Children giving out free lemonade is destroying America

[ch_123]

Abortions should be 100% legal for anyone to do. If you're going to outlaw abortions, you should outlaw body mods like piercings involving dermal punches because living human tissue dies in the process. And outlaw tanning, and outlaw smoking entirely, and drinking, and anything else that kills cells of any kind.

Harming yourself != harming others.

A baby is not, in my opinion, a being with his/her own rights until the cord is cut. Until that time, he or she is a fixed part of the mother's body and it's the mother's decision entirely what happens.

That's a bit of an arbitrary distinction, isn't it?

Sex is about reproduction. If you don't want to have a kid, don't have sex. Simple. Unless somebody raped you, there should be no excuse to have an abortion.

You sure you aren't Irish? You'd make a great Catholic...

[microsoft windows]

They all say a picture says a thousand words.

That there's a late-term abortion. Call that "just cells"?

[ch_123]

That's a picture of a dead baby, not an argument.

Speaking of which, who else has heard of dead baby jokes? I think this thread could do with a few.

[microsoft windows]

No. That's a picture of an aborted fetus.

[kishy]

Harming yourself != harming others.

Ah, but you see, I believe that the child isn't a child yet, and is still part of yourself until physically...um...disconnected.

That's a bit of an arbitrary distinction, isn't it?

Yup, I like those.

[ch_123]

Same thing. Sure looks tasty. Om nom nom.

[wellington1869]

its a crock of **** to post pictures of fetuses as if thats any part of the argument.  By that reckoning, we should post pictures of cancer, and that should dissuade people from having operations to get rid of cancer, cuz, well, any medical operation is gross. Would you like to see pictures of wisdom tooth extraction? Its absolutely disgusting.

But the biggest problem with the so-called "pro-lifers" is that they refuse to acknowledge the totalitarian nature of their position. If they dont beleive in abortion, they dont have to get one.  They already have that freedom "not to get one" today. no one has impinged on their freedom in that regard.  But they want to go well beyond that. They want to insist that from the moment of conception the fetus has all the existence (and should be granted all the rights) of an autonomous person. Luckily the supreme court has already laid down the precedent that that argument is, well, stupid.  And totalitarian.

Its nothing but a simplistic culture war they're doing with this issue, using an emotional issue as a lever with which to divide society (violently) on a non-issue to gain some political traction and attention.  Just like every other "political" issue evangelicals pursue. They're just like al queda and the taliban.

[ch_123]

They want to insist that from the moment of conception the fetus has all the existence (and should be granted all the rights) of an autonomous person. Luckily the supreme court has already laid down the precedent that that argument is, well, stupid. And totalitarian.

Agreed, but I don't think it's any more 'incorrect' from a rational point of view than saying that a child seconds before birth is not really a child. In reality, most countries allow the morning-after pill, and most countries that allow abortion don't allow really late-term abortions in most circumstances. The question is, where do you draw the line? I think that for both sides of the argument, the distinction has to be somewhat arbitrary. The pro-life crowd have the advantage because there's a certain degree of consistency from saying "Well, life begins at conception". I think however that the pro-choice crowd are sort of intrinsically bound to taking a leap of faith and saying "well, here's the limit, and that's just it" unless they advocate an unborn child being terminated at any point before birth, which is something I would have difficulties accepting.

But again, I veer towards the pro-choice side because of retards like MW who fall into just about every logical fallacy you can imagine, and some that are completely unimaginable, when trying to sell something that could be sold easily enough by someone who had some vague quantity of brainpower...

[InSanCen]

Finally. Someone stepped up to the plate and said what's right.

Sex is about reproduction. If you don't want to have a kid, don't have sex. Simple. Unless somebody raped you, there should be no excuse to have an abortion.

For those of you all who support abortion, I'd recommend doing some in-depth research on how in a late-term abortion, the doctor drills out the baby's brains, cuts up the baby, and then throws it all in a bag and throws it away. It's disgraceful and disgusting and should be outlawed.

Okay mate... why don't you just pull the blinkers off for a minute.

As someone who has been through it (Medical reasons, don't get your knickers in a twist, mmmmkay), I can truly say you have no idea what it is like to be in that situation. It is so far from black and white it's not funny. I know far better than you the process involved. Trust me on that one. The world does not, and will not, conform to your nice little black and white standards. Until you acquire some maturity, and the willingness to be a bit more open minded, might I suggest you shut the **** up and stop spouting ****?

[quadibloc]

Ah, but you see, I believe that the child isn't a child yet, and is still part of yourself until physically...um...disconnected.

But is that belief reasonable?

Or is it implausible, like believing that another sort of entity, mostly looking just like other human beings - but with some subtle differences in facial features and hair, and a significantly darker skin tone - isn't really human, but is instead a kind of livestock animal that can be bought and sold?

Laws that restrict freedom are bad, but freedom doesn't include the ability to do bad things to other people.

[kishy]

But is that belief reasonable?

Or is it implausible, like believing that another sort of entity, mostly looking just like other human beings - but with some subtle differences in facial features and hair, and a significantly darker skin tone - isn't really human, but is instead a kind of livestock animal that can be bought and sold?

Laws that restrict freedom are bad, but freedom doesn't include the ability to do bad things to other people.

Reasonable or otherwise, it's the path of least offense to the people it actually affects.

[ch_123]

So killing a child five minutes before it would otherwise be born is acceptable?

[gr1m]

Okay mate... why don't you just pull the blinkers off for a minute.

As someone who has been through it (Medical reasons, don't get your knickers in a twist, mmmmkay), I can truly say you have no idea what it is like to be in that situation. It is so far from black and white it's not funny. I know far better than you the process involved. Trust me on that one. The world does not, and will not, conform to your nice little black and white standards. Until you acquire some maturity, and the willingness to be a bit more open minded, might I suggest you shut the **** up and stop spouting ****?

I'm sure a medical reason is considered a good reason to have an abortion, like rape.

[kishy]

So killing a child five minutes before it would otherwise be born is acceptable?

It's a fixed part of the mother's body.

In my book, not yet a child, not yet offspring (the "springing off" part of being offspring hasn't happened yet). If people have the freedom to do what they want to their own bodies, then they have the right to do what they want to all components of their body.

[ch_123]

Let's say that you have a conjoined twin at this point in time, joined to you by the arm or leg. If you shot your twin in the head, have you committed murder, or self-harm?

[gr1m]

My rather juvenile way of dealing with the "are fetuses human beings?" issue is to ask myself if I think it would have been a crime if I had been killed in the womb and been unable to lead my life so far.

The answer is a resounding "yes, I was murdered because even though I had no life in the womb, I had potential for life outside of the womb".

[maclover]

abortions rule
miscarriage occurs frequently
deal with it

a potential child shouldn't be used as a deterrent for sex

[ch_123]

Anyone else want to see what happens when Maclover and MW are fired at each other in the hardon collider?

[EverythingIBM]

Yeah exactly, abortions, miscarriages, it happens.

OH NO SOMEONE HAD A MISCARRIAGE, TIME TO KILL THEM WITH MR. MORALS BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT.

[wellington1869]

insancen is a woman? cool! we need more women around here to break up this sausage fest.

[quadibloc]

Let's say that you have a conjoined twin at this point in time, joined to you by the arm or leg. If you shot your twin in the head, have you committed murder, or self-harm?

Obviously, murder. Two brains, two different individuals each experiencing the world in his own way.

[EverythingIBM]

Obviously, murder. Two brains, two different individuals each experiencing the world in his own way.

Of course, each share different THINKING, never mind biology.

[gr1m]

Yeah exactly, abortions, miscarriages, it happens.

OH NO SOMEONE HAD A MISCARRIAGE, TIME TO KILL THEM WITH MR. MORALS BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT.

So you're saying that dying from a heart attack or cancer is the same as being murdered?

[quadibloc]

So you're saying that dying from a heart attack or cancer is the same as being murdered?

No, I think he is being sarcastic.

As for equating a miscarriage to abortion; well, in the case of the one poster here who noted she had an abortion - but for genuine medical reasons - that really is the same situation. It was no one's fault that a medical complication of pregnancy existed, and dealing with the situation so as to minimize harm was not murder. Saving the "baby" at the mother's expense isn't an option - until a woman gives birth, the unborn child happens to be dependent on the continued existence of his or her mother.

Asking a woman to sacrifice her life so that a fetus can live a few days longer in the womb, and her physician can avoid the responsibility of ending that fetus' life with his own hands, rather than its life ending along with that of its mother a bit later... is an insane act, but one which some types of religious dogma would appear to encourage.

[gr1m]

I said before that a medical complication is a valid reason to have an abortion in my view. I am against abortion when people ignorant of birth control methods want to avoid the consequences of their stupidity.

[wellington1869]

I said before that a medical complication is a valid reason to have an abortion in my view. I am against abortion when people ignorant of birth control methods want to avoid the consequences of their stupidity.

i dont think you can regulate that. Its either going to be legal or its not.

I think the scenario where "its used as birth control" is a canard though. It rarely happens (its always a huge and painful decision) and more to the point even if a handful of people abuse it thats no reason to deny the legitimate right to everyone else.

But naturally thats one of the right wings favorite arguments.  Kind of like Reagan's "brilliant" conclusion that poor people want to be poor and so there's no need for a welfare program.

[ch_123]

i dont think you can regulate that. Its either going to be legal or its not.

Not really. In a case of medical necessity there's a clear-cut precedent for self-preservation which outranks the life of the child, if you chose to recognize that right. It's not quite clear cut when the mother's life is not in danger.

[wellington1869]

i dont believe it should only be done when mothers life is in danger. I think the fetus is part of the mother until its born and so its the mothers choice always.  

If guys got pregnant, you can be certain that would be the iron clad rule. There wouldnt even be any debate about it.

Personally I dont mind the whole 'last trimester' thing once the fetus is viable, but i think its a slippery slope even from there.

[InSanCen]

insancen is a woman? cool! we need more women around here to break up this sausage fest.

Unless I've had a sex change I didn't know about, then nope, all male here *checks tackle*

My post was partly in frustration at small-minded idiots that view things as black and white. This is possibly one of the least black and white subject's out there. It's Cliched, but until you are in that situation (and I sincerely hope no-one ever is), you have no idea how you would react. I did the opposite of what I would have said had you asked me before it happened.

Although it's not something I talk about commonly, it's not something I hide away either. And I guarantee that the process involved is vastly different to what was described. I suggest you check your facts, and stop believing propaganda videos or rhetoric spouted by the ill-informed.

[microsoft windows]

I think it's about time this thread came to an end. Many people have strong and founded views on abortion from both sides, and what are we all getting out of arguing about it on the forum? Nobody will change anybody else's view on subjects like religion, abortion, and politics. That all oughta be kept out of here.

Unless you all want me to really unleash my political opinions on you.

[ch_123]

Unless you all want me to really unleash my political opinions on you.

Go for it, I'm in the mood for lulz.

[Phaedrus2129]

Ignoring the microethics of the situation, look at the broader view. We're running out of synthesized phosphates for fertilizer. No fertilizer means less crops, means less food, means less people. The Earth can naturally support about 1-2 billion people (assuming phosphates are the limiting reagent). We've managed to boost that up to close to 7 billion through mineral-derived nitrogen/phosphate fertilizers and better healthcare.

The world's supply of mineral phosphate reserves will dry up in 70-300 years, depending on which experts you listen to. At that time +/-20 years, there will be massive famine, war, and a sharp decline in population.

Let's assume that there is a theoretical way to prevent the phosphate crash, or to at least reduce its impact, or to preserve civilization. The longer we have before the crash, the longer we have to come up with a solution.

The more people born, the more food is consumed, the more fertilizer is used, the quicker the crash will come. The fewer people born, the longer we have to solve the problem. Or maybe we could even reduce population below the critical point.

But from the long-term perspective, abortion or anything else that slows the birth rate is a good thing.

[InSanCen]

I think it's about time this thread came to an end. Many people have strong and founded views on abortion from both sides, and what are we all getting out of arguing about it on the forum? Nobody will change anybody else's view on subjects like religion, abortion, and politics. That all oughta be kept out of here.

Unless you all want me to really unleash my political opinions on you.

I second the vote for lulz... you have strong opinions, but your basis for them seems to be deeply flawed.

[wellington1869]

The Earth can naturally support about 1-2 billion people (assuming phosphates are the limiting reagent). We've managed to boost that up to close to 7 billion through mineral-derived nitrogen/phosphate fertilizers and better healthcare.

thats an interesting thought, i never thought of it that way

yea, the world is going to be ****ed in so many different ways going forward. My personal theory is that happiness for our species basically peaked sometime between 1950 and 1990. Its all downhill from here.

I second the vote for lulz... you have strong opinions, but your basis for them seems to be deeply flawed.

thirding. its a slow week.

[quadibloc]

My personal theory is that happiness for our species basically peaked sometime between 1950 and 1990. Its all downhill from here.

That's certainly possible. But I don't see why it has to be.

We can use nuclear power to produce energy.

We can enjoy intimacy without producing children.

The main obstacle to human happiness is that if one country decides to behave sensibly, other countries can still both fail to do so, and commit aggression against it. Even without being subjected to wars of conquest, many countries are, for whatever reason, pressured into having more generous immigration policies than are consistent with the maximum well-being of their existing populations - and their descendants, into the indefinite future.

[ch_123]

Ignoring the microethics of the situation, look at the broader view. We're running out of synthesized phosphates for fertilizer. No fertilizer means less crops, means less food, means less people. The Earth can naturally support about 1-2 billion people (assuming phosphates are the limiting reagent). We've managed to boost that up to close to 7 billion through mineral-derived nitrogen/phosphate fertilizers and better healthcare.

The world's supply of mineral phosphate reserves will dry up in 70-300 years, depending on which experts you listen to. At that time +/-20 years, there will be massive famine, war, and a sharp decline in population.

Let's assume that there is a theoretical way to prevent the phosphate crash, or to at least reduce its impact, or to preserve civilization. The longer we have before the crash, the longer we have to come up with a solution.

The more people born, the more food is consumed, the more fertilizer is used, the quicker the crash will come. The fewer people born, the longer we have to solve the problem. Or maybe we could even reduce population below the critical point.

But from the long-term perspective, abortion or anything else that slows the birth rate is a good thing.

This of course ignores population trends that suggest that developed countries hit a plateau of growth, and then slowly start to drop. Countries like Germany have already hit that shrinking stage.

As for developing countries? China and India account for about a third of the world's population between the two of them. Most of the population is located in places of great poverty and non-existent access to education, and a large number of other factors that attribute to excessive family sizes. In more well developed parts of these countries, the population and growth rate is far lower. I'd say in a hundred or so years, the population in these places will eventually decrease.

[wellington1869]

incomplete list of how many ways the world is screwed going forward:

-nuclear weapons in hands of expansionist and lunatic and paranoid dictatorships (which is the form of govt in most of the world today)

-nuclear weapons in hands of apocolyptic sects of various kinds

-middle east peace process failure leading to world war 3 as russia and china throw their lot in with the islamic extremists and the US is forced to defend israel against them

-korean peace process failure leading to world war 3 as china throws its lot in behind north korea and the US is forced to defend south korea against them

-hugo chavez feels he's not getting enough attention and decides to get some more

-plague outbreaks as antibiotic's effectiveness continues to vanish

-environmental catastrophes as the march towards renewable resources continues to be a crawl rather than a march

-global warming and continued reduction of arable land and fresh water supply on earth while population continues to explode

-asteroid from outer space

and thats just in the next 20 years.  Personally i think its going to be a nuclear third world war. Too many suicidal lunatics running around.

we all miss the cold war.

[ch_123]

incomplete list of how many ways the world is screwed going forward:

-nuclear weapons in hands of Americans

Fixed.

[wellington1869]

Fixed.

really? do you seriously think the us is a rogue nuclear power capable of launching unprovoked nuclear attacks?

if you do, seriously your view of the US is as cartoonish as webwit's was.

[gr1m]

incomplete list of how many ways the world is screwed going forward:

-americans decide who uses nuclear weapons

Fixed.

[wellington1869]

seriously you guys have a slim hold on reality; glad you're not heads of state anywhere

i'll take it as a generic run-of-the-mill anti americanism that you're expressing. You know, the kind where you rag on the US until you become political refugees and then hope and pray to be let into the US.

[gr1m]

I don't think my life in Canada will be jeopardized enough in the near future for me to hope and pray to be let into the US. In fact, Americans regularly move to Canada.

[kishy]

Even your neighbours to the North consider your country dangerous.

Edit: that was already evidenced by gr1m, of course.

Don't I live South of you welly? Gotta go check a map...
Nope, not South. Almost on the same horizontal line though.

[ch_123]

really? do you seriously think the us is a rogue nuclear power capable of launching unprovoked nuclear attacks?

if you do, seriously your view of the US is as cartoonish as webwit's was.

Unprovoked nuclear attacks maybe not. But America has a history of instigating meaningless on random countries that the likes of Osama could never dream of...

[wellington1869]

I don't think my life in Canada will be jeopardized enough in the near future for me to hope and pray to be let into the US. In fact, Americans regularly move to Canada.

yes, because canada is like the US minus about 20 years  Oh and you offload your national defense to us  Must be nice to have big brother protecting you all the time

[wellington1869]

Even your neighbours to the North consider your country dangerous.

there's dangerous and there's dangerous.

[wellington1869]

Unprovoked nuclear attacks maybe not.

well that should be a relief - if you have the courage and the intellectual honesty to admit that its a relief.

But America has a history of instigating meaningless on random countries that the likes of Osama could never dream of...

really? like what?
lets see, osama "dreamed of" and carried out or inspired terrorist attacks in: madrid, london, germany, sweden, indonesia, india, pakistan, afghanistan, africa, the netherlands, switzerland... with failed plots in canada and a half dozen other countries.

You're right, the US would never dream of doing that.

Now let me guess, you're talking about cold war proxy battles between the US and the USSR in south america and southeast asia?  Thats original. And totally out of context. Are you seriously equating those (in whcih the USSR was a full and brutal participant) with osama's desire to convert the world by force to his version of islam?

really ch? is that what you're comparing?  This is what I mean by the Left going off the rails to the point of being totally incoherent.

[gr1m]

yes, because canada is like the US minus about 20 years  Oh and you offload your national defense to us  Must be nice to have big brother protecting you all the time

No, I don't offload national defense to the US. I go to school and play video games.

[wellington1869]

No, I don't offload national defense to the US. I go to school and play video games.

well, that i can respect.

[ch_123]

well that should be a relief - if you have the courage and the intellectual honesty to admit that its a relief.



really? like what?
lets see, osama "dreamed of" and carried out or inspired terrorist attacks in: madrid, london, germany, sweden, indonesia, india, pakistan, afghanistan, africa, the netherlands, switzerland... with failed plots in canada and a half dozen other countries.

You're right, the US would never dream of doing that.

Now let me guess, you're talking about cold war proxy battles between the US and the USSR in south america and southeast asia?  Thats original. And totally out of context. Are you seriously equating those (in whcih the USSR was a full and brutal participant) with osama's desire to convert the world by force to his version of islam?

really ch? is that what you're comparing?  This is what I mean by the Left going off the rails to the point of being totally incoherent.

I dunno. Random bombings of Cambodia and the like were a bit hazy.

What about Iraq? Think that was cool?