This topic is locked from further discussion.

#351 Posted by WillPayton (9815 posts) - - Show Bio

About condoms. Iv only read this page like i said. I'm starting to read page six. But i still call bullshit on condoms breaking. Iv used tons of condoms in my life time and i love rough sex. So far iv never had a condom break on me. Condoms are freakin designed not to break, their tested not to break, thats how they make money. If condoms do break i just find it hard to believe, its possible of course but i call bs it happens as often as people claim it does. But can't really use that for a point because it turns into a your word against mine.

No, it's not my word against yours. Facts are facts, no matter what I say or what you say. This study found that the rate of condom breakage and slippage was 2.7% for their sample group.

#352 Posted by ccraft (5557 posts) - - Show Bio

@ccraft said:

Exactly, thats something I didn't know until I watch the movie.

This is why it's the women's decision, because if she doesn't want the kid, he or she has a higher risk of becoming a criminal.

I'm pro choice

Good video, and I didnt know about this study. Thanks for posting it.

One thing that should be self-evident, however, is that having unwanted children is a bad thing. The study in the video simply confirms this with actual numbers. This is true not because of the higher likelihood of them becoming criminals, but also the higher chances of them being poor, having unhappy lives, not contributing to society, themselves giving birth to unwanted children, etc.

Yup, and if abortion is to be made illegal crime rate will simple rise again. If you haven't watch the whole movie you should, it's called freakonomics http://www.freakonomics.com/movie/ it's also on netflix.

#353 Posted by WillPayton (9815 posts) - - Show Bio

@ccraft said:

Yup, and if abortion is to be made illegal crime rate will simple rise again. If you haven't watch the whole movie you should, it's called freakonomics http://www.freakonomics.com/movie/ it's also on netflix.

I have not seen the movie. Thanks, will do.

#354 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18706 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I mean all this anti abortion talk, the "Its a human life" "It constitutes as murder" blah blah, fukin blah. Makes me wonder that if maybe you all tried to relate to a woman's predicament in such a situation, try to put yourselves in one of their shoes and take a step back and think of such a situation. And I mean really think almost imagine you are a woman who is in such a situation. In a way like the character Will does in Hannibal, something on that sort of level.

You can sympathize with anyone really, even the nazis when they were losing the war, the Russians killed their women and children when they invaded their cities. It only changes the situation so much. When i watch lockdown on national geographic i feel bad for some of the prisoners, from watching the show it appears alot of them don't deserve to go to prison... Then you remember how they got there in the first place.

"I am at least aware of abortion and how seriously women take it and the facts behind the fetus and why it does not constitute as a life."

Why would a women take it seriously a fetus was not a living person? Wouldn't it be like removing your tonsils? Its a big deal for a reason.

So you take one paragraph from my post and take it out of context. And you clearly still do not get it. You still compare abortion with murder with prisoners. You view it as a crime. And yeah you are entitled to view it that way at the end of the day but don't start trying to make a rebuttal to my previous post since I explained in it why that is not needed.

As for why women take abortion so seriously I will just use this quote to cover that:

@lykopis It's my body. My choice. Abortion is a horrible experience -- dangerous and proven to be detrimental to the uterus if repeated. I am not saying there aren't women out there who might use it as a form of birth control but they are far in the minority. It's powerfully difficult decision and experience but one every woman has to right to make and go through free of obstacle.

#355 Posted by Reignmaker (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

When I was younger, I was completely pro-life. I would have never have even considered supporting abortion. Now, at 24, I am pro choice. As I grew, I began to understand the reasons abortions were necessary.

Your story is not uncommon among most 20-somethings. Proof that our liberal education system is doing its job.

#356 Posted by thetonester89 (46 posts) - - Show Bio

I support the right to abortion for women and I understand why it should be legal. For me if I got a woman pregnant I would make sure she knew I would do right by her and the kid because it might make a difference in her decision.

#357 Posted by Reignmaker (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@ccraft said:

@willpayton said:

@ccraft said:

Exactly, thats something I didn't know until I watch the movie.

This is why it's the women's decision, because if she doesn't want the kid, he or she has a higher risk of becoming a criminal.

I'm pro choice

Good video, and I didnt know about this study. Thanks for posting it.

One thing that should be self-evident, however, is that having unwanted children is a bad thing. The study in the video simply confirms this with actual numbers. This is true not because of the higher likelihood of them becoming criminals, but also the higher chances of them being poor, having unhappy lives, not contributing to society, themselves giving birth to unwanted children, etc.

Yup, and if abortion is to be made illegal crime rate will simple rise again. If you haven't watch the whole movie you should, it's called freakonomics http://www.freakonomics.com/movie/ it's also on netflix.

I've read Levitt's book and watched the movie. Levitt's methodology quickly came under attack from other economists and he's since openly admitted that he mishandled the data. Does he still stand by his work in principle? Of course he does. It made him a rock star over night and more money than he'll ever need. In theory, I can see the rise in abortions having a positive effect on crime, but understand that it hasn't been proven that the correlation is nearly as strong as this video clip makes it out to be.

If you're actually interested in objective analysis that doesn't just say what you want it to, you can read more about it here and here. Not that any of this changes either side's minds.

#358 Posted by ccraft (5557 posts) - - Show Bio

@reignmaker: Could anyone change a mind of an individual who thinks they know best for the entire populous? I think not. Government should have no say what women do, considering more than half of them are old men. No one considers the bad implications that could possible happen if abortion became illegal. Some women might go "underground" to get their abortions, which would be more dangerous. Crime would some what rise.

Is it really bad for someone to make money for something? This is America btw.

#359 Edited by PowerHerc (85335 posts) - - Show Bio

I support abortion for some people.

#360 Posted by Reignmaker (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@ccraft: Well, I can understand that, but if you think the government isn't already in bed with everyone on this issue, you need to look closer. I've already stated earlier that I don't think abortions should be illegal, but I do think they need to be regulated much more closely. It's already been established that the current decision making process has very little to do with the stage of the fetus/unborn child. It has everything to do with the arbitrary decision making of the woman. Some are cool with that. To them, that's freedom. To me, it isn't. If we have protections for human vegetables with little to no chance of recovery, we should have protections for future humans who frankly have more to live for. Some kind of weight or deference needs to be given to the fetus in the decision making process. The further along it is, the more difficult it should be to clear the abortion.

#361 Edited by biggkeem89 (1400 posts) - - Show Bio

@biggkeem89 said:

When I was younger, I was completely pro-life. I would have never have even considered supporting abortion. Now, at 24, I am pro choice. As I grew, I began to understand the reasons abortions were necessary.

Your story is not uncommon among most 20-somethings. Proof that our liberal education system is doing its job.

Actually I grew up in a conservative Christian environment, and attended a ultra conservative Presbyterian boarding school most of my life. So, it has nothing to do with a "liberal education system". There's a difference between making a decision based on logic and making a decision based on perceived "propaganda"

#362 Edited by Reignmaker (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@biggkeem89: Both sides do use propaganda. If you feel independent because you left one for the other, good for you. Again, young people are leaving churches by the droves. It's not an uncommon thing.

#363 Edited by HBKTimHBK (5293 posts) - - Show Bio

This thread makes for such wonderful reading.

#364 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (8086 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't like it.

Adoption is always a good thing. Millions of women out there that would love to have a baby.

#365 Posted by UltimateJonathan (107 posts) - - Show Bio

Hell yes

#366 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

Abortion to me is wrong. I hate the whole it's not living argument.

Life starts at the moment of conception. This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. To declare that life begins at any point after the fusing of a wife’s egg and a husband’s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistical chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence – which is fully human. The unborn baby has a distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen. They eat, they grow.

This opinion is only strengthened by a couple of the abortion videos I've seen where they tear the fetus out of the Uterus piece by piece, leg by leg. Another I've seen is where they managed to pull the entire fetus out and it came out living. The doctor slit the throat and I saw that it felt pain.

The only other thing I have say is the my body argument. Unless it's rape, you know that the minute you decide to go and have intercourse, there's a chance that it won't be JUST your body anymore. Do you know how childish that argument sounds. "It's my body and I do what I want with it." That's something my six year old little sister would say. Sex isn't a game. If you're not in the situation for a potential child, then don't do it. Give it up for adoption. I'm sure a girl with Turner's Syndrome would be proud to have it. Maybe it could be a Senator or the President.

But honestly, I'm not basing this answer on scientific exceptions and probabilities. This is based on my personal morals and the empathy I've developed as a person. A human being. I have a cousin whose Mom almost aborted him. Now he's a straight A honor roll student. Don't throw away life.

#367 Edited by WillPayton (9815 posts) - - Show Bio

Life starts at the moment of conception. This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. To declare that life begins at any point after the fusing of a wife’s egg and a husband’s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistical chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence – which is fully human.

The only difference between before and after an egg is fertilized is that two sets of DNA combine into one. It's just another step in the chain of steps that eventually lead to a human being born. There's nothing magical at conception where a "human" is created. There's no "soul" or anything that's added at that point. A fertilized egg is just that, a single cell. A human has many, many more characteristics that are not present in a single cell, or even a clump of cells.

In fact, it's common for eggs to be fertilized and then not get implanted in the uterus. That doenst mean that a "human" is killed, it just means that a fertilized egg is flushed away. Not a big loss really.

Thinking that a living human "comes into existence all at once" is just wrong.

#368 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@pfcoolio14 said:

Life starts at the moment of conception. This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. To declare that life begins at any point after the fusing of a wife’s egg and a husband’s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistical chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence – which is fully human.

The only difference between before and after an egg is fertilized is that two sets of DNA combine into one. It's just another step in the chain of steps that eventually lead to a human being born. There's nothing magical at conception where a "human" is created. There's no "soul" or anything that's added at that point. A fertilized egg is just that, a single cell. A human has many, many more characteristics that are not present in a single cell, or even a clump of cells.

In fact, it's common for eggs to be fertilized and then not get implanted in the uterus. That doenst mean that a "human" is killed, it just means that a fertilized egg is flushed away. Not a big loss really.

Thinking that a living human "comes into existence all at once" is just wrong.

As soon as that egg is fertilized, it turns into a zygote and cell division begins immediately. Unless there's a special case where it doesn't reach the Uterus. It isn't a single cell anymore. And if I quote myself correctly, I don't remember mentioning a soul added to the zygote. Neither did I say it happened magically. A zygote is living because the process of growth and obtaining nutrition through Osmosis happens immediately. Sure it doesn't talk. But at two and a half weeks, it already gives off a heartbeat. If that factor is used by law to determine death, why can't it be used to determine life? It is a human, just in development.

As for the other thing, it's not really common for eggs to not get to the uterus. It happens, but its not as common as you claim it is.

For your last comment, a "living being comes into existence all at once" in that quote. A cell is it not. There's no recipe for a living being. It just is. And if that living being happens to be a human in development, then I guess it's just a coincidence. The DNA is unique, and made for a human to come out. The DNA reads human and as far as I'm concerned, specialization happens after.

I don't think you got what I was saying seeing as you cut off one part to my entire explanation, and then cut off one part of the paragraph. I meant for it to be understood all together. If you read the end of what I wrote, then you probably wouldn't have had to reply.

But I guess my mindset was too "wrong" according to you.

#369 Posted by WillPayton (9815 posts) - - Show Bio

As soon as that egg is fertilized, it turns into a zygote and cell division begins immediately. Unless there's a special case where it doesn't reach the Uterus. It isn't a single cell anymore. And if I quote myself correctly, I don't remember mentioning a soul added to the zygote. Neither did I say it happened magically. A zygote is living because the process of growth and obtaining nutrition through Osmosis happens immediately. Sure it doesn't talk. But at two and a half weeks, it already gives off a heartbeat. If that factor is used by law to determine death, why can't it be used to determine life? It is a human, just in development.

As for the other thing, it's not really common for eggs to not get to the uterus. It happens, but its not as common as you claim it is.

For your last comment, a "living being comes into existence all at once" in that quote. A cell is it not. There's no recipe for a living being. It just is. And if that living being happens to be a human in development, then I guess it's just a coincidence. The DNA is unique, and made for a human to come out. The DNA reads human and as far as I'm concerned, specialization happens after.

I don't think you got what I was saying seeing as you cut off one part to my entire explanation, and then cut off one part of the paragraph. I meant for it to be understood all together. If you read the end of what I wrote, then you probably wouldn't have had to reply.

But I guess my mindset was too "wrong" according to you.

No, you're missing what I'm trying to say. A fertilized egg or zygote has the potential to be a human, but it's not a human. Whether it's "alive" is pretty irrelevant because bacteria are alive. Whether it has a unique human DNA is also irrelevant. A zygote cannot survive outside the womb, that's a fact. It's not a fully-formed human, that's a fact.

Lastly, the scientific community agrees that a fetus is not a human. The Supreme Court of the US agreed that abortion is legal and constitutional. And, most Americans support abortion in at least some cases.

I'll let you contemplate whether you think your mindset is wrong or not. My goal in posting is not to change your mind.

#370 Posted by nerdork (4039 posts) - - Show Bio

Im pro-choice.