Wolf Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Wait, what about fetal health risks? Does that count? That would bring the legitimate abortion number to 6.1%. We also have to figure in poverty. Age, too, should be figured in. 6.3 + 21.3 + 12.2 = 39.8% of abortions can be somewhat justified.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Wait, what about fetal health risks? Does that count? That would bring the legitimate abortion number to 6.1%. We also have to figure in poverty.fetal risk could be acceptable... meaning if the baby would die a horrible death imediately upon birth... but poverty or age?
exatreide Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Your mesure of acceptible is different from many others, you cant force your views apon them, and they cant apon you. Let them do their thing with their body, you do whatever you want with yours.Its simply not your business.
Wolf Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 The government made it its business, people are not allowed to kill other people. The government persecuted Andrea Yates for killing her children, didn't it?
exatreide Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 The goverment dosnt have a right to tell me if i can and can not peirce my ears, get a tatto on my arse or anything like that. And when I do that I kill cells, whats the difference between that and a abortion? I'm preventing mitosis from happening, im killing future cells and future life! gasp the horror.The Goverment dosn't have the right to tell me to do that, or masterbate which kills tens of thousands of future lifes. They shouldnt have a right to tell a women what do with her fetus.
Wolf Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 You are not killing the cells of another human being, however. A fetus is arguably another human entity. Less than a fraction of a percent of sperm cells ever are used. A fetus, however, becomes a human more often than not. That is the difference. Further, it is now its own entity. It is a developing human being on life support, and should be accorded the rights of other developing human beings on life support.
exatreide Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Well either that or have the number of females who die while having a abortion skyrocket when they go get it done by someone who dosnt know what they are doing.Becouse franky you can never stop abortions from happening, they will alwas happen. Even if they disgust you(Which is find kind of strange) You really cant stop them from happening. So you want more mothers to die from barbaric abortion methods? You can spuew all this moral bullshit, but frankly its not changing anything. a rich man 400 miles away from the mother eating cavier has no more right to tell that women what to do then a dolphin 400 miles out into the sea, you dont know there story you dont know anything about her. SO stop spueing this bullshit you dont know whats best for the child. YOU DON't.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 a rich man 400 miles away from the mother eating cavier has no more right to tell that women what to do well thats exactly what your doing.... you are saying that poverty is suitable grounds for denying a child the right to live.
Wolf Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 So, wait, you're saying that anything that people will do anyway should be legalized, if its being illegal is harmful? So, hard drugs should be legal? There should be no handguns restrictions, because anyone desperate enough to want a handgun is going to get one? There should be no laws against stealing, because people who are desperate enough to steal are going to do it anyway?That's quite a dangerous precedent to set. It's like saying, "Well, if we won't do what they want, they'll hurt themselves." That's like a temper tantrum, or a hostage situation. "Do what I say or I'll kill somethign!" I don't think lawmakers will respond well to that.Oh, and we're still not pushing for the outlaw of all abortions, necessary abortions are allowed, and it is the necessary abortions that peopcause desperation.Also, sperm cells and egg cells do not have the potential to become human beings when they are left alone. A fetus, if left alone, will develop into a human being. that's a critical difference.
Khan Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 well thats exactly what your doing.... you are saying that poverty is suitable grounds for denying a child the right to live.
GhostHunter Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 well thats exactly what your doing.... you are saying that poverty is suitable grounds for denying a child the right to live.
Khan Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 But is the fetus her body? That is the question.Well technically it would be, as it would be 50% hers and 50% the fathers, but as it is attached to her she should get the final say.
thomas Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 what was my bullshit about fundamentalists? your statistics proves nothing against that. A fundalmentalist isn't any christian, even ou should know that >:(.
thomas Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Wolf, I didn't call you a fundamentalist or gunwounds or anyone here.If we ban abortion we will go back to this:Women will get abortions whether is is legal or not. An abortion done at a clinic is much much safer than those done in a bathroom.
TMA_1 Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 I ahve to agree with gunwounds here. why is it just "her" body? why dont you include the body of the fetus? this is what steers me away from so many pro choice people. I will listen to them and agree until they make the selfish statement of "this is my body and I will do what I want with it". that kills the entire argument for me.
exatreide Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 well it is ;)So making it completly not legal kills two people thenSo you wana save one life or two? How moral is killing the mother to..Shaaadam!
Wolf Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Just because the fetus is attached to the mother does not necessarily mean that the fetus and the mother are the same entity. The fetus has different DNA and chromosomes than the mother, because it is the result of a mixing of genes. It is not a clone of the mother, nor is it an extension of the mother. It is a separate, developing, dependant human being with different chromosomes and DNA. I mean, isn't that the final test? Do a genetic testing -- like they would in a forensics lab -- on the fetus and the mother, it will reveal that the two people are different.I agree with TMA 100%. The reason I've finally decided to come out and take a stance on this issue is because I've seen statements that have just driven me crazy. The fetus isn't human? The fetus is part of the mother's body? The former is just ludictrous, and the second is so ambiguous that it isn't something we should base law and human life on.And, again, I do not find the "safe abortion" argument convincing. Since I agree that necessary abortions should be legalized -- such as those for rape, poverty, or medical necessity -- women who are desperate enough to try your vaunted "bathroom abortion" will actually have someplace to go. We cannot, however, universally legalize something just because people "will do it anyway." That is an incredibly dangerous precedent. People will circumvent gun laws anyway, so why not get rid of those? People will abuse Medicare anyway, so why not get rid of that? People will steal anyway, so why not create a community grab-bag? Law should not be created under a threat.Or, if you really want to allow abortions, how about you have the government tax the living daylights out of anyone pursuing an unnecessary abortion? Make the abortion cost something that the pursuer of that abortion can afford, if they're not poor or in good health.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 No, its not. If the circumstances dictate the child's death inevitable because lack of economical support (thus leading to deprivation of food, water, shelter, etc) then no child, nor human being for that matter should live those few miserable moments just to have their life cut away and that under the pretenses of severe suffering.hello we live in america.... the problem is that NONE of you are poor and therefore are severely UNFAMILIAR with our welfare program.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 And, again, I do not find the "safe abortion" argument convincing. Since I agree that necessary abortions should be legalized -- such as those for rape, poverty, or medical necessity -- women who are desperate enough to try your vaunted "bathroom abortion" will actually have someplace to go. We cannot, however, universally legalize something just because people "will do it anyway." That is an incredibly dangerous precedent. People will circumvent gun laws anyway, so why not get rid of those? People will abuse Medicare anyway, so why not get rid of that? People will steal anyway, so why not create a community grab-bag? Law should not be created under a threat.exactly.....
Wolf Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Hey... I go outside... sometimes...So, are all poor people in the United States on welfare? If this is true, and if the humanitarian coverage is as extensive as you say, then it would appear that having more children is a benefit to you, rather than a detriment.EDIT: Oh, I heard this interesting story the other day. I'm going to get it wrong, but it goes something like this, "You're a poor, single mother with six children, all are suffering from some medical or genetic ailment. You are pregnant again, would you have an abortion? If yes, congratulations, you just killed Beethoven." Now, I forget the exact circumstances of the mother's destitution, and I forget who the famous person was, but this is more or less how it goes.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 So making it completly not legal kills two people thenSo you wana save one life or two? How moral is killing the mother to..this argument is meaningless because wolfwiz and I have stated that extreme life-threatening cases would be understandable.. no point in two people dying. However this only adds up to 6%...the other 94% is what we are arguing about.... try to stay on track. I know the thread is fast paced.
Khan Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 For you guys who are clueless ... let me fill you in... the more kids you have.. the more welfare checks you get .. the more food stamps you get.. the more vouchers you get.Yeah but that's just because she has to spend more money on her kids. It's not like she would be living it up with her new found wealth. She has more cheques because she has more expenses. It's like people in third world countries who think they'll be better off if they have more kids because they'll have more workers in the family. They fail to realise that they'll be in the same situation just with more people. With that comment you sound just as short sighted.Maybe if you got off of your computer and actually walked around outside you might be able to get a slight clue of wtf i am talking about.Says the guy on the forum obssessed with Emperor. :P
Recommended Posts