actually yes, every human who is part of
the "overpopulation" is indeed a burden,
and that could be anyone...Me, you, or
anyone else here. All these unnecessary
people who have been born are burdens, not
only on society, but on the planet. I
wouldn't advocate the slaughter of the
citizens already here...But I would
advocate a child tax and free abortion
services in an attempt to control the
population. I know i'm sick and
twisted, but when it comes to this issue,
I simply know how to use some
logic...Which some other people here have
proven to be incapable of doing.
no wonder why my bf doesn't like american
women, this is how they
think
i know! We don't want to stand barefoot
in kitchens with a baby in our arms and
another one on the way! We want actual
lives, jobs, etc!! Oh my freaking god!
|
sunshine424
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 397 Location: New York
Posted: 07-01-06 15:39pm
lolbahlolbah123
wrote:
jamie the mor[b/]on
wrote:
your so ridiculous I cannot
even respond to
you
then what is this?
jamie the mor[b][b/]on
wrote:
you are a
minority.
proof please, fundie
fu[b]cknut.
nothing you ever post can be backed up
with proof person. I need proof of my
opinion? Get schooling.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2496 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:10
Posted: 07-01-06 16:59pm
eiri
wrote:
nightangel73
wrote:
cambion
wrote:
the loss of a fetus is one less burden on
society as far as i'm
concerned.
so since we all have been fetuses we all
have been a burden to society. It shows
that your definition of life is being a
burden to society. Yeah let's kill each
who cares the world will be better with
less of us. You are one sick twisted
woman. Just reminded me of
hitler.
we're all technically "burdens to society"
as children, under the strictest
definitions; ie someone who does not
contribute to the community/to society.
As children, as babies, as fetuses, we are
growing, learning, etc. But it is not
until we get a job and begin giving back
that we take our burden off of
society.
eiri when you are child you are
contributing to society, if it were not
for children, child care places wouldn't
exists therefore the owners of childcare
places couldn't contribute to society.
Teachers would be out of jobs because to
whom they are going to teach? If it were
not for babies obstetrician doctors,
nurses, clinics would be out of jobs and
therefore they couldn't contribute to
society. Manufacturers of baby, child and
elderly products would be out of jobs as
well. Pharmaceutical companies would have
less business too if they were are only
limited to functioning adults.
Is contribution to society based on money
only?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-15-06 14:12pm
Those people are all serving the children,
the children are not serving them.
"contibuting" in the literalest sense (as
I have already said twice) involved having a job
and making money. A 6th grader is
not making money with a job, sorry, but
you'll never convince me of that. And no,
don't bring up the random 6th grader that
has an actual job; we're talking about the
majoity here, not the exeptions.
You are looking at the long-term, twisted
perspective of how children contribute to
society. My original post specifically
stated that I was not referring to
anything that you have mentioned. So stop
repeating meanings of the word that i've
already said i'm not talking about.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2496 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:10
Posted: 07-18-06 22:06pm
eiri
wrote:
those people are all serving
the children, the children are not serving
them. "contibuting" in the literalest
sense (as I have already said twice)
involved having a job and making
money. A 6th grader is not making
money with a job, sorry, but you'll never
convince me of that. And no, don't bring
up the random 6th grader that has an
actual job; we're talking about the
majoity here, not the exeptions.
You are looking at the long-term, twisted
perspective of how children contribute to
society. My original post specifically
stated that I was not referring to
anything that you have mentioned. So
stop repeating meanings of the word that
i've already said i'm not talking
about.
hush girl, just wanted to clarify.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:110
Posted: 07-19-06 07:25am
.D.S - the actual legal definition for
homicide here is the unlawful killing of a human
being, under the queens peace, with malice
aforethough
clearly it doesn't mention "person" but
abortion has never been considered
homicide, even before the abortion act
there were specific crimes relating to the
"procurement of a miscarriage" (i.E
abortion) but it was not homicide so it's
not quite as simple as saying that it fits
a definition and therefore is/should be
homicide.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-19-06 13:28pm
nightangel73
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
those people are all serving
the children, the children are not serving
them. "contibuting" in the literalest
sense (as I have already said twice)
involved having a job and making
money. A 6th grader is not
making money with a job, sorry, but you'll
never convince me of that. And no,
don't bring up the random 6th grader that
has an actual job; we're talking about the
majoity here, not the exeptions.
You are looking at the long-term, twisted
perspective of how children contribute to
society. My original post specifically
stated that I was not referring to
anything that you have mentioned. So
stop repeating meanings of the word that
i've already said i'm not talking
about.
hush girl, just wanted to
clarify.
i
clarified about eight posts ago, when I
first posted this opinion. You've simply
made me repeat myself over and over.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2496 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:10
Posted: 07-20-06 22:37pm
moo
wrote:
.D.S - the actual legal
definition for homicide here is the unlawful
killing of a human being, under the queens
peace, with malice aforethough
clearly it doesn't mention "person" but
abortion has never been considered
homicide, even before the abortion act
there were specific crimes relating to the
"procurement of a miscarriage" (i.E
abortion) but it was not homicide so it's
not quite as simple as saying that it fits
a definition and therefore is/should be
homicide.
moo you can say abortion is not homicide
as far as legal terms but in the heart we
know it is homicide that's why it is and
will always be a controversial topic. You
are pregnant and you are ending your
childs life. When you end a life fully
confirmed is there, that you go to a
hospital knowing that you are going to end
a life by your choice you tell me is not
homicide. homicide is ending a life,
abortion is ending a life. The only
difference is one is legal and the other
is not.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:110
Posted: 07-21-06 02:21am
It isn't homicide though - in
your opinion it may be but in mine, and
the laws opinion it never has and never
will be "homicide". homicide is a legal
term, one proscibed by the law, therefore
abortion is not homicide, just as someone
who commits manslaughter by crashing a car
is not a mu'rderer.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2496 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:10
Posted: 07-21-06 05:36am
moo
wrote:
it isn't homicide though - in
your opinion it may be but in mine, and
the laws opinion it never has and never
will be "homicide". homicide is a legal
term, one proscibed by the law, therefore
abortion is not homicide, just as someone
who commits manslaughter by crashing a car
is not a
mu'rderer.
a man who commits manslaughter by crashing
a car is not a murd'
der because he had no intention, no plan
to kill the people, in abortion there is
intention to kill someone and there is a
plan on how to kill the individual,
exactly like a homicide. If abortion is
not homicide oh boy how similar both are!
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:110
Posted: 07-21-06 07:32am
That's an extremely simplistic view of
homicide. However, the intention in a
termination is to end the pregnancy, the
fact the z/e/f dies isn't really the
point. Rrespective of that, the fact is
that the law has never seen abortion as
homicide, it was it's own crime but never
homicide, whatever your opinion.
|
happygrl35
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Michigan
Posted: 07-21-06 08:39am
nightangel73
wrote:
moo
wrote:
.D.S - the actual legal
definition for homicide here is the unlawful
killing of a human being, under the queens
peace, with malice aforethough
clearly it doesn't mention "person" but
abortion has never been considered
homicide, even before the abortion act
there were specific crimes relating to the
"procurement of a miscarriage" (i.E
abortion) but it was not homicide so it's
not quite as simple as saying that it fits
a definition and therefore is/should be
homicide.
moo you can say abortion is not not a nice
act as far as legal terms but in the heart
we know it is not a nice act that's why it
is and will always be a controversial
topic. You are pregnant and you are
ending your childs life. When you end a
life fully confirmed is there, that you go
to a hospital knowing that you are going
to end a life by your choice you tell me
is not not a nice act. Not a nice act
is ending a life, abortion is ending a
life. The only difference is one is
legal and the other is
not.
do you believe that
removing a brain-dead person from life
support is homicide?Or maybe removing a
fetus-in-fetu? homicide is immoral
killing,you can not commit an immoral act
against a non-moral being.If that were the
case,picking a flower,killing
weeds,stepping on a bug,or killing an
animal for meat would be homicide.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2496 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:10
Posted: 07-21-06 19:42pm
happygrl35
wrote:
do you believe that removing
a brain-dead person from life support is
homicide?Or maybe removing a
fetus-in-fetu? homicide is immoral
killing,you can not commit an immoral act
against a non-moral being.If that were the
case,picking a flower,killing
weeds,stepping on a bug,or killing an
animal for meat would be not a nice
act.
my brother was brain dead and in life
support and he was removed from it. No
it was not homicide because there was no
possibility he was going to survive not
matter how long he would be in the life
support. They did not do it with the
intention of not making him live, he was
not going to live anymore and he also had
a living will written before he was sick
that he rejected to be in life support.
The fetus in the other chance has no
chance to ask if he wants to be dead.
Tell me something since you mention a
moral being, what makes a human being a
moral-being? Is a newborn a moral-being
given he has no moralities yet? How
about people with mental disabilities are
they considered moral beings too?
Last edited by nightangel73 on 07-23-06 19:38pm; edited 1 time in total
|
sunshine424
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 397 Location: New York
Posted: 07-23-06 17:22pm
moo
wrote:
it isn't homicide though - in
your opinion it may be but in mine, and
the laws opinion it never has and never
will be "homicide". homicide is a legal
term, one proscibed by the law, therefore
abortion is not homicide, just as someone
who commits manslaughter by crashing a car
is not a
mu'rderer.
oh hun, spare me okay. Your only trying
to justify abortion. If you had or are
having an abortion, you may also be trying
to make yourself feel better, like more of
a person. I hate to break it to you, but
abortion is going to make you less of a
person. Anyone that can intentionally go
and terminate their own child, is not all
there. Anyone that can do that, does not
have a whole heart to deal with in the
first place. I'm sorry, there is no way
you can convince me otherwise. If I was
in the worst possible situation......Poor,
mentally incompitable, sick, etc......I
would deliver the child and ***safely**
leave the child with the local police
dept. Did you know that is legal and is
done and offered everywhere? There are
choices, alternatives. Abortion just
allows you to not have to deal with the
actual delivery, with looking your flesh
and blood in the eyes.
Abortion is homicide. If you insist that
it is not, because it is legal and what
makes homicide "homicide" is that it is
illegal, than we will call it **killing**.
There is no difference in the act, just
in the name. If that makes you happier,
than go have your cake. Just be prepared
to deal with the consequences, whatever
they may be.
|
sunshine424
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 397 Location: New York
Posted: 07-23-06 17:24pm
happygrl35
wrote:
nightangel73
wrote:
moo
wrote:
.D.S - the actual legal
definition for homicide here is the unlawful
killing of a human being, under the queens
peace, with malice aforethough
clearly it doesn't mention "person" but
abortion has never been considered
homicide, even before the abortion act
there were specific crimes relating to the
"procurement of a miscarriage" (i.E
abortion) but it was not homicide so it's
not quite as simple as saying that it fits
a definition and therefore is/should be
homicide.
moo you can say abortion is not not a nice
act as far as legal terms but in the heart
we know it is not a nice act that's why it
is and will always be a controversial
topic. You are pregnant and you are
ending your childs life. When you end
a life fully confirmed is there, that you
go to a hospital knowing that you are
going to end a life by your choice you
tell me is not not a nice act. Not a
nice act is ending a life, abortion is
ending a life. The only difference is
one is legal and the other is
not.
do you believe that
removing a brain-dead person from life
support is homicide?Or maybe removing a
fetus-in-fetu? homicide is immoral
killing,you can not commit an immoral act
against a non-moral being.If that were the
case,picking a flower,killing
weeds,stepping on a bug,or killing an
animal for meat would be not a nice
act.
oh good .Lord!! But you fail to mention
that a weed, bug, or flower is not a human
being. Never was, never will be. Killing
a bug is nowhere near comparible to
killing a human. Flawed argument, try
again.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-23-06 19:57pm
sunshine424
wrote:
anyone that can intentionally go and
terminate their own child, is not all
there. Anyone that can do that, does
not have a whole heart to deal with in the
first place.
thanks for just saying my mother is a
cold-hearted crazy person. Before you
assume, learn all the facts. Women abort
for many reasons, and many times, it's not
just because they "don't wanna be
pregnant". It because they are too young
to raise a child; too poor, maybe they
were raped, or coerced into it.
Quote:
i'm sorry, there
is no way you can convince me otherwise.
If I was in the worst possible
situation......Poor, mentally
incompitable, sick, etc......I would
deliver the child and ***safely** leave
the child with the local police dept.
if you were mentally unstable like that, I
highly doubt you'd be in a state of mind
capable of doing that. It's nice you
think that now, but until you've been in
that situation and felt that fear, you
cannot say, for sure, what you would do,
much less what another woman should
do! You have no right!
|
sunshine424
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 397 Location: New York
Posted: 07-24-06 08:01am
eiri
wrote:
sunshine424
wrote:
anyone that can intentionally go and
terminate their own child, is not all
there. Anyone that can do that, does
not have a whole heart to deal with in the
first place.
thanks for just saying my mother is a
cold-hearted crazy person. Before you
assume, learn all the facts. Women abort
for many reasons, and many times, it's not
just because they "don't wanna be
pregnant". It because they are too young
to raise a child; too poor, maybe they
were raped, or coerced into it.
Quote:
i'm sorry, there
is no way you can convince me otherwise.
If I was in the worst possible
situation......Poor, mentally
incompitable, sick, etc......I would
deliver the child and ***safely** leave
the child with the local police dept.
if you were mentally unstable like that, I
highly doubt you'd be in a state of mind
capable of doing that. It's nice you
think that now, but until you've been in
that situation and felt that fear, you
cannot say, for sure, what you would do,
much less what another woman should
do! You have no
right!
right.....Woman obtain abortions for many
reasons, ones in which you stated above.
But as I have said, in the unfortunate
case of a woman being raped, too young, or
too poor, they have the option of
adoption. I said that before. How
selfish of a woman to kill the child
rather than give it a shot at life, simply
for the selfish reason that they cannot
bear to meet the child and then give it
up. That would hurt much less than
tearing the damn limbs off the baby and
never allowing it to live a full, happy
life. It is not fair to the baby, period.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-24-06 13:19pm
And we maintain that, at the stages when
"limbs are torn off" the fetus can't feel
pain anyway. And even if it could, i'd
still be pro-choice. Value of life. Is
the world harsh? Yes. Are there already
too many kids in adoption centers who need
to be adopted before a baby with no
baggage is adopted? Yes. It is a lot
harder to adopt a child or teen who has
years of abuse and/or mental and emotional
problems, than it is to adopt a baby
"who's bad mommy didn't love dis wittle
cutie likkle baby!".
It's like buying a pure-bred dog instead
of adopting one from the kennel. People
need to be adopting the children already
in the system, not begging for babies from
women and teens who don't want and don't
deserve to go through the emotional trauma
and social pain of being pregnant and
giving birth.
Because even if adoption might be the best
option for everyone involved, many times
girls can't stand to see the baby go away,
and so their lives are ruined permanently,
either because they stress over that for
the rest of their lives, or they decide to
keep the baby, and never get to have the
life they wanted and deserved. That's not
right! We should not be causing pain to
people who already exist!
Abortion too is traumatic, but at least,
if it is done soon enough, the mother does
not feel as much of an emotional
attatchement, and so she is less likely to
be ruined by the experience. Yes, I am
agreeing with you that this is part of the
reason why these women might abort; they
don't want and can't handle the emotional
aspect of pregnancy; and they know they'd
never be able to give up the child; which
would ruin their lives. So they abort.
They can raise a child when they are
ready, and not before.
You're saying they're no justified; I am
saying they are. And think about it; most
of the "i regret my abortion" stories we
hear don't end with the woman wishing
she'd given the baby up for adoption; they
end in her wishng she'd kept it,
which just goes to show that adoption is
harder than abortion, and can potentially
be far more traumatic.
I am of course going out on a limb of
assumption on this, but I feel it's an
interesting point of view to be discussed.
I am not totally for or against any of
the ideas I jut presented; they just came
to me as I was typing.
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 07-24-06 13:24pm
I very much agree with you .Eiri! She
has never been in a situation like that
where the baby is miserable and not taken
care of correctly or lives on life support
until the final decision is made, she has
never walked in people's shoes where the
fetus and the mother has been kicked and
beaten and the fetus never continues to
grow and it does no longer look like a
fetus anylonger but I will not argue with
her or cowboy because they think they know
it all! I got tired of all of the name
calling and the bashing, that is why I
will not deal with them anymore and it is
my choice.
It seems like pretty much every pro-choice
that comes on here gets bashed by them at
one time or the other and it gets old.
So many of these people do not realize
that abortion is sometimes necessary, that
is why I believe in a choice. I used to
be pro-life until I saw a lot of things
that happened.
