abortion (i forgot what the prop name was)

Falcon gets the point.

Falcon 1
The rest of you bitches 0

Dalif has some solid logic there. Hard to argue with it on a logical level.

You know, I seriously don't understand how Japan's birthrate can be so low, when so much porn of their includes mention of pulling out being "safe sex" and that there are completely safe days (when the girl isn't on the rage).

Concerning sex while she's on the rag . . . I guess you could pretend she's a virgin and pound away without a rubber.



The human body is one weird machine. Have condom-less sex with a chick a hundred times, and she'll never get pregnant. Have sex with a condom that breaks a hundred times, and she'll never get pregnant. Then, somehow, have sex with a condom that doesn't break, and you got a little mouth to feed that calls you Daddy and really ruins the mood when you're trying to get the bra off that hot girl you met at the club.



I don't feel too bad about the aborted babies missing out on life. After all, every time I pull my pudding, I ruin the chances of a kid missing out on life, but that doesn't stop me from doing it at least twice a day.

This thread being successful and started by nzephier is scary. Honestly. It shakes my beliefs.

There are also people who have sex once WITH a condom and get pregnant.
It's not probable, but it is possible.
So some form of birth control should be used if you don't want a baby, because sperm don't understand probability.

As health teachers throughout the ages have said, the only absolute way to keep from getting pregnant is to not have sex. Of course, usually some asshole in the room then chimes in with, "What if she's raped?" and we all have a good laugh. Except for that one girl who sits in the back of the room and for some reason missed half of a semester last year. She doesn't laugh. She just lowers her head.

While I am pro-choice, doesn't mean I necessarily support the procedure. I believe if someone wants an abortion it's their choice, as for America where I'm at there should be a separation of church and state. Even though our country is founded on Christian beliefs, doesn't mean Christian opinions should affect the population that fallows Freedom of Religion. Since technically it is our right to believe what we want. So I do support abortion in the sense that it should be someone's choice, and not a choice demanded by the radical Christians that want everyone to abide by their god.

As far as personal beliefs go, I don't support it unless it is completely necessary. Granted when I was born, I was almost aborted. I was an average sized baby but just with very broad shoulders, I couldn't fit through so the doctor broke my collar bone to get me out. Anyway, the only way I do support it is if the child is either going to die anyway, or if someone was raped and impregnated. But if someone is just running around banging every guy they see, they should live with the consequence. Everyone should have at least some form of restraint. Agree or disagree with me, that's the beauty of this world.

dude...
i was reading that out loud so i was reading then i laughed at the raped part(u know what i mean) but then i faded out when i started going on then i was just silent...
u know how to ruin a mood don't u...

[size=10]
Lol, that was pretty funny. The "pull my pudding" part. Haha. Anyway, at least you seem to share the same views about abortion as I do, and don't see it as being sooo bad.

+1 rep because the quality of your posts always seems to be pretty astounding and sometimes amusing.[/h]

*Waits patiently on Captain_Falcon*

Do De do do do.

He's late...

And I was going to just walk away from this one

Where is the fun in that?

Anyway, I'm personally all for abortions, but I generally place low value on anything even remotely human.

I see it like this: We have more then enough people in the world. Some couples in second and third world countries have upwards of eight kids.

What's one less, in the grand scheme of things? The odds of aborting the next Newton/Einstein/Crowley are exactly the same as aborting the next Atilla the Hun/Hitler/Me, so statistically, I see no problem.

One may cite "Ethics and Morality", but I think that denying an unwanted child birth is better then

A: Living with a mother who didn't want you/can't support you.
B: Being abandoned.
or C: Being thrown off the nearest cliff like many members of the animal kingdom do to unwanted young.

Abortion would be a yes.
It's up to the mother what to do with the baby she would be carrying around for 9 months then painfully ejecting. So the U.S. takes rights away from gays...now it's taking rights away from women? What's next?

black president.

I LOL'd

As far as abortion goes it falls under my other peoples business sense of things. If a woman or couple wants a abortion that's fine with me.

Agreed!
this man must be really intelligent. :)

also, if a woman wants an abortion there shouldnt be anybody to stop her.

Really? I laughed harder. You're wierd, dude.

@Arizth: I agree. To many people around anyway. What's so damned special about human life anyway?

[size=10]
I actually think that's somewhat sad. :( ShaggyJebus' story.
...makes me wonder how someone could bring themselves to rape a woman or girl. Eh, but that's another topic for another time.
[/h]

@fiery: This time, you're on the side of the liberals and I'm on the side on the conservatives!

We had a good thread with some lively debate going on abortion a while back I remember.

I think at the heart of the matter is the question of what to classify as human. Most people would agree that the inherent right of humans to life is more important than the freedom to choose what we do with out own bodies. Thus, if feti are humans, then abortion is morally wrong if murder is morally wrong, and should be illegal.

Here are some of the pro-abortion arguments concerning the validity of feti as humans and the morality of abortion, along with my rebuttals.

1) In order to be human, one must have quality X(X being the ability to survive independently, intelligence, etc). We know from science that feti do not develop quality X until the Yth week of the pregnancy. Thus, abortion before then is acceptable.

I would say that the fact that a fetus, if left in its natural environment, will almost definitely(the small probability of complications aside) mature into something that would be agreed by all to human should be reason enough to count feti as human. However, some people don't accept this.

However, even rejecting the above statement, one is met with several challenges. The first is to establish an ironclad requirement of what makes a being human(or of human-like value when relating to the matter of having a right to life). I have heard some strange ones, such as the presence of blood, along with the more common, such as having measurable brain activity. Certainly not an easy task, and one in which the cost of a poor judgment is extremely high.

Secondly, fetal development occurs along a continuum. Even if we unanimously establish criterion X, one cannot always point to a set time where it appears and use that for abortion legislation. It is variable and gradual development. The alternative, a binary test, faces similar problems. How close to zero must the result be in order for the result to count as zero? Additionally, tests, while good, are not perfectly accurate, and if human life might be at stake, we are best to err on the side of caution.

2) But according to what you just said, sperm and egg cells would have to be considered human.

No, they will definitely not develop into a human unless conception(a statistically small probability event) happens. A fetus will almost definitely develop into a human if left unimpeded. You also have the case of no-action(fetus) vs. action (egg+sperm) in order to have human development.

3) Steve Levitt said the babies who tend to get aborted have a higher probability of becoming criminals and the like, so abortion benefits society.

One should have the right to live just for being human. It's in our constitution, it's in the declaration of independence. You don't have to earn the right to life by contributing to society. You start with it, and retain until you do something really bad that entitles you to be deprived of it by "due process of law." Thus, people claiming that there is not guarantee a baby will grow up to be good/bad or an asset or detriment to society is all irrelevant. They start out "neutral" and with a right to life. You can't deprive someone of their most basic rights, even if there is a large statistical probability that they will commit a crime or something; they have to actually commit the crime before their right to life can be taken away. Even if we knew for certain that 90% of all babies who are aborted would otherwise grow up to be criminals, I, believing that feti qualify as human, would say that using that statistic would not be justification for the abortions, for the reasons I have stated, as well as for the 10% who would not grow up to be criminals.

4) Depriving women of the right to chose is detrimental to society because it undermines individual freedoms.

This is borders on a slippery slope fallacy, but has some validity as long as the claim is not that "X implies Y" but that "X implies increased probability of Y, as evidenced by historical examples."

The simple rebuttal is that this still comes back to whether the fetus is human. The right of humans to life simply for being human and nothing else is a more important right than personal liberty(which is why murder is illegal). Thus, the analogous argument claiming that allowing abortions is detrimental to society if feti are human simply trumps 4) listed above, unless one determines that the merit of both of these arguments is zero, in which case, one shouldn't be making argument 4) in the first place and the debate is relegated to other points.

5) If we don't allow abortions for teenage mothers, those babies will statistically have terrible lives and be miserable.

This has generally never been seen as a reason to make killing humans acceptable in any other case(the most analogous case is euthanasia, but even here, you have an affirmative from the person that they wish to die; this is not present in the case proposed by 5)), thus, if feti are human, why should it be applicable here?

6) What about rape?

If the fetus is human, you are still depriving someone of their right to live without due process of law. The fetus has no culpability in the act of the rape. It is certainly tragic, and the rapist should be brought to justice, but punishing the fetus does not seem to match the idea of justice. The pain that is forced upon the raped woman is a tragic consequence of the evil act of rape, just as the pain of loss if a consequence of the evil act of murder.

Furthermore, cases of rape account for a tiny portion of all abortions. While I don't personally believe abortions in cases of rape are acceptable, I would be open to supporting legislation that kept abortion legal in this case because the number of incidences is tiny and it is a large step in the correct direction.

@ Whitelion: Jesus Chris man! Did you write a term paper on this or something?

I don't think this "argument" can gain any ground for either side until a concrete definition of what constitutes as a human is set. Though I believe I have a middle ground that I'm sure nobody can disagree with. Abortions should be allowed in the event that the mother's health is of concern since sacrificing one life to save another is better than losing two lives.

For me the feti becomes "human" at the point when it is more than a clump of dividing cells the exact "area" is hard for me to define. After a couple weeks it becomes an ever darkening gray area for me until I'm completely against it.

Not a good topic, some teachers will penalize you for supporting a point of view they don't like. I guess I've just spent too much time debating it.



I forgot to mention that one, but I agree that that is acceptable.