[Winston]

	That, and your arguments stink, and have been refuted throughout the course of this thread.

None of them have been refuted, actually. Please be rational, that's all I ask. If you think abortions are okay, I don't know why you're alive because you see no beauty in life.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, the constant "adoption is easy" crap makes me want to punch people in the throat, rip out their vocal chords and wrap them around their head.

I hope you don't think I said or meant that. None of these choices are ever easy.

I can only imagine what my birth mother went through giving me up. I know almost nothing about my birth parents except I was an unexpected middle aged "oops" and they'd had no other kids. I've considered it very possible that she finally had the child she wanted and her husband was not willing to keep it.

I've had to talk with some teen girls who think they should have kids because "someone will love me" though. I don't think that sort of naivete serves girls very well should they have to actually make the sorts of choices we've obviously had to make.

	Adoption is not some magical bandaid. It's a choice. Just like abortion. It's a valid choice for some. It's a personal choice for all.

I could only wish that I lived to see the day where women would be considered sane and intelligent enough to be trusted to make their own choices about these things without interference from the state or judgement from those not involved, but unfortunately it does not seem like that will happen.

Probably expecting that big a shift in just one generation was too much to hope for.

---------- Post added 04-13-2012 at 12:54 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Winston To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you think abortions are okay, I don't know why you're alive because you see no beauty in life.

It must be nice to be able to live a life where things are this simple.

[Reizu]

I personally don't care one way or the other. One of my pro-life friends made this drawing of an aborted fetus in scrubs and in a sort of half-frame next to it was his dead mother, and the title was "He never got the chance to save his mother." While I would like to point out he could have just as easily been the one to bring someone else to THEIR early graves.

I think of it in more of a "They were gonna die one way or another, anyway." And depending on the person experiencing it, and the people affected by it, life could easily be either a gift or a curse. If you end up letting a fetus live that goes on to bring about world peace, good. If you let a fetus live that grows up to bring about nuclear war, bad. If you abort a fetus that would have grown up to bring chaos and anarchy to the world, good. If you abort a fetus that would have cured cancer, bad. It all depends on perspective, which I am severely lacking in.

[Dru]

	Originally Posted by Winston To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	None of them have been refuted, actually. Please be rational, that's all I ask. If you think abortions are okay, I don't know why you're alive because you see no beauty in life.

ignorant sir, this dispute is not a matter of whether one is pro-life or pro-death. it is a matter of pro-imposing-your-own-morals-and-views-onto-others and pro-personal-freedoms-not-being-sacrificed-for-the-preservation-of-morals.

early-term abortions are not murder. late-term abortions are already illegal, because viability is a big factor in whether one is considered to have rights. it doesn't matter if you understand why people choose to have sex when they don't want a child to result from it. don't let your lack of understanding in this matter lead you to believe in ignorant statements such as i'm replying to.


it seems to me if you can't even understand why people have sex to begin with, that you are grossly lacking any sort of valid perspective in this issue. that you also have no clue why anybody would choose abortion is the proverbial nail in the coffin, in which your ideas should be buried until you are capable of imbibing them with a tinge of knowledge.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I hope you don't think I said or meant that. None of these choices are ever easy.

No, I didn't think you did. Adopted kids go through the the emotional wringer too.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can only imagine what my birth mother went through giving me up. I know almost nothing about my birth parents except I was an unexpected middle aged "oops" and they'd had no other kids. I've considered it very possible that she finally had the child she wanted and her husband was not willing to keep it.

Unless you get the chance to ask her you'll likely never know. My daughter didn't come looking for me because she knew I was young and she was afraid I'd forgotten her.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've had to talk with some teen girls who think they should have kids because "someone will love me" though. I don't think that sort of naivete serves girls very well should they have to actually make the sorts of choices we've obviously had to make.

It's not just young girls who make that mistake. I counsel the naive ones too.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I could only wish that I lived to see the day where women would be considered sane and intelligent enough to be trusted to make their own choices about these things without interference from the state or judgement from those not involved, but unfortunately it does not seem like that will happen. Probably expecting that big a shift in just one generation was too much to hope for.

Here's hoping that the day comes.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Winston To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	None of them have been refuted, actually. Please be rational, that's all I ask. If you think abortions are okay, I don't know why you're alive because you see no beauty in life.

An argument based on the entirely subjective "beauty of life" is in no way rational. Spend some time contemplating that.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Winston To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I honestly don't see a purpose to sex besides reproduction[.]

Okay.

Many people do.

---------- Post added 04-13-2012 at 10:11 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Winston To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you think abortions are okay, I don't know why you're alive because you see no beauty in life.

Elaborate, almost esoteric sophistry does not overrule the actual fact that actual pro-choice people actually really love life.

[Seablue]

	Originally Posted by Winston To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you think abortions are okay, I don't know why you're alive because you see no beauty in life.

My mother had an abortion several years before she had me. If she hadn't, it's doubtful she would have started dating my father, and even more doubtful she would have tried for a child when she tried to have me. So without abortions, I wouldn't be alive. So if I was pro-life, it would be because I regret being alive and see no beauty in life. Problem solved! The conclusion was sarcasm, but the rest is true.

I don't understand the whole "you can't be pro-choice because it means you could have been aborted and would you like that?" argument. If I had been aborted, I wouldn't have never have been in a position to regret being aborted. I would have never existed and therefore would never have been in a position to have an opinion about existing. That's it. The end. Yes, I could have been aborted. My mother certainly proved she was capable of it. And I don't give a fuck.

---------- Post added 04-14-2012 at 03:17 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Reizu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I personally don't care one way or the other. One of my pro-life friends made this drawing of an aborted fetus in scrubs and in a sort of half-frame next to it was his dead mother, and the title was "He never got the chance to save his mother." While I would like to point out he could have just as easily been the one to bring someone else to THEIR early graves.

And it's even more stupid when you think that doctors aren't supposed to treat family, especially not so close.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Winston To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you think abortions are okay, I don't know why you're alive because you see no beauty in life.

You can be pro-choice and anti-abortion by supporting the choice and choosing to not abort. One needn't be a theocratic, misogynistic extremist to see beauty in life.

[anticlimatic]

If one's abortion stance is a reflection of one's world-view, I think pro-life is the default for the most balanced version of such.

Half of the pro-choice arguments are too particulate to merit rationality (saying women deserve an option, without looking far enough to the fact that it removes all options from the person in the womb-- 50% of which will eventually be women), while the other half overreaches the abilities of logical deduction (projecting fear-based doomsday scenarios on the mother and child).

Most bizarre, I think, is the logically inverted application of uncertainty; they argue that a fetus's humanity is in question...while it's unwanted, post-birth existence will be an unquestionable hardship-- when the fact of the matter is that 'certainty' is very much inverted in these two arguments.

The pro-life stance has the perfect balance in world-view size; it recognizes that all things are parts of a larger system, and provides a fair impartiality to them, without reaching so far as to impose arrogant predictions.

	Originally Posted by Seablue To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My mother had an abortion several years before she had me.

Do you have any other siblings?

[nowt]

300-500 spontaneous abortions occur out of a thousand pregnancies, but the 4 out of a thousand that are consciously chosen deserve the charge of murder--

The wills of sentient individuals are better enslaved to non-sentient masses of tissue--

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	the person in the womb

And I'm positive you've not mistaken 'balanced' with 'self-righteous and outdated ass-smarm'.

[davai]

Pro lifers should be rounded up to have a womb artificially inserted through their anus, making sure it splits enough so their cherished bit of human flesh can fit through it when big enough.

It's ok, they can still shit, it all just comes out the other end anyway.

[Oros Ull]

I’m Pro Choice. I suppose...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I don’t care about the politics or philosophy behind the debate. As far as I’m concerned the child has a “Soul” the second the sperm enters the egg. And the fate of the child should it be born is entirely up in the air.

Fact of the matter is that some people just are not ready, unable or simply unwilling to go thru with baring and raising a child. It has nothing to do with morals at that point it’s just the way it is and every incident is entirely relative.

So creating an Objective law to maintain a Subjective event is completely irrational. And we can’t go imposing idealistic rules simply because some people are in denial of the sad fact that children die, and that sometimes it is necessary. And denying that is only going to be harmful in any real attempt to mitigate the situation.

It just seems to me like both sides need to pull their heads out of their ass.

The Right is concerned that Abortion is Immoral. Well how about instead of punishing confused young girls for being confused young girls they try a more preventative route and start teaching things like Responsibility, Abstinence, Contraception, and Sexual education.

And the Left is concerned that the Child if born will only become a tortured soul due to the situation of their ill-equipped if even present parents. So they should stop focusing on turning everyone into sexual deviants and more on taking care of all the orphans and parents we already have floating around.

We will still have situations where abortion and punishment are necessary. But at least if they worked together to all around better the situation those could be alleviated.

Instead of using the Ideals of the Right and the Insight of the Left as weapons against each other they use them as tools to fix the situation, like rational intelligent Human Beings. Try working together to fix the problem instead of competing over how to fuck it up even more.

Not that it matters the whole debate is just another political manipulation tactic anyway.

[thod]

	As far as I’m concerned the child has a “Soul” the second the sperm enters the egg.

You liberal you. I see that Arizona has just passed a law that says that life begins when the ovum leaves the ovary. No need for sex then. All adult women are pregnant most of the their lives, that'll teach em.

[Tyrant Soup]

	Originally Posted by Winston To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I honestly don't see a purpose to sex besides reproduction

You can't be serious.

	Also, it seems that life is beautiful enough for you to not have killed yourself. Do you want to be alive? Is death more beautiful than life?

You are completely wrong to be anti-choice. Why? Because fetuses look like bulbous headed monsters.

[Bardas]

From OP:

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No debate in this thread please

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[followthehippos]

Not too long ago this thread was combined with two or three other threads that were devoted to debating abortion topics. Whether or not the rules of this thread have changed because of the appendage threads (ie debate is now allowed here), I am unaware. I believe stasis would have the answer since he combined the threads. Though I'm doubtful the OPs request MUST be adhered to, I think its just a preference of how this thread should be used and discussed.

[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by VagrantChord To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sit child. It's time for a much needed history lesson. The phrase "separation of church and state" first appeared in 1644 with Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America. In his book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution, he wrote, "A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world". The next use of the phrase is the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists previously cited. ... In 1879, the first case involving separation of church and state was heard by the Supreme Court in the case of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . In his decision, Justice Stephen Johnson Field wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." The Justice cited Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Then, in 1947 in the case of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." He also stated, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

In context, recall that the wall is completely one way. It is completely impenetrable in one direction (the government imposing on any religios belief), and completely transparent in the other direction (any and every religion is protected by law in any private place).

The separation myth has failed to remove In God We Trust because it doesn't exist as a wall to keep religion out of government, but vice versa.

	Originally Posted by VagrantChord To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Since 1879, the Supreme Court has heard 15 cases involving separation of church and state issues. In all cases, the Court upheld the separation.

Put them in context. WHAT was being seperated from where?

	Originally Posted by VagrantChord To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They intentionally wrote a secular document that would prohibit the creation of a state religion. That's true but you neglect to realize that, in this instance, religion and mythology are synonymous.... Not everyone needs a sky daddy to encourage them to behave in a moral manner. Having a conscience is sufficient.

Oblivious much?

	Originally Posted by VagrantChord To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... If you'd taken the time to research any of my earlier posts on religion, it should be quite clear to you that I fully embrace the idea that man invented religion and that religion as a whole is a ludicrous concept. So what's your point?

Quite plainly that faith is an inescapable quality of human existance. If it is your belief that life formed itself, you advocate a religion and a creator (a molecule) whose existence is assumed on faith alone. Just because your creator lacks a brain doesn't give it the protection of the state.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The separation myth has failed to remove In God We Trust because it doesn't exist as a wall to keep religion out of government, but vice versa.

This makes no sense. You don't keep government out of religion by giving a country a de facto official religion.

	Quite plainly that faith is an inescapable quality of human existance. If it is your belief that life formed itself, you advocate a religion and a creator (a molecule) whose existence is assumed on faith alone. Just because your creator lacks a brain doesn't give it the protection of the state.

This definition of "religion" is both incongruous with how the word is actually used and so encompassing that it's essentially useless. And "having faith in X" isn't a fixed quantity that results in an equivalence, directly following from the fact that there isn't a fixed probability value of "maybe". Finally, there's a difference between believing something to be certainly true and basing your decisions on a calculated assumption that it is for convenience.

EDIT to ask how you reconcile "believing that there is a creator is a matter of faith" and "a creator must logically necessarily exist".

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This makes no sense. You don't keep government out of religion by giving a country a de facto official religion.

If we have established a State religion with that statement, what is it's name?

Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This definition of "religion" is both incongruous with how the word is actually used and so encompassing that it's essentially useless. And "having faith in X" isn't a fixed quantity that results in an equivalence, directly following from the fact that there isn't a fixed probability value of "maybe". Finally, there's a difference between believing something to be certainly true and basing your decisions on a calculated assumption that it is for convenience. EDIT to ask how you reconcile "believing that there is a creator is a matter of faith" and "a creator must logically necessarily exist".

A creator must logically exist due to causality. The form of the creator is a matter of faith until the universe decides to reveal some evidence of creation by some specific means, and even then such evidence reduces but does not eliminate the need for faith. The pursuit of biopoetic origins is a product of parsimony and the limitations of science, not real world observations. The certain belief that life arose from nature is a religion whose creator simply lacks intelligence, but the decision to look for natural origins of life is convenient based on the inability of science to calculate the supernatural. I am simply stating that a purist secular government necessarily establishes the accidentalist religion as a state religion.

[colonelburger]

I don't like it, but I accept that it's needed sometimes, and that it's a woman's right to choose.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If we have established a State religion with that statement, what is it's name?

That would be Christianity. But the bigger point is that even if it's true that government was intended to stay out of religion (I don't know enough about it to say whether that's actually true or not), it most certainly doesn't follow from making "In God We Trust" an official motto.

	A creator must logically exist due to causality. The form of the creator is a matter of faith until the universe decides to reveal some evidence of creation by some specific means, and even then such evidence reduces but does not eliminate the need for faith. The pursuit of biopoetic origins is a product of parsimony and the limitations of science, not real world observations.

What do you mean by "biopoetic"?

	The certain belief that life arose from nature is a religion whose creator simply lacks intelligence

You either have no idea how religion is defined or are deliberately redefining it to suit your purposes. I suspect the latter. And even if your definition were correct, it wouldn't matter, because people who believe with absolute certainty that "life arose from nature" (please define this explicitly) are virtually nonexistent.

	I am simply stating that a purist secular government necessarily establishes the accidentalist religion as a state religion.

This statement, as you're defining religion, is essentially meaningless.

[noctilux]

I think this one is tough. Here's what I was thinking:

Say a woman is pregnant. We have two choices:
1) Do nothing. The baby will be born (assuming it's healthy), grow and become a human being.
2) Abort. In that case, the human being will never exist.
So you see, even if the foetus is not human, it will grow into a human if we do not intervene. Imagine a friend -- if he had been aborted, he would not exist (obviously, but it makes it a little more tangible perhaps). If the mother had children after him, he would still not exist, since they would not have his genes.

On the other hand, of course, the mother has something to say in the matter. She has to stand the pain of childbirth and pregnancy, and probably has to look after the child, if she has it.
The best solution would be to remove those two problems. The mother should be able to give the child away to a good institution if she cannot or does not want to look after it. Pregnancy and childbirth are unavoidable at present, as far as I know.

So what to do now? I think that if pregnancy results from carelessness in consensual sex, we should not deny the new individual its right to exist. People know about contraception, so they should just use it when they don't want to get pregnant. Rape is another matter.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by noctilux To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So what to do now? I think that if pregnancy results from carelessness in consensual sex, we should not deny the new individual its right to exist. People know about contraception, so they should just use it when they don't want to get pregnant. Rape is another matter. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!

Try again. I have two biological children and one that didn't make it to be born that were all birth control failures. The middle child was conceived while using both the pill and condoms. Every time and no I didn't take anything to counter the bc pills and I took them religiously. The last child came after they put me on the shot to attempt to control some other issues and I still got pregnant even sticking to the correct schedule.

Birth control failures happen.

[AnotherAvatar]

Everyone get's fixed for the next 50 years...no births = no abortions = less population = less resource issues = less people = less problems.