Al Gore's garbage further disproved

[iSkylla]

Scientific Journal. Why don't you look into who is paying the people that talk, who they work for, and what their interest is instead of just taking their word for it? Google their name. YOU show me proof. I don't want some paid-for talking head's opinion. YOU prove it. Scientificly.So you do not emit CO2? What kind of creature are you? You just got done saying that Al Gore didn't want to tax CO2. Now you lie for him, and say its for something else? Why should I believe you? You couldn't have watched 3 videos that take up about 15 minutes that fast! You didn't even look.

 

Scientific journals, the articles are written by hundreds of people each month and each article is written about a very specific field by people who are experts on it. We're talking peer reviewed articles, there's no bias there.

 

The carbon tax that he proposed would tax the air exhaled by humans, it's a tax on gasoline, cars and he abolishes the payroll tax, no tax increase. I don't understand why it's even that big of an issue. Regardless, you're off topic and you have yet to admit that cars emit CO2 through the burning of hydrocarbons proving one of your many points, wrong.

[dark4181]

This thread has become utterly stupid. I'm not even gonna reply in here any more.. Guess I'm belatedly taking killbot's advice haha

[JonTheSavage]

The carbon tax that he proposed would tax the air exhaled by humans,

 

So you openly admit that you want Al Gore to tax the air you exhale? That is all I am asking. A strait answer, no commentary. Yes, or No. Don't try to misdirect the question or give excuses.

 

And yes Dark, this has become rediculous, so if you support it, go hide in your hole, and let Al Gore tax your existance. People wanting rich elites that ride around in jets, to tax air... It is completely insane. To TAX AIR. Ha. Completely Insane! Al Gore is a nutjob.

[iSkylla]

So you openly admit that you want Al Gore to tax the air you exhale? That is all I am asking. A strait answer, no commentary. Yes, or No. Don't try to misdirect the question or give excuses.

 

I'm not sidestepping anything. I don't believe in taxing air that is exhaled and neither does Al Gore or anyone else for that matter. You still haven't admitted that cars emit CO2, but that's okay.

[JonTheSavage]

I'm not sidestepping anything. I don't believe in taxing air that is exhaled and neither does Al Gore or anyone else for that matter. You still haven't admitted that cars emit CO2, but that's okay.

 

And CO2, something naturally in the atmosphere inhaled by plants, and the natural balance of earth how, toxic how? CO2 is not toxic dummy. Carbon Monoxide is the main toxic substance emmited by cars you idiot. Why did you ignore it?

 

Oh so now you deny it completely? So you are changing your position on your statement, or are you lying? Which is it? You just said a minute ago that Al Gore wants to tax CO2. Now you change your position, and deny Al Gore completely? No, you just don't Beeellllieeeeevveeee. huh ehhe. Jackass.

 

You are a LIER, and a Hypocrite. So just SHUT UP if you can't make up your mind. Do us all a favor and quit producing CO2. You have no "Credibility" anymore. Your mumbling means nothing. You are not Scientific at all, as you so claim. Just a dumb baby yuppie that follows someone else because you don't stand for anything on your own.

[iSkylla]

And CO2, something naturally in the atmosphere inhaled by plants, and the natural balance of earth how, toxic how? CO2 is not toxic dummy. Carbon Monoxide is the main toxic substance emmited by cars you idiot. Why did you ignore it?

 

Oh so now you deny it completely? So you are changing your position on your statement, or are you lying? Which is it? You just said a minute ago that Al Gore wants to tax CO2. Now you change your position, and deny Al Gore completely? No, you just don't Beeellllieeeeevveeee. huh ehhe. Jackass.

 

You are a LIER, and a Hypocrite. So just SHUT UP if you can't make up your mind. Do us all a favor and quit producing CO2. You have no "Credibility" anymore. Your mumbling means nothing. You are not Scientific at all, as you so claim. Just a dumb baby yuppie that follows someone else because you don't stand for anything on your own.

 

Stop the personal attacks NOW because I am sick of it.

 

I'm not scientific? I was just published, among others in Nature journal for research on the inner jet of active galactic nucleus.

 

I said that I am not in favor of a carbon tax and I also said that Al Gore's carbon tax affects cars, houses, businesses, factories etc. I am not talking about the toxicity of carbon monoxide vs carbon dioxide but if you've every done any research, you would know that they are both deadly. Both can poison and both can kill but that is not the subject at hand. What we were talking about was the greenhouse effect of these two gases, CO and CO2. CO has a minimal greenhouse effect and it makes up an incredibly small portion of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, less than 1%; However, CO2 has a very large greenhouse effect and makes up 67% of the greenhouse gases.

 

I've said it two times already but I'll be happy to say it again, when you burn gasoline, you emit CO2, it is a very LARGE part of the reaction, CO is a much smaller part of it and as far as it concerns global warming, it's minutia.

[A Nonny Moose]

The decline of pirates are what's truly causing global warming.

 

 

See, we can use statistics to prove anything. While decreasing pollution is a good thing regardless, screaming doom and gloom isn't the way to do it.

[JonTheSavage]

The decline of pirates are what's truly causing global warming.See, we can use statistics to prove anything. While decreasing pollution is a good thing regardless, screaming doom and gloom isn't the way to do it.

 

I saw that a long time ago. Pretty funny.

 

Stop the personal attacks NOW because I am sick of it.I said that I am not in favor of a carbon tax and I also said that Al Gore's carbon tax affects cars, houses, businesses, factories etc. I am not talking about the toxicity of carbon monoxide vs carbon dioxide but if you've every done any research, you would know that they are both deadly.

 

Heh? I'm sick of your BS lies. So you stop publishing BS. You can't tax air buddy. Thats just {censored} rediculous.

 

CO2 is deadly to plants? Thats a new one to me!

[iSkylla]

Heh? I'm sick of your BS lies. So you stop publishing BS. You can't tax air buddy. Thats just {censored} rediculous.

 

CO2 is deadly to plants? Thats a new one to me!

 

Where have I lied or changed my position and where did I say CO2 is deadly to plants? Let's see quotes.

[antaholics]

Now the air you exhale is going to be taxed dummy. You exhale CO2. Now your government wants to tax it. God damn you are dumb.

 

Whats "Credible" in YOUR humble opinion? The mainstream media? the sites owned by the 5 richest men in the world? What makes the 5 richest men in the world "Credible"? Because they own %95 of the media? Sounds like liberal propaganda to me. You are faaaarrrr too trusting young yuppie. Please explain what a "Credible" site is! I want a solid definition based on facts. That is something YOU believe in. Facts. Right? Don't be a {censored} hippcrite. If you are using a browser that supports pop-ups, then you can't be too "Credible", or smart for that matter. "Credible", in YOUR OPINION, is just someone that YOU AGREE with. You do this because you hate the truth, and want to accept the same opinion as your liberal friends because you don't want to look different in their eyes. You want to THINK the same way as your friends, because you don't want to be attacked by them. You stand for NOTHING, so you fall for anything.

 

Or maybe some other stupid liberal yuppie can explain how the air you exhale is causing global warming. Cars produce carbon monoxide (CO), not CO2.

I don't appreciate the personal attacks... they just make you look like you have nothing to say (which you don't) and tells more about yourself than the person you are trying to attack.

 

I think it is safe to say that a scientific journal based on RESEARCH and one that is peer reviewed is MUCH more CREDIBLE than some conspiracy theorist article on a very sketchy site.

 

It's already been repeated OVER AND OVER that you will NOT get taxed for exhaling CO2. Can you read? Cars produce BOTH CO2 and CO, and as already stated, CO is poisonous to humans (so is CO2), but as a greenhouse gas, CO2 is much more dangerous.

 

Burning hydrocarbons (aka. gasoline) produces CARBON DIOXIDE! That is the FIRST thing you learn in organic chemistry. You are making repetitive arguments based on NO FACTS and we've already disproven everything you claimed. I am not liberal and I couldn't care less which side these people are on -- global warming is a fact and last time I checked, there's no politics in natural phenomenons.

 

Here's some FACTS I think you should swallow before you keep saying the same things over and over:

 

1. humans produce CO2, but combined with the CO2 plants absorb, globally this adds to ZERO

2. cars and industries produce CO2 by burning fossil fuels and natural gases. THESE produce a large amount of CO2 that go INTO the atmosphere. This, not the CO2 you exhale, are causing the problem.

3. Cars also produce CO, but that does not contribute as a greenhouse gas, which is what we are concerned with right now.

[killbot1000]

LIBERALS, or Neo-Cons (Bush & Clinton), same thing. Like to take away rights from others, and give themselves "Special Rights", at the expense of others. Conservatives want to be left the {censored} alone. Liberals are so dumb, that they don't know that they already have those rights under the Constitution. They want the government to do everything for them, because they are too {censored}-poor lazy to do it themselves. They want to bend over backwards and lobby the government to give them something at the expense of others. They like to give money to people in other countries when there are people starving in their own. They talk about "{censored} rights" because they are so stupid, that they don't know the constitituion already gives them those rights, so they want special "Priviledges". They want the government to protect them from their worst fears because they are too chicken to face them themselves. Conservatives say {censored} the government. We would be better off without them, because the few of us, that actually are conservative, maybe one out of a hundred, look after ourselves, and want the government out of our lives. But liberals want to step in and oppress us. Then the government calls for the statist nationalists to come in, and fight the liberals on "rights" that both already have. They are just to stupid to know it. They want specail priviledges. So I say {censored} them both.

 

You say liberals are kind, when they are really greedy little twinkle toed government worhsiping bastards that hate everything that freedom is. Liberals are so {censored} blind, that they can't see who their real enemy is... the government.

 

The answer to 1984, is 1776.

 

One day, when liberals pull their head out of their ass, it will be to late, and they will be lying dead in a concentration camp because they douldn't defend themselves from their real enemy... the government.

 

It happens all the time, everywhere, around the world. Too bad you won't realise that before its too late. The Germans thought the same way you did when they gave up their guns for the "common good" under Hitler... a true democracy in action.

 

I agree with you about the whole clinton, bush thing. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee for the Democratic party, I cannot vote for her because of her disingenuous nature. But in regards to liberals, I don't know what kind of liberals you've met, but honestly most of the ones I have met are kind.

 

I realize conservatives just want to be left alone, and I respect that, but you say that liberals try to oppress us. Conservatives (or at least people who claim to be conservatives) do the same thing. They will vote on politicians who support suppressing the constitution in order to promote the illusion of safety. They will be for tax cuts while going to war at the same time, costing us and future generations lots of money and therefore less freedom in what we can do with OUR money from OUR labor. They will deny a woman the right to control her own body, they have a strong stance against harmless marijuana when alcohol kills people. They promote more police officers while at the same time cutting funding to anything which actually gives people real help. They advocate abstinence only sex education when in reality there are safe methods to have sex which prevent pregnancy and STD's (but lets just not talk about it).

 

We live in one of the most dualistic and hypocritical nations on this entire planet. BTW when I say that I am liberal, I don't mean post-FDR liberal in America, I mean classical liberal.

 

I am not pro government, but I believe it is necessary.

 

I advocate a government with lots of social programs, but a government which (tempered through technology) is extremely efficient and would not need a huge, bloated infrastructure, therefore being able to tax people at a negligible level while still being able to maintain vast social programs such as universal health care, unemployment services, education, etc.

 

This government I have just laid out though is unlikely to come to fruition, so at the end of the day we have two choices (Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Conservatism) for our future in America, because unless everybody bands together, real change is not going to happen, and I believe real change is NOT going to happen any time soon.

 

The problem I believe is that people in this country are simply uneducated. And when I say education, I am not referring to schools. Our schools do quite a poor job at educating the public, anybody who has half a brain in this country must educate themselves, and in doing this, they will start to see the truth of how {censored}ed up all of this is. If people begin to educate themselves, the stupid arguments that have divided us over the years will simply fade away.

 

Everybody should pick up a real book about society, social inequality, counter-intuitive reasons for why things happen, etc. and really start to educate themselves in the ways of critical thinking. Some great books to throw out there:

 

Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville

Suicide by Emile Durkheim

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber (pronounced "Vaeber")

 

The scary thing about all these books is that they hit the nail right on the head (most of these are written in the 1800's and they make predictions about the kinds of problems we might encounter in the future and in many cases these problems have turned out to be true).

 

JontheSavage, don't just throw slogans out there to "fix" problems (ie: the answer to 1984 is 1776). It has an American-centric view of the world and doesn't really mean anything if you actually say it. Your message seemed to indicate the answer is revolution. In that regard I completely agree. However contrary to popular belief, revolutions don't happen when conditions get worse, they happen when conditions get better. A revolution will not happen unless the public starts to educates itself and realizes how {censored}ed up everything is, before that point nothing will happen and we will continue to see more of the same. Pour all of your effort into educating other people on the affairs of the world and the country and what the implications are and what these implications actually mean and get enough of them to educate other people and the problems will begin to fix themselves.

 

Good day sir!

[iSkylla]

Tocqueville is really good albeit very dense and Hofstadter is much more modern but great stuff.

[killbot1000]

Tocqueville is really good albeit very dense and Hofstadter is much more modern but great stuff.

 

Good, I'm so glad somebody here has read them!

[antaholics]

as a non-american, I don't know too much about american politics, so I will not pretend to know a lot

 

I think that it's good for everyone to have their own views, as long as they are rooted with the right reasons (and not blind belief), key word being "reason".

 

One thing I can't stand though, is about what people say about what "a woman should have the right to do with her body". By that, I am assuming you are talking about the right for a woman to have an abortion. It sounds dandy and all, but the truth is, the babies getting killed are living human beings. I honestly don't think that anyone -- neither a woman or a man -- has the right to kill innocent people, especially babies who are still waiting to be born. Something around 95-97% of abortions are for convenience, and that's disgusting. I fully agree with abortions where the mother and/or the baby is in danger because of health conditions, and I think girls who are raped is questionable in terms of abortions... but I believe that NOBODY has a right to kill a baby just because it's inconvenient to have one.

 

Sorry for taking this off topic, but I had to voice it out

[killbot1000]

as a non-american, I don't know too much about american politics, so I will not pretend to know a lot

 

I think that it's good for everyone to have their own views, as long as they are rooted with the right reasons (and not blind belief), key word being "reason".

 

One thing I can't stand though, is about what people say about what "a woman should have the right to do with her body". By that, I am assuming you are talking about the right for a woman to have an abortion. It sounds dandy and all, but the truth is, the babies getting killed are living human beings. I honestly don't think that anyone -- neither a woman or a man -- has the right to kill innocent people, especially babies who are still waiting to be born. Something around 95-97% of abortions are for convenience, and that's disgusting. I fully agree with abortions where the mother and/or the baby is in danger because of health conditions, and I think girls who are raped is questionable in terms of abortions... but I believe that NOBODY has a right to kill a baby just because it's inconvenient to have one.

 

Sorry for taking this off topic, but I had to voice it out

 

Yeah, this is definitely where we disagree. I don't see an embryo or a fetus to be a fully living human being. And even if they were, who cares? We kill thousands of fully formed human beings every day for convenience. The fact is, if a woman aborts a fetus, theres a hundred other women out there popping out babies to take the place of that fetus at any time. I could see us having a problem with abortions if our population was in danger but its clearly not, in fact we have the opposite problem, we don't have enough to go around, so why burden the society with more children by force? It doesn't make any sense, and the women in this case can choose to keep the fetus if they want to or get rid of it if they want to, it is completely their choice, its not as if the state is saying that abortions are required, if the state did do this, I would be one of the first people marching against it. But honestly, when we have to worry about real people dying, starving, killing, and spreading disease, why the HELL are we even touching this subject?

 

The problem is that you see an undeveloped fetus as a baby fully formed before its even born. This is not what it is, it is a developing life, with many of its pieces missing, and therefore cannot be a fully functional human being, and cannot be considered a FULL human being. While I agree that this procedure should not be taken lightly and that it should not be used out of pure convenience, I feel that it is a necessary evil. Without legal abortions, women would do them anyway through less sanitary and more dangerous means.

 

This is exactly what I have been talking about in many of my posts, there are people who would interfere with a persons life who they don't even know (government restricting abortions). And really everybody needs to mind their own business and let these people live their lives how they want to (minus harm to the overall society). I have slowly started to learn that the abortion debate has very little to do with abortion as it has to do with sex in general. Almost every person that I have talked to who was against abortion is also against comprehensive sex education.

 

I will ask them "so lets say you guys win and abortions are banned, what's next, what will you focus on after you have won that battle?" and much of the time the answer is "well we would work to make contraceptives illegal". This is a very important point here.

 

People who are anti-abortion in general do not want to live in the universe which is our modern world, they would have us throwing our efforts into making the world as it was in yesteryear (many decades ago). A system in which women and men would have NO access to contraception or education related to how sex actually works, and they would be forced to rely on antiquated customs, religious belief, and superstitions to guide their sexual lives and education.

 

Many of the people pushing this anti-abortion message are deeply religious and not only that, happen to mostly be evangelicals and fundamentalists who take the bible literally and who would use their religious belief to change the political landscape to one which would give preference to evangelical Christians and their beliefs. The sad sad part though is that its working.

 

Our country is more religious now than it has ever been (in politics). We will entertain things that are absolutely ridiculously stupid to please the dim-witted masses (such as teaching intelligent design in a SCIENCE CLASSROOM).

 

There's one thing to consider in all of this even if one is not evangelical, religious, etc.

 

People are not important, every one of us is a grain of sand, most of us can be replaced at anytime and by anyone. A few of us are black grains of sand on a white beach (people who stand out). But they are incredibly rare. The only thing that matters is the species as a whole. We must promote whatever action benefits the society as a whole (this includes people having individual rights, etc.). Abortions neither fall on one side of the fence nor the other. The fact that abortions are done out of convenience one could argue is a good thing. What society needs a whole bunch parents who aren't prepared to be parents, children who aren't adequately provided for, etc? It only constitutes a drain on the society.

 

People should have children when they are ready, they will do a much better job, and the child will be happier too. It's not as if we have a limit to the amount of children we produce, if we abort one, we can simply make another one later.

 

This sounds like a callus view on human beings. But I am not trying to be, I have a vast respect and sense of importance for human life, but ones importance is determined by what they do, not what they are. The view that one is more important simply because they ARE something has been exactly what has led to all the problems we face as a society. What we need to do is get rid of tradition and privilege start using common sense and practical solutions to problems. This is something we have failed to do as a species because of lack of empathy, lack of critical thinking, arrogance, pride, and prejudice. We all need to start waking up, or risk destroying ourselves.

 

Thank You.

[antaholics]

Yeah, this is definitely where we disagree. I don't see an embryo or a fetus to be a fully living human being. And even if they were, who cares? We kill thousands of fully formed human beings every day for convenience. The fact is, if a woman aborts a fetus, theres a hundred other women out there popping out babies to take the place of that fetus at any time. I could see us having a problem with abortions if our population was in danger but its clearly not, in fact we have the opposite problem, we don't have enough to go around, so why burden the society with more children by force? It doesn't make any sense, and the women in this case can choose to keep the fetus if they want to or get rid of it if they want to, it is completely their choice, its not as if the state is saying that abortions are required, if the state did do this, I would be one of the first people marching against it. But honestly, when we have to worry about real people dying, starving, killing, and spreading disease, why the HELL are we even touching this subject?

 

The problem is that you see an undeveloped fetus as a baby fully formed before its even born. This is not what it is, it is a developing life, with many of its pieces missing, and therefore cannot be a fully functional human being, and cannot be considered a FULL human being. While I agree that this procedure should not be taken lightly and that it should not be used out of pure convenience, I feel that it is a necessary evil. Without legal abortions, women would do them anyway through less sanitary and more dangerous means.

 

This is exactly what I have been talking about in many of my posts, there are people who would interfere with a persons life who they don't even know (government restricting abortions). And really everybody needs to mind their own business and let these people live their lives how they want to (minus harm to the overall society). I have slowly started to learn that the abortion debate has very little to do with abortion as it has to do with sex in general. Almost every person that I have talked to who was against abortion is also against comprehensive sex education.

 

I will ask them "so lets say you guys win and abortions are banned, what's next, what will you focus on after you have won that battle?" and much of the time the answer is "well we would work to make contraceptives illegal". This is a very important point here.

 

People who are anti-abortion in general do not want to live in the universe which is our modern world, they would have us throwing our efforts into making the world as it was in yesteryear (many decades ago). A system in which women and men would have NO access to contraception or education related to how sex actually works, and they would be forced to rely on antiquated customs, religious belief, and superstitions to guide their sexual lives and education.

 

Many of the people pushing this anti-abortion message are deeply religious and not only that, happen to mostly be evangelicals and fundamentalists who take the bible literally and who would use their religious belief to change the political landscape to one which would give preference to evangelical Christians and their beliefs. The sad sad part though is that its working.

 

Our country is more religious now than it has ever been (in politics). We will entertain things that are absolutely ridiculously stupid to please the dim-witted masses (such as teaching intelligent design in a SCIENCE CLASSROOM).

 

There's one thing to consider in all of this even if one is not evangelical, religious, etc.

 

People are not important, every one of us is a grain of sand, most of us can be replaced at anytime and by anyone. A few of us are black grains of sand on a white beach (people who stand out). But they are incredibly rare. The only thing that matters is the species as a whole. We must promote whatever action benefits the society as a whole (this includes people having individual rights, etc.). Abortions neither fall on one side of the fence nor the other. The fact that abortions are done out of convenience one could argue is a good thing. What society needs a whole bunch parents who aren't prepared to be parents, children who aren't adequately provided for, etc? It only constitutes a drain on the society.

 

People should have children when they are ready, they will do a much better job, and the child will be happier too. It's not as if we have a limit to the amount of children we produce, if we abort one, we can simply make another one later.

 

This sounds like a callus view on human beings. But I am not trying to be, I have a vast respect and sense of importance for human life, but ones importance is determined by what they do, not what they are. The view that one is more important simply because they ARE something has been exactly what has led to all the problems we face as a society. What we need to do is get rid of tradition and privilege start using common sense and practical solutions to problems. This is something we have failed to do as a species because of lack of empathy, lack of critical thinking, arrogance, pride, and prejudice. We all need to start waking up, or risk destroying ourselves.

 

Thank You.

I must first say that I am by no means Christian... in fact, I disagree with that faith, ESPECIALLY fundamental believers who take the Bible literally. However, this is besides the point.

 

I take this side of the abortion debate simply because I believe that killing people is wrong. Fetuses (starting at a very early time like 3 or 4 months) have developed almost all features of a fully grown human being (mouth, eyes, nose, brain, and vital organs), and to say that they are "not human" is simply blind.

 

What you are saying is implying that as a society, abortion is getting rid of problems more than its causing, and it is okay to kill people (in the form of human fetuses), if it benefits our society as a whole. Taking that implication further, perhaps we shouldn't provide social services for the needy either, because they are people being a burden to society, and if we kill them all it would make our society stronger.

 

I have nothing against contraceptives. I believe that if we educate the public to practice safe sex methods and avoid these unwanted pregnancies in the first place, abortions would not be a problem at all. Better education = fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortion problems.

 

Studies show that if abortion were made illegal, most women would choose not to have it rather than follow unsafe, illegal abortion methods. Many women who have abortions regret.

 

There are also a surprising amount of parents who don't have children but wish to adopt.

 

I personally believe that, given the choice, I would much rather live in a home where parents might not have the full financial capability to support me (and thus have the government provide adequate social services) or be adopted rather than DEAD. The important thing for the government to do is to provide better education to ready parents and help those who cannot support their children.

 

I don't think a person's right to live has to be determined by his or her value in society.. as humans, we have a right to life, period. Even if we are just grains of sand in society, each one of us is important and should have the same rights. We shouldn't allow abortions to kill millions of innocent babies every year simply because they have no value in society. Instead, we should educate people about the truth of abortions, and how to practice better sexual methods to avoid scenarios that lead up to abortions.

[killbot1000]

I must first say that I am by no means Christian... in fact, I disagree with that faith, ESPECIALLY fundamental believers who take the Bible literally. However, this is besides the point.

 

I take this side of the abortion debate simply because I believe that killing people is wrong. Fetuses (starting at a very early time like 3 or 4 months) have developed almost all features of a fully grown human being (mouth, eyes, nose, brain, and vital organs), and to say that they are "not human" is simply blind.

 

What you are saying is implying that as a society, abortion is getting rid of problems more than its causing, and it is okay to kill people (in the form of human fetuses), if it benefits our society as a whole. Taking that implication further, perhaps we shouldn't provide social services for the needy either, because they are people being a burden to society, and if we kill them all it would make our society stronger.

 

I have nothing against contraceptives. I believe that if we educate the public to practice safe sex methods and avoid these unwanted pregnancies in the first place, abortions would not be a problem at all. Better education = fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortion problems.

 

Studies show that if abortion were made illegal, most women would choose not to have it rather than follow unsafe, illegal abortion methods. Many women who have abortions regret.

 

There are also a surprising amount of parents who don't have children but wish to adopt.

 

I personally believe that, given the choice, I would much rather live in a home where parents might not have the full financial capability to support me (and thus have the government provide adequate social services) or be adopted rather than DEAD. The important thing for the government to do is to provide better education to ready parents and help those who cannot support their children.

 

I don't think a person's right to live has to be determined by his or her value in society.. as humans, we have a right to life, period. Even if we are just grains of sand in society, each one of us is important and should have the same rights. We shouldn't allow abortions to kill millions of innocent babies every year simply because they have no value in society. Instead, we should educate people about the truth of abortions, and how to practice better sexual methods to avoid scenarios that lead up to abortions.

 

But thats the thing, were NOT important. I'm not important, you're not important, most of the people on this board are probably not important. But...thats ok. It doesn't mean that our lives cannot have meaning or that we can use it as an excuse to kill people. I never said anything like that. We are all un-important together and in being so, we ARE important in relative terms (important to each other).

 

What I am saying is that WE are not important as individuals but each of us is a puzzle piece which makes up the whole, and THE WHOLE is important. Fetuses do not contribute to the whole, not until they are born. You are defining it as a fully formed person, its not. It is turning INTO a person, it is developing, etc. When it comes to abortion I believe that women should make their decision regarding it one way or the other quickly (but well thought out at the same time).

 

Your statement regarding many women regretting abortions is wrong. Most of the data on this subject has shown that most women feel relief (if they actually didn't want a child). If however there is any part of them that wanted to keep the child, or felt that it was wrong, THEN they tend to regret it.

 

Again, when it comes to my argument of parents not being prepared to have children, most people (including yourself) jump right to the money argument, that you would much rather have parents with unable financial support than being dead. But this is not what I was referring to at all. Economics is a part of it, but it is the LEAST important part. The most important part is having two emotionally stable parents, parents who stay together, parents who know how to teach their children about life, parents who know how to care for their children when something goes wrong (and it will). I know plenty of families who have plenty of money but don't know the first thing about taking care of their children. THAT to me is much more disgusting that abortions, its irresponsible and wrong. Women almost never go to get an abortion out of convenience. It is a hard decision to make for any women, and we shouldn't make it any more difficult by forcing them to choose one way or the other.

 

Money is worthless, the thing that really holds all of us together is our simple human interaction. The socialization that we have endured in turning us all into greedy, money-hungry pieces of $hit is what's tearing us down, its sad that most of us don't realize it.

 

I am not saying this subject of abortion can't be open for debate, there IS certainly a debate here, and people tend to fall on one side or the other of this fence, but at the same time I feel it is irrelevant to be talking about abortions when there are much bigger fish to fry. Once we figure out how to not kill regular people, then we should focus on abortions. Until then, this conversation doesn't make any sense.

[antaholics]

But thats the thing, were NOT important. I'm not important, you're not important, most of the people on this board are probably not important. But...thats ok. It doesn't mean that our lives cannot have meaning or that we can use it as an excuse to kill people. I never said anything like that. We are all un-important together and in being so, we ARE important in relative terms (important to each other).

 

What I am saying is that WE are not important as individuals but each of us is a puzzle piece which makes up the whole, and THE WHOLE is important. Fetuses do not contribute to the whole, not until they are born. You are defining it as a fully formed person, its not. It is turning INTO a person, it is developing, etc. When it comes to abortion I believe that women should make their decision regarding it one way or the other quickly (but well thought out at the same time).

While I agree with you that in the big picture, not any one of us is important, I don't think that being "not important" constitutes that it would be okay to kill any one of us. I don't think that it is right for us to say that it is okay to kill off those that don't "contribute" to this society. I'm not defining a fetus as a fully grown human being -- simply that it is living life. Personally, I don't believe taking innocent life is something we should be entitled to do, ESPECIALLY for convenience.

 

I also think that there is only a very very fine line between babies already born, those close to being born, and those still "developing". There's no sudden change in the baby when it is born -- it simply leaves the mother's womb. The difference between a developing fetus to a baby just about to be born (some abortions happen to babies in the third trimester, where they could be potentially given birth to and be fully functional) is no different than a child and an adult. A teenager undergoing puberty is technically also "developing".

 

Your statement regarding many women regretting abortions is wrong. Most of the data on this subject has shown that most women feel relief (if they actually didn't want a child). If however there is any part of them that wanted to keep the child, or felt that it was wrong, THEN they tend to regret it.

I don't actually know if this data is correct, as I did read it from a biased pro-life source. However, the argument they were making was that many women who undergo abortions are not aware of what they are taking out. The public is not aware that abortions often involves taking out very human-looking fetuses, sometimes limb by limb, and not just clumps of tissue in the woman's womb. If the public is aware of how graphic and gorey abortions are (which is censored by the media, but a quick google image search ought to give you a good picture), I believe that their impressions of it will change. The "regret" comes not from wanting to keep the child, but from the knowledge that they had killed their fetus so violently.

 

I am not saying this subject cant be open for debate, there IS certainly a debate here, and people tend to fall on one side or the other of this fence, but at the same time I feel it is irrelevant to be talking about abortions when there are much bigger fish to fry. Once we figure out how to not kill regular people, then we should focus on abortions, thats just my personal view, I hope its not TOO crazy.

Abortions kill millions of babies a year... much more than any war, hunger, or any other social issues present in our society. I agree that there are a few issues much more immediate than abortions, it's still a pretty big problem.

 

Again, when it comes to my argument of parents not being prepared to have children, most people (including yourself) jump right to the money argument, that you would much rather have parents with unable financial support than being dead. But this is not what I was referring to at all. Economics is a part of it, but it is the LEAST important part. The most important part is having two emotionally stable parents, parents who stay together, parents who know how to teach their children about life, parents who know how to care for their children when something goes wrong (and it will). I know plenty of families who have plenty of money but don't know the first thing about taking care of their children. THAT to me is much more disgusting that abortions, its irresponsible and wrong. Women almost never go to get an abortion out of convenience. It is a hard decision to make for any women, and we shouldn't make it any more difficult by forcing them to choose one way or the other.

Then that is another problem society should seek to solve. The answer to bad parenting is not simply to kill the children off, but for society to teach people to be better parents.

 

By "convenience", I mean reasons like "we don't want a child now".

 

Please explain to me one thing:

 

If it is okay for us to kill fetuses because they do not contribute to society and hence are unimportant, what is stopping us from killing homeless, jobless, and permanently disabled people? Not only do they contribute nothing to our society, they are a burden (in comparison to unborn fetuses which do not burden the society). Do they not have every right to life as you and I have?

[killbot1000]

If it is okay for us to kill fetuses because they do not contribute to society and hence are unimportant, what is stopping us from killing homeless, jobless, and permanently disabled people? Not only do they contribute nothing to our society, they are a burden (in comparison to unborn fetuses which do not burden the society). Do they not have every right to life as you and I have?

 

 

This is at the root of the entire argument. The debate isn't whether or not women should be allowed to have abortions. The debate is whether or not a fetus is considered a person. I do not consider a fetus to be a person, therefore I feel nothing when a woman somewhere decides to get an abortion, it literally means nothing to me one way or the other.

 

All I was really trying to argue was this simple point:

 

Fetuses aren't people because of blank blank and blank, and even if they were, none of them are important people, so who cares. When it comes to people who are a burden on society, such as the homeless, etc. They do have the same right to life as we do, but should we care if suddenly they happen to pass away? I argue that we shouldn't, not really anyway.

 

When it comes to fetuses, the reason why this is a debate today and why it will continue to be a debate is because both sides are right AND wrong. A fetus is not a full person, there's no way it can be, the very reason why we call it a fetus is because its developing INTO a person. This is why I stress women making this decision as early as possible, because the earlier in development the fetus is, the less of a person it is, the longer a women waits, the more wrong it becomes. If a fetus is aborted in a timely matter (1-2 months from conception), how can you really argue that its a full person? It's not.

 

The only reason why I accept abortion (even late in the pregnancy) is only because of the implications for such legislation, if we are to make late term and mid-term abortions illegal, this only opens the door for making ALL abortions illegal BECAUSE human beings cant stand probability, they need certainty, and right now the certainty mark is when a baby is BORN. But if late-term abortions are illegal, then the line starts to move to the NEXT level of "absolute certainty" which is conception. When one can call a fetus a person though is actually somewhere near the middle of the pregnancy, but there are no guide posts, no lines, etc. People won't be able to handle this and we will either allow full abortions or allow none. It is the way we have always ruled and it is the way we will continue to rule in the future, people need to feel certainty even where there's none. It is a deep flaw in our species.

 

To be honest, I do not feel strongly either one way or the other on this debate, but I feel that any decision which increases the freedom of people to choose their own future is a good thing. This includes abortion and contraception. If the public decides that fetuses are people, that's fine too, it plays into my argument as well.

[antaholics]

Fetuses aren't people because of blank blank and blank, and even if they were, none of them are important people, so who cares. When it comes to people who are a burden on society, such as the homeless, etc. They do have the same right to life as we do, but should we care if suddenly they happen to pass away? I argue that we shouldn't, not really anyway.

That's the part that bothers me (bolded). I don't think that we should have the right to kill someone just because they are unimportant. There's a difference between "suddenly happening to pass away" and us allowing people to kill 46 million of them worldwide every year.

 

When it comes to fetuses, the reason why this is a debate today and why it will continue to be a debate is because both sides are right AND wrong. A fetus is not a full person, there's no way it can be, the very reason why we call it a fetus is because its developing INTO a person. This is why I stress women making this decision as early as possible, because the earlier in development the fetus is, the less of a person it is, the longer a women waits, the more wrong it becomes. If a fetus is aborted in a timely matter (1-2 months from conception), how can you really argue that its a full person? It's not.

I don't know about you, but this looks human enough to me to find it murderous:

fetus at 9 weeks old (just over 2 months).

 

Fact:

- Pain receptors develop at about 7 weeks into pregnancy.

 

I personally think that this looks like it hurts like

 

Unfortunately, most abortions happen much later than this. However, you're right. It's impossible to draw a discrete line and say "we shouldn't have abortions after this time", and thats what makes this whole issue difficult. I respect your opinion, but personally I think fetuses are human enough for the act of abortions to be murderous.

[killbot1000]

Unfortunately, most abortions happen much later than this. However, you're right. It's impossible to draw a discrete line and say "we shouldn't have abortions after this time", and thats what makes this whole issue difficult. I respect your opinion, but personally I think fetuses are human enough for the act of abortions to be murderous.

 

I respect that and I guess we will have to just agree to disagree, but the simple fact of the matter is that I'm a guy, I don't have to deal with it (abortion), and I feel like it's not really my place to tell women what they should or should not do with something that may or may not be human enough to.....(you get the picture). So I kind of just stand back and debate, like we are here. Good arguments back and fourth. You at least have good points for why you think the way you do. That's all I was really looking for. Theres already enough blind ignorance in this world . Glad you aren't perpetuating it.

 

If the political climate changes again in the future toward one of NOT allowing abortions, I hope the people behind the movement have some real thought behind their motives (like you). Christian Fundamentalism has ruined this country (the US), and to see THEM succeed would both sadden and annoy me.

[A Nonny Moose]

Fetuses aren't people because of blank blank and blank, and even if they were, none of them are important people, so who cares. When it comes to people who are a burden on society, such as the homeless, etc. They do have the same right to life as we do, but should we care if suddenly they happen to pass away? I argue that we shouldn't, not really anyway.

 

That is the single most inhumane reason for anything I have ever heard.

[apowerr]

When it comes down to it, later abortions are in fact killing something that will be/is human. Abortions should be avoided as much as possible, contraceptives are a much better alternative. However, abortion should never be completely outlawed and is a (sometimes) necessary evil.

[killbot1000]

That is the single most inhumane reason for anything I have ever heard.

 

You misunderstand me. I believe we should do everything in our power to help ANYBODY, but I am ALSO saying that we shouldn't care as much when people die for stupid reasons. It's just part of being human...dying for stupid reasons.

 

Another way to say the same thing:

 

Help people, be generous, etc. But don't make an angel out of somebody who clearly wasn't one.

 

Also, let me put it a 3rd way so that maybe people will understand my reasoning a little better:

 

My life:

 

I live life by a formula, regardless of how I feel, think, my prejudices etc., I will say to myself "what is the right decision here, what will help people the most? I hate all these people, but that doesn't matter, if we foster an environment of common good and cooperation, eventually everything will start to move in that direction, and we will have a better society, put all the {censored} aside and only focus on what is real"

 

Something like that, I hope I come off clearer now, and I hope I don't sound incredibly callus to everyone here.

[iSkylla]

I say, you're offtopic and hijacking a thread.