Abortion: Your Views...

[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?

[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.

[Clint]

Is there something wrong with homosexuality?

Apparently you believe so, considering that yours is still hidden in the far back of your deep dark closet.

What's step four -- you going to compare me to Hitler?

I wasn't going to, but if you really want me to, I would have no problem doing so.

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.

How sweet of you.

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

That can't be right. I'm a male, and you're a male, and neither one of use supports abortion. You'd think that with a statistic like "the majority of abortion supporters are male," at least one of us would support it.

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

Accidental manslaughter.

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

Because it has yet to be born, let alone develop.

Tell me, how many times have you been pregnant?

About three or four.

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

I wasn't apologizing.

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?

It was Hitler's plan, so he killed them, and they do mean something to be because they're the grandparents to somebody that I love. It is a big ****ing deal. I accept your apology.

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

Some people care enough to let people decide for themselves what to do with their lives and the lives of their pregnancies.

Has it ever occurred to you that humans are the only ones physically and mentally developed enough to make such changes?

Yes, which is why they do it. Point being, they never had to resort to mass deforestation and the like.

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

That's the coolest thing I've heard in months.

"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.

I don't like any of those things, either. Too much sugar.

... 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.

It's about trial. Trials are cases.

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

Are there not people involved in cases? If a decision is made in any case, no matter who the case is concerning, that decision then applies to all other cases, hence double jeopardy, not just for people, but also for cases. For example, Roe v. Wade made abortion legalized. If somebody else attempts to legalize abortion, a new argument needs to be made that doesn't echo the original case argument for Roe v. Wade. It can't be the same, no matter what case it is.

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 ...

A case can't be tried twice, as I explained above.

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.

No. I pulled it from memory. Just because my memory doesn't serve correctly 100% of the time as yours does (or rather, as your online encyclopedia does,) doesn't mean it's bogus.

Just none presented by you.

That's correct.

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?

That, too, is correct.

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

You could always eat your neighbors. Either way, the solution of overpopulation is murder of some kind, so why not murder humans that don't yet have a will to live?

And most of them turn into drug addicts or prostitutes?

No, they just have problems. It doesn't have to be drug addiction or prostitution. Those are just the examples I used.

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.

I didn't say adopted children. I said children that are stuck in the adoption centers until they're of legal age that don't get the proper upbringing. Learn how to read.

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

They're not actually alive. Although it's possible to live without the brain via life support systems, it's impossible to function without the brain. If life support is taken away, the person dies. Hence, braindead is essentially dead in every sense of the word.

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.

So let the child live with pain and suffering for all of it's 75+ years, huh? That sounds like torture to me. If it was an animal, it would be euthanized out of mercy. You don't care enough for human life to do that. You're a hypocrite.

[Govinda]

Sasquatch - Sure. People below the poverty line are already people, and if governments and NGOs start working properly and taking poverty alleviation seriously, they could be elevated. A baby in those circumstances, while still a member of the family, is yet another mouth to feed.

I've been researching a lot about Ethiopia for school lately. There can be families who depend entirely on food aid, and yet have upwards of 5 or 6 children. They say it is their right to. Yet, there is evidence to suggest that Ethiopia's booming population (I would share said evidence but it's only on JSTOR) is one of the factors contributing to their continued starvation. It's more of a case for contraception than abortion, but do you see what I'm getting at - to put it bluntly, abortion in cases like that is stopping a problem before it's begun. It's stopping a baby being born who will, unless there is a radical change, die of starvation within its first few months in horrific pain. Its mother too will suffer, but its mother is already a fully grown person with a right to life.

The right to life is fundamental, but I, like SOLDIER, don't believe that life begins at conception. For the first month or so it is a collection of multiplying cells. All of the government charters and human rights charters aren't against abortion - they're about human rights, not zygote rights. For that reason executing everyone below the poverty line would be fundmentally wrong, but allowing abortions is not. I know you won't agree to this, as you believe that humans and embryos have the same worth, and that is fine. But I maintain that if the baby will have a rubbish life, or if the birth and early life will cause undue stress to the mother, she should be allowed to terminate. It's her baby. If she is desperate, she will go at it with a coat-hangar and a bottle of rum.

And I've already stated my views on adoption. Maybe it's better in America, but here, it really isn't that viable an option. Hardly anyone here puts their baby up for adoption, because they know what kind of life it would have under the system. Like I said, I'd have to keep any potential baby of mine - and it would screw up my life for a while, because I am 19 and selfish - just to keep it out of a broken system. I know there are good parents chasing babies, and I wish them every luck. There are babies out there waiting for them, hundreds of them. Adding more would just overwhelm the system. So many teenage mothers have abortions here, and I have to say that it's right that they do.