Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Roe vs. Wade celebrates 33 years of being the only thing that matters when confirming Supreme Court justices   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

4123 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2006 at 11:22 AM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



615 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-01-23 02:43:51 PM  
TigerTigerBurningBright

The argument that a life is created at conception is based on Newtons first law: a prospective life at rest (sperm and egg separated) will remain at rest. A life set in motion (at conception) will remain in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force.

That's one of the most idiotic explainations that I've ever read. The egg cell is just as alive before it merges with the sperm as it is after, it just won't be able to replicate. Also, unless a good many very specific things do happen to that cell once its fertilized, it will definitely die. If it doesn't imbed in the uterine wall, if it doesn't signal correctly to the mother that it's there, if the mother's body doesn't respond correctly and alter its hormone secretion accordingly, etc.

If any of these things fail to happen, then the egg will die.
 
2006-01-23 02:45:20 PM  
when asked about his opinion on Roe vs Wade, President Bush replied
"It's a personal choice,I mean, you do what you have to do. And if we ever have another situation.... like we did in New Orleans.....it doesn't matter if you roe or wade, as long as you get out safely"
/be her till nine, tip your waitress, try the veal.
 
2006-01-23 02:45:20 PM  
i'm going to go ahead and guess that no one here has actually read the Roe vs. Wade decision
 
2006-01-23 02:45:30 PM  
soze: And for the last time, you people with penises? STFU about abortion. This is a vagina-only discussion.

Sure, as long as we stipulate that women cannot offer any input at all as to the legality and/or desirability of guys pissing on the backs of buildings.
 
2006-01-23 02:45:34 PM  
soze:

People are going to fark. People are going to fark for non-procreative purposes; occasionally this ends up in pregnancy. People are going to abort their pregnancies. This is not a judgment call, these statements are fact. Now, let's make our laws reflect these facts and allow people to do these things in as safe and reliable a manner as possible.

Why are you being so unreasonable?!
 
2006-01-23 02:45:47 PM  
The Newton's law analogy is really a rather odd one to make. I thought it read that 'an object in motion tends to stay in motion.' Comparing an object to a 'prospective life' is just not making sense. They are not the same. Another thing, it might be beating a dead horse but, Pro-Choice does NOT mean pro-abortion. Again, not the same.
 
2006-01-23 02:45:58 PM  
TigerTigerBurningBright

- Really, I dont think I can stress that First Law of Motion argument enough. There are few things more beautiful than the miracle of life. When a child is conceived, it is blessed with nearly infinite potential. It could grow up to be almost anything. I find it strange that so many children have used this gift of infinite potential to attempt to craft arguments against their own existence. Are you not glad that your parents were pro-life?

I think Plato had a few years on Newton. In Plato's terms, most things have "potential" but few things are actually conceived. A tree has the potential to grow but it could also be formed into a chair. That chair exists due to being formed by a craftsman.

This argument is pretty silly though. Anything could happen in life. You could be struck by lightning today, your car might not start tomorrow. Life is full of choices and possibilities, and some people may not feel that the hand they're dealt offers the best posibility. But to suggest that because we can't empirically prove something we should do nothing - that's absurd.
 
2006-01-23 02:46:06 PM  
MR_DING: You cannot force someone to be legally responsible for someone for 18 yrs. A pregnant woman should have a choice.

That apply to men as well, trapped by some girl who got pregnant intentionally?
 
2006-01-23 02:46:11 PM  
soze

People are going to fark. People are going to fark for non-procreative purposes; occasionally this ends up in pregnancy. People are going to abort their pregnancies. This is not a judgment call, these statements are fact.

Well if that wasn't stupid. People will get mad. People will kill. People will want money so people will rob banks. Let's adjust the laws accordingly. You may or may not have an argument but that comment was idiotic.
 
2006-01-23 02:46:26 PM  
Sloth_DC

Can we pee on buildings together?
 
2006-01-23 02:47:21 PM  
Lucky13 i might not say 'educated' words or even put it in 'proper grammar'...

That was worth getting involved in this thread. Priceless!
 
2006-01-23 02:48:01 PM  
Smarshmallow: Bad Argument, If there's an easy fix, then there aren't consequences

DJNewStyle
My issue is that abortion is perceived as an "easy fix", so people ignore the consequences.


But if Abortion were 100% errorproof, and there were no potential harm done to the mother, and thus, there were no consequences, you wouldn't have a problem, right?

As it is, abortion is relatively safe, so although there are potential consequences to getting pregnant, they're unlikely. Since all doctors will explain these consequences very carefully before the proceedure, I don't see what the danger is.
 
2006-01-23 02:48:05 PM  
soze
And for the last time, you people with penises? STFU about abortion. This is a vagina-only discussion.

I'd ask you to marry me, but something tells me this crowd wouldn't approve of two vaginas making it legal :-P (well, that and my vagina prefers peni)
 
2006-01-23 02:48:54 PM  
Sorry about the bold, html typo...
 
2006-01-23 02:48:54 PM  
SkArcher

Fine, you're right, it's not a miracle, and it does happen many times a day. I mis-used that term when I simply meant "something special" (which I think you would agree with).

But by the same token, don't mis-use a term like "philosophy". Conception to birth is not physics, you're correct. But it is biology. So the science analogy stands.

Also, if a person knows they are going to be a bad parent, I would suggest either abstinence (unrealistic) or adoption (perfectly suitable). I think for the most part, kids in foster homes prefer that situation to being dead.
 
2006-01-23 02:49:27 PM  
and ofcourse i have bad manners because i dont believe people should be getting pregnant left and right and then just 'aborting' it

Oh, this one is fun. Your argument is that people should not get pregnant if they don't want a kid, right? Ok, say they don't. What's the difference? There's still not another person in the world.

If it's not about net gain in terms of the number of human beings, then all I can really see that it boils down to is that you want to govern other people's sexual behavior.
 
2006-01-23 02:51:35 PM  
LocalCynic: No, you're talking about social engineering. I suppose you'd support another prohibition on alcohol, wouldn't you?

I'm saying that people should actually be responsible for the lives they create in ways other than killing them.

fuhfuhfuh: So where exactly is "dad"? Oh that's right, apparently he has absolutely no responsibility for his actions.

My side of the argument stemmed from Rob.D mentioning a daughter getting knocked. I think that both the man and the woman are responsible. If a boy impregnates his girlfriend/wife/recent random hookup - he should be ready for fatherhood in a hurry.

Until the "punishment" of unprotected sex is dealt equally to both parties involved (mom and dad), then abortion will never go away. You can't get away with saying that it is only the woman's responsibility. If you want to get rid of abortion, then you will have to force the fathers to be fathers.

Again, this argument was started from the "daughter" point of view. If a man or a woman are not fully ready for children - how about they don't have sex.

If not having sex isn't going to work for you, then use protection - but understand there's a chance that you'll be having a child.

The whole "oops" angle as a justification for abortion is absurd. They didn't have to have sex.
 
2006-01-23 02:52:37 PM  
Lollipop165: On a higher note, NYC is a great place to learn those lessons :-)

Indeed it is. It's also a great place to learn the most important life lesson of all: Hurry the fark up or get the fark outta my way.
 
2006-01-23 02:54:12 PM  
Fine: the egg is alive before it mates with the sperm, it might not implant in the uterine wall, you could get struck by lightning tomorrow, etc. However, the point that I'm making is that this delicate process that relies on good luck to happen does not need a human hand trying to stop it. I have it on good authority that most of the time, if an egg is fertilized and humans don't do anything, that egg becomes an adult who is pretty thankful that he/she did not get aborted.
 
2006-01-23 02:54:20 PM  
TigerTigerBurningBright:

I think for the most part, kids in foster homes prefer that situation to being dead

Dude, how the fark on Earth would you know that you were never born?!?!
 
2006-01-23 02:54:21 PM  
TigerTigerBurningBright
But by the same token, don't mis-use a term like "philosophy". Conception to birth is not physics, you're correct. But it is biology. So the science analogy stands.

Newton's laws have nothing to do with the fusion of a sperm and egg, unless you're talking about the sperm's velocity.

Second, no, the fusion of sperm and egg is not a miracle. The egg was already alive, all the sperm did was to introduce some new genes, and to signal the egg to start dividing.
 
2006-01-23 02:54:40 PM  
RedVogue24

DJNewStyle
NOTE: my previous post indicates that I approve of abortion in the cases of rape/incest/mother's life in danger

What's the difference? Why one over the other? If you consider abortions morally wrong in one case, then why is it okay in the other? No matter who the woman is or how she got pregnant, she's still pregnant. According to you, it's still a baby she is carrying, so why does one situation make abortion "okay" and the other is murder?


There is no choice in the matter when it comes to rape/incest. Abortion is wrong when its used as a corrective measure for carelessness that could have been avoided (by not having sex).
 
2006-01-23 02:56:29 PM  
TigerTigerBurningBright:
I have it on good authority that most of the time, if an egg is fertilized and humans don't do anything, that egg becomes an adult who is pretty thankful that he/she did not get aborted.

Your authority is wrong. Most fertilized eggs don't result in babies.
 
2006-01-23 02:57:19 PM  
TigerTigerBurningBright

Fine, you're right, it's not a miracle, and it does happen many times a day. I mis-used that term when I simply meant "something special" (which I think you would agree with).

Nope. Happens all the time, easy to do. In fact, now we have better nutrition and such, it happens to often, if anything. Not Special.

But by the same token, don't mis-use a term like "philosophy". Conception to birth is not physics, you're correct. But it is biology. So the science analogy stands.

Also, if a person knows they are going to be a bad parent, I would suggest either abstinence (unrealistic) or adoption (perfectly suitable). I think for the most part, kids in foster homes prefer that situation to being dead.


The science analogy only appears to stand if you know fark all about science. The entire question is one of personal sentient choice on the part of the mother, and that's it, everyone else can fark off.

As for adoption... you're one of those people who've never been anywhere near an instituional care home or know anything about it aren't you? It's amazing the number of people who spout "put them up for adoption" compared to the actual availability of foster parents. It's also scary reading the mental problems of those who go through that system.
 
2006-01-23 02:57:32 PM  
Lucky13
well maybe you cant teach me anything because there is nothing else to teach i have no brains.
you said something stupid i don't understand and now you i don't know how to back understand up what you said.
and ofcourse i have bad manners because i dont believe people should be getting pregnant left and right and then just 'aborting' it know what i am talking about so i just spew nonsense

because that's how i came along ya see I am an abortion. Waaaah

because they are too stupid (like you me) and irresponsible for their own actions.

i might not say 'educated' words or even put it in 'proper grammar' because you know what?i am a farkin dumbass with a big mouth. i dont give a fark. i curse, so go fark yourself.


trollicious
 
2006-01-23 02:58:00 PM  
vrax, are you saying you can tell me exactly when a life becomes conscious of itself, and furthermore that you can kill it until that point?
 
2006-01-23 02:58:13 PM  
soze: Can we pee on buildings together?

If ya want - but I bet I can hit the building from further away :)
 
2006-01-23 02:59:21 PM  
DJNewStyle

this argument was started from the "daughter" point of view.

My point is, is that all too often this is the only side of the issue anyone spouts. No one tends to talk of the father.

This leads to an interesting situation, since the mother is physically forced to deal with the child, while the only way to force the fathr into his role would be the law, which never works.

There is a lot of long talk about "responsibility". It all boils down to 2 things:

1. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, than she should not have unprotected or any sex.
2. If a man doesn't want to be a father, then he should have unprotected or any sex.

It really is that simple. Until both parties adhere strictly to these rules however, we are back at square 1.

And believe me... you can't teach people common sense, no matter how hard you try. If they don't have it by the time they are able to procreate, then chances are they will never have it. Yet your entire argument revolves around just that... teaching people common sense.
 
2006-01-23 02:59:28 PM  
SkArcher
It's amazing the number of people who spout "put them up for adoption" compared to the actual availability of foster parents. It's also scary reading the mental problems of those who go through that system.

They're generally the same people who want to prevent gay couples from adopting.
 
2006-01-23 03:00:06 PM  
SmarshmallowBut if Abortion were 100% errorproof, and there were no potential harm done to the mother, and thus, there were no consequences, you wouldn't have a problem, right?

No. That's not what I'm talking about. It's like liposuction or gastric bypass surgery.. There are people who are morbidly obese but continue to eat because these procedures can be done to save them and (in their minds) fix their problems. (granted some people have thyroid problems, etc) If they exhibited a little self-control, they wouldn't have a problem to be fixed.

Same with sex and abortion. You don't have to have sex. If you don't want children - don't initiate the child creation process. Plain and simple.

Contraception can help to prevent it, but its not 100%. People who use it know this and should be willing to raise any children that result from accidental pregnancy.
 
2006-01-23 03:00:34 PM  
I only read through a couple posts, so forgive me if (and I'm sure it has) been covered.

Roe v. Wade is bad law, and needs to be overturned. It is quite simply not supported by the Constitution, and any not ideological scholars will attest to that.

That being said, that doesn't mean the spirit of the decision is wrong. The Constitution is not written in stone, and can be modified. Unfortunately the legislature is lazy, and will no longer go to the trouble of an amendment. They would rather do an end run around the Constitution and spend some time in Kennebunkport instead.
 
2006-01-23 03:01:16 PM  
Lucky13
okay so enlighten me as to how 'complicated' the issue of abortion is other than the facts utter crap that i already mentioned

boring
 
2006-01-23 03:01:27 PM  
Addendum to my post...

2. If a man doesn't want to be a father, then he should not have unprotected or any sex.
 
2006-01-23 03:01:28 PM  
I *heart* you Smeegle :-)
 
2006-01-23 03:02:06 PM  
to signal the egg to start dividing.

news.bbc.co.uk

I'm a divider, not a uniter.

www.briansbar.com
 
2006-01-23 03:02:24 PM  
DJNewStyle

My issue with your argument is that I'm getting the sense that you are saying that sex should be used only for procreation, no questions asked. Then you go ahead and say "Oh, well, you used protection but it didn't work. You must have farked up while farking. Sucks to be you. Raise the damn kid"

The "not ready for kids, then don't have sex" doesn't work for everyone. Not everyone has a life goal of raising a family. There are married couples out there who do not want children. So, what, should they abstaine for the entire duration of their marriage? And, supposing they do take all the necessary precautions (which they probably will, since they don't want children) and the woman still ends up pregnant, are you going to say she then has to have the child anyway?
 
2006-01-23 03:03:19 PM  
tigertiger

Abortion by definition is not necessarily doctor-induced. It can be also a spontaneous occurrence due to some unknown circumstance/condition by the mother. Having said that, that doesn't really mesh with your idea that the human hand is the only way to end a pregnancy.

Again, like many people who have already commented, the Newton's Law comparison is just not working.
 
2006-01-23 03:03:27 PM  
Lollipop165
*sigh
:)
 
2006-01-23 03:03:45 PM  
TigerTigerBurningBright

Fine: the egg is alive before it mates with the sperm, it might not implant in the uterine wall, you could get struck by lightning tomorrow, etc. However, the point that I'm making is that this delicate process that relies on good luck to happen does not need a human hand trying to stop it. I have it on good authority that most of the time, if an egg is fertilized and humans don't do anything, that egg becomes an adult who is pretty thankful that he/she did not get aborted.

Human intervention is inevitable. We have solid scientific evidence indicating that children born to women who smoke, use narcotics, take in polluted or air, etc. will be born with birth defects. Even if one believes that life begins at conception, the development process continues way beyond that point of time.

Should women who smoke be prosecuted for child abuse? I mean after all, they're doing something that harms the child regardless of the consequences. Feel free to trot out the tired old intention distinction ("the intention of abortion is to kill the child, that's not the intention of smoking"), I don't particularly buy that.

If you strip away the veneer, you're making a scientific argument as to why conception is God's miracle and humanity shouldn't get involved in that process. Whether or not you're a religious person, there's no need to dress up the argument.
 
2006-01-23 03:04:37 PM  
Shmarshmallow: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/embryos.htm

1/3 of fertilized embryos are lost, including miscarriages. that leaves, by my calculation, 2/3 that become children, w/o human interference. 2/3 i think is a majority. dance back.
 
2006-01-23 03:04:40 PM  
fuhfuhfuh: And believe me... you can't teach people common sense, no matter how hard you try. If they don't have it by the time they are able to procreate, then chances are they will never have it. Yet your entire argument revolves around just that... teaching people common sense.

Yeah. Attempt to teach your kids right from wrong. Teach them that abortion is wrong, and should they find themselves at the doorstep of parenthood - That's their problem.

Like you said, you couldn't teach them common sense.
 
2006-01-23 03:04:47 PM  
i'm going to go ahead and guess that no one here has actually read the Roe vs. Wade decision

I have. And Griswold.
 
2006-01-23 03:05:32 PM  
fuhfuhfuh: Until the "punishment" of unprotected sex is dealt equally to both parties involved (mom and dad), then abortion will never go away.

Gee, biology doesn't support the crazy idea of gender equality. Just keep fighting against the tide, eventually you'll stop the advance of the ocean.
 
2006-01-23 03:06:03 PM  
DJNewStyle


No. That's not what I'm talking about. It's like liposuction or gastric bypass surgery.. There are people who are morbidly obese but continue to eat because these procedures can be done to save them and (in their minds) fix their problems. (granted some people have thyroid problems, etc) If they exhibited a little self-control, they wouldn't have a problem to be fixed.


First of all, I've never met a morbidly obese person who used liposuction as an excuse to eat more, but if it were totally safe, and it worked, then why shouldn't they use it?

You seem to be stuck in this mentality that if something used to be impossible but is now possible due to modern technology, then you're not "cheating" by doing it. If a pill came out tomorrow that would allow you to be in perfect shape without any exercise, and it had no ill consequences, then would you blame people for taking it?

The fact is that at this point in history, getting pregnant doesn't necessarily have to result in a baby, so having a baby is not a necessary consequence of getting pregnant.
 
2006-01-23 03:07:31 PM  
Roe v. Wade is bad law, and needs to be overturned. It is quite simply not supported by the Constitution, and any not ideological scholars will attest to that.

Please tell me your not a lawyer.
 
2006-01-23 03:07:43 PM  
The human hand, like you said, is not the only way to end a pregnancy. It is also not the only way to end a life. But if the human hand DOES end a life, it is generally punished with jail time. I don't understand how something that is unborn but on its way to becoming a life is any different.
 
2006-01-23 03:11:08 PM  
DJNewStyle

I see what you are saying, but I also think SOMEONE has to take responsibility for the child ("clean up"), and you're saying in the case of a 14 year old having a baby, you think she should give it up (in which case it is now the clean up of the gov't) or raise it (I really don't think a 14 year old has the means to "clean up" (take care of the child, in other words))... so there is still responsibility there that isn't being taken....

Also quick question for all pro-lifers, if you found out that someone you loved, be it a friend, mother, sister, whomever, had an abortion at some point, would you dislike them? Stop hanging out with them? Be supportive? Just curious.
 
2006-01-23 03:11:44 PM  
danlpoon
I have. And Griswold.

well i was only off by one person
 
2006-01-23 03:11:59 PM  
Hell, why stop with abortion? I mean life is life, right? Outlaw masturbation and nocturnal emissions, too. Outlaw womens' monthly menstrual cycle. You know, the one where they slough off unfertilzed, but otherwise biologically living eggs.
 
2006-01-23 03:13:21 PM  
RedVouge24: The "not ready for kids, then don't have sex" doesn't work for everyone.

Its the same as "I don't want to get arrested for DUI, but I want to have a few drinks and drive home"

Go ahead and do it.. but when you get arrested there's no way out of it.

Not everyone has a life goal of raising a family. There are married couples out there who do not want children. So, what, should they abstaine for the entire duration of their marriage? And, supposing they do take all the necessary precautions (which they probably will, since they don't want children) and the woman still ends up pregnant, are you going to say she then has to have the child anyway?

You don't want kids - lots of people do. Adoption. Hey, pregnancy is no cake-walk. It is hard, but you can have all the sex you want. Just be responsible when something comes of it. You still do not have to abort the child.
 
Displayed 50 of 615 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report