Abortion

[obfuscator]

If you're so against size-ism, it's interesting that you're so critical of the pro-life, seeing as the pro-choice hold size-ist views as well.

 

Baby inside womb? Not a human.

 

Baby outside womb? Now it's human.

 

But nothing's really changed.....

[Giordano]

Abortion is spawn killing. Tbh its a legitmiate strategy.

[obfuscator]

Abortion is spawn killing. Tbh its a legitmiate strategy.

I laughed :D

[Ubi]

Think about it like this, I am going to be using America. In America we have a right to be free. We are a Democratic Republic. We have the right to choose what we want to do (to an extent). By taking away that right it is unconstitutional. They would need to add an amendment and not just a law. It would take a very long time and, in reality, be shot down.

[Da_Latios]

I don't see the problem of killing something that isn't sentient? Hell, I don't see a problem of killing things that are sentient as long as they're livestock or game.

This. An unborn child under 23 weeks has next to no thought process. If it can't think, it's not alive. So what's wrong with killing something that's not alive? That being said, I'd still regard it as murder if someone else were to abort another person's child without the mother's expressed permission (that is if the mother is capable of consenting).

 

Think about it like this, I am going to be using America. In America we have a right to be free. We are a Democratic Republic. We have the right to choose what we want to do (to an extent). By taking away that right it is unconstitutional. They would need to add an amendment and not just a law. It would take a very long time and, in reality, be shot down.

Aww, he actually thinks citizens hold power over political law-making. That's cute.

[Pirate_Felix]

Anti abortionists cant say where the line is between life and no life.

If you think everything is potential life then get out and start [bleep]ing because you are potential life.

[D Jay99]

Always pro choice, easy to create new baby (who, surprise, might even grow up under better circumstances than the previous unwanted/accidental/whatever baby).

[Nenga]

Pro choice, I believe the woman should be able to choose what happens in her life over the unborn child.

[obfuscator]

This. An unborn child under 23 weeks has next to no thought process. If it can't think, it's not alive. So what's wrong with killing something that's not alive? That being said, I'd still regard it as murder if someone else were to abort another person's child without the mother's expressed permission (that is if the mother is capable of consenting).

 

Biologically, it's alive. Science is 100% clear on that fact.

 

What defines thought, anyway? A newly born child has next to no thought process. Most animals have next to no thought process. People with mental disabilities have limited thought processes.

[sees_all1]

So what's wrong with killing something that's not alive?

 

How do you kill something that isn't alive :twss:

 

I hope you hear how ridiculous you sound.

[20Rice04]

What defines thought, anyway? A newly born child has next to no thought process. Most animals have next to no thought process. People with mental disabilities have limited thought processes.

Oh Goody, we can murder all those things too then. Now I recall you mentioning baby seals earlier in the topic, are you available at any time for that? When I tell people I club them to death I get so many dodgy looks, it's such a relief to finally meet a kindred spirit.

[sees_all1]

What defines thought, anyway? A newly born child has next to no thought process. Most animals have next to no thought process. People with mental disabilities have limited thought processes.

Oh Goody, we can murder all those things too then. Now I recall you mentioning baby seals earlier in the topic, are you available at any time for that? When I tell people I club them to death I get so many dodgy looks, it's such a relief to finally meet a kindred spirit.

 

Count me in.

[Nenga]

So what's wrong with killing something that's not alive?

 

How do you kill something that isn't alive :twss:

 

I hope you hear how ridiculous you sound.

Cure and potions. Haven't you learned anything from Final Fantasy?!?!?! :angry:

[Skeptical]

First of all; the term used by those who oppose abortion is an untruth: they are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. If they were pro-life, they would oppose the death penalty and be completely vegetarian.

 

When someone insists that a fetus, stem-cell, etc. has the rights of a human being, I will laugh at them. Loudly. I will not restrain myself in expressing contempt of either an evil and archaic set of religious and moral beliefs, or the lack of a basic understanding of what constitutes a sentient being.

 

I wish to make one thing clear. I am not a bleeding heart liberal. In fact, I shun the label of Liberal completely, unless it is applied in the sense of "a forward thinking individual". At no point, ever, is "faith" or "belief" a ethical, believable or admirable basis for a decision. If you disagree with that statement, allow me to express a mixture of sadness and fear.

 

To address a common argument:

Did you eat today? Chances are, there was some form of animal included somewhere within the calories that are currently burning to keep you alive. Now, this is a living, thinking being that feels pain and forms social attachments. Chances again are that it was raised in a life of abject misery: removed from it's mother immediately at birth, kept indoors (perhaps in a feed lot outdoors, if it was cattle), maybe without ever having seen daylight, and treated as a number by machines and companies that care nothing for it's life. It's entire life exists for nothing but our consumption. For those males among us who are vegetarian, I ask you: have you ever masturbated? That's millions of potential children, wasted... women have you ever ovulated? Religion is making a serious attempt to keep you subservient to your body, to destroy your rights, to make your entire gender second to that of men. What better way to do that then to add false guilt to the equation?

[Assume Nothing]

First of all; the term used by those who oppose abortion is an untruth: they are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. If they were pro-life, they would oppose the death penalty and be completely vegetarian.

 

When someone insists that a fetus, stem-cell, etc. has the rights of a human being, I will laugh at them. Loudly. I will not restrain myself in expressing contempt of either an evil and archaic set of religious and moral beliefs, or the lack of a basic understanding of what constitutes a sentient being.

 

I wish to make one thing clear. I am not a bleeding heart liberal. In fact, I shun the label of Liberal completely, unless it is applied in the sense of "a forward thinking individual". At no point, ever, is "faith" or "belief" a ethical, believable or admirable basis for a decision. If you disagree with that statement, allow me to express a mixture of sadness and fear.

 

To address a common argument:

Did you eat today? Chances are, there was some form of animal included somewhere within the calories that are currently burning to keep you alive. Now, this is a living, thinking being that feels pain and forms social attachments. Chances again are that it was raised in a life of abject misery: removed from it's mother immediately at birth, kept indoors (perhaps in a feed lot outdoors, if it was cattle), maybe without ever having seen daylight, and treated as a number by machines and companies that care nothing for it's life. It's entire life exists for nothing but our consumption. For those males among us who are vegetarian, I ask you: have you ever masturbated? That's millions of potential children, wasted... women have you ever ovulated? Religion is making a serious attempt to keep you subservient to your body, to destroy your rights, to make your entire gender second to that of men. What better way to do that then to add false guilt to the equation?

 

I lol'd at the last part. Feel free to post in the Vegetarianism thread.

 

I think it's just extremely biased how people decide on the rights of a being. Which reminds me of this quote;

 

"Dr. Lister, director general of the Wildlife Trust has complained that ' we get lots of sponsorship for otters and red squirrels, but none for the narrow-headed ant'. The smallpox virus, meanwhile, has been hounded to extinction (apart from a few test-tube samples) yet no animal rights protester has so much as drawn up a petition. But not even sizeism can explain our above-stated affection for squirrels, given people's loathing of rats. If you took one dead rat and one dead squirrel and shaved the pair of them, only an expert eye could tell them apart. Perhaps we feel an affinity with animals which most closely resemble ourselves. A creature's sentience, or rather, its apparent sentience deduced from its neurological complexity might also influence our calculations. Whatever. We have no reliable index for gauging the awareness or suffering of species other than our own so, ultimately, we base our attitudes towards animals on empathic or emotional responses."

 

I agree mostly with your post, it's really our emotional responses that usually 'determines' the rights of an animal, which is quite frankly, disgusting.

[obfuscator]

First of all; the term used by those who oppose abortion is an untruth: they are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. If they were pro-life, they would oppose the death penalty and be completely vegetarian.

 

When someone insists that a fetus, stem-cell, etc. has the rights of a human being, I will laugh at them. Loudly. I will not restrain myself in expressing contempt of either an evil and archaic set of religious and moral beliefs, or the lack of a basic understanding of what constitutes a sentient being.

 

I wish to make one thing clear. I am not a bleeding heart liberal. In fact, I shun the label of Liberal completely, unless it is applied in the sense of "a forward thinking individual". At no point, ever, is "faith" or "belief" a ethical, believable or admirable basis for a decision. If you disagree with that statement, allow me to express a mixture of sadness and fear.

 

To address a common argument:

Did you eat today? Chances are, there was some form of animal included somewhere within the calories that are currently burning to keep you alive. Now, this is a living, thinking being that feels pain and forms social attachments. Chances again are that it was raised in a life of abject misery: removed from it's mother immediately at birth, kept indoors (perhaps in a feed lot outdoors, if it was cattle), maybe without ever having seen daylight, and treated as a number by machines and companies that care nothing for it's life. It's entire life exists for nothing but our consumption. For those males among us who are vegetarian, I ask you: have you ever masturbated? That's millions of potential children, wasted... women have you ever ovulated? Religion is making a serious attempt to keep you subservient to your body, to destroy your rights, to make your entire gender second to that of men. What better way to do that then to add false guilt to the equation?

 

I'm pro-life...pro-human life. I oppose the death penalty.

 

As I've said - yeah, I eat meat. I enjoy it too - because, guess what: an animal is not a human. The masturbation argument is completely ridiculous because a sperm cell has not yet been formed into a child and natural biological processes waste it anyway - same to the ovulation argument. If your argument had any merit the church would be shunning those who have miscarriages.

 

Oh, and also, it's not only religious people who are anti-abortion.

[Assume Nothing]

First of all; the term used by those who oppose abortion is an untruth: they are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. If they were pro-life, they would oppose the death penalty and be completely vegetarian.

 

When someone insists that a fetus, stem-cell, etc. has the rights of a human being, I will laugh at them. Loudly. I will not restrain myself in expressing contempt of either an evil and archaic set of religious and moral beliefs, or the lack of a basic understanding of what constitutes a sentient being.

 

I wish to make one thing clear. I am not a bleeding heart liberal. In fact, I shun the label of Liberal completely, unless it is applied in the sense of "a forward thinking individual". At no point, ever, is "faith" or "belief" a ethical, believable or admirable basis for a decision. If you disagree with that statement, allow me to express a mixture of sadness and fear.

 

To address a common argument:

Did you eat today? Chances are, there was some form of animal included somewhere within the calories that are currently burning to keep you alive. Now, this is a living, thinking being that feels pain and forms social attachments. Chances again are that it was raised in a life of abject misery: removed from it's mother immediately at birth, kept indoors (perhaps in a feed lot outdoors, if it was cattle), maybe without ever having seen daylight, and treated as a number by machines and companies that care nothing for it's life. It's entire life exists for nothing but our consumption. For those males among us who are vegetarian, I ask you: have you ever masturbated? That's millions of potential children, wasted... women have you ever ovulated? Religion is making a serious attempt to keep you subservient to your body, to destroy your rights, to make your entire gender second to that of men. What better way to do that then to add false guilt to the equation?

 

I'm pro-life...pro-human life. I oppose the death penalty.

 

As I've said - yeah, I eat meat. I enjoy it too - because, guess what: an animal is not a human. The masturbation argument is completely ridiculous because a sperm cell has not yet been formed into a child and natural biological processes waste it anyway - same to the ovulation argument. If your argument had any merit the church would be shunning those who have miscarriages.

 

Oh, and also, it's not only religious people who are anti-abortion.

 

Since sperm cells are still considered potential human lives, yes, the argument still holds. And guess what - Miscarriages is murder, you can't deny that.

[obfuscator]

No, because sperm cells aren't humans. They're cells - cells that don't contain human dna. They're a part of a necessary whole.

 

Do you even know what a miscarriage is?

[Assume Nothing]

No, because sperm cells aren't humans. They're cells - cells that don't contain human dna. They're a part of a necessary whole.

 

Do you even know what a miscarriage is?

 

Yes.

[obfuscator]

No, because sperm cells aren't humans. They're cells - cells that don't contain human dna. They're a part of a necessary whole.

 

Do you even know what a miscarriage is?

 

Yes.

Then how is a random biological event murder?

[Assume Nothing]

No, because sperm cells aren't humans. They're cells - cells that don't contain human dna. They're a part of a necessary whole.

 

Do you even know what a miscarriage is?

 

Yes.

Then how is a random biological event murder?

 

Because you have killed a being that has potential human life. Usually a genetic defect, but it still caused death to a innocent being.

[obfuscator]

No, because sperm cells aren't humans. They're cells - cells that don't contain human dna. They're a part of a necessary whole.

 

Do you even know what a miscarriage is?

 

Yes.

Then how is a random biological event murder?

 

Because you have killed a being that has potential human life. Usually a genetic defect, but it still caused death to a innocent being.

Yes, but no one specifically caused it. Therefore at most you could say mother nature murdered it.

[Skeptical]

First of all; the term used by those who oppose abortion is an untruth: they are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. If they were pro-life, they would oppose the death penalty and be completely vegetarian.

 

When someone insists that a fetus, stem-cell, etc. has the rights of a human being, I will laugh at them. Loudly. I will not restrain myself in expressing contempt of either an evil and archaic set of religious and moral beliefs, or the lack of a basic understanding of what constitutes a sentient being.

 

I wish to make one thing clear. I am not a bleeding heart liberal. In fact, I shun the label of Liberal completely, unless it is applied in the sense of "a forward thinking individual". At no point, ever, is "faith" or "belief" a ethical, believable or admirable basis for a decision. If you disagree with that statement, allow me to express a mixture of sadness and fear.

 

To address a common argument:

Did you eat today? Chances are, there was some form of animal included somewhere within the calories that are currently burning to keep you alive. Now, this is a living, thinking being that feels pain and forms social attachments. Chances again are that it was raised in a life of abject misery: removed from it's mother immediately at birth, kept indoors (perhaps in a feed lot outdoors, if it was cattle), maybe without ever having seen daylight, and treated as a number by machines and companies that care nothing for it's life. It's entire life exists for nothing but our consumption. For those males among us who are vegetarian, I ask you: have you ever masturbated? That's millions of potential children, wasted... women have you ever ovulated? Religion is making a serious attempt to keep you subservient to your body, to destroy your rights, to make your entire gender second to that of men. What better way to do that then to add false guilt to the equation?

 

I'm pro-life...pro-human life. I oppose the death penalty.

 

As I've said - yeah, I eat meat. I enjoy it too - because, guess what: an animal is not a human. The masturbation argument is completely ridiculous because a sperm cell has not yet been formed into a child and natural biological processes waste it anyway - same to the ovulation argument. If your argument had any merit the church would be shunning those who have miscarriages.

 

Oh, and also, it's not only religious people who are anti-abortion.

 

Do you honestly think that certain forms of life are special because they're human?

 

And almost all anti-abortionist happen to have some form of religious involvement. No facts to back this up, although I'll look for some numbers.

[Assume Nothing]

No, because sperm cells aren't humans. They're cells - cells that don't contain human dna. They're a part of a necessary whole.

 

Do you even know what a miscarriage is?

 

Yes.

Then how is a random biological event murder?

 

Because you have killed a being that has potential human life. Usually a genetic defect, but it still caused death to a innocent being.

Yes, but no one specifically caused it. Therefore at most you could say mother nature murdered it.

 

Mother nature needs a good long jail sentence. Preferably with no chance of parole.

[obfuscator]

Do you honestly think that certain forms of life are special because they're human?

 

And almost all anti-abortionist happen to have some form of religious involvement. No facts to back this up, although I'll look for some numbers.

 

Uh yeah, I do, sorry. But let's talk about your view of animals.

 

When you see a wasp flying around, you invite it to dinner, right? After all, it is your equal.

When you see a racoon outside in the cold, you offer it your warm bed, right? After all, it is your equal.

You have your pets sign their own forums for licenses, right? After all, they are your equals.

 

No facts to back it up? So don't post.