If a person is mentaly retarded to the point where it can not function on its own and needs help to even eat or pee then for god sake kill it. Even if it's an adult ffs kill it.

I don't think that mental retardation goes to that extent, though it can go high. There's nothing bad about retarded people, so anyone who has something against the 'mentally challenged', get this into your puny little minds: retarded people are hard to pick out from the rest of us screw-ups. They can enjoy a play, see a movie, they can read a book, they can play games, they can assemble certain equipment, they can do almost anything an average person can do. One or two things may require assistance, but they're okay really. My second best friend's retarded, he doesn't need help with much. My cousin's retarded, he doesn't need help with much. Please be more understanding.

That be truth.

Give me a break. That was goodnatured joking. Rise above your preconceptions and see things as they actually are.

Right he is. A little humor never killed anybody, but the lack of humor did.

:pToo bad not everyone finds things like suicide jokes about a member humouress like you do.

I do. :D



Back on topic....

:)The suicide jokes were about me, there was...I'll go count...10 jokes about me getting killed, commiting suicide and my sucky fanfictions and only one suicide joke about Patrick Vykkers...:)I win.

There's a fine, fine line between being funny and being a douchebag. And I'm sorry, but you have crossed that line very often.

Anyway, back on topic!

I think the argument that extreme circumstances allow abortion is absurd. Two wrongs don't make a right. If someone is raped, that's not the child's fault. Shouldn't we punish the rapist by dipping his head in acid and urinating on his grave, rather than killing a child? The child is innocent, he/she has done no wrong.

:)Truth....Though some people are against having a rapists baby because its a rapists baby and they're scared or something....Eh, I think adoption is better.

My thoughts and beliefs have varied throughout the years on the subject. I've arrived at the belief that pregnancies should be allowed at any stage. An unwanted birth is an unwanted birth. If a woman decides during the third trimester that she does not want to have a baby, then she shouldn't go through with it and she should be able to terminate her pregnancy. There's some ethics to consider here because the fetus obviously has a well developed nervous system in the latter trimesters, but I don't think a person should be forced into a life she isn't ready for and no child should be born unwanted. And I'm also a supporter of the government helping the financially needy in this and other medical procedures.

CLEARLY we're not talking about people like that. We are talking about people who are severely mentally handicapped, who will never be able to live independantly and will likely spend their lives either in pain or desperately lonely.

Ambi, there is a thing called adoption here. Killing an innocent child because he/she is "unwanted" is beyond belief selfish. Why not then kill a three day old baby? Why not kill him/her then?

Let's hit a huge topic related to abortion here.

STEM CELLS

And since I am too lazy to write it up myself, here's the wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

I'm sort of a bit undecided on abortion, because there is the fact that if, for example, someone gets pregnant from being raped, it means they have to go through all the trauma of childbirth and all, not to mention the pregnancy itself (which both can actually have lasting effects on the person). But on the other hand, as some have said in this thread, it's also somewhat selfish to kill a child before it even has a chance to really live. And I wonder if anyone thinks about what if their mother had decided to get an abortion when they had them :p
And the other problem I see with it is that, although not having the abortion can have effects too, having an abortion has actually been known to cause problems later in those people's lives, e.g. depression.

But yeah, I can't really decide, it's a bit of a stalemate in my mind :p

I think its the mothers choice to either keep the baby or abort it.

Oh yea and the victim of the rape should just have to bear with it huh? Can't do anything about it because we have to keep in mind the two week old piece of goo thats no bigger then my thumb at this point and doesn't even have developed brains. FFS a 2 week old embryo that is still inside the mother can not be considered life you moron.

Patrick I don't believe your stupidity. You're saying that if a girl gets raped that she should just sit through it and 'deal with it' and put the kid up for adoption when its born? Simple as that? Apparently you have NO idea at all how hard being pregnant is, both physically and emotionally. Putting it up for adoption is not easy. It's not like you just had a TV delivered to the wrong adres and you go 'hm... guess I'll sell it.'
Go buy your own damn opinion somewhere and burn that bloody book of yours!

Havoc

Yes, thats a rather silly statement Patrick. IF the mother wants to get rid of it she should, as shes the one who got raped, and the one who will care for the child the most, (no offense all you males) so it is HER choice. I would find it cruel and utterly stupid if she wasnt allowed to abort her baby if she chose too, just because some idiot claimed a embro was 'life' and it was 'alive' well sure it is, but it doesnt have a mind! Jezz...

I don't like abortion, but it is the parents' choice (the mother shouldn't just have the choice, the fathers genes are mixing around in there too). If it's the result of a rape or if the mother is in medical danger, then abortion should be allowable. If either doesn't apply, then abortion should be allowable until baby is already becoming fully developed. At that point you've had enough time to decide and no one likes to dump out a cake when it's half way through the baking process.

And agree with havoc on nearly everything he's said.

What's the problem with the government funding them?

Appeal to emotion, no true scotsman, and ad hominem all in one paragraph. Lovely.

So, under your definition of life, are people in comas no longer human? Are midgets no longer human? The burden of proof is upon you to prove that embryos are NOT human, despite being biologically human, being shown to react like humans, and being conceived by full humans.

I do know that pregnancy is an extremely hard time for a woman. That does not justify the murder of innocent children. Do I have the right to shoot kindergartners because I had a caboose rammed up my ass and was forced to eat graviola?

A hard time for putting up to adoption, during which the child may experience some unavoidable discomfort, as the mother, IS STILL BETTER THAN THE KILLING OF A ALLAHDAMN CHILD!

I'm sick to bloody death of the "right to choose" argument. I'm a social libertarian, but Allah Muhammad screwing a camel on top of a carousel, your rights end at the next guys nose. Pedophilia is always wrong, because it harms innocent people. Abortion is always wrong, because it harms innocent people. Murder of innocents is wrong, because IT HARMS INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Stop assuming everyone who opposes abortion must be a Bible-thumping, homophobic dipshit. My opinions are based not only on my Catholicism, but my basic sense of human decency.

Before you inevitably pull up the death penalty canard, that is totally different. The killing of murdering rapist pedoscum is totally on a different level to the murdering of children. And if you pull up the wartime bombings argument, the bombings there are normally not intentionally designed to target kids. Abortion is a medical procedure deliberately designed to terminate a pregnancy and kill the unborn.

And to debunk another argument, one of the pro abortion choice movement's favourites, the almighty coathanger. First, the burden is on you to prove an unborn human is not a human being. Without that, you cannot prove that abortion is not morally evil, and thus keep abortion on the same level as murder.

I suppose since thievery is hard and often dangerous, we should legalise it? After all, many poor people thieve because they are in poverty and to feed their families? Many rich people make their living by thieving, and feed their families and keep their lives by doing same.

They're not people because they can't survive outside of the womb at all. They are fetuses. Mass collections of cells that have the potential to be human, but aren't human at the present state.

So they walk like ducks, look like ducks, and talk like ducks, but ain't?

Yeah, unfortunately fetuses just look like babies though.

It's called a metaphor, son.

I'm very, very grateful that no one has given the inevitable misandrist bullshit of;

"STFU! U NEVER WERE PREGNUNT EVA! IT"S TEH WIMMYNS ROIGT 2 CHOOSE, STUPID PENIS MAN! DIE DIE DIE DIE! U GO GET PREGGERS AND THEN FEEL, EVIL CATHYLICK MISOGYNIST COOOOW!"

Or the fundie unempathy of

"BURN EBIL WOMEN! YOU HAVE CHOSEN DEATH, AND SATAN WILL ASSRAPE U FR ALL ETERNITY! YOU EVIL SINNING SATANIC BITCH, GO SERVE YOUR NEAREST MAN AND ROT IN HELL! LOLZORZ!"

Also used;), why does it make someone less human if he/she cannot survive outside of a specific environment? Are people in comas non human? People like Stephen Hawking with Motor Neurone Disease? People with terminal cancer?

And a pretty bad one.

They were all completely healthy beforehand though. "Human" if you will, and I meant surviving outside of the womb. Not any specific environment, just the womb.

ugh, but this is beside the point. As Havoc said earlier, a small little glob of cells does not deserve to be called "human." The potential for one, yes, but as of when that little glob is still a glob, it cannot talk, it cannot walk, and can't interact worth a shit. It's like calling a seed a tree.

(http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/r...argument1.html)

I think the mistake here is in referring to fetuses as 'human' or 'not human'. Perhaps we should talk about 'alive' or 'not yet alive'.

If you're walking down that path then let me show you how a 4 week old fetus looks like and then you can decide if it's human or not. Looks more like fish to me.

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/exhi...-0-0-0-0-0.jpg

However by your definition, it would be illegal to even remove the egg only a second after a sperm managed to get in there because it would then by definition be human, wouldn't it?

There's a difference between a fetus and a baby.

Baby: Fully grown child OUTSIDE the womb.
Fetus: Living developing organism that can not survive outside the womb.

While still a fetus it can not be considered a human life. It doesn't even have shape or personality yet. In fact, at this point it's disposable. I agree that at a certain point, ala 7 or 8 months into pregnancy, you enter a grey area. But if you decide to abort at 4 or 8 weeks, then the fetus is as good as disposable.

Havoc

I'm Christian, and even I think Patrick's being retarded. As havoc and many other have said, life only begins when it's able to live outside the womb. Otherwise, it's either just a collection of cells or a paracite.

"Life; animation: the condition of living or the state of being alive"
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...ition&ct=title)

Here you go again, quoting a bloody book for your opinions. Just because the dictionary says something doesn't mean you have to take it so literally you numbskull!!!

I'm fine with PV quoting books. In fact, I can think of no better argument.

But I really don't get what that quote was meant to prove. I mean... you're using a word to define itself. Doesn't explain anything about the fetus condition.

Fetuses are alive. Debunk that!

While I normally hate dictionary arguments (anti-gay-marriage numbskulls use them a lot) in this case I think they are valid, as if a fetus is life, the termination of the fetuses life is murder.

People have already pointed out that fetuses (in the initial stages) are not self-aware, have little (if any) movement or self control and (most importantly) can not survive outside of the womb.

Compare this to a person who is legally braindead, who is not self aware, has little (if any) movement or self control and can not survive without life support machinery. In that situation, it would be legal (and more than moral) to shut off the life support.

All that said, you have repeatedly put the burden of proof on the pro-abortionists without providing any evidence that fetuses are alive.

My definition of life is "not dead". Fetuses are living, breathing creatures, and the termination of human life is murder. I fail to see how people who are braindead or fetus people are not humans.

Of course they're human. As I said in a previous post, I have no problem calling them human. However, they are not alive.

Fetuses, to all intents and purposes are not alive either. I won't use the word 'dead' because that implies that something had previously been alive. There really isn't an appropriate word for what they are - the closest I can come up with is pre-life. But pre-life is not life and the only thing lost in an abortion is potential life, not life itself.

Oh... ouch. Score one for Nate... I didn't even come up with that one :|

Patrick, you are stubbornly avoiding evey post made against you.

The scientific definition of life backs up Pat's claim that fetuses are alive, but he has yet to prove they are self-aware or thinking beings.

Thus, fetuses are simply something alive. They are not human, nor are they capable of being an identity yet.

And so, this tells me that killing fetuses is not stricly speaking 'human murder', as they are neither human nor any kind of live organism. They are simply 'a fetus'.

What you fail to grasp, Patrick, is that fetuses are not human yet.

And don't give the bullshit excuse, 'Oh, so since it's not human that gives you a good cover for killing it?'

Everyone kills something at least once everyday, be it the pig slaughtered for that ham sandwhich you ate for lunch, or the bugs that got crushed accidently while someone in Peru or Columbia was crushing coffee beans for your coffee this morning.

Things die, and you cause it. Get over it.

That's your opinion. There is much debate on the subject of whether life begins at conception or not and I refuse to accept you as a qualified entry into it. I'm not defending Patrick. He's said some fairly ridiculous things in this conversation but for you to claim that you have some kind of grasp on the truth here while he is floundering around in the dark is also ridiculous.