Abortion: Your Views...

[Zardoch]

Also, I'm not saying that the man has nothing to do with the pregnancy or anything of the sort. What I'm saying is, that ultimately, it's up to the woman to make the final decision. I'm not gonna drag no woman to an abortion clinic and force her to get an abortion. This is why I say it's up to the woman. You know how people ask sometimes whether or not the woman is going to keep the baby? Well, who's that question directed at? The one who's pregnant! Correct! Just so you know, I haven't impregnated anybody yet, but I've been around pregnant women before. I was living with my sister through her two pregnancies. It's not as good as living with someone that I've actually gotten pregnant, but it should be close enough for you, so here I say, **** you.

Just because a woman becomes pregnant doesn't mean that it's THEIR decision and THEIR decision alone. Having a baby is, as it was said, a SERIOIUS thing, even if it happens by accident. What Sasquatch is explaining is that a man should have much to say about an abortion as the woman. The problem is you're putting your partner's own feelings about the matter out the door without a chance of knowing what he really feels. I mean you do realize men have emotions and the like, right? Just because a woman has the child doesn't mean it doesn't affect the man who helped create that child. He may not be walking around for 9 months with a child in his belly, but he's as responsible for that child as much as you are, hence the responsibility splits BOTH WAYS, not just towards the mother.

The way you're handling this is almost as if you don't care, thus Sasquatch saying that you're irresponsible. He's right too because that's not just an egg, it's a living organism. All living things have the right to live and if you wish to destroy that because it's "inconvenient" is truly irresponsible. It might be unfair that you became pregnant, but now you have to deal with the consequences that you KNEW were there beforehand. (Having sex = chance of pregnacy)

Lastly, the **** you was uncalled for.

Of course I know that more men support abortion than women! It's common sense! I mean, a man did legalize the practice, after all.

Do you have any evidence to support that assumption? Do you think men were the only ones who suggested abortion? Like do you know Madem Restell? She was someone in the 19th-20th century who created birth control pills and surgically did abortions as well.

In the society of the United States, the man is considered the head of the household. With this logic, the man will be providing the majority of the income, therefore, the man is also providing and paying the majority of the expenses for the child.

You do realize that was very sexist of you, both against men and women? Just because it has become normalized in today's society that "men are the breadwinners of the household" doesn't mean that's the way things are in modern times. In fact, there are many households where women are the ones making the most money, hence they being the breadwinners (like my own mother). So not only do you generalize men as being the ones who are SUPPOSE to pay child support, you also insult the women who make the most money in their homes. Why do men HAVE to pay child-support and then be jailed for being so poor that they can only provide for themself?

This can be a problem for many men, if the child came from a fling with some woman or something of the sort. Some guys just don't want to support a child, therefore, they will try to get the woman to have an abortion.

This is the common view society has about men and honestly, you're out of line when you assume only men want to have abortions because they have to pay their partner (x) amount over years. What about the women who purposely get pregnant so they can abuse the child-support law and get free money from their lovers? Of course, women are such noble creatures that they'd never do such a thing, right?

The reason that a lot of women are against abortion is because of the trauma and emotional stress that comes from it, along with the ongoing thoughts of a dead baby being squeezed out of them. They had a living being inside of them that needed them, and they abandoned it. An abortion is harder for a woman than a man. Prove me wrong on that, mother****er.

Right, women are the only ones who go through traumatic stress of seeing their own children they helped create die and deal with the emotional stress. Since men are insensitive and unemotional creatures, they must be celebrating the death of their own child. Yes, that what happens in the real world. Women are the only ones who suffer. You are so kind and understanding to know that.

It's true.. Guys will help women through the pregnancy and give them support. I'm sorry if I worded it in an immature and stupid way, but overall, that's how it is. The man helps her get around, supports her during the pregnancy, and them some. I guess I was thoughtless. I was wrong on that one, and I apologize.

That's not how it is. It's a painted picture created by misandrist and extreme feminist alike who try to show the world that women are the only victims of everyday life. Still, I'm glad you apologized to him.

So you're saying that if you can't handle a child, then... uhm... well ****, I can't think of anything intelligent to come back with to that. ****.

He's saying what I just said earlier. He's explaining that having a child and deciding on getting an abortion or not is an IMPORTANT RESPONSIBLE DECISION you try think twice, no three times about.

Nobody is truly ready for sex their first time. Why do you think that people are always nervous or embarrassed during their first time? Just thought I'd throw that out there.

No, but people can take precautions and understand that pregnancy can result from sex, even if you take those same precautions. When you have sex, you have to remind yourself that there is a consequence and it's name is "baby".

I believe more in keeping the child and giving it up for adoption when it’s born, just so you know. I’d rather not push a woman to go get an abortion. And, if the woman did get an abortion, I wouldn’t feel good about it, but luckily, I’m Catholic, so all I’d have to do is go to Confession, and all of my being will be cleansed!
I’m not a supporter of abortion, like a lot of men, but I know that there are a good amount of women that are, even if the majority of women are against it.

Wait, what? It sounds like you're going to take this so lightly just because you can go talk to a priest and he says you're forgiven. If you believe that you can be guilt-free from such a thing by going to confession, you are sadly mistaken.

Tell me, Sasquatch, are you a religious person? It seems like you might be a little bit on the extreme side of Christianity there, since you seemed to mix a little bit of sarcasm with forceful sentences in your posts. Everyone has their beliefs, so let’s just keep this thread about posting one’s beliefs and informing people a little more on all the aspects of the topic, is that okay with you? Because I really don’t want to get into a flame war with you.

Yes, he is religious, but he's not enforcing his religious beliefs on anyone. He's stating his opinion about abortion, that's all. Don't assume that just because he's religious that he's some gun-totting, redneck, bible thumper.

[Lilium]

Just because a woman becomes pregnant doesn't mean that it's THEIR decision and THEIR decision alone. Having a baby is, as it was said, a SERIOIUS thing, even if it happens by accident. What Sasquatch is explaining is that a man should have much to say about an abortion as the woman. The problem is you're putting your partner's own feelings about the matter out the door without a chance of knowing what he really feels. I mean you do realize men have emotions and the like, right? Just because a woman has the child doesn't mean it doesn't affect the man who helped create that child. He may not be walking around for 9 months with a child in his belly, but he's as responsible for that child as much as you are, hence the responsibility splits BOTH WAYS, not just towards the mother.

The way you're handling this is almost as if you don't care, thus Sasquatch saying that you're irresponsible. He's right too because that's not just an egg, it's a living organism. All living things have the right to live and if you wish to destroy that because it's "inconvenient" is truly irresponsible. It might be unfair that you became pregnant, but now you have to deal with the consequences that you KNEW were there beforehand. (Having sex = chance of pregnacy)

Lastly, the **** you was uncalled for.



Do you have any evidence to support that assumption? Do you think men were the only ones who suggested abortion? Like do you know Madem Restell? She was someone in the 19th-20th century who created birth control pills and surgically did abortions as well.



You do realize that was very sexist of you, both against men and women? Just because it has become normalized in today's society that "men are the breadwinners of the household" doesn't mean that's the way things are in modern times. In fact, there are many households where women are the ones making the most money, hence they being the breadwinners (like my own mother). So not only do you generalize men as being the ones who are SUPPOSE to pay child support, you also insult the women who make the most money in their homes. Why do men HAVE to pay child-support and then be jailed for being so poor that they can only provide for themself?



This is the common view society has about men and honestly, you're out of line when you assume only men want to have abortions because they have to pay their partner (x) amount over years. What about the women who purposely get pregnant so they can abuse the child-support law and get free money from their lovers? Of course, women are such noble creatures that they'd never do such a thing, right?




Right, women are the only ones who go through traumatic stress of seeing their own children they helped create die and deal with the emotional stress. Since men are insensitive and unemotional creatures, they must be celebrating the death of their own child. Yes, that what happens in the real world. Women are the only ones who suffer. You are so kind and understanding to know that.



That's not how it is. It's a painted picture created by misandrist and extreme feminist alike who try to show the world that women are the only victims of everyday life. Still, I'm glad you apologized to him.



He's saying what I just said earlier. He's explaining that having a child and deciding on getting an abortion or not is an IMPORTANT RESPONSIBLE DECISION you try think twice, no three times about.



Wait, what? It sounds like you're going to take this so lightly just because you can go talk to a priest and he says you're forgiven. If you believe that you can be guilt-free from such a thing by going to confession, you are sadly mistaken.



Yes, he is religious, but he's not enforcing his religious beliefs on anyone. He's stating his opinion about abortion, that's all. Don't assume that just because he's religious that he's some gun-totting, redneck, bible thumper.

You did read the part of my post that said talked about the couple discussing whether or not to have an abortion, right? What I’m trying to say is that, whenever a couple think about whether or not to have an abortion, the male always tends to ask the woman ‘well, are you okay with this?’ and ‘are you sure about this?’ and ‘do you want to have an abortion?’ The male always seems to let the woman have the last word in this stuff. That’s all I’m saying, is that… aww **** it. I’m starting to majorly confuse myself. Nothing that's coming from my mout-, er, typing is probably making sense anymore.


No, I never knew about the history of abortion in the 19th century. Thank you for informing me.


Listen, when my parents got divorced, my mom was the one who supported me. I know all well how women can bring in a good income. What I’m saying is, is that there are patriarchal societies, and there are matriarchal societies, and the U.S. seems to lean towards a patriarch. I know that women can pay child support, but what kind of court would give a small child over to the father? The courts would never try to take a child away from the mother until they are deemed mature enough in age to make the decision for themselves. Besides, the child could be living with the father, but the mother could still have physical custody. This is how it’s been with me for the past 2 years, so basically, the woman hasn’t paid any child support. I think they worked out a deal where no one pays anymore, though. But I digress. That’s all I’m saying. I didn’t word that right, so I apologize.
I do have to say, though, that it is kind of selfish to make the woman pay. My nephew’s deadbeat dad walked out of his and my sister’s home right in front of him, and never came back once. He did come back eventually (hasn’t since the second time, though. …yet), but he never got a job, and just mooched off of my sister, forcing her to support both of them, along with one or two kids (forget when my other nephew was born). Therefore, unless you are living in a matriarchal society, then the man should pay his fair share of the income. That’s all I’m saying. I guess I’m in the wrong for believing in that, though, so for that, I also apologize.


I know that women want to have abortions as well, but from all the stories I’ve heard from women that have gone through with it, they seemed to really, really regret it afterwards, and thought of how horrible it was to actually go through with it. I know that not all women would have guilt from it, but it seems that enough of them do.
As for the child-support law thing that you typed up, you do know about paternity tests, right? Well, they won’t be getting the money from their lovers, but from the people that got them pregnant. And what if they can’t find the person that knocked them up? Well, they won’t be getting any money, now will they? Even if they do find him, he can just say no to the paternity tests. …he can, right? I’m not too versed in paternity laws when it comes to tests. Would you please also inform me on this?


I’m not saying that it’s not painful for the man, I’m saying that it’s a lot harder for the women. Think about it. A dead baby is being pushed from her vagina. There’s also that sudden influx in hormones and chemicals from the child prematurely being birthed. It can be chemically and mentally dangerous for the woman. The man can feel the woman’s pain, and even have his own, but overall, they’re not the ones pushing a dead baby out of any holes and they’re not having any chemical fluxes from it. You just twisted that entire quoted part around from what I was trying to say. From my point of view, you are in the wrong this time.


I don’t quite remember typing the ‘that’s how it is’ part, so for that, I apologize.


It was sarcasm, dumbass. I’ll put a [/SARCASM] thing at the end next time when I’m being sarcastic. For that, I apologize.


I’m not saying that he’s some gun-totting, redneck, bible thumper. Believe it or not, I met and got to know some great gun-totting rednecks while I was in Texas. I have nothing against Southerners.
Okay, I was mean there, so for that, I apologize.


...****, I'm starting a flame-war, aren't I? Listen, you're the adult here. So how about instead of arguing with me (which is the father's role, not yours [/SARCASM]), how about you put everything in perspective for me, and inform me more on this subject, since I don't really think that pregnancy and abortions are really teenager's more informed points, since school districts will either teach about abstinence, or safe sex, instead of how to handle pregnancies and the like.
So please, since I don't want to start a flame war, be more informative on the subject and teach me instead of typing responses in such a mean way. I really would just like to hear others giving their thoughts on the subject, and giving their own information on what they know, whether it's in a news report, or just helping someone out by giving them some information that they asked for.
...did any of that make sense?


Just remember everyone, before I'm a fat guy, I'm a retard. This is why you must inform me and help me understand rather than flame me or give replies with a mean tone to them. Remember this.

[Zardoch]

You did read the part of my post that said talked about the couple discussing whether or not to have an abortion, right? What I’m trying to say is that, whenever a couple think about whether or not to have an abortion, the male always tends to ask the woman ‘well, are you okay with this?’ and ‘are you sure about this?’ and ‘do you want to have an abortion?’ The male always seems to let the woman have the last word in this stuff. That’s all I’m saying, is that… aww **** it. I’m starting to majorly confuse myself. Nothing that's coming from my mout-, er, typing is probably making sense anymore.

Just because the male seems to give the woman the last word, this is not always the case. My point was that such views have been programmed into society and people assume so much when it comes to such things.

No, I never knew about the history of abortion in the 19th century. Thank you for informing me.

No problem, though abortion has been around for thousands of years. ^^

Listen, when my parents got divorced, my mom was the one who supported me. I know all well how women can bring in a good income. What I’m saying is, is that there are patriarchal societies, and there are matriarchal societies, and the U.S. seems to lean towards a patriarch.

This is true to an extent. Generally, men usually do have the most income, but that is not a suffice reason for men to be the only ones to pay child support.

I know that women can pay child support, but what kind of court would give a small child over to the father?

A court that has common sense? If a father benefits the child more than the mother, then it should be obvious. Yet as you state below, often the courts never take away the child from its mother. This is again a normalization that mothers are believed to be better parents, which from what I've seen is hardly true.

I do have to say, though, that it is kind of selfish to make the woman pay. My nephew’s deadbeat dad walked out of his and my sister’s home right in front of him, and never came back once. He did come back eventually (hasn’t since the second time, though. …yet), but he never got a job, and just mooched off of my sister, forcing her to support both of them, along with one or two kids (forget when my other nephew was born).

Selfish? Really? Why is it selfish THAT if a man gains custody of the child(ren) and the WOMAN has to pay child support? Has IT been seen as selfish for the opposite situation of a man paying for child support? No, society has deemed it as morally and politically correct. Of course, I won't deny that there are some men like that, but ONE man or dozens does not justify the sexism of forcing only one gender to pay. Furthermore, it is wrong to put the person who pays for child support in jail because they're not super rich. I mean if a man WON'T pay and has the money, then there should be a punishment, but throwing them in jail won't get them the money for child support faster. Furthermore, how much of this child support money goes to actually raising the child?

Therefore, unless you are living in a matriarchal society, then the man should pay his fair share of the income. That’s all I’m saying. I guess I’m in the wrong for believing in that, though, so for that, I also apologize.

You're not wrong for having an opinion, only that the society you think you're living in has you believing that "fair" means that the man must do what he's told since he is generally BELIEVED to be the one who has a better income. This is completely unfair and misuse of the child support laws. It should be that whoever has the better income pays child support, not just the father in the family.

As for the child-support law thing that you typed up, you do know about paternity tests, right? Well, they won’t be getting the money from their lovers, but from the people that got them pregnant.

Yes, I know of the test. More often then not, however, the people who got them pregnant were their lovers, or supposed lovers.

And what if they can’t find the person that knocked them up? Well, they won’t be getting any money, now will they? Even if they do find him, he can just say no to the paternity tests. …he can, right? I’m not too versed in paternity laws when it comes to tests. Would you please also inform me on this?

Yeah, they won't be getting any money. As sad as that is, that doesn't mean they can go on a parade to find someone who will give them that money. They'll have to work for it, which most people often have to do. That is apart of life.

As for if the man can or cannot agree to the test, it depends. Sometimes the courts can order the man to do the test, but generally such things are given a yes/no option. It's a legal issue that is said to step on a person's rights because if you go up to someone and say, "Hey, we need your blood sample/whatever to test for this", you need consent first. Such samples are practically put into the system so some people who don't trust the system would rather not go through any test like the paternity test. Of course, despite that fact, it doesn't make the person who denies the test a bad person.

I’m not saying that it’s not painful for the man, I’m saying that it’s a lot harder for the women. Think about it. A dead baby is being pushed from her vagina. There’s also that sudden influx in hormones and chemicals from the child prematurely being birthed. It can be chemically and mentally dangerous for the woman. The man can feel the woman’s pain, and even have his own, but overall, they’re not the ones pushing a dead baby out of any holes and they’re not having any chemical fluxes from it. You just twisted that entire quoted part around from what I was trying to say. From my point of view, you are in the wrong this time.

Yes, physically I won't deny that is it harder on women. The process can be dangerous and the stress put on the woman can be pretty hard too. My point is this isn't a game of who feels the more pain, only that the men emotionally feel just as bad about it and shouldn't be treated worse just because they aren't the ones going through the procedure. The idea is to acknowledge the both the mother and father feel the same or similar emotions.

I don’t quite remember typing the ‘that’s how it is’ part, so for that, I apologize.

I'm sorry if I worded it in an immature and stupid way, but overall, that's how it is.

That's what I was responding too.

I’m not saying that he’s some gun-totting, redneck, bible thumper. Believe it or not, I met and got to know some great gun-totting rednecks while I was in Texas. I have nothing against Southerners.
Okay, I was mean there, so for that, I apologize.

I didn't say you were saying that either, , only that you might have been referring that. I'll take it back as it was only an observation.

...****, I'm starting a flame-war, aren't I? Listen, you're the adult here. So how about instead of arguing with me (which is the father's role, not yours [/SARCASM]), how about you put everything in perspective for me, and inform me more on this subject, since I don't really think that pregnancy and abortions are really teenager's more informed points, since school districts will either teach about abstinence, or safe sex, instead of how to handle pregnancies and the like.
So please, since I don't want to start a flame war, be more informative on the subject and teach me instead of typing responses in such a mean way. I really would just like to hear others giving their thoughts on the subject, and giving their own information on what they know, whether it's in a news report, or just helping someone out by giving them some information that they asked for.
...did any of that make sense?

Yes, it made sense. I'm not trying to start a flame war, however, even if I was being a bit cynical toward you. I was trying to "inform" you on the views you've come to accept as truth may be misguided and the things you believe might be a bit out of tune. Moreso I'm trying to say that you should be more open to the informative views I mention and understand my perspective. I'm not trying to be mean to you, only pointing out various things you may want to reevaluate. If I was a bit harsh, I apologize.

Just remember everyone, before I'm a fat guy, I'm a retard. This is why you must inform me and help me understand rather than flame me or give replies with a mean tone to them. Remember this.

You should have more confidence than that, . I don't see you as a retarded fat guy, just someone a bit misinformed. Again, if I came off in a harsh manner, I apologize again.

[Sasquatch]

Believe it or not, they ARE two different things, they just both involve money. Therefore, your talk about child support is irrelevant here. I should know about this, since my parents have been divorced since I was 7.

Sure, they are two different things, but as you said, both involve money -- and in this circumstance, they both involve the father paying money. Not only will he be financially responsible for the child after it's born -- if it's not murdered before -- he'll be financially responsible for the child and the mother's medical bills before and during childbirth. So the moral of the story here is that the mother has the choice to either murder the father's child, even if he wants it, or give birth, even if he doesn't want it, and create a nineteen-year financial drain on the father.

And you're not the only one with divorced parents, kid.

Also, I'm not saying that the man has nothing to do with the pregnancy or anything of the sort.

No, you're just saying that "all the guy has to do is put up with it and support the pregnant woman." That the woman does all the work and has all the pain, and the guy is just there.

Just so you know, I haven't impregnated anybody yet, but I've been around pregnant women before. I was living with my sister through her two pregnancies.

You were living with her? Meaning you waited on her hand and foot, attended all her appointments with her, and worked your ass off to support her? Or meaning you lived in the same house for a while? There's quite a bit of difference.

Of course I know that more men support abortion than women! It's common sense!

Then there goes your argument about how men should have no say in the matter.

The reason that a lot of women are against abortion is because of the trauma and emotional stress that comes from it, along with the ongoing thoughts of a dead baby being squeezed out of them. They had a living being inside of them that needed them, and they abandoned it.

Yet, people still fight for their "right" to murder their own child and squeeze it out of them.

I know about the statistics of failed birth control. Most pregnancies happen from stuff like unprotected sex, broken condoms, leakage from anal sex (yes, it has happened before), etc.

Are you honestly trying to say that anal leakage is a major contributor to unplanned pregnancy numbers? Most pregnancies happen from unprotected sex. Period. Statement over. Not failed birth control, not broken condoms, not leaky anuses. Unprotected sex. In other words, most unplanned pregnancies happen because of irresponsibility. Not an attempt to be responsible and something going wrong, but all-out irresponsibility.

So you're saying that if you can't handle a child, then... uhm... well ****, I can't think of anything intelligent to come back with to that. ****.

I'm saying that if you can't handle a child, don't have irresponsible sex. Just like, say, if you can't handle a car payment and insurance, don't buy a car -- because something unplanned could happen, and you wouldn't be able to deal with the consequences.

Nobody is truly ready for sex their first time. Why do you think that people are always nervous or embarrassed during their first time? Just thought I'd throw that out there.

There's a difference in "ready for sex" and "ready for the consequences of sex". Very few people are ready for sex the first time. Almost nobody is ready for pregnancy the first time they have sex. That's why they need to do it responsibly.

And, if the woman did get an abortion, I wouldn’t feel good about it, but luckily, I’m Catholic, so all I’d have to do is go to Confession, and all of my being will be cleansed!

Ah, good ol' Catholicism mentality. I can do what I want and confess, and I'm free to do what I want again!

Tell me, Sasquatch, are you a religious person?

Do I have to be a religious person to protect the life of an unborn child?

It seems like you might be a little bit on the extreme side of Christianity there ...

Hahahahahah. A Catholic -- somebody who follows a religion that claims to be part of Christianity -- is saying that Biblical viewpoints are "extreme"?

... since you seemed to mix a little bit of sarcasm with forceful sentences in your posts.

That has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I'm just a smartass.

I know that women can pay child support, but what kind of court would give a small child over to the father? The courts would never try to take a child away from the mother until they are deemed mature enough in age to make the decision for themselves.

That's one of the problems with the custody court system in America. The mother is automatically seen as the better parent -- as has been pointed out -- and the father is seen as a paycheck. What's wrong with giving the father his child to raise?

I do have to say, though, that it is kind of selfish to make the woman pay.

How is that any more selfish than making the man pay?

Even if they do find him, he can just say no to the paternity tests. …he can, right? I’m not too versed in paternity laws when it comes to tests. Would you please also inform me on this?

From what I know, if your name is on the child's birth certificate as the father, you're paying child support. Period. YOU can request a paternity test so you DON'T have to pay, but the only thing the mother has to do to suck money from your paycheck every month is name you as the father. The mother can refuse to put the child through the test, if she so chooses, but that means that she'll stop getting money. Basically, the "father" can challenge it and the mother can either back down from it or go through with it. If the "father" really is the father, he keeps paying, of course -- but if he's not, he gets to stop paying, but doesn't get a penny back of what he already paid.

Think about it. A dead baby is being pushed from her vagina. There’s also that sudden influx in hormones and chemicals from the child prematurely being birthed. It can be chemically and mentally dangerous for the woman.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel sorry for any problems gone through by a woman who murders her own child. Maybe they can get sympathy from somebody else, but none from me.

I’m not saying that he’s some gun-totting, redneck, bible thumper.

You might as well, half the other people here who disagree with me have the same idea. But what would be so bad about being a "Bible-thumper", if you claim to be Catholic?

I have nothing against Southerners.

What makes you think all gun-toting redneck Bible-thumpers are Southerners? Hell, I live in Wisconsin.

And look, I did that without cussing at you once.

[RamesesII]

Abortion is absolutely disgusting you are taking the life of a living thing.

Although in some cases when some one can't financially afford a baby or are to young it could be acceptable but only if it is really neccesary or why not have the baby and give it up for adoption then again is that any less cruel than abortion.

Or here is a good one wear a bloody rubber if you not going to go through with having kids

[Cheesevixen]

Another abortion thread? I come back after almost a year and we are still talking about abortion? LMAO !!! Anyways...for post and Coinage I will let you guys know....although some of you should after that whole Sherry incident.

My political view.....woman should be able to choose what happens to their body. This is the land of the free, and I hope it stays so. I can understand why some woman do what they do. With my first pregnancy I went through a deep depression, and even during this one I have an overwhelming feeling of sadness. It's not that I am unhappy with being pregnant.....just my body handles hormones differently. I can definitely see how some woman would not want to go through it. The sickness, the fatigue, the weight gain, the looks people give you, the fear, and knowing that in the end that little something will end up driving you to the poor house and later tell you they hate you (teenage years). For some woman it is not worth it. I am not in anyway saying I think it is right. I think abortion is disgusting, but I have to appreciate my country's view on choice.

I personally don't believe in abortion. I would put my son/daughter up for adoption before I killed it. It feels wrong to my body. When I found out I was pregnant my motherly instincts woke up after three years....I stopped drinking, cut my own hours at work, bought books, ran and told everyone....no matter if you think it is a human yet or not....my body says it's a baby. Within a couple months it grew finger prints and began to practice smiling and to me finger prints and facial expressions equal some kind of identity.


*Birth Control Is NEVER 100% percent.....ever
*All you need is the dad's name to recieve child support...I should know
*There are as many complications to having a child that there is to destroying a child
*Adoption may suck, but so can getting chopped up>> There is always a moment of horror in both for a child
*There are SO MANY organizations that help single parents...so freakin' many

[Fate]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that. Yes, you are right, our land is free, and that's what's so great about it, but don't you think that sometimes, it gets too free? I think you know what I mean...

To me, abortion should be banned because it goes against humanity. Children are the most fragile human beings, and they are getting killed because their mothers decide that she doesn't want a baby anymore? That is just too cruel. Unborn babies are really one of the saddest things out there. Most people live for about 30-60 years, and then they die. Aborted babies live for how long? Little... Very little... I just don't think that it should be allowed because of its cruelty to tiny, little, unborn babies...

[Cheesevixen]

Whether our land it "too" free or not isn't the point. There would be an outcry either way. I believe the government has learned (in a small way) to give people choices, and let them crawl in their own filth if they cannot handle the consequences. As soon as you let them tell you what you can and cannot do with your body...they tell you how many children you can have......sounds a little communistic to me.That is, however, taking it to the extreme.

I am just as angry at people who have too many children for their finances than those who choose to kill their babies. Just f.y.i.

It is very cruel to allow woman to kill their unborn. I agree with that, but Whether it were banned or not it would happen. As many remember..it used to be banned. However, instead of just the child dying...the mother often died as well, or became unable to bear children. Many woman who decide on having an abortion wind up wanting children in the future. So banning abortion would not only kill the mothers....it would also kill even more unborn children.

[Inagi]

There is a time and place for everything.
Abortion is a commonly needed thing, but it's also misused.

Does that make it a bad thing? No.
I think human morals these days are rediculous, we have our heads shoved so far up our asses it's almost like a game to see who can shove theirs farther.

The waiting line for adoption is rediculous, this country (And plenty of others!) do not need any more children that can't be taken care of.
Look at India, they have one of the worst populations ever. And the only reason China doesn't is because of the measures they took to prevent it, though their population is still huge.

You can say it's taking a life, you can say it's immoral, you can say that you'd gladly take care of the child.
But in the end, would you /really/ want to grow-up under a roof with an under-age mother who can't take care of you, or in a foster home with horrible parents, or in an orphanage?

I'd take death before birth over those.

[M16]

I want to pose this question in response to some of the replies in this thread:

Are those who are against abortion also against the Morning After pill? Are those against abortion also against miscarriages? Or are miscarriages OK, since they are "accidental" murders?

[Cheesevixen]

I want to pose this question in response to some of the replies in this thread:

Are those who are against abortion also against the Morning After pill? Are those against abortion also against miscarriages? Or are miscarriages OK, since they are "accidental" murders?

It all just depends on your views of when a fetus is a child. I believe the morning after pill is as bad as abortion because it is a form of poison given to the child.It is birth control...just given in dangerous amounts

I, however, am not against birth control. Birth control is not 100%, and protects society from over population. Birth control also does not intentionally kill your unborn child...merely prevents your uterus from accepting the transformation. There are a few exceptions, but I ask anyone considering birth control methods to really do their homework. My family tends to be very fertile during our early 20s, so on birth control I have had two children of my own. Without...who knows how many I would have had, lol.

[Fate]

I think that abortion is a crime against humanity. It robs children of their very lives, and what's even worse is that their mothers actually agree to it. The whole thought of it just sickens me. You may think that I'm only thirteen years-old and still a kid, and you're right, but I still know what cruelty is. Abortion is just a fancy word for murder! You may think I'm going a little overboard using a word as harsh as murder for something like this, but I'm not really. Think about it: murder means anything that has got to do with someone intentionally killing another; it's a type of killing. This is exactly the same thing as killing someone!

Everybody has the right to live. That's why they are given a life to even begin with. However, abortion denies them, and by them, I mean unborn babies, that right. Unborn babies. That's about ten times worse than born babies, and still that is despicable. Babies are the most vulnerable of creatures, and they can't decide for themselves. Here they are, people who support abortion, deciding for those babies, and babies that aren't even born yet!

I think that every human being, regardless of whether or not they're even alive yet, has the right to decide their own life. No one can decide another's life, and especially not a baby's. I'm sure the unborn baby didn't choose that he or she wanted to die! I'm sure that the baby would've wanted to live. How do I know this? It doesn't take half a brain to! Face it, everybody wants to live! Even those who think about committing suicide, deep down, want to live. You can't kill someone just because his or her mother can't or doesn't want to support him or her.

Abortion also shows what a completely useless, irresponsible mother the person who bore the baby really is. I mean, they go through all that they had to, and their ultimate reward is a child. A child who they refused to raise! If I bought an orange tree from the store, and I planted it in my backyard, who's responsible for watering it everyday and taking care of it so that it bears fruit? I am! If I just slack off and let someone else do my job for me, I'm just considered lazy and irresponsible. If I bought that orange tree, I have to take care of it and water it everyday so that it bears fruit. If a mother has a child, the mother has to nurture the child until he or she grows up and have children of his or her own to continue the bloodline.

It also shows what a heartless monster the mother is for abandoning her own child! Usually, the saying goes: "Nothing's stronger than a mother's love for her children," but abortion totally ignores that saying. Where is the love in killing your own child? Killing another human being is bad enough, but this is sinking far too low!

Consider killing another human being to be -1 point. Let's see how low a mother can sink just for a single sin. To start off, killing a human being is -1 point. That person is a baby! That's another -1 point. Even worst, the baby is unborn! Another -1 point for that! The baby is also defenseless! Wow, real nice with killing a person who can't even defend his or herself; another -1 point! The mother is being irresponsible and cruel to a child, and therefore, it is -2 points this time! The mother feels no remorse whatsoever, despite just killing her own child! That's another -2 points. There are tons of other mistakes that are being made here, but I'll leave them unsaid for now. So, with a total of -8 points for a single sin, that person is not going to live an easy life! This is a serious sin!

I don't think anybody can honestly have the heart to kill another human being without knowing that's it's wrong and feeling remorse for it. But these people who can actually support something as cruel as abortion obviously prove me wrong! I have no clue how they can be so heartless and cruel! As if killing another person isn't bad enough, now they're killing a defenseless, unborn baby! How do these monsters sleep at night?

Like I've said before, there is such a thing as too much freedom. Don't get me wrong, I love freedom; freedom is great, but there are boundaries! Step outside those boundaries, and you've gone too far. Do you understand what I'm saying? I mean that you should be able to do what you want to do; that's only fair, but there also should be limits.

For example, take "the right to bear arms." It's an amendment that states that guns are not prohibited as long as they are for protecting yourself and your loved ones. However, many people take advantage or this because they see that as long as they are old enough, they can buy guns, no questions asked. That's when someone decides to go on a mindless killing spree and take innocent people's lives. This is because guns are not prohibited. And abortion is also not prohibited.

Another example would be this forum. There are rules here in case you haven't noticed it yet. The rules state what you can and can't do. You can post short, direct posts, but you can't spam. What does that got to do with boundaries? If you a short, direct post, then you're fine. However, should you go beyond that and start posting short posts everywhere, that's breaking a forum rule because by then, your posts will not have enough content in it. What I'm saying is, you shouldn't take advantage of your privileges because they can be taken away just as easily as they can be handed out!

Boundaries are what keeps us responsible, civilized people. Once a person crosses the boundaries, they are considered a threat. I don't mean literally, just figuratively. Why do we have rules? To follow them is right, and when a law states that you can do something, that's what you can do, no more than that. Anymore would be considered breaking the law, and where does that ultimately lead you? The slammer!

It is such a big shame that in the United States, abortion was not banned last year. Although I prayed that it would, my prayer was unanswered. I don't care what excuses a person makes, there is absolutely no excuse for killing a poor, innocent, unborn baby that can't fend for him or herself! Were I in charge or all this matter, I'd ban abortion in a heartbeat! The killing of children that haven't even seen the light of day yet is unfathomable. Whoever started this, that person has only ignited the flames of evil in our world, and trust me, it's already huge! This is incomparable, but if this killing keeps happening, it'll turn into another 9/11 or Holocaust in terms of deaths. I really don't want this to continue. I want the babies to at least have a chance to life! So if you are old enough to vote, vote to ban abortion forever because this atrocity to mankind cannot be allowed to continued!

Thank you! - Fate

[Clint]

This is incomparable, but if this killing keeps happening, it'll turn into another 9/11 or Holocaust in terms of deaths.

That's interesting that you brought this up, because I happen to know for a fact that 2,794 people died during 9/11, and 9 to 11 million during the Holocaust, which doesn't even compare to the 45+ million unborn fetuses that have been aborted. That's just a little trivia that I picked up a long time ago when I was wandering through the wastelands of central Africa.

Now, I personally have nothing against abortion. I don't really support it, but then again, I don't have a uterus, and therefore can't get pregnant. If I did have a uterus, however, I would feel drastically more comfortable knowing that I would have a choice to not have a baby if I just so happen to get pregnant.

I can see the point of some of the opposes of abortion, stating that human life is sacred, but isn't not having stretch marks on your stomach more sacred than that? I'd say so. Plus, if the child isn't wanted, what's the point in having it? I guess so that the parents can not love it. It would make more sense to just abort the pregnancy than going through nine months of baby-torture just to have an unwanted child.

You also have to take into account the number of people on earth. 6.7 billion, last time I checked. There are far too many humans on earth. Bringing another one in is just selfish. Allow the other animals to reproduce. Why the hell do people even wonder why there are so many endangered species? It's because their numbers seems so small because the number of humans is so large.

If there were more abortions, then there wouldn't be an overpopulation of little girls in Chinese adoption and orphan centers. In my own personal views, in order to make the world a perfect place, adoption centers and orphanages must be abolished (as well as the criminal justice system, but that's another topic for another time,) and the human population needs to be drastically decreased. The earth doesn't belong to man, man belongs to the earth.

[sephirothsbigfan]

It is cruel. If you didn't want a baby, then you shouldn't have did it. Don't do abortion; just have the baby then put it up for adoption where it can have a life of its own. One of the 10 commandments is "thou shall not kill" so do what it says; don't kill the baby.

[Fate]

That's interesting that you brought this up, because I happen to know for a fact that 2,794 people died during 9/11, and 9 to 11 million during the Holocaust, which doesn't even compare to the 45+ million unborn fetuses that have been aborted. That's just a little trivia that I picked up a long time ago when I was wandering through the wastelands of central Africa.

Now, I personally have nothing against abortion. I don't really support it, but then again, I don't have a uterus, and therefore can't get pregnant. If I did have a uterus, however, I would feel drastically more comfortable knowing that I would have a choice to not have a baby if I just so happen to get pregnant.

I can see the point of some of the opposes of abortion, stating that human life is sacred, but isn't not having stretch marks on your stomach more sacred than that? I'd say so. Plus, if the child isn't wanted, what's the point in having it? I guess so that the parents can not love it. It would make more sense to just abort the pregnancy than going through nine months of baby-torture just to have an unwanted child.

You also have to take into account the number of people on earth. 6.7 billion, last time I checked. There are far too many humans on earth. Bringing another one in is just selfish. Allow the other animals to reproduce. Why the hell do people even wonder why there are so many endangered species? It's because their numbers seems so small because the number of humans is so large.

If there were more abortions, then there wouldn't be an overpopulation of little girls in Chinese adoption and orphan centers. In my own personal views, in order to make the world a perfect place, adoption centers and orphanages must be abolished (as well as the criminal justice system, but that's another topic for another time,) and the human population needs to be drastically decreased. The earth doesn't belong to man, man belongs to the earth.

That just all the more proves my point!

Just think about it, if that many people died due to 9/11 and the Holocaust, and abortion is the result of more than both of them combined, how despicable is that? It doesn't matter if the Earth is already so populated, life is the only thing here that actually keeps the Earth alive. Take all that away, and the Earth will be nothing but a decaying ball of waste!

Our generation now has people, and lots of it. However, if so many people resort to abortion and the killing of newborn babies, what will be left of the next generation? For all we know, the next generation might have half the population that we have now. Some might disagree and say that they'll manage, but we can't take that chance. If the numbers get divided by half every generation due to abortion, pretty soon it'll be just a select few that are alive. Once that happens, the Earth will no longer flourish with so little life.

I also find it funny how you post in two different threads, yet have different opinions in each one. Here is your post in the other thread:

No matter what the circumstance, there is no way in hell that I would ever take a life.


If somebody threatens the lives of people that I love, or even if somebody does take the life of one of those that I love, I have no problem kicking the ever loving shit out of them, but it isn't my decision to say whether that person lives or dies.Disregard this paragraph; it adds little to the debate at the moment.

Killing somebody isn't a punishment for a horrific crime. The true punishment would be to deliver them to authority, have them put on trial, and have them sentenced to life in a federal penitentiary.Disregard this paragraph; it adds little to the debate at the moment.

There is no real point of killing people. You don't get a thrill of success. Instead, you get darkness build up inside, which will eventually turn into rage, causing said killer to eventually loose his or her mind, and kill millions of innocent civilians in a large scale bridge bombing. It happens all the time. Look it up (don't look it up).

You don't hunt your own kind. Wild animals know that, so why don't humans? If everybody thought as I did, the world would be a peaceful place.

Interesting.

In your post, it is evident that you think killing is a horrible thing, but in here, you say killing is nothing? Sort of contradictory if you ask me!

[Govinda]

Your posts are huge. Some of them have annoyed me.

I've noticed people using 'just put the kid up for adoption' as an argument. It really doesn't stand. Care services in most if not all western nations at least are overstretched as it is, and adding all these other unwanted children into it will merely exacerbate the problem.

Abortions don't just happen for no reason. They happen because the woman doesn't want to have a child, and that can be for a myriad of reasons. None of us can possibly judge that. Abortion is a massive decision. Do you seriously think the woman doesn't know that that's her child growing inside of her?

Then there is also the question of who gets abortions. Here, it's mostly poorer people who end up being up the duff because they're thick and irresponsible, and usually young. We have enough societal problems without more children raised by children being brought into this world. If someone doesn't want to have a baby, chances are they're not going to be the greatest parent ever.

Fate, abortions aren't going to ****ing halve the population or whatever it was you said. There are too many people on earth as it is, and it's not like abortions are new.

Making them illegal is retarded, because they still happen when you do that - only they happen in backstreets and the women die from infection or complications.

Fundamentally, it is the woman's right to choose. Nobody has any business removing that right. It's her body. Now, I do think there should be some way for fathers to stop a woman having an abortion if they want to keep the child and care for it, as that kid is as much his as it is hers, but legislation like that would be an absolute moral minefield.

Personally, I'm not sure I could ever do it. I use birth control for that very reason. I'm 19 and a university student. What kind of ****ing mother would I be? I'd have to abandon my education. I'd have to move into a shitty council flat allocated by the government, and live from their handouts. Well, let's suppose my boyfriend ditches his chances at a decent job too, and stops his life for this baby. So what do we do? He gets a full-time rubbish job in retail or barwork, since he hasn't had the time to build up any real skills, and we live in a crap house together raising a child neither of us really wanted. Aside from that, we would both be really crappy parents, as we are not yet adults ourselves. But still, having said all that, it would remain a huge decision, a life changing one. I could choose to continue as I am now with the shadow of a baby, my baby, my dead baby, hanging over me; or I could keep it and forsake my own life (and possibly my boyfriend's) for at least 5-10 years at the ripe old age of 19.

Then there's the question of what I would do to the baby when it was really really tiny. Chances are I wouldn't find out I was pregnant until six or so weeks into it - given my current lifestyle, the kid would already be retarded from alochol abuse and chronically addicted to cigarettes. If/when I have children, it will be planned. I don't want to accidentally abuse a small person. That would kill me.

It's not a small decision. Adoption is not a bin in which to deposit children you never wanted, and cannot raise. If you keep it, take responsibility; but if you're impoverished and/or 16, your best shots at doing just that will probably end in failure.

But as I said, it's a woman's right to choose (and it should be the father's right too). I'd never take away that right. It's not really a moral issue in my eyes at all - perhaps it would be were I ever placed in that situation, but for now, it's just about the freedom to choose.

[Clint]

That just all the more proves my point!

It doesn't matter if the Earth is already so populated, life is the only thing here that actually keeps the Earth alive. Take all that away, and the Earth will be nothing but a decaying ball of waste!

Without the overpopulation of humans, there's still plenty of life left.

Our generation now has people, and lots of it. However, if so many people resort to abortion and the killing of newborn babies, what will be left of the next generation? For all we know, the next generation might have half the population that we have now. Some might disagree and say that they'll manage, but we can't take that chance. If the numbers get divided by half every generation due to abortion, pretty soon it'll be just a select few that are alive. Once that happens, the Earth will no longer flourish with so little life.

That actually sounds pretty good to me. Every species puts in it's time. Humans haven't exactly been around for too long, but in the time that they've been in existence, they've waged petty wars for no particular reason than because they piss each other off, and they've desecrated Mother Earth, changing nature into a world which they built to support their trivial needs. I'm not really looking toward the extinction of the species, but rather, some type of spiritual enlightenment that helps humans to realize how stupid they actually are, as a way to civilize the little devils.

Interesting.

In your post, it is evident that you think killing is a horrible thing, but in here, you say killing is nothing? Sort of contradictory if you ask me!

I wouldn't take a life myself, but that doesn't mean that I disgrace people from getting out of an unwanted pregnancy. I was merely stating an opinion on the matter, in which all actuality, doesn't mean jack shit, considering that everybody has opinions.

Making them illegal is retarded,

Not only that, but it's also illegal. Double jeopardy on court hearings isn't allowed.

[Govinda]

Not only that, but it's also illegal. Double jeopardy on court hearings isn't allowed.

* In the USA, where most of Earth's population don't live. Just pointing that out.

[Clint]

* In the USA, where most of Earth's population don't live. Just pointing that out.

Well that's where I live, so get over it. I don't give a shit about the rest of the world.

[Sasquatch]

Your posts are huge. Some of them have annoyed me.

I'm sure that breaks their heart.

I've noticed people using 'just put the kid up for adoption' as an argument. It really doesn't stand.

Putting a child up for adoption isn't a move viable choice than killing it?

Care services in most if not all western nations at least are overstretched as it is, and adding all these other unwanted children into it will merely exacerbate the problem.

Then instead of sending public funding to abortion mills, we can send some to child care facilities and adoption agencies. There's no shortage of Americans wanting to adopt children, it's just a pain in the ass to go through the process of application. Any high-schooler can get knocked up and keep their child, but a loving couple wanting to adopt has to go through years of red tape and being jerked around and checked and re-checked, just to be put on a list.

Besides, your "most if not all" is pure opinion.

Abortions don't just happen for no reason. They happen because the woman doesn't want to have a child, and that can be for a myriad of reasons.

Same with adoptions. Except an adoption doesn't result in the murder of an otherwise healthy human being.

None of us can possibly judge that. Abortion is a massive decision. Do you seriously think the woman doesn't know that that's her child growing inside of her?

So she knows it's her child and cares about it, but would rather have it cut into pieces and sucked out of her uterus than let it be raised by a loving set of parents?

Then there is also the question of who gets abortions. Here, it's mostly poorer people who end up being up the duff because they're thick and irresponsible, and usually young. We have enough societal problems without more children raised by children being brought into this world.

So if you can't get the dumbasses to be more responsible, leave them an option that does not involve them raising their children or murdering them. Like adoption.

If someone doesn't want to have a baby, chances are they're not going to be the greatest parent ever.

Which is why there's a system that allows for people to have a baby but not raise it.

Fate, abortions aren't going to ****ing halve the population or whatever it was you said.

No, but fifty million people is quite a few.

There are too many people on earth as it is, and it's not like abortions are new.

I think there are too many people in your neighborhood, so I'm going to kill a few of 'em.

Making them illegal is retarded, because they still happen when you do that - only they happen in backstreets and the women die from infection or complications.

Making something illegal just makes it dirtier? I guess we should legalize all drugs then, because the backstreet drug trade has tainted drugs that are dangerous! And meth labs can blow up and hurt people! We should legalize all guns, because some people try to make or alter guns, and something could go wrong and hurt them! We should repeal all driving laws, because some people get hurt running from the cops!

Too bad. They want to do something illegal, whose fault is it if they get hurt from it? Sure as hell ain't mine. Nor is it the government's -- it's not the government's job to protect people from themselves.

Fundamentally, it is the woman's right to choose. Nobody has any business removing that right. It's her body.

And the body of the child inside her.

Now, I do think there should be some way for fathers to stop a woman having an abortion if they want to keep the child and care for it, as that kid is as much his as it is hers, but legislation like that would be an absolute moral minefield.

So it's better to leave it up to the woman the choice of whether or not to kill her baby or have the father pay for eighteen years of its support, instead of make legislation that dictates that the father can seperate himself from the child if he so chooses, or keep the child himself if the mother doesn't want it?

Personally, I'm not sure I could ever do it. I use birth control for that very reason. I'm 19 and a university student. What kind of ****ing mother would I be? ... But still, having said all that, it would remain a huge decision, a life changing one. I could choose to continue as I am now with the shadow of a baby, my baby, my dead baby, hanging over me; or I could keep it and forsake my own life (and possibly my boyfriend's) for at least 5-10 years at the ripe old age of 19.

That means that you could do one of two things. Well, one of three. First, don't have sex. If you can't handle the consequences, don't do it. Second, use birth control. If you're gonna have sex, do it responsibly. Third, if you were to get pregnant, instead of murdering your own child, you could let a loving couple adopt it and raise it right. Then you wouldn't be "forsaking" your life (you will find very, very few parents who will claim that their child ruined their lives), and you wouldn't be sacrificing the life of your own child for the sake of convenience.

I don't want to accidentally abuse a small person. That would kill me.

But murdering it, that's just fine.

It's not a small decision. Adoption is not a bin in which to deposit children you never wanted, and cannot raise.

But abortion is? There are laws in America which state that you can literally drop your baby off at certain places, within a certain number of days since its birth, and wash your hands of it. Drop it off with a birth certificate, and you'll never have to even see it again. Other people will take care of it -- people who want to take care of it.

That actually sounds pretty good to me. Every species puts in it's time. Humans haven't exactly been around for too long, but in the time that they've been in existence, they've waged petty wars for no particular reason than because they piss each other off, and they've desecrated Mother Earth, changing nature into a world which they built to support their trivial needs. I'm not really looking toward the extinction of the species, but rather, some type of spiritual enlightenment that helps humans to realize how stupid they actually are, as a way to civilize the little devils.

As you sit at your computer, probably at a desk made by chopping down trees, on a chair made from petroleum products, in an air-conditioned building, sucking up resources and electricity to post your opinion about how humans are evil because they suck up resources from "Mother Earth".

Every species changes nature "into a world which they built to support their trivial needs". Some species dig. Some species build. Hell, beavers dam entire rivers.

Not only that, but it's also illegal. Double jeopardy on court hearings isn't allowed.

Making something illegal isn't illegal. Double jeopardy is allowed in some circumstances. And abortion being illegal would have absolutely nothing to do with double jeopardy.

[Govinda]

Okkk.

You seem to have a pretty halcyon view of adoption. If there are all these parents lining up around the block to adopt kids, then why (in the UK, at least) is the care system rapidly approaching breaking point from having too many children in it? Why aren't there more responsible foster parents? Orphanages always have children in them, and always will, and people having babies with no home for them to go to is why. Have you ever read The Cider House Rules? It explains this better than I ever could.

I grant that there are plenty of people who want to adopt, but there are by no measure enough to cover every baby that would otherwise be aborted. I agree that if you don't want kids, use birth control, like I do. And I would be 'forsaking' my life, because I am 19. I don't want to give over the rest of my life to another person just yet. When I am ready to, I probably will. Most parents wouldn't use that word because they are not in the position that I, and many young women who do end up getting abortions, are in. I like the way you say I'd be murdering it 'for the sake of convenience'. I ask again, what kind of mother would I make? And what kind of life would it have in a care system which is broken?

Yes, 50 million is a lot. Now imagine your schools and housing system coping with that. Not to mention the prospects of them getting jobs.

Comparing making abortion illegal to making driving illegal and drugs legal is silly, because neither of those things are ever going to happen (even though there is a growing body of thought, mostly in the UK police, who would have drugs legalised). Making abortion illegal has been discussed in America frequently. Women have abortions because they feel they can't give their baby the life they want it to have. Making them illegal kills both women and babies.

What you have to consider - given that the world is not, as you seem to think, overflowing with benevolent would-be adopters - is the life the child will have after it is born. Then there is the food crisis, and the housing crisis.

By saying that the legislation would be difficult, I'm not saying that the father shouldn't have rights. I firmly believe that he should. I'm just saying it would be hard to put on to paper.

In a perfect world, there would never be abortions. I don't like them either, you know. The thought sickens me. But it's not my place to tell a women or a couple what they can and cannot do - isn't that always your line about the government? Well, I'm not going to have the government tell me that I MUST have a child aged 19 (which would cost me a time out of university and my job even if I did put it up for adoption, time I don't have) because my 99.9% effective birth control was defeated by the 0.01% chance of failure it has. It is my own, and my boyfriend's, decision. They have no right to have anything to do with it.

[Clint]

Except an adoption doesn't result in the murder of an otherwise healthy human being.

It could result in the murder of hundreds of otherwise healthy human beings. The child could get adopted to a serial killer. That would cause repressed trauma at a young age, and the child would then grow up to be a serial killer. So by promoting the illegilization of abortion, you're supporting serial killings. You have fantastic moral values, man.

And the body of the child inside her.

It's not actually a child. It's an embryo, which is a stage far before childhood. It's the stage between the zygote and the fetus, so technically, that's too early in development to be considered a child. I could see declaring an eight or nine month year old fetus a child, but that's only because it's about ready to be born.

Third, if you were to get pregnant, instead of murdering your own child, you could let a loving couple adopt it and raise it right.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand any of this, considering that you're a man (and a pretty sexist one at that.) Pregnancy changes a woman's body. It stretches the skin and makes the next nine months incredibly uncomfortable. You really need to stop arguing about things that you have no right arguing about. It's not the man's right to say what the woman can and cannot do. It's the individual's right to do what she or he thinks is necessary. If an abortion is that option, then what's the big ****ing deal?

Every species changes nature "into a world which they built to support their trivial needs". Some species dig. Some species build. Hell, beavers dam entire rivers.

Other animals don't pollute the world to change the environment. Humans burn fossil fuels using all their bullshit machinery to build, because they're too lazy to get off their fat asses and do the work themselves. Just like how humans are too lazy to walk nowadays. Everybody has a car, which makes for greater pollution to infect my lungs. When are those damn car manufactures going out of business?

Making something illegal isn't illegal. Double jeopardy is allowed in some circumstances. And abortion being illegal would have absolutely nothing to do with double jeopardy.

You obviously know nothing about the law. Making something illegal when it's already been tried before is entirely illegal. That's called double jeopardy, and it infringes against the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Abortion was first ruled after Roe v. Wade in 1973, which made abortion legal. That particular subject can't be tried again. It's a done deal. Let me give you an example. When OJ Simpson was found innocent for the charges of murder via premeditated malice, after the verdict was read, he could have stood up, right in the court room, in front of the judge and the jury, and admitted to killing his wife, and they wouldn't be able to do shit about it, because they had already declared him an innocent man. There are no exceptions to double jeopardy. In order to bring OJ back to court, they would have had to catch him on another charge (which they did, actually.)

I grant that there are plenty of people who want to adopt, but there are by no measure enough to cover every baby that would otherwise be aborted.

There is an overpopulation of little girls in Chinese adoption centers, and the majority of them never even get adopted. If nobody had abortions, all adoption agencies would be as bad as the ones in China. Also, if nobody got an abortion, that would mean that the majority of people in a relationship would have a child, seemingly eliminating the need for adoption, so the orphans left in adoption homes would stay there until they're old enough to be on their own. And where do you think people are going to go that don't have a proper upbringing? The males get addicted to drugs, and the women go to the red light district.

Yes, 50 million is a lot. Now imagine your schools and housing system coping with that. Not to mention the prospects of them getting jobs.

Every one person on earth could kill and eat two other people. Then there wouldn't be an overpopulation, and there would be no food shortage. That sounds a lot better than having legalized abortion.

[Sasquatch]

You seem to have a pretty halcyon view of adoption. If there are all these parents lining up around the block to adopt kids, then why (in the UK, at least) is the care system rapidly approaching breaking point from having too many children in it?

First, any credible evidence? First it went from "most if not all western nations" having an overpopulated adoption system, now it's just the UK -- any evidence for any of it?

And second, as I said, in America, the adoption process is filled with red tape and obstacle courses. I can buy a house, set up a gun range, start a business, or build a quarry more easily than I can adopt a child. If it were less difficult to adopt, more children would be adopted -- that's pretty easy to figure out.

Have you ever read The Cider House Rules? It explains this better than I ever could.

Yes, just like Uncle Tom's Cabin explains slavery perfectly, right?

And I would be 'forsaking' my life, because I am 19.

If taking three months off (max) would ruin your life, your life is extremely fragile.

I don't want to give over the rest of my life to another person just yet.

You wouldn't want to dedicate your life to your own child, but you'd be willing to end your child's life for yourself? Why not give them to a set of parents who DO want to dedicate their lives for a child?

I like the way you say I'd be murdering it 'for the sake of convenience'.

When you'd kill an innocent human being because you don't want to give birth to it, that's convenience.

I ask again, what kind of mother would I make? And what kind of life would it have in a care system which is broken?

Are you saying that it's alright to kill somebody because we think death might possibly be better than the life they might possibly have, sometime in the future?

Yes, 50 million is a lot. Now imagine your schools and housing system coping with that. Not to mention the prospects of them getting jobs.

If there were more people, there would be more demand for goods and services, and thus more demand for jobs. The American housing system is down because of government regulation of subprime loans right now anyway, so if we had another fifty million people buying houses, it'd be good.

Women have abortions because they feel they can't give their baby the life they want it to have.

Bullshit. Women get abortions because they don't want to give birth to a child -- women give their child up for adoption because they feel that they can't give it the life they want it to have.

If I can't afford to own a car, I sell the car. I don't drive it into a lake.

Making them illegal kills both women and babies.

Just like making drugs illegal kills druggies, making resisting arrest and evasion illegal kills those who resist arrest, making explosives illegal kills morons, etc. etc.

If I try to do something illegal and get hurt by it, it's my fault. Not yours for making it illegal.

What you have to consider - given that the world is not, as you seem to think, overflowing with benevolent would-be adopters - is the life the child will have after it is born. Then there is the food crisis, and the housing crisis.

Saying that a human being might possibly, in your opinion, have a sub-par life is no reason to kill it. Hell, if that's the case, let's execute everybody who lives below the poverty line -- no more drains on society or the economy, they don't have to live their oh-so-bad lives, and it'll free up food, jobs, and land for the rest of us to use.

But it's not my place to tell a women or a couple what they can and cannot do - isn't that always your line about the government?

Life is a fundamental right. It's not anybody's place to tell you that you have the choice to take a life for the sake of convenience or not.

Well, I'm not going to have the government tell me that I MUST have a child aged 19 (which would cost me a time out of university and my job even if I did put it up for adoption, time I don't have) ...

Translation: (which would inconvenience me)

... because my 99.9% effective birth control was defeated by the 0.01% chance of failure it has.

First, that'd be a 0.1% chance. Second, blaming your birth control for not being effective enough is like blaming your brakes for not stopping you in time to make the corner after doing 120mph down the road.

It could result in the murder of hundreds of otherwise healthy human beings. The child could get adopted to a serial killer. That would cause repressed trauma at a young age, and the child would then grow up to be a serial killer. So by promoting the illegilization of abortion, you're supporting serial killings. You have fantastic moral values, man.

I don't know if you're serious with this nonsense or not -- frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if you were being intentionally ridiculous or unintentionally ridiculous -- there's no point in ending the life of a healthy human being because you don't like what he or she may or may not do in the future.

It's not actually a child. It's an embryo, which is a stage far before childhood. It's the stage between the zygote and the fetus, so technically, that's too early in development to be considered a child.

To be considered by you. Some of us value human life more than that.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand any of this, considering that you're a man (and a pretty sexist one at that.)

This is lovely -- not only is another male telling me that I can't understand because I'm a male (while he himself offers his opinions on the subject), I'm told that I'm "pretty sexist". That's right, kid -- when you have nothing left to stand on, accuse your opponent of prejudice. Good call.

Pregnancy changes a woman's body. It stretches the skin and makes the next nine months incredibly uncomfortable.

Oh, shucks. Let's murder a child, because it might leave stretch marks.

On that note, let's kill everybody who works for a fast-food restaraunt, because fast food makes people fat and unhealthy, and being fat can leave stretch marks.

You really need to stop arguing about things that you have no right arguing about.

Why are you here?

It's not the man's right to say what the woman can and cannot do. It's the individual's right to do what she or he thinks is necessary. If an abortion is that option, then what's the big ****ing deal?

The big ****ing deal is the life of a human being.

Other animals don't pollute the world to change the environment.

Some species change the acidity of the water they live in to make it more fitting for them, and less fitting for other species. Trees grow tall and wide, blocking out the sun from the ground beneath them. Weeds invade otherwise fertile land and suck valable nutrients out of the soil.

Humans burn fossil fuels using all their bullshit machinery to build, because they're too lazy to get off their fat asses and do the work themselves.

... he types, into a computer made of petroleum products, while sitting on a chair made of petroleum products, in a building made with machinery run by petroleum products ...

Just like how humans are too lazy to walk nowadays. Everybody has a car, which makes for greater pollution to infect my lungs. When are those damn car manufactures going out of business?

Oh, poor you. It's too bad you don't realize the irony of the fact that you would have absolutely nothing it it wasn't for the vehicles and machinery that the rest of the world uses daily. When you start shunning technology and industry, walk on up to Wisconsin and raise your point, and we'll sit down and chat. Until then, quit calling the kettle black.

Making something illegal when it's already been tried before is entirely illegal.

No, that's called Judicial Review.

That's called double jeopardy, and it infringes against the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That wouldn't be double jeopardy.

Abortion was first ruled after Roe v. Wade in 1973, which made abortion legal. That particular subject can't be tried again. It's a done deal.

Just like the Nineteenth Amendment and the Plessy v. Ferguson cases, right?

Let me give you an example. When OJ Simpson was found innocent for the charges of murder via premeditated malice, after the verdict was read, he could have stood up, right in the court room, in front of the judge and the jury, and admitted to killing his wife, and they wouldn't be able to do shit about it, because they had already declared him an innocent man.

And if murder was somehow legal when he did it, and illegalized later, he could not be tried for it -- that's "ex post facto". The Grandfather Clause would then apply.

There are no exceptions to double jeopardy.

So you're saying that if I kill somebody, and I am found innocent in one court, there is absolutely no way that I could be tried again in the United States?

There is an overpopulation of little girls in Chinese adoption centers, and the majority of them never even get adopted.

Any credible evidence for this? While there are many girls adopted from China, multitudes more are murdered before or shortly after birth, as their one-child rule leads many parents to only keep a male child.

If nobody had abortions, all adoption agencies would be as bad as the ones in China.

My, that's quite the accusation you have there. Anything to back it up?

Also, if nobody got an abortion, that would mean that the majority of people in a relationship would have a child ...

Unless there are enough abortions every year to add to births to form a majority ... no.

... seemingly eliminating the need for adoption ...

... except in cases where the child isn't wanted. Just like now.

... so the orphans left in adoption homes would stay there until they're old enough to be on their own.

Or until they're adopted by couples who can't have children. Duh.

And where do you think people are going to go that don't have a proper upbringing? The males get addicted to drugs, and the women go to the red light district.

Wow, now everybody without a "proper upbringing" becomes a drug addict or a prostitute? You're on a roll, kid.

[Clint]

there's no point in ending the life of a healthy human being because you don't like what he or she may or may not do in the future.

I agree. It's a good thing that I never said that to begin with.

To be considered by you. Some of us value human life more than that.

I'm glad.

This is lovely -- not only is another male telling me that I can't understand because I'm a male (while he himself offers his opinions on the subject), I'm told that I'm "pretty sexist". That's right, kid -- when you have nothing left to stand on, accuse your opponent of prejudice. Good call.

I'm not saying that I fully understand the subject. In fact, I'm admitting that I don't understand the subject, considering that I can't get pregnant, and therefore, can never consider having an abortion. But you, on the other hand, are a man, saying what a woman should or shouldn't do with her unwanted pregnancy. That's what makes you sexist, because you're only thinking about what you care about, and not about what other people care about.

Oh, shucks. Let's murder a child, because it might leave stretch marks.

It's an embryo, actually. I think you have an issue with declaring age. I'm guessing you think that 35 is elderly.

On that note, let's kill everybody who works for a fast-food restaraunt, because fast food makes people fat and unhealthy, and being fat can leave stretch marks.

Fast food doesn't make people fat, it's overeating and lack of exercise that does that. For example, I eat fast food nearly every day, and I have yet to gain one pound from it.

Why are you here?

Why aren't I here?

The big ****ing deal is the life of a human being.

It's not you being aborted, and it's not your children, so stop complaining. So a few million people have aborted an embryo without a heartbeat. Again I ask, what's the big ****ing deal?

Some species change the acidity of the water they live in to make it more fitting for them, and less fitting for other species. Trees grow tall and wide, blocking out the sun from the ground beneath them. Weeds invade otherwise fertile land and suck valable nutrients out of the soil.

Yeah, that's called nature. Most humans don't believe it exists, but I assure you, it does. Are you getting my point yet, or at least beginning to?

... he types, into a computer made of petroleum products, while sitting on a chair made of petroleum products, in a building made with machinery run by petroleum products ...

Really? Tell me more about my surroundings? Is the chair that I'm sitting on really not the chair that my grandfather made with his own two hands out of scrap wood from the backyard during the early 1970s? Is the house that I'm in really not the house made out of clay brick dug directly from the ground on which it's built? The house, by the way, was built by hand, brick by brick, in order to make it more sturdy. No machinery involved. So you're right about one thing. The computer is made out of petroleum products.

Oh, poor you. It's too bad you don't realize the irony of the fact that you would have absolutely nothing it it wasn't for the vehicles and machinery that the rest of the world uses daily. When you start shunning technology and industry, walk on up to Wisconsin and raise your point, and we'll sit down and chat. Until then, quit calling the kettle black.

So if the automobile industry went out of business, and an electromagnetic pulse took out all mechanics, I'd die right? After all, without those things, I'd have absolutely nothing, and who can survive off of the nourishment of nothing.

No, that's called Judicial Review.

No, if something is tried twice, it's double jeopardy.

That wouldn't be double jeopardy.

Yes it would. The fifth amendment of the U.S. constitution includes double jeopardy.

And if murder was somehow legal when he did it, and illegalized later, he could not be tried for it -- that's "ex post facto". The Grandfather Clause would then apply.

No, that's an example of double jeopardy. If the court has already made it's verdict, the matter can't be tried again in that court. However, if it's state court, the subject could be tried again in federal court. The state wouldn't be able to do anything, though.

So you're saying that if I kill somebody, and I am found innocent in one court, there is absolutely no way that I could be tried again in the United States?

It depends on which court you're tried in. If it's federal, then no, you won't be tried again.

Any credible evidence for this? While there are many girls adopted from China, multitudes more are murdered before or shortly after birth, as their one-child rule leads many parents to only keep a male child.

Yes, there is credible evidence for this. There is about 3 billion people in china. Considering the number of children put into adoption centers due to the one child per family rule, it would be virtually impossible for even the majority of children to get adopted.

My, that's quite the accusation you have there. Anything to back it up?

Well, yeah. There would be 40 million+ unwanted children.

Unless there are enough abortions every year to add to births to form a majority ... no.

That doesn't make sense.

... except in cases where the child isn't wanted. Just like now.

If the child isn't wanted, that's where abortion comes in. The child doesn't even need to be born.

Or until they're adopted by couples who can't have children. Duh.

The number of children would far outweigh the number of couples that aren't able to have children.

Wow, now everybody without a "proper upbringing" becomes a drug addict or a prostitute? You're on a roll, kid.

Well, drugs, mostly, but yes, it happens a lot.

[SOLDIER #819]

Sasquatch. Out of curiosity, do you believe in no abortion after a certain period of time or that under normal circumstances there should be no abortion at all? If it is the latter, why do you believe this? I think it'd be nice to have this clearly stated for the record. I'm sure the reason has been insinuated or perhaps clearly stated somewhere, but quite frankly there's quite a bit to read through and it's like panning for gold.

I believe that abortion is fine if it takes place within the first three months of pregnancy. I am under the assumption that during these three months an EEG is unable to detect any signs of brain activity within the embryo/fetus. If I have my (scientific?) facts somewhat straight, is there something innately wrong with this logic when applied to the discussion of abortion?

[Govinda]

If I took three months off school, Sasquatch, I'd have to repeat the year. I do not have time to do that. And then there's missing social events, and being a balloon in class. I'm a teenager. Besides which, I've already stated that I, personally, could probably never terminate my own child. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do my best to take responsibility. I'm just highlighting what a sacrifice it would be for a child that would be, ultimately and in name only, a mistake. I am glad that abortion exists, because most teenage mothers are rubbish. Age 18 and up, with a decent support network, you're probably ok. Below that and you're in trouble in parenting terms. Did you read recently about the 9 year old father from London? If there's a case for termination, it's what kind of children children raise. The baby's mother was 13.

I whittled my list of crap care services down to just the UK as it is the one I know most about, and I thought it would be easier if we just concentrate on one. My father was adopted, and it ****ed his life up. I've been in the periphery of the care system before, and I would rather a child of mine die than end up there.

This is interesting: 'Life is a fundamental right. It's not anybody's place to tell you that you have the choice to take a life for the sake of convenience or not.'

Says who? I mean, apart from the UN. But the UN Charter, as I understand, only covers people, not embryos, otherwise they'd be banding about using that same line to defend getting rid of abortion. Would I be right in saying that your views on this find a base in religion?

As for the rest of your post, it is clear that we are never going to agree. The same can be said of the socialism thread. You are built to live in America, I to live in Europe. I could never live over there, just like you would probably die from all the taxes and abortion parties over here. We are going around in circles.

[Sasquatch]

I agree. It's a good thing that I never said that to begin with.

Ah, so you were being intentionally stupid when you tried to make the argument that abortion is good because a baby might grow up to be a serial killer. Just checking.

I'm not saying that I fully understand the subject. In fact, I'm admitting that I don't understand the subject, considering that I can't get pregnant, and therefore, can never consider having an abortion.

But yet, you're still here discussing the subject, with full knowledge that you, apparently, don't understand the subject.

You do know, by the way, that the majority of abortion supporters are men, do you not? Including every Supreme Court Justice that ruled on Roe v. Wade. Which means that, if left solely up to women, abortion would be illegal.

But you, on the other hand, are a man, saying what a woman should or shouldn't do with her unwanted pregnancy.

I'm saying that a woman shouldn't murder her child. I don't care if she raises it or gives it up for adoption.

That's what makes you sexist, because you're only thinking about what you care about, and not about what other people care about.

Yes, I'm only thinking about human life, and not the inconvenience of carrying a child to term. Sexist, sexist me. (By the way, only thinking about what I care about wouldn't make me sexist. Try again with the insults, maybe you'll throw out a logical one eventually.)

It's an embryo, actually. I think you have an issue with declaring age. I'm guessing you think that 35 is elderly.

And you'd guess wrong. Any other accusations?

Are you trying to say that a human embryo is not a human?

Fast food doesn't make people fat, it's overeating and lack of exercise that does that.

And babies don't make people fat, it's the weight gained with the pregnancy. You will never find a woman who gets pregnant and gains no more weight than how much her baby weighs. Next?

Why aren't I here?

Your claim was that males have no right arguing about abortion. And here you are, arguing about abortion.

It's not you being aborted, and it's not your children, so stop complaining. So a few million people have aborted an embryo without a heartbeat. Again I ask, what's the big ****ing deal?

Embryonic heartbeat starts at about 22 days after conception. Keep it up, kid.

And no, it's not be being aborted, nor is it my child -- that doesn't mean that the child's life isn't a life. By your "logic", Hitler killed a few million Jews, but he didn't kill you or anybody you know, so why do you care?

Again. The big ****ing deal is the life of a human being.

Yeah, that's called nature. Most humans don't believe it exists, but I assure you, it does. Are you getting my point yet, or at least beginning to?

That animals change their habitats into places that are more fitting for them and less fitting for other animals, just like humans do? No, wait, that wasn't your point ... your point was that humans are evil and pollute the world.

Really? Tell me more about my surroundings? Is the chair that I'm sitting on really not the chair that my grandfather made with his own two hands out of scrap wood from the backyard during the early 1970s? Is the house that I'm in really not the house made out of clay brick dug directly from the ground on which it's built? The house, by the way, was built by hand, brick by brick, in order to make it more sturdy. No machinery involved. So you're right about one thing. The computer is made out of petroleum products.

Seeing as you have claimed before that you don't have a computer and that you go to the library down the street ... but wait, you've edited that post to no longer include the library comment. I guess only those of us who initially noticed it truly know how full of shit you are.

So if the automobile industry went out of business, and an electromagnetic pulse took out all mechanics, I'd die right?

You? Probably. Unless you had the tools and the knowledge to live off the land. No more fast food, no more fatty-cakes. I'd love to see that.

No, if something is tried twice, it's double jeopardy.

If a person is tried twice, it's double jeopardy. If an issue is tried twice, it's Judicial Review.

The Fifth Amendment states, "... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ..."

Person. Not issue.

Yes it would. The fifth amendment of the U.S. constitution includes double jeopardy.

For people. Not issues -- that's called Judicial Review, and is covered in Article III, and expanded in the Marbury v. Madison case.

No, that's an example of double jeopardy.

What this was in direct response to -- something being legal when it happened, and later made illegal -- is not double jeopardy. It's ex post facto.

If the court has already made it's verdict, the matter can't be tried again in that court.

Of a person.

However, if it's state court, the subject could be tried again in federal court. The state wouldn't be able to do anything, though.

Unless it was appealed.

It depends on which court you're tried in. If it's federal, then no, you won't be tried again.

Wrong.

Not only could I be tried again on appeal, or on the discovery of new evidence, I could be tried not only in civilian court, but in a military court martial under the UCMJ.

That was a baited question. I was just waiting for you to get that one wrong. Thank you for not disappointing ... and yet, still disappointing.

Yes, there is credible evidence for this. There is about 3 billion people in china. Considering the number of children put into adoption centers due to the one child per family rule, it would be virtually impossible for even the majority of children to get adopted.

Three billion people in China? Damn, they've grown! By more than double ... in less than a year!

"Credible evidence" does not mean "you trying to explain it". It means something credible.

For example ... Credible evidence of China's population.

So I ask again. Is there any credible evidence for this?

Well, yeah. There would be 40 million+ unwanted children.

Maybe I should have been more clear. Anything credible to back this up?

If the child isn't wanted, that's where abortion comes in. The child doesn't even need to be born.

Or adoption, of we choose not to murder our children.

The number of children would far outweigh the number of couples that aren't able to have children.

You'd also have to include couples who want to adopt more than one child. And again I ask, is there any credible evidence for this, or just your "logic"?

Well, drugs, mostly, but yes, it happens a lot.

So you've gone from asserting that everybody without a "proper upbringing" becomes a drug addict or a prostitute, to claiming that it "happens a lot". I ask again, with the same low expectations, do you have anything credible to back up your asinine claims?

Sasquatch. Out of curiosity, do you believe in no abortion after a certain period of time or that under normal circumstances there should be no abortion at all?

Not trying to be rude, but one doesn't have to hold a belief in a subject to argue for it. What I'm arguing is that abortion, except in cases where the child and/or mother's life would be endangered if carried to full term, should retain its right to life.

I believe that abortion is fine if it takes place within the first three months of pregnancy. I am under the assumption that during these three months an EEG is unable to detect any signs of brain activity within the embryo/fetus.

As I said before, heartbeats develop around 22 days after conception. Brain activity develops at about six weeks.

If I have my (scientific?) facts somewhat straight, is there something innately wrong with this logic when applied to the discussion of abortion?

That depends on how much you value human life. If somebody is "braindead", are they still alive? What if they're just comatose?

If I took three months off school, Sasquatch, I'd have to repeat the year. I do not have time to do that. And then there's missing social events, and being a balloon in class.

So you think it's alright to murder your child because it would inconvenience your education for a short time, hamper your social life, and make you look bad?

I'm just highlighting what a sacrifice it would be for a child that would be, ultimately and in name only, a mistake.

It's a mistake, so that makes it alright to kill it?

I am glad that abortion exists, because most teenage mothers are rubbish. Age 18 and up, with a decent support network, you're probably ok. Below that and you're in trouble in parenting terms.

That's why there's adoption. Quit pretending that the only two options are murdering your child or raising it yourself.

Did you read recently about the 9 year old father from London? If there's a case for termination, it's what kind of children children raise. The baby's mother was 13.

Unfortunately, a 13-year-old is usually not cabable of carrying a child to term and coming out healthy, with a healthy child. In that circumstance -- and for that reason only -- abortion is a viable option. Otherwise, there's no reason to murder the child, only to give it to parents who will care for it.

This is interesting: 'Life is a fundamental right. It's not anybody's place to tell you that you have the choice to take a life for the sake of convenience or not.'

Says who?

Most every governing organization and governing charter.

You're annoying me. If you died, I wouldn't be inconvenienced with seeing your posts here. I'm going to come kill you, because it'd be more convenient for me if you were dead.

(Not that you're annoying me or anything, I was just illustrating the point.

Would I be right in saying that your views on this find a base in religion?

Would it matter where my views come from? Whether they are based in religion, or simply in the value of human life?

As for the rest of your post, it is clear that we are never going to agree. ... We are going around in circles.

Understood. But I'd still like your opinion on my comment concerning executing everybody below the poverty line, if you don't mind.

[Clint]

Ah, so you were being intentionally stupid when you tried to make the argument that abortion is good because a baby might grow up to be a serial killer. Just checking.

I never said that that would be a reason for aborting a child. I was merely giving you a contradiction to your theory that "every aborted baby is one life lost," by saying that if the baby isn't aborted, it could possibly grow up to be a serial killer, hence ending the lives of hundreds of people. Now, if that guy was aborted, the problem would have been solved before it ever started. Therefore, that proves that deciding to keep an unwanted pregnancy doesn't necessarily save lives.

But yet, you're still here discussing the subject, with full knowledge that you, apparently, don't understand the subject.

I wouldn't be discussing it if you would leave your man-crush that you have on me in the closet, right next to your homosexuality. For some reason you feel the need to respond to every single one of my comments, even though every single one of my comments doesn't need to be responded to.

Which means that, if left solely up to women, abortion would be illegal.

And you know that because you're a woman?

I'm saying that a woman shouldn't murder her child. I don't care if she raises it or gives it up for adoption.

Women murder children (embryos) all the time. It's called miscarriage.

Are you trying to say that a human embryo is not a human?

Nope.

And babies don't make people fat, it's the weight gained with the pregnancy. You will never find a woman who gets pregnant and gains no more weight than how much her baby weighs. Next?

It's a good thing I never said, nor hinted at that.

Your claim was that males have no right arguing about abortion. And here you are, arguing about abortion.

I'm not really arguing. I'm just kind of mocking you.

Embryonic heartbeat starts at about 22 days after conception. Keep it up, kid.

It starts at about six to eight weeks, actually. Abortions are from four weeks to twelve weeks, so I was right by two weeks.

Hitler killed a few million Jews, but he didn't kill you or anybody you know, so why do you care?

Hitler just so happened to have killed the grandparents of my mom's best friend.

Again. The big ****ing deal is the life of a human being.

Are you trying to save the world one embryo at a time? The human population is too big to begin with. I have no idea why you even care. You are a mystery.

That animals change their habitats into places that are more fitting for them and less fitting for other animals, just like humans do?

You apparently still didn't understand, which is understandable, considering that I'm conversing with you. You never understand anything. So, animals do change their environments to support what they need to live, but have you ever seen a zebra-paved road? How about an anteater metropolis? No. Okay, do you see my point yet?

Seeing as you have claimed before that you don't have a computer and that you go to the library down the street ... but wait, you've edited that post to no longer include the library comment. I guess only those of us who initially noticed it truly know how full of shit you are.

I actually deleted that because it's none of your concern. I didn't have a computer at the time, so yes, I did use the library's computer for a while. Full of shit? I think not.

You? Probably. Unless you had the tools and the knowledge to live off the land. No more fast food, no more fatty-cakes. I'd love to see that.

It's a good thing I know how to hunt. And just for the record, I don't like cake. It makes me too thirsty. Plus I'm not a fan of excessive sugar.

If a person is tried twice, it's double jeopardy. If an issue is tried twice, it's Judicial Review.

If a case is tried twice, it's double jeopardy.

Not only could I be tried again on appeal, or on the discovery of new evidence, I could be tried not only in civilian court, but in a military court martial under the UCMJ.

So you're in the military, huh? Let me get this straight, you have a problem with abortion, but you have no problem shooting somebody?

Three billion people in China? Damn, they've grown! By more than double ... in less than a year!

I came up with the number from memory. I was thinking 3.1, whereas, it's actually 1.3. So sue me. You make a big deal out of everything.

So I ask again. Is there any credible evidence for this?

Probably.

Maybe I should have been more clear. Anything credible to back this up?

Yes. That's how many more unwanted children would be alive.

Or adoption, of we choose not to murder our children.

Again, this comes down to overpopulation, apparently a concept that you don't understand.

You'd also have to include couples who want to adopt more than one child.

I was including those Madonna types. There would still be far too many children and not enough couples willing to adopt.

So you've gone from asserting that everybody without a "proper upbringing" becomes a drug addict or a prostitute, to claiming that it "happens a lot". I ask again, with the same low expectations, do you have anything credible to back up your asinine claims?

Yes. Psychology. Without proper upbringing, people, as adults, are really ****ed up. The majority of the time. If you want to test it, turn your household dysfunctional, and see what it does to your kid.

If somebody is "braindead", are they still alive?

Yes. You can't live without the brain.

Unfortunately, a 13-year-old is usually not cabable of carrying a child to term and coming out healthy, with a healthy child. In that circumstance -- and for that reason only -- abortion is a viable option. Otherwise, there's no reason to murder the child, only to give it to parents who will care for it.

What if the mother is doing drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, or alcohol during the early developmental stages of the brain? The brain would never develop properly, hence causing mental retardation, perhaps respiratory problems, perhaps cardiovascular problems. Wouldn't that be reason enough to abort the child?

[Syphion]

I believe abortion should not be allowed since it shows in my opinion seems to like correct a wrong doing past and kill a human being. Instead, the person must accept and take responsibility and learn from his/her mistake. Now i do not have the right to tell who should abort their child, we live in a free country. So in a way, i support having freedom for abortion. I may not agree with the decision, but to what our constitution says, i say we should keep our rights as citizens.

[Sasquatch]

I never said that that would be a reason for aborting a child. I was merely giving you a contradiction to your theory that "every aborted baby is one life lost," by saying that if the baby isn't aborted, it could possibly grow up to be a serial killer, hence ending the lives of hundreds of people. Now, if that guy was aborted, the problem would have been solved before it ever started. Therefore, that proves that deciding to keep an unwanted pregnancy doesn't necessarily save lives.

The same illogic could be used to support an abolition of any healthcare system -- we could be caring for people that hurt others, so we should stop! It sounds just as stupid then.

I wouldn't be discussing it if you would leave your man-crush that you have on me in the closet, right next to your homosexuality.

Is there something wrong with homosexuality?

Step one, make stupid comments. Step two, insult. Step three, flatter yourself. What's step four -- you going to compare me to Hitler?

For some reason you feel the need to respond to every single one of my comments, even though every single one of my comments doesn't need to be responded to.

Just want to make sure that the rest of the members here, that may not be so well-versed in certain subjects, aren't misled by the ignorant ramblings of an imbecilic fool.

And you know that because you're a woman?

No, I know that because, like I said before, the majority of abortion supporters are male. Try to keep up, kid.

Women murder children (embryos) all the time. It's called miscarriage.

Murder is intentional. Miscarriage wouldn't even be manslaughter or homicide.

Nope.

If you realize that a human embryo is a human, why do you deny it human rights?

It's a good thing I never said, nor hinted at that.

Except by saying that pregnancy stretches skin and makes nine months "incredibly uncomfortable". Tell me, how many times have you been pregnant?

I'm not really arguing. I'm just kind of mocking you.

You tried to make a stupid point and got called out on it. I accept your apology.

It starts at about six to eight weeks, actually. Abortions are from four weeks to twelve weeks, so I was right by two weeks.

22days.

Though you might be referring to how the heartbeat usually develops around four to six weeks (not six to eight weeks) after the last menstrual cycle -- not the conception.

Hitler just so happened to have killed the grandparents of my mom's best friend.

I highly doubt that Hitler himself killed them, and even so, they were nobody you knew, so using your illogic, what's the big ****ing deal?

Are you trying to save the world one embryo at a time?

No, just trying to save innocent life. Some people care about innocent life.

So, animals do change their environments to support what they need to live, but have you ever seen a zebra-paved road? How about an anteater metropolis? No. Okay, do you see my point yet?

So your point isn't what it started out as, which was that humans change their environment to make it less habitable by other species and other animals don't, it's that humans change it more? Has it ever occurred to you that humans are the only ones physically and mentally developed enough to make such changes?

I actually deleted that because it's none of your concern.

And because it contradicts a later attempted point, proving you to be dishonest. Whoops.

I didn't have a computer at the time, so yes, I did use the library's computer for a while.

And you just got a computer and internet service, what, yesterday? My, how convenient.

It's a good thing I know how to hunt.

There's more to living off the land than "knowing how to hunt".

And just for the record, I don't like cake. It makes me too thirsty. Plus I'm not a fan of excessive sugar.

"Fatty-cake" is a military term for things that are bad for you ... cookies, brownies, cakes, pies, candies, etc. Sorry, sometimes I slip up and use words or acronyms that most people don't get.

If a case is tried twice, it's double jeopardy.

... Did you skip over the part of the Fifth Amendment that I posted for you? Double jeopardy has nothing to do with cases, it's about people. Let me show you again.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [EM]

... Wait, what was that?

... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ... [EM]

So, I ask: Where in the Fifth Amendment does it ever reference double jeopardy in terms of cases, and not people?

If no case can be tried twice, how do you like your racially segregated schools, drinking fountains, buses, etc.? You know, seeing as how the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling upheld "seperate but equal" and was later overturned by the same court ...

So you're in the military, huh? Let me get this straight, you have a problem with abortion, but you have no problem shooting somebody?

I have a problm with the murder of an innocent person, but I have no problem stopping somebody from harming an innocent person. That's about right. It ain't like everybody in the military just shoots people for fun.

I came up with the number from memory.

You pulled the number out of your ass. While it's not surprising that your "memory" is there too, you were, once again, called out on a bogus claim.

Probably.

Just none presented by you.

Yes. That's how many more unwanted children would be alive.

Okay, let's get this straight ... I ask for credible evidence, and you repeat the same crap you've been repeating, with no evidence to back it up?

Again, this comes down to overpopulation, apparently a concept that you don't understand.

I understand it fully. I just realize that the answer to overpopulation is the slaughter of millions of innocent children.

I was including those Madonna types. There would still be far too many children and not enough couples willing to adopt.

I would ask if you have any credbile evidence to back this up, but I know you don't.

Yes. Psychology. Without proper upbringing, people, as adults, are really ****ed up.

And most of them turn into drug addicts or prostitutes? Or are you going back on yet another asinine claim?

Give me some credible evidence that says that adopted children are more likely to be "really ****ed up", or admit that it was a stupid claim and drop it.

Yes. You can't live without the brain.

If "braindead" people are alive, why don't children with brain activity have the same rights?

What if the mother is doing drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, or alcohol during the early developmental stages of the brain? The brain would never develop properly, hence causing mental retardation, perhaps respiratory problems, perhaps cardiovascular problems. Wouldn't that be reason enough to abort the child?

The child MIGHT be born with problems. And if it is, it's born with problems. Unless you're trying to argue that it's alright to kill mentally handicapped people, you don't have much of a point here.