That fetus is going to be a scum bag just like his dad. I say pwn it before it rapes someone.

In response to comments about my generelization... that was what it was.. a generelization. The vast majority of Americans fall into those two categories, Democratic and Republican, and the vast majority of them follow their party mandate. Just a strange hypocritical thing I noticed about the major American political parties. And i'll assume right here that my generlization will work for at least half of all Americans.

Yes, some people DO actually think. Many others don't.

To state my opinion on the matter: I believe that abortion is wrong. However, this does not mean I believe it shoud be completely illegal. I think it woudl be ok if it was only used under circumstances such as rape, underage pregnancy, etc. But to use it as birth control just because it would be inconvienient finiacially or otherwise to have a baby at that time is obscene. Sure, people are poor. My mom is currently supporting a family of four children on a single teachers salary. But there's no way in fuck i would want me or any of my brothers to have been aborted just to ease the fininacial burden.

If you have gone and willingly done the act to bring a new life into this world, you should be able to commit to that child. You could always put them up for adoption or have a relative help raise them. Yes yes, all the same arguments. But this is an argument in which few poeple sway and each side ignores the others arguments, so few new points are ever brought up.

Kami - Yes, it's her body. But the body growing inside it isn't. And until scientists can pinpoint the exact moment during a fetuses development when it becomes "aware," I'll have to say conception sounds most likely, for that is when it begins to develop.

Abe - I don't see how you can accept killing in any fashion.. no matter what relilgion or philosophy you subscribe to, killing cannot be logically justified. Yes, there will be exceptions to that. And yes, abortion is killing.

Loudnotes, Bondo, et all. - I use the term pro-abortion to describe anyone who finds abortion acceptable for anything more than medical necessity or if the child is a product of a rape. Too many people use it simply as a form of birth control.

All I could find with statistics was about 5 years old on a  pro-life website, but its numbers were 5% were due to rape, fetal abnormalities, or mothers health problems combined. Ok, they're biased. Give them a 500% margin of error. That's still only 25%. One quarter. That number should be 100% due to "hard" reasons.

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm

I think I covered everything...



(Just realized I contradicted myself, saying some abortions are ok, killing cannot be justified, and abortion is killing. There's one of them exceptions.)

BULLSHIT.  You don't know that.  You can never prove it.  It's a shitty attempt to blame them.  Can they influence it, yes.  But if the Catholic Church was in charge, there wouldn't be the three doctor rule you talked about.  So the only "blame" that can really be assigned is to the government.  


BLAH BLAH BLAH.  Nice attempt at side stepping that issue Bondo.  WHY DO YOU SAY THAT LINE?  I wasn't asking about the law.  You said you think that's a good place, so answer my other questions.  WHy is it a good place?  Because less people will fight about it?  Bullshit.  Avoidance of the issues I presented.  Cover those if you can.


BULLSHIT.  When abortions were back alley, many women carried them to term and put them up for adoption.  Many chose to do that instead of the back alley ways.  So don't ingore them.

You just said that every woman that gets an abortion now, that wouldn't if they were not legal, would keep the child and not put it up for adoption.

If abortion wasn't an option, there'd be many more children up for adoption.  Look at our country now.  We don't have a glut of orphans waiting to be adopted (as was the case long ago).  No, now there are waiting lists years long, and people go to other countries (like South and Central American ones, along with Asian and Russian) to find them.  And, as shown, adopted children don't have lives that automatically SUCK, like you implied.


Bondo, you just ignored half the points.  Way to go.

First, in nature, there are animals where both parents take responsibility for the children.  I can bring examples.  (You and your absolute arguments, didn't we talk about them being so weak?)

Second, breast feeding isn't a requirement.  There are plenty of ways around it that don't include the moter, from wet nurses to forumla.

Third, considering that the mother of my child could have died, twice, if it weren't for taking care of her and getting her to the hospital, I'd say that I had some effect, wouldn't you?

Last,  BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.  How can you say that a woman bears the burden in all respects?  I pointed out financially, or isn't that a burden?  In nature, that would be providing food and shelter (and some animals the male does, in others it doesn't).  

Oh, and since when aren't we supposed to be better then animals?

Weaksause Bondo, try again.  You didn't touch over half my points, and make all these universal arguments that are not universally true.

One big hole in this Loudnotes.  The government is supposed to protect the members of it's society.  Murder, Rape, Racism.  Those are all very personal crimes.  Plenty crimes of passion out there to chose from.  But we want our government to protect us from those dangers, don't we?  

Don't we say it's ok to take the liberties of some people away everyday?  People that have raped and murdered for example?  Haven't we, as a society, said that we have to protect the weak?  Have to protect the helpless?  Not just those that can help themselves, but everyone?  We not only do this, we expect it.  It's one of the basic building blocks of a society.  We band together to protect each other from dangers.  How is this not the government's role?  Should we have no laws to protect people anymore?

Don't like the murder or rape examples, substitute Racism or Hate Crimes based on them.  Put in any civil rights argument.  We don't need those kinds of laws at all?

So, if you agree with that, the question really comes down to, does a baby have rights?  and when do they start?  And Why?  

I know what the current situation is, but for the "pro-choice" people out there, I want to know why they think it?  None of you has touched that slippery slope argument yet, I'm waiting.


BULLSHIT.  If nobody was pro-abortion, then there wouldn't be so many.  Look at the stats.  Look how many abortions are because there is a serious problem with the mother or child.  Then look at all the others.  Look at how many there are, because she just didn't want it.  Look how many there are because they wanted a boy, not a girl.  Do these not exist?

It's easy to say, sure, anything will be abused.  But with these numbers, it's being abused 95% of the time (if they should only be for health / rape issues).  Well, that tells me that there are plenty of people that are for abortion.  You can soften by saying that they've lost their humanity, but so has everyone that turns a blind eye to that kind of abuse.

I like your logic for the most part, and feel the same way about drugs, but it's a premise that abortion doesn't hurt anyone you are using, even if you don't directly say it.  I don't agree with that.  Abortion hurts people too.

It can be both because you can't read.  In the first it says I don't advocate getting an abortion except for the few special circumstances.  In the second I say I support the OPTION of having an abortion.  I never say I support having the abortion.

You are really tossing around the bullshit claim a lot here Bucc, but you really should try to understand that your side is no less opinion than anyone elses.  You say the fetus is alive and should be protected.  That is all well and good but it is your opinion that it should be protected.  You say killing in war for protection is ok.  The one thing I wonder, what happens to the protection of the parents.  Not just in direct health but financially and mentally.  Some people can't take the burden of having a child and doing so will cause great harm to them.  This harm should be respected as well by giving the option to remove the harm by aborting the fetus.  Sure we can give the fetus rights, but its rights shouldn't be more important than its fully alive and aware mother.

I never claimed adopted children's lives suck so I don't really know what you meant with that statement.

Here is a bit of information for you.  In Poland I think it was, when they outlawed abortion, birth rate didn't go up compared to when abortion was legal, nor did it go down when abortion was once again made legal.  Basically the people who are going to have abortions are going to have abortions.  Better to have safe legal ones than unsafe illegal ones.  Thus the reason for having the choice.  I say BULLSHIT to your claim that if there wasn't abortion that the number of kids up for adoption would increase.  It just isn't proven in past examples.

Bucc, I don't have to acknowlege all your points as legitimate because you most certainly don't do the same so don't yell at me for ignoring half your points, it is hypocritical.  I mention this about the men's right for the baby.  I don't consider the genetic information of the baby reason to give the man rights.  I don't consider financial support for the baby as reason to give the man rights.  I do give carrying and caring for the baby as reason to give the mother rights.  And you say babies can just have formula...that isn't really correct, babies NEED breastmilk to be healthy.  Formula isn't nearly as healthy for the baby.  Perhaps they can survive on it but it is dangerous to say it is a replacement for breastmilk.

Finally, since you say I'm ignoring or side-stepping to not talk about it, the slippery slope argument.  I can remember back to about when I was 3 so I say that is the age when someone is truly aware and fully human.  You say bullshit or weaksauce, but I think it is fully legitimate and I had some agreement about it, that it is acceptable to pick a time when abortion is still acceptable.  I said through the second trimester, Loth said 10 weeks.  Whatever you want and whatever reason, it is still ok to set a boundry even if there is no real logical argument why that specific spot is picked.  A spot needs to be picked because that is how laws work, they need to be specific.

     Thanks, Bondo. I was beginning to think that my posts were invisible or something. ; )

stop quadruple posting bucc...don't you have your own forums to spam on?

Supporting the wide open option is supporting it.  Anything else is a word game.  You can't support the option without supporting the act (indirectly).  Indirect support is still support.  So I call Bullshit.  It's like saying that the people that buy street drugs are't supporting gang warfare.  What do they think the gangs are fighting over (who owns that corner to sell the crack on) and where do they get the money to buy the guns (from that cash they just paid).  No, they aren't supporting it, are they?

You don't have to say you are for something to actually be supporting it.

Oh, and go back to your first post in this thread, where you support "abortions" up to the second trimester because if the parent doesn't want or can't afford the child.  Sure sounds like you supporting abortion for birth control to me.

HYPOCRITE!


Actually I say that there are reasons for killing.  As a society we have always had reasons that excuse killing.  Right?  I'm saying that there are exceptions, in the law even, on when killing is "allowed" or "right".  And I've said in the past that war should always be the last resort, but that sometimes it's needed.  Well guess what, my feelings on abortion are the same way.  There are some few reasons that some should be allowed.  But not that many.  Not for birth control (which is how most are used). And I think it would be just as easy for law to be made and enforced in this case as in any other.


If you are saying the harm of a super high risk pregnancy, I agree.  If you are saying the harm is raising a child, I say bullshit.  They can carry the baby to term, give birth, and give it up.  There's no harm in that.  

I've never said 100% of them should be outlawed.  I've said that true health concerns are valid reasons.  But just the inconvienence of a normal pregnancy isn't.


Yes, you did.  It was one of those lovely absolute statements you like to throw around.  You said that if the parent didn't want or couldn't afford the child, it would have a crappy life anyway.  That was pretty absolute.  That's why we say your arguments are weak so often.  It's completely ignoring adoption.  Which is why we brought it up.


No, what you proved is that when it's easy to cross a boarder to break a law, people will cross the boarder.  It was very easy to get around that law, so people did.

As for being better to have safe legal ones, rather then unsafe illegal ones, I say BULLSHIT.  

Protecting people that break a law is no reason to change it!  Should we change other laws to make the country a safer place for rapist to comit their crimes?  Or murderers?  It would be nice for them to feel safer, wouldn't it?  LMAO, that is the dumbest argument of all, and I don't care how often it has come up in the past.  There is no logic in that argument.

bucc,

i might have expressed that thought somehwhat oddly, but give me a break, plz. slavery, civil rights movement and poll tax?? that is SUCH bs. first of all, we can go up to women, blacks and non-voting people and ask them how they feel about being discrimated against, but we cant ask a fetus, because it isnt there. also, my post clearly said that, from a purely rational point of view, i don't think a fetus qualifies as a human being and only obtains that status (and all the rights involved) when it pops out the cavity. again, ill also have to point out that when i bring my gut feelings into this i feel that the 1st trimester is a good compromise. and this is what the question ultimately comes down to: where do you consider life to begin?

and capt.: how can u accuse me of condoning murder, when ive made clear that i only consider it to be a human being after it is born. how is it murder to kill somthing that i dont consider human.


i think that pretty much invalidates your above arguement, although im sure many other non-christian religions have other views than that of the catholic church on abortion as well.

one final point i would like to make: do you guys really think that women conciously use abortion as a means of contraception. if that were the case, id be revolted too, but the fact of the matter is that, for women, an abortion is an extremely intrusive and invasive procedure, that they would much rather avoid by using a pill or a condom. abortion is typically a last resort, so stop making it sound like all these women will choose to go get laid without protection and then decide to get an abortion instead.

Abe, look at the statistics.

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm

I'll be the first to admit that this is a heavily pro-life website. Problem is, no pro-abortion websites have them. But on the websites study, it breaks down to

---

* Wants to postpone childbearing:? 25.5%
*   Wants no (more) children:? 7.9%
*   Cannot afford a baby:? 21.3%
*   Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
*   Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
*   Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
*   Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
*   Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
*   Other: 2.1%

---

As you can see, only 18.3% adds up to "hard" cases, those too young or health risks.

As a note, i have to retract my previous statements about 5% due to "hard" cases, that was from a different set of statistics that wasn't as thorough.