I'm feeling like dealing with a heavier topic, so hear it goes! (beware, this may make you MAD) ( if it does, go flush your head down a toilet) (also tell the teenage girl who was raped and her life as saved because she got an abortion that abortion is evil) (did I mention flush your head? Good)
Ok, here it goes:
The standard Pro-life argument goes something like this: All life is precious. You cant kill a person, so why should you go on killing a fetus?
my argument: A fetus is not a person!! DUH!! Then it would be called a PERSON Not a fetus. If you think a fetus is a person, Is a seed a tree? You eat corn and peas, so are you eating a live plant? The fact is, abortion is not necessarily a good thing (there you go, the only thing I will agree with Pro-life PPL), But the argument as I see it isn't about ONLy abortion, its the fact of whether or not a woman has the ability to control yet another portion of her life. You got your dog fixed, therefore are you killing puppies?? PUPPy-KILLER!! I do realize that there is a MAJOR difference between a woman and a dog, but its the same idea. I don't want my balls cut off, thank you VERY much. If you want to cut them off, too bad. I Wont let you.
Also, back to the fetus. It is not a person, it is a group of cells that MAY become a person under the right circumstances. I ALSO argue that it is better to 'kill' (its not really killing, see above) a fetus than send a kid to an orphanage. Or ruin the mothers life. A fifteen-year-old may be able to get her groove on (if you get what I mean), and give birth, but she isn't ready to be a mother! Leave that to the thirty-year-olds. Not the fifteen-year-old. That is common sense. It may have worked in the middle ages, but things are DIfferenT *gasp* Its better to have to dispose of a fetus, than put a kid in a government organization (aka an orphanage).
More Pro-life crap: It cost the government to get an abortion.
Me- HUH??? Since when??? What the crap?? When in doubt, make crap up!!. That's just wrong. Totally wrong.
Pro-life- Embryonic Stem cell research KILLS BABIES
me- Awww.. Then its Evil.. Boo hoo. WRONG. First off, look above for my reason why it CANt kill babies. its a FEtUS/Embryo, not a baby. Second, even if you DO consider an embryo a human, its not killing babies. they ONLY use embryos that are going to be discarded. They dont g up to a prenant woman and steal her embryo, then put it through torture. They use an already aborted embryo, and THEN, and ONLY then do they preform experiments on it. AN it's NOT evil. If it works, when you are old and grey, YOU may need another lung/liver/other organ, and get one from Embryonic stem-cell research. Then Id like to see you say that they are killing babies.
Pro-life: THEY [Liberals/pro-choice activists] KILLED TERRY SCHAVIO. THEY ARE NOT ONLY BABY-KILLERS, THEY ARE ALSO MURDERORS!!!! HANG THEM!!!
Me- On terry schavio. OMG!! how DUMB can you be!?!!?!?!?!?!? she was a VEGTABLE!!! DUH!.
I was on a ski trp when she died. you may ant me to say 'passed away', but tough. had decided not to ski (I was REALLY tired) the day afet, or maybe the day of her death. doesnt matter. Anyway, i was bored, so I turned on "the O'Reiley Fator" (for a description, read the title of barrets blog). They got some cracker preist who was lie "She was very responsive. whn I went into prayer,she bowed her head,and closed her eyes. She knew I was praying, and prayed along as best she could." i instatnly was like OMG!!! what is his problem?!?!?! " she bowd her head" maybe to drool? (no offense) SHE WAS IN A VEGATATIVE STATE! every Non-Catholic dotor (and a good portion who were catholic) said she WOULD NEVER RECOVER. then the pro-life people come back "her husband wants the insurance $$$" Ummmmm.... He HAD To PAy for the feeding tube and other medical treatment fo like 10 yrs. thet cost MOrE than $100000. DUH.
Pro-life: Cloning is EVIL. (ever notice how these guys are ALWAYS mad??)
me- Ummmm... Lemme get this straight. You dont want to kill PPL, but you dont want more ppL? HUH? you say Kerry flip-flopped. Wow. they Say, embryonic stem cell research is bad, because it kills Ppl. Clones are bad becaus they arent PPL. So we cant use clones for Embryonic stem-cell research??? HUH?????? TALK ABOUt CONtRADICtory!
Pro-life: Fetuses can feel things.
me- Hold on. Do you remeber being a fetus?? does anyone??? i can remeber certain things frm being a baby, mostly just little things, but I STiLL ReMeBEr them!! OMG!! Fetuses CANT feel things...
Pro-Life: Be glad your mother chose life
me- Ummmmm.. My MOM was in a COMPLETEly different situation. Not at all similar. i should b offended that you would suggest that.
Ok, b/cause there was some question on my vews, here it goes.
Abortion is not Good. Under certain circumstances, It IS good. See above. Also chek out Erics views. He said it better, and shorter than I did. This is NOT a B&W issue. Nothing is. The world being seen is, in my view, the #1 reason Kerry lost the race (more on that later)
Ok, thats the majority of my rant.
motor.on
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Left is right; Right is wrong. Just read on to get my facts
About Me
- Motor.On
- Your entire gastrointestinal tract bursts into flames.
63 comments:
he 'soley consumed'fact is just a pro-cloning fact. it helps me in some ways
Okay, I have a few things to say. First of all, you have to proofread your crap before you post it. Small errors can be ignored, but putting Pro-choice instead of pro-life makes it confusing. And small errors make it less desirable to read. Second, I'm pro-choice. I don't have a problem with women getting abortions. A fetus has no consiousness. But at the same time, is a baby a human the instant it is born? When does that happen? Annie is also right. Rape is totally different. Also, sometimes *GASP* people make mistakes! Having unprotected sex can be one of those. Also, I asked my mom when a fetus becomes a human (in her mind) and she said "When it gets eyes and a nose and a mouth." So people are defining humans based on what we look like. What about accident victams? And Annie saying to look at an aborted baby's picture kinda freaked my out, because people are making decisions based on emotions, not facts. Although I agree that abortion is not the best choice, it IS better than having a baby and then stuffing it in a garbage bag. On the subject of Terry Schavio, well I won't touch that... this is getting too long anyway. Maybe when I put my thoughts together more, I will post on MY blog.
Preach Brotha Eric! Preach!
I just gotta agree Im sorry... A womens body is her own... we have problems with over-population in china... Adopt before you have a kid there are tens of thousands in orphaneges... Unprotected sex is a horible choice but I dont beileave that Other people can chose what happes inside someone elses body...Ido agree that there shud be maybe a jow-much-they-have-matured test. but I gotta say in the imorttal wurds of Alan, "preach brotha preach"!
He just wanted to spark debate. I blogged about this myself by the way.
I suggest you allow anonymous posting. I know some people who would post but either a) don't have a blogger account or b) don't want to share their name.
Directed at Elena - You're way out of your league here. You want to question vegetative state? Fine. I'll bring what the majority of doctors in america have to say about the subject. Terry Shiavo was not in a vegetative state. She was in a state of Basil Intelligence. Basil intelligence is basic brain activity. This means that everything she does is based apon reflex. She has no conciousness. CAT scans show her brain to be little more than liquid inside of her cranial cavity. She feels no pain. The rules of basil intelligence dictate that you have basic functions of the brain. Pain is a very basic function, conciousness is not. It is a basic function to withdraw from pain. However, the concious thought "OW THAT HURTS" never crosses her mind. Therefore she feels no pain because she is not concious to experience it.
About abortions to elena - Fetuses do not kick. Fetuses are not developed enough to kick, since fetuses do not have arms or legs. Once the fetus develops into a baby, it begins to kick. Personally, I am of the opinion that partial birth abortion is one of the most disgusting things on the face of the planet. There is never an excuse for partial birth abortion, because the fetus has already developed into a human being. A fetus is merely the potential for life, and though I would not choose a regular abortion, i feel it is a matter of personal choice of which I cannot interfere. Partial birth abortion, however, is completely different. Partial birth abortion is where the physician halts the delivery, midway, to attach a tube through the baby's skull and use a vaccuum to suck the baby's brain through the tube. I've seen a partial birth abortion take place, and it is one of the most horrible things I've ever had to witness. There is never justification for this, because the mother has had ample opportunity to get an abortion already. It is also never necessary to save the mother. My parents (father especially) were considering becoming obstetricians, the doctors who deliver babies. When the mother could possibly die during delivery, the first thing you do is deliver the baby as fast as possible so you can begin surgical work on the mother. During partial birth abortion, the baby is held still partially inside of the birth canal while the doctors kill it. It takes five or ten minutes to do so, thus decreasing the mother's chances for survival. Therefore, it is never necessary.
Directed at annie - Pictures about aborted children.... hmm.... if we're talking about partial-birth abortions, then I completely agree with you. Regular abortions, however, the pictures will not make any sense. Many times they are incredibly small. If the pregnancy is caught early enough and aborted fast enough, you can count the number of cells with your fingers and toes. The pictures of regular abortion do not show anything but a mass of cells anyway, so they are not very moving.
No offense to you people, but the republicans are definitely wrong on this one. Pro-life people tend to look at themselves as sophisticated and worldly because they think they are soooo moral and care about these people when pro-choicers do not, when in actuality the pro-lifers just have emotion and little fact to back up their opinion. Pro-choice can be deduced with simple logic and a few facts. Some emotion is required. I think I fall somewhere between pro-choice and pro-life, but a lot closer to pro-choice. Partial-birth abortions are the only place where I agree with pro-lifers because it is just about the same as murder. Anyway, that's my opinion. This is gonna go on my blog today anyway.
That is the most awesome comment that I've ever seen. So now the unoffical total is 4:2 Pro-Choice. Speak up and post (if you haven't). And I agree with Scott totally.
I agree with you that abortion is a way out of bad choices. I don't think these bad choices should be made in the first place. The problem arises when bad choices are made, and there is no way out of them. You say abortion is the "easy way out". What's the hard way out? Having the baby? When the baby is born unwanted with nowhere to live and parents who didn't really want it, is that better? Is it better to create a life that is destroyed psychologically, or is it better to destroy the life before it begins? And, is destroying the life before it begins the same as not having sex? Destroying a united sperm and egg is theoretically the same as never uniting the sperm and egg. Please explain to me the difference.
As I said before, partial birth abortion is different.
I hate to say it Carmi, but Scott's was an AWESOME counter-argument. Oh well.
I think you make excellent points except for the men running off thing. Granted, it is more often the men who run away from their children than women, but it is an incorrect stereotype nonetheless. Women can run away from their children and leave them with the men just as easily as the other way around. However, the media and movies most often portray it as the men who are the evil people. (It's an attempt to "empower" women, which is a rant that I'll post later on my blog.) Whatever.
Wow that's pretty powerful. I'm glad that your mother didn't have an abortion (obviously). I can't really think of a good rebuttle right now, so I'll just shut up.
Carmi - You make an interesting and compelling argument. I'm sorry to hear about your father's decision, and I can tell that this is probably a subject that you feel strongly about, so I'll be as diplomatic as I can be about it. I think that you were very lucky to have a mother who cared for you that much. However, the majority of women we are discussing here are not ready to have a child, and are unable to give their child as good a life as you have been able to have. I also said that abortion is a matter of personal choice. There are some who are not able to raise a child as well as others, and an unexpected fetus will not fare as well because of it. I think the abortion is not the problem. Your mother had the choice and did not take it. Just because your mother did not take it, though, does not mean we should close the choice for everyone else.
Ok, ok, ok... Can people in court and in debates truly decide what happens in the everyday pregnant woman? Of course not. It is the womens choice it is HER BODY, she gets to decide what happens no one else. We think that judges and courst and lawmakers can truly understand the concept of birth and what it feels like to go through an abortion? Very few do. I don't beleave that we, meaning others, can decide if a women's fetus lives or dies. In closing I would just like to restate that only the mother of the child or fetus should ever be allowed to say what goes on in her body.
Elena and Annie are angry because Alan sent them this blog. WTF? Sry, I don't understand.
Directed at cory - yes I agree with you 100%. That is the entire basis of pro-choice. Pro-life means that the women has NO choice at all of what happens to her fetus. Pro-choice means that the option is open, but if she thinks it is wrong, she doesn't have to do it.
I hate to say it but Im so confused about this subject that im going to attack my own comment. It might NOT be your body, (the mother), it might just be someone elses body or life, can you kill a chance of life? Then again if you catch it early enough and its just a cluster of cells and no feeling, but Carmi's right, she has a strong point. What about the life who was saved due to them not getting an abortion? you just spoil there chances of life. But with so many people unemployed and so many homeless people so many children in orphanages. Im just confused.
Elena - a fetus is defined in medical textbooks as the potential for life under the right circumstances. Nobody knows if the fetus would survive anyway. And yes, it is a collection of cells that can't fend for itself. The question is when does a sperm and egg become a human being? If it's not at birth, when is it? When does a collection of cells become a valuable, contributing person? Is it in the second month of pregnancy? The eighth? Who decides that? The answer to that is you pro-lifers decide that. It's a number that you just pull out of your ass to complement your point. It's completely arbitrary because it's just a made up number with no fact behind it at all. You can either say a sperm and an egg is life, or you can say a baby born is life. And if you're gonna say a sperm and egg is life, why isn't an egg life? Why isn't sperm life?
Become a vegetarian... Hmm... Are you suggesting that humans eat sperm?
As for alive - How does it grow? It grows off of the living mother, by using nutrients from the mother. The cells from the mother contribute to and control to its growth, so by the scientific definition it is not alive.
Sperm and eggs ARE alive. They're cells. But they aren't humans! Neither are embryos or fetuses (feti?).
annie: aborted baby pictures are basically a bs tactic... its like "here look at this gross picture!" ewwwwww! that looks gross so i hate abortion! BS!
at a ceratin point a fetus DOES become a person... while it is still in the womb but it is def. not when most abortions take place
(still to annie): a woman might get raped then what choice does she have? you wanna have a rapists baby? yeah neither do i.
(still to annie): i wanna see that study that links this abortions to suicide... anyways having a kid at 15 or 16 effs up the kid! THE KID IS MESSED UP CUZ THE MOTHER CANT TAKE CARE OF IT WELL AND $20 SAYS THE FATHER BAILS IMMEADIATELY!
(to all them prolifers out there): think about this rationally we have over 6 BILLION people on this planet.... why do you care so much about some cell culture (fetus) when plenty of full undisagreeably human people are dying of aids and stuff all over the word and you refuse to give them condoms to protect themselves because that'd be birth control and therefore evil? sometimes you people can have such BS fickle views...
(to carmi): you're saying that you have to suffer for your bad decisions? thats completely bogus flawed logic. the very person most of these people worship BEGGED FORGIVENESS aka the ability to change things and make things better... you shouldn't have to suffer for one mistake... especially when you have the baby and screw up the kid cuz you're 15
(to annie... again): it is a woman choice to get the abortioN! some women do want it! your sample poll example is way too small to be effective... have you not learned anything from math class?
(still to annie): the problem with birthcontrol is that most people who are "pro-life" are also "anti-birth control" so when the "pro-life" side gets what they want it will most likely be accompanied with an "anti-birth control" measure
(to carmi): i'm glad that you werent aborted like eric cuz you're a good person... just offhand though a beating heart does not make you a human... u are human now tho so no needs to worry
(elena): you obviously need to control your anger and things you dislike better... i'm reading "darwin on trial" right now BECAUSE it pisses me off... it gives me a good viewpoint to the other side of the arguement... plus getting pissed and still talking about it is what solves the worlds problems!
eric, scott, cory and alan EFF YEAH!
-me
P.s. ALAN YOU STOLE MY ABORTION THINGY! I WAS GONNA DO ONE AND IT WAS GONNA GO UNDER THE BIG BANNER THAT SAYS BS AND IT WAS GONNA BE PERFECT! :'(
What do you mean they will become humans if they survive? So you're saying they definitely will become humans, unless they don't. Wow, that's the dumbest argument i've ever heard.
No, you're not your mother. You used to be her egg, though. You were a collection of proteins, aminos, and polypeptides from your mother and your father. And yes, even when you had your own heartbeat, you utilized your mothers. You recieved nutrients from her bloodstream, through the umbilical cord, thus utilizing her hearbeat and your own at the same time.
"will definitely become humans if they survive." So, if they survive, they will survive? First thing you've said that makes sense all day. And your heartbeat is an obsolete way of telling if you're alive. You can be clinically dead and still alive (for like 2 min) and the other way around.
elena you said it write there... fetuses and zygotes will become humans ... biggest most important part... IF THEY LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THATS EXACTLY WHAT SCOTTY SAID! THAT IS CALLED THE POTENTIAL FOR LIFE! ITS NOT A GUARANTEE!
GO SCOTTY GO!
Rock on douglas! And yeah, alan took my idea too.
Being unique makes you human? Then my desk is human. It has my name scratched in it (under my moniter :). Define human.
"I had a genetic code completely different from my mother's, therefore, I was NOT my mother. I had a set of fingerprints, brain waves at day 40, and a different set of chromosomes than she. So does (and did) everybody on earth."
Already covered that... see my previous posts. I'm not saying you are your mother, but my point was that you are not alive until you are independant of her.
It is her free choice to get an abortion. She's allowed to smoke if she wants to, and it's dangerous. How is abortion different?
Someone has to speak for these fetuses, this small chance at life. Who should decide? The lawyers? or the mothers?
elena i wanna hear u explain how its dangerous for the woman... and i also wanna see the studies where the stuff was proven so as to use a term scotty used earlier: make sure that someone didnt just pull the information out of their ass
elena how does it hurt the mother?
No. They are alive, but not humans. I said that like 50 times.
a fetus is a cell culture defined as alive but without a conscious so it has no idea if its dying or living or in pain... cuz it CANNOT THINK!
But under the right conditions t WILL one day be able to think.
but it could also turn out to not be able to think...
exactly bizzle.
elena: if an abortion is done properly the mother isnt hurt... sometimes things get ruptured... i dare you to name ONE medical procedure without the chance for a mistake... should we ban surgeries because they have possible negative side effects? NO!
and we're not talking about something that is developed... we are talking about a CELL CULTURE!
I bielave ALan himself once said something, COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO ABORTION, yet I beilave it has a great meaning to this debate, "There is no black or white, just grey" Neither side is right neither is wrong. Both have strong points, both have weak. I DO NOT fight for either side. I merely try to use fact to drive myself to a conclusion. When I see the end of the road there is none. We should stop argueing and find a "better solution". THIs bickering has gotten us nowhere. It has only caused feelings to be hurt and minds to be strained. If we can get past the images and the emotion and both willingly try to understand all points of view we can easily comprehend a better solution for both mother and child.
haha sorry but that reminded me of my The Grey Sides project
We're not arguing, we're debating. It's FUN! BTW, we pretty much won.
If you've gotten this far, I commend you. Check my blog later for a webpage of all the AIM conversations that happened.
Eric/Douglas - Congrats for manning the abortion fort over the night when I had to leave! Douglas, you said exactly what I would have, but I want to add a few things.
Cory - Why should the lawyers choose? They have nothing to do with it. The whole point of view is that we leave the choice open. It's the same with smoking or drinking. They're totally legal, including during pregnancy. Birth defects can occur, and the child can even die from the effects. Smoking is dangerous, and there are people who don't like it. However, my point of view on that is as follows - if you don't like it, push for stricter regulations. Don't take it away, because everybody has the personal freedom to do whatever they want. Abortion is the same. If you want to push for stricter regulations, as in the pregnancy has to be aborted by a n appropriate time, that's fine. You cannot, however, get rid of something merely because you do not like it. It is the basis for this country; everybody has the choice to do what they want to do. Before America was founded, people like us in the government decided what would go on for everybody. If you want it to stay that way, move to Cuba where dictatorship still exists.
Elena - Once again, even if the procedure is dangerous, it is a matter of personal choice. People are allowed to smoke if it is dangerous for themselves. Your point of view has a patronizing sense to it; it is very condescending in that when you say it is dangerous for the mothers, you imply that the mothers are not capable of making the choice for themselves (ie - uneducated.). If you claim it is too dangerous for mothers to be able to do so, why are there still abortions? Why do mothers choose to have abortions even though they may never be able to have children again? (Even though no studies prove the previous...) Is it because they are too dumb to understand the risk? No. It is because they fully understand what is about to happen, and they have decided that the possible outcomes of having the surgery are better than bringing an unwanted child into the world. Also, to bring the smoking thing back into this, people smoke all the time. Everyone acknowledges that smoking is hazardous to your health; however, the government does not outlaw it. Why is this? It is because it violates our personal freedoms, in addition to a number of other reasons. Abortion should follow the same laws as smoking.
Once again Scott, that is an awesome post and seems to address all the concerns of everyone. Did somebody send you the chat transcript from last night? If not, I will later today.
Annie and Elena seem really angry that Alan sent them a link to this post. I don't really get it. Bizzle said it perfectly: "i'm reading "darwin on trial" right now BECAUSE it pisses me off... it gives me a good viewpoint to the other side of the arguement... plus getting pissed and still talking about it is what solves the worlds problems!" Alan was probably TRYING to spark debate. You didn't have to come here. And once you did, you didn't have to post. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who can deal with it and those who can't. If you get angry because somebody sends you a LINK to a point of view opposite your own, you need help. Reading opposite points of view is what allows us to temper and strengthen our opinions. Otherwise, everything you read is preaching to the choir.
Yeah I think he just wanted you to read it. Something this controversial will make SOMEBODY mad. I don't think the point was to make you mad, but I DO think the point was to spark debate. Which is fun, at least for me.
No hard feelings, guys. Eric, you might want to tone it down a little. The object of the debate is not to offend anybody, but to merely express and support your point of view. You don't have to yell at people about it. However, your post has some truth to it. Annie, I think maybe you're over-reacting a bit to alan sending you this link. He probably did know it would make some people mad when he posted it, and it says so at the beginning. I don't think he's taking it too far, though, by asking you to read and comment on his opinion. He wrote the post in a flagrant way, though. I can understand your frustration, but you have to realize that this is just politics. People send me crap about how much Bush sucks all the time. I read it, just so that I can edify myself. I want to know what the opposing point of view has to throw at me. I read Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them just for that purpose. Though I disagreed with Al Franken, I wanted to see what he had to say. I was not really shocked by anything in his book, and in fact it only made me think even more that my point of view was correct. I thought his arguments were weak, but the point is I read it. I considered what he had to say, and sometimes I accept it, sometimes I dismiss it. Well, anyway, long story short, even if alan emails you a link to something that you disagree with, you should read it, seriously consider the facts and points that he makes, and either agree with him and accept it, or disagree with him and dismiss it. Getting mad should not be a reaction to it.
Sorry if that came off a little harsh. I mean the previous in the nicest way possible.
I just found out that there is a law banning Partial Birth Abortion. You can read it here.
There are exceptions in that law. It says "it can be performed when the mother's life is at stake," which, the mother's chances of survival are never increased by abortion, but it gives the doctors a way to perform the procedure anyway. They can just claim the mother's life was at stake. Also, annie, debating with your friends is not bad; it is just a way to exchange information and re-evaluate your opinion, but if you would prefer not to debate with us, we won't pressure you to.
Wow 79 COMMENTS! Alan will be surprised.
Yeah. Ha, I made it 80!
Alan died, or something. He hasn't been on his computer since he made this post....
I'm sorry, but ALAN DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG! It really annoys me you act like Alan did something wrong by making a blog post on a controversial topic! I don't think anybody did anything wrong (besides me and Barrett for getting too aggressive), but if somebody did, it was Annie for letting this all get to her. If you don't want to debate, DON'T CLICK THE FREAKING LINK!
Oh, one more thing... please don't just remove your post later if you don't like what you said. You can obviously, I'm not dictator of the world, but it's really annoying when I try to read back through and find the arguments that each person made.
Annie (or Elena or Carmi) mentioned how All the girls who have posted are por-life. The fact is, WE LIVE IN CINCINNATI (or used to). Indian Hill s the No2 $ contributer to th republcan party (a.k.a. mostly Pro-Life) The girls probably are going with their parents views( we all do, its natural, its just wether you ACt on your parents views)
My parents are Liberal (my dad is supposed to be Republican, but he vted in the Democratic primary + my Mom is 'Ind3pendant') so that defines my views. (Even though I might be more liberal than them b/cause I worked fo John Kerry)
Scotts Parents are Doctors, who are Catholic (but hes losely so)
Annie + elena are Catholics, s therefore Pro-life
Eric, I dunno, just his mom's views
Carmi I dunno either (even though I would guess that it has to do with the fact that she looked UP to Condelezza Rice *ahem* *Ahem*)
Cory's just there
Yeah my parents are mostly Republican. Like I said earlier, I'm more liberal myself. However, I'm not fond of any politicians, especially Democrats.
I agree with a number of issues with the democrats, but I can't stand their views on economics because the logic just doesn't make sense. Why encourage laziness with financial benefits? Why let lazy people free-load?
See the other 1 scott...
I realize that it's a little late to be expressing my opinion on abortion, but I just figured out how to use this Blogger thing (turns out I had an account I never really used from June 2004..), and I thought I'd give you guys my opinion on abortion here: I am completely pro-choice, for ALL situations (this does not mean I think abortion is always a good thing though, I just think people should get to choose). I'm not really going to post any arguments supporting my opinion, unless I find a really good source, since most of them have been pretty well covered already...
-mrtoodles (a.k.a 'sif r-man)
I don't think partial birth abortion should ever be legal, just because of how truly sick and disturbing it is. There is never an excuse for it, and I've commented about it previously.
YaY! 90 Comments!
Eric mentioned the idea of hemical abortion instead of physical abortion. What they do is simple. they introduce a weak hyemical/virus that the fetus dies from, but the mother's immune system is strong enough to survive and be healthy throughout the process... If we did that, the pics of aborted FETUSES (not humans/babies) would be a mass of cells. Which is what they are anyway. Also, the mother WOULDNT be hurt.
goto www.rockforlife.org
for a good laugh
God, this was a fun debate. Good times. I wish people wouldn't get so worked up about debating. It isn't bad.
Post a Comment