Originally Posted by Robert T Pooner

not really people who get abortions are amoral scumbags. i mean if you didn't want to get pregnant all you gotta do is go to the planned parenthood and get a day after pill. it works like up to a week after. i hate poeple who have them.

That's a very well forumulated argument.

Syke!

It's not that simple. Now strain that grey matter in your skull and try to actually debate.

Originally Posted by NiceGuy

That's a very well forumulated argument.

Syke!

It's not that simple. Now strain that grey matter in your skull and try to actually debate.

what more is there? don't be a whore if you don't wanna get pregnant, and if by some chance you get raped it's not like it's difficult to find the number to call to get the "stop me from getting pregnant" pill. you just like to overcomplicate things and it's not needed.

Originally Posted by boonior

Yaaawwn. First, the mother is addicted to crack not the baby (how the hell can you say that). Sure, there may be errors in the baby, but does not conclude that the baby is a "crack head". Secondly, you cannot determine a person's future, whether that person is going to be homeless or not. Maybe that baby could possibly be a great/successful person. You cannot generalize that baby's outcome of his/her life.

Uh, do you know ANYTHING about biology? Why do you think mother's aren't supposed to drink alcohol while they're pregnant? Because it get's into their blood, and consequently, it gets into the babies blood - thus damaging the developing organs (mostly, the brain). The same goes for anything the mother ingests - when the mother eats, it passes into the bloodstream via the small intestine where it then goes into her blood, and then into the babies blood so the baby has food for development. If the mother has crack in her system, the baby will too. It is certainly possible (actually, it happens all the time) for a baby to be born addicted to crack, or any controlled substance.

No. The situation of a lady getting raped and pregnant is less than f..king 3%(Do your research). You need to look at the generalization of why woman have abortion. The main reason is people being careless about sex. Not putting a condom on, birth control pills, poor decision with the opposite sex. Because of that, they don't take responsible for their own actions. So, they raise up dumb excuses to kill there baby; which makes them selfish. The best solution, is to have the baby and adopt it. Why take a life? When you can give a life?

Where is your source on that 3%? Again, your lack of biological knowledge is holding you back. MANY first term abortions are because there is something wrong with the baby's development; but I fully conceed that there are abortions by people who just aren't ready to have a kid. Is that wrong? No. Would YOU want to be born into a homeless family? Would YOU want to be born with half a brain because your mother was using drugs while you were in the womb? I'd bet not.

Also, what's funny about what you said. You make a stupid point why we should kill it. This could also apply to Handicap people. They're disabled, can't really support themselves or whatever. I guess we should kill them too. Or the blind, the paralyzed, people missing body parts whatever! You make a stupid example which could apply to everything. You sir are not logical, but confused.

Again, your inability to comprehend what you read is putting you at a disadvantage. I simply stated that aborted tissue can be aborted because it doesn't have a brain, and consequently isn't any more aware of itself than a severed hand or foot. The Disabled, blind and paralyzed have brains and are self aware. They can feel pain, while aborted tissue cannot - there are no functioning neurons, and no brain to process any signal even if they were functioning. It has no thought, and feels no pain.

Wow! War and Abortion are two completely different things! War is something you do to fight for your country and that involves killing people. Abortion involves a unborn child and a mother killing her unborn child. Obviously, you don't understand the two. War and Abortion are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! If your a Democrat or Liberal (both are the same) you couldn't see the difference. This is what makes me laugh. You can't see the difference, but yet you still believe that they are in comparison, and still call me a hipocrite. Get your stuff right buddy.

Your right, war and abortion are two completely different things, but YOU said that god is the only person who should EVER take a life:

Originally Posted by boonior

We make life, we have no business shortening what we have started.

So, depending on the circumstance, you advocate the premature termination of human life, right? Here's what abortion and war have in common, according to you:

1)People die in war
2)People are killed by abortions

How can you advocate killing in one instance and not the other? If human life is so precious, why is it only okay to kill some of the time? You ARE contradicting yourself, whether you like it or not.

Have you've ever read the Declaration of Independence? Do you know the importance of it? Do you know why it's soo symbolic to this nation? The Declaration of Independence applies to Abortion in this way. IT GIVES THE RIGHT FOR EVERYONE TO LIVE AND BLAH BLAH BLAH, which opposes abortion, because it doesn't give the baby the right to live. Also, I know that the Declaration of Independence says nothing abortion (that is very obvious), but it lays down the rights to human beings; which explains why abortion should be abolished. It doesn't the allow the baby the right to live! Didn't you understand the analogy I was pointing out!? Do you not understand that? At least something? I shouldn't have to re-explain myself any further.

Again, you COMPLETELY ignore what I said earlier. There is a difference between a human being and human tissue. I understood your analogy, it just sucked and was barely tolerable to even read. You've missed my point 5 times now, and haven't even adressed it once. I shouldn't have to re-explain myself.

PS: Either way, I'm not going to convince you or others, that abortion is wrong. Obviously, everyone is going to be for it or against it. We could argue everday, but not resolve anything. Apparently, you or others do not understand the importance of life. Have you seen what they do in the process of abortion? It's not killing, it's strictly murder. Do tell me it sickens you, if it doesn't. You have no soul.

I understand the importance of life, and fully appreciate it. Your lack of a background in biology has left you so far behind in this argument you can't even understand what your arguing against. Do you fully understand what it means when a baby is born addicted to crack? If you did, we wouldn't be having this arguement.

Once again, I could spend everday arguing with over and over. Honestly, it's making my fingers hurt from typing. You still say that babies can be born addicted to crack? Well, I found an interesting paragraph from an article:
The term "crack addicted baby" is no less defensible. Addiction is a technical term that refers to compulsive behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By definition, babies cannot be "addicted" to crack or anything else.

You asked if I would mind being born into a homeless family. The obvious answer would be No. Would I like to live Yes. If I asked you I'm sure you would say No.

You still say that the tissue is not a human being. Not developed hands, feets, brain and blah blah blah. Your wrong, it's still a human being. It's in the process of developing itself into a human. You basically say as long as it doesn't feel pain or able to think or whatever, it's basically dead and not human. No, you are wrong again. I understand what you're trying say, but a person is a person, despite it's certain conditions.

You mentioned about me saying God is the only person who should take life. I said sometimes I question myself that perhaps God knows best when to take a life; it's a figure of speech.

Again with the War and Abortion, you don't understand the difference and you say I'm for life even though I support the war (which involves people dying); which makes me a hyprocite. I dont' know how you cannot see how they are unlike, even though you say you do, but well don't. I stand for Americans, not the enemy in war. Their is difference between life in war and in abortion. You said if life is so precious, why is it okay to kill some of the time. Hmmm...let me think...it's war? War, people die everyday, but the cause is different and it involves different people. Whereas, abortion involves babies and babies are the most innocent and defensless beings on earth. You come up with an excuse to call me hyprocite, but sadly, you can't seem to realize it.

I did address myself about the Declaration of Independence and Abortion. Once again, the D.O.I was established to of course give America it's Independence from British rule. And also, it declared that in the intro, that all men are created equal...endowed by their Creator...among these are the right to Life. The D.O.I is one of the reason's why America stands still, and how every American is an equal. This opposes abortion, because abortion doesn't give the unborn a right to life and an equal. Instead, it rejects the significance of that being and blows off the D.O.I. How can this be a sucky analogy? When it lucidly plays into the lives of every person, also meaning the unborn? Forgetting the meaning of D.O.I is wrong and is well against abortion.

Well, I enjoyed talking to you, but this agrument will not further anything and will just be a knot. You say you understand the importance of life, but how can you say that? When you don't support the life of a baby? But wait, it's not fully developed. No, either way it's still a person and deserves to live. Besides, you don't even know what abortion is like. So how can you speak for them? I know personally, I've seen, heard and endured a situation like this before.

Disagree, that baby could have lived.

Originally Posted by boonior

You still say that the tissue is not a human being. Not developed hands, feets, brain and blah blah blah. Your wrong, it's still a human being. It's in the process of developing itself into a human. You basically say as long as it doesn't feel pain or able to think or whatever, it's basically dead and not human. No, you are wrong again. I understand what you're trying say, but a person is a person, despite it's certain conditions.

Let's say there's a 20 ton weight above your head. It has the potential (gravitational potential... tehehehhe I'm a nerd) to crush you. If there is some sort of supporting structure around it to prevent it from falling, it wouldn't fall. If there isn't, it will fall, crushing you. The builders can't be sued untill the weight reaches the level of your head, so as long as there's a device to catch it before then, no one should care.

As far as that analogy goes, it was just an excuse to crush stuff

The problem is in finding the point where the group of cells can be rightfully called a human. I haven't heard of much research going into that... Personally, I think if they don't put some effort into finding out when that point is, they shouldn't discuss it at all.

Originally Posted by boonior

Once again, I could spend everday arguing with over and over. Honestly, it's making my fingers hurt from typing. You still say that babies can be born addicted to crack? Well, I found an interesting paragraph from an article:
The term "crack addicted baby" is no less defensible. Addiction is a technical term that refers to compulsive behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By definition, babies cannot be "addicted" to crack or anything else.

Cite the article.

What gives you the right to disagree with thousands of scientists? The AMA, and every other credible organization seems to disagree with you. Tell me, if a baby isn't addicted to crack, why the f..k is it going through withdrawl: http://www.focalpress.com/companions...ack/crack1.htm

You asked if I would mind being born into a homeless family. The obvious answer would be No. Would I like to live Yes. If I asked you I'm sure you would say No.

I wouldn't want to be born with AIDS, Hepatitis, or any other STD. I'd live a horrible and extremely painful life. You have avoided that point twice, why is that?

You still say that the tissue is not a human being. Not developed hands, feets, brain and blah blah blah. Your wrong, it's still a human being. It's in the process of developing itself into a human. You basically say as long as it doesn't feel pain or able to think or whatever, it's basically dead and not human. No, you are wrong again. I understand what you're trying say, but a person is a person, despite it's certain conditions.

I'm not wrong - it's human tissue, not a human being. Are you calling the Supreme Court a bunch of idiots? They had this same dicussion a few decades ago. Billions of dollars and thousands of the country's greatest minds were pulled together to discuss this, and it was decided that human tissue and human beings were, in fact, two different things.

You mentioned about me saying God is the only person who should take life. I said sometimes I question myself that perhaps God knows best when to take a life; it's a figure of speech.

What? You don't think god is all-knowing? Interesting...

It might be a figure of speech, but I don't think your god would like you questioning it's decisions...

Again with the War and Abortion, you don't understand the difference and you say I'm for life even though I support the war (which involves people dying); which makes me a hyprocite. I dont' know how you cannot see how they are unlike, even though you say you do, but well don't. I stand for Americans, not the enemy in war. Their is difference between life in war and in abortion. You said if life is so precious, why is it okay to kill some of the time. Hmmm...let me think...it's war? War, people die everyday, but the cause is different and it involves different people. Whereas, abortion involves babies and babies are the most innocent and defensless beings on earth. You come up with an excuse to call me hyprocite, but sadly, you can't seem to realize it.

Just because it's war doesn't mean it's okay to kill. There are other options besides war. The Iraq war, in particular, was full of many other options - they were just ignored. But that's an issue not for this thread.

I DO see how they are unlike - I even said so. I just pointed out the fact that you said humans never had the right to prematurely end human life, and then you contradicted yourself by saying it's okay to kill - that's all.

I did address myself about the Declaration of Independence and Abortion. Once again, the D.O.I was established to of course give America it's Independence from British rule. And also, it declared that in the intro, that all men are created equal...endowed by their Creator...among these are the right to Life. The D.O.I is one of the reason's why America stands still, and how every American is an equal. This opposes abortion, because abortion doesn't give the unborn a right to life and an equal. Instead, it rejects the significance of that being and blows off the D.O.I. How can this be a sucky analogy? When it lucidly plays into the lives of every person, also meaning the unborn? Forgetting the meaning of D.O.I is wrong and is well against abortion.

It's a bad analogy because the people who wrote it owned slaves, and killed them for disobedience. The rights they spoke of only applied to a select few.

Well, I enjoyed talking to you, but this agrument will not further anything and will just be a knot. You say you understand the importance of life, but how can you say that? When you don't support the life of a baby? But wait, it's not fully developed. No, either way it's still a person and deserves to live. Besides, you don't even know what abortion is like. So how can you speak for them? I know personally, I've seen, heard and endured a situation like this before.

What situation have you endured before? You saw an abortion firsthand? Interesting, but that doesn't make you an expert on it.

I DO understand the importance of life. I would not condemn a baby to a horrible and extremely painful life. What kind of a person would do that? What kind of a person would force someone to be born with AIDS?

For TooMuchButtHair

I'm not going to argue, re-state myself or provide any other information. This topic is viewed controversial sometimes and is a no-winner (of course I'd say I'm right). Everyone has a different point of view in Abortion and there are multiple reasons to every side. I've listed a couple of my views and vice versa. You disagree with them and instead of actually answering them. You create an excuse, ex: The D.O.I. You mentioned the founders owned slaves and blah blah blah. Well of course they did, almost every White person did in that time. But that does not make them a terrible person. It was a common thing back then, but the importance is that they created a document (perhaps the most important of all American documents) that established rights to every person, right to Life..., also to protect the people and so forth; which still applies to today, well not in abortion. This is one of the most important reasons why we should abolish abortion. If you understood it, then we wouldn't further this topic. I respect your thoughts and expression for abortion. Sadly, we can contemplate everday and still not resolve to one solution.

its murder - pure and simple

I hope that all of the people saying that they are against abortion are also vegetarians. A fetus is about as autonomous as an animal, so if you're against abortion, you should be against killing animals too.

I agree 100% with Guernica.