The Abortion Debate

[Raina Luxe]

actually yes, I do need to leave and get some things done, don't have any abortions until I get back please heart

[FlexibleCottonSwabs]

Barely_evil

actually yes, I do need to leave and get some things done, don't have any abortions until I get back please heart

....
-calls mom-
Get an abortion plzktnx!

[BigTits McGillicuddy]

soul_less_human

Daniel Lloyd Davey

soul_less_human

Barely_evil

Lord Setar

That does not allow them to violate the rights of anyone else. Also:



Justify, now. Also, how could a man who forces his wife or girlfriend to carry to term and give birth be seen as anything other than heartless? And potential child, bull. I'm a potential lawyer, let me practice law.

A man cannot force a woman to carry to term, to do so would be illegal. But I have no sympathy for a mother who wants to kill her unborn baby

So you'd prefer she give birth to something she never wanted?

That's another side of the coin. All children are wanted, but you should never close the door and have your answer be "no" and only "no".

Agreed, but what if she never wanted it? And if all children are wanted, what about the many children in adoption centers that are never adopted?

If a woman carries a baby to term and never tells anyone that she doesn't want it that is a bigger atrocity than any. In many cases, abortion would be the better option than giving the baby up for adoption. Adopted kids usually grow up weird. Especially, if there was no good reason their biological mother couldn't keep them.

[linaloki]

Barely_evil

1. my logic is not bullshit, it's my logic.

Logic is universal. Yours sucks.

Barely_evil

2. kids can be a blessing, depending how you look at life

Kids can be a curse depending on how you look at life.

Barely_evil

3. she placed the d**k which shoots sperm, which impregnates women in her v****a, so it is her own fault for being pregnant

And the person that gets into the car and gets into an accident? Is it their fault they wrecked? Should we deny them medical assistance?

And let us not forget rape.

[linaloki]

Lord Setar

linaloki

Barely_evil

too bad you looked over the word potential, and jumped to your conclusion. a fetus is a potential child, just like I am a potential old woman.

Doesn't mean we should treat you like an old woman.

I think that may be a redundant post, I suspect that Barely_evil is going to leave soon.

*sigh*

I suppose I'm so far behind I shouldn't bother responding to her old idiocies... crying It's just so... easy.

[Lord Setar]

linaloki

Lord Setar

linaloki

Barely_evil

too bad you looked over the word potential, and jumped to your conclusion. a fetus is a potential child, just like I am a potential old woman.

Doesn't mean we should treat you like an old woman.

I think that may be a redundant post, I suspect that Barely_evil is going to leave soon.

*sigh*

I suppose I'm so far behind I shouldn't bother responding to her old idiocies... crying It's just so... easy.

Her new ones are even easier to respond to. I just jump in wherever.

[FlexibleCottonSwabs]

Lord Setar

linaloki

Lord Setar

linaloki

Barely_evil

too bad you looked over the word potential, and jumped to your conclusion. a fetus is a potential child, just like I am a potential old woman.

Doesn't mean we should treat you like an old woman.

I think that may be a redundant post, I suspect that Barely_evil is going to leave soon.

*sigh*

I suppose I'm so far behind I shouldn't bother responding to her old idiocies... crying It's just so... easy.

Her new ones are even easier to respond to. I just jump in wherever.

She just left though... What nowz?

[Lord Setar]

soul_less_human

Lord Setar

linaloki

Lord Setar

linaloki

Barely_evil

too bad you looked over the word potential, and jumped to your conclusion. a fetus is a potential child, just like I am a potential old woman.

Doesn't mean we should treat you like an old woman.

I think that may be a redundant post, I suspect that Barely_evil is going to leave soon.

*sigh*

I suppose I'm so far behind I shouldn't bother responding to her old idiocies... crying It's just so... easy.

Her new ones are even easier to respond to. I just jump in wherever.

She just left though... What nowz?

She said she'll be back, so, we wait.

[BigTits McGillicuddy]

Ryan Amore

I am all for abortion b/c ppl some times have no chocice.What happens if they are rapped.

I agree. That would be unfortunate.

[Deformography]

La Veuve Zin

RedRoseSpiral

Prove a fetus is innocent. Last I heard, one has to have the ability to be guilty if it is innocent and a fetus is not.

Last you heard? Last I heard, one is innocent until proven guilty in the U.S.. Proof doesn't work that way. All one has to do to be innocent is to not be guilty. Fetuses can't do much of anything. (Though they've been known to kick a woman in the uterus... surprised But who presses charges against a neonate, let alone a fetus?) If you can't do anything, you can't commit a crime, or even irk someone intentionally. And if there's no intent, and no obvious negligence, especially if there's no homicide involved, there's no crime.

If I throw open a solid door, not being able to see or hear what's on the other side, and whack someone in the face, they can't charge me with assault.

If a fetus can't even regulate its body temperature, how can it assault a woman? How can it commit anything remotely close to rape, of which so many people in this thread seem to be accusing unwanted fetuses?

I think it is possible to commit a crime without intent and/or negligence. Manslaughter comes to mind.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that they would be able to charge you with assault.

Because it's in her body without her consent. That's how. Intent is irrelevant. And I don't think that people here are accusing fetii of rape... it's just an example to illustrate our point.

[GoatShow]

Deformography

La Veuve Zin

RedRoseSpiral

Prove a fetus is innocent. Last I heard, one has to have the ability to be guilty if it is innocent and a fetus is not.

Last you heard? Last I heard, one is innocent until proven guilty in the U.S.. Proof doesn't work that way. All one has to do to be innocent is to not be guilty. Fetuses can't do much of anything. (Though they've been known to kick a woman in the uterus... surprised But who presses charges against a neonate, let alone a fetus?) If you can't do anything, you can't commit a crime, or even irk someone intentionally. And if there's no intent, and no obvious negligence, especially if there's no homicide involved, there's no crime.

If I throw open a solid door, not being able to see or hear what's on the other side, and whack someone in the face, they can't charge me with assault.

If a fetus can't even regulate its body temperature, how can it assault a woman? How can it commit anything remotely close to rape, of which so many people in this thread seem to be accusing unwanted fetuses?

I think it is possible to commit a crime without intent and/or negligence. Manslaughter comes to mind.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter ... occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

[TOTheOrderOfJordan]

Ok, I got here late, and just want to throw my opinion out there.

To start, nobody LIKES abortion. It is, indeed, disturbing. However, the pro-choice people think that a woman should have the right to "CHOOSE". They are not baby-killers, or any other ridiculous names you can think of.

Pro life is extremely misleading. First off, it doesn't contradict the pro-choice. The opposite of pro-life is pro-death, and NO! Pro-choice does not mean that at all. Same as the opposite of pro-choice is pro-control, and it can be debated wether pro-life does that, but that's another thing.

I think we have established what each means.

PRO-CHOICE: IS NOT FOR KILLING BABIES! Believes a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body

PRO-LIFE: Believes that you should not kill a potential life.

Now, a huge problem in this issue is religion. You have to drop religion when doing politics, especially since this IS separation of church and state. Now, we have to examine when a fetus is actually a life. In complete technical terms, not until 5 months. Before then, it is a cluster of cells, like your hair, or your nails. Now, I am not trying to compare it to nails and hair, but that is what the cells are at that time. In all technicality, it isnt a life at that point. It is a possible life, but no, it isn't killing a baby. It is removing cells to prevent a baby, kind of like a condom. Now don't think women use abortion as a contraceptive. NO woman does! She'd be mentally and phisically hurt on the first one, and would easily be dead by the fifth one. NO woman uses abortion as a form of contraceptive.

Another problem with making abortion illegal is the exceptions youu'd have to make. The most famous case is the rape victim. I have asked those against abortion about the rape case, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM said that an abortion would be ok there. There are also other circumstances, like a woman can't give birth without major health problems, and you just can't make a law with exceptions. "You cannot run unless you need to lose the weight" it just does not work like that.

Yet ANOTHER argument is that it is the womans fault and she was not careful, therefore she should have the baby. This goes back to exceptions like rape, but I already discussed that. In fact, let us assume that it actually was the woman's fault. However, it isn't just her fault. There is someone else that helps just as much, if not more, that is generally forgot aboout. Who is it? Oh yeah, the man. It is just as much his fault, if not more, than the womans. She has too go through the entire pregnancy with this baby, and what does he do? He can run away and never pay a dime towards his son/daughter. However, the woman is forced to have the baby. You cannot say abortion is okay because she wasn't careful, because that only affects one party in the production of the baby. You need to punish the man, too, by giving him a uteris and making him carry the baby, before this argument will ever become valid in my book.

Now, lemme go back to that condom. People hate abortion for the fact that it ruins the chance for new life. Now some say it is killing a human baby, however, we have established that it is a cluster of cells, not yet a true fetus. So using their logic, they are also against condoms. Condoms prevent cells from joining with the egg, and therefore prevents a potential life. Same goes for birth control. I know that seems a little wierd, but think about it.

[Deformography]

GoatShow

Deformography

La Veuve Zin

RedRoseSpiral

Prove a fetus is innocent. Last I heard, one has to have the ability to be guilty if it is innocent and a fetus is not.

Last you heard? Last I heard, one is innocent until proven guilty in the U.S.. Proof doesn't work that way. All one has to do to be innocent is to not be guilty. Fetuses can't do much of anything. (Though they've been known to kick a woman in the uterus... surprised But who presses charges against a neonate, let alone a fetus?) If you can't do anything, you can't commit a crime, or even irk someone intentionally. And if there's no intent, and no obvious negligence, especially if there's no homicide involved, there's no crime.

If I throw open a solid door, not being able to see or hear what's on the other side, and whack someone in the face, they can't charge me with assault.

If a fetus can't even regulate its body temperature, how can it assault a woman? How can it commit anything remotely close to rape, of which so many people in this thread seem to be accusing unwanted fetuses?

I think it is possible to commit a crime without intent and/or negligence. Manslaughter comes to mind.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter ... occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

...and?

There is more than one form of manslaughter, you know. With vehicular manslaughter, for example, it is very possible that there is neither intent nor negligence. If you're driving responsibly, paying attention, and so on... and then someone throws himself in front of your vehicle, how have you been negligent?

[Lord Setar]

Deformography

GoatShow

Deformography

La Veuve Zin

RedRoseSpiral

Prove a fetus is innocent. Last I heard, one has to have the ability to be guilty if it is innocent and a fetus is not.

Last you heard? Last I heard, one is innocent until proven guilty in the U.S.. Proof doesn't work that way. All one has to do to be innocent is to not be guilty. Fetuses can't do much of anything. (Though they've been known to kick a woman in the uterus... surprised But who presses charges against a neonate, let alone a fetus?) If you can't do anything, you can't commit a crime, or even irk someone intentionally. And if there's no intent, and no obvious negligence, especially if there's no homicide involved, there's no crime.

If I throw open a solid door, not being able to see or hear what's on the other side, and whack someone in the face, they can't charge me with assault.

If a fetus can't even regulate its body temperature, how can it assault a woman? How can it commit anything remotely close to rape, of which so many people in this thread seem to be accusing unwanted fetuses?

I think it is possible to commit a crime without intent and/or negligence. Manslaughter comes to mind.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter ... occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

...and?

There is more than one form of manslaughter, you know. With vehicular manslaughter, for example, it is very possible that there is neither intent nor negligence. If you're driving responsibly, paying attention, and so on... and then someone throws himself in front of your vehicle, how have you been negligent?

"Well, you could have braked!" Except that if they're close enough, you'll either have no time to react or no time to stop - not to mention you'd probably be a little stunned that someone was doing that and that might slow your reaction by a second or so. I even composed a paragraph with all the calculations and the explanation of why an instant stop would be bad for you with a car going about 60 km/h (roughly 40 mph).

[GoatShow]

Deformography

GoatShow

Deformography

La Veuve Zin

RedRoseSpiral

Prove a fetus is innocent. Last I heard, one has to have the ability to be guilty if it is innocent and a fetus is not.

Last you heard? Last I heard, one is innocent until proven guilty in the U.S.. Proof doesn't work that way. All one has to do to be innocent is to not be guilty. Fetuses can't do much of anything. (Though they've been known to kick a woman in the uterus... surprised But who presses charges against a neonate, let alone a fetus?) If you can't do anything, you can't commit a crime, or even irk someone intentionally. And if there's no intent, and no obvious negligence, especially if there's no homicide involved, there's no crime.

If I throw open a solid door, not being able to see or hear what's on the other side, and whack someone in the face, they can't charge me with assault.

If a fetus can't even regulate its body temperature, how can it assault a woman? How can it commit anything remotely close to rape, of which so many people in this thread seem to be accusing unwanted fetuses?

I think it is possible to commit a crime without intent and/or negligence. Manslaughter comes to mind.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter ... occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

...and?

There is more than one form of manslaughter, you know. With vehicular manslaughter, for example, it is very possible that there is neither intent nor negligence. If you're driving responsibly, paying attention, and so on... and then someone throws himself in front of your vehicle, how have you been negligent?

From the same damn link.
Vehicular or Intoxication Manslaughter

Quote:

Vehicular manslaughter is a kind of misdemeanor manslaughter, which holds persons liable for any death that occurs because of criminal negligence or a violation of traffic safety laws. A common use of the vehicular manslaughter laws involves prosecution for a death caused by driving under the influence (determined by excessive blood alcohol content levels set by individual states), although an independent infraction or negligence is usually also required.

In some U.S. states, such as Texas, Intoxication Manslaughter is a distinctly defined offense. A person commits intoxication manslaughter if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.[1]

Intoxication manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter and other similar offenses require a lesser mens rea than other manslaughter offenses. Furthermore, the fact that the defendant is entitled to use the alcohol, controlled substance, drug, dangerous drug, or other substance is not a defense.[2] For example, in Texas, to prove intoxication manslaughter it is not necessary to prove the person was negligent in causing the death of another, nor that they unlawfully used the substance that intoxicated them, but only that they were intoxicated and operated a motor vehicle and someone died as a result.