What your daughter may soon be sporting

[Lava]

Pooeypants:
> Because we've over populated this world by several billion counts.

define 'overpopulated' and someone can show you how meaningless or incorrect your statement is.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Originally posted by Gorgo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gorgo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, if a woman is depressed about her pregnancy, that makes murder okay? <!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Vicchio, Ah.. Zee, I explained mitigating circumstances. you just are trying to be witty and cool by playing on semantics. Whatever. But Rape causes serious mental harm, and that falls under MOTHERS HEALTH. I knwo a gal who was raped, got pregnant, and nearly killed herself out of depression over carrying that monsters child.

[/b][/quote]

Its not the pregnancy Gorgo that is the poitn, which you are intentionally pretending stupidty over.

You know I was reffering to the RAPE and its CONSEQUENCES. GET IT YET? Probably not.

[Samildanach]

Why kill a fetus when it could be put up for adoption?

I can answer that question quite easily.

I wouldn't want to have a son or daughter of mine raised by somebody else nor let them them go through the trauma of knowing that their birth parents gave them away because they 'didn't want them.'
I would rather abort the fetus rather than let the human being it would become to be raised by somebody else I don't know or trust.
It would also plague my mind a lot more than an abortion if I had another living human being out there somewhere that I was ment to be responsible for but couldn't keep an eye on.

Thats why.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Lava, define 'overpopulated' and someone can show you how meaningless or incorrect your statement is.

Really? Tell me, how many species have gone extinct as a result of our exponential and almost unregulated growth? How many more forests do we have to fall to make way for our farmyards?

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Kyran,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kyran,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Because someone out there gives a damn enough to fund them.[/b]

No, I'm asking why they exist if adoption was so quick and easy, not why they can exist.

<!--QuoteBegin-Pooeypants,

Sources and proof? Oh wait, I've got a better idea. Since you justify abortion in the name of fixing the planet's population count, how about we start murdering the chinese? A few nuclear bombs would fix that you know. Of course, by now you probably realize WHY the huge number of chinese in the world is no excuse for Europeans or North Americans to allow abortion. If the planet is overpopulated, blame the asians.[/quote]
The Chinese and Indians have got to stop their growth rate, nuke them if you want but that'll be a declaration of war.

I mean COME ON Pooey! There's enough food going around to support the population now.

There certainly is, the US produces 25% of the world's grain, I do believe.
Question is, will your/my gov't do something about the distribution of this food? Yes or No?

Anyway, I've got my own stuff to quote as well;
" The world is growing by more than 76 million people a year. At the current rate of growth, even accounting for a continual decrease in the growth rate, the world population is headed for double digits within 50 years. Every 20 minutes, the world adds another 3,500 human lives but loses one or more entire species of animal or plant life - at least 27,000 species per year. The world population has doubled in the last 40 years. It took just 12 years to leap from 5 billion to 6 billion. It took about 18 centuries for the earth to reach its first one billion inhabitants. The world is adding a city the size of Los Angeles every two weeks.

Birth rates are falling worldwide but death rates are declining even faster. A tiny fraction - only 7 percent - of the world's people live in countries where population is not growing.

If fertility remained at current levels, the population would reach the absurd figure of 296 billion in just 150 years. Even if it dropped to 2.5 children per woman and then stopped falling, the population would still reach 28 billion.
"

Considering your apparent figure is "Abortion: 46,000,000/yr", I'd say it's a worthy compromise.


source

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Ah.. Zee, I explained mitigating circumstances. you just are trying to be witty and cool by playing on semantics. Whatever. If you won't acknowledge that I bring up mitigating circumstances, like Rape. serious defects to a child, the mothers health... In those cases there are overridding factors that make abortion, while not the best option, accceptable to a degree. It would be better in the case of rape, for the motehr to carry to term and give the child up for adoption. And yes, its not the childs fault they were brought into the world. But Rape causes serious mental harm, and that falls under MOTHERS HEALTH. I knwo a gal who was raped, got pregnant, and nearly killed herself out of depression over carrying that monsters child.

I'm not playing on semantics or anything else. I am just trying to understand your viewpoint. Is abortion murder or not? In all cases? In some cases? Is abortion in the case of rape considered murder? Do the extenuating circumstances of rape somehow redefine the act of abortion?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Abortion is murder.

Abortion is wrong.

There are EXTREMEMLY RARE instances, where the issue becomes a matter of health of the mother. If a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant (VERY RARE TO BEGIN WITH) there are times that the womans mental health becomes de-stablized by the RAPE and having to carry the child. In those cases, that woman has an abortion, its a choice between losing the child, and losing them both.

You are trying to get me to say "its murder except when I say its not" I know what you are doing.

You have hounded me on this one issue, without debating the situation, jsut playing semantic games. Do you understand the threat of suicide by the woman is a great risk?
bug some.. nevermind there aren't th

[Gorgo]

Please cite sources that show that women who are raped and pregnant are more likely to commit suicide than those that are just pregnant or those that are raped and not pregnant. Please cite sources that say that abortion will significantly reduce that rate.

[Liberty Landing]

Abortion is taking responsibility.

You said that before. I rebutted it. You didn't answer. Either do so or stop saying it.

An infant is human being that has been born.

Again, this is not fact, it is interpretation -- a contested one, at that.

What if it is killing an infant? What difference does it make? The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Why? And what are you advocating?

Are you guys pushing the morning after pill? Are you adopting these babies you want to have in the world? Are you pushing contraception or even condoms?

Do you work at an abortion clinic? Give money to people who've had abortions? Are you employed by a pro-abortion group?
No. These things don't matter.
As for pushing contraception, that's ridiculous. Everyone knows what it is, and everyone knows how to get it. There doesn't need to be education, people just need to realize that actions have consequences.

Fighting against a woman's right to choose, that's irresponsibility.

If it was widely interpreted as a woman's right to choose, there would be no debate.
Your arguments have reached new lows of self-perpetuation.

Especially coming from people like Vicchio who push wars against innocent people, born and unborn.

I hope you know and understand the fact that you are pushing this strawman at the expense of your own credibility.
You, yourself, just said that the "line must be drawn somewhere," and that who cares if an infant dies? Your persistence in this foolish line of attack either renders you support for abortion or your opposition to war hypocritical.
I am utterly astounded that you stick to it so fervently: you think the world is overpopulated and it needs to be controlled, yet you oppose a war that you openly claim intends to do just that.

And I want answers from you this time.

[prettyredhead]

Abortions tickle.
This is on tshirthell.com

It isnt a big deal. You dont have to raise it, and you dont GIVE A DAMN ABOUT The ones here, on earth who have no parents, no love, no warm fuzzy bunny slippers, no Santa, no goddamn nothing.
Take care of them first, and I will become Pro Life. Until then, I will remain prochoice. It isnt your ass on the line.
Why cant you remain so compassonate about foster kids? Why not Older kids ? No, you just want to bully young women into being "respon."
Abortion is responsible. It takes care of her problem. She isnt asking you Jon Q taxpayer to pay for her kid, that she wasnt ready for, and didnt want.
Kids ruin your life when you are 15 and pregnant. 15 isnt old enough to know better. It is up to parents to educate her, or her 17 year old boyfriend will. She doesnt have to ruin her life, when abortion is avaiable. So many parents are willing to raise their grandkids, and that is a screaming shame. She isnt off the hook then, is she? Auntie or sister..

[Gorgo]

Give me a reasonable question and I'll answer it. You keep repeating the same thing without saying anything.


I don't work at an abortion clinic but I support Planned Parenthood. The point is that people like Vicchio tell me that these lives are so important, there are other ways to deal with this problem. You don't need to have abortions if you have education, poverty-reduction programs, and lots of people wanting to adopt babies. I don't see him pushing any of those things.

I'm waiting for answers to my questions.

[Liberty Landing]

Give me a reasonable question and I'll answer it. You keep repeating the same thing without saying anything.

Maybe you have your crap backwards. I have asked you several questions throughout this thread that you never answered because you chose instead to pursue the (presumably) poorly-equipped Vicchio.

Let's recap:

--You said: "Abortion is taking responsibility." You never explained how.
I have asked you TWICE now.

--You said: "An infant is human being that has been born." I told you that this was interpretation, not fact -- TWICE. You never responded.

--You said: "What if it is killing an infant? What difference does it make? The line has to be drawn somewhere." I asked why. You never answered.

--You said: "Fighting against a woman's right to choose, that's irresponsibility." I told you, again TWICE, that is not fact but interpretation. You never answered.

--You keep talking about the war. I keep telling you to keep it focused on abortion because it makes you look worse than it makes Vicchio. You never responded.

I don't know if you just have trouble reading certain words or what, but I have put forward several questions to which I want answers. Whenever I demand a response to one of your ridiculous statements you simply repeat what I just said.

If you absolutely cannot debate coherently, go somewhere else. I am getting frankly fed up with this. You are not debating, you are taking what other people say, throwing it back at us, and then hiding behind what we just said as cover to avoid the fallout of your own absurdity.

Like I said: you have your questions and I want my answers. Give them to me or just go away.

[Gorgo]

1) If a woman is pregnant and incapable or unwilling to care for an infant, it is responsible, in the first months of pregnancy, to end that pregnancy rather than to abandon responsibility for the child. That seems self-evident.

2) I have not heard the term 'infant' used interchangeably with the term fetus. If you have seen that in anything but anti-choice literature, please show me and I can revise that statement.

3) I'm sorry, you're asking me why we need to decide what murder is and what it isn't?

4) Fighting against a woman's right to choose is irresponsible. That is opinion. Reasonable opinion, but opinion. Never said otherwise.

5) You're telling me what to say and how to say it? Where did you obtain that kind of license?

6) Again, you can tell people now when they can be here and when they can't? Show me that license again?

Now. It seems only fair for you to either answer my questions to my satisfaction or get out.

[Lava]

Pooeypants:
> Because we've over populated this world by several billion counts.

define 'overpopulated' and someone can show you how meaningless or incorrect your statement is.

[Kyran]

Originally posted by Lava,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lava,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I have real reservations after my last attempt but am going to try moving the debate forward one more time. I cross my fingers.[/b]

Lava, actually from reading your post I can see you tried to be half-way sensible in the midst of all this. I applaud you for that, so take my criticism and back off. Things are going to get very ugly.

Originally posted by Lava,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lava,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Making abortions illegal does not stop them.[/b]

Making murders and rapes illegal doesn't stop them entirely either. That being said, I'm sure you can agree that having a Rule of Law is better than not having one.

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

Originally posted by Gorgo, Fighting against a woman's right to choose, that's irresponsibility. Especially coming from people like Vicchio who push wars against innocent people, born and unborn.

Right to choose? Her options are:
A) Raise the baby.
B) Put it up for adoption.

Now let me draw out my point by showing you what options she should not have:
A) Aborting her baby and wearing a "I had an abortion" t-shirt.
B) Hanging her baby on a clothesline for the birds to eat.
C) Sacrificing her baby to her deity.

By the way, Gorgo, you can refrain from insulting others. You earned 1 brownie point for pointing out Mr V's inconsistency. But when you use that to bash his character instead of retaining your position, you are asking for a moderator report.

Just behave and pay attention. You need to see some more facts.

According to my sources, 70% percent of all abortions are done by Christian women.

Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic.

Surprised? I know I am. I'll let this speak for itself.

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

Originally posted by Samildanch, Why kill a fetus when it could be put up for adoption? I can answer that question quite easily. I wouldn't want to have a son or daughter of mine raised by somebody else nor let them them go through the trauma of knowing that their birth parents gave them away because they 'didn't want them.' I would rather abort the fetus rather than let the human being it would become to be raised by somebody else I don't know or trust.

What you want is irrelevant, so put a sock in it. Your life isn't at stake. That child's is. Why don't you give him the choice of leaving your family? That would mean you support freedom of choice. But instead of seeing this bear-trap query I laid for you, you have stuck your penis in it.

The men and women you bring into this world do not belong to you. People are not property. Raising children is a virtue, not a responsibility. That means one should thank their parents.

I can give you several reasons to trust those who might adopt "your" child. For one thing, they're not looking to kill "your" child. For another, there's a chance that child may grow up to produce something great for humanity like the cure for AIDS or a solution to world hunger. Finally, there's a chance "your" child may actually appreciate the fact that you didn't murder them. But hey, put your kid up for adoption then tell him 30 years later that you CONSIDERED aborting him. That'll be the last time you ever see him.

Thank you for answering honestly, though, Sam. Your reasoning for abortion lies within the scope of distrust; an emotion consisting of 'fear' and 'want.' It fits right in with the top three reasons for abortions in America: greed, conformity, and laziness. These also consist of want and fear.

And don't argue with me; your answer to my question was you wouldn't want YOUR child to be raised by someone else. Appeal to emotions is an invalid argument.

Originally posted by Pooeypants, Really? Tell me, how many species have gone extinct as a result of our exponential and almost unregulated growth? How many more forests do we have to fall to make way for our farmyards?

Not our argument, so it's up to you to prove that human growth caused these things. You can also prove that it's justified to "save the animals" and "save the tree" at the cost of people; since you are relying on that position.

Originally posted by Pooeypants, The Chinese and Indians have got to stop their growth rate, nuke them if you want but that'll be a declaration of war.

No no, YOU nuke them. You're the one who has a problem with population levels, not me. Haahahahahhaaha!

Originally posted by Pooeypants, Anyway, I've got my own stuff to quote as well;

Pooey, I can go through and refute every last one of the arguments your source uses. But tell ya what, since you're already hopelessly outmatched on this issue, I will allow it to be on the table anyway. It doesn't do you any good, as you will soon see.

Okay, so China has "overpopulated" the earth. Two wrongs make a right? That's a fallacy. You cannot say it "is not wrong" to abort children because of our unrelated population problem. Your argument is refuted.

Try again. Try to undermine my position next by claiming that abortion isn't a "wrong" in the first place and demanding me to prove it. Yeah...you should do that.

Better yet, for those other abortion advocates out there; try to say that punishing people by law doesn't make murder or theft right. Please, argue with me. I'll GIVE you arguments to use. But you'll never win.

Originally posted by Pooeypants, Question is, will your/my gov't do something about the distribution of this food? Yes or No?

Raising the bar fallacy, and irrelevant. Don't change the topic.

By the way, I wasn't able to find the human population limit on this website. Perhaps you can share with us the number of people that are supposed to be around in order to co-exist peacefully with our environment. Remember though, that no solution which demands the killing of born or unborn people is acceptable. There's always contraceptives, education, and awareness.

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio Do you understand the threat of suicide by the woman (who is raped) is a great risk?

Valid point. That is a real problem, but just like Pooey's overpopulation deal, it does not justify abortion. You don't seem to be using this point in that manner anymore. But correct me if I'm wrong.

This does raise the sub-topic question of what government should do in these cases. Have at it people.

<!--QuoteBegin-prettyredhead,@
It isnt a big deal. You dont have to raise it, and you dont GIVE A DAMN ABOUT The ones here, on earth who have no parents, no love, no warm fuzzy bunny slippers, no Santa, no goddamn nothing.[/quote]

You don't have to raise it either; it's called adoption. And it totally eliminates the idea that anyone is being forced to abort children. You have the option even after pregnancy to opt out of raising the child.

So before you go lipping off about who doesn't give a damn about the ones here, take a look at that internet bill and the food you put on your child's plate. That's just my two cents.

Yeah...argue with me...

<!--QuoteBegin-Gorgo,
You don't need to have abortions if you have education, poverty-reduction programs, and lots of people wanting to adopt babies. I don't see him pushing any of those things.[/quote]

AH HA! Gorgo took sides. Ze enemy is weakened. He is arguing against abortion in the favor of social programs which he implies would help.

I'm no fan of such things, but this is by far the most attractive one I have ever seen. I feel it would best be administered by the people themselves, not the government; because government takes money from people by force. However, considering the scope of the pro-life movement, it would not be difficult to find appropriate funding for a strategic social action.

People are largely uneducated about the dangers of abortion, both physical and mental, to the mother. Education would help big time. Poverty-reduction is a great idea, especially considering the percentage of women who claim they have an abortion due to money. How to go about this specifically is debateable.

[Gorgo]

Actually, I'm not sure that that has been completely established. Education and poverty-reduction do much more to reduce crime than anything.

Originally posted by Kyran, I'm sure you can agree that having a Rule of Law is better than not having one.

[Gorgo]

An insult would be to call someone an asshole, for instance. I have merely described his behavior. Supporting criminals like George Bush, supporting superstition, supporting illegal wars. That's not an insult, that's fact.

Threatening me with being put on report is really childish. Either do it or shut up. I'm not really interested in your threats. Stick to the discussion.

Originally posted by Kyran, By the way, Gorgo, you can refrain from insulting others. You earned 1 brownie point for pointing out Mr V's inconsistency. But when you use that to bash his character instead of retaining your position, you are asking for a moderator report.

[Gorgo]

Actually, I don't find them easy to get. They're expensive, and most people have to travel quite a ways to get them. Thanks to the anti-choice crowd.

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Kyran, Because someone out there gives a damn enough to fund them.

No, I'm asking why they exist if adoption was so quick and easy, not why they can exist.
[/b][/quote]

[prettyredhead]

[
and lots of people wanting to adopt babies. I don't see him pushing any of those things.


***And you sound like a broken record. Ignoring the older kids who are HERE AND ALIVE and wanting desperately to be LOVED.
People wanting to adopt BABIES......exactly. I say, take a kid, any kid or you dont get to adopt. Period. This is not supposed to be shopping, or Human WalMart.
You should not get a choice, if no one else does.

[prettyredhead]

And further more, how can you outlaw abortions when we cannot find homes for kids already here?
It isnt your choice. You live in your little world, and she lives in hers. It impacts you none what so ever.
Please, tell me how it impacts your life, ?????Dont post again until you can answer this....