No, I meant it as in men in general. In a single matter, while the man can have his opinion, the eventual decision of the abortion lies with the woman. Politicians don't know about a lot of things and their effects, or aren't affected by a lot of things, yet they're still the ones who get to decide on it. That's what they're there for. They're the ones to decide about immigration while a majority isn't foreign. They're the ones that get to decide about wars without being soldiers and decide on the funding for science even though they generally know nothing about the subject at all. Walking is murder, as you're killing microscopical life with every step. And seriously? Saying a foetus isn't life is a bullshit argument, and then BAM you come out and say all potential life (as in, every single egg and sperm cell) should be protected and letting it die is unforgivable.
You were talking about (potential) life. I wasn't aware humans are the only living things that there are on Earth. Also, how do you feel about euthanasia? The same?
Euthanasia is agreable so long as the person is giving consent. I just think that the preservation of human life should be the number one priority of every single human being on this planet, and I view a foetus as human life. EDIT: I realise that the first line of that is contradictory, but I also believe that people should be free to do whatever they choose with their lives so long as it doesn't have a direct negative effect on another's life.
Well that's your opinion and that's fine. However it's not like the human species is in any danger, in fact I would say that overpopulation would be a bigger concern. There's only so much space on this planet and the human population is constantly growing. Not preserving some who aren't even born yet and are very undeveloped is not a huge loss for humanity.
And when you have to choose between two lives? An abortion can save a mother's life when it's endangered by the unborn child.
Well think about it ,when you re in your mother womb you breath through her ,you eat through her ,you live through her and you re part of her, until you re born. After that you become a person and self-aware.
I agree, which is why I say that the parents should have the only right to decide, as the fetus is a living part of the mother, laws againt abortion will only set back our progress.
Then it's the mother's choice as she is the only one of the two who can register the information, but when the mother's life is not at risk then she has no right to decide the fate of another human being. And in practicality the majority of abortions are actually not based on saving a person's life. It's just convenience for the mother, which is a silly reason to kill. The amount of deaths caused by abortion would be minimal and hardly effect stopping overpopulation. And besides, if we're stooping so low as to select members of society to die for our own survival, why the unborn? The unborn might one day do something for us, not like the elderly. Kill all the old people, they'll never be of any use to us again. So he can bitch about it, but he really can't do shit if his partner wants to murder his child?
You are missing my point. My point isn't that it would do a whole lot to stop overpopulation, though I do feel that some families should simply choose to adopt as well, my point is that it's a bigger concern for the human race than assuring every single birth possible. Sure it wont do a lot but it's better than pumping out as many babies as possible for it. Kill the elderly? It's debatable as to when a fetus can be considered a person, some say at the moment of conception, some say much later, some say birth. However one thing that can't be debated is that the elderly very much are people who have lives, feelings, family who care deeply about them and full rights and that is without a doubt murder and wrong. Comparing that to aborting a fetus that isn't even developed yet, has no ties in this world and no-one who cares about it obviously, they haven't even been born yet you are saying it would be better to kill those who have? At the very least it's not better any way you can decently look at it. You tend to argue this way Kara, you say something completely extreme in response to things.
Exactly. The woman in this example has no right to decide the fate of another breathing, eating, sleeping and functioning human being. But then again, you need to draw the line between a living human being and a blob of underdeveloped organic tissue. Lol. Well, we all know how you feel about people having opinions. So, just to be sure, let's lock both of them up and death camps. Seeing as he only responds to about 20% of what's being posted here, I doubt he watched the video.
Wow, I could write a book on this topic... I will destroy anti-abortion believers idiots with Logic! Why shouldn't it be legal? The only argument against this is that its a piece of LIFE, and it is a person, and that person could be somebody who could change society. My question is often in response "When does life begin?" I see three stages Erection->Nine months Pregnant->Baby. Obviously killing a baby is a bit ridiculous seeing as though it is already out of the mothers womb (Life). At the Nine months pregnant stage isn't much of life seeing as though it doesn't collect its own food/ get nutrients on its own, it can't breathe on its own, it can't think even the smallest thoughts, it can't reproduce, Do anything? (Not life). Now we have the erection stage which I thrown in as a joke seeing as though some anti-abortion believers would actually start here. As for the "It could be somebody good." argument all I have to say it could also be a new Hitler willing to cause endless horrors across the planet, killing millions of people (What right do you have to dictate if they live or die? I see that argument a lot now you see how much bullshit it is.) The final argument is religion, which is bullshit. The Parents and child's possible conditions. The mother could have been raped, and you are forcing this (possible) 14 year old girl have her rapist's child? The parents may not be able to economically afford a child. What happens if abortion isn't legal is either, and the child isn't wanted is a multiple choice answer. A. The woman goes to a back-alley doctor gets an abortion, than gets an infection later. B. The child is born and killed when alive or "thrown away", ever heard of the term prom-night dumpster baby? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe a person doesn't want to adopt the baby? How would you like it if 20 years later your child walks up and says "Hi dad" or "Hi mom".
Incidentally, the reason blacks are no longer the largest minority is largely due to abortion. The rates of abortion among the black population are frankly ridiculous.
Given you have about as much authority to say what is and isn't human life as me, better say it is just to be on the safe side. Way to out of context. Way to off-topic. Actually have because George Carlin is hilarious, but he was dead wrong in that abortion video. He just came off as a giant ass, and I mean more so than usual. Well if the world starts dying of overpopulation, then I'll agree about legalizing abortion. Deal? As the world industrializes birth rates will decline and probably peak at around 14 billion or less. We're fine. Of course it can be considered a person. That's why if you forcefully give someone a miscarriage you're not tried with "destruction of property". It's a human being. Ya, but if we're eating soylent green it's time to make some cuts. Old people weren't going anywhere anyway. And if you get my drift, no, I'm not being serious. Actually this is a pretty stupid thing to argue. It seems pretty cruel to decide someone lives and someone dies based on how many people love them. And it seems silly and inefficient when the world is, in this theoretical realm, dying and in need of the most resourceful and useful people at its disposal. If I said something moderate what would there be to argue about?
Neither you or me are the ones to decide on the laws regarding abortion, so that's completely irrelevant anyway. Notice how my point still stands. Not in the slightest. Seeing as you have shown in other threads that you seem to want to dictate the way people act and speak by locking them up. Telling people what to do with their own bodies and deciding their fate with the excuse that they're not allowed to decide someone's fate is utterly ridiculous. And once again, you're completely missing the point and trying to change the subject. Don't worry, by that time you've probably changed your political views another 15 times. With less than half that, we're already having severe food problems. But, I'm sure you have a grand plan for that. And when does it become a human being? Again, there's that line that needs to be defined. Hey, with you, you never know what's serious and what's not. You're probably going to cry and bitch about how this is soooo off topic, but I distinctly remember you saying the government should lock up and kill people based on what they're saying. But, you know, that's not cruel or whatever. Something that made sense, maybe?
No, I don't notice. No, I want to remove people who are threats to society like violent racists/extremists. This is an entirely different fate. Ya, so is killing someone because it's an inconvenience to you, all the while justifying it because "they're not human". You bring up George Carlin so I tell you about George Carlin. How is that off-topic? If anything you were trying to change the subject. Actually my view on abortion has never changed. I've held this belief my entire life. We've had food problems since the beginning of time. We'll have food problems later. There will be famines now just as there were before. But it's not because we've overpopulated. There's always the, technology will grow in time to meet the needs of the people argument. In fact our agricultural output has been growing forever now, just as the population has in an almost synced manor. When the population stabilizes the agricultural output will continue to grow and grow long after. Thus, far less food problems. It's really quite simple. Conception, as I've said several times. Ok [Not human] [Human] <--------------(Conception)-------------> Before After Assume it's all serious, it'll be easier. That's ridiculous and the fact that you're resulting to such petty insults merely shows the failure of your argument becoming apparent. Then you remembered incorrectly, because I never said that. For the greater good, no, it's not. That sentence simply does not fit with the other one. It doesn't make any sense. Says the person writing in bold. I swear, the bold on this forum is horrendous. I feel like it must all die painfully. For the sake of others and humanity as a whole, I have purged the bold from this post. And it is. Because it would be A-OK to kill someone if they were unimportant? It's not because they could be something, it's because they are something. Conception. You heard it here first folks. The holy grail of life is when your Amish people start building a barn. And then someone magically gets pregnant. We skipped the whole "sex" thing because that's not important to giving birth anyway. So wait, if it's one day before the birth and the baby is basically ok enough to leave the womb and live (with a little medical support), it's not life? It's just some random thing that happens to be almost identical to a baby? People hooked up to IVs are not human. (Also you know babies naturally breast feed for a long time before they get their own food and nutrients, right?) People with respirators are not human. People who are stupid are not human. Eunuchs are not human. People in comas are not human. Basically if you're not a perfectly fit human you're not a human at all. No one says that. The earliest is pretty much always conception or directly before it. It's ok to kill fetuses because they're probably going to be the next Hitler. Your fetus will probably end up starting mass genocide and destruction. Better get to the abortion clinic. Ya, what right do you have to dictate who lives and dies? You never answered it. You just said they're not human and probably the next Hitler. Fair enough. Ya, so the fetus dies because his father was a rapist. I didn't know you were so into making children suffer for their parents actions. It's still human. No one is forcing you to love it or care for it, just to give it a chance. In the future we could eventually develop artificial wombs and you may not even have to do that, just transfer the baby. And why do you assume everyone who's raped is 14? That's silly. Then the fuck are they making babies for? And it's the fetus' fault they're unprepared? That's like saying you should legalize rape because people will just do it anyway. Actually, it's closer to murder. Because it's our fault they're breaking the law? Why don't you just complain about how you got burned a little while committing arson? I'm fine with putting up government funded foster-homes and orphanages for children that the parents don't want/can't care for. It wouldn't be a high price for society if it meant saving people. Ya, people are sick. Yes, and many orphans grow up and live good lives even without parents. It's not a crazy idea. Seriously? You want to justify killing people because 20 years later it might create a little bit of awkward tension?
I'm for abortion, in the first and mid second trimesters. I don't consider them really human up until that point. *shrug*
