Women, get all the lovin you can now

[edgarfigaro]

there's no such fucking thing as this "responsibility" you're expecting from everyone, there never has been, there never will be

and it has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is ethical anyway

Ummm... Just because I say it, that doesn't make it so. Same goes for you sir. Responsibility it the reasonable expectation of civilized people the world over. Perhaps the reason you don't believe in it is you don't expect it?

To some extent responsibility has everything to do with the ethical question of abortion. Just because I don't make my grass grow, that doesn't mean I'm not responsible for cutting it. Abortion as an ethical question has already been answered by the public, you just didn't like the answer because it didn't fit into your value system. If I kill a pregnant woman in a drunken driving accident while she is on her way to an abortion clinic, thats two counts of vehicular manslaughter. If the same woman aborts it, then it became a "choice" somewhere during the drive to the clinic. Seems pretty obvious to me.

AGAIN, WHY ARE YOU USING THAT EXAMPLE?????

You're a fucking moron, as I explained, that is just the doing of the pro-lifers that want to use it to encroach on abortion rights. So basically, you are now holding something against the pro-choicers that your side made law. You fucking putz.

[Paralyzed]

offtopic

I have to wonder how there was a doublepost 8 minutes apart lol.

[Koyangi]

offtopic

I have to wonder how there was a doublepost 8 minutes apart lol.

Person really wanted to get thier point across?

[Xavier]

The forums lagged out inbetween that, the person hit submit, it lagged out, he did it again when the forums came back up.

[Ashen]

The real winner for this thread is this:

If you wan't an abortion, go get one
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one


Forcing your believes on other people is gay, go back to 16th century Europe or wherever the fuck your from.

[Lockecole]

as far as the public answering the question, there's the poll results right up there ^

That poll proves nothing. That poll proves that 75% of the typical gamer (male..18-24) is pro-abortion. Guess what...you take ONE type of group of people, of course the majority of them will think the same. I know you're smart enough to know this is not an accurate poll.

It proves that the age-group most typically in a situation where an abortion is needed think its not wrong, its accurate so much as the target group for abortion agrees with it. Discarding it because no 35-75 year old republic is voting is just as biased.

Not really. As long as you keep the environment controlled in a poll, it will be biased. I didnt say to fill a poll with 35-75 year old republicans, but when the TYPICAL stereotype that leaves a pregnant women alone with a child to raise (young male) is the majority person to vote...are you surprised that we're getting the outcome we are? I'm not saying it would be different if we did another random poll out on the street...but it's possible.

As for the rest of how I think...you're right. I am basing off what I say, based off the assumption that what I feel is right and fact. Doesn't everyone else?

"Life sucks, you make mistakes, deal with it" is such a stonecold hardass attitude.

Harsh? Yes. The correct attitude? I believe so. Sugar-coating life doesn't help anything. You mask the real issues in life by ignoring them, it hurts you worse then if you faced them head on.

I would never have someone I got preganat get an abortion, I'd raise the child, or at the very least, my parents would raise it if I wasn't able to. But my personal view has nothing to do with the issue, and everything Joft is saying is dead on.

I never get this type of mentality. If something is good enough for you, why isn't it good enough for others? Why not hold others up to the high standards you hold for yourself? I choose my opinions because I feel they're the best choices for myself, and my loved ones. I would want the same for others. Have you never felt strongly enough about something in your life, that you feel its a necessity to share it with others?

You're really arguging that a woman has no rights, but a handful of cells beginning to grow inside a woman do.

I'm arguing that the LIFE of a "handful of cells" beginning to grow inside a woman has the right to live over the inconveniance of a women and her spouse. Last time I checked having responsibility wasn't against the law. If everything was equal, and there was even a MINISCULE chance of a women dying or being injured by the pregnancy, I'd end my wifes pregnancy (with her consent) in a second. The women's life > a baby's life. But we're not discussing that...so don't act like I value a baby's equal rights over a womens.

[Omaedon]

Reason #8 why you should save it and blow it on her face.

[raginbull]

homosexual sex never made any babies

pro-homo.

Isn't homosexual sex more likely to cause AIDs than hetrosexual sex is to cause pregnancy?

Scientific fact, razz.

[Aldur]

there's no such fucking thing as this "responsibility" you're expecting from everyone, there never has been, there never will be

and it has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is ethical anyway

Ummm... Just because I say it, that doesn't make it so. Same goes for you sir. Responsibility it the reasonable expectation of civilized people the world over. Perhaps the reason you don't believe in it is you don't expect it?

To some extent responsibility has everything to do with the ethical question of abortion. Just because I don't make my grass grow, that doesn't mean I'm not responsible for cutting it. Abortion as an ethical question has already been answered by the public, you just didn't like the answer because it didn't fit into your value system. If I kill a pregnant woman in a drunken driving accident while she is on her way to an abortion clinic, thats two counts of vehicular manslaughter. If the same woman aborts it, then it became a "choice" somewhere during the drive to the clinic. Seems pretty obvious to me.

AGAIN, WHY ARE YOU USING THAT EXAMPLE?????

You're a fucking moron, as I explained, that is just the doing of the pro-lifers that want to use it to encroach on abortion rights. So basically, you are now holding something against the pro-choicers that your side made law. You fucking putz.

Edgar, in order to appear smarter, use better debating logic and less attacks on one's person, i.e. "moron" and "putz". Notice how I rebuffed Joft's opinion without a personal attack on Joft himself? Its a skill you should try to pick up. I'll wager you're a 15-16 year old kid who still hasn't gotten a clue but has the mouth to run anyway. And as far as pro-lifers making murder against the law: well duh.

[Warudo Ecksu]

I never get this type of mentality. If something is good enough for you, why isn't it good enough for others? Why not hold others up to the high standards you hold for yourself? I choose my opinions because I feel they're the best choices for myself, and my loved ones. I would want the same for others. Have you never felt strongly enough about something in your life, that you feel its a necessity to share it with others?

I can make decisions and have opinions that I think are the best for me, but that doesn't necessarily make them the right decisions for someone else. You have to keep in mind every person in life lives in a completely different situation from your own.. has a completely different way of thinking.

Like I said a few pages ago, I, personally, would never have an abortion, but I'm also smart enough to take the necessary precautions in order to not get pregnant. I don't expect other women to feel the same way I do, and I would never push my opinions or beliefs onto another person. I don't feel it's in my right.

[Paralyzed]

I never get this type of mentality. If something is good enough for you, why isn't it good enough for others? Why not hold others up to the high standards you hold for yourself? I choose my opinions because I feel they're the best choices for myself, and my loved ones. I would want the same for others. Have you never felt strongly enough about something in your life, that you feel its a necessity to share it with others?

There's a difference between sharing your beliefs and trying to force them on other people. This law is forcing people to follow that belief. This belief has to do with religious feelings, thus this law should not exist because there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

"I've got nothing against god, it's his fan club I can't stand"

[Lockecole]

There's a difference between sharing your beliefs and trying to force them on other people. This law is forcing people to follow that belief. This belief has to do with religious feelings, thus this law should not exist because there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

This belief has to do with people believing in the sanctity of life. What does religion have to do with believing wether or not a child is still an individual while still in the womb? That's purely scientific. Yes people can bring religious reasons into it, but when it boils down to it, you can keep the church seperate and still disagree with abortion.

Also did you miss the part where people voted this law into effect? I don't see the issue, if thats what the majority wants, then it will be passed. Not everyone agrees entirely on laws passed, and if someone's so offended by the fact that they can't abort their babies, then they should move. Gay people move to get married in a state that allows it, I'd think if people felt as strongly about their child's life/death, they'd do the same.

[Paralyzed]

There are religious beliefs behind every moral. Killing, stealing, etc. All of it has to do with your religious beliefs. Obviously some muslims felt that killing wasn't wrong when they flew into the trade towers, because they felt their religion would actually reward them since they think we are evil. Please don't act like everyone believes in the same morals, because they don't, and that includes the "sanctity of life" as if we know death is worse.

Obviously people who want to abolish a practice are going to be much louder than people who are fine with the way it is. While right now they can go just to another state, what happens if this becomes a national law? They have to fly out of country? Unless you can prove to me that the "individual" is infact a person and not just a bunch of cells started to form together, I think this law should have never taken place. I'm sure there are going to be plenty of people in South Dakota who lives too far from a border or are too lazy to drive to another state who will get an illegal abortion. This law does nothing but put the health of the woman at higher risk. I just can't see any good this law does at all, except to please people who really need to keep their nose out of other people's business.

In a perfect world, there should be a compromise. If the couple took every percaution to not get pregant, then I think they should be allowed to have an abortion. Or if there are huge health risks with the mother or the baby or a rape, that should be allowed. However, if they were just being fucking stupid and had sex without any protection what-so-ever, then they should have to deal with it - although at the same time I don't think we need anymore retards in the world.

Of course such a thing would be hard to prove unless everyone recorded their sex acts and had to give them to the abortion guy, which would probably raise the number of perverts trying to get that job.

This thread needs some humor: http://ninjapirate.com/abortion.html

[djzombie]

George Carlin - Abortion / Sanctity of Life

Is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being when there's a miscarriage how come we don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being how come people say we have 2 children and one on the way rather than saying we have 3 children? People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and its a continuous process.

The really hardcore people will tell you that life begins at fertilization. Fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Which is usually a few moments after the man says, "gee honey i was gonna pull out but the phone rang and startled me." But even after the egg is fertilized its still 6 or 7 days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins and yet they are fertilized egggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman that has had more than one period is a serial killer.

The longer you listen to this abortion debate, the more you hear the phrase "sanctity of life," "sanctity of life." You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a bunch of shit. I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for 1,000's of years. Hindus, muslims, jews, christians all takin turns killing each other cause god told them it was a good idea.

Ya know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up. Ya know why? Because we're alive. Self interest. Living peopel have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred. You don't see abbott and costelo talkin about this shit do you? Not hearin a whole lot from mousolinni on the subject.. whats the latest from jfk? not a god damn thing cause they're all fuckin dead, and dead people give less than a shit about the sanctity of life. Only living people care about it, so the whole thing grows out of a completely biased point of view. It's a self serving manmade bullshit story. It's one of these things we tell ourselves so we'll feel noble.

If everything that ever lived is dead, and everything that's alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? I'm having trouble with that. Cause even with the stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don't practice it.

Look at what we kill:
Mesquitos and flys - cause they're pests
Lions and tigers - cause its fun
chickens and pigs - cause we're hungry
pheasants and quale - cause its fun... and.. we're hungry
and people - cause they're pests.. and.. its fun!

and you might have noticed something else, the sanctity of life doesn't seem to apply to cancer cells does it? You rarely see a bumper sticker that says, "save the tumors" or, "I break for advanced melenoma".. viruses mold mildew maggots fungus weeds ecoli bacteria the crabs... nothing sacred about those things. So at best, the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose what forms of life we feel are sacred and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal huh? Ya know how we got it? We made the whole fuckin thing up!

The same way we made up the death penalty. Aren't we versatile?

[Paralyzed]

So much truth in that even if it is meant to be a joke. Human nature is to believe that a person's life is more important than the bug you kill every day, but in the grand scheme of things it's really not.

[Xavier]

I never get this type of mentality. If something is good enough for you, why isn't it good enough for others? Why not hold others up to the high standards you hold for yourself? I choose my opinions because I feel they're the best choices for myself, and my loved ones. I would want the same for others. Have you never felt strongly enough about something in your life, that you feel its a necessity to share it with others?

There's a difference between sharing your beliefs and trying to force them on other people.

and thats pretty much all that needs to be said.

Just because I believe something, doesn't mean I'm self-centered enough to think that everyone else MUST believe it too.

Also did you miss the part where people voted this law into effect? I don't see the issue, if thats what the majority wants, then it will be passed.

You're acting like it was voted on as a bill during an election. It was a bill created in the state Senate of South Dakota, and, most importantly, its specifically designed to force a Supreme Court vote that would overturn or uphold Roe v. Wade.

Just because the bill was passed doesn't mean its going to take effect. Its going to be challenged, appealed up to the Supreme Court and decided there.

so don't act like I value a baby's equal rights over a womens.

Whatever reason the women has is irrelevant, its just a means to an ends.

Kinda sounds like you don't give a damn what the woman has to say at all.

[Lockecole]

There are religious beliefs behind every moral. Killing, stealing, etc. All of it has to do with your religious beliefs.

So to compare abortion with killing and stealing, couldn't people just claim the laws we have now are wrong? That people are just FORCING their beliefs that stealing and killing are wrong, and that we should just ACCEPT the fact that some people like to kill to solve their problems, that some people like to steal to make a living instead of work for it? I'm aware all of these things effect other people directly, but that's still just a matter of ethics when it comes down to it. Sorry but your argument fails when you try to compare the two.

Whatever reason the women has is irrelevant, its just a means to an ends.

Kinda sounds like you don't give a damn what the woman has to say at all.

Funny how you can quote something out of context and not realize what the person meant. Here's the full quote.

Abortion is "wrong" (a horrible thing...I won't go into morals) because a baby dies in the process. Whatever reason the women has is irrelevant, its just a means to an ends. (unless its for health reasons.) I agree the debate should not be on why the person got the abortion, but on the ethics of the act itself.

I merely stated that the reason, short of a woman's life being in danger because of the pregnancy, is irrelevant. Irrelevant means not vital or useful to the discussion at hand. And it IS irrelevant if you're merely discussing the ethics of the ACT itself. That's what everyone here is trying to figure out...is ABORTION wrong, not what actions lead to it and not why is it wrong. Only reason I stated it was irrelevant.

[edgarfigaro]

Edgar, in order to appear smarter, use better debating logic and less attacks on one's person, i.e. "moron" and "putz". Notice how I rebuffed Joft's opinion without a personal attack on Joft himself? Its a skill you should try to pick up. I'll wager you're a 15-16 year old kid who still hasn't gotten a clue but has the mouth to run anyway. And as far as pro-lifers making murder against the law: well duh.

Guess what, I don't need to appear smarter. I know exactly how smart I am, and I don't need to impress anyone with it. I put up with people like that for 4 years in college, and it's a fucking hypocritical way to go about life.

And again, you made a stupid arguement, and now you're telling me to "act smarter" because you were wrong. Wow, what a comeback...you definatley "appear" smarter than me...but then again, I don't need to validate my IQ/SAT/GRE/LSAT/MCAT/Class rank/Summa cum laude/whatever ranking of intelligence there might be by treating morons like they actually know what they're talking about.

Oh, and calling me a 15-16 yearold without a clue while lecturing me on proving a point without a personal attack= you're a fucking hypocrite.

Learn how to make an argument without being wrong, then get back to me, hypocrite.

[Fryte]

George Carlin wins all the cookies.

[Paralyzed]

So to compare abortion with killing and stealing, couldn't people just claim the laws we have now are wrong? That people are just FORCING their beliefs that stealing and killing are wrong, and that we should just ACCEPT the fact that some people like to kill to solve their problems, that some people like to steal to make a living instead of work for it? I'm aware all of these things effect other people directly, but that's still just a matter of ethics when it comes down to it. Sorry but your argument fails when you try to compare the two.

Like you said, they effect other people. Abortion only effects the mother and maybe - VERY ARGUABLY - a "baby". Killing is illegal besides beliefs because if it wasn't humans would have probably been wiped out a long time aog. Stealing is illegal besides beliefs because if it wasn't stores would go out of business, and no one would have shit because everyone could just walk into your house and take it.

The law is ment to protect it's citizens. Who the fuck is this law going to protect? If anything it's going to kill the unlucky ones who die during an illegal abortion. Not to mention that the law isn't perfect. You know it was/is illegal for oral sex in some states? There are tons of stupid state laws that are hard to believe exist, but they are there. But then again you very rarely see anyone get arrested for it.

If you can see why killing and stealing hurts other people, then you should understand why those laws aren't a matter of ethics or religion. As long as it doesn't effect another person, then there is no reason to abolish it. Until anyone can prove that the clump of cells is an actual person, then this anti-abortion has no merit. Hell banning alcohol made more sense, but look where that ended up. I don't know about you, but I don't want some asshole to come shoot me in the face then steal my TV, as that would be a pretty big inconvience on my day.