The Abortion Thread (now with nifty rules!)

[Undead Cheese]

The last thread was closed because of an excessive desire in people to repeat some of their arguments that had already been refuted and/or otherwise addressed. In order to prevent that this time around, though, I will ask that people ignore anyone that posts arguments that have already been addressed and report their posts for deletion. This is a new thread, though, so it will start with a clean slate (within reason)! I'll begin this thread by addressing some of the points lizardbreath left us off with (though now voided).

-Alright then I have a question for you then. If you state that the constitution forbids discrimination based on age or physical characteristics. Then allow me to officially own this thing Undead cheese wrote. When a baby is born it is stated on the birth certificate that it was born on Such & such date and Such & such time. From then on all people consider that baby to day 1+ however many days/weeks/months old. This method of telling age has been used since the dawn of time. So People officially recognize a baby's age once it comes out of the women. We don't just site there and tack on the extra 9 months that the fetus was in the women developing do we?

It is impossible to know the exact moment of conception; however, it is possible to record the exact moment of birth, so it is a more accurate moment in time to base the "age" of something. This doesn't address the point that I had originally made, though.

- Really? Do you consider a leg in a women a human? or how about an ear? Is that a full human? No. That is the silliest argument yet.

Just because you don't understand my argument doesn't make it silly. I've clearly stated that a fetus is a human because it is both genetically human and a part of the human life cycle.

embryo -> fetus -> infant -> child -> adolescent -> adult

At what point do you see "leg" or "ear" in this process? If you do, see a doctor. If you don't, then you're altering my argument and then attacking the altered form, but not the original argument itself. This is a logical fallacy.

- If a mother doesn't want the child or does not feel that she will be able to take care of it properly she should be able to terminate the pregnancy. In the constitution it states that everybody should be given the opprottunity to pursue life/liberty/ happiness. If the government forces a women to have a child; and because this child is born she is forced into poverty because the person she had the baby with decided not to stick around. What then? You have just deprived the women of the liberty to choose her own happiness.

I see that you're implying two things here.

1. Adoption isn't a possibility
2. The government forced the woman to have sex

Since neither of these are true, I don't see where you are coming from.

-This is a special case scenario from which I do not know which choice I would make if I was the mother. Grant it they both have brains and the ability to think; but one cannot clearly live on it's own due to the fact that it doesn't have a liver. I believe this is the parents choice, not the courts.

I didn't say anything about the parents' choice. I said would it be Bob's right to terminate Steve's life solely for his comfort?

To Tipsy: Everything Undead Cheese wrote is not fact; just because he presents an argument that is opposite of what we writed doesn't mean that it is 100% full proof. Though you may agree with him on this issue; that doesn't mean that others cannot come in here and give their own 2 cents on the issue.

But nothing that I said was incorrect.

-The United States particularly mentioned that everybody has a right to privacy within thier own homes and with their own bodies. Setting a law against abortion would break down the privacy that a women is entitled too.

A mother gives birth, in the privacy of her own home, and kills the baby. Are you saying this should be legal? (the only thing that is different in this scenario from abortion is the age of the human in question)

-Since the United States did not grant the governments right to decided whether or not a women should have an abortion. I believe we should leave this right to the people which is stated clearly in ammendment 10.

Or to the states.

- In the beggining of this ammendment it clearly states that all persons being >>>>BORN<<<< or naturalized in the United states are entitled to life, liberty, or property. Not the Un-Born.

Definition of born:Brought into life by birth.

Let's assume you're right for a moment. By your argument, a fetus is not a citizen of the United States. Congratulations! You've just helped your argument by ... uhh ... wait, you haven't. Does this mean it's open season on the border? Do you seriously mean to tell me that I can pull out my lawn chair and a shotgun and kill illegal immigrants?

Obviously Tipsy missed the fine supreme court case known as Roe V Wade where the supreme court agreed with you ONEELITEMOFO. Tipsy seems to think that case never exsisted or something.

Obviously you don't know anything about the case, because Tipsy was actually quoting the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade, and now you're sitting here saying he's never heard of the case? Maybe you haven't.


REMEMBER: This is a new thread, so it will start with a clean slate, but any arguments that are repeated within this thread will be ignored and reported accordingly.

 

[Lizardbreath]

The last thread was closed because of an excessive desire in people to repeat some of their arguments that had already been refuted and/or otherwise addressed. In order to prevent that this time around, though, I will ask that people ignore anyone that posts arguments that have already been addressed and report their posts for deletion. This is a new thread, though, so it will start with a clean slate (within reason)! I'll begin this thread by addressing some of the points lizardbreath left us off with (though now voided).


It is impossible to know the exact moment of conception; however, it is possible to record the exact moment of birth, so it is a more accurate moment in time to base the "age" of something. This doesn't address the point that I had originally made, though.

-Your stating something has legal protection but is not Legally recognized by the U.S government. Interesting....Did I miss something?


Just because you don't understand my argument doesn't make it silly. I've clearly stated that a fetus is a human because it is both genetically human and a part of the human life cycle.

embryo -> fetus -> infant -> child -> adolescent -> adult

During this stage it develops the things which make it a full human being. I personally believe it has no rights until it has eyes/ears/nose/legs/arms/brain/heart...etc. I also, believe in a limit to when abortions can be performed. I have always been in favor of a full ban on third trimester abortions and mid-way throught the second trimester abortions (unless harmful to the mother). In the beggining though i see no problem with it.

At what point do you see "leg" or "ear" in this process? If you do, see a doctor. If you don't, then you're altering my argument and then attacking the altered form, but not the original argument itself. This is a logical fallacy.

-Your stating that a fetus; in itself, is a gradual part of the human growth process. I see no human being in the first trimester. Therefore I see it as having no rights.


I see that you're implying two things here.

1. Adoption isn't a possibility
-Of course adoption is a possibility; but what is forcing a women to put up the unwanted child up for adoption? What if she keeps it and then proceeds to take care of the unwanted child. There are obvious openings here for psychological/physical abuse. Which all could have been avoided if she had just been able to abort the fetus in the first trimester.


2. The government forced the woman to have sex
-The Government didn't force them to have sex. Where did you see that in the previous argument? I am simply stating that the government has no right to encroach on the privacy of the right for a women to terminate her pregnancy.

Since neither of these are true, I don't see where you are coming from.
-Obviously, Since you made both cases up.


I didn't say anything about the parents' choice. I said would it be Bob's right to terminate Steve's life solely for his comfort?

-If Bob is the brother than no, he doesn't...because they would be of the same age and this decision would most likely take place shortly after they are born. Again, though; it's a special case scenario which I believe the parents have the decision to make...not the child.


But nothing that I said was incorrect.
-They are your own opinions, which I feel to be incorrect. There will always be two sides to an argument Undead Cheese; the one that you agree with won't always be 100% infallable.


A mother gives birth, in the privacy of her own home, and kills the baby. Are you saying this should be legal? (the only thing that is different in this scenario from abortion is the age of the human in question)

-No. Because the moment the baby is born it has all the rights of a human being. Did you read the previous argument.


Or to the states.


Let's assume you're right for a moment. By your argument, a fetus is not a citizen of the United States. Congratulations! You've just helped your argument by ... uhh ... wait, you haven't. Does this mean it's open season on the border? Do you seriously mean to tell me that I can pull out my lawn chair and a shotgun and kill illegal immigrants?

-No. There is a big difference from killing living/walking/breathing/productive human beings and a little ball in a women's womb. BIG DIFFERENCE THERE. Also, you can have fun trying to explain that in an international court.

ten character limit.

 

[Lights]

"a little ball in a women's womb"

Are you serious?


Lizard, your ENTIRE argument is based off the assumption we as human beings should only have rights once we have, to quote you, a nose - which a fetus may or may not have developed yet. To be fair, Cheese's (and mine) is based off the assumption (actually, the fact, but we'll talk about that later) that a fetus is a human being, albeit in the early stages of development, and should be covered by international human rights. Am I correct so far? (*Note: Before you get excited, I understand you are not limiting human rights to if a person has a nose or not, but you are limiting it to physical features and the reaching of a certain stage of development.)

So that's the problem. Unfortunately, your stance is weak. You see, physical features, whether it be a nose or a lung, is not what makes us human beings. It doesn't matter if a person has two noses, no nose, or a half of a nose, that person is still a human being. It doesn't matter if that person has half a brain or one leg. Physical features, whether fully developed, in developement, or totally left out of developement has no relevance to "human being" status.

How are we human beings, then, if not by the fact we all (most) have two arms and two legs? Genetics. Our genes is what makes us what we are. The stage of our lives is not important. A weak, 80 year old man is just as human as a 3 month toddler, which is just as human as a 12 week fetus. Do they all look the same? No, a baby is much smaller and much less developed than a man, and a fetus is even less, but genetically they are the same, and that MUST be the basis for law. Not ideas of noses or legs, those are just the affects of the more important factor - genetics. We aren't considered a genetic human being because we have two legs, we have two legs because we are a genetic human being. This is why a fetus MUST be considered a human being, even if it's physical features are not fully developed, because it IS a human being.



I will let Cheese cover your other points, since this took long enough as it is. >_>

 

[Lizardbreath]

"a little ball in a women's womb"

Are you serious?

-Yes I'm serious. The fetus doesn't even take on even remote human form until about the 7th week. Even then it is barely developed. It's not like it can live outside the body on it's own @ this time.

Secondly, the government has never in history recognized the fetus as having rights. Never. So stating that it has rights is incorrect.


Lizard, your ENTIRE argument is based off the assumption we as human beings should only have rights once we have, to quote you, a nose - which a fetus may or may not have developed yet. To be fair, Cheese's (and mine) is based off the assumption (actually, the fact, but we'll talk about that later) that a fetus is a human being, albeit in the early stages of development, and should be covered by international human rights. Am I correct so far? (*Note: Before you get excited, I understand you are not limiting human rights to if a person has a nose or not, but you are limiting it to physical features and the reaching of a certain stage of development.)

So that's the problem. Unfortunately, your stance is weak. You see, physical features, whether it be a nose or a lung, is not what makes us human beings. It doesn't matter if a person has two noses, no nose, or a half of a nose, that person is still a human being. It doesn't matter if that person has half a brain or one leg. Physical features, whether fully developed, in developement, or totally left out of developement has no relevance to "human being" status.

How are we human beings, then, if not by the fact we all (most) have two arms and two legs? Genetics. Our genes is what makes us what we are. The stage of our lives is not important. A weak, 80 year old man is just as human as a 3 month toddler, which is just as human as a 12 week fetus. Do they all look the same? No, a baby is much smaller and much less developed than a man, and a fetus is even less, but genetically they are the same, and that MUST be the basis for law. Not ideas of noses or legs, those are just the affects of the more important factor - genetics. We aren't considered a genetic human being because we have two legs, we have two legs because we are a genetic human being. This is why a fetus MUST be considered a human being, even if it's physical features are not fully developed, because it IS a human being.



I will let Cheese cover your other points, since this took long enough as it is. >_>

afdfdafdsdfafds

 

[Tipsy]

-Your stating something has legal protection but is not Legally recognized by the U.S government. Interesting....Did I miss something?

Perhaps movements or equal rights by various minorities over the history or the United States? If you aren't recognized to have a specific right that doesn't mean you shouldn't have it. Though if you disagree, and the court system disagrees, I am going to out and buy me some African Americans.

During this stage it develops the things which make it a full human being. I personally believe it has no rights until it has eyes/ears/nose/legs/arms/brain/heart...etc. I also, believe in a limit to when abortions can be performed. I have always been in favor of a full ban on third trimester abortions and mid-way throught the second trimester abortions (unless harmful to the mother). In the beggining though i see no problem with it.

"Eyes, ears, a nose, legs, arms, a brain, or even a heart do not make you human. These are physical characteristics, which as has been stated, it is illegal to discriminate by. The fact is, you are made a human by genetics.

-Your stating that a fetus; in itself, is a gradual part of the human growth process. I see no human being in the first trimester. Therefore I see it as having no rights.

If you look purely by physical characteristics, and discriminate by them, you may not see it, but if you look at what the baby truely is (the genetics of it), you will see a human.

-Of course adoption is a possibility; but what is forcing a women to put up the unwanted child up for adoption? What if she keeps it and then proceeds to take care of the unwanted child. There are obvious openings here for psychological/physical abuse. Which all could have been avoided if she had just been able to abort the fetus in the first trimester.

The right to life legally trumps this. You are stating problems which could and should (along with many other woe's of society) be fixed by public programs.

-The Government didn't force them to have sex. Where did you see that in the previous argument? I am simply stating that the government has no right to encroach on the privacy of the right for a women to terminate her pregnancy.

The govenment has a right and a responsibility to protect all of the human beings within its' juridstiction - this includes citizens, people who are legally here, and people who are illegally here.

-If Bob is the brother than no, he doesn't...because they would be of the same age and this decision would most likely take place shortly after they are born. Again, though; it's a special case scenario which I believe the parents have the decision to make...not the child.

Take the two brothers as two people who are legally adults and respond to the situation.

-They are your own opinions, which I feel to be incorrect. There will always be two sides to an argument Undead Cheese; the one that you agree with won't always be 100% infallable.

There are two sides of an argument here. One that is right (Undead's), and one that is wrong (Yours).

-No. Because the moment the baby is born it has all the rights of a human being. Did you read the previous argument.

So it only has rights the second it is born? If that is so, why did you say "I have always been in favor of a full ban on third trimester abortions and mid-way throught the second trimester abortions (unless harmful to the mother). In the beggining though i see no problem with it." These two statements don't work together - if it only has rights after it is born, then what is wrong with third trimester and mid-way through the second trimester (unless harmful to the mother)?

As to respond to the actual quote, this is would once again be discriminating based on physical characteristics (if you are using the same argument as earlier in your post) and is covered above.

-No. There is a big difference from killing living/walking/breathing/productive human beings and a little ball in a women's womb. BIG DIFFERENCE THERE. Also, you can have fun trying to explain that in an international court.

If a fetus has human rights, it is illegal to kill it (this of course relies for either side on whether a fetus is a human or not, so any point on this issue really is mute until the issue of whether a fetus is a human or not is resolved).

 

[Zerglite]

blah blah blah, who cares, they are just parasites living off of their mothers, nonproductive, ignorant, worthless masses of cells.

untill they are born, then they cry, shit, and scream.

Moderator note:

If you aren't going to post anything that has even a bit of sense behind it, don't post at all

~Venice

 

[Lizardbreath]

Tipsy....You can't force everybody to believe in what you believe; that's not what our society is about. Also, the supreme court seems to be going against Undead's/your/Light's argument. If you don't believe me...look up Roe Vs. Wade where they voted in favor of abortion. KK thx Bye.

 

[Tipsy]

Tipsy....You can't force everybody to believe in what you believe; that's not what our society is about.

So you're saying if people don't agree with science because it makes their life easier the rest of society should too? If you say a fetus is not a human it is clearly disregarding the fact that our understanding of the genetics of a human throughout its' lifespan stays the same - from conception to birth, from birth to adolescence, and so forth until the end of their life. It might just be me, but it would be nice if science were applied to our legal system.

Also, the supreme court seems to be going against Undead's/your/Light's argument.

On the contrary, the Supreme Court never addressed the argument that Undead, Lights, and myself are presenting. Here are some key words for you. Here is a section of the majority opinion (as in the overall opinion by the people who voted in favor of abortion) for the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade (as in the case you keep telling me to look up).

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Technology and the understanding of our biology has improved vastly since 1973. One clear example of this would just be looking at the Human Genome Project. The Supreme Court never addressed the argument Lights, Undead, and myself are presenting.

If you don't believe me...look up Roe Vs. Wade where they voted in favor of abortion.

Just quoted the majority opinion from Roe v. Wade for you.

 

[Lights]

I am going to try very hard to not personally attack anyone nor repeat old arguments, but I really need to understand his thought process.

Tipsy....You can't force everybody to believe in what you believe; that's not what our society is about.

Now, I am not sure if you realize this or not, but this isn't 'forcing everybody to believe,' this is a "discussion" and an attempt at a "debate." Naturally we will present our case and try to disprove yours, that's the nature of "debates." One party seeks to prove his as the better stance and thus win the debate. Make sense?

Also, the supreme court seems to be going against Undead's/your/Light's argument. If you don't believe me...look up Roe Vs. Wade where they voted in favor of abortion. KK thx Bye.

I have seen you post a line very similar to this quite a few times before. First of all, as Tipsy has explained, the Supreme Court hasn't been faced with this argument. But. Even if they had been faced with this argument 30 years ago.. so what? It wouldn't be the first time a mistake has been made in our government (LAWL!), and who could say nothing new has developed since? Are you just going to say, "Well, 30 years ago they said this, so I am not going to accept any new arguments or evidences, and am going to continue blindly accepting their judgement."? Thank the Light not many think as you do, else we would still be living in the Dark Ages.


So, please, instead of saying we are trying to force you to agree with us or ignore our points under the cover of a misunderstanding of Roe v Wade, maybe you could actually defend what you claim to believe? Please?

 

[Lizardbreath]

I am going to try very hard to not personally attack anyone nor repeat old arguments, but I really need to understand his thought process.



Now, I am not sure if you realize this or not, but this isn't 'forcing everybody to believe,' this is a "discussion" and an attempt at a "debate." Naturally we will present our case and try to disprove yours, that's the nature of "debates." One party seeks to prove his as the better stance and thus win the debate. Make sense?



I have seen you post a line very similar to this quite a few times before. First of all, as Tipsy has explained, the Supreme Court hasn't been faced with this argument. But. Even if they had been faced with this argument 30 years ago.. so what? It wouldn't be the first time a mistake has been made in our government (LAWL!), and who could say nothing new has developed since? Are you just going to say, "Well, 30 years ago they said this, so I am not going to accept any new arguments or evidences, and am going to continue blindly accepting their judgement."? Thank the Light not many think as you do, else we would still be living in the Dark Ages.


So, please, instead of saying we are trying to force you to agree with us or ignore our points under the cover of a misunderstanding of Roe v Wade, maybe you could actually defend what you claim to believe? Please?

It's useless with 3 people who don't know hjow to debate.

 

[Undead Cheese]

It's useless with 3 people who don't know hjow to debate.

I only count one.

Seriously, could you please state what you think our argument is? Every time you "refute" one of our points, it seems as though you didn't understand it to begin with, and then you go off telling us to read Roe vs. Wade because of an apparent misconception on your part. So, again, please tell me what you think the bulk of Tipsy's, Lights', and my argument(s) are, because, if you are misunderstanding our argument(s), I feel that we should correct any misunderstanding you may have in order for the discussion to progress smoothly.

 

[betaalpha5]

interesting arguments but this is in my own opinion. since only women can get pregnat and has the ability to get an abortion i feel as a male that i do not have the right to decide if a women should be allowed abortion or not. unless it's the boyfriend or the father i don't see why guys should decide what women can do with their body

 

[Lizardbreath]

Alright. I'm going to drop the constitutional issue because you guys are pulling things out of the constitution that have nothing at all to do with abortion.

I will start yet again with social issues. If the United States of America forces a women to have a baby by not allowing her to have an abortion then the United States of America should pay for every last dime it costs for that women to raise that child. It should be out of the women's hands, and immediately after 1 year be forced to be put up for adoption. Of course; there are people out there who I know of who are way messed up mentally because they were adopted. Adoption is not the way to go; and, yet again you state that it is somehow 100% full proof.

On another account, from whatever thread where you stated that "It's not the government's fault they had sex" When, as we all know; sex can happen because of alot of other things; Rape/ alcoholism/ being high...etc. Should a women be penalized because there was a tiny rip in a condom? No. If a fetus(after 9 months to be a human) is aborted after that kind of incident I see no issue with it. That is why we should never fully ban abortion nor have a constitutional ammendment banning it. After all, it's ultimately the women's decision whether she wants to go through all 9 months of labor. Not your's, Mine, Tipsy's , nor Undead Cheese's.

 

[Tipsy]

Alright. I'm going to drop the constitutional issue because you guys are pulling things out of the constitution that have nothing at all to do with abortion.

Be more specific so I can clear up your misunderstanding with how my argument applies to our laws. Just to throw it out there, if a fetus is a human no social issue can justify the taking away of its' life in most cases.

I will start yet again with social issues. If the United States of America forces a women to have a baby by not allowing her to have an abortion then the United States of America should pay for every last dime it costs for that women to raise that child. It should be out of the women's hands, and immediately after 1 year be forced to be put up for adoption. Of course; there are people out there who I know of who are way messed up mentally because they were adopted. Adoption is not the way to go; and, yet again you state that it is somehow 100% full proof.

This seems like a good argument to implement more public programs to help people and to reform the adoption system. I personally do support creating a bigger government and raising taxes to create a government more capable of helping its' people. However, none of this really applies to the issue at hand. If a fetus is a human no social issue can justify the taking away of its' life in most cases.

With the exception of rape, all of the others can be are the women's fault. You chose to start drinking. You chose to do drugs. To use Undead Cheese's example from the last thread, if you bet $10,000 in Las Vegas and lose, can you choose not to pay? You must take the consequences of your actions. Though all of what you have just said can be ignored and what I have responded with can be ignored as well if a fetus is a human.

As for rape, it is only the second part that applies to it - If a fetus is a human no social issue can justify the taking away of its' life in most cases.

If a fetus(after 9 months to be a human) is aborted after that kind of incident I see no issue with it. That is why we should never fully ban abortion nor have a constitutional ammendment banning it. After all, it's ultimately the women's decision whether she wants to go through all 9 months of labor. Not your's, Mine, Tipsy's , nor Undead Cheese's.

It is only the woman's choice if a fetus isn't a human. If if is, she has no right to harm it.

I hope I put enough emphasis on it, but if I haven't, the point of everything I just said is that we need to decide if a fetus is a human or not first - whether it is or isn't is the key to every single thing you have just said. If it is a human, then the government (which if you consider it a government of the people it would be yours, Undead Cheese's, Light's, and my responsibility) must protect it. If it isn't a human, then there should be no problem with having any abortion at any time in any trimester.

Also, please answer this:

No. Because the moment the baby is born it has all the rights of a human being.

I also, believe in a limit to when abortions can be performed. I have always been in favor of a full ban on third trimester abortions and mid-way throught the second trimester abortions (unless harmful to the mother). In the beggining though i see no problem with it.

So it only has rights the second it is born? If that is so, why did you say "I have always been in favor of a full ban on third trimester abortions and mid-way throught the second trimester abortions (unless harmful to the mother). In the beggining though i see no problem with it." These two statements don't work together - if it only has rights after it is born, then what is wrong with third trimester and mid-way through the second trimester (unless harmful to the mother)?

 

[Lizardbreath]

"So it only has rights the second it is born? If that is so, why did you say "I have always been in favor of a full ban on third trimester abortions and mid-way throught the second trimester abortions (unless harmful to the mother). In the beggining though i see no problem with it." These two statements don't work together - if it only has rights after it is born, then what is wrong with third trimester and mid-way through the second trimester (unless harmful to the mother)?"

-Allow me to explain it to you further. Personally I believe that it is wrong to to have an abortion during the middle of the second trimester on. Now, that is just a personal opinion of mine. But you see I also personally believe that an abortion is none of the governments business; they shouldn't be regulating it nor should they pass laws stating it should be permanently banned. I believe it is a women's right to choose whether or not she has an abortion and nobody else's. There is a huge difference between what I personally believe and what kind of powers I believe we should be giving our federal government. Permanently banning abortions is not what I want to see our government doing in the near future. I believe that is giving the government too much power then it already has.

 

[Snagg]

Are you saying it is the woman's choice to choose whether or not the baby should live?

What if a woman decides to have a child, but when the baby was born, it was deformed. The woman decides to kill it. Is it still 'none of the gov't's business'?

How is a baby when born different than a baby when inside a womb? So different in fact, that you may kill it when it is inside the womb, but not when it is outside the womb?

 

[Lizardbreath]

Are you saying it is the woman's choice to choose whether or not the baby should live?

-No, I am saying that it is a women's choice to decide whether or not she is going to go through with a pregnancy(I mean 9 month period) or not.

What if a woman decides to have a child, but when the baby was born, it was deformed. The woman decides to kill it. Is it still 'none of the gov't's business'?

-Then the women would be charged with murder for killing a born baby. Wanna try a scenario that is in regards to the topic next time?

How is a baby when born different than a baby when inside a womb?

-There is a huge difference to me. Inside a womb the baby is still living off of it's mother. Outside it has legal documentation which protects it. Though I personally believe that a women should decide to have an abortion in the first trimester.

So different in fact, that you may kill it when it is inside the womb, but not when it is outside the womb?
-You aren't getting my argument are you?

dasfafasdadsfsd

 

[Snagg]

Abortion should be an equal crime as killing a born baby. That's my argument.
Just because the baby inside a womb doesn't have legal documentation does not the baby "legal to kill"

Women should be charged with murder also if they intentionally kill the baby if it is inside the womb. A born baby lives off its mother just as much as an unborn baby.

It shouldn't be the woman's choice to kill the baby while it is in the womb. Just like it isn't a choice to kill the baby once they are born. A baby inside the womb does not make it different than if it was outside the womb.

A woman murdering a born baby was part of the topic because currently it is legal to kill a baby inside a womb but illegal to kill a baby outside the womb. Just because the baby does not have legal documents doesn't make it legal to kill.

 

[Aaron7772]

Im too lazy to read through all this, so dont get mad if i repeat somthing.

ABORTION: Abortion is retarded, although i see why some people would wanna do it. My view on abortion is: You shouldn't be able to abort if the baby is over like...1/2 weeks old. After that it starts to develop into a weeny baby human, which would be murder if you aborted it. So i figure, listen to KoRn and watch tv.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Abortion should be an equal crime as killing a born baby. That's my argument.
Just because the baby inside a womb doesn't have legal documentation does not the baby "legal to kill"

Women should be charged with murder also if they intentionally kill the baby if it is inside the womb. A born baby lives off its mother just as much as an unborn baby.

It shouldn't be the woman's choice to kill the baby while it is in the womb. Just like it isn't a choice to kill the baby once they are born. A baby inside the womb does not make it different than if it was outside the womb.

A woman murdering a born baby was part of the topic because currently it is legal to kill a baby inside a womb but illegal to kill a baby outside the womb. Just because the baby does not have legal documents doesn't make it legal to kill.

-But is it your choice whether somebody else should go through the entire 9 month period of pregnancy if they don't want too? No. There is no compensation by the government and adoption has some serious flaws to it.