Abortion is Wrong?

[Bottle]

There's no "running away" when you're pregnant. I know you have no way of knowing that, but you certainly could empathize if you bothered to try.

The only way to "run away" when you're pregnant is to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalala I'm not pregnant" until labor starts...and even then you're not actually escaping anything.

I’ll try to make this simple for you.

Going through the entire phase of pregnancy and giving birth, is you accepting responsibility for the effects your actions you taken. Going through abortion, running away from taking responsibility or at least fully.

Still not hearing reasons.

Yes, we know you don't like abortion. Yes, we know you're fond of using "irresponsible" to mean "choices I don't like." But since you've already demonstrated on this thread that you know less about human biology, reproduction, and abortion than a lot of the rest of us, why should anybody trust your opinion? Why should anybody care if somebody as uninformed as you thinks they are being "irresponsible"? Indeed, why would listening to somebody like you be anything other than dangerously irresponsible, given your flagrant ignorance on this subject?

Do you even read your own posts. Before you try to argue abortions have nothing to do with getting rid of the baby. You are the most uninformed person I have ever meet. You are more than likely the type of person who truly is irresponsible, and even willing to kill for sex, for pleasure.

Yes yes, I'm a filthy castrating feminist who dines on fetus flesh because it's high in protein and helps give me fuel for all the orgies I attend.

Still doesn't change biology, or reality, or the fact that you've not presented a single reason for your assertion.

[Nobel Hobos]

It's always about the child.

Speaking as a political being, as an adult, as a moral unit who is responsible for their actions: this should only be about the child. Protection of the child, taking action in interests of the child, this is our only interest in interfering in the business of pregnancy.

One snag: there IS no child. There is merely a clump of cells without experiences, feelings, thoughts, hopes or dreams.
There could be a child in the future - but the keywords are "could be". The kid is not there yet. The mother is.

Real person vs potential person. Real should win.

I am trying to take a wider view, than simply first trimester abortion.

I also support infanticide. Needless to say, I support late-term abortion.

[Katganistan]

There's no "running away" when you're pregnant. I know you have no way of knowing that, but you certainly could empathize if you bothered to try.

The only way to "run away" when you're pregnant is to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalala I'm not pregnant" until labor starts...and even then you're not actually escaping anything.

I’ll try to make this simple for you.

Going through the entire phase of pregnancy and giving birth, is you accepting responsibility for the effects your actions you taken. Going through abortion, running away from taking responsibility or at least fully.

Yes, we know you don't like abortion. Yes, we know you're fond of using "irresponsible" to mean "choices I don't like." But since you've already demonstrated on this thread that you know less about human biology, reproduction, and abortion than a lot of the rest of us, why should anybody trust your opinion? Why should anybody care if somebody as uninformed as you thinks they are being "irresponsible"? Indeed, why would listening to somebody like you be anything other than dangerously irresponsible, given your flagrant ignorance on this subject?

Do you even read your own posts. Before you try to argue abortions have nothing to do with getting rid of the baby. You are the most uninformed person I have ever meet. I thin you are more than likely the type of person who truly is irresponsible, and even willing to kill for sex, for pleasure.

And flamebaiting? calling someone a murderer for pleasure?
Your arguments are not only ignorant and selfish, they are embarassing. Smilies are not a substitute for a real argument. Insulting people is not a substitute for a real argument. "Because I said so" is not a substitute for a real argument.

[United Russian State]

Riiiiight. And HOW many kids are in foster care all around the world, in orphanages, that NO ONE WANTS? There's over 500,000 in the US alone.
Why should anyone go through the expense, pain, risk of having a child they don't want?

http://myorphanage.org/total%20number%2 ... ildren.php <-- Go look at the statistics here about how many children there are who are not wanted and keep telling us about giving them up to other families.
Answer: they shouldn't.

Which is why you use government/privite sources to care for them, until they care for themslelves.

Yes, and this goes to anther point I made. People shouldn't have sex if they are unwilling to have a child or unable to care for it, all in the name of soley pleasure.

[Bottle]

There's no "running away" when you're pregnant. I know you have no way of knowing that, but you certainly could empathize if you bothered to try.

The only way to "run away" when you're pregnant is to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalala I'm not pregnant" until labor starts...and even then you're not actually escaping anything.

I’ll try to make this simple for you.

Going through the entire phase of pregnancy and giving birth, is you accepting responsibility for the effects your actions you taken. Going through abortion, running away from taking responsibility or at least fully.

Yes, we know you don't like abortion. Yes, we know you're fond of using "irresponsible" to mean "choices I don't like." But since you've already demonstrated on this thread that you know less about human biology, reproduction, and abortion than a lot of the rest of us, why should anybody trust your opinion? Why should anybody care if somebody as uninformed as you thinks they are being "irresponsible"? Indeed, why would listening to somebody like you be anything other than dangerously irresponsible, given your flagrant ignorance on this subject?

Do you even read your own posts. Before you try to argue abortions have nothing to do with getting rid of the baby. You are the most uninformed person I have ever meet. I thin you are more than likely the type of person who truly is irresponsible, and even willing to kill for sex, for pleasure.

And flamebaiting? calling someone a murderer for pleasure?
Your arguments are not only ignorant and selfish, they are embarassing. Smilies are not a substitute for a real argument. Insulting people is not a substitute for a real argument. "Because I said so" is not a substitute for a real argument.

I don't know if I'm allowed to do this, but I want to request that he NOT be warned for flaming baiting or flaming against me. I want him to continue posting just as he is doing.

[Central Slavia]

The only problem is there are many people in areas that cannot sustain them. We should be having more kids, africans less

No, there are just too many period. Actually, an extra person coming into existence in Africa is far less harmful than an extra person being born in an industrialized area. You guys all like to pretend that the Earth is an infinite resource. It ain't.

Again logic fail.

Just because you say so?
There is infinite oil? Infinite space? Infinite clean water? Infinite ANYTHING?

It is a logic fail since it makes an unjustified extension. The fact that earth's resources are not infinite does not imply it cannot support a population of many times the current one, just as the fact i am not a millionary does not imply i cannot afford to live.

One note outside of the argument. I do not know whether you are allowed to criticise mod decisions, but i think that the warning for URS was somewhat unfair. UT called pretty much every person a waste of oxygen so it was logical to infer that to be consistent he should have killed himself, ie that he is a hypocrite

If you feel it was unfair, I suggest you report it in moderation -- after you read the entire thread and see where the precise SAME comment from another poster got the precise SAME warning from another moderator.

[Edit]Here, I'll even give you the link: viewtopic.php?p=1496666#p1496666[/edit]

OK , then it is not with your decision. Sorry for bothering.
Now , do you have anything to say to the first part?

[United Russian State]

And flamebaiting? calling someone a murderer for pleasure?
Your arguments are not only ignorant and selfish, they are embarassing. Smilies are not a substitute for a real argument. Insulting people is not a substitute for a real argument. "Because I said so" is not a substitute for a real argument.

You know it's kind of hard to agure people who are having sex soley for pleasure, are willing to kill a life formed in them [you know by sex]. Lets time I checked people personally don't need to have sex in order to surive.

[The Alma Mater]

I am trying to take a wider view, than simply first trimester abortion.

I also support infanticide. Needless to say, I support late-term abortion.

Ah, you're a Christian that actually honours Gods stance on abortion, and even includes the Leviticus 3-year thingy.
Jolly good

[Katganistan]

The only problem is there are many people in areas that cannot sustain them. We should be having more kids, africans less

No, there are just too many period. Actually, an extra person coming into existence in Africa is far less harmful than an extra person being born in an industrialized area. You guys all like to pretend that the Earth is an infinite resource. It ain't.

Again logic fail.

Just because you say so?
There is infinite oil? Infinite space? Infinite clean water? Infinite ANYTHING?

It is a logic fail since it makes an unjustified extension. The fact that earth's resources are not infinite does not imply it cannot support a population of many times the current one, just as the fact i am not a millionary does not imply i cannot afford to live.

One note outside of the argument. I do not know whether you are allowed to criticise mod decisions, but i think that the warning for URS was somewhat unfair. UT called pretty much every person a waste of oxygen so it was logical to infer that to be consistent he should have killed himself, ie that he is a hypocrite

If you feel it was unfair, I suggest you report it in moderation -- after you read the entire thread and see where the precise SAME comment from another poster got the precise SAME warning from another moderator.

[Edit]Here, I'll even give you the link: viewtopic.php?p=1496666#p1496666[/edit]

OK , then it is not with your decision. Sorry for bothering.
Now , do you have anything to say to the first part?

Why should we be packed cheek to jowl, competing for resources you already know are not infinite? You still need resources to fuel the technology, which are finite. And technology has this wonderful way of breaking down -- or are there no blackouts, no bridge collapses, no railway accidents, no snowstorms to prevent the very simply process of transporting food from one place to another where you live?

There is the logic fail: we should have more people because we can, and damn the future consequences. Someone, I don't know if it was you, mentioned space travel earlier. On what? when governments are cutting their space exploration programs because of the financial collapse, we're going to put faith in the idea that it will be available someday?

That's like spending your last $100 on a bottle of wine because surely, you'll get a slice of pizza again someday.

[Bottle]

And flamebaiting? calling someone a murderer for pleasure?
Your arguments are not only ignorant and selfish, they are embarassing. Smilies are not a substitute for a real argument. Insulting people is not a substitute for a real argument. "Because I said so" is not a substitute for a real argument.

You know it's kind of hard to agure people who are having sex soley for pleasure, are willing to kill a life formed in them [you know by sex]. Lets time I checked people personally don't need to have sex in order to surive.

Technically speaking, if you and your partner decide to try to have a baby, you'll be "killing more lives" than I ever will. Because, see, statistically speaking you are going to have between 3-10 fertilized eggs get naturally flushed out of your partner's body before you ever have a complete, full-term pregnancy. You're "killing those lives" in your selfish pursuit of making a baby.

People like me, who actively seek to prevent pregnancy and don't plan to have biological kids, are going to end up killing a lot more "lives" than people like you.

[Nobel Hobos]

Wait. A "person" who is pregnant, makes the decision to have (or not to have) an abortion. Tell me what is the responsible choice THEN, not back when they "made a decision".

I'm on the case. I'm blind rotten drunk, hungry and horny, but I have the scent of the problem here. It is causality. It's about blaming a person for all of the consequences of their decision ... while we make decisions every day which we do not know the consequences of.

We are butterflies, flapping madly in a cyclone machine. To hold each other responsible for the consequences of action is to add ignorance to chaos.

Than, the responsible decision is to care for their child. If they are unable to care for it, they can give it a differnt faimly or Government/privite programs.

Um, no.

If you are in favour of "adoption before abortion" then you must also be prepared to pay for orphanages. You must be prepared to pay for lifetime support of severely disabled children (and adults who grow from them).

Why? Because without abortion there would be many many more unwanted children. Who is going to care for those children?

If you advocate a LAW which makes birth of those children obligatory, you must also take responsibility for those children.

Leaving it to charity isn't good enough. If that's the law you would make, you must take responsibility for the orphans you make.

I'd say you also should be forced to pay for all the medical expenses incurred as a result of pregnancy, as well as paying out benefits to a woman's family members if she dies in childbirth, as well as insuring her a source of income if she is forced to miss work due to pregnancy/childbirth.

If I'm going to be forced to function as an incubator for The State, then why on Earth should the State expect me to foot the bill for the pregnancy they are forcing upon me?

If the State is going to require it, the State can damn well pay for the consequences.

"Oh, charity will pay for it" isn't good enough. If we legislate for a buttload of new orphans, we should legislate for their proper care too. And that is a huge commitment.

[United Russian State]

Technically speaking, if you and your partner decide to try to have a baby, you'll be "killing more lives" than I ever will. Because, see, statistically speaking you are going to have between 3-10 fertilized eggs get naturally flushed out of your partner's body before you ever have a complete, full-term pregnancy. You're "killing those lives" in your selfish pursuit of making a baby.

People like me, who actively seek to prevent pregnancy and don't plan to have biological kids, are going to end up killing a lot more "lives" than people like you.

I don't hold fertilized eggs to the same level of an deveolping human. Nor do I hold my skin cells as humans. -.-

[Bottle]

Wait. A "person" who is pregnant, makes the decision to have (or not to have) an abortion. Tell me what is the responsible choice THEN, not back when they "made a decision".

I'm on the case. I'm blind rotten drunk, hungry and horny, but I have the scent of the problem here. It is causality. It's about blaming a person for all of the consequences of their decision ... while we make decisions every day which we do not know the consequences of.

We are butterflies, flapping madly in a cyclone machine. To hold each other responsible for the consequences of action is to add ignorance to chaos.

Than, the responsible decision is to care for their child. If they are unable to care for it, they can give it a differnt faimly or Government/privite programs.

Um, no.

If you are in favour of "adoption before abortion" then you must also be prepared to pay for orphanages. You must be prepared to pay for lifetime support of severely disabled children (and adults who grow from them).

Why? Because without abortion there would be many many more unwanted children. Who is going to care for those children?

If you advocate a LAW which makes birth of those children obligatory, you must also take responsibility for those children.

Leaving it to charity isn't good enough. If that's the law you would make, you must take responsibility for the orphans you make.

I'd say you also should be forced to pay for all the medical expenses incurred as a result of pregnancy, as well as paying out benefits to a woman's family members if she dies in childbirth, as well as insuring her a source of income if she is forced to miss work due to pregnancy/childbirth.

If I'm going to be forced to function as an incubator for The State, then why on Earth should the State expect me to foot the bill for the pregnancy they are forcing upon me?

If the State is going to require it, the State can damn well pay for the consequences.

"Oh, charity will pay for it" isn't good enough. If we legislate for a buttload of new orphans, we should legislate for their proper care too. And that is a huge commitment.

Yep.

Oh, and I want The State to ensure that I still have the same job opportunities even if my forced pregnancy makes me miss out on interviews, or conventions, or meetings, or other factors that might influence my odds of getting a promotion.

I want the State to ensure that my insurance rates don't go up as a result of any medical conditions I might end up with as a result of my pregnancy. If I end up with a life-long medical issue as a result of my pregnancy (like my mother has done), I expect to be permitted to collect life-long compensation for that injury.

If my partner leaves me because of the pregnancy and I'm not able to pay my full rent any more, I expect The State to pick up the bill.

If my fertility is harmed by the forced pregnancy and I'm not able to conceive later in life, when I actually WANT to be pregnant, then I expect The State to provide me with a settlement that reflects the loss of each child I was planning to have; I think a minimum of $15 million per child would be fair, considering that we're talking about 70 years or so of my would-be child's life.

If I want plastic surgery to repair damage from the pregnancy (like, for instance, an episiotomy or caesarian scar), I expect The State to foot the bill for that as well. If they're going to take away my body against my wishes, then they should expect to pay for me to regain whatever measure of my body I want.

This is actually a fun game!

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Why should we be packed cheek to jowl, competing for resources you already know are not infinite? You still need resources to fuel the technology, which are finite. And technology has this wonderful way of breaking down -- or are there no blackouts, no bridge collapses, no railway accidents, no snowstorms to prevent the very simply process of transporting food from one place to another where you live?

There is the logic fail: we should have more people because we can, and damn the future consequences. Someone, I don't know if it was you, mentioned space travel earlier. On what? when governments are cutting their space exploration programs because of the financial collapse, we're going to put faith in the idea that it will be available someday?

That's like spending your last $100 on a bottle of wine because surely, you'll get a slice of pizza again someday.

Apparently my opponents lack basic reading comprehension skills.

[Arkinesia]

Some poor people live off the system and are lazy. These people are taking away from the hardworking poor or temporarily unemployed people.

Yeah, but if you think about, when a big corporation gets a huge tax break, and the rich get tax cuts, and the middle class and poor still pay high taxes that is taking away from hardworking people who are the backbone of the economy. But it still happens.

And then the government bails out a bank, and subsidizes an industry that is raking in record profits, and the taxpayer is footing the bill. Isn't this a great system we got here?

That graph has to be bullshit.

Last I checked, the US runs under the fractional reserve banking system, which means that if there is no debt, there is no money.

[Central Slavia]

Wait. A "person" who is pregnant, makes the decision to have (or not to have) an abortion. Tell me what is the responsible choice THEN, not back when they "made a decision".

I'm on the case. I'm blind rotten drunk, hungry and horny, but I have the scent of the problem here. It is causality. It's about blaming a person for all of the consequences of their decision ... while we make decisions every day which we do not know the consequences of.

We are butterflies, flapping madly in a cyclone machine. To hold each other responsible for the consequences of action is to add ignorance to chaos.

Than, the responsible decision is to care for their child. If they are unable to care for it, they can give it a differnt faimly or Government/privite programs.

Um, no.

If you are in favour of "adoption before abortion" then you must also be prepared to pay for orphanages. You must be prepared to pay for lifetime support of severely disabled children (and adults who grow from them).

Why? Because without abortion there would be many many more unwanted children. Who is going to care for those children?

If you advocate a LAW which makes birth of those children obligatory, you must also take responsibility for those children.

Leaving it to charity isn't good enough. If that's the law you would make, you must take responsibility for the orphans you make.

I'd say you also should be forced to pay for all the medical expenses incurred as a result of pregnancy, as well as paying out benefits to a woman's family members if she dies in childbirth, as well as insuring her a source of income if she is forced to miss work due to pregnancy/childbirth.

If I'm going to be forced to function as an incubator for The State, then why on Earth should the State expect me to foot the bill for the pregnancy they are forcing upon me?

If the State is going to require it, the State can damn well pay for the consequences.

"Oh, charity will pay for it" isn't good enough. If we legislate for a buttload of new orphans, we should legislate for their proper care too. And that is a huge commitment.

Yep.

Oh, and I want The State to ensure that I still have the same job opportunities even if my forced pregnancy makes me miss out on interviews, or conventions, or meetings, or other factors that might influence my odds of getting a promotion.

I want the State to ensure that my insurance rates don't go up as a result of any medical conditions I might end up with as a result of my pregnancy. If I end up with a life-long medical issue as a result of my pregnancy (like my mother has done), I expect to be permitted to collect life-long compensation for that injury.

If my partner leaves me because of the pregnancy and I'm not able to pay my full rent any more, I expect The State to pick up the bill.

If my fertility is harmed by the forced pregnancy and I'm not able to conceive later in life, when I actually WANT to be pregnant, then I expect The State to provide me with a settlement that reflects the loss of each child I was planning to have; I think a minimum of $15 million per child would be fair, considering that we're talking about 70 years or so of my would-be child's life.

If I want plastic surgery to repair damage from the pregnancy (like, for instance, an episiotomy or caesarian scar), I expect The State to foot the bill for that as well. If they're going to take away my body against my wishes, then they should expect to pay for me to regain whatever measure of my body I want.

This is actually a fun game!

I say it again. If you do not want unwanted pregnancy, do not fuck, fornicate, engage in carnal relationships or whatever shall i use to you to understand.
the problem happened with getting pregnant, not with the state not allowing you an abortion.
In the same way if you borrow money from your neighbor, the state does not have to repay you even if it does not allow you to kill him to anull the debt

[Nobel Hobos]

I am trying to take a wider view, than simply first trimester abortion.

I also support infanticide. Needless to say, I support late-term abortion.

Ah, you're a Christian that actually honours Gods stance on abortion, and even includes the Leviticus 3-year thingy.
Jolly good

I am jolly, just now. Not perhaps the best time to explain my stance on infanticide.

Let me just say: the human person, the individual, the moral agent, the person-like-me ... they don't become people by any act, or by any date. We should give the benefit of the doubt, but not to the ridiculous extent of calling a fertilized ovum a "person".

The question is difficult, and hooray for that. I don't pretend to have the answer. I can, however, see when an overly-simplistic answer is wrong.

[Central Slavia]

And flamebaiting? calling someone a murderer for pleasure?
Your arguments are not only ignorant and selfish, they are embarassing. Smilies are not a substitute for a real argument. Insulting people is not a substitute for a real argument. "Because I said so" is not a substitute for a real argument.

You know it's kind of hard to agure people who are having sex soley for pleasure, are willing to kill a life formed in them [you know by sex]. Lets time I checked people personally don't need to have sex in order to surive.

Technically speaking, if you and your partner decide to try to have a baby, you'll be "killing more lives" than I ever will. Because, see, statistically speaking you are going to have between 3-10 fertilized eggs get naturally flushed out of your partner's body before you ever have a complete, full-term pregnancy. You're "killing those lives" in your selfish pursuit of making a baby.

People like me, who actively seek to prevent pregnancy and don't plan to have biological kids, are going to end up killing a lot more "lives" than people like you.

Another load of nonsense - it is just statistically speaking even if one considered it a loss of life - it is not inherent in the action of conceiving, unlike abortion which cannot go on without killing the foetus

[Meldaria]

And flamebaiting? calling someone a murderer for pleasure?
Your arguments are not only ignorant and selfish, they are embarassing. Smilies are not a substitute for a real argument. Insulting people is not a substitute for a real argument. "Because I said so" is not a substitute for a real argument.

You know it's kind of hard to agure people who are having sex soley for pleasure, are willing to kill a life formed in them [you know by sex]. Lets time I checked people personally don't need to have sex in order to surive.

Technically speaking, if you and your partner decide to try to have a baby, you'll be "killing more lives" than I ever will. Because, see, statistically speaking you are going to have between 3-10 fertilized eggs get naturally flushed out of your partner's body before you ever have a complete, full-term pregnancy. You're "killing those lives" in your selfish pursuit of making a baby.

People like me, who actively seek to prevent pregnancy and don't plan to have biological kids, are going to end up killing a lot more "lives" than people like you.

Another load of nonsense - it is just statistically speaking even if one considered it a loss of life - it is not inherent in the action of conceiving, unlike abortion which cannot go on without killing the foetus

In order to kill something it must be alive. According to the scientific definition of life, a fetus is not alive until it's been in the womb for precisely 6 months.

[Turanbirligi]

you are big egoists. would you think so(if you you could think) if your mothers had thrown you in embrion period because you are not a potential life

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

In order to kill something it must be alive. According to the scientific definition of life, a fetus is not alive until it's been in the womb for precisely 6 months.

No, the fetus is life as soon as it comes into existence. Spermatozoa and ova aren't alive, because they lack the ability to self replicate. However, since the blastocyst is diploid, it is technically alive. It's just as alive as any bacterial colony. Now, whether it's important life is an entirely different matter altogether.

[Nobel Hobos]

Wait. A "person" who is pregnant, makes the decision to have (or not to have) an abortion. Tell me what is the responsible choice THEN, not back when they "made a decision".

I'm on the case. I'm blind rotten drunk, hungry and horny, but I have the scent of the problem here. It is causality. It's about blaming a person for all of the consequences of their decision ... while we make decisions every day which we do not know the consequences of.

We are butterflies, flapping madly in a cyclone machine. To hold each other responsible for the consequences of action is to add ignorance to chaos.

Than, the responsible decision is to care for their child. If they are unable to care for it, they can give it a differnt faimly or Government/privite programs.

Um, no.

If you are in favour of "adoption before abortion" then you must also be prepared to pay for orphanages. You must be prepared to pay for lifetime support of severely disabled children (and adults who grow from them).

Why? Because without abortion there would be many many more unwanted children. Who is going to care for those children?

If you advocate a LAW which makes birth of those children obligatory, you must also take responsibility for those children.

Leaving it to charity isn't good enough. If that's the law you would make, you must take responsibility for the orphans you make.

I'd say you also should be forced to pay for all the medical expenses incurred as a result of pregnancy, as well as paying out benefits to a woman's family members if she dies in childbirth, as well as insuring her a source of income if she is forced to miss work due to pregnancy/childbirth.

If I'm going to be forced to function as an incubator for The State, then why on Earth should the State expect me to foot the bill for the pregnancy they are forcing upon me?

If the State is going to require it, the State can damn well pay for the consequences.

"Oh, charity will pay for it" isn't good enough. If we legislate for a buttload of new orphans, we should legislate for their proper care too. And that is a huge commitment.

Yep.

Oh, and I want The State to ensure that I still have the same job opportunities even if my forced pregnancy makes me miss out on interviews, or conventions, or meetings, or other factors that might influence my odds of getting a promotion.

I want the State to ensure that my insurance rates don't go up as a result of any medical conditions I might end up with as a result of my pregnancy. If I end up with a life-long medical issue as a result of my pregnancy (like my mother has done), I expect to be permitted to collect life-long compensation for that injury.

If my partner leaves me because of the pregnancy and I'm not able to pay my full rent any more, I expect The State to pick up the bill.

If my fertility is harmed by the forced pregnancy and I'm not able to conceive later in life, when I actually WANT to be pregnant, then I expect The State to provide me with a settlement that reflects the loss of each child I was planning to have; I think a minimum of $15 million per child would be fair, considering that we're talking about 70 years or so of my would-be child's life.

If I want plastic surgery to repair damage from the pregnancy (like, for instance, an episiotomy or caesarian scar), I expect The State to foot the bill for that as well. If they're going to take away my body against my wishes, then they should expect to pay for me to regain whatever measure of my body I want.

This is actually a fun game!

Fun for us. But my primary purpose is to persuade those of opposite view, and those undecided.

If we would legislate to ban abortions, we must also legislate to provide for the millions of children who would be born and "put up for adoption".

[Meldaria]

In order to kill something it must be alive. According to the scientific definition of life, a fetus is not alive until it's been in the womb for precisely 6 months.

No, the fetus is life as soon as it comes into existence. Spermatozoa and ova aren't alive, because they lack the ability to self replicate. However, since the blastocyst is diploid, it is technically alive. It's just as alive as any bacterial colony. Now, whether it's important life is an entirely different matter altogether.

In order to be alive a creature must be:

A. Self-Aware

B. Self-Dependent
--------------------------------
A. A fetus is not self-aware, it has no idea of it's surroundings and cannot feel pain, nor can it think.

B. A fetus is not self-dependent it relies completely on it's mother for life.

A fetus shares more characteristics with a tumor than a person.

1. Has Human DNA

2. Is NOT alive

3. Is not self-aware
= #2
4. Is not self-dependent

5. Weakens it's host

6. Is constantly growing

[Central Slavia]

The only problem is there are many people in areas that cannot sustain them. We should be having more kids, africans less

No, there are just too many period. Actually, an extra person coming into existence in Africa is far less harmful than an extra person being born in an industrialized area. You guys all like to pretend that the Earth is an infinite resource. It ain't.

Again logic fail.

Just because you say so?
There is infinite oil? Infinite space? Infinite clean water? Infinite ANYTHING?

It is a logic fail since it makes an unjustified extension. The fact that earth's resources are not infinite does not imply it cannot support a population of many times the current one, just as the fact i am not a millionary does not imply i cannot afford to live.

One note outside of the argument. I do not know whether you are allowed to criticise mod decisions, but i think that the warning for URS was somewhat unfair. UT called pretty much every person a waste of oxygen so it was logical to infer that to be consistent he should have killed himself, ie that he is a hypocrite

If you feel it was unfair, I suggest you report it in moderation -- after you read the entire thread and see where the precise SAME comment from another poster got the precise SAME warning from another moderator.

[Edit]Here, I'll even give you the link: viewtopic.php?p=1496666#p1496666[/edit]

OK , then it is not with your decision. Sorry for bothering.
Now , do you have anything to say to the first part?

Why should we be packed cheek to jowl, competing for resources you already know are not infinite? You still need resources to fuel the technology, which are finite. And technology has this wonderful way of breaking down -- or are there no blackouts, no bridge collapses, no railway accidents, no snowstorms to prevent the very simply process of transporting food from one place to another where you live?

There is the logic fail: we should have more people because we can, and damn the future consequences. Someone, I don't know if it was you, mentioned space travel earlier. On what? when governments are cutting their space exploration programs because of the financial collapse, we're going to put faith in the idea that it will be available someday?

That's like spending your last $100 on a bottle of wine because surely, you'll get a slice of pizza again someday.

So ideally we should have the population at a level that can sustain itself if all technology broke ... so cca. 50 000 being largest city ever?
No, technology can be made work, and failures can be fought against despite them happening. It is not like we are powerless.

I do not care about future consequences and nobody should in the way you put it. In the long run we will be dead. We can do what we can for the species to expand and continue. However cutting the population is a truly decadent way to go back on progress, and die out pretty much soon

and the financial collapse's main reason is the capitalist system - throw that out and it will run

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

In order to be alive a creature must be:

A. Self-Aware

B. Self-Dependent
--------------------------------
A. A fetus is not self-aware, it has no idea of it's surroundings and cannot feel pain, nor can it think.

B. A fetus is not self-dependent it relies completely on it's mother for life.

A fetus shares more characteristics with a tumor than a person.

1. Has Human DNA

2. Is NOT alive

3. Is not self-aware
= #2
4. Is not self-dependent

5. Weakens it's host

6. Is constantly growing

So plants, bacteria, fungii, most classes of animals, protists, and archaea aren't alive then?