Simple Question

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak

Originally posted by: theblackbox

Originally posted by: mjuszczak

Originally posted by: theblackbox
being a guy, it's not my choice.

So even if you're involved in the situation, you still feel like you should have no say?

so even if i was involved in the situation, i would happily go along with whatever choice she made, and gladly back her choice.

Right. So if she had the baby and you didn't want it, and she made you pay child support anyway, what's your excuse on that?

i would hope i would be smart enough not to stick my wick in that candle. does the idea of personal responsibility just not matter, anymore? if i am stupid enough to hook up with a girl that thinks that way, then i guess i would probably get what i deserve.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Some men actually believe that their sperm is an integral part of making a baby, and so that baby is rightfully just as much theirs as the woman.

It isn't an issue of deciding to whom the fetus belongs. The issue is that the woman's body belongs to herself, and the freedoms afforded to her and everyone else in the Constitution restrict the state from turning her body into an involuntary incubator.

I realize that you are not necessarily taking the stance you described in your post, however.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: sactoking
I am anti-hypocrisy. So long as killing a pregnant woman is considered double murder or murder and infanticide or whatever, abortion should be illegal.

This is what I was going to post. I don't think you can have it both ways. If killing a pregnant woman is considered a double murder, then abortion shouldn't be allowed because you would be killing a human.

On the other hand, if abortion is allowed, then a murderer who kills a pregnant woman should only be charged with the murder of the woman. After all, the "thing" inside isn't really a person yet, right?

I just don't think you can have it both ways.

This is really logical.

Originally posted by: mjuszczak

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: sactoking
I am anti-hypocrisy. So long as killing a pregnant woman is considered double murder or murder and infanticide or whatever, abortion should be illegal.

This is what I was going to post. I don't think you can have it both ways. If killing a pregnant woman is considered a double murder, then abortion shouldn't be allowed because you would be killing a human.

On the other hand, if abortion is allowed, then a murderer who kills a pregnant woman should only be charged with the murder of the woman. After all, the "thing" inside isn't really a person yet, right?

I just don't think you can have it both ways.

This is really logical.

Actually, many states have provisions for fetuses apart from persons in their murder statutes. It isn't incongruous to charge a third party with murder when he causes the wrongful death of a pregnant woman and her fetus, yet to permit a woman to terminate her own pregnancy.

In other words, the fact that third parties can be convicted of murder for causing the wrongful death of fetus only bolsters the fact that the pregnant woman alone should decide to continue or terminate her own pregnancy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
You forgot Pro-Abortion option (though really pro-choice is pro-abortion).

That's like saying being "pro-freedom-to-vote" means being "pro-nazi."

Thanks for demonstrating again that conservatives often think irrationally.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Some men actually believe that their sperm is an integral part of making a baby, and so that baby is rightfully just as much theirs as the woman.

It isn't an issue of deciding to whom the fetus belongs. The issue is that the woman's body belongs to herself, and the freedoms afforded to her and everyone else in the Constitution restrict the state from turning her body into an involuntary incubator.

I realize that you are not necessarily taking the stance you described in your post, however.

It's not involuntary at all. Do you realize how difficult pregnancy can be? If she doesn't want to be pregnant, she should take the proper precautions or just keep her goddamn legs closed.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: hellokeith
You forgot Pro-Abortion option (though really pro-choice is pro-abortion).

That's like saying being "pro-freedom-to-vote" means being "pro-nazi."

Thanks for demonstrating again that conservatives often think irrationally.

Right. Some folks do automatically assume that Pro-choice means everyone's running out and getting an abortion. I work with a woman who's Pro-choice but she would never have an abortion, herself, in a million years.

 

[JujuFish]

In regards to partial birth, option 2. Otherwise, option 3.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: JujuFish
In regards to partial birth, option 2. Otherwise, option 3.

What is partial birth?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Some men actually believe that their sperm is an integral part of making a baby, and so that baby is rightfully just as much theirs as the woman.

It isn't an issue of deciding to whom the fetus belongs. The issue is that the woman's body belongs to herself, and the freedoms afforded to her and everyone else in the Constitution restrict the state from turning her body into an involuntary incubator.

I realize that you are not necessarily taking the stance you described in your post, however.

It's not involuntary at all. Do you realize how difficult pregnancy can be?

What does the difficulty of pregnancy have to do with the woman's volition? If she doesn't want to be pregnant, then her continued pregnancy is involuntary.

If she doesn't want to be pregnant, she should take the proper precautions or just keep her goddamn legs closed.

What does that have to do with anything? Consent to sex is not consent to becoming and remaining pregnant.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
What does the difficulty of pregnancy have to do with the woman's volition? If she doesn't want to be pregnant, then her continued pregnancy is involuntary.

If you consider all the things involved in procreation, there's quite a few "failsafes" installed to prevent it. Gotta be right time of the month, gotta have high enough sperm count, sperm gotta go up the correct tube, can't get caught, blah blah. If you don't want to be pregnant, it's actually very easy to keep from becoming so.

Therefore, if you're too irresponsible to keep from becoming pregnant when you do not want to be, why should you force your own negative consequences on a defenseless, innocent child? People are absolute monsters.

What does that have to do with anything? Consent to sex is not consent to becoming and remaining pregnant.

See above. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. Blah blah blah, same ol' shit. It doesn't matter how many times or different ways you spin it, if you can't handle pregnancy, child birth, and parenting, don't put yourself in that situation to begin with. Abstain or use protection. If YOU fuck up, don't take it out on the child.

If you want to give the child up for adoption, that's better than killing them.

Just as an example of how twisted and perverted our society is, I love how the U.S. and other countries spent billions to save the life of a fucking killer whale in the 90's but stands behind the decision that parents are allowed to murder their children spearheaded by the heart breaking concept that a child isn't a child until something magically happens to it after it passes through the birth canal.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Nik
If you consider all the things involved in procreation, there's quite a few "failsafes" installed to prevent it. Gotta be right time of the month, gotta have high enough sperm count, sperm gotta go up the correct tube, can't get caught, blah blah. If you don't want to be pregnant, it's actually very easy to keep from becoming so.

Therefore, if you're too irresponsible to keep from becoming pregnant when you do not want to be, why should you force your own negative consequences on a defenseless, innocent child? People are absolute monsters.

Who's talking about children? We're talking about fetuses. Besides, you speak as if pregnancy is something the woman does to herself. Such a belief betrays a woeful ignorance of the actual biology of human reproduction.

In any case, abortion simply restores the status quo ante after the woman becomes pregnant. She owes no duty to the fetus, because nothing she has done could be considered negligent.

What does that have to do with anything? Consent to sex is not consent to becoming and remaining pregnant.

See above. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

This does not refute the fact that consent to sex is not consent to becoming an remaining pregnant. Waivers to fundamental rights like bodily rights must be explicit.

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. Blah blah blah, same ol' shit. It doesn't matter how many times or different ways you spin it, if you can't handle pregnancy, child birth, and parenting, don't put yourself in that situation to begin with. Abstain or use protection. If YOU fuck up, don't take it out on the child.

Having sex isn't "fucking up," as you put it. Neither is getting pregnant. You do not seem to have a very thorough understanding about how negligence, liability and torts work -- let alone waivers to fundamental rights.

You do realize that contraceptives have failure rates, don't you?

If you want to give the child up for adoption, that's better than killing them.

Ok, but this doesn't change the fact that a pregnant woman still retains the right to become unpregnant at her discretion.

Just as an example of how twisted and perverted our society is, I love how the U.S. and other countries spent billions to save the life of a fucking killer whale in the 90's but stands behind the decision that parents are allowed to murder their children spearheaded by the heart breaking concept that a child isn't a child until something magically happens to it after it passes through the birth canal.

It isn't magic, its just a matter of definitions. Bachelors don't "magically" become husbands when they are pronounced so by a justice of the peace, either. The fact is that children are born, fetuses are not.

 

[IGBT]

..it's largely secular progressives and liberals that are flushing their kids down the toilet so keep the plunger handy. wouldn't want to slow production.

 

[Nik]

Ugh, nobody said having sex was fucking up. Becoming pregnant when you do not want to be, putting yourself in the situation where you are choosing to kill a child or give birth, that's fucking up.

I guess I gave ya too much credit in expecting you to pick up on that.

I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of your post. You have a stomach-turning opinion on concept of life. IGBT's right on the money. Abortion is nothing more than a morbid "fix" to the parents being slightly inconvenienced, enabling them to continue going about their self-centered lives without a conscience.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Nik
Ugh, nobody said having sex was fucking up. Becoming pregnant when you do not want to be, putting yourself in the situation where you are choosing to kill a child or give birth, that's fucking up.

You can believe that listening to the radio is "fucking up" for all I care, that doesn't change the facts as I have presented them, and as you are unable to refute.

I guess I gave ya too much credit in expecting you to pick up on that.

Uh-huh, right.

I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of your post. You have a stomach-turning opinion on concept of life. IGBT's right on the money. Abortion is nothing more than a morbid "fix" to the parents being slightly inconvenienced, enabling them to continue going about their self-centered lives without a conscience.

In other words, you cannot refute the facts, so you'd rather run off angrily insulting me for being right.

Ok. Good night.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Nik
Ugh, nobody said having sex was fucking up. Becoming pregnant when you do not want to be, putting yourself in the situation where you are choosing to kill a child or give birth, that's fucking up.

You can believe that listening to the radio is "fucking up" for all I care, that doesn't change the facts as I have presented them, and as you are unable to refute.

I guess I gave ya too much credit in expecting you to pick up on that.

Uh-huh, right.

I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of your post. You have a stomach-turning opinion on concept of life. IGBT's right on the money. Abortion is nothing more than a morbid "fix" to the parents being slightly inconvenienced, enabling them to continue going about their self-centered lives without a conscience.

In other words, you cannot refute the facts, so you'd rather run off angrily insulting me for being right.

Ok. Good night.

Don't kid yourself. Your unwillingness to see my point of view isn't any different than my unwillingness to see your point of view.

I refuse to believe that the point between conception and birth yields nothing more than a leeching bag of cells. You refuse to believe that the point between conception and birth yields a living being that will be born and grow up to be an individual.

It's as simple as that.

Now, as far as me insulting you, screw your balls a little tighter when you jump into a conversation about such a debated topic. Don't even bother being so pedantic that a few insults ruffle your feathers.

Concentrate on the topic at hand: you are justifying mothers killing their own children without conscience.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Nik

Don't kid yourself. Your unwillingness to see my point of view isn't any different than my unwillingness to see your point of view.

I dare say that I have debated this topic at lengths and depths greater than you could probably conceive, so I suspect that your perception of my alleged "unwillingness" is simply a figment of your imagination.

I refuse to believe that the point between conception and birth yields nothing more than a leeching bag of cells.

Great. I don't think anybody has asserted as much, either, so it is peculiar you would deny a claim that no one has made.

You refuse to believe that the point between conception and birth yields a living being that will be born and grow up to be an individual.

I have made no such refusal. You don't read with a significant amount of comprehension, do you?

It's as simple as that.

I'm sure that it is, to you.

Concentrate on the topic at hand: you are justifying mothers killing their own children without conscience.

Nonsense. I repeat: we're talking about fetuses. Children are born. Moreover, I'm not trying to dictate anyone's conscience on the matter at all. I'm simply protecting the freedoms that we already have guaranteed by the Constitution, and that freedom includes the the right to be free from unwelcome occupants in one's body.

 

[DangerAardvark]

I defer any opinions I may have on the matter to Doug Stanhope.

 

[fleabag]

How about we cut to the chase and just ask, are you for killing fetuses and my answer is yes. I also believe in post birth abortion up to the age of 12.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Great. I don't think anybody has asserted as much, either, so it is peculiar you would deny a claim that no one has made.

You believe otherwise? It either IS a human being or it is NOT a human being.

Which is it?

Simply calling it a fetus as opposed to a baby aleviates your guilt when you walk in to get the limbs ripped off and the then-lifeless carcass vacuumed out and thrown away?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: fleabag
I also believe in post birth abortion up to the age of 12.

Haha :laugh:

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: OdiN
I am aganst the murder of innocent life, so you can guess my stance.

pro-Iraq?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: OdiN
I am aganst the murder of innocent life, so you can guess my stance.

pro-Iraq?

This thread just jumped out of the frying pan :laugh:

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: OdiN
I am aganst the murder of innocent life, so you can guess my stance.

pro-Iraq?

There are no innocents in Iraq. I mean if they were innocent, what were they doing in the Axis of Evil? It's not called the Axis of Innocence.

 

[Nik]

:laugh:

omfg I'm going to bed

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Great. I don't think anybody has asserted as much, either, so it is peculiar you would deny a claim that no one has made.

You believe otherwise? It either IS a human being or it is NOT a human being.

Which is it?

It's rather irrelevant, actually. No human being has the right to occupy the body of another without that person's explicit consent.

Incidentally, however, the distinction is between persons and non-persons. Persons, historically, have been defined as "human, born, and alive."

Simply calling it a fetus as opposed to a baby aleviates your guilt when you walk in to get the limbs ripped off and the then-lifeless carcass vacuumed out and thrown away?

No.