[macintologist]

If abortion is murder, then when a woman has an abortion she is conspiring with her doctor to murder the unborn child. That is murder in the 1st degree. So what are you gonna do, lock her up for life? Burn her at the stake?

If not, then what kind of murder is abortion? Since you would recognize that murdering in the form of abortion is different from conventional murder, then you also could understand why the issue isn't as simple as "it's murder therefore it should be illegal".


edit: for Macnn history, this is my 1000th post

[OreoCookie]

What a way to celebrate your 1000th post: a flame fest

For me it's not murder, so ...

Just an interesting point: in German law, it classifies as unborn human being, basically, and different laws apply. (So medically indicated abortion (e. g. in the case of life-threatening complications during pregnancy, won't classify as murder.)

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by macintologist:
If abortion is murder, then when a woman has an abortion she is conspiring with her doctor to murder the unborn child. That is murder in the 1st degree. So what are you gonna do, lock her up for life? Burn her at the stake?

Does a man who murders a pregnant woman get served sentence for double-homicide? In the Laci Petersen case it seems the double-homicide applies. They are saying in fact, killing a child by killing it's mother constitutes murdering the baby. Why? Because the mother did not plan the murder of the child, it was taken from her.

If not, then what kind of murder is abortion?

Maternally elected child murder? I don't know.

Since you would recognize that murdering in the form of abortion is different from conventional murder, then you also could understand why the issue isn't as simple as "it's murder therefore it should be illegal".

I agree. This is why I would only oppose the repeat abortion. No second abortions. All are allowed one abortion, but those who seek to use abortion as an additional means of birth control would not be allowed. This would cover all known cases of rape, incest, and potential harm to the mother. This would eliminate nearly half of the abortions performed in the US and would be more consistent with what I frequently hear; "abortion is considered with great concern" and "no one has an abortion casually without giving it a lot of thought."

[Nicko]

Originally posted by macintologist:
If abortion is murder, then when a woman has an abortion she is conspiring with her doctor to murder the unborn child. That is murder in the 1st degree. So what are you gonna do, lock her up for life? Burn her at the stake?

If not, then what kind of murder is abortion? Since you would recognize that murdering in the form of abortion is different from conventional murder, then you also could understand why the issue isn't as simple as "it's murder therefore it should be illegal".


edit: for Macnn history, this is my 1000th post

[saab95]

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm

The essential question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its' host against the host's will?

NO.

[Millennium]

First- or second- degree, depending on the circumstances, but yes: the same as killing any other human being with premeditation. In the case of rape, I would hold the rapist guilty in lieu of anybody else.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by saab95:
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm

NO.

Not inherently, but does that situation trump its right to live?

[RAILhead]

Is it just me, or has this been "discussed" a ginormous number of times...?

[mitchell_pgh]

Quick Question:

Is there a difference between aborting photo A, photo B and photo C?

PHOTO A


PHOTO B


PHOTO C

[macintologist]

Photos A and B are legal under Roe v Wade, aborting Photo C is illegal depending on the state since it is 4 1/2 months old. I think only something like 1% of abortions are done after the first trimester. In France and Bulgaria for example, abortions on demand is illegal after the first trimester.

[mitchell_pgh]

Which one of those photos do you consider life (or being alive)?

[macintologist]

They are all life, just like how ants and dogs are life, but in the context of abortion and humanity they are potential human life, and thus are not granted the same rights as independent humans.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Which one of those photos do you consider life (or being alive)?

All of them, do you not use any kind of birth control? Do you see a condom as killing off the life in picture A?

[Kilbey]

I'll bite this bait.

I consider abrotion murder.

The mother, her doctor, and all assisting are guilty of commiting murder. All supplying funds for the abortion are also guilty to some extent. This is why I think it unacceptable that government funds be used to fund abortions.

Call me what you will. Hurl whatever insults my way. Use whatever argumentive points you want, but it is what I believe, and you will not convince me otherwise.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by zerostar:
All of them, do you not use any kind of birth control? Do you see a condom as killing off the life in picture A?

How is sperm human life? Genetically speaking it is not at all. Killing potential human life is not murder, only killing actual human life.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by undotwa:
How is sperm human life? Genetically speaking it is not at all. Killing potential human life is not murder, only killing actual human life.

He asked what photo was considered life, all of them are life, in the first the sperm has already attached.

You are correct, Photo B is classified as potential human life, hence it is legal to abort it.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I consider abrotion murder.

This is perfectly respectable.

The mother, her doctor, and all assisting are guilty of commiting murder. All supplying funds for the abortion are also guilty to some extent.

Who should decide they are guilty? You?

Sorry, abortion is legal, in the laws view they are not guilty of anything.

As for your moral objection to this, where does it come from?

This is why I think it unacceptable that government funds be used to fund abortions.

So because you believe it is wrong, the statutes should be changed to accommodate your view? What about the views of others who this this is acceptable? F*k em, i'm right and thats it?

Call me what you will. Hurl whatever insults my way. Use whatever argumentive points you want, but it is what I believe, and you will not convince me otherwise.

I find it perfectly acceptable to have an abortion within the limits the law provides. I have NO ethical, moral or even religious problems with the laws set out under Roe vs. Wade.

You will never convince me otherwise. Do you see the problem here?

[Cody Dawg]

Another Question:

Presuming abortion is murder...

What if a woman is pregnant and goes out and gets drunk or does illegal drugs...is that attempted murder on the unborn, or battery on the unborn, or assault?

Where DO you draw the line?

Because if you say, "No, a mother getting drunk or doing drugs is not murder," then you're saying that it's okay for a mother to expose the unborn to many health problems, some life threatening, right?

And if so, isn't it better for those women who are drug addicts or alcoholics to get abortions?

Just asking...

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Another Question:

Presuming abortion is murder...

What if a woman is pregnant and goes out and gets drunk or does illegal drugs...is that attempted murder on the unborn, or battery on the unborn, or assault?

Where DO you draw the line?

Because if you say, "No, a mother getting drunk or doing drugs is not murder," then you're saying that it's okay for a mother to expose the unborn to many health problems, some life threatening, right?

And if so, isn't it better for those women who are drug addicts or alcoholics to get abortions?

Just asking...

You're not asking anything. You just say the same thing over and over.

[ebuddy]

Photos A and B are legal under Roe v Wade, aborting Photo C is illegal depending on the state since it is 4 1/2 months old. I think only something like 1% of abortions are done after the first trimester. In France and Bulgaria for example, abortions on demand is illegal after the first trimester.

Depending upon which stats you read, approximately 1% of abortions are performed in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Either 1% is note-worthy or it is not. It's hard to tell anymore.

originally posted by Cody Dawg; Another Question:
Presuming abortion is murder...
What if a woman is pregnant and goes out and gets drunk or does illegal drugs...is that attempted murder on the unborn, or battery on the unborn, or assault?

I think in our society "crack-baby's" (the most prominent and tangible example of the above) carry negligence charges at the most??? I'm not even sure of that though.

Where DO you draw the line?

Me personally? The repeat abortion. I think one abortion should remain legal in cases of photo A and B. It is often said that abortion is never performed without careful consideration and many believe it should remain legal to cover cases like rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Illegalizing the repeat abortion would cover the cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother, is consistent with the "careful consideration" mentality, and would eliminate nearly half of the abortions performed in the US. By decreasing the overall number of abortions performed, we can better ensure the abortions that are performed, are performed in more sterile clinics, better doctors, and safer methods. Over 400 women have died at the hand of the abortion doctor and many more are left with destroyed reproductive organs, and infections. Decreasing the number would greatly increase accountability and ensure the process is completed by competant personnel. As an aside; the birth control pill has been dealing with photo A for decades.

Because if you say, "No, a mother getting drunk or doing drugs is not murder," then you're saying that it's okay for a mother to expose the unborn to many health problems, some life threatening, right?

I think in this case, negligence in it's various degrees may apply, but murder charges go too far. For one, you'd have one heck of a case to prove as a prosecutor and considering the numbers of this activity occurring, you'd likely bog the judicial system with these matters. Besides, I'm not sure we would have adequate facilities to house these "murderers".

And if so, isn't it better for those women who are drug addicts or alcoholics to get abortions?

You mean, not have irresponsible unprotected sex, or have her tubes tied? When my wife and I went to planned parenthood as teens, we were urged to get an abortion. Can not a known drug offender be urged by the authorities to take medical action to prevent pregnancy? I mean, if the fear is invasive surgery, what do they think multiple abortions are? What about the children they already have? These are complex social issues to be sure.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by zerostar:
I find it perfectly acceptable to have an abortion within the limits the law provides. I have NO ethical, moral or even religious problems with the laws set out under Roe vs. Wade.

You will never convince me otherwise. Do you see the problem here?

I see no problems.

That is why I will vote to elect the representatives that share my views. Hopefully the courts roe v. wade decision will be changed.

[saab95]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I see no problems.

That is why I will vote to elect the representatives that share my views. Hopefully the courts roe v. wade decision will be changed.

That happens, America will forever compromise in its conviction to protect individual rights.

[saab95]

Originally spewed by mitchell_pgh:
Quick Question:

Is there a difference between aborting photo A, photo B and photo C?

PHOTO A


PHOTO B


PHOTO C

As long as all are in the woman's womb they are there by her permission, not by right.

The argument against abortion is one of divine right and has everything to do with the right of God over the right of man. it is a grossly irrational argument.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by saab95:
That happens, America will forever compromise in its conviction to protect individual rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The mother is not the only individual whose rights have to be considered.

[saab95]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The mother is not the only individual whose rights have to be considered.

Since when does the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence recognize the inalienable rights of the unborn?

You have no answer to that.

None.

Factually, the founding fathers meant to protect the rights of individuals. The living. Not the dead. Not the unborn.

To argue otherwise is to argue what the religious mystics argue, that is, that life begins at conception, and that divine right takes precedence over individual right.

That is absurd.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by saab95:
Since when does the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence recognize the inalienable rights of the unborn?

Roe v. Wade and the cases that have refined it says that the Constitution does recognize those rights. Or to be more precise, it recognizes the legitimate interest of the state in protecting those rights. This is reflected in state and federal criminal law, in which non-medical killing of an unborn child is murder. It can also be the subject of a civil wrongful death suit.

The same holds true in certain aspects of abortion law even under Roe v. Wade and later cases such as Casey that refined Roe. Your absolutist opinion has never been the law. The law even since 1973 has always recognized that the "right" to abortion is only a qualified right that is balanced by other competing rights. It has also never drawn the line at birth. It has always been much earlier in the pregnancy than that.

In fact, of course, all individual rights are qualified rights. For example, speech is an individual right, but it is qualified. The "right" to abortion is based on the "right" to privacy (which like abortion isn't found in the text of the Constitution, but was based on an implication). The right to privacy is also a qualified right. In other areas of the law, you can't kill people because they offend your sense of privacy. The weight of a qualified right doesn't support such a drastic action that so permanently impacts the rights of another human being.

In any case, it is Roe that asserts a right that wasn't traditionally recognized. It is Roe that bears the burden of proving that the Constutitution protects the right to an abortion, not the other way around. I don't believe that burden can be shown, and therefore Roe should be overturned and the issue returned to the states where it belongs.


Note: I didn't see your capitalism.org link before. It's not at all an accurate statement of the law. It's more their opinion of what they think the law ought to be. And a rather extreme opinion at that.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by saab95:
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm



NO.

You make it sound like the fetus just crawled up there on it's own. It didn't, it's a direct consequence of the 'hosts' actions. Personally, I think people should take more responsibility for their actions, and except their consequences. Far too many people use abortion for their own convenience, and I think that's rather disgusting and selfish.

[Sven G]

Just the idea of considering a pregnant woman as a potential murderer is disgusting: people, are we in the middle ages or in 2005?

Rather, I'd be much more concerned about the real "murderers" who circulate on this planet: almost always, strangely but not too much, of the repressed male kind...

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by saab95:
That happens, America will forever compromise in its conviction to protect individual rights.

They did. When abortion was made legal.

[saab95]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[In fact, of course, all individual rights are qualified rights. For example, speech is an individual right, but it is qualified. The "right" to abortion is based on the "right" to privacy (which like abortion isn't found in the text of the Constitution, but was based on an implication)........]

I disagree.

So what you are saying is that a woman has no protected right to herself, I.e. her body, i.e. her property, that the government has the divine right over her, and that this is specifically stated in the Constitution?

I don't buy that drivel.

Sorry!

[saab95]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
They did. When abortion was made legal.

Bull.

[saab95]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Just the idea of considering a pregnant woman as a potential murderer is disgusting: people, are we in the middle ages or in 2005?

Rather, I'd be much more concerned about the real "murderers" who circulate on this planet: almost always, strangely but not too much, of the repressed male kind...

Be concerned!

Because many of those who are against pregnancy termination are AGAINST capital punishment.

Want an example of such a person?

THE POPE!!!!!!!

[saab95]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
You make it sound like the fetus just crawled up there on it's own. It didn't, it's a direct consequence of the 'hosts' actions. Personally, I think people should take more responsibility for their actions, and except their consequences. Far too many people use abortion for their own convenience, and I think that's rather disgusting and selfish.

I don't disagree, however, I also know for a fact that the number of abortions that actually take place is far exaggerated by abortion critics.

As it is, an abortion can harm a woman's ability to reproduce in the future, so the decision to whimsically terminate a pregnancy is something that needs to be taken more seriously.

By THE INDIVIDUAL.

NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

The government has no right to one's body. Not one that claims to be a protector of individual rights, anyhow.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by saab95:
I disagree.

So what you are saying is that a woman has no protected right to herself, I.e. her body, i.e. her property, that the government has the divine right over her, and that this is specifically stated in the Constitution?

I don't buy that drivel.

Sorry!

Whether you believe me or not, I'm describing the state of the law as it actually is. There is no absolute right to an abortion and there never has been. The current line is drawn at fetal viability, which is well before birth. After that, the state has a recognized interest in protecting the life of the unborn child.

Read the Constitution and the cases if your faith doesn't allow you to take my word for it. Here is Roe v. Wade and here is Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey. Casey modified Roe and between them they outline the current right to abortion.

The other key case is Stenberg v. Carhart (the partial birth abortion case).

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by saab95:
I don't disagree, however, I also know for a fact that the number of abortions that actually take place is far exaggerated by abortion critics.

As it is, an abortion can harm a woman's ability to reproduce in the future, so the decision to whimsically terminate a pregnancy is something that needs to be taken more seriously.

By THE INDIVIDUAL.

NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

The government has no right to one's body. Not one that claims to be a protector of individual rights, anyhow.

The flaw with you argument is you are forgetting the rights of the child. Just because it is not yet born doesn't mean it shouldn't have any rights. My belief is that the child is not a simple piece of tissue. It is a person who has rights and the number one right it has lost, is the right to life.

But you don't think that person has rights. You think selective surgery is a right even if it kills a life. I think a person should live with the results of their actions. Not kill another person to make their life easier.

[/waiting for the tired incest/rape points to be made (badly) by a defender of the killing of children]

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
The flaw with you argument is you are forgetting the rights of the child. Just because it is not yet born doesn't mean it shouldn't have any rights. My belief is that the child is not a simple piece of tissue. It is a person who has rights and the number one right it has lost, is the right to life.

But it's not just a right to life, it's the government power to force a woman to give birth to a baby. That's a little bit more involved.

If I'm just walking down the street, I think I have a right not to be murdered by someone. However, do I have a right to demand that someone else give me, say, a blood transfusion that I need to live? I don't think so. The abortion question is more than a generic "right to life," it's a right to make someone else give you life.

That's why I think saab's quote that "The essential question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its' host against the host's will?" is a more accurate description of the abortion issue than "Does a fetus have a right to life?"

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But it's not just a right to life, it's the government power to force a woman to give birth to a baby. That's a little bit more involved.

No one forced the woman to have unprotected sex and get into that state, it was her decision. Abortion should never be used as birth control.

The fetus has more "right to life" than the woman has a "right to not be inconvenienced".

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But it's not just a right to life, it's the government power to force a woman to give birth to a baby. That's a little bit more involved.

If I'm just walking down the street, I think I have a right not to be murdered by someone. However, do I have a right to demand that someone else give me, say, a blood transfusion that I need to live? I don't think so. The abortion question is more than a generic "right to life," it's a right to make someone else give you life.

That's why I think saab's quote that "The essential question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its' host against the host's will?" is a more accurate description of the abortion issue than "Does a fetus have a right to life?"

I think any elective surgery that kills someone is murder. Even if someone's actions caused them to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy and that elective surgery is an abortion.

It is my belief that people who are pro-abortion simply don't value human life to the extent that people who believe against abortion.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No one forced the woman to have unprotected sex and get into that state, it was her decision. Abortion should never be used as birth control.

The fetus has more "right to life" than the woman has a "right to not be inconvenienced".

Sometimes women are coerced into sex, and sometimes even if it didn't involve coercion, the pregnancy was unintended. It seems to me that when you go down that road, you're viewing the baby as a punishment for a bad decision. That seems weird, to me. Babies shouldn't be viewed as punishments.

In any case, I think the point of saab's quote is important: It's not simply a "right to life" in a blanket sense. It's a right to make someone give life to you. Even a fully grown adult doesn't have the kind of "right to life" that people talk about with unborn babies - they can't make other people give them transfusions or otherwise bring them life.

If that's true, the generic "right to life" argument is vacuous. So then you turn to your argument, MacNStein, that "you made your bed, now lie in it." OK, I think that's debatable, but at least we're moving forward.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Just the idea of considering a pregnant woman as a potential murderer is disgusting:

EVERYONE is a potential murderer. That's why we only lock up those that commit the crime or have a direct intent to commit the crime. Do you think pregnant women are suddenly innocent of the possibly to commit murder simply because they are pregnant? How naive.

Originally posted by Sven G:
people, are we in the middle ages or in 2005?

Sorry, stupid argument.

Originally posted by Sven G:
Rather, I'd be much more concerned about the real "murderers" who circulate on this planet: almost always, strangely but not too much, of the repressed male kind...

In my opinion "real" murderers are abortion doctors and the women who have abortions performed on them. Along with all the other "real murderers".

Not all murder is committed by men.

FBI statistics. This page states that atleast 7% of murders are committed by women. With 28% of murderer's gender being "unknown". If abortion were included in that number then women would by far commit more murder than men.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Sometimes women are coerced into sex, and sometimes even if it didn't involve coercion, the pregnancy was unintended. It seems to me that when you go down that road, you're viewing the baby as a punishment for a bad decision. That seems weird, to me. Babies shouldn't be viewed as punishments.

But isn't killing a child punishment to the child for doing nothing wrong? "Sorry dear, I got caught up in the moment and now I have to kill you."

Sure sometimes women may be coerced into sex. But they should us birth control to prevent themselves getting pregnant. Maybe if abortion were illegal women would act more responsible and consider their actions more.

Now it's just "Well, if I get pregnant, I'll just go kill it". Sure there is a lot more hand wringing involved, but that's what it boils down to in the end. Many women have life long emotional scars after abortions.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I think any elective surgery that kills someone is murder. Even if someone's actions caused them to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy and that elective surgery is an abortion.

It is my belief that people who are pro-abortion simply don't value human life to the extent that people who believe against abortion.

Just to state the obvious, people in favor of abortion rights think that those opposed to them don't value human life, and in particular, parenthood. They use terms like "inconvenience" to refer to pregnancy, for example. As a father of two little girls, I can assure you that parenting is more than an inconvenience. It's the most fundamental and life-altering experience people can undertake. I don't understand how people can think it's a good idea for the government to force pregnant women to give birth, unless they just don't respect human beings.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Just to state the obvious, people in favor of abortion rights think that those opposed to them don't value human life, and in particular, parenthood. They use terms like "inconvenience" to refer to pregnancy, for example. As a father of two little girls, I can assure you that parenting is more than an inconvenience. It's the most fundamental and life-altering experience people can undertake. I don't understand how people can think it's a good idea for the government to force pregnant women to give birth, unless they just don't respect human beings.

You're twisted like a pretzel every which way in this post.

I didn't say an abortionist doesn't value human life. Just "simply don't value human life to the extent that people who believe against abortion." You took my words out of context to say what you wanted. It's a poor argumentative style. But use it if it's all you got.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Just "simply don't value human life to the extent that people who believe against abortion."

How do you define how much value you put on human life?

[deej5871]

Originally posted by zerostar:
So because you believe it is wrong, the statutes should be changed to accommodate your view? What about the views of others who this this is acceptable? F*k em, i'm right and thats it?

Would you say that if we were talking about using government funds for churches? Let's change your quote to reflect that: "So because you believe it is wrong [to use government funds for churches], the statutes should be changed to accommodate your view? What about the views of others who [believe] this is acceptable? F**k em, i'm right and thats it?" Granted, there wouldn't need to be any statutes changed to stop funds from being used for churches (just the opposite in fact), but you get my point. Government funds shouldn't be used for anything when so many people don't believe in it in the first place.

Originally posted by saab95:
Because many of those who are against pregnancy termination are AGAINST capital punishment.

Umm.. That makes sense. If you don't want babies to be killed in the womb why would it be a large jump to say we shouldn't kill murderers? I think you could call it strange if people were perhaps for abortion and against capital punishment, or vice versa, but even that's stretching it. Those are two entirely different issues in my opinion (mainly because an unborn child hasn't killed anyone, so it doesn't deserve to die, while one might think a murderer should die).


What I'm for is something of a variation on ebuddy's idea (in that it also eliminates the argument from pro-abortionists of "What about rape?"). The only way someone can get an abortion is if she has a police report that says she was raped, or something to that effect. This could also help the fact that a great number of rapes aren't reported to the police, because of the emotional trauma of the crime. But if in order for this woman to not have her child she needed a police report, then she would be much more inclined to report the incident to the police.

[barang]

Doesn't it seem weird that often people believe that it's OK to kill unborn children (who are completely innocent), but are against killing convicted murderers (who are completely guilty).

It seems a little backwards, IMO.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Call me what you will. Hurl whatever insults my way. Use whatever argumentive points you want, but it is what I believe, and you will not convince me otherwise.

Ok, then do us all a favor and stfu. You aren't contributing anything to this discussion (other than flaunting your stubborness of course).

[itistoday]

Originally posted by barang:
Doesn't it seem weird that often people believe that it's OK to kill unborn children (who are completely innocent), but are against killing convicted murderers (who are completely guilty).

It seems a little backwards, IMO.

Hmmm, I would agree that that would be weird, but what about those for aborting unborn children, and for killing convicted murderers?

There's also this logic (which makes the most sense IMO):
Usually women choose abortions because they cannot support the child for one reason or another. If you allow this child to live, it will undoubtably turn into a very poor citizen (perhaps that same convicted murderer). "Adoption!" You say? Well, if the mother decides to put the child up for adoption (again, not very likely even this will occur), the chance this child will grow up to be a healthy individual in a foster home is also not too good (albeit a whole lot better than staying with the mother). So, why would you want to bring this child into such a terrible life, thereby adding to the already oversized population and criminal world?

Hmm... why not just "abort" (not kill, there's a difference) this unborn child and prevent all this future nastiness, as well as curb the population? You kill 2 birds with one stone that way!

I say legalize abortions everywhere and provide them freely to anyone seeking them (however, multiple "aborters" should of course be punished).

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by barang:
Doesn't it seem weird that often people believe that it's OK to kill unborn children (who are completely innocent), but are against killing convicted murderers (who are completely guilty).

It seems a little backwards, IMO.

So it seems weird to you that someone could be against premeditated murder including executions?

I find it unacceptable that anyone is pro meditated killing in any situation.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Ok, then do us all a favor and stfu.

If you think telling someone something makes them do it, then I have one thing to say to you. Go wash my car.