stealthedscout

im neutral in this matter. it can be good and bad depending on perception. if your a stritch religous person you should be all out against it but on the contrary, who is nowadays /:

my reasoning is actualy realy simmilar to furanshisu, my litle addition is that just about everything a man does is killing of a potential life, but in the end 1,000,000 or so odd sperm come out durring... ahem... ***, and its only 1 or 2 of the million, ovulation is basicly the same thing.

zintos... just wondering but where did you get this information about sucking out the brains of baby's and feet are flailing. it sounds an awful lot like on of those movies that anti abortionists show to scare mothers out of it, i dont even think that abortion clinc's allow abortions after 22 weeks or so because it's dammaging to the bodies reproductive systems. also i'm not 100% sure on the conept of birth control pills but it's either they make it so the sperm and egg dont go together or that the egg is discharched from the body after fertilization.

i don't have anything against you at all or your moral judgment or am trying to convince you of anything, im just eger to here your oppinion and say my facts

Samurai02008

stealthedscout, What Zintos is refering to is how the abortion was originally done. And no it was not something made by anti abortionists in movies to scare expectant mothers out of abortions. That is exactly how they originally performed abortions. Now they have ways to do it that makes it less messy but the end result is the same. The baby dies.

__________________

Thanks Autumn Averice for the sig.




Greeeaaat, the Juvenile Delinquent and the Narcoliptic transfer student are bonding. ~Tokyo Majin~

stealthedscout

rather be called stealth or stealthed for short.

didn't know that, i'll be honest here and tell you that i don't have as much knowledge on this topic as many others around me, so all im realy doing in this topic is gathering information for later use. thats what forums are for eh ^^

Samurai02008

Stealth, no prob. I hope I didnt sound like I was coming down to hard on ya. This subject is just really touchy for me. I guess because at a young age I figured out what abortion was by finding a book that explained what abortionists do. So please forgive me if I came off sounding rude.

__________________

Thanks Autumn Averice for the sig.




Greeeaaat, the Juvenile Delinquent and the Narcoliptic transfer student are bonding. ~Tokyo Majin~

Ya-chan

Well i think that Abortion isint a crime, though i live in a country that it IS illegall, i think it should be legal. I know a girl from a other school that i am in but she is almost same age as me (She's 14) and she's allready pregnant. Her whole life has been ruined, cause she couldn't take a abort and she hasen't finished school yet. When she gets older it will be very hard for her to get a job. And the father of the child doesn't even care, he just left her alone with a baby. So feel really sorry for her Imagine, how she feels, a girl at 14, all alone, with a baby coming soon...

__________________

My Personality. =D

Currently watching:

Naruto Shippuuden
Junjou Romantica
Code Geass R2
Bleach

Latest Render (Updated 7/10)

Spoiler

A real render this time, lol.

Ambellyn

You really have to consider the factors in this one. It really should be a free choice to do it. The main question is: Why should men (since in most cases men have the majority in a government or a political party) decide what women want to do with what they do with their bodies? Should not that be a question for women to decide on themselves?

__________________
"You dodged my attack and kicked me ten times?!?!?!?"
"12 times."
"Are you secretly super strong?!?!?!?"
"No...you're just super weak."

Samurai02008

So basically your saying that the weight of the responsibility that the father through out should be held over that baby just by giving it an abortion, correct? Thats not right to the baby. Its not the babies fault that it was born. I also had a friend who was 13 when she got pregnant but she realized that she made her choice when she found out she was pregnant. And she was able to continue going to school. Your friend could probably do the same. But to say that your friends life was ruined because she could not get an abort is nothing more than holding that responsibility over the babies head. Thats like the mother walking up to the child and saying "You ruined my whole life just because you were born." Thats just wrong. You might as well just put a gun barrel to the kids head and pull the trigger, because I garuentee that sort of thing will destroy a kids heart.

__________________

Thanks Autumn Averice for the sig.




Greeeaaat, the Juvenile Delinquent and the Narcoliptic transfer student are bonding. ~Tokyo Majin~

Skotophagotis

Hm, to continue my argument from earlier to Samurai: I feel that saying its bad to abortion when you admit that babies only have natural instincts is disagreeing with killing animals.
I don't disagree with animal death, but I surely don't eat any of the stuff (Meaning I don't care if people eat meat). I know no one really eats babies, even though it apparently was an internet fad some time ago to joke about it. So, people that eat meat and disagree with abortions seem like hypocrites to me, although I don't know who (if anyone) eats meat on this forum. Ideally, the only people that actually have a case against abortion should be vegetarians that fight for animal rights too. I have no right against abortion if that's the case.
Yet, since ideal things like that isn't happening, I'll go for that the women should be in charge with some input from the father (Depending).

I think Ambellyn's answer is good, yet most governments are there to control people's live except maybe Socialism (IF it would actually work out to becoming that classless society). So, as awesome as it sounds that "Oh, let the women decide" its very improbable... especially in America.

To Ya-Chan, I used to live in a town, small rural town, where on average by 7th grade half the women are already begot with child. Most of those women from there would easily get two or three more by time they were supposed to be in high school. The school provided them a means of education where they could also learn how to parent and get at least a GED for work. Although, they were treated like outcasts, they had their own portables, etc. So, its really all about the government funding about women being "all alone" with a child. Although I feel it could be a waste of money on the government's behalf if most women wanted abortions so they can live on their life normally.

I feel like I've babbled a lot, so... I'm still for abortions, but I'm one of those people that switches sides in an argument to make close-minded people see things clearer, but I'm not saying anyone is close-minded (Everyone is very open <3). But essentially, what I said is it would be awesome if the government would just let the women decide, and even provide education to women deciding to keep the baby, but it seems very much impossible unless the government system in a country is actually living up to its namesake.

stealthedscout

no problem samurai.

you put up valid and good points anyhow

KosherKrackers

With that said, perhaps the country in question ought to allow abortion in cases such as the mentioned one, it isn't the mothers fault.

Anyone can say that people having se*x ought to accept the responsibility for their actions, and yet we live in a society where people make thousands on frivolous lawsuits against fast food chains due to spilling their coffee on themselves, or against soft drink corporations for making them fat. We live in a society that is currently built around the scapegoat, and you're choosing to protest only this particular part of it.

I can understand your reasons, and I may disagree, but if the responsibility, knowing the risks, etc, etc, applies to this, it applies to everything, and the society we live in nullifies that argument.

In case you hadn't guessed, I'm all for abortion, at least in the embrionic and early fetal stages, I'm not convinced it's justified in the later stages, but I wouldn't deny someone the choice for the simple reason of it being there body.

And until it's removed, don't kid yourselves thinking it's a seperate one, yes, it may well be able to exist outside the host, but while in the womb it's connected to the mother, is sustained by the nutrients in her blood, ingested by her food, it does not breathe, it absorbs the oxygen it needs directly from her bloodstream, and while it may produce blood, it's certainly not its own blood, as where does it go afterwards? That's right, straight back up to the mother.

While in the womb the fetus behaves like a tumour or a parasite, human beings do not gain nourishment and oxygen directly from a host body.

With that said, placing all irrational morality aside, is it not logical that we ought have the right to flush parasites and tumour from ourselves if we deem fit? Is it not our body?

=FPS=

abortion is a crime but its not on us to judge its on God & if God don't exist well who cares then


do u say that then women shouldn't be asked about lets say war? cozz we all know that majority of warriors are men even if war affects women as well as men

__________________
When the time draws near for the chosen ones
To fall on the blood stained fields
Then Death will grant us a place amongst
Our fathers in the Hall Of Bronzen Shields

sig made by sÖph

Samurai02008

Ok first off abortion and frivolous lawsuits are two completely different things. And unless fast food restaraunts or soft drink corporations became living things, this is completely off topic.

So this is whats its come down to huh, calling the baby a parasite as long as it is inside the mothers womb. Ok, you say that while inside the mothers womb its completely part of the mothers body just because everything that happens goes straight back to the mother. Then how do you explain the fact that its heart beats of its own accord. It moves of its own accord. Please explain this to me. And to answer your last question "Is it not our body?" Here is my response. Our body is our body and the babies body is a babies body. They are completely seperate from conseption to birth!

__________________

Thanks Autumn Averice for the sig.




Greeeaaat, the Juvenile Delinquent and the Narcoliptic transfer student are bonding. ~Tokyo Majin~

KosherKrackers

Admittedly they are a touch off centre, but my analogy was not with the things themselves, but with the underlying lack of responsibility demonstrated by these common practices, and regardless of whether or not the topics themselves have anything to do with it, the lack of connection between action and consequence in todays society stands firm, they are merely a demonstration of that.

And they are indeed applicable to that aspect of this discussion.

Point to where my reasoning is flawed please, rather than simply dismissing it on a whim because it suits you.

I fail to see how this makes it an entity seperate to a parasite, point me to a macroscopic parastical organism that does not move of its own accord, that does not have a beating heart, that does not rely on the host for nourishment.

Parasite: Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Now, where exactly does a fetus differ from the definition in any way but potential?

Of course, that's what it comes down to, potential. A fetus has the potential to become a human being, a parasite does not, however, if we modelled our perceptions on potential rather than reality, well, you wouldn't keep matches around the house, or lighters, as they have the potential to cause a house fire. You wouldn't drive, as that has the potential to cause brain damage to people who may inhale the fumes.

It's all rather silly to model things on potential when that potential doesn't end with a human, isn't it?

A baby and a fetus are two very, very different things, for someone so hung up on pedantry, and remaining on the point, you've rather let yourself slip here.

I could well say that ponies are made of candyfloss and that the sun is in fact a 1000000000000000000000000000 watt lightbulb that burns out everyday, hence nighttime, and is replaced in the morning.

What one says is irrelevant if you have nothing reasonable to offer to back it up, putting aside the "Yeah, but it could be a human one day!" whinging and moral silliness, point me to what differentiates it from a parasite before it's born, because otherwise, you're simply arguing opinion, and by making abortion illegal, forcing your own on everyone else, damned be the consequences.

jerry

"Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of DIFFERENT species" (Wikapedia). A parasite is there as an infection or disease a fetus is there as reproduction. To argue that a fetus is nothing more than a parasite is to argue absurdly. A tape worm is a parasite. A flea is a parasite. However neither of these things can be considered any thing close to a fetus (baby). The only difference between the fetus (the unborn baby) and a baby that is born is one of devolopment. The difference between a parasite and its host is altogether different. How can you claim that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Does this mean that when you were a fetus that you were a parasite?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

KosherKrackers

"Some anglerfishes of the superfamily Ceratiidae employ an unusual mating method. Since individuals are presumably locally rare and encounters doubly so, finding a mate is problematic. When scientists first started capturing ceratioid anglerfish, they noticed that all of the specimens were females. These individuals were a few inches in size and almost all of them had what appeared to be parasites attached to them. It turned out that these "parasites" were the remains of male ceratioids."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglerfish

The only reason your quote exists is due to parasitism among the same species being, outside the womb at least, unique to the anglerfish as far as I'm aware.

And why not exactly? Because they lack a spirit? Because they have no potential to become a human being? Because they're below us on the evolutionary ladder?

Irregardless of their genetics or species, there are indeed still organic lifeforms, much the same as a fetus.

Not so with the anglerfish, and not so with the fetus, the concept of the fetus as a parasite is a largely controversial one, and, due to irrational people, would spark a great deal of protest and debate, the definition of how a parasite behaves however, fits the fetal stage perfectly. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but once again, you're arguing for potential.

Because what something is, and what something can be, are two very different things, a concept you seem incapable of wrapping your head around no mattr how many times I state it, or in what ways I phrase it.

To put it bluntly and concisely; Yes.

I have no delusions about what I was, and as a fetus I was the same as every other, and I was indeed a parasite also.

In Chemical Chance,
Kosher Krackers.