Report: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion

Dirt · **Sat Oct 09, 2004 6:54 am**

Say the word Zeke! Preach it brotha!

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Founder: The notable difference being that my parents actually wanted a child. I see your point, but it isn't applicable to me.

Kyre · Commodore Joined: 15 Mar 2002 Posts: 1263

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Kyre: Perhaps. There is sufficient evidence to the contrary to convince me that what I said was true, however. Still, if I had been aborted I wouldn't be here to care about it; and none of you would care because I would never have existed to you. So what would it really matter? That's my point of view. If you're killed before you exist to the outside world, your potential means nothing. It is as if you never existed at all.

Arellia · **Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:58 pm**

Perhaps it does not affect people outside the child. (Except the moral implications the mother/father will have to deal with the rest of their lives) Yet I still can't justify the killing of 38 million CHILDREN in the U.S. alone. Does it make much more difference when the child had been born? Still hasn't effected change in the world, it would be young enough to go off without a hitch. Oh, yeah; except that it might actually scream when you kill it, rather than the silent ascention of a fetus. That and the addition of a little extra blood on the table...excuse my gore...

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Perhaps you have a point. My greatest objection to that would be that, once it is born, it will have already impacted the world around it and begun to achieve conscious awareness of it. Still, I suppose that if the parents didn't want the child and no one could be found to adopt it it would be practical to kill it.

Arellia · **Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:12 pm**

Wow. "Practical to kill it." Amazing. That's just...wow.

We have the resources in this nation to keep these children. We really do. They...I just...

Wow. You stumped me. So, parents have arbitrary, unilateral domain over whether or not their children live or die until the child has effected the outisde world. Uh-huh. Yeah. Out the door with Humane rights. HUH.

-if you cannot notice my sarcasm there, I recommend you seek councilling- *heh-heh*

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

We have the resources, but not the will. We do not have the facilities. People don't want to pay for the facilities. It is not moral to put babies out on the street to die, yet for many there are none that wish to care for them. Something must give. This is why the government needs our tax dollars. Only through moving all such services to the public sector can we trust a fair and equal decision and facilities to raise all of America's "junk children." Due to the inherent greed of our race, individuals cannot be trusted completely with their own destinies. Freedoms and morality must come second to order and equality. We cannot sustain our future the way we live today. I would be happy to give my money, my home, my very life and soul to a government that would take full responsibility for its people.

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

...heh, that's my radical-left side coming through right there. Sorry, I'm not trying to put you off. This is just what I believe.

Arellia · **Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:27 pm**

I understand. Should probably continue the government argument elsewhere.

However, adoption is not that difficult, as I've said before. The government shouldn't have to intervene. But, that's just my opinion there, as well. Go figure.

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

I agree. The government shouldn't have to interfere in adoption. People should handle it on their own. The problem is, they don't. Someone has to deal with it, then.

Republican_Man · **Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:46 pm**

I agree with Exalya 100%

Kyre · Commodore Joined: 15 Mar 2002 Posts: 1263

Well, you can't have equality without morals. That's one theory blown out of the water.

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Hitchhiker · **Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:33 pm**

Republican_Man · **Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:55 am**

Kyre · Commodore Joined: 15 Mar 2002 Posts: 1263

Republican_Man · **Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:20 am**

Hitchhiker · **Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:37 pm**

I'm not saying that morals and equality are mutually exclusive. But true equality lies in a totally objective system. Everything has to be equal and of the exact same value, there can be no subjective judgement. I would not be able to place the colour red over the colour yellow, they would both be equal.

I'm also not saying that you have to discard morals to achieve equality. I'm just pointing out that sometimes, morals do get in the way.

Hitler had morals, just the wrong ones. He was immoral, not amoral.

Republican_Man · **Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:54 pm**

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

*Points at RM*

Flip-Flop!!!!! You John Kerry you.

I am so dissapointed...

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Interestingly, it is because of morals and values that inequality exists. Morals are relative. Just as it is now considered "moral" to allow all citizens to vote, it was once considered "moral" to keep womean and minorities from the polling booths. We see slavery as "immoral" now, but in its time it was also considered moral. Morals do not determine reality, they simply color it.

Republican_Man · **Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:44 pm**

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

Republican_Man · **Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:52 pm**