Abortion

[SheepishWolf]

I personally feel dont do abortion. If you feel you cant take care of it, theres a cool thing called adoption... Give the kid a chance in life.

Adoption... the #1 bullshít answer given by every pro life person I know or have ever heard of. If adoption is so good, why are there thousands of kids waiting to be adopted in every state? Want that to turn to the hundred thousands if abortion is made illegal? Nothing wrong with hundreds of thousands of children having no families and living in some shítty state run center right?

The state centers are not that bad. Wouldn't it be better to live without parents and in a center than to have no chance at life at all? If they're in the center at least when they're older they have a chance to make something of themselves.

What gives you the right to make that call? Why do you get to say that the potential offspring of someone else belongs in a state run shíthole for 20 years?

Wouldn't it be a lot better if these women (most abortions occur in young girls, by young i'm talking like 12-25 or so) who cannot afford and do not have the means to care for a baby, are able to abort it, then years later when they are ready, are able to mother multiple happy children in a happy home?

What gives the mother the right to take away someone elses right to live? If they already have a fertalized egg, living, in her stomach then she shouldn't have the right to abort it - it would be murder which is not only morally incorrect but is illegal. And not all state run place are terrible.

And I don't have the right to make that call. Neither do you. I'm merely stating my opinion on the matter (as are you).

 

[David]

What gives the mother the right to take away someone elses right to live? If they already have a fertalized egg, living, in her stomach then she shouldn't have the right to abort it - it would be murder which is not only morally incorrect but is illegal. And not all state run place are terrible.

And I don't have the right to make that call. Neither do you. I'm merely stating my opinion on the matter (as are you).

You are terribly mistaken as to what constitutes as a "murder". A murder in the legal human context can only occur to a human being. By scientific and legal definitions, a fetus is not a human being, thus it is not considered murder to abort a fetus.

 

[SheepishWolf]

You are terribly mistaken as to what constitutes as a "murder". A murder in the legal human context can only occur to a human being. By scientific and legal definitions, a fetus is not a human being, thus it is not considered murder to abort a fetus.

OK, then let me rephrase that -- it's unethical taking away the chance of life (and the chance to make something out of life) of something that does have human DNA.

If a mother can't kill a two year old child (without going to jail) then I don't see why she should be allowed to do it before it's born (with the exception of if both of the lives are in danger).

Also, earlier I was reading about there are quite a few complications that can occur if you have an abortion (not that there can't be any if you go through with the pregnancy -- but it seems to be the lesser of two evils on that argument). "Blocked fallopian tubes, Weakened cervix, uterine scarring, damage to the woman's reproductive system which may make her unable to conceive in the future". As well as possibly increasing the chances of breast, uterine and cervical cancer (from what I read).

 

[Gimgak]

OK, then let me rephrase that -- it's unethical taking away the chance of life (and the chance to make something out of life) of something that does have human DNA.

Sperm by itself has DNA, as does an egg.

 

[David]

OK, then let me rephrase that -- it's unethical taking away the chance of life (and the chance to make something out of life) of something that does have human DNA.

Sperm by itself has DNA, as does an egg.

Exactly. Does that mean using a condom and disposal of it is unethical and/or illegal?

If a mother can't kill a two year old child (without going to jail) then I don't see why she should be allowed to do it before it's born (with the exception of if both of the lives are in danger).

Again, scientifically and legally, the law doesn't apply to fetuses; only humans. Also, you say "with the exception of if both of the lives are in danger", well, there is always a level of danger in pregnancy. You don't know until it happens (ie. miscarriages, use of forceps, c-section method), so by your circular logic, abortion would be ok.

BTW, I'm not arguing for or against abortion. I'm just reiterating the law which seems to be needed in this debate.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

OK, then let me rephrase that -- it's unethical taking away the chance of life (and the chance to make something out of life) of something that does have human DNA.

Sperm by itself has DNA, as does an egg.

Exactly. Does that mean using a condom and disposal of it is unethical and/or illegal?

Sperm and eggs don't have 42 chromosomes.

 

[Gimgak]

OK, then let me rephrase that -- it's unethical taking away the chance of life (and the chance to make something out of life) of something that does have human DNA.

Sperm by itself has DNA, as does an egg.

Exactly. Does that mean using a condom and disposal of it is unethical and/or illegal?

Sperm and eggs don't have 42 chromosomes.

you mean 46, right?
And normal cells have 46 so what's your point?

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Sperm by itself has DNA, as does an egg.

Exactly. Does that mean using a condom and disposal of it is unethical and/or illegal?

Sperm and eggs don't have 42 chromosomes.

you mean 46, right?
And normal cells have 46 so what's your point?

Fail. Yep, 46. My point is killing an entire mass containing 46 chromosomes is murder.
Sperm and eggs have 23, so they aren't unethical or whatnot...

 

[katy perry is hot]

Fail. Yep, 46. My point is killing an entire mass containing 46 chromosomes is murder.
Sperm and eggs have 23, so they aren't unethical or whatnot...

Legally, no it isn't. And once again, the morning after pill causes the fertilized egg to not be able to attach to the uterine lining.

To anathema:

I'm not saying state run places are terrible. Of course they get food water shelter etc. But the point is, I know people who were adopted. I mentioned the story earlier in this topic - a girl I know got pregnant at age 15 and one of her parents wanted her to get an abortion and the other wanted her to put it up for adoption - she decided to keep it. The girl who i am talking about was adopted. Her reasons were that she didn't want to make her child go through the fact that her parents are not her real parents, and that her real parents don't love her enough to have kept her. Anyway, if abortion is illegal, these state run places will become so filled with babies and kids. Who is going to take care of them? What are we going to do then??

And I don't have the right to make the call. Nor do you. The woman who is carrying the fetus has the right to make the call, and that's it. My position is let the person carrying it decide. Your position is forcing the person carrying it to do what YOU believe is ethical. You aren't even a woman.

And please don't even try to argue about the medical complications of a medically performed abortion. That's just grasping at straws on a whole new level. Honestly just don't even try to argue it because the fact that you think the fetus is in the woman's "stomach" just throws everything you've said so far out the window.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Fail. Yep, 46. My point is killing an entire mass containing 46 chromosomes is murder.
Sperm and eggs have 23, so they aren't unethical or whatnot...

Legally, no it isn't. And once again, the morning after pill causes the fertilized egg to not be able to attach to the uterine lining.

Which is why I consider the morning after pill to be murder as well.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Fail. Yep, 46. My point is killing an entire mass containing 46 chromosomes is murder.
Sperm and eggs have 23, so they aren't unethical or whatnot...

Legally, no it isn't. And once again, the morning after pill causes the fertilized egg to not be able to attach to the uterine lining.

Which is why I consider the morning after pill to be murder as well.

What if you have sex with a girl and she menstruates at the same time and the sperm and the egg meet. Do we have to quickly jam it back in to avoid being murderers?

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Fail. Yep, 46. My point is killing an entire mass containing 46 chromosomes is murder.
Sperm and eggs have 23, so they aren't unethical or whatnot...

Legally, no it isn't. And once again, the morning after pill causes the fertilized egg to not be able to attach to the uterine lining.

Which is why I consider the morning after pill to be murder as well.

What if you have sex with a girl and she menstruates at the same time and the sperm and the egg meet. Do we have to quickly jam it back in to avoid being murderers?

Precisely. :great:

/s
In that case, it is natural, and while it does destroy a human life, it is inevitable. There is nothing that can really be done to stop the fertilized egg and have it attach to the uterine lining. :shrug:

 

[katy perry is hot]

It's not natural because she should have kept her legs closed. Let's punish her by forcing her to carry an unwanted and unloved baby.

 

[Jake]

[youtube]wOR1wUqvJS4[/youtube]

Wow.

(Apparently you have to click the title of the video to see it, so do so.)

 

[katy perry is hot]

As soon as she said "thousands of children" I shut it off. We're not talking about children here. Grow up m'am.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

It's not natural because she should have kept her legs closed. Let's punish her by forcing her to carry an unwanted and unloved baby.

:great: But how are we going to get the fertilized egg back up the vagina, and attached to the uterine lining? Duct tape? Uterine lining tape?

 

[katy perry is hot]

It's not natural because she should have kept her legs closed. Let's punish her by forcing her to carry an unwanted and unloved baby.

:great: But how are we going to get the fertilized egg back up the vagina, and attached to the uterine lining? Duct tape? Uterine lining tape?

Well it's her fault for opening her legs. She killed a life because of what she did. I want her to get the death penalty, because i'm pro life.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

It's not natural because she should have kept her legs closed. Let's punish her by forcing her to carry an unwanted and unloved baby.

:great: But how are we going to get the fertilized egg back up the vagina, and attached to the uterine lining? Duct tape? Uterine lining tape?

Well it's her fault for opening her legs. She killed a life because of what she did. I want her to get the death penalty, because i'm pro life.

Life in prison is sufficient for me :shrug:

 

[katy perry is hot]

It's not natural because she should have kept her legs closed. Let's punish her by forcing her to carry an unwanted and unloved baby.

:great: But how are we going to get the fertilized egg back up the vagina, and attached to the uterine lining? Duct tape? Uterine lining tape?

Well it's her fault for opening her legs. She killed a life because of what she did. I want her to get the death penalty, because i'm pro life.

Life in prison is sufficient for me :shrug:

Well I'm pro life, so I support the death penalty and I'm against universal healthcare.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

It's not natural because she should have kept her legs closed. Let's punish her by forcing her to carry an unwanted and unloved baby.

:great: But how are we going to get the fertilized egg back up the vagina, and attached to the uterine lining? Duct tape? Uterine lining tape?

Well it's her fault for opening her legs. She killed a life because of what she did. I want her to get the death penalty, because i'm pro life.

Life in prison is sufficient for me :shrug:

Well I'm pro life, so I support the death penalty and I'm against universal healthcare.

In that case, how are we going to kill her? Should we stone her? That seems like a good idea.