Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Assuming abortion is illegal, how much time does she serve?

145791022

Posts

  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    My point is a zygote really doesn't deserve consideration simply because it's technically alive and part of a human body.
    So a zygote is equivalent to a cyst? What about an embryo? A fetus? A 9-month fetus inside a woman in labor? Are those the equivalent of a cyst, as well?
    Well, if you want to play the "when does life begin" game, I'd say it's when the brain is developed enough to discern sensation. Which, according to wikipedia, is after roughly 26 weeks, or about the beginning of the third trimester.
    Which is, coincidentally, when there is the most restriction on abortion, mostly because doctors and experts told the Supreme Court "here's our best guess."

    Of course, this requires a belief in science.

    But think of the children.

    Do you really think godless science cares about the children? Or course not.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Yeah, but what can you expect when moral superiority enters a debate. People like Ryuprecht don't want to increase the maternal death rate, but that's going to happen if they have their way. Rather than basing anything on that, we get anthropomorphising tape worms and fetuses that are predestined to cure cancer at 12. Fun times.

    This is at the crux of where I stand in the abortion debate. Ideally, we wouldn't need non-rape, non-mother's-life-threatened abortions at all because people would be responsible. However, people have proven time and time again we're lucky they manage to put on pants before going to work, let alone maintain control over their sexual activities sufficiently that unplanned pregnancy has a vanishingly small probability of happening. And if we don't have abortion as a crutch for the irresponsible, we'll have a lot of expectant mommies tossing themselves down stairs and the like. It's like Prohibition; even if you think booze is bad, Prohibition was a bad idea because it didn't take into account human nature.

    The prohibition parallel is one of the best I've ever seen.

    And now I have mental images of Eliot Ness busting open barrels full of fetuses, much to Al Capone's chagrin.

    Thanks a lot.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.

    I don't rely on rape/incest cases to prove my point: women own their bodies and the contents thereof. That means they, and they alone, should have final say over who gets to use their reproductive organs.

    Then we can expand this debate thus:

    Except in cases of rape, the woman already granted her say over use of her reproductive organs when she had sex with a man.

    People know how babies are made. It's not an accident. You have to do a very conscious act to get the ball rolling. When you make that choice, you should be a real fucking adult and live with the consequences.

    (now before anyone jumps my shit about "but what about in cases where the mom may die?", you know that's not what I'm talking about)

  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.

    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Oh man, that's precious.

    What do you consider it?

    Well, that's a good question. Are we assuming you'll dump it off at the nearest adoption center, or actually take care of it for 18 years or so?
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    People know how babies are made. It's not an accident. You have to do a very conscious act to get the ball rolling. When you make that choice, you should be a real fucking adult and live with the consequences.

    Whoops, condom broke. Well shit, there goes my life for the next two decades.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited August 2007
    In one case you are wandering around with a loaded gun that's ready to go off. You are presenting a clear and present danger to everyone around you.

    In the other case you are pregnant. Pregnancy alone is not presenting a clear and present danger to the baby or anyone else. I think this would only be negligence if the mother were doing something that would result in a clear and present danger such as wearing a blindfold, using drugs, etc.

    I should think anyone would be aware that falling down the stairs can easily cause a miscarriage.

    tmkm.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    So if the baby miscarries would there be an autopsy and criminal investigation? Would you, ryuprecht, submit a mother (who has just lost her baby to shitty luck) to a homicide investigation?

    If we're (o.k. only ryuprecht is) making the death of an unborn baby murder one, then I'd assume there will be some kind of investigation to actualy prove it.
    That's a strech. A miscarraige is natural. Sad at times, but natural. Do we do full autopsies and homicide investigation for each death at a nursing home? How about if there's no reason to suspect foul play?

    If the OP is correct, there would have to be limits on that stuff.
    well yes it is natural, but since abortion would (under your government) be murder, I'd assume then that miscarriage would be looked into more closely right?
    Of course. We'd have to start a whole new "abortion" police force.

    And since up to 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage... they're going to be very busy.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    I wasn't specifically thinking of formal groups, but the National Right to Life Committee takes no position on contraception.

    Why not?

    Oh, Mr. Elkamil, could I take a stab? Could it, just could it be because they don't want to offend the very large number of pro-lifers out there who are, let's just say, not fond of contraceptions?

    Could be. Or maybe ryup has a plausible explanation.

    The best you can do is "no position"? Well done.

    No, the best I can do is say "I was talking about groups, but individuals", which I already did. Part of that is because I don't want to waste the time investigating national groups to satisfy something that's an offshoot of my original comment.
    Actually, it's not an offshoot - as I pointed out, it's one of those things that really strikes at the heart of the whole pro-life argument.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Hah hah! Oh, of course we can.

    Here's a fun one. Let's say that a pregnant woman trips while walking down the stairs and experiences a miscarriage. She should be charged with some sort of negligent homicide, right? Regardless of the age of the fetus, or even if she knew she was pregnant.

    After all, from your perspective this is no different than tripping while holding a gun and accidentally shooting someone— even if you didn't realize they were there.

    I still want an answer to this.


    If I remember right, there's a legal standard for reasonable person expectations of negligence. That should probably apply here.

    so an accident should apply? you're seriously saying that a woman who is 5 months pregnant trips on a toy her 2 year old left on the stairs should be prosecuted for murdering her unborn baby under negligence?

    Do you understand the reasonable person standard for negligence? If I remember my tort law right (it's been 10 years), your example is not even remotely prosecutable or covered under the law.

  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    In one case you are wandering around with a loaded gun that's ready to go off. You are presenting a clear and present danger to everyone around you.

    In the other case you are pregnant. Pregnancy alone is not presenting a clear and present danger to the baby or anyone else. I think this would only be negligence if the mother were doing something that would result in a clear and present danger such as wearing a blindfold, using drugs, etc.

    I should think anyone would be aware that falling down the stairs can easily cause a miscarriage.

    So can tripping and falling forward.

    Every woman who walks anywhere is putting their child in danger.

    shamanhealingwave.jpgabilitypaladinshieldofv.png
  • Spyder3XSpyder3X Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.

    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Oh man, that's precious.

    What do you consider it?

    Well, that's a good question. Are we assuming you'll dump it off at the nearest adoption center, or actually take care of it for 18 years or so?

    I'd assume that giving a child you don't want up for adoption would work basically the same way it works...right now.

    http://www.adoption.org/adopt/giving-a-child-up-for-adoption.php

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.

    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Oh man, that's precious.

    What do you consider it?

    An extremely complex, difficult, and trying emotional and physical rollercoaster culminating with a watermelon coming out your pee hole. Go talk to someone who's recently had a kid and ask them what their last year was like. Bonus points if they didn't really want the bastard.

    tea-1.jpg
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.

    I don't rely on rape/incest cases to prove my point: women own their bodies and the contents thereof. That means they, and they alone, should have final say over who gets to use their reproductive organs.

    Then we can expand this debate thus:

    Except in cases of rape, the woman already granted her say over use of her reproductive organs when she had sex with a man.

    People know how babies are made. It's not an accident. You have to do a very conscious act to get the ball rolling. When you make that choice, you should be a real fucking adult and live with the consequences.

    (now before anyone jumps my shit about "but what about in cases where the mom may die?", you know that's not what I'm talking about)

    I... I really don't want to be the one to have to tell you this.
    Spoiler:

    tmkm.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.

    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Oh man, that's precious.

    See, he just wants to be Cat's "special friend".

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.
    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Oh man, that's precious.
    What do you consider it?
    Well, that's a good question. Are we assuming you'll dump it off at the nearest adoption center, or actually take care of it for 18 years or so?
    I'd assume that giving a child you don't want up for adoption would work basically the same way it works...right now.

    http://www.adoption.org/adopt/giving-a-child-up-for-adoption.php
    You mean really, really badly for anyone except healthy, middle-class white girls?

    Only much, much worse, because now the massively underfunded, overtaxed social services are going to have an even bigger influx of unwanted babies, because abortion isn't an option anymore?

  • Original RufusOriginal Rufus Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.

    I don't rely on rape/incest cases to prove my point: women own their bodies and the contents thereof. That means they, and they alone, should have final say over who gets to use their reproductive organs.

    Then we can expand this debate thus:

    Except in cases of rape, the woman already granted her say over use of her reproductive organs when she had sex with a man.

    People know how babies are made. It's not an accident. You have to do a very conscious act to get the ball rolling. When you make that choice, you should be a real fucking adult and live with the consequences.

    (now before anyone jumps my shit about "but what about in cases where the mom may die?", you know that's not what I'm talking about)

    Are you willing to accept the notion that an abortion can potentially represent a woman acting responsibly? Being an adult?

    I'm guessing no, but thought I'd ask.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.

    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Oh man, that's precious.

    What do you consider it?

    Well, that's a good question. Are we assuming you'll dump it off at the nearest adoption center, or actually take care of it for 18 years or so?

    I'd assume that giving a child you don't want up for adoption would work basically the same way it works...right now.

    http://www.adoption.org/adopt/giving-a-child-up-for-adoption.php

    I'd explain to you that adoption is not the cure-all you think it to be, especially if the kid isn't blue eyed and blonde haired. But considering your first comment, I'm just going to go with "idiot".

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.

    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.
    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Oh man, that's precious.
    What do you consider it?
    Well, that's a good question. Are we assuming you'll dump it off at the nearest adoption center, or actually take care of it for 18 years or so?
    I'd assume that giving a child you don't want up for adoption would work basically the same way it works...right now.

    http://www.adoption.org/adopt/giving-a-child-up-for-adoption.php
    You mean really, really badly for anyone except healthy, middle-class white girls?

    Except even worse, one would assume.

    tmkm.jpg
  • Spyder3XSpyder3X Registered User
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.

    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Oh man, that's precious.

    What do you consider it?

    An extremely complex, difficult, and trying emotional and physical rollercoaster culminating with a watermelon coming out your pee hole. Go talk to someone who's recently had a kid and ask them what their last year was like. Bonus points if they didn't really want the bastard.

    Maybe you'll think a little harder before you have sex again next time. But hey people are stupid and never learn. I missed the part where thats any different than any other number of accidents (assuming the pregnancy is accidental) that can occur to someone, like say getting hit by a car, or losing a limb. Its an inconvenience.

  • DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.

    I don't rely on rape/incest cases to prove my point: women own their bodies and the contents thereof. That means they, and they alone, should have final say over who gets to use their reproductive organs.

    Then we can expand this debate thus:

    Except in cases of rape, the woman already granted her say over use of her reproductive organs when she had sex with a man.

    People know how babies are made. It's not an accident. You have to do a very conscious act to get the ball rolling. When you make that choice, you should be a real fucking adult and live with the consequences.

    (now before anyone jumps my shit about "but what about in cases where the mom may die?", you know that's not what I'm talking about)

    I... I really don't want to be the one to have to tell you this.
    Spoiler:

    Good thing I scrolled down and read this before posting another angry tirade. <3 <3 Wouldn't my face have been red then!

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.

    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.

    This is why I feel men's views on abortion shouldn't weigh heavily.

    "Hey it's only 9 months it's not that bad" D:

    ezek1t.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Then you should already know that the vast majority of pro-choicers understand that abortion is about the woman, not the pregnancy.

    I don't rely on rape/incest cases to prove my point: women own their bodies and the contents thereof. That means they, and they alone, should have final say over who gets to use their reproductive organs.

    Then we can expand this debate thus:

    Except in cases of rape, the woman already granted her say over use of her reproductive organs when she had sex with a man.

    People know how babies are made. It's not an accident. You have to do a very conscious act to get the ball rolling. When you make that choice, you should be a real fucking adult and live with the consequences.

    (now before anyone jumps my shit about "but what about in cases where the mom may die?", you know that's not what I'm talking about)

    I... I really don't want to be the one to have to tell you this.
    Spoiler:

    Don't be silly, its really very fun and enjoyable. Hell, I'd get 2 of 'em every day if I could.

    tea-1.jpg
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    Maybe you'll think a little harder before you have sex again next time. But hey people are stupid and never learn. I missed the part where thats any different than any other number of accidents (assuming the pregnancy is accidental) that can occur to someone, like say getting hit by a car, or losing a limb. Its an inconvenience.

    So pregnancy is punishment for sex.

    You must really love children.

    tmkm.jpg
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Hah hah! Oh, of course we can.

    Here's a fun one. Let's say that a pregnant woman trips while walking down the stairs and experiences a miscarriage. She should be charged with some sort of negligent homicide, right? Regardless of the age of the fetus, or even if she knew she was pregnant.

    After all, from your perspective this is no different than tripping while holding a gun and accidentally shooting someone— even if you didn't realize they were there.

    I still want an answer to this.


    If I remember right, there's a legal standard for reasonable person expectations of negligence. That should probably apply here.

    so an accident should apply? you're seriously saying that a woman who is 5 months pregnant trips on a toy her 2 year old left on the stairs should be prosecuted for murdering her unborn baby under negligence?

    Do you understand the reasonable person standard for negligence? If I remember my tort law right (it's been 10 years), your example is not even remotely prosecutable or covered under the law.

    no actually I don't. I was just playing along with the original arguement that criminal negligence should apply to a pregnant woman tripping.

  • Spyder3XSpyder3X Registered User
    edited August 2007
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.

    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.

    Getting hit by a car has all of the same above affects.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    Maybe you'll think a little harder before you have sex again next time. But hey people are stupid and never learn. I missed the part where thats any different than any other number of accidents (assuming the pregnancy is accidental) that can occur to someone, like say getting hit by a car, or losing a limb. Its an inconvenience.
    So, clearly, when you have a choice between cutting off the limb, or trimming the hangnail, well, that arm just has to go!

  • DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.

    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.

    Getting hit by a car has all of the same above affects.

    ... Okay? Would you also deny medical treatment to someone who'd been hit by a car, then?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.
    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.
    Getting hit by a car has all of the same above affects.
    Which is why we don't have laws that say "if you have sex, you have to get hit by a car."

  • Spyder3XSpyder3X Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.
    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.
    Getting hit by a car has all of the same above affects.
    Which is why we don't have laws that say "if you have sex, you have to get hit by a car."

    Right, we have lots of options to prevent pregnancy, some 100% effective. So if you don't want to deal with the consequences, get fixed.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.

    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.

    Getting hit by a car has all of the same above affects.

    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> You really are just adorable.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.

    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.

    Getting hit by a car has all of the same above affects.

    So let me see if I have this straight:

    Getting pregnant=hiit by a car or losing a limb

    Getting pregnant="inconvenient"

    so:

    Getting hit by a car or losing a limb = "inconvenient"

    Spyder what the fuck are you on.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.
    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.
    Getting hit by a car has all of the same above affects.
    Which is why we don't have laws that say "if you have sex, you have to get hit by a car."
    Right, we have lots of options to prevent pregnancy, some 100% effective. So if you don't want to deal with the consequences, get fixed.
    There are no 100% effective ways to prevent pregnancy.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life.

    You consider carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it to be nothing more than an inconvenience? <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Oh man, that's precious.

    What do you consider it?

    An extremely complex, difficult, and trying emotional and physical rollercoaster culminating with a watermelon coming out your pee hole. Go talk to someone who's recently had a kid and ask them what their last year was like. Bonus points if they didn't really want the bastard.

    Maybe you'll think a little harder before you have sex again next time. But hey people are stupid and never learn. I missed the part where thats any different than any other number of accidents (assuming the pregnancy is accidental) that can occur to someone, like say getting hit by a car, or losing a limb. Its an inconvenience.

    Okay, you passed "idiot", and waved bye-bye to "moron". You're nearing "stupid moronic fuckwad" territory now, buddy.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Which is why we don't have laws that say "if you have sex, you have to get hit by a car."

    Right, we have lots of options to prevent pregnancy, some 100% effective. So if you don't want to deal with the consequences, get fixed.

    What the fuck do you think abortion is, ignoring the pregnancy so it will go away?

    tmkm.jpg
  • Spyder3XSpyder3X Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.
    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.
    Getting hit by a car has all of the same above affects.
    Which is why we don't have laws that say "if you have sex, you have to get hit by a car."
    Right, we have lots of options to prevent pregnancy, some 100% effective. So if you don't want to deal with the consequences, get fixed.
    There are no 100% effective ways to prevent pregnancy.

    LAWL!

    Here cause you were too lazy to google.

    http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Birth_Control_Permanent_Sterilization

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.

    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.

    Getting hit by a car has all of the same above affects.

    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> You really are just adorable.

    I say we wrap him up in ribbons and bow and give him as a present for Cat. She really needed a new scratching post.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • WerrickWerrick Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    If a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant and there is no threat to her life, she should carry the child to term and give it up to adoption. Mother and father off the hook for caring for the child. I think it is preferable to preserve life when there is no consequence other than an inconvience in 9 months of someone's life. If the mother is danger I see no reason to stop an abortion, because the baby is threatening her and she has a right to protect herself. Period.
    "An inconvenience"?

    She can't eat or drink the things she might like to. She can't participate in the physical activities she used to, even if it's her hobby - or her job. Her career might be jeopardized anyway, as her bosses might feel she doesn't now have the time for more duties at a promotion or handling a new client. At best she'll be puking every morning for a while, feel huge and uncomfortable, and either have her vagina tear or her great big belly cut open - at worst she might suffer other health problems, such as vision damage. Hopefully she doesn't like reading, or have computer work to do! It's possible she'll also suffer from post-partum depression, and might have trouble getting her life back on track, even if the baby's placed with an adoption agency. Her entire body gets co-opted for 9 months to provide life support for a life she never wanted.

    Oh, and that baby? Hopefully he or she actually gets placed with a loving family. But there's a metric fuckton of unwanted children with agencies throughout the country. Too bad for the kid if she isn't white and healthy, too. Good luck finding a forever home then!

    Fuck your "inconvenience", and fuck you too. A woman's body belongs to her, not to you and not to the fetus and not to the government.
    Getting hit by a car has all of the same above affects.
    Which is why we don't have laws that say "if you have sex, you have to get hit by a car."
    Right, we have lots of options to prevent pregnancy, some 100% effective. So if you don't want to deal with the consequences, get fixed.
    There are no 100% effective ways to prevent pregnancy.

    Nope.

    Abstinence.

    Now... let's all go read the bible.

    EDIT - I think I'm done in this thread, it's hard to debate folks when they merely ignore your arguments.

    "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

    -Robert E. Howard
    Tower of the Elephant
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    If the entire foundation of your argument is a belief, it is a bad argument.

    It's a belief because it's something that cannot be proven. You cannot prove life begins at exactly the moment the baby is born. It is your belief that prior to that it's not life.

    You cannot prove that the baby is less important than the mother. It is a belief.

    You cannot prove that the baby would have a bad life if it were carried to term and then adopted. It is your belief that it's better to kill the baby.

    I can prove that criminalizing abortion increases the maternal death rate. Then again, who cares about saving their lives, those whores.

    tea-1.jpg
  • furiousNUfuriousNU Registered User
    edited August 2007

    Except, of course, the fetus. They don't benefit at all.

    As a pro-life person, the answer is "yes", I'll take increased taxes to stop abortions, because I believe it to be murder. You may not agree with my belief on it, but the point is that it's strong enough for me that I would willingly accept increased taxes for incarceration.


    While women should be responsible with their sexual activities this doesn't mean that woman should not have the option of abortion because a bunch of old white men(who don't know anything about pregnancy) can't let go of the vestiges of archaic social standards that take away a woman's ability to control her body and her life.

    According to the First Amendment, the government should not be influenced by religion (separation of church and state). This means that judges are suppose to interpret the Constitution the best they can without letting personal beliefs and other influences interfere with their decision. According to the Constitution individuals that are not 18(or emancipated) are not of the age where they can serve the government and therefore do not receive full benefit from the law. Why should a fetus who has contributed nothing to society receive more benefit from the law than the mother(if she's not an illegal immigrant) who technically has rights provided by the constitution?

    The only justification I can find for the origin of the "pro-life" amendments is within the confines of religion, which shouldn't have such a strong influence on the law anyways. While the law should protect children. the law should prioritize protection for legal adults because they already exist/have contributed to society. Children are gifts that should be received responsibly and in a situation where they are wanted and cared for properly. Children should not be a tool to "punish" women that may have made a mistake/been a victim because an institution that has no place in legal affairs influences judges' decisions.


    OP:

    Abortion should not be encouraged as the "best" solution to pregnancy, but it should be available to women along with required counseling if they so choose to go through with it. And even if abortion becomes "illegal" and the law needs to determine a "punishment", incarceration will not prevent pregnancy->abortion from occurring again. Long term psychiatric help and better sex education would be a better solution because it would prevent the situation from happening again.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Spyder3X wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    There are no 100% effective ways to prevent pregnancy.
    LAWL!

    Here cause you were too lazy to google.

    http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Birth_Control_Permanent_Sterilization
    Neither vasectomy nor tubal ligation are 100% effective.

145791022
This discussion has been closed.