Pro-life/ pro-choice. Weigh in.

[Cale The Dark]

Heh, sorry about that. I'm just not as experienced in philosophy as you are. But it still strikes me as morally repugnant to impose morals on others. Convince them of better ones, sure. But to say that there is a "universal objective order" of right, wrong, and superior morals? No matter who says it, I find it repulsive.

But I am sorry for sounding so insulting; just me lashing out since I haven't had a chance to explore any of those things yet.


So you have no problem with murderers? You have no problem with theives or rapists? If you do you need to stop "imposing your morals on others". Fact is that we do it every day. Morals must be imposed on those who would disregard them in favor of chaos in order to preserve the highest level of life possible for the greatest number of people possible.

[Tetzel]

So you have no problem with murderers? You have no problem with theives or rapists? If you do you need to stop "imposing your morals on others". Fact is that we do it every day. Morals must be imposed on those who would disregard them in favor of chaos in order to preserve the highest level of life possible for the greatest number of people possible.

I have a problem with those who cause pain and suffering to others. When you interfere with someone else, you've brought their concerns and rights into the equation and they take precedent over yours, because you're the aggressor. Then, the defender is not imposing their morals upon the aggressor, they're defending them and allowing them not to be violated.

Now, one could argue that you're interfereing with the right to happiness of an unborn child with abortion. However, due to the small, insignificant amount of pain involved for the child, and the choice and responsibility the mother must accept, it's justified if the mother feels it's in her best interests.

Imposing morals would be violating someone else's right to happiness that has no effect whatsoever on your own. That is what a pro-life person is doing. I won't tell someone that murder/r**e/whatever is wrong and let that be the sole justification. I would try to convince them otherwise. If I fail, their interference in the pursuit of happiness of others should be punished however their particular society works.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

So....just a couple of clear cut questions for all of you pro-choicers.

A woman should be able to have continued abortions due to her own irresponsibility?

Abortions should be allowed in the 2nd trimester?

Abortions should be allowed in the 3rd trimester?

And really, abortions in the 3rd trimester, with the ONE exception of the mother's safety, are MURDER. There is a living being in the womb that breathes, reacts, and most likely could live outside of the womb with support.
How anyone could condone this travesty is beyond me.
I'm not trying to rationalize between trimesters here, because I really don't like the thought of abortion, but there have to be concessions made between both sides, because right now, pro-lifers have NOTHING.
How this was legalized with barely any guidelines is a tragedy. I do feel that this will be changed at some point.

In case any of you haven't read my earlier posts...both sides should come together on something like this:

-NO abortions after 6-8 weeks into the pregnancy, with the exception of the Mother's safety.
-Only ONE abortion allowed per lifespan, with the exception ****, incest ****, and the Mother's safety.
After this ONE abortion, women should mandatorily be subjected to
safe sex classes and a psycho evaluation.
A psycho evaluation should be administered mandatorily in ANY case.
-All abortions after 6-8 weeks should be outlawed except for SPECIAL cases
listed above, and these cases must be WELL documented and proven.
-Any abortions, in normal cases, after this period should carry criminal penaties with them.
-Any abortions after the allowed ONE abortion, in normal cases, should carry criminal penalties corresponding with the stage of pregnancy.
-Abortions in the third trimester, in normal cases should carry a capital offense with it...1st degree murder charge.
-Abortions in the 3rd trimester that carry a danger to the mother should be left up to the mother. If the mother isn't able to make this decision, then the abortion should be carried out to save the Mother, if absolutely needed.

You have to compromise on these issues to get anything done. Like I said, right now, pro-lifers have NOTHING, and will continue to have nothing unless they move from the extreme. The above summary would cut down on abortions GREATLY and punish those that do not concur with stiff penalties. Not only would you be cutting down on the number of abortions, but you would be educating the mother as well. You would also be drastically cutting down on abortions that happen after 6-8 weeks into the pregnancy.
I think this would be a great victory for Pro-Life supporters, and I do NOT think it would nearly as difficult to obtain as would outlawing the process completely, because I do not believe that will ever happen.
It's fine not to believe in it at all, but believing and doing something about are two different things, and I, as a pro-life supporter would much rather have the description above than nothing at all.

[Frekke]

So....just a couple of clear cut questions for all of you pro-choicers.

A woman should be able to have continued abortions due to her own irresponsibility?

Abortions should be allowed in the 2nd trimester?

Abortions should be allowed in the 3rd trimester?



I have some questions for you. If your compromise were accepted, do you think that would be the end of the matter? Would you be satisfied and not pursue it any more? Do you think the majority of the pro-life persuasion would then drop the matter and be satisfied?

To be fair I'll answer your questions as best I can.
This issue is not clear cut for me. I don't know the answers to when things should be allowed, and when not, because each situation is unique. I think that this is something that can only be decided by the individual with a complete understanding of all the factors involved and their own personal concience. I do not presume to make choices for other people. In the end we are responsible to ourselves and potentially whatever it is that makes life possible. Your concience drives you to be against abortion, and to try to convince others that it is wrong and thats fine. I think we must remain free to choose, because in the choosing we find out who and what we are.

Frekke

[SaroDarksbane]

The law? so what? I was never talking about the law.
If we wanted to debate the law then this would be an utterly boring topic.
So law is an out-of-bounds topic in a discussion about whether or not abortion should be legal?

Now you're just making **** up.

[BhsCrew]

So law is an out-of-bounds topic in a discussion about whether or not abortion should be legal?

Now you're just making **** up.

Here I thought we were debating the law? I mean the debate is over the legality of abortion.

By the way, who posted that quote? You didn't include a name.

[BhsCrew]

You have to compromise on these issues to get anything done. Like I said, right now, pro-lifers have NOTHING, and will continue to have nothing unless they move from the extreme. The above summary would cut down on abortions GREATLY and punish those that do not concur with stiff penalties. Not only would you be cutting down on the number of abortions, but you would be educating the mother as well. You would also be drastically cutting down on abortions that happen after 6-8 weeks into the pregnancy.
I think this would be a great victory for Pro-Life supporters, and I do NOT think it would nearly as difficult to obtain as would outlawing the process completely, because I do not believe that will ever happen.
It's fine not to believe in it at all, but believing and doing something about are two different things, and I, as a pro-life supporter would much rather have the description above than nothing at all.

The problem is that the current situation is like two armies fighting a trench battle. Niether side wants to give an inch because they see that as moving one inch closer to their eventual defeat.

The pro-choicers are mainly worried that as soon as you start outlawing part of abortion the date will keep moving forward until abortion is illegal again.

The problem with limiting the number of abortions is it requires the justice system to keep tabs on the medical records of a woman which right now is considered unconstitutional.

Right now late term abortions are illegal except that the lawmakers didn't include a provision in there making an exception for a woman's safty. This means that the courts are just going to overturn it.

I don't know how many woman have late term abortions when it isn't to protect their life. It would seem to me that a woman getting an abortion would get it as soon as she found out about the pregnancy, as keeping the baby to almost full term and then aborting it is incredibly hard on her body and mind.

[Ryu]

Ths is becming a flamefest instead of a debate so im bowing out for now

[Issem]

So you have no problem with murderers?

Oh, come on! Can't you make your argument without filling it with weighted language and red herrings?

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

People who get abortions aren't murderers. Fetuses aren't yet humans, and it isn't unlawful.

Thieves and rapists initiate force against those who are stolen from/*****. In prolife/prochoice, the pro-choicers aren't the ones initiating force against others. The prolifers are the ones imposing their ideals, or at least attempting to, on the whole of the population.

You have no problem with theives or rapists? If you do you need to stop "imposing your morals on others". Fact is that we do it every day.

When did you stop beating your wife?


Morals must be imposed on those who would disregard them in favor of chaos in order to preserve the highest level of life possible for the greatest number of people possible.

Utilitarianism? The means don't always justify the ends. That idea only sounds good until you think about it. Who decided which morals should be imposed? Who decides which people "disregard those morals in favor of chaos"? How do you know that imposing morals is the only way to keep standard of living?


:drink: Heres to freedom.

[Cale The Dark]

I have a problem with those who cause pain and suffering to others. When you interfere with someone else, you've brought their concerns and rights into the equation and they take precedent over yours, because you're the aggressor. Then, the defender is not imposing their morals upon the aggressor, they're defending them and allowing them not to be violated.

Now, one could argue that you're interfereing with the right to happiness of an unborn child with abortion. However, due to the small, insignificant amount of pain involved for the child, and the choice and responsibility the mother must accept, it's justified if the mother feels it's in her best interests.

Imposing morals would be violating someone else's right to happiness that has no effect whatsoever on your own. That is what a pro-life person is doing. I won't tell someone that murder/r**e/whatever is wrong and let that be the sole justification. I would try to convince them otherwise. If I fail, their interference in the pursuit of happiness of others should be punished however their particular society works.


you have NO idea whatsoever as to whether abortion causes the fetus pain or not. i believe you choose to think that the fetus is an unfeeling, uncaring, and unliving piece of flesh because it helps assuage your guilt. fact is that we don't know. i'm not sure, but having a needle stuck in the back of my head and having my brain sucked out sounds pretty painful to me. we impose morals such as preventing murder, even though it may not directly affect us because it affects SOMEONE. in this case that someone is the baby. you use words like "aggressor" and "defender", what is the child other than the defender? it is the defender against an aggressor seeking something beyond impeding it's happiness. it is defending against an aggressor seeking to end it's life. if you saw a man beating his wife to death in their front yard and you interfered, you would be justified. this is the same situation. it may not directly affect us, but it is the right thing to do regardless.

if your happiness is dependant on your ability to murder a child you have no right to happiness at all.

the institution of abortion is under attack in this country. first with the ban of partial birth abortions and now with the Unborn victims of violence act, the government is well on it's way to recognizing the fetus as a seperate being. when this happens i believe the slaughter will finally end.

[BhsCrew]

Ths is becming a flamefest instead of a debate so im bowing out for now

Just one more question before you go. What's a flamefest? I'm not familiar with the term.

Oh well it was good having you. Later. :drink:

[Ryu]

Fetuses aren't yet humans, and it isn't unlawful.

They ARE human beings, people on the other hand is debatable.


Last couple posts seemed very harsh, but it seems to be dying out

[BhsCrew]

you have NO idea whatsoever as to whether abortion causes the fetus pain or not. i believe you choose to think that the fetus is an unfeeling, uncaring, and unliving piece of flesh because it helps assuage your guilt. fact is that we don't know. i'm not sure, but having a needle stuck in the back of my head and having my brain sucked out sounds pretty painful to me. we impose morals such as preventing murder, even though it may not directly affect us because it affects SOMEONE. in this case that someone is the baby. you use words like "aggressor" and "defender", what is the child other than the defender? it is the defender against an aggressor seeking something beyond impeding it's happiness. it is defending against an aggressor seeking to end it's life. if you saw a man beating his wife to death in their front yard and you interfered, you would be justified. this is the same situation. it may not directly affect us, but it is the right thing to do regardless.

if your happiness is dependant on your ability to murder a child you have no right to happiness at all.

the institution of abortion is under attack in this country. first with the ban of partial birth abortions and now with the Unborn victims of violence act, the government is well on it's way to recognizing the fetus as a seperate being. when this happens i believe the slaughter will finally end.

Before it has a brain the fetus can't fell pain. I would argue before the fetus has a brain we can be quite certain that it is an unfeeling, uncaring, and unliving piece of flesh.

After it's brain develops though you do have a point, though I believe that it was a quick stap to the skull rather than a sucking of the brain. A quick death. Of course that really makes little difference if you believe it to be murder.

If you see it that way then you are completly entitled to try to impose your morals on society because you see a injustice being commited.

However before it has a brain you would need another reason to protect it.

[Ryu]

Not sure where the no pain things going, but if you kill someone whos asleep in 1 shot to the head and they feel 0 pain, is that right? Or if they were in a coma? Not sure where that stand is coming from.

[Issem]

you have NO idea whatsoever as to whether abortion causes the fetus pain or not.

from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm
The group determined that pain can only be felt by a fetus after nerve connections became established between two parts of its brain: the cortex and the thalamus. This happens about 26 weeks from conception. Professor Maria Fitzgerald of University College London, author of the working group's report, says that "little sensory input" reaches the brain of the developing fetus before 26 weeks. "Therefore reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as feeling or perceiving pain."

Maybe research a bit, hmm?

[Cale The Dark]

Oh, come on! Can't you make your argument without filling it with weighted language and red herrings?

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

People who get abortions aren't murderers. Fetuses aren't yet humans, and it isn't unlawful.

Thieves and rapists initiate force against those who are stolen from/*****. In prolife/prochoice, the pro-choicers aren't the ones initiating force against others. The prolifers are the ones imposing their ideals, or at least attempting to, on the whole of the population.



When did you stop beating your wife?



Utilitarianism? The means don't always justify the ends. That idea only sounds good until you think about it. Who decided which morals should be imposed? Who decides which people "disregard those morals in favor of chaos"? How do you know that imposing morals is the only way to keep standard of living?


:drink: Heres to freedom.


what the hell are you talking about? the part about murderers wasn't in reference to people who have abortions (although they are indeed murderers) it was in reference to....well, murderers. read my post please otherwise you waste my time.

i think fetuses are humans. who are you to say i'm wrong? if there were a clear definite answer to this we wouldn't be having this debate.

when did i stop beating my wife? WTF? i don't have a wife, i would never beat my wife if i did have one and if you implied that i would in my presence i would proceed to give you the soundest thrashing of you life. in fact i would undoubtedly end up in jail. domestic violence is something i feel very strongly about, almost as strongly as the MURDER OF CHILDREN.

you say the means don't justify the end. i say the end doesn't justify the means (which is the correct saying by the way). abortionist want to get rid of a baby. does this mean killing it is ok? no. give it up for adoption, nuf said. i had actually forgot that saying till you brought it up in a backwards form.

i love how everyone keeps bringing up freedom. yes, you have freedom. freedom of speech. freedom of press. freedom of assembly. freedom of religion. freedom to bear arms. nowhere in there do i see the freedom to kill babies. maybe i missed it. i'd better read the constitution again. i'm sure i just missed it.

[Cale The Dark]

Maybe research a bit, hmm?


that's all well and good. so a leper who has no sense of pain can be killed without thought? at 26 weeks that baby is almost fully grown. thats 6 and a half months! it can almost live outside the mother at this point. i don't see how the lack of pain justifies murder.

oh and nice of you to only post the info that supports you side. i did do research on the same site you posted and this is what a different person had to say.

Statement by Dr. Paul Ranalli:
Dr. Ranalli is a neurologist at the University of Toronto, in Toronto Canada. He is acting president of the de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. He gave a presentation called "Pain, Fetal Development, and Partial-birth abortion" on 1997-JUN-27 to the House Judiciary Committee of the State of Ohio. 2,3 He has concluded that the "spino-thalamic" system is fully developed at about 12 to 14 weeks of gestation. This is the system that conveys pain signals from pain receptors throughout the body to the thalamus. He apparently believes that the thalamus can feel pain, even though a connection between it and the cortex is missing.

To support his belief that a fetus in the second trimester can feel pain, he cites three signs:

a fetus will "withdraw from painful stimulation"
two types of stress hormones which are detected in adults who are feeling pain are also found in a fetus from when a blood sample is withdrawn. He quotes: Nicholas Fisk of London, England who observed this reaction as early as 19 weeks 4, and
J Partch of Kiel, Germany who observed it at 16 weeks.

[BhsCrew]

from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm
The group determined that pain can only be felt by a fetus after nerve connections became established between two parts of its brain: the cortex and the thalamus. This happens about 26 weeks from conception. Professor Maria Fitzgerald of University College London, author of the working group's report, says that "little sensory input" reaches the brain of the developing fetus before 26 weeks. "Therefore reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as feeling or perceiving pain."
Maybe research a bit, hmm?



Thanks for the research that actually was really helpful.

However I still ask you to not insult the opposition with every post. Just because you believe that you are right, it doesn't make the other side full of idiots. Anyway if you insult people the debate degrades into name calling.

You obviously have facts at your disposal (like the usefull post above) and you don't need to insult people to make your point.
That being said thank you for the post.

Anyway, I guess this means that we can abort a fetus before 26 weeks right Cale?

[Cale The Dark]

Thanks for the research that actually was really helpful.

However I still ask you to not insult the opposition with every post. Just because you believe that you are right, it doesn't make the other side full of idiots. Anyway if you insult people the debate degrades into name calling.

You obviously have facts at your disposal (like the usefull post above) and you don't need to insult people to make your point.
That being said thank you for the post.

Anyway, I guess this means that we can abort a fetus before 26 weeks right Cale?


no.

"We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, 'and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way.' "

from the same site. basically they haven't PROVEN that the fetus can't feel pain before the connections are made. this guy devoted his ENTIRE proffesional career and found that the fetus is sentient at the end of the first trimest, when most abortions are done. even if the fetus were incapable of pain i would still be against it. pain is not a prerequisite for life.

[Issem]

that's all well and good. so a leper who has no sense of pain can be killed without thought? at 26 weeks that baby is almost fully grown. thats 6 and a half months! it can almost live outside the mother at this point. i don't see how the lack of pain justifies murder.

Backtracking, I guess? They aren't capable of conscious thought, nor are they capable of pain. They aren't people. If they are not aborted, they will inferfere with the mother's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And NO, it can NOT almost live outside the mother. Fetuses are completely dependant for longer than 6 months.

when did i stop beating my wife? WTF? i don't have a wife, i would never beat my wife if i did have one and if you implied that i would in my presence i would proceed to give you the soundest thrashing of you life.

Way to keep up. I was making a reference to that, the classic loaded question, next time I will try not to go over your head.

MURDER OF CHILDREN

Stop with the loaded language. It is NOT murder, and they are NOT children.

After thinking about it, I can concede that fetuses are human; however they aren't people.

i love how everyone keeps bringing up freedom. yes, you have freedom. freedom of speech. freedom of press. freedom of assembly. freedom of religion. freedom to bear arms. nowhere in there do i see the freedom to kill babies. maybe i missed it. i'd better read the constitution again. i'm sure i just missed it.

The Supreme Court has disagreed with your for the past 30 years, and I would think that they are more qualified to interpret the constitution than you. The only way their decision will be overturned is if the jesusfreak in office manages to oust several members of it and appoint his neocon hunting buddies. Ok, fine. They are CHENEY'S hunting buddies.

that's all well and good. so a leper who has no sense of pain can be killed without thought?

Oh come on, ANOTHER red herring? We aren't talking about a person with established rights. We are talking about abortion.

[BhsCrew]

no.

"We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, 'and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way.' "

from the same site. basically they haven't PROVEN that the fetus can't feel pain before the connections are made. this guy devoted his ENTIRE proffesional career and found that the fetus is sentient at the end of the first trimest, when most abortions are done. even if the fetus were incapable of pain i would still be against it. pain is not a prerequisite for life.

So can we abort before the first trimestor, before the fetus becomes a sentient being?

On a completly different note your picture used to be all red, black, and dark. It fit with the name Cale the Dark. Your new picture is quite good but I have trouble recognizing you still. I'm looking for dark but I see light. :)

[Issem]

no.

"We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, 'and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way.' "

from the same site. basically they haven't PROVEN that the fetus can't feel pain before the connections are made. this guy devoted his ENTIRE proffesional career and found that the fetus is sentient at the end of the first trimest, when most abortions are done. even if the fetus were incapable of pain i would still be against it. pain is not a prerequisite for life.

A panel of pro-lifers sending a random letter to Ronald Reagan 20 years ago about findings 40 years prior to that versus an impartial panel of experts in a variety of fiends (one of which being bioethics) chosen 3 years ago by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

[George Bush]

well as a *** man i wont be having kids.so bleh.
but my opinion on this matter is simple really.
its not my body or your body or anyone else's body other than the person carrying the child so they should make the decision.

that being said,whoever it is aborting a child should NEVER have one after that decision.
it should go right from the abortion clinic to the place where you get your tubes tied .
but that still isnt my or anyone else's decision to make other than the 'mother".

we shouldnt have the govt. getting involved in those decisions just as we shouldnt have censorship and a bunch of other laws that are on the books currently to keep with the true goal of our country's founders.

Freedom.

im not talking about true anarchy. im talking about being able to be free from having to
practice any 1 religion or any religion at all for that matter. can any of you truly argue that we are really free ?
we have laws that we HAVE to wear seatbelts. its my damn car and im 28 years old. i believe i can make my own decision on my safety without big brother coming in and invading my privacy.

the government should not be allowed to make our decisions for us .

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Hmmm....when my son's Mother was pregnant, she could feel movement and kicking in 4-5 months. If he could move at that point, then he had brain functioning. If he had brain functioning, then surely he had the sense of touch and feel.
I'm pretty sure a fetus of 4-5 months, if not EARLIER can feel pain.

No, the matter will never rest. My suggestion would just be a first move into educating young women on sex, then eventually not even allowing ONE abortion in normal cases. If my suggestion was used for awhile, it would start to condition young women into being more aware of their situations, and in turn, make them think more carefully instead of jumping into intercourse so easily without protection, or jumping into intercourse AT ALL for that matter, until they ARE well educated.
Then after that period, we could go ahead instate a grace period before abortion is not even allowed ONCE in normal cases. After that, they would have to go ahead and have the child. If they did not want the child, they could put the child up for adoption for many willing people, or keep the child. The funny thing is, I think eventually in most cases, the Mother would probably WANT to keep the child.
Live and let live.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Just to build on the last point, in theory, if women know that they cannot have abortions in the first place, then wouldn't it make them think twice about having irresponsible sex?
I think that it would cut down on casual, unsafe, unprotected sex in the young female population, thus cutting down on unwanted pregnancies AND STD's.
I've always thought that abortion is a subliminal way of telling young women that it's okay to go ahead and have unsafe sex, because they can always get rid of the unwanted result if needed. I also thinks this affects the male's decision as well to make a haste decision.
I can attest to this with a couple of friends of mine. I won't get into it, but one of them, a friend of 7 years, is NOT a friend anymore.

Overall, it's just immoral when it's due to irresponsibility....in many ways.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It is a little funny that you tell me not to make assumptions about the scope of your study and then you assume that I did a two minute google search. I realize that Aquinas didn't intend to prove God, and that he instead tried to demonstrate it. Personially I felt the demonstrations were a little weak but some people might have been more swayed by them then others.


I don't see the amusement in that at all - your response to my post demonstrated that you had less than a modicum of knowledge of the texts, then you shifted positions. The demonstrations have equal strenth to anyone who is faithful to the tenets of reason. I would say however that there are those who disregard intellectual honesty and choose to bypass reason for their own agendas. If you can't take the time to read the texts throroughly, don't waste our time posting an uneducated commentary.


While their goals may be the same, in many cultures it was ok to abandon or kill your children if you felt you needed to. That would seem to me to be against the order of values that you champion.


Argument discarded. Instead of asking for further clarity on value-ordering and seeking the texts I've offered, you chose to steamroll your way past that with dogmatism. Tell me why I should respond to your future posts? I mentioned that all sought fulfillment. This can be sought the genuine way, or the fast-food way, like our culture does today. In some cultures, yes, abandoning children would seem to be the right thing to do as it is seen as elitciting a higher good - just like killing the unborn to make ends meet. Objective value-ordering is a transcendental concept that reveals itself in the multiplicity of experience. Even in acts most people consider evil, there is a desire to seek a personal good. The true goal is to be aligned with the objective, universal good, which will in turn order the self. This is the law of love that I explained earlier. It follows that culture will be transformed in turn, as culture is the collective expression of individuals composing it.

Another thing we may consider is that as much as mothers were told that their baby was only a "blob of flesh", most all of them suffered extreme trauma afterward, even if aborted at its earliest stages. Don't rule out the heart in such matters. It seems the only way I can reach some of you, since you do a good job tripping over my attempts to offer you a rational perspective.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

I think I'm going to basically leave this argument now, it seems to be dying down to mudslinging, insults, and generally attacks. Most of the points have been made. Personally, I suggest everything up till around.. page 8 or 9..
I think pages 5-9 are the best, and hold the most argument.

But a little housecleaning for me before I go.

First you say it is selfish to have sex for your own pleasure, then you say having a child being conceived from sex is a sort of side effect. Sounds an awfull lot like you're contradicting yourself here. Why have sex if you're goal in having sex isn't having a child? You can guess the answer, that's right, for your 'selfish' own pleasure.

Then even if you disagree with people having sex for the 'selfish' reason of having pleasure, it's not your right to deny anyone this, and I don't think you will deny them it. So then you'll have to agree with me that using contraception is the way to go. If you're going to have sex make sure you do it safe if you want to avoid the risk of getting one of those nasty deseases and the risk of having a child, and ultimately having to give up the child for adoption or have an abortion, if the parents are unwilling to take responsibility for their act(s).
I did not say exactly that having a child is a 'side effect'. It is a part of the union, but it does not necessarily occur. However, the goal in sex is actually to unite a man and a woman through God, and it is not necessarily for yourself that you do this, but for your partner. It is giving Yourself as a GIFT to them, not taking what you want. Yes, it is pleasurable, but it isnt meant to be a selfish thing. If so, go masturbate yourself, as it runs to the same thing: using a person for selfish reasons. If you believe that it is only selfish, then I pity your sex life.

No, it is not my right to deny anyone anything. But I still do not believe that contraception is the answer. It is merely another quickfix. Although it seems to solve all the future 'problems' of childbirth.. as I said before, if you are not open to childbearing, you should not even have sex. Sex should be the COMPLETE gift of each other to each other. If there are any reservations, it is not a free union. If you have sex but have it with contraception, you are saying with your body, Here, I give you Everything that I have, but you are saying with your life, No, I won't make the commitment to go through with this and accept a child that could come of it. So the act becomes a selfish act. If you arent freely giving yourself, and if you aren't open to bearing the full responsibility that comes with such an act, you are merely doing it for self-satisfaction, and you are USING the other person.

[Ryu]

the jolly roger, that could work, but i think also, before totally outlawing it, have a period where abortions require a, say, 5 week waiting period to make sure their serious, then eventually ban it unless mother at risk

[BhsCrew]

I don't see the amusement in that at all - your response to my post demonstrated that you had less than a modicum of knowledge of the texts, then you shifted positions. The demonstrations have equal strenth to anyone who is faithful to the tenets of reason. I would say however that there are those who disregard intellectual honesty and choose to bypass reason for their own agendas. If you can't take the time to read the texts throroughly, don't waste our time posting an uneducated commentary.



Argument discarded. Instead of asking for further clarity on value-ordering and seeking the texts I've offered, you chose to steamroll your way past that with dogmatism. Tell me why I should respond to your future posts? I mentioned that all sought fulfillment. This can be sought the genuine way, or the fast-food way, like our culture does today. In some cultures, yes, abandoning children would seem to be the right thing to do as it is seen as elitciting a higher good - just like killing the unborn to make ends meet. Objective value-ordering is a transcendental concept that reveals itself in the multiplicity of experience. Even in acts most people consider evil, there is a desire to seek a personal good. The true goal is to be aligned with the objective, universal good, which will in turn order the self. This is the law of love that I explained earlier. It follows that culture will be transformed in turn, as culture is the collective expression of individuals composing it.

Another thing we may consider is that as much as mothers were told that their baby was only a "blob of flesh", most all of them suffered extreme trauma afterward, even if aborted at its earliest stages. Don't rule out the heart in such matters. It seems the only way I can reach some of you, since you do a good job tripping over my attempts to offer you a rational perspective.

You're right that I don't have the same depth of knowledge in philosophers and their writing that you do. I did know about Tom of A. but it has been a while since I last checked up on him. So you're right. I don't have an indepth knowledge of the texts.

My only real complaint was that you decided that your theories on objective value-ordering and the law of love were absolutly correct. You said that there was one truth, you had found it, and the rest of us would be better of if we knew all the same information you did and came to the same truth.

I believe that their is no one value that holds true for everyone, nor is there one list of values that is all important. Its nice to quote philosophers and their books as it means you have read written texts that back up your arguements. However finding other people from long ago to agree with you isn't that important. The fact that they believe what you do just means either you are both wrong or you are both right. It doesn't increase the chance of either.

It does provide us a reference of how you came to your conclusions and I will read the texts when I get a chance, but debate on abortion and values doesn't have to hinge on the words of these philosophers.

You don't have to keep answering these posts as I don't think that this will go anywhere. I was going to sign off of this thread anyway. But if you do I will be happy to read your post.

[Issem]

I did not say exactly that having a child is a 'side effect'. It is a part of the union, but it does not necessarily occur. However, the goal in sex is actually to unite a man and a woman through God, and it is not necessarily for yourself that you do this, but for your partner. It is giving Yourself as a GIFT to them, not taking what you want. Yes, it is pleasurable, but it isnt meant to be a selfish thing. If so, go masturbate yourself, as it runs to the same thing: using a person for selfish reasons. If you believe that it is only selfish, then I pity your sex life.

No, it is not my right to deny anyone anything. But I still do not believe that contraception is the answer. It is merely another quickfix. Although it seems to solve all the future 'problems' of childbirth.. as I said before, if you are not open to childbearing, you should not even have sex. Sex should be the COMPLETE gift of each other to each other. If there are any reservations, it is not a free union. If you have sex but have it with contraception, you are saying with your body, Here, I give you Everything that I have, but you are saying with your life, No, I won't make the commitment to go through with this and accept a child that could come of it. So the act becomes a selfish act. If you arent freely giving yourself, and if you aren't open to bearing the full responsibility that comes with such an act, you are merely doing it for self-satisfaction, and you are USING the other person.

I believe the great George Carlin sums up my attitude towards this kind of stuff:

The longer you listen to this abortion debate, the more you hear the phrase "sanctity of life," "sanctity of life." You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a bunch of ****. I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death.

[BhsCrew]

I think I'm going to basically leave this argument now, it seems to be dying down to mudslinging, insults, and generally attacks. Most of the points have been made. Personally, I suggest everything up till around.. page 8 or 9..
I think pages 5-9 are the best, and hold the most argument.

But a little housecleaning for me before I go.


I did not say exactly that having a child is a 'side effect'. It is a part of the union, but it does not necessarily occur. However, the goal in sex is actually to unite a man and a woman through God, and it is not necessarily for yourself that you do this, but for your partner. It is giving Yourself as a GIFT to them, not taking what you want. Yes, it is pleasurable, but it isnt meant to be a selfish thing. If so, go masturbate yourself, as it runs to the same thing: using a person for selfish reasons. If you believe that it is only selfish, then I pity your sex life.

No, it is not my right to deny anyone anything. But I still do not believe that contraception is the answer. It is merely another quickfix. Although it seems to solve all the future 'problems' of childbirth.. as I said before, if you are not open to childbearing, you should not even have sex. Sex should be the COMPLETE gift of each other to each other. If there are any reservations, it is not a free union. If you have sex but have it with contraception, you are saying with your body, Here, I give you Everything that I have, but you are saying with your life, No, I won't make the commitment to go through with this and accept a child that could come of it. So the act becomes a selfish act. If you arent freely giving yourself, and if you aren't open to bearing the full responsibility that comes with such an act, you are merely doing it for self-satisfaction, and you are USING the other person.

Why can't both people join together to create self-satisfaction for both people. Both people are happy. No one is unhappy. You don't have to worry about having a life-changing baby. What is wrong with that?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

My only real complaint was that you decided that your theories on objective value-ordering and the law of love were absolutly correct. You said that there was one truth, you had found it, and the rest of us would be better of if we knew all the same information you did and came to the same truth.

I believe that their is no one value that holds true for everyone...finding other people from long ago to agree with you isn't that important.

Ok fair enough, I'll concentrate on this point. I'll agree with Halcyon that the thread is getting worn a bit, and alot of the argumentation already has taken place. Now.. onto the issue at hand!

It's characterist of the post-modern age to assent to relativism. Yet, I'll offer the notion that in stating there is no absolute position is still asserting an absolute position. Savvy? Scepticism cannot stand on its own. You cannot doubt something without believing something else. Skepticism demands dogmatism, and vice versa. The only way out of this cunundrum is through speculative reason, which shows us our limitations and capacities (Like Kant has shown in his texts), or to recieve truth by divine revelation.

In short, there ARE absolutes, and they CAN be discovered. In regard to your last clause, thinking is the same for Aristotle, who lived over 2k years ago, as it was for Aquinas, as it was for Kant, and as it is for me and you now. Lack of knowledge is not to be feared as much as the direction of knowledege. Through research and discovery in the use of reason, lack of knowledge will eventually be cured. It is the direction and will of knowledge that proves problematic. Either one wants to know the truth or one does not. Usually, it's the latter, because we are inclined to laziness. Come out of scepticism and become a true thinker!

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Why can't both people join together to create self-satisfaction for both people. Both people are happy. No one is unhappy. You don't have to worry about having a life-changing baby. What is wrong with that?

Can you not see that if they are not willing to make sacrifices for one another, to accept the responsibility of the act, etc, then they are not truly giving themselves to each other? It is still a selfish union...
Let me ask you a question. If you truly DID love the person, wouldn't you love them enough to wait until you could both take the responsibility which having sex encompasses? That seems to be a more loving, selfless act IMO..

[BhsCrew]

Ok fair enough, I'll concentrate on this point. I'll agree with Halcyon that the thread is getting worn a bit, and alot of the argumentation already has taken place. Now.. onto the issue at hand!

It's characterist of the post-modern age to assent to relativism. Yet, I'll offer the notion that in stating there is no absolute position is still asserting an absolute position. Savvy? Scepticism cannot stand on its own. You cannot doubt something without believing something else. Skepticism demands dogmatism, and vice versa. The only way out of this cunundrum is through speculative reason, which shows us our limitations and capacities (Like Kant has shown in his texts), or to recieve truth by divine revelation.

In short, there ARE absolutes, and they CAN be discovered. In regard to your last clause, thinking is the same for Aristotle, who lived over 2k years ago, as it was for Aquinas, as it was for Kant, and as it is for me and you now. Lack of knowledge is not to be feared as much as the direction of knowledege. Through research and discovery in the use of reason, lack of knowledge will eventually be cured. It is the direction and will of knowledge that proves problematic. Either one wants to know the truth or one does not. Usually, it's the latter, because we are inclined to laziness. Come out of scepticism and become a true thinker!

You're right. My absolutist opinion is that the ultimate truth can never be known because there is no ultimate truth. I love learning new information but I will never know everything and niether will you. The best we can do is to choose a field that we love and try to become as knowledgable and as skillfull in it as possible. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that your field is pholosophy. Whatever it is I wish you luck.

You may be right that at some point every single bit of knowledge in the world will be known to humans. However the more we discover the more seems to be out there. Today the philosophers still debate the same questions as they debated 2000 years ago. The old who are we, why are we here, what is our purpose questions are something that I don't think will ever be answered but we can decide what direction our life will take and what we will do with it.

[BhsCrew]

Can you not see that if they are not willing to make sacrifices for one another, to accept the responsibility of the act, etc, then they are not truly giving themselves to each other? It is still a selfish union...
Let me ask you a question. If you truly DID love the person, wouldn't you love them enough to wait until you could both take the responsibility which having sex encompasses? That seems to be a more loving, selfless act IMO..

Fine it's a selfish union. But why shouldn't we be able to enjoy ourselves before we find that person who we want to spend the rest of our lives with? I mean sure it is a more loving and selfless act when we find that person, but I see no reason why we have to limit ourselves before that person is found.

If everyone is happy, I don't understand what the downside is. The only downside would be if two people who weren't ready to have a baby had one, and birth controll helps prevent that.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

The downside is that ultimately you are USING people, and believe it or not, it hurts both you and them.

[Issem]

Can you not see that if they are not willing to make sacrifices for one another, to accept the responsibility of the act, etc, then they are not truly giving themselves to each other? It is still a selfish union...
Let me ask you a question. If you truly DID love the person, wouldn't you love them enough to wait until you could both take the responsibility which having sex encompasses? That seems to be a more loving, selfless act IMO..

Well, now, that is a silly notion! Why does sex necessarily have to have anything to do with love, and the other way around? And why does sex without love necessarily have to be selfish? Is it not possible that one person doesn't feel like doing it, and one does, so they do it anyway? That is very obviously not selfish. It is a natural urge; I suppose it can be seen as selfish. But with that logic, it is selfish to breathe and eat.

Cheers :drink:

[George Bush]

heh the world is overpopulated as it is. i say monkey poop bombs for everyone and let the other inhabatants of the world have their fair share at the reigns of power.
screw people. they suck.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

The downside is that ultimately you are USING people, and believe it or not, it hurts both you and them.

My personal views on the subject:

So if you both love each other and wish to spend the rest of your lives together, sex is still using each other? Using them for what exactly? You are both consenting and you are both getting what you want. So I'll choose not to believe it. I've got 5 years under my belt and a daughter to show for it, to my knowledge at no point have either of us felt used.

Making love, appropriately called because it can be the most intimate of moments two people can share, is a show of affection and love. It is most certainly not a selfish act.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

So if you both love each other and wish to spend the rest of your lives together, sex is still using each other? how do any of my statements refer to your life?? I never said that sex was using the other person.. have you read my posts correctly??
True sex is not a selfish act.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Fine it's a selfish union. But why shouldn't we be able to enjoy ourselves before we find that person who we want to spend the rest of our lives with? I mean sure it is a more loving and selfless act when we find that person, but I see no reason why we have to limit ourselves before that person is found.

If everyone is happy, I don't understand what the downside is. The only downside would be if two people who weren't ready to have a baby had one, and birth controll helps prevent that.

I believe that the sex debate could be refined a bit more. I'll offer the notion that sex is indeed an expression of love and union - heck, we're made that way. On the other hand, there can be times when the act of intercourse can indeed be toward selfish ends. This is when love is not present between the partners, and it becomes just a means of reducing stress or convenience. So In that sense, I see what halcyon is saying.

Bhs speaks here in terms of having fun before settling down with a chosen spouse. Halcon did make a valid point in reference to this as being selfish. This however requires a bit more qualification. It is the natural tendency and need for a human person to seek relief, and one such way is recreational sex. However, sex for convience can leave its scars if there is no commitment between the two. I've hurt girls that way, and I've dated girls who've had their share of boi troubles - and believe me, it's not fun dealing with trust issues - my own and others. I believe alot of good can be said about the institution of marriage in that sense. I'd refer readers back to my post on objective value ordering as a solution. So yes, I would say Halcyon does have a point about selfish unions.

[BhsCrew]

AgeOfAbnegation

If you read this I would like to have the greatest books that you read, the ones that were most influential to your thinking. You mentioned Kant but I couldn't find the post. Anyway if you could give me the top 5 or so, so that I can read them it would be great. Philosophy is a subject that I've only brushed the surface of and I'd like to dig deeper. I was hoping that you'd give me a few titles to help me out.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok Bhs, I'll offer a few texts that are helpful, but not all at once. You may drop by my guild forum [ILM] and let me know if you've picked up these texts I'll give you now.

- Immanuel Kant - "on a newly arisen superior tone in philosophy"
(It's a short one to get you started)
- Max Scheler - "selected philospohical essays"
(preferably his section of 'ordo amoris', as he disscusses objective values and morality, and you may want to read his text on perception)
-Thomas Aquinas - "summa theologica"
(prima pars, or 1st section, the treatise on humanity. ironically, he discusses the biological aspect of the zygote)
-Pseudo Dionysius "mystical theology" (discusses the limitations of language and capacity in philosophy)

That should keep you busy for the time being. And if you actually get through those, you can try Hegel's logic. Ciao.

[George Bush]

heh i just thought of a weird question.
if you make a clone of yourself and have sex with it is it sex or masturbation?

[BhsCrew]

heh i just thought of a weird question.
if you make a clone of yourself and have sex with it is it sex or masturbation?

It would be very similar to having sex with your identical twin. Which would make it both illegal and very very wrong.

[BhsCrew]

Ok Bhs, I'll offer a few texts that are helpful, but not all at once. You may drop by my guild forum [ILM] and let me know if you've picked up these texts I'll give you now.

- Immanuel Kant - "on a newly arisen superior tone in philosophy"
(It's a short one to get you started)
- Max Scheler - "selected philospohical essays"
(preferably his section of 'ordo amoris', as he disscusses objective values and morality, and you may want to read his text on perception)
-Thomas Aquinas - "summa theologica"
(prima pars, or 1st section, the treatise on humanity. ironically, he discusses the biological aspect of the zygote)
-Pseudo Dionysius "mystical theology" (discusses the limitations of language and capacity in philosophy)

That should keep you busy for the time being. And if you actually get through those, you can try Hegel's logic. Ciao.

Thanks. I'll get on them as soon as my season is over (with state and nationals coming up I'm going to be really short on time for a while). I should have the books read by summer. I needed a few new books anyway as I'm about done with the ones I got now. Thanks. :)

[Ryu]

I dont get why incest is wrong if its between two consenting adults, could someone fill me in on why?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Incest goes against the natural order. Sex is ordered to its unitive and procreative elements.

[BhsCrew]

I dont get why incest is wrong if its between two consenting adults, could someone fill me in on why?

Well the basic idea is the closer related the parents of a kid are, the higher the chance that the kid will have genetic problems. The easiest way to keep that from happening is to keep closely related people from having sex.

[Essex]

ya know I read an article in Discovery Magazine about inbreeding. Not with brothers and sisters of course but between first cousins.

It said there is only a 3% increase in birth defects in a marriage between first cousins, the same percent as a woman who's over 35 has during chid birth.

Anyway very intersting article if your curious (not saying you want to do it but you could still be curious)

It did mention that animals kept together with a brother and sister won't mate and they have less of an inclination to mate with anyone at all.

[BhsCrew]

ya know I read an article in Discovery Magazine about inbreeding. Not with brothers and sisters of course but between first cousins.

It said there is only a 3% increase in birth defects in a marriage between first cousins, the same percent as a woman who's over 35 has during chid birth.

Anyway very intersting article if your curious (not saying you want to do it but you could still be curious)

It did mention that animals kept together with a brother and sister won't mate and they have less of an inclination to mate with anyone at all.

well cousin marriage is allowed in some states, but what the article didn't mention was continous inbreeding.

One pair of cousins marrying doesn't mean much but if a family is always marrying back for generation after generation then it allows recessive genetic diseases to pop up more frequently.

Normally their are many recessive genetic deseases roaming around in a population, but people don't marry with one another so the deseases rarely match up with a pair to make the disease happen. However people from one blood line often each have the same recessive disease genes in them and because they're marrying each other the disease pops up frequently.

It was like the Russian, British, and German monachys always had to worry about hemophilia (I can't remember if that's the right name, but the disease I mean is the one where cuts won't stop bleading) because they would keep breeding with each other and never allowing new blood to come in.

[Essex]

actually the article did mention continus inbreeding. It spoke about the Rosthchilds and a group of pakistanis in England.

The Roshchilds inbreed for about seven or eight generations I belive. Only cousins could marry, if the females married outside the family they wouldn't get any of the inhertence so they had to marry a family member to survive.

None of the Rothchilds had any negative effects from the inbreeding.

The Pakistanis weren't as lucky. Eventually some neural digenertative diseases popped up and now before marrying most of them have tests done to determine if they would have children with these defects.

The reason is the founder effect. If the first inbreed couples have healthy genes with no dangerous recessives, then inbreeding can continue for a pretty long time with no increased risks. However in the pakistani case there was obviously some bad genes that kept getting passed down.

All births are basically a game of Russian Roulet when it comes to defects and what not, but it was a very intersting article. It was from August 2003 if anyone is interested. It was titled "Go ahead and kiss your cousin, heck marry them!"

I also have to comment on Haly's comments about sex and using people and what not. Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your religious belives generally don't allow you to view Homosexuality in a good light. However as a *** man there is no way in hell I could have sex with the purpose to procreate, there are many couples who are sterile due to natural reasons, should they not have sex? The idea that sex should always include the chance of a birth is a bit archaic in this day and age (and ever was archaic when most people belived it)

[BhsCrew]

actually the article did mention continus inbreeding. It spoke about the Rosthchilds and a group of pakistanis in England.

The Roshchilds inbreed for about seven or eight generations I belive. Only cousins could marry, if the females married outside the family they wouldn't get any of the inhertence so they had to marry a family member to survive.

None of the Rothchilds had any negative effects from the inbreeding.

The Pakistanis weren't as lucky. Eventually some neural digenertative diseases popped up and now before marrying most of them have tests done to determine if they would have children with these defects.

The reason is the founder effect. If the first inbreed couples have healthy genes with no dangerous recessives, then inbreeding can continue for a pretty long time with no increased risks. However in the pakistani case there was obviously some bad genes that kept getting passed down.

All births are basically a game of Russian Roulet when it comes to defects and what not, but it was a very intersting article. It was from August 2003 if anyone is interested. It was titled "Go ahead and kiss your cousin, heck marry them!"

I also have to comment on Haly's comments about sex and using people and what not. Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your religious belives generally don't allow you to view Homosexuality in a good light. However as a *** man there is no way in hell I could have sex with the purpose to procreate, there are many couples who are sterile due to natural reasons, should they not have sex? The idea that sex should always include the chance of a birth is a bit archaic in this day and age (and ever was archaic when most people belived it)

Man those Rotchilds were lucky. I'm sorry I was thinking of a different article that I'd read that only talked about the cousin marriage vs. normal people study.

All births are games of chance, but a heavily inbred family usually has a higher chance of losing. Except for those lucky Rosthchilds (where were they from? Also England?) What are the odds that the founding family doesn't have a single genetic disease gene?

While were on the subject I figured I'd bring up another inbreeding story. On the Navajo and Hopi reservations in the southwest US there was (and still is to an extent) a very closed population that didn't mingle much with the outside world. They had a recessive condition that popped up infrequently in the population. They called the kids with it Skindancers or Skinwalkers or something like that. The kids were very sensitive to light and would die in their thirties usually, but on the plus side they were physicially much stronger and faster then a normal human.

Anyway many corrupt shamens convinced some of the Navajo and Hopi tribes that these kids were evil and so the shamens would take them away and raise them. However the corrupt shamens would just raise the kids as their personal muscle to keep people from crossing them. No one wanted to deal with these super strong, brainwashed kids so the shamens were left unchallenged.

On an odd note the same condition would pop up in a villiage in Ireland. Some people were assuming that that's where the story of werewolves came from as the kids with the condition would be stronger, faster, more hairy, and sensitive to light so they would stay out of the sun during the day, and come out at night.

So that's the story, I don't know if it still happens. It's a pity we can't get some of those kids to go out for the olympics. Oh well. :)

[Essex]

well the article mentions Paris, but to be honest with you I think they were spread all over Europe.

here is a link to the full article (the magazine website only shows you a paragraph)

http://iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown/GenBio2/Discover%20Article%202B.doc

[BhsCrew]

well the article mentions Paris, but to be honest with you I think they were spread all over Europe.

here is a link to the full article (the magazine website only shows you a paragraph)

http://iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown/GenBio2/Discover%20Article%202B.doc

Thanks. Yeah I had read the New York Times article that this article mentions. Didn't realize we were talking about two seperate ones. :)

Edit- This article is great. It does a much better job of explaining the whole process then my posts above. Unfortunately it doesn't mention the wierd Navajo and Irish kids. :( I need to find out some more information on them.

[SpiritWalker]

In response to Halcion's posts:

You can take this anyway you want, but you my friend live in a bible fantasy world if you really think that sex was gift meant for only the right person, your soulmate so to speak.

I don't see sex as a selfish act, I see it as just another way to have fun in this already bored life. That being said, that sex is a selfish act to you when it isn't acted out with your true love and it is just for pleasure, is your oppinion.. well more like the bible's oppinion, but still an oppinion, an oppinion I certainly do not share.

So set aside your oppinion on what is 'right' sex and what is 'wrong'. People have sex, they have it for pleasure, this sometimes leads to unwanted pregnancies when not using the proper protection. So saying contraception is wrong, is.. well.. wrong. So now I'm gonna ask you to do something you may not like, but indulge me for a bit will ya. Is it right or wrong for people, who do not share your oppinion on sex like me, who like to have sex for pleasure to use condoms or some other form of protection?
So take your nose out of the bible for a few secs and realise that you live in a world full of people who disagree with some things or everything in the bible and don't have the same principles as you do.

Sorry if this post seems a bit hostile towards christians, but I hate it when I'm discussing something with someone, but it isn't really discussing, but more like reading parts of the bible on my part.

Just like to note, I believe in God, I don't believe in the church or the bible.

[Dr Milton Freidman]

It does not really matter if you were to debate abortion or *** marriage, the ultimate conclusion comes down to a simple matter of having the right to choose.

Person opinions have no merit and personal opinions based on religious principles matter even less.

We live in a society that grants us "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" and we have laws in place so that one person's pursuit of happiness doesn't infringe too much on the rights of others.

With that said, Roe vs Wade has established that a fetus is not "sustainable" life. Since the fetus is not viable until X time into gestation, ending the pregnancy is not murder. However, once you past that point, then the unborn fetus is life and should have protections under the law.

You can choose to argue that anyway you like it but what really matters is the pregnant female has the right to choose. Its her body and her actions really have no impact on anyone else except the father.

Pro-lifer's are always quick to site adoption as an answer, but its not. I have know plenty of young women that have endured abortions and a few that gave babies up for adoption. All of them are scarred (emotionally and/or physically from this choice). The women that I have known that went through the abortion route are exponentially more emotionally stable than the women that I know who gave their babies up. As a father of two and a person that has been able to experience the joy of birth, I can attest, that I would be an emotional wreck if I had to give one of them up. In this case, "it is better to be poor than to have money and lost it all".

Lastly, legal or not, abortions will continue to happen. Once the women chooses to go through the procedure, it is much better to have this done by trained professionals in a facility that can handle complications. Since I have had to take some of my friends back to the hospital in the middle of the night for complications, I can attest that it was nice to be able to do so without the fear of being arrested.

These are the prices that we have to pay for a free society. Personally, we may not agree with abortions or *** marriage but the same society that allows these things to occur is the same society that allows us to have these opinions and express them freely. If you disagree, please feel free to sign the party line or join the state church!

Yes, you can apply this same logic to drugs, prostitution and any other thing that the state currently denies you. My argument would still be that same, FREEDOM of CHOICE!

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Such fervor! Too bad it's an unenlightened zeal. Let's take a look at what's truly at stake.


the ultimate conclusion comes down to a simple matter of having the right to choose.

Person opinions have no merit and personal opinions based on religious principles matter even less.


Your first blunder comes from these two clauses. You've precipitated a problematic in first stating the primacy of personal will and volition, then assenting to an objective order in debunking subjectivity. A clear thinker would find the second clause much more weighty than the first in that if the universe were composed of objective laws and maxims - which is clearly evident - than our ability to choose would be within a certain framework that would call into question our power and place in reality. We will choose regardless, but, are our rights part of "natural law", or of purely human will? I don't know about you, but even those of a mere modicum of intelligence can sense by intuition that there is sonething inherently wrong with abortion. If however you fancy yourself a thinker, "doc", than you can read my previous posts.



We live in a society that grants us "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" and we have laws in place so that one person's pursuit of happiness doesn't infringe too much on the rights of others.


Of course, we wouldnt want to interfere with anyone's convenience would we? You've sounded the trumpet horn of anarchy. What you're saying is that we must allow abortion so that we can "iron out" some of life's inconveniences. Idiocy.


With that said, Roe vs Wade has established that a fetus is not "sustainable" life. Since the fetus is not viable until X time into gestation, ending the pregnancy is not murder. However, once you past that point, then the unborn fetus is life and should have protections under the law.


Indeed, with "that" said, this point easily follows. Redefining the objective order is a way out of culpibility and responsibility. "sustainable life" is yet another example of gobbelygook. If anything, people in today's culture are being denied the freedom of choice by being force-fed false doctrines and teachings. In essence, a new framework is created that emulates a idea of freedom, but in truth, exacerbates ignorance, slavery, and barbarism.

Voices like these are the reason why people flock to abortion mills in droves, slaughtering their progeny.

[SaroDarksbane]

Here I thought we were debating the law? I mean the debate is over the legality of abortion.

By the way, who posted that quote? You didn't include a name.
Riden did.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

In response to Halcion's posts:

You can take this anyway you want, but you my friend live in a bible fantasy world if you really think that sex was gift meant for only the right person, your soulmate so to speak.

I don't see sex as a selfish act, I see it as just another way to have fun in this already bored life. That being said, that sex is a selfish act to you when it isn't acted out with your true love and it is just for pleasure, is your oppinion.. well more like the bible's oppinion, but still an oppinion, an oppinion I certainly do not share.

So set aside your oppinion on what is 'right' sex and what is 'wrong'. People have sex, they have it for pleasure, this sometimes leads to unwanted pregnancies when not using the proper protection. So saying contraception is wrong, is.. well.. wrong. So now I'm gonna ask you to do something you may not like, but indulge me for a bit will ya. Is it right or wrong for people, who do not share your oppinion on sex like me, who like to have sex for pleasure to use condoms or some other form of protection?
So take your nose out of the bible for a few secs and realise that you live in a world full of people who disagree with some things or everything in the bible and don't have the same principles as you do.

Sorry if this post seems a bit hostile towards christians, but I hate it when I'm discussing something with someone, but it isn't really discussing, but more like reading parts of the bible on my part.

Just like to note, I believe in God, I don't believe in the church or the bible.

Hi. I thought I'd post a few "guidelines" that may help this mudwrestling match. Say hello to Dragon for me. I'll just repost what I put down last page:

"I believe that the sex debate could be refined a bit more. I'll offer the notion that sex is indeed an expression of love and union - heck, we're made that way. On the other hand, there can be times when the act of intercourse can indeed be toward selfish ends. This is when love is not present between the partners, and it becomes just a means of reducing stress or convenience. So In that sense, I see what halcyon is saying.

Bhs speaks here in terms of having fun before settling down with a chosen spouse. Halcon did make a valid point in reference to this as being selfish. This however requires a bit more qualification. It is the natural tendency and need for a human person to seek relief, and one such way is recreational sex. However, sex for convience can leave its scars if there is no commitment between the two. I've hurt girls that way, and I've dated girls who've had their share of boi troubles - and believe me, it's not fun dealing with trust issues - my own and others. I believe alot of good can be said about the institution of marriage in that sense. I'd refer readers back to my post on objective value ordering as a solution. So yes, I would say Halcyon does have a point about selfish unions."

[HR_Hellfire]

Women's bodies are their own, let them decide, not like the baby was alive enough to complain..

[BhsCrew]

Women's bodies are their own, let them decide, not like the baby was alive enough to complain..

You just brought this thread back to life to say that? Why would you do this? Let it die! Oh well, here we go. You've unleashed a monster. :lol:

It all begins again.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You just brought this thread back to life to say that? Why would you do this? Let it die! Oh well, here we go. You've unleashed a monster. :lol:

It all begins again.

No he hasn't. He need only read this thread in it's entirety - I think we've dealt with most questions. I for one am done on this thread. :yawn:

[Ryu]

As am I. Unless someone brings up a new valid well thought out point

Eep, just realized this is a bump :(

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Edit: Nah, not really worth it.

Though for the sake of clarification: Hal, I read your posts, while missing your original post. If you read the two after, you can see why I took your comments the wrong way. My appologies.

I still don't agree with your view, but I would like to go back to staying away from this debate for the moment. :lol:

[Pongle]

well, i figured out the best comprimise.. you can have 2 abortions in a lifetime, after that you gotta go through with it, ****in *****'s.

[Essex]

I'm glad I don't know what was bleeped out there.


I'm about to go all kill bill on this freaking thread to the next person who bumps this *it was already on the main page when I typed this*