Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: militarymuscle69 on February 21, 2007, 06:38:49 AM
-
I'm tired of talking about Iraq. I want to see what people say abou thtis. Who decided that the baby has no rights in the abortion discussion? I thought we were shooting for equal rights for all?
-
Interesting stance on the topic.
Perhaps you want children to be able to vote and have the same rights as their parents from their birth too?
What about using punishment in parenting? That should be illegal as well, since children are equal?
-Hedge
-
Interesting stance on the topic.
Perhaps you want children to be able to vote and have the same rights as their parents from their birth too?
What about using punishment in parenting? That should be illegal as well, since children are equal?
-Hedge
Now hedge don't be a jackass. All I am saying is why doesn't the baby have a right to live? so that one day they can vote. As far as punishment goes. If you want to coddle little hedgy everytime he throws a tantrum in public and not teach him to be accountable for his actions more power to ya. I will do differently.
-
Fcuk the feminist cuntlickers...
-
Feminazis have nobody to marry, most are lesbians and they want to tell women what to do.....like Ray Charles leading the crowd out of a burning building
-
Women vote, babies can't.
Do you know 23% of babies are killed before they are born? Disturbing, but making it illegal won't stop it, unfortunately.
-
I'm tired of talking about Iraq.
But it's going so well!
-
Abortion is necessary as it prevents unwanted babies from coming into the world. What if a woman makes a mistake and gets pregnant? What if she can't afford to look after the child? What if she doesn't want to go through the labor of pregnancy? You're gonna tell her that she's evil for aborting, but are you willing to take responsibility for the the child? If not then shut the fuck up.
-
If my girlfriend gets pregnant, I will take the responsibility.
Just because it is inconveniant or tough for a woman to "take responsibuility" does not give her the right to end a human life. Pro-choicers conveniantly ignore all recent evidence proving conclusively that fetuses feel pain. Twins in the womb have been shown to play with each other and hold each others hands.
Is there a difference between giving birth to a baby and then dumping it in the trash and abortion? No, there is not. I just want people to realize this and not lie to themselves. IT is waht it is, it is evil.
That being said, I don't want abortion to be prohibited all together as it is impractical and leads to back alley abortions. But at the same time I am not gonna "shut the fuck up" about the murder of an innocent life being evil, because it is.
-
I'm tired of talking about Iraq. I want to see what people say abou thtis. Who decided that the baby has no rights in the abortion discussion? I thought we were shooting for equal rights for all?
So you think a fetus that's 4-5 months old should have equal rights as the mother?
-
do you think she has the right to kill the baby and end its life?
-
Historically men have not commited to their responsibilities as fathers. Only marriage seems to force men to do their part. In the not too distant past, women who gave birth to illegitimate children were usually ostracized by their communities and the children treated like dirt and shunned. That's one of the reasons women fought for abortion rights.
Every year there are 46 million abortions performed worldwide. As I said in another thread, imagine if that number translated into new people arriving on this overcrowded planet every year. The idea is mindboggling. Since these are all unwanted babies, chances are at least half of them would be born into poverty to unfit mothers, A huge percentage of these would probably end up in the social welfare system. And how could you possibly place so many millions into adoptive homes... there aren't enough to fill the needs of today's children? You may not like the idea of abortion, but consider what the world would look like without it.
-
Like I said, abortions will take place regardless.
Many men around the world are scum. However, just because the world is f''''ed up doesnt change what abortion essentially is.
What if a woman's spouse ran out on them when the child was 3 and she could not afford to look after her kid? Why can't she just have him killed at that point? It is essentially the same thing as abortion.
-
Like I said, abortions will take place regardless.
Many men around the world are scum. However, just because the world is f''''ed up doesnt change what abortion essentially is.
What if a woman's spouse ran out on them when the child was 3 and she could not afford to look after her kid? Why can't she just have him killed at that point? It is essentially the same thing as abortion.
Um, yeah. The whole abortion debate thing might be a little over your head.
-
Feminazis have nobody to marry, most are lesbians and they want to tell women what to do.....like Ray Charles leading the crowd out of a burning building
Bingo!
-
Who decided that the mother's "rights" outweighed the baby's rights?
Who decided that a fetus is a "baby"?
-
Abortion is necessary as it prevents unwanted babies from coming into the world. What if a woman makes a mistake and gets pregnant? What if she can't afford to look after the child? What if she doesn't want to go through the labor of pregnancy? You're gonna tell her that she's evil for aborting, but are you willing to take responsibility for the the child? If not then shut the fuck up.
this view is exactly what is wrong with this world.
everyone thinks about theirselves and couldn't care less about anyone else. even a defenseless child. :'(
and if you don't agree with their views your told to shut up.
-
If my girlfriend gets pregnant, I will take the responsibility.
Just because it is inconveniant or tough for a woman to "take responsibuility" does not give her the right to end a human life. Pro-choicers conveniantly ignore all recent evidence proving conclusively that fetuses feel pain. Twins in the womb have been shown to play with each other and hold each others hands.
Is there a difference between giving birth to a baby and then dumping it in the trash and abortion? No, there is not. I just want people to realize this and not lie to themselves. IT is waht it is, it is evil.
That being said, I don't want abortion to be prohibited all together as it is impractical and leads to back alley abortions. But at the same time I am not gonna "shut the fuck up" about the murder of an innocent life being evil, because it is.
good post cav-22.
you are correct sir, it is evil. it is murder.
i'll agree with abortion if anyone can convince me why the baby deserves the death penalty.
-
Who decided that a fetus is a "baby"?
This week there was a baby born at 21 weeks gestation. All but 2 states allow abortion to happen past those 21 weeks. That is a baby, alive and kicking.
-
Historically men have not commited to their responsibilities as fathers. Only marriage seems to force men to do their part. In the not too distant past, women who gave birth to illegitimate children were usually ostracized by their communities and the children treated like dirt and shunned. That's one of the reasons women fought for abortion rights.
Every year there are 46 million abortions performed worldwide. As I said in another thread, imagine if that number translated into new people arriving on this overcrowded planet every year. The idea is mindboggling. Since these are all unwanted babies, chances are at least half of them would be born into poverty to unfit mothers, A huge percentage of these would probably end up in the social welfare system. And how could you possibly place so many millions into adoptive homes... there aren't enough to fill the needs of today's children? You may not like the idea of abortion, but consider what the world would look like without it.
I've yet to see any opponents to abortion reply to this post, specifically the second paragraph.
I love the fact that these same people that won't actually acknowledge what Deedee mentioned are the same people that don't believe homosexual couples should be able to adopt. They have no problem flooding the world with unwanted babies but don't want them to be adopted by "queers".
-
I've yet to see any opponents to abortion reply to this post, specifically the second paragraph.
I love the fact that these same people that won't actually acknowledge what Deedee mentioned are the same people that don't believe homosexual couples should be able to adopt. They have no problem flooding the world with unwanted babies but don't want them to be adopted by "queers".
Like someone else said, it isn't up to us to decide if the baby is worth it. It is murder no matter how you look at it. And if the world becomes "flooded" with babies, well so be it. Education is the only way to stop it. Murder isn't the answer
-
Like someone else said, it isn't up to us to decide if the baby is worth it. It is murder no matter how you look at it. And if the world becomes "flooded" with babies, well so be it. Education is the only way to stop it. Murder isn't the answer
So your answer to the world becoming flooded with unwanted babies is "so be it"?
Come on, you can do better than that.
-
So your answer to the world becoming flooded with unwanted babies is "so be it"?
Come on, you can do better than that.
Look I don't know you, but I am glad that you weren't aborted, because you have gotten to try life and see if you can be succesful. And I bet there are hundreds if not thousands of people that post here that might have been raised in foster or adoptive homes (because they were unwanted) that play a vital role in our society. All I know is that baby is helpless in that womb. No matter how he/she got to be there. It isn't right for us to decide their life. They deserve a chance just like me and you to see what they can do in life.
-
Look I don't know you, but I am glad that you weren't aborted, because you have gotten to try life and see if you can be succesful. And I bet there are hundreds if not thousands of people that post here that might have been raised in foster or adoptive homes (because they were unwanted) that play a vital role in our society. All I know is that baby is helpless in that womb. No matter how he/she got to be there. It isn't right for us to decide their life. They deserve a chance just like me and you to see what they can do in life.
Again, you really didn't answer the question. There aren't enough foster and adoptive homes now, what is your plan for these millions of babies? Who is going to take care of them?
-
Again, you really didn't answer the question. There aren't enough foster and adoptive homes now, what is your plan for these millions of babies? Who is going to take care of them?
That has to be dealt with I understand that. But do really support murdering babies because we don't have room? Why stop there? we have thousands of handicapped people that can't contribute to socitey and just sit in assisted living homes until death. Where do you make the distinction?
-
Every year there are 46 million abortions performed worldwide. As I said in another thread, imagine if that number translated into new people arriving on this overcrowded planet every year. The idea is mindboggling. Since these are all unwanted babies, chances are at least half of them would be born into poverty to unfit mothers, A huge percentage of these would probably end up in the social welfare system. And how could you possibly place so many millions into adoptive homes... there aren't enough to fill the needs of today's children? You may not like the idea of abortion, but consider what the world would look like without it.
This argument makes too much sense, Deedee... most knee-jerk reactionaries are incapable of seeing the larger picture. All they know is that their preacher says "abortion=bad".
-
This week there was a baby born at 21 weeks gestation. All but 2 states allow abortion to happen past those 21 weeks. That is a baby, alive and kicking.
So you would have no problem, then, eliminating an embryo at say, 3 weeks, or a fetus at 14 weeks, since in both cases you could not have a "baby, alive and kicking"?
-
So you would have no problem, then, eliminating an embryo at say, 3 weeks, or a fetus at 14 weeks, since in both cases you could not have a "baby, alive and kicking"?
I was using the 21 week baby as an example. I personaly believe life begins at conception. And I don't have a preacher to tell me that. On the topic of "big picture" the same thing goes for gay marriage. Libs say, "it doesn't effect me", but don't consider how it could affect generations to come. In the biggest picture we need ot try to get people to be more responsible about safe sex and birth control. Until then each baby should have the right to live.
-
That has to be dealt with I understand that. But do really support murdering babies because we don't have room? Why stop there? we have thousands of handicapped people that can't contribute to socitey and just sit in assisted living homes until death. Where do you make the distinction?
Come on, why can't we have a real debate instead of this idiocy? Did you really need to bring up the handicapped people analogy? ::)
Deal with the problem, who is going to raise these millions of babies and who will support and nurture them? This is the real problem with your point of view yet you don't seem to have an answer.
-
Until then each baby should have the right to live.
I'll ask my question again, "Who decided a fetus was a baby?" Your original answer would have been fine if you wanted to restrict the discussion to abortions performed at 21 weeks or later, but's that's not the case since you're clearly opposing abortion at all stages from conception on. So the question stands.
-
I'll ask my question again, "Who decided a fetus was a baby?" Your original answer would have been fine if you wanted to restrict the discussion to abortions performed at 21 weeks or later, but's that's not the case since you're clearly opposing abortion at all stages from conception on. So the question stands.
Like someone posted earlier, science has proven that a fetus is a baby.
-
I was using the 21 week baby as an example. I personaly believe life begins at conception. And I don't have a preacher to tell me that. On the topic of "big picture" the same thing goes for gay marriage. Libs say, "it doesn't effect me", but don't consider how it could affect generations to come. In the biggest picture we need ot try to get people to be more responsible about safe sex and birth control. Until then each baby should have the right to live.
Since you're being so altruistic regarding the issue of Gay Marriage do you feel the same way about environmental issues? Are you worried about taking better care of the planet so that it won't affect generations to come?
-
I've yet to see any opponents to abortion reply to this post, specifically the second paragraph.
I love the fact that these same people that won't actually acknowledge what Deedee mentioned are the same people that don't believe homosexual couples should be able to adopt. They have no problem flooding the world with unwanted babies but don't want them to be adopted by "queers".
i would reply if it made sense.
sounds like dee-dee is in favor of population control.
ok, then. let's start aborting every 5th child conceived. i mean, we don't wont to have too many people living.
how does anyone know what God has planned for a child? everyone keeps speculating the child will end up like this or that. how do you know? you don't. you just assume that if the child was conceived "accidentally" that the baby has no chance of living a valuable life so the "fetus" might as well be terminated.
and to pull your comment, no one has answered my question either:
what did the baby do to deserve the death penalty??
-
I'll ask my question again, "Who decided a fetus was a baby?"
God
-
i would reply if it made sense.
sounds like dee-dee is in favor of population control.
ok, then. let's start aborting every 5th child conceived. i mean, we don't wont to have too many people living.
how does anyone know what God has planned for a child? everyone keeps speculating the child will end up like this or that. how do you know? you don't. you just assume that if the child was conceived "accidentally" that the baby has no chance of living a valuable life so the "fetus" might as well be terminated.
and to pull your comment, no one has answered my question either:
what did the baby do to deserve the death penalty??
More inane rhetoric.
What are you going to do with the babies? Who's going to care for, nurture and raise them? Why won't you answer the question? You don't want abortions then you have to have a workable plan for the millions of new babies, right?
-
Since you're being so altruistic regarding the issue of Gay Marriage do you feel the same way about environmental issues? Are you worried about taking better care of the planet so that it won't affect generations to come?
Very much so, I do my best to buy ethanol but now have heard that it is worse than regular gas. I try to recycle, and am the Environmental Control Officer for my unit. I do what I can in my little piece of the world.
-
Very much so, I do my best to buy ethanol but now have heard that it is worse than regular gas. I try to recycle, and am the Environmental Control Officer for my unit. I do what I can in my little piece of the world.
Good, I'm glad to hear that. I'm the same way. It's a constant fight to get everyone in the house to recycle everything, especially those plastic bags you get from the grocery store.
-
Good, I'm glad to hear that. I'm the same way. It's a constant fight to get everyone in the house to recycle everything, especially those plastic bags you get from the grocery store.
Commisary only uses paper. what point you trying to make?
-
More inane rhetoric.
What are you going to do with the babies? Who's going to care for, nurture and raise them? Why won't you answer the question? You don't want abortions then you have to have a workable plan for the millions of new babies, right?
how do you want me to answer. you want names and phone numbers? it's a dumb question. what kind of answer would satisfy you?
dude, it's murder. you don't kill people because society doesn't have a place to put them. have some morals.
like mm69 stated, you want to start offing elderly people or handicapped if there's no room in the nursing home??
why do you care anyway where society puts "unwanted" children?? your willing to kill them for no other reason than "there's no room".
it's funny you mention this. i watched a program on discovery channel last nite on this very topic.
there was a husband and wife that took in 27 handicapped, and unwanted babies and are still raising them.
God will always provide.
-
Commisary only uses paper. what point you trying to make?
My point was that many people of a certain political persuasion don't think in terms of protecting the earth for future generations and when you mentioned future generations in your gay marriage quip I thought I'd see if you were consistent in your beliefs.
-
My point was that many people of a certain political persuasion don't think in terms of protecting the earth for future generations and when you mentioned future generations in your gay marriage quip I thought I'd see if you were consistent in your beliefs.
Understood, I think you will find I don't fall into a hard political party line. I tend to be more conservative in many things yet don't like government censorship. I don't worry so much about my lifetime or my son's but have bad feelings about the way culture will be whe my grandkids (assuming I will have some) are my age.
-
how do you want me to answer. you want names and phone numbers? it's a dumb question. what kind of answer would satisfy you?
dude, it's murder. you don't kill people because society doesn't have a place to put them. have some morals.
like mm69 stated, you want to start offing elderly people or handicapped if there's no room in the nursing home??
why do you care anyway where society puts "unwanted" children?? your willing to kill them for no other reason than "there's no room".
it's funny you mention this. i watched a program on discovery channel last nite on this very topic.
there was a husband and wife that took in 27 handicapped, and unwanted babies and are still raising them.
God will always provide.
This is the first I noticed that there's a MM69 and a MM72. Thanks for enlightening me.
As for the rest of your post it's ridiculous of course, and the fact that you would even mention the handicapped or elderly analogy essentially proves you have no reasoned answer.
These are the facts, you want to end abortions. Great, I can respect your views on that but you have to have a workable plan for what will happen to the millions of new and unwanted babies when we don't have enough homes for the unwanted babies we have now. These are the facts and there is no disputing them.
I will ask again, what workable plan do you have for housing, nurturing and caring for millions of new unwanted babies?
P.S. I bet you'll never have an answer.
P.S.S. That only makes your argument even weaker than it already is.
-
I'm tired of people trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies to be honest.
Anyone notice how it's always men commenting on abortion?
-
This is the first I noticed that there's a MM69 and a MM72. Thanks for enlightening me.
As for the rest of your post it's ridiculous of course, and the fact that you would even mention the handicapped or elderly analogy essentially proves you have no reasoned answer.
These are the facts, you want to end abortions. Great, I can respect your views on that but you have to have a workable plan for what will happen to the millions of new and unwanted babies when we don't have enough homes for the unwanted babies we have now. These are the facts and there is no disputing them.
I will ask again, what workable plan do you have for housing, nurturing and caring for millions of new unwanted babies?
P.S. I bet you'll never have an answer.
P.S.S. That only makes your argument even weaker than it already is.
You really can't say that the elderly and handicapped argument doesn't have legs (no pun intended). There once was a time that they would kill "retarded" people. But over time we made room for them to live out their lives how ever long that may be. Now I don't recall mentioning the elderly, but the handicapped that cannot function in society are still given the right to live. I never said that keeping all the babies would be easy. All I say is room or not, who are we to decide if that baby gets a chance or not? I will also pose the question like someone else did in one of these threads. If a person has a 3 year old that they no longer "want" can they kill that baby to avoid making it a "burden" on society?
-
Of course the anti-abortion people don't have any sort of solution. They want to judge woman's right to choose, yet they don't want to offer any sort solution for all those unwanted children. The brunt of caring for that unwanted child will fall on the shoulders of the mother and no one else. Mm72 or mm69 are pretty vocal when it comes to saying "abortion is muder" but will they be there to assit the mother in raising that kid?
All I'm saying is that it's easy to pass judgment when your ass wont be one having to deal with the problem.
-
Of course the anti-abortion people don't have any sort of solution. They want to judge woman's right to choose, yet they don't want to offer any sort solution for all those unwanted children. The brunt of caring for that unwanted child will fall on the shoulders of the mother and no one else. Mm72 or mm69 are pretty vocal when it comes to saying "abortion is muder" but will they be there to assit the mother in raising that kid?
All I'm saying is that it's easy to pass judgment when your ass wont be one having to deal with the problem.
But you didn't answer my first question. What makes the woman's "rights" trump that of the "baby"?
-
If a person has a 3 year old that they no longer "want" can they kill that baby to avoid making it a "burden" on society?
Of course not, as that child has already existed for 3 years. ::)
-
But you didn't answer my first question. What makes the woman's "rights" trump that of the "baby"?
Umm, its her baby? ::)
-
You really can't say that the elderly and handicapped argument doesn't have legs (no pun intended). There once was a time that they would kill "retarded" people. But over time we made room for them to live out their lives how ever long that may be. Now I don't recall mentioning the elderly, but the handicapped that cannot function in society are still given the right to live. I never said that keeping all the babies would be easy. All I say is room or not, who are we to decide if that baby gets a chance or not? I will also pose the question like someone else did in one of these threads. If a person has a 3 year old that they no longer "want" can they kill that baby to avoid making it a "burden" on society?
Perhaps you didn't mention the elderly but MM72 did when he was referencing your handicapped analogy.
Are you honestly going to use that "mother killing her 3 year old" analogy when talking about abortion? Do you really want to do that?
If you say yes then you aren't intellectually prepared to have this debate. Same for the "killing handicapped" analogy. ::)
-
Perhaps you didn't mention the elderly but MM72 did when he was referencing your handicapped analogy.
Are you honestly going to use that "mother killing her 3 year old" analogy when talking about abortion? Do you really want to do that?
If you say yes then you aren't intellectually prepared to have this debate. Same for the "killing handicapped" analogy. ::)
You tell me the difference? why is 3 years of life different from 2 weeks. And if Camel Jockey's argument is "it's her kid" then when that kid is 3, 4, 10, 14 etc. it is still "her kid" so why can't she off him/her then?
-
You tell me the difference? why is 3 years of life different from 2 weeks. And if Camel Jockey's argument is "it's her kid" then when that kid is 3, 4, 10, 14 etc. it is still "her kid" so why can't she off him/her then?
You're comparing a fetus that can't survive on it's own to that of a 3 year old child or a handicapped person or and elderly person. Do you really expect me to take what you say seriously?
Why can't you just debate without using INSANE analogies that only make you look like a lunatic?
-
You're comparing a fetus that can't survive on it's own to that of a 3 year old child or a handicapped person or and elderly person. Do you really expect me to take what you say seriously?
Why can't you just debate without using INSANE analogies that only make you look like a lunatic?
because I haven't met many 3 year olds that can survive on their own or 10 year olds for that matter. oops guess your argument wasn't a very well thought out one. That fetus is just as much a human as the 3 year old. You can't deny that because science proves it and I know how you big bang theory guys love their science!
-
You tell me the difference? why is 3 years of life different from 2 weeks. And if Camel Jockey's argument is "it's her kid" then when that kid is 3, 4, 10, 14 etc. it is still "her kid" so why can't she off him/her then?
By your logic I'm commiting murder every time I masturbate. ::) Few hours old sperm cells to 3 years old kid, no difference there...
-
That fetus is just as much a human as the 3 year old.
That's a matter of opinion. I don't see the fetus coming out and saying "go, go ggaga"
-
because I haven't met many 3 year olds that can survive on their own or 10 year olds for that matter. oops guess your argument wasn't a very well thought out one. That fetus is just as much a human as the 3 year old. You can't deny that because science proves it and I know how you big bang theory guys love their science!
I meant without an incubator Einstein, I would have thought that would have been obvious. ::)
Last time I checked 99% of babies don't need incubators, but premature fetuses do.
P.S. The Big Bang Theory is a little too vague for my tastes.
-
By your logic I'm commiting murder every time I masturbate. ::) Few hours old sperm cells to 3 years old kid, no difference there...
Wow are you a jackass, if you read up you would see my logic is that life begins at conception. I know you would have no idea what that really entails but it doesn't happen in your belly button after jacking off.
-
So what if I shoot up some chick then stick my hand in her vagina to scoop out the semen? Am I commiting murder? ;D
-
So what if I shoot up some chick then stick my hand in her vagina to scoop out the semen? Am I commiting murder? ;D
Once again you prove you don't realize how it works, crazy how some people go all their life without getting laid. You won't get all billion for one, it only takes one. and again conception isn't when you fill a woman up with seed, it is when the sperm and egg become one.
-
Once again you prove you don't realize how it works, crazy how some people go all their life without getting laid. You won't get all billion for one, it only takes one. and again conception isn't when you fill a woman up with seed, it is when the sperm and egg become one.
You cannot come up with any solution or alternatives, so you resort to insults. I know what conception is, but it's fun jesting with you and seeing you compare apples to oranges. ;D
-
You cannot come up with any solution or alternatives, so you resort to insults. I know what conception is, but it's fun jesting with you and seeing you compare apples to oranges. ;D
Look you are a true clown and I applaud you for that, you excel at it. I know libs hate holding people responsible for their actions and having mothers take care of their baby but that is how it should be.
-
Look you are a true clown and I applaud you for that, you excel at it. I know libs hate holding people responsible for their actions and having mothers take care of their baby but that is how it should be.
Please stop posting. Your dribble is ruining it for anyone who wants to argue against Roe v. Wade here for many weeks to come.
You don't have the intillectual firepower to do battle here.
I'll help you grasp what is going on here. ieffinhatecardio is saying he can understand your stance. He is saying he can see why people would think abortion is wrong. He's rhetorically asking how the world would look, and how we would be able to take care of those children that aren't aborted.
You just keep telling him that it is wrong....to which he's not disagreeing.
-
That would be the Supreme court. Roe V. Wade.
Sandra
-
Abortion is necessary as it prevents unwanted babies from coming into the world.
What if a woman makes a mistake and gets pregnant?
What if she can't afford to look after the child?
What if she doesn't want to go through the labor of pregnancy?
You're gonna tell her that she's evil for aborting, but are you willing to take responsibility for the the child? If not then shut the fuck up.
1. Contraception works and is free at free clinics
2. Use contraception or don't open your legs for any guy and get knocked up
3. My dad always told me that if I'm responsible enought to have sex then I am "responsible" enough to take care of a child
4. Think before you spread your legs
5. It is evil and she is stupid
6. I would take responsibility, like the people before us did
A majority of this is perpetrated by the poor, especially urban blacks, who pop out 3-5 kids before they are 20 and burden us with the bill. They see their mothers do the same thing and follow suit. As my priest has said, "Women, don't let the men have it so easy."
The key is, if you wanna fuck and don't want to use birth control or can't keep it zipped up, then pay the price and be responsible.
-
hi berserker!
-
That has to be dealt with I understand that. But do really support murdering babies because we don't have room? Why stop there? we have thousands of handicapped people that can't contribute to socitey and just sit in assisted living homes until death. Where do you make the distinction?
Seems like MM69 doesn't have an answer to the solution of unwanted babies.
Don't abort them and it will all work itself out? Then people will rant and rave about people bleeding society dry with welfare, medicare. Some children in foster homes and adoptive care don't rise above poverty level, little or no schooling and end up being more of a menance to society than a productive person contributing to it.
That is why the woman decides what to do with her body.
Maybe if the man knew the woman wanted to abort, he would step up to the plate. Allow her to be a surrogate mother to their baby. After she gives birth, she gives up all parternity rights and he goes off to be a single parent.
And they lived happily ever after...
Sandra
-
Or maybe parents should instill some values in their kids not to slut around and to use contraception. It's free ya know. Tell these stupid women to stop having 5 welfare babies they can't afford by not sleeping around the hood or the trailer park.
-
Cap86,
Reading your posts on different boards of getbig, it is obvious that you are prejudiced against black people.
You have blinders on when it comes to minority and welfare. You focus on urban centers as the cause of poor, unplanned pregnancies, etc
Check your 2006 US census, You will see that the majority of people on welfare are white.
Or better yet, just watch Jerry springer.
Sandra
-
Or maybe parents should instill some values in their kids not to slut around and to use contraception. It's free ya know. Tell these stupid women to stop having 5 welfare babies they can't afford by not sleeping around the hood or the trailer park.
I'm sorry Sandra, do blacks live in the trailer park?
BTW, in MY everyday life, I see a majority of black and hispanics who are poor and have shitload of children. Condoms and BC pills are alot cheaper in the long run. Like your female coutnerpart on here I offer the following advice....READ POSTS.
Stop turning it into a black thing just because I don't feel for urban blacks.
-
This is the first I noticed that there's a MM69 and a MM72. Thanks for enlightening me.
As for the rest of your post it's ridiculous of course, and the fact that you would even mention the handicapped or elderly analogy essentially proves you have no reasoned answer.
These are the facts, you want to end abortions. Great, I can respect your views on that but you have to have a workable plan for what will happen to the millions of new and unwanted babies when we don't have enough homes for the unwanted babies we have now. These are the facts and there is no disputing them.
I will ask again, what workable plan do you have for housing, nurturing and caring for millions of new unwanted babies?
P.S. I bet you'll never have an answer.
P.S.S. That only makes your argument even weaker than it already is.
no, i can't answer, because it's dumb.
and even if i did, you wouldn't buy it because you have no moral values in your life. you want to kill innocent humans for an absurd reason. no morals or a sense of right or wrong.
i don't care about any "workable plan". i care about human life, defense less ones at that. you would rather discuss plans and storage.
and my handicapp analogy does prove something, you avoided it because you judge human life by the value it gives to society.
and i will ask you again,
what did the baby do to deserve the death penalty??
you can't answer that either.
-
no, i can't answer, because it's dumb.
and even if i did, you wouldn't buy it because you have no moral values in your life. you want to kill innocent humans for an absurd reason. no morals or a sense of right or wrong.
i don't care about any "workable plan". i care about human life, defense less ones at that. you would rather discuss plans and storage.
and my handicapp analogy does prove something, you avoided it because you judge human life by the value it gives to society.
and i will ask you again,
what did the baby do to deserve the death penalty??
you can't answer that either.
Don't worry, Libs would rather rehabillitate criminals rather than give a innocent child the RIGHT to live.
-
no, i can't answer, because it's dumb.
and even if i did, you wouldn't buy it because you have no moral values in your life. you want to kill innocent humans for an absurd reason. no morals or a sense of right or wrong.
i don't care about any "workable plan". i care about human life, defense less ones at that. you would rather discuss plans and storage.
and my handicapp analogy does prove something, you avoided it because you judge human life by the value it gives to society.
and i will ask you again,
what did the baby do to deserve the death penalty??
you can't answer that either.
Nice answer, it sounds like you're getting so frustrated by your inability to actually debate this issue that you've resorted to saying "You have no morals in your life". LOL
Don't worry, Libs would rather rehabillitate criminals rather than give a innocent child the RIGHT to live.
Great post, without an ounce of idiotic rhetoric in it. ::)
-
It's great to see we have some people here that are actually interested in protecting the most important human right of all: the right to live.
-
Many people don't consider this -----> . a baby. But aside from that, I doubt many women take the decision to have an abortion lightly and often do so after weighing many options. Some girls are frightened and alone. Others come from very strict, religious families and would be disowned if it came to light that they were pregnant. Still others have found their birth control failed and their men want them to abort. There are many reasons why women have abortions, but MFL is right. Perhaps if more men stood up to the plate and took their responsibilities as fathers seriously... offered to be single parents to their children, there would be less need for the procedure.
-
Many people don't consider this -----> . a baby. But aside from that, I doubt many women take the decision to have an abortion lightly and often do so after weighing many options. Some girls are frightened and alone. Others come from very strict, religious families and would be disowned if it came to light that they were pregnant. Still others have found their birth control failed and their men want them to abort. There are many reasons why women have abortions, but MFL is right. Perhaps if more men stood up to the plate and took their responsibilities as fathers seriously... offered to be single parents to their children, there would be less need for the procedure.
I agree, it's obviously a very complex issue with some seriously sad stories that aren't as simple as taking a child's life away.
-
Great post, without an ounce of idiotic rhetoric in it. ::)
Hmmm...let's see, care to argue the point because it's very true.
Many people don't consider this -----> . a baby. But aside from that, I doubt many women take the decision to have an abortion lightly and often do so after weighing many options. Some girls are frightened and alone. Others come from very strict, religious families and would be disowned if it came to light that they were pregnant. Still others have found their birth control failed and their men want them to abort. There are many reasons why women have abortions, but MFL is right. Perhaps if more men stood up to the plate and took their responsibilities as fathers seriously... offered to be single parents to their children, there would be less need for the procedure.
Deedee, what is the excuse for young women? Men not taking a role is not the reason for all groups of women. That is something that goes with the values of certain groups. It also says something about the era today. Before the 60's, men did marry no matter what. Men standing up the plate only goes so far. What if I want the child and she doesn't? How is that fair to me?
-
Nice answer, it sounds like you're getting so frustrated by your inability to actually debate this issue that you've resorted to saying "You have no morals in your life". LOL
Great post, without an ounce of idiotic rhetoric in it. ::)
the response i was expecting.
your jibberish shows you actually don't have a valid arguement, just a point someone else made. no thoughts of your own.
reply when you can put some thought into the question i presented to you.
-
Deedee, what is the excuse for young women? Men not taking a role is not the reason for all groups of women. That is something that goes with the values of certain groups. It also says something about the era today. Before the 60's, men did marry no matter what. Men standing up the plate only goes so far. What if I want the child and she doesn't? How is that fair to me?
I don't think that's true. The fifties had its share of unwed mothers' homes... where women went away to have their children because they would be ostracized otherwise by their communities. Ted Bundy grew up thinking his mother was his sister. There are all kinds of tragic stories from that era.
Women have been aborting children since Cleopatra's day. In the days of yore, the woman would visit the village hedgewife, receive some herbal potion and that was that. Similar poisons were available at the apothecary into the early 20th century. (Could be off a little on the timeframe). Throughout history, bastard children were shunned, and the women who had them, reviled.
I'm not giving away any personal info here because you did post it on a public forum, but will delete it if you don't want this here :) ... you once mentioned that you were seeing the friends of girlfriend for a specific reason. What if you had gotten two of them pregnant. Would you have been capable of taking responsibility for these children?
I'm sure many of the women who have abortions feel terrible emotional turmoil over it, are frightened, and terrified of the daunting task of raising a child alone, especially if the financial means are not available. I just don't think you can possibly understand how it must be to have something growing inside of you and all you feel is terrible fear. It isn't a simple black and white issue at all.
-
the response i was expecting.
your jibberish shows you actually don't have a valid arguement, just a point someone else made. no thoughts of your own.
reply when you can put some thought into the question i presented to you.
You'll get a lot of this from him, MM. If he chooses to engage in petty arguments rather than discussing the topic at hand, ignore his posts.
Please keep going on this topic, I'm reading along with interest.
-
I don't think that's true. The fifties had its share of unwed mothers' homes... where women went away to have their children because they would be ostracized otherwise by their communities. Ted Bundy grew up thinking his mother was his sister. There are all kinds of tragic stories from that era.
Women have been aborting children since Cleopatra's day. In the days of yore, the woman would visit the village hedgewife, receive some herbal potion and that was that. Similar poisons were available at the apothecary into the early 20th century. (Could be off a little on the timeframe). Throughout history, bastard children were shunned, and the women who had them, reviled.
I'm not giving away any personal info here because you did post it on a public forum, but will delete it if you don't want this here :) ... you once mentioned that you were seeing the friends of girlfriend for a specific reason. What if you had gotten two of them pregnant. Would you have been capable of taking responsibility for these children?
I'm sure many of the women who have abortions feel terrible emotional turmoil over it, are frightened, and terrified of the daunting task of raising a child alone, especially if the financial means are not available. I just don't think you can possibly understand how it must be to have something growing inside of you and all you feel is terrible fear. It isn't a simple black and white issue at all.
I was wrong for making an absoult statement but 1.) men were more responsible before the 60's and 2.) a woman can control her body before preganancy so as to keep these problems from happening...it is a 2 way street
Seeing who's friends? (please specify) Not sure what that means. Let's put it this way. If my current or past gf's would have gotten pregnant, I would be a man about it and support them. If they aborted I would probably lose it on them as it would be a part of me being killed.
-
I'm sure many of the women who have abortions feel terrible emotional turmoil over it, are frightened, and terrified of the daunting task of raising a child alone, especially if the financial means are not available. I just don't think you can possibly understand how it must be to have something growing inside of you and all you feel is terrible fear. It isn't a simple black and white issue at all.
you make some valid points. no, i will never understand what it's like to have a life inside of me.
many moons ago my girlfriend at the time had an abortion and i had NO say in the matter. none.
i had the feeling that i lost a child. i felt a sense of lose, because i created a life. and i still feel this way. i think about my child all the time.
this is where we differ, i do feel it's a black and white issue. death or life.
-
you make some valid points. no, i will never understand what it's like to have a life inside of me.
many moons ago my girlfriend at the time had an abortion and i had NO say in the matter. none.
i had the feeling that i lost a child. i felt a sense of lose, because i created a life. and i still feel this way. i think about my child all the time.
this is where we differ, i do feel it's a black and white issue. death or life.
Good post, thanks for the insight, MM.
-
the response i was expecting.
your jibberish shows you actually don't have a valid arguement, just a point someone else made. no thoughts of your own.
reply when you can put some thought into the question i presented to you.
Let's go over the facts again, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME.
What will happen to the millions of unwanted babies? Who will take care of them?
Notice how you can't answer?
Notice how you don't care about answering?
This is the most valid point in this whole debate. You want to put an end to abortion, fantastic but something has to be done with the babies that are born.
YET YOU HAVE NO PLAN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? YOU HAVE NO PLAN FOR MILLIONS OF UNWANTED BABIES. ::)
You'll get a lot of this from him, MM. If he chooses to engage in petty arguments rather than discussing the topic at hand, ignore his posts.
Please keep going on this topic, I'm reading along with interest.
Ouch, sounds like someone's a little sensitive from getting called on his bullschit posts. ;D
-
Ouch, sounds like someone's a little sensitive from getting called on his bullschit posts. ;D
Case in point - board.
-
Let's go over the facts again, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME.
What will happen to the millions of unwanted babies? Who will take care of them?
Notice how you can't answer?
Notice how you don't care about answering?
This is the most valid point in this whole debate. You want to put an end to abortion, fantastic but something has to be done with the babies that are born.
YET YOU HAVE NO PLAN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? YOU HAVE NO PLAN FOR MILLIONS OF UNWANTED BABIES. ::)
Push contraception initiatives and distribution in the ghettos and trailerparks. These people don't have access to education anyways so ensure that children are born when they are wanted and at the time when a potential parent has established themselves.
-
YOU HAVE NO PLAN FOR MILLIONS OF UNWANTED BABIES. ::)
God does.
-
Push contraception initiatives and distribution in the ghettos and trailerparks. These people don't have access to education anyways so ensure that children are born when they are wanted and at the time when a potential parent has established themselves.
What will become of the millions of unwanted babies that are born each and every year if abortion is no longer an option?
God does.
Perhaps he could fill us in then because no one else has any idea.
-
What will become of the millions of unwanted babies that are born each and every year if abortion is no longer an option?
If contraception was free and more readily available than it already is, the population of unwanted children would be low. Honestly, there are "mistakes" but that happens to couples who want kids, have tubal ligations and vasectomies. If you coupled executing murderers and incrasing contraception usage especially among the poor and illegal comunities, we could keep a pretty stable population size.
-
What will become of the millions of unwanted babies that are born each and every year if abortion is no longer an option?
Perhaps he could fill us in then because no one else has any idea.
ok, i gave you my answer. God has a plan. and i know you don't like it, but i answered.
now, answer mine.
-
ok, i gave you my answer. God has a plan. and i know you don't like it, but i answered.
now, answer mine.
I'd say there's plently of people out there that would love to be able to adopt these children. Perhaps the government needs to get involved more in this process.
-
1: Unwanted babies = a burden on the mother.
2: The mother owns the body the baby grows in.
3: A wanted + planned baby will most likely receive a better upbringing than an unwanted one.
4: The lunatics that claim teh moral consensus = "not abortion" should burn. They judge and cry, but when they themselves get an unwanted baby, they run to the abortion office.
5: "Taking responsibility" for an unwanted baby by conceiving it is just irrational morals manifested into a destructive force on ones life. There is NOTHING responsible in letting your plans for life go to hell because somebody has taught you that abortions = wrong.
6: Final point: A persons body and life is an individual thing. Abortions = freedom for women.
7: If I own a house, I decide what will and will not be accepted. The same goes for a body.
8: Everybody that disagrees with Debussey = clouded with irrationality. You can not force your morals or religion on the general society. Individuality must always go before religion.
-
6: Final point: A persons body and life is an individual thing. Abortions = freedom for women.
7: If I own a house, I decide what will and will not be accepted. The same goes for a body.
Role of the man?
Zoning restrictions?
;D
-
1: Unwanted babies = a burden on the mother.
2: The mother owns the body the baby grows in.
3: A wanted + planned baby will most likely receive a better upbringing than an unwanted one.
4: The lunatics that claim teh moral consensus = "not abortion" should burn. They judge and cry, but when they themselves get an unwanted baby, they run to the abortion office.
5: "Taking responsibility" for an unwanted baby by conceiving it is just irrational morals manifested into a destructive force on ones life. There is NOTHING responsible in letting your plans for life go to hell because somebody has taught you that abortions = wrong.
6: Final point: A persons body and life is an individual thing. Abortions = freedom for women.
7: If I own a house, I decide what will and will not be accepted. The same goes for a body.
8: Everybody that disagrees with Debussey = clouded with irrationality.
What's more important:
Being concerned for people that have to give up much of their lives to raise a child they may not have originally wanted?
OR
That child's right to not be killed in the womb?
Discuss.
-
What's more important:
Being concerned for people that have to give up much of their lives to raise a child they may not have originally wanted?
OR
That child's right to not be killed in the womb?
Discuss.
The mothers rights must always go before the fetus.
It's her own body, and her life. A few rounds of good fucking can not change that.
Even if science claims that the fetus = alive, the mother is an evolved person, and she can do what she wants with her body.
And the main issue: Should the individuals rights or the contemporary moral consensus of society be most important? If the latter is to be true, we can also claim that "not being a Christian = illegal" because the same moral consensus must override individuality. The example might be far fetched, but it demonstrates the same mechanism.
If society starts removing individual rights because of "morals", what is next? By legally making the fetus equal to the mother, a dangerous trend can begin, where key groups percieved as being "morally superior" can start influencing society in ways we do not want them to.
And if we look beyond the moral issue here: Make abortions illegal will not stop people from performing them. It is the same as denying health care for smokers and druggies.
-
The mothers rights must always go before the fetus.
It's her own body, and her life. A few rounds of good fucking can not change that.
And the main issue: Should the individuals rights or the contemporary moral consensus of society be most important? If the latter is to be true, we can also claim that "not being a christian = illegal" because the same moral consensus must override individuality. The example might be far fetched, but it demonstrates the same mechanism.
And if we look beyond the moral issue here: Make abortions illegal will not stop people from performing them. It is the same as denying health care for smokers and druggies.
Nobody is entitled to anything. "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness..."
The government controls our bodies in a sense with drug laws, such as those against AAS (which through sterility can prevent unwanted children ;D) so why is abortion different. If we say it cannot happen, how is it different? If the women die or get sick, I'm sorry I feel no remorse. As a man who wants children, if my wife got a secret abortion or even just got one that would be automatic divorce in my book. Men should have a say.
-
1: Unwanted babies = a burden on the mother. called being selfish
2: The mother owns the body the baby grows in. no, God does
3: A wanted + planned baby will most likely receive a better upbringing than an unwanted one. your opinion, means nothing
4: The lunatics that claim teh moral consensus = "not abortion" should burn. They judge and cry, but when they themselves get an unwanted baby, they run to the abortion office. you can't speak for ALL the "lunatics"
5: "Taking responsibility" for an unwanted baby by conceiving it is just irrational morals manifested into a destructive force on ones life. There is NOTHING responsible in letting your plans for life go to hell because somebody has taught you that abortions = wrong. again, being selfish abortion=murder
6: Final point: A persons body and life is an individual thing. Abortions = freedom for women. abortion=murder
7: If I own a house, I decide what will and will not be accepted. The same goes for a body. comparing a human life to a house. ::)
8: Everybody that disagrees with Debussey = clouded with irrationality. You can not force your morals or religion on the general society. Individuality must always go before religion. has nothing to do with religion. murder is wrong. what religion do you study??
-
1: Unwanted babies = a burden on the mother. called being selfish
2: The mother owns the body the baby grows in. no, God does
3: A wanted + planned baby will most likely receive a better upbringing than an unwanted one. your opinion, means nothing
4: The lunatics that claim teh moral consensus = "not abortion" should burn. They judge and cry, but when they themselves get an unwanted baby, they run to the abortion office. you can't speak for ALL the "lunatics"
5: "Taking responsibility" for an unwanted baby by conceiving it is just irrational morals manifested into a destructive force on ones life. There is NOTHING responsible in letting your plans for life go to hell because somebody has taught you that abortions = wrong. again, being selfish abortion=murder
6: Final point: A persons body and life is an individual thing. Abortions = freedom for women. abortion=murder
7: If I own a house, I decide what will and will not be accepted. The same goes for a body. comparing a human life to a house. ::)
8: Everybody that disagrees with Debussey = clouded with irrationality. You can not force your morals or religion on the general society. Individuality must always go before religion. has nothing to do with religion. murder is wrong. what religion do you study??
You use "god" as an argument. That is wrong in itself, because religion can not be forced upon the masses. Then you claim it has nothing to do with religion.
You say: your opinion, means nothing. In other words: You are claiming that no human opinion matters, which means that you refuse to accept the basis of debate, which makes Debussey wonder: Why did you start one in the first place?
You do not back up your statements at all.
What you call selfishness = a normal human tendency. Humans want to maximize life. I prefer more money to less. I prefer better grades to bad grades. Does that makes me selfish? In your defenition: yes. Is it wrong? No. It is just being human.
The real selfishness is the arguments you present. You use your religion as an argument instead of logic, and then claim it should apply to everybody. The Muslims do the exact same thing with the exact same justification as you. How do you feel about that? Is it OK that your kids has to go to a Muslim school?
The house analogy holds true. If you are to stupid to understand the point of it, you should avoid commenting on it all together. Criticizing an exemplification instead of debating the point of it is like telling the world: I failed at school.
-
The mothers rights must always go before the fetus.
Even if science claims that the fetus = alive, the mother is an evolved person, and she can do what she wants with her body.
This is an horrendous post, why you believe a baby in a womb has less right to live than it's mother does to destroy it is beyond me.
A child does not belong to anyone, it's a living being in its own right.
-
This is an horrendous post, why you believe a baby in a womb has less right to live than it's mother does to destroy it is beyond me.
A child does not belong to anyone, it's a living being in its own right.
You are still using an opinion without backing it up. Your subjective values should mean that YOU would not have an abortion if you and a girl was a bit "unlucky". It does not mean that your subjective reasoning should apply to anybody.
Debussey disagrees with you. Debussey think that it is horrendous that you think a fetus has the right to live even if the pregnancy was unplanned and the child is unwanted. When you give reasons to back up your statements, Debussey will back up its. :)
-
2: The mother owns the body the baby grows in. no, God does
8: Everybody that disagrees with Debussey = clouded with irrationality. You can not force your morals or religion on the general society. Individuality must always go before religion. has nothing to do with religion. murder is wrong. what religion do you study??
Nice contradiction. ::)
-
Bruce vs Debussey in the Cage? 24 Hours to argue your case, one reply each? Right? Can we do it?
Not today, Debussey has work to do and can not spend hours on Getbig. But Debussey will accept this challenge this weekend.
Looking forward to this one Bruce, we might disagree, but Debussey might also learn a thing or two from you.
:)
Ps: Gary Busey = God.
-
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
If you wish to go the religion route, there is no mention in the christian testatments that abortion is wrong, and gives no direction one way or another. The passage above impies that a being is alive following the taking of the first breath.
-
Nice contradiction. ::)
What did you expect? He is a retard.
-
You are still using an opinion without backing it up. Your subjective values should mean that YOU would not have an abortion if you and a girl was a bit "unlucky". It does not mean that your subjective reasoning should apply to anybody.
Debussey disagrees with you. Debussey think that it is horrendous that you think a fetus has the right to live even if the pregnancy was unplanned and the child is unwanted. When you give reasons to back up your statements, Debussey will back up its. :)
Debussey, I don't think it's that simple. For instance, a baby in the third trimester (for me, anyway) is not the same as a baby just a number of days old - this is a massive grey area, of course.
Some babies must be aborted for medical reasons, I understand this, but I also understand too many are deprived the chance to live because of parents that have their wants placed before the rights of the child. This is the true tragedy.
-
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
If you wish to go the religion route, there is no mention in the christian testatments that abortion is wrong, and gives no direction one way or another. The passage above impies that a being is alive following the taking of the first breath.
Thank you. Does these "convinced" lunatics ever reflect on their opinions?
-
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
If you wish to go the religion route, there is no mention in the christian testatments that abortion is wrong, and gives no direction one way or another. The passage above impies that a being is alive following the taking of the first breath.
To clarify, do you believe a baby becomes a living person as it takes it first breath?
Or is a 6 month old baby in the womb deemed to have this status, also?
-
This is an horrendous post, why you believe a baby in a womb has less right to live than it's mother does to destroy it is beyond me.
A child does not belong to anyone, it's a living being in its own right.
A 4 to 10 week fetus is an individual child right... ::)
The thing is that the mother will have to raise the child. She'll bear the burden, not you. If you want abortion to be illegal then why don't come up with a solution for unwanted babies?
-
I remember being told once that the Chinese consider a new born to be 9 months old. Hope this helps stir debate.
-
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
If you wish to go the religion route, there is no mention in the christian testatments that abortion is wrong, and gives no direction one way or another. The passage above impies that a being is alive following the taking of the first breath.
HAHA
Deedee layeth the smacketh down on mightymouse!
-
A 4 to 10 week fetus is an individual child right... ::)
And herein lies the issue, at what point is it a child to you?
I couldn't care less how much someone is inconvenienced if a child is being killed, neither should you.
-
One thing I don't understand is why these hardcore Anti-Abortion people seem so content starting questionable wars that cause so many deaths. ???
PLEASE DON'T CALL ME A LIB FOR POSTING THIS. I 100% SUPPORT DESTROYING REAL THREATS TO MY COUNTRY.
Maybe you should also ask why so many that are opposed to all forms of war are comfortable with women having freedom of choice to kill an unborn child in the womb.
-
Debussey, I don't think it's that simple. For instance, a baby in the third trimester (for me, anyway) is not the same as a baby just a number of days old - this is a massive grey area, of course.
Some babies must be aborted for medical reasons, I understand this, but I also understand too many are deprived the chance to live because of parents that have their wants placed before the rights of the child. This is the true tragedy.
Debussey senses that you have strong feelings regarding this issue, and that is honorable. Congrats on becoming a father in the near future :)
Your last paragraph raises another issue: Many of these "unplanned" pregnancies is found among very young or troubled (alcohol, drugs) people. Is it right to force a baby into the world, when the mother will use drugs and alchol in the pregnancy, thereby damaging the baby? Is it OK that a child that is unwanted should be forced into birth and then receiving a very poor upbringing?
Not everybody is responsible people like you seem to be, and unwanted pregnancies often occurs among young or irresponsible people. Is it OK to force a 19 year college kid to conceive a baby when this leads to her not being able to graduate and live the life she chooses? Just because she was a bit young and irresponsible?(as we all were in those days)
Again, Debussey thinks that the individual must be allowed to decide herself. Like camel Jockey said: It is still the mother that carries the burden of an unwanted child as Debussey just wrote. Outside "judgers" never feel this burden when they claim moral superiority. It is like saying: "You should accept who you are" to a person with an ugly nose wanting a cosmetic surgery for it bad. The person getting the surgery might go against certain peoples "morals", but it is his choice and he has to carry the burden of feeling uncomfortable with himself due to the "nose complex".
Think about this: Will society really benefit from a lot of unwanted children? It will really be a burden on society, less people will get educated, and most of these kids will recieve a sup-par upbringing.
1: Religion should never be a deciding factor in this discussion. It should not even be an argument.
2: Individual opinions should never be forced upon the general population.
3: If an abortion becomes a "regulated" procedure, it leaves room for corruption, underground abortion labs, and a theft of personal freedom.
-
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
If you wish to go the religion route, there is no mention in the christian testatments that abortion is wrong, and gives no direction one way or another. The passage above impies that a being is alive following the taking of the first breath.
By this logic men should give birth to women because man gave life to Eve. ;D The story of creation does not outline when life starts with a newborn child. Adam was a man, not a new born child.
-
Debussey senses that you have strong feelings regarding this issue, and that is honorable. Congrats on becoming a father in the near future :)
Your last paragraph raises another issue: Many of these "unplanned" pregnancies is found among very young or troubled (alcohol, drugs) people. Is it right to force a baby into the world, when the mother will use drugs and alchol in the pregnancy, thereby damaging the baby? Is it OK that a child that is unwanted should be forced into birth and then receiving a very poor upbringing?
Not everybody is responsible people like you seem to be, and unwanted pregnancies often occurs among young or irresponsible people. Is it OK to force a 19 year college kid to conceive a baby when this leads to her not being able to graduate and live the life she chooses? Just because she was a bit young and irresponsible?(as we all were in those days)
Again, Debussey thinks that the individual must be allowed to decide herself.
1: Religion should never be a deciding factor in this discussion. It should not even be an argument.
2: Individual opinions should never be forced upon the general population.
3: If an abortion becomes a "regulated" procedure, it leaves room for corruption, underground abortion labs, and a theft of personal freedom.
Good post, you raise some very interesting sub-issues.
I think we should be focusing on how we stop kids like you mention from becoming pregnant in the first instance. Of course, this will still occur in some form, in which case I support the child being born and then the parent assessed on their ability to raise this child drug and violence free. A child should not be killed on account of its parent being irresponsible, this defies logic.
We obviously have a long way to go to achieve this.
-
Damn, I don't even see Johnny Rebel fans asking to exterminate all black babies, who they would hate. Rough crowd to convince.
The point is, contraception and abstinence are not used so birth rates increase. Teach these morons to use the free condoms and tell the girls that if they fornicate unproctected, they will get knocked up. Their messed up family tells them through actions that it is okay to screw and have 8 unwanted kids
-
Good post, you raise some very interesting sub-issues.
I think we should be focusing on how we stop kids like you mention from becoming pregnant in the first instance. Of course, this will still occur in some form, in which case I support the child being born and then the parent assessed on their ability to raise this child drug and violence free. A child should not be killed on account of its parent being irresponsible, this defies logic.
We obviously have a long way to go to achieve this.
Debussey modified it's post a bit, you might address these in this post as well.
Debussey agrees with you on the "be realistic, forget morals for a minute" argument.
Africans die just feet away from corn silos every day because they do not have any money to buy food with. Is it morally right to give the Africans food when they are starving?? Yes, in many ways, but by doing so we are opening for the destruction of the economy.
Lets face it: people will still fuck, and they will still be irresponsible. By saying "no" to abortions the burdens on individuals and society will increase tremendously just to maintain a moralistic view of a certain group. Face it, most of these anti abortion peoples opinions would change if they came into the unfortunate situation of an unplanned pregnancy themselves. Most people would never murder, but if somebody made a death threat to their family, they would probably kill if they had to. The point is: Subjective views change when the other side is seen. This = a strong argument for keeping abortions legal.
-
Debussey modified it's post a bit, you might adress these in this post as well.
Should a 'sub-par upbringing' be the predecessor to us murdering a child? Or should we give the kid a chance at life anyway?
-
They were handing out condoms fashioned after subway trains here in NY and the catholic church was outraged. ::) Why are religions so anti safe sex?
-
They were handing out condoms fashioned after subway trains here in NY and the catholic church was outraged. ::) Why are religions so anti safe sex?
As a Catholic, the church's stance on contraception is not even remotely related to church doctrine that is drawn from Divine Word aka God. It was a man made rule as a result of contraception. I know many priests who ae okay with this in addition to planning around the woman's period.
-
As a Catholic, the church's stance on contraception is not even remotely related to church doctrine that is drawn from Divine Word aka God. It was a man made rule as a result of contraception. I know many priests who ae okay with this in addition to planning around the woman's period.
Morals = a dynamic concept. No true "holy" morals exist, and people will never agree. Therefore, saying abortions = wrong and then making abortions illegal = forcing one moral view upon the masses at a massive cost.
-
ok, i gave you my answer. God has a plan. and i know you don't like it, but i answered.
now, answer mine.
You didn't answer. God has a plan, isn't an answer. Need I really point that out?
-
They were handing out condoms fashioned after subway trains here in NY and the catholic church was outraged. ::) Why are religions so anti safe sex?
Condoms promote pre-martial sex, which the Catholic Church is against.
If you follow Catholocism (I don't), then you wouldn't be having sex - and thus a child - until you're prepared to.
-
Condoms promote pre-martial sex, which the Catholic Church is against.
If you follow Catholocism (I don't), then you wouldn't be having sex - and thus a child - until you're prepared to.
Not exactly true. Abstinence before marriage is preached but the burden is placed on the woman not to have sex. Lol. Contraception is a fairly new thing compared to religious doctrine and the Church came up with it, not God/the Bible
-
Should a 'sub-par upbringing' be the predecessor to us murdering a child? Or should we give the kid a chance at life anyway?
See Debusseys post above for arguments.
Morals = subjective, you can not avoid that, because no rational standard exists. The practical implications of making abortions illegal = enormous.
A fetus = not a person. Abortion = not murder, it is a surgery. You can not prove me wrong, because proving me wrong would mean that there exists a "master morality" based on rationality. There is no such thing, morals = a fluid concepts. Debussey can claim: Religion = evil. You can not disprove me, because it is all a matter of personal interpretation.
Millions of women thinks that abortions = the only correct thing according to morals. You think the opposite. Your moral is not superior to theirs, the matter is to delicate, yet your opinion interferes with individuality (practical implication), their opinion does not.
Thus, the practical implications must weigh the most.
Debussey has shown the practical implications.
You can not win this one. You have the right to have your individual opinion, just like Gary Busey, but you can not force your opinion on others. Since your opinion is is of such nature, you can not win this discussion :)
-
Condoms promote pre-martial sex, which the Catholic Church is against.
If you follow Catholocism (I don't), then you wouldn't be having sex - and thus a child - until you're prepared to.
They should consider changing their stance.
People like you and I know better. But what about people in Africa that are catholics?
-
They should consider changing their stance.
People like you and I know better. But what about people in Africa that are catholics?
Read my post and PM me to find out why I know this and why it is okay with priests.
-
You can not win this one. You have the right to have your individual opinion, just like Gary Busey, but you can not force your opinion on others. Since your opinion is is of such nature, you can not win this discussion :)
You're right, there isn't a way to win this debate because I'm not sure I have a definite answer to it - I don't think anyone of sound judgement does. You believe you do, good luck with that.
-
See Debusseys post above for arguments.
Morals = subjective, you can not avoid that, because no rational standard exists. The practical implications of making abortions illegal = enormous.
A fetus = not a person. Abortion = not murder, it is a surgery. You can not prove me wrong, because proving me wrong would mean that there exists a "master morality" based on rationality. There is no such thing, morals = a fluid concepts. Debussey can claim: Religion = evil. You can not disprove me, because it is all a matter of personal interpretation.
whoa there buddy, easy there ;D Moral arguments need not a standard by which one evaluates what is right and what is wrong. The necessity here is rationality; so it is through reason alone that one can argue for the moral and immoral (given atleast some concensus of basic moral rights), especially in a case where huiman life is at stake. In fact u are doing this in the above post. For example, you are asserting that a fetus is not a person, which in turn falsifies the notion that a fetus has "moral" responsilities attached to it for the conciious human being. That's all I can say about the issue right now.
-
whoa there buddy, easy there ;D Moral arguments need not a standard by which one evaluates what is right and what is wrong. The necessity here is rationality; so it is through reason alone that one can argue for the moral and immoral (given atleast some concensus of basic moral rights), especially in a case where huiman life is at stake. In fact u are doing this in the above post. For example, you are asserting that a fetus is not a person, which in turn falsifies the notion that a fetus has "moral" responsilities attached to it for the conciious human being. That's all I can say about the issue right now.
Good post.
Moral arguments need not a standard by which one evaluates what is right and what is wrong.
No, and this is why there will always disagreement, and why one moralistic view could never rightfully be applied to the entire population at the cost of losing personal freedom in matters such as this. This is also why the negative implications on society and individuals from cutting abortions should matter more than morals.
If a moral view was to determine the legality of abortions, then a standard had to exist, which again proves Debusseys view.
so it is through reason alone that one can argue for the moral and immoral (given atleast some concensus of basic moral rights), especially in a case where huiman life is at stake. In fact u are doing this in the above post. For example, you are asserting that a fetus is not a person, which in turn falsifies the notion that a fetus has "moral" responsilities attached to it for the conciious human being.
Debussey has argumented through reason here all along. Debussey wrote that thing about the fetus not being a person to show that a personal opinion is just that.. When reason is applied (like the burden on a mother, overpopulation +++), it clearly shows that the only real moral view that applies here is that certain group interests should never steal personal freedom from the majority.
New codes will arrive shortly :P
-
You're right, there isn't a way to win this debate because I'm not sure I have a definite answer to it - I don't think anyone of sound judgement does. You believe you do, good luck with that.
You are correct, there is no definite answer except respect for other peoples opinions, personal freedom and their right to chose their own paths in life.
You also believe what you do, Gary Busey/Debussey respects that.
-
Good luck with the upcoming baby :D
Who told you I was having sex? :-[
-
Who told you I was having sex? :-[
Ops. Debussey read one of your posts a bit fast. :)
Ohh, remember: According to lunatics like MilitaryMuscle69, sex before marrage = wrong. You should listen to him, he is morally superior, because he believes in the Christian god. He has the right to tell you what to do, think and feel. ;D
-
Ops. Debussey read one of your posts a bit fast. :)
Ohh, remember: According to lunatics like MilitaryMuscle69, sex before marrage = wrong. You should listen to him, he is morally superior, because he believes in the Christian god. He has the right to tell you what to do, think and feel. ;D
Important side issue: Is Gary Busey procreating?
-
Important side issue: Is Gary Busey procreating?
yes, through the alien anal probes.
Last time Debussey was abducted (last week) by the aliens, they did some weird experiences with the anal probes. After years of alien abductions, Debussey is getting used to the equipment used, but these days: things are changing.
Many female alien abductees around the globe carry Gary Buseys child. Gary Busey = ultimate genetics. This means that Jesus will be reborn in multiple children. The children of Gary Busey.
It was all made possible through the alien abductions.
The aliens truly care about us humans, they help us save ourselves through giving us Gary Buseys kids.
-
yes, through the alien anal probes.
Last time Debussey was abducted (last week) by the aliens, they did some weird experiences with the anal probes. After years of alien abductions, Debussey is getting used to the equipment used, but these days: things are changing.
Many female alien abductees around the globe carry Gary Buseys child. Gary Busey = ultimate genetics. This means that Jesus will be reborn in multiple children. The children of Gary Busey.
It was all made possible through the alien abductions.
The aliens truly care about us humans, they help us save ourselves through giving us Gary Buseys kids.
I'm ashamed to admit that I laughed the whole way through this post.
-
I'm ashamed to admit that I laughed the whole way through this post.
:)
(http://www.codebrigade.com/images/Gary-Busey-1sm.gif)
-
Good post.
No, and this is why there will always disagreement, and why one moralistic view could never rightfully be applied to the entire population at the cost of losing personal freedom in matters such as this. This is also why the negative implications on society and individuals from cutting abortions should matter more than morals.
I don't think there are many people that ascribe to a moral law that doesn't value human life, or one that values all forms of life so much so that it leaves nothing to be debated. It seems to me now that we are weighing the moral implications of keeping the fetus alive versus aborting it. This shows that we do value life of the "baby" or the lives of the one bearing the child, in some moral sense. Morality in this sense is being rested on reason, since the rational being does base his/her moral opinions based on reason(contrary to basing it completely on some "written" law in a hitlerian way). Otherwise it would turn out to be nothing more than a shouting match (read: religious whackos)
Debussey has argumented through reason here all along. Debussey wrote that thing about the fetus not being a person to show that a personal opinion is just that.. When reason is applied (like the burden on a mother, overpopulation +++), it clearly shows that the only real moral view that applies here is that certain group interests should never steal personal freedom from the majority.
If we can prove abortion to be wrong then laws can be applied against it, just as laws are applied against other crimes. This doesnt leave it upto the individuals discretion completely to say what is right and wrong. Abortion is a very complex issue, and it seems to me that a lot of the arguments are based on religious doctrine, so I agree with u that it would be unfair for it to be applied to an entire population. I don't think we disagree about too much. I actually think we agree that morality doesnt rest merely on personal opinion. I think it is the definition we are disagreeing about- you were treating it as some obscure absolute law that is not to be broken (not much reasoning can be applied), whereas I'm saying that the human moral sense does exist which allows us to argue about these things in the first place. Reason is #1.
New codes will arrive shortly :P
8)
-
I don't think there are many people that ascribe to a moral law that doesn't value human life, or one that values all forms of life so much so that it leaves nothing to be debated. It seems to me now that we are weighing the moral implications of keeping the fetus alive versus aborting it. This shows that we do value life of the "baby" or the lives of the one bearing the child, in some moral sense. Morality in this sense is being rested on reason, since the rational being does base his/her moral opinions based on reason(contrary to basing it completely on some "written" law in a hitlerian way). Otherwise it would turn out to be nothing more than a shouting match (read: religious whackos)
If we can prove abortion to be wrong then laws can be applied against it, just as laws are applied against other crimes. This doesnt leave it upto the individuals discretion completely to say what is right and wrong. Abortion is a very complex issue, and it seems to me that a lot of the arguments are based on religious doctrine, so I agree with u that it would be unfair for it to be applied to an entire population. I don't think we disagree about too much. I actually think we agree that morality doesnt rest merely on personal opinion. I think it is the definition we are disagreeing about- you were treating it as some obscure absolute law that is not to be broken (not much reasoning can be applied), whereas I'm saying that the human moral sense does exist which allows us to argue about these things in the first place. Reason is #1.
8)
We agree. Reason = 1. :)
Side note: Chosing abortion over raising a child in very bad circumstances or the fact that a girl might get her life ruined by it is also morals. Sparing people from turmoil = good moral.
-
:)
(http://www.codebrigade.com/images/Gary-Busey-1sm.gif)
Those teeth are incredible.
I want one of those shirts.
-
Debussey senses aliens approaching. Debussey will probably be abducted again in a few minutes. Debussey will be back tomorrow, hopefully able to sit without pain. (the new analprobe = HOOGE)
C you tomorrow. The aliens might also put a chip in Debusseys brain this time. Debussey is quite stupid to be honest, Gary Busey does all the talking. Perhaps this new chip will bring Debussey some braing power.
-
LOL! ;D
Good luck dude,
with the aliens, plugs n all.
-
This thread took an unexpected turn.
-
ok, Team dipshit or whatever the hell you call yourself
how much of man are you calling people retards from your keyboard??
i never attacked you, called you a name then you start with your immature BS knowing you'll never face me. i bet your momma's proud.
you showed exactly what kind of person you are, a worthless waste of life.
grow up
You debated like a retard.
Go cry to your mommy poor little boy.
IT is ok.
If daddy raped your ass, go see a shrink.
G'night people.
;D
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=103042.0;attach=113243;image)
-
;D
You haven't truly lived until Debussey PM's you with that image.
-
ok, i gave you my answer. God has a plan.
I'm afraid you're gonna have to ask this "God" character to flesh out his plan a little more and provide some details as to how he expects to meet the desired outcomes. Simply saying "I have a plan" then not detailing it is similar to George W Bush saying "I have a plan" for Iraq. ;D
-
hi goatboy
-
I stated that your posts across the GETBIG forums are prejudiced, not just this one thread.
You "see" poor people, do you engage them in conversation or do you just automatically assume you know all about their life?
I thought higher education was a forum to open your mind and see the bigger picture.
You are narrow minded when it comes to people outside of your "world".
If someone uses condoms/bc and has sex, is that still slutting around?
Sandra
-
Please stop posting. Your dribble is ruining it for anyone who wants to argue against Roe v. Wade here for many weeks to come.
You don't have the intillectual firepower to do battle here.
I'll help you grasp what is going on here. ieffinhatecardio is saying he can understand your stance. He is saying he can see why people would think abortion is wrong. He's rhetorically asking how the world would look, and how we would be able to take care of those children that aren't aborted.
You just keep telling him that it is wrong....to which he's not disagreeing.
Hey thanks for jumping into a ongoing conversation you know nothing about. My beef isn't with cardio though but thanks for your input.
-
Let's go over the facts again, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME.
What will happen to the millions of unwanted babies? Who will take care of them?
Notice how you can't answer?
Notice how you don't care about answering?
This is the most valid point in this whole debate. You want to put an end to abortion, fantastic but something has to be done with the babies that are born.
YET YOU HAVE NO PLAN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? YOU HAVE NO PLAN FOR MILLIONS OF UNWANTED BABIES. ::)
Ouch, sounds like someone's a little sensitive from getting called on his bullschit posts. ;D
Oh my dear friend Cardio....The fact that I don't have a plan for the million babies IS NOT THE MOST VALID POINT. The fact that it is the only thing you can come up with is sad. I don't have a plan for what to do with the homeless but I think something should be done, I don't have a a plan for sending my son to college but I will figure it out. But if you want a plan here it is. My first plan for what to do with the babies (in the US because different solutions need to be looked at otherwise) is to stop women from getting pregnant. I know that millions of babies are aborted, but how many of those million babies are made during drunken lust sessions, pure laziness with contraception, young boys saying "it just feels better without a condom" etc... In all of those millions of instances those people need to be held accountable for their actions, not be able to get away with murder to cover a mistake. Now for all the babies concieved by rape, incest, etc.... the number (in the US) is probably in the low 6 digits at the most. We need to take money that is used in 3rd world countries on programs like Operation New Horizons (google it) and use that money to combat the problem of shortages in places to put "unwanted" kids. It also can be used for my homeless problem and to help lower income families put their kids through college. Now back to those people that are having babies through negligence, again they need to be held accountable. If they abort, charge them and make them do time. If they have the baby but give it up, make them pay child support, there are hundreds of ways to hold someone accountable. If they have more than 2 kids that they have to give up, they are taken to the hospital and it is made sure it won't happen again. The last solution should be to Kill babies and that is what it is, killing. If the women want't to be able to "control" her body, then control it with contraceptives before spreading the legs.
Now, I know deep in your heart it wasn't a "solution" that you are searching for but at the time that was your best comeback. So I have offered. lets see your next "argument"
-
One thing I don't understand is why these hardcore Anti-Abortion people seem so content starting questionable wars that cause so many deaths. ???
PLEASE DON'T CALL ME A LIB FOR POSTING THIS. I 100% SUPPORT DESTROYING REAL THREATS TO MY COUNTRY.
Going to war and killing a baby is different. I am just as against helpless babies dying in war as in the womb. As far as combabtants dying we are all grown enough to fight and choose to do so. The baby doesn't have the choice.
-
Ops. Debussey read one of your posts a bit fast. :)
Ohh, remember: According to lunatics like MilitaryMuscle69, sex before marrage = wrong. You should listen to him, he is morally superior, because he believes in the Christian god. He has the right to tell you what to do, think and feel. ;D
Wait one minute! I have not one time brought religion into any of may arguments in this post. Not one time. I do believe in god but have not mentioned it once in here. This issue is a science one for me. It has been proven that a fetus is a human, capable of feelings etc. I think that human has the right to live and consider killing it the same as throwing a 1 week old baby in the dumpster, an action that would earn a murder charge.
-
Oh my dear friend Cardio....The fact that I don't have a plan for the million babies IS NOT THE MOST VALID POINT. The fact that it is the only thing you can come up with is sad. I don't have a plan for what to do with the homeless but I think something should be done, I don't have a a plan for sending my son to college but I will figure it out. But if you want a plan here it is. My first plan for what to do with the babies (in the US because different solutions need to be looked at otherwise) is to stop women from getting pregnant. I know that millions of babies are aborted, but how many of those million babies are made during drunken lust sessions, pure laziness with contraception, young boys saying "it just feels better without a condom" etc... In all of those millions of instances those people need to be held accountable for their actions, not be able to get away with murder to cover a mistake. Now for all the babies concieved by rape, incest, etc.... the number (in the US) is probably in the low 6 digits at the most. We need to take money that is used in 3rd world countries on programs like Operation New Horizons (google it) and use that money to combat the problem of shortages in places to put "unwanted" kids. It also can be used for my homeless problem and to help lower income families put their kids through college. Now back to those people that are having babies through negligence, again they need to be held accountable. If they abort, charge them and make them do time. If they have the baby but give it up, make them pay child support, there are hundreds of ways to hold someone accountable. If they have more than 2 kids that they have to give up, they are taken to the hospital and it is made sure it won't happen again. The last solution should be to Kill babies and that is what it is, killing. If the women want't to be able to "control" her body, then control it with contraceptives before spreading the legs.
Now, I know deep in your heart it wasn't a "solution" that you are searching for but at the time that was your best comeback. So I have offered. lets see your next "argument"
Your homeless analogy doesn't work because you're not proposing adding millions of new homeless each and every year.
I honestly don't think you're equipped to handle this debate. I say that because you're looking at it through emotions rather than rationale.
For you to spew that the idea of actually having a place for the millions of unwanted babies is sad shows that you're not being logical but instead emotional.
I don't like abortion but I recognize a few things that you seem to dismiss. One, it's not my place to tell a woman what she can do with her body. And yes, until the fetus is an individual according to the law then the mother has control.
The second thing I understand that you don't is that millions of abortions are done each year because those babies are not wanted. If you stop abortions something has to be done with those babies. You seem to dismiss this notion yet it's a fact. Millions of new babies will need love, nurturing and homes.
How will we provide them with these things?
I'll say it again, you want to stop abortions, great, fantastic but we need a workable plan for how to care for those babies. Are you telling me out of all the Pro-Life groups out there a workable solution hasn't been formed?
-
Your homeless analogy doesn't work because you're not proposing adding millions of new homeless each and every year.
I honestly don't think you're equipped to handle this debate. I say that because you're looking at it through emotions rather than rationale.
For you to spew that the idea of actually having a place for the millions of unwanted babies is sad shows that you're not being logical but instead emotional.
I don't like abortion but I recognize a few things that you seem to dismiss. One, it's not my place to tell a woman what she can do with her body. And yes, until the fetus is an individual according to the law then the mother has control.
The second thing I understand that you don't is that millions of abortions are done each year because those babies are not wanted. If you stop abortions something has to be done with those babies. You seem to dismiss this notion yet it's a fact. Millions of new babies will need love, nurturing and homes.
How will we provide them with these things?
I'll say it again, you want to stop abortions, great, fantastic but we need a workable plan for how to care for those babies. Are you telling me out of all the Pro-Life groups out there a workable solution hasn't been formed?
You missed the main point of my plan. That was to stop pregnancies, yes there are planned parent hood and what no but people are to lazy to use them. If we enforce punishment for recklessly having unresponsible sex it will not only help the unwanted pregnancy rate but help with the spread of STDs. I have not come at this from an emotional or religious stand point. I HAVE however answered the only argument you can propose. What you fail to do is show me where having a baby on mondya and throwing it in the dumpster on friday is different from aborting a baby. See what you don't understand is I support personal rights. You want to do drugs and ruin your life so be it, you want to take birth control to avoid pregnancy and be able to get banged bareback and contract AIDS, be my guest. But don't not take birth control, get boned, and then force your poor decision onto the baby that comes from it. So see maybe you aren't prepared to debate it because I have shown an answer for your debate. You can't do the same. If my "responsible for your actions" initiative was enforced we wouldn't have millions of babies and then your problem doesn't exist. It is like anything cardio, if you show that there is no recourse for actions the action will continue to be done.
-
You missed the main point of my plan. That was to stop pregnancies, yes there are planned parent hood and what no but people are to lazy to use them. If we enforce punishment for recklessly having unresponsible sex it will not only help the unwanted pregnancy rate but help with the spread of STDs. I have not come at this from an emotional or religious stand point. I HAVE however answered the only argument you can propose. What you fail to do is show me where having a baby on mondya and throwing it in the dumpster on friday is different from aborting a baby. See what you don't understand is I support personal rights. You want to do drugs and ruin your life so be it, you want to take birth control to avoid pregnancy and be able to get banged bareback and contract AIDS, be my guest. But don't not take birth control, get boned, and then force your poor decision onto the baby that comes from it. So see maybe you aren't prepared to debate it because I have shown an answer for your debate. You can't do the same. If my "responsible for your actions" initiative was enforced we wouldn't have millions of babies and then your problem doesn't exist. It is like anything cardio, if you show that there is no recourse for actions the action will continue to be done.
Enforcing birth control with laws that punish is not a workable plan for many reasons. You haven't answered my question, in fact you've dodged it. All you're doing is evading the real issue.
Defining the difference between an abortion and a mother murdering her baby a week after it was born is rhetoric. It's sensationalized nonsense that has no place in this debate.
This is like debating a teenager that thinks he knows it all but in reality he's not equipped to have a real debate.
-
Enforcing birth control with laws that punish is not a workable plan for many reasons. You haven't answered my question, in fact you've dodged it. All you're doing is evading the real issue.
Defining the difference between an abortion and a mother murdering her baby a week after it was born is rhetoric. It's sensationalized nonsense that has no place in this debate.
This is like debating a teenager that thinks he knows it all but in reality he's not equipped to have a real debate.
I am not doding it. Explain why we can't enforce laws on people that are having reckless sex and presenting a drain on the economy? Also the the week old/abortion idea is not nonsense. In both cases a baby is being killed. How is this different?
-
I am not doding it. Explain why we can't enforce laws on people that are having reckless sex and presenting a drain on the economy? Also the the week old/abortion idea is not nonsense. In both cases a baby is being killed. How is this different?
Can you plse answer my question, respectfully of course? If you were walking past a garbage dump and you came across a three day old baby, and something that was essentially this ----> .
...but you could only save one of them, which one would you choose?
-
Can you plse answer my question, respectfully of course? If you were walking past a garbage dump and you came across a three day old baby, and something that was essentially this ----> .
...but you could only save one of them, which one would you choose?
With all do respect Dedee, I find that a silly question. I mean what if I was at a car accident and my wife and kid were in it and could only save one which should I do? save my son because my wife that has lived life to this point, save my wife because we can make another son? See what I am saying? I know you think I should say the 3 day old, but what makes the 3 day old more important than the ----> as you put it. If I had to choose one then I would maybe einy miny mo for it or something because in my eyes they both deserve the chance and I'm not the one to make the decision on who gets it. Then again is there a way to facilitate survival of the fetus? I am guessing you would choose the 3 day old? why?
-
By this logic men should give birth to women because man gave life to Eve. ;D The story of creation does not outline when life starts with a newborn child. Adam was a man, not a new born child.
Man did not give life to Eve, and I think it is your logic that is flawed. However, it was not my intention to quote verse back and forth, although I can give you at least another example which seems to indicate that a living person's life is more important than one that has not been born.
What I was pointing out was that it is not appropriate to bring God into the conversation about abortion because there is nothing in either testament to indicate that God has an opinion either way about abortion. At best, it would seem that God does not care. During roman times, abortion was legal.
Church doctrine also has no place in the conversation since the rules change with evolving politics and values.
-
With all do respect Dedee, I find that a silly question. I mean what if I was at a car accident and my wife and kid were in it and could only save one which should I do? save my son because my wife that has lived life to this point, save my wife because we can make another son? See what I am saying? I know you think I should say the 3 day old, but what makes the 3 day old more important than the ----> as you put it. If I had to choose one then I would maybe einy miny mo for it or something because in my eyes they both deserve the chance and I'm not the one to make the decision on who gets it. Then again is there a way to facilitate survival of the fetus? I am guessing you would choose the 3 day old? why?
Well it isn't silly and I'm certain there have been people who have had to make a choice... it's feasible for you to be in a car accident and have to choose between wife and child. But getting back to the ---> versus a living baby, of course I would choose the baby. It's alive and real. The other is not a viable human being. It doesn't even resemble one in any way.
-
Well it isn't silly and I'm certain there have been people who have had to make a choice... it's feasible for you to be in a car accident and have to choose between wife and child. But getting back to the ---> versus a living baby, of course I would choose the baby. It's alive and real. The other is not a viable human being. It doesn't even resemble one in any way.
Ok so you save the baby, then find out he is handicapped and must live his life out in assisted living homes at taxpayer cost. Maybe the fetus would have been fine and grown up to support itself.
-
Ok so you save the baby, then find out he is handicapped and must live his life out in assisted living homes at taxpayer cost. Maybe the fetus would have been fine and grown up to support itself.
----> . this cannot be fine or grow up to support itself because it is nothing but a few miscellaneous cells that depend on nourishment from a human being for many months before it becomes something resembling a human being.
Something else to consider while you contemplate forcing women to bear children.
http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_3.shtml
-
----> . this cannot be fine or grow up to support itself because it is nothing but a few miscellaneous cells that depend on nourishment from a human being for many months before it becomes something resembling a human being.
Something else to consider while you contemplate forcing women to bear children.
http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_3.shtml
Whoa Nelly!!! I never said I endorse "forcing" women to bear childern. I did say that if they choose to have reckless, irresponsible sex then they have to pay the consequences. I also laid out options
1. Abort the baby and face charges (murder, manslaughter whatever it would be classified as)
2. Bear the baby, give it up and pay support (can't pay support? I bet most of those mother smoke drink etc...)
3. If you have more than 2 children that you give up and "can't support" then you have your tubes tied
4. Avoid all of this by being responsible and use some sort of birth control.
-
Whoa Nelly!!! I never said I endorse "forcing" women to bear childern. I did say that if they choose to have reckless, irresponsible sex then they have to pay the consequences. I also laid out options
1. Abort the baby and face charges (murder, manslaughter whatever it would be classified as)
2. Bear the baby, give it up and pay support (can't pay support? I bet most of those mother smoke drink etc...)
3. If you have more than 2 children that you give up and "can't support" then you have your tubes tied
4. Avoid all of this by being responsible and use some sort of birth control.
I understand that a very hurtful incident from your past has colored your view on this issue, but what you propose here is beyond shocking.
Where does the father come into play? Since a life cannot be created without the yin and the yang, how does he figure into your equation? For instance, no. 3... if a man fathers two or more children that he refuses to support or abandons, does he get the permanent vasectomy? 4. What happens if the birth control fails? No 1. has already been tried, didn't work.
It sounds like from your presumption that most of the women who get abortions are drinkers and smokers (of course, all the "bad" women get pregnant out of wedlock ;) ) you should just simply nip the problem in the bud and force all "bad" slash "trailer park" women to undergo government sanctioned hysterectomies and be done with it. Also, since trailer park men are 50% of the problem, they should be required to undergo government sanctioned vasectomies as well.
And btw, in case you don't realize it, you are in favor of forcing women to bear children no matter what the circumstance, even in the case of health risk to the mother. Just look at the title of your thread.
-
I understand that a very hurtful incident from your past has colored your view on this issue, but what you propose here is beyond shocking.
Where does the father come into play? Since a life cannot be created without the yin and the yang, how does he figure into your equation? For instance, no. 3... if a man fathers two or more children that he refuses to support or abandons, does he get the permanent vasectomy? 4. What happens if the birth control fails? No 1. has already been tried, didn't work.
It sounds like from your presumption that most of the women who get abortions are drinkers and smokers (of course, all the "bad" women get pregnant out of wedlock ;) ) you should just simply nip the problem in the bud and force all "bad" slash "trailer park" women to undergo government sanctioned hysterectomies and be done with it. Also, since trailer park men are 50% of the problem, they should be required to undergo government sanctioned vasectomies as well.
And btw, in case you don't realize it, you are in favor of forcing women to bear children no matter what the circumstance, even in the case of health risk to the mother. Just look at the title of your thread.
What makes you think there was a hurtful incident? In response, I am a deadbeat dad hater. It disgusts me that men don't own up to their responsibilities. I actually pay more in child support than was orderd in my divorce decree. Am I a saint? hell no but I want my son taken care of at expense of my expensive softball habit I have had to cut back on. I directed my post at the female side because everyone elses argument is "woman's rights" The smoke/drink deal wasn't trying to say they are the irresponsible ones. I was trying to say that for everyone that complains they can't pay something (bills, child support, fines etc...) they could cut out things in their life to save money. Now, the medical reasoning. There is only one reason I don't make an exception for the medical and that is the doctor in Kansas/Iowa wherever he was from that was faking medical conditions to legally perform abortions. I have learned that if things aren't black or white some jackass will use the gray area to fuck it up for everyone else. However, I am torn on the idea of allowing rape victims, molested women, incest etc... to abort. I'm not really that cold hearter Dedee. I just hate seeing people go through life making reckless decisions and not having to answer for those decisions. As far as birth control failing, well there is always one kind that is 99.9% succesfull (the .1% was Mary) and that is abstinence. Again if you choose to have sex, be ready for the consequences.
-
Wasn't it you who posted that a gf of yours had an abortion without considering you, and that you still think about it? If it is, then I guess that would have something to do with your feelings about whether or not women should continue to enjoy individual freedom and control over their destinies, or not.
However, I am torn on the idea of allowing rape victims, molested women, incest etc... to abort.
If your take is that ----> . this is a viable human life, then you shouldn't be torn either way concerning the above. It's still murder in your eyes. Rape and incest victims should be forced to bear the products of their victimization and according to your rules above, financially responsible for them or risk being severely punished. You are also of the opinion that any woman who has kidney problems or hypertension, or is severely diabetic... is doodoo outta luck since the -----> . takes precedence over her rights.
-
Wasn't it you who posted that a gf of yours had an abortion without considering you, and that you still think about it? If it is, then I guess that would have something to do with your feelings about whether or not women should continue to enjoy individual freedom and control over their destinies, or not.
If your take is that ----> . this is a viable human life, then you shouldn't be torn either way concerning the above. It's still murder in your eyes. Rape and incest victims should be forced to bear the products of their victimization and according to your rules above, financially responsible for them or risk being severely punished. You are also of the opinion that any woman who has kidney problems or hypertension, or is severely diabetic... is doodoo outta luck since the -----> . takes precedence over her rights.
Now come on Dedee, I have always enjoyed debating with you but don't start putting words in my mouth (and it wasn't me with the GF).
In the case of situations where it isn't the woman's fault I am still torn and there is nothing wrong with that. In medical situations I do want to woman to survive and i want the baby to survive. If I can't have both then a decision has to be made. But that is a completely different situation than someone being irresponsible and being allowed to kill to avoid dealing with the consequences. I mean I can't see anywhere that I said rape victims have to "bear the products of their victimization."
-
I mean I can't see anywhere that I said rape victims have to "bear the products of their victimization."
What's your opinion regarding abortion when it comes to a rape victim? Do you think a rape victim should be required to give birth, or do believe she has the right to abort the child?
-
What's your opinion regarding abortion when it comes to a rape victim? Do you think a rape victim should be required to give birth, or do believe she has the right to abort the child?
covered it earlier but to bring you up to speed I am honestly torn. The part of my objection to abortion where I am 100% against it is when irresponsible people use it to bail them out of their bad decisions. for victims and medical instances, I would like to have the best of both worlds but would not hold it against a woman that was raped and ended up pregnant.
-
Now come on Dedee, I have always enjoyed debating with you but don't start putting words in my mouth (and it wasn't me with the GF).
In the case of situations where it isn't the woman's fault I am still torn and there is nothing wrong with that. In medical situations I do want to woman to survive and i want the baby to survive. If I can't have both then a decision has to be made. But that is a completely different situation than someone being irresponsible and being allowed to kill to avoid dealing with the consequences. I mean I can't see anywhere that I said rape victims have to "bear the products of their victimization."
Oops, sorry about that... thought it was you.
I'm trying to see things in a rational way, from your POV and that of Bruce's who claims that as soon as conception occurs, even though it looks like ---> . it is still a baby and therefore has rights. It would follow that even the ----> . produced by a rapist or an incestuous father is a baby too and therefore shouldn't be punished because the father was a criminal. By your rules above, the mother should be forced to bear and raise it.
Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else. Didn't you say that you believe the result of fertilization is a baby from the moment of conception?
-
Oops, sorry about that... thought it was you.
I'm trying to see things in a rational way, from your POV and that of Bruce's who claims that as soon as conception occurs, even though it looks like ---> . it is still a baby and therefore has rights. It would follow that even the ----> . produced by a rapist or an incestuous father is a baby too and therefore shouldn't be punished because the father was a criminal. By your rules above, the mother should be forced to bear and raise it.
Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else. Didn't you say that you believe the result of fertilization is a baby from the moment of conception?
Correct, I believe life begins at conception. I have done my best to avoid this but here I go. While my opinion on the issue of abortion is not based on religious aspects, I feel that god would "understand" if a woman was raped/molested/going to die and she had to make a choice. The reason I say this is because there are instances in the Bible that God has condoned murder. Again my opinion on abortion and irresponsible people being made accountable is in no way based on religion. It is based on how I think life should be. Ask any of the guys in my unit under me. I hold everyone accountable and it is a smooth running ship!
-
covered it earlier but to bring you up to speed I am honestly torn. The part of my objection to abortion where I am 100% against it is when irresponsible people use it to bail them out of their bad decisions. for victims and medical instances, I would like to have the best of both worlds but would not hold it against a woman that was raped and ended up pregnant.
95% of the women who have abortions are one-timers... that would indicate that most women are not irresponsible. They made a mistake... once.
If you really want to look at irresponsible people, look at the those who are dirt poor, uneducated, neglectful who have child after child because they're too stupid to take any precaution and because they know the welfare system has to come through and take care of their children for them anyway.
-
Correct, I believe life begins at conception. I have done my best to avoid this but here I go. While my opinion on the issue of abortion is not based on religious aspects, I feel that god would "understand" if a woman was raped/molested/going to die and she had to make a choice. The reason I say this is because there are instances in the Bible that God has condoned murder. Again my opinion on abortion and irresponsible people being made accountable is in no way based on religion. It is based on how I think life should be. Ask any of the guys in my unit under me. I hold everyone accountable and it is a smooth running ship!
Oh yes, you're quite right. God has no problem with executions and encourages them when necessary. For instance, God has clear rules about homosexuality... the acts are deemed an abomination and the guilty are to be executed. God however, does not say one word about abortion being wrong. That's why your argument doesn't hold up if you try to impose religion on it. In fact, there is a passage which states that if a man who is fighting with another man hits a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries, the punishment is a fine to be paid to the husband. Property damage. That's about it. You are arguing this from the aspect of your "feelings" which are subjective and relate to you only. That you happen to "think" God understands doesn't quite cut it when you propose to change the lives of millions of women.
-
Oh yes, you're quite right. God has no problem with executions and encourages them when necessary. For instance, God has clear rules about homosexuality... the acts are deemed an abomination and the guilty are to be executed. God however, does not say one word about abortion being wrong. That's why your argument doesn't hold up if you try to impose religion on it. In fact, there is a passage which states that if a man who is fighting with another man hits a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries, the punishment is a fine to be paid to the husband. Property damage. That's about it. You are arguing this from the aspect of your "feelings" which are subjective and relate to you only. That you happen to "think" God understands doesn't quite cut it when you propose to change the lives of millions of women.
See, exactly why I tried to avoid religion because you took everything out of context and avoided what I really said. My opinion on why abortion is wrong is not based on religion or emotion. Science has shown fetuses to be "living" beings, similiar to a 1 day old baby. If it is wrong to kill a 1 day old, it is wrong to kill a fetus. All I ask is for consistency in laws. You wanted to know why I was torn on the other issues and I would not hold it against a victim if she aborted a baby. but for the hundreth time, if you have consensual sex, and get pregnant, I'm sorry I think you should be accountable. I will tell my son when the time comes (he is only 7 now) all about sex. I will offer him the protection needed to have safe sex, but he will know that if he gets his dick wet and for some reason the girl ends up pregnant, well he will be working to take care of that child from that day on. Again, no religion, no emotions just pure personal accountability, something that is lacking in the US today.
-
I'm tired of talking about Iraq. I want to see what people say abou thtis. Who decided that the baby has no rights in the abortion discussion? I thought we were shooting for equal rights for all?
Talk to god about it.
There are more naturally aborted fetuses than there are live births!
-
See, exactly why I tried to avoid religion because you took everything out of context and avoided what I really said. My opinion on why abortion is wrong is not based on religion or emotion. Science has shown fetuses to be "living" beings, similiar to a 1 day old baby. If it is wrong to kill a 1 day old, it is wrong to kill a fetus. All I ask is for consistency in laws. You wanted to know why I was torn on the other issues and I would not hold it against a victim if she aborted a baby. but for the hundreth time, if you have consensual sex, and get pregnant, I'm sorry I think you should be accountable. I will tell my son when the time comes (he is only 7 now) all about sex. I will offer him the protection needed to have safe sex, but he will know that if he gets his dick wet and for some reason the girl ends up pregnant, well he will be working to take care of that child from that day on. Again, no religion, no emotions just pure personal accountability, something that is lacking in the US today.
I think it's great that you plan to teach your son to be accountable and the world needs more like that. Sadly though, you are in the minority, and the majority of women who have abortions do not have men who want to take on their responsibilities. That's why many of these women have abortions.
If you don't mind I'd like to see this science if you can post it. I personally think you are talking about a fetus in a late term pregnancy. In the first trimester, this is not an issue. Most countries have regulated access to abortions... late term pregnancy is not a candidate for abortion.
-
95% of the women who have abortions are one-timers... that would indicate that most women are not irresponsible. They made a mistake... once.
If you really want to look at irresponsible people, look at the those who are dirt poor, uneducated, neglectful who have child after child because they're too stupid to take any precaution and because they know the welfare system has to come through and take care of their children for them anyway.
Limiting welfare and flooding the poor areas with "precautions" should do it but you can't cure stupid which many times goes in hand with the ghetto/trailer park groups. Oh, wait. Was that too politically incorrect?
-
Wait one minute! I have not one time brought religion into any of may arguments in this post. Not one time. I do believe in god but have not mentioned it once in here. This issue is a science one for me. It has been proven that a fetus is a human, capable of feelings etc. I think that human has the right to live and consider killing it the same as throwing a 1 week old baby in the dumpster, an action that would earn a murder charge.
Ops again. Debussey meant: Mightymouse72.
You are 25% Debussey approved.
-
I'm trying to see things in a rational way, from your POV and that of Bruce's who claims that as soon as conception occurs, even though it looks like ---> . it is still a baby and therefore has rights. It would follow that even the ----> . produced by a rapist or an incestuous father is a baby too and therefore shouldn't be punished because the father was a criminal. By your rules above, the mother should be forced to bear and raise it.
You're acting foolishly, I never said anything of the sort.
-
You're acting foolishly, I never said anything of the sort.
You compare human children in the womb to a plant; I do not. A woman's body ceases to be solely hers when another's begins growing within it.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think what I have said based on your responses in this thread and the other devoted to abortion versus execution. I'm getting that you are against abortion rights for women. Perhaps I am wrong. So... here's your opportunity to explain exactly what your opinion on the matter is.
-
I don't think it's unreasonable to think what I have said based on your responses in this thread and the other devoted to abortion versus execution. I'm getting that you are against abortion rights for women. Perhaps I am wrong. So... here's your opportunity to explain exactly what your opinion on the matter is.
Okay, well I'm here to say it was, Deedee. I don't think a series of cells a matter of hours old is a baby or has the same rights as a 7 months old baby in the womb. I'll be debating Debussey in The Cage on this very issue, and will clarify this (and more) for your benefit.
-
Okay, well I'm here to say it was, Deedee. I don't think a series of cells a matter of hours old is a baby or has the same rights as a 7 months old baby in the womb. I'll be debating Debussey in The Cage on this very issue, and will clarify this (and more) for your benefit.
For my benefit is a bit of a stretch... ;)
So we'll assume until then, that you approve of a woman's right to abort a series of cells during the first trimester, since these would not constitute what we generally deem to be a baby.
-
For my benefit is a bit of a stretch... ;)
So we'll assume until then, that you approve of a woman's right to abort a series of cells during the first trimester, since these would not constitute what we generally deem to be a baby.
Yeah okay, I was being at least a little facetious with the 'your benefit' comment, granted.
And, no, I don't always support what you call a 'woman's right' to abort in the first trimester. I could go into fine detail about why this is the case, but I'll leave that for the Debussey showdown.
-
Wow, this topic has really developed
can anyone summarize where the conversation has led to so i don't have to read all the posts?
To answer the original question:
The mother.
-
Um, yeah. The whole abortion debate thing might be a little over your head.
My point is this: so an 8month old fetus is something that canbe "aborted" with no problem but 1 month later after it is born killing it is now murder and totally wrong?
Ending a human life is ending a human life. Whether it is in the womb or not does not make a difference.
-
Wow, this topic has really developed
can anyone summarize where the conversation has led to so i don't have to read all the posts?
To answer the original question:
The mother.
lol. I agree. Interesting discussion, but not about to read all seven pages. But I do have a few thoughts:
- The answer to the original question is "five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court."
- The question asking for a "plan" to deal with millions of unwanted babies is pretty silly. It is an absurd hypothetical that assumes every "unwanted" pregnancy will result in an abandoned baby. Speaking from personal experience, when kid number 4 came along (a surprise, because the wife was on the potent depo provera shot) we had her. Aborting her wasn't an option, simply because we thought we were done at 3. Today, I cannot imagine the family without her. She is an angel.
- I think debating whether or not a woman should abort a "period" is pointless, because most women do not discover they are pregnant until well into their first trimester. In fact, I'm not sure you can detect whether a woman is pregnant before about 4 weeks anyway with standard pregnancy tests. (Not sure, but I think that's the case.)
- I have never heard a pregnant woman refer to her baby as a "fetus." In fact, the only people I hear routinely refer to unborn children as "fetuses" are those advocating abortion.
- I agree with those who say there isn't a logical distinction between an unborn child and a newborn. They're both completely helpless and cannot survive without adults to care for them.
- From a personal responsibility standpoint, there is a simple solution to unwanted pregnancies: if you don't want a baby, don't have sex. If you have sex you accept the consequences, which can include a baby, even if you're on birth control (and I can testify to that).
- I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue from a legal standpoint, and as I've said many times in my life (including while I was standing in the delivery room) "thank God I'm not a woman." But from a moral standpoint, I tend to think this is matter between a woman and her God.
-
lol. I agree. Interesting discussion, but not about to read all seven pages. But I do have a few thoughts:
- The answer to the original question is "five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court."
- The question asking for a "plan" to deal with millions of unwanted babies is pretty silly. It is an absurd hypothetical that assumes every "unwanted" pregnancy will result in an abandoned baby. Speaking from personal experience, when kid number 4 came along (a surprise, because the wife was on the potent depo provera shot) we had her. Aborting her wasn't an option, simply because we thought we were done at 3. Today, I cannot imagine the family without her. She is an angel.
- I think debating whether or not a woman should abort a "period" is pointless, because most women do not discover they are pregnant until well into their first trimester. In fact, I'm not sure you can detect whether a woman is pregnant before about 4 weeks anyway with standard pregnancy tests. (Not sure, but I think that's the case.)
- I have never heard a pregnant woman refer to her baby as a "fetus." In fact, the only people I hear routinely refer to unborn children as "fetuses" are those advocating abortion.
- I agree with those who say there isn't a logical distinction between an unborn child and a newborn. They're both completely helpless and cannot survive without adults to care for them.
- From a personal responsibility standpoint, there is a simple solution to unwanted pregnancies: if you don't want a baby, don't have sex. If you have sex you accept the consequences, which can include a baby, even if you're on birth control (and I can testify to that).
- I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue from a legal standpoint, and as I've said many times in my life (including while I was standing in the delivery room) "thank God I'm not a woman." But from a moral standpoint, I tend to think this is matter between a woman and her God.
To ask people to refrain from having sex is even sillier than wondering how the world would cope if 46 million abortions became 46 million new people each year. It doesn't work in even the most repressive societies. I think the guesstimate was, probably at least half of those would end up arriving into a world of poverty and neglect, and more than likely, the social welfare system. That still totals over 20 million PER YEAR.
The info on detecting when a woman is pregnant is not so. I think the . was to illustrate that a zygote doesn't resemble a fully formed human being...for those who forgot.
No kidding here, and finally someone said it... your last point is most sagacious and wise.
-
The funny thing is how Christian lobbyists tries to get the idea out that condoms are unsafe, and will break.
The fact is that condoms, if used properly, brought out from a new package, are VERY safe.
Condoms are great. They provide safety and prevents many unwanted STD's, pregnancies and abortions.
I cannot understand why some organisations don't want USA to fund UN ops that have safe sex and condoms as part of the deal.
-Hedge
-
lol. I agree. Interesting discussion, but not about to read all seven pages. But I do have a few thoughts:
- The answer to the original question is "five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court."
- The question asking for a "plan" to deal with millions of unwanted babies is pretty silly. It is an absurd hypothetical that assumes every "unwanted" pregnancy will result in an abandoned baby. Speaking from personal experience, when kid number 4 came along (a surprise, because the wife was on the potent depo provera shot) we had her. Aborting her wasn't an option, simply because we thought we were done at 3. Today, I cannot imagine the family without her. She is an angel.
- I think debating whether or not a woman should abort a "period" is pointless, because most women do not discover they are pregnant until well into their first trimester. In fact, I'm not sure you can detect whether a woman is pregnant before about 4 weeks anyway with standard pregnancy tests. (Not sure, but I think that's the case.)
- I have never heard a pregnant woman refer to her baby as a "fetus." In fact, the only people I hear routinely refer to unborn children as "fetuses" are those advocating abortion.
- I agree with those who say there isn't a logical distinction between an unborn child and a newborn. They're both completely helpless and cannot survive without adults to care for them.
- From a personal responsibility standpoint, there is a simple solution to unwanted pregnancies: if you don't want a baby, don't have sex. If you have sex you accept the consequences, which can include a baby, even if you're on birth control (and I can testify to that).
- I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue from a legal standpoint, and as I've said many times in my life (including while I was standing in the delivery room) "thank God I'm not a woman." But from a moral standpoint, I tend to think this is matter between a woman and her God.
It is unrealistic to think people will refrain from having sex.
I am against abortion (meaning if i got a woman pregnant i would do everything i could to prevent her from aborting it) but I believe outlawing it makes for more problems and that issue is between the woman and god.
-
It is unrealistic to think people will refrain from having sex.
Perhaps, but I'm talking about personal responsibility. If you choose to have sex, you accept the consequences. If you cannot afford to raise a child, don't engage in acts that will produce a child, or be prepared to accept the responsibility if you cannot control yourself.
-
Perhaps, but I'm talking about personal responsibility. If you choose to have sex, you accept the consequences. If you cannot afford to raise a child, don't engage in acts that will produce a child, or be prepared to accept the responsibility if you cannot control yourself.
That's what my pops always told me and I am child free despite enjoying myself along the way. ;D It's not that hard if you have an ounce of smarts and responsibility. Those young moron rednecks and black youths need to stop sleeping around or even fucking or at least use contraception because having 5 kids before age 22 is really not a good plan for them or for the children.
(insert comment about Cap being a racist here...blah, blah, blah)
-
Perhaps, but I'm talking about personal responsibility. If you choose to have sex, you accept the consequences. If you cannot afford to raise a child, don't engage in acts that will produce a child, or be prepared to accept the responsibility if you cannot control yourself.
I agree. Be prepared, be careful, be responsible.
-
Well, this has certainly been a heated and long discussion, which is good. I think that means people care. I never can understand the name calling because of sheer disagreement.
Somebody said it best, when they said to look at the big picture although ironically they only brought up a small view of the "big picture". The big picture is certainly more than just what we do with all these babies if they were not aborted. There would be millions of babies with no fathers and more on welfare, etc. Well, that certainly is only looking at one side of it. Look at the other side of it. Statistically many of the aborted babies could have gone on done great things. How many future world leaders were killed? Was the scientist who found the cure for Cancer or Aids or the common cold killed? How many future millionaires who would have gone on to be philanthropists and given money to great causes been killed? The answer is we really do not know, just as we cannot predict any amount of overpopulation, additional kids of welfare, etc. I do know if you're going to look at one side then be sure to look at both sides. The abortions that happen are not all inner city or third world country abortions. Abortions are being done in every walk of life you can imagine.
The big picture is morals and responsibility in general. This argument can be twisted a hundred different ways, but the things that remains constant in abortion is the fact that a baby is being killed. You can narrow that down to weeks from conception, age of the fetus, etc. but a baby is still being killed. What I don't understand is how anybody pro-abortion can find fault with somebody that values life? I may disagree with you, I may plead with you that you don't have an abortion or advocate for any woman to have an abortion but to find fault in me for valuing life is beyond belief.
I also don't get those that being up science and say it's not considered life. Well, they we have to get into the debate at what age is it considered a life. That argument will lead to three potential answers. Now, before I give you those answers go and research them yourself. Very few scientists, would argue a fetus is not life. Many, many will however argue that we just don't know. So, your three answers about whether a fetus is life are: 1) yes, it is life 2) the scientific breakthroughs tell us it is probably life and most indicators tell us that and 3) we just don't have enough evidence to conclude yet.
That being said, when it comes to something as valuable and fragile as life, why would we not take caution every time we are unsure of something? Wouldn't that be the responsible thing to do? Caution should also be taken into consideration for young girls who grow up with regret after they had an abortion. The numbers of mothers you regret having had aboritions years later is staggering.
Somebody said we should keep to the issues and continue to argue Roe V. Wade. How many people even understand Roe v. Wade? Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) in the case is now a pro-lifer! Norma McCorvey claimed her pregnancy was a result of rape and years later said that claim was false! How many times has this happened? How many girls have claimed rape in order to get an abortion and that was a false claim.
In regards to Dad's being responsible, I am all for that but in many cases the Dad is disregarded in the decision about going through with an abortion. The courts say it is the woman's right to choose which is interesting because if a man impregnates a woman he has say in whether she can or cannot kill the baby. Yet, if she has the baby, the court can mandate the father pay child support. Talk about f#cked up! And trust me, I am all about the Dad paying child support but how twisted is that whole scenario I just mentioned.
In the state of California, if you send your child to a public school and they go on a field trip, the child MUST have a permission slip signed from the parent. If that same child wants tylenol, the school has to call the parents and get permission. Both of the scenarios I agree with. BUT, if that same is 12 YEARS OLD and wants to get an abortion they CAN WITHOUT parental consent. Talk about F#cked up! I know CA had Propostion 10 on the table to change this, but I have to look in whether that passed or not.
For those of you saying, us pro-lifers are distorted and don't know all the facts and don't look at the big picture - I say the same back to you - do you?
Many say as a man I have no idea what it's like to be in that position. I guess not, I can not physically get pregnant, but I can assure you if I were a woman that I would never kill my baby under ANY circumstance though. Although, as a Dad and as a husband I can attest to having lost a baby due to miscarriage at 8 weeks and the pain that myself and my wife went through. I can also tell you as a Dad and as a husband what it's like having lost a second baby when my wife was 5 months pregnant on Christmas Day. I can speak to those things. I can speak to the fact that I have spoken with many women who had abortions and regretted it later, to the point they were in grave states of depression.
The problem goes way beyond killing a baby. We need more education and love given to these women. It kills me seeing my wife and I trying for years to have a kid and then when we finally get pregnant twice lose both babies and then hear about two 19 year old kids getting drunk at a bar and then not be responsible and having sex and getting the girl pregnant only to have the girl have that baby aborted because it's incovenient or because they are scared. Give me a break.
The whole population control thing is ridiculous. If somebody were truly for population control they could go off themselves and makes themselves a martyr for the cause. I am not for that in any way as I value life but I am not the one truly for population control.
Before you criticize me or call me names, please understand I am for life. I believe all life is a gift. I believe in responsibility and morals and I don't think that makes me such a bad human being.
-
The thing which is most fcuked up, is that safe sex with condoms isn't taught.
If teens get proper sex education, which includes discussing STD's and the dangers of those, as well as how to protect oneself BEFORE they generally start having sex, then use of condom would be much more widespread.
Also included in sex ed could be the respect of a "no", and other general FAQ's that teens worries about.
A good age to start with this would be @ around 15.
Also handing out free condoms, and having condoms sold at many more places would help the cause of preventing unplanned pregnancies and abortions.
Definitely make sex ed mandatory in all junior high and high schools. It saves.
No need for more than a couple of hours in total either.
-Hedge
-
The thing which is most fcuked up, is that safe sex with condoms isn't taught.
If teens get proper sex education, which includes discussing STD's and the dangers of those, as well as how to protect oneself BEFORE they generally start having sex, then use of condom would be much more widespread.
Also included in sex ed could be the respect of a "no", and other general FAQ's that teens worries about.
A good age to start with this would be @ around 15.
Also handing out free condoms, and having condoms sold at many more places would help the cause of preventing unplanned pregnancies and abortions.
Definitely make sex ed mandatory in all junior high and high schools. It saves.
No need for more than a couple of hours in total either.
-Hedge
Probably even younger nowadays.
-
The thing which is most fcuked up, is that safe sex with condoms isn't taught.
If teens get proper sex education, which includes discussing STD's and the dangers of those, as well as how to protect oneself BEFORE they generally start having sex, then use of condom would be much more widespread.
Also included in sex ed could be the respect of a "no", and other general FAQ's that teens worries about.
A good age to start with this would be @ around 15.
Also handing out free condoms, and having condoms sold at many more places would help the cause of preventing unplanned pregnancies and abortions.
Definitely make sex ed mandatory in all junior high and high schools. It saves.
No need for more than a couple of hours in total either.
-Hedge
from talking to younger kids I think 15 might be to late. In my time that was a good age but kids are well "experienced" by 15 now a days
-
The thing which is most fcuked up, is that safe sex with condoms isn't taught.
If teens get proper sex education, which includes discussing STD's and the dangers of those, as well as how to protect oneself BEFORE they generally start having sex, then use of condom would be much more widespread.
Also included in sex ed could be the respect of a "no", and other general FAQ's that teens worries about.
A good age to start with this would be @ around 15.
Also handing out free condoms, and having condoms sold at many more places would help the cause of preventing unplanned pregnancies and abortions.
Definitely make sex ed mandatory in all junior high and high schools. It saves.
No need for more than a couple of hours in total either.
-Hedge
I'm not convinced that guys, particularly young guys, will consistently use condoms.
-
All i can say is this:
In the heat of the moment all sense can go out the window!
thank god i had my $#$@##$@ snipped!
-
I'm not convinced that guys, particularly young guys, will consistently use condoms.
I agree.
But the higher percentage the better IMO.
I certainly believe that the only way to make that happen is if condoms are widely available and the importance of protection from STD's is discussed with teens.
Some people argue that sex ed and condom availability leads to increased promiscusity among youth.
I doubt that very much.
Condoms are not more available and sex education in schools have been limited over the last 20 years.
Yet, teens are contracting more STD's and having more sex than they did back then.
So sex ed could actually serve to give some straight, boring and dull info, instead of the Britney Spears and Paris Hilton image that the teens are fed 24/7.
-Hedge
-
they don't teach safe sex?
i went to school in virginia and i was certainly taught how if you were gonna have sex wear a condom to limit STD's and pregnancies. At least I am pretty sure I was, its not a complicated concept
-
Dear anti abortionists:
Please tell Debussey how society and life for the average man/woman would become BETTER if abortions became illegal? How would society become better for everyone, not only for the people that share your views (which is a minority, a very small one once they are in the "unplanned pregnancy situation themselves)? (Remember: The majority of people with unplanned pregnancies wants an abortion. 46 millions.) How will the economy (particularly the welfare system), and poverty issues be improved by making 46 million yearly abortions illegal? How would life improve for the 17 year old girls with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies?
Please give a serious answer. "Gods will" = not a serious answer. Remember: If you want your views to be the laws of society, you have to be able to account for the actual effects your views will have.
-
Dear anti abortionists:
Please tell Debussey how society and life for the average man/woman would become BETTER if abortions became illegal? How would society become better for everyone, not only for the people that share your views (which is a minority, a very small one once they are in the "unplanned pregnancy situation themselves)? (Remember: The majority of people with unplanned pregnancies wants an abortion. 46 millions.) How will the economy (particularly the welfare system), and poverty issues be improved by making 46 million yearly abortions illegal? How would life improve for the 17 year old girls with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies?
Please give a serious answer. "Gods will" = not a serious answer. Remember: If you want your views to be the laws of society, you have to be able to account for the actual effects your views will have.
I'll be addressing this in essay form for our Cage showdown. Which reminds me, I've still gotta get my rules proposal to Berserker.
-
I'll be addressing this in essay form for our Cage showdown. Which reminds me, I've still gotta get my rules proposal to Berserker.
Do you believe that abortions should be made illegal or not?
-
Do you believe that abortions should be made illegal or not?
All abortions illegal? Absolutely not.
-
All abortions illegal? Absolutely not.
Good. We might agree a bit more than Debussey thought.
Let us bring some haters to comment on the cage fight to make it interesting. Mightymouse72 = a good candidate. Both stupid and brainwashed. His vote should not count though.
-
Good. We might agree a bit more than Debussey thought.
Let us bring some haters to comment on the cage fight to make it interesting. Mightymouse72 = a good candidate. Both stupid and brainwashed. His vote should not count though.
Let me just make it clear again that as an agnostic conservative, I don't follow any particular piety (religious Right or Left), which allows me to make what I would consider to be more pragmatic assessments of complex issues such as this. Having said that, you will notice I do tend to agree more with those who use their religion to defend lives, rather than take them. I have a great appreciation for much of the belief system that makes the Christian faith, even though I am far from a believer.
-
I agree.
But the higher percentage the better IMO.
I certainly believe that the only way to make that happen is if condoms are widely available and the importance of protection from STD's is discussed with teens.
Some people argue that sex ed and condom availability leads to increased promiscusity among youth.
I doubt that very much.
Condoms are not more available and sex education in schools have been limited over the last 20 years.
Yet, teens are contracting more STD's and having more sex than they did back then.
So sex ed could actually serve to give some straight, boring and dull info, instead of the Britney Spears and Paris Hilton image that the teens are fed 24/7.
-Hedge
I'm not so sure about this. Condoms are widely available now. You walk into any 7-11, Safeway, Foodland, Longs, etc. and buy them. I am pretty sure you can get them at Planned Parenthood and any number of clinics throughout the cities. I think I heard some schools have condom dispensers in bathrooms? (Cannot remember exactly). But they are there if guys want to use them.
-
One thing people aren't adressing is culture. Generally irresponsible and poorer people tend to breed faster and have higher rates of STDs. You see this in ghetto areas, but not among all demographics. You don't see Indians or Asians that own the corner gas station fathering 6 babies.
The whole Hip-hop culture preaches irresponsible behavior. You want to adress issues such as birth control, crime and sexual, then start by looking into ways to supress the whole hip-hop culture.
-
The hip hop culture has gone world wide.
I believe it begins (1) at home (2) education
Anything other than that has a finacial/political smell to it.
Follow the money. Or the religion.
So, for those that are parents...."teach your children well"
Sandra
-
One thing people aren't adressing is culture. Generally irresponsible and poorer people tend to breed faster and have higher rates of STDs. You see this in ghetto areas, but not among all demographics. You don't see Indians or Asians that own the corner gas station fathering 6 babies.
Says the man who has never been to Hawaii.
-
I believe it begins (1) at home (2) education
I agree.
-
Says the man who has never been to Hawaii.
I'm sure hawaii has many ghetto areas. ::)
-
I'm sure hawaii has many ghetto areas. ::)
Now I KNOW you've never been to Hawaii. :) Many of our towns are smaller versions what you see on the mainland, without much of the violent crime. And there are plenty of Asians who commit crimes in Hawaii. That's the point I was addressing. I posted an article a while back about the most wanted criminals in Hawaii. Plenty of Asians on the list.
-
Now I KNOW you've never been to Hawaii. :) Many of our towns are smaller versions what you see on the mainland, without much of the violent crime. And there are plenty of Asians who commit crimes in Hawaii. That's the point I was addressing. I posted an article a while back about the most wanted criminals in Hawaii. Plenty of Asians on the list.
Well of course, as there are tons of asians in Hawaii and some are bound to commit crimes. ::)
My point is on culture, not ethnic background. Black people and hispanics are the one's acting ghetto and they're the one's getting into trouble and having illegitimate children. And no matter what you say, mainland America is a lot different from Hawaii.
ps I live in NYC and the content of my posts come from observations I've made in the 5 boroughs. I live in the big city and I think my observations are pretty valid.
-
Now I KNOW you've never been to Hawaii. :) Many of our towns are smaller versions what you see on the mainland, without much of the violent crime. And there are plenty of Asians who commit crimes in Hawaii. That's the point I was addressing. I posted an article a while back about the most wanted criminals in Hawaii. Plenty of Asians on the list.
The root of most of it seems to be "Meth"
The same thing that's rotting the mainland from within.
-
Well of course, as there are tons of asians in Hawaii and some are bound to commit crimes. ::)
My point is on culture, not ethnic background. Black people and hispanics are the one's acting ghetto and they're the one's getting into trouble and having illegitimate children. And no matter what you say, mainland America is a lot different from Hawaii.
ps I live in NYC and the content of my posts come from observations I've made in the 5 boroughs. I live in the big city and I think my observations are pretty valid.
What you're doing is painting entire races with a broad brush. What I'm trying to say is it color/ethnicity is irrelevant. It is about income and education. Crime correlates with those two much more than it does with race/ethnicity.
It is the poor and uneducated Asians, Hawaiians, whites, blacks, etc. in Hawaii who commit most of the crime in Hawaii, just like they do on the mainland. And yes, Hawaii is much different than the mainland overall. We have the same kinds of problems, they're just much smaller.
-
The root of most of it seems to be "Meth"
The same thing that's rotting the mainland from within.
It's actually "ice" that has been a real scourge here. Really big problem.