coRtALoS said:
I assume that first line, you meant to put Adoption rather than abortion.
Yes, I meant adoption. :rolleyes
coRtALoS said:
Try explaining that to people in third world countries. They're completely impoverished and have no hopes of changing the state of life for them under current situations. Try explaining that to a village of people that live with no clean water. People that have no other choice.
I'm talking about changing policy in the United States, not third world countries.
coRtALoS said:
You seem to be under the impression that no matter what the situation is, it's as easy as making a simple decision.
It is... When you do something that has risks involved you accept the consequences of your actions.
coRtALoS said:
Nothing is simple when it comes to humans. Who are you to judge what another human being is allowed to do?
Considering the United States isn't an anarchy, there will
always be laws limiting your freedoms so they do not infringe on the rights of someone else. Having sex and then aborting the baby is like playing Russian roulette with another person, except instead of aiming the gun at you when it's your turn to pull the trigger you aim it at a random defenseless person.
coRtALoS said:
As for adoption, none of us have any say whatsoever concerning whether someone should be put into a state-run facility, unless you come from one. Until then, wait for mommy and daddy die, and you've lived in one for a majority of your pre-teen/teen years, and THEN you can offer that as an alternative for another human being rather than living in poverty.
You're saying I have no right to decide to "put them in the system," but apparently their biological mother has the right to end their life. It's good to see you have your priorities in order...
amrtin77 said:
not saying he deserves to die.. but abortions can help alot of people and raise the standard of living.
So can rounding up and executing the poor and disabled, but you don't see anyone trying that.
KillThePreppies said:
Eric, who was lucky enough to be adopted by my aunt and uncle soon after going up for adoption, now lives in a psychiatric hospital, in a rubber room, in a straightjacket, because of all the times he's tried to kill himself. He has clinical paranoia. The doctors say he'll never fully recover.
Why does he have this paranioa? Is it genetic? No, my friends, his illness is brought on from the unbelievable psychological stress of knowing you were not brought into this world by parents who truly loved you. It's a biological fact that in the first week a child becomes extremely attached to their mother, and upon learning that she did not want nor love him, he became increasingly depressed. At 13, he was smoking pot. At 14, shooting smack and snorting coke. By 15, LSD had been added to his spectacularly dangerous and expensive daily drug coctail.
Now tell me this: is this a life worth living? He clearly doesnt think so.
Unless you can tell me, without a doubt, that every single person put up through adoption will turn out this way this means nothing. People have been adopted
and lived good lives. I know, it sounds crazy, but it's true.
KillThePreppies said:
Now my respsonse to the ridiculous argument that the reasonable punishment for sexual intercourse is a child: if the punishment for this activity is a child, then we can conclude that we were meant to be gay, because this "punishment" is not vested upon the homosexuals in our society. This obviously cannot mesh with your creed, so that argument is out.
A child is not a "punishment," it is a "consequence," or, in other words, what happens as a result of, which isn't necessarily a negative thing. So, no, you're just changing what I said. And another thing, what is this so-called "creed" of mine against homosexuals? If you can point it out to me I'd be relieved, because my inability to find it is frustrating me.
KillThePreppies said:
Furthermore, Republicans have a nasty habit of citing the Constitution when it suits them and changing it when it doesn't.
This may come as a shock to you, but... BOTH SIDES DO THAT!
KillThePreppies said:
This also states that these rights are bestowed FROM BIRTH. Not from conception, from BIRTH. Q.E.D.
I'm not saying it doesn't say that; I'm saying it needs to be changed. I'm sure you'll agree that a baby is no more alive one hour after birth than he/she was one hour before birth. A line needs to be drawn when a baby is considered alive. And, no, I'm not saying babies are alive from the moment they are concieved, because at that point they're just a bunch of cells, and I do not oppose abortion at this stage. There does become a time, however, when it's brain get's "turned on," and I believe this time is around 10 weeks after conception, and that is why I do not support abortion after that time.
KillThePreppies said:
The next argument you present is that God condemns abortion.
Okay, I get it now, this post is directed at someone else, considering I don't believe in God in any form. I'll just skip this part...
KillThePreppies said:
As for your final argument, on wasted potential, out of the 6 million lives taken every year by abortion, statistically there will be 600 serial killers, over 3 million pro-choice liberals, 600,000 illegal drug users, and half a despot/terrorist leader/general ne'er-do-well. Do you really want that to happen?
So it's okay to kill the 2.9-ish million innocents in order to stop that 3.1-ish million from existing? Wow, your logic is almost as advanced as a two-year-old's. Keep up the good work.
KillThePreppies said:
But she should have the choice. It is not within the rights nor the authority of your religion or even the government to legislate what a person can or cannot do with their body as long as it is not hurting the general public.
Her rights only extend so far as they do not infringe on the rights of another, and I personally believe the baby counts as "another." This is not because of religion (I'm atheist). Obviously the law considers the unborn child to be alive to some degree, since murdering a pregnant woman can net you two murder charges, yet when the mother herself is doing the killing, no one cares.
KillThePreppies said:
People on life support are not truly alive
And yet it's illegal to pull the plug on them... :susp
KillThePreppies said:
I hope you'll think about this and really look at your opinion, because these are some very good points.
No thanks.
The_Raven7 said:
A mother****ing tumor is a living thing with cells foriegn to the carrier, does that mean that we should say "life is precious in any way shape or form" and ban tumor removal surgeory as well?
A tumor lacks the sentience a human has. Nice try, though.
amrtin77 said:
if a woman isnt ready for a child, let her abort the baby. as long as its not super late in the pregnancy..
I guess she shouldn't have had sex if she wasn't ready for a child. *gasp!*
KillThePreppies said:
How about plugging up your bleeding heart long enough to see the social implications of 12 million extra children (10 million American) every year? Stupid people need to stop breeding, but short of mass moronocide, the only alternatives we have are birth control and abortion. Obviously the first choice is preferable, but we cannot have 50 bazzillion unwanted children who arent adopted and become homeless people living in the ghetto learning to kill and hate the rich because in their life no one loved them and they haven't got the neccessary education or social skills to live a healthy life. It's a recipe for anarchy.
* In your first post it was 6 million, but apparently it's 12 now. Which is it?
* Yes, but when the risk of having a child is aparent and abortion suddenly
isn't an option, people will tend to be more responsible with their sex lives. (note: sex ed needs to be improved)
* But of those "50 bazzillion unwanted children" maybe 2% of them will turn out in the way you describe (emphasis on
maybe)
WilliamDell said:
Adoption may be an option and yes there are flaws.
I don't think the majority of these flaws quite amounts to death, though.
WilliamDell said:
One thing I'll say that I base partly from George Carlin about abortion is that many pro-life people and Republicans are hypocrites in that pro-life people will bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors which is anti-life and Republicans are often times for the military and war (example Bush) and making abortion illegal gives them more bodies for troops but the thing is these people will fight for the baby to be born but once it's born they are like "you're on your own," plus the military in itself is not really pro-life in that war takes lives
Generalizations are fun! Because there are extremists on one side of the spectrum (and god forbid we point out that there are extremists on both sides), ALL of them must be extremists, too!
l33t 0n3 said:
If you want to have sex, wear a freaking rubber. If you become pregnant, 99.99% of the time it is your own fault. It's not that hard of a concept to most of the retards out there. If you really don't want to use rubbers, get on birth control and don't take antibiotics.. People in this world act and then complain about and avoid the concequences. You had sex with out a rubber, or took antibitoics while on birth control. Don't kill a freaking baby over it; it's your own damned fault.
Well said.
