Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: Ambulance Y on June 19, 2008, 01:48:42 PM
-
Now this is a tricky question. I think that the choice should remain. I can see why one would value not only life but potential life as well, but I can also see when a young woman would need an abortion at an inconvenient time in her life, like high school. It just bothers me when the hard-headed pro-life population views someone who aborts their baby as heartless and sadistic. I've even heard words like "immature" being thrown at those that are pro-choice. You would have to be very emotionally mature to abort your own child. The fact is nobody wants to abort, it just seems necessary sometimes. Anyway, I'd say I'm pro-choice, but I can sympathize with at least the intelligent ones for pro-life. Alas, there are buffoons on both sides, but that's true for any argument.
What do you guys think?
-
Pro-Choice.
-
Normally, I'm Pro-Choice, but for abortion, only for rare circumstances, like if the woman got raped, or if complications arise in which either mom, the child, or both would die.
-
I have to say I'm pro-choice, but I'd also like to point out the repercussions that the creation of this topic is going to result in.
-
I might have a better opinion if I were... you know, a woman. I'm mostly pro-choice but it really isn't something I can say for sure. There's always the orphanage if it was a mistake, but the poor kid will probably never know its real parents... Rrrrrr...
This is all morally speaking, though. As with the gay marriage issue, on which my views are "unchristian," I think the government should keep its all-sniffing nose out. Combining church and state... it's like this country is a huge, primitive native tribe that does everything on the whim of a deity! I'm Christian, yes, but... an open one...
I don't have to worry about abortion on a personal level, though. Lucky me.
-
As a happily married man with a beautiful and healthy 22-month old daughter it's easy for me to say that I am pro-life, but if I were a woman who had been raped and found out I was going to have a mentally retarded physically deformed baby I would probably feel otherwise. Therefor I don't believes should be forced on others. Scientifically speaking I know that life begins at conception, but that a mass of a few cells is not sentient. So, I won't pass judgment on abortions at this stage, but it's a shame to me that so many people are using abortion as birth control. It'd be much better if people put some planning into there sexual activity instead of waiting until afterward to make a decision to take birth control, the morning after pill, get an abortion, or children. It is their right though. On the hand, I am very much against partial birth late term abortions.
-
This is all morally speaking, though. As with the gay marriage issue, on which my views are "unchristian," I think the government should keep its all-sniffing nose out. Combining church and state... it's like this country is a huge, primitive native tribe that does everything on the whim of a deity! I'm Christian, yes, but... an open one...
This is out of the context of the OPs question, but since you brought it up... My feelings on gay marriage are very similar to yours. Gay marriage does not threaten my marriage. I too think the states should stay out of it. I don't think the State should even issue any marriage certificates, straight or otherwise. Let churches or other institutions perform marriages. Civil unions should be allowed by the State for gays and straights while allowing each state to determine the age of civil union consent. Your post also made me think of Gandi's quote, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." I think it's very Christlike to support gay rights, and wish that modern Christians would quite picking and choosing which old testament rules to follow.
-
This is such a murky issue. It's actually more complicated than killing actual, born babies. To me, carelessness on the parents' part shouldn't call for an abortion, since there's adoption and all, as well as the possibility of living with it and raising the child. That's the mature thing to do. As for aborting due to rape or if the child's birth will kill the mother, I can support abortion. But really, I don't know what it's like, so I don't really want to pass judgment.
-
Wow, this poll is just... sad. When something is wrong (abortion, for instance), it's wrong. There are orphanages, people, if you're going to shirk responsibility, at least preserve life. And if it's a result of rape, yes, I think the decision was forced on the woman, but a human life is still a human life. And gay marriage being off-topic here is a great excuse not to get me started on it.
-
When something is wrong (abortion, for instance), it's wrong.
That's a blazing generalization. The point of this thread is to actually think about the idea of abortion. Let's take this aside from any morality for just a second; regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, people are going to do it on their own. Therefore, it's great that it's legal so people can have safe abortions.
-
How morbid it is. Wow to think people have respect for life not just kill of conscious beings at will.
-
Therefor I don't believes should be forced on others.
Therefore, you don't think that we should make murder illegal, or robbery illegal, or grand theft auto illegal, or treason illegal, or any other number of things. "If I believe that murder is okay, or robbery is okay, or any other number of morally unacceptable issues are okay... then they're okay" This is the kind of though that will bring this world to an end. Shame on you and your relativist thought.
I will have more to say on this issue when I can sit down and write a bit.
I am, indeed, pro-life. What we do to our own children is more disturbing than the Armenian genocide, and even worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews / the Japanese did to the Americans in World War II.
-
I meant that as a man I shouldn't force a woman into doing or not doing something with her body. I think a lot of people misunderstand the pro-choice platform. Being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion. I'm not pro-choice, and if I had to choose one or the other position it would be pro-life, but it's more complicated than that. I see myself as more of a pro-active person. I think that if people are educated to better plan their sexual relationship(s) abortion wouldn't be such a big issue. It amazes me at how little most teenagers know about sex, STDs, pregnancy, abortion, etc. I believe that this education should start at home, but many parents are not equipped to have such discussions with their children or are apathetic because they thing the X will never happen to their child so X shouldn't be taught to them. I therefor believe that sex education in public schools is very important.
-
Pro-choice. The government shouldn't be telling you that you have to have a child. Sometimes a women could get raped. Other times it was a 15 year old girl who got pregnant with a mistake, then she drops out to take care of the mistake, she never goes to college, and works at mcdonalds forever.
-
I'm pro-choice, under specific circumstances. There's the rape issue, but also consider if the choice was made on the spur of the moment, or while under the influence, or if the woman was coerced or intimidated into doing so (either getting pregnant or getting the abortion, or both), or didn't understand what she was doing. Furthermore, if the child is going to die early after birth due to complications, or be horribly deformed/mentally handicapped (or both), the parent(s) should spare the child the suffering and have an abortion.
-
Pro-choice. I think it was either my mom or dad who said that (I can't remember if this something they heard elsewhere or thought up) if men had babies, abortion would be totally legal.
-
One thing I don't understand is why the sides of this argument are named as such. I mean, the term "Pro-Life" seems to invoke that one is for living in general, and "Pro-Choice" sounds like someone who wants to choose in general. Shouldn't they be called something more like "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion"? I mean, that is all this debate is covering, right?
-
Because "Abortion" is bad for PR.
-
Pro-life. No matter what the reason is, abortion is still murder.
-
My objection to some of the points raised by the pro-choice posters:
DISCLAIMER:
I take nothing here personally. I do not hate you, I am not mad at you, but I simply disagree with your view.
1) Rape: After having been raped, the victim has already been subject to enough trauma, so she should not be forced to bear a child which will always remind her of the heinous crime committed against her.
~Objections: The child is not responsible for how he or she was created. Having not been the baby's fault that it was the result of a violent crime by a sick, perverted man, it has the right to be born. If the woman does not wish to keep the child, she certainly may give it up for adoption. Of course, as the apt pro-choicer would point out, the woman would have to go through labor and the gestation period, perhaps to the chagrin of her friends and family. This, however, is a yolk that the woman has a responsibility to fulfill. What regard to human life do we have if we cannot allow a child to live because he or she was the result of a horrid crime? If we simply end the crime with more violence, it shows that we, as a society, cannot overcome violence. Violence should lead to peace, not to more violence and hate.
2)"Special" Births: Because a child will be born with a mental illness or a physical deformity, it is in some way charitable to kill it so that it will not have to suffer.
~Objections: Again, this undermines the absolute dignity of each human person by virtue of his or her humanity. If we allow parents to kill their unborn babies so that they "will not suffer," should we not also be able to kill the mentally or physically handicapped so as to rescue them as well from their skum-sucking, bottom-feeding position in society? By killing those who may be at risk of a mental or physical disability before birth, we are becoming Hitler; we are trying to make a master race. Eugenics, anyone?
~Furthermore, it cannot be morally acceptable to kill the handicapped before birth because we assume that their lives will be bad simply because they will be different, a word we don't like to use much in our society. We'd rather have everyone be the same. Of all the mentally or physically disabled people I have ever met, I have never met a single one who was unhappy or ungrateful for what he or she has. They do not focus on the negative, but rather on the positive. They, being human, can live a life filled with joy, peace, and love.
~Last time I checked, the mortality rate for human beings was 100%. If people will die, why should be torture them and let them live in this wicked, war-torn world? Wouldn't it just be easier and more loving if we killed them and saves them from the pain and toil that they will surely face at some point in their lives?
3) Pro-choice. I think it was either my mom or dad who said that (I can't remember if this something they heard elsewhere or thought up) if men had babies, abortion would be totally legal.
~Objection: I'm not quite sure what this means, because abortion is already totally legal.
4)Men: I'm a man, so I can't have an opinion.
Objection: I'm white, so I can't have an opinion on minority rights. I'm a natural citizen of the USA, so I can't have an opinion on immigration. Human solidarity is key in solving this issue. Simply because I am not able to do something is not reason enough for me not to make my opinion matter. Men are just as responsible as women for creating babies, so they should have just as much say in deciding whether or not a child should live. It is absurd to take a "bye" on this issue, which affects men and women, both as parents and as children.
5)Dangerous Pregnancy: If a woman is in danger of death while in the gestation period, the fetus should be aborted.
Objection: We should, of course, do our best to save both lives. This is the only circumstance in which abortion may be a viable option, however, the situation must mandate that the woman will die if she does not abort the fetus.
6) I think that if people are educated to better plan their sexual relationship(s) abortion wouldn't be such a big issue. It amazes me at how little most teenagers know about sex, STDs, pregnancy, abortion, etc. I believe that this education should start at home, but many parents are not equipped to have such discussions with their children or are apathetic because they thing the X will never happen to their child so X shouldn't be taught to them. I therefor believe that sex education in public schools is very important.
Common Ground: Yes, you are correct, Luigison. The home has the primary responsibility when educating children about sexuality. I also agree that sex-ed in schools is of paramount importance. This is not a cure-all, however. Teenagers will often rebel against what they hear in school, or disregard it altogether and make errors in judgment while they are filled with hormones. In a back-seat situation, the first thing on a teenage guy's mind is not Mr. Thomas's Sex-Ed class.
EDIT 1: Fixed some code errors (italics and bolds).
-
When it comes to moral issues like this, I ask myself: "How does it affect me?" Abortion doesn't, so I don't care what women do. As for the issue in America, however...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
See that "to the people" bit right there? Yep.
-
I completely support abortion at any time for any reason, IF what is inside the womb is not a person. However, science and philosophy clearly indicate that it is. It's alive; otherwise you couldn't talk about killing it, and it's genetically a human; what other species could it be? There are only five differences between an unborn human and me, and none of them make it more right to kill them.
- Size: The baby is obviously a lot smaller than me, but murderers don't get reduced sentences for killing shorter people.
- Level of Development: The baby is less developed than me, physically and mentally, but no sane person thinks it's more right to kill a 2-year-old than a 40-year-old. (Most people would actually think it's worse)
- Environment: I'm in a house, the fetus is in a person. But we've pretty much established by now that whether or not you're a person doesn't have anything to do with where you live.
- Dependency: The baby relies completely on its mother while in the womb. But it's not like it stops being dependent once it's born. It still needs food, clothes, and shelter. In fact, it doesn't really stop being dependent until it's old enough to get a job of its own. Besides, we don't kill people who are dependent on dialysis machines (yet).
- Consciousness: Before a certain point, the fetus is (probably) not conscious. This isn't a good justification, any more than it would be right for you to kill me in my sleep. Besides, we can't tell 100% whether they're conscious or not, and it would be wise to err to caution.
If the fetus is as much a person as I am, then abortion is the same as murder, and all pro-choice arguments -- including appeals to emotion and ad hominem arguments (i.e., "You're a man, so you can't say anything") -- fall completely apart. If, on the other hand, the fetus is sufficiently less of a person than I am to justify killing it, that opens the door to killing any other living humans that are seen as useless.
Also,
When it comes to moral issues like this, I ask myself: "How does it affect me?" Abortion doesn't, so I don't care what women do.
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
If unborn humans are people, their rights must be defended.
In case anyone thinks the quote means I'm comparing pro-choicers to Nazis... At the risk of being completely misinterpreted, I think we demonize Hitler too much. Not in that we should be nicer to him; he is pretty much the pinnacle of human evil so far; but I think we just treat him like Satan incarnate and forget that he started from the same place as us. You and I are every bit as capable of that kind of evil, and far worse, if left to our own devices, and we need to be more aware of that.
And yeah, I know, Godwin's Law.
-
One thing I don't understand is why the sides of this argument are named as such. I mean, the term "Pro-Life" seems to invoke that one is for living in general, and "Pro-Choice" sounds like someone who wants to choose in general. Shouldn't they be called something more like "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion"? I mean, that is all this debate is covering, right?
I'm pretty sure the anti-abortionists made up that name for themselves to make the pro-choice people look bad.
I'm not quite sure what this means, because abortion is already totally legal.
Well, I guess what I mean is that it wouldn't be anywhere near as controversial.
-
"Anti-abortion" fits the "pro-life" bill perfectly, but "pro-abortion" is not exactly right for the pro-choice side. No one's actively going about encouraging people, "Abort your babies! Abort 'em while they still fit in a shoebox!" At least, not yet. Perhaps it'll be a different story when overpopulation is starving everyone, when it's pro-abortion vs. pro-eat... oh my.
Koopaslaya provides some good points. Points I cannot argue.
-
I am 100% anti-abortion and I agree with everything Koopaslaya said. Same with Crosseyed7
-
Before now, I had no real standing of opinion in the topic of abortion. Now I feel that I'm pro-life.
I agree whole-heartedly with both Koopaslaya and CrossEyed7 on their points. Unless the fetus is in a condition that is a sure threat to its or its mother's life, abortion is not necessary. There are organizations, like religious groups, who are willing to aid the mother during her pregnancy and assist in the child's adoption. There are plenty of couples (or single people) out there who want to have a child to raise when they themselves are unable to have ones of their own.
Pregnancy and childbirth are part of life, the most natural. Sure it's long and has its hardships, but that's the way it's been going on since the dawn of man. To abort the child spits upon one of our very purposes in life: to be fruitful and reproduce. Even if the child was what one would label a "surprise" or a "mistake," that's not much of a reason to destroy it like a pencil mark with an eraser. Quote Eric Cartman, "abortion is...cheating life itself." You're directly preventing a person who has come into existence from continuing onward because you cannot deal with the consequences of your or another's actions. The child is not responsible for its own existence. No one can suddenly "emerge" outside of procreation. The same could be said for the rest of us. For all of us who are living, we should be thankful. Our parents devoted their time to ensure that we stay alive and have a chance at life. To quote a parent I spoke with once: "A life without procreation is a very selfish life indeed." I myself would like to raise a kid one day. Even if he or she wasn't my own, it's best to give another a chance at life.
-
What you feel is a purpose for life is not everyone's purpose for life.
-
Perhaps I worded it wrong: I'm not saying that everyone ought to reproduce for the heck of it. If you find out you're pregnant, just go with it: it's a part of being alive, let alone human.
-
I'm all for meaningful and intelligent reproduction; I want fruit when my loins are ready. And I'm sure nobody wants abortion to happen, as BP illustrated before. But it needs to be legal so our women can have safe abortions rather than nasty self-induced abortions. Inconvenient pregnancies will occur regardless of the legality of abortion -- just look what prohibition did alcohol. Nothing, thanks to speak-easies. My point is, on a large scale human nature is hardly ever smothered by the law, and unfortunately human nature entails animal-like sexuality.
-
So why not legalize murder? People are going to do it anyway, and we could save a lot of time and effort if murders were all prearranged, using government-provided cyanide capsules, rather than painful back-alley murders. Of course, that analogy doesn't work completely, since most legal abortion methods seem like they'd be excruciatingly painful for the fetus, but you get the idea. If a fetus is a person, then we can't endorse killing them, even if it's going to happen anyway. If a fetus isn't a person, why should we have any qualms at all about killing them? If it's not a person, then abortion is no different than getting a mole removed.
-
And the barrier between both sides is the question of whether or not the fetus is a person.
So why not legalize murder?
Eh...I'm not a big fan of when people generalize what I say like this, but when I create and post in a thread about such a difficult topic, I should be able to deal with argument techniques like this. You know my opinion, I don't have much more to say.
-
Well, in some early stages of development, the human fetus heavily resembles the fetus of a pig... but that's irrelevant.
-
I dissected a fetal pig in biology last week... FYI.
Final stance: Abortion as a form of birth control = Bad. Abortion as a form of putting a baby that cannot be properly cared for or was brought about by rape/some other horrible circumstances out of its impending misery = Acceptable. Notice how I didn't say "Yes" or "No" to anything. Things aren't as black-and-white as some people think.
Oh, and the population is already causing starvation. Everyone here just happens to live in better-off countries (otherwise, we probably wouldn't be on the FF, but that's besides the point).
-
My objection to some of the points raised by the pro-choice posters:
DISCLAIMER:
I take nothing here personally. I do not hate you, I am not mad at you, but I simply disagree with your view.
1) Rape: After having been raped, the victim has already been subject to enough trauma, so she should not be forced to bear a child which will always remind her of the heinous crime committed against her.
~Objections: The child is not responsible for how he or she was created. Having not been the baby's fault that it was the result of a violent crime by a sick, perverted man, it has the right to be born. If the woman does not wish to keep the child, she certainly may give it up for adoption. Of course, as the apt pro-choicer would point out, the woman would have to go through labor and the gestation period, perhaps to the chagrin of her friends and family. This, however, is a yolk that the woman has a responsibility to fulfill. What regard to human life do we have if we cannot allow a child to live because he or she was the result of a horrid crime? If we simply end the crime with more violence, it shows that we, as a society, cannot overcome violence. Violence should lead to peace, not to more violence and hate.
2)"Special" Births: Because a child will be born with a mental illness or a physical deformity, it is in some way charitable to kill it so that it will not have to suffer.
~Objections: Again, this undermines the absolute dignity of each human person by virtue of his or her humanity. If we allow parents to kill their unborn babies so that they "will not suffer," should we not also be able to kill the mentally or physically handicapped so as to rescue them as well from their skum-sucking, bottom-feeding position in society? By killing those who may be at risk of a mental or physical disability before birth, we are becoming Hitler; we are trying to make a master race. Eugenics, anyone?
~Furthermore, it cannot be morally acceptable to kill the handicapped before birth because we assume that their lives will be bad simply because they will be different, a word we don't like to use much in our society. We'd rather have everyone be the same. Of all the mentally or physically disabled people I have ever met, I have never met a single one who was unhappy or ungrateful for what he or she has. They do not focus on the negative, but rather on the positive. They, being human, can live a life filled with joy, peace, and love.
~Last time I checked, the mortality rate for human beings was 100%. If people will die, why should be torture them and let them live in this wicked, war-torn world? Wouldn't it just be easier and more loving if we killed them and saves them from the pain and toil that they will surely face at some point in their lives?
3) ~Objection: I'm not quite sure what this means, because abortion is already totally legal.
4)Men: I'm a man, so I can't have an opinion.
Objection: I'm white, so I can't have an opinion on minority rights. I'm a natural citizen of the USA, so I can't have an opinion on immigration. Human solidarity is key in solving this issue. Simply because I am not able to do something is not reason enough for me not to make my opinion matter. Men are just as responsible as women for creating babies, so they should have just as much say in deciding whether or not a child should live. It is absurd to take a "bye" on this issue, which affects men and women, both as parents and as children.
5)Dangerous Pregnancy: If a woman is in danger of death while in the gestation period, the fetus should be aborted.
Objection: We should, of course, do our best to save both lives. This is the only circumstance in which abortion may be a viable option, however, the situation must mandate that the woman will die if she does not abort the fetus.
6)Common Ground: Yes, you are correct, Luigison. The home has the primary responsibility when educating children about sexuality. I also agree that sex-ed in schools is of paramount importance. This is not a cure-all, however. Teenagers will often rebel against what they hear in school, or disregard it altogether and make errors in judgment while they are filled with hormones. In a back-seat situation, the first thing on a teenage guy's mind is not Mr. Thomas's Sex-Ed class.
EDIT 1: Fixed some code errors (italics and bolds).
Koopaslaya is my hero.
-
I wasn't trying to generalize, I think it's just a result of our difference of opinion. Both drinking alcohol and murder will happen anyway, but one involves another person's life and one doesn't. Since you don't think a fetus is fully a person, you think alcohol is a better analogy for abortion; since I do, I think murder is a better analogy (and also what I think it actually is).
And the question of what the fetus is is really where the debate should always be centered. If it's a person, killing it can never be fully justified (and incidentally, adoption needs to be simplified; there are already more than enough families willing to take in unwanted children, but it's so much work for both sides that it doesn't happen nearly as often as it should); if it's not a person, kill away (I don't buy the "potential for life" thing. The potential for life exists as soon as you have a guy and a girl in the same room. Once the egg is fertilized and there's a thing that's eating, growing, responding to external stimuli, and has its own unique DNA, it's alive. The only question is whether it's a person. That probably amounts to the same thing, but at least it's more accurate and honest terminology. I think I'm starting to make less sense and get more tangential now, so I'll stop. Parentheticals shouldn't be this long.).
-
I completely support abortion at any time for any reason, IF what is inside the womb is not a person.
This made me lol because I thought you were going to start talking about how abortion is okay if it is a demon baby or something.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rugbyfootball.com%2Ftemp%2Fsatan_and_demon_baby.jpg&hash=c0ef6b707095cb1bc24a48c09f06d936)
-
Wait, there's actually 9 people on this forum that are pro-choice?
I'm not going to argue this, because both sides are arguing for completely different reasons (personal freedoms vs. moral issues) and absolutely nothing that I say, at all, will ever convince a pro-lifer to switch sides. I personally think that if a woman is raped, there's no reason she should ever have to rear a child that's going to be raised by herself and have half the genes of a violent felon. I'd probably change my views on this somewhat if the adoption process wasn't a complete farce.
I will say that abortion is -NOT- murder if the faetus would not have survived outside of the mother.
-
I'm not going to argue this, because both sides are arguing for completely different reasons (personal freedoms vs. moral issues)
Thinkers such as Locke and Kant (along with me) would tend to disagree with your assessment of freedom. Personal freedom is not a license, that is, an empty freedom that allows you to do whatever you want. Rather, freedom requires an active use of reason in accordance to the natural law.
When assessing your observation from this point of view, personal freedom (liberty -- acting in accord with the natural law) and moral issues cannot ever be separated because they are intrinsically linked and are inseparable.
I will say that abortion is -NOT- murder if the faetus would not have survived outside of the mother.
Then you can both accurately, 100% of the time, predict the future and recognize the faetus as a living human because it would be murder otherwise.
-
It's never right to do wrong. It's never wrong to do right.
-
I will say that abortion is -NOT- murder if the faetus would not have survived outside of the mother.
As medical science advances, fetuses become viable earlier. So a 23-week abortion wouldn't have been murder in 1973, but the same one would be murder today. Doesn't it at least seem a little weird to base morality on technology? Was the 23-week-old fetus in 1973 not a person? Did fetuses start becoming ensouled or whatever earlier as technology improved?
Also, why do pro-choicers have any apprehension at all about abortion? If it's not a person, it's no different that getting a mole removed. The fact that most pro-choicers want to limit abortion seems to imply that they have a feeling that the fetus is at least somewhat a person, and the idea that they support it despite that feeling is more than a little frightening.
-
This made me lol because I thought you were going to start talking about how abortion is okay if it is a demon baby or something.
Well, obviously, if the prognosis is Rosemary's Baby Syndrome, the best option is abortion.
-
the idea that they support it despite that feeling is more than a little frightening.
Once again, no one "supports" abortion.
-
In that sense, abortion could probably be somewhat compared to joining the army. Do you really think they want to shoot the other country's people dead just because their home country says they have to? Abortion is kind of a similar principal. There are just some things that have to be done, regardless of how gruesome it may seem. That's the way life works. I know that at some point, I'm gonna end up in such a situation myself...
-
But it doesn't have to be done. Less than 1% of all abortions are a result of incest or rape. The other 99% wouldn't have been necessary if they had used a condom or just not had sex at all (and if someone is so adverse to the idea of children that they would rather kill than go through 9 months of discomfort and then put the child up for adoption, maybe it would be a good idea to avoid engaging in the activity that produces children). Of course, as for the 1% that are, it's still wrong. If the baby is a person, then the argument just doesn't work. War can be justifiable in some cases because the enemy nation has done something wrong and the people being killed either had a part in it or put themselves on the line to defend those who did. If a fetus is a person, nothing can justify killing them (except in the extremely rare cases where the mother's life is at risk). Is it ever right to kill an innocent victim to avoid temporary inconvenience?
-
"Just have to be done"? Really? You actually think this?
P.S. War/armies/shooting people doesn't have to be done either. The reason for the majority of USA fighting is that it just likes to stick its nose where it doesn't belong.
-
Pro-choice. If my mother were to have another child, she would die during labor and have a stillborn baby. People like my mother need the right to have an abortion.
-
The other 99% wouldn't have been necessary if they had used a condom or just not had sex at all (and if someone is so adverse to the idea of children that they would rather kill than go through 9 months of discomfort and then put the child up for adoption, maybe it would be a good idea to avoid engaging in the activity that produces children).
No form of birth control is 100% effective. I do agree with you about not having sex if you aren't willing to risk preganacy, though.
-
See, had I known that little factoid, chances are I wouldn't have said what I said. I admit defeat this time. Still can't say I'm taking any specific side of the argument, thought I will say that I wonder if there's a better way to prevent unwanted pregnancies so the government won't have to worry about the whole abortion issue in the first place.
-
"A better way" ...
-
True; other than abstinence, nothing is 100% effective, but there are several methods that are over 99% effective on average according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Comparison_table). I imagine, half-jokingly, that combining some of them could get you close enough to 100% that if you still manage to get pregnant, God's probably trying to tell you something (either "You should have kids" or "Do you two ever do anything else?").
-
Or possibly "Mary v2.0."
-
Pro-choice. If my mother were to have another child, she would die during labor and have a stillborn baby. People like my mother need the right to have an abortion.
No offense to you or your mother, but I think the solution to this problem does not lie in abortion, but what happens (or does not) before it even comes to the point of a pregnancy. Simply because she has some complications does not give her the right to do that.
-
The other 99% wouldn't have been necessary if they had used a condom or just not had sex at all
The former may be impossible soon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/15/AR2008061502180.html) (those fervently against abortion will be most likely to found/shop at these stores. Note than in trailer trash Indiana and other rural areas, these stores may be the ONLY option for people), and the latter will never happen thanks to human nature.
And yes, a "murder" today may not have been one 30 years ago. Science changes. Hopefully societial moral codes change too, but that seems about as likely as my head actually exploding when I hit "Post".
-
I support abortion. Earth is already massively overpopulated by humans and only getting exponentially worse. We do not need more babies, especially ones the mother doesn't even want.
-
"It has been estimated by Paul Ehrlich and others that human beings actually occupy no more than 1-3% of the earth's land surface. If you allotted 1250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person. The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 -- somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx."
- Source (http://www.juntosociety.com/guest/sperlazzo/bs_opm1010903.html) (you might have to select the text to see it)
Furthermore, in several major countries, including Japan, Russia, and most of Europe, population growth is already negative. Besides, if the mother didn't want a child, why did she have sex? (discounting the <1% from rape or incest) If the fetus is a person, abstinence is a small price to pay to avoid committing murder. (Which is why I reemphasize that no pro-choice argument works if the fetus is a person, so that's what should be debated)
-
I'm really glad to see that we have some people here who go beyond the merely pragmatic and see the invaluable dignity of the human person. Thank you, CrossEyed07.
-
Scientifically speaking I know that life begins at conception, but that a mass of a few cells is not sentient.
I was getting at the person concept with the second part of that sentence. To me being sentient is essential to being a person, not merely being able live outside the mother's body with or without medical support. Also, when can it feel pain?
-
Also, one trend I see with a lot of "pro-life" people is that life is only worth saving before birth. Once you're born, you have less value than a faetus. What, some guy raped you, and the pregnancy got complicated to the point where having the baby will likely kill you? Too bad. That's what you get for being female. You probably deserved it.
Now, no one on these forums is this extreme, not even close. Living in Indiana, though, I've heard stuff like that more times (read, more than zero) than I'd like to admit. I see bumper stickers that say things like "abortion stops a beating heart" which are stupid; if you haven't aborted the faetus by the time the heart forms you DON'T WANT an abortion for whatever reason. I've read things about "fake" abortion clinics which are fronts for religious groups to beat (on rare occasions, literally) into your head that abortion is murder. The "holier than thou" stance that a lot of the more outspoken pro-lifers take is hypocritical trash.
Also, the feasibility of 7 billion people living in Texas is essentially zero.
I also believe that humans do not inherently have dignity. Then again, I'm a hyper-logical person and empathy has practically zero weight in the decisions I make, so whatever.
-
Pro-Choice, although I only feel for girls who are raped. Others, such as horny campus girls, move me little.
-
Steve, you say you have no empathy in your decisions, yet you speak out for the rights of females in horrible situations (rape for example). What's that all about? Is that just "logic" as you say or are you really expressing empathy (understanding what a person is going through) for that type of person? Just throwing it out there.
"Just have to be done"? Really? You actually think this?
P.S. War/armies/shooting people doesn't have to be done either. The reason for the majority of USA fighting is that it just likes to stick its nose where it doesn't belong.
Uh, actually, most wars in the past were fought because maniacs like King Richard, Genghis Khan and Hitler wanted to take over as much territory as possible and the people living there didn't like it. Sure, some wars like Vietnam and Iraq are pretty stupid (because of stupid leaders), but do you honestly believe that we shouldn't have gotten involved into at least a few wars? WWI, WWII and American Revolution come to mind, and WWI and II weren't even started by the US. Also, telling the muslims they shouldn't have fought against the Crusaders would be like telling me I should stand in the middle of a stampede and smile. Sure, I could say that the Crusaders, Nazis and all the other groups were just "sticking their nose" where it didn't belong, but I seriously don't recommend telling power hungry dictators/kings/leaders that they can't have their desired land because they're "sticking their nose where it doesn't belong." Wouldn't you stay and fight a war if a bunch of dudes came over to your house and tried to take it?
Yes, some wars aren't necessary, but others are. Fighting against the enemy (shooting people, as you put it) is necessary if the person who is being invaded doesn't want the invader telling them what to do (maybe Bush should pay attention to that instead of choosing to continue the current operation). It isn't too late to change America's image; we don't have to become the power hungry fools like Richard, Hitler and Khan (lol Khan) that we once opposed. We shouldn't fight unless someone else starts, and in that case, it's time to kick butt (and let's face it, there is always going to be some person out there who wants as much power as possible *coughBushcough*). In closing, war is sometimes necessary, and sometimes it isn't, but never is it never necessary or always necessary.
Final stance: Abortion as a form of birth control = Bad. Abortion as a form of putting a baby that cannot be properly cared for or was brought about by rape/some other horrible circumstances out of its impending misery = Acceptable. Notice how I didn't say "Yes" or "No" to anything. Things aren't as black-and-white as some people think.
This is my stance on abortion BTW.
-
Note that I specifically said USA. Note that I said most. Also I was implying the latter half of the 20th century to the present. I guess that wasn't easy to tell.
-
The so-called "pregnancy pact" that's making headlines: Your thoughts.
-
Besides, if the mother didn't want a child, why did she have sex?
Gee, I can't think of a single reason.
I like how I get to see cute babies in the ads in this thread.
-
I don't mean "Why have sex if you're not explicitly trying to have a baby?", I mean "Why have unprotected sex if you absolutely don't want a baby?" (And once again, more than 99% of abortions are a result of consentual sex, and good birth control methods are over 90% effective.)
Also, if the fetus is a person, then if we're trying to solve overpopulation, we shouldn't immediately resort to killing people when forgoing unnecessary pleasure would work just as well.
-
Like anyone would ever go for that...
-
Well, there's always snipping and tying and whatnot. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
Like anyone would ever go for that...
-
Just to reiterate: I'm not having kids. I think there's actually some sort of website where people can sign this pledge to not procreate, but I can't remember the name. There's even some sort of society (possibly the same one) that is composed of people who want to participate in volutary human extinction. Me personally... I think that most humans are "bad for the earth", so to speak, but all I really think is necessary is a population decrease. No sense in dying out.
-
Pro-choice. The government shouldn't be telling you that you have to have a child. Sometimes a women could get raped. Other times it was a 15 year old girl who got pregnant with a mistake, then she drops out to take care of the mistake, she never goes to college, and works at mcdonalds forever.
Excuses does not mean you have the right to or should just kill it.
-
Ah, found it. (http://vhemt.org/)
-
Call me a n00b for this,but... what does Pro-Choice and Pro-Life (or whatever) mean?
-
Gee, About.com had some pretty good definitions for this:
Pro-life - Believes that the government has an obligation to preserve all human life, regardless of intent, viability, or quality-of-life concerns.
Pro-choice - Believes that individuals have unlimited autonomy with respect to their own reproductive systems as long as they do not breach the autonomy of others.
-
Wait, what? ...Well, seeing as I was typing this already and you beat me to it, I'll just post it:
Pro-Choice: One who thinks that abortion should be allowed. Keep in mind that there are varying degrees of pro-choice-ness.
Pro-Life: One who thinks that abortion is unacceptable.
-
Oh. Pro-Life for me.
-
Note that I specifically said USA. Note that I said most. Also I was implying the latter half of the 20th century to the present. I guess that wasn't easy to tell.
That's alright. I thought you were implying that war should never happen under any situation.
The so-called "pregnancy pact" that's making headlines: Your thoughts.
Not really sure on this one. They're obviously all extremely young to be having kids if they go out and try to get pregnant with some guy off the street, but if they want to, who am I to say they shouldn't?
-
Underage sex and other things many of my peers do for fun sicken me. When you're my age, you should be squeezing every bit of enjoyment out of youth (but... being mature about it) while you still can. You don't have to be naked or intoxicated to enjoy yourself.
-
No, I do think war "shouldn't" happen under any circumstances. That doesn't mean I can't understand why it does.
P.S. Why does it have to be "while you still can"?
-
Perhaps because it's difficult to enjoy youth when you're old? If my grandmother tried running around like she did in her early days she'd probably break her leg.
-
Underage sex and other things many of my peers do for fun sicken me. When you're my age, you should be squeezing every bit of enjoyment out of youth (but... being mature about it) while you still can. You don't have to be naked or intoxicated to enjoy yourself.
Yes, I'll agree that our generation is just bunch of screaming selfish hedonists living lives with little to no meaning. What's new?
-
am, indeed, pro-life. What we do to our own children is more disturbing than the Armenian genocide, and even worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews / the Japanese did to the Americans in World War II.
That pretty sums up my opinion as well. Okay, so I'm a Christian, but my opinion is not just about my religion. It's mainly about the fact that when you use an abortion, you're killing an innocent baby that is defensless against the abortioner and the mother.
What disturbs me even more is that abortion is now the way female teens and young adults get out of being responsible for poor choices like having sex on a whim and doing it casualy with every guy they see. If people would just stop viewing sex as just a simple leisure activity, and view it with the respect and cautiousness it deserves, then none of this would be a problem.
Also, many don't realize that Abortion is an industry, and that groups like Planned Parenthood opperate as buisnesses. These so called "woman's rights activists" actively try to make abortion as open and easily acessable as possible, for the sole reason that the more abortions that happen, the more money they get. This is absolutely disgusting, and groups like this should be prosecuted for making a profit off of killing human life.
This is not just about choice and freedom - this is about not taking responsibility for anything you do in life.
-
For some reason, I think you're going to receive a scathing rebuttal from a certain someone for saying that.
-
I'm pro-life, even against death penalties.
-
You don't have to be naked or intoxicated to enjoy yourself.
Funny, that's the only way I can ever enjoy myself.
-
I'm also against the death penalty. In part because it seems strange for the government to kill people as away to discourage killing, but mainly because it's a huge waste of taxpayer money.
-
I am pro-life. However, I think that an abortion would be acceptable if woman was raped or if the woman would die giving birth to her child. When teenage girls get pregnant as the result of not using protection, I think that it is their responsibility to take care of their offspring. I think aborting the child would be selfish and the girl would not be taking responsibility for her actions. Abortion simply because a woman does not want the child is selfish.
-
I'm also against the death penalty. In part because it seems strange for the government to kill people as away to discourage killing, but mainly because it's a huge waste of taxpayer money.
Yeah, I'm not really a fan of the death penalty either. A life long sentence in prison seems like a better punishment anyway.
-
I think lethal injection is less cruel (and/or unusual) than spending a lifetime in a building full of gang members trying to butt-rape you.
-
I never understood why they issue multiple life sentences to one person. What's the point?
-
Mostly for posterity, I guess. Like how math has different degrees of infinity. The set of all natural numbers and the set of all even natural numbers are both infinite, but the first one feels like it should be twice as big as the second, so it sort of technically is, even though it doesn't really matter; if someone brutally murders someone and gets a life sentence, and a second person kills two people the same way, it feels like they should get a bigger punishment.
-
It also prevents you from getting out by reducing your sentence. Say you only got one life sentence. Maybe you could reduce it through good behavior and get out at some point. With 2+ lives in jail, it's a lot harder.
[Editor's Note: Lizard Dude put no research into this post. Thank you.]
-
Just in case you're actually Mario or a cat.
-
I'm also against the death penalty. In part because it seems strange for the government to kill people as away to discourage killing, but mainly because it's a huge waste of taxpayer money.
Wait, executing criminals and being done with it wastes taxpayer money, but feeding, clothing, and protecting them in prison for the rest of their lives doesn't?
-
How in the world does the death penalty waste taxpayer money? How expensive can it be to inject some chemicals or electrocute a person?
I'm all for the death penalty. Anyone who intentionally kills a person, deserves to be killed themself. Also, it prevents any chance of them doing it again.
-
It's always possible for people to commit less than first degree, aggravated, even accidental murder, goodie. If abortion can be considered murder, then you are condemning a large sum of women (and probably men).
Anyway, I always hear lethal injection costs absurd amounts of money to carry out-- even more than the cost of maintaining one's potentially short life in jail. I'm not sure how this works, as I've forgotten the details. But isn't this a conversation for an entirely different thread?
-
It's always possible for people to commit less than first degree, aggravated, even accidental murder, goodie. If abortion can be considered murder, then you are condemning a large sum of women (and probably men).
I might agree with the first part, but abortion is totally different. While murder can sometimes be accidental or provoked, abortion is a choice that is made, and usually made because the girl doesn't want to take responsibility for her baby and just wants to eliminate it. I honestly don't see why that's in any way equal to accidental murder.
-
Wait, executing criminals and being done with it wastes taxpayer money, but feeding, clothing, and protecting them in prison for the rest of their lives doesn't?
Actually, it costs more to execute someone than to leave them in prison. Think about it: all the appeals, plus the time in prison, plus th execution itself.
-
I'm not really so much pro-life, as I am just anti-choice.
I'm just against abortion. I couldn't care less about the poor, innoent, little fetus and all that nonesuch. I just think that having abortion commercially available to everyone is quite meaningless. I'm really against the whole thing because I believe it's irresponsible and rewards stupidity. With over 9000 methods of contraception, the chance of an accidental impregnation is so unlikely, that if it actually happens, it's a case of 'sucks for you' But to just have unprotected sex for whatever reason, be it ignorance, drunkedness, or whatever, and then just make it all disappear? You gotta be kidding me. If you're gonna do it, do it right, and accept responsibility for your actions.
-
I never understood why they issue multiple life sentences to one person. What's the point?
I know... that is, without a doubt, one of the most idiotic things in the legal system. I mean... geez, I can't even compare it to anything.
-
In some states life might be knocked down to something like 20 years so multiple life sentences may be give to make sure the prisoner in fact gets life in prison. Life can be given for different offenses that add up. Murder three people get three life sentences.
-
It's always possible for people to commit less than first degree, aggravated, even accidental murder, goodie.
Anyone who intentionally kills a person, deserves to be killed themself.
-
In memory of George Carlin...
"One guy, about a month ago, was given three consecutive life terms, plus two death penalties. How [. . .] do you serve that? Even David Copperfield can't do that [edit]. In order to do that, you'd have to be a Hindu."
-
Forest Guy:
I suppose it would have been better if my IP ban was never fixed. (inb4 'it would've been better for us too', 'who says it was an accident?'. e.g...) My work is done here. I have nothing left to say to you people.
Question Mark,
Koopaslaya
-
Anyone who intentionally kills a person, deserves to be killed themself.
It's always possible for people to commit less than first degree, aggravated, even accidental murder, goodie.
"Accidental" really weakened my point there, but imagine what would occur if somebody struck somebody else, out of aggravated rage or self defense, in a manner that, accidentally, was more than crippling. Believing that every person who somehow takes the life on another deserves to lose their own life is simply misguided and prejudicial.
-
"Accidental" really weakened my point there, but imagine what would occur if somebody struck somebody else, out of aggravated rage or self defense, in a manner that, accidentally, was more than crippling. Believing that every person who somehow takes the life on another deserves to lose their own life is simply misguided and prejudicial.
Well, then that wouldn't be intentional. I think what goodie is saying is that anyone who kills someone on purpose, intending to end their life, deserves to die. People who kill people out of self defense or agravation are usually not trying to kill the person, just to stop them from beating up on them. The two situations are different cases.
-
Can you at least use the quote ((https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthemushroomkingdom.net%2Fboard%2FThemes%2Fff%2Fimages%2Fenglish%2Fquote.gif&hash=728e4f665b18527926cb2a7dc36f372a)) button when quoting a post? Doing a quote by copying and pasting text into quote tags makes it harder to tell who said what.
That said, I agree with your interpretation of what goodie said.
-
Zarkanthesmasher interpreted my post correctly.
-
Koopaslaya, I was referring to the endless baww going on in that topic with Vid in it, and that I wasn't going to speak on the matter anymore. I said nothing about leaving. If I did, you can go ahead and point it out to m- oh wait, you can't because I didn't, how bout that!
And following up my amazingly cynical argument earlier on abortion, i think it should be left to the states to decide. (i.e. overturn Roe V. Wade)
-
This topic is about your personal opinion, not the state's opinion. I should know, I made it.
-
In my opinion, it's not about my opinion.
...what? My Paradox GaugeTM is starting to act up.
-
Can you at least use the quote ((https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthemushroomkingdom.net%2Fboard%2FThemes%2Fff%2Fimages%2Fenglish%2Fquote.gif&hash=728e4f665b18527926cb2a7dc36f372a)) button when quoting a post? Doing a quote by copying and pasting text into quote tags makes it harder to tell who said what.
Sorry about that - on other forums I'm used to using the quote tags, as they don't have a quote button. Thanks for pointing that out.
Forest Guy, while I don't necessarily agree with your opinion, I do consider that very logical. It is getting very tiring that the federal goverment now seems to have all the power in the United States - leaving the state goverments without any final say in any issue. Although, sometimes I also think that the Federal Goverment needs to take control of a situation - especially when battling it out in the states is too time consuming and wasteful.
-
Well, Ambulance, I already posted my stance. And my stance as a whole is to make it a state ordered law.
-
Just for fun, I'll respond to something from four pages ago.
I also believe that humans do not inherently have dignity.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." By all means you're free to believe or not believe that (that's part of the Liberty thing), but U.S. law must operate on the assumption that it's true; that as soon as a human begins to exist (note that it's "created equal," not "born equal" like many similar contemporary sources), he or she is entitled to, among other things, the right to continue existing, and "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
-
Hahahahaha @ humans being inherently equal. Something about eyewear tinted a certain shade of reddish-pink springs to mind.
Also I totally disagree with the whole making it against the law to disagree with the "moral" right. Wasn't America founded to OPPOSE an oppressive, overbearing government?
Also "the people" have ~0 say in what the government does. America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or a republic. Those in power do a really, really good job of hiding this.
In conclusion: Abortions for some, miniature American flags (made in China) for all.
-
Hahahahaha @ humans being inherently equal. Something about eyewear tinted a certain shade of reddish-pink springs to mind.
Like I said, you don't have to believe it, but the government is supposed to.
Also I totally disagree with the whole making it against the law to disagree with the "moral" right. Wasn't America founded to OPPOSE an oppressive, overbearing government?
It's against the law to disagree with people who think stealing is wrong, but that doesn't mean that anti-stealing pressure groups rule the government, it just means they happen to have come to the same conclusion as the government on the issue of stealing.
Also, it seems that you're either:
A. Operating under the assumption that abortion is not murder, and therefore outlawing it would be oppressive
B. Okay with the idea of murder, and think the government shouldn't outlaw much of anything
C. Grouping in other religiopolitical issues irrelevant to the abortion debate
Anyway, I'm not making appeals to morality here. I could just use religion to say that abortion is immoral, but I'm not, because that wouldn't justify a secular government making laws against it. I'm saying that science and philosophy point toward the fetus being a human being, and therefore must be protected by the United States government according to its founding principles. Just because my argument comes to the same conclusion as the religious right doesn't mean I'm asking for a theocracy.
-
I said this earlier, but I feel it's relevant to this little microcosm of an argument.
I don't necessarily believe that the act of abortion is truly murder in a literal sense. It's more on a level of like... killing a dog. It's still philosophically wrong, but it's not the same as murdering a person. It shouldn't be legal, but I only think that because it's an act of severe irresponsibility and ignorance. Nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with religion, it's all just a matter of you shouldn't need to do it if you didn't do something wrong in the first place.
P.S. Awesome Simpsons reference, Insane Steve.
-
I'm glad you put "pro-life" and not something like "anti-abortion" or something like that. Because who wants to be "anti"? Thats negative, you wanna be "pro". And I'm also glad to see that most people voted for pro life.
-
I said this earlier, but I feel it's relevant to this little microcosm of an argument.
I don't necessarily believe that the act of abortion is truly murder in a literal sense. It's more on a level of like... killing a dog. It's still philosophically wrong, but it's not the same as murdering a person.
I'll have to disagree on that. I'm of the belief that all life is equal and killing anything, at least with the intent to kill for no reason, is wrong. Plain and simple. Killing a bug just to kill a bug is wrong, and killing a person just to kill a person is wrong. No middle ground. However, because an infant still in a womb is still developing, and has not yet gained intelligence of any sort, it's not on the same level as killing a human; more like a plant.
-
How can you say that? By that logic I can kill anything I darn well please (as long as it isn't an adult) and it wouldn't be bad.
-
I touched on the level of development thing earlier. A 2-year-old is less developed than a 40-year-old, but is it more right to kill a 2-year-old, all other things being equal? If not, then development doesn't affect personhood.
As for intelligence, last I checked, it was still illegal to kill stupid people. (And how do we know whether the fetus has any intelligence anyway? How would you measure that?) Furthermore, babies don't stop developing or having little intelligence once they're born, so your argument also says that killing newborns, toddlers, and possibly any children, at least until puberty, isn't really murder.
-
I am afraid to post in this topic, but here goes..
I am Pro-Life, but do believe that in cases of rape, it's ok to abort. Abortion as birth control is wrong, seeing as actual forms of birth control are up to 92% effective. My wife takes a pill every day.
I had a story, but I am afraid for what would happen after I tell it..
-
Also, it seems that you're either:
A. Operating under the assumption that abortion is not murder, and therefore outlawing it would be oppressive
B. Okay with the idea of murder, and think the government shouldn't outlaw much of anything
C. Grouping in other religiopolitical issues irrelevant to the abortion debate
60% A, 40% C[/quote]
Anyway, I'm not making appeals to morality here. I could just use religion to say that abortion is immoral
Appeals to religion are invalid, except for defining your own PERSONAL(READ: not mine or anyone else's) moral code. Nice try, though.
secular government
...
the government is as secular as it is a democracy. I think there's a reference to religion on both our nation's pledge and our currency.
I'm saying that science and philosophy point toward the fetus being a human being, and therefore must be protected by the United States government according to its founding principles. Just because my argument comes to the same conclusion as the religious right doesn't mean I'm asking for a theocracy.
Explain how -science- exclaims that a faetus is exactly the same as a person. To me, a faetus is as much a human as, I don't know, a pine cone is an actual pine tree. I'll acknowledge the last point about the religious right, though. I'm just bitter.
-
America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or a republic. Those in power do a really, really good job of hiding this.
But our government is a democracy. As long as I don't hurt anyone, I can pursue anything I want. Just because we have a lot of rich people in our country doesn't mean we're an oligarchy. They had to work hard and go through school just like everyone else. It's attitude, not social status, that decides a person's future. Just take a look at our own Surgeon General. He grew up on the streets but now he's own of the most important leaders in America. It's not like an elitist (who, according to you, holds all the power) randomly picked him out to become the Surgeon General. He was picked because he worked hard and studied in order to become the best in his field. If an elitist held all the power, he wouldn't have even been considered because he was poor.
Besides, using social status as an excuse as to why a person didn't make it in life is rather hopeless. That means that anyone who is born into a poor family is doomed to failure. But I think a person is poor, not because he was born poor, but because he refused to work hard at it. Maybe that's why we have so many people in poverty in the first place anyway; the children of a poor man look at their father's failure and decide that his future will be theirs.
-
How can you say that? By that logic I can kill anything I darn well please (as long as it isn't an adult) and it wouldn't be bad.
I said gain intelligence, not continue developing. If it has no intelligence (which I define as the ability to think on a basic level) to begin with, and has not obtained it yet, it's not a person in my book, but a potential person.
-
If it has no intelligence (which I define as the ability to think on a basic level) to begin with, and has not obtained it yet, it's not a person in my book, but a potential person.
You said that you were against killing something just to be killing it, correct? You also said that killing an infant with a reason isn't as bad as killing someone with intelligence (an adult, perhaps); basically, it's like killing a plant. Well, instead of using intelligence as a reason not to kill, how about we use innocence? Let's say (hypothetically) that in my book, a person isn't a person unless he or she is innocent. The baby hasn't done anything wrong (because it's a baby) but the adult has done something wrong (it can be benign as cheating on his girlfriend) somewhere in the past. By that logic killing the adult, who isn't as innocent as the baby, wouldn't be all that bad. Do you realize how that sounds? I don't think we should compare humans to plants here. Killing a human that is unintelligent, innocent and young is just as bad as killing a human that is intelligent, not innocent and old.
-
60% A, 40% C
Well, for A, provide your rebuttal to my arguments that it is. For C, please don't do that. We're trying to have a debate about abortion, not religion.
Appeals to religion are invalid, except for defining your own PERSONAL(READ: not mine or anyone else's) moral code. Nice try, though.
Actually no, but that's not what the debate is about or what I'm doing, so never mind.
...
the government is as secular as it is a democracy. I think there's a reference to religion on both our nation's pledge and our currency.
...Neither of which refers to a specific religion, or, more importantly, was created by the founders. There is separation of church and state, meaning there is no forced state religion and no formal ties between the government and any state church. On the other hand, allowing churches to exist and to espouse their views in public, listening to their petitions, and having religious adherents in the government is part of being a democracy.
Explain how -science- exclaims that a faetus is exactly the same as a person. To me, a faetus is as much a human as, I don't know, a pine cone is an actual pine tree. I'll acknowledge the last point about the religious right, though. I'm just bitter.
Basic science shows that the fetus is a living homo sapiens, with its own DNA distinct from its mother's. Logic and philosophy show, IMO, that none of the differences between a fetus and an adult human make it less of a person and justify killing it (my main argument is over here (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=11838.msg513418#msg513418), for reference.
A pine cone would be a better analogy for a sperm or an egg on its own. Once there's a fertilized zygote, it's more like a sapling -- just like a tree, except a lot smaller. But really, analogies to plants are inadequate, since we don't think killing trees is that bad anyway. (Also, it leaves out the fact that 99% of the people cutting down their trees planted the trees themselves)
-
I dunno. Pro-life people, I just don't get it. A fetus isn't a human being. It's a human fetus. I will give it to them that yes, it's a form of life and that ending a form of life is morally wrong, but still! Abortion is not murder! I'm so sick of hearing that. I can't see how people can call themselves pro-life and meanwhile eat meat. What about the cows? You're killing them, but could still do without killing them.
For the record, Oligarchy is rule by the few, not the rich. Plutocracy is rule by the rich. And while our government isn't necessarily a Democracy OR a Republic, it is by no means an Oligarchy either. [Edit] I wish it were one, because that'd solve a lot of our problems. Oligarchy requires some sort of exclusive status for EVERYONE in the government, however, theoretically anyone can be elected in this nation.
P.S. don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-abortion OR pro-choice or anything. I'm anti-choice. that's right. I'm ANTI. Ooooh, oh no, it's negative.
-
I can't see how people can call themselves pro-life and meanwhile eat meat. What about the cows? You're killing them, but could still do without killing them.
So you think only vegetarians are against murder? I'm pro-choice, I'm just illustrating this confusion.
-
For the record, Oligarchy is rule by the few, not the rich.
Oligarchy is defined as a "form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family, military powers or spiritual hegemony)." When I said "rich guy" I probably should've said "elite" or something like that. But aren't most elitist rich anyway? My main point is that social status doesn't determine where a person goes in life.
-
I dunno. Pro-life people, I just don't get it. A fetus isn't a human being. It's a human fetus. I will give it to them that yes, it's a form of life and that ending a form of life is morally wrong, but still! Abortion is not murder! I'm so sick of hearing that.
Did you read my thing (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=11838.msg513418#msg513418)? Where did I go wrong?
-
Yes, I read it CrossEyed, but see, I disagree with you and most people on several parts. I think killing a baby is less horrible than killing an adult. I think killing someone brainless (literally, i.e. Terry Schiavo) isn't as reprehensible as killing a normal human. It's because human life really is based on what makes you human, such as thinking, feeling, and that sort of stuff. Like I said, I'm not saying abortion isn't killing, I'm saying it can't be called 'murder'. If that's the case, euthanizing a terminally ill patient is also murder.
-
You don't think it's worse to kill an innocent, defenseless victim?
-
If someone I know accidentally gets pregnant, I'll be sure to let you adopt the baby.
-
I'd be honored to save a child from death, though it would probably be better to give him to one of the thousands of families far more prepared to adopt. Seeing as I have no steady cashflow, no residence of my own, a limited amount of maturity, and massive student loans, I know I'm really not ready to raise a child yet -- which is one of the reasons I choose not to have sex.
-
Waste of sarcasm on my part...
-
I can't see how people can call themselves pro-life and meanwhile eat meat. What about the cows? You're killing them, but could still do without killing them.
1. Some people literally depend on beef as a major part of their diet. Not to mention the fact that beef is an integral part of most fast-food chains.
2. Since when is a cow the same as a human being?
Yes, I read it CrossEyed, but see, I disagree with you and most people on several parts. I think killing a baby is less horrible than killing an adult. I think killing someone brainless (literally, i.e. Terry Schiavo) isn't as reprehensible as killing a normal human. It's because human life really is based on what makes you human, such as thinking, feeling, and that sort of stuff. Like I said, I'm not saying abortion isn't killing, I'm saying it can't be called 'murder'. If that's the case, euthanizing a terminally ill patient is also murder.
Human life is based on human life, not thinking or feeling. If they are a human (not an animal), and are living and breathing, who are you to say they aren't as alive as you or me? Strictly speaking, anyone whose basic body functions are being carried out is alive. As for killing a baby vs. killing an adult, wouldn't it be worse to kill someone with no chance to defend themself? Are you advocating killing weak/defective people? Does their being weak or defective make them less of a human being?
-
I agree with Meowrik (!). Killing a cow is much "meaner" than killing a fetus. With that said, I don't care if someone kills a cow and I don't care if someone kills a fetus.
-
I agree with Meowrik (!). Killing a cow is much "meaner" than killing a fetus. With that said, I don't care if someone kills a cow and I don't care if someone kills a fetus.
It's the same thing.
-
Cows aren't the same as human beings, but either way you're killing both of them. I'm just saying, if you're that concerned about killing a fetus, you should feel guilty about killing animals for food as well. See now like Lizard Dude said, I don't care who kills what.
See, the reason I say it's better to kill a baby or mentally ill patient than a normal human is that regardless of what you say, they can't appreciate their 'human life' the way a regular being can. Look at it this way: if you were forced to kill one person out of a group of three, who would you kill? A newborn baby, a 10 year old boy who's just starting to understand the world around him, or a 30 year old mother supporting her two kids? If you have any sense of moral well being, you'd kill the baby. The baby is thoughtless, mindless, it can't understand it's being killed, and it isn't missing much.
It's this same reason why I think funding research on baby diseases like SIDS is a waste of money. They should be using that money to research cures for more horrible diseases like breast cancer and such.
Point and case, in my opinion, human life should be measured on said human's ability to recognize and appreciate its own human life. Basically, you need to acknowledge your own existance to... well... exist.
-
See, the reason I say it's better to kill a baby or mentally ill patient than a normal human is that regardless of what you say, they can't appreciate their 'human life' the way a regular being can.
"In a mad world, only the mad are sane." - Akira Kurosawa
-
See, the reason I say it's better to kill a baby or mentally ill patient than a normal human is that regardless of what you say, they can't appreciate their 'human life' the way a regular being can. Look at it this way: if you were forced to kill one person out of a group of three, who would you kill? A newborn baby, a 10 year old boy who's just starting to understand the world around him, or a 30 year old mother supporting her two kids? If you have any sense of moral well being, you'd kill the baby. The baby is thoughtless, mindless, it can't understand it's being killed, and it isn't missing much.
Even if it is better to kill a baby in that situation, does that justify killing one for convenience? In an abortion, it's not a choice between killing the baby or killing the mother, it's a choice between killing the baby or having the mother go through a few months of discomfort as a result of her irresponsibility (again, ignoring the <1% of abortions that result from rape or incest), and then giving the baby to one of the thousands of people who want one. Is a baby's life really that worthless?
I believe everyone has the right to exist, and that if we don't protect that right -- especially for the ones who have no way of protecting themselves -- we have failed as a civilization.
-
Cows aren't the same as human beings, but either way you're killing both of them. I'm just saying, if you're that concerned about killing a fetus, you should feel guilty about killing animals for food as well. See now like Lizard Dude said, I don't care who kills what.
...
Point and case, in my opinion, human life should be measured on said human's ability to recognize and appreciate its own human life. Basically, you need to acknowledge your own existance to... well... exist.
1. Cows are dumb animals, not human beings.
2. What about an inanimate object, such as a shoe? It is incapable of acknowledging its own existence, but by virtue of its being on my foot, I can say with absolute certainty that it exists. Are you saying that if you just ignore something that can't think for itself, it doesn't exist? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I really don't think you're that naive, but rather that you're trying to justify abortion.
-
Look at it this way: if you were forced to kill one person out of a group of three, who would you kill? A newborn baby, a 10 year old boy who's just starting to understand the world around him, or a 30 year old mother supporting her two kids? If you have any sense of moral well being, you'd kill the baby. The baby is thoughtless, mindless, it can't understand it's being killed, and it isn't missing much.
Forrest Guy makes a very valid point here. It'd probably be better to kill a baby then a mother who has two kids to support. With that being said, I don't really support abortion at all. Maybe I'm anti-choice too.
-
1. Cows are dumb animals, not human beings.
Aw, dat's mean.
-
Ok, here we go...
A fetus isn't a human being.
Yes it is. As soon as it's conceived, it's a living human being. This is not just a religious belief, either. It's been proven scientifically.
I can't see how people can call themselves pro-life and meanwhile eat meat. What about the cows? You're killing them, but could still do without killing them.
Dude, cows don't have souls.
I'm not saying abortion isn't killing, I'm saying it can't be called 'murder'. If that's the case, euthanizing a terminally ill patient is also murder.
Killing a human being is murder. An unborn baby is a human being. Thus, abortion is murder. And yes, euthanizing people is also murder.
They should be using that money to research cures for more horrible diseases like breast cancer and such.
There are already cures for cancer. The medical industry just doesn't want anyone to know about them, because if it was cured they'd no longer be making money from cancer patients.
Point and case, in my opinion, human life should be measured on said human's ability to recognize and appreciate its own human life. Basically, you need to acknowledge your own existance to... well... exist.
So it's okay to kill people in comas too, huh?
-
I agree with Meowrik (!). Killing a cow is much "meaner" than killing a fetus. With that said, I don't care if someone kills a cow and I don't care if someone kills a fetus.
And why is that? Cows are not on the same level as people, and neither are sheep, pigs, or any other kind of animal. Yes, that includes even animals that we love like cats and dogs. HOWEVER, this does not mean that I support killing animals whenever people feel like it. No matter what the animal, killing it inhumanely or for no reason is wrong, end of story.
On the other hand, killing animals like cows for food is necessary, because most humans depend on meat to survive. It would be absolutely impossible to turn the world into a vegetarian planet, and it would have devastating effects on the third world countries. Does this mean that we can kill them however we want? No - once again, killing animals for meat is only appropriate if it is done mercifully. I myself am not happy with how cows are fed into slaughter engines like pieces of wood these days - there's got to be a better way than that. :X
-
Ok, here we go...
1) Yes it is. As soon as it's conceived, it's a living human being. This is not just a religious belief, either. It's been proven scientifically.
2) Dude, cows don't have souls.
3) Killing a human being is murder. An unborn baby is a human being. Thus, abortion is murder. And yes, euthanizing people is also murder.
4) There are already cures for cancer. The medical industry just doesn't want anyone to know about them, because if it was cured they'd no longer be making money from cancer patients.
5) So it's okay to kill people in comas too, huh?
1) Never mind the fact that something like 40% of conceptions are aborted naturally when they can't attach properly, etc.
2) Neither do humans.
3) Killing a person is murder. You have not proven, in the slightest, that an unborn baby is equivalent to a human being. Your argument is flawed. And you think it's more "moral" to force someone who wants to die to suffer for years instead of just letting them die and not have to deal with unbearable pain? Seriously?
4) At least you got one thing right.
5) If there's zero chance of them awakening, the person becomes a strain on resources. If the person in a coma explicitly said they'd rather be killed if put in this situation, then there's -nothing- wrong with letting them die.
Conclusion: My points look as ridiculous to you as your points are to me and nothing I say is going to have an impact on anyone at all
-
Conclusion: My points look as ridiculous to you as your points are to me and nothing I say is going to have an impact on anyone at all
Yup, pretty much.
-
For the soul argument, I'll go with the ancient Roman perspective, and that is if it moves, it has a soul. Hence, animus -> animal. (People are animals too kinda.)
-
Yes humans are animals as there are five kingdoms of organisms not counting what viruses may or may not be and we are not plants nor fungus nor unicellular and so we're animals and just because we don't adapt to the environment and make it adapt to us does not make our species all that special.
-
five kingdoms of organisms
LOL outdated public school biology
-
I actually hate all forms of biology.
-
Including birds and persons?
-
Next time King Phillip tries to come over for good soup, I open fire.
-
Even if it is better to kill a baby in that situation, does that justify killing one for convenience? In an abortion, it's not a choice between killing the baby or killing the mother, it's a choice between killing the baby or having the mother go through a few months of discomfort as a result of her irresponsibility
Whoa whoa whoa! Hold the phone! You seem to have forgotten! I'm not justifying abortion. I'm simply stating my reasoning as to why I'm 'anti-choice' and not 'pro-life.' We agree on the main issue, just for different reasons. Buttttt if it'll make things more interesting, we can go through this some more.
I'm not saying that cows are equivalent to humans beings. I'm saying fetuses are equivalent to cows in that they are both alive and can be killed, but neither are human beings. Come on now, you keep saying that you have scientific proof that fetuses are humans. Where is it? Start citing or I ain't biting.
(rhyming argument for the win)
-
Come on now, you keep saying that you have scientific proof that fetuses are humans. Where is it? Start citing or I ain't biting.
(rhyming argument for the win)
Well, what other species would they be? A bit anticlimactic, I know, but science/common sense says they're humans -- their parents are humans and when they grow up, they would be called humans; the question is whether they're human beings (persons), and to answer that requires philosophy and logic, which, while not subjective (that is, they either are persons or they aren't; my opinion doesn't change that fact either way), are not entirely certain, and if my arguments don't persuade you, I can't do anything more in that regard, and this was a long sentence. But they are members of the homo sapiens species.
(Warning: Clearly religious stuff follows.)
To get much deeper into the philosophical side, beyond the S.L.E.D.C. comparisons, I'd have to get into my religious reasons for being pro-life. In case you're interested, it's very similar to C.S. Lewis's model of morality in The Problem of Pain. Our bodies are ships that have been rented out to us by God, and we (our souls) are the sailors on the ships, making a trip to a distant land (eternity). Morality consists of three aspects:
- We must steer our ships in the proper direction if we want to get to the right destination.
- We must avoid crashing into other people's ships.
- We do not own our own ships, and therefore must not damage them.
However, it's impossible for us to perfectly meet all those standards, and the currency in our homeland is so worthless compared to the currency in the land of the Shiplender that we couldn't possibly afford to pay for even the smallest repair. And that's why we need Jesus. (Okay, I couldn't carry the analogy any further.) We have made offenses against an infinite God, and therefore our punishment must be infinite (If you lie to a 2-year-old, they can't do anything about it; if you lie to your wife, you sleep on the couch; if you lie to your boss, you lose your job; if you lie to the government, you go to jail: the same crime, but against increasingly important authorities). Since we're finite, we couldn't even begin to pay for our offenses after an eternity of punishment. That's why God came to earth to provide an infinite sacrifice to pay for us (He couldn't just overlook our sins, because He's a good judge). If we turn from our sins, bow to Him as Lord, and receive His payment, we will be forgiven. So as Christians, we are no longer in danger of punishment for our sins, but we avoid them because we hate them, due to the new nature we've been given, and because we are eternally grateful to God for saving us from them and don't want to grieve Him by going back to them.
Anyway, I guess the abortion-relevant part is back in the C.S. Lewis segment: our bodies belong to God.
(End of religious talk)
That was a bit of a tangent, wasn't it? Once I get started on this, I can't help but go through the whole thing. But anyway, my main point in this topic is that abortion should be illegal in the United States: fetuses are humans, and the Declaration says that from the moment they begin to exist (all men are created equal, not born equal), humans have the right to exist (and common sense says that when one person's right to life interferes with someone else's right to pursue happiness, the right to life supercedes).
-
(Warning: Clearly religious stuff follows.)
To get much deeper into the philosophical side, beyond the S.L.E.D.C. comparisons, I'd have to get into my religious reasons for being pro-life. In case you're interested, it's very similar to C.S. Lewis's model of morality in The Problem of Pain. Our bodies are ships that have been rented out to us by God, and we (our souls) are the sailors on the ships, making a trip to a distant land (eternity). Morality consists of three aspects:
- We must steer our ships in the proper direction if we want to get to the right destination.
- We must avoid crashing into other people's ships.
- We do not own our own ships, and therefore must not damage them.
However, it's impossible for us to perfectly meet all those standards, and the currency in our homeland is so worthless compared to the currency in the land of the Shiplender that we couldn't possibly afford to pay for even the smallest repair. And that's why we need Jesus. (Okay, I couldn't carry the analogy any further.) We have made offenses against an infinite God, and therefore our punishment must be infinite (If you lie to a 2-year-old, they can't do anything about it; if you lie to your wife, you sleep on the couch; if you lie to your boss, you lose your job; if you lie to the government, you go to jail: the same crime, but against increasingly important authorities). Since we're finite, we couldn't even begin to pay for our offenses after an eternity of punishment. That's why God came to earth to provide an infinite sacrifice to pay for us (He couldn't just overlook our sins, because He's a good judge). If we turn from our sins, bow to Him as Lord, and receive His payment, we will be forgiven. So as Christians, we are no longer in danger of punishment for our sins, but we avoid them because we hate them, due to the new nature we've been given, and because we are eternally grateful to God for saving us from them and don't want to grieve Him by going back to them.
Anyway, I guess the abortion-relevant part is back in the C.S. Lewis segment: our bodies belong to God.
(End of religious talk)
C.S. Lewis is the best (after G.K. Chesterton, of course). Thank you for that.
-
Killing a human being is murder. An unborn baby is a human being. Thus, abortion is murder. And yes, euthanizing people is also murder.
murder ⊂ homicide
While there is no argument that killing another person would be homicide, a murder is defined as being unlawful, usually premeditated and with malice. So long as abortion is legal, it isn't murder. If euthanasia is legal (which as far as I know, it isn't?), it isn't murder. State-administered execution? Not murder.
Well, what other species would they be?
PROTECT MY CELLS.
But anyway, my main point in this topic is that abortion should be illegal in the United States: fetuses are humans, and the Declaration says that from the moment they begin to exist (all men are created equal, not born equal), humans have the right to exist (and common sense says that when one person's right to life interferes with someone else's right to pursue happiness, the right to life supercedes).
Not that the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with U.S. law, just some guy writing off England, and it would be a bit of a bother to resurrect Jefferson just to ask him if he thinks that life begins at conception, as though his opinion were significant anyway.
Look at it this way: if you were forced to kill one person out of a group of three, who would you kill? A newborn baby, a 10 year old boy who's just starting to understand the world around him, or a 30 year old mother supporting her two kids?
Is this one of those riddles where the two kids the mother is supporting are a newborn baby and a 10 year old boy who's just starting to understand the world around him?
-
I think that everyone who's "pro-life" needs to get their birth certificate changed to when they were conceived. Otherwise, it comes off as kind of hypocritical (actually, I've been considering that as an alibi if I ever get in trouble for doing something I'm not supposed to do until I'm eighteen. Of course, it's only valid three months after I turn seventeen...).
-
Comes off as hypocritical to not say that they were born before they were born?
-
I'm not sure I understand your statement ShadowBrain.
-
Well, if we're all going to imply that life begins when you're a minute fetus, then shouldn't those nine months count?
-
But do you know what birth is? And if you wanted to count those nine months, you should have some documentation of your conception...signed by the involved parties...and a witness... :)
-
I'll volunteer to bear witness for legal purposes.
-
But for the umpteenth time, Koopaslaya, I don't know why you're trying to convince me that abortion should be illegal. I already said I agree with you on it being wrong. And yes, I'm a level 85 Christian, so don't worry about bringing religious philosophy in here.
Seriously though, abortion is wayyy too diverse an issue to leave one way or the other. Plain and simple, it should be handled and voted on by state government. That way all the Christian fundamentalist conservatives in Texas have no abortion, and the burnt out ex-hippies turned college professors in Massachusetts can have abortion. It just works out better like that. It's politics.
And on an unrelated note, I haven't seen Eclipsed Moon in a while.
-
While I'd rather just see it illegal everywhere, like regular murder, leaving it up to the states would also be good. It would at least open it up for meaningful debate again (Plenty of people are debating it now, but as long as Roe v. Wade is on the books, it can't really be changed). Leaving it up to the states wouldn't cause any major logistical problems, like gay marriage is. Just as long as parental consent is required everywhere. I mean, seriously, you can't give a kid Pepto-Bismol without getting a signed form from their parents, but you can drive them to another state and get them an abortion without even telling them? (IMO, one of the dumbest parts of the Roe v. Wade decision is the idea that first trimester abortions are so safe that states shouldn't regulate them at all. I'm sure it is safe [to the mother] when done properly, but doesn't the state still have a responsibility to make sure the person doing it is an actual doctor? Or is it just so safe that no one could possibly screw it up?)
-
I'm not really so much pro-life, as I am just anti-choice.
I'm just against abortion. I couldn't care less about the poor, innoent, little fetus and all that nonesuch. I just think that having abortion commercially available to everyone is quite meaningless. I'm really against the whole thing because I believe it's irresponsible and rewards stupidity. With over 9000 methods of contraception, the chance of an accidental impregnation is so unlikely, that if it actually happens, it's a case of 'sucks for you' But to just have unprotected sex for whatever reason, be it ignorance, drunkedness, or whatever, and then just make it all disappear? You gotta be kidding me. If you're gonna do it, do it right, and accept responsibility for your actions.
I actually have to agree with Forest Guy on being Anti-Choice. But I'm not going to argue because I barely know what Abortion is, except for the fact that your killing a fetus. However, I also have to agree with Pt_Peach with aborting a child when the woman did not have safe-sex is just selfish.
-
Look at it this way: if you were forced to kill one person out of a group of three, who would you kill? A newborn baby, a 10 year old boy who's just starting to understand the world around him, or a 30 year old mother supporting her two kids? If you have any sense of moral well being, you'd kill the baby. The baby is thoughtless, mindless, it can't understand it's being killed, and it isn't missing much.
I don't know how I missed this comment.
This is correct, and this question is trivially easy. Babies are in and of themselves useless, and the death of the baby has less of an impact on the society aroud it than the death of either of the other two.
I'll offer this proposition to anyone in this thread. If you can explain to a 14 year old girl who was raped and is now 1 month pregnant why she should be forced to have an unwanted baby, I'll explain to her unborn child why it'd be better that it be aborted then society have to front the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the child being born. Deal?
-
Babies are in and of themselves useless, and the death of the baby has less of an impact on the society [around] it than the death of either of the other two.
But that falls back to whether or not it's all right to eliminate the mentally and physically handicapped. They don't contribute much to society, and it's nothing but vast costs for support, so should they be killed?
-
If it means that a ten year old boy with many friends and is just starting to build a social famework, or a 30 year old mother for which 2 lives -directly- are effected and would deteriorate substantially if she dies wouldn't die, then yes.
That said, most preferable is not killing any of them. But then we'd have a non-question.
-
I'll offer this proposition to anyone in this thread. If you can explain to a 14 year old girl who was raped and is now 1 month pregnant why she should be forced to have an unwanted baby, I'll explain to her unborn child why it'd be better that it be aborted then society have to front the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the child being born. Deal?
"Because, [insert name of 14-year-old pregnant girl here], there are things in this world more important than your being comfortable or uncomfortable for 9 months out of your life. If you don't want the baby, let a married couple who does want a child adopt it."
Hey, maybe we should murder hobos, too, because they're obviously not contributing to society.
And yes, I'm a level 85 Christian, so don't worry about bringing religious philosophy in here.
If you claim to be a Christian, but are advocating abortion, maybe you do need some "religious philosophy."
-
"Because, [insert name of 14-year-old pregnant girl here], there are things in this world more important than your being comfortable or uncomfortable for 9 months out of your life. If you don't want the baby, let a married couple who does want a child adopt it."
Really now. It's more than just being comfortable/uncomfortable. Think about what being pregnant at that age, and actually going through childbirth, can do to your psyche. Here's a hint: it ain't beneficial.
Would you really go up to a 14-year-old pregnant girl and basically say "That's what you get for being a girl" right to her face?
-
Actually, I'd go up to her and say, "that's what you get for walking down that dark alley."
If she was raped (and Insane Steve specified that she was), I'm pretty sure her psyche could handle having a baby.
But that's irrelevant, because her psyche is no more important than the life of her unborn child.
-
Actually, I'd go up to her and say, "that's what you get for walking down that dark alley."
Because, you know, all women who get raped were ASKING FOR IT by walking down a dark alley at night alone in provacative clothing. And a pregnant 14 year old is going to reflect about what happened to her maturely and without any emotional scarring at all. Let's say that she can't face her parents because they're scary "wait until marriage" types and she kills herself instead of confronting them about the kid. Oops. But hey, at least the unborn child is ok, right? ... wait, never mind.
Google the "Just World Phenomenon". Your posts are a perfect example of it.
And if -YOU- claim to be a Christian, and think that acting all "haughtier than thou" make you favorable in God's eyes, maybe -YOU- need to re-read the apparent source of your moral code juuuuuuuuust a bit better.
-
because her psyche is no more important than the life of her unborn child.
And... why? Just life itself is more valuable than enjoying it at all?
-
Actually, I'd go up to her and say, "that's what you get for walking down that dark alley."
That isn't very Christian at all. A girl gets raped so you tell her "Yeah, that's what you get for going into an alley. Never mind the fact that you're 90 pounds and couldn't fight off a 275 pound male." Seriously man.
-
Just for the record... has anyone here changed their position on anything because of these arguments? Same goes for the War thread.
-
Nope, can't change position because poll won't let me change my vote.
-
So, you can't change your...pole position?
Ahem.
Carry on.
-
If you claim to be a Christian, but are advocating abortion, maybe you do need some "religious philosophy."
OH MY GOD HAVE YOU NOT PAID ANY ATTENTION AT ALL?! I am not advocating abortion, for Christ's sakes. (See? I capitalized Christ.) Don't you dare get into a holier than thou fight here with me. I'm a freakin Lay Assistant/Deacon in my Church. Come back and talk to me when you've given Communion to an entire community of people as well as your own Pastor.
-
So you are indeed saying that you're, well, holier than thou.
-
That was amazing!
-
I am. I was asserting TurtleKid to stay out of with me, because with all liklihood I am holier than thou. Or thy. However it would be used.
-
Thy is "yours".
Also, you totally fail at life because you're not supposed to think that doing stuff that you think makes you a better person gives you the right to act like that's what you think.
-
OH MY GOD HAVE YOU NOT PAID ANY ATTENTION AT ALL?!
Nomination for ironic POTY.
-
Thy is "yours".
Also, you totally fail at life because you're not supposed to think that doing stuff that you think makes you a better person gives you the right to act like that's what you think.
First person to construct a flow chart of this gets +15 props.
-
Chup, I'm not stupid. I know what meekness is. I don't walk down the street promoting the fact I volunteer at my Church. However, this guy was questioning my religious integrity simply because I was discussing the notion that fetuses aren't human beings. You should remember that religion starts huge flame wars because many people take great offense when theirs is called into question.
-
I would love to know what fetuses are, if not human beings.
Let's say that she can't face her parents because they're scary "wait until marriage" types and she kills herself instead of confronting them about the kid. Oops. But hey, at least the unborn child is ok, right? ... wait, never mind.
If she was raped it's not like she had the choice to wait or not...
That isn't very Christian at all. A girl gets raped so you tell her "Yeah, that's what you get for going into an alley. Never mind the fact that you're 90 pounds and couldn't fight off a 275 pound male." Seriously man.
You're right, I'm sorry. That statement was out of order.
-
I'm pro-life, but also pro-abstinence. If you don't want a child, then keep it in your pants. And if you're raped, hurry to a hospital and get the invasive ...cells flushed out. If it's too late, I guess I'd hope the person could give birth and then put it up for adoption. Being raped isn't fair.
-
I would love to know what fetuses are, if not human beings.
I would love to know what corpses are, if not human beings.
-
Corpses are still human beings, just dead. We can't support corpses' right to life because they're already dead (although we do generally frown on using corpses in needlessly disrespectful ways). Fetuses aren't dead. If they were, we wouldn't be able to kill them. And they wouldn't grow up into what we can all agree are living humans.
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
Forest Guy, remember that the point of Christianity is that none of us are significantly holier than anyone else. Any goodness we have is only there because Christ put it there, not from anything we've done.
We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
-
Ok, see, there's a problem distinguishing between humans and human beings here. A corpse isn't a being. It's dead. A fetus isn't a being. It's still developing.
Seriously, do you call cake batter a cake? No. It's still batter that will eventually be a cake.
-
Ok, see, there's a problem distinguishing between humans and human beings here. A corpse isn't a being. It's dead. A fetus isn't a being. It's still developing.
By that definition, any teen going through puberty is still developing. Does that mean they're not humans, either?
-
If a corpse was truly no longer a human to us, we would have no problem hanging it up on our walls like game or throwing it into a ditch. Except we don't. We respect our dead by providing funerals and/or proper burials. It's the dignity that we can give them. We give a dead person dignity whether they are human or "used to be human," so conversely shouldn't we give the same respect to fetuses since they are human or "will be human," as you argue?
EDIT: Saying "If we give the same respect to a fetus the same we do to our dead, then it's all right to immediately take it, embalm it and bury it" is a cheap way out and is clearly not what I mean.
-
So, now we're into corpse rights?
I believe all corpses should be beheaded and burned to prevent any reanimation.
-
According to Ryuta Kawashima, your brain doesn't stop developing until you're 20. Should we be able to kill any 19-year-olds who get in our way, since they're still developing?
But after you turn 20, your brain starts deteriorating. Why should we support people who are only going to get worse? (De-develop? Or maybe just velop?) They'll be passing by the same lower mental development levels they passed when they were developing, only this time they're worsening instead of improving. Only people who are exactly 20 years old have full rights of humanity, apparently.
Or does the development rule only apply to them on the way up, but not the way down? The people who have already contributed to society and are declining in their usefulness and virility are more important than the future generation?
-
Does anyone here think that destroying sperm and/or eggs is morally wrong in and of itself? I don't. I think using a woman's menstrual stem cells is a very good idea. Albeit a gross idea. Her body naturally destroys the egg anyway.
http://www.firethecannon.com/2008/07/a-stem-cell-miracle-for-women/
-
I like the way Glorb thinks. Some day, we're gonna have a huge zombie problem since we've been so careless with our corpses over the years.
Seriously though, teenagers have all their organs and are fully capable of sustaining life on their own (theoretically). Hell, even a newborn baby will stay alive fine until it needs to eat or drink. Fetuses on the other hand physically cannot live without their placenta and umbilical chord and all that stuff. That's because they're not yet human beings.
-
People on ventilators cannot physically live without being hooked up to one of these.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F94%2FVIP_Bird2.jpg%2F557px-VIP_Bird2.jpg&hash=b05c5d8e052fd35b681f3bffa851ad8a)
Are they human beings?
-
People on ventilators cannot physically live without being hooked up to one of these.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F94%2FVIP_Bird2.jpg%2F557px-VIP_Bird2.jpg&hash=b05c5d8e052fd35b681f3bffa851ad8a)
Are they human beings?
Yes they are. Human being is social classification. If the guy mutated, he is not a human being.
It it were up to me, I would put a 25 to life ban on abortion.
-
Wait, so what you mean is you'd ban abortion for those over the age of 25? I'm not sure what you mean by 25 to life. If what you're saying is what I think it is, does that mean that it'd be okay for teenage girls who were stupid enough to have sex before they were ready get to have abortions whenever they want to?
-
I think he means a prison sentence of 25 years to life.
-
I don't think it's important how developed a fetus is. A newly formed fetus is very able and usually going to develop into a baby person. Sex is an act that requires a lot of responsibility, because sex is first and foremost a way to procreate. That's why animals do it. That's why humans haven't died out. Granted, many and most humans have sex for pleasure (as do dolphins, fun fact), but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be aware of the consequences: STDs, pregnancy, etc.
A method for preventing pregnancy that is natural, church-approved and 99% effective is known as "Natural Family Planning". For those considering sexual intercourse, I strongly suggest learning about NFP. I think a lack of education may be a reason why artificial abortion exists in the first place. That, and being irresponsible.
I don't have an answer for pregnancy caused by rape.
-
I think he means a prison sentence of 25 years to life.
He said that he'd put a 25 to life ban on abortion. Why would he be talking about a prison sentence anyway?
-
People on ventilators cannot physically live without being hooked up to one of these.
Are they human beings?
No, they're vegetables. That's why euthanasia isn't murder either.
-
So that counts even if they're in full control of their mental faculties?
-
So that counts even if they're in full control of their mental faculties?
You just reminded me of http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/03/wasp-performs-roachb.html
-
Well, what with today's obsession with television and computers and other sedentary activities, I'd say most people are vegetables.
Especially carrots. Those little jerks...
-
You just reminded me of http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/03/wasp-performs-roachb.html
Dude.
-
You just reminded me of http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/03/wasp-performs-roachb.html
Just imagine if humans had the ability to do this. Oh the people I'd use it on...
-
Who said they didn't?
-
No, they're vegetables. That's why euthanasia isn't murder either.
So if I knocked you unconscious, I'd be allowed to kill you?
Also, I think you're probably thinking of a different thing. People on ventilators are mostly just normal people who can't breathe, like Chup said.
-
I consider it only okay to pull the plug on a vegetable if there is no chance of them becoming in control of their brain again. Whereas a fetus has near 100% chance of becoming in control of their brain.
-
Yeah I misunderstood. I thought he was referring to people on life support who are like... terminal.