Abortion?

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 06 Oct 2009, 04:23

Thoughts?

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 06 Oct 2009, 04:24

zim · Post by **zim** » 06 Oct 2009, 04:37

all for it

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 06 Oct 2009, 04:44

All for it, but I am against the hypocrisy of it.

You can kill a fetus in womb, but you can't kill it once its born?

I also think we should just abort repeat offenders. i.e. whores who have had multiple abortions because they are too stupid.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 06 Oct 2009, 05:00

[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]

I also think we should just abort repeat offenders.[/quote]

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 06 Oct 2009, 05:47

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]

I also think we should just abort repeat offenders.[/quote]

[/quote]

[youtube]YbaTur4A1OU[/youtube]

droidspawn · Post by **droidspawn** » 06 Oct 2009, 05:51

Population control is severely needed in out times. There are far too many people, period. I think we should adopt, no pun intended, China's one kid per family rule, if that's still in effect.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 06 Oct 2009, 07:32

Absolutely not, reproductive rights are not the government's business.

I am against abortion except in cases of incest, rape, or serious injury to mother. I understand there are situations where it's needed and I respect the thought that goes into a decision such as that. However in today's society abortion is abused, it's become the easy way out and taken away from personal responsibility something that I think we all need.

I also don't think it's anyones right to say that a potential life (what I consider to be life) can be destroyed just because the mtoher might not want to deal with it. There are other options such as adoption, systems we need to work on. It is nobody's right to take another beings right to live away for what boils down to no reason in many cases. There have been cases that children have been aborted because the mother didn't want to get fat, that should speak for itself.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 06 Oct 2009, 07:52

[quote name="jorsh"]Population control is severely needed in out times. There are far too many people, period. I think we should adopt, no pun intended, China's one kid per family rule, if that's still in effect.[/quote]

There are enough resources on the planet for everyone.

droidspawn · Post by **droidspawn** » 06 Oct 2009, 07:55

[quote name="Noyka"]There have been cases that children have been aborted because the mother didn't want to get fat, that should speak for itself.[/quote]

I am pro-choice obviously but I agree that is a stupid reason and she should have the child in that case. However, that reason I'm willing to bet is far and away the least "reasoned" argument for abortion.

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 06 Oct 2009, 07:59

well that kind of depends on what the size of everyone is, as well as their capacity to extract/refine/distribute, how rapidly the size of everyone is growing, etc.

unchecked population growth, should it eventually become a problem, will ultimately correct itself. that won't exactly be pleasant for anyone though, so the idea is to take whatever reasonable steps we can to prevent that from happening

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:01

ProChoice, been there done that.

Had a sexy leopard elevator once who aborted a fetus. A mate later went on to knock her up too but they just had the kid.

It's a small area. Many wiener cousins.

There are already too many people and I believe in selective breeding.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:02

Ah, so you believe in eugenics then?

droidspawn · Post by **droidspawn** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:02

[quote name="Redd"]
[quote name="jorsh"]Population control is severely needed in out times. There are far too many people, period. I think we should adopt, no pun intended, China's one kid per family rule, if that's still in effect.[/quote]

There are enough resources on the planet for everyone.

[/quote]

For now yes, but that's a whole other conversation right there. But I feel this way not necessarily for resource reasons, I just feel the way the world is going, economic climate, wars, disease, violence, abuses, etc I don't feel children should have to deal with all the shit in the world. I realize this is just my feelings on humanity as a whole and not everyone's. I don't think it's worth it. I don't want more people to suffer.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:04

This isn't directed at anyone in this thread:

It's not that hard to wear a condom or use birth control. Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:05

[quote name="Redd"]Ah, so you believe in eugenics then?[/quote]

I believe in personal responsibility. In some measure, that includes eugenics, but not on a basis of ethnicity.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:06

So why do you believe in eugenics, then?

droidspawn · Post by **droidspawn** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:07

my married buddy knocked up a chick a few years ago and he paid for her abortion.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:07

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Redd"]Ah, so you believe in eugenics then?[/quote]

I believe in personal responsibility. In some measure, that includes eugenics, but not on a basis of ethnicity.[/quote]

Have you researched the failed attempts at eugenics? I think I understand what you mean but you might want to watch your wording.

You mean if someone has a disorder they shouldn't breed, right?

I agree with that but it should be the individual's choice not forced on them.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:09

You can find trash and shit in any race, just as you can find a particular race's best as well. I looked at attributes in the person and the person's family.

Oh, I'm not an icy bastard. I certainly felt that loving the sexy leopard elevator was required as well.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:10

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Redd"]Ah, so you believe in eugenics then?[/quote]

I believe in personal responsibility. In some measure, that includes eugenics, but not on a basis of ethnicity.[/quote]

Have you researched the failed attempts at eugenics? I think I understand what you mean but you might want to watch your wording.

You mean if someone has a disorder they shouldn't breed, right?

I agree with that but it should be the individual's choice not forced on them.[/quote]

You might be misunderstanding me. I was selective with who I chose as my mate. I advocate other people being selective as well.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:14

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Redd"]Ah, so you believe in eugenics then?[/quote]

I believe in personal responsibility. In some measure, that includes eugenics, but not on a basis of ethnicity.[/quote]

Have you researched the failed attempts at eugenics? I think I understand what you mean but you might want to watch your wording.

You mean if someone has a disorder they shouldn't breed, right?

I agree with that but it should be the individual's choice not forced on them.[/quote]

You might be misunderstanding me. I was selective with who I chose as my mate. I advocate other people being selective as well.[/quote]

Oh, what about dog breeding and the mutations that come from that?

If everyone is "selective" and nature is in turn disrupted what would prevent this from happening to humans?

zim · Post by **zim** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:33

[quote name="Noyka"]This isn't directed at anyone in this thread:

It's not that hard to wear a condom or use birth control. Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility.[/quote]

+1

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:43

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Redd"]Ah, so you believe in eugenics then?[/quote]

I believe in personal responsibility. In some measure, that includes eugenics, but not on a basis of ethnicity.[/quote]

Have you researched the failed attempts at eugenics? I think I understand what you mean but you might want to watch your wording.

You mean if someone has a disorder they shouldn't breed, right?

I agree with that but it should be the individual's choice not forced on them.[/quote]

You might be misunderstanding me. I was selective with who I chose as my mate. I advocate other people being selective as well.[/quote]

Oh, what about dog breeding and the mutations that come from that?

If everyone is "selective" and nature is in turn disrupted what would prevent this from happening to humans?[/quote]

You don't think anyone should be selective in who they decide to have a child with?!

What the hell do dog mutants have to do with me being damned picky?!

zim · Post by **zim** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:48

quit being picky abzu, now go outside and play.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:53

I was already picky and had a child.

Now is time for playing!

If I decide to have another, I will be picky again.

supa tuna · Post by **supa tuna** » 06 Oct 2009, 08:55

[quote name="Noyka"]I am against abortion except in cases of incest, rape, or serious injury to mother. I understand there are situations where it's needed and I respect the thought that goes into a decision such as that. However in today's society abortion is abused, it's become the easy way out and taken away from personal responsibility something that I think we all need. [/quote]

word

Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man · 06 Oct 2009, 09:18

[quote name="jorsh"]Population control is severely needed in out times. There are far too many people, period. I think we should adopt, no pun intended, China's one kid per family rule, if that's still in effect.[/quote]Okay, so overpopulation is an issue, fair point.

But...you don't see how giving a fruital corporatist government the green light to kill children isn't going to be a bit problematic?

Fuck

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 06 Oct 2009, 09:34

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Redd"]Ah, so you believe in eugenics then?[/quote]

I believe in personal responsibility. In some measure, that includes eugenics, but not on a basis of ethnicity.[/quote]

Have you researched the failed attempts at eugenics? I think I understand what you mean but you might want to watch your wording.

You mean if someone has a disorder they shouldn't breed, right?

I agree with that but it should be the individual's choice not forced on them.[/quote]

You might be misunderstanding me. I was selective with who I chose as my mate. I advocate other people being selective as well.[/quote]

Oh, what about dog breeding and the mutations that come from that?

If everyone is "selective" and nature is in turn disrupted what would prevent this from happening to humans?[/quote]

You don't think anyone should be selective in who they decide to have a child with?!

What the hell do dog mutants have to do with me being damned picky?![/quote]

You said you were for eugenics..........it'snot that different from dog breeding.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 06 Oct 2009, 09:38

I'm for being picky and selective.

I do not fuck dog mutants.

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 06 Oct 2009, 09:41

[quote name="Chaohinon"]
[quote name="jorsh"]Population control is severely needed in out times. There are far too many people, period. I think we should adopt, no pun intended, China's one kid per family rule, if that's still in effect.[/quote]Okay, so overpopulation is an issue, fair point.

But...you don't see how giving a fruital corporatist government the green light to kill children isn't going to be a bit problematic?

Fuck[/quote]

well then, if overpopulation is/will become a problem, and if a formal solution must be instituted, what is the best form of government to accomplish this?

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 06 Oct 2009, 09:45

[quote name="Famous Mortimer"]
[quote name="Chaohinon"]
[quote name="jorsh"]Population control is severely needed in out times. There are far too many people, period. I think we should adopt, no pun intended, China's one kid per family rule, if that's still in effect.[/quote]Okay, so overpopulation is an issue, fair point.

But...you don't see how giving a fruital corporatist government the green light to kill children isn't going to be a bit problematic?

Fuck[/quote]

well then, if overpopulation is/will become a problem, and if a formal solution must be instituted, what is the best form of government to accomplish this?[/quote]

I dont think the solution is a form of government.

This is a problem. I'm hard pressed to come up with a solution that doesn't have touchy bits to it.

Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man · 06 Oct 2009, 10:21

[quote name="Famous Mortimer"]
[quote name="Chaohinon"]
[quote name="jorsh"]Population control is severely needed in out times. There are far too many people, period. I think we should adopt, no pun intended, China's one kid per family rule, if that's still in effect.[/quote]Okay, so overpopulation is an issue, fair point.

But...you don't see how giving a fruital corporatist government the green light to kill children isn't going to be a bit problematic?

Fuck[/quote]

well then, if overpopulation is/will become a problem, and if a formal solution must be instituted, what is the best form of government to accomplish this?[/quote]

loaded question.

anyone who attempts to force a woman to give up her child is a violent criminal and should be treated as such

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 06 Oct 2009, 10:25

But you acknowledge overpopulation as a valid issue.

So propose your own solution.

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 06 Oct 2009, 10:30

precisely. how do you come up with a practical solution to control population growth that doesn't ultimately involve, you know, exerting some kind of control over the population itself? are we just gonna use the honor system here or what

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 06 Oct 2009, 10:30

[quote name="Famous Mortimer"]
[quote name="Chaohinon"]
[quote name="jorsh"]Population control is severely needed in out times. There are far too many people, period. I think we should adopt, no pun intended, China's one kid per family rule, if that's still in effect.[/quote]Okay, so overpopulation is an issue, fair point.

But...you don't see how giving a fruital corporatist government the green light to kill children isn't going to be a bit problematic?

Fuck[/quote]

well then, if overpopulation is/will become a problem, and if a formal solution must be instituted, what is the best form of government to accomplish this?[/quote]

The answer isn't in government it's in us. Personal responsibility no more than two children a household (one to replace each parent) it should be up to us, nobody else. Reproductive rights are something no government should control.

Education and tha natural progression of a nation (as nations become more industrialized reproduction rates naturally go down)

Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man · 06 Oct 2009, 10:38

[quote name="abzu"]But you acknowledge overpopulation as a valid issue.

So propose your own solution.[/quote]stop incentivizing it via welfare.

Seriously. First you destroy the currency and overtax companies so the economy crumbles, then you shuffle them into welfare schemes that are designed to keep people trapped, and then your proposal for the problems that follow is to again launch another attack on innocent people who are not responsible for this mess? How fuck sadistic is that.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 06 Oct 2009, 12:05

I don't honestly understand why people think it would by anyone or any group's duty or privilege to control human population. Nature does that for us. Study evolutionary biology, you'll get it.

TamPron · Post by **TamPron** » 06 Oct 2009, 12:10

i don't give a shit what other people do..

shadowalk · Post by **shadowalk** » 06 Oct 2009, 12:19

[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]All for it, but I am against the hypocrisy of it.

You can kill a fetus in womb, but you can't kill it once its born?[/quote]

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 06 Oct 2009, 19:39

[quote name="Chaohinon"]
[quote name="abzu"]But you acknowledge overpopulation as a valid issue.

So propose your own solution.[/quote]stop incentivizing it via welfare.

Seriously. First you destroy the currency and overtax companies so the economy crumbles, then you shuffle them into welfare schemes that are designed to keep people trapped, and then your proposal for the problems that follow is to again launch another attack on innocent people who are not responsible for this mess? How fuck sadistic is that.[/quote]

My proposal? What the fuck exactly was my proposal?

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 06 Oct 2009, 19:54

[quote name="Noyka"]This isn't directed at anyone in this thread:

It's not that hard to wear a condom or use birth control. Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility.[/quote]

This is why I think repeat offenders should just be shot.

Two birds with one stone.

shadowalk · Post by **shadowalk** » 06 Oct 2009, 20:12

[quote name="Noyka"]This isn't directed at anyone in this thread:

It's not that hard to wear a condom or use birth control. Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility.[/quote]

This is much more true for the birth control alone. For the rubber, though...it's really dependent on the situation.

methodrone · Post by **methodrone** » 06 Oct 2009, 20:16

whats the difference between wearing a condom and killing millions of sperms there and killing one sperm after a few metamorphosis noyka?

In both cases its a brainless matter i.m.o

you cant be for one and against the other.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 06 Oct 2009, 23:21

Theres no debate about whether a fertilised egg is alive or not.

Or whether it's human or not.

That first cell is as alive, and human, as any newborn baby or adult human.

This relates to what I tried to say in the vegetarian thread. It's not the "being alive" or "being human" that makes something worthy of our concern.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 06 Oct 2009, 23:27

[quote name="Johnny"]Theres no debate about whether a fertilised egg is alive or not.

Or whether it's human or not.

That first cell is as alive, and human, as any newborn baby or adult human.

This relates to what I tried to say in the vegetarian thread. It's not the "being alive" or "being human" that makes something worthy of our concern.[/quote]

That's a pretty damn good point.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 07 Oct 2009, 00:45

[quote name="Noyka"]This isn't directed at anyone in this thread:

It's not that hard to wear a condom or use birth control. Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility.[/quote]

Properly applied birth control methods (including combinations of multiple methods, ie. female birth control + condom on wangux) can fail. There is no fool-proof method aside from abstinence.

supa tuna · Post by **supa tuna** » 07 Oct 2009, 00:53

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]This isn't directed at anyone in this thread:

It's not that hard to wear a condom or use birth control. Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility.[/quote]

Properly applied birth control methods (including combinations of multiple methods, ie. female birth control + condom on wangux) can fail. There is no fool-proof method aside from abstinence.[/quote]

but taking any precaution is better than not at all

zim · Post by **zim** » 07 Oct 2009, 00:56

[quote name="dickzilla"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]This isn't directed at anyone in this thread:

It's not that hard to wear a condom or use birth control. Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility.[/quote]

Properly applied birth control methods (including combinations of multiple methods, ie. female birth control + condom on wangux) can fail. There is no fool-proof method aside from abstinence.[/quote]

but taking any precaution is better than not at all[/quote]

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 07 Oct 2009, 01:58

[quote name="HbW"]
[quote name="Johnny"]Theres no debate about whether a fertilised egg is alive or not.

Or whether it's human or not.

That first cell is as alive, and human, as any newborn baby or adult human.

This relates to what I tried to say in the vegetarian thread. It's not the "being alive" or "being human" that makes something worthy of our concern.[/quote]

That's a pretty damn good point.[/quote]

I have no idea if you're being sarcastic or not.

If you think I'm talking shite I can try and elaborate . ?

I'm actually not sure where exactly I stand given what I just said. I just think that's a misconception that people have and think the debate should start from there rather than having discussions like: "When is it human?"

I think after the baby/fetus/embryo develops it's nervous system it should be considered more or less equivalent to an extra-uterine human. I don't think sperm or eggs are of any significance. I think the nervous system is critical. This is of course doesn't just suddenly appear on any particular day (or even days). It's a gradual progression. Maybe sort of analogous to the gradual increasing complexity from bacteria, through plants, through simple animals, to apes. Or something.

I'm pretty sure a (good) case could be made for either no abortions after fertilisation, or no abortions after it reaches some level of neurological development. The latter is messy and vague and arbitrary.The former may seem to be me contradicting myself (as one cell clearly does not have a nervous system). But bear with me.

Say I think fertilisation could be a reasonable point to argue for, even given the fact this is one point you can say the "child" definitely doesn't have a nervous system.

Imagine a machine, which is not "conscious", or "able to feel pain", or "able to suffer". I don't think such a machine has any sort of rights.

Now, what if it were possible for us to add more pieces to this machine. Upgrade it. Make it more complex to the point it actually does possess these characteristics. At this point I think it would of course have rights.

But the question is, "do we have any moral responsibility to actively build, upgrade, expend resources, making this more complex unit? I don't think so.

Now, we start again with another machine, similar to the one we started with before. It is not "conscious", or "able to feel pain", or "able to suffer", etc. Now the difference is that all that has to be done this time is to flick a switch, and the primitive machine will self-upgrade along a metaphorical conveyor-belt to the same end product as before. A machine "worthy" of rights. Do we have any moral/ethical responsibility to filck the switch? I don't think so.

Now how about you happen to notice a third machine (the same as the second "auto-upgrade" one). And imagine you meet this machine after somebody has flicked the switch. The question becomes "do we have any right to turn off the machine?" Does it matter if we do? If we leave it alone it will pass the point of no return at some point all by itself. Some point which is impossible to define. We can however tell that this point has definitely not yet been crossed at the time that we notice it.

I think fertilisation may be close enough to this third scenario to make an argument in favour of "no abortions after fertilisation" not completely terrible. It's at least a "better than shit" argument. I may be bending over backwards to try and come up with some argument in favour of that point of view.

Consider the person in ICU in a coma. They are not "conscious", or "able to feel pain", or "able to suffer" and so on. Yet I'm sure most agree we should not withold treatment. They in fact use up a lot of resources. They are like the first machine. Except they were once conscious. That seems to matter.

I suppose I could extend the idea that the units "worthy of rights" are the ones capable of suffering, to also include those who could reach that point with a "reasonable" amount of input. What's "reasonable" maybe varies, depending on the situation. Or something.

A extreme case of this point of view could be something like "You shouldn't harm bacteria because their ancestors may evolve over time to become capable of suffering". I obviously think that's going overboard. In fact, the only point I don't think is necessarily ridiculous, is fertilisation.

I guess, in summary, I think the cut off point for abortion should be sometime before the thing has developed a nervous system that is comparable to that of the extrauterine animals (including non-humans), that are worth worring about. Sometime between wherever that point is, and fertilisation. I feel it definitely should not be allowed after this gay man's telescope has passed. I think arguments advocating "no abortions after fertilisation" are almost universally awful. The best one I think would be a better-worded version of what I tried to express here.

I fucking hate philosophy.