Abortion [Archive]

sparky44

5th March 2004, 00:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:12 PM
it should be 100% legal , free and easily availible and not just in the first trimester, the women should be the only one making the final decision to abort unfortunatly certain "communists" and "leftists" on this board would rather force a women to forgo a pregnancy because the father wants it. <_<
First of all, abortion is legal in most countries but only until the 16th week. After the 20th week which is halfway through the pregnancy the fetus is viable and can't be aborted. It may be the woman's body but there is another person involved......what about the baby's rights???? And what about the fathers rights......it's his child to. I don't believe in forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy but she can abort in the first 16 weeks.......better still......try using birth control.

Vinny Rafarino

5th March 2004, 01:55

Abortion should, in a sane world, be legal and free up until the moment of birth. A non self aware being should carry no more rights then that of any other non self aware being.

Of course there are exceptions to be made in a species that is on the brink of extinction, homo sapiens however obviously will not suffer from a problem such as this and if they ever do, there will be many more problems that need to be addressed first rather than abortion.

Now of course some of you may say, "Hey RAF, human babies are not self aware for sometimes more than a year after birth. Does that mean it's okay to whack them out as well?"

My answer is this, What planet do you live on? Some things are so obvious that they don't even need to be discussed, of course after a child is actually born the term "abortion" would no longer apply as it pertains to pregnancy only.

I'm sorry some of you feel it necessary to crusade for the "rights" of unborn children but the fact remains as such, you are to focused on your own selfish ideology to look at rational facts.

Other self righteous crusaders of personal ideology;

Jim Jones: 409 deaths

Adolf Hitler: 6+ million deaths

Pope Gregory IX: 300,000 deaths

Pol Pot: 1 million+ deaths

Josef Stalin: 800 billion deaths including babies and virgins

Liberty Lover

5th March 2004, 02:01

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 5 2004, 02:55 AM
Josef Stalin: 800 billion deaths including babies and virgins
haha

Liberty Lover

5th March 2004, 02:16

A good quote:

I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.'
— Ayn Rand

sparky44

5th March 2004, 02:31

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 5 2004, 02:55 AM
Abortion should, in a sane world, be legal and free up until the moment of birth. A non self aware being should carry no more rights then that of any other non self aware being.

Of course there are exceptions to be made in a species that is on the brink of extinction, homo sapiens however obviously will not suffer from a problem such as this and if they ever do, there will be many more problems that need to be addressed first rather than abortion.

Now of course some of you may say, "Hey RAF, human babies are not self aware for sometimes more than a year after birth. Does that mean it's okay to whack them out as well?"

My answer is this, What planet do you live on? Some things are so obvious that they don't even need to be discussed, of course after a child is actually born the term "abortion" would no longer apply as it pertains to pregnancy only.

I'm sorry some of you feel it necessary to crusade for the "rights" of unborn children but the fact remains as such, you are to focused on your own selfish ideology to look at rational facts.

Other self righteous crusaders of personal ideology;

Jim Jones: 409 deaths

Adolf Hitler: 6+ million deaths

Pope Gregory IX: 300,000 deaths

Pol Pot: 1 million+ deaths

Josef Stalin: 800 billion deaths including babies and virgins
I have no problem with abortion but only up until the 16th week and only if it isn't used as a means of birth control. And I do agree that it should be free but who are you to say that the child has no rights. Premature babies born as early as 24 weeks have survived outside of the womb so if women want an abortion they better get it in the first 16 weeks otherwise it's murder. But then again if they didn't want a baby they should have either used birth control or kept their legs closed.

BuyOurEverything

5th March 2004, 02:57

I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.'

Perhaps the only issue that I will agree with Ayn on.

I have no problem with abortion but only up until the 16th week [...] And I do agree that it should be free but who are you to say that the child has no rights. Premature babies born as early as 24 weeks have survived outside of the womb so if women want an abortion they better get it in the first 16 weeks otherwise it's murder.

Why 16 weeks? A fetus does not suddenly gain self awareness at 16 weeks old. Abortions should be allowed up until birth. The fact that some fetuses have survived outside the womb is irrelevant, they're still not people. An earthworm is alive too, but I don't feel guilty when I step on it.

and only if it isn't used as a means of birth control.

But then again if they didn't want a baby they should have either used birth control or kept their legs closed.

Maybe she did use birth control and it didn't work, or maybe none was available, or maybe she forgot, or maybe it should have been, at least partially, the guy's responsability too, or maybe... just maybe... it's none of your fucking business.

Don't Change Your Name

5th March 2004, 03:11

Originally posted by Liberty [email protected] 5 2004, 03:16 AM
I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.'
— Ayn Rand
I hate this objectinazis but this time I have to agree with them.
The only rational argument against abortion that I found was that "the baby is alive and suffers". I don't think so. Does him/her feel? Is it alive?

I think there are 3 states in that you can be: not born yet, alive and death. If you haven't born yet how can you be alive? And since which part of the pregnancy does it feel if he does? Of course that the cells are alive but that doesn't say shit. Otherwise humans wouldn't extract tumours because they are cells. I'm not comparing them with babies but if the situation requires it, it should be done if the mother wants to.

sparky44

5th March 2004, 03:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 03:57 AM

I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.'

Perhaps the only issue that I will agree with Ayn on.

I have no problem with abortion but only up until the 16th week [...] And I do agree that it should be free but who are you to say that the child has no rights. Premature babies born as early as 24 weeks have survived outside of the womb so if women want an abortion they better get it in the first 16 weeks otherwise it's murder.

Why 16 weeks? A fetus does not suddenly gain self awareness at 16 weeks old. Abortions should be allowed up until birth. The fact that some fetuses have survived outside the womb is irrelevant, they're still not people. An earthworm is alive too, but I don't feel guilty when I step on it.

and only if it isn't used as a means of birth control.

But then again if they didn't want a baby they should have either used birth control or kept their legs closed.

Maybe she did use birth control and it didn't work, or maybe none was available, or maybe she forgot, or maybe it should have been, at least partially, the guy's responsability too, or maybe... just maybe... it's none of your fucking business.
Actually up to 20 weeks they can't survive outside of the womb. Whether they are born prematurely or not they are still human It is not an unnamed object but is a human.....since it doesn't gain self awareness until at least a year after birth does that give us the right to kill it even after birth. Oh by the way.....how do you forget birth control and yes the man is partially responsible but the average woman knows that most men won't supply it so they are usually responsible enough to do it themselves. Someone who is mature enough to be having sex should be mature enough to protect themselves and not just from pregnancy but also from disease.

SittingBull47

5th March 2004, 13:56

Originally posted by Arthur [email protected] 4 2004, 08:58 PM
It is an easy subject, of course it should be.. It's the Womans body and the Womans choice.. What kind of backwards people would think otherwise?
I somewhat agree with your viewpoint, It is the woman's body.

But, If you're arguing that it is a matter of personal freedom and rights, then I have to disagree. When a girl gets pregnant, it's not just HER body anymore. No, she is responsible for another human being. Do you notice how pregnant women say "I have to eat for 2 now"? It's because they know a life depends on them. Unless it's an extreme circumstance (AIDS, rape, etc.) then the woman should have no choice in wether to end her child's life.

If it is a matter of freedom, then what about the freedom of the child? All people no matter the age should have a chance at life to make something great of themselves and experience it.

Vinny Rafarino

5th March 2004, 15:27

"I have to eat for 2 now"?

A reason to reject abortion based on a quip that women say to make light of the fact they are silly looking and eat everything in sight while pregnant.......brilliant.

Loknar

6th March 2004, 22:52

To me whether the kid is alive or not is a non-issue. the responsibility part is what most concerns me. If you have sex and get pregnant then that is your fault. take responsibility for your actions.

I honestly believe there need to be requirements to practice sex with out condoms and birth control. People today are too wrapped up in them selves and care nothing for their kids.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

7th March 2004, 00:10

Well, if some woman wanted to abort your child, I am sure you'd be pretty pissed. If a woman wants to go through with having a baby, then the man has to pay child support, and there is not a goddammed thing he can do about it. If its the woman's body, the woman's fetus, the woman's choise. Woman, woman woman woman, then it isn't right to force the man to have to take responsibility for the woman's choise to have the baby that he did not get to have any say in making, therefore it is only fair to revoke all laws requiring them to pay child support.

Michael De Panama

7th March 2004, 03:15

I am anti-life.

Loknar

7th March 2004, 04:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 01:10 AM
Well, if some woman wanted to abort your child, I am sure you'd be pretty pissed. If a woman wants to go through with having a baby, then the man has to pay child support, and there is not a goddammed thing he can do about it. If its the woman's body, the woman's fetus, the woman's choise. Woman, woman woman woman, then it isn't right to force the man to have to take responsibility for the woman's choise to have the baby that he did not get to have any say in making, therefore it is only fair to revoke all laws requiring them to pay child support.
You speak with true logic. The 'abortion rights' stuff needs to go both ways, not just woman, woman, woman.

Individual

7th March 2004, 07:31

MM and Loknar:

I get fed-up with unrelenting feminists, however you guys are terrible.

Woman, woman, woman. The baby is in their f'in body! I am not a advocate for feminists, however you guys need to wake up.

that he did not get to have any say in making

Wait, so he had no idea he was having sex? That is interesting, never heard that one before.

I see where you are trying to get at, that a man should have equal choice over the abortion. However plain logic should tell you that a woman has more power, due to the fact that she is carrying the baby.

Can you not see? Whether or not the man 'wants the kid'. A women should have control, for she is the one that is giving 9 months of her life. A women shouldn't have to have a child when she pleases not to, only because the 'man wants it'. Think about it. Are you that ignorant, and that sexist. That a man should be able to control a woman's life, only because he wants something? That is selfish, and you are ignorant.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

7th March 2004, 12:36

Well, by that logic, since you can hold a man resposible because he had sex, why don't you hold the woman responsible too because she had sex? The fetus might be in the womans body, but if the man has to be responsible for it, then he should have some rights over it too.

redstar2000

7th March 2004, 14:09

But then again if they didn't want a baby they should have...kept their legs closed.

Let's generalize that sentiment...

"All women should keep their legs closed...except the ones I want to fuck."

Charming.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

7th March 2004, 14:26

Now where did I say anything remotely similiar to that? The only thing I want is for the father to have some rights over the fetus.

Regicidal Insomniac

7th March 2004, 14:42

He is responsible to the woman and her choice, not his dick.

Being accountable for your actions means accepting the consequences, whatever they may be. The consequence of getting someone pregnant is trusting them with respects to their decision. Accept it. Where you draw the line between "responsibility" and manipulation, I don't know.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

7th March 2004, 15:00

The decision to abort a child should be a mutual decision. The man should be responsible to the woman and their child if the woman chooses to have that baby, but likewise the woman should have to take responsibility for her child if the man wants the child as well. I am calling for responsibility on behalf of both parties, not just the man.

Regicidal Insomniac

7th March 2004, 16:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 04:00 PM
The decision to abort a child should be a mutual decision. The man should be responsible to the woman and their child if the woman chooses to have that baby, but likewise the woman should have to take responsibility for her child if the man wants the child as well. I am calling for responsibility on behalf of both parties, not just the man.
And do you have some sort of solution for this "problem" that you percieve?
Would you apply a legal procedure for abortions?
Or do you see it as a personal issue to be taken by both "parties"?

Or do you plan to just keep whining about women having too much power in decision-making?

D'Anconia

7th March 2004, 17:47

As I see it there are only four ways in which a child in the womb is different from a child that has been born.

1. Size
2. Level of Development
3. Environment
4. Dependence

Can we all agree that these are the only differences?

Individual

7th March 2004, 18:04

Okay, MM think of this.

Let's say the man wants to abort the child, and the woman would like to keep it.

It is the woman's choice, due to the fact that it is inside of her. Whether or not the man should have rights only because he would most likely have to pay child support, the man had sex in the first place. He now must deal with the responsibilities of that. If you were not a 'woman-hating, teenage virgin', you might be able to under consequences and responsibilities for your sexual activities.

On the other hand. Let's say the woman wants to abort the child, and the man would like to keep it.

Again, the woman is the one harvesting the child. She would be sacrificing 9 months, and an extremely painful end, only to please a man's wishes. You think a man should be able to have control over a woman for 9 months, going against her wishes, only to please the man's wants?

There are solid arguments for each sound, and again, you are one selfish and ignorant bastard.

This isn't a personal attack, and you should be able to realize the significance of this. However judging from your posts about 'girls hating you'. Maybe you should consider the fact of your selfishness and your ignorance towards just about anything contradicting your personal beliefs, a key factor to why 'girls hate you'.

RedCeltic

7th March 2004, 18:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:00 AM
The decision to abort a child should be a mutual decision. The man should be responsible to the woman and their child if the woman chooses to have that baby, but likewise the woman should have to take responsibility for her child if the man wants the child as well. I am calling for responsibility on behalf of both parties, not just the man.
Oh come on already! Premarital sex is mostly about sex not having children! And mostly don't want the child any more than the woman does (http://www.thepocket.com/wavs/upbringing.wav)... think of child support!

If you want a baby.. get married. There is no law saying that the father has to stick around and raise the child when it's born, or even be any kind of real father. No... only that he has to share the financial burden.

She should probobly talk to him about it.. yeah.. but he has no right to tell her what she can or can not do with her body.. you think putting your penis inside someone makes you their master? Nahhh I don't think so!

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

7th March 2004, 19:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:04 PM
Okay, MM think of this.

Let's say the man wants to abort the child, and the woman would like to keep it.

It is the woman's choice, due to the fact that it is inside of her. Whether or not the man should have rights only because he would most likely have to pay child support, the man had sex in the first place. He now must deal with the responsibilities of that. If you were not a 'woman-hating, teenage virgin', you might be able to under consequences and responsibilities for your sexual activities.

On the other hand. Let's say the woman wants to abort the child, and the man would like to keep it.

Again, the woman is the one harvesting the child. She would be sacrificing 9 months, and an extremely painful end, only to please a man's wishes. You think a man should be able to have control over a woman for 9 months, going against her wishes, only to please the man's wants?

There are solid arguments for each sound, and again, you are one selfish and ignorant bastard.

This isn't a personal attack, and you should be able to realize the significance of this. However judging from your posts about 'girls hating you'. Maybe you should consider the fact of your selfishness and your ignorance towards just about anything contradicting your personal beliefs, a key factor to why 'girls hate you'.
The woman would have to carry the baby for 9 months against the father's wishes, but how about mothers who keep their babies against the father's will? The father then must submit to the mother's wishes (monitarily) for 18 years! Do you think a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion because he doesn't want to have the woman force him to pay child support for 18 years? Sometimes people have to do things they would rather not have to. True, most fathers would rather not have the baby anyways, and it wouldn't effect them anyways, but what about those that do? As for me personally, I am definately not a woman hater, but I can come across that way because I am DEFINATELY not a gentleman. I treat women the same way I treat guys. Ladies first? Pulling out chairs for women? I pay everything? None of that. I am definately not mean, but I believe that women are equals to men, so I treat them that way. Im not a violent person, but if a girl hits me, I'll be damned if I am just going to sit there and act like I enjoy it. I look at girls hitting guys the same way as guys hitting girls, same thing. When and if I ever get married, I won't expect that I'll be doing all the hard work either. I'll be doing my share of the dishes and cooking too, but I expect a woman to be able to get a job, fix the toilet, and move furnature just like me too. Gender roles suck. Will most women take me over the Mr. traditional Prince Charming? Hell no. I am not at all traditional like most people, and I understand that that is the way that most people think. I am too progressive for most progressives, and thats just the way it is. Women EXPECT to be treated special, and that is exactly what they won't get from me.

Vinny Rafarino

7th March 2004, 19:57

Can you not see? Whether or not the man 'wants the kid'. A women should have control, for she is the one that is giving 9 months of her life

Absurd. Even though abortion should logically be legal up until the moment of birth, the actual decision to have a child aborted should NEVER lie only with the mother. The genetic information contained in that child is shared by BOTH PARENTS. Just because the woman is biologically the delivery device for an infant IN NO WAY signifies that the other genetically responsible party is somehow "relieved of duty" or responsibility.

Let's grow up a spell and toss out the tired nonsense that has been plauging this issue for decades. The opinion of "the baby 'grows' inside a woman therefore it's solely her choice to abort" carries about the same amount of weight as a Yugo.

1. Size
2. Level of Development
3. Environment
4. Dependence

You forgot self awareness.

unfortunatly certain "communists" and "leftists" on this board would rather force a women to forgo a pregnancy because the father wants it

Well that's odd. I happen to feel that if the woman wants to abort and the father does not, then the woman must carry that child to the point it can survive outside of her body through standard incubation and must sign all rights to that child solely to the father. Any later "change of thought" about custody on the mothers end should be decided in court. Period.

That being said friend, I doubt your "communist" or "leftist" 'resume' carries any more weight than mine. To be honest, I doubt there would be any similarities at all as I happen to be a "real life" communist rather than a boy ranting on the "internet".

Regicidal Insomniac

7th March 2004, 19:59

Originally posted by D'[email protected] 7 2004, 06:47 PM

As I see it there are only four ways in which a child in the womb is different from a child that has been born.

1. Size
2. Level of Development
3. Environment
4. Dependence

Impressive. Now name four ways in which you are not the Whore of Babylon.

MM, this issue has little to do with "equality."
Men cannot have babies. So to apply a philosophy of "equal roles" in the decision is pretty damn impractical and cumbersome; since the roles in the decision are nautrally unequal to begin with.

I would ask you again to answer my question, but I guess you already have - you plan to just keep whining about women having too much power in decision-making.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

7th March 2004, 21:05

I am not whining about women having too much power in decision making, I am whining about women having ALL the power in a decision that should be mutual. You can't make everything equal when it comes to having babies, but what you can do is to try and come up with some sort of compromise to make them as equal as possible. I propose this plan.

Should the father want a child that the mother want to abort, the father may block the abortion, and have custody of the child. The woman, for having the baby, gets off completely, and does not have to pay child support.

Should the mother want to keep a child that the father wants to abort, the father must either share responsibilty of the child, or pay child support.

Should neither the party want the child, they may go through with the abortion.

D'Anconia

7th March 2004, 21:06

QUOTE
1. Size
2. Level of Development
3. Environment
4. Dependence

You forgot self awareness.

I would include self-awareness under level of development.

I did not intend to enter the discussion of the womens' rights vs. that of the men. My point here was that none of these areas of difference is a reason that would justify killing an unborn child. If you disagree please explain.

Regicidal Insomniac

7th March 2004, 22:25

I am not whining about women having too much power in decision making, I am whining about women having ALL the power in a decision that should be mutual.

Actually, most women will respect your opinion.
Have you ever had any experience with an abortion?
Judging by you're rhetoric, I'm gonna assume not.
I have. My girlfriend asked me. I agreed with an abortion.
And it's been that way with every last couple I know who have gone through one.
Isn't that enough for you?

Do you not see the madness is forcing a woman to give birth?

And just how do you plan to enforce this?

What do you propose if the woman fails to uphold your little plan?
A fine? Imprisonment? Stoning, perhaps?
What if she's found conspiring to have an abortion?
Should she be kept in the hospital and monitored for the duration of her pregancy?
Tied down to her bed until the child is born?

Or, before an abortion can be performed, should there be a form to be signed by the two declaring that they both desire an abortion?
Then what's the use of even having abortion legal?
Women will just have an illegal one performed, like before.
And, like before, thousands of women will be injured or die during an illegal abortion.

You'll have to raid suspected abortion clinics. Arrest the doctors.
Hold stake-outs. Go under cover.
Pose as a doctor offering underground abortions.
Then when an unexpecting woman asks desperately for an abortion,
it's off to some high-security hospital to her.

Or maybe after a man has filed a case you'll have to keep a close eye on that shady woman.
Spy on her. Monitor her. Keep a close eye on her and make sure she carries that kid.
Then, as soon as you notice she isn't pregnant anymore, throw her behind bars.

Really, how do you expect any of this to go through?

Individual

8th March 2004, 06:06

I happen to be a "real life" communist rather than a boy ranting on the "internet".

Quick Quick. Whoever spots the irony first, wins.

RAF, what exactly do you define as a real communist? I couldn't find a definition for a 'real communist'. Are their 'fake communists' also?

the actual decision to have a child aborted should NEVER lie only with the mother

It doesn't, the state would be involved too. :unsure:

MM:

I would think that by your actions towards woman, you would be able to realize why they hate you. Can you not see that your perspective is incorrect?

I have spent my stance on abortion, and you guys fail to see what is the correct way. There are two sides to abortion, and one carries more 'weight than a Yugo'. That side carries all of the weight, while the other side carries a peice of paper. Isn't life grand?

Liberty Lover

8th March 2004, 09:22

D'Anconia,

Is abortion the only thing you disagree with Francisco D'Anconia's creator on?

D'Anconia

8th March 2004, 11:21

Originally posted by Liberty [email protected] 8 2004, 10:22 AM
D'Anconia,

Is abortion the only thing you disagree with Francisco D'Anconia's creator on?
There are probably several areas where I would disagree with Rand. When I set up my account here I was caught up in the middle of reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time. I had not had much time to sort through all the implications of the Objectivist philosophy and I wanted a username that would irritate people a little bit. I am not an Objectivist, but I do agree with some of the positions they take with regards to government and economics.

SittingBull47

8th March 2004, 15:09

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 5 2004, 02:55 AM

Other self righteous crusaders of personal ideology;

Jim Jones: 409 deaths

Adolf Hitler: 6+ million deaths

Pope Gregory IX: 300,000 deaths

Pol Pot: 1 million+ deaths

Josef Stalin: 800 billion deaths including babies and virgins
That can't be your argument. So simple. What if a mother wanted to kill her child for no good reason, just because she didn't want to put up with a kid. That child could grow up to be a doctor, a doctor that may find a cure for cancer, thus saving billions of lives.

Anyway, I agree with MidnightMarauder. The guy should have a say in the child's life.

800 Billion, eh?

Vinny Rafarino

8th March 2004, 15:29

That can't be your argument. So simple. What if a mother wanted to kill her child for no good reason, just because she didn't want to put up with a kid. That child could grow up to be a doctor, a doctor that may find a cure for cancer, thus saving billions of lives.

Anyway, I agree with MidnightMarauder. The guy should have a say in the child's life.

800 Billion, eh?

Interesting. I assumed that everyone here that read this PORTION of my post realised that it was a simple point being made, not an "argument". The "argument was contained in the REMAINING BODY of the post.

I'm sorry, but I don't play the "what if" game. Why you ask? Because it is a silly argument.

Sorry it's not 800 billion..It's more like 200 trillion.

Individual

8th March 2004, 16:32

What if a mother wanted to kill her child for no good reason, just because she didn't want to put up with a kid. That child could grow up to be a doctor, a doctor that may find a cure for cancer, thus saving billions of lives.
Anyway, I agree with MidnightMarauder. The guy should have a say in the child's life.

SittingBull.

You clearly make no sense. Your arguments are against abortion period. Not whether a father should have a right over the childs life. What you are saying are abortions against abortion.

RAF.

You didn't answer my question. Since you are a :blink: real :blink: communist, are there 'fake communists'? What makes you a real communist. Especially since you surely own property, you surely have money, and you do not live in a communist society. So what exactly makes you more of a communist than the next guy? :blink:

Nyder

8th March 2004, 17:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:32 PM
You didn't answer my question. Since you are a :blink: real :blink: communist, are there 'fake communists'? What makes you a real communist. Especially since you surely own property, you surely have money, and you do not live in a communist society. So what exactly makes you more of a communist than the next guy? :blink:
IF you ARE a real communist, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I took away your money, your personal possessions and all your property because you have no right to own them anyway. :lol:

Vinny Rafarino

8th March 2004, 19:24

IF you ARE a real communist, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I took away your money, your personal possessions and all your property because you have no right to own them anyway.

I reckon you still don't get it. No bother, most kids with limited intellect make the same mistake. Being a member of the COMMUNIST PARTY (therefore being a communist) means you support to political platform which eventually leads to a communist society. Until then you live under a socialist economic and political platform. Can we say S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M little boy? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Please kid, I beg you....come and try to take away my personal possessions. :D :D :D

Quick Quick. Whoever spots the irony first, wins.

RAF, what exactly do you define as a real communist? I couldn't find a definition for a 'real communist'. Are their 'fake communists' also?

I think you may be confused on the meaning of "irony". If you are trying to make a "i got you" reference to me posting on an internet message board while slagging it off you are not doing a good job. This board is for ENTERTAINMENT. In addition, there is not a chance in hell that I would ever publically admit to doing ANYTHING for the communist party on a message board, so too bad kiddo.

Are there any "fake" communists? Well it does not take much thinking at all to define the word "fake" now does it. What do YOU think son? Are there?

You didn't answer my question. Since you are a real communist, are there 'fake communists'? What makes you a real communist. Especially since you surely own property, you surely have money, and you do not live in a communist society. So what exactly makes you more of a communist than the next guy?

See above.

Individual

8th March 2004, 20:48

most kids with limited intellect make the same mistake

Can we say S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M little boy?

Please kid, I beg you

so too bad kiddo.

Is this a power trip? Do you feel threatened of your own stupidity?

I'm sorry, but I have not been a child for quite a few years now. So before you open that 'real communist' mouth of yours, maybe you should realize your surroundings.

Do you feel superior by calling me a child? Does that give you a sort of pleasure, because you sure did say imply that I was a child quite a bit.

Being a member of the COMMUNIST PARTY (therefore being a communist)

Your not counting the 'commie club' as your communist party are you? Assuming this is not true. I would surely like to know the name and location of your 'party'. And don't give me details (because you claim this is what is holding you back), but if you could explain to me something in which you have done (politically).

Please kid, I beg you....come and try to take away my personal possessions.

We've got a big man here. Is this a threat? Or are you trying to imply a threat over the internet, where, in reality you can say whatever you want, for nobody will know the truth. See, what is funny, is most people realize this and they don't act tough and make threats over the internet. Obviously realizing that it makes you look like an idiot, while proving yourself one at the same time.

I think you may be confused on the meaning of "irony". If you are trying to make a "i got you" reference to me posting on an internet message board while slagging it off you are not doing a good job. This board is for ENTERTAINMENT. In addition, there is not a chance in hell that I would ever publically admit to doing ANYTHING for the communist party on a message board, so too bad kiddo.

What's funny is that you could divuldge plenty of information over the internet with no worries. Obviously you are doing nothing too revolutionary, as we would all here about something. Second of all, why can't you show support for your 'party' that you belong in, seeing as how it is not illegal, and you would probably gain more respect. Instead of coming off as your title.

And yes, the irony was quite fitting. What you showed was quite ironic. For whether you are a 'boy' or 'man', you were what you described: 'ranting on the internet'. Whether or not this is entertainment, what makes you think (though I doubt) that you are the only one on this webpage doing something. I can comprehend from your own actions, that you most likely are not 'real' as you describe. If you were, you would be glad to see something of this nature taking place. (ie. kids/teens developing Marxist ideas, while they don't have to be 'hardcore' like you imply). So to watch you make that comment was truly ironic, and leads me to trust the validity of your statement.

Prove me wrong here.

And when you come back with an answer; 'Ohh, I can't say anything on the internet', or 'I don't have to prove myself to you'. I will truly know you are lying. So do some research, and find a 'communist party' that you can send me a link to, so that I can somewhat believe your claim.

Vinny Rafarino

8th March 2004, 21:18

Is this a power trip? Do you feel threatened of your own stupidity?

I'm sorry, but I have not been a child for quite a few years now. So before you open that 'real communist' mouth of yours, maybe you should realize your surroundings.

Do you feel superior by calling me a child? Does that give you a sort of pleasure, because you sure did say imply that I was a child quite a bit.

Of course you're not dear.

It's not hard to feel superior to you based on your posts. Blame yourself.

Your not counting the 'commie club' as your communist party are you? Assuming this is not true. I would surely like to know the name and location of your 'party'. And don't give me details (because you claim this is what is holding you back), but if you could explain to me something in which you have done (politically).

Whould this be your attempt at "irony" again? I've been affiliated with many legal organisations over the years. I thought I was right clear in my other post regarding my stance on your inquiry. The old "bait" game won't work here son.

We've got a big man here. Is this a threat? Or are you trying to imply a threat over the internet, where, in reality you can say whatever you want, for nobody will know the truth. See, what is funny, is most people realize this and they don't act tough and make threats over the internet. Obviously realizing that it makes you look like an idiot, while proving yourself one at the same time.

Incredibly big. In some circles I am known as "Joey stack of dimes". I should have went into porno.

What's funny is that you could divuldge plenty of information over the internet with no worries. Obviously you are doing nothing too revolutionary, as we would all here about something. Second of all, why can't you show support for your 'party' that you belong in, seeing as how it is not illegal, and you would probably gain more respect. Instead of coming off as your title.

And yes, the irony was quite fitting. What you showed was quite ironic. For whether you are a 'boy' or 'man', you were what you described: 'ranting on the internet'. Whether or not this is entertainment, what makes you think (though I doubt) that you are the only one on this webpage doing something. I can comprehend from your own actions, that you most likely are not 'real' as you describe. If you were, you would be glad to see something of this nature taking place. (ie. kids/teens developing Marxist ideas, while they don't have to be 'hardcore' like you imply). So to watch you make that comment was truly ironic, and leads me to trust the validity of your statement.

Prove me wrong here.

And when you come back with an answer; 'Ohh, I can't say anything on the internet', or 'I don't have to prove myself to you'. I will truly know you are lying. So do some research, and find a 'communist party' that you can send me a link to, so that I can somewhat believe your claim.

Ahhhhh...how cute. It appears the boy's balls are quite twisted now. No matter how hard you try to break my balls son, it won't work. I do enjoy reading these little tantrums though.

Individual

8th March 2004, 21:32

:blink: :blink:

Thank you. You have confirmed my thoughts.

DarkAngel

9th March 2004, 00:46

Womens choice, womens body.

-No I don't belive the father has equal rights to the child while its in the women. What did he do to deserve it? Does he get morning sickness? Doctor Visits? and other very very uncomfotable situations....

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

9th March 2004, 01:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:46 PM
Womens choice, womens body.

-No I don't belive the father has equal rights to the child while its in the women. What did he do to deserve it? Does he get morning sickness? Doctor Visits? and other very very uncomfotable situations....
Since the mother has the right to force the father to pay child support for the next 18 years, the father should the right to have his own kid if he so pleases. If the dad is nothing more then a fuck bag, then don't hold him responsible for the child!

Y2A

9th March 2004, 01:37

Don't give me this "it's always the man's fault" bullshit or "woman's body, woman's choice". It's the "man" that is the one that is going to raise the kid for 18yrs of it's life. The man should have a say. But to be "real" that is unfortunately not always the case especially in the black community(don't give me this "you racist" BS), there are not enough "REAL MEN" out there. I see these fucks leave their kids with a single mom and it makes me sick. So to be "real" the women do have a point since alot of times "the man" is an asshole and leaves the woman to raise the child.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

9th March 2004, 01:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:37 PM
Don't give me this "it's always the man's fault" bullshit or "woman's body, woman's choice". It's the "man" that is the one that is going to raise the kid for 18yrs of it's life. The man should have a say. But to be "real" that is unfortunately not always the case especially in the black community(don't give me this "you racist" BS), there are not enough "REAL MEN" out there. I see these fucks leave their kids with a single mom and it makes me sick. So to be "real" the women do have a point since alot of times "the man" is an asshole and leaves the woman to raise the child.
I see what you mean, fathers who ditch their children should be put in jail. Not all men are dead beat dads though, and we should not take away men's right to be able to be a a good father and having his child if he wants. Understandably, the majority of men would not take advantage of such a law anyways, but that doesn't mean that we should take away the rights of all men because a few are dead beats. A woman can have an abortion to cut avoid any responsibity whatsoever, and I do not see any such option for a man.

DarkAngel

9th March 2004, 20:34

All my friends and people I happen to come in contact with are living with single mothers. No they don't get child support because they either don't know their father, or the father flees. Shit happens. Its not always the mans fault but most of the time it is. When was the last time a female rape accured? For that 9months that baby is litterally attached to the mother, so the mother makes decisions for whats best for her and the baby in question.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

9th March 2004, 22:16

Fleeing fathers are criminals. A woman who has an abortion is not. Why should women be able to ditch all responsibility and not men? If the woman doesn't know the father, or the woman was raped, then obviously the father has no intention at all of being their for their child, and an abortion is permissable, but at very least a married father should have that right. Asside from that, what sort of woman would have sex in a Socialist society with people she doesn't know? Such promiscuity shows absolute disregard for the efforts of the state to control the AIDS/HIV epidemic. As for a female rape, who knows, and even if one did happen, what man would have the courage to stand up to say they were raped by a woman? The mother is supposed to make decisions on what is best for the baby, but I think the father should have an equal role too.

Individual

9th March 2004, 22:35

Asside from that, what sort of woman would have sex in a Socialist society with people she doesn't know? Such promiscuity shows absolute disregard for the efforts of the state to control the AIDS/HIV epidemic

Just because you can't comprehend having a premiscuous sex, doesn't mean that it won't happen.

As for a female rape, who knows, and even if one did happen, what man would have the courage to stand up to say they were raped by a woman?

I'm sorry, not everyone feels superior to women as you do. I would have the courage, not as if I would call it rape but more of 'damn, that was lucky'.

As odd as it may sound, women have been known to rape men.

The mother is supposed to make decisions on what is best for the baby, but I think the father should have an equal role too.

What if it has nothing to do with the baby? What if it has everything to do with the mother? What if the mother can't take the physical, emotional, and economical charge brought by the pregnancy, yet the father wants her to keep it only because 'he wants the baby'.

This whole equal rights abortion issue boils down to who is carrying the child. Whether or not the father should have equal rights, in no way should a man be able to have control over a woman's body.

Y2A

10th March 2004, 00:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 11:35 PM
As odd as it may sound, women have been known to rape men.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA your such a tool!

Its not always the mans fault but most of the time it is.

Oh please, cry me a river. That's BS. It takes two to fuck. Women get drunk at parties and screw every guy there and then when they find out they might have a kid, IT"S THE MANS FAULT!!!!! That's BS and you know it. Unless it is a rape, the woman is always atleast partially responsible.

sparky44

10th March 2004, 00:38

Originally posted by Y2A+Mar 10 2004, 01:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Mar 10 2004, 01:18 AM)
[email protected] 9 2004, 11:35 PM
As odd as it may sound, women have been known to rape men.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA your such a tool!

Its not always the mans fault but most of the time it is.

Oh please, cry me a river. That's BS. It takes two to fuck. Women get drunk at parties and screw every guy there and then when they find out they might have a kid, IT"S THE MANS FAULT!!!!! That's BS and you know it. Unless it is a rape, the woman is always atleast partially responsible. [/b]
It's rare for a man to be raped by a woman. You can't rape the willing and I don't see too many men saying no to a woman. Women getting drunk at a party and screwing every guy there, generalizing isn't it??? It takes two to tango so if a woman gets pregnant it's both persons fault. From the sounds of it none of you have heard of safe sex or this topic of abortion would never have come up. A piece of ass just isn't worth dying over.

Individual

10th March 2004, 00:49

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA your such a tool!

AHAHAHA your such an idiot. While back here in reality, women have raped men. Do some research for me, then post back what you find.

Women get drunk at parties and screw every guy there and then when they find out they might have a kid, IT"S THE MANS FAULT

Have you any grasp of what society is like in reality? In the real world, past your teenage party years, there is life outside of getting drunk (meaning that your scenario bares no big numbers). As for when this does take place, no where close to all, let alone close to few, get drunk and sleep with every guy. As for the one's that do 'get drunk' and 'sleep around', there is a large responsibility on the male to one, do whatever neccesary (ie-condom, spermicide, whatever), and two, to have a moral responsibility and know that the woman is drunk and hopefully not take advantage of that alone.

And even with your 'scenario', it should be right for the women to have complete control over that abortion. Especially in that scenario would the man even want to keep the child, therefore what was the significance of your statement?

sparky44

10th March 2004, 01:20

Y2A

10th March 2004, 01:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:49 AM
AHAHAHA your such an idiot. While back here in reality, women have raped men. Do some research for me, then post back what you find.
No you do some "research". The fact is that it is extremely rare to find a case inwhich a woman rapes the man. You are the one that claims it is quite "common" for females to rape men, therefore the burden of proof lies on you.

Individual

10th March 2004, 04:40

You are the one that claims it is quite "common" for females to rape men

I'm sorry, I don't believe the word 'common', nor anything close to that came from my mouth. I'm not quite to sure how you got this mixed up with common:

As odd as it may sound, women have been known to rape men

Proof, examples, and explanations:

http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/spokane.shtml search around

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article169488.ece

http://english.pravda.ru/society/2001/04/23/4007.html

http://www.nd.edu/~ucc/ucc_sexualvictimmen.html only an acknowledgment that it has been recorded and does occur

http://www.nycagainstrape.org/faq_question_103.html

http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?taStrona...24p592_rape.asp (http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?taStrona=http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2003/as_20030624p592_rape.asp) a quick mention

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/ar...rticleID=702083 (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=702083)

"Myth: Men cannot be raped.
Fact: Men can be raped. Men do not report rape as often because of fear and embarrassment. It is suggested that 1 in 12 to 20 men are raped.

Myth: Men who are raped by other men are homosexual.
Fact: Regardless if it is a man raping a man or a woman raping a man, rape is still about power and aggression. Sexual preference has nothing to do with rape."
-http://www.msstate.edu/dept/sars/mythfact/

"A rape victim can be either a man or a woman."
-http://www.teenoutreach.com/Online_Help/se/rape.htm

"8. How can a man be raped?
... In this sense it is clear that a man can be raped anally or orally by either another man or a woman. When women rape men, it is typically an adult woman raping a male child; however, there are instances where adult women do rape adult men as well. It is important to remember that since men generally do not report when they are a survivor of rape, little is actually known about the prevalence of male victimization. "
-http://www2.uiuc.edu/ro/masv/faq.htm

sparky44

10th March 2004, 04:57

I never said it didn't happen, I said it wasn't as common as men raping women and that most men that are raped are raped by men.

Individual

10th March 2004, 05:03

:D Sparky.

I was responding to Y2A. haha sorry, my 'abruptness' was not towards you.

sparky44

10th March 2004, 05:20

Actually the articles were very good......previous to you posting the websites I found it difficult finding articles about rape against men other than rape by men against men. Very interesting articles.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

10th March 2004, 23:38

Can we try and stay on topic here?

Individual

10th March 2004, 23:59

Can we try and stay on topic here?

So you think that we were actually getting somewhere? Nobody was going to sway their opinion. The same things were being screamed back and forth. How much more do you think was going to be accomplished?

Y2A was questioning me, therefore I responded. That seems to be more on the topic of discussion than
"'Can we try and stay on topic here?"

Maynard

11th March 2004, 01:40

I am absolutely for a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she so desires. Ayan Rand, for once, made a whole lot of sense to me. An interesting Statistic, South Africa, the only country in Africa where abortion is legal an estimated 230 deaths per 100,000 live births compared with an average of 830 per 100,000 births in the whole of Africa.
Hospitals all over Africa refuse to treat those suffering complications from abortions and let them die rather than treat them, one of the reasons is the "Gag Rule" imposed initially by Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton scrapped it but Bush brought it back, which prevents "US funding to organizations that perform abortions or inform their patients about abortion or advocate for changing their nation's abortion policies and laws. "

That is a disgusting policy in my view and as I said leads to dying woman being turned away from hospital out of fear they may lose their funding. I would hope nobody here would supported it...

dark fairy

11th March 2004, 05:17

some of the shit people were saying is just halarious... but for the most part abortions is a touchy subject
i mean that thing growing does have rights
but so does the mother
and father
it is a ***** why bring someone here,who didn't ask to be brought here, just to suffer
there are right and wrong reasons why and why not it should be legal

Vinny Rafarino

11th March 2004, 17:07

what sort of woman would have sex in a Socialist society with people she doesn't know? Such promiscuity shows absolute disregard for the efforts of the state to control the AIDS/HIV epidemic

Don't you mean YOUR opinion of what a "socialist" society is? What is this odd facination with imposed moralitywith my side of the left? I am considered to be one of the most "authoritarian" communists in the party today yet I cannot get over what the younger generation is actually thinking.

Well maybe I do....I used to have similar thoughts regarding state imposed ultra-morality on every level of life
in '83 when I fist embraced marxism. Let us remember though, I WAS 15!

Mr. MM, I certainly hope you have the abilty to distinguish between reality and absurd fiction when you are all gwows up.

Now back to MM's regularly scheduled programme of 13 year old kids in red t-shirts marching up and down the sqare.

i mean that thing growing does have rights

Why? Can you provide any empirical evidence to support your "theory" that the "thing growing" somehow has more rights than any other non sentient animal that also "grows"?

it is a ***** why bring someone here,who didn't ask to be brought here, just to suffer
there are right and wrong reasons why and why not it should be legal

Can we try and stay on topic here?

Why? So we can waste even more time NOT changing your mind? don't worry mate, time will do that for us.

This is just babble.