License to Kill

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ferret, Jul 10, 2003.

  1. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Mrs. F has been busy. She just put together a new site and has written a couple new articles to get everyone informed/annoyed/amused...'s a link to a great article on a very sticky topic: Abortion.



    "If it gets lots of replies we might be able to get her to post here again..."
  2. Nightstalkers Creature — Nightstalker

  3. Reverend Love New Member

    I agree 100% percent with the article. A woman should have no choice on this matter. Raped, Incest, Drug Addicted, Mentally Retarded...even though these are dire situations they're still not reason enough to discard the fetus. Also think what we could do with all this free labor!!! Free labor you ask? Why yes the children who aren’t wanted nor loved but are forced into spiral of a compassionless life! Stick'm in the coal mines and auto factories..hell we can even use'm to replace the archaic fossil fuel burning tractors that grow wholly organic food! Think about the farming subsidies we could save on! If they're unable to work due to being born from a drugged up mom well that’s ok too! Slap'm in our world renown social care system! A few beatings and convictions later they’ll be yet another productive citizen born of our shinning social care! WOO HOO! PRO LIFE, PRO FREE-LABOR!!!
  4. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    I see by your obvious sarcasm that you really don't agree w/ her...why?


    "I'll be sending her by to check the responses..."
  5. EricBess Active Member

    Reverend Love, I think you are confusing the issue. If you are claiming that the reason to be "Pro Choice" is because some women are raped, or victims of incest, etc. and we have to protect them lest the unwanted child grow up useless to society, then I don't think you understand the "Pro Life" view point.

    There are those that fanatically would tell you that you should never abort a fetus no matter what. They have their merits, but most "Pro Life" advocates will awknowledge that there are times in cases of rape or incest, or if there are health issues where neither Mother nor Child is likely to survive, or... Bottom line is that there are exceptions, but I have to say that I agree 100% with Mrs. F.

    In fact, I've always found it ironic the name chosen..."Pro Choice", as if not allowing an abortion is somehow removing a woman's ability to decide whether or not they want children. You don't want children? Then don't mess around. If you do choose to mess around, then why is it you say your right to choose is taken away from you if we don't allow you to escape the consequences of your actions?

    And realize that even if you use birth control, the possibilty exists and you need to be prepared to deal with that possibility or you shouldn't be having sex. Period, bottom line. It may sound harsh, but for crying out loud people, where did you think babies come from?

    I saw a very ironic bumper sticker the other day: "If you can't trust me to choose, how can you trust me with a child?" What is that supposed to mean? The act of the abortion kills the child, so you aren't trying to be trusted with a child. You're trying to escape from the responsibily that is the natural consequence of your actions. You want your cake, but you want to eat it too.

    Finally, I've spoken with people who have had abortions and I can tell you that any woman past a couple of months that has an abortion and says that they aren't emotionally scarred by it is lying. When it comes right down to it, those who have gone through it know that it is murder and they now have to live with that guilt and it eats at them.

    Anyway, thanks for posting that Ferret, and Mrs. F.
  6. Reverend Love New Member

    My position on abortion is very simple.

    I believe that children are the most precious commodity the human species will ever be able to create. They're our future, our love, our passion all packaged into a cute fat little bumbling critter. So in turn I can "feel" your position on this matter.

    But...and this is a big butt :)

    You have to ask yourself..should the raising of a child, ever be the outcome of a decision gone awry? Should the child's future be destroyed because they're sires were complete morons and in turn contain no capacity to give that baby the loving environment it deserves?

    If the couple (?) early on realizes that they're in no shape to be a parents..then who are we as society to say they must? You can't force someone to nurture, nor love. Both must be voluntarily given.

    My stance isn't founded in choice for choice's sake alone. It's because every kid deserves a loving home. Some people realize they're incapable of providing such a home. So why should we the people, force this child to be raised in a living ****ing nightmare?


    Another quick point I'd like to make. Even when abortion was illegal it was still practiced...just not by a trained professional with adequate medical equipment. It was done by concerned women with a lighter and metal hanger. Or for some a quick jump across the border into Mexico. Like it or not outlawing abortion would bring these back. It's an ugly facet of this dilemma we must take into consideration.
  7. EricBess Active Member

    ReverendLove, do you have children? I don't think it's possible to be "ready" for children, but that doesn't stop the fact that people should live with the consequences of their actions. This society already fosters a "free ride" mentality.

    And, there is always an alternative. Do you know how many couples out there want children, but are unable to sire them? How can you suggest abortion as a valid option when there are so many people willing to adopt?

    To too many women, aportion is a "way out". What they don't realize is that it's a cop out that will leave them scarred. If they carry the baby full term, they will become even more attached emotionally, true, but they will have learned a lesson when they realize there is a good chance they will never see their child again. With abortion, it's the same, but instead of the lesson, you only have the guilt. And the dead child.
  8. Rando Freaky Bear

    Not true. If there were so many people looking to adopt, then I would not be staring a list of hundreds of children waiting for homes.

    Also, it's not like each kid goes into the system as a lovable, cudley infant. No, many of the mothers that should never have had children to begin with keep them, for a while. Then the kids quality of life becomes threatened for dozens of reasons, and they go into foster care.

    There are few adoptive parents who want 9 year olds.

    And also, preaching abstinance is really not all that helpful. You can not and will never keep people from having sex. It's the second strongest driving force in nature (right after hunger). That's why sex really is, regardless of what people want to think, so incredibly important to who we are and how we interact with the world.

    If this were not ture, there would not be so much debate on the subject, so many hang-ups, and so many ways for a person to get screwed up over sexual issues of all types.

    Recreational sex has gone on forever and will continue to go on for ever. It will not stop.

  9. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    From Mrs F.:

    "It's good to see that you're comfortable w/ your sexuality - as most people are - but, you've entirely missed the point of what I was writing about. I think sex is fine. People have it, kids have it - the point is: birth control is a more viable option than abstinance and people who use abortion as a form of birth control as opposed to the myriad of other forms of birth control that don't involve murder is the whole gist of the article."

    ...of course, my opinion is that lots and lots of people should get mandatory sterilizations...


    "Mrs. F thanks everyone for taking the time to read her articles and welcomes everyone to read more of them if you have time..."
  10. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    I am actually having my beliefs swayed, here.
    It's surprising to read comments from the "Pro-life" perspective that aren't a bunch of overemotional "what-about-the-children" hogwash.

    If I didn't believe that no souls were being wasted on the unborn, then I would back the anti-abortion viewpoint 100%.

    In fact, I consider myself an anti-abortionist in viewpoint, but don't think that I can judge other people's decisions about the course of their lives. From my perspective, having an abortion is a terrible choice, but so too can be having the child. It's true that there are plenty of people who want to adopt a child, but many of those folks are looking to fill a void, not necessarily to spread the love around. And how about those poor kids who don't get picked for whatever reason. Foster care? I've known plenty of those kids in my lifetime, and many of them have thought more than once that they'd have been better off not having been born.

    It's a sad and awful way to look at one's life -- I'm sure we'd agree on that -- but the fact is that people screw up, and their screwups beget screwups. I don't believe that one choice is inherently better than the other. So the choice ought to be left up to the prospective parents, and I do mean both parents, though the decision is ultimately the woman's to make.
  11. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    You make a good point, CT - however the main point of Mrs. F's article is not about the children themselves, but the irresponisible women not willing to own up to the consequences of their actions.

    It all comes down to this: If you didn't want a kid, don't have sex. If you're going to have sex, use birth control - but, be aware of the fact that NO METHOD of birth control is 100% effective, so be ready for the potential of pregnancy.


    "Sex. It's purposes: Procreation and pleasure - IN THAT ORDER!"
  12. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    Abortions are 100% effective... unless they're botched.
    If they were illegal there would be more botched abortions.
    If abortions were instead something more accepted by society as a reality, then we could be more supportive of the people who go through these situations.
    So that's why they should be legalized.

    I realize that's not completely entirely exactly what Mrs. F. was saying, but I want to waste bandwidth saying this. After all, it's been at least a month since the last time we had this discussion.

    Oh, by the way, I have never had sex, and it's not because of fear of impregnating anyone. Just thought you should know.
  13. Reverend Love New Member


    Think about what you just said there. Due to a woman making a bad decision she'll be punished by being a mother!? Is this a insight into the rantings of the lobotomize? For christ sakes she's advocating the use of forced parenthood as a disciplinary tool!

    Both you and Eric are pretty upstanding dudes in the Magic community. However when's the last time either of you've visited a home? Or heck when's the last time you've had the privilege of viewing another autopsy of child abuse at the morgue?

    It's a very very simple concept..just because we can make life doesn't mean we should.
  14. train The Wildcard!!!...

    But there are plenty of environments that do provide these objects... most children living in terrible situations have parents that don't realize/understand that it would be better for the child to live elsewhere...

    "And Mixed Emotions of Failure/Abandonment would only be greater once they step foot into society..."

    My reasons for the quote above -

    When someone gives up a child they more than likely hear:

    "How could you do that", or "What were you thinking"

    They should hear:

    "And that was the best thing for both/all of you..."

    "There just aren't enough supportive and helpful comments in society - to surpass all the degrading ones...:rolleyes: :(
  15. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Ummm...Mrs. F is asking that you go back and read the article. Read ALL of it, not just the parts that you want. The article was nto meant to be an article against women being forced to have children. It's about preventing the pregnancies in the first place.

    Notice that birth control and the evil word RESPONSIBILITY mentioned in the article.

    Your attitude reminds me of so much I see in today's society: Let people do whatever they want and find a quick fix to the problem so they don't have to live w/ the consequences of their actions.


    "Microwave buritos, remote controls, McNuggets, and abortions"
  16. Reverend Love New Member

    This is my queue to shake my head, fire off another retort stating your hypocrisy and continue the draaama. But I won't...why? Because I feel like I'm playing ping-pong with a curtain.
  17. Astranbrulth New Member

    Here I go again, stepping into pirhana infested waters...

    Abortion should be a legal choice for pregnant women to make. Why?

    (1) There are too many people on the planet already. We are living in a closed system, folks, (the world isn't getting any larger) and I support any sort of measure that will decrease the human population short of outright war. I also believe that wars are the result of overpopulation, and are the result of too many competing for too little. Eventually we will HAVE to find a way to cut back on the breeding.

    (2) People base their opposition against abortion on the fact that "it's a human being". Excuse me, but what exactly is so special about a human being? We are just an animal like any other, the only exceptional thing about us is that we have an advanced brain and greater intelligence than that of other animals. This allows us to work out ways to be nastier to each other. Yet the majority of people don't have a problem with slaughtering animals for food & clothes.

    So, assuming that there is some intrinsic value to being a human being....

    (3) The other hassle I have with the "it's a human!" standpoint is that the definition of what exactly a human being is starts to get blurry. Is a deaf or blind person a human? Well, of course, you say. How about a quadraplegic? Naturally they are human. They still think, don't they? But lets say we have a deaf, blind, retarded quadraplegic : now people start talking about the "poor vegetable" and "shoot me if I ever get like that". Already a human starts to lose humanity.

    An unborn child has no capacity for thought as we know it. It can still feel stimuli and react to those feelings, yes, but the higher processes of reason are not existant. A mouse will exhibit greater intellect than an unborn child. And we all don't give a crap if somebody kills a mouse, do we?

    Continuing on this line of thought : Let's say that we agree that an unborn child that can react to stimuli is exhibiting signs of interacting with its environment and is therefore "alive" and therefore a human. Well, then I would suggest that the limit for abortion should be set as being before the nervous system develops - 2 months after conception I think, but I'm not sure. That gives the woman a bit of time to get used to the idea of having a child, and she can then decide if the child is wanted or not. The fetus won't feel anything if it is aborted, as it has no nervous system.

    Finally, a few comments on what other people have posted:

    I agree, abortion is no substitute for proper contreception. People should take responsibility for their sex life. There's the Pill, for crying out loud, and a male Pill will come out in a couple of years, so then there's REALLY no excuse. Contreception also keeps the population down, which makes me happy.

    To the lady that can't have children: life's not fair. Tough luck if you can't ; this doesn't mean that you can force others to have children on that basis. If you feel so strongly about the issue, consider adopting children - there are plenty of kids in state care that need good homes. Plus, the fact that you actually want a child will mean that you will be able to give him / her the love that (s)he might never have gotten from the biological mother.

    --- Astranbrulth ---
  18. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    and I don't think we've had this before.

    I disagree with the article and it seems from reading the replies and responses that it's based on what the purpose of sex is: procreation. With today's world population of 6 billion and growing, I don't quite believe that procreation is the "primary" purpose of sex anymore. More and more, it's recreation and I think that's fine.

    Making someone have the baby just because their contraceptive didn't work is a crazy argument: there is no guarantee that the person is going to be a productive member of society. And I've seen (and I'm sure y'all have) plenty of people who do not seem or are not ready to be parents.

    The bulk fo the article is opinion of course and you can't really argue with it, but one thing that I thought didn't belong was "I can't have children so there shouldn't be abortion". That's just an emotional logic and really (to me) doesn't have any weight in the "argument", if one could be made.
  19. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Well said, you two. Well said.
    I can't think of anything to add. (And I was trying.;))
  20. EricBess Active Member

    Rando - Agreed, it is often hard to find people to adopt older children, but it is very easy to place a baby for adoption (at least, assuming a healthy baby, which is 90% of what we are talking about here).

    CT - It is also nice to hear arguments for "Pro Choice" that aren't completely about wanting to avoid consequences (though many of the arguments listed here are exactly that). The problem I have is that you cite examples of what "could" happen and argue that it is worth aborting instead of even giving the child a chance. Sure, they could end up in a very bad situation, but that's not an absolute. And quite frankly, it's a good lesson to the parents to try to raise the child correctly. I've seen people turn their lives around because they've been put in such a position.

    Reverend - Same point as CT. And being a mother is not a punishment. It is, however, a consequence. Remember, there are other options if they don't feel like they are able to raise the child. I really don't see the "hypocracy" that you refer to and I don't think that you do either.

    Astranbrulth - Do you have any evidence that there isn't plenty to go around in this world? And I'm not referring to the fact that there are starving people, QED, because there is also a ton of food that goes to waste every year. That's not a problem of supply, it's a problem of distribution. I find your post to be incredibly selfish, which is the problem I have with most "Pro Choice" arguments. An unborn fetus is a human. Perhaps it doesn't have capacity for thought and perhaps it does. We really don't know at what point the spirit enters the body, but ask any pregnant woman when she first feels movement and you might be surprised. You ask me to compare a fetus to a mouse, but I don't know any mouse that eventually learned how to talk and interact, so I have a hard time making that leap.

    Spiderman - When you say "primary" purpose, I assume you mean "socially accepted". The bottom line is that, with one exception, no woman has ever become pregnant except through sex. I personally don't think recreational sex is "fine". I'm not saying that sex cannot be used for enjoyment purposes. I'm only saying that the fact that sex is viewed so casually in today's society is an indication of moral decline.

    Regardless, this issue isn't about why people have sex, which is a completely different discussion (though I would wager with the same people arguing the same sides for the most part).

    Making someone have a baby because contraception didn't work... I'm not aguing extremes. Having a baby is a consequence of sex, not of failed contraceptives. And again, back to the arguement of "they may not be productive", but who's to make that choice. We don't know that they won't be productive members of society either. Remember, my argument isn't to force to woman to raise the child. My argument is that there are other options and adopted children often grow up to be productive members of society...and so do children whose parents decide to give it a go. But I don't know of one case where an aborted child became a productive member of society. And quite frankly, a woman who has an abortion is holding enough guilt that I have to believe that if they eventually do become a mother, that there will be issues that will make them more likely to raise future children poorly (and I'm generalizing here - there are always exceptions). Whereas a woman who accepts the consequences and does what needs to be done to make sure that the baby is provided for (either by herself or through adoption) will be much more able to cope in the long run.

    I find it interesting that no one has argued anything on religious grounds. I could do so very easily, but I don't think it is necessary. Things look a bit different with an eternal perspective. I would be interested to know if anyone could posibly suggest a religious argument that favored abortion.

    BTW, I do feel that there are times when abortion is appropriate. Where the woman has been violated or where there are serious health risks in keeping the baby. But certainly not just because the woman doesn't want to take responsibility.

Share This Page