Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Abortion

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
.636 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Strike 1, 9/13 inappropiate post content

Joined: 24 October 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 990
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote .636 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2008 at 11:15pm
Originally posted by Tolgak Tolgak wrote:

Dude, your back is hideous.

We get what all the scratches mean, but seriously, the paleness and the moles have gotta go.

/OT Rant


Twas in December. In the land of no sun but rain and slush in december.

Moles were removed via pocket knife. Yes I aborted that gnarly mole.
Back to Top
Kingtiger View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Now with 100% more Fail

Joined: 17 May 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kingtiger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2008 at 11:22pm
Mole? I believe you mean moles.

Edit** W00t 1000th post!


Edited by Kingtiger - 12 March 2008 at 11:40pm
Steam: Kingtiger125
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2008 at 11:24pm
Originally posted by Kingtiger Kingtiger wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

What about it.

Wy shouldn't the father have input over their child?
He should.


Unfortunately, they don't and probably never will.



Edited by carl_the_sniper - 12 March 2008 at 11:24pm
Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2008 at 11:29pm
Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

Originally posted by BARREL BREAK BARREL BREAK wrote:

I don't consider something human until it gains sense permanence, and then self-awareness, but that's just me.


So a 1-month old isn't human?
No.
Or rather, it's human, but the marker of respect for me is sentience.
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 12:20am
Originally posted by Panda Man Panda Man wrote:

I always looked at it as the mother has a "choice" in the matter, abortion is no easy thing to swallow(hehe.) anyway... but it's like one of those things where "they want it" instead of an outside party "destroying" it... one of those types of things.

Lets just say your cruising along and some guy in a Porsche runs a red light and T-bones you... now I don't think that he would be to pissed that "he was one doing damage(in this case the women)" but if 'YOU' were the one that ran the red light and slammed into him, you know damn well he'd be pissed(outside force kills the baby).

It seems weird, It's human nature but... thats the only way I can think of it.


Ahhh, so, its totally cool with you then when moms goes crazy and drowns all their children because "they want it"?


Edited by Darur - 13 March 2008 at 12:20am
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
.636 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Strike 1, 9/13 inappropiate post content

Joined: 24 October 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 990
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote .636 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 12:51am
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:



Ahhh, so, its totally cool with you then when moms goes crazy and drowns all their children because "they want it"?



Thats quite a retarded thought.
If they fetus is still inside the mother she can do what ever she wants to it. Its living inside of her, attached to her,  eating and breathing from her. If she wants to get rid of it, all the power to her.

If its born and is not still living off her inside her stomach its not free game to "exterminate"

A fetus and a living child that is not inside the mother are two things.


Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 12:56am
What if the fetus has exited the womb, but is still attached by the umbilical cord?  Free to be killed or not?
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
pb125 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
1 language strike, 10/15

Joined: 10 January 2004
Location: RAHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Status: Offline
Points: 8556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pb125 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 1:00am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

What about it.

Wy shouldn't the father have input over their child?


It's not his body?
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 1:00am
Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

What if the fetus has exited the womb, but is still attached by the umbilical cord? Free to be killed or not?
The king of point counterpoint analysis.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
.636 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Strike 1, 9/13 inappropiate post content

Joined: 24 October 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 990
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote .636 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 1:01am
Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

What if the fetus has exited the womb, but is still attached by the umbilical cord?  Free to be killed or not?


Tis outside of the womans womb and that means abortion season is ended.
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 1:10am
Originally posted by .636 .636 wrote:

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:



Ahhh, so, its totally cool with you then when moms goes crazy and drowns all their children because "they want it"?



Thats quite a retarded thought.
If they fetus is still inside the mother she can do what ever she wants to it. Its living inside of her, attached to her,  eating and breathing from her. If she wants to get rid of it, all the power to her.

If its born and is not still living off her inside her stomach its not free game to "exterminate"

A fetus and a living child that is not inside the mother are two things.




My point wasn't directed at abortion per say, but at Panda's logic.  Justifying abortion against killing an unborn child because of what the mom wanted is plain stupid.  I just chose the mom and kids metaphor as it seemed fitting.

However, by the same token, is a fetus much different then a baby?  State and Federal law prevent mothers from neglecting their children, so they are still forced to feed, protect and raise them, just the same as they are required to do biologically when they are inside.  Baby's certainly aren't anywhere near being finished developing when they are born either. It seems like we are saying because the baby is outside the mom its suddenly immune from being killed.  There isn't a huge difference between a mom saying she wants to end a pregnancy and kill her children in that way.

Regardless, I'm for abortion to an extent, however I have a huge problem with people abusing it, or treating it like a type of birth control. If having a baby will hurt the mother, or in the case of rape, or perhaps in a situation where the parents cannot possibly afford to go through with having the child, then maybe; but to use it because you and your boyfriend got drunk one night and, opps, you got pregnant is bothersome to me.  There are things such as adoption. That said I'm reasonably ok with Plan B type treatments which terminate the pregnancy within a few days of conception.
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
.636 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Strike 1, 9/13 inappropiate post content

Joined: 24 October 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 990
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote .636 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 1:21am
Plan B prevents impregnation and does not terminate pregnancy. RU-486 terminates pregnancy's of embryo's and fetus's with in the first few trimesters.

Plan B is just a huge dose of birth control that keeps the egg from sticking to the uterus via a thick coating of mucus on the uterus.
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 1:32am
Originally posted by pb125 pb125 wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

What about it.

Wy shouldn't the father have input over their child?
It's not his body?


So you put consideration towards a woman's body but not to the child that could have been?
Back to Top
White o Light View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Guested. blatant pornographic post

Joined: 12 June 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2772
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote White o Light Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 2:23am
Dont make me turn daddy's lil baby to orphan
Cause Id have to kill lil baby like abortion
Back to Top
pb125 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
1 language strike, 10/15

Joined: 10 January 2004
Location: RAHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Status: Offline
Points: 8556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pb125 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 10:45am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by pb125 pb125 wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

What about it.

Wy shouldn't the father have input over their child?
It's not his body?


So you put consideration towards a woman's body but not to the child that could have been?


See now you are just making it a different issue. We are talking about abortion being 100% legal. This is not about consideration of the child, it's about who makes the decision. And there are way too many situations where the guy having input could go wrong. It's not his body, he should not have "final say" so to speak over a woman's body.
Back to Top
Schlockmerc View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 1 - Namecalling, 12/6

Joined: 11 December 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 231
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Schlockmerc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 10:51am

Originally posted by .636 .636 wrote:

Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

What if the fetus has exited the womb, but is still attached by the umbilical cord?  Free to be killed or not?


Tis outside of the womans womb and that means abortion season is ended.

So your saying you would give someone in their third term of pregnancy an abortion? Even though the child has started forming features? Calling it a fetus doesn't make it's heart stop beating. I'm almost 18, don't want a baby, but if I knock someone up I'd better be dead or in jail if she's going to kill that baby. It isn't *YOUR* body, your sharing it with another body, and the male should have as much say as the female.

 

unless it's .636s child, in which case I would gladly pinch the head off and sell the milk.



Edited by Schlockmerc - 13 March 2008 at 10:52am
George Zimmer is a sexy mother
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 10:58am
Originally posted by pb125 pb125 wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by pb125 pb125 wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

What about it.

Wy shouldn't the father have input over their child?
It's not his body?


So you put consideration towards a woman's body but not to the child that could have been?
See now you are just making it a different issue. We are talking about abortion being 100% legal. This is not about consideration of the child, it's about who makes the decision. And there are way too many situations where the guy having input could go wrong. It's not his body, he should not have "final say" so to speak over a woman's body.


But it is his child.
Back to Top
pb125 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
1 language strike, 10/15

Joined: 10 January 2004
Location: RAHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Status: Offline
Points: 8556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pb125 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:13am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by pb125 pb125 wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by pb125 pb125 wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

What about it.

Wy shouldn't the father have input over their child?
It's not his body?


So you put consideration towards a woman's body but not to the child that could have been?
See now you are just making it a different issue. We are talking about abortion being 100% legal. This is not about consideration of the child, it's about who makes the decision. And there are way too many situations where the guy having input could go wrong. It's not his body, he should not have "final say" so to speak over a woman's body.


But it is his child.


Good observation...

there are way too many gaps in your idea. There are tons of girls who get pregnant from "one night stands", and what if the guy was some dude who was 100% against abortion. Now this girl is in NO situation to handle a child, why should this guy be able to tell her that she can't get an abortion? There are two people in this equation, so why should the guy be the one who is able to overturn a woman's decision? It makes no sense.
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:29am
Originally posted by pb125 pb125 wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by pb125 pb125 wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by pb125 pb125 wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

What about it.

Wy shouldn't the father have input over their child?
It's not his body?


So you put consideration towards a woman's body but not to the
child that could have been?
See now you are just making it a
different issue. We are talking about abortion being 100% legal. This
is not about consideration of the child, it's about who makes the
decision. And there are way too many situations where the guy having
input could go wrong. It's not his body, he should not have "final say"
so to speak over a woman's body.

But it is his child.


Good observation...

there are way too many gaps in your idea. There are tons of girls who
get pregnant from "one night stands", and what if the guy was some dude
who was 100% against abortion. Now this girl is in NO situation to
handle a child, why should this guy be able to tell her that she can't
get an abortion? There are two people in this equation, so why should
the guy be the one who is able to overturn a woman's decision? It makes
no sense.


Then the guy can take the child.

If all else fails, there is always adoption.
Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:35am
I never understood the people who can be 'pro-choice' yet against the death penalty.

Its okay to kill an unborn child, but don't you dare whack a 40 year old serial rapist who eats the kidneys and cuts off the breasts of his victims?

I just don't get it.


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.