NATION

PASSWORD

Abortion: Humane or not?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Abortion Humane or not?

Should be legalized and is humane
229
33%
Abortion kills innocent babies and should be stopped!
150
22%
What's abortion?
12
2%
Abortion depend on the circumstance
160
23%
It's the woman's choice
143
21%
 
Total votes : 694

User avatar
Degenerate Heart of HetRio
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10600
Founded: Feb 12, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:06 am

Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:Anybody can be a misogynist (male or female). Anybody who wishes to impose a patriarchal system or wants to infringe a woman's rights is a misogynist.

... I don't remember you being this progressive when it comes to gender issues. Did you change your views recently, or am I mistaken? Just a comment.
Pro: Communism/anarchism, Indigenous rights, MOGAI stuff, bodily autonomy, disability rights, environmentalism
Meh: Animal rights, non-harmful religion/superstition, militant atheism, left-leaning reform of capitalism
Anti: Dyadic superstructure (sex-gender birth designation and hierarchy), positivism, conservatism, imperialism, Zionism, Orientalism, fascism, religious right, bending to reactionary concerns before freedom/common concern, fraudulent beliefs and ideologies

Formerly "Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro".

Compass: -10.00, -9.13
S-E Ideology: Demc. Socialist (92% ditto/Marxist, 75% Anarchist/Social democrat, 0% etc)
S-E school of thought: Communist (100% ditto, 96% Post-Keynesian)

Though this says I'm a social democrat, I'm largely a left communist.

User avatar
Esternial
Technical Moderator
 
Posts: 54369
Founded: May 09, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Esternial » Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:08 am

Technomance wrote:
Freies Reich Deutschland wrote:

Survive on its own?
You mean around the age of 6?


Not a commentary on the subject at hand, I'm just not sure you meant what you wrote...

An abortion is taking the cells out in such a way that the cells die, yes?
If the cells have developed to the point that the cells are viable then aborting it seems to be a waste.

Which would be after 22 weeks. Before that time the woman should know she's pregnant and be able to take the necessary steps to undergo an abortion and not be stalled until it's too late.

Actually, it wouldn't be a waste. I don't know to what extent, but embryos can be used for research purposed. Stem cell research actually relies on terminating embryos, but fewer people seem to whine about that, it seems..

User avatar
Luminesa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60407
Founded: Dec 09, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luminesa » Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:33 am

Esternial wrote:
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:I'm probably the hated majority, but despite not enjoying or wanting abortions, I would totally like a fetal specimen. I mean, I also want skeletons and bones.
I'm so fucking ridiculously into this creepy ass shit, if I were to get pregnant and the fetus mutated beyond viability I would want to preserve it.

If it mutated beyond viability, sure. It's a tad...weird, but as long as you don't purposely let a viable fetus grow just so you can abort and display it in a jar it seems like a legit, albeit odd, thing to collect.



This is all disgusting. Displaying a dead child in a jar, rather than giving them a proper funeral, is inhumane.
Catholic, pro-life, and proud of it. I prefer my debates on religion, politics, and sports with some coffee and a little Aquinas and G.K. CHESTERTON here and there. :3
Unofficial #1 fan of the Who Dat Nation.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs, I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran. But I know Jesus, and I talk to God, and I remember this from when I was young:
faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us...
and the greatest is love."
-Alan Jackson
Help the Ukrainian people, here's some sources!
Help bring home First Nation girls! Now with more ways to help!
Jesus loves all of His children in Eastern Europe - pray for peace.
Pray for Ukraine, Wear Sunflowers In Your Hair

User avatar
Skinia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1545
Founded: Nov 23, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Skinia » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:09 am

True American States wrote:Its barbaric.

I don't think it is barbaric. I think it's rather civilized to allow abortions.
Synthesis anarchist, eco-socialist, queer feminist and your friendly neighborhood violent drugged-out potty-mouth with a gun boner. I am a gynephilic bisexual.
Anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-discrimination, anti-fascist, anti-genderist, anti-leninist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-sexualist, anti-statist and anti-theist.
Straight marriage should be illegal. My holy book told me so. According to Levitacos, the punishment for heterosexuality is tickling the bottoms of their feet.
There are no other gods than Young Urban Perverts and Jarkko Martikainen is their prophet. Peace be upon Him. (I am not a skinhead in real life. This is just a skinhead-themed nation. Now get off me.)

User avatar
Kelinfort
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16394
Founded: Nov 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Kelinfort » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:26 am

Merizoc wrote:
Talonis wrote:What about women who are against abortion? Or are you just ignoring groups that disagree with you so that your moronic blanket dichotomy holds up?

Who says women can't be misogynistic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

Why didn't we listen to Dorothy about the Wicked Witch of the West?

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:47 am

True American States wrote:Its barbaric.


so much of life is barbaric. why should abortion be different?
whatever

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57853
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:53 am

Humane?
pfff...
Acceptable.
It's a morally neutral act.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Republic of Coldwater
Senator
 
Posts: 4500
Founded: Jul 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of Coldwater » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:53 am

Is killing humane? If it isn't, abortion isn't.

Abortion is when you end the life of a would-be human. You may not be killing a living thing, but you are killing something that would otherwise be a living, breathing human, and from that, you are effectively murdering a human, which makes it inhumane and simply immoral.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57853
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:55 am

Republic of Coldwater wrote:Is killing humane? If it isn't, abortion isn't.

Abortion is when you end the life of a would-be human. You may not be killing a living thing, but you are killing something that would otherwise be a living, breathing human, and from that, you are effectively murdering a human, which makes it inhumane and simply immoral.


Presumably you are completely in favor of banning all kinds of behaviours that kill potential persons.
Like most industries, for example. Anything that pollutes, the justice system...
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57853
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:57 am

Donating your organs is a morally good act by most peoples measure.

But they dont regard deciding not to donate your organs as a bad one. Merely a neutral one. It's the same for abortion, or it should be.
Yes, it would be awfully decent of the person to just bite the bullet and carry to term/donate the organs to save a life.
But they aren't exactly under obligation to do so, and why should they be?
Liberty is as important as life. More important perhaps, hence all the wars to achieve it.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:01 am

Republic of Coldwater wrote:Is killing humane? If it isn't, abortion isn't.

Abortion is when you end the life of a would-be human. You may not be killing a living thing, but you are killing something that would otherwise be a living, breathing human, and from that, you are effectively murdering a human, which makes it inhumane and simply immoral.

we kill things all the time. there are humane ways and inhumane ways.
whatever

User avatar
Nirvash Type TheEND
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14737
Founded: Oct 19, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Nirvash Type TheEND » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:01 am

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:People like to confuse babies with blobs of cells.

Blobs of cells are not people - thus they don't have rights - and not entitled to occupy the living space of non-consenting people - thus can be removed at will, doesn't matter the consequences.

Why did the thread continue past this point...?
Unreachable.

User avatar
Republic of Coldwater
Senator
 
Posts: 4500
Founded: Jul 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of Coldwater » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:03 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Republic of Coldwater wrote:Is killing humane? If it isn't, abortion isn't.

Abortion is when you end the life of a would-be human. You may not be killing a living thing, but you are killing something that would otherwise be a living, breathing human, and from that, you are effectively murdering a human, which makes it inhumane and simply immoral.


Presumably you are completely in favor of banning all kinds of behaviours that kill potential persons.
Like most industries, for example. Anything that pollutes, the justice system...

I oppose the death penalty as it is an archaic and barbaric practice that is detrimental to more than one person. The problem is that these industries are necessary for the economical wellbeing of any world, and that without these, perhaps more people will die of impoverishment and malnourishment from lower amounts of purchasing power and productivity. In contrast, abortion kills an innocent human being whilst giving little gain to the person who aborted.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57853
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:06 am

Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:People like to confuse babies with blobs of cells.

Blobs of cells are not people - thus they don't have rights - and not entitled to occupy the living space of non-consenting people - thus can be removed at will, doesn't matter the consequences.

Why did the thread continue past this point...?


It's largely irrelevant, and counter productive to argue whether or not a fetus is a human.
I'm of the opinion that it's more beneficial to confer it with legal rights and such so we can prosecute people for injuring the pregnant person and causing a miscarriage.

You can't win an argument over whether it's human or not. It's a matter of semantics.
What you CAN do is show that even if it is human, it's still perfectly within the pregnant persons rights to assert their bodily autonomy and demand the removal.
MORESO even.

If it's just a cluster of cells and the pregnant person is there demanding they be removed, the doctors would be well within their rights to say "no, fuck off, it's an unnecessary proceedure. It'll fix itself in 9 months anyway."
You can't just run up to your doctor and demand random medical procedures "Because autonomy."

But if it's a PERSON in there and the pregnant person demands it be removed, that's a different matter.
To fail to do so would be to violate their rights by allowing a continued violation of their bodily autonomy by another person.

A cluster of cells cannot be violating your rights.
A person can.

You can't run up to a doctor and demand he remove a carrot you ate because you changed your mind and it's violating your bodily autonomy.
People would look at you like you're crazy
Because objects cannot violate rights. Continuously denying that fetuses are human undermines our own argument imo.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:21 am

Metaphaust wrote:Circumstance...
<snip> you DID make your choice (If you had the choice) to have sex<snip>.

Immatterial. Having sex is not a guarantee of pregnancy, nor is consent to sex consent to pregnancy.
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:23 am

Metaphaust wrote:
Esternial wrote:What happens when an unwanted "artificial womb baby" is born? Shovel 'em straight to the adoption home? Maybe make a tube that just dispenses them there?


They'd go to adoption of course. Or further development may be possible in a similar state to the artificial womb. This far ahead into a theoretical future, perhaps they'd grow up in simulation which may have it's own ethics involved.

I dislike how so many people hate on adoption and idealize abortion. The only things that may be a problem with it would be where the money comes from to support the life. But maybe that wouldn't be an issue if we didn't stuff so much cash in the pockets of profit centered prisons. Jail time is given out far too freely and often in all the wrong places with Copy Right often being harsher than more serious crimes.
Edit: Referencing the US.

Forcing there to be even more children wallowing in the foster care system is not a good thing.
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

User avatar
Kilobugya
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6875
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:00 am

Republic of Coldwater wrote:Is killing humane? If it isn't, abortion isn't.

Abortion is when you end the life of a would-be human. You may not be killing a living thing, but you are killing something that would otherwise be a living, breathing human, and from that, you are effectively murdering a human, which makes it inhumane and simply immoral.


So is all contraception, because it ends the life of a would-be human ? And so is abstinence ? So every man and woman who doesn't reproduce when they physically could are murderers ?

And what now that we have cloning ? Is letting a cell fall from your skin or head without cloning it into a new human murder because it "ends the life of a would-be human" ?
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Esternial
Technical Moderator
 
Posts: 54369
Founded: May 09, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Esternial » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:13 am

Luminesa wrote:
Esternial wrote:If it mutated beyond viability, sure. It's a tad...weird, but as long as you don't purposely let a viable fetus grow just so you can abort and display it in a jar it seems like a legit, albeit odd, thing to collect.



This is all disgusting. Displaying a dead child in a jar, rather than giving them a proper funeral, is inhumane.

Fetus. Not child. If you want to add some unnecessary emotional connotation to a fetus that's your prerogative.

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:15 am

Luminesa wrote:
Esternial wrote:If it mutated beyond viability, sure. It's a tad...weird, but as long as you don't purposely let a viable fetus grow just so you can abort and display it in a jar it seems like a legit, albeit odd, thing to collect.



This is all disgusting. Displaying a dead child foetus in a jar, rather than giving them a proper funeral using it to further scientific research, is inhumane.

Ftfy
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

User avatar
Sanctissima
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8486
Founded: Jul 16, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanctissima » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:38 am

Personally, I oppose it, with the exception of two circumstances:

1 - Life or severe bodily harm endangerment: Since you can't really expect someone to sacrifice or endanger oneself for the sake of another.

2 - Rape: Since the sex wasn't consented to, the pregnant woman shouldn't be expected to have to go through with the pregnancy.

Otherwise, the right of the unborn child to life takes precedence over the woman's right to her body. My reasons are as follows:

-Given that the pregnancy was a result of consensual sex, the woman was aware that pregnancy could be a result of unprotected sex. If she really didn't want to get pregnant, she could have just asked her partner to use a condom.
-Although the unborn child is, as far as we know, incapable of thought, it still has the right to live. The potential mother not wanting to experience 9 months of pregnancy does not constitute a sufficient reason to deprive the unborn child of this most basic right.
-If the pregnant woman really just doesn't want to be a mother, after childbirth, she could simply put the child up for adoption. Although living in an orphanage isn't an ideal scenario for a young child, it's still better than the alternative: death.

User avatar
Firsthome
Senator
 
Posts: 3975
Founded: Dec 05, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Firsthome » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:40 am

Sanctissima wrote:Personally, I oppose it, with the exception of two circumstances:

1 - Life or severe bodily harm endangerment: Since you can't really expect someone to sacrifice or endanger oneself for the sake of another.

2 - Rape: Since the sex wasn't consented to, the pregnant woman shouldn't be expected to have to go through with the pregnancy.

Otherwise, the right of the unborn child to life takes precedence over the woman's right to her body. My reasons are as follows:

-Given that the pregnancy was a result of consensual sex, the woman was aware that pregnancy could be a result of unprotected sex. If she really didn't want to get pregnant, she could have just asked her partner to use a condom.
-Although the unborn child is, as far as we know, incapable of thought, it still has the right to live. The potential mother not wanting to experience 9 months of pregnancy does not constitute a sufficient reason to deprive the unborn child of this most basic right.
-If the pregnant woman really just doesn't want to be a mother, after childbirth, she could simply put the child up for adoption. Although living in an orphanage isn't an ideal scenario for a young child, it's still better than the alternative: death.


I am similar, although if the child is to be born with a debilitating disease, or the parents can't afford to raise a child, I would also allow an abortion.

I don't Like when people get abortions "Because it would ruin my figure" or "I just don't want to" although those people probably shouldn't have kids anyways.
I have a heart of a five year-old...
it's in a jar in my basement

Springer:"I've got better things to do tonight than die"

DYK:Breathing lowers your life expectancy by 50%.

Laerod wrote:That's like pointing out a thread about kittens contains posts about baby cats.
Left: 8.06, Libertarian: 0.6,7 foreign policy: -5.76, culture: -6.26
GENERATION 4: Social experiment. When you see this, add one to the generation and copy this into your signature.

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:42 am

Sanctissima wrote:Personally, I oppose it, with the exception of two circumstances:

1 - Life or severe bodily harm endangerment: Since you can't really expect someone to sacrifice or endanger oneself for the sake of another.

2 - Rape: Since the sex wasn't consented to, the pregnant woman shouldn't be expected to have to go through with the pregnancy.

Otherwise, the right of the unborn child to life takes precedence over the woman's right to her body. My reasons are as follows:

-Given that the pregnancy was a result of consensual sex, the woman was aware that pregnancy could be a result of unprotected sex. If she really didn't want to get pregnant, she could have just asked her partner to use a condom.
-Although the unborn child is, as far as we know, incapable of thought, it still has the right to live. The potential mother not wanting to experience 9 months of pregnancy does not constitute a sufficient reason to deprive the unborn child of this most basic right.
-If the pregnant woman really just doesn't want to be a mother, after childbirth, she could simply put the child up for adoption. Although living in an orphanage isn't an ideal scenario for a young child, it's still better than the alternative: death.


let's consider point 2 for a moment....

what proof would be required of a woman who wants an abortion because it is the result of rape?
whatever

User avatar
Sanctissima
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8486
Founded: Jul 16, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanctissima » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:42 am

Firsthome wrote:
Sanctissima wrote:Personally, I oppose it, with the exception of two circumstances:

1 - Life or severe bodily harm endangerment: Since you can't really expect someone to sacrifice or endanger oneself for the sake of another.

2 - Rape: Since the sex wasn't consented to, the pregnant woman shouldn't be expected to have to go through with the pregnancy.

Otherwise, the right of the unborn child to life takes precedence over the woman's right to her body. My reasons are as follows:

-Given that the pregnancy was a result of consensual sex, the woman was aware that pregnancy could be a result of unprotected sex. If she really didn't want to get pregnant, she could have just asked her partner to use a condom.
-Although the unborn child is, as far as we know, incapable of thought, it still has the right to live. The potential mother not wanting to experience 9 months of pregnancy does not constitute a sufficient reason to deprive the unborn child of this most basic right.
-If the pregnant woman really just doesn't want to be a mother, after childbirth, she could simply put the child up for adoption. Although living in an orphanage isn't an ideal scenario for a young child, it's still better than the alternative: death.


I am similar, although if the child is to be born with a debilitating disease, or the parents can't afford to raise a child, I would also allow an abortion.

I don't Like when people get abortions "Because it would ruin my figure" or "I just don't want to" although those people probably shouldn't have kids anyways.


I agree with you about debilitating disease, although I suppose it depends on the definition of "debilitating", since this tends to be open for interpretation.

I'm a little bit iffy on the poverty reason though, since there's always orphanages (or foster homes). I know that's less than ideal, but personally, I think it's better to at least give the child a chance at life.

User avatar
Stagnant Axon Terminal
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16621
Founded: Feb 24, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Stagnant Axon Terminal » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:43 am

Republic of Coldwater wrote:Is killing humane? If it isn't, abortion isn't.

Abortion is when you end the life of a would-be human. You may not be killing a living thing, but you are killing something that would otherwise be a living, breathing human, and from that, you are effectively murdering a human, which makes it inhumane and simply immoral.

Humans and bananas share many similar genetic similarities, if there were some pretty cool mutations to go on in a banana it could be really, really similar to people. So honestly every time you eat a banana it effectively means you are eating a human being.
TET's resident state assessment exam
My sworn enemy is the Toyota 4Runner
I scream a lot.
Also, I'm gonna fuck your girlfriend.
Nanatsu No Tsuki wrote:the fetus will never eat cake if you abort it

Cu Math wrote:Axon is like a bear with a PH.D. She debates at first, then eats your face.
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:THE MAN'S PENIS HAS LEFT THE VAGINA. IT'S THE UTERUS'S TURN TO SHINE.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 72165
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:45 am

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:
Republic of Coldwater wrote:Is killing humane? If it isn't, abortion isn't.

Abortion is when you end the life of a would-be human. You may not be killing a living thing, but you are killing something that would otherwise be a living, breathing human, and from that, you are effectively murdering a human, which makes it inhumane and simply immoral.

Humans and bananas share many similar genetic similarities, if there were some pretty cool mutations to go on in a banana it could be really, really similar to people. So honestly every time you eat a banana it effectively means you are eating a human being.

It's more likely than you think.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bawkie, Duvniask, Philjia, Picairn, Superpower Spain

Advertisement

Remove ads