forget it.

[origami_alligator]

I knew a guy whose parents couldn't support him and had him by accident. He sells crystal meth now and believes in a Godless universe. He gets to go to hell and burn forever. Ahh, sunrise, sunset.

I also knew a guy who ate too much McDonalds and died of a heart attack. They should make McDonalds illegal.

Dude, also, this one time, a girl rejected me when I asked her if she wanted to go out to see Casino Royale. So I became gay and stopped watching movies.

Universal decisions based on isolated cases is really the only way to live, Southpaw.

That's not what I was saying at all.
Nobody was making decisions based on isolated cases, one is just questioning the reasoning behind the beliefs of another.

I was being ironic, thereby supporting what you were saying to begin with and referencing you.

I was blindly supporting anecdotal evidence in a manner which emphasized its unrelia--meh, forget it.

The internet needs a device that measures the amount of possible sarcasm that points to either (a) supporting a post through sarcasm or (b) refutes a post through sarcasm.
I'd download that doohickey immediately. It makes much more sense now.

[jean-luc]

We could implement the Sarcasm Mark. it's usually written as an upside-down question mark*.

* The original paper that appeared before the Modern Language Association suggesting a Sarcasm Mark specified a backwards question mark. However, there is backward question mark character in the Unicode text standard for computers, so an upside down question mark is usually used (always at the end of the sentence, to help differentiate it from the opening question mark in spanish and related languages).

[blue_tetris]

You really thought this libertarian wanted to outlaw McDonalds?

[Maligus]

You really thought this libertarian wanted to outlaw McDonalds?

BWAHAHA! outlaw McDonalds? That wouldnt happen in a million years! They make too much money and they give the government too much money because people are always buying the food and paying a tax on it. Thus, the government makes too much money off of it to outlaw it! Besides...IT'S FUCKIN DELICIOUS!

[otters]

i know this is gonna sound harsh, but its not like the child knows what its missing.

abortion should not be illegal, cuz if a baby is 'put' in a woman against her will, then the it basically becomes a parasite.

We've been over this already. Rape victims count for less than 1% of women who undergo abortions...that's not to say it should be discounted completely.

They should make McDonald's illegal.

I know. Seriously.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

We've been over this already. Rape victims count for less than 1% of women who undergo abortions...that's not to say it should be discounted completely.

He's not talking about rape. Women who have sex for pleasure and aren't trying to procreate do not want babies. The fetus is still put in the woman against her will.

[blue_tetris]

I'd like to see a statistic on that 1%, incluye.

Granted, I don't think it's the turning point in the argument--not by a long shot--but I'd still like to see the reference.

[b3njamin]

I knew a guy whose parents couldn't support him and had him by accident. He sells crystal meth now and believes in a Godless universe. He gets to go to hell and burn forever. Ahh, sunrise, sunset.

I also knew a guy who ate too much McDonalds and died of a heart attack. They should make McDonalds illegal.

Dude, also, this one time, a girl rejected me when I asked her if she wanted to go out to see Casino Royale. So I became gay and stopped watching movies.

Universal decisions based on isolated cases is really the only way to live, Southpaw.

1- I too believe in a godless universe. if I get to burn in hell Why would I exist? If god wants to send me to hell why did he 'made' me?

2- it was his own decision to eat to much at McDonalds.

About arbortion:

I think it shouldn't be illigal. I believe it's legal in my countrey (unless the baby is over [x] numbers weeks).
but I do think it's stupid to get prenant when you DOn't want a baby

Double posts merged. - Twistkill

[Universezero]

I'm just going to throw this out here...

Personally, I think that abortion is murder, but for some reason I'm okay with that. I think it was how I was brought up, but scientifically, I really don't think that an unborn baby can be murdered if it hasn't been born yet. It's al about wheather or not you count a baby as alive or not before it come out of the womb. I do not. That is how I wsa raised and is what I think.

[capt_weasle]

No, the question isn't whether the fetus is alive or not - it is - the question is if an unborn human has the same rights as someone who has been born.

[blue_tetris]

There are those that figure eating steak is murder too. Murder is a huge word that people like to throw around to give moral substance to an action which causes a living thing to die. Sometimes, death is just death and isn't a killing.

Now, if you don't mind, my friend Kablizzy needs some antibiotics. He's home from work sick. :(

[scythe]

RE: Bible says abortion is bad.
No, it doesn't.

Even though many Christians have adopted abortion as a cornerstone practice to abolish as part of their religious principles, nowhere in the Bible is abortion explicitly indicated as being against God's will or prohibited. According to the book of Leviticus (which contains many laws not accepted by most Christians), killing a fetus is considered a crime only punishable by a fine

I love the "list of common misconceptions" page.

[otters]

If god wants to send me to hell why did he 'made' me?

To improve your grammar, maybe.

but I do think it's stupid to get prenant when you DOn't want a baby

E.g. rape, or failure of the pill, or late coitus interruptus, or what?

[bobaganuesh_2]

I'm pro choice. The only person who can decide if it is the best thing is the mother, not a government or a church.

word

[Vyacheslav]

Speaking of abortions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjyqpxkKJCM

[Tanner]

However, I dont think it should be illegal. At least no more illegal than murdering a kitten.

Morally justifiable murder? Fetuses to have as much rights as animals (read:none)? Discuss.

I've been thinking and doing some research and I've begun to agree with Brocerius on this one. From a human and scientific point of view, it is impossible to argue that life does not begin at conception. But should the fact that this is killing another human necessarily change our views in the matter? I would answer that, no, it should not. As a species we've seem to come to a point where we've decided that killing other humans isn't a good thing but it is sometimes necessary. I don't think it has much to do with rights (although children do have fewer rights than adults so perhaps this is the logical progression), I think it has more to do with a generally screwed up sense of morality.

[blue_tetris]

As a species we've seem to come to a point where we've decided that killing other humans isn't a good thing but it is sometimes necessary. I don't think it has much to do with rights (although children do have fewer rights than adults so perhaps this is the logical progression), I think it has more to do with a generally screwed up sense of morality.

We've just come to that point? Methinks more murders were happening in the past eras than the present one. Crusades? Witch hunts? We've come a long way, baby.

[Tanner]

As a species we've seem to come to a point where we've decided that killing other humans isn't a good thing but it is sometimes necessary. I don't think it has much to do with rights (although children do have fewer rights than adults so perhaps this is the logical progression), I think it has more to do with a generally screwed up sense of morality.

We've just come to that point? Methinks more murders were happening in the past eras than the present one. Crusades? Witch hunts? We've come a long way, baby.

Uh, I phrased that poorly. I agree with you.

[Turiski]

WARNING: Long and probably occcasionally rambling post ahead.

I'm adopted, let's get that out of the way. My "parents" fucked when they were 15 and 16 and for whatever thing that happened or didn't I was born. Cool?

Now to more serious discussion.

Kill- to terminate life
Murder- an action unique to humans involving an intent by one human to kill another human.
Prey (verb)- to, as a species and on a whole, interact with members of another species only through killing them.
Abort- to kill a human fetus before it exits the uterus
Life- see below

All things having reasonable (as in, not involving a massive lightning strike as in the primordial soup hypothesis (theory?)) potential for life are considered alive. Therefore, the issue of "potential" is not actually an issue it all, it is a scientific definition that a fetus is alive. So is an egg, while we're on the topic, so while not screwing Dave is not killing, not screwing Madonna is. Also, any woman that doesn't empty herself before she dies kills thousands of eggs.

When looked at from that point of view, pro-lifers should have won the argument long ago. But as Dave said, scientific "life" does not imply the "unalienable" right to live, and at some point defending life becomes ridiculous.

Consider bacteria. There are a lot of nice bacteria that make the world, and your body, go around, but there are a couple species that will kill you. I think it would be unreasonable to consider that a person should die to save an invasive bacterial infection. Therefore, two conclusions can be drawn: Not all life is equivalent, and numbers are insignificant (treating one human would kill easily hundreds of thousands of bacteria).

The first conclusion implies that there must be a "quality" of life that for certain organisms is greater than others, and legal precedent says that it varies on an organism, not species, level. Intuition tells us that this view is correct. So the question, and how this all relates to abortion, is "when does the 'quality' of a fetus drop significantly?"

First off, "quality" is not a simple 'sentience - intelligence - stimulus-response - unaware' scale. It is likely (proven?) that infant humans do not posses sentience in the same way adult humans do, but killing one is legally equivalent to killing the other, and many would consider it worse to kill an infant (human) than a 40-year-old man. Therefore, "quality" must be assessed in some other way.

Second, the "quality" of a fetus is not related to the health of the mother. If the mother is terminally ill from a disease that runs genetically, there are two possibilities:
1) She dies before the baby is born and the "quality" of the life is radically dropped, it is now reasonable to let it be killed; it could theoretically be saved by moving it into another woman's uterus (I think) but because the "quality" has been demolished, etc.
2) She knows she will not die before the baby is born, but she will die soon afterward or during birth. Despite her being in very bad shape, the "quality" does not decrease. Assuming pro-life momentarily, it would be wrong to kill the baby simply because it will not know its mother. /pro-life
Only complete killing of the mother will drop the "quality" of the fetus. Note, however, that if both parents were terminally ill, it would be a different issue, as the mother's local network would not be able to care for the child (see below)

Third, the "quality" of a fetus is ALWAYS at least slightly lower than the "quality" of the mother. This difference isn't initially great enough to always allow abortions, but it is significant because of the other (colloquial) 'potential' issue: The mother's effect on society is relatively known, her infant's is not. Large gain does not offset large loss, therefore it is mathematically reasonable for the fetus' to be lower.

Fourth, the "quality" of a fetus is inversely related to its effect on the mother's health. If it is certain that a woman will die during childbirth, it should be legal to have an abortion. (Yes, we're finally starting to use the word!) Now, the world certain implies harsh extremes, and that is not what I mean; I resolve the definition by saying that it is considered "very likely" by a qualified professional.

Oh, quick definition: "should be legal to have an abortion"- the "quality" of the fetus drops to a level such that it is reasonable to kill the fetus.

Here is where what I am about to say will be controversial
The "quality" of a fetus is not related to the mother's willingness to have offspring. It should NOT be legal to have an abortion simply because she "doesn't want it." Of course, there are other points to make.
An amendment: This does not apply to the adopting parents, because they were not involved in conception.

The "quality" of a fetus is related to ability of the mother's entire network to care for the child. This means that if the mother is able to take care of the child, it should not be legal to have an abortion. If the father is able to take care of the child, it should not be legal to have an abortion. If a reasonable attempt has been made to attempt to find another home for the child, and it returned nothing, it should be legal to have an abortion.
An amendment: In cases where it would not be legal to have an abortion due to non-parents able to care for the child, it is a moral, but not a legal, obligation to allow said non-parents an adoption.

The "quality" of a fetus is not related to the circumstances regarding its conception. Meaning, if you're raped, deepest apologies; please find a home for your child. However, there are circumstances covered by the previous statement that may allow an abortion anyway. For instance, if the mother suffers emotional trauma and it interferes with her ability to search her network, this must be factored in to the "reasonable" aspect of the search requirement.

And finally,
The "quality" of a fetus very slightly increases as it gets closer to birth. This is only really relevant in the end (I'm thinking third fourth) of the third trimester. When the baby is that close to its expected date, it has to be considered that allowing it to live an extra hour may have made it completely illegal to kill. However, near certain death of the mother would still override this.


In conclusion:
A fetus has the right to live under normal circumstances
A woman has the right to abort under other circumstances
A woman always has priority over her unborn child in life, not in rights
Practicality must be considered in all cases.
Legal abortion, as I have defined, is not murder.

I have done my best to make my arguments as logical as possible, with as little ambiguity as I could (which is still a lot).
It's not an emotionally appealing belief set, and I know that some of the things I have laid out are easier said than done.

-Turiski

[乳头的早餐谷物]

*

I assume your views on embryos would be the same as those on fetuses?