abortion (i forgot what the prop name was)

Just chiming in to say that this is a lie.

Holy shit. :shock:

Not that I was ever planning to fuck a girl during her period, but . . . Damn, that's good to know. I guess.

I have done that accedentally. Fuck a girl on her period, that is. Lies can hurt, man.

A friend of mine almost fucked a girl on the rag. His girlfriend was about to go on her period when they started fooling around, and at some point, the blood came gushing. He was pissed, because she had to know it was coming, and she should have said something.

He said it was the grossest thing ever.

not at all, feels good man

but i gotta admit, thought it to be the safe day as well...dammit

It's not the very most horrible thing that can happen to a guy, but you do feel like taking a 2 hour shower afterwards.
Of course, if your anything like me, half the time you feel like that anyway...

no to abortion cuz you KILL the child and TAKE AWAY their future each and every time you do it you have to take responsibility of what you did if you dont want responsibilities DONT HAVE SEX

To be fair, I take away the possible future of a child every time I cum into a towel and not into the vagina of a woman who has hit puberty but hasn't hit menopause. And a woman takes away the possible future of a child every month she doesn't get pregnant.

Fetus, not child. There is a difference, chum.

well theres a difference in that you know if the egg gets fertilized that egg will have a soul already unlike if it doesnt get fertilized(thi is what i believe though)

but really dont have sex if you dont want any responsibility >_>

I have to admit, there's a lot of truth is this. Every time you have sex, you risk getting the girl pregnant. Then again, there is birth control that guarantees 99.9% that you won't get pregnant. What happens if you still knock the girl up? You took precautions, so if you're unhappy about having a child, it's not like you don't have a reason to bitch.

Maybe only allow abortions for cases of rape or incest, and for people who used birth control, but it failed them. A condom breaking wouldn't count, of course.

still the .1% is more than enough..

and in the case of rape, incest etc. i dont know what to say about this...

...

...

My anti-religion side is winding up for a big one...

...

Err...can't hold it.

No-God Arizth: Seriously, now. Let's talk for a bit.

Firstly, if we go by a biblical text, abstinence is in itself 99.9% effective, else we're out a Virgin Mary.

Two, if we go by the same Biblical Text, and Humanity DID in fact spring from Adam and Eve, then humanity is founded on incest.

Three, a fetus CANNOT, CANNOT, CANNOT have a soul. A soul only exists within a being capable of being even slightly aware of it's surroundings. A newly fertilized egg has not yet even begun to divide, and until a baby is born and takes it's first good look around the room, it is unaware of it's own existence. You are not killing anything when you abort a fetus. It's on the same level as swatting a bothersome insect buzzing around your head.

First I'd like to point out that I too am not involved in any religion, It's a pain getting involved with such things; obligations blah blah blah; and hypocrisy that comes from them.

Anyways, although I don't like religion I've studied them already.
Your first point, The Virgin Mary did not stay a virgin her whole life, if you were to read the bible gospels carefully, you'd see that Jesus had brother's and sisters too, by blood and not by spirit, so there's something wrong with the teachings that The Virgin Mary stayed a virgin her whole life. It was only on Jesus' birth that The Virgin Mary stayed as a virgin.

Second point, The Bible did point out that at those times people were close to perfect, so "IF" people were close to perfect then that there won't be any side effects to incest. And If there were only two of the same species, even if they were blood related, they'd still have sex to bring about offspring, if not then there'd be an early extinction of humankind. Then there's a possibility that the two were not blood related; who knows maybe adam came from the west side of Eden and eve in the other, nothing is sure.

Third Point, I too believe that a soul is anything living that is capable of being aware of its surroundings. But your comparison of a fetus to an annoying bug being swat is the same is killing a soul. the point is as you said yourself "A soul only exists within a being capable of being even slightly aware of it's surroundings." well a fly for instance is aware of its surroundings, so your comparison is off. But to point it to you, a fetus in its own rights has life of its own, but I don't think the first weeks of the fetus can be called something with a soul. A fetus knows its surroundings, they take in nutrition given by their mother, they sometimes kick, and it can already learn; An unborn baby still in its mother's womb, the fetus, is already alive by all means, its just that they can't be seen by anybody else without technology, and they don't have the capability to make decisions yet.

impregnating is like giving life to something that isn't supposed to have. A fetus is this, something that isn't supposed to have life, is brought to life, that has a soul. Abortion on the other hand aborts does not abort the process but rather aborts the coming of a new life in to this wicked world. Its the same as murdering/killing an innocent person who knows nothing of what's going to happen to him, and the decision was given up to someone who was supposed to be trusted.

Although I do not support abortion in its all, It does have some benefits, it may save the mother's life, a life for life situation. It can also control humans' rapid population growth.

Abortion is not the answer, but rather its prevention. Those who wants to abort shouldn't have had sex in the first place or at least took some contraceptives. Its like they just want to have the pleasure of sex mindlessly thinking that nothing can go wrong. But lives can be lost here, in this case, that of an unborn baby yet to open its eyes.

Among atheist there are different beliefs too, I respect Arizth's belief but I'd like everyone to know that what I've said is my opinion.
But yeah, cut the religous crap, they might be just after money. If it weren't for the abortion there won't be new christians to take money from
:evil:

its funny actually how they turned an adulterer into a virgin, but enough of this topic...

Pretty much what he said.
And christianity doesn't see a person as a person untill they reach the age of accountability, which is different for everyone, but is several years after birth. If you die before that, you go to Purgatory, no execptions.
But the soul is irrelevant when this is a legal or medical issue. Especailly legal. You shouldn't bring religion or even spirituality into any legal or scientific arguement, regardless of your belief, it fucks up the whole process.

And, even assuming that a fetus has a soul (it doesn't), what if the mother will die if the fetus is not removed? or she was raped and doesn't want to be reminded of that fact every day for the rest of her life, can't deal with the stress of putting her baby up for adoption on top of the stress of being raped, and is afriad she will resent it if she let's it go full-term and will ruin it's life anyway? There is too much grey area to say that "abortion is always wrong and should be illegal."

Oh, also...

Everyone always talks about what if the woman is raped, but what if the child would be born retarded, or have some sort of major illness or birth defect? Should those women be allowed to abort?

What if it was a defect or disability that would affect the person's body but not their mind? Like, the baby would grow up to be a person who would always be in a wheelchair and couldn't use his/her arms, but the person could still think. They would just need constant supervision and care. Should a person with that sort of child be allowed to abort?

That is, should women in those situations be allowed to abort if abortion is only allowed for certain situations?

Follow-up: If we say that those women should be allowed to abort, does that mean that we should kill retarded people, or people who are permanently disabled?

nah, not killed, although they really shouldnt reproduce...at least not if its genetic.

generally i d say abolish social welfare and let the free market decide who survives...but that would be a rather harsh step, now wouldnt it?

and this is rather off topic...

Your claims about Christian theology concerning infants and feti are a bit off. In modern history, Catholics originally believed that babies who died as infants would go to heaven as long as they were baptized, otherwise they would go to limbo, not purgatory. Current Catholic theology has abolished the idea of limbo and pretty much says that God, since he is supposed to be infinitely just, would not punish someone for failing to believe in him if they never had an exposure to an opportunity. These people would then, theologically, be judged on living a morally righteous life, or in the case of an infant, be judged innocent and automatically go to heaven.

Other Christian sects have different views on this(for Calvinists, the divine electorate would apply for example), and some never quite developed them to the extent of specificity of the Catholics, who are highly organized and unified and an older religion compared to most of the protestant groups.

why dont we leave the religion out of this topic? i mean lets just concentrate on the abortion and not on the babies go to purgatory or heaven :roll: