Should the government stop abortions?

[xWnLx Crisco]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

So...are you under 18? If so, I'm going to kill you without adult consent...since you have no rights apprantly, I woudln't even get in trouble!

Oh wow you are truly amusing

I am above the age of 18, and have you noticed that most "accidental" murders caused by children under the age of 18 get a slap on the wrist?

Your parental guidance is legally accountable for anything an American Child under the age of 18 does. That is why any school can be sued if a child hurts another child.

Any crime commited before 18 years old is wiped off your police record once you hit 18. Then you have to sign up for the draft and so on.........

Thats why most adults will tell a child to have fun now before its too late.

But I can certainly tell you are under the age of a mature adult and with reasoning like what you stated is pathetic.


I can't beleive you brought up the canadian government's health care "system". How much actual research have you done about that subject and refresh my memory on what the difference between the US population and Canandian population is?


and loses all access to human rights. Which they do........
extends to fetuses to say that they aren't human when were they?
pressing your beliefs on people and won't take no for an answer right? I am counter balancing the arguement and not "pushing" anyone to beleive me

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Oh wow you are truly amusing

I am above the age of 18, and have you noticed that most "accidental" murders caused by children under the age of 18 get a slap on the wrist?

Your parental guidance is legally accountable for anything an American Child under the age of 18 does. That is why any school can be sued if a child hurts another child.

Any crime commited before 18 years old is wiped off your police record once you hit 18. Then you have to sign up for the draft and so on.........

Thats why most adults will tell a child to have fun now before its too late.

But I can certainly tell you are under the age of a mature adult and with reasoning like what you stated is pathetic.


I can't beleive you brought up the canadian government's health care "system". How much actual research have you done about that subject and refresh my memory on what the difference between the US population and Canandian population is?


and loses all access to human rights. Which they do........
extends to fetuses to say that they aren't human when were they?
pressing your beliefs on people and won't take no for an answer right? I am counter balancing the arguement and not "pushing" anyone to beleive me

Uhm... try again, there have been many cases where minors keep their criminal history. What you suggest is that you could commit murder the day before you turn 18 and it will be wiped clean the next day. It is also possible for minors to be tried as adults which would give them sentences that extends far into their life.

[xWnLx Crisco]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Uhm... try again, there have been many cases where minors keep their criminal history. What you suggest is that you could commit murder the day before you turn 18 and it will be wiped clean the next day. It is also possible for minors to be tried as adults which would give them sentences that extends far into their life.

Yeh many cases............thats not ALL cases now is it?

I was stating the actual WRITTEN law of course there is always times where they can be trialed as an adult but the Jury must decide if that is the childs fate.

They are not automatically accused as an adult. Most trials aren't held for many months any way so if he commited the crime when he was 17 and was 18 by the time the court date was then he could be accused as an adult.

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Oh wow you are truly amusing

I'm glad I bring you amusement.

I am above the age of 18, and have you noticed that most "accidental" murders caused by children under the age of 18 get a slap on the wrist?

Who said anything about caused by children? You said that a child under 18 has no rights, which means that they are not legally protected, which means I can kill all the children I want and not get in trouble. And since that is patently absurd, children under 18 -do- have rights.

Your parental guidance is legally accountable for anything an American Child under the age of 18 does. That is why any school can be sued if a child hurts another child.

In the United States, it seems that a judge can sue a dry cleaning company for 60 million dollars because he couldn't wear his favourite pants...Compared to that, a school being sued when two kids fight isn't the least bit unbelievable to me.

Any crime commited before 18 years old is wiped off your police record once you hit 18. Then you have to sign up for the draft and so on.........

That's actually just not true. Not only are serious crimes kept on your record, when you are close to adulthood (usually 14+) especially serious crimes actually just get you tried as a full-on adult.

But I can certainly tell you are under the age of a mature adult and with reasoning like what you stated is pathetic.

I'm curious what evidence you have for my age? Or how my age is actually relevant? Also, please demonstrate how my reasoning is "pathetic"

I can't beleive you brought up the canadian government's health care "system". How much actual research have you done about that subject and refresh my memory on what the difference between the US population and Canandian population is?

Have I done research about which subject? The canadian health care system? the comparison between Canada and the United States in terms of population? Health care systems? Teen pregnancy? Availability of Birth Control? Some specificity would be helpful.

The difference between the populations is 10:1, and that makes no difference to the point at all. You have ten times the -everything- including tax revenue to support the ten times the population.

and loses all access to human rights. Which they do........

Um...you think that convicted criminals lose all human rights? That's about as far from the truth as you can get. The rights of criminals in prison as determined by the legal system are among the most zelously protected rights going. Someone in a prison has their basic human needs cared for a hell of a lot better than a single mom with three kids living under the poverty line who can't afford insurence.

extends to fetuses to say that they aren't human when were they?

Wow, you completely missed the point of my analogy. You said "Fetuses aren't human and therefore have no human rights" also "This is the same as saying that we should kill prisoners with terms over 30 years"

The extension of your analogy is that "prisoners with terms over 30 years are not human, and therefore have no human rights" I -hope- to see that such a statement is untrue, and thus, your analogy doesn't hold.

I am counter balancing the arguement and not "pushing" anyone to beleive me

You stated "Keep it to yourself because no one cares about your religous babble or fetus "rights"."

This is a pretty clear-cut case, to me, of you stating authoritativly that you are correct, and they are incorrect in a tone that very strongly suggests that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Thus: You are refusing to take no for an answer, by saying "If your answer is no, nobody cares, don't say so"

[xWnLx Crisco]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I'm glad I bring you amusement.


Who said anything about caused by children? You said that a child under 18 has no rights, which means that they are not legally protected, which means I can kill all the children I want and not get in trouble. And since that is patently absurd, children under 18 -do- have rights.

What rights?


In the United States, it seems that a judge can sue a dry cleaning company for 60 million dollars because he couldn't wear his favourite pants...Compared to that, a school being sued when two kids fight isn't the least bit unbelievable to me.

Isn't america great?

That's actually just not true. Not only are serious crimes kept on your record, when you are close to adulthood (usually 14+) especially serious crimes actually just get you tried as a full-on adult.

Depends on the juries decision on that case

I'm curious what evidence you have for my age? Or how my age is actually relevant? Also, please demonstrate how my reasoning is "pathetic"

Just the fact that most of your replies you try to "switch" the position I try to talk about and how you seem to think that everyone loves each other and we should all help each other out.

Have I done research about which subject? The canadian health care system? the comparison between Canada and the United States in terms of population? Health care systems? Teen pregnancy? Availability of Birth Control? Some specificity would be helpful.

I was thinking more along the lines of how your 2.1 doctors per thousand citizen ratio and how a simple procedure will take about a month just for you to see a doctor.

The difference between the populations is 10:1, and that makes no difference to the point at all. You have ten times the -everything- including tax revenue to support the ten times the population.

You think all 10 of those people pay the taxes and have jobs?

Um...you think that convicted criminals lose all human rights? That's about as far from the truth as you can get. The rights of criminals in prison as determined by the legal system are among the most zelously protected rights going. Someone in a prison has their basic human needs cared for a hell of a lot better than a single mom with three kids living under the poverty line who can't afford insurence.

Oh so Prisoners can go outside and get a job? I personally know 2 felons and to this day can't find a job due to their records.

Wow, you completely missed the point of my analogy. You said "Fetuses aren't human and therefore have no human rights" also "This is the same as saying that we should kill prisoners with terms over 30 years"

The extension of your analogy is that "prisoners with terms over 30 years are not human, and therefore have no human rights" I -hope- to see that such a statement is untrue, and thus, your analogy doesn't hold.

I wouldn't go as far as saying they are not human but I will say that once they are in prison they are getting the "better" end of the deal. If a thread about that subject opens I will inform you on my opinion.

You stated "Keep it to yourself because no one cares about your religous babble or fetus "rights"."

This is a pretty clear-cut case, to me, of you stating authoritativly that you are correct, and they are incorrect in a tone that very strongly suggests that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Thus: You are refusing to take no for an answer, by saying "If your answer is no, nobody cares, don't say so"
Well there are alot of idiots in this world and who is to say I can't spot them out?

Read Bold

Cited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_health_care#Government_involvement

[OrganisM]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

The point is that it introduces new genes to the system, the genes belonging to the animal the organ was taken from.

So you're saying it changes your genetic material? Do you start growing pig ears? Does your eye color change, does anything about you change? No.

If you get an organ transplant from another human, you don't become them. It's just tissue. It does nothing to alter YOUR genetics.

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Isn't Lamarckism fun for the whole family?

At least...if it was fun for your parents it will be fun for you.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Is it just me, or is xWnLx Crisco just spewing a whole bunch of nothin'. Sorry, but if you can't spell believe, this forum isn't for you.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Isn't Lamarckism fun for the whole family?

At least...if it was fun for your parents it will be fun for you.

PS. If you get stung by enough bees you turn into a bee, because the venom gets into the blood stream which spreads bee DNA throughout your entire body...changing your genetic structure into a bee's.

Every year roughly 125 people in America are turned into bees this way.

[OrganisM]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

PS. If you get stung by enough bees you turn into a bee, because the venom gets into the blood stream which spreads bee DNA throughout your entire body...changing your genetic structure into a bee's.

Every year roughly 125 people in America are turned into bees this way.

I'm not being a kiss-ass, but, quoted.

Perhaps the main reason I'm so irritated at the creation of this topic is the fact that it's so base and nonspecific. If it was more focused perhaps we'd get some more original replies, and we'd likely get out of the loopholes we argue back and forth about.

Don't get me wrong, fair debate is a wonderful thing. It's just that when we're either not on the same page or arguing by taking arbitrary points of view as fact, we're not bringing anything to the debate.

Sound reasonable, stretchy?

If I were allowed to, I'd recreate an abortion thread, this time outlining the political climates within the US and Canada (since the users posting in this thread seem to be from either country) and their differences, displaying the basic principles of different schools of thought, and allowing the ends open to discussion. This gets rid of petty arguments arising from misinterpretation and also stops unnecessary repetitiveness.

EDIT: There's an idea for Tass's sticky. The obvious thing that should be included as a rule is focused discussion, instead of "post your thoughts on life n' stuff".

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Okay, so I went to my philosophy professor today to review what we went over in class and I completely misremembered what we went over.

I was wrong, it is established scientifically that once a sperm and an egg joined you have a human being. The catch is that, under the eyes of the law, the status of human being is irrelevant, as the law protects persons, not human beings, and the two are not mutually inclusive. The question of human being status is one of science, but the question of person status is one of philosophy, and that is why there is so much debate.

Sorry for the confusion.

As such, I believe the government should not stop abortion until they can come up with a universally accepted definition of "person" and draw the line from there.

[xWnLx Crisco]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Is it just me, or is xWnLx Crisco just spewing a whole bunch of nothin'. Sorry, but if you can't spell believe, this forum isn't for you.

So I misspell one word wrong and my points are deemed invalid?

Yeh nice reasoning.......


Well if Human state and person is different then I will say that they are a person when they come out of the mother at time of birth.

So therefore she could abort anytime before actual birth and in my eyes would not be "murder".

[Tyren]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

The biggest problem I see with defining 'person' is its rediculous relativity to the situation. Im sure the government has defined this word over and over again, however due to the vast moral scenarios that keep popping up, the term needs to continuously be redefined. Since language is just a bunch of symbols, these symbols are always going to mean something different to another. Conveying one unifying thought with a symbol becomes potentially difficult at this point, especially when it has to be voted upon.

Overall, it creates quite a task at hand, likely delaying abortion under the terms you suggest. Im not saying thats particularly a bad thing...but damned if I was the government official(s) assigned to do that job.

[stretchypanda]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

So I misspell one word wrong and my points are deemed invalid?

Yeh nice reasoning.......


Well if Human state and person is different then I will say that they are a person when they come out of the mother at time of birth.

So therefore she could abort anytime before actual birth and in my eyes would not be "murder".

No, really, I have to agree with him. You seem to have some good points, but you are often expressing them so poorly that I cannot decide which side of the fence you're on.

Also, to go back to devonin's statement, about the phrasing of the question being wrong: I feel like the question is incredibly straightforward, but any debate involving something like abortion has the unfortunate side effect of attracting people who will simply give their opinion on the rightness or wrongness of the act and don't answer the question.

I'll answer the topic question: No, I don't think the government should stop abortions. I think there should be some kind of regulation in place, but it is hard to regulate what a woman can and cannot do with her body.

Completely outlawing abortion opens the window for women dying in alley-way abortion "clinics", raped women having no alternative to carrying an unwanted child, and endangering the lives of mothers as well as having no option when one learns the child being carried will be unable to survive once it is born.

That's not to say I support abortion. It is a touchy subject and I do believe that there are alternatives in almost any situation, but there are also those situations I can't even begin to put myself in and THAT is what tells me I have no right to decide for the rest of the country.

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I'll answer the topic question: No, I don't think the government should stop abortions.

That's not to say I support abortion.

This is why I felt the question should have said "Should the government -be able- to stop abortion" rather than simply "Should they"

"Should they" implies that we're discussing whether it is a moral or immoral act, and that the government has every right to legislate if it is immoral. I don't think that is the case though. Whether the population at large finds it perfectly acceptable, or completely reprehensable, I don't feel the government has the -right- to try and attach legality or illegality to it.