The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Master Crimzon

A woman who has an abortion will generally be impregnated against her will- in other words, her body will basically be forcibly used in order to create a life form.

That is absolutely untrue. You have made that up. You will not be able to back that up with any statistics whatsoever. The majority of abortions are not from rape. not even close.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE1DC1039F930A25753C1A96F948260

A human being. Indeed, up until a certain point during the pregnancy (which I believe should be the timespan in which abortion is legal), the baby is entirely dependant on the mother- indeed, up until that certain point, the baby is not truly a person.

This is ridiculous. A baby is entirely dependant on its mother for years after its born. Does that make it any less of a person? No. We call that a child. We have laws to protect children. Try again.

That's all it is. I know some evangelical nutjobs (not saying there are any of them here) will give me some shit about 'The soul begins at conception! It's a person the moment the mother is impregnated!'. That's a load of crap. It's a person the moment it's capable of living without the help of a 'host'. Up until then, it's quite simply a bunch of cells which quickly grow- purely something scientific.

You would like to turn it into a religious debate wouldn't you? But sorry, that is absolutely NOT what is at stake here. This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with being informed about what you are saying, because to this point, you have spouted a lot of nonsense that i'm sure you have never researched yourself. The reason i'm sure you haven't researched it yourself is because nothing you are even saying is true.

It's not even truly a conscious being. This process can very easily be reproduced- but instead of forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy when she has no desire to maintain a baby- which would likely cause a terrible life for it- why can you not wait a bit until the woman chooses to have a baby, and a baby she can likely give a much better life to? 'Pro-life' beliefs are not truly pro-life. We can define life a scientific- but can you really call an unwanted baby something that has a 'life'?

http://www.thebabyswebsite.com/pre-conception-to-birth/life-in-the-womb.html

There are numerous other sites that back this one up. You are speaking from ignorance. Your first sentence of this Quote shows that. as well as the last one: An unwanted baby doesn't have life? So every abandoned child, every crack baby, everyone of those don't have life? Please...

Think about the following scenario. A woman is knocked-up. The reasons don't have to be fully given- the contraceptive failed or whatever. Generally, women who have abortion are underprivileged and simply can't raise a baby. And even if adoption is a possible option (which it isn't always is, especially with those poor families), can you expect a mother to get past the physical and mental stuff a pregnancy and a birth can cause? Have permanent guilt and trauma her entire life? Now, imagine that woman gets an abortion. A couple of years later, she gets a decent job, a supportive husband/boyfriend, and chooses to have a baby. What do you think is better? What do you think will give the mother and the baby a better 'life'? I can hardly call a woman with permanent psychological damage and an unwanted, underpriviliged child having a 'life'.

Tiny fraction of abortions are based on scenarios like this. An adoption is always possible. In fact, in the state of i believe Nebraska, it is legal to simply LEAVE a child at a hospital or Fire station, no questions asked.

Yay. The woman in your scenario had a nicer life. Great. The baby in your scenario died. No matter how awful the life of human beings, you are rare in finding the one who says "yeah, my life DOES suck, go ahead and shoot me, that would be best."

What you are saying makes no sense.

Now, I haven't read any studies on that, but I do believe it is logical to assume that a mother having an unwanted child is more likely to commit infanticide if she is forced to keep the baby. Not only does the child's life end brutally, so does the mother's (essentially). Why? Because a bunch of people denied her the ability to choose what to do with her body, and her reproductive abilities. A woman doesn't exist to be a baby factory- she should have the personal ability to control her body and her bodily functions.

There are laws to prevent her infanticide too. Are you making an excuse for a woman killing her baby? If so, this discussion is hopeless.

No one denied that woman what she could do with her own body. She made that decision when she opened her legs without protection. THAT was her choice. taking the life of a child as a repercussion is no choice at all.

Pro-life? Don't get an abortion and/or discourage other people from doing so. But don't commit physical or psychological violence and certainly don't take a woman's ability to CHOOSE what she wants to do.

The sudden pain a baby will possible feel is nothing compared to what he will have to suffer through life, along with his mother. Pro-lifers should be more concerned with life outside the womb than actual life-inside it- the instant the baby can live on its own, it becomes a true person. Up until that, it's a scientific bunch of cells connected together and utilizing the mother's reproductive capabilities against her will. Do you call that humanitirian? Or a violation of human rights and forcing idealogy upon somebody else who you probably cannot possibly identify with (not that I can, of course)? I say it's the latter.

Choice, guys. Choice is the essence of freedom and democracy. A woman should choose what she wants to do for herself. [/B]

I repeat again that Baby cannot live on its own without its mother after birth. What the heck is the difference?

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B\]
Edit: Truejedi, it all depends on the point of view. Anyone with a true regard for human life beyond just 'being alive' would understand that women who go through abortion likely need it in order to ensure themselves- and their potential future babies- a healthy, happier existence. And what the hell do I care how abortion is performed? Sure, it's gruesome. But it's like the difference between putting someone under anesthesia and slashing apart versus putting someone under anesthesia and poisoning him. The results are the same, and no pain is felt. One has to see beyond the 'horror movie' qualieis of the actual abortion- what is killed is killed painlessly, and what is killed is not yet a true human being (I already said I don't support abortion when the baby is capable of sustaining life outside the uterus). [/B]

There is no anesthetia given to the baby Crimzon. i don't see your point with that at all.

Originally posted by truejedi

That is absolutely untrue. You have made that up. You will not be able to back that up with any statistics whatsoever. The majority of abortions are not from rape. not even close.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE1DC1039F930A25753C1A96F948260

No, you are either being ridiculous or you simply don't get what I said. A woman who wants to get an abortion does not want a baby to develop in her uterus. Therefore, a woman who wants to get an abortion and is denied false under the definition of someone whose body is used in a way that is directly against her will.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by truejedi
This is ridiculous. A baby is entirely dependant on its mother for years after its born. Does that make it any less of a person? No. We call that a child. We have laws to protect children. Try again.

No. The different is- a child, either past a certain point in the pregnancy or when he is newborn, is not entirely physically dependant on the mother to live- it can be sustained in other methods. However, for that certain amount of time within the pregnancy, the baby is basically a part of the female body that acts the virtually the same as a rapidly-developing organ- it completely relies on the mother's body and reproductive capabilities. If a woman wants abortion, that baby- which can hardly be considered a 'person' by then- is using the woman's body against her will. That is wrong, and nobody should have the ability to tell somebody else what to do with their body.

Originally posted by truejedi
You would like to turn it into a religious debate wouldn't you?

Oh, I have many, many things to say about religion. But you're not religious, are you? So, no, I don't want to turn this specifically into a religious debate.

Originally posted by truejedi
But sorry, that is absolutely NOT what is at stake here. This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with being informed about what you are saying, because to this point, you have spouted a lot of nonsense that i'm sure you have never researched yourself. The reason i'm sure you haven't researched it yourself is because nothing you are even saying is true.

RIGHT, because the vast majority of things I have stated are fundamental human rights, the ability to choose and information I have collected. Aside from the information part, that is philosophical and my personal outlook on life.

Unlike the pro-choice individuals, however, I DO NOT attempt to force my philosophy or my world view upon others.

Originally posted by truejedi
url]http://www.thebabyswebsite.com/pre-conception-to-birth/life-in-the-womb.html[/url]

There are numerous other sites that back this one up. You are speaking from ignorance. Your first sentence of this Quote shows that. as well as the last one: An unwanted baby doesn't have life? So every abandoned child, every crack baby, everyone of those don't have life? Please...

Wow.

Alright, according to the website you provided, "The brain starts to interpret sensory patterns at six months.". Let's say a month has 30 days. 30 X 6= 180. That's, say, week 25, week 26. Do you know what percentage of women have abortions past the 20th week? 1.4%. The legal abortion limit within the states fluctuates between week 28 and below. And now, the article says that the baby 'begins' to develop that consciousness (even if it's more reflexive consciousness than true, human self-consicousness- which I read somewhere only develops several months after the baby is born)- and very, very few women have abortions past the 20th week, let alone past the 26th week. At the absolute, most rare worst, the baby's senses are only 'beginning' to develop.

And besides, the fact still exists that the baby inside the womb still relies only on the life granted to him by the woman's body- which could be against her direct will.

And, honestly, a 'crack baby' may have a life by the scientific and religious definition of it- but what is truly a a life? What is better- a pregnancy that can result in the baby's and his mother's life being destroyed, or stopping the pregnancy and commencing a new one under ideal circumstances? In which both the woman and the baby can live an ideal life? Guess. 'Living' isn't just breathing, talking, walking. It's experiencing and enjoying a full life- not an empty, love-less existence which an unwanted baby is likely to receive. And that's not even beginning to talk about the impact it would have on the mother.

Originally posted by truejedi
Ty fraction of abortions are based on scenarios like this. An adoption is always possible. In fact, in the state of i believe Nebraska, it is legal to simply LEAVE a child at a hospital or Fire station, no questions asked.

Great. Now, put yourself in the shoes of a woman. Is giving your baby away from adoption easy? Do you think any woman could just give away her baby, just like that? Can you consider the emotional and physical damage done to her, permanently? It will result in life-long guilt and trauma.

Also, I wouldn't hesitate to say that abortion is probably not the first choice seen by women. If they want to adopt a baby, go ahead- but one must consider the true effects of adoption upon the mother and the baby. For example, check out this paper:

http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=11454&cn=11

Or this: http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=11455&cn=11

According to the adoption.com website, "Women making adoption plans often come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Yes, that's according to the actual, adoption-encouraging website- that the majority of voluntary adoptions come from families that have an 'upper middle-class' status- hardly the typical group of women who want to go through abortion. So, yes, this would imply (to me) that if your economic status is greater, it is, quite simply, easier to get an adoption. It would make sense, too.

So, yes, adoption is not always a plausible option and it likely has an impact on the entirety of both the mother's and the child's life. It could all have been so easily changed...

Originally posted by truejedi
Yay. The woman in your scenario had a nicer life. Great. The baby in your scenario died. No matter how awful the life of human beings, you are rare in finding the one who says "yeah, my life DOES suck, go ahead and shoot me, that would be best."

What you are saying makes no sense.

No, you make 0% sense. By your logic, "THE BABY'S TECHNICALLY ALIVE SO YAY ALL IS GOOD!!11!!". No. An unwanted birth can change- and destroy- the life of both the mother and her child. A destroyed life, no matter how you look at it, is not true life. You should be more concerned about life outside the womb than life inside it- true life, that is.

And in my scenario, the woman and the baby lived a much better, much more wholesome life. All because of a simple abortion.

Originally posted by truejedi
There are laws to prevent her infanticide too. Are you making an excuse for a woman killing her baby? If so, this discussion is hopeless.

Of course I'm not encouraging or glorifying infanticide. I am simply explaining that abortion can likely reduce the likelihood of the unwilling mother going to infanticide- which would both result in the virtual end of her life, and the baby dying a far more brutal death than the one it would get in abortion.

No one denied that woman what she could do with her own body. She made that decision when she opened her legs without protection. THAT was her choice. taking the life of a child as a repercussion is no choice at all.

Originally posted by truejedi
I repeat again that Baby cannot live on its own without its mother after birth. What the heck is the difference?

That the goddamn baby, up until 28 weeks into the pregnancy or so, cannot sustain life without the mother's consent. It is therefore not truly alive, considering that its life simply feeds off the mother- who, if she is interesting in abortion, does not want to consent to being used as an unwilling baby-maker. I repeat- so long as something is directly dependant on somebody's body, and that somebody did not give that something the consent to do that, the certain somebody has the right to choose whether or not they wish to support the life. Otherwise, it's a direct violation of woman's rights, reproduction rights, and the most important right to choose what you want to do with your body.

And no, the baby does not get anesthesia. So? The mother does. It's never been proven that the baby can feel pain.

the pain is not the issue here. Its depriving a child of a lifetime for 9 months of comfort.

No, you obviously fail to understand that if a woman who wants to have an abortion doesn't get it, there are obviously reasons beyond 'laziness'. The basic human instinct is to want to give birth- women would want to have abortions because adoption is not a plausible option (I've already substantiated and gave articles about the negative long-term effects adoptions have on both the adoptees and the birth mothers), or because they are unable to raise the baby due to a lack of support, lack of funds, etc.

And besides, all of that really doesn't matter, because in a democractic nation, I repeat, EVERY SINGLE PERSON SHOULD HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER THEIR BODY AND WHO THEY CHOOSE TO HELP SUSTAIN LIFE. A PREGNANCY THAT A WOMAN WANTS TO ABORT IS AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY, WHICH MEANS THAT THE WOMAN'S BODY, REPRODUCTIVE QUALITIES, AND NATURAL ABILITIES ARE USED AGAINST HER *****NG WILL. THAT IS ANTI-DEMOCRACTIC, ANTI-WOMAN, AND A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Now, if you need any further clarification, let's further detail my example, shall we?

Step One: A 20 years old or so woman who comes from an underprivileged, poor background has sex with her boyfriend- they use contraceptives, which fail and she learns she is pregnant. This seems to be the most plausible scenario for a woman who would be interested in getting an abortion. Now, then, let's look at the three things she can do. Presumably, that is an unwanted pregnancy and she is uninterested in keeping it:

Keep the baby: The woman is pressured and bullied by family members/religious organizations/etc. into keeping the baby. The baby is unwanted by the mother, who develops a love-hate feeling for the baby, which she would feel- to some understandable extent- has stolen her life away by preventing her from advancing in life and doing whatever the hell she wanted to do. Here is something a 'pro-lifer' should never support- the woman's life is all but taken away, and it is safe to assume that the child will suffer the results of being somewhat unwanted. This will possibly develop into abuse. In any case, both the baby and its mother have their lives in ruins, in addition to permanent emotional scarring and the virtual robbing of the woman's right to lead the life she wants to.

Get an adoption: Not only is it harder for women of a low social-economic background to get an abortion- as implied by the website actually supporting and encouraging adoption- there will be permanent emotional scarring, disorders, and suffering caused by the adoption, to both the baby and the mother. They are many and listed in the articles I provided. Whatever the case might be, this certainly prevents the child from leading a normal, ideal life. The effects on the mother are even greater- she would be permanently traumatized from either virtually abandoning something she is genetically designed to love, causing eternal feelings of guilt and regret, or she would resort to option number 1. Which would totally suck. Through no fault of her own, both the mother's and the child's lives can never be normal.

Abortion: I am NOT saying abortion is the perfect choice. But it's the best one. First off, the pro-choice website says that any post-abortion disorder is a myth- and I certainly trust its credibility. Whatever it is, while it would likely be a life-changing experience, it's the one with the least harmful impact- the mother, having never seen, heard, or even known the child was truly alive would have less guilt feelings or emotional disorders past an abortion. Indeed, her life can go on virtually normally until she financially stabilizes, gets into a steady relationship and/or marries, and finally has a baby out of her own personal choice. The baby and the mother get to lead as normal a life as possible- and for someone 'pro-life', you should also note that leading a life is also about enjoying it and getting to experience it to its full extent. This is, for that purpose, the best choice.

So here you go. Abortion is, in multiple cases, the best choice, AND besides, not having readily available abortion is a direct violation of humanitarian rights.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
the pain is not the issue here. Its depriving a child of a lifetime for 9 months of comfort.

For all your talk of right and wrong - ironic, considering you offered to murder someone - you simply don't give a damn about what happens to the mother. You're blatantly putting the life of the fetus over hers, and it's a sickening double-standard.

And truejedi, stop with the holier-than-thou bullshit. Don't act like you're some scholarly saint standing up for the greater good and the rest of us are uneducated, delusional, morally challenged buffoons who have no idea what we're talking about. We're informed, we've done our research. We're not encouraging abortion; we would prefer it simply wasn't necessary. But your double-standards on the matter are irksome. It is wrong to kill a fetus - that's what it is, I won't sugarcoat it - but it is perfectly acceptable to deny a grown woman the right choose what to do with her body and life?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Lol I'm done arguing with people's personal views. You want to believe in evolution, go right ahead. You want to support abortion, I don't give a damn. My reason is from looking at this, it probably has enough nerves to feel pain from right at the beginning. Please, read the details of an abortion, and if you still feel that this is appropriate to be doing to someone that could very well be a human being, come talk to me again and I will kill you for your psychopathic insanity.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
um... its still a bundle of flesh blood and nerves after its born too. can we kill it then? By that logic you are a bundle of flesh, blood and nerves. Can I kill you?

I think i will now.

A living baby has had a chance to accumulate experiences, make emotional connections, and can breath and live on its own. It is no longer a parasite using its mother as a host- it is self sufficient, biologically speaking. The fact that it is physically unfit to provide for itself is irrelevant, because there are people other than its mother who can support it. The mother's choice is no longer being infringed.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
K your a ****ing moron.
Occured to you that that "pinprick" will be the GREATEST pain of the baby's life? and that baby will never get to live or see the outside world? maybe its not alive yet (which i seriously have no doubt that it is its just a rhetorical question) but if you kill it while it is still a fetus, you deprive it of its life. That's still pretty bad.

A living, breathing woman, who has feelings, obligations, friends, family, emotions, nerves and intelligence will always take precedence over a sac of cells. She is a real person- the actual > the potential. Have you ever heard the expression: "One in the hand is worth two in the bush?" That is the most concise explanation I can offer, but I would be willing to go into more detail.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Your mom fits in better with someone shes not related to, but I'm sure you and her are getting on fine.
How about you disprove it. I don't have to prove it is a baby, you pro-choicers have to prove it ISN'T.

how do you know you don't feel pain?
so why don't we find a way to kill the mother and save the baby? I'm sure that will solve all of our problems.

Your (hopefully facetious) suggestion to "kill the mother" to "solve all our problems" shows at best a shocking disregard for human life, and at worst a gross misunderstanding of the issues at the heart of this argument.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
ya except its not part of her body.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Indeed, it needs the woman to exist, but it doesn't mean that its not human being. This Idea that if someone is dependent upon someone else they are not human is a load of malarky. It has its own beating heart, its own pair of lungs, its own blood, the only thing it requires from the mother is a safe environment and nutrients.

Originally posted by TJ
An adoption is always possible. In fact, in the state of i believe Nebraska, it is legal to simply LEAVE a child at a hospital or Fire station, no questions asked.

HEY! We're working on that. A special session of the unicameral was called to fix it. At least Ernie Chambers knew what was up- he opposed the safe haven law from the beginning. (I think)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU

Watch.

Oh, and Nemesis? I mean, I agree with your general opinion, but c'mon, man. You're a friggin ZOMBIE. We can't expect you to be pro-life, now, can we?

Originally posted by Master Crimzon

Oh, and Nemesis? I mean, I agree with your general opinion, but c'mon, man. You're a friggin ZOMBIE. We can't expect you to be pro-life, now, can we?

Zombie Abraham Lincoln revived me. Notice that I'm not shot in the head anymore. I worship a zombie, but our initiates are taught to repel him- using logical fallacies and circular logic. The longer you repel him, the deeper you are taken into the bliss of the tophat. (As pope of the Reformed branch of Zombieism, I had to be revived)

Edit: besides, a Zombie's gotta eat. Dumpster babies are good!

(*shudder* I've seen some bad stuff man...)

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
And besides, all of that really doesn't matter, because in a democractic nation, I repeat, EVERY SINGLE PERSON SHOULD HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER THEIR BODY AND WHO THEY CHOOSE TO HELP SUSTAIN LIFE. A PREGNANCY THAT A WOMAN WANTS TO ABORT IS AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY, WHICH MEANS THAT THE WOMAN'S BODY, REPRODUCTIVE QUALITIES, AND NATURAL ABILITIES ARE USED AGAINST HER *****NG WILL. THAT IS ANTI-DEMOCRACTIC, ANTI-WOMAN, AND A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

So should you be allowed to kill someone because they are dependant upon you? I think not.

Now, if you need any further clarification, let's further detail my example, shall we?

Step One: A 20 years old or so woman who comes from an underprivileged, poor background has sex with her boyfriend- they use contraceptives, which fail and she learns she is pregnant. This seems to be the most plausible scenario for a woman who would be interested in getting an abortion. Now, then, let's look at the three things she can do. Presumably, that is an unwanted pregnancy and she is uninterested in keeping it:

Keep the baby: The woman is pressured and bullied by family members/religious organizations/etc. into keeping the baby. The baby is unwanted by the mother, who develops a love-hate feeling for the baby, which she would feel- to some understandable extent- has stolen her life away by preventing her from advancing in life and doing whatever the hell she wanted to do. Here is something a 'pro-lifer' should never support- the woman's life is all but taken away, and it is safe to assume that the child will suffer the results of being somewhat unwanted. This will possibly develop into abuse. In any case, both the baby and its mother have their lives in ruins, in addition to permanent emotional scarring and the virtual robbing of the woman's right to lead the life she wants to.

Get an adoption: Not only is it harder for women of a low social-economic background to get an abortion- as implied by the website actually supporting and encouraging adoption- there will be permanent emotional scarring, disorders, and suffering caused by the adoption, to both the baby and the mother. They are many and listed in the articles I provided. Whatever the case might be, this certainly prevents the child from leading a normal, ideal life.

The effects on the mother are even greater- she would be permanently traumatized from either virtually abandoning something she is genetically designed to love, causing eternal feelings of guilt and regret,

or she would resort to option number 1. Which would totally suck.

Through no fault of her own, both the mother's and the child's lives can never be normal.

Abortion: I am NOT saying abortion is the perfect choice. But it's the best one. First off, the pro-choice website says that any post-abortion disorder is a myth- and I certainly trust its credibility.

Whatever it is, while it would likely be a life-changing experience, it's the one with the least harmful impact- the mother, having never seen, heard, or even known the child was truly alive would have less guilt feelings or emotional disorders past an abortion.

Indeed, her life can go on virtually normally until she financially stabilizes, gets into a steady relationship and/or marries, and finally has a baby out of her own personal choice. The baby and the mother get to lead as normal a life as possible- and for someone 'pro-life', you should also note that leading a life is also about enjoying it and getting to experience it to its full extent. This is, for that purpose, the best choice.

So here you go. Abortion is, in multiple cases, the best choice, AND besides, not having readily available abortion is a direct violation of humanitarian rights. [/B]

Don't you get it? You are deciding someone's fates for them. You are choosing to kill them before they have a chance to make choices or try and fix things for themselves. You're covering up your mistakes at the expense of human life.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Don't you get it? You are deciding someone's fates for them. You are choosing to kill them before they have a chance to make choices or try and fix things for themselves. You're covering up your mistakes at the expense of human life.

EDIT -- On second thought, don't. You've already shown a frightening disregard for the life and rights of a woman, and any further posts are probably just going to erode my faith in humanity.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
your caps lock is hurting my eyes. ITs an affront to my body and I chose to kill you. If someone prosecutes me for doing so its against my civil and human rights and its un-democratic.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

So should you be allowed to kill someone because they are dependant upon you? I think not.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

so she should kill to avoid "emo scarring" boo hoo you let yourself be knocked up and you had a baby. So your going to kill it? that is really killing to avoid a major inconvenience. This is also only one of the possibilities that may happen if she keeps the baby.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

Other possibilities include that she choses to keep the baby because she thinks it is a human and deserves the same courtesy as any human IE not to be murdered and tries to make a better life for them both.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

Another one would be that the horrible evil society who suggested that she should not kill her offspring would pressure them into marrying, thus forming a familiy which has a variety of options open to it.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

[Stawman logical fallacy]

[more strawman mixed with religious propoganda]

[ad homenim with a touch of strawman]
(The doctors' job of informing the mother of the nature of her fetus is not relevant to their medical credibility)

I couldn't take this point by point, because there was no point. You rambled for a while but I didn't find anything you actually said.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

1. Nobody is ever going to experience life to its full extent. This is a given. To deprive someone of 100% of their life because they wouldn't live life to their fullest extent is poor logic.
2. Your logic relies on the fact that an embryo is not a baby and it is the mother's choice on whether or not she wants to kill it. The fact is, its wrong for the mother to kill her offspring. Its bad science, and its bad logic.
Thats wrong. Just wrong. Abortion was not the best choice above, because it pays the ultimate price to avoid possible "emotional scarring".

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
your caps lock is hurting my eyes. ITs an affront to my body and I chose to kill you. If someone prosecutes me for doing so its against my civil and human rights and its un-democratic.

Stop being an idiot. You know your analogy is a load of bullshit.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
So should you be allowed to kill someone because they are dependant upon you? I think not.

Yeah, if, say, I got some sort of rare disease that requires someone to constantly give a piece of themselves (blood, tissue, whatever) to me. Against their direct will, despite the physical and emotional pain they are forced to endure. So, yeah, should they let that person- whether or not it was his choice- use them as a tool for sustaining their life? Say were the one strapped to a chair and forced to give me the ability to live. Is that right, I ask you?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
so she should kill to avoid "emo scarring" boo hoo you let yourself be knocked up and you had a baby. So your going to kill it? that is really killing to avoid a major inconvenience.

It's not killing. It's terminating something that could have eventually grown and developed into a full-fleged human being while it was still not truly human, conscious, or self-sufficient being. It was the mother's personal choice not to be used as an unwilling baby factory.

And, yeah, the baby will lead a piece of shit life when another baby that the mother could later give birth to could lead a superior life.

How do you define life? Are you like these conservatives that don't give a **** about people unless they're inside a womb? 'Life' isn't just breathing, eating, walking, talking. And, by god, it would be better for everyone if a woman is not forced to keep a product of her own body against her will.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
This is also only one of the possibilities that may happen if she keeps the baby. Other possibilities include that she choses to keep the baby because she thinks it is a human and deserves the same courtesy as any human IE not to be murdered and tries to make a better life for them both.

'Murder' is the killing of a real human, not a parasite that takes advantage of the unwilling mother. Really, your opinions about abortion- including your blatant "I don't give a damn" attitude regarding what happens to the mother- is anti-woman, anti-feminist and terribly, terribly conservative. Really, does she not have the right to live a decent life?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Another one would be that the horrible evil society who suggested that she should not kill her offspring would pressure them into marrying, thus forming a familiy which has a variety of options open to it. There have been countless examples of women who accidentally got pregnant and loved their children and their children grew up well.

Right, examples served to you by pro-life and adoption sites that depict things from a black-and-white angle "Abortion is bad! Women who commit abortion are selfish, pathetic and deserve to die!".

If anything, choosing to raise a child when you are unable to sustain him and live on a minimum wage is a selfish act, considering that instead of waiting for some time in order to be able to give another baby a better life, you just decided to give one baby a crappy life because of your pro-life values. And a having an unwanted baby would likely rob the woman of her life, the possibilities of economic expansion, and will hurt the chances of ever having a long-term relationship.

What's better? A single, 20 year old mom with poor, unwanted child, or a 30 year old mother with a happy, beloved child and a supportive husband? An abortion can mean the difference between those two ends.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
so because it will not lead a normal ideal life we should kill it? if you grew up without a father should we kill you? you aren't leading an ideal life. if Someone goes through life missing their toe, should we kill them? they aren't living an ideal life. how about physically and literally killing something she is genetically designed to love? because the baby wouldn't lead an ideal life.

Stop, breathe, chuck that bible out of your window, and listen. Killing a fetus is not murder- it's the stopping of the expansion of a purely scientific process that utilizes somebody's body directly against their will. Going by your logic, any parasite that uses your body deserves to live.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
it is their fault. they should have waited until they could support children and marriage before having sex.

No. They used contraception, which many uneducated people would likely be led to believe are guaranteed to stop pregnancy. Not to mention that sex is as much a natural impulse as the loving of an infant- in fact, it's a more immediate, more irresistible impulse.

W-wait, you're against pre-martial sex, too?!?! Let me guess... you're against gay-marriage and think Iran should die, right?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
The most stupid person knows that the risk of pregnancy is always open. And its not the fault of the child either. I notice you failed to put that down.

It's not the fault of a mother who did everything in her (limited) power to stop herself from becoming pregnant. All things considered, those people are hardly likely to be getting a decent, truly EDUCATIONAL sex education. The less you know about the sex, the more likely you are to be harmed by doing it.

For example, Palin is a strong opponent of an explicit sex education and the distribution of contraceptives in schools. She probably thinks it's 'indecent' or what not. The truth is, teenagers are gonna have sex no matter what- sex education just needs to improve.

No, it's not the child's fault- but it is basically a parasite that was forced on the mother against her will.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
so you blindly trust something's credibility? This is the same place that says that its not a baby when very many scientists believe that it is. These people look into a mother's eyes and tell her that it is not a baby.

What is a baby? What is a human being? In my opinion, a human being is a self-conscious thing that can sustain its own life without relying on somebody else's body.

The utilization of someone's reproductive system directly against their will is a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Here, I'll give you an example; it's like somebody forced you to donate your semen in order to impregnate people all over the world. That's also a violation of human rights. Say, somebody forced you to donate a kidney. That's also a violation of human rights. Sure, they help support life and may be the right thing to do- but, ultimately, choice comes first. And choice is the pillar upon which freedom and democracy is built.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
how incredibly selfish of the mother... so she is going to decide to kill her offspring, the innocent fruit of her own actions because she would have "emotional problems" because of it? That's the biggest example of a total indifference towards human life I have EVER heard.

NO, SHE IS NOT. Do you think a mother would have an easy time getting an abortion? But, do you think it's okay for a woman's body to be used against her will? For her not to do whatever the hell she wants with it?

A woman has a choice to build her life the way she wants to. That life probably includes an infant who lead a better, happier life than the unwanted fetus forced upon the mother.

And why the hell don't you give a rat's ass about the mother in this entire abortion ordeal thing?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
1. Nobody is ever going to experience life to its full extent. This is a given. To deprive someone of 100% of their life because they wouldn't live life to their fullest extent is poor logic.

Alright. Let's go cold, hard, hypothetical, somewhat sick percentile:

Say, an unwanted child gets to experience their life to a 60% maximum. However, the mother's life is completely dominated by it, and so she is only able to lead a life 40% of its capability. Now, imagine the other scenario- the mother's life is better and the infant is wanted and in a loving family. What's more beneficial? What's more right?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
2. Your logic relies on the fact that an embryo is not a baby and it is the mother's choice on whether or not she wants to kill it. The fact is, its wrong for the mother to kill her offspring. Its bad science, and its bad logic.

It's bad logic that a woman should choose what she uses her body and reproductive abilities for?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Thats wrong. Just wrong. Abortion was not the best choice above, because it pays the ultimate price to avoid possible "emotional scarring".

The so-called, much dramatized 'ultimate price' is little more than the ending of a scientific process in which a bunch of reproductive cells expand to form a life form. That process is very much stop-able, and is within the mother's own body- it is therefore necessary that she is given the liberty to stop that process, that is taking advantage of her bodily capabilities against her will.

'Emotional scarring', which you attempt to simplify and make laughable, is the virtual destruction of two lives- the baby's and the mother's. Abortion is not a selfish act- it's not done purely for the woman's benefit, and is certainly not done lightly. It's the halting of a scientific process so that the woman could later replicate it, under superior circumstances. It will result in a happier existence for both her eventual child, herself, and probably her family, too.

By the way, say that having the unwanted child would prevent her from getting another child. However, if she aborts the unwanted child, she will eventually get another one, who will lead a much happier existence. Why is that unwanted child worth more than the eventual wanted one? The difference is the mother's choice and parenting capabilities.

Ultimately, your argument comes down to the following- A bunch of expanding chromosomes, cells, and nerves expanding involuntarily are more important than the life of a fully conscious, grown woman and her choices/human rights.

I don't know how they do it, but BL is about this topic. KMC<BL, but the connection is there- Alan is going to get some chinese girl a judicial bypass to get an abortion w/o parental consent. This is just too perfect.

i'm going to stop. Its weird. You notice how people can HONESTLY believe both sides of an issue. Its true of most political issues. You have people who are all moderately intelligent who honestly think the other side is making no sense at all.

It would make an interesting psychological research. Its not because one side or the other of the debate is truly stupid, or truly evil, its because their own values are interpreted differently. Both sides have values, but they interpret issues exactly different. Its the reason why the elections of the last 12 years have all been split almost down the middle. The popular vote hasn't had larger than a 5% swing during that time has it?

The reason for this is simple. It is mind-numbing to me, how people can yell and scream about the rights of the woman, and completely ignore the rights of the baby.
I'm quitting because this issue does make me much too angry. In the case of a sick person, an unwanted child, or even the elderly, ALL of the reasons you have given for the extermination of a pregnancy would apply doubly. THink of this: Unwanted children are paid for by the state. By me. By you. This means that they are inconveniencing me. By your logic, they should be killed. If someone is handicapped, they should be killed.

The flawed logic is SO obvious to me. and To you it is not. Peculiar.

Originally posted by truejedi

The reason for this is simple. It is mind-numbing to me, how people can yell and scream about the rights of the woman, and completely ignore the rights of the baby.

The baby isn't a baby yet; it's a non-sentient, growing organism.

I'm quitting because this issue does make me much too angry. In the case of a sick person, an unwanted child, or even the elderly, ALL of the reasons you have given for the extermination of a pregnancy would apply doubly. THink of this: Unwanted children are paid for by the state. By me. By you. This means that they are inconveniencing me. By your logic, they should be killed. If someone is handicapped, they should be killed.

Not to mention that the handicapped, adopted, and elderly are cared for by people who want to keep them alive. If a mother actually wants to have her baby - like, really, really wants to, not "they told me too" - then bless her. If she doesn't, then it's her choice.

The flawed logic is SO obvious to me. and To you it is not. Peculiar.

Originally posted by truejedi

I'm quitting because this issue does make me much too angry.

😛