Abortion.

Hepheastus420

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
ganjames said:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/overpopulation/overpopulation.html
like i said before, there are no longer enough resources to provide for everyone.. and it can only get worse.


that's pretty much it, what good will bringing more people into the world do? keep up the fucking and popping out kids, this is their future:
Click to expand...
That's crazy, I wasn't aborted (obviously) and I don't look like them. You don't look like them either, so every kid can be healthy. Seriously, if I had a kid and was poor as shit. And couldn't afford food, I would grow my own food outside in a garden. Anything to keep the kid healthy. I do feel bad for those kids though, but it's not that there istoo many kids, it's that we don't feed them. Like seriously how much food do us Americans eat that we don't need? A SHIT LOAD of wasted food that could have helped those kids. I mean like one obese person can keep some of those kids in good condition.
 
Hepheastus420

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
[rant]

Pro-choice.

I don't think abortion should be used as a contraceptive - but shit happens, and if 2 people aren't ready for a kid what good is it going to do to force them to do a shitty job raising a child? A child deserves to have loving parents.... not parents that were guilt-tripped into keeping a kid when they're so obviously not responsible enough/not ready/too young/were a victim of a crime/etc etc etc....

Everyone who says abortion is wrong should be forced to adopt 6 children that would have been aborted.... lol


If anti-abortionist's are really looking for moral high ground their time would be better spent taking care of orphans instead of picketing/bombing/vandalizing abortion clinics. If an appeal to morality is really their stance, then show some fucking moral fiber and do something that actually makes a difference instead of appeasing petty religious views.


[/rant]
Click to expand...
Why should we be punished for someone else's mistakes? Besides there's always adoption, you don't have to raise the kid.
 
Hepheastus420

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
This is never going to get anywhere.... the distinction between what is "life" is the deciding factor.


I see absolutely zero moral problems with a woman having an abortion because I don't consider a fetus a person.

If you view a fetus as a person, consequently you'll more than likely see abortion as morally objectionable.


Not sure how we resolve the differences between what religious people deem as "life" and what secular people view as "life". (I realize I'm using generalizations in the last sentence, but it mostly articulates my point)
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with religion dude, please don't start an atheist vs religious thread, lol.
This is about moral reasoning. Some believe it's moral some believe it's immoral.
 
Hepheastus420

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
RawBudzski said:
Religion specifically Christianity is the Root of All Evil. Please continue.. .
Click to expand...
Oh man raw's on a mission to start some fighting, lol.
Please people don't thread jack, if you want make a thread entitled "Christianity is EVIL", and I will gladly participate, :).
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Hepheastus420 said:
This has nothing to do with religion dude, please don't start an atheist vs religious thread, lol.
This is about moral reasoning. Some believe it's moral some believe it's immoral.
Click to expand...
Ok, that's definitely fair. But we can't be blind to the fact that religion is a major contributor for that specific moral stance, that would be dishonest.


I do have some questions that may help me understand your position more;

Is the fertilized egg a person as soon as it's fertilized?
If no, at what point does it have enough "person like" qualities to become a person?

If the fertilized egg is a person at conception, how come it shares virtually no similarities to what the general idea of a person is? e.g. Organs, memories etc...

How is it morally wrong to remove something from your body that would die in minutes, or even seconds without being attached to you?

Are you in favor of the state making rules about what you can, and cannot do with your own body?
If yes, are you pro-marijuana legalization? Do you think the state has the right to tell you if you can, or cannot smoke weed?

If the fetus can't survive outside of the woman's body, and is directly sustained from the mother, doesn't it seem more like an organ than a person?

Are you more-or-less against all abortions? Or just late trimester ones?


DISCUSS! lol
 
Hepheastus420

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
Ok, that's definitely fair. But we can't be blind to the fact that religion is a major contributor for that specific moral stance, that would be dishonest.


I do have some questions that may help me understand your position more;

Is the fertilized egg a person as soon as it's fertilized?
If no, at what point does it have enough "person like" qualities to become a person?

If the fertilized egg is a person at conception, how come it shares virtually no similarities to what the general idea of a person is? e.g. Organs, memories etc...

How is it morally wrong to remove something from your body that would die in minutes, or even seconds without being attached to you?

Are you in favor of the state making rules about what you can do with your own body?
If yes, are you pro-marijuana legalization? Do you think the state has the right to tell you if you can, or cannot smoke weed?

If the fetus can't survive outside of the woman's body, and is directly sustained from the mother, doesn't it seem more like an organ than a person?

Are you more-or-less against all abortions? Or just late trimester ones?


DISCUSS! lol
Click to expand...
I'm gonna answer your questions straight forward, I'm probably gonna contradict myself, but please conclude what you will, :).

Is the fertilized egg a person as soon as it's fertilized?
In my opinion that fertilized egg just beat the odds of not being given the chance of life. But in my opinion it is not a person... Yet.
Umm it becomes a person at one of the trimester, lol. I don't know exactly when.


If the fertilized egg is a person at conception....?
It is not a "person" yet, but will soon grow into one. So it doesn't look like one yet, kinda like a cannabis seed.

How is it morally wrong.....?
IMO it is morally wrong because that egg and sperm cell beat the odds of not being given the chance of life, and it is wrong for a person to take away that cells achievement. It is wrong because this fetus has no choice but to rely on the women, but it is only natural to have the baby. But some people don't care about what was meant to happen.

Are you in favor of the state making rules about what you can do with your own body?
Yes, to a certain extent. If you would like me to explain more then please ask.

If yes, are you pro-marijuana legalization?
Yes I am.

Do you think the state has the right...?
No they do not.

If the fetus can't survive....?
It's more like a organ at the moment.

Are you more or less against all abortions?
No, if you want me to explain please ask.

Or just late trimester ones?
IMO they are both equally immoral.

There you have it, :). I can explain alot more through each of my answers, but I'm not sure if you wanted me to or not, lol.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Hepheastus420 said:
I'm gonna answer your questions straight forward, I'm probably gonna contradict myself, but please conclude what you will, :).

Is the fertilized egg a person as soon as it's fertilized?
In my opinion that fertilized egg just beat the odds of not being given the chance of life. But in my opinion it is not a person... Yet.
Umm it becomes a person at one of the trimester, lol. I don't know exactly when.


If the fertilized egg is a person at conception....?
It is not a "person" yet, but will soon grow into one. So it doesn't look like one yet, kinda like a cannabis seed.

How is it morally wrong.....?
IMO it is morally wrong because that egg and sperm cell beat the odds of not being given the chance of life, and it is wrong for a person to take away that cells achievement. It is wrong because this fetus has no choice but to rely on the women, but it is only natural to have the baby. But some people don't care about what was meant to happen.

Are you in favor of the state making rules about what you can do with your own body?
Yes, to a certain extent. If you would like me to explain more then please ask.

If yes, are you pro-marijuana legalization?
Yes I am.

Do you think the state has the right...?
No they do not.

If the fetus can't survive....?
It's more like a organ at the moment.

Are you more or less against all abortions?
No, if you want me to explain please ask.

Or just late trimester ones?
IMO they are both equally immoral.

There you have it, :). I can explain alot more through each of my answers, but I'm not sure if you wanted me to or not, lol.
Click to expand...
Beat the odds? It's 2 cells dude. EVERY living cell beat the odds of not being alive, why not the compassion for your poor liver cells whenever you take a drink, or smoke weed?
Each sperm may have a low chance, but combined the odds are pretty "god damn not too bad".

"Beating the odds" doesn't morally validate something in my opinion. How is that a valid moral qualifier? Can you name any other situation where, "beating the odds", makes something either morally right, or morally wrong?

Are you in favor of the state making rules about what you can do with your own body?
Yes, to a certain extent. If you would like me to explain more then please ask.
Click to expand...
I'm asking. lol

But first, how can the state have no right to tell you what to do with your body on one subject, and not on the other when the two are so very similar?

If the fetus can't survive....?
It's more like a organ at the moment
Click to expand...
There's no situation that I could possibly think of where someone else, ANYONE else, has jurisdiction over one of my organs.


Are you more or less against all abortions?
No, if you want me to explain please ask.
Click to expand...
I read what you said about rape, etc... and I'm glad you agree with abortion under those circumstances. :D


Or just late trimester ones?
IMO they are both equally immoral.
Click to expand...
Late trimester abortions bother me, the baby would have a reasonable chance to survive at that age. However, taking 'the morning after pill', is just a shot of hormones, and the little clump of cells gets passed out. I just don't see how that's immoral....
 
Nusky

Nusky

New Member
if the mother doesn't want the baby in the first place, she's not going to take proper care of it and the kid will grow up to be a misfit if it grows up at all. It's just better to abort it.
 
Prefontaine

Prefontaine

Well-Known Member
Hepheastus420 said:
I'm against it, let the debating begin. no arguing, just good debates.
Click to expand...
i think the real debate to have is at what point does the child's (or future child's) civil rights supercede the right of the mother to choose. I believe you should be able to "take out" an exceptionally misbehaved child right up to 18. anyone else?
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Hepheastus420 said:
Why does everyone ignore adoption?
Click to expand...
No one is ignoring it, but having to carry around a baby for nine months and leave your job (and livelihood) to birth a baby that you don't intend to keep probably seems a bit daunting for some ladies. Having a child can damage the uterus too, making it impossible to have kids at a later date.
 
Hepheastus420

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
Beat the odds? It's 2 cells dude. EVERY living cell beat the odds of not being alive, why not the compassion for your poor liver cells whenever you take a drink, or smoke weed?
Each sperm may have a low chance, but combined the odds are pretty "god damn not too bad".

I'm saying the sperm and egg cells just did a very amazing thing and it is immoral to take that away.

"Beating the odds" doesn't morally validate something in my opinion. How is that a valid moral qualifier? Can you name any other situation where, "beating the odds", makes something either morally right, or morally wrong?

NO, I cannot.

I'm asking. lol

But first, how can the state have no right to tell you what to do with your body on one subject, and not on the other when the two are so very similar?

I believe the state should have laws about your body when it has to do with a whole other life. When you smoke marijuana it doesn't affect anyone besides you, when you abort a fetus you ended a life. They are not similar to each other.
I believe the state should have control over abortion in all trimesters, actually I change my mind. They are doing fine with their laws, it's just I don't agree with the indivual aborting the fetus. The laws are good for certain cases, such as rape victims. All my answers are based on my moral stance.

There's no situation that I could possibly think of where someone else, ANYONE else, has jurisdiction over one of my organs.

You're completely correct. But I'm pretty sure your lungs don't grow into a human (sorry for being a smartass).


I read what you said about rape, etc... and I'm glad you agree with abortion under those circumstances. :D

Yup, I completely agree that rape victims should have a choice.


Late trimester abortions bother me, the baby would have a reasonable chance to survive at that age. However, taking 'the morning after pill', is just a shot of hormones, and the little clump of cells gets passed out. I just don't see how that's immoral....

I see your point and have no argument against it.
Click to expand...
Fuck my computer doesn't let me Multi-quote posts.
 
Hepheastus420

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
No one is ignoring it, but having to carry around a baby for nine months and leave your job (and livelihood) to birth a baby that you don't intend to keep probably seems a bit daunting for some ladies. Having a child can damage the uterus too, making it impossible to have kids at a later date.
Click to expand...
Well not everyone ignores adoption, but like nusky he didn't even suggest adoption. He just went straight for abortion.
 
The Cryptkeeper

The Cryptkeeper

Well-Known Member
Hepheastus420 said:
In your opinion. Are you saying every foster kid is sad?
Click to expand...
What is with you in asking what I'm saying today? I just posted it. Is this the tactic you tend to take on controversial subjects? Don't expect me to play in. :fire:

Are YOU saying that a fetus experiences more cruelty in one instant than another fetus/newborn/toddler/child/adult/senior experiences it's entire existence and THEN dies anyways?

Tough sell.
 
Hepheastus420

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
The Cryptkeeper said:
What is with you in asking what I'm saying today? I just posted it. Is this the tactic you tend to take on controversial subjects? Don't expect me to play in. :fire:

Are YOU saying that a fetus experiences more cruelty in one instant than another fetus/newborn/toddler/child/adult/senior experiences it's entire existence and THEN dies anyways?

Tough sell.
Click to expand...
Dude you quoted me so I felt like I should respond. sorry.
Also I didn't see the "possibly" part, my apologies sir.

I think the fetus grows into a human then the person can live a happy life. It doesn't have to be all cruel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top