Should the government stop abortions?

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by The Bain

No, I have not yet had sex. I'm waiting until marriage. Why? I just know better. My best friend indulged early and his world nearly came crashing down. Abortions should not be a crutch so as for one to say "I sure hope you don't get pregnant, but even if you do, at least you can get an abortion."
Wrong

I also hope to marry another virgin. As for having kids, one day I will be overjoyed to be a father. Will I enjoy having sex with my partner? Absoultely

However, if two teengers are having sex is it really love? Is it really that deep emotion connection that you refer to? No it's lust, a hormonal desire for both of them to indulge in adult affairs just like the porngraphy you refered to. If it's a husband and a wife, it's a whole different story.

For the record this is the last post I'm going to make. Peace out

Wow, you're ignorant.

I won't even argue the point; you're beyond help.

Note: I'm sure you've come up with this completely on your own, and that you don't appeal to stereotypes at all. I completely see where you're coming from.

Jesus Christ, you're a posterchild for the ignorant, naive, and pretentious bastards who make assumptions based upon what they have absolutely no comprehension of.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

Wow, you're ignorant.

I won't even argue the point; you're beyond help.

Note: I'm sure you've come up with this completely on your own, and that you don't appeal to stereotypes at all. I completely see where you're coming from.

Jesus Christ, you're a posterchild for the ignorant, naive, and pretentious bastards who make assumptions based upon what they have absolutely no comprehension of.

Well, since

I also hope to marry another virgin.

At least you can go away knowing that more than likely his first time will be absolutely no fun at all *grin*

[DJ Arsenault]

Originally Posted by The Bain

No, I have not yet had sex. I'm waiting until marriage. Why? I just know better. My best friend indulged early and his world nearly came crashing down.

You guys, I'm the best friend he's talking about... and you shouldn't insult him by saying he's naive and a some sort of pretentious bastard. this couldn't be a more serious issue. our city has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in Canada. this is a genuine case, one of the only few left, of a teen making and setting an example for his peers to follow... i only wish i knew him sooner. sex made everything so much more complicated for me, and when my relationship finally and horribly ended, i was near the brink of suicide.

You may not agree with his opinion, but you have to respect him for his choices. on ffr he's just a profile, just someone "out there". if you knew him, you'd know why he's decided this. he's seen the horrors and he's helped me through them. he's one of the few responsible teens left (universally as well... not one it just comes to sex, or abortions but to drinking, partying and drugs) you may think he's "boring" or lame.... but he's a pretty full and fun life.

By the way, to one of your jokes about his first time being lame and ****, we all started out as virgins... just cause you have more experience and lost sooner, didn't make you any different then he is now. he's just followed his beliefs.

Believe me, its worth it.... I'm out

[DJ Arsenault]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

Jesus Christ, you're a posterchild for the ignorant, naive, and pretentious bastards who make assumptions based upon what they have absolutely no comprehension of.

and to you organisM... i'm not ignorant. i have experienced it all, and can safely say this guy knows what the fuk he's talkin about... you are the posterchild of the arrogant, know-it-all, judgemental, "sex to be mature" people.

[devonin]

I think you're both going a little past rule 2's stricture against flaming, and taking things personally, and going wildly off topic.

[Adamaja456]

I'm not sure if this is how the law is right now.

i feel women should have the choice if they want an abortion BEFORE the egg develops to a certain degree. I can't remember how many weeks it is until the eggs develops heart, lungs etc, but i feel if it has NOT developed those vital organs, to me, its not alive and its perfectly fine to have an abortion.
After that xweeks and its clear heart and lungs are present, women should not be allowed to abort their baby

If a girl gets raped, she should consult her doctor. If he/she says the girl is pregnant, then that girl should be able to abort her baby before it develops

thats just what I think =]

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by DJ Arsenault

and to you organisM... i'm not ignorant. i have experienced it all, and can safely say this guy knows what the fuk he's talkin about... you are the posterchild of the arrogant, know-it-all, judgemental, "sex to be mature" people.

You've contributed absolutely NOTHING to this discussion.

You seem quite ignorant from the way you speak. I don't care who or what you are, you have nothing to back up anything you say. There are so many millions of people who have sex before and without marriage, and they're living proof that the world keeps on spinning.

I don't think that sex makes me mature, nor did I ever state that. You're slow-witted and jump to conclusions fast, which has proven a dangerous combination. How do I know this? The very fact that you're arguing my point in his favor by coming in this thread and whining about it.

The fact that you've had a bad experience has no reflection on the truth that sex is perfectly justifiable before marriage, and at least, it alone, won't bring your life crashing down upon you.

At age 16, I'm sure you've experienced it all. How naive and pretentious.

Now, shut up, since you have no points to make and only wish to whine, and get on topic, or get OUT.

[DJ Arsenault]

is 18 old enough? At what age would you consider pre-marital sex to be justifiable? you have little or no moral standards... and who f*** are you anyways? Ghandi? you egotistical know-it-all prick.

[MalReynolds]

I dunno, I had sex at 17 and managed to not get a girl pregnant.

It's really not that hard.

[devonin]

Whoa whoa whoa, we're devolving into outright flaming and insults here. Can we take a step back?

Organism: If he says he's personally had life experience that tells him something about the practice of pre-marital sex, grant him his point. -He- has had the experience to tell -him- something for -him-

DJ Arsenault: Your mileage may vary. Just because -you- have had sufficient experiences to tell -you- something about pre-marital sex doesn't mean that holds true for everyone. People mature at different rates, people have different opinions about what sex is, and how meaningful it is in which circumstances, and just because you had a -bad- experience doesn't mean you are any more correct universally than someone who has had -good- experiences.

Nobody is being especially naive, or pretentious or arrogant or any of the invective you've been tossing around, except insofar as they are trying to claim their stance is the universally correct one.

Can we try to stay a little more on topic from here on out?

[Izzi]

At the time you are allowed to get an abortion i would hardly consider it "alive" Its just blobs of cells.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Izzi

At the time you are allowed to get an abortion i would hardly consider it "alive" Its just blobs of cells.

No, it is definately, measurably -alive- at that point. I mean, the componant parts were technically alive before then too. The issue is that many people argue that when a human egg and a human sperm combine, you get a -human- embryo (which is strictly speaking true) and that you therefore (here is where the disagreement comes) ought to treat it morally and ethically as a human being.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by devonin

No, it is definately, measurably -alive- at that point. I mean, the componant parts were technically alive before then too. The issue is that many people argue that when a human egg and a human sperm combine, you get a -human- embryo (which is strictly speaking true) and that you therefore (here is where the disagreement comes) ought to treat it morally and ethically as a human being.

Allow me to elaborate on this point.

At conception, there is little disagreement among legislators that the embryo is a living thing. It is most certainly alive.

However, there is disagreement about when the embryo can be considered a human. Some people believe that the embryo is a full-fledged human being from conception, and others argue that it isn't until birth. You also have those in between, with trimesters, cognitive ability, and the like.

This is significant because our moral and legal standards apply to human beings. Determining when an embryo becomes a full human therefore determines the point at which abortions should be considered murder. Nothing has been decided on yet, however birth is the one definite line we have.

[Kilgamayan]

You have the right idea but you're confusing terms.

Biologically, you have a human being at the instant of conception. Our legal standards regarding rights apply to persons, and whether or not (or just plain when) a fetus qualifies as a person is what is ambiguous and not scientifically answerable.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

You have the right idea but you're confusing terms.

Biologically, you have a human being at the instant of conception. Our legal standards regarding rights apply to persons, and whether or not (or just plain when) a fetus qualifies as a person is what is ambiguous and not scientifically answerable.

Eh, I'm going by what I've read/heard/etc. and "human being" and "person" (in the sense you're using it) tended to be used interchangeably. But for the sake of eliminating confusion, I'll use the terminology you use should I make another post on this subject.

[Kilgamayan]

I was confused myself earlier in this thread, which is why I went to my philosophy professor about it.

They may be interchangable in casual conversation, but they are two different things legally.

[GuidoHunter]

DJ Arsenault: 6 days for flaming in CT.
OrganisM: Warning for the same. You're cutting it pretty close.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[All_That_Chaz]

I can't believe this argument is still going and I can't decide if it's a good or a bad thing.

I'm not going to continue the line of thought that I had going 7 pages ago. Instead, I'll look at this in a more pragmatic sense - that of law. Illegalizing vices (I'm not saying "murder" is a vice, as I'm not a murderer, so please don't go down that road) has been nothing short of disastrous in most/all cases. Prohibition and drugs are the glaring example. Abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not. I'm not saying, "Well, it's going to happen, so the government should just give up." If it's illegal, however, it opens the door to dangerous procedures instead of a regulated operations. In countries where drugs are decriminalized, the quality of the product is safer, and in the instance of drugs, there is evidence taken from licensed cocaine safe-houses in (i think, not sure of the country) The Netherlands that showed that people tended to come a few times and then give it up instead of becoming dependent of the substance, which is interesting, to say the least.

Just to cover my bases, I'm not saying that murder in any situation should be legal because it's going to happen anyway. This is just backup support for the camp that says that it isn't murder.

-Chaz

[AOL_blows911]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

Illegalizing vices (I'm not saying "murder" is a vice, as I'm not a murderer, so please don't go down that road) has been nothing short of disastrous in most/all cases. Prohibition and drugs are the glaring example. Abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not.

This, to me, should be obvious to the pro-life crowd. Illegalizing abortions in no way stops abortions, it just makes them unsafe. Not only will the oh-so-precious embryo be lost, but the mother also runs a serious risk or injury or infection from the procedure itself. So now, we've lost the baby and quite possibly injured/lost the mother as well. Total life = 0. When a certified doctor is performing the operation, we almost always see the mother end up fine, with the only loss being the developing child. If your pro-life, why put more people in danger? If a mother really wants an abortion, she'll probably find a way to have one (legally or otherwise), and if the unwanted child is born, then it's most likely off to the orphanage for them. At least, thats how I see it.

[DDR_Mike]

Originally Posted by AOL_blows911

This, to me, should be obvious to the pro-life crowd. Illegalizing abortions in no way stops abortions, it just makes them unsafe. Not only will the oh-so-precious embryo be lost, but the mother also runs a serious risk or injury or infection from the procedure itself. So now, we've lost the baby and quite possibly injured/lost the mother as well. Total life = 0. When a certified doctor is performing the operation, we almost always see the mother end up fine, with the only loss being the developing child. If your pro-life, why put more people in danger? If a mother really wants an abortion, she'll probably find a way to have one (legally or otherwise), and if the unwanted child is born, then it's most likely off to the orphanage for them. At least, thats how I see it.

I disagree, if abortion is illegalized and people still try to do it, then that's just bad karma. I'm not saying that they deserve infection or anything else that could happen, though. And newborns don't go to the orphanage, there are SO many people that want babies, the line is very long, why kill a baby that tons of people would want to adopt (that can't have one on there own.)? My neighbors went to Russia to adopt a child because they are very hard to adopt in the US.