# Kansas Governor signs bills restricting abortion



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 13, 2011)

> (Reuters) -Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has signed two anti-abortion bills, including one that bans abortion after 21 weeks based on the view that a fetus can feel pain at that point, officials said Tuesday.
> 
> *"These bills are a reflection of the culture of life that is being embraced all across Kansas," Brownback, a Republican who took office in January, said in a statement. "They represent a mainstream, bipartisan, and common-sense approach to a divisive issue."*
> 
> ...


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...r-signs-bills-restricti-idUSTRE73C58S20110413


----------



## LouDAgreat (Apr 13, 2011)

So much for personal liberties and freedoms the Republicans espouse.


----------



## stream (Apr 13, 2011)

21 weeks is still more liberal than what you get in most European countries... I believe 18 weeks is the norm.

Notarized signature, now that is being annoying...


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 13, 2011)

He could have gone further but this is a good start.


----------



## stream (Apr 13, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> He could have gone further but this is a good start.



Cue the flamefest!


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 13, 2011)

stream said:


> Cue the flamefest!



Unfortunately.

Its too bad most people here are so close minded that people can't have any opinion that differs.


----------



## AlphaRooster (Apr 13, 2011)

Well considering I have seen multiple 26 weekers live and grow up, this seems to be a better step in the right direction.

 My two thoughts on abortion: It should be up to science to determine time that an abortion can be done. Infants get younger every year at the rate they survive normally at younger weeks at birth.
   Still don't think abortion should be paid by gov assistance. I person who's beliefs are against abortion, should have every right not to fund one.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 13, 2011)

The part about the minor needing parents to sign for permission of the girl's abortion is the icky part .....


Is it not already bad enough that they have to notify their parents before this new law?


----------



## VioNi (Apr 13, 2011)

Wow. That's just... all I can say.


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 13, 2011)

I support stem cell research.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 13, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> So much for personal liberties and freedoms the Republicans espouse.



Sadly those were gone long before this.  Republicans talk about small government but all of their policies seem to go in the exact opposite direction.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 13, 2011)

> One of the bills, which Brownback signed into law on Tuesday, will require that a doctor get a parent's notarized signature for girls age 17 or younger who want an abortion. If married, both parents would have to sign.





In other words, stall as long as possible to try and hit that 21 week mark so you can ruin the girls life.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 13, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> So much for personal liberties and freedoms the Republicans espouse.



You can only have your liberties and freedoms as long as they don't run contrary to their magical zombie worshipping book and the voices in their heads.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 13, 2011)

Hey I live by Kansas.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 13, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Hey I live by Kansas!



Hahaha. Just funny.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Apr 13, 2011)

> "These bills are a reflection of the culture of life that is being embraced all across Kansas," Brownback, a Republican who took office in January, said in a statement. "They represent a mainstream, bipartisan, and common-sense approach to a divisive issue."



Fuck you you smarmy cunt.



> One of the bills, which Brownback signed into law on Tuesday, will require that a doctor get a parent's notarized signature for girls age 17 or younger who want an abortion. If married, both parents would have to sign.



He would actually force a seventeen year old to remain pregnant for the nine months if their parents don't like abortion.

On what planet is that common sense?

I kind of want to hit this guy.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 13, 2011)

Rob said:


> He would actually force a seventeen year old to remain pregnant for the nine months if their parents don't like abortion.



Planet Religious Fundamentalism.

But it's not the Muslims, so this fanaticism is ok.


----------



## Zihawk (Apr 13, 2011)

America: Killing babies since Roe v Wade.


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 13, 2011)

What pile of festering shit is this?

Oh well looks like people will just hop the border to another state to get one.



> Unfortunately.
> 
> Its too bad most people here are so close minded that people can't have any opinion that differs.


Oh screw you and this passive aggressive shit.

This just oozes of "they don't agree with me so they're close minded."


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 13, 2011)

Looks like another episode of Liberals Whining is on. Seriously you guys need a new hobby. 

It's not like they took Abortion away and its not like you should be able to perform elective surgery on minors. No one should be shocked by this so quit the bitching.


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 13, 2011)

Looks like another episode of CTK whining about "liberals" is on.

It's not like this isn't some stupid move by the pro life crowd after all.  No one should be shocked by this so quit bitching.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 13, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> Looks like another episode of CTK whining about "liberals" is on.
> 
> It's not like this isn't some stupid move by the pro life crowd after all.  No one should be shocked by this so quit bitching.


I'm not whining, I'm telling you the facts. You don't control every state in the Union you don't make the policy yourself and as someone else already said this is more liberal than most places in Europe.

Sorry that this law requires someone to take fucking responsibility, that seems to be something Liberals can't understand. Meanwhile Republicans can only seem to pin blame anyone who's not them


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 13, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm not whining, I'm telling you the facts. You don't control every state in the Union you don't make the policy yourself and as someone else already said this is more liberal than most places in Europe.
> 
> Sorry that this law requires someone to take fucking responsibility, that seems to be something Liberals can't understand. Meanwhile Republicans can only seem to pin blame anyone who's not them



The issue is that the supreme court ruled that women have the right to have an abortion yet states keep trying to put enough restrictions on abortion to make it effectively illegal.

Its hypocritical when the republicans scream and complain about Obama trying to put "the government between you and your doctor" when states like South Dakota pass laws that force doctors to read women a script when they want an abortion.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 13, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> The issue is that the supreme court ruled that women have the right to have an abortion yet states keep trying to put enough restrictions on abortion to make it effectively illegal.
> 
> Its hypocritical when the republicans scream and complain about Obama trying to put "the government between you and your doctor" when states like South Dakota pass laws that force doctors to read women a script when they want an abortion.


This really isn't enough of a restriction for it to be considered them taking your right away. You have a lot of rights but states make addendum to laws in the constitution to make them more strict or less strict depending. If you take away the states ability to work inside of the constitution you're effectively undoing the balance of power between them. 

And everyone knows the Republicans talk out of their ass. They're for everything that invades privacy, not that I think Abortion is the problem, they're for fucking with gays and the internet and all kinds of other things and they're bitching because someone wants people to be aware how unsafe food is because it invades their privacy.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 13, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This really isn't enough of a restriction for it to be considered them taking your right away. You have a lot of rights but states make addendum to laws in the constitution to make them more strict or less strict depending. If you take away the states ability to work inside of the constitution you're effectively undoing the balance of power between them.



Yeah, that doesn't mean we don't have the right to bitch anytime a state restricts a right.  The conservatives scream at the top of their lungs anytime anyone wants to put in any kind of gun control.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And everyone knows the Republicans talk out of their ass. They're for everything that invades privacy, not that I think Abortion is the problem, they're for fucking with gays and the internet and all kinds of other things and they're bitching because someone wants people to be aware how unsafe food is because it invades their privacy.



Abortion is just one of the problems.  They like to try to control what legal medical procedures people can get because its politically beneficial for them.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 13, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's not like they took Abortion away and its not like you should be able to perform elective surgery on minors. No one should be shocked by this so quit the bitching.



So, if they made it so you could legally have an abortion, but only in the first 2 hours after impregnation, it would be ok, since you know, it's not entirely taken away.

And forcing 17 year olds to carry a child becuase of their parents beliefs is so maniacal and insane I don't know where to begin.


----------



## Bellville (Apr 13, 2011)

Don't mind the pain one so much. 

The signature law pisses me off, however. I can imagine angry parents abusing that kind of thing by damning the girl to have the baby against her will. Will be waiting to see a statistical rise in the amount of girls who fling themselves down the stairs when that law takes effect.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 13, 2011)

Forcing a 16-year-old girl to have a baby that she wants aborted is no different than forcing a girl to get an abortion when she wants to have the baby. 

It's completely wrong. The decision should be the girl's and hers alone. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sorry that this law requires someone to take fucking responsibility, that seems to be something Liberals can't understand.





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's not like they took Abortion



Why are people now capitalizing random words? This just seemed to have popped up in Cafe and it's becoming a phenomenon.


----------



## Rakiyo (Apr 13, 2011)

Smh


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> Oh screw you and this passive aggressive shit.
> 
> This just oozes of "they don't agree with me so they're close minded."



U mad?

I have been posting in this section for about 20 or so hours and every opinion I give is pretty much immediately insulted and attacked. 

Close minded was the _nicest_ wording I could think of for people in this section. The others would get me banned. 

Oh, and thanks for proving my point


----------



## Xyloxi (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Unfortunately.
> 
> Its too bad most people here are so close minded that people can't have any opinion that differs.



An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


----------



## AlphaRooster (Apr 14, 2011)

I'm gonna partially agree on CTK on this one. The changes made really don't make a huge impact to the law. Those of you screaming about the signing part of the law..I think you're delusional in thinking it will abused by some lunatic conservative fringe. Besides parents should have the right to sign. They are the ones most likely to take care of the kid if its born. Most likely the child-parent is still under mommy and daddy's roof living on their dime. The parents still have a say and should have a say in their minor kids life. Plus it's still, in my opinion, that better parenting would have given the daughter a better chance of not getting pregnant.

  Now my biggest rant of all time on abortion. *What about the fucking dad!* The abortion law and those for it seem to forget that. When you make abortion simply about the womens right, you give reason for men to just fuck n go. Children come from two people, they BOTH are responsible. I think abortion laws need to include the dad. I think laws need to be tougher on the dads to stick around and pay. To me, this would prevent major reasons for the abortion, and reasons to simply live off the gov dime if you decide to have the kid. Right now abortion laws simply make the female look like a victim. I know if I was a chick, i'd be offended as hell if thought that of me.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 14, 2011)

AlphaRooster said:


> I'm gonna partially agree on CTK on this one. The changes made really don't make a huge impact to the law. Those of you screaming about the signing part of the law..*I think you're delusional in thinking it will abused by some lunatic conservative fringe.* Besides parents should have the right to sign. They are the ones most likely to take care of the kid if its born. Most likely the child-parent is still under mommy and daddy's roof living on their dime. The parents still have a say and should have a say in their minor kids life. Plus it's still, in my opinion, that better parenting would have given the daughter a better chance of not getting pregnant.
> 
> Now my biggest rant of all time on abortion. What about the fucking dad! The abortion law and those for it seem to forget that. When you make abortion simply about the womens right, you give reason for men to just fuck n go. Children come from two people, they BOTH are responsible. I think abortion laws need to include the dad. I think laws need to be tougher on the dads to stick around and pay. To me, this would prevent major reasons for the abortion, and reasons to simply live off the gov dime if you decide to have the kid. Right now abortion laws simply make the female look like a victim. I know if I was a chick, i'd be offended as hell if thought that of me.



Then why make such a law if nobody is going to make use of it? Sounds like bullshit to me.


----------



## zuul (Apr 14, 2011)

Yep,

much more human trash to expect in kansas in the future.

Very smart.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Apr 14, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Looks like another episode of Liberals Whining is on. Seriously you guys need a new hobby.
> 
> It's not like they took Abortion away and its not like you should be able to perform elective surgery on minors. No one should be shocked by this so quit the bitching.



The American south, finding any opportunity to regress that they can. Quite an intelligent point you've made here. I can always count on you to give an "us" vs. "them" entirely polarized perspective CTK, but, I wonder how history is going to look back on many views I've seen you express. 

EDIT- Isn't Kansas a welfare state? I predict an insanely high crime rate in Kansas' future.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 14, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Looks like another episode of Liberals Whining is on. Seriously you guys need a new hobby.
> 
> It's not like they took Abortion away and its not like you should be able to perform elective surgery on minors. No one should be shocked by this so quit the bitching.



Did you know a majority of the underage pregnancies in Kansas are in the black community?

Who hates black people now, CTK?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 14, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> Did you know a majority of the underage pregnancies in Kansas are in the black community?
> 
> Who hates black people now, CTK?



You, because you want to abort them.

Damn racist


----------



## Juno (Apr 14, 2011)

Good thing there's no child abuse in Kansas. You know. One of the biggest reasons why minors were entitled to reproductive advice and care outside their parents knowledge in the first place. That, and the fact that teenagers are driven to illegal backstreet providers if, for this one procedure, they are not permitted confidentiality when they need it. 

It seems quite hypocritical that teens are entitled to consent to their choice of pre-natal care, birth control, STD testing and treatments, including alcoholism and drug abuse... but not abortion.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 14, 2011)

It's obviously because the gay atheist liberals are pushing their pro abortion agenda on all the good little white children.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 14, 2011)

Juno said:


> Good thing there's no child abuse in Kansas. You know. One of the biggest reasons why minors were entitled to reproductive advice and care outside their parents knowledge in the first place. That, and the fact that teenagers are driven to illegal backstreet providers if, for this one procedure, they are not permitted confidentiality when they need it.
> 
> It seems quite hypocritical that teens are entitled to consent to their choice of pre-natal care, birth control, STD testing and treatments, including alcoholism and drug abuse... but not abortion.


None of those things is surgery that's elective. It's not like a teen can get breast implants or have their teeth filed to fangs while under 18.



MartyMcFly1 said:


> The American south, finding any opportunity  to regress that they can. Quite an intelligent point you've made here. I  can always count on you to give an "us" vs. "them" entirely polarized  perspective CTK, but, I wonder how history is going to look back on many  views I've seen you express.
> 
> EDIT- Isn't Kansas a welfare state? I predict an insanely high crime rate in Kansas' future.



Yeah because they completely stopped Abortion, look why don't you go sell that shit somewhere else. I like how people who talk about gun control bitch and moan when they go to restrict it and no one wants any restrictions placed on it. But then when someone restricts something else, that's not even specifically mentioned in the Constitution and restricts it in a reasonable way, liberals turn on the water works.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 14, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> None of those things is surgery that's elective. It's not like a teen can get breast implants or have their teeth filed to fangs while under 18.



Shitty comparison is shitty. While not necessarily life-threatening, a pregnancy poses a serious health risk and permanently alters you body.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 14, 2011)

AlphaRooster said:


> Now my biggest rant of all time on abortion. *What about the fucking dad!* The abortion law and those for it seem to forget that. When you make abortion simply about the womens right, you give reason for men to just fuck n go. Children come from two people, they BOTH are responsible. I think abortion laws need to include the dad. I think laws need to be tougher on the dads to stick around and pay. To me, this would prevent major reasons for the abortion, and reasons to simply live off the gov dime if you decide to have the kid. Right now abortion laws simply make the female look like a victim. I know if I was a chick, i'd be offended as hell if thought that of me.



Oh maybe you didn't get the memo, these champions of women's rights around here can't even all agree that the dad is responsible for the child and should be made to take care of the baby if its born. 



Because apparently women also have the right to be fucked over by shitty men.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 14, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Oh maybe you didn't get the memo, these champions of women's rights around here can't even all agree that the dad is responsible for the child and should be made to take care of the baby if its born.
> 
> 
> 
> Because apparently women also have the right to be fucked over by shitty men.



She can always abort it


----------



## Yachiru (Apr 14, 2011)

To those whining about girls being damned having a baby against their will: She had sex with a guy, so *she* has to take responsibility of using protection. 
If she doesn't use protection and gets pregnant, it's *her* responsibility to take care of the child. 

If you say you're old enough to have sex, then please, be old enough to take responsibility for your actions. Any reasonable parent would think the same.


----------



## stream (Apr 14, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> To those whining about girls being damned having a baby against their will: She had sex with a guy, so *she* has to take responsibility of using protection.
> If she doesn't use protection and gets pregnant, it's *her* responsibility to take care of the child.
> 
> If you say you're old enough to have sex, then please, be old enough to take responsibility for your actions. Any reasonable parent would think the same.



Because of the emphasis added on "she": How about having the guy be responsible for using protection?


----------



## Yachiru (Apr 14, 2011)

stream said:


> Because of the emphasis added on "she": How about having the guy be responsible for using protection?



I meant it in this way: If she herself isn't using protection, she should at least insist on her partner using protection.
Please. Sex also means responsibility.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 14, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> To those whining about girls being damned having a baby against their will: She had sex with a guy, so *she* has to take responsibility of using protection.
> If she doesn't use protection and gets pregnant, it's *her* responsibility to take care of the child.
> 
> If you say you're old enough to have sex, then please, be old enough to take responsibility for your actions. Any reasonable parent would think the same.



 "Yes, my little boy played football in his room and a window broke, so now he'll just have to survive the winter without a window. I mean if he's old enough to play football, he's old enough to take responsibility for his actions."

Sure, let's force a girl to have a baby against her will just to teach her a lesson in taking responsibility. Making one mistake in a moment of passion should definitely mean she has must have her body permanently altered, take serious health risks and watch her grades drop. If she's old enough to have sex, she's old enough to ruin her life for one little mistake after all.

An adult of course can simply abort the fetus, no problem. But a little girl must be forced through excruciating pain, that's the great thing about growing up. 


I hope you never have kids.


----------



## Yachiru (Apr 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> "Yes, my little boy played football in his room and a window broke, so now he'll just have to survive the winter without a window. I mean if he's old enough to play football, he's old enough to take responsibility for his actions."
> 
> Sure, let's force a girl to have a baby against her will just to teach her a lesson in taking responsibility. Making one mistake in a moment of passion should definitely mean she has must have her body permanently altered, take serious health risks and watch her grades drop. If she's old enough to have sex, *she's old enough to ruin her life for one little mistake after all.*
> 
> ...



I don't think you realized, but this "little mistake" could've easily been prevented by either the girl or the guy or both using protection. That's the primary reason protection was invented. To prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening.

Besides, you can't compare a boy breaking a window with a girl getting "accidentally" pregnant. It's like comparing apples and pears.
A window is an item. A fetus on the other hand is a human being, despite what others say, from the moment it was fertilized.

What sane person would play football *in his own room?* 

If you get the usual "I hope you never have kids" everytime you make a logical argument..


----------



## zuul (Apr 14, 2011)

A fetus is a bunch of cells not an human being.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Oh maybe you didn't get the memo, these champions of women's rights around here can't even all agree that the dad is responsible for the child and should be made to take care of the baby if its born.
> 
> 
> 
> Because apparently women also have the right to be fucked over by shitty men.




My position is perfectly consistent. If a woman has the right to abort a child she doesn't want then a man shouldn't have to take responsability on a children he doesn't want. If a woman make the decision to have a children all by herself, she musts assume her choice all by herself and not drag other unwilling persons in her poor choice.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 14, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> *I don't think you realized, but this "little mistake" could've easily been prevented by either the girl or the guy or both using protection. *That's the primary reason protection was invented. To prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening.



Little mistakes can typically have been prevented.  Whats your point?  A momentary mistake you make at 15 or 16 shouldn't ruin your entire life.



Yachiru said:


> Besides, you can't compare a boy breaking a window with a girl getting "accidentally" pregnant. It's like comparing apples and pears.
> *A window is an item. A fetus on the other hand is a human being, despite what others say, from the moment it was fertilized.*
> 
> If you get the usual "I hope you never have kids" everytime you make a logical argument..



No its not a human being.  Just because it _may_ be one day if the girl doesn't miscarry doesn't mean it instantly becomes a human being at fertilization.  That's why we don't hold funerals for every fertilized egg that fails to implant.


----------



## Yachiru (Apr 14, 2011)

zuul said:


> A fetus is a bunch of cells not an human being.



Erm.. we all came to be from this "bunch of cells"


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 14, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> Erm.. we all came to be from this "bunch of cells"



And originally we all came from sperm, too. And from supernovae. Are stars humans?

Just because A might become B some day given the right conditions doesn't mean that A=B.


----------



## Yachiru (Apr 14, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Little mistakes can typically have been prevented.  Whats your point?  A momentary mistake you make at 15 or 16 shouldn't ruin your entire life.



That still doesn't change the fact that there should have been made use of protection, such as condom or the pill 
So, my argument still stands.




> No its not a human being.  Just because it _may_ be one day if the girl doesn't miscarry doesn't mean it instantly becomes a human being at fertilization.  That's why we don't hold funerals for every fertilized egg that fails to implant.



Scientifically speaking, fertilization is the requirement for human life. Therefore it's only logical to conclude that human life begins from the moment the egg was fertilized. Why shouldn't a fetus, who has a heart and the shape of a human being be treated as one?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 14, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> That still doesn't change the fact that there should have been made use of protection, such as condom or the pill
> So, my argument still stands.



So forgetting to take a pill or wear whats essentially a glove when you were 15 should ruin your entire life?



Yachiru said:


> *Scientifically speaking, fertilization is the requirement for human life. *Therefore it's only logical to conclude that human life begins from the moment the egg was fertilized. Why shouldn't a fetus, who has a heart and the shape of a human being be treated as one?



Where is that definition of human life?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 14, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> That still doesn't change the fact that there should have been made use of protection, such as condom or the pill
> So, my argument still stands.



So your argument it's alright to ruin someone's life for a small mistake, so long as the mistake could have been prevented? 



> Scientifically speaking, fertilization is the requirement for human life. Therefore it's only logical to conclude that human life begins from the moment the egg was fertilized. Why shouldn't a fetus, who has a heart and the shape of a human being be treated as one?



You contradict yourself. First it's a human at the moment of fertilization (by that definition every doctor that ever artificially inseminated a woman is a murderer), then it's a human when it has a heart and the shape of a human. Please choose first what your argument will be and then actually utter it. When you do it the other way around, it's very confusing.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Apr 14, 2011)

Restricting a young girl's ability to get an anonymous abortion is a recipe for self harm and suicide.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 14, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> Besides, you can't compare a boy breaking a window with a girl getting "accidentally" pregnant. It's like comparing apples and pears.
> A window is an item. A fetus on the other hand is a human being, despite what others say, from the moment it was fertilized.



And forcing someone to be cold for a winter is different from forcing someone to go through an entire preganancy and the life it leads to afterwards.

Funny though when your stupid "responsibility" arguement falls apart instantly, you fall back on the "It's a fetus so your arguement is null" crap.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

I love the argument that it is "ruining a girls life" yet it is okay for her to destory the one she created. 

Fuckin hypocrits.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I love the argument that it is "ruining a girls life" yet it is okay for her to destory the one she created.



What life?  The fetus that may one day be a child?  Sorry if you can;t tell the difference between the life led by a teenager and that of a fetus I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I love the argument that it is "ruining a girls life" yet it is okay for her to destory the one she created.
> 
> Fuckin hypocrits.



A mass of cells in her womb doesn't have a life to ruin yet.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I love the argument that it is "ruining a girls life" yet it is okay for her to destory the one she created.
> 
> Fuckin hypocrits.


We destroy bunches of cells all the time, Cyphon. Should a person keep a cancerous tumor or a tumor in general since they 'created' that life? 

Its not until the second trimester where a baby is a baby. That's when it has a brain, can feel pain, and has most if not all of its organs. Up until then? Again, just a lump of cells that is more like a parasite. Many women have 'abortions' in the first few hours of their pregnancy since their bodies reject the growing embryo.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> What life?  The fetus that may one day be a child?  Sorry if you can;t tell the difference between the life led by a teenager and that of a fetus I don't know what to tell you.



You don't have to tell me anything. You know what the fetus can or will becomes so ignorance is no excuse.

What if the mothers life wouldn't have amounted to anything? We wouldn't be runing her life then. What if she got hit by a car and died? Still not ruining her life. 

We can play what if's all day but that doesn't change anything.

You are being hypocrits.



Tsukiyomi said:


> A mass of cells in her womb doesn't have a life to ruin yet.



I could say the same about a 16 year old girl. It doesn't make me right.



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> We destroy bunches of cells all the time, Cyphon. Should a person keep a cancerous tumor or a tumor in general since they 'created' that life?
> 
> Its not until the second trimester where a baby is a baby. That's when it has a brain, can feel pain, and has most if not all of its organs. Up until then? Again, just a lump of cells that is more like a parasite. Many women have 'abortions' in the first few hours of their pregnancy since their bodies reject the growing embryo.



And if I call a 16 year old girl just a lump of cells it is okay for me to kill her?

Sounds dumb.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> And if I call a 16 year old girl just a lump of cells it is okay for me to kill her?
> 
> Sounds dumb.


Way to oversimplify. Biologically, a baby isn't a baby until the second trimester. A 16 year old girl is a sentient being who can feel pain and other emotions. A fetus before six months doesn't. It doesn't even have a _brain_ or a spine.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I could say the same about a 16 year old girl. It doesn't make me right.



No you can't.  You can't possibly make a comparison between a fertilized egg and a teenage girl who is out and about living her life.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Way to oversimplify. Biologically, a baby isn't a baby until the second trimester. A 16 year old girl is a sentient being who can feel pain and other emotions. A fetus before six months doesn't. It doesn't even have a _brain_ or a spine.



It doesn't need those things for us to know what it will become. You are just making excuses to make it sound right. I can do the same but in the end we are both killing or preventing life. 



Tsukiyomi said:


> No you can't.  You can't possibly make a comparison between a fertilized egg and a teenage girl who is out and about living her life.



I just did make the comparison so I guess it is possible. If I simply consider her "useless" in ignorance and kill her you should be fine with that. To me she is just a lump of cells.

Might as well throw in retards as well. I mean if they are too messed up they don't really function or contribute anything to society. Should just kill them so they aren't in our way and using resources.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> It doesn't need those things for us to know what it will become. You are just making excuses to make it sound right. I can do the same but in the end we are both killing or preventing life.


Cyphon, you're oversimplifying things and ignoring things now. Again, the body does naturally 'abort' fetuses. According to your logic, women with miscarriages should be charged with murder since they stop a life growing in them.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Cyphon, you're oversimplifying things and ignoring things now. Again, the body does naturally 'abort' fetuses. According to your logic, women with miscarriages should be charged with murder since they stop a life growing in them.



A miscarriage is an accident, not in intentional act....Although I guess women could intentionally try to miscarry as well but it would be hard to prove.

And IMO you are the one oversimplifying things by calling it "just a lump of cells".

Anyway my original point is that it is a terrible excuse to say a baby would ruin a womens life. Prove it would. Prove to me she wouldn't have a better life because of the baby. Prove to me her life would have any kind of relevant value if she got an abortion and then we can talk. 

Its a terrible and hypocritical defense to make for a women.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I just did make the comparison so I guess it is possible. If I simply consider her "useless" in ignorance and kill her you should be fine with that. To me she is just a lump of cells.
> 
> Might as well throw in retards as well. I mean if they are too messed up they don't really function or contribute anything to society. Should just kill them so they aren't in our way and using resources.



A fetus is just a mass of cells on its way to becoming a fully formed human.  During the first month of pregnancy its only a mass of cells about an inch long.

Not even remotely similar to a fully formed living, breathing human being.  That's why we don't hold funeral services for a fetus that is miscarried.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> A fetus is just a mass of cells on its way to becoming a fully formed human.  During the first month of pregnancy its only a mass of cells about an inch long.
> 
> Not even remotely similar to a fully formed living, breathing human being.  That's why we don't hold funeral services for a fetus that is miscarried.



I am not going to go in circles with you about making excuses to help you sleep at night. In the end you have chosen to end a life if you get an abortion. There is no denying that, only trying to work around it.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Anyway my original point is that it is a terrible excuse to say a baby would ruin a womens life. Prove it would. Prove to me she wouldn't have a better life because of the baby. Prove to me her life would have any kind of relevant value if she got an abortion and then we can talk.


Put yourself in a teenage girl's position. Imagine either being raped, taken advantage of, etc. or just plain old teenage stupidity, and winding up pregnant. If you carry the baby to term, you'd miss school and a whole bunch of things. If you had a job, they'd probably fire you for it. You can't go to school, you can't go to work, and your family if they aren't accepting will probably shun you.

How doesn't that ruin a woman's life?



Cyphon said:


> I am not going to go in circles with you about making excuses to help you sleep at night. In the end you have chosen to end a life if you get an abortion. There is no denying that, only trying to work around it.


You're ending a life when you remove a tumor too, Cyphon.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I am not going to go in circles with you about making excuses to help you sleep at night. In the end you have chosen to end a life if you get an abortion. There is no denying that, only trying to work around it.



I sleep like a baby at night.  There is a very clear distinction between a 1 inch mass of cells that may or may not eventually become a human being and an actual human being.

The fact that you choose not to see the difference doesn't mean it isn't there.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Put yourself in a teenage girl's position. Imagine either being raped, taken advantage of, etc. or just plain old teenage stupidity, and winding up pregnant. If you carry the baby to term, you'd miss school and a whole bunch of things. If you had a job, they'd probably fire you for it. You can't go to school, you can't go to work, and your family if they aren't accepting will probably shun you.
> 
> How doesn't that ruin a woman's life?



This is all pretty much bullshit. Girls can work and go to school deep into their pregnancy and most jobs allow for that kind of leave if for nothing else to avoid lawsuits. 

You basically just imagine the rarest and worst case scenario to try and defend your position. The average pregnancy isn't like that. Even if it were its not as if adoption agencies don't accept babies. So if you take that route your life would be right back to freedom.



> You're ending a life when you remove a tumor too, Cyphon.







Tsukiyomi said:


> I sleep like a baby at night.  There is a very clear distinction between a 1 inch mass of cells that may or may not eventually become a human being and an actual human being.
> 
> The fact that you choose not to see the difference doesn't mean it isn't there.



I am sure you do and like I said I am not going in circles with you so agree to disagree.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> You don't have to tell me anything. You know what the fetus can or *will becomes *so ignorance is no excuse.



Or what it will become?  EXACTLY.  It may become a person.  It may not.  A teenagegirl *is already a person*.



> What if the mothers life wouldn't have amounted to anything? We wouldn't be runing her life then. What if she got hit by a car and died? Still not ruining her life.



How is that not ruining her life?  What do you mean "wouldn't have amounted to anything"?  Does she have to cure cancer and fix the economy to mean something?


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Or what it will become?  EXACTLY.  It may become a person.  It may not.  A teenagegirl *is already a person*.



Women aren't people 

Seriously though, I am not playing this game of semantics you guys/girls try and use to make it sound better. 



> How is that not ruining her life?  What do you mean "wouldn't have amounted to anything"?  Does she have to cure cancer and fix the economy to mean something?



Explained above somewhere.


----------



## Gallant (Apr 14, 2011)

I love how these people were put in mainly to "fix" the economy yet the majority of what they have done is just reignite the same old tired culture wars. They should practice what they preach for once but people are too stupid to connect the dots between words and actions.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I am not going to go in circles with you about making excuses to help you sleep at night. In the end you have chosen to end a life if you get an abortion. There is no denying that, only trying to work around it.



A life has to exist to end it.

Unless every time I masturbate I am killing millions of lives.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Women aren't people
> 
> Seriously though, I am not playing this game of semantics you guys/girls try and use to make it sound better.



Its a perfectly valid discussion to have, when a fetus is considered a person.  If you don't want to have it then stop coming into this thread.

A fetus at 1 month is no more a person than a frame in a factory is a car.  Yes, eventually after development (barring the company going bankrupt, a fire in the factor or a defect in that particular frame) it will be a car and the fetus (barring a miscarriage or severe defect resulting in death) will be a human.

Its really that simple.

Small group of human cells =/= human
Small group of car parts =/= car


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> A life has to exist to end it.
> 
> Unless every time I masturbate I am killing millions of lives.



Me no likey semantics.

See above.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Me no likey semantics.
> 
> See above.



Translation:

"My arguments have been torn apart and I have no real way to respond."


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Translation:
> 
> "My arguments have been torn apart and I have no real way to respond."



Translation:

"I am butthurt the entire world doesn't share my exact opinion so I jump in a debate I am not a part of and look dumb".


----------



## Altron (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I love the argument that it is "ruining a girls life" yet it is okay for her to destory the one she created.
> 
> Fuckin hypocrits.


I love the fact that you are too dense to believe anything than your own delusions.


Cyphon said:


> You don't have to tell me anything. You know what the fetus can or will becomes so ignorance is no excuse.


No


> What if the mothers life wouldn't have amounted to anything? We wouldn't be runing her life then. What if she got hit by a car and died? Still not ruining her life.


Oh I am sorry now you can predict the future? 


> We can play what if's all day but that doesn't change anything.
> 
> You are being hypocrits.


Spell check it is your friend




> I could say the same about a 16 year old girl. It doesn't make me right.


No you can't actually



> And if I call a 16 year old girl just a lump of cells it is okay for me to kill her?
> 
> Sounds dumb.


Tell me do you even bother to read your posts before you post them?




Cyphon said:


> It doesn't need those things for us to know what it will become. You are just making excuses to make it sound right. I can do the same but in the end we are both killing or preventing life.


Guess that's why people who murder another person go to prison while a person who has an abortion just goes home?



> I just did make the comparison so I guess it is possible. If I simply consider her "useless" in ignorance and kill her you should be fine with that. To me she is just a lump of cells.


Just because you can doesn't make it any less stupid


> Might as well throw in retards as well. I mean if they are too messed up they don't really function or contribute anything to society. Should just kill them so they aren't in our way and using resources.


Good then we can start with getting rid of you first.



Cyphon said:


> A miscarriage is an accident, not in intentional act....Although I guess women could intentionally try to miscarry as well but it would be hard to prove.
> 
> And IMO you are the one oversimplifying things by calling it "just a lump of cells".


Pot calling the kettle black



> Anyway my original point is that it is a terrible excuse to say a baby would ruin a womens life. Prove it would. Prove to me she wouldn't have a better life because of the baby. Prove to me her life would have any kind of relevant value if she got an abortion and then we can talk.


No one has to prove anything because if you live in the US you can walk outside for 10 minutes and see your proof. Unless you also just dwell in your basement all day on the computer.


Cyphon said:


> I am not going to go in circles with you about making excuses to help you sleep at night. In the end you have chosen to end a life if you get an abortion. There is no denying that, only trying to work around it.


I sleep perfectly like a sound baby



Cyphon said:


> This is all pretty much bullshit. Girls can work and go to school deep into their pregnancy and most jobs allow for that kind of leave if for nothing else to avoid lawsuits.


Have you ever been pregnant? Do you know what it is like? Are you a girl? If you answered no to any of the above then you can't say anything because you have no idea.



> You basically just imagine the rarest and worst case scenario to try and defend your position. The average pregnancy isn't like that. Even if it were its not as if adoption agencies don't accept babies. So if you take that route your life would be right back to freedom.
> 
> I am sure you do and like I said I am not going in circles with you so agree to disagree.


Oh I am sorry now you are a qualified doctor to make such a statement? 


Cyphon said:


> Women aren't people
> 
> 
> Seriously though, I am not playing this game of semantics you guys/girls try and use to make it sound better.
> ...


Then stop posting for the betterment of the world because even though I can't see the future I am able to see the fact that you will not win here. 



Cyphon said:


> Me no likey semantics.
> 
> See above.


We don't like retards


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Altron said:


> I love the fact that you are too dense to believe anything than your own delusions.



Pot meet kettle.



> Oh I am sorry now you can predict the future?



Pot meet kettle.



> No you can't actually



I actually already did. You quoted it and missed it all at once 



> Tell me do you even bother to read your posts before you post them?



Yeah. I usually spell and grammar check but I miss some things here and there.



> Guess that's why people who murder another person go to prison while a person who has an abortion just goes home?



I know the law uses the same excuses as you guys, I wasn't denying that. Its still just excuses made to feign ignorance.



> Just because you can doesn't make it any less stupid



Pot meet kettle.

Same thing can be said about abortion.



> Good then we can start with getting rid of you first.



Oh how clever. Can't convince everyone to biasedly follow you so you resort to insults. Not surprised its really all you've got going for you.



> No one has to prove anything because if you live in the US you can walk outside for 10 minutes and see your proof.



Wrong.



> If you answered no to any of the above then you can't say anything because you have no idea.



To quote this person I once debated with "you can walk outside for 10 minutes and see your proof".

Nice try at a terrible argument though. Because I am not a women I can't see pregnant women at jobs or at school? 



> Oh I am sorry now you are a qualified doctor to make such a statement?



You need to be a doctor to open your own eyes?

Interesting.



> Then stop posting for the betterment of the world because even though I can't see the future I am able to see the fact that you will not win here.



I could say the same to you. There is no winning in a conversation of opinions. Only a fool would look for victory.



> We don't like retards



You have no mirrors in your house do you?


----------



## Altron (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Pot meet kettle.


That explains that why I can accept when I am wrong yet you seem to have a hard time comprehending anything when it goes against your beliefs. 



> Pot meet kettle.


No U



> I actually already did. You quoted it and missed it all at once


I did? Then please forgive me, I mistook that as a stupid statement. 



> I know the law uses the same excuses as you guys, I wasn't denying that. *Its still just excuses made to feign ignorance*.


According to *YOU* and no one else.



> Pot meet kettle.


No U



> Same thing can be said about abortion.


No U



> Oh how clever. Can't convince everyone to biasedly follow you so you resort to insults. Not surprised its really all you've got going for you.


Not my fault if everyone in the Cafe agrees with me. 



> To quote this person I once debated with "you can walk outside for 10 minutes and see your proof".
> 
> Nice try at a terrible argument though. Because I am not a women I can't see pregnant women at jobs or at school?


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Altron said:


> That explains that why I can accept when I am wrong yet you seem to have a hard time comprehending anything when it goes against your beliefs.



I always accept when I am wrong. Hard to be wrong with an opinion. 



> I did? Then please forgive me, I mistook that as a stupid statement.



Your fault.



> According to *YOU* and no one else.



You mean no one else who agrees with you. There are many who agree with me.



> Not my fault if everyone in the Cafe agrees with me.



Using a biased section of people who hate any opinion that doesn't agree with there's isn't really a strong argument.


----------



## Ceria (Apr 14, 2011)

I support the banning of abortion, because it's basically the easy way out of having sex out of wedlock. People have no business having children unless they're in a stable marriage where both parents, either different sex or same sex can raise a child properly. 

But even if you get rid of abortions unfortunately the bullshit of a woman sleeping with a hundred guys in a month getting knocked up and going on Maury will continue indefinitely.  These women will continue to go on tv searching through dozens of men  until Maury's dead and they keep propping up his corpse to read the results. 

Abortion is not the only option, there's also adoption. My dad was put up for adoption by the college students who had him. If not for that token of mercy myself nor my sister or my father would be alive. 

If you say it's a woman's choice, it's her choice to put on a condom or not. or demand that her partner do the same. Murder shouldn't be tolerated because a guy forgot to wrap it up.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 14, 2011)

Ceria, I haven't seen such an sexist, ill informed post in all my life. Bravo. You just outdid Nagatopwnsall.


----------



## AlphaRooster (Apr 14, 2011)

Ever hear of a snowflake baby? It's when the unused insemenated eggs from invetro fertilization are "adopted" by a couple and brought to full term. These cells could be used for stem cell research. This brings up the point: The cells are clarified by potential to be a human, not whether they are human.

  I don't believe life begins at conception, as most religious folks do, but I do understand that fertilized eggs at any time can be developed to full term. So a lot of this argument is moot. The laws are based on potential of human life not if.  Which goes towards my earlier thoughts that abortion should be based on science/medicine. My wife personally has taken care of a 13 oz 22 week infant from birth. He is now 5 yrs old.


----------



## Altron (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I always accept when I am wrong. Hard to be wrong with an opinion.


Page 1 of this thread begs to differ 



> Your fault.


Meh I make it a habit of not reading anything made of fail 



> You mean no one else who agrees with you. There are many who agree with me.


Yes we call them republicans and bible nuts who believe the word of the bible = truth.




> Using a biased section of people who hate any opinion that doesn't agree with there's isn't really a strong argument.


Because obviously people that point out the faults of your argument and opinion they must be biased and hate any opinion.

Just admit that you can not face reality. Everytime you post god decides to abort a baby.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Altron said:


> Page 1 of this thread begs to differ



Really?

Maybe I posted too strong an opinion or something. I honestly don't remember.



> Meh I make it a habit of not reading anything made of fail



You close your eyes every time you post in the Cafe?



> Yes we call them republicans and bible nuts who believe the word of the bible = truth.



So basically more bashing of people who disagree with you?

You guys really are pathetic, conceited assholes if this is really your stance on everything to just bash any and every person who doesn't share your views.

Seems to be the case so far based on what I have seen.



> Because obviously people that point out the faults of your argument and opinion they must be biased and hate any opinion.



It really has nothing to do with me personally. I have said a couple of times that I have been in the Cafe for a very short time period and this is what I see. You are even showing similar behavior in your own posts. You all attack and insult any opinion that isn't your own. 



> Just admit that you can not face reality. Everytime you post god decides to abort a baby.



Reality is easy to face. Its not as if I get all emotional or hotheaded over any of this stuff. Simply discussing.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 14, 2011)

Ceria, Cyphon, why are you ignoring the rape issue?


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Ceria, Cyphon, why are you ignoring the rape issue?



I thought I already covered the rape issue a few pages back but you might not have read through everything.

Basically I said the only time I find a gray area is if there is rape and subsequently potential harm to the mother. Because it wasn't her choice to have sex and take the chance and now she is also at risk. 

If she is raped but no harm will come to her from having the baby then I think she should have it. The deed has been done and 2 wrongs don't make a right. 

That said, don't turn me into somebody who is barbaric towards women. I think rape is one of the most heinous (spelling?) crimes/actions that can be done. If I personally knew someone who was raped and could find the person responsible I would murder them without hesitation. I know it is wrong and admit my own hipocrisy in this right after I say "2 wrongs don't make a right" but it is how I feel. I have no level of tolerance or sympathy for rapists or people who put their hands on women. 

I think that covers it.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 14, 2011)

The fact of the matter is, this statute is is illegal under ROE V Wade, just like all of the other statutes in 17 other states


----------



## Altron (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Really?
> 
> Maybe I posted too strong an opinion or something. I honestly don't remember.


See a doctor then



> You close your eyes every time you post in the Cafe?


You close your eyes every time someone posts something that proves your argument is full of sexism and bs?


> So basically more bashing of people who disagree with you?
> 
> You guys really are pathetic, conceited assholes if this is really your stance on everything to just bash any and every person who doesn't share your views.
> 
> Seems to be the case so far based on what I have seen.


Republican's who can't let go of the abortion issue while other stuff needs more attention and not even agree on a budget because of the abortion issue and people to much nuthugging the bible is what I have seen so far from both those groups.


> It really has nothing to do with me personally. I have said a couple of times that I have been in the Cafe for a very short time period and this is what I see. You are even showing similar behavior in your own posts. You all attack and insult any opinion that isn't your own.


If you can't handle it then GTFO. I assure you that you will not be missed.  You have obviously proven that you are not gonna be able to last long here.



> Reality is easy to face. *Its not as if I get all emotional or hotheaded over any of this stuff. *Simply discussing.





> So basically more bashing of people who disagree with you?
> 
> *You guys really are pathetic, conceited assholes* if this is really your  stance on everything to just bash any and every person who doesn't share  your views.






Cyphon said:


> I thought I already covered the rape issue a few  pages back but you might not have read through everything.
> 
> Basically I said the only time I find a gray area is if there is rape  and subsequently potential harm to the mother. Because it wasn't her  choice to have sex and take the chance and now she is also at risk.
> 
> ...


The truth finally comes out.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Altron said:


> See a doctor then



Huh?



> You close your eyes every time someone posts something that proves your argument is full of sexism and bs?



No because nobody has ever proven any of that and I am very far from sexist. 

I just don't think you get it. Again, it just seems you are mad that we disagree and only see red when having this discussion.



> Republican's who can't let go of the abortion issue while other stuff needs more attention and not even agree on a budget because of the abortion issue and people to much nuthugging the bible is what I have seen so far from both those groups.



I asked someone else this and they ignored it but wasn't one of the first things Obama did when he came into office was some a bill or something related to abortion?

And if abortion isn't such an issue the democrats shouldn't fight it and they should just let the republicans have their way right? I mean it isn't an important issue so why do they bother fighting it? 



> If you can't handle it then GTFO. I assure you that you will not be missed.  You have obviously proven that you are not gonna be able to last long here.



If I couldn't handle it I wouldn't be here. Seems you all are the ones who can't keep a cool head just because everyone doesn't join your little circle jerk in the Cafe.



> The truth finally comes out.



Its not "finally". I have been up front with all of my views from the beginning. I admit its a hypocritical stance and don't make excuses for it like everyone else in here. I would gladly accept the punishment that comes with those actions as well. I wouldn't say some bullshit like "he was only a lump of cells so it was okay to kill him".


----------



## Altron (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> No because nobody has ever proven any of that and I am very far from sexist.


No one needed to prove anything since you did all the work for us. 


> I just don't think you get it. Again, *it just seems you are mad *that we disagree and only see red when having this discussion.





			
				Cyphon; said:
			
		

> So basically more bashing of people who disagree with you?
> 
> *You guys really are pathetic, conceited assholes* if this is really your  stance on everything to just bash any and every person who doesn't share  your views.





> I asked someone else this and they ignored it but wasn't one of the first things Obama did when he came into office was some a bill or something related to abortion?


I don't care



> And if abortion isn't such an issue the democrats shouldn't find it and they should just let the republicans have their way right? I mean it isn't an important issue so why do they bother fighting it?


Why can't Republican's stop bring up abortion? What is their problem in which they can not see that Abortion compared to other things in minor?



> If I couldn't handle it I wouldn't be here. Seems you all are the ones who can't keep a cool head just because everyone doesn't join your little circle jerk in the Cafe.


lol you think all these people agree with me on everything in the Cafe?  



> Its not "finally". I have been up front with all of my views from the  beginning. I admit its a hypocritical stance and don't make excuses for  it like everyone else in here. I would gladly accept the punishment that  comes with those actions as well. I wouldn't say some bullshit like "he  was only a lump of cells so it was okay to kill him"


Bullshit or not the law > Your opinion. That is why people aren't thrown in jail for having an abortion.

Thank you for proving to us what a sexist hypocrite you are.  Guess you really now have no right to be calling anyone a hypocrite.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2011)

Altron said:


> Why can't Republican's stop bring up abortion? What is their problem in which they can not see that Abortion compared to other things in minor?



I can't speak for them I am just pointing out the dems obviously see it as important as well or it wouldn't have been one of Obama's first actions or they wouldn't fight it so rigorously.



> lol you think all these people agree with me on everything in the Cafe?



Not everything.



> Bullshit or not the law > Your opinion. That is why people aren't thrown in jail for having an abortion.



And my opinion has been that the law is wrong. Just like your opinion is that is right. 

Seems pretty simple.



> Thank you for proving to us what a sexist hypocrite you are.  Guess you really now have no right to be calling anyone a hypocrite.



When did I say I was sexist? 

Again, you just seem mad I don't agree with you. Anyway I am putting you on my ignore list at this point because you can't seem to conversate at an adult level.


----------



## Altron (Apr 14, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I can't speak for them I am just pointing out the dems obviously see it as important as well or it wouldn't have been one of Obama's first actions or they wouldn't fight it so rigorously.


The reason the shutdown was imminent was because Republican's wouldn't budge of Abortion cuts.



> Not everything.





> If I couldn't handle it I wouldn't be here. Seems you all are the ones  who can't keep a cool head just because everyone doesn't join your  little circle jerk in the Cafe.


Obviously everything according to you



> And my opinion has been that the law is wrong. Just like your opinion is that is right.
> 
> Seems pretty simple.


Then again my opinion doesn't mean shit in the eyes of the law and neither does yours. Either you try to do something about or shut up.




> When did I say I was sexist?





> If she is raped but no harm will come to her from having the baby then I  think she should have it. The deed has been done


I wonder what you would do if I raped your mother and she was pregnant with my child. 


> Again, you just seem mad I don't agree with you. Anyway I am putting you on my ignore list at this point because you can't seem to conversate at an adult level.


It seems you can't even spell at an adult level 

Don't worry I will still be here


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 14, 2011)

I am pro-choice, have been since as long as I can remember.

But, if the baby is at a point where it can *feel* it is wrong to abort it. It is murder at that point, religion or no religion. But if its before it can feel pain (etc), than Abortion isn't murdering anything...



> One of the bills, which Brownback signed into law on Tuesday, will require that a doctor get a parent's notarized signature for girls age 17 or younger who want an abortion. If married, both parents would have to sign.


God help the child that has parents who force a child on them (especially if its a rape case!). 




> But it's not the Muslims, so this fanaticism is ok.


Actually, its bad in Islam as well. Qu'ran states so, twice. Shari'ah only allows it if it endangers the woman to live, or if an Imam thinks a child resulted in rape should be aborted (which means its up to the Imams in that case). Soo...um, yea...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 15, 2011)

Altron said:


> Guess that's why people who murder another person go to prison while a person who has an abortion just goes home?



Probably because murder is the unlawful killing of another person, you can legally kill and that's what abortion is, legal killing. 

Even if you wanted to make the argument that your bullshit definition of murder was right, you'd still have to content with the fact that your appealing to authority with your argument.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 15, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Probably because murder is the unlawful killing of another person, you can legally kill and that's what abortion is, legal killing.



No it isn't. That's warped religious logic. It has the potential to become human, but the fact is it isn't. It's totally idiotic to consider abortion murder, because things like the morning-after pill or Plan B pills would be murder too under that logic.



> Even if you wanted to make the argument that your bullshit definition of murder was right, you'd still have to content with the fact that your appealing to authority with your argument.



"Unlawful killing of another person". Abortion is not unlawful, nor is the act in itself killing another person. It's last-ditch contraception before a particular developmental stage is reached.


----------



## αce (Apr 15, 2011)

> Probably because murder is the unlawful killing of another person, you can legally kill and that's what abortion is, legal killing.



Sigh.........


----------



## αce (Apr 15, 2011)

I love the fact that no pro lifers have even attempted to disprove the fact that a baby isn't a separate human entity until it's second trimester.
Until then, it is entirely dependent on the mother for it's health and development.

Before a baby starts developing it's distinguishing features that make it a human, it is just a bundle of rapidly multiplying cells that are hardly any different from other mammalian embryo's.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Me no likey semantics.
> 
> See above.



Regardless of your caring over semantics, you still failed to argue my actual point there at all.  You can't destroy something that has yet to exist.


----------



## Juno (Apr 15, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> None of those things is surgery that's elective. It's not like a teen can get breast implants or have their teeth filed to fangs while under 18.



Abortion is not necessarily surgical. The vast majority take place in the first month or two, which is when pills will be enough to do the job.

Also, you're ignoring how much worse this makes the situation for young people. Around 90% already willingly involve their parents. The rest who don't usually have pretty good reasons, the primary one being dysfunctional families. This law provides no out for girls who have been abused, and god help victims of rape and i*c*st.


----------



## On and On (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Unfortunately.
> 
> Its too bad most people here are so close minded that people can't have any opinion that differs.



If you think this is a step in the right direction you're the unfortunate one.



> One of the bills, which Brownback signed into law on Tuesday, will require that a doctor get a parent's notarized signature for girls age 17 or younger who want an abortion. If married, both parents would have to sign.
> 
> Current law requires only that a doctor notify a parent.



cue back-alley coat-hanger abortions now



> *Abortions after 21 weeks represent about 1.5 percent of U.S. abortions*, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive health issues.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Regardless of your caring over semantics, you still failed to argue my actual point there at all.  You can't destroy something that has yet to exist.



Its not about destroying somehing and it does exist even if it is only a lump of cells. 

I am not sure why everyone likes the repeat button but you KNOW what you are stopping. You just change definitions and words to try and make it right. 

Its seriously no different than murder. Is it unlawful? No, because the law allows it. It is just an ignorant and barbaric law.



On and On said:


> If you think this is a step in the right direction you're the unfortunate one.



Its a small step in the right direction but a good one. Not sure how that makes me unfortunate.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 15, 2011)

Killing a human person under some circumstances that among other possible factors require clearly ill intent is what we define as murder. Abortion can be a killing of a human organism in its first stages of life (that does not in any way resemble a human person, especially considering the illegality of very late term abortions), but calling it murder, especially without caring for the context is incorrect.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Its not about destroying somehing and it does exist even if it is only a lump of cells.
> 
> I am not sure why everyone likes the repeat button but you KNOW what you are stopping. You just change definitions and words to try and make it right.
> 
> Its seriously no different than murder. Is it unlawful? No, because the law allows it. It is just an ignorant and barbaric law.



So you see no difference betweena human being with family, relations, consciousness and feelings and a lump of cells with less mental capabilities than a fly?


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> Abortion can be a killing of a human organism in its first stages of life (that does not in any way resemble a human person, especially considering the illegality of very late term abortions), but calling it murder, especially without caring for the context is incorrect.



"Prevention of Life" would be a decent way to label it as a crime but again its all semantics. Murder is ending/stopping human life and abortion is preventing it. Either way you accomplish the same thing.



Saufsoldat said:


> So you see no difference betweena human being with family, relations, consciousness and feelings and a lump of cells with less mental capabilities than a fly?



You are just playing a semantics game. You and everyone else knows that the lump of cells can and will go on to become what you describe as the former. It will share that family and have conciousness etc....

And why is mental capability relevant? So we should kill retards who can't function?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> You are just playing a semantics game. You and everyone else knows that the lump of cells can and will go on to become what you describe as the former. It will share that family and have conciousness etc....



Nobody is playing semantics, I don't think you know what that word means.

It will? If you put a fertilized egg in a box and wait 9 months, you'll have a baby in there? Awesome, didn't know that.



> And why is mental capability relevant? So we should kill retards who can't function?



 Strawman says hi. Do retards have to damage the health of another human to survive?


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Nobody is playing semantics, I don't think you know what that word means.



Maybe you don't.



> It will? If you put a fertilized egg in a box and wait 9 months, you'll have a baby in there? Awesome, didn't know that.



Again with the word games. If you know a woman is pregnant then you know what is coming. I have never once heard a girl say "I am pregnant so I may or may not have a baby". Anyone with an IQ above 80 knows what comes from that. Intentionally aborting or stopping that process is really no different than murder. 

But as people in here like to twist words and all that lets call it prevention of life and fit it with the same punishment as murder. I don't care what you call it. 



> Strawman says hi. Do retards have to damage the health of another human to survive?



Technically yes. They usually cause a good deal of stress (beyond the normal stresses) to the people who have to work with them and take care of them. They require extra care and more attention and all that. 

The answer really depends on how mentally incapable the person is. There are some people defined as mentally handicapped that are pretty much fully functional and can live on their own but they obviously aren't the ones I was speaking of.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Maybe you don't.



Maybe you don't.



> Again with the word games. If you know a woman is pregnant then you know what is coming. I have never once heard a girl say "I am pregnant so I may or may not have a baby". Anyone with an IQ above 80 knows what comes from that. Intentionally aborting or stopping that process is really no different than murder.



Again, I want to make sure that I know what you're trying to say here. You do not see a difference between a human being with family, social relations, consciousness and feelings and a lump of cells without a brain, heart, or anything resembling a human being?



> But as people in here like to twist words and all that lets call it prevention of life and fit it with the same punishment as murder. I don't care what you call it.



Not having sex with every woman I come across is also prevention of life. Masturbating without freezing the resulting sperm is prevention of life. Condoms are prevention of life. Do I need to go on?



> Technically yes. They usually cause a good deal of stress (beyond the normal stresses) to the people who have to work with them and take care of them. They require extra care and more attention and all that.



No single person is forced to take care of them, unlike a fetus. For a fetus there is only 1 human being on the planet that can take care of them. That person doesn't have a choice in the matter, so the only thing they can do to prevent permanent changes to their body and excruciating pain is aborting the fetus. Tell me again, how does that compare to mentally handicapped people?


----------



## -Dargor- (Apr 15, 2011)

To be faire 21 weeks is plenty of time to decide weither or not you want to keep it.

21 weeks is 5 months, by then your belly is big and to give you some perspective, my youngest was born at 29 weeks fully formed and didn't need artificial breathing machines or anything. While they did have to keep her under observation for 2 months she was fully functionnal.

So this is really not that big of a deal, by 21 weeks I'm willing to bet that it's much more a baby than it is a foetus.

Now if they went ahead and entirely took it away it'd be another story, but they didn't.

The need for a parent's signature is merely legal proceedure, I'm surprised it wasn't already the case. I'll agree that needing both parents' signatures when married is retarded as there's usually one of the two that's against it for some reason.

That last part might fuck up a few girls' lives and cause some more divorces but aside from that, nothing to see here, just regulations being implemented, nothing worth setting bras on fire.




Cyphon said:


> Maybe you don't.





Saufsoldat said:


> Maybe *you* don't.


Good to see you're as stupid as ever Sauf 



♠Ace♠ said:


> I love the fact that no pro lifers have even attempted to disprove the fact that a baby isn't a separate human entity until it's second trimester.
> Until then, it is entirely dependent on the mother for it's health and development.


You mean like humans are entirely dependant on the planet in order to survive? So we're not a full fledged entity?  So it'd be ok to kill humans then if I follow your logic.

I'm not even pro-life but your reasonning is moot at best.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Maybe you don't.



Fair enough.



> You do not see a difference between a human being with family, social relations, consciousness and feelings and a lump of cells without a brain, heart, or anything resembling a human being?



Already answered this.



> Not having sex with every woman I come across is also prevention of life. Masturbating without freezing the resulting sperm is prevention of life. Condoms are prevention of life. Do I need to go on?



Not the same thing as already having conceived. You just continue trying to play word games and I won't continue. 



> No single person is forced to take care of them, unlike a fetus. For a fetus there is only 1 human being on the planet that can take care of them. That person doesn't have a choice in the matter, so the only thing they can do to prevent permanent changes to their body and excruciating pain is aborting the fetus.



Which again, is no different than murder.

I don't like to pay bills because it stresses me out but that doesn't mean I should be able to kill anyone who causes that stress.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 15, 2011)

> "Prevention of Life" would be a decent way to label it as a crime but again its all semantics. Murder is ending/stopping human life and abortion is preventing it. Either way you accomplish the same thing.



As I said Murder* is not *ending/stopping a human life. Also note, that killing brain dead human beings is not considered unethical or akin to murder.  Prevention of human life as you can see is not a murder of human persons. Even if you find it disagreeable everything should be put to its right perspective.

Now, I actually do consider the fact that these human beings (and that might be incorrect to me to call them that when they are just a lamb of cells) can become persons to be of some consideration, aka not completely worthless which it is something I guess, but your view is too absolutist.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Already answered this.



No, you didn't. You said some irrelevant shit about semantics and then some irrelevant shit about what the lump of cells might one day be. My question remains unchanged.



> Not the same thing as already having conceived. You just continue trying to play word games and I won't continue.



What's the difference? You prevent a life that could potentially be.



> Which again, is no different than murder.



A claim which you have backed up with absolutely nothing so far apart from repeating it over and over again.



> I don't like to pay bills because it stresses me out but that doesn't mean I should be able to kill anyone who causes that stress.



 Alright, so obviously you didn't read a word of what I just posted. Paying money is not the same as harming someone. No matter how retarded you consciouosly try to look, you can't make the two equal, never.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> Now, I actually do consider the fact that these human beings (and that might be incorrect to me to call them that when they are just a lamb of cells) can become persons to be of some consideration, but your view is too absolutist.



What is so absolutist about it?

They will become "human" is a certainty beyond intervention like abortion or accidents. Accidents happen and I would never argue they can be fully prevented. 

I even said there was one scenario where I may even call abortion acceptable, though I would have to think on it some more.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> What is so absolutist about it?
> 
> They will become "human" is a certainty beyond intervention like abortion or accidents. Accidents happen and I would never argue they can be fully prevented.
> 
> I even said there was one scenario where I may even call abortion acceptable, though I would have to think on it some more.



Your whole abortion is murder stance and your whole stance on abortion in general. The discussion is inevitably about what is murder and what isn't, and you need to understand that preventing things that aren't human persons from becoming that is not the same as murder.

What is your stance on birth control pills by the way? What about other contraceptives?


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, you didn't. You said some irrelevant shit about semantics and then some irrelevant shit about what the lump of cells might one day be. My question remains unchanged.



And I answered it. You just found it to be irrelevant, so move on. I really don't care how relevant you find it. It is unacceptable to try and work around a baby being or becoming a baby. You KNOW what it is or will be. 

You find a loophole to help you live with yourself that is fine.



> What's the difference? You prevent a life that could potentially be.



Again, there is no conception. Its not the same thing.



> A claim which you have backed up with absolutely nothing so far apart from repeating it over and over again.



I did back it up, you just chose not to accept my reasoning. That is your choice and I can't force you to change it.



> Paying money is not the same as harming someone.



Were you not talking about causing the woman pain or changing her body and things like that? How is it not the same if bill collectors force undo stress on me. Stress is a medical concern. 

If you think I would actually do something like that you are a fool. I am merely making a point that we can all continue to use dumb reasoning and try and find loopholes but we will get nowhere. 

You can choose to accept it or you won't but we will just end up going in pointless circles.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> you need to understand that preventing things that aren't human persons from becoming that is not the same as murder.



Did you not see the part where I said you could change the wording? I already agreed you don't have to call it murder. 



> What is your stance on birth control pills by the way? What about other contraceptives?



I have no problem with them. My only issue is with conception. If you KNOW you are pregnant and KNOW that a baby comes from that process and you get an abortion you are simply running from the responsibility and doing something similar (happy now? ) to murder. 

Making excuses like "it will ruin her life" are bullshit and copout arguments. In fact that's as bad as the abortion itself. If you get one or support it at least be honest and simply say "I don't want to have to deal with a child. I am running away from my problems". Don't make excuses.

It's like dad's who don't stick around and say things like "I wasn't ready to support you". SMH.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Did you not see the part where I said you could change the wording? I already agreed you don't have to call it murder.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 




Yeah and under that wording, preventing a bunch of cells from becoming a human person, is not necessarily the worst thing that can happen. Lets see a benefits versus cost for a while.




A dad who doesn't stick around is inflicting suffering towards a person. In this case there is no person to suffer from your mistakes. On the other hand forcing dysfunctional and irresponsible people to have pregnancies and children will cause all that more suffering.  And there will be abandonment of those children from their parents as well. And those children will grow up to become adults, shaped by those experiences. Is this the more responsible world you are envisioning?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> And I answered it. You just found it to be irrelevant, so move on. I really don't care how relevant you find it. It is unacceptable to try and work around a baby being or becoming a baby. You KNOW what it is or will be.
> 
> You find a loophole to help you live with yourself that is fine.



You have yet to answer my question. Is a full-grown man the same thing as a bunch of cells that may some day become a man?

It's a very simple question, you could stop dodging it now.



> Again, there is no conception. Its not the same thing.



Why not? You never explain anything.



> I did back it up, you just chose not to accept my reasoning. That is your choice and I can't force you to change it.



So then you do not see a difference between something that some day might become and something that already is? They're one and the same to you?



> Were you not talking about causing the woman pain or changing her body and things like that? How is it not the same if bill collectors force undo stress on me. Stress is a medical concern.



Your arguments started out terrible and only got worse from there. Are you really arguing here that making someone pay money is the same as inflicting excruciating pain upon them? A bill is the same as a smack in the face?


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> In this case there is no person to suffer from your mistakes.



There is person enough. A future person you prevented from existing once they were already conceived.



> On the other hand forcing dysfunctional and irresponsible people to have pregnancies and children will cause all that more suffering.



Not necessarily. I have friends who really "grew up" after having goods. I am not denying that what you say happens as well, but there is the other side to consider as well. You can't prove a baby is going to have a bad life or good life. 



> And there will be abandonment of those children from their parents as well. And those children will grow up to become adults, shaped by those experiences.



Yes but lets be honest, that isn't always a bad thing. There are tons of success stories of people who came from rough childhoods or even from being homeless. I am not saying its cool to put kids through that but it isn't all bad.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You have yet to answer my question. Is a full-grown man the same thing as a bunch of cells that may some day become a man?
> 
> It's a very simple question, you could stop dodging it now.



Its not really that simple as I am sure there are loopholes to be found in any answer I give. Anyway if a woman knows she is pregnant and a baby is "on the way" then yes, that lump of cells is more or less the same as a man. 



> Why not? You never explain anything.



I explain everything.



> So then you do not see a difference between something that some day *will* become and something that already is? They're one and the same to you?



Pretty much, yeah. 

Barring an accident we know what is inevitable but any grown man could have an accident on any given day as well. 



> Your arguments started out terrible and only got worse from there.



So did yours. 

See what I did there?



> Are you really arguing here that making someone pay money is the same as inflicting excruciating pain upon them? A bill is the same as a smack in the face?



They are not the exact same, but both can cause you harm in some way. Stress is far more harmful to your overall health than being smacked in the face.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 15, 2011)

Juno said:


> Abortion is not necessarily surgical. The vast majority take place in the first month or two, which is when pills will be enough to do the job.
> 
> Also, you're ignoring how much worse this makes the situation for young people. Around 90% already willingly involve their parents. The rest who don't usually have pretty good reasons, the primary one being dysfunctional families. This law provides no out for girls who have been abused, and god help victims of rape and i*c*st.


Kids still can't go on meds with out parental permission either though. I mean there's not much they have a say so in because when something goes wrong its going to be the parents that have to deal with it.


----------



## αce (Apr 15, 2011)

> ou mean like humans are entirely dependant on the planet in order to survive? So we're not a full fledged entity?  So it'd be ok to kill humans then if I follow your logic.
> 
> I'm not even pro-life but your reasonning is moot at best.



There's a difference between a symbiotic relationship with a developing fetus and it's mother, and humans evolving on a planet with limited resources which they have adapted themselves to live on.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Its not about destroying somehing and it does exist even if it is only a lump of cells.



We are talking about destroying a *lifeless* lump of cells that may one day have life.  How does destroying that destroy a life that does not yet exist?



> I am not sure why everyone likes the repeat button but you KNOW what you are stopping. You just change definitions and words to try and make it right.



Stopping the teenagers life from being ruined?  Yep, and I've no problem with that.

If you are refering to stopping the potential life of the fetus, then I hope you are againt any form of contraception, and pushing for legislation that demands every woman have sex as often as possible while not pregnant, otherwise they are wasting those precious eggs that could become life!



> Its seriously no different than murder. Is it unlawful? No, because the law allows it. It is just an ignorant and barbaric law.



No different from murder?  Then do we start throwing anyone who has a stillborn baby in jail for involuntary manslaughter?  You may claim semantics, but I am quite curious where the disconnect is here.  "You are forced to have a child, otherwise it's clearly murder, you know, except for when it isn't for some arbitrary reason"



> Its a small step in the right direction but a good one. Not sure how that makes me unfortunate.



Stomping on people's rights is pretty unfornate.  Oh well, that's hypocrisy for you.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 15, 2011)

It shouldn't matter what your religious affiliation is, this statute is clearly a violation of Roe V Wade, as are all of the other abortion bills in all of the other GOP lead states this year, and with the conservative leanings of the supreme court, Bush left the anti choice movement with the greatest single gift of all time


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 15, 2011)

Actually, the Supreme Court has upheld restrictions on abortion rights toward minors in the _Planned Parenthood v Casey_ case of 1992......


It was long before George W. Bush came along.....but yes, I think it is pretty stupid in several states that minors not only have to inform one or both of their parents of their abortion.....they have to seek permission to do it !


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> How does destroying that destroy a life that does not yet exist?



Repeat again? You know what it will become. It has been conceived and barring an accident will become a full grown human.



> Stopping the teenagers life from being ruined?  Yep, and I've no problem with that.



Bullshit.

Prove there lives would be ruined. I know a lot of teenage girls who don't have ruined lives because of kids. 

Its just another out you try to make to feel better about what is essentially murder.



> If you are refering to stopping the potential life of the fetus, then I hope you are againt any form of contraception,



Conception is the difference. The baby is already conceived when a women is pregnant, not before then.



> No different from murder?  Then do we start throwing anyone who has a stillborn baby in jail for involuntary manslaughter?



No. 



> "You are forced to have a child, otherwise it's clearly murder, you know, except for when it isn't for some arbitrary reason"



You are forced to have a child if you become pregnant. You aren't forced to have sex (outside of rape cases). So again, you are trying to protect women who made a mistake and don't want to live with the consequences. Typical of the people in this section to run away from problems they don't like instead of facing them. Quite a childish stance to take honestly.



> Stomping on people's rights is pretty unfornate.  Oh well, that's hypocrisy for you.



There is no stomping on people's rights. In fact I don't ever recall the right for people to kill babies....Or what would be babies if you wish to keep playing elementary word games.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 15, 2011)

A embryo in the first trimester is not fully developed (nor even aware of its own existence)......women have the right to abort in that stage and possibly at the first part of the second trimester.


Honestly, you are like the poster child of the conservative right....stomping women's rights to an abortion to ease their mental or social suffering they may endure if they go through with the pregnancy.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Honestly, you are like the poster child of the conservative right....stomping women's rights to an abortion to ease their mental or social suffering they may endure if they go through with the pregnancy.



You can label me however you want. I support no party I only go by what I feel is right. I could care less how Dems. or Reps. feel for that matter.

I could say you are like a poster child for the liberal left....Not doing a damn thing but whining about people getting everything they want. It won't get us anywhere.

The woman made the mistake so she (and the man) should take responsibility instead of running away from their problems. That is the problem with people nowadays. They think they should have everything handed to them and be able to do what they want with no repercussions. 

BS.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 15, 2011)

Every woman's pregnancy happens in different circumstances !


They wore a condom....but that failed.


The woman took a birth control pill....but that failed.


The woman told her lover not to ejaculate inside her....but he did anyway.


The woman was raped and etc........


Honestly, taking away abortion rights would make women go to underground abortions where it is unsafe and could potentially kill them.


That is one reason why legal abortion laws exist.....to protect women from unsafe abortions that could take their lives.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Actually, the Supreme Court has upheld restrictions on abortion rights toward minors in the _Planned Parenthood v Casey_ case of 1992......
> 
> 
> It was long before George W. Bush came along.....but yes, I think it is pretty stupid in several states that minors not only have to inform one or both of their parents of their abortion.....they have to seek permission to do it !



Your saying that as if the supreme court was actually a non biased institution 

Bush nominated Scalia who has championed anti abortion rights ever since he was chosen for the position.

17 states have anti abortion language this year. It is clearly a violation of Roe V Wade, the only reason the Pro-Choice movement has not any of these bills to the court is because Roe V Wade would be overturned by the conservative court justices, banning abortion entirely.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 15, 2011)

I just stated in my second half of the post how I think about it.....which is stupid.

Scalia is a justice who I think should have never been in the bench.....he believes that if it is not in the Constitution, then the federal government cannot enact laws to promote equality, overseeing fairness in the private sector, modest gun control laws, or even possibly better access to healthcare.


He even wrote a "passionate" dissent when Kennedy and O'Connor voted with the liberal judges to overturn the sodomy laws in 2003 and even went so far to hint that since women's equality protection does not exist in the Constitution....the federal government or Court cannot necessarily endorse in favor of women's rights.


But at the very least, O'Connor and Kennedy did not go through with the other restriction on married women.....


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> I just stated in the my second half how I think about it.....which is a stupid ruling.
> 
> 
> But at the very least, O'Connor and Kennedy did not go through with the other restriction on married women.....



my point is not to talk about "restrictions" on abortion, but getting rid of the fundamental right to have one, this is far and beyond anything we've seen before, and i think its a travesty in 2011, that we have to go through this


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 15, 2011)

Despite Kennedy being a Catholic and a conservative moderate....he voted to allow adult women have the right to abortion until the point of viability and privacy from the husband.


There is still a 5-4 decision to aid pro-choicers if the abortion laws institute a ban on abortions on the first trimester (the most common) or adult women's right to privacy, that is.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Every woman's pregnancy happens in different circumstances !



And none matter outside of the rape situation which even then I think they should have it but I wouldn't necessarily say it should be forced. 



> Honestly, taking away abortion rights would make women go to underground abortions where it is unsafe and could potentially kill them.



I have no sympathy for that and if they do try something dumb like that I could care less if they die. We can't prevent all dumb things from happening in the world but we also shouldn't give outlets for dumb decisions to be made either. 



> That is one reason why legal abortion laws exist.....to protect women from unsafe abortions that could take their lives.



Which is a stupid reason to make a law. If they want to do something dumb to themselves I say let them. I have no sympathy for fools.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 15, 2011)

Thanks for proving that you are a heartless, then !


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Thanks for proving that you are a heartless, then !



Yeah. I am heartless for wanting to protect "beings" that can't protect themselves.

I am also heartless for donating money to cancer society's and giving money to the poor. 

I am also heartless for helping to take care of my niece and nephew because there father isn't there for them.

So cold I am.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 15, 2011)

You are not going to gather sympathy here since you have no sympathy for what the woman goes through in a unwanted pregnancy or situations that would have dire consequences on her mental or social well-being that could make a woman take drastic measures if she does not have the right to a legal abortion.


An embryo in the first stage cannot feel pain nor is even aware of its existence!


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> You are not going to gather sympathy here since you have no sympathy for what the woman goes through in a unwanted pregnancy or situations that would have dire consequences on her mental or social well-being that could make a woman take drastic measures if she does not have the right to a legal abortion.



Why do people keep bringing up sympathy? 

Its you guys who want sympathy for rapists and killers and every other damn person on the planet no matter what they do. 

I am not asking for any sympathy and I don't easily give it to people who make mistakes and try to run from them and not face them like an adult.

You said I was heartless and you couldn't be more wrong but that doesn't surprise me. Like everyone else in here someone disagrees with you so you either bash them or make up a flaw that is nonexistant.



> An embryo in the first stage cannot feel pain nor is even aware of its existence!



But we know its there and that is the whole point. Even when kids are 1, 2 or 3 etc. years old it is 100% up to us to protect them and take care of them. It is no different for them when they don't "feel" yet.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 15, 2011)

Because you are trying to make us feel sympathy for an embryo who is not even aware of its own existence nor have the ability to feel pain versus a woman who has the ability to feel pain and knows her own existence to have the right to a abortion to ease the emotional and social stigma she would face if she went through a unwanted pregnancy.


You made it clear that you have no sympathy for women even if they used protection......not everyone who has sex means they want to have a baby, you know !


You need to take your patriarchial views away....this is the 21st century.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> You made it clear that you have no sympathy for women even if they used protection......not everyone who has sex means they want to have a baby, you know !



Actually you made it clear you don't really understand much. I have plenty of sympathy for women but not enough to let them run from their mistakes and choices. If she chose to have sex she new the risk. I don't make bullshit excuses like "well, she REALLY didn't mean to so lets all be nice to her and pat her on the back and say its okay to abort the problem and continue on the same path".

I have sex with my girl all of the time and I damn sure don't want a kid but if she gets pregnant I would want to keep it without hesitation. It's not because I want a kid or even like the idea of having that responsibility but I am a man and I don't run from my problems.

You could learn a thing or 2 about that so you don't look like such a soft pushover who lets anyone get whatever they want. 



> You need to take your patriarchial views away....this is the 21st century.



You need to take your views away. We aren't barbarians who just kill as we please because we don't want to take responsibility for our own mistakes and actions.


----------



## Yachiru (Apr 15, 2011)

I agree with Cyphon. And I say that as a female myself.

In a nutshell, abortions are shortcuts for irresponsible people to run from their mistakes instead of facing them like adults. That counts for males as well as females.

I love how the pro-abortion party here doesn't even try to disprove the biological fact that this "bunch of cells" _is_ a human being, regardless of its evolving stages to a human being during pregnancy. It doesn't matter that it's composed of cells in the beginning; you know what it will become so it is to be treated like a human being. Pretty humanistic, I'd say.

I have high respect for women who go through pregnancy (even if it's unwanted) and face the consequences of their actions. What I do not tolerate however, is women who look for shortcuts so that they don't need to face problems and consequences.

I'm not even a conservative; I don't agree on many things with conservatives, but I agree with them on the abortion issue and I welcome this new law.

And those who will bash me again: Everything has a side effect, so does sex. The more severe the consequences could be, the more responsibility you will need.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 15, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> I agree with Cyphon. And I say that as a female myself.



Who gives a shit about your gender? I guess I should take Palin's advice on gender equality while I'm at it too? Or Jesse Lee Peterson's take on blacks?

Why do I get the feeling you were beckoned here though?



> In a nutshell, abortions are shortcuts for irresponsible people to run from their mistakes instead of facing them like adults. That counts for males as well as females.



Except they are not. You can take all the necessary precautions short of abstinence, but mistakes happen. Furthermore the whole rape thing.



> I love how the pro-abortion party



Not a party, and it's Pro-CHOICE. You don't have to like or personally condone abortion to accept that other individuals should have that choice.



> here doesn't even try to disprove the biological fact that this "bunch of cells" _is_ a human being, regardless of its evolving stages to a human being during pregnancy.



We already have, numerous times. It seems to the types like you and Cyphon, facts don't mean anything. It is a potential for human life, it is not established human life. Just as a zygote is and the eggs and sperm of a female and male could be under the right conditions. 



> It doesn't matter that it's composed of cells in the beginning; you know what it will become so it is to be treated like a human being. Pretty humanistic, I'd say.



It's totally idiotic. Tirelessly stated, things like morning-after, Plan B, and general contraception would be murder under this warped logic. 



> I have high respect for women who go through pregnancy (even if it's unwanted) and face the consequences of their actions. What I do not tolerate however, is women who look for shortcuts so that they don't need to face problems and consequences.




It's not a shortcut. Also, there are women that only have children for the possible aid they may receive. Having a child in of itself is not a commendable act. If a woman realizes that she is not ready to be a responsible mother yet, if ever, and decides to make a swift decision to abort before the fetus reaches a particular development stage, that is being smart. That is commendable. 



> I'm not even a conservative; I don't agree on many things with conservatives, but I agree with them on the abortion issue and I welcome this new law.
> 
> And those who will bash me again: Everything has a side effect, so does sex. The more severe the consequences could be, the more responsibility you will need.



Sex doesn't have a side-effect unless your partner is infected. Sex has various results, many that can be avoided or done away with by legal and reasonable actions, such as contraception and if that doesn't work, abortion, both of which are responsibly avoiding a situation in which the woman is not yet able to tackle.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 15, 2011)

Good bill they are restricting MURDER.


----------



## Negative (Apr 15, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Good bill they are restricting MURDER.




How can it be Murder if its nothing more than a bunch of cells during the 10 weeks into Pregancy? If antyhing, Abortion isn't murder in the first place.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 15, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Good bill they are restricting MURDER.


Superstars, when did you become someone of so much of the religious super right? Abortion is not murder. Again, up until the second trimester, a fetus doesn't even have a brain, a heart, spinal cord, or any other organs. It doesn't even look like a human being. And it acts more like a parasite than anything else, and can endanger a mother.


----------



## Yachiru (Apr 15, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Who gives a shit about your gender? I guess I should take Palin's advice on gender equality while I'm at it too? Or Jesse Lee Peterson's take on blacks?
> 
> Why do I get the feeling you were beckoned here though?



Because a lot of people seem to believe I'm male. I wanted to clarify that I'm female so the stereotypical image of only "sexist males" approving this law is disproven. 

And also, if my own mother had undergone an abortion, neither me nor my brother would be alive today. Surprisingly, my stance on abortion didn't develop from any doctrine.




> Except they are not. You can take all the necessary precautions short of abstinence, but mistakes happen. Furthermore the whole rape thing.



Rape should be the exception, since it happened against her will. That's the gray area where individuals should make a choice.




> Not a party, and it's Pro-CHOICE. You don't have to like or personally condone abortion to accept that other individuals should have that choice.



By that logic, they also had the choice to either have sex or not. They also had the choice of either using protection or not. 
To prevent mistakes, one should take all possible precations to prevent for example a condom breaking, or paying attention when the pill doesn't take effect (diarrhea, when you take anti-biotics etc.). Not surprising that mistakes happen.. a large amount of students in America believes that the pill is an adequate protection against AIDS 




> We already have, numerous times. It seems to the types like you and Cyphon, facts don't mean anything. It is a potential for human life, it is not established human life. Just as a zygote is and the eggs and sperm of a female and male could be under the right conditions.



So the fact that knowing what will come outta it doesn't count? How cruel 

Biologically, life starts when the egg becomes a zygote when fertilized. I don't distinguish between the states an embryo undergoes.




> It's not a shortcut. Also, there are women that only have children for the possible aid they may receive. Having a child in of itself is not a commendable act. If a woman realizes that she is not ready to be a responsible mother yet, if ever, and decides to make a swift decision to abort before the fetus reaches a particular development stage, that is being smart. That is commendable.



If a woman realizes during pregancy that she's not ready to be a responsible mother yet, there's always adoption. After all there are people who want kids but they themselves don't have the potential due to health reasons.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 15, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Actually you made it clear you don't really understand much. I have plenty of sympathy for women but not enough to let them run from their mistakes and choices. If she chose to have sex she new the risk. I don't make bullshit excuses like "well, she REALLY didn't mean to so lets all be nice to her and pat her on the back and say its okay to abort the problem and continue on the same path".
> 
> I have sex with my girl all of the time and I damn sure don't want a kid but if she gets pregnant I would want to keep it without hesitation. It's not because I want a kid or even like the idea of having that responsibility but I am a man and I don't run from my problems.
> 
> ...



You are deciding for your girlfriend now ?


....Fucked up.


Hate to break it to you, but your girlfriend's body is not yours to decide for.


If she knew you were this intolerant to choice....she maybe like you.....but not all other women want boyfriends like you to decide for them in pregnancies.


It is their bodies...not yours to command.


Being pregnant is a controversial and vulnerable time for the woman.....so obviously, they should have options on how to deal with unplanned pregnancies so that they will not take drastic measures (unsafe and lethal abortions) just like before Roe v Wade.


What is barbaric is not letting women decide for themselves what they want to do with their bodies in the early stages.


Your view is not letting women have that choice.  That is even more barbaric.


----------



## Yachiru (Apr 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> You are deciding for your girlfriend now ?
> 
> 
> ....Fucked up.
> ...



I don't think he meant that ..

He would wanna keep it, but ofc it's his gf's descision. But odds are that she would wanna keep it herself too, so..


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 15, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> Because a lot of people seem to believe I'm male. I wanted to clarify that I'm female so the stereotypical image of only "sexist males" approving this law is disproven.



Well, sexist males and stupid females. That better?



> And also, if my own mother had undergone an abortion, neither me nor my brother would be alive today.



I don't care.



> Surprisingly, my stance on abortion didn't develop from any doctrine



I don't really care where it came from, the issue is that it's a shitty stance to take.



> Rape should be the exception, since it happened against her will. That's the gray area where individuals should make a choice.



They should have a choice consensual or not. You cannot, and it's stupid to force a person to abide by your views on morality regarding reproductive habits. If you would never had an abortion, that's you, don't try and restrict another woman from having the option to do so.



> By that logic, they also had the choice to either have sex or not. They also had the choice of either using protection or not.



Well, not everyone has puritanical view on sex, and I'd rather those that do not have the option of abortion on the table as a form of contraception. I definitely will not be raising the potential kids.

Even with protection, however rarely (when properly applied), condoms break, pills don't work. Abortion is and should be the next option in contraception. 



> To prevent mistakes, one should take all possible precations to prevent for example a condom breaking, or paying attention when the pill doesn't take effect (diarrhea, when you take anti-biotics etc.). Not surprising that mistakes happen.. a large amount of students in America believes that the pill is an adequate protection against AIDS



Abortion is a precaution. The fetus is barely in an inch long in most abortions and stated already, indistinguishable from those of other mammals. It is not an established human life, it is something with the potential to be one under correct conditions. 



> So the fact that knowing what will come outta it doesn't count? How cruel



Well, we all know when an egg and sperm meet in a woman's uterus, it'll fertilize and over time possibly become a human if it's not rejected by the woman's body. We know what could come from the zygote without Plan B and morning-after pills. 



> Biologically, life starts when the egg becomes a zygote when fertilized. I



No it doesn't. The potential for human life is set when an egg becomes fertilized, but it isn't a human life.



> I don't distinguish between the states an embryo undergoes.



Fortunately, what you think means shit in the face of facts. Science does. There are clear stages that a fertilized egg goes through, whether you want to acknowledge this or not. 



> If a woman realizes during pregancy that she's not ready to be a responsible mother yet, there's always adoption.



No there isn't. Most children put up for adoption are not adopted. Orphanages are already overcrowded. It is not a viable option, because the chance that the child will find a family to adopt them is slim. Especially if they are past the toddler years. 



> After all there are people who want kids but they themselves don't have the potential due to health reasons.



All venues should be open if another doesn't fall through. Abortion should be one of them, a last-resort (which I personally feel it should be, but I won't impose that on others) or not.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 15, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> I don't think he meant that ..
> 
> He would wanna keep it, but ofc it's his gf's descision. But odds are that she would wanna keep it herself too, so..



He put more emphasizes on himself on what he wants his girlfriend to do if she was pregnant ......


If she knew he was like that, she maybe is like that.....but not every woman would appreciate having their lovers deciding for them on their pregnancies !


It is not their boyfriend's bodies, after all.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 15, 2011)

> You are forced to have a child if you become pregnant. You aren't forced to have sex (outside of rape cases). So again, you are trying to protect women who made a mistake and don't want to live with the consequences. Typical of the people in this section to run away from problems they don't like instead of facing them. Quite a childish stance to take honestly.



That's absurd.  That's like saying to someone with AIDs "Well since you made the choice to share heroin needles with someone, we won't give you treatment for it, you'll just have to live the rest of your life with the consequences.  Maybe you won't make that mistake again."


----------



## Superstars (Apr 15, 2011)

ShinemanTheFallen said:


> How can it be Murder if its nothing more than a bunch of cells during the 10 weeks into Pregancy? If antyhing, Abortion isn't murder in the first place.





			
				SuperSaiyaMan12 said:
			
		

> Superstars, when did you become someone of so much of the religious super right? Abortion is not murder. Again, up until the second trimester, a fetus doesn't even have a brain, a heart, spinal cord, or any other organs. It doesn't even look like a human being. And it acts more like a parasite than anything else, and can endanger a mother.



A person is a living organism from conception, abortion is murder.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 15, 2011)

Superstars said:


> A person is a living organism from conception, abortion is murder.


No, its not a living organism since it can't support itself outside the womb. At conception, again, its just a completed egg and cell Superstars that starts dividing. Up until the second trimester, most cases, it can't even support itself and doesn't have a mind.

A cancerous tumor is an 'living organism' by your logic, and getting rid of it would be murder by your logic.


----------



## Xyloxi (Apr 15, 2011)

There's nothing morally wrong with abortion, circle of life and whatnot, that shits in the Lion King.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 15, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> No, its not a living organism since it can't support itself outside the womb. At conception, again, its just a completed egg and cell Superstars that starts dividing. Up until the second trimester, most cases, it can't even support itself and doesn't have a mind.
> 
> A cancerous tumor is an 'living organism' by your logic, and getting rid of it would be murder by your logic.



Bad analogy, a tumor is deadly and isn't a human life, the union of sperm and egg is.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 15, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Bad analogy, a tumor is deadly and isn't a human life, the union of sperm and egg is.


The union of sperm and egg is JUST like a tumor, and it CAN be deadly. Its creating a foreign mass in a woman's body-abiet in the perfect environment for it to thrive, it is still comparable to a cancerous mass until it gets a brain of its own. 

You're telling me a freshly fertilized egg is a fully functioning life form?

How about this for an analogy: A bot fly lays an egg on your stomach. Completely fertilized. Is it wrong to remove the maggot?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 15, 2011)

Eggs can attach the uterine wall and become parasites instead of children


----------



## Ceria (Apr 15, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Ceria, Cyphon, why are you ignoring the rape issue?



I didn't openly ignore it. My views are directed at the scum who use abortion as a form of birth control. If it will save a person's life to abort a child or it's the result of rape i fully understand it's necessity.


----------



## Zihawk (Apr 15, 2011)

Dang, people on this site love to run away from their responsibilities.

And here`s another thing, all of you who are so fixated on a woman`s right to choose, how about a woman`s right to choose to not have sex until they feel they can handle a baby? same concept amirite?


----------



## Ceria (Apr 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> but yes, I think it is pretty stupid in several states that minors not only have to inform one or both of their parents of their abortion.....they have to seek permission to do it !



So you think it's alright for minors to get abortions without parental consent, do you not understand the ramifications of this? 

I'm speechless that anyone could be that stupid.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 15, 2011)

Does anyone else feel that some of these people were beckoned here?



Zihawk said:


> Dang, people on this site love to run away from their responsibilities.



Preventing a possible outcome =/= Avoiding responsibilities.



> And here`s another thing, all of you who are so fixated on a woman`s right to choose, how about a woman`s right to choose to not have sex until they feel they can handle a baby? same concept amirite?



This is...idiotic. Did you even read this before you posted it?


----------



## Ausorrin (Apr 15, 2011)

I don't know if you guys have heard if it, but it's called responsibility.  If a girl doesn't want a baby, she shouldn't have sex.  It's her fault and she has to deal with it.  Getting an abortion is murder.  Yes, it's murder.

And for the people crying about having to get a parent's consent, it's the parents right to know if their child that they bred is pregnant.


----------



## Ceria (Apr 15, 2011)

Ausorrin said:


> I don't know if you guys have heard if it, but it's called responsibility.  If a girl doesn't want a baby, she shouldn't have sex.  It's her fault and she has to deal with it.  Getting an abortion is murder.  Yes, it's murder.
> 
> And for the people crying about having to get a parent's consent, it's the parents right to know if their child that they bred is pregnant.



/thread.


----------



## stream (Apr 15, 2011)

Ceria said:


> So you think it's alright for minors to get abortions without parental consent, do you not understand the ramifications of this?



What ramifications? That some minors have sex without the knowledge of their parents? SHOCK! HORROR! STOP THE PRESSES!

Seriously, what other ramifications are there? Of course, you can be against abortion, but an abortion is an abortion whether it is a minor or an adult; so I don't see the need for special treatment for minors.

We can all agree that proper birth control would be much better. That means we should push for proper sex education lessons, the kind that do not insist on abstinence only. I hope that whenever a minor gets an abortion, they get some info reminding them that hey, there are better options for not having children.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 15, 2011)

Ausorrin said:


> I don't know if you guys have heard if it, but it's called responsibility.



Having a child does not necessarily entail responsibility. There is much, much more to it than that. 



> If a girl doesn't want a baby, she shouldn't have sex.  It's her fault and she has to deal with it.  Getting an abortion is murder.  Yes, it's murder



If a girl doesn't want a baby, she should also use contraception if she wishes to be sexually active, and if necessary abortion. 

Except that abortion is not murder.



> And for the people crying about having to get a parent's consent, it's the parents right to know if their child that they bred is pregnant.



Depends on the circumstance surrounding parent and child.


----------



## Ausorrin (Apr 15, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Having a child does not necessarily entail responsibility. There is much, much more to it than that.



It's taking responsibility for the deciscion that you made is what I'm talking about.  Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.






> If a girl doesn't want a baby, she should also use contraception if she wishes to be sexually active, and if necessary abortion.



If a girl doesn't want a baby, she shouldn't have sex.  That's the only 100 % full proof way without altering your body with surgery.



> Except that abortion is not murder.







> Depends on the circumstance surrounding parent and child.



The parents should have the right to know.  It's their child that they formed.  What do you think parents are here for?


----------



## Ceria (Apr 15, 2011)

stream said:


> What ramifications? That some minors have sex without the knowledge of their parents? SHOCK! HORROR! STOP THE PRESSES!
> 
> Seriously, what other ramifications are there? Of course, you can be against abortion, but an abortion is an abortion whether it is a minor or an adult; so I don't see the need for special treatment for minors.
> 
> We can all agree that proper birth control would be much better. That means we should push for proper sex education lessons, the kind that do not insist on abstinence only. I hope that whenever a minor gets an abortion, they get some info reminding them that hey, there are better options for not having children.



The ramifications are that it would only get worse. I would have thought that much was obvious. Underage children have no business having sexual relations, the parent's must be made aware of the situation to prevent children from continuing down the dangerous path of being promiscuous and getting pregnant too early in life. 

Abortion is murder, they shouldn't get away with it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 15, 2011)

Ausorrin said:


> It's taking responsibility for the deciscion that you made is what I'm talking about.  Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.



Having a child is not taking responsibility, once again much more entails being responsible. Many people have had children and wound up doing awful things or introducing them to an unhealthy environment. Any idiot can have a child, it's not a valid measure of one's own sense of responsibility, especially if it was indoctrinated obligation.

Abortion is and should continue to be used as a method of birth control. I think it should be last resort, but I won't impose view that on others. Most occur before or during the 10 week period, in which the fetus is barely an inch long and the process safer than childbirth. 



> If a girl doesn't want a baby, she shouldn't have sex.  That's the only 100 % full proof way without altering your body with surgery.



Sex, especially for humans is not merely or necessarily a means of reproduction. That puritanical view on it is ass backwards and ignoring the many facets of human sexuality that go far beyond reproduction. If a girl doesn't want to have a baby, she can in the case she decides to be sexually active, also acquire necessary knowledge and access to contraception. One of which can be abortion if the woman feels it's necessary to do so.



> The parents should have the right to know.  It's their child that they formed.  What do you think parents are here for?



Not all parents love their children. Not all parents take care of their children. Circumstance surrounding the girl's domestic life and the nature of her relationship with her parents are important factors.


----------



## Bioness (Apr 16, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Eggs can attach the uterine wall and become parasites instead of children



Oh how deliciously wonderful 

seriously though, until it has brain function and a heart beat whatever is growing inside of the woman before that is just a mass of cells, wonderful and growing cells, just like cancer or a tumor or that thing growing at the bottom of your trash can.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> You are deciding for your girlfriend now ?
> 
> ....Fucked up.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, but your girlfriend's body is not yours to decide for.



Why am I not surprised you added in your own words to my post. At what point in the post did I say I was deciding for her?

I said "I" would want to keep it without hesitation. 

You are like a young bull and all you are seeing is red. 



> If she knew you were this intolerant to choice....she maybe like you.....



She knows I am intolerant to what is basically murder, yes. She is mostly in agreement with me on the issue but she is slightly more sympathetic than me. Not by much though.



> What is barbaric is not letting women decide for themselves what they want to do with their bodies in the early stages.



I fully agree we should let them decide to have sex. That is a choice they can do with their bodies. They shouldn't be able to abort their mistake though. Again, running from responsibility is an act of cowards and I don't stand for it.



> Your view is not letting women have that choice.  That is even more barbaric.



Saving babies is barbaric.

Probably the most laughable point I have ever seen on the entire internet. 



Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> That's absurd.  That's like saying to someone with AIDs "Well since you made the choice to share heroin needles with someone, we won't give you treatment for it, you'll just have to live the rest of your life with the consequences.  Maybe you won't make that mistake again."



Not the same thing at all, but nice effort.



Ceria said:


> I'm speechless that anyone could be that stupid.





Seto Kaiba said:


> This is...idiotic. Did you even read this before you posted it?



Seriously. Can't anyone have a discussion without flinging around insults. I have even been drug into it myself I have been bombarded so much but that doesn't make it right or a good way at all to prove a point.

I especially see it from you Seto. You are like a little brat who had a toy taken away so you run around stomping your feet and saying you hate your mother. 

Grow up.

Not everyone is going to have the same view is you and just because they don't that doesn't make them stupid.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 16, 2011)

Abortion is not murder because the embryo is not a fully viable fetus, yet !

You kept emphasizing what *you* want your girlfriend to do, so what do you expect?

It cannot feel pain nor knows that it exists, unlike the woman who may be going through mental trauma over this.


People do not always have sex to have children and most of the women who have abortions have tried to prevent pregnancies but get an abortion because the condom breaks or the birth control pill fails !


You refuse to understand this !


Not every woman can deal with the mental trauma of a unwanted pregnancy that they never intended to happen even though they took precautions from being pregnant (or the boyfriend became a prick and cum inside her anyway, despite her not wanting him to do so).


----------



## stream (Apr 16, 2011)

Ceria said:


> *Underage children have no business having sexual relations*, the parent's must be made aware of the situation to prevent children from continuing down the dangerous path of being promiscuous.


Er... You _do_ know that *the age of consent is **16* in most States, right? Including Kansas.


----------



## Santí (Apr 16, 2011)

Lolconservatives.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Abortion is not murder because the embryo is not a fully viable fetus, yet !
> 
> It cannot feel pain nor knows that it exists, unlike the woman who may be going through mental trauma over this.



What you are saying makes it even more barbaric. You are basically saying it is okay to kill "it" because it is completely defenseless and knows no better.

We can protect trees, animals and the enviornment but not babies who can't decide for themselves 



> People do not always have sex to have children and most of the people who try to prevent pregnancies happen anyway because the condom breaks or the birth control pill fails !



And that is a mistake they made by choosing to have sex. They know the consequences. You may actually have a valid point if we assumed every person to ever have sex didn't know it was even possible to get pregnant. They just assumed storks dropped babies off when the time was right. 

Then you could argue they didn't know better. Until then you are letting them get away with what is essentially murder because they wanted a night full of pleasure and didn't care what the consequences were because they know people like you don't care either and simply let them do whatever they want.



> You refuse to understand this !



That's my line.



> Not every woman can deal with the mental trauma of a unwanted pregnancy.



That is their own fault for having sex. If they know they can't deal with the consequences they shouldn't do it.

We could use that same excuse for murderers.

Lawyer: "Judge he KILLED 12 people"
Judge: "Yeah but mentally he isn't ready for jail. He can't handle it and we wouldn't want him to feel pain or have any mental trauma".

The fuck kind of reasoning is that?


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 16, 2011)

Human nature does not have sex just to reproduce, you know !


That is a backwards religious and ideal view that is outdated.


It is not barbaric to heed the needs and wants of a woman in the early stages of pregnancy before the embryo becomes a full human being.


You are cold and barbaric by not understanding the woman's point of view, who unlike the embryo, can feel pain and many other types of emotions when she learns she has a unplanned pregnancy despite taking precautions.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Human nature does not have sex just to reproduce, you know !



I never said it did.



> That is a backwards religious and ideal view that is outdated.



My stance really doesn't have anything to do with religion but how could religion be outdated? It's still very relevant in all cultures.



> It is not barbaric to heed the needs and wants of a woman in the early stages of pregnancy before the embryo becomes a full human being.



Sure. Lets all cater to anyone who makes a mistake and pretend like they are 5 year olds that don't know any better. That is the perfect way to do things. All murderers, rapists etc....You now get the first one for free since it would be barbaric to not think about your needs and wants.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 16, 2011)

Except most of the cases are because the precautions they took failed AT NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN !


You missed the part about "ideal".......Your view is completely unrealistic and out of touch of modern times for the woman to decide for herself what should happen in the early months of her pregnancy.


You are implying that sex should only be for "reproduction" because you are saying that she should not get an abortion despite her trying not to get pregnant with condoms and birth control pills.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Except most of the cases are because the precautions they took failed AT NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN !



Maybe I am just a genius but I know precautions can fail. Its weird how nobody who has ever gotten pregnant knew that. I am ahead of the curve.



> Your view is completely unrealistic and out of touch of modern times for the woman to decide for herself what should happen in the early months of her pregnancy.



Its not unrealistic. We already have laws against murder and other crimes like it. 



> You are implying that sex should only be for "reproduction" because you are saying that she should not get an abortion despite her trying not to get pregnant with condoms and birth control pills.



Not sure why I would imply that when I have sex all of the time with no intention of reproducing. You can have sex for fun but you should be prepared to live with the resulting consequences. It's just being an adult. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 16, 2011)

And a adult also knows that if she were to go through mental distress over a unplanned  pregnancy, then she should do the responsible thing of getting an abortion before it reaches a certain stage (the middle of the second trimester) so she will not go through a mental breakdown !


Abortions are not labelled as "murder" !


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon, abortion is not murder. A embryo or fetus isn't fully formed, can't feel pain, can't think, can't do anything for itself. Again, its more like a parasite than a fully formed human being. 

You do know the major changes a woman goes through just to accommodate a fetus to full term, right?


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 16, 2011)

He made it clear that he does not care about the woman's point of view of this !

Unlike the embryo, the woman can feel pain or have mixed emotions over a unplanned pregnancy.......it is even more barbaric ignoring and demonizing the woman when she did most likely tried to do the responsible things of preventing a pregnancy: condoms, birth control pills, or telling her lover not to cum inside her (but did anyway)......


Honestly, pro-lifers need to understand the woman's point of view.....it is okay to keep that belief to yourself....but do not force other women to go by your views when it is legal and should remain legal in order to protect women from unsafe abortions.


I care for the woman's side more because unlike the embryo, she can feel pain and could do drastic things if she does not have the choice of a legal, safe abortion.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Cyphon, abortion is not murder. A embryo or fetus isn't fully formed, can't feel pain, can't think, can't do anything for itself. Again, its more like a parasite than a fully formed human being.
> 
> You do know the major changes a woman goes through just to accommodate a fetus to full term, right?



Haven't we already discussed this or was that with someone else?

I don't give a shit about the sorry excuses you want to make to excuse what is basically murder. So don't call it murder if you don't want but you know as well as anyone else that the embryo will become a baby barring an accident.

You are intentionally preventing a life you know will exist. How can you not call that murder or something just as bad? Its ridiculous you would even try to excuse it like that.

Maybe I should beat someone into a vegitative state and then murder them. I may get in trouble for beating them up but the murder is okay because they are only a vegtable now. They can't do anything on their own blah blah blah. 

And yes, I know what a woman goes through. I have been around plenty of pregnant women including one who chose to get an abortion. I am a little sick of everyone bringing that up to. 

"Cyphon doesn't care about women because he doesn't want them to be able to kill babies". 


Anyway it appears Fruit Basket hasn't quite learned how to read so he continues to just put words in my mouth so to my ignore list he goes.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 16, 2011)

And again: A embryo is not a baby, yet !


I am putting words in your mouth ?.....You implied several times in your previous posts when I told you the complex emotions and situations a woman goes through in a unwanted pregnancy that you would not care what happens to them even if they go through unsafe abortions and risk death if the law went by your view.

And thank goodness that the law currently is merciful and it is legal in the US to have an abortion until a certain time when the fetus becames "viable" (usually at the 5th or 6th months)!


----------



## Stunna (Apr 16, 2011)

Now, see, I'm confused, so someone cure me of my ignorance and answer a question or two:

According to the Law of Biogenesis, life creates life, and only after it's own kind, right?

So how is a fetus not a person, and not alive?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I don't give a shit about the sorry excuses you want to make to excuse what is basically murder. So don't call it murder if you don't want but you know as well as anyone else that the embryo will become a baby barring an accident.
> 
> You are intentionally preventing a life you know will exist. How can you not call that murder or something just as bad? Its ridiculous you would even try to excuse it like that.
> 
> ...


Cyphon, lets look at the definition of murder:

*Murder*: is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). As the loss of a human being inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the victim, as well as the fact that the commission of a murder is highly detrimental to the good order within society, most societies both present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime worthy of the harshest of punishment. In most countries, a person convicted of murder is typically given a long prison sentence, possibly a life sentence where permitted, and in some countries, the death penalty may be imposed for such an act. A person who commits murder is called a _murderer_ .

*Abortion*: is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.

Does 'malice afterthought' appear in abortion? No. Is it listed as murder in the legal matter? No. Is it listed as murder in the biological? No. 

When it comes down to it, abortion isn't murder. The only time an fetus' death is considered murder is when the mother is murdered which simultaneously kills it.


----------



## stream (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> You are intentionally preventing a life you know will exist. How can you not call that murder or something just as bad? Its ridiculous you would even try to excuse it like that.


Er... If you go that way, you are preventing life everytime you use birth control too... In fact, just by living and not having sex without protection, you are preventing millions of spermatozoids of becoming alive, right?

In the end, you might well have to accept the fact that the society you live in does not consider abortion is murder.

These kinds of things happen. Vegans refrain from drinking milk because they consider milking cows is a form of theft. You refrain from abortion because you consider it is a form of murder. Life goes on.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 16, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Now, see, I'm confused, so someone cure me of my ignorance and answer a question or two:
> 
> According to the Law of Biogenesis, life creates life, and only after it's own kind, right?
> 
> So how is a fetus not a person, and not alive?



  it depends on your view of when life begins. thus this whole argument on religious and scientific grounds


----------



## Stunna (Apr 16, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> it depends on your view of when life begins. thus this whole argument on religious and scientific grounds



But if one can only produce one of it's own kind, and alive at that, how could life began at any time except at immediate conception?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 16, 2011)

Stunna said:


> But if one can only produce one of it's own kind, and alive at that, how could life began at any time except at immediate conception?




That also depends on what your definition of "life" is 


For example, sometimes in freak circumstances, the enriched egg  attaches to the uteran wall and becomes a parasite that feeds on the woman's body. Its not a baby, but a piece of flesh born from the mother that had the possibility of being a child at one time. Its living, a death knell for the mother and if removed would not resemble a child in any form.

That's what a fetus is for me, a possibility of life, but not yet.

In my opinion, i settle around the official estimates of when it is aware of its own existence, in which case federal law already bans abortion beyond that time


----------



## Stunna (Apr 16, 2011)

Seems sort of sketchy to me, haha.

I mean, I don't see how there can be several definitions to being alive, you either are or you're not.

According to the law, alive and human is all it could be, so to destroy it would be to take a human life, wouldn't it?

Obviously, I'm still confused.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

stream said:


> Er... If you go that way, you are preventing life everytime you use birth control too... In fact, just by living and not having sex without protection, you are preventing millions of spermatozoids of becoming alive, right?



Already covered this. I am referring to after conception. I believe I was a bit more detailed in some previous posts but I don't remember.



> In the end, you might well have to accept the fact that the society you live in does not consider abortion is murder.



I am well aware of this. I am merely pointing out that society is being hypocritical and foolish.


@SSMan - We already had that very same discussion. Not sure why you are bringing it up again. You are defining murder like that means anything. I already said "essentially" murder. You can call it what you want but it is really no different.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Not the same thing at all, but nice effort.



How so? 10char


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> How so? 10char



I have quoted too many people. What was this in response to?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 16, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Seems sort of sketchy to me, haha.
> 
> I mean, I don't see how there can be several definitions to being alive, you either are or you're not.
> 
> ...



Its still splitting hairs of course for those who think "life is life". But i feel that it is an enormous stretch, and a naive thought process as justification for banning abortion  

But suppose the woman has a problem, and she and the baby would die if she attempted to have it. Does that constitute as murder AND suicide if she tried to have it?


----------



## Stunna (Apr 16, 2011)

That's a tough question.

Wouldn't a C-section be an option?

By permitting the woman to partake in that, that would be like giving her a death sentence in itself (unless she wanted to do it).

I think in that case I would support the abortion. As cruel as it may sound, I would rather lose one life than two.


----------



## Bioness (Apr 16, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Now, see, I'm confused, so someone cure me of my ignorance and answer a question or two:
> 
> According to the Law of Biogenesis, life creates life, and only after it's own kind, right?
> 
> So how is a fetus not a person, and not alive?



If you want to get technical, we aren't actually alive but simply a colony of cells

Now technically the sperm and the egg are living organisms and technically so is the future shitbag they may become.

*But*

Would you hesitate to use hand sanitizer because you are killing millions of lives that live on your hands?

No, a fetus is essentially the same thing, it is a mass of cells, technically alive but is not a organism like you, me, your dog, the bird, and those ants marching in a line. It is a glob a cells that will turn into a human eventually.

like a pile of metal not yet made into a car.


----------



## Stunna (Apr 16, 2011)

I'm starting to get it more, but are the germs and what not on your hands human?

Not saying that we should have zero regard for anything that's inhuman, but I believe man deserves more reverence than other beasts, and, though I love animals, I would support the slaying of one for the survival or aid of a human just about any day.

But, again, in accordance to the Law, the fetus _technically is_ human, even if it's not as developed as a normal person, and incapable of basic functions (the handicap debate?).

Really, if the fetus is a human, and abortion is killing it, the only thing stopping that from being murder is the fact that the dictionary describes murder as "unlawful" (unlawful in that sense presumably referring to legality).

But that brings up an entirely different debate about whether legal murder is justified murder...?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 16, 2011)

A fetus is not human, it's something that has the potential to be one under the right conditions. Like I stated, that's ridiculous rationale stemming from the claim that life starts at contraception, it does not. The potential for it starts at contraception, but potential doesn't mean it actually is. Just as an egg and sperm can make a human being, but they are not human life. A zygote is not, nor a blastocyst.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon, I don't think you're intelligent enough to be posting in the cafe.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I have quoted too many people. What was this in response to?





			
				Cyphon said:
			
		

> Cardboard Jewsuke said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Making someone with with a potentially lifelong punishment for one mistake.


----------



## Aokiji (Apr 16, 2011)

It's not lifelong punishment, you can give it up for adoption. 

And many pro-choice people would have no problem letting a father pay out of his ass for a child that he never wanted so 

Not to mention, AIDS is a disease, pregnancy isn't. Treating AIDS=/=killing a child because it's too much of a fuss to take responsibility for your actions.

Especially today, where contraception is pretty easy, there is no argument for killing unborn children with a vacuum cleaner.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Making someone with with a potentially lifelong punishment for one mistake.



That is different because offering them treatment isn't preventing someone else from living. 

Come on man, I know we disagree but you know the comparison isn't even remotely close.

Oh, and sorry I forgot exactly which point you were talking about. I got lost in so many quotes.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> That is different because offering them treatment isn't preventing *someone* else from living.



That "someone" doesn't exist. Genetically, scientifically and legally there is no life present and therefore there is no life to end or prevent.

By your rationale any time a man ejaculates outside of a vagina, he is preventing millions of sperm their chance to live. Don't bother giving me that crap about how the situations are different - they're not. 

A sperm is as much "someone" as the mass of cells that a woman can legally abort; and by willingly discharging them without the intention of pregnancy, you are willingly and knowingly preventing their chance at living. The same as an abortion.

And before you say it - no, that mass of cells is not "guaranteed to become someone over time and therefore it is different". The female body can often reject the embryo, a woman can miscarry as well the pregnancy can end in stillbirth. There are too many variables and life is therefore *not guaranteed* just because a pregnancy occurs.

The fact of the matter is this: we are not in a debate of opinions. It is scientific fact that there is *no life* prior to a legal abortion. Conception means nothing, guarantees nothing and constitutes no regard for a developing life-to-be. You've stumbled into a new section that runs on intelligence, facts, and in the case of opinions - informed ones. In the occassional cases regarding posters not fitting that description - well, they don't seem to last here for one reason or another.

Clearly you find yourself out of your element here, as you have waltzed on in with a lack of basic sexual and biology education, general misinformation and a stubborness that would make Muammar Gaddafi blush. You claim that we are a section of biased, closeminded posters because nobody here agrees with you but you're discounting the ¹possibility that you're just *wrong* and not as smart as you think, and everyone here can see that besides you. 

Just because you have an opinion on the matter doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Perhaps you're the biased and close-minded one, hmm?

¹ - scratch "possibility"; replace with "fact".


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Emasculation Storm said:


> That "someone" doesn't exist. Genetically, scientifically and legally there is no life present and therefore there is no life to end or prevent.



Already covered this with about 5 others. Go back in read instead of just repeating the same things everyone else said.



> By your rationale any time a man ejaculates outside of a vagina, he is preventing millions of sperm their chance to live. Don't bother giving me that crap about how the situations are different - they're not.



See above.



> The female body can often reject the embryo, a woman can miscarry as well the pregnancy can end in stillbirth. There are too many variables and life is therefore *not guaranteed* just because a pregnancy occurs.



See above.



> You've stumbled into a new section that runs on intelligence, facts, and in the case of opinions - informed ones.





This post alone proves that this section doesn't run on facts. It runs on a bunch of biased filled hate and bullshit.



> You claim that we are a section of biased, closeminded posters because nobody here agrees with you





Yachiru said:


> I agree with Cyphon. And I say that as a female myself.



I thought this was an informed section? Fact check before you stick your foot in your mouth. 



> but you're discounting the ¹possibility that you're just *wrong* and not as smart as you think, and everyone here can see that besides you.



You can't have a wrong opinion. You clearly haven't even read the argument nor do you have any clue what you are jumping into. 

And everyone here can see that besides you.



> Just because you have an opinion on the matter doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Perhaps you're the biased and close-minded one, hmm?.



Nah, it is definitely the poeple in this section. Just go look around at the posts. You clearly haven't which is transparent in the things you say and the way you act.

Every other post where there is an opinion that doesn't agree with the majority is bashed and flamed. Instead of mods we should have babysitters because most of you act like children and have about the same understanding of the world as them.

The saddest part isn't even that, its how hypocritical you all are. You bash one side of things for being heartless or racist and yet you all see it as perfectly normal to attack the minority groups in the Cafe with hate filled bile.

So don't come at me with your "high horse" bullshit when you don't even seem to have a clue.


----------



## Ceria (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Saving babies is barbaric.
> 
> Seriously. Can't anyone have a discussion without flinging around insults.
> 
> Not everyone is going to have the same view is you and just because they don't that doesn't make them stupid.



But having a different opinion doesn't excuse you from saying things without thinking about them first. 

The more and more i read these comments the more i'm inclined to consider that people who are pro-choice probably don't have a good sense of right and wrong. I question whether or not you have a good foundation for the morals you adhere to or are you simply flying by the seat of your pants. 

Because anyone with strong morals would never say that saving babies is barbaric or that children trying to get an abortion don't need parental consent before getting it. 

My father's biological parents knew right from wrong. They had him and then put him up for adoption, if they had taken the easy way out my family wouldn't be here today. pure and simple.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 16, 2011)

Aokiji said:


> It's not lifelong punishment, you can give it up for adoption.



Adoption is not a viable option, and it seems every time someone uses it they are clueless about the current state of orphanges in the U.S. They are overcrowded, most kids do not get adopted, and when they turn 18 they are put out on their own. If a mother is not capable of having a child, short of abstinence, and other forms of contraception, abortion is a responsible choice. 



> And many pro-choice people would have no problem letting a father pay out of his ass for a child that he never wanted so



You have a regular habit of saying some stupid shit, you know? That all depends on the circumstance behind how the child was conceived.



> Not to mention, AIDS is a disease, pregnancy isn't. Treating AIDS=/=killing a child because it's too much of a fuss to take responsibility for your actions.



Luckily, abortion isn't killing a child. Also, having a child is NOT a measure of responsibility.



> Especially today, where contraception is pretty easy, there is no argument for killing unborn children with a vacuum cleaner.



It is a fetus, most times just at the onset of getting to that stage. Not a child. It has the potential to become one, but the fact is it is not. I would rather abortion be a last-resort option after all other options have been exhausted, but again, I'm not gonna impose that on others. If they wanna get an abortion, fine, that's their choice. If they don't that's OK too. That's the thing that I don't get about pro-lifers. If YOU would not make the choice, that's just you, it's stupid to try to impose the decision you would make on others.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Already covered this with about 5 others. Go back in read instead of just repeating the same things everyone else said.
> 
> See above.
> 
> See above.



Just because you've said something before in no way makes it valid or logical.  If you have no intention of actually respnding to the points dont bother posting.  Especially when your "see above's" don't even refer to an arguement, it's just you saying "I don't like semantics".

And then there is the fact that he also disputed what you are refering him to in other points of his post you jsut never respodned to.

Let me know when you feel like actually debating and not just burying your head in the sand to try and make yourself willfully ignorant.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Already covered this with about 5 others. Go back in read instead of just repeating the same things everyone else said.



I've read every post in this thread. If I've brought up a point, you've either not covered it or you haven't covered it sufficiently. In this case, you haven't sufficiently refuted the point - you have instead said it's your *opinion* that life exists in an embryo, and I have said that it is scientific fact that it doesn't.

The ball is in your court - either provide some facts to argue your side of this issue (yes facts, your opinions don't count) or concede the point.




Cyphon said:


> See above.



And I countered your argument to it. Let's see a counter-argument in turn or, again, concede the point.



Cyphon said:


> See above.



You should learn the rules of this section, brother. If you're going to debate an issue, you need to form counter-arguments and not just link back to previously written points that have since been debunked. If you're going to continue with this amateurish style of _debate_ (and I use the word debate despairingly as what you're doing is a butchery of debate), then you're going to find yourself banned in no time. Not that that's a bad thing, you've clearly nothing interesting or intelligent to offer the cafe.



Cyphon said:


> This post alone proves that this section doesn't run on facts. It runs on a bunch of biased filled hate and bullshit.



Yes, that must be it. You've been here for 24 hours and you've got the entire section pinned down. Because everyone disagrees with you, it must be a spawning ground for hate, bias and bullshit. It has nothing to do with you being an uneducated git with a big head and an overinflated ego.

Cut the crap. You came here thinking this would be like the Konoha Library where any dimwit with an opinion can be taken seriously and have been systematically cut down by some of NF's brightest posters. You say that practically every opinion you've expressed so far since coming here has been met with ridicule and argument - perhaps the issue isn't with the section. Perhaps the issue is with your opinions.



Cyphon said:


> I thought this was an informed section? Fact check before you stick your foot in your mouth.



First of all, Yachiru doesn't count. Why not? Because at first she says she agrees with you, and then she goes on to defend nothing you had said up to that point. In fact, all her arguments differed from yours - she happens to be pro-life (like you) but she has clearly proven that her reasons for being so differ from yours.

We have plenty of pro-lifers in the cafe. Most of them would agree with me that you are grossly misinformed and that you need to get the fuck out of here.



Cyphon said:


> You can't have a wrong opinion. You clearly haven't even read the argument nor do you have any clue what you are jumping into.



And like I said, this isn't about opinion - it's about fact. The argument we're having might have been an opinionated one 20 years ago. It has since been settled by science and supported by law. At one time there was an opinionated debate whether or not the earth was round or flat, would you say the "world-is-flat" side wasn't wrong "because you cannot have a wrong opinion"?

That is a joke. The only difference between the two debates is that we already know that an embryo isn't alive and that ejaculation is as much a prevention of life as is a legal abortion; you are just too slow to grasp the concept and are arguing against it as if your opinion is stronger than scientific evidence. Do you see many people today still claiming the earth is flat? No, but the ones who do are either crazy or fanatical. So why do you insist on being that kind of person?




Cyphon said:


> Nah, it is definitely the poeple in this section. Just go look around at the posts. You clearly haven't which is transparent in the things you say and the way you act.



I've been posting on this forum for nearly 6 years, and the majority of that time has been in the cafe. I think I know a bit more about the section and it's people than some schmo who just started posting here yesterday.



Cyphon said:


> Every other post where there is an opinion that doesn't agree with the majority is bashed and flamed. Instead of mods we should have babysitters because most of you act like children and have about the same understanding of the world as them.



This section was made for the discussion and debate of world issues. We use facts and information here; if you want to argue opinion then you want to be in the  which was designed for opinionated debates.

Do your research or get the fuck out of the cafe. Every other post you make is bashed and flamed because you *don't know what the hell you're talking about* and it wouldn't be fair to you, your family, your friends or your potential children, for us to let you continue being as stupid as you are.

And I refused to have my "understanding of the world" criticized by a guy who shouldn't have passed grade 8 biology and clearly has never taken a sex-ed course in his life. A lack of understanding (or ignorance) does not excuse you for making stupid posts. If you want to fit into this section, do some research before you start spouting nonsense or, like I said before, just get lost. You're not cool or edgy for holding a you vs us mentality in the cafe, everyone who ever has has either been chased off or found themselves banned as a troll.



Cyphon said:


> The saddest part isn't even that, its how hypocritical you all are. You bash one side of things for being heartless or racist and yet you all see it as perfectly normal to attack the minority groups in the Cafe with hate filled bile.



Again, there are plenty of cafe regulars with opposing views, espesially on highly controversial subjects. Those who are halfway intelligent and have done at least elementary research to support their arguments don't suffer that kind of oppression. 

The minority you belong to is the "I haven't done any research on this topic, I don't have a clue what I'm saying, but I'm just gonna talk shit anyways and then accuse anyone who disagrees with me of being biased and cruel" minority.

I apologize if I have no sympathy for you.



Cyphon said:


> So don't come at me with your "high horse" bullshit when you don't even seem to have a clue.



All I've come at you with are facts and structured arguments - all of which you've either ignored or answered with flames and strawmen. I assure you, years of having lived in this section makes me quite confident in saying this: I have a clue on what's going to become of you and I assure you when you're gone and forgotten _nothing of value will have been lost_.

Now go back and argue my points or concede that you can't and stop posting.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 16, 2011)

> We have plenty of pro-lifers in the cafe. Most of them would agree with me that you are grossly misinformed and that you need to get the fuck out of here.



Most of them made their far more rational arguements in the first 3 pages and took off.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Just because you've said something before in no way makes it valid or logical.



What I said was valid and logical but that isn't the point. I shouldn't have to repeat the same thing for 20 different people.



> If you have no intention of actually respnding to the points dont bother posting.



If you don't like the way I post don't bother quoting me.

See what I did there? We can both be assholes.



> Let me know when you feel like actually debating and not just burying your head in the sand to try and make yourself willfully ignorant.



Let me know when you have something relevant or intelligent to add to this discussion as opposed to simply defending someone who agrees with you.



Emasculation Storm said:


> you have instead said it's your *opinion* that life exists in an embryo, and I have said that it is scientific fact that it doesn't.



I may not remember correctly but I don't recall ever disagreeing that the embryon wasn't technically life. I made the claim that we all know what the embryo can and will become barring an accident. That is an irrefutable fact. 



> You should learn the rules of this section, brother. If you're going to debate an issue, you need to form counter-arguments and not just link back to previously written points that have since been debunked.



The rules are pretty much the same in any section and I have been posting on NF for a long time. I can post pretty much how I want as long as there is no flaming and that sort of thing.

Of course this section has a sub standard level for even the flaming part. 

You should learn to read posts. I already formed counter arguments and made my points. 



> If you're going to continue with this amateurish style of _debate_



Flaming and bashing people's ideas is considered professional?

I see I should definately disregard anything you try and define from now on. You are clearly not up to date on much.



> then you're going to find yourself banned in no time. Not that that's a bad thing, you've clearly nothing interesting or intelligent to offer the cafe.



See what I mean?

I disagree with you so you resort to childish and immature banter and then act as if you know how to properly debate. You are an ignorant fool.



> You've been here for 24 hours and you've got the entire section pinned down.



As transparent as everyone is it isn't really a feat. I have already had multiple people from this section (who were here long before me) to tell me the same thing I am claiming.

It's no surprise.



> Because everyone disagrees with you, it must be a spawning ground for hate, bias and bullshit.



It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. It has to do with flaming and bashing a difference in opinions. I have said that multiple times and even then you can't quite find comprehension of the point. 



> It has nothing to do with you being an uneducated git with a big head and an overinflated ego.



Pot meet kettle. He is now learning the song Man in the Mirror.



> and have been systematically cut down *by some of NF's brightest posters*.







> You say that practically every opinion you've expressed so far since coming here has been met with ridicule and argument - perhaps the issue isn't with the section. Perhaps the issue is with your opinions.



It's definitely the section. Even people in this section have said as much. It is not like I am making some new or outlandish claim.

Like I said, just go look around and you will see how wrong you are. I know people in here like to turn a blind eye to what is obvious but that won't stop me from trying to open their eyes.



> First of all, Yachiru doesn't count.



You said nobody agrees with me and she said very specifically "I agree with Cyphon".

You were wrong, get over it.



> Most of them would agree with me that you are grossly misinformed and that you need to get the fuck out of here.



They can come forward and speak their minds if they please. It doesn't really bother me. I don't try and tell people they can't have a different opinion then me or bash them for such. I am not you.



> And like I said, this isn't about opinion - it's about fact.



Some points are opinion and some are fact. I have covered and explained both. 



> you are just too slow to grasp the concept and are arguing against it as if your opinion is stronger than scientific evidence.



More insults?

I am going to tell your mommy you don't know how to behave if you keep this up. Kids need to be punished.

Anyway I will stop here because it seems all you are capable of is trying to be a school yard bully and I don't have time to hold your hand and guide you through life. Maybe you got picked on in school or something and feel the need to pretend to be tough on the internet but I don't buy it.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 16, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> The union of sperm and egg is JUST like a tumor, and it CAN be deadly. Its creating a foreign mass in a woman's body-abiet in the perfect environment for it to thrive, it is still comparable to a cancerous mass until it gets a brain of its own.
> 
> You're telling me a freshly fertilized egg is a fully functioning life form?
> 
> How about this for an analogy: A bot fly lays an egg on your stomach. Completely fertilized. Is it wrong to remove the maggot?



Except a maggot is not human life nor is a tumor. Life begins at conception because it is alive and human. *This is a universally accepted scientific fact*. Abortion is murder and sadly we let many get away with it.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I may not remember correctly but I don't recall ever disagreeing that the embryon wasn't *technically* life. I made the claim that we all know what the embryo can and will become barring an accident. That is an irrefutable fact.



It's not life period. And you're correct that it's a fact of what it will become barring accidents *AND NATURAL OCCURENCES* (you forgot that part), but like I've already said, that has no bearing on anything. So it's a useless factoid irrelevent to what is being discussed.



Cyphon said:


> *The rules are pretty much the same in any section* and I have been posting on NF for a long time. *I can post pretty much how I want as long as there is no flaming and that sort of thing.*



Incorrect. Try again.



Cyphon said:


> You should learn to read posts. I already formed counter arguments and made my points.



Not to me you haven't. And like I already said, they were insufficient and already debunked. You have to try again or you are a troll.



Cyphon said:


> Flaming and bashing people's ideas is considered professional?
> 
> I see I should definately disregard anything you try and define from now on. You are clearly not up to date on much.



You set the standard by flaming others long before I entered the fray. I'm just lowering myself to a level you are comfortable with.



Cyphon said:


> See what I mean?
> 
> I disagree with you so you resort to childish and immature banter and then act as if you know how to properly debate. You are an ignorant fool.



In one sentence you criticize the section for flaming and in the next you call me a fool. It's hard to take you seriously when you can't even live up to these imaginary standards you claim the rest of the forum to hold.



Cyphon said:


> As transparent as everyone is it isn't really a feat. I have already had multiple people from this section (who were here long before me) to tell me the same thing I am claiming.
> 
> It's no surprise.



All people ousted for being terrible posters a.k.a *people like you*. Cardboard Tube Knight is not a reputable source of information regarding the Cafe since he, like you, cannot debate a single topic without resorting to every fallacy in the book.

The fact that you're quoting the _Cafe Clown_ is funny enough as it is. Protip: CTK is universally hated across the entire forum - nobody likes him. We're hardly alone here in the cafe.



Cyphon said:


> It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. It has to do with flaming and bashing a difference in opinions. I have said that multiple times and even then you can't quite find comprehension of the point.



And I've already said that this section trades facts not opinions. You wanna waste time debating God and other equally useless debate topics, then head to the Debate Corner. We expect research and facts here.



Cyphon said:


> *Pot meet kettle.* He is now learning the song Man in the Mirror.



Interesting idiom Mr. Complain about flaming but then insult everyone in every post.



Cyphon said:


>





			
				Most Recent Post by Cyphon said:
			
		

> Topic: Sasuke DOES NOT have Tsukiyomi
> Forum: Konoha Library
> Today, 04:12 PM
> Replies: 60
> Views: 709



Laughs the Library regular. 



Cyphon said:


> It's definitely the section. Even people in this section have said as much. It is not like I am making some new or outlandish claim.
> 
> Like I said, just go look around and you will see how wrong you are. I know people in here like to turn a blind eye to what is obvious but that won't stop me from trying to open their eyes.



Like I said, the only people who have a problem with the cafe are the people like you: who come here thinking they'll get along fine but then their insane lack of intelligence buries them immediately.

People agreeing with you is meaningless when they are all in the same boat.



Cyphon said:


> You said nobody agrees with me and she said very specifically "I agree with Cyphon".
> 
> You were wrong, get over it.



She said she agreed with you but has since proven she doesn't even know what she she's agreeing with.

I have nothing to get over, your ONE supporter in this entire section couldn't even tell me what you believe if I asked her right now and she didn't have access to your previous posts.



Cyphon said:


> They can come forward and speak their minds if they please. It doesn't really bother me. I don't try and tell people they can't have a different opinion then me or bash them for such. I am not you.



When you call a square a circle, I'm going to tell you're wrong - I don't care if it's your opinion. Just because you call it opinion doesn't mean it's not wrong.



Cyphon said:


> Some points are opinion and some are fact. I have covered and explained both.



The opinions are irrelevent to the thread and the debate. The facts are far more relevant but you continue to ignore them.



Cyphon said:


> Anyway I will stop here because it seems all you are capable of is trying to be a school yard bully and I don't have time to hold your hand and guide you through life. Maybe you got picked on in school or something and feel the need to pretend to be tough on the internet but I don't buy it.



Translation: "I couldn't string together an argument to help get my mom off the street corner so I'm just going to ignore every argument you've thrown together and act like I'm right anyways."

Good luck with your Library debating career, lol. 



Superstars said:


> *1.) Life begins at conception because it is alive and human. 2.) This is a universally accepted scientific fact. 3.) Abortion is murder and sadly we let many get away with it.*



1.) No it doesn't / No it isn't.
2.) No it isn't.
3.) No it isn't.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Apr 16, 2011)

A person's body belongs to that one person and only that one person. If they don't want something, including another person, encroaching on their body - it is their right to remove it. If pro-lifers really want to save the embroys, fetuses, etc., then, instead of wasting your money trying to enslave women to pregnacies, use it to find some new technology that allows women to abort / end their pregnancy without ending the growth of the fetus (invent the artificial uterus, create a way for the pregnancy to be transferred to a pro-lifer's body - that includes male pro-lifers, something).


----------



## Superstars (Apr 16, 2011)

^Yeah, keep saying it's ok to murder. It ain't about wanting or not wanting or whose body is it, it's about doing the right thing.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 16, 2011)

Superstars said:


> ^Yeah, keep saying it's ok to murder. It ain't about wanting or not wanting or whose body is it, it's about doing the right thing.



You're giving your religion a bad name, you nutjob.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 16, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Except a maggot is not human life nor is a tumor. Life begins at conception because it is alive and human. *This is a universally accepted scientific fact*. Abortion is murder and sadly we let many get away with it.



So why do you let them get away with it? So many people wonder how a population of millions could have just allowed the holocaust to happen, but apparently it's quite easy to ignore a large-scale atrocity.

Abortion opponents claim that they view fetuses on the same level as humans, but none of them seem to be willing to do anything about it. Why are there so few people shooting up abortion clinics? If you really believe that there are murders going on in there every day, how can you just do nothing about it?


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 16, 2011)

Yeah Superstars, I'm going to have my girlfriend abort our first baby just to spite you and your ilk.

Come at me, bro.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Emasculation Storm said:


> ut like I'be already said, that has no bearing on anything. So it's a useless factoid irrelevent to what is being discussed.



It does have a bearing as it is something to consider when deciding where you might stand on the issue. To me knowing you are destorying something that will become a life or is a life is pretty much the same as murder. So that is where my stance comes from. 



> Incorrect. Try again.



I looked and saw no special rules. 

Can you provide them if you know where they are? I am curious to see the differences.



> Not to me you haven't.



You don't like what I say, that doesn't mean I didn't try.



> And like I already said, they were insufficient and already debunked.



Can't debunk an opinion. 



> You have to try again or you are a troll.



View it how you want but I am not trolling anyone. You just seem upset and disoriented.



> You set the standard by flaming others long before I entered the fray.



Not really. As I said, I have been flamed pretty consistently since I first started posting. I just decided to fire back. I won't argue I am doing the right thing, because I am not, but at this point I am not sure I care. If the way to debate here is to simply degrade people you don't agree with then I can adapt.



> In one sentence you criticize the section for flaming and in the next you call me a fool.



See above. I have decided to try an adapt. 

So my apologies for being hypocritical in that previous instance but now we can clear it up. 



> All people ousted for being terrible posters a.k.a *people like you*.



Pot meet Kettle. He is trying to learn the song Man in the Mirror.



> Cardboard Tube Knight is not a reputable source of information



I wasn't referencing CTK but okay.



> The fact that you're quoting the _Cafe Clown_ is funny enough as it is. Protip:



When did I quote CTK?



> And I've already said that this section trades facts not opinions.



Odd then that I see a whole lot of opinion.



> You wanna waste time debating God and other equally useless debate topics, then head to the Debate Corner.



Again, I find it quite odd that I have only seen your side continue to bring up God and religion. I don't recall ever mentioning it.



> We expect research and facts here.



Yet you don't lead by example. So many oddities.



> Laughs the guy the Library guy.



I don't post much in the Library.

Most of my posts are in a convo thread in the BD or in the KC tournament area. Outside of that it is probably the music section or literature section and then the Library and actual BD on occasion. 

I used to post more in the Library and BD and sometimes go on sprees but not much lately. 



> Like I said, the only people who have a problem with the cafe are the people like you: who come here thinking they'll get along fine



I had no expectations when coming here and it is no surprise you continue to speak in ignorance but I don't mind trying to help you keep your foot out of your mouth.

I came in here to see what "normal" people thought outside of the news and media since I never really discuss these types of things with anyone. I was surprised that having a difference in opinion would mean being bashed and flamed on a constant basis. So I reacted.



> People agreeing with you is meaningless when they are all in the same boat.



Pot/Kettle etc etc.....



> She said she agreed with you



And you said nobody agreed with me. You were wrong. End of discussion.



> Just because you call it opinion doesn't mean it's not wrong.



Exactly, so your opinion is wrong too.

See what I did there?



> The facts are far more relevant but you continue to ignore them.



What facts did I ignore? I am pretty sure I address almost everything posted unless I miss it when looking through posts.



> Translation: "I couldn't string together an argument to help get my mom off the street corner so I'm just going to ignore every argument you've thrown together and act like I'm right anyways."



Momma jokes? You like 12?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 16, 2011)

Emasculation Storm said:


> You're giving your religion a bad name, you nutjob.


I'm not religious. 



			
				Saufsoldat said:
			
		

> So why do you let them get away with it? So many people wonder how a population of millions could have just allowed the holocaust to happen, but apparently it's quite easy to ignore a large-scale atrocity.
> 
> Abortion opponents claim that they view fetuses on the same level as humans, but none of them seem to be willing to do anything about it. Why are there so few people shooting up abortion clinics? If you really believe that there are murders going on in there every day, how can you just do nothing about it?


Many people do go out and vote and pro test against it. It's just that the majority always wins. So abortion is a million dollar industry in full affect.



			
				Emasculation Storm said:
			
		

> Yeah Superstars, I'm going to have my girlfriend abort our first baby just to spite you and your ilk.
> 
> Come at me, bro.


Well talk to friends and family about it first, I consider careful consideration maybe someone will convince you two to keep the child. Or maybe you are just joking, lol.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Apr 16, 2011)

Superstars said:


> ^Yeah, keep saying it's ok to murder. It ain't about wanting or not wanting or whose body is it, it's about doing the right thing.



Ok assuming that it is possible to murder a fetus... logical and moral work around is simply remove the fetus from the womb of a woman who wants to end her pregnancy, try to keep it alive through all possible means short of returning it into the woman (stated goal is to put it up for adoption) - technology is not yet able to do that and nature takes its course - no murder has been commited, the woman's right to her body is respected, EVERYBODY'S (KINDA) GOT THEIR WAY

Now go put your anti-abortion $$ into advancing technology to making it possible to save the fetus in this circumstance - achieve that and EVERYONE WILL HAVE THEIR WAY


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 16, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Many people do go out and vote and pro test against it. It's just that the majority always wins. So abortion is a million dollar industry in full affect.



So if the majority said that all jews in your country will be killed, you'd just do nothing about it? Really, how do you sleep at night?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 16, 2011)

Darth inVaders said:


> Ok assuming that it is possible to murder a fetus... logical and moral work around is simply remove the fetus from the womb of a woman who wants to end her pregnancy, try to keep it alive through all possible means short of returning it into the woman (stated goal is to put it up for adoption) - technology is not yet able to do that and nature takes its course - no murder has been commited, the woman's right to her body is respected, EVERYBODY'S (KINDA) GOT THEIR WAY



^Got their way of trying to nitpick and avoid the truth and doing the right thing. Terminating human life is what abortion does.



Saufsoldat said:


> So if the majority said that all jews in your country will be killed, you'd just do nothing about it? Really, how do you sleep at night?


Where did I say I wouldn't do anything about it in the confines of the law? I said voting is the only way to try and get abortion out unfortunately the majority always is in favor.


----------



## Nikushimi (Apr 16, 2011)

I think abortion is murder and should be illegal.

Come at me, bros.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Nikushimi said:


> I think abortion is murder and should be illegal.
> 
> Come at me, bros.



But you have made a post in the library before so you are dumb just like me and Cardboard Jewsuke.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 16, 2011)

These people that never post here suddenly showing up...


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 16, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Where did I say I wouldn't do anything about it in the confines of the law? I said voting is the only way to try and get abortion out unfortunately the majority always is in favor.



Why in the confines of the law? Little baby Jesus could be aborted right now and you're not doing anything about it. Shame on you.


----------



## Nikushimi (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> But you have made a post in the library before so you are dumb just like me and Cardboard Jewsuke.



Well yeah, we're just dumbfucks who don't know anything.

Especially you.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> These people that never post here suddenly showing up...



Where I tread chaos follows.



Nikushimi said:


> Well yeah, we're just dumbfucks who don't know anything.
> 
> Especially you.



Join the club on that opinion


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 16, 2011)

Nikushimi said:


> I think abortion is murder and should be illegal.
> 
> Come at me, bros.



Why should it be illegal ? America excels in murder


----------



## Nikushimi (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Join the club on that opinion



I'm guessing some guy is trolling you for being a KL regular, right?



Elim Rawne said:


> Why should it be illegal ? America excels in murder



Derp.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Apr 16, 2011)

Superstars said:


> ^Got their way of trying to nitpick and avoid the truth and doing the right thing. Terminating human life is what abortion does.



So, if there was a way to end a pregnancy without terminating the growth of the fetus, the "right thing to do" is to still force the woman to carry it to full term?


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> It does have a bearing as it is something to consider when deciding where you might stand on the issue. To me knowing you are destorying something that will become a life or is a life is pretty much the same as murder. So that is where my stance comes from.



If it is not alive then you cannot take its life (murder). Try again.



Cyphon said:


> I looked and saw no special rules.
> 
> Can you provide them if you know where they are? I am curious to see the differences.



Look again.



Cyphon said:


> You don't like what I say, that doesn't mean I didn't try.



You haven't said anything of worth yet.



Cyphon said:


> Can't debunk an opinion.



Sure I can. You can call a square a circle all you want, doesn't make it a circle.



Cyphon said:


> View it how you want but I am not trolling anyone. *You just seem upset* and disoriented.



Translation: "U mad". Typical troll phrase.



Cyphon said:


> Not really. As I said, I have been flamed pretty consistently since I first started posting. I just decided to fire back. I won't argue I am doing the right thing, because I am not, but at this point I am not sure I care. If the way to debate here is to simply degrade people you don't agree with then I can adapt.



If you really want to adapt to the cafe then do some research before opening your mouth. Trolling and flaming for the sake of trolling and flaming is going to get you banned quicker than those who flame and troll while putting forth a reasonable argument.



Cyphon said:


> I wasn't referencing CTK but okay.



Yes you were.



Cyphon said:


> When did I quote CTK?



You didn't - he's just on your user page telling you all the crap that you've come back here and repeated. You have others feel free to prove it with evidence, otherwise he's your only source.

See what I did there? It's called research. Because I did some I now have another edge on you and you're going to have to concede your 6th point to me.



Cyphon said:


> Odd then that I see a whole lot of opinion.



All coming from you.



Cyphon said:


> Again, I find it quite odd that I have only seen your side continue to bring up God and religion. I don't recall ever mentioning it.



I was simply giving you an example of what kind of opinionated debate you could join in the Debate Corner.



Cyphon said:


> Yet you don't lead by example. So many oddities.



Alone in that opinion, it seems.



Cyphon said:


> I don't post much in the Library.
> 
> Most of my posts are in a convo thread in the BD or in the KC tournament area. Outside of that it is probably the music section or literature section and then the Library and actual BD on occasion.
> 
> I used to post more in the Library and BD and sometimes go on sprees but not much lately.



Says the library regular. 



Cyphon said:


> I had no expectations when coming here and it is no surprise you continue to speak in ignorance but I don't mind trying to help you keep your foot out of your mouth.
> 
> I came in here to see what "normal" people thought outside of the news and media since I never really discuss these types of things with anyone. I was surprised that having a difference in opinion would mean being bashed and flamed on a constant basis. So I reacted.



Again, you're not bashed and flamed for having a differing opinion - you're flamed and bashed because you're stupid.



Cyphon said:


> Pot/Kettle etc etc.....



Broken record, etc.



Cyphon said:


> And you said nobody agreed with me. You were wrong. End of discussion.



And she doesn't agree with you. She can't agree with you if she doesn't know what she's agreeing with in the first place. She can _say_ she agrees with you (like she did) but that doesn't mean she actually does.



Cyphon said:


> Exactly, so your opinion is wrong too.
> 
> See what I did there?



Yeah I did - stuck your head in the sand again.



Cyphon said:


> What facts did I ignore? I am pretty sure I address almost everything posted unless I miss it when looking through posts.



You haven't addressed a single argument I have put forth. Want me to call a cafe mod to this thread and see if they agree that you've addressed all my points? 

How about we make it interesting? How about you agree to a 6 month ban if they review your last couple of posts and can find more than three points I've made that you have either disregarded with something like "already discussed this earlier" or completely left out of your reply? You feel comfortable agreeing to that deal? I'll call a mod if you do.



Cyphon said:


> Momma jokes? You like 12?



Sure, if you're comfortable with the idea that you're getting right schooled by a 12 year old on an internet anime forum.



Superstars said:


> Where did I say I wouldn't do anything about it in the confines of the law? I said voting is the only way to try and get abortion out unfortunately the majority always is in favor.



I thought you said abortion was universally accepted as murder? So then how can the majority be for it?

Unless you're implying the majority agree with and endorse murder.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Nikushimi said:


> I'm guessing some guy is trolling you for being a KL regular, right?



Not really trolling. He is just basically caught with his pants down so he is fishing for ways to discredit me. 

I don't blame him. Nobody likes a losing battle.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 16, 2011)

I would think priority of pro-lifers would go to infants that are actually here rather than basically hypothetical ones. Worrying about a kid that doesn't even exist, while we have pretty terrible post-natal care compared to many of our neighbors, and not much is done on that. As a matter of fact, people generally seem to wanna wash their hands of dealing with an already born kid and its mother. They have no problem attempting to use government power to force women to have a child, yet they wanna pull away the safety nets that do and would help keep many afloat and just out of poverty, or at least absolute poverty...


----------



## Nikushimi (Apr 16, 2011)

Darth inVaders said:


> So, if there was a way to end a pregnancy without terminating the growth of the fetus, the "right thing to do" is to still force the woman to carry it to full term?



I would say no. If the fetus can be removed and still develop on its own, then there's no foreseeable reason to keep it in the womb of its mother against her will.

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I object to specifically is the killing of an unborn child, even as early as conception.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 16, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why in the confines of the law? Little baby Jesus could be aborted right now and you're not doing anything about it. Shame on you.


Voting against it, petitions, protests. Even protesting causes trouble.



Darth inVaders said:


> So, if there was a way to end a pregnancy without terminating the growth of the fetus, the "right thing to do" is to still force the woman to carry it to full term?


As long as there is no murder.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Emasculation Storm said:


> If it is not alive then you cannot take its life (murder). Try again.



Covered this before.



> Look again.



No thanks. What I know now seems to work just fine.



> You haven't said anything of worth yet.



I could say the same for you. It doesn't really accomplish anything though. Try again.



> Sure I can. You can call a square a circle all you want, doesn't make it a circle.



Fact=/= opinion.



> Translation: "U mad". Typical troll phrase.



You said it, not me.



> If you really want to adapt to the cafe then do some research before opening your mouth.



Research on what? How you guys behave?



> Trolling and flaming for the sake of trolling and flaming is going to get you banned quicker than those who flame and troll while putting forth a reasonable argument.



I put forth a reasonable argument as well so it looks like we are all in the same boat. 



> Yes you were.



No I wasn't. You are probably referring to the VM convo him and I had. I am talking about PM's/reps I have gotten. 



> You didn't - he's just on your user page telling you all the crap that you've come back here and repeated.



I didn't come back here and repeat things he said. In fact I recall disagreeing with him on some topics and stopped talking to him. 

I have my own opinion of this place based off of how I have personally seen it. What he said to me isn't relevant.

Nice job on the research though. You are putting forth some good effort if nothing else.



> All coming from you.



So you really don't read most of the posts in this section. Not surprising.



> Alone in that opinion, it seems.



Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen anyone comment on it.



> Says the library regular.



You can check my post history if you are so big on this topic. I really don't post there all that often anymore. Of course I am not even sure how the Library came into this discussion or why it is relevant. There are people from this section who post in there.....Again, I am not sure what you are getting at.



> Again, you're not bashed and flamed for having a differing opinion - you're flamed and bashed because you're stupid.



Again, an opinion we differ on. Hopefully one day you will grow up and become an adult. 

I am pretty sure you aren't very old so I will make an effort to be nicer. I usually tend to be more harsh towards adults because they should no better but at your age there is learning to do. So I am sorry if I have been a bit to mean in previous posts.



> Broken record, etc.



Only what is needed in response to you.



> And she doesn't agree with you.



Broken record etc etc.....



> You haven't addressed a single argument I have put forth.



I have been addressing you this entire time. You didn't really make any new points so I pointed you to them. No different than you telling me to go find the rules myself. 

You really should learn the story of the pot and kettle.



> Want me to call a cafe mod to this thread and see if they agree that you've addressed all my points?



I wouldn't trust them to not take sides because they seem to not care how ignorant anyone is in this section. If we were to do it I would want a mod I trust more.

No disrespect meant to the mods here, I just haven't seen much from them to know how they are.



> Sure, if you're comfortable with the idea that you're getting right schooled by a 12 year old on an internet anime forum.



I would have no problem with that if it were true. I don't deny kids can be pretty smart. Isn't there a kid right now challenging Einstein's theories and tutoring college students?


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 16, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Herp Derp



So you have no further proof to present, so we can all settle on CTK being your only source. Thanks for conceding that to me too.

I genuinely lol'd at you snaking your way out of my challenge by calling mods you don't know anything about biased. Essentially you're just agreeing with me that you have not once addressed one of my points with a rebuttal, and you know if a mod was to judge it, you'd be banned.

You're a joke.  Enjoy your time in the cafe, the whole one week you'll last


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 16, 2011)

Emasculation Storm said:


> So you have no further proof to present, so we can all settle on CTK being your only source. Thanks for conceding that to me too.



You ignorantly took it as a concession. But ignorance seems like a common trait for you.



> I genuinely lol'd at you snaking your way out of my challenge by calling mods you don't know anything about biased.



I said they could be bias so I would rather have someone I know more about. Not in those exact words. 



> Essentially you're just agreeing with me that you have not once addressed one of my points with a rebuttal, and you know if a mod was to judge it, you'd be banned.



I believe I said this:



> I have been addressing you this entire time.



Reading comprehension ftw. 



> You're a joke.  Enjoy your time in the cafe, the whole one week you'll last



You're a joke.

See what I did there. Now we both sound like little kids.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Apr 17, 2011)

Why would you want to have an abortion after 21 weeks anyway? In fact 21 weeks does sound rather excessive itself... And I'm from a very pro-abortion country (Sweden)


----------



## αce (Apr 17, 2011)

Lmfao, this is still going on?


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 17, 2011)

Ceria said:


> But having a different opinion doesn't excuse you from saying things without thinking about them first.
> 
> The more and more i read these comments the more i'm inclined to consider that people who are pro-choice probably don't have a good sense of right and wrong. I question whether or not you have a good foundation for the morals you adhere to or are you simply flying by the seat of your pants.
> 
> ...



I am not sure if you meant this to describe me but I am against abortion. What I said was meant as sarcasm to the poster I was responding to.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 17, 2011)

Emasculation Storm said:


> I thought you said abortion was universally accepted as murder? So then how can the majority be for it?
> 
> Unless you're implying the majority agree with and endorse murder.


The majority agree's with murder because it is a universally scientific fact that life begins at conception [when sperm meets egg].


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 17, 2011)

Superstars said:


> The majority agree's with murder because it is a universally scientific fact that life begins at conception [when sperm meets egg].



Would you mind citing some sources for that? A simple poll should be enough.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 17, 2011)

Superstars said:


> The majority agree's with murder because it is a universally scientific fact that life begins at conception [when sperm meets egg].



Please supply us with some scientific backing for your claim that life begins at conception (and by scientific I don't mean catholic scripture).

Here's what has been scientifically proven:

- That the male sperm is a reproductive cell (cells are considered to be living). 

- That a human being needs a heart, brain, at least one kidney, at least one lung and a liver to live and that an embryo has none of these things.

- That day one through five of conception, the parasite (this is what it is at the moment) is a single cell formed by a sperm and an ovum. That cell is called a zygote and it is no more "alive" than the sperm that went into it.

- The zygote becomes a blastocyst on the 5th day after conception and a blastocyst is a group of cells no more alive than the sperm that went into it.

- After cell division the blastocyst becomes an embryo and for the next 5 weeks it exists without a brain, heart, blood or anything else. (Essentially, it is still a mass of cells until at least week 6 when the brain and heart start to develop).

After this point the water gets muddier and a debate starts to rise as from this point on the organs do begin to form and blood does start to flow through the embryo and by week 8, when the fetal stage begins, the parasite begins to start "living" (in a purely biological sense, it still cannot think or feel anything which are both often considered to be essential to life in science). Either way, it is not until the third trimester that the brain, heart and other vital human organs fully develop and that the baby is considered "alive" and "aware".

Either way, for the first 8 weeks of it's existence it is nothing more than a group of cells. If you consider that to be equal to human life, then every time you have ever killed a cell, you have commited murder.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 17, 2011)

Superstars said:


> The majority agree's with murder because it is a universally scientific fact that life begins at conception [when sperm meets egg].


So according to your logic, a miscarriage is murder. Taking an day after pill is murder. The woman naturally expelling the fertilized egg is murder. 

How is it murder when the fertilized egg is just a bunch of dividing cells? And no, according to science (something tells me you should really read up on it) a fetus becomes a baby after six months since then it has a brain. It has a spinal cord. It can survive outside the womb if need be.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 17, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> So according to your logic, a miscarriage is murder. Taking an day after pill is murder. The woman naturally expelling the fertilized egg is murder.
> 
> How is it murder when the fertilized egg is just a bunch of dividing cells? And no, according to science (something tells me you should really read up on it) a fetus becomes a baby after six months since then it has a brain. It has a spinal cord. It can survive outside the womb if need be.



You should read up on bullshit because that's what the first paragraph you wrote amounts to. You can't murder someone unless its intentional, a miscarriage isn't something that happens because someone wants it to and the fact that you seem to think that way tells us more about your thoughts on women and what you think they're at fault for than anything else.


----------



## Yachiru (Apr 17, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> So according to your logic, a miscarriage is murder. Taking an day after pill is murder. The woman naturally expelling the fertilized egg is murder.



Murder is intentional killing. Miscarriage is unintentional and therefore not murder. Same goes for the body naturally expelling the fertilized egg.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 17, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> Murder is intentional killing. Miscarriage is unintentional and therefore not murder. Same goes for the body naturally expelling the fertilized egg.


I posted the definition of Murder a few pages back. Abortion doesn't carry any 'malicious intent'. Not only that, Emasculation Storm posted the life cycle above us to show that 'life' doesn't begin at conception.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You should read up on bullshit because that's what the first paragraph you wrote amounts to. You can't murder someone unless its intentional, a miscarriage isn't something that happens because someone wants it to and the fact that you seem to think that way tells us more about your thoughts on women and what you think they're at fault for than anything else.


Uh what? How...CTK, what the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 17, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You should read up on bullshit because that's what the first paragraph you wrote amounts to. You can't murder someone unless its intentional, a miscarriage isn't something that happens because someone wants it to and the fact that you seem to think that way tells us more about your thoughts on women and what you think they're at fault for than anything else.



CTK, Champion of Women's Rights.

Every day, every thread - even when completely irrelevent.




Yachiru said:


> Murder is intentional killing. Miscarriage is unintentional and therefore not murder. Same goes for the body naturally expelling the fertilized egg.



So perhaps women should be tried for manslaughter if it can be found that the miscarriage resulted from unreasonable risks taken on the mother's part? Since the "life" inside her is equal to a human being, why not try her for it? Unintentional killings get slapped with manslaughter charges all the time.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Would you mind citing some sources for that? A simple poll should be enough.





SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> So according to your logic, a miscarriage is murder. Taking an day after pill is murder. The woman naturally expelling the fertilized egg is murder.
> 
> How is it murder when the fertilized egg is just a bunch of dividing cells? And no, according to science (something tells me you should really read up on it) a fetus becomes a baby after six months since then it has a brain. It has a spinal cord. It can survive outside the womb if need be.





Emasculation Storm said:


> Please supply us with some scientific backing for your claim that life begins at conception (and by scientific I don't mean catholic scripture)..


Catholic scripture? LULZ no such thing...Once again science keeps proving the word of God.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 17, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Catholic scripture? LULZ no such thing...Once again science keeps proving the word of God.


Heh, talk about a REALLY bad source. Its from a MINISTRY WEBSITE. Something tells me more than half the stuff on that article you link has been misquoted, misrepresented, or downright lied for the context. 

And you claim you're not part of the religious right when you keep putting 'Word of God' in your posts considering these things?


----------



## Bishop (Apr 17, 2011)

This is one of the few times I think I'll ever see males arguing for Abortions.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 17, 2011)

Bishop said:


> This is one of the few times I think I'll ever see males arguing for Abortions.



You must not get out a lot then, but it's for the _choice_ to have one..


----------



## Superstars (Apr 17, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Heh, talk about a REALLY bad source. Its from a MINISTRY WEBSITE. Something tells me more than half the stuff on that article you link has been misquoted, misrepresented, or downright lied for the context.
> 
> And you claim you're not part of the religious right when you keep putting 'Word of God' in your posts considering these things?


I'm not, religion is an enemy to God. Also, the works are cited on the website and there are boat loads more NON-ministry websites who have the same exact quotations.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 17, 2011)

Superstars said:


> I'm not, religion is an enemy to God. Also, the works are cited on the website and there are boat loads more NON-ministry websites who have the same exact quotations.


Lets see them then? And yeah, the most common scientific consensus is that life doesn't begin at conception. Lets see some scientific journals. Lets see some actual quotes from scientists and doctors.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 17, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You must not get out a lot then, but it's for the _choice_ to have one..



Being a former Planned Parenthood president of the SEM region I can say I got out in terms of this Seto. But, in our experience, this is rare.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 17, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Lets see them then? And yeah, the most common scientific consensus is that life doesn't begin at conception. Lets see some scientific journals. Lets see some actual quotes from scientists and doctors.




They confirm the other websites sources.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 17, 2011)

Well, when they make toys like this


*Spoiler*: __ 







It's easy to see we're gonna need some abortion clinics around.


----------



## AlphaRooster (Apr 17, 2011)

I leave for three days and 7 pages of this thread is still going!? I even read all of them, and have come to the conclusion that nothing new is being brought to the table.

  I would ask a mod to close this, but the giant cock-fight has proven too much lulz, irony, and entertainment to do so.  So carry on.


----------



## stream (Apr 17, 2011)

Superstars said:


> The majority agree's with murder because it is a universally scientific fact that life begins at conception [when sperm meets egg].



As a scientist, this is bullshit. There is no scientific consensus on what "life" and "alive" mean. These notions are subject to interpretation.

You might as well claim that it is a "scientific fact" that you need to be born in the US to be a natural-born American. Science has nothing to do with it. Different people have different opinions.


----------



## Final Giku Tenshou (Apr 18, 2011)

Just as I expected the good ol' fashioned Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice argument is going with a little bit of Science vs Religion thrown it. I'm personally Pro-EveryoneShutTheHellUpandLetTheWomenHaveTheirChoice deal. Supposedly it's herp-derp murder in order to "kill" a child at the point of contraception, but here's something to jog your brain, how do you prove the baby is alive? IT'S A SPERM AND AN EGG! Can it feel? Can it see? Can it hear? Can it breathe? Can it smell? Is it Sentient? Does it know it exists?

.... No? Then I guess that means it's not really alive is it, and all your murder complaints are just a bunch of religious bigotry because you want to look good in the eyes of God. This thread needs to be closed, it's just going to turn into a debate and discourse about whether Abortion is right or wrong, no argument is going to go anywhere, and this isn't news worthy after so many pages.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 18, 2011)

stream said:


> As a scientist, this is bullshit. There is no scientific consensus on what "life" and "alive" mean. These notions are subject to interpretation.



Please backtrack and look at the links I posted that state otherwise.
Please lets not deny the universal facts stated by worldwide scientific authority on where Life begins.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 18, 2011)

Final Giku Tenshou said:


> and all your murder complaints are just a bunch of religious bigotry because you want to look good in the eyes of God.



The only people who have mentioned God (IIRC) are the pro choice people, not the people calling it murder.


----------



## stream (Apr 18, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Please backtrack and look at the links I posted that state otherwise.
> Please lets not deny the universal facts stated by worldwide scientific authority on where Life begins.



Wow. I am supposed to read a website that claims a bunch of scientists, which are claimed to be worldwide authority, claim something that I know to be false. Thank you very much. As a scientist, I use my brain and I don't believe blindly what I see on an advocacy web site.

Please have a look at this site, and read every article in reference; then we'll talk:


----------



## Draffut (Apr 18, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> But you have made a post in the library before so you are dumb just like me and Cardboard Jewsuke.



Wait, what?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 18, 2011)

I wish the we would stop arguing whether it's a life. I'm pro-life, and it's still killing something that will probably be a human being in the future. To me, it is similar to murder. In the early stages, it has life like any collection of cells has life, and in the latter stages it has life almost similar to a person. 

But the alternative is worse. Women risking their lives with shady back alley abortion peddlers is far worse than seeking medical treatment, aside from a person's right to privacy of their medical records. Add to that the ruining of the girl's life and her right to choose. 

One definitely outweighs the other. Not going to pretend it isn't similar to murder, though.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 18, 2011)

stream said:


> Wow. I am supposed to read a website that claims a bunch of scientists, which are claimed to be worldwide authority, claim something that I know to be false. Thank you very much. As a scientist, I use my brain and I don't believe blindly what I see on an advocacy web site.
> 
> Please have a look at this site, and read every article in reference; then we'll talk:



Wow, I give you OFFICIAL scientific documentation from renown stem cell researchers, biologist and physicits ect that show they testifed to government; congress in open court that states life begins at fertilitiy and you give me wikipedia?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 18, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Wow, I give you OFFICIAL scientific documentation from renown stem cell researchers, biologist and physicits ect that show they testifed to government; congress in open court that states life begins at fertilitiy and you give me wikipedia?


Except those aren't 'official'. They were biased papers written by the Pro-Life lobby.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 18, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Except those aren't 'official'. They were biased papers written by the Pro-Life lobby.



Not bias when official renown scientists involved and stating otherwise.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 18, 2011)

Superstars said:


> They confirm the other websites sources.



I just got back to the thread.  Please link me these pages showing a scientific consensus saying life begins at conception.  Neither of those articles showed anything remotely close to that.  Though props for using horribly biased websites with almost no references and not any real scientific paper or research.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 18, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> I just got back to the thread.  Please link me these pages showing a scientific consensus saying life begins at conception.  Neither of those articles showed anything remotely close to that.  Though props for using horribly biased websites with almost no references and not any real scientific paper or research.



The website has Q's&A's that are offically from scientists showing the reserach and references of the facts. And you can look up the The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill" PROVING life begins at conception.


----------



## αce (Apr 18, 2011)

> The website has Q's&A's that are offically from scientists showing the reserach and references of the facts. And you can look up the The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill" PROVING life begins at conception.



_Obviously_ a zygote undergoing rapid mitosis is alive. You don't find that in anything else other than a living organism. Congratulations, you just proved something I knew back in gr. 8.

The argument is whether or not a fetus is actually a human. And unless someone wants to prove me otherwise, a fetus is not even close to a human until it's second trimester.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 18, 2011)

Superstars said:


> The website has Q's&A's that are offically from scientists showing the reserach and references of the facts. And you can look up the The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill" PROVING life begins at conception.



Just because they can find a few scientists who say that does not make it a consensus.  There are historians out there who say that the holocaust never happened too.  Should we just take the word of those few?  Not to mention that I would be curious on individual  the focus of those scientists studies.

And it doesn't matter in the least what the senate says about it if we are talking about the scientific consensus on the matter.


----------



## Raiden (Apr 18, 2011)

Bad idea to eliminate choice.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 18, 2011)

The parental notarized signature seems excessive (it seems to me that the parents should be informed, but not that one could hold a veto on a matter like this one)...

But it is still true that 21 weeks "represent a mainstream, bipartisan, and common-sense approach to a divisive issue."


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm still waiting for someone to argue my point about the sperm being "alive" before conception and therefore no "life" is being "created".

And if a zygote is a living human then so is sperm.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 18, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Wait, what?



It was a joke in reference to Emasculation. He tried to discredit me because I have posted in the Library and someone else from the Library made a post and I told him it didn't matter what he thought because he was dumb like you and I.

Obvious reference to you posting in the Library as well as me. 

I don't actually think you are dumb, for the record.


----------



## Negative (Apr 19, 2011)

You know, I was aruging about this on another forum xD.

Here what this girl say:



> And I dont even know what youre taling about, regarding the soul not existing, of course it doesnt. It is people who felt attached to the ide who rationalised it by granting undue importance onto such things as "human consciousness" rather than accepting that they are just a mass of cells and that their "soul" or "consciousness" is just a function to promote the survival of that mass of cells, with less importance if anything than, say, the ability to breathe. (Something that cannot respirate cannot naturally pass on its genes, but something without consciousness can. Besides, what degree of consciousness matters? Its not like somthing is either conscious or it isnt...)
> 
> For proof that your own position is merely a version of belief in the human soul, I bet that in discussing other species, no one enters into philosobabble about wether a rabbit blastocyst is a "Rabbit Being" or not... I think that is all I have to say to demonstrate my position
> 
> ...



What do you guys think?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 19, 2011)

according to that argument the baby is only a baby when doesn't depend on the mother for nourishment  which doesn't make sense because children always depend on others for survival


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 20, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> according to that argument the baby is only a baby when doesn't depend on the mother for nourishment  which doesn't make sense because children always depend on others for survival



There is a difference between needing food which you can get from anyone and being directly connected to your mothers body as your only source of nutrients.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 20, 2011)

I don't understand the argument here: If you decide to take away the option, women will seek it more.

If you shun it, they will hide, they will not talk about it.

If you loudly declare it so wrong as to mark the woman as bad, she will rebel in the seeking of an abortion, and then hold this secret until death; preventing progress.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 21, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Just because they can find a few scientists who say that does not make it a consensus.  There are historians out there who say that the holocaust never happened too.  Should we just take the word of those few?  Not to mention that I would be curious on individual  the focus of those scientists studies.
> 
> And it doesn't matter in the least what the senate says about it if we are talking about the scientific consensus on the matter.


No it matters, the fact is the number of scientists PROVE life begins at conception with data, period. Anything objecting it is false.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 21, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No it matters, the fact is the number of scientists PROVE life begins at conception with data, period. Anything objecting it is false.


Of course life begins at conception. But its not life that can sustain itself, Superstars. A zygote and am embryo are just a bunch of dividing cells without a brain. 

Its not until the fetus can support itself outside the womb that it is considered anything but a freeloading parasite. When this happens it is in the Second Trimester.


----------



## stream (Apr 21, 2011)

Superstars said:


> And you can look up the The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill" PROVING life begins at conception.



You mean a Senate report is equivalent to a scientific proof? That is fantastic news! Why did we bother to build the LHC when we could have just asked the Senate to write a report proving that the Higgs boson exists...


----------



## Superstars (Apr 21, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Of course life begins at conception. But its not life that can sustain itself, Superstars. A zygote and am embryo are just a bunch of dividing cells without a brain.
> 
> Its not until the fetus can support itself outside the womb that it is considered anything but a freeloading parasite. When this happens it is in the Second Trimester.



You are still trying to hold on to your demonic beliefs and ego while scientific facts stare you right in the face that a life is a life when sperm meets egg.



> You mean a Senate report is equivalent to a scientific proof? That is fantastic news! Why did we bother to build the LHC when we could have just asked the Senate to write a report proving that the Higgs boson exists...


No read again their is scientific data showing actual proff where a life is a life the senate bill just shows how many proven scientists testified for the trtuh.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 21, 2011)

Superstars said:


> You are still trying to hold on to your demonic beliefs and ego while scientific facts stare you right in the face that a life is a life when sperm meets egg.


I think you've failed biology. A zygote is nothing but a bunch of rapidly dividing cells. Its in the same level as sperm and egg in terms of 'life'. Again, its not until the second trimester that a the mass inside the woman's womb is a person. It has a BRAIN then. Organs, heart, everything it needs to survive outside the womb. 





> No read again their is scientific data showing actual proff where a life is a life the senate bill just shows how many proven scientists testified for the trtuh.


Superstars, I don't think you even understand science. Or burden of proof.


----------



## stream (Apr 21, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No read again their is scientific data showing actual proof where a life is a life the senate bill just shows how many proven scientists testified for the truth.



Ok, I'll bite. You state this, so you obviously read the bill and the details. Let's see how much you understood.

QUESTION: What definition do they use for "life"?


----------



## Draffut (Apr 21, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No it matters, the fact is the number of scientists PROVE life begins at conception with data, period. Anything objecting it is false.



Wait, is this post serious?  Again, just becuase a small handful of scientists believe something does not make it fact.

And the Senate thing is just laughable.  

Is that like when they got people with no science backgrounds like Christopher Monckton to go up infront of congress and use the 'real' statistics to argue that there is no global climate change, while the scientists who actually did the research and made the presented data said their info was being horrible misrepresented?


----------



## stomponfrogs (Apr 21, 2011)

So.. I see this has become another one of those, "YOU'RE KILLING A BABY" vs "IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY ALIVE!" arguments. *sigh* 
For those of you confused on why pro-life people care so much about the abortion, try to understand from their perspective. If murder suddenly became legal, and you read about some lady legally murdering her kid under the supervision of a doctor, wouldn't you speak out against it with at least a slight sense of passion? To many conservatives, that's how it looks, and that's why they get so riled up in these debates. I definitely don't agree with that stance (I'm pro-choice), but the fact that I see so many people in here with a common opinion to my own so lacking in the ability to see things objectively kinda frustrates me.

...Back to the article, I don't see how 21 weeks isn't enough time for someone to realize that they may want an abortion. The parental consent for minors seems like it could lead to a whole new avenue for parental abuse, but in general, I tend to agree with the notion of parental consent in minors.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 21, 2011)

^ Except the kid in that situation is outside of her body and can live without being a host of the woman's body, thus it is illegal to abort when that happens here !


You must also think about the woman's mental and psychological health if she went through an unwanted or unintended pregnancy, in the early stages of pregnancy at least!

It is happening inside the woman's body and as long as abortion happens in the early stages of pregnancy, a woman has a say to what should happen inside her uterus.   

In the first trimester and until the middle of the second trimester, a embryo cannot even feel pain (while a woman can) nor has the major organs that make it viable outside the woman's body.

Thus, under those circumstances: it is legal to go get an abortion and not considered "murder" unless you abort when the fetus becomes "viable" (usually at the 5th or 6th months of pregnancy).


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 21, 2011)

They can't feel pain is a bad argument. If I inject someone with morpheine to numb them before I kill them does that make it okay?


----------



## Xyloxi (Apr 21, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> They can't feel pain is a bad argument. If I inject someone with morpheine to numb them before I kill them does that make it okay?



That's a bad argument as naturally that person can feel pain, whereas a foetus can't naturally feel pain. They don't have autonomy, aspirations, emotions, self awareness, it can't survive on its own till a stage and nor do they have thoughts.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 21, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> That's a bad argument as naturally that person can feel pain, whereas a foetus can't naturally feel pain. They don't have autonomy, aspirations, emotions, self awareness, it can't survive on its own till a stage and nor do they have thoughts.



In the end the arugment is still about it sounding better because they don't feel pain. It isn't about the details of it. It is an argument to make what is basically murder sound more humane and it is a failed argument. 

And I agree my argument is bad, it simply matches the quality of argument I was facing. I obviously don't think it would be right to inject someone and then murder them.


----------



## Juno (Apr 21, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> They can't feel pain is a bad argument. If I inject someone with morpheine to numb them before I kill them does that make it okay?



Obviously if you have to anaesthetise someone, that person _can _feel pain. When people say the embryo can't feel pain, they mean its brain and nerve receptors are not developed enough to feel such a basic sensation, let alone any higher brain functions.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 21, 2011)

Covered above Juno.


----------



## Xyloxi (Apr 21, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> In the end the arugment is still about it sounding better because they don't feel pain. It isn't about the details of it. It is an argument to make what is basically murder sound more humane and it is a failed argument.
> 
> And I agree my argument is bad, it simply matches the quality of argument I was facing. I obviously don't think it would be right to inject someone and then murder them.



That's if we even consider it murder in the first place, as murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. A foetus is not a human being, it is merely a potential human being (till a certain point I might add) as for much of the pregnancy it doesn't really resemble one nor is it able to survive and is merely a parasite that may or not be wanted.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 21, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> That's if we even consider it murder in the first place, as murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. A foetus is not a human being, it is merely a potential human being (till a certain point I might add) as for much of the pregnancy it doesn't really resemble one nor is it able to survive and is merely a parasite that may or not be wanted.



This has already been argued so I will stick to the current argument which wasn't even made by you I might add.

The person I quoted was trying to "humanize" an abortion by saying the baby (or whatever you want to label it) can't feel pain. That is a poor argument because you could find ways to kill anyone where they wouldn't feel pain. "Numbness" does not excuse a heinous act whether it be abortion or murder.


----------



## Psallo a Cappella (Apr 21, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> In other words, stall as long as possible to try and hit that 21 week mark so you can ruin the girls life.


This.



Cyphon said:


> Making excuses like "it will ruin her life" are bullshit and copout arguments. In fact that's as bad as the abortion itself. If you get one or support it at least be honest and simply say "I don't want to have to deal with a child. I am running away from my problems". Don't make excuses.


So the countless children living in poverty, living in the streets, getting high, running away from their deadbeat parents, getting hit by their boyfriends (or girlfriends) every night, these children pushed into lifetime of self-destructive behavior are "bullshit" because you just wanted to get your kicks; just because you wanted to shake your finger in their face and say "learn your lesson." They aren't going to; how do you not understand that? The destructive cycle of CHILDREN HAVING CHILDREN needs to stop somewhere, and you are the type of person that will impede it to preserve your overreactionary personal pride. 

Why would you rather have that obnoxious stance instead of realizing that we shouldn't force people who are not ready to take care of children to have them? Frankly, why would you want them to do so? More children on the streets? More foster children? There is adoption and it is a viable option for some, but why put children - that you are saying you want to protect - through the situation? Sure, they will not know when they are six years old - but when they are fifteen, they will. You want to turn their world upside-down at a precious time in their life already? 

Sorry, I don't believe in letting children have children in the shattered social, familial, and government network we have in this country.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 21, 2011)

Psallo a Cappella said:


> So the countless children living in poverty, living in the streets, getting high, running away from their deadbeat parents, getting hit by their boyfriends (or girlfriends) every night, these children pushed into lifetime of self-destructive behavior are "bullshit" because you just wanted to get your kicks; just because you wanted to shake your finger in their face and say "learn your lesson." They aren't going to; how do you not understand that?
> 
> Yeah because this is purely the result of simply not allowing abortion. This happens in all walks of life and could have very little connection at all to abortion. But nice try.
> 
> ...



Why would you rather have the obnoxious stance of allowing people to simply "kill" the consequences of their actions. Why draw the line at abortion? Shouldn't we allow murder for people with a "good" reason for doing it?



> Sure, they will not know when they are six years old - but when they are fifteen, they will. You want to turn their world upside-down at a precious time in their life already? [/FONT]



Yeah because all children who have adopted parents or who go through foster care have terrible lives. Again, nice try and grouping every single child in a bad situation in the "we should have simply prevented them from ever living" category. 



> Sorry, I don't believe in letting children have children in the shattered social, familial, and government network we have in this country.



And that is your choice and I have no problem with you expressing it, but I disagree.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 21, 2011)

You are really bringing forth bad comparisons !


There is a huge difference between abortion and murder.


"Abortion" is getting rid of a embryo or early stage fetus inside a woman's uterus before it can feel pain and live outside the woman's body in the woman's demand that she may face problems if she goes through with it (whether it be physical, mental, or social stigma reasons).

While murder is the deliberate act of killing someone who is not a part of your life or can live on their own and has nothing to do with your body !


Again with your fucking "not taking responsibility"....Most women who get abortions do the responsible thing of using birth control pills, condoms, and other things....but they do not always work and thus abortion is the option in case it fails!

Then there is also taking the fact that you have to consider the woman's feelings and mental state if she goes through an unwanted pregnancy whereas an embryo cannot feel pain nor have feelings.

Because of those last things and since the embryo does not have the major organs yet, it is not human nor viable to live outside the womb yet and thus a woman can decide what goes on in her uterus (especially, if it will have consequences on her life or it will cause problems at her personal life with her family and friends).


----------



## Psallo a Cappella (Apr 21, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Why would you rather have the obnoxious stance of allowing people to simply "kill" the consequences of their actions. Why draw the line at abortion? Shouldn't we allow murder for people with a "good" reason for doing it?


Since I disagree with your imprecise definition of "killing", my position would not convince you. And how do you not realize that by forcing people who are NOT in a position to take care of a child, to do so, that it is destructive to that child? A being who does not ever deserve it? You want to punish the child - and before you contest this, a living, breathing, FEELING, conscious child - just because you are drunk on pride. You want to feel better than these parents do, don't you? Isn't their initial situation enough?

No, we shouldn't allow murder of the average person on the street because they are a complex being of memories, experiences, relationships, knowledge, and emotions that have ties to this world. A fetus has yet to make any bonds with anybody (much less develop the capacity to experience pain / emotions) and if terminated, wouldn't know the difference. 



> Yeah because all children who have adopted parents or who go through foster care have terrible lives. Again, nice try and grouping every single child in a bad situation in the "we should have simply prevented them from ever living" category.


I didn't say they all do - I'm saying eventually, they have to leap over more emotional hurdles than the average child and some don't react well to it. Some seek their biological parents. Some feel betrayed. Why tack one more hardship onto them?


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 21, 2011)

Psallo a Cappella said:


> And how do you not realize that by forcing people who are NOT in a position to take care of a child, to do so, that it is destructive to that child?



It isn't necessarily destructive to the child and you certainly can't see the future. That child could go on to cure cancer and have a wonderful life. You assume the worst to try and make your point while completely blinding yourself to millions of other possibilities.

And you also only picked people who aren't in a position to raise a child while ignoring the tons of people who ARE in a fine position but simply don't want the responsibility.



> just because you are drunk on pride. You want to feel better than these parents do, don't you? Isn't their initial situation enough?



Not sure what pride has to do with any of this and no, I don't feel better than those parents. We are all imperfect. Defining who is more imperfect isn't my goal or intention.



> No, we shouldn't allow murder of the average person on the street because they are a complex being of memories, experiences, relationships, knowledge, and emotions that have ties to this world. A fetus has yet to make any bonds with anybody (much less develop the capacity to experience pain / emotions) and if terminated, wouldn't know the difference.



And what you define in the former is what will become of the latter. Sounds a bit hypocritical to defend one while preventing the other one from similar connections.



> I didn't say they all do - I'm saying eventually, they have to leap over more emotional hurdles than the average child and some don't react well to it. Some seek their biological parents. Some feel betrayed. Why tack one more hardship onto them?



Everyone goes through hardships in life whether it be relationships, parental divorce, deatch etc.....You aren't simply tacking on a hardship. They could have a wonderful life with that one hurdle and they would still be far better off than "normal" kids.


----------



## Sasuko (Apr 22, 2011)

I guess the pro-choice approach withstands (for me) since the fetus is inside the woman, not a public receptacle for the government to decide its (meaning the woman) laws. However, there is a certainty that the woman eliminates a _potential being_ who can do wonderful things; they may not cure cancer, but they would be the people who you or children meet, bond, or serve you etc. The (true and unsolved, IMO) downside of this "destroying a potential gain to society" point: there is no such thing as predestination and children _grow up_ and _learn_ from their surroundings to aim for certain things in life. No pregnant woman is sure of what is to become of their fetus/child and the unborn baby can't predict off the bat: "I have the cure for HIV" and let their mother know. Even then, the mother can't hope for the best for the baby "to somehow pay off to society later" (sorry for crudely stating it, brain dead ATM) when she can't even afford to feed it once it is born [EDIT:] or she doesn't want it. In both cases, the child's "predestined life" or potential is affected or even changed.      

Two cents anyway.  

*invisible*


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Apr 22, 2011)

Lol at people trying to argue Embryology with Superstars whom couldn't understand that a circle is a 2 dimensional shape.



-Mikoto- said:


> I guess the pro-choice approach withstands (for me) since the fetus is inside the woman, not a public receptacle for the government to decide its (meaning the woman) laws. However, there is a certainty that the woman eliminates a _potential being_ who can do wonderful things; they may not cure cancer, but they would be the people who you or children meet, bond, or serve you etc. The (true and unsolved, IMO) downside of this "destroying a potential gain to society" point: there is no such thing as predestination and children _grow up_ and _learn_ from their surroundings to aim for certain things in life. No pregnant woman is sure of what is to become of their fetus/child and the unborn baby can't predict off the bat: "I have the cure for HIV" and let their mother know. Even then, the mother can't hope for the best for the baby "to somehow pay off to society later" (sorry for crudely stating it, brain dead ATM) when she can't even afford to feed it once it is born [EDIT:] or she doesn't want it. In both cases, the child's "predestined life" or potential is affected or even changed.
> 
> Two cents anyway.
> 
> *invisible*


Or the child can be the next stalin or your average thug. It goes both ways.

Just saying.


----------



## Sasuko (Apr 22, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Lol at people trying to argue Embryology with Superstars whom couldn't understand that a circle is a 2 dimensional shape.
> 
> 
> Or the child can be the next stalin or your average thug. It goes both ways.
> ...



Yup. I agree, my "pay off to society" quote goes both ways (+/-).


----------



## stomponfrogs (Apr 22, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> ^ Except the kid in that situation is outside of her body and can live without being a host of the woman's body, thus it is illegal to abort when that happens here !
> 
> 
> You must also think about the woman's mental and psychological health if she went through an unwanted or unintended pregnancy, in the early stages of pregnancy at least!
> ...



While I agree with your stance, your arguments seem to be solely based on your definition of life, which is different from pro-lifers. If I'm understanding your argument, you're saying that an embryo/fetus/pre-birthed baby (non-viable) is not deserving of the title 'alive', as it has a physical connection to its source and is dependent. While I feel that is a valid perception of life, I don't see how it is any more _factual_ than a pro-lifer's view of life, which is that life starts after fertilization. In that view, I think it's absolutely understandable that they feel abortion is murder, not that I agree.

As for your other points: The mental and psychological stress of having an unborn child is tragic, but again, if you were to consider abortion as murder as pro-lifers do, murder sounds a little worse.

In this article, they aren't suggesting an overall ban on abortion. 21 weeks is a fairly good portion of a full pregnancy. As for a woman's right to decide what is in her uterus, I would normally agree, unless I thought that her decision was ending a separate life. Again, this goes back to you (and I) feeling that a pre-term baby isn't alive, whereas others feel otherwise.

In the first three weeks of pregnancy, the fetus has its own pumping heart (a major organ). The lack of pain and viability argument is like saying someone with congenital analgesia who falls into a coma does not deserve to live. Again, you could go the route of saying that a fetus isn't alive until it has a brain and is capable of perception, but now you're back to defining life, which again is different from the definition given by those who are against abortion.

Look, I'm not trying to say that you are wrong. I already said that I'm pro-choice, so I agree with your stance on the issue in general. At the same time, looking at the opposing argument as ridiculous or stupid (not that I'm claiming you necessarily are, but there are a few posters in here who appear to feel that way) seems kinda pathetically close-minded. 

Being pro-choice, I feel it should be much easier to look at this argument objectively than if you think this is an issue of murder going unpunished.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> While I agree with your stance, your arguments seem to be solely based on your definition of life, which is different from pro-lifers. If I'm understanding your argument, you're saying that an embryo/fetus/pre-birthed baby (non-viable) is not deserving of the title 'alive', as it has a physical connection to its source and is dependent. While I feel that is a valid perception of life, I don't see how it is any more _factual_ than a pro-lifer's view of life, which is that life starts after fertilization. In that view, I think it's absolutely understandable that they feel abortion is murder, not that I agree.
> 
> As for your other points: The mental and psychological stress of having an unborn child is tragic, but again, if you were to consider abortion as murder as pro-lifers do, murder sounds a little worse.
> 
> ...



Again! It is not murder since an embryo is not viable outside the woman's body and does not have a brain nor a nervous system that makes its feel nor comprehend its existence !

You originally brought up a comparison that abortion is the same as a mother bringing her newborn baby or child to a doctor to "kill" it despite the newborn being viable and can live outside the woman's body....thus it is illegal at that point!

Abortions are legal only when the embryo is still not viable (before the 5th or 6th months) and is still inside the woman's womb.



If you take an embryo out of the uterus....it will quickly cease to function (despite a heart beat since it does not have the other major organs to sustain it outside the womb) !

It needs all of the major organs before it can "live" properly (not just a "heart beat").

Thus, it is not considered "viable" and until that point, it will be legal for woman to get abortions in that stage.

If Congress went with your view....they would ban abortions in the first trimester and thus no longer allow it which would hurt women by going to underground, unsafe abortions !

Pro-lifers in Congress are not being objective...they want to ban abortions and not let women have the right to choose and ignore how they feel if they went through unplanned pregnancies and the drastic measures they would take.


It is considered "murder" if you attempt to abort a viable baby (who can live outside the mother's womb and has most of its major organs), though !


And yes, I know what the article is saying....I am in favor of banning most late abortions.....I am talking about early stages of pregnancies before the embryo becomes "viable" !


Honestly!


----------



## Superstars (Apr 22, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Instead of countering with actual logic and facts, you go all out acting like a Fundamentalist Christan who can't even see what bias information is.
> 
> Hey, remember those studies years ago which 'proved' that homosexuals are incapable of taking care of children? And the 'consensus' that was built by various 'scientists' and 'doctors'?
> 
> ...


What a bad question not even the same thing. You are just in denial, calling actual facts that is supported by other facts that life is a life at conception shows that the truth isn't bias [lol which makes no sense bias truth?, lol]. Let go of your lame philosophies and embrace the truth.



Adagio said:


> I think you are confusing _life_ and the potential for a human being with the actual physical, living presence of a person during pregnancy.
> 
> When the egg is fertilized it is just a mass of different elements that after a specific amount of time can bring forth an actual person. You keep mentioning this supposed scientific research but you never show it.


----------



## αce (Apr 22, 2011)

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide evidence that a pre second trimester abortion is the murder of an actual human being.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 22, 2011)

♠Ace♠ said:


> I'm still waiting for anyone to provide evidence that a pre second trimester abortion is the murder of an actual human being.



You must also be waiting for your prescriptions from LensCrafters too.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 22, 2011)

Superstars said:


> What a bad question not even the same thing. You are just in denial, calling actual facts that is supported by other facts that life is a life at conception shows that the truth isn't bias [lol which makes no sense bias truth?, lol]. Let go of your lame philosophies and embrace the truth.


You're the only one with bias. And I'm not in denial, you are.

How isn't it the same thing? Like a zygote, sperm and eggs are alive. According to your logic, its murder to kill them.

Again, Superstars, science and biology don't seem to be your thing. You act like a Fundamentalist Christian.
...you're serious? 'Abortion Facts'? That's one of the worst sites on this subject since its filled with everything BUT facts.


----------



## αce (Apr 22, 2011)

> You must also be waiting for your prescriptions from LensCrafters too.



I stopped paying attention to your absurd posts a year ago.
The closest thing you've provided as "evidence" was the idea that life starts at conception. I'm willing to adopt that particular notion, but that life is still not that of a human being.

Therefore, it is not murder.
End of story.

I'm also tired of hearing "it will be a human"
That's cool. It still isn't.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 23, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> You're the only one with bias. And I'm not in denial, you are.
> 
> How isn't it the same thing? Like a zygote, sperm and eggs are alive. According to your logic, its murder to kill them.
> 
> ...



You are in denial cause you can't even see the facts are right in front of your face. Your question was answered on the page but your too bias to see.


*Spoiler*: __ 



*But the sperm has life. The ovum has life. Why is either of these lives any different than when the two join and become a fertilized ovum?*

_"The sperm has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the father. The sperm is genetically identified as a cell of the father’s body. It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. It is destined to fertilize an ovum or to die. It is at the end of the line.

The ovum has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the mother. The ovum is genetically identified as a cell of the mother’s body.

It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. Its destiny? To be fertilized or die. It, too, is at the end of the line.

But when sperm and ovum join, there is created at that time a new living being; a being who has never be-fore existed in the history of the world and never again will exist; a being not at the end of the line, but at the dawn of existence; a being completely intact and containing within himself or herself the totality of every-thing that this being will ever be; a being moving for-ward in an orderly process of growth and maturation, destined to live inside the mother for almost nine months and for as many as a hundred years outside."_





			
				Ace said:
			
		

> I stopped paying attention to your absurd posts a year ago.
> The closest thing you've provided as "evidence" was the idea that life starts at conception. I'm willing to adopt that particular notion, *but that life is still not that of a human being.*
> Therefore, it is not murder.
> End of story.
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 



*"What is this "moment of conception" bit?"*

"Most use the moment of sperm penetration as the "moment of conception." Others wait until their pronuclei fuse at 12-14 hours to say conception is a completed process. *In either case this new human life is complete at the first cell stage." *



Abortion is murder. Anyone with common sense can see that.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 23, 2011)

Superstars said:


> You are in denial cause you can't even see the facts are right in front of your face. Your question was answered on the page but your too bias to see.


Don't you think YOU might have the bias? That page you keep linking? _Its a crock!_ 'Abortion Facts' is one of the most biased pro-life websites on the web that DOESN'T have any real facts. It misconstrues everything. 



> Abortion is murder.


Its not a human being. So its not. 

Superstars, actually learn some things before hand? Go to sites that DON'T have a pro-life agenda?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 23, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Don't you think YOU might have the bias? That page you keep linking? _Its a crock!_ 'Abortion Facts' is one of the most biased pro-life websites on the web that DOESN'T have any real facts. It misconstrues everything.
> 
> 
> Its not a human being. So its not.
> ...


I go to sites that have scientifical factual evidence backed up by more scientists that speak the truth and aren't bias. It is you people holding on to your lame philosophies and ignoring the truth. Human life is at conception and aborting it is terminating human life. I got truth backing me up you got your lame ego and philosophy.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 23, 2011)

Superstars said:


> I go to sites that have scientifical factual evidence backed up by more scientists that speak the truth and aren't bias. It is you people holding on to your lame philosophies and ignoring the truth. Human life is at conception and aborting it is terminating human life. I got truth backing me up you got your lame ego and philosophy.


The sites you go to only support your argument. They aren't 'scientific fact'. 'Abortion Facts' is notorious for its bias, hell several doctors and scientists actually want their papers and stuff taken down since Abortion Facts does its own selective edits to make it seem that said scientists are supporting them. 

The general scientific consensus has that a fetus is only a baby-thus a human life, at the second trimester. Only a few radicals actually believe human life begins at conception-when its just a mass of rapidly dividing cells.


----------



## Negative (Apr 23, 2011)

This whole issue of Abortion shouldn't be a problem in the first place. Honsetly, why do people care of what a Woman do with her Body? Are they gonna take care of it, take it to school, feed it, etc? 

And regarding the whole issue of "Right to Life". I kinda of failing to understand that "Right". How can it has a Right to Life, if it already Life, yet just a Mass of Cells? The sperm is also alive, so does that have the right to life? Why its only appiles to the Fetus, a freeloading parasite that HAS a Potential to become Human? If one where to Masturbate, am I a Serial Cell Killer, because I kill millions of these of it? 

Anyways, as I stated before I was aruging with a Girl on another Forum. 



> > Originally Posted by sharingan672
> > Reproductive choice are human rights, am I correct in interpreting that you wish to further restrict your own rights as well as the rights of others?
> > I've never come across that before .
> 
> ...



Thoughts?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 23, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> The sites you go to only support your argument. They aren't 'scientific fact'. 'Abortion Facts' is notorious for its bias, hell several doctors and scientists actually want their papers and stuff taken down since Abortion Facts does its own selective edits to make it seem that said scientists are supporting them.
> 
> The general scientific consensus has that a fetus is only a baby-thus a human life, at the second trimester. Only a few radicals actually believe human life begins at conception-when its just a mass of rapidly dividing cells.


No the sites I go to support TRUTH which is my argument. There is no bias with truth.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 23, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No the sites I go to support TRUTH which is my argument. There is no bias with truth.


The sites you got to support don't support any 'truth'. They're full of bias filled with an agenda that wants to limit Women's Rights and restrict what they can and can't do with their bodies. 

Superstars. You have no idea what science is or even does. You find something on the web that supports you, you link it and claim it's 'truth'. However, looking into it you see a bunch of misinformation. 

You purposely avoid actual scientific websites.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 23, 2011)

It's a scientific website backed by references from other scientists. It's proof backed by more proof.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 23, 2011)

Superstars said:


> It's a scientific website backed by references from other scientists. It's proof backed by more proof.


All the sites you link _aren't_ scientific websites. Abortion Facts is filled with misinformation and has a pro-life agenda. The others you linked aren't scientific websites either. Hell you actually bring up a senate ruling as evidence.

Superstars, did you flunk out of basic biology in high school or something? Or did your parents not allow you to take it?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 23, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> All the sites you link _aren't_ scientific websites. Abortion Facts is filled with misinformation and has a pro-life agenda. The others you linked aren't scientific websites either. Hell you actually bring up a senate ruling as evidence.
> 
> Superstars, did you flunk out of basic biology in high school or something? Or did your parents not allow you to take it?



You flunked reading because congress supports the website I posted which is scientific [official]. You are just in denial and mad cause you can't thwart the truth and you never will with your man made philosophy. The truth is way above your head and I will leave you in your soup of denial and ego because your precious philosophy from men is damaged by the truth. Human life begins at conception and abortion MURDERS that human life. No if's and  buts because the truth backed by more truth says so. I'll leave this thread with the truth.

Enjoy your weekend I'm out!


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 23, 2011)

Superstars said:


> You flunked reading because congress supports the website I posted which is scientific [official]. You are just in denial and mad cause you can't thwart the truth and you never will with your man made philosophy. The truth is way above your head and I will leave you in your soup of denial and ego because your precious philosophy from men is damaged by the truth. Human life begins at conception and abortion MURDERS that human life. No if's and  buts because the truth backed by more truth says so. I'll leave this thread with the truth.
> 
> Enjoy your weekend I'm out!


Translation:

I can't counter with actual arguments so I concede. It doesn't matter if I'm wrong or that I don't know what happens in biology, what I say is the truth even though it violates basic biological principles and development.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Apr 24, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Again! It is not murder since an embryo is not viable outside the woman's body and does not have a brain nor a nervous system that makes its feel nor comprehend its existence !
> 
> You originally brought up a comparison that abortion is the same as a mother bringing her newborn baby or child to a doctor to "kill" it despite the newborn being viable and can live outside the woman's body....thus it is illegal at that point!
> 
> ...



I think you ignored most of what I posted... I'll try to keep it shorter this time, so I don't drag on like last time.

From what I gather, you consider a human alive (and thus able to be murdered) when it is viable. I agree with that. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that pro-lifer's do. For them, the embryo and fetus are alive, and ending that life to them _is _murder as they perceive it. Viability is necessary for you and I to consider something alive, but you and I have no more right to define 'life' than a pro-lifer. Again, *I agree with your definition of life!!!* In fact, on a bit of a side note, I'm of the opinion that a person who murders a pregnant woman should receive a sentencing for homicide, not double. 

I'm not talking about legality and laws, I'm talking about how we and others define life and murder. I think it's understandable for pro-lifers to have trouble being objective more than pro-choicers like you and myself, since they see the issue as the rest of us supporting the legalization of murder. If I felt something absurd like that was going on in my country of residence, I'd probably flip shit, too.


----------

