Evil Genius

being pregnant is easy... i've seen it done... hahah j/k... all said i have to say that choice is the way to go... not for the very good reasons other people have already said... but for the simple fact if someone doesn't want to have a kid... they should and should be able to hit the coochie reset button if they desire... additionally.. it isn't like we're running out of people any time soon... so if we dont amp up on production... i still think we're alright with our current people surplus no?

You know, I am from a catholic church, though I am agnostic (Catholic mother + Atheist father= I dont know if there is some higher power/universal truth in the universe but I definitely know its not the one religions preach about) an there this issue is really something.
In school you have to assist to debates about abortion, you have to watch documentaries and, sumarizing, you are forced to be informed about abortion.
I know the catholics church arguments. I am just telling you this because i dont wanna look like a Christian-hating retard.
First of all, They enfasize a lot about the value of a potential human life and how a fetus is already a Human being just because it holds the potential to become a human being. They also like to preach a lot about how it would have been like if, i dont know, Newton, was aborted.
But, while discusing this with them, they always bring the one irrefutable (at least from their point of view) argument : Your life in the end belongs to god, so you cant just take it away, and the same goes for the fetus life.
You know, I normally argue with the whole teachers staff, whenever this issue come up and its truly sad when they bring in to the discussion the "God" argument. Whatever you say, the will just answer "god" as if the discusion was already over. AND, they will treat you as a retarded little kid who just cant understand the "G" argument. It pisses me off so much Its madening.

I say, ok, the fetus is a potential human being and, thereby, deserves some rights, but in the end, its an incomplete human being (because its not a sentient/conciuouss being) that without the mother could never have come to be, so you simply cant declare it your equal. Its up to the Mother to decide if she wants to have the kid or not.
Of course, you cant convince those FU ERs of that, but you still can choose according to your principles.

At least that is what i would like to say. In my country abortion is ilegal, its considered murder in first decree (intentional murder) and you can spend a loooooooong time in jail just for trying.

Here idiocy prevails. Lets hope that doesnt happens in the rest of the world as well (with USA am not sure if it hasnt already happened, that Bush.....)

Great thing about such topics about 'aborting' Sir Isaac Newton is that while he is credited with many things, he was just the bravest person to put his name on the line with the work that he and those of the royal society had worked on as peers. For example, who's calculus is it, Newton or Leibniz?

So, you would want to bring up Einstein and E=mc^2 too? Again, he was also brave enough to put his name on the work that those who came before him. Some even suggest that he plagiarized the work of others.

Don't get me wrong, they are brilliant people and I'm not discounting their contribution to Science (not religion) but aborting them isn't going to impede scientific advancement. No one scientist works in a vacuum or has a monumental epiphany as some people would like us 'believe'.

By all means do your own research, or take a few classes at your local college.

We as a species can only claim our social & technological advancement through shared knowledge and open communication. Each one of us contributes more or less to the summation of humanity. You abort Newton and Einstein, OK... others will take their place. People are literally waiting in line fill the void.

My choice is only pro life after all of the facts have been considered. Sex education should be thorough in school, and because it isn't kids have sex because they want the thrill of the unknown. When all about sex is known, less people have it. If someone still gets pregnant after the pill and condom and all of the other options out there I really think she should carry it to term because that baby fought hard to be conceived. If someone gets pregnant through rape or any other unsavory means, then by all means abort, unless you actually want to keep it. There's also the problem of how old the child in the womb is. After a certain point the baby can live outside the womb, so killing it at that age, like 5 months, is just down right murder. Then of course there's whether the father wants the baby. Some men actually want children, despite popular belief, and if the child's mother wants an abortion, then what's going to come of that? I guess I'm pro choice, to a certain degree, but we have to be just as pro choice for the men as we are for the women.

psi29a wrote:Great thing about such topics about 'aborting' Sir Isaac Newton is that while he is credited with many things, he was just the bravest person to put his name on the line with the work that he and those of the royal society had worked on as peers. For example, who's calculus is it, Newton or Leibniz?

So, you would want to bring up Einstein and E=mc^2 too? Again, he was also brave enough to put his name on the work that those who came before him. Some even suggest that he plagiarized the work of others.

Don't get me wrong, they are brilliant people and I'm not discounting their contribution to Science (not religion) but aborting them isn't going to impede scientific advancement. No one scientist works in a vacuum or has a monumental epiphany as some people would like us 'believe'.

By all means do your own research, or take a few classes at your local college.

We as a species can only claim our social & technological advancement through shared knowledge and open communication. Each one of us contributes more or less to the summation of humanity. You abort Newton and Einstein, OK... others will take their place. People are literally waiting in line fill the void.

Hey, I think you got me wrong.
What I said was that one of the arguments they wield is that "insert important people name here" abortion could have changed the world.

I never said that was my opinion. May be is just my crapy english writing.

Rolos wrote:Hey, I think you got me wrong.
What I said was that one of the arguments they wield is that "insert important people name here" abortion could have changed the world.

I never said that was my opinion. May be is just my crapy english writing.

Nah, I'm not flaming you or anything of the sort, just calling out that particular line of argument that yourself had run up against. Your English skills are actually far superior than most inner city youth here in the states. More respect for you for even taking the time to come here and share your thoughts.

Rolos wrote:First of all, They enfasize a lot about the value of a potential human life and how a fetus is already a Human being just because it holds the potential to become a human being. They also like to preach a lot about how it would have been like if, i dont know, Newton, was aborted.

On the other side of the coin, if the aborted fetus was potentially another Hitler, there would be no complaints about that. Or Bush. Saves them time to building a time machine and killing Hitler or Bush while they were in the womb.

The Herald wrote:If someone still gets pregnant after the pill and condom and all of the other options out there I really think she should carry it to term because that baby fought hard to be conceived.

The baby has nothing to do with being conceived, nor had it 'fought hard' to be conceived. The condom and the pill are not 100% effective, and there are some rare cases in which the pill fails or the condom broke. It has nothing to do with the baby's might and mentality to be conceived. I can see from this statement that you have some religious motivation for pro-choice, and I applaud you for your open mindedness in regards with the use of abortion under certain circumstances, unlike the stubbornness of some faiths that would not permit it.

The Herald wrote:There's also the problem of how old the child in the womb is. After a certain point the baby can live outside the womb, so killing it at that age, like 5 months, is just down right murder.

I'm a bit partial to this statement. Some part of me agrees with this, and technically, that is correct. But the other part thinks that the 'murder' aspect is nothing more than swatting a fly, or killing an ant. However, this is ultimately up to the mother to decide. It really depends on what a person's perception of human life is; if it actually starts when it's out of the womb fully developed, or once it's been conceived, or once the organs have properly developed. Like I said, I am conflicted about this, but however, I would not necessarily condemn someone of 'murdering' once the fetus has reached a certain developmental stage, or fully consider it as 'murder'. The definition of life is broad. Ask an academic, people of different faiths, etc what it is and you would get different answers.

The Herald wrote:Then of course there's whether the father wants the baby. Some men actually want children, despite popular belief, and if the child's mother wants an abortion, then what's going to come of that? I guess I'm pro choice, to a certain degree, but we have to be just as pro choice for the men as we are for the women.

While I am sympathetic about the father's feelings, the point of pro-choice is the woman's right to what she decides with her own body. It is ultimately the woman's decision. If the male wants to have children, and the woman does not, then the relationship is not going to work well anyway. Adoption is another option, if the woman does not want to get pregnant. This is a decision between the couple, that none of us (particularly politicians) should impede on and decide what should be 'right' for the welfare of the family. If you're saying 'it's not fair to the father', then how is it any right to the mother who does not want the child?

i agree with what the most of you are saying here. what i like about pro choice is that its a CHOICE. so you can abort it, and then you also dont have to. its not like its pro life and pro death. for some reason many people(of yet i have to read from on this thread, so nobody here yet) act like pro choice means that everyone who thinks that only aborts the pregnancy. its a choice, and so if someone wanted to they can. i know its simple and sounds stupid but there are so many people that actually think that pro choice = pro-instantbabykillingallthetime. dont think i had to explain that to anyone just thought id bring it up since nobody had.

I would love to see you explaining that on my school......they would eat you alive (not literally.......though giving it a second thought..... may be yes ).

The whole point of this problem is that some people (most of them belong to hardcore christianity or conservative political parties) dont want to give you a CHOICE in this matter. They want you to act according to their principles, thus not giving you a real choice.

From their dogmatic point of view, what you are proposing is that the mother can choose wether to commit murder or not.

I think in japan abortion is legal, right? You should be grateful on the fact that at the eyes of your government you could at most look irresponsible.

Pd: Wanna hear something stupid? Here it goes: I CANT TOLERATE INTOLERANCE!!!

Well, here in Canada it has been my impression that abortion is legal. I personally haven't known anyone who has had an abortion. I guess, with how you guys are saying it, I'm pro choice. Under the condition that the woman knows every single consequence. And men really should always be considered when a baby of theirs is being aborted. Anything else is downright sexist. Also, wy would anyone call a baby a parasite? Isn't life supposed to be a blessing? Even the most athiest of us want to think so. How would you feel if you were considered a parasite when you were in your mother's womb? Calling a baby that is only going to make the sense of childbirth a downright horror, the exact opposite of how it should be viewed. My views are of course in contrary to those supported by the sexual revolution. Though, all of this abortion talk, if you go back to the roots of the matter, isn't it a talk about what is appropriate in a sexual relationship? I'm not saying everyone has to be married before they have sex, far from it. But before you have sex with someone you should be aware of the consequences and responsibility of your actions.

P.S. Eldo, thanks for the thourough disambiguation, I tend to write before I think. I type faster than I talk. But thanks, and I mean it, glad to see I'm getting heard.

Yeah, the first time i read that I thougth it was kind of cold......I mean.....Parasyte??
Thats way too cruel....heartless and inhuman.
After reading the rest of whats been said i realized that its just a misunderstanding, what they meant is that solely speaking in medic terms, a fetus is actualy a parasyte. I think kalla sjhulu (an african name, sorry if the spelling is wrong) make that clear before, you should take a look at what he said.

Didn't see this anywhere else in the thread, so I thought I'd note that of the six born, only one survived.

I know that they meant in medical and scientific terms, but it's still cold to continue to refer to a baby like that.

Starnum wrote:Yeah, and that's so stupid of them, because it goes against God's principle of Free Will. I agree with Fuji, Pro-choice doesn't equal instant-killing-babies-all-the-time. Ignorant Christians frustrate me.

The ignorant atheists get me more.

kalla sjhulu???

i was waiting for that. hahahahaha!


well i still stick with my use of the word "parasyte". i think there are more than a few cases where i imagine that might be the way some woman feels about her situation. of course i think that life should be a good thing, a happy thing but we are not all fortuante enough to have that thought be truth. therefore, as i said, i am only going to support my statements prior.


about what Rolos said: if im not mistaken, we do have the choice to commit murder. of course it has all of the punishments of the law, but the fact remains due to what many refer to as free will we have the choice to do pretty much everything outside of what the world tells us is okay. and then i am brought back to agreeing with many about the child not being a legitimate person until it is not a parasyte (cannot live without the mother/host) anymore, and therefore, it is not murder anyway.

i dont get why so many chistians want the whole world to be too. (this part of the thread kind of reminds me of the movie "saved") i suppose it seems like a stupid question but it just is weird compared to many other religions. in jewish culture its the opposite..if you want to be jewish then there is a shitload of things you have to do and if you have no jewish blood it makes it harder..and even then you are not considered a real jewish person. of course it depends on how orthadox i know, but its so different even though many say that chistianity and the jewish religion are so similar. in society they are so different.


anyway, i am really happy that here in america (well not HERE exactly) we have the choice. i cant say if i was put in the situation what i would do for there are always so many variables, but the choice is what i care about. i have always feared that being taken away...

Buzkashi wrote:

Starnum wrote:Yeah, and that's so stupid of them, because it goes against God's principle of Free Will. I agree with Fuji, Pro-choice doesn't equal instant-killing-babies-all-the-time. Ignorant Christians frustrate me.

The ignorant atheists get me more.

Then agnostics are the solution.

btw, i disagree with your signature......just wanted to tell you.

Cool.

I disagree with your face.

Good day.

My face?
I am confused....
How can you disagree with my face without ever seeing it? is it even possible to disagree with someone s face?

May be I have to learn more about english grammar and vocabulary...

It was an aimless comment.

You told me you disagreed with my sig, but didnt follow up with anything. So I responded with something random.

Lay it on me. What do you have to say of good ol francis bacon.

ok, let me do some research on that guy s work and you will have your answer soon.
I love religious discussion, even though I know they are pointless, no one ever convinces the other one.

Edit: I just found out he was the creator/author of the "knowledge is power" aphorism!! That alone makes him worthy of my admiraton.

I wouldnt just put some random fucker who isnt credible in my sign now.

Another thing to consider about how old the baby is is that the mother made a decision not to abort earlier, so that means she already took responsibility earlier then decided against it. 5 months in a woman should have aborted earlier. There's not many excuses after that for why she should abort.

The Herald wrote:Another thing to consider about how old the baby is is that the mother made a decision not to abort earlier, so that means she already took responsibility earlier then decided against it. 5 months in a woman should have aborted earlier. There's not many excuses after that for why she should abort.

There are always excuses. Drug addicted clients with mental retardation or severe mental illness who are unable to commit to a decision often come to us in such a predicament. And since we can't make a decision for them, the poor babies often come to term and find themselves born into hell.

It's always easier to take the default option, which usually means to do nothing. In this case, it means let the baby be born and put it into foster care as soon as it pops out.