Ditto.

I don't believe an unborn child is the same as a living human. Like I said before, I believe it to be potential for life.

exactly. its not alive til it's out

Uh... It is totally life or it would not grow.


sorry bud, condoms do not "cause" pregnancy, they dramaticly raise the probobility of a pregnancy however.




I think abortion should be fine so long as it is within the first trimester, after it has most of its organs and eyes, heartbeat ect.. It is too late after that for me. regardless what i think of it, i know that the federal government should not even consider having a say in the matter, if anything it is a state issue.

I also do not think it should be used lightly, any given female should only be able to have mutiple abortions if it is a rape baby or severly deformed.. life death, and some other reasons I am sure.

Also it shouldn't ever be funded by tax dollars.

You are just hell bent on tax dollars aren't you? How much are you making a year if I may ask..?

You don't have a problem with the Economy being fucked with $110 Million a day being spent on the Iraq war, but if somebody wants to raise taxes $15 at tax time you throw a shit fit, I don't understand the logic when you're going to be paying more for gas,food,milk,eggs, etc in a whole that will end up costing you 4-500x more than the $15 in a total raise in tax to make our economy/nation better.

No, condoms don't cause pregnancy. I never said they did. I just said defective ones or improper use could cause an unwanted pregnancy. I wasn't saying a woman sticking a new condom in her could knock her up. I don't really think you assumed that either x_X. I hope not at least :p.

The world is wayyy over populated.

I welcome all abortions.

Yay for socialism! :p

Well then maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

A fetus has the potential for life and should be treated as life. Once the sperm reaches the egg, then it's a potential baby in my book.

-------------------

After saying that just now I had an epiphany. Given my theory of consciousness, the baby is not special, nor is a fully grown human. At least, the life is special, but so is every life. The death of an adult, a baby, a plant, or a cat does not matter, because every life is as special as the next. No one should get wrapped up in semantics about when the fetus becomes a human. It does not matter - and anyone you argue with who believes the fetus is special because it has a "soul" won't be convinced no matter what you say. I believe a glass of water has just about as much "soul" as a fetus, if not more.

Let people do as they please, then. I'd rather see an adoption, though, because fundamentally I think that to stop the possibility of a beautiful creature such as a human is a small crime in itself.

Well then getting your period is wrong too. that egg ad the possibility of being fertilized, and that fetus had the possibility of life. So about once a month, i kill a baby.

Well that stuff aside, Most of the people who are staunchly against abortion are against it because of their religion, they believe the embryo or fetus has a soul and that god protects that soul. I do not believe in a spirit or soul, but regardless, these people should not be forced to pay for something they feel violates their religious values.

Sperm enters the vagina during a period without intercourse? And I denounced that statement btw.

abortion is taking away a life, how EVER aborting before it's even begun production like mj mentioned at the beggining is completely fine with me :P
if something doesn't HAVE a life, you can't take it away right?

Only on the same level that taking antibiotics is taking away a life.

yes but that would be suiciding, but its' like homicide for the one prescribing the antibiotics.

Well, I also got this on myspace, although it quite bugged me. Why would the woman be having an abortion after 7 months? I thought, or so I was taught in school, that it only takes 9 months for a sperm to become a "mini-me". Also, I was under the impression that after the first 3 months, no clinic or hospital would perform the abortion, something about basically commiting murder or something. Maybe it was a point of view thing or something....

But yeah, I just thought that after 7 months, she might as well just push the puppy out.

I am pro-choice, one reason being that if a woman was raped, that would suck that she has to have that child and forever look into the face of her attacker. That's how I see it at least...

Now how many people here who used "it's a life or potential life" arguement voted to go to war? How many voted on measures to clear out forests and build on land thus killing a ton of life? Be honest now. If you did. Then you show arrogance and have commited the same sin Satan did. You viewed yourself (human life) as more important than other forms of life.

By the end of the day humans who value life, are on a cosmic scale, hippocrites. To gain energy and surrvive a human must consume/absorb something to gain that energy. However you cannot eat a non living thing such as a rock and get energy. To gain energy a human must eat something that also absorbs energy. The only things that can do that are living creatures. Therefore you are a hippocrite. You say you value life? Then stop eating. Or can you not stop eating other living creatures (which makes them dead and makes you a killer) because you value yourself above all else? Granted many people do not actually kill their own source of energy they still eat it and it was still a living creature. It's still the same thing. You don't value it's life or respect it since you did nothing to stop it or protest against it. That is life. It is unescapable. In fact for those who so value the fetus did you know when you eat fruits you are eating the fetus of the plant? You are no different than a creature who would rip the fetus out of a pregnant woman and eat it to survive.

As to this crap about morality. No one wants to help anyone else when it costs them time or resources. What do they get in return for it? This again is humanity take it or leave it. Instincts say to always gain from all of your dealings so that you can survive. So why should someone have a baby to give it away? Yes it's nice but they gain nothing from it. This in itself is primitive behavior. It's part of us.

The most arrogant and insulting thing I have heard thus far though in my life is that we were made. Created by some unknown man in the sky. To be in his image. This is not only arrogant but it shows a fear of being able to accept your own individuality. Are you so scared of being a natural product just like a peach or apple? Are you so scared of having to think and act for yourself that you need an anchor? This is behavior I find insulting and arrogant. Who thinks they are so much more important that they get a place to go after death. Who is so arrogant that they think someone is actually watching over them? Who is so arrogant to think they are actually that important?

Humans I agree are interesting creatures. But they are far from beautiful as stated earlier. I could go on but all in all humans are just able to use tools to an advanced skill level because of this they label themselves "intelligent". That is the only difference between humans and other lifeforms. The ability to make use of tools to a better degree.

No matter how you state your opinion, it is still simply an opinion. Perception is reality, and hotdog's perception of reality is rather pessimistic, if I do say so :)

Not that I try to fancy things up any more than they are. Humanity IS interesting, and very well may be a simple by-product of a very complex chain of events that we can only hope to grasp at an understanding of. But, we don't know everything, we can only pretend to know everything, and that doesn't help anyone. Considering all that we DO know, we are not able to definitively make a judgment as to whether or not some things are true or not. Even the relatively few things we DO believe we know to be fact, are only relatively so. Scientific understanding has grown greatly in the last one hundred years alone, but do you know what that also means? Many, many things that humanity "knew" a hundred years ago was wrong. One can only presume that many, many things we "know" now will also be found to be wrong.
How are we supposed to rely on science, the foundation of our modern world, when it has and continues to change it's very nature? People of the past weren't stupid, they just hadn't collaborated and combined as much knowledge as we have by today. So, if people who were not stupid believed in things that were wrong back then, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that people today who are not stupid may believe in things that will be discovered to be incorrect in the future. How can we state with any confidence that what is "fact" now will continue to be so?

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think that science is wrong. I just don't think that having faith in it is much more logical than having faith in anything else. The principle thing I appreciate about science is the notion of cause and effect, and science is yet to determine an appropriate explanation for where everything came from.

For fun....one of humanities most enduring beliefs is that of the religious realm. Religion, so far as I can tell (judging by what I know of historical discoveries, like ancient hieroglyphics) predates math, writing, and all of the other foundations of science. At the least, one can say that religion, in the base form (everything we know of must have come from some source, whatever it be), is much more stable and consistent than science has been. What we know of atoms, one of the fundamental building blocks of ALL MATTER, has changed drastically in the last 100 years, and don't get me started on the big bang theory.... :-P

Oh no I completely agree with you. I find them interesting. I was just stating how the human mind is raised to think for the majority. It kind of makes me sad.

Of course religion will be more stable than science. The point of science is to explore new realms of possibility and try *new* things. Religion is quite the opposite in terms of that from what I have seen. Thus it would remain quite stable. How can something change when it is not allowed to be explored further or when people won't allow it to change? The bible says something and that's that. You are not open to debate against it. Well you are but most people won't accept it.

And don't get me started on the Big Bang Theory either. :) I almost said Big Bag Theory. Stupid N key is all messed up.

Oh God...

Not another one of those. Next I suppose he'll say evolution is just a theory.

But isn't it?