Pro-life/ pro-choice. Weigh in.

[BhsCrew]

I posted this in another thread but here goes.

My basic thoughts on a fetus.
Until it gets born it is 100% dependant on its mother for its continued existance. If she stopped giving it oxygen or blood for a few seconds it would die. However harsh that sounds the point is that right now we only have two main points where the state of the fetus changes. At conception it changes from a possibility into an actual fetus. At birth it changes from a parasite to a self-supporting organism.

The question is simply at which point do you make the rights of the baby equal to the rights of the parent. My vote is for the second one.

[Essex]

i'll just go on record now as saying im pro-choice (big huge shocker huh? lol)

[Ryu]

Why is a 7 month from conception born prematurely more important than while in still the mother womb? the first is protected by law, not the second.
And an infant is still totally dependent on others but its caretaker cant kill it.
Why should you be allowed to kill your unborn baby but notyour 5 day old baby? You shouldnt be able to kill either IMHO.

I'm very pro-life unless the woman will die without an abortion, ie baby in tubes, dunno the way to spell so not trying.

[Essex]

Why is a 7 month from conception born prematurely more important than while in still the mother womb? the first is protected by law, not the second.
And an infant is still totally dependent on others but its caretaker cant kill it.
Why should you be allowed to kill your unborn baby but notyour 5 day old baby? You shouldnt be able to kill either IMHO.

I'm very pro-life unless the woman will die without an abortion, ie baby in tubes, dunno the way to spell so not trying.
well I think the question is when are they alive? Also I think its always silly that men argue this topic when it is not us having the children. If you were going to have to go through the tremendous amount of pain that is childbirth you may have a different point of view.

There are often many pregnancies that are not wanted (****, molestation) should that mother be forced to carry that child to term?

If she is not forced to carry a child to term then why should a woman who accidently got pregnaunt have to have her child if she chooses not to?

[BhsCrew]

Why is a 7 month from conception born prematurely more important than while in still the mother womb? the first is protected by law, not the second.
And an infant is still totally dependent on others but its caretaker cant kill it.
Why should you be allowed to kill your unborn baby but notyour 5 day old baby? You shouldnt be able to kill either IMHO.

I'm very pro-life unless the woman will die without an abortion, ie baby in tubes, dunno the way to spell so not trying.

I was 9 weeks early and I can say that if I had never been born I wouldn't have cared because I had no capacity to care.

Once a baby is born, anyone can care for it. It can be transported into any home that wants to adopt a kid and it will survive just fine. Before the kid is born he is the complete property of the mother because whatever you do to the kid will directly affect her. You can't magicially take the kid out and give it to someone else without a major surgury.

[Ryu]

So going through pain makes something totally pointless? And the men can go through emotional pain instead of physical pain.
Say my kidney(dunno what parts are expendable) is needed by someone else and i have no use for it as i dont drink or anything, but it will hurt, so i dont give it up and they die. Is that perfectly fine?

[Andarcel]

Pro-life/Pro-choice. Weigh in.
Oh hell no.

[Essex]

So going through pain makes something totally pointless? And the men can go through emotional pain instead of physical pain.
Say my kidney(dunno what parts are expendable) is needed by someone else and i have no use for it as i dont drink or anything, but it will hurt, so i dont give it up and they die. Is that perfectly fine?
all I meant is that it would provide a different point of view. I'm curious if you feel that **** victims should be allowed abortions and if they are then why not everyone else?

[Ryu]

No, partially because of studies showing its worse for them to have an abortion, and because adoption is an option. Sure I feel sorry for them but them being wronged doesnt make it right to wrong the result of that wronging


And of course its a different point of view, but that doesnt mean men shouldnt have a say if its wrong.

[Essex]

so what if the girl is 16? 15? you think that someone who is basically a child should have to go through childbirth? A procedure that can be fatal and that often leaves the person totally changed forever (physically as well as emtionally, I'm also curious where you heard it was better for them not to have the abortion)

[Ryu]

There have been studies done on the phsyciological(sp) effects of abortion vs having the kid from **** nd either keeping or giving for adoption,

No, a 15 yr old shouldnt have to, but its not right to punish the baby. Lotsa of injustices happen to ppl it shouldnt happen to that cant be fixed like abortion can to an extent. A lot of good could come from it, the person could be the one to perfect cold fusion persayl

[BhsCrew]

So going through pain makes something totally pointless? And the men can go through emotional pain instead of physical pain.
Say my kidney(dunno what parts are expendable) is needed by someone else and i have no use for it as i dont drink or anything, but it will hurt, so i dont give it up and they die. Is that perfectly fine?

So should we be required by law to give up our organs for sick people if we can live with only one?

[Ryu]

No
But is it right?
Just giving an extreme example.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Ohhhh BHS, welcome to the world of controversy!!!

First, I don't think this should be an issue that should be decided on one extreme or the other. There should be compromise.

I don't really believe in abortion, however, I do feel there are cases where it should be allowed.
There are women who need abortions for the sake of their own health, and there are young women who make mistakes and are not ready to take on the responsibility of a child. This child would probably be born into a world it did not deserve. However, there are women who repeatedly are irresponsible and continue to get pregnant, thus continuing to have repeated abortions.....I do not think this should be allowed. Not only from a moral standpoint, but for the health of the woman as well.
So, in my opinion, legislators should meet in the middle with something such as this:

--Women should not be able to have abortions after 6-10 weeks into the pregnancy. Abortions in the third trimester should not be allowed AT ALL.

--A woman should only be allowed ONE abortion, and after the abortion should be required to take classes in safe sex. This, of course, would except health issues, etc. There should be a nationwide tracking system to monitor this.

--Abortions after 6-10 weeks should only be warranted for the mother's safety. If a pregancy is in it's third trimester, the baby should, in most cases, be able to be taken out as premature. An abortion during this period is a horrible thing. And if anyone would like to know the graphic process of this, google it.

The main thing is, women should not be able to have continued abortions due to their irresponsibility. No more abortions after one in normal cases. Otherwise, they should have to go through the process, and if they cannot or do not want to support the child, then there are plenty of people who are willing to adopt.
We should go against nature as little as possible.....only when it's truly needed.

[BhsCrew]

There have been studies done on the phsyciological(sp) effects of abortion vs having the kid from **** nd either keeping or giving for adoption,

No, a 15 yr old shouldnt have to, but its not right to punish the baby. Lotsa of injustices happen to ppl it shouldnt happen to that cant be fixed like abortion can to an extent. A lot of good could come from it, the person could be the one to perfect cold fusion persayl

Its not really punishing a baby because that baby is not even fully formed and has no concept of its existance. If that fetus dies it affects no one but the parents. The fact that it has life doesn't make it a person. It makes it a collection of cells. It is the fact that we know we exist that makes us human.

[Essex]

well I think we just have a vast difference of opinon there because I don't think a **** victim no matter how old should have to have the child. Even if its worse for them the abortion should be a choice, I'd imagine the child would be a constant reminder to them of what happened.

[BhsCrew]

I personially don't believe that abortion is a good thing. However I believe that woman should have the choice to have an abortion. It is the whole conservative idealogy that people should be allowed to make stupid choices. It is the choice that makes us free. In this case I believe that a woman should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy regardless of whether an abortion is better or worse then having the childn for her.

The only reason that she shouldn't have the choice is if you believe that a fetus should have the full rights of a human being and trump a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. I know people who have had abortions and they say it was a horrible process that they will remember, but they still want the ability to make that choice. I find it hard to believe that a woman would have abortion after abortion without a care in the world.

[Essex]

jolly I sort agree with you there but I don't think that six-10 weeks is long enough, just because it stops being a ball of cells and looks like a tiny person doesn't mean that should be the cut off point.

Many argue that abortion is used by women who repeatedly get pregnaunt I'd love to know the stats on that, how many people who have abortions have had more than one, more than two and so on.

I think the idea of a women ****ing all she wants and letting the abortion doctor take care of it is a myth created by the pro-life people simply to use as a point to argue. As you said yourself the procedure is rather invasive I doubt it's something anyone would want done on them at all let alone once every few months.

[Ryu]

http://www.afterabortion.org/poverty.html

Some "key" points IMO

Women who have had abortions are at greater risk of suffering emotional and psychological problems which may interfere with their ability to concentrate, make decisions, and interact with others, thereby reducing their level of job skills and employment opportunities.

Women who have had abortions are more likely to become pregnant again and undergo additional abortions. Nearly 50% of all abortions are repeat abortions.
Compared to their peers, teenagers who have had one abortion are 4 times more likely to have a subsequent abortion. Almost 20% of teen aborters have a second abortion within a year, and 38% have a second abortion within 5 years.

Women who have had abortions are more likely to subsequently require welfare assistance, and the odds of going on welfare increase with each subsequent abortion

Women who have had repeat abortions are more likely to desire children and are likely to carry one or more subsequent "replacement" pregnancies to term. This means that many repeat aborters end up becoming unmarried mothers, the very fate they tried to avoid when they had their first abortion. Only now, they also have to deal with post-abortion psychological and emotional scars.

These studies lead Strahan to conclude that "the repeated utilization of abortion appears to lead not to economic prosperity or social well-being, but to an increasing feminization of poverty."
In light of the evidence, it is hard to see how abortion has served to empower women. It has not made them richer, or happier, or more successful. Indeed, it has served mainly to achieve all of the opposite effects.


Abortion does not free women. It simply enslaves them in a new way.

Many more points on that site and others.

[therealmikeg]

I'm pro-choice. I'm too bored to type anything else on this topic.

[Ryu]

Well at least your not a hypocrite
If you had said your pro-life, that would have been worse since you support the death penalty, which is a huge pet peeve of mine.

[therealmikeg]

Well at least your not a hypocrite
If you had said your pro-life, that would have been worse since you support the death penalty, which is a huge pet peeve of mine.

I'm registered as a Republican, but I'm definately an Independent that just leans to the right. Its like a Republican without religion. :idea:

[BhsCrew]

http://www.afterabortion.org/poverty.html

Some "key" points IMO

Women who have had abortions are at greater risk of suffering emotional and psychological problems which may interfere with their ability to concentrate, make decisions, and interact with others, thereby reducing their level of job skills and employment opportunities.

Women who have had abortions are more likely to become pregnant again and undergo additional abortions. Nearly 50% of all abortions are repeat abortions.
Compared to their peers, teenagers who have had one abortion are 4 times more likely to have a subsequent abortion. Almost 20% of teen aborters have a second abortion within a year, and 38% have a second abortion within 5 years.

Women who have had abortions are more likely to subsequently require welfare assistance, and the odds of going on welfare increase with each subsequent abortion

Women who have had repeat abortions are more likely to desire children and are likely to carry one or more subsequent "replacement" pregnancies to term. This means that many repeat aborters end up becoming unmarried mothers, the very fate they tried to avoid when they had their first abortion. Only now, they also have to deal with post-abortion psychological and emotional scars.

These studies lead Strahan to conclude that "the repeated utilization of abortion appears to lead not to economic prosperity or social well-being, but to an increasing feminization of poverty."
In light of the evidence, it is hard to see how abortion has served to empower women. It has not made them richer, or happier, or more successful. Indeed, it has served mainly to achieve all of the opposite effects.


Abortion does not free women. It simply enslaves them in a new way.

Many more points on that site and others.

All these facts would be true if you substitued the word adoption for abortion. Poor people are more likely to have unwanted kids. Taking the unwanted kid would only increase poverty as the woman would be unable to work during the last several months. Woman who get pregnant without wanting to are likely to get pregnent again regardless of whether they abort or give the kid up for adoption. Now you have a poor woman who lost her job from the first pregnancy and now has many kids all of whom stand greater chances of ending up in jail.

However none of this matters. Campaigns to reduce teen pregnacy and increase the use of birth control are fine. However just because something is used badly doesn't mean it should be banned. There are many woman who have abortions where it was better then carrying the baby to full term. Those studies said nothing about whether teen mothers had any of the same problem. They were comparing teens who have abortions (which isn't a huge number) with all other teans. A more reasonable study would have been comparing teens who had abortions with teen mothers. Then the statistics might have actually meant something.

[Ryu]

After reading an article, I have a question

Do you support parents forcing an abortion on their daughter whos like 17 or whatever? She doesnt want it but they have the doctor forcibly do it. Do you support that as theyd be raising it and kids still under their house etc?
Thats so wrong in my eyes.

[Essex]

very intersting stats ryu, I did a search of my own and a pro-choice think tank had very similar stats so I'm not going to say "well its pro-life they are liars!"

so my idea was proved wrong lol but that's ok.

I still argue that abortion should be legal because do you think all those abortions that took place would just magically be ok if abortion wasn't legal? Those women would find ways to not have the baby, they may try thingst hat would wind up killing themselves and the baby, or they may wind up simply damaging the baby making its a life a living hell.

At least with legal abortions the procedures are carried out in a sterile professonal enviornment instead of some back ally with a wire hanger. People are going to keep having sex and people are going to not want to have to deal with the repercussions of that, so why not have a system in place to deal with it?

I would think that many of the psychological problems that the women deal with are probably due to the social stigma that abortions carry with them, if they didn't exisit then the may not have those psychological problems.

Adoption would of couse be the number one way to go in these situations but it's unrealistic to think that is what would happen. Also anything that limits populations with as little damage to the world as possible is something we must do. (I don't think that a fetus is a person I don't think it has feelings or can think, plus I belive in reincarnation so that baby is going to get a second chance to me)

[Essex]

After reading an article, I have a question

Do you support parents forcing an abortion on their daughter whos like 17 or whatever? She doesnt want it but they have the doctor forcibly do it. Do you support that as theyd be raising it and kids still under their house etc?
Thats so wrong in my eyes.
no I do not belive that is right. My whole reason for being pro-choice is what the title implies, choice. No one should have anything they don't want forced on them.

[BhsCrew]

After reading an article, I have a question

Do you support parents forcing an abortion on their daughter whos like 17 or whatever? She doesnt want it but they have the doctor forcibly do it. Do you support that as theyd be raising it and kids still under their house etc?
Thats so wrong in my eyes.

No that would be wrong, same as the parents forcing the girl to have the baby if she wanted to abort it. My argument is for the choice to be legal. It doesn't matter how often that choice is used only that it exists.

Abortion used to be illegal. The abortions still happened they were just done in dangerous environments often with dirty equipment. In this case when an abortion is done it is as safe as possible for the mother.

[Ryu]

Heres a counter argument to keeping it legal for safety

Black market
Do you want to legalize all drugs so gov can tax and there can be a standard on them so they dont become poisonous or more dangerous?

And some things had that same argument but when illegalized the practice died off eventually, like slavery, although not really safety it probably still existed for a short while after being illegalized.

Education and related practices would be needed to show why people shouldnt do it illegally or do it period.

BTW, dont take what im saying personally, just debating my point, some ppl get all fussy about being wrong or w/e

[Essex]

was I being fussy? If so I didn't mean to be :) I am just debating like you said. I know I can't change anyones mind... its just a fun activity of sorts.

I do think drugs should be legal so your barking up the wrong tree with me there lol. I think that if they were legal then you would have standards, no more washing powder in your coke... also you could tax them and regulate them. Then again I'm a freaking liberal hippie so I know no one is going to agree with me there.

I don't see how slavery is anything like legal drugs or abortion. It's not a health issue, it's a rights issue to me and of course just a horrible practise all together.

[BhsCrew]

Heres a counter argument to keeping it legal for safety

Black market
Do you want to legalize all drugs so gov can tax and there can be a standard on them so they dont become poisonous or more dangerous?

And some things had that same argument but when illegalized the practice died off eventually, like slavery, although not really safety it probably still existed for a short while after being illegalized.

Education and related practices would be needed to show why people shouldnt do it illegally or do it period.

BTW, dont take what im saying personally, just debating my point, some ppl get all fussy about being wrong or w/e

Abortion isn't done to get high. It is the lesser of two evils. The other option is taking an unwanted kid to full term and then either raising a kid who isn't wanted or putting him in a foster home. If abortion didn't exist the amount of unwanted kids would be far greater then the amount of families to care for them. Even now there are many kids who grow up unwanted with no family.

Again what I'm saying is that this choice directly affects the mother and it should be her choice what happens. Thats it. I'm not saying that abortion is good or that we shoud have more of them. I'm saying that I don't think I should be able to tell a mother that what she should be able to do with her pregnancy.

[Ryu]

im just trying to bring some possible examples to debate
and yeah you arent but some ppl get like that

im mixed abotu the drug issue, dunno how i stand atm, i agree with what yousay but i also wish they were totally wiped out completely.

and its possible to change peoples minds, i usedto be pro-choice til class debates with educated religion teachers who debated many angles

[Ryu]

Some of your arguments brought this point up i gotta make so sorry for double post

having an abortion rather than raising the kid puts a value on human life, like saying you'd pay 500 dollars to have someone killed, as thats all their worth or something
i think each human life(and fetus's are human) is invaluable no matter what

[Essex]

well I seriously doubt I'll change your mind on an internet fourm lol plus those people have been debating it for years, I just know what I know from cnn or my own personal feelings :)

I'm with you on drugs I do with they didn't exsist at all, but if they do then they should be legal so that they can be more easily controlled. It sorta works for Alchol right?

[BhsCrew]

Some of your arguments brought this point up i gotta make so sorry for double post

having an abortion rather than raising the kid puts a value on human life, like saying you'd pay 500 dollars to have someone killed, as thats all their worth or something
i think each human life(and fetus's are human) is invaluable no matter what

I guess that is where it all differs. I don't think I life to be human you must be aware of your own existance, and from that all the other characteristics of human spirit follow. I don't see a fetus as human because while it is physicially similar to us it has no thought. It will most likely eventually be born and become a human being but as long as it is in the womb it doesn't even know that it exists. If it doesn't know it exists then it can't miss itself if it didn't exist and that is the difference.

I know I exist and therefor would be unhappy to die. If I had no ablilty to comprehend my own existance then I would not miss life and my death would mean nothing to me.

[therealmikeg]

Black market
Do you want to legalize all drugs so gov can tax and there can be a standard on them so they dont become poisonous or more dangerous?

Its important that drugs aren't legalized. Think of the kids smoking across the street from their high school in the morning before classes. Now think about them smoking pot. Now imagine how many fewer kids graduate or find any value in school. Now imagine all the taxes you have to pay because of jackasses on welfare.

[Essex]

but a large part of the reasons kids do drugs is for the rebel factor, the coolness. If it's something that's common place they won't do it. I know a lot of people who drank alot before they turned 21 but once they did the fad sorta died out.

Of course if you legalized drugs I feel it should only be available to adults, 12 year olds shouldn't drink they sure as hell shouldn't smoke pot. But many many sucessful people smoke pot. Pot doesn't automatically make you like Bill and Ted excessive pot smoking will, but is that any worse then excessive eating?

[BhsCrew]

Its important that drugs aren't legalized. Think of the kids smoking across the street from their high school in the morning before classes. Now think about them smoking pot. Now imagine how many fewer kids graduate or find any value in school. Now imagine all the taxes you have to pay because of jackasses on welfare.

We're assuming that even if drugs were legalized they would still be illegal for anyone under the age of 18. I know lots of kids who do drugs regardless of the fact that they are illegal. Some of them end up ruining their lives but almost all of them ended up graduating and going to a good college.

Just because it is legal wouldn't mean that everyone would do it all the time. These kids had access to all the drugs they wanted yet the vast majority of them chose to live their lives and graduate instead of dropping out of school and dragging on society. Most of the ones who didn't succedd will either reform or die before they start collecting welfare.

People abuse drugs in the same way that people abuse alcohol. The main difference between now and when alcohol was illegal was that when alcohol was illegal organized crime was involved in its production and shipping. Making drugs legal would cut organized crime out of the drug picture. It could be regulated in the same way alcohol is.

[BhsCrew]

but a large part of the reasons kids do drugs is for the rebel factor, the coolness. If it's something that's common place they won't do it. I know a lot of people who drank alot before they turned 21 but once they did the fad sorta died out.

Of course if you legalized drugs I feel it should only be available to adults, 12 year olds shouldn't drink they sure as hell shouldn't smoke pot. But many many sucessful people smoke pot. Pot doesn't automatically make you like Bill and Ted excessive pot smoking will, but is that any worse then excessive eating?

Well anything done in excess is usually bad. Though I would compare pot heads to alcoholics before I would compare them to obese people.

[Essex]

well I agree but I was just thinking... Bill and Ted were stoners and lazy. I'm fat and lazy... there's sort of a connection lol :)


Plus I'd love for Geroge Carlin to come and take me for a time trip in a payphone.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

jolly I sort agree with you there but I don't think that six-10 weeks is long enough, just because it stops being a ball of cells and looks like a tiny person doesn't mean that should be the cut off point.

Many argue that abortion is used by women who repeatedly get pregnaunt I'd love to know the stats on that, how many people who have abortions have had more than one, more than two and so on.

I think the idea of a women ****ing all she wants and letting the abortion doctor take care of it is a myth created by the pro-life people simply to use as a point to argue. As you said yourself the procedure is rather invasive I doubt it's something anyone would want done on them at all let alone once every few months.

Well, there are alot of people in this country. And, believe me, there are many women who have repeated abortions. If you want to , go ahead and google it, I'm sure you'll find some stats. It's not a myth, it happens.
I think there it should be done within the first trimester, definetely. That would have given the woman plenty of time to know there is something wrong or different. So, at least within the first 12 weeks.
I do agree that women who are impregnated during **** or incest should certainly be allowed to have the procedure done. I don't think you can get pregnant during molestation, since you are being molested and not having intercourse.
But, I'll look for those numbers for you.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

very intersting stats ryu, I did a search of my own and a pro-choice think tank had very similar stats so I'm not going to say "well its pro-life they are liars!"

so my idea was proved wrong lol but that's ok.

I still argue that abortion should be legal because do you think all those abortions that took place would just magically be ok if abortion wasn't legal? Those women would find ways to not have the baby, they may try thingst hat would wind up killing themselves and the baby, or they may wind up simply damaging the baby making its a life a living hell.

At least with legal abortions the procedures are carried out in a sterile professonal enviornment instead of some back ally with a wire hanger. People are going to keep having sex and people are going to not want to have to deal with the repercussions of that, so why not have a system in place to deal with it?

I would think that many of the psychological problems that the women deal with are probably due to the social stigma that abortions carry with them, if they didn't exisit then the may not have those psychological problems.

Adoption would of couse be the number one way to go in these situations but it's unrealistic to think that is what would happen. Also anything that limits populations with as little damage to the world as possible is something we must do. (I don't think that a fetus is a person I don't think it has feelings or can think, plus I belive in reincarnation so that baby is going to get a second chance to me)

If you go with my post, then you can have one....and have classes and psycho evaluation afterwards. Women who intentionally hurt themselves after that to avoid childbirth should be evaluated again, because this is a sign of a mental problem. If they didn't learn the 1st time, then its a mental problem, probably from their environment (how they were raised) or in some cases it is a genetic problem.
The point is, it does cause health problems for women, mental and physical. And, to do it again and again, just compounds the problem. Otherwise, it's just morally wrong to keep having this done.
Like I said, nature is nature. Things happen because they are set to happen that way, and we should go against this as little as possible.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

No that would be wrong, same as the parents forcing the girl to have the baby if she wanted to abort it. My argument is for the choice to be legal. It doesn't matter how often that choice is used only that it exists.

Abortion used to be illegal. The abortions still happened they were just done in dangerous environments often with dirty equipment. In this case when an abortion is done it is as safe as possible for the mother.

Not as many though. I don't know the exact stats, but I'm completely sure their weren't near as many as there are now. I really disagree with the fact that it's so easy to have done. There should be guidelines with this like anything else has. Like I said, not one extreme or the other. That's the problem with our country today, no compromise. I wish people would just meet in the middle concerning things such as this.

[BhsCrew]

Not as many though. I don't know the exact stats, but I'm completely sure their weren't near as many as there are now. I really disagree with the fact that it's so easy to have done. There should be guidelines with this like anything else has. Like I said, not one extreme or the other. That's the problem with our country today, no compromise. I wish people would just meet in the middle concerning things such as this.

I guess my main problem is the only pro-life people I know are all men. All the woman I know are pro-choice and none of them have had many abortions but they all would want the choice if it came to it. The female population is so much higher pro-choice then pro-life and frankly I don't think the men need to have any input on legalizing abortion one way or the other as the final decision won't have any real impact on our lives.

[SaroDarksbane]

Pro-life.

Nuff said, I think.

Abortion is the one topic that I really try to avoid debating, because inevitably after the word "Pro-Life" appears in one of my posts, the words "OMG, you just hate women and want to make them subservient sex-slaves you sexist jerk!" appear in the next one. :rolleyes:

[BhsCrew]

Pro-life.

Nuff said, I think.

Abortion is the one topic that I really try to avoid debating, because inevitably after the word "Pro-Life" appears in one of my posts, the words "OMG, you just hate women and want to make them subservient sex-slaves you sexist jerk!" appear in the next one. :rolleyes:

OMG, you just hate women and want to make them subservient sex-slaves you sexist jerk!

Sorry I couldn't pass that one up. :)

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I guess my main problem is the only pro-life people I know are all men. All the woman I know are pro-choice and none of them have had many abortions but they all would want the choice if it came to it. The female population is so much higher pro-choice then pro-life and frankly I don't think the men need to have any input on legalizing abortion one way or the other as the final decision won't have any real impact on our lives.

I think the issue, in my opinion, is a human one....not man or woman. But that's just my opinion. And it does have impact on men in some ways, such as fathers' of the unborn child, or the fathers' of the women having abortions, or if the child being aborted is a male, then it would affect in that way, as well. Although it is mainly not a physical one on males, I think that it has effects on everyone around the woman doing it. I just think it should have guidelines like anything else this serious.....it shouldn't be able to be done so freely.

[Cale The Dark]

How many of you remember being born? how many of you remember breast-feeding from your mother? how many of you remember your fist birthday? fact is that you don't. i think it's funny that people associate not being awake with not being a human being. you can't remember being in the womb? i wonder why? not a whole lot to do in there is there? anyone who says that they KNOW that babies in the womb don't think are full of ****. you have no idea and there really isn't a way to find out. even if they are in a comatose state, they are still human beings. a person in a coma is a human being, we don't just say.."ah it's a parasite, lets stab it in the head with a needle and suck out it's brain!". Abortion is murder and you wonder why there is a stigma? you are taking the most pure, innocent, beautiful thing on this planet and killing it. congratulations. but it's ok....it's just a parasite. oh and by the way, by calling the baby a parasite you admit that it is a seperate being from the mother, hence weakening your argument and leaving me room to say that it's it's own person and killing it is murder.

oh and as for the drugs being illegal for under 18 if they are legalized. what a great idea. look at alcohol. nobody underage drinks alcohol. i mean, that would be against the law! my underage roommate didn't go out last night and get plastered. surely not. fact is that you would be encourageing teens to smoke pot and do other drugs because there would still be the "rebel factor".

as far as the pain of childbirth and young mothers...ever heard of a C-section? it's surgery, but if you don't want to go through childbirth, there it is. fact is that i sympathise with **** victims and such. something very terrible happened to them, but murdereing an innocent baby isn't going to make that go away. they can give it up for adoption if they want, but don't snuff out the life of a baby that had nothing to do with the ****. in my mind, the mother who aborts her baby is worse than the rapist who gave it to her. the ONLY time abortion is ok is when the mother's life is in danger.

in closing, abortion should not only be illegal, it should be considered murder and punishable as such. if you think that there would be just as many abortions if it were illegal and punishable by life in prison, you are living in a fantasy land. would they still happen? yes, but not as many. i'm sorry if i can't summon the compassion for a murderer who gets sick from dirty conditions.

~by the way, everyone member of my family (with the exception of my two crazy cousins) is pro-life. i have a lot of female family members too.

[Tetzel]

I don't really understand the entire argument of pro-life, for Christians anyway. Does the child go to Heaven or Hell?

If it's Heaven, they're saved and I fail to see the problem.

If it's Hell, that just doesn't seem fair to the innocent soul that's done absolutely nothing wrong to anyone and you should question your religion's morality...

Past religion, I'm obviously pro-choice. The parents are the ones who'll have to deal with the emotional pain which is a much greater burden than the already inevitable "death" of the "child"; if they see it as the best choice they're the ones who suffer the most.

[BhsCrew]

oh and as for the drugs being illegal for under 18 if they are legalized. what a great idea. look at alcohol. nobody underage drinks alcohol. i mean, that would be against the law! my underage roommate didn't go out last night and get plastered. surely not. fact is that you would be encourageing teens to smoke pot and do other drugs because there would still be the "rebel factor".
.

Pot is already freely available to teenagers. I don't see how legalizing it for adults would change teenagers access to it. Most teens find it relativly easy to buy pot if they want it.

[psimage]

OK, I think I'll sound off on this one.

Firstly, i think the childbirth argument is bull%&#@. I think it's obvious that life would be easier if we as a society allowed ourselves to be immoral. If we killed every felon in the country, it would make society safer and people happier. That doesn't make it right. Likewise, however much women might like the right that they currently posess, to kill their children on a whim, and however useful it might be to said women, that doesn't make it right.

And as for being a parasite.....how about premature births? More importantly, where will your agrument stand in 50 years when a mother is not necessary and there are artificial wombs (they're working on a goat womb in Japan as we speak)? My point is, the distinction of a fetus being physically inside a mother is asinine. What's the difference in survivability of a fetus one day before it's born and one day after? three months before it's born? Where do you draw the line?

As for the fetus not caring, it seems to me as if that theory suggests that as long as I drug someone up sufficiently, I can commit murder at will. As long as they don't feel it or recognize that they're dying. That just seems stupid to me.

As a final point, for anyone arguing that fetuses are not human, I suggest you head down to your local hospital or university and take a look at a collection of dead fetuses. Try pointing at one of them and saying "this one, I can kill because it's convenient." It'll be educational, I promise.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I don't really understand the entire argument of pro-life, for Christians anyway. Does the child go to Heaven or Hell?

If it's Heaven, they're saved and I fail to see the problem.

If it's Hell, that just doesn't seem fair to the innocent soul that's done absolutely nothing wrong to anyone and you should question your religion's morality...

Past religion, I'm obviously pro-choice. The parents are the ones who'll have to deal with the emotional pain which is a much greater burden than the already inevitable "death" of the "child"; if they see it as the best choice they're the ones who suffer the most.

In my opinion, it's not a question of religous morality....it's a question of human morality. This procedure defies nature. This is not my whole argument however........please read previous posts.

[BhsCrew]

How many of you remember being born? how many of you remember breast-feeding from your mother? how many of you remember your fist birthday? fact is that you don't. i think it's funny that people associate not being awake with not being a human being. you can't remember being in the womb? i wonder why? not a whole lot to do in there is there? anyone who says that they KNOW that babies in the womb don't think are full of ****. you have no idea and there really isn't a way to find out. even if they are in a comatose state, they are still human beings. a person in a coma is a human being, we don't just say.."ah it's a parasite, lets stab it in the head with a needle and suck out it's brain!". Abortion is murder and you wonder why there is a stigma? you are taking the most pure, innocent, beautiful thing on this planet and killing it. congratulations. but it's ok....it's just a parasite. oh and by the way, by calling the baby a parasite you admit that it is a seperate being from the mother, hence weakening your argument and leaving me room to say that it's it's own person and killing it is murder.

oh and as for the drugs being illegal for under 18 if they are legalized. what a great idea. look at alcohol. nobody underage drinks alcohol. i mean, that would be against the law! my underage roommate didn't go out last night and get plastered. surely not. fact is that you would be encourageing teens to smoke pot and do other drugs because there would still be the "rebel factor".

as far as the pain of childbirth and young mothers...ever heard of a C-section? it's surgery, but if you don't want to go through childbirth, there it is. fact is that i sympathise with **** victims and such. something very terrible happened to them, but murdereing an innocent baby isn't going to make that go away. they can give it up for adoption if they want, but don't snuff out the life of a baby that had nothing to do with the ****. in my mind, the mother who aborts her baby is worse than the rapist who gave it to her. the ONLY time abortion is ok is when the mother's life is in danger.

in closing, abortion should not only be illegal, it should be considered murder and punishable as such. if you think that there would be just as many abortions if it were illegal and punishable by life in prison, you are living in a fantasy land. would they still happen? yes, but not as many. i'm sorry if i can't summon the compassion for a murderer who gets sick from dirty conditions.

~by the way, everyone member of my family (with the exception of my two crazy cousins) is pro-life. i have a lot of female family members too.

Heh. Man you really feel strongly about this. Just out of curiosity where you from anyway? Not that it really matters.

The truth is we're never going to agree on whether a baby in the womb is a human or not. Just for the record are you saying that they are a human being at conception or do you allow some amount of months before the fetus becomes human? Does it have to have a brain? Does it have to look like a baby?
I mean for a while its a ball of cells with no brain that no one would recognize as being even remotely human. Is it ok to abort it when its still in that phase or do you want to protect the cell ball as well?

[Essex]

as far as the pain of childbirth and young mothers...ever heard of a C-section? it's surgery, but if you don't want to go through childbirth, there it is. fact is that i sympathise with **** victims and such. something very terrible happened to them, but murdereing an innocent baby isn't going to make that go away. they can give it up for adoption if they want, but don't snuff out the life of a baby that had nothing to do with the ****. in my mind, the mother who aborts her baby is worse than the rapist who gave it to her. the ONLY time abortion is ok is when the mother's life is in danger.



see I have a problem with that cale. If abortion was to be made illegal (lets be honest it isn't gonna affect me very much at all... but if it was to be made illegal then you are forcing these women who have been tramatized to carry the child of the man who did this to them.

I'm sure your female prolife relatives probably make an exception in this case or would have to pause and think. Being with child isnt' an easy thing. C-sections are still invasive surgery it's not like they just magically bring the baby out. If you force a woman to have a child when she was ***** you are rapeing her all over again in my eyes. Even if she never has to see the baby again the ordeal would drive most women crazy. Then again nothing they do will make the **** not happen but why add to the pain? Why not offer the choice.

It just all boils down to what you consider life. Do you really think I like the idea of killing babies? Do you think I hate people so much I want to see little children killed? No I don't but then again I don't want (men espeically) to make laws that force a woman to do something she doesn't want to especially when life may or may not begin in the womb. Your right we don't know that fetuses (is it Fetusi?) dont' think... hell they may know all the secrets to life. But we also don't know that they do.

For me it all boils down to not wanting to dictate to a woman what she can and can not do to her body.

One one of the stat sites I looked at abortion rates are going down btw they were at their peak in 96 since then it's been dropping.

[Ryu]

The truth is we're never going to agree on whether a baby in the womb is a human or not. Just for the record are you saying that they are a human being at conception or do you allow some amount of months before the fetus becomes human? Does it have to have a brain? Does it have to look like a baby?
I mean for a while its a ball of cells with no brain that no one would recognize as being even remotely human. Is it ok to abort it when its still in that phase or do you want to protect the cell ball as well?



wrong
the question is if its a person or not
its scientifically proven its a human being
person is totally different
not debating other things in this post, just dont have the energy and other ppl are saying what i wanna say :)

[Essex]

What's the difference in survivability of a fetus one day before it's born and one day after? three months before it's born? Where do you draw the line?


you basically asked the 100 million dollar question. Where do you draw the line? Do you consider life at conception despite the fact that its only a bundle of cells with no brain, no organs, just cells?

Just for information this is from a fetal devlopment website.

12 weeks - Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

so for 12 weeks the brain isn't even fully formed. So perhaps abortions should be allowed but not after first trimester?

[Tetzel]

In my opinion, it's not a question of religous morality....it's a question of human morality. This procedure defies nature. This is not my whole argument however........please read previous posts.

What is nature? Humans are still animals, and are still "natural." We've come "from nature." Thus any actions we take would be natural. Unless you think aliens or Gods gave us the idea of abortion. It's just the progression of time. Nothing supernatural about it.

As for human morality, it could also be argued that it's incredibly immoral to force a child into a continuing cycle of misery, neglect, and alcoholism that they, in turn, will subject their children to. It's a matter of perspective, you can spin it any way you choose. Who are you to force your biased perspective on others? That's immorality.

[Ryu]

not trying to be mean
but if someones leg isnt fully developed at age 7 and it costs a lot of money and time to attend to it, should the family just amuputate it?
serious question, im opposed but some may not be

[Essex]

if the leg isn't going to full form and the child is willing they should and get one of those really good prosetic (sp) legs. Only if the child wishes though... they could always do that bone lenghthing thing though... ya know the one that allows some dwarfs (the real kind) to be at a somewhat more normal height.

[Ryu]

"Only if the child wishes though"

What if, way out there idea, the fetus CAN think to an extent
Would they want to be aborted if the mom doesnt want them and their life wont be the best?

I would still want to be born myself, even in sufferring great things can be acomplished

Look at Beehtoven(argh,i used to be good at spelling), albert einstein etc
They could have been aborted due to problems in todays society

[BhsCrew]

not trying to be mean
but if someones leg isnt fully developed at age 7 and it costs a lot of money and time to attend to it, should the family just amuputate it?
serious question, im opposed but some may not be

Man that would be some pretty screwed up parents to cut off a seven year old's leg just because it isn't fully developed. You might as well wait a few years and let the kid decide for himself.

[Ryu]

"12 weeks - Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

so for 12 weeks the brain isn't even fully formed. So perhaps abortions should be allowed but not after first trimester?"

"Man that would be some pretty screwed up parents to cut off a seven year old's leg just because it isn't fully developed. You might as well wait a few years and let the kid decide for himself."


So just let it fully develop
then it can think and will want to live

[BhsCrew]

"Only if the child wishes though"

What if, way out there idea, the fetus CAN think to an extent
Would they want to be aborted if the mom doesnt want them and their life wont be the best?

I would still want to be born myself, even in sufferring great things can be acomplished

Look at Beehtoven(argh,i used to be good at spelling), albert einstein etc
They could have been aborted due to problems in todays society

I guess you have to assume what would happen if you were aborted. I assume that if I had been aborted I never would have existed and therfor I couldn't have a problem with it. I'm glad I'm here but if I wasn't then I would have no concept of what could have been and so I'd be just as happy either way.

By the same logic we could assume that every egg that isn't fertilized is a wasted human that could have brought world peace.

[Essex]

damn you ryu you set me up for a trap! Where was akbar when I needed him (fark.com refrence)

if we could someone get a psychic to tell us that a fetus can think then yeah I'd say sure stop abortions except in **** victims cases and when the moms health is in danger. But I still don't think it would be able to think. Who knows maybe I just am an immoral baby killer?

But ok for all those opposed most of the time you say "unless the mother is in danger" but what's the difference then? Shouldn't the mother take the hit for the child? Isn't muder no matter what wrong?

For those who say it's murder. Isn't war as well? Do you think that God or just morality for lack of a god cares about politics? No of course not murder is murder you can't be picky like that. I personally would never want my girlfriend (LOL As if) to have an abortion but it wouldn't be up to me it would be up to her... just because i'm pro-choice doesnt' mean I want to kill babies.

[Ryu]

Its not scientifically proven i dont think, but fetus's can respond and be affected by whats going on outside them while in womb, so in that case, you cant really say that you wouldnt care.
My friend was obsessed with fresh prince of bel aires theme song i believe because their mom watched it a lot while pregnant

[Andarcel]

http://www.afterabortion.org/poverty.html

Some "key" points IMO

Women who have had abortions are at greater risk of suffering emotional and psychological problems which may interfere with their ability to concentrate, make decisions, and interact with others, thereby reducing their level of job skills and employment opportunities.

Women who have had abortions are more likely to become pregnant again and undergo additional abortions. Nearly 50% of all abortions are repeat abortions.
Compared to their peers, teenagers who have had one abortion are 4 times more likely to have a subsequent abortion. Almost 20% of teen aborters have a second abortion within a year, and 38% have a second abortion within 5 years.

Women who have had abortions are more likely to subsequently require welfare assistance, and the odds of going on welfare increase with each subsequent abortion

Women who have had repeat abortions are more likely to desire children and are likely to carry one or more subsequent "replacement" pregnancies to term. This means that many repeat aborters end up becoming unmarried mothers, the very fate they tried to avoid when they had their first abortion. Only now, they also have to deal with post-abortion psychological and emotional scars.

These studies lead Strahan to conclude that "the repeated utilization of abortion appears to lead not to economic prosperity or social well-being, but to an increasing feminization of poverty."
In light of the evidence, it is hard to see how abortion has served to empower women. It has not made them richer, or happier, or more successful. Indeed, it has served mainly to achieve all of the opposite effects.


Abortion does not free women. It simply enslaves them in a new way.

Many more points on that site and others.
Let's play games with semantics, substituting these key phrases for "women who have abortions" in their respective points:

Women who have unwanted pregnancies...

Women who become pregnant are more likely to become pregnant again...

Poor women (the majority of those who have abortions) are more likely to require welfare...

...And I really don't see how your fourth point is an argument against abortion, unless one buys the notion that abortion creates "scars" more severe than, say, post-partum depression or the other emotional complications of an unwanted pregnancy. I don't. I haven't see any research that comes close to establishing this.

Statistics are a tricky thing.

[BhsCrew]

damn you ryu you set me up for a trap! Where was akbar when I needed him (fark.com refrence)

if we could someone get a psychic to tell us that a fetus can think then yeah I'd say sure stop abortions except in **** victims cases and when the moms health is in danger. But I still don't think it would be able to think. Who knows maybe I just am an immoral baby killer?

But ok for all those opposed most of the time you say "unless the mother is in danger" but what's the difference then? Shouldn't the mother take the hit for the child? Isn't muder no matter what wrong?

That's funny I knew exactly where he was going with his question. I could see it in his eyes.

If even a few circumstances in the world changed you wouldn't have had the same beetoven or einstien because we are products of our environment as well as our genes.

[Ryu]

Who knows maybe I just am an immoral baby killer?
No, some people may be if they dont care about baby at all or dont consider it, but you just dont know everything, nor does anyone, so if your wrong its just misinformation/ignorance which isnt very bad

But ok for all those opposed most of the time you say "unless the mother is in danger" but what's the difference then? Shouldn't the mother take the hit for the child? Isn't muder no matter what wrong?

Its not murder, you go in to save the mom and the baby if possible, but the only way to save the mom is stop the babies life, double effect, just like shooting a madman on a shooting rampage to try to cripple him but the only way is a fatal shot.

[Andarcel]

I guess that is where it all differs. I don't think I life to be human you must be aware of your own existance, and from that all the other characteristics of human spirit follow. I don't see a fetus as human because while it is physicially similar to us it has no thought. It will most likely eventually be born and become a human being but as long as it is in the womb it doesn't even know that it exists. If it doesn't know it exists then it can't miss itself if it didn't exist and that is the difference.

I know I exist and therefor would be unhappy to die. If I had no ablilty to comprehend my own existance then I would not miss life and my death would mean nothing to me.
Take a moment to think about the gaping hole in that argument. I'm sure after a moment it'll be pretty obvious.

[BhsCrew]

Let's play games with semantics, substituting these key phrases for "women who have abortions" in their respective points:

Women who have unwanted pregnancies...

Women who become pregnant are more likely to become pregnant again...

Poor women (the majority of those who have abortions) are more likely to require welfare...

...And I really don't see how your fourth point is an argument against abortion, unless one buys the notion that abortion creates "scars" more severe than, say, post-partum depression or the other emotional complications of an unwanted pregnancy. I don't. I haven't see any research that comes close to establishing this.

Statistics are a tricky thing.

Nice to have you here Andarcel. Didn't I already make this post? :)

[BhsCrew]

Take a moment to think about the gaping hole in that argument. I'm sure after a moment it'll be pretty obvious.

As much as I love you mocking me, I will need you to point out the GAPING hole in my arguement as I can't seem to find it at the moment.

[Ryu]

aye
nor can i
:(

[Essex]

well I have to go. I'll check back in onthis later (much later like tomorrow) but I figure the arguement will be over by then.

So it was fun talk to you all later :)

[DuskO]

Wow, I'm not even going to read this thread. I tend to stay out of heated discussions about political agendas and morality. However, my decision is tied directly to my religious beliefs.

*Wrong in all instances.

[Danny5]

Okay. Cale, I think I've liked your post the most so far. But, I'm afraid I'm a bit more extreme.

Murdering something of complete innocence is wrong. Killing a baby that hasn't done anything to you is wrong. I feel the same way about animals and humans. A baby can't control it's creation. It's the mothers actions that cause her body to change. It's not the babies fault. The baby can't control when, or what kind of environment it's created in. This is why I believe **** victims would still have to give birth. The baby didn't just decide to appear after you were *****, that was YOUR bodies call. As such, the baby holds no blame in the matter and is of complete innocence. And as I've stated, murdering an innocent being is the worst possible thing that can ever happen.

Call me insane, I don't really care.

[Andarcel]

anyone who says that they KNOW that babies in the womb don't think are full of ****. you have no idea and there really isn't a way to find out. even if they are in a comatose state, they are still human beings. a person in a coma is a human being, we don't just say.."ah it's a parasite, lets stab it in the head with a needle and suck out it's brain!". Abortion is murder and you wonder why there is a stigma? you are taking the most pure, innocent, beautiful thing on this planet and killing it.

Uh-huh. And anyone who tells you that they know for sure that tunafish can't think is also full of it. Or fleas. Or rocks. Were you planning to start the Pro-Object Integrity Association on the off-chance that cars have minds?

As for babies, let alone fetuses being "beautiful and pure," what a laod of romantic twaddle. Fetus are basically lump of cells at the beginning, as pure and beatiful as a heart or a cancer or a fungus for that matter. They then progress to the point of activity, where they start carelessly kicking and discomforting their benefactor. After they're born, they're grasping, selfish, nasty buggers that demand their every need be instantly attended to and possess the world's biggest entitlement complex. Once they begin to develope some more, they realize they can get extra attention by fake crying, and will do so relentlessly until even the most determined of parents will give in. It's not until they're older yet that they begin to develop the rudiments of morality, and even then only if it's constantly reinforced.Throughout this early process, the notion of reciprocating any of the immense resources of love, food, comfort, care, and energy lavished on them is utterly alien.

In short, there's a reason why "infantile" does not mean "pure and beautiful."

[BhsCrew]

Okay. Cale, I think I've liked your post the most so far. But, I'm afraid I'm a bit more extreme.

Murdering something of complete innocence is wrong. Killing a baby that hasn't done anything to you is wrong. I feel the same way about animals and humans. A baby can't control it's creation. It's the mothers actions that cause her body to change. It's not the babies fault. The baby can't control when, or what kind of environment it's created in. This is why I believe **** victims would still have to give birth. The baby didn't just decide to appear after you were *****, that was YOUR bodies call. As such, the baby holds no blame in the matter and is of complete innocence. And as I've stated, murdering an innocent being is the worst possible thing that can ever happen.

Call me insane, I don't really care.
Innocence can't be the only qualification because ants, rats, most pests that we kill all the time are innocent. I'm going to assume that you didn't mean that you don't want me to kill some ants in my house just because those ants are innocent. We need another qualifier.

[Andarcel]

Nice to have you here Andarcel. Didn't I already make this post?

So you did, but I wanted a little more detail.

Let me put it to you this way: how, exactly, are you supposed to miss yoursel;f after you cease to exist?

[Danny5]

Yep. That's why I'll probably be considered insane. Innocent applies to all things that are, or will be, living. Am I guilty of doing it? Yeah, you bet I am. Do I deserve utter death and eternal torture because of it? Yeah. I do. It sucks, but it's true.

And that my friends, is why my reasoning is the best.

Edit: Incase there needs to be further clarification.. the "Yep." is directed at Bhs's comment.

[Cale The Dark]

Someone asked so i'll tell you. I'm a country boy from western Indiana.

You don't know whether a fetus can think or not so, but you admit that there is the possibility that it can? In a murder trial if there is reasonable doubt you must aquit. You have reasonable doubt and you decide to kill. If there was even the CHANCE that the baby can think how can you condone abortion? It just blows my mind.

i personally don't think that the "bundle of cells" can think and is a person, but there is no clear line when it becomes a person. until recently you could suck the brain out of a baby clear up until the day it was born. i would rather err on the side of caution and say that it is a person from conception. i can not and will not be a party to the murder of innocents. you're right, i do feel strongly about this.

i'm not saying that if the mother's life is in danger you should always abort, in cases like that the mother should be given the choice. one of them is going to die, mother or child.

a woman is ***** and making her have the child is raping her again? i don't understand this, and i can't understand how letting her murder a child will solve her problems.

even if the child were to be born into suffereing, who are you to decide that they are better off dead?

even if i weren't religious at all, i would still be pro-life. beyond anything else in this world, and i mean anything. this is the one thing that sickens me the most. if anyone i knew had an abortion i would be unable to speak to them ever again. if one of my guy friends pressured his girlfriend to get an abortion, he'd be lucky to get away with just a beating. people use technicalities to justify the use of murder as birth control and we all just sit by and watch.

[Andarcel]

Yep. That's why I'll probably be considered insane. Innocent applies to all things that are, or will be, living. Am I guilty of doing it? Yeah, you bet I am. Do I deserve utter death and eternal torture because of it? Yeah. I do. It sucks, but it's true.

And that my friends, is why my reasoning is the best.

Edit: Incase there needs to be further clarification.. the "Yep." is directed at Bhs's comment.
It's certainly consistent, I'll grant you that. But I have a couple of questions: first, why "living" as opposed to anything else? And secondly, can you define living? Do viruses count?

[BhsCrew]

Yep. That's why I'll probably be considered insane. Innocent applies to all things that are, or will be, living. Am I guilty of doing it? Yeah, you bet I am. Do I deserve utter death and eternal torture because of it? Yeah. I do. It sucks, but it's true.

And that my friends, is why my reasoning is the best.

Edit: Incase there needs to be further clarification.. the "Yep." is directed at Bhs's comment.

Wow. I like your style. Honest and not hypocritical.
Personially I'd rather have something innocent die then something that can comprehend its own mortality and make choices. But that's just me.

[Cale The Dark]

Anarcel, you are undoubtedly one of the sickest people i've ever met. i dearly hope you were exagerating for effect. in any case, your gross exageration involving cars and rocks in the place of a fetus showed absolutely NONE of the intelligence you have shown in past posts. i hope you are under the influece of drugs or have some other excuse.

[BhsCrew]

So you did, but I wanted a little more detail.

Let me put it to you this way: how, exactly, are you supposed to miss yoursel;f after you cease to exist?

Actually that was my point. Death is not a big deal for me if I have no concept that I am alive. I've seen ants get accross water by making a bridge of ants who drown until they have a path. They have no concept of life and so death means nothing.

Simply put if I didn't know I was alive I wouldn't care if I was dead.

[Danny5]

Oh crap. Now some of my wacky religious beliefs come into play(Well.. I guess it would be classified as religion). I say living, or something that will be living, since I believe all living things are given an existence as a required experience until they can go.. well.. onward, is the best way to phrase it. Since honestly I don't know what exactly the "next" is. But my point is that I believe everything living, or that will live, is given life for one reason or another. Consider it a kind of "required information". There isn't anything specific, since each person and thing leads completely different existences, for the most part. Sorry for the incredible vagueness, it's just a hard concept to translate to words.

I'm not entirely sure if a virus is living or not. I suppose that depends on what you would consider living.

[BhsCrew]

Anarcel, you are undoubtedly one of the sickest people i've ever met. i dearly hope you were exagerating for effect. in any case, your gross exageration involving cars and rocks in the place of a fetus showed absolutely NONE of the intelligence you have shown in past posts. i hope you are under the influece of drugs or have some other excuse.

I'm going to have to say that I agree with Andarcel somewhat. I mean I would say that an adult human being who can reason and make sense of the world is far more beautiful to me then a baby who acts only on its basic instincts.

[Andarcel]

Sigh... Cale, do you have any logical argument? Or do you simply plan to take refuge in your outrage?

I don't believe a first-trimester fetus can think or that a car can think with equal conviction. So you're going to have to explain to me why the comparison... wait, I'm buying into your baloney, I never even made a comparison. I said that a statement you made about a fetus could be equally well applied to a car, and therefore it is meaningless. The cynical side of me suspects that you deliberately misconstrued that as dramatically as possible because you couldn't find an adequate response to the point.

You keep trying to paint this in black and white terms. I haven't yet heard you respond to the question of whether a zigote counts as a human being. Go one, tell us all that six cells may be able to think and therefore aborting it is murder.

[Andarcel]

Bhs, let's assume for the moment a materialist universe. Once I'm dead, I'm not going to miss living. It's as impossible to "miss" existence for a formerly conscious beign as an unconscious one. The mind ends with the experience.

[BhsCrew]

Bhs, let's assume for the moment a materialist universe. Once I'm dead, I'm not going to miss living. It's as impossible to "miss" existence for a formerly conscious beign as an unconscious one. The mind ends with the experience.

I agree. My point is that killing something that doesn't know its alive has no effect on what you killed. It only affects us because we understand the nature of reality and we are sad that what was killed is no longer there.

A fetus doesn't know its alive and killing it changes nothing except for us. We know that the fetus died and we are sad for it, but it never even realized that something happened to it.

[Andarcel]

Any definition of "effect," "affect," and "to change" that could make the above definition true has to include the predicate. In other words, you'd have to say that changing something, for example, means "altering its knowledge." In that case, the statement becomes circular and therefore empty. Of course killing something that's not self-aware will not change its self-awareness; but then, neither would killing someone who's deeply asleep or in a coma.

[BhsCrew]

Any definition of "effect," "affect," and "to change" that could make the above definition true has to include the predicate. In other words, you'd have to say that changing something, for example, means "altering its knowledge." In that case, the statement becomes circular and therefore empty. Of course killing something that's not self-aware will not change its self-awareness; but then, neither would killing someone who's deeply asleep or in a coma.

Well even if I am asleep I am aware of my existance. Otherwise if I dreamed I wouldn't see myself in the dreams. I still know I'm alive. Something that doesn't know its alive can't want to live.

If I'm in a coma and there's no chance of me coming out of it then I might as well die for I am already for all intents and purposes dead.

[Ryu]

It could know its alive though, who knows
When theres doubt, do the thing with least possible bad outcomes, in thiscase let the baby live

If my friend wanted to havean abortion instead of raise kid, i'd offer to help her through pregnacy and then through the adoption process etc, or i'd help her raise it if she wanted, but i'd sign something so that i wasnt legally its guardian unless it was a very very good friend

[Chiba]

All you guys know about that Peterson case not too long ago? I found it interesting how he was being charged for the murder of his wife...and his unborn baby. The goverment must think a fetus is a living thing too eh? But then again, half of you don't believe in the goverment right now. :lol: (mumbles something about democrats...j/k of course :hides:)

[BhsCrew]

It could know its alive though, who knows
When theres doubt, do the thing with least possible bad outcomes, in thiscase let the baby live

After a baby's brain is formed I believe its important to let it live if possible, I just don't belive its more important then the health or well being of the mother.

Before the baby's brain is formed I don't see any reason why it can't be aborted. It is an unthinking ball, that will in no way miss it's existance.

[BhsCrew]

All you guys know about that Peterson case not too long ago? I found it interesting how he was being charged for the murder of his wife...and his unborn baby. The goverment must think a fetus is a living thing too eh? But then again, half of you don't believe in the goverment right now. :lol: (mumbles something about democrats...j/k of course :hides:)

yeah the government is in limbo at the moment on that. At the moment the fetus has some rights but the rights of the mother trump them. We'll see what happens.

[Cale The Dark]

Sigh... Cale, do you have any logical argument? Or do you simply plan to take refuge in your outrage?

I don't believe a first-trimester fetus can think or that a car can think with equal conviction. So you're going to have to explain to me why the comparison... wait, I'm buying into your baloney, I never even made a comparison. I said that a statement you made about a fetus could be equally well applied to a car, and therefore it is meaningless. The cynical side of me suspects that you deliberately misconstrued that as dramatically as possible because you couldn't find an adequate response to the point.

You keep trying to paint this in black and white terms. I haven't yet heard you respond to the question of whether a zigote counts as a human being. Go one, tell us all that six cells may be able to think and therefore aborting it is murder.


why don't you try reading my posts? i already said that i don't think that 6 cells constitutes a person, but that i don't know where the line is drawn. therefore, i consider it better to say that it's a person from conception in order to rule out murdering a human being.

you say that my statement could just as well be applied to a car....how is this not a comparrison? fact is that a car will never be sentient, regardless of it's present state. even that 6 little cells will become a human being at some point if given half a chance. who are you to say "this week it's a cell bundle, and this week its a baby"? i recognize my inability to do this and compensate by considering it a person from conception. sure, i can't prove that a 6 week old baby is a thinking human being, but you can't prove otherwise. so why is your argument any more valid than mine?

this issue has to be black and white. gray areas in this issue are dangerous. in the gray resides socially acceptable murder.

oh and bush just passed a bill called the fetus protection act (or something like that) which makes the fetus a seperate person in an assault case. just one more step towards the illegalization of abortion and the end of the mass murder.

by the way, you still sicken me. and i'm not taking refuge in my outrage, i'm fighting to get past my outrage so that i can debate on these forums without calling half of you baby killers and condeming you to hell.

[Mister My Way]

As I'm jumping into the middle of a well-developed discussion, I'll give the other participants a little introduction to my views before wading in with the sticky issue of justification.

First of all I'd like to say that I find the whole process of abortion to be distasteful and (at the very least) morally questionable. The fact that one may be performing lethal treatment on an unwilling patient (the fetus) is a complicated enough mess without bringing matters of religion, the soul, and salvation into the fray. And beyond the moral/religious element inherent in the practice, there's the basic repulsion anyone feels when harm comes to a pregnant woman: all crimes are considered more terrible and profane when they are committed upon the body of an expectant mother. And finally there are the basic medical ramifications to consider: women who choose to have abortions run the risk great physical and emotional damage. The entire concept is abhorrent.

And yet I support it. Why?

My main reason for feeling as I do is that outlawing abortion will not stop it. Women will take desperate and irrational measures to rid themselves of an unwanted child. Left without any form of legal recourse, they have three options: 1) have the unwanted child, which some will not consider a viable course of action 2) attempt to locate a doctor who is willing to perform an illegal operation for which proper training and resources are no longer available 3) rid herself of the child on her own. It is this third option which frightens me to the point where I become willing to consider legalized abortion as acceptable, because history has shown it will happen and terrible things will come of it.

I have otherjustifications for my view, but I feel that that is enough for now.

Mr. My Way

[ProtectorOfLife]

Ahhhh! So many posts. I dont have the patience to read them, (damn computer age and the impatieness its passed on to me!!) but I just want to make a point in case no one else has said so already. If you don't allow teens abortion its very encouraging for them to do drugs and drink and kill the baby by that means. By outlawing abortion that is percisely what will happen, try doing a study on that one. For those of you who think its unfair to kill an unborn baby, do you remember when you were in your mothers belly, much less when you were 1-5? Animals die everyday. Now babys and some animals have the same intelligence (the rest of animals, even less), yet these animals die everyday. Now am I saying its ok to kill those animals? No. Am I saying that if one of those animals was putting a serious threat on a born humans life then its right to kill it? Yes. Why? Human beings are the most intelligent form of life on the planet, therefore our human brain has more capacity for everything including pain. To some animals pain is a mere instinct. For us humans its on so many levels, emotional, physical, mental, spiritual, you name it we feel it. And the degree we feel it is far greater from being an infant to being an adult. Its a horrible compromise to have to make I admit that. The brain hasn't fully developed yet as an infant so how can you say it has the same capacity for things as adults. The same goes for an unborn child to an infant. Imagine if this infant was still sperm. Is it then ok to sacrafice it to protect human life? Yes? Why? What makes it fair but not with an unborn child? What I am about to say is directed to only the intolerant people who are making a fuss about this subject. So if you are not of these people try not to get offended or stop reading now....

As some of you christians (and all other god believers with the same beliefs everywhere) read this, you hate what you read and you see me as wrong and ignorant don't you? If you don't the following is probably not directed at you. You are intolerant and I am tired of tip toeing around you all. If you truly believe your way is right then leave the "sinful" alone and let them "go to hell". Seriously. What gives you, or anyone right to place your beliefs on anyone else? How DARE you do such a thing. You have no proof that god even exists. I don't know about god or not but I know intolerance is one thing that really exists and that it sickens me. You are playing with choices in other peoples lives you don't fully understand. I live by a strict code of honor and morals, but I make them myself. I decide what is good and not by how I see it. Now I don't know everything either, but I try my best to understand and thats all I really can do as a human. Until I see otherwise I won't change my oppinions for anyone, not even god and if he condems me to hell for it (if he even exists) then he is the one at fault not I for not providing me (as well as the rest of humans) with the reason of why. It is in human nature to know the reason behind things before just blindly following something they have no real proof of and if he created my human mind he would have known that. If you even respond against my post specfically do me, and everyone else, a favor and respond with intelligence and well thought out ideas, not emotions such as hate. Things don't tend to get solved from hate.

[Ryu]

Most people I know DONT force religions upon others, i certainly didnt

And about people doing it unsafely if its illegal, its legal and ppl still do it unsafely and use drugs, that morning after or week after or whatever CAN perform an abortion

And Mister, people said that about a lot of things, slavery included probably, but eventually, with education and such, it would stop.

[ProtectorOfLife]

And about people doing it unsafely if its illegal, its legal and ppl still do it unsafely and use drugs, that morning after or week after or whatever CAN perform an abortion

We aren't arguing if people do it now. All the most horrible and wrong things happen on Earth and its too hard at this point to stop them all. Preventing as many of the most horrbile ones as possible is more of a thing someone should try to do. In this circumstance I am refering to the most horrible ways of self abortion women have done and the extra damage they bring to the unborn child as well as themself (which im my oppinion is bad, why create more pain then is necessary), and these numbers would certainly increase if abortion was outlawed. Now I can imagine that swallowing a pill that kills a baby can't be the most humane things in the world (though I would hope they made it as painless a death as possible, cause though the baby cant feel pain like we do, it still feels something im sure), but im sure it cant be worse then using a hanger...or the slow and painful process of intoxicating/starving a baby to death (im sure the baby would die of poor nutriction sooner then the barer)

[Andarcel]

Bhs, you're ducking the question. I'll rephrase again: what if the person is in a temporary coma? Wouldn't you still, by your own logic, be guiltless if you killed him?

Why Cale, how very logical. As you know, half of us have committed abortions and are therefore condemned to hell :rolleyes: I personally performed no less than three operations this morning.

Would you like a cookie for managing to override your knee-jerk reactionism and ingrained dogma long enough to rail at us for daring to be logical? It seems a pretty feeble accomplishment to me.

Comparison:
1)The act of comparing or the process of being compared.
2)A statement or estimate of similarities and differences.
3)The quality of being similar or equivalent; likeness: no comparison between the two books.
3)Grammar. The modification or inflection of an adjective or adverb to denote the positive, comparative, and superlative degrees, as in English, along with the equative degree in certain other languages, such as Irish Gaelic.

Somehow, I don't see saying "well, yes, x is true of y but also true of z and therefore x doesn't mean much" fitting into any of those definitions.

Now, that's a good point about cars not turning into people. A shame you didn't make it earlier. You see, I only respond to the points you actually make. For you to then castigate me because the response was inadequate to some other idea you had is absurd. I'm not going to carry your half of the argument for you.

But lets consider this notion that a fetus has the potential to be a person and therefore is entitled to the rights of a person. Now, it's a bit of a stretch to say the material of a car will eventually beome a person, because we don't know if people will be around long enough for those atoms to cycle into a person's body. Besides, for that to happen the car HAS to be broken down, so it's not much of an argument for keeping the car intact.

But sperm? Or ova?

Doesn't your argument apply just as well to them? And we've all seen how you hate gray areas. If a zigote should be treated like a person, shouldn't its immediate precursors? But no. A sperm and an egg separately are just objects, together they're suddenly, magically a person.

So much for THAT argument. Also pretty much takes care of safety. After all, an egg might be a person one day, so we need to error on the safe side.

Oh, and I find sickening you quite entertaining. I look forward to crafting the syllogism that causes you to vomit all over your monitor. So please, keep me posted on how sick you are of rational, consistent morality.

Seriously: get over it. You don't have a monopoly on truth and right, and you do a pretty shoddy job of convincing us of your version of them. Thus far, Danny is the only one with whose managed even a basic Kantian consistency. He's the only one who can lay claim to an honest black-and-white morality, and it's a pretty hopeless one at that.

[Andarcel]

Ryu, the analogy with slavery doesn't work. It's a much easier thing to monitor and curtail than abortion. Drugs are a better reflection of how criminalizing abortion will likely play out.

[Kronious]

Sheesh everytime i read one post another pops in cant keep up. But anyway abortion to me is wrong to me. I think studies of "does the fetus feel pain" have been done recently and they lowered the age of the fetus even more that the fetus recognizing pain. I forgot the age or the text maby someone can chime in on that one if they also read it.

I think it strange that a woman when she finds out that she is pregnant and she wants an abortion, its (the conception) considered by her as as some kind of leeching cells. But the same woman gets pregnant again and decides to give birth. Right from conception its called a baby with full rights as a human being ,if the conception is injured in some way?

Now intresting read from a professional case:

SEPTEMBER 21, 1989, was an unusual day for the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Tennessee, U.S.A. On that day the circuit court handed down an opinion on a custody dispute over seven frozen human embryos. The court had to decide which of the divorcing parents was entitled to custody. However, first another issue cried out for settlement: Are the embryos to be considered property or human beings?
Professor Jerome Lejeune of Paris, world-famous geneticist, testified before the court that each human has a unique beginning, which occurs at the moment of conception and that “as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.” In other words, beginning at the three-cell stage (zygote), the embryos are, as he told the court, tiny human beings.

When asked if he was testifying that the zygote should be treated with the same rights as an adult, Dr. Lejeune answered: “I’m not telling you that because I’m not in a position of knowing that. I’m telling you, he is a human being, and then it is a Justice who will tell whether this human being has the same rights as the others. . . . But as a geneticist you ask me whether this human being is a human, and I would tell you that because he is a being and being human, he is a human being.”

Based primarily on Dr. Lejeune’s unrebutted testimony, three of the courts salient conclusions are:

· “From fertilization, the cells of a human embryo are differentiated, unique and specialized to the highest degree of distinction.”
· “Human embryos are not property.”
· “Human life begins at conception.”

Now a little from the Bible if you have a care to read it: Psalm 139:13-16.

[Gangeskhan]

Wow i read the starting post and all i can say is im not going to feed the troll. (Ok sorry for this post, but the topic is up top anyway ;)). Deliberately using extreme "what if" situations and all-encompassing blanket statements. Every agrument is wrought with fallacies and in the end trivial to the "discussion" at best.

The questions are loaded and this is not getting any prettier.

[Mister My Way]

Just a quick question: do the pro-lifers here think that outlawing abortion will put an end to its practice? Why? My main problem continues to be that I don't see how making it legally verboten will end it, but I can see how it will make the whole thing more dangerous.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hot topic. I'll wade in with my strongest tone on these forums to date. Abortion is killing. There is no argumentation. When a child is aborted, life is snuffed out. It makes no difference if a person is developing in the womb, or running around with 2 feet and a heartbeat - it's still a person. Arguments clouding the personhood of a fetus are irrelevant. Life is prevented. Life is stopped.
Secondly, arguments stating that it should be allowed in certain cases are also irrelevant. A person is responsible for their decisions, and should hold themselves accountable. Never kill another human being - indeed your own child - to make ends meet. Such is deplorable. Argumentation that abortion should be allowed in cases of **** is also deplorable. A human life is still present, regardless of the means of conception. To kill a life - any life - is simply murder. Don't waste time smoothing over the issue. Life is no cakewalk - and if you get dealt some $hit, take it. That's life. But don't take it out on the unborn innocent person. This thread need not continue past this.

[BhsCrew]

Bhs, you're ducking the question. I'll rephrase again: what if the person is in a temporary coma? Wouldn't you still, by your own logic, be guiltless if you killed him?



I'm talking about something that never had the ability to comprehend its own existance. A person in a coma knows that they exist when they go into the coma and they are still going to know that when they come out. Either they are dreaming in the coma (in which case they know of their own existance) or they do not dream and they realize no time inbetween when they went in and out.

This is very different from and ant that doesn't know what death is and doesn't even realize that it exists. The ant won't miss being alive because it can't comprehend existance.
A person in a temperary coma is just like a person going to sleep. As soon as they wake they would easily be able to tell you what death was.

The whole thing doesn't really matter I was just talking about the intelligence of an organisim. You have to have a certain amount of intelligence to fear death.

[Kronious]

Heh! mabe they should find a way to sterilize everyone at birth, and reverse it only if they can prove to be a working person trained and able to support a child. Then there would be only illeagal underground clinics reversing the sterilization of parents who want to bring life into the world. ummm sounds like a making of a good movie :p

[BhsCrew]

Hot topic. I'll wade in with my strongest tone on these forums to date. Abortion is killing. There is no argumentation. When a child is aborted, life is snuffed out. It makes no difference if a person is developing in the womb, or running around with 2 feet and a heartbeat - it's still a person. Arguments clouding the personhood of a fetus are irrelevant. Life is prevented. Life is stopped.
Secondly, arguments stating that it should be allowed in certain cases are also irrelevant. A person is responsible for their decisions, and should hold themselves accountable. Never kill another human being - indeed your own child - to make ends meet. Such is deplorable. Argumentation that abortion should be allowed in cases of **** is also deplorable. A human life is still present, regardless of the means of conception. To kill a life - any life - is simply murder. Don't waste time smoothing over the issue. Life is no cakewalk - and if you get dealt some $hit, take it. That's life. But don't take it out on the unborn innocent person. This thread need not continue past this.

Would each egg that isn't fertalized also count if a zygote counts? It is also a collection of cells with no intelligence that has the potential to become a human being.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Would each egg that isn't fertalized also count if a zygote counts? It is also a collection of cells with no intelligence that has the potential to become a human being.

Irrelevant. An unfertalized egg is merely that. Only when the sperm joins the egg can the process begin. That is the clear point of departure. Arguing over zygotes and cells after this point as a justification for abortion is utterly irrelevant. Life is prevented. Life is stopped. There is no further need of clarification.

[BhsCrew]

Irrelevant. An unfertalized egg is merely that. Only when the sperm joins the egg can the process begin. That is the clear point of departure. Arguing over zygotes and cells after this point as a justification for abortion is utterly irrelevant. Life is prevented. Life is stopped. There is no further need of clarification.

By using birth control you also prevent life. Without the birth control a baby would most likely be born. Is that a lesser version of the same thing or is that alright?

[ProtectorOfLife]

Irrelevant. An unfertalized egg is merely that. Only when the sperm joins the egg can the process begin. That is the clear point of departure. Arguing over zygotes and cells after this point as a justification for abortion is utterly irrelevant. Life is prevented. Life is stopped. There is no further need of clarification.

Quit jacking off. You are killing life. Sperm is alive to as they move and around, it doesnt matter if they know of their existence. They move on their own so they clearly live. Same with flies, and ants. Oh and tell your cells in your body to stop killing virus invaders 'cause this is clearly a violation of your morals. Just because they are microscopic doesn't mean they don't matter. Not very fair is it? Thought so. Just trying to prove a point in how unfair you are being. Stop trying to control peoples lives we aren't all christians like you ok?

[Ryu]

(which im my oppinion is bad, why create more pain then is necessary),
Abortion creates more pain than necessary for at least 3 people

Sperm/egg's CANT become people if you give them time alone, a fertilized egg WILL become the same as us if given time and nutrition etc

Eventually, its possible to totally stop it, but only if its wanted

Birth control isnt as bad as abortion but it isnt right IMO
Sex isnt a necesity, if you cant deal with the possible consequences, dont have it


"I'm talking about something that never had the ability to comprehend its own existance. A person in a coma knows that they exist when they go into the coma and they are still going to know that when they come out. Either they are dreaming in the coma (in which case they know of their own existance) or they do not dream and they realize no time inbetween when they went in and out.
"
Do you have any proof at all to support that?
And the fetus could know they exist. You have NO idea, no one does except God, if there is one, which I personally believe, but I didnt believe in middle school and i still though premarital sex and abortion were wrong as well as drugs etc

[Ryu]

"Quit jacking off. You are killing life. Sperm is alive to as they move and around, it doesnt matter if they know of their existence. They move on their own so they clearly live. Same with flies, and ants. Oh and tell your cells in your body to stop killing virus invaders 'cause this is clearly a violation of your morals. Just because they are microscopic doesn't mean they don't matter. Not very fair is it? Thought so. Just trying to prove a point in how unfair you are being. Stop trying to control peoples lives we aren't all christians like you ok?"

Thats a huge extreme.
And just because your not christian doesnt mean you have to believe in this, theres a thing called natural law instilled in everyone, setting the basis for whats right/wrong like killing people is wrong.
Your body killing invaders is a process of life, keeping us safe
And just because something can move doesnt mean its sentinent. Or that its equal to humans. Its necesary in life, yes, but shouldnt be treated the same as a human.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

By using birth control you also prevent life. Without the birth control a baby would most likely be born. Is that a lesser version of the same thing or is that alright?

Your course of logic ended last post. Killing is one issue.

Birth control is indeed prevention, which is intrinsically selfish - it's mentality could lead to abortion. It is selfish because one is playing with the powers of creation for strictly recreational purposes.

Your next question will be on population control. That is another topic, one leading to the regulation of humanity.

[BhsCrew]

(which im my oppinion is bad, why create more pain then is necessary),


"I'm talking about something that never had the ability to comprehend its own existance. A person in a coma knows that they exist when they go into the coma and they are still going to know that when they come out. Either they are dreaming in the coma (in which case they know of their own existance) or they do not dream and they realize no time inbetween when they went in and out.
"
Do you have any proof at all to support that?
And the fetus could know they exist. You have NO idea, no one does except God, if there is one, which I personally believe, but I didnt believe in middle school and i still though premarital sex and abortion were wrong as well as drugs etc

Again all I was talking about was the fetus before it had a brain. Before it has a brain I am almost completly sure that the zygote can't know it exists. Once its brain fully developes then you are right, there's no way I can know absolutley.

As for the coma I listed both possible options. Either you're in a dream state or you aren't. I don't personially know anyone who went through a temporary coma so I can't prove anything but I don't believe that it really matters.

[BhsCrew]

Your course of logic ended last post. Killing is one issue.

Birth control is indeed prevention, which is intrinsically selfish - it's mentality could lead to abortion. It is selfish because one is playing with the powers of creation for strictly recreational purposes.

Your next question will be on population control. That is another topic, one leading to the regulation of humanity.

So just out of curiousity what is your solution to dealing with the exponentially increasing world population. Obviously birth control isn't one of your solutions so what is?

[Ryu]

Well if most abortions occurred before that time, thatd be one thing, but they dont
And I doubt every fetus develops EXACTLY the same, its possible perhaps one or two would start developing a brain earlier, ya never know

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Quit jacking off. You are killing life. Sperm is alive to as they move and around, it doesnt matter if they know of their existence. They move on their own so they clearly live. Same with flies, and ants. Oh and tell your cells in your body to stop killing virus invaders 'cause this is clearly a violation of your morals. Just because they are microscopic doesn't mean they don't matter. Not very fair is it? Thought so. Just trying to prove a point in how unfair you are being. Stop trying to control peoples lives we aren't all christians like you ok?

Wrong. My post indicated that the process of the human being began with the merging of the egg and the sperm. That dealt directly with the question of abortion. Where does your post come from?

Ejaculation is not killing human life. Cells die every day - cells of every kind. Your point is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the develipment of the HUMAN being. THat is what is at stake here. In truth, it is you who are being unfair. If you believe that you're worth equates to an amoeba, than so be it. Yet, do not impose that belief onto other human beings by using that argumentation to justify the killing of the unborn.

In closing, my beliefs are irrelevant. These points have been answered by means of reason alone. Surely the use of reason shouldn't elicit emotional outbursts. If so, you'd be happier on another thread.

[Ryu]

So just out of curiousity what is your solution to dealing with the exponentially increasing world population. Obviously birth control isn't one of your solutions so what is?
Abstinence
Regulated sex, educated for the right time of month to not get pregnant, natural birth control
Aid to countries with this problem that couild lead to less of it, and more adoption by those who can afford kids, as then it isnt NEARLY as much of a problem

[BhsCrew]

Well if most abortions occurred before that time, thatd be one thing, but they dont
And I doubt every fetus develops EXACTLY the same, its possible perhaps one or two would start developing a brain earlier, ya never know


To my knowledge most abortions do occur realitively early rather then later in the pregnancy (thought I don't have the exact data, mabye someone else here does). As for the after the brain I still believe that it's the woman's body and her health and well being trump that of the fetus.

[ProtectorOfLife]

(which im my oppinion is bad, why create more pain then is necessary),
Abortion creates more pain than necessary for at least 3 people

Sperm/egg's CANT become people if you give them time alone, a fertilized egg WILL become the same as us if given time and nutrition etc

To your first point: Abortion does not necessarily create more pain then necessary (I would say always, but there are always a couple exceptions to pretty much everything). Having a baby you don't want to have is not only IMMENSENLY damaging physically (a procedure that most male humans never experience something as painful in their lifetime) but mentally/emotionally as well. And they are very harsh. If you think otherwise, try forcing a girl to have a baby she didn't want then ask her how she feels. If you even have to ask you are crazy.

To your second point: thats pretty silly. a sperm can survive if you give it what it needs, but somehow giving it an egg is different then nutrition? I would like to see your logic on that one.

[Ryu]

I think the right to life trumps all others, if its going to destory the womans life physically, then thats just cause for an abortion as the babies life, if it can survive, isnt worth the mom dying for in most cases

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So just out of curiousity what is your solution to dealing with the exponentially increasing world population. Obviously birth control isn't one of your solutions so what is?

Post a new thread on that issue and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. This thread deals with the topic of abortion, which deserves dedicated treatment.

[Ryu]

sperm can survive if you give it what it needs


but it cant develop into anything unless the natural process is done, that is fertilizing an egg

[BhsCrew]

Ejaculation is not killing human life. Cells die every day - cells of every kind. Your point is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the develipment of the HUMAN being. THat is what is at stake here. In truth, it is you who are being unfair. If you believe that you're worth equates to an amoeba, than so be it. Yet, do not impose that belief onto other human beings by using that argumentation to justify the killing of the unborn.



Your right in that a zygote has a potential to be a human being. However at the time it isn't. It's a collection of cells with no intelligence. Killing it while it is a zygote isn't killing a human being, it's killing a ball of cells. If you're talking about the potential of the zygote you might as well talk about the potential of sperm or eggs. These also have the potential to become a human.

[ProtectorOfLife]

Wrong. My post indicated that the process of the human being began with the merging of the egg and the sperm. That dealt directly with the question of abortion. Where does your post come from?

Ejaculation is not killing human life. Cells die every day - cells of every kind. Your point is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the develipment of the HUMAN being. THat is what is at stake here. In truth, it is you who are being unfair. If you believe that you're worth equates to an amoeba, than so be it. Yet, do not impose that belief onto other human beings by using that argumentation to justify the killing of the unborn.

In closing, my beliefs are irrelevant. These points have been answered by means of reason alone. Surely the use of reason shouldn't elicit emotional outbursts. If so, you'd be happier on another thread.

I was obviously being sarcastic when I was trying to prove the point (as in I dont think amoeba are the same worth as a human life). I was trying to emphasize your extremeness and "irrelevant" (yet strangely no proof of facts to back it up) logic. You said "means of reason alone". Reason of who? Of you? So you are automatically right no matter what? Is this the general consensus of all people or of just christians? I would like to see where you find your facts. And even if so, just because the majority says so, doesnt make it right. Who defined what human life is and who took it into their right to decide for other people to take away choice from anyone. I would also like to ask you what makes humans matter more than animals. I believe so but I am curious as to your reasoning why. Why is it more ok to put an animal through the same pain then a human. Why is it ok to kill an animal over a human?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Your right in that a zygote has a potential to be a human being. However at the time it isn't. It's a collection of cells with no intelligence. Killing it while it is a zygote isn't killing a human being, it's killing a ball of cells. If you're talking about the potential of the zygote you might as well talk about the potential of sperm or eggs. These also have the same potential.

Agrument discarded. What you call a ball of cells is you in an earlier form. Once the egg is fertalized, life will continue to reveal itself. Only the fertalized egg actualizes the potential. The "what if's" before fertalization are irrelevant. Cells live and die, but the "zygote" as you call it is the body that is yet to be unfolded in time. Do not tax me with semantic nonsense. Killing a "group of cells" then, is the same as killing a group of cells now, which allows you to exist in the world now.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Ok, I started on the first page, read it and the second, and these last two pages. my input starts here.

I personially don't believe that abortion is a good thing. However I believe that woman should have the choice to have an abortion. It is the whole conservative idealogy that people should be allowed to make stupid choices. It is the choice that makes us free. In this case I believe that a woman should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy regardless of whether an abortion is better or worse then having the childn for her.


So in that regard, people should be allowed to commit murder without reprimand. For that is, after all, a stupid choice which free people should be allowed to make, correct?


If abortion didn't exist the amount of unwanted kids would be far greater then the amount of families to care for them. Even now there are many kids who grow up unwanted with no family.

I don't know where you get your stats, but as far as I know, there are HUGE waiting lists for families who want to have an adopted child. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I guess my main problem is the only pro-life people I know are all men. All the woman I know are pro-choice and none of them have had many abortions but they all would want the choice if it came to it.

Hello. I am a woman. And I am PRO-LIFE!!

I would also like to ask you what makes humans matter more than animals. I believe so but I am curious as to your reasoning why. Why is it more ok to put an animal through the same pain then a human. Why is it ok to kill an animal over a human?
Humans have souls. Humans have the capacity to REASON, which animals do not.. However, I would not agree that it is ok to harm an animal for no reason, life is still life. Human life however is significantly more in worth than an animals.

[BhsCrew]

Agrument discarded. What you call a ball of cells is you in an earlier form. Once the egg is fertalized, life will continue to reveal itself. Only the fertalized egg actualizes the potential. The "what if's" before fertalization are irrelevant. Cells live and die, but the "zygote" as you call it is the body that is yet to be unfolded in time. Do not tax me with semantic nonsense. Killing a "group of cells" then, is the same as killing a group of cells now, which allows you to exist in the world now.

No its very different because I am a sentient being aware of my own existance that loves life and fears death. I have thoughts and emotions and everything that makes me human. A zygote has none of that. If you leave it alone it will eventually develop all those things but until it has them killing it doesn't have any major effect. It has no brain, no soul, no feelings, it has no more thought then a rock. Its existence matters to us because we care whether it becomes a human or not, but the zygote has no thought and cannot care about itself.

Its not like there is a fully formed human just waiting to unfold. Sure a human is the eventual reality but it isn't in existance now and if we kill it we aren't killing a human we're just preventing its eventual existance.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I was obviously being sarcastic when I was trying to prove the point (as in I dont think amoeba are the same worth as a human life). I was trying to emphasize your extremeness and "irrelevant" (yet strangely no proof of facts to back it up) logic. You said "means of reason alone". Reason of who? Of you? So you are automatically right no matter what? Is this the general consensus of all people or of just christians? I would like to see where you find your facts. And even if so, just because the majority says so, doesnt make it right. Who defined what human life is and who took it into their right to decide for other people to take away choice from anyone. I would also like to ask you what makes humans matter more than animals. I believe so but I am curious as to your reasoning why. Why is it more ok to put an animal through the same pain then a human. Why is it ok to kill an animal over a human?

Did I imply it was ok to start killing animals? In truth, it is you who bring "facts" into the picture. My use of reason simply deals with the subject matter I am presented with in this thread, and puts things in order. Reasoning power is something that which all people have, yet desire and agenda can prevent its proper and full use. If you will not assent to a universal concept of reason, than I will not assent to continue correspondence with you, as we would be getting nowhere. Do I need "facts" to justify what I have written? I believe what I had posted was clear enough for the reader of average intelligence. If you say that you do indeed see human beings as "more worthy" than animals, why the need to question me? Must you engage upon an inquest of my character to judge me worthy of an audience? I will grant you no such luxury. The nobility of human beings over the animal kingdom is self evident. To those who oppose this, remember to take note of your own actions. Be careful not to wear leather shoes, or to drive over a worm, or be careful not to eat at all - even plants. As this argument would extend to all flora and fauna, to all life on earth.

[Ryu]

bravo to you halcyon
good to know that a woman gamer is pro life, although it can hardly be used as a way of seeing how many or few women are pro life, still nice to know that a few are here

[Halcyon's Dawning]

@ BHS
How can you say a fetus has no soul?? At what point would you claim it has a soul? When it leaves the womb does it just, POOF, get a soul??
What a thing is, it will be from the very beginning. It will change physically in some ways, but what it is, it is intrinsically.

[ProtectorOfLife]

Humans have souls? That is belief not fact, and that could easily be untrue. Humans have the capacity to reason but some dont excercise that capacity obviously :P I keep hearing "commit murder" over and over and yet no one has given a real reason why it is considered this. If you mean the termination of a living being you are correct. But then that applys to killing animals, amoeba, cells, etc. If it doesnt, why? Besides the soul excuse and the "thats the point where he could become human if provided with the right things" etc. At ANY POINT he could become a human provided with the right things I could argue the baby cant survive without its mother the same way as you are doing with that.

[BhsCrew]

Sigh. This all comes down to when we believe life starts, and what worth we give to life at each stage. No amount of talking is going to convince any of us to change our beliefs in that area. Mostly I just like these debates because it helps me understand other people's way of thinking. Usually it also helps to challenge or reinforce my beliefs but this debate comes down to basic ideological differences and isn't going to go anywhere.

It was good talking to you all, but I have to go. I wish you all luck in life.

[BhsCrew]

@ BHS
How can you say a fetus has no soul?? At what point would you claim it has a soul? When it leaves the womb does it just, POOF, get a soul??
What a thing is, it will be from the very beginning. It will change physically in some ways, but what it is, it is intrinsically.

That comes down to whether you believe in souls or not. I believe almost all of what we are is physical. If you believe in an eternal soul then that obviously changes things. There is a point in which a fetus develops a brain which is what I would consider an important point in development.

[ProtectorOfLife]

Way to dodge the quesiton age. First its a question of my reason, then my intelligence, and then of my judging of character. Way to build up the walls between us leaving us further apart rather then leading us to compromise. I knew for a fact my reasoning was different than yours why human life was more important and why that same reasoning applys to why its not ok to put a human life through the birth process over an unborn baby. I wanted to see why you thought it wasnt ok and since you knew you were making a double standard you dodged the question entirely. *sigh*

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No its very different because I am a sentient being aware of my own existance that loves life and fears death. I have thoughts and emotions and everything that makes me human. A zygote has none of that. If you leave it alone it will eventually develop all those things but until it has them killing it doesn't have any major effect. It has no brain, no soul, no feelings, it has no more thought then a rock. Its existence matters to us because we care whether it becomes a human or not, but the zygote has no thought and cannot care about itself.

Its not like there is a fully formed human just waiting to unfold. Sure a human is the eventual reality but it isn't in existance now and if we kill it we aren't killing a human we're just preventing its eventual existance.

Argument discarded. The definition of the human being is not limited to use of human faculties. That is utilitarian, and facist. If you were robbed of your senses and mental abilities - AKA a vegetable, would you cease to be human? Point is irrelevant.

[BhsCrew]

Argument discarded. The definition of the human being is not limited to use of human faculties. That is utilitarian, and facist. If you were robbed of your senses and mental abilities - AKA a vegetable, would you cease to be human? Point is irrelevant.

Actually if I was robbed of all my senses and a vegitable then I would have no ability to interact in the world and as far as I am concerned I am dead already.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Way to dodge the quesiton age. First its a question of my reason, then my intelligence, and then of my judging of character. Way to build up the walls between us leaving us further apart rather then leading us to compromise. I knew for a fact my reasoning was different than yours why human life was more important and why that same reasoning applys to why its not ok to put a human life through the birth process over an unborn baby. I wanted to see why you thought it wasnt ok and since you knew you were making a double standard you dodged the question entirely. *sigh*

Try reading my post again. If you want to discuss this in full, I'll give you my MSN contact info, and I'll be happy to stay up all night to discuss it. Never accuse me of that.
If you want to truly discuss this towards knowing the solution, and not just throw out opinion, we must start from the beginning and come to an agreememnt of terms of language and argumentation. You're throwing around some heavy concepts, like Halcyon's assent to "souls". For that you needed "facts". Then you claim that we don't have the monopoly on truth etc in your other posts. I dont mess around. If you want to contact me, let me know.
If I could clarify your question on animals and humans more perfectly, I would offer the position of an objective ordering of the cosmos, that extends to value ordering, as well as the ordering of being - which is seen in plants, animals and humans. This requires much groundwork for discussion, and if you want to discuss it towards a solution maturely, I will do so with you.

[Ryu]

So instead of souls, do humans magically gain rights when they come out of the womb? Or do they have them the whole time. I believe the latter.

But for now, good night

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Actually if I was robbed of all my senses and a vegitable then I would have no ability to interact in the world and as far as I am concerned I am dead already.

Out of curiosity, why do you bother living? I know this is a bit of a twist since the topic is on abortion, but this issue on souls demands it. What is your ultimate purpose in life, if you believe there is no soul?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Actually if I was robbed of all my senses and a vegitable then I would have no ability to interact in the world and as far as I am concerned I am dead already.

Than let that answer your question. Your view on abortion depends on the value you equate to and with human life - regardless of the objective reality. If you indeed were a vegetable, I would see you as a human being nonetheless. That mass of flesh is still a human being, one that I can still learn from and interact with. It's clear that if you equate the value and definition of a human being with its functionality, your approval of the killing of the human being as a "zygote" would follow.

[ProtectorOfLife]

Ryu again that was kinda silly what you just said, they always have rights, just like animals do, but after they are born they are no longer indangering the mothers life so thats when it tends to not be an issue and there is no longer a question of compromise between the mother and the baby. I would discuss it with you further but you obviously wish to only make a mockery with your "magically gain rights" bit. And sure age I will gladly discuss this with you. Even if we never come to understanding there is nothing wrong with trying. Whats your info?

[Cale The Dark]

My question to the pro-choicers out there is this. if you knew that a 6 week old baby was thinking/dreaming and was aware of it's existence and could feel pain, would you say it is ok to abort it? i accept the fact that there is a point where the baby becomes self-aware and that before this point it is not, but no one knows where this point is. why take the chance? do the benefits of not having the child outweigh the possibility of murdering a baby?

and i said it before, but i'll say it again. banning abortion would not stop abortions, but it decrease the number of them. as to the safety of the mother, well i view a woman who has an abortion as a murderer so i don't let their safety cause me much distress.

oh and a sperm will not live on its own if you give it what it needs. it has a limited life span same as any other cell. i don't know the exact length, but it's not long.

i find that comparing a growing zygote to sperm or eggs to be counterproductive in these debates. it simply muddies the water because I know it is irrelevant and YOU know that it is irrelevant. same goes with the whole animals thing. we have canines and the human digestive tract is well adapted for digesting meat for a reason you know.

~am i the only one who sees the irony in ProtectorofLife's name?

[Essex]

Than let that answer your question. Your view on abortion depends on the value you equate to and with human life - regardless of the objective reality. If you indeed were a vegetable, I would see you as a human being nonetheless. That mass of flesh is still a human being, one that I can still learn from and interact with. It's clear that if you equate the value and definition of a human being with its functionality, your approval of the killing of the human being as a "zygote" would follow.
i'm very curious as to how you can interact with a vegetable. I mean you can talk to it all you want..but still just a guy lying there with no interaction. AOA you are a very good debater I think we all know that and you stay true to your belife system and thats good too. However when you start a post by saying "arguement discarded" that sorta comes off a bit jackassish to me it may be discarded to you but to them clearly it isn't.

Haylcon I love the avatar but i don't like what your saying. You belive in a soul that's great, you are living your life to the fullest for the salvation of your soul whoopy doo, but do not start asking BHS about his should and his reason for living. If he's concerned with that he can turn on one of the many christan channels that are prevelant in the world today, or drop by one of the millions of churchs that exisit where he is. If he doesn't want a soul don't force one on him and don't use it in your arguements.

Other than Haylcon I find it freaking funny that all of us are men debating this issue. I would like to get a middle of the road female's opinon about this. A woman who is not ultra conservative christian type, and one who isn't the radical leftiest femenist who worshops at the alter of Murphy Brown. I think then we might have someone we could listen too.

You see whole sale murder, I don't. Things aren't cut and dry and no one here should argue like it is. To you and your value system if may be cut and dry and you may be horribely outraged and just wanna go out and shoot an abortion doctor (not saying any of you are like that) but to me the answer isn't as clear.

If we are going to bring religion and what not into the debate I will stress again that I belive in reincarnation. When something passes its energies... essense... whatever you want to call it manfiest itself into something else. So in cases of abortion I simply see a re-rolling of the dice.

Also to those of you who basically said that **** victims shouldn't have a choice... **** happens and they should get use to it. I really hope no one you know gets *****, and if they do i quickly hope you ditch that attitude when talking to them.

EDIT: also did you know that something like 40% of all pregnancies end in abortion... not of the medical kind but of the natrual kind. In fact most women won't know they are pregnaunt. So if the body termenates 40% of these pregnancies then perhaps it knows best, perhaps the human body itself knows where life begans... who else would be better to ask?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Protector - I'll PM you with my info.

[ProtectorOfLife]

I protect life, you apparently are the one who decides what life is though. What if the mother dies because she has the baby? Would you be happy then? There is risk on the other side of this arguement as well, one real difference is we KNOW the living women feels the pain to its fullest extent possible.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

i'm very curious as to how you can interact with a vegetable. I mean you can talk to it all you want..but still just a guy lying there with no interaction. AOA you are a very good debater I think we all know that and you stay true to your belife system and thats good too. However when you start a post by saying "arguement discarded" that sorta comes off a bit jackassish to me it may be discarded to you but to them clearly it isn't.


Hello Essex. I'll answer your last bit first, then get to the main section. My use of that statment "argument discarded" is by no means an insult to my detractors, I merely emphasize the necessity of being clear in dealing with these issues. If we take these things lightly, we may as well not post to begin with.
Now for your post on interaction. Your take indicates a selifsh perspective in that interaction is only for the benefit of the vegetable. I would argue that interaction would be found in the viewer as well. I have a handicapped brother who lacks several faculties for instance. He is not able to comminicate with me - let alone even or communicate clearly. Yet, my time with with him has taught me more than anyone else I know. It goes both ways, and the experience of life is beyond our own perceptions. As I indicated to Bhs, one's outlook is given direction by one's value system, sometimes regardless of objective considerations.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Haylcon I love the avatar but i don't like what your saying. You belive in a soul that's great, you are living your life to the fullest for the salvation of your soul whoopy doo, but do not start asking BHS about his should and his reason for living. If he's concerned with that he can turn on one of the many christan channels that are prevelant in the world today, or drop by one of the millions of churchs that exisit where he is. If he doesn't want a soul don't force one on him and don't use it in your arguements.

The reason I brought up the soul was that if he does not believe in a soul, the whole matter of the conversation is completely different. The arguement would then be on the meaning of life, and such. In arguments like this, it is essential to go down to the basics, otherwise you will be arguing endlessly on your beliefs without any foundation.


Other than Haylcon I find it freaking funny that all of us are men debating this issue.
Honestly, I think it is the man's right to talk about this just as much as it is the female's. Sure, the female is the one who goes through the ordeal, and I can understand why some women get touchy on that issue, but ot me, life is life. It's the man's child as much as it is the woman's, even if the woman IS the one who goes through the ordeal.


If we are going to bring religion and what not into the debate I will stress again that I belive in reincarnation. When something passes its energies... essense... whatever you want to call it manfiest itself into something else. So in cases of abortion I simply see a re-rolling of the dice.
So, for that matter, you have no problem with killing any other human life? (or for that matter, non human..) Because after all, the life will come back..
If your belief is that, do you have any value of the living human being? Because no matter how many times they die, they will always come back.. so kill anyone who's life seems remotely miserable?
I'm not trying to attack. I'm curious on your opinion on this point.


Also to those of you who basically said that **** victims shouldn't have a choice... **** happens and they should get use to it. I really hope no one you know gets *****, and if they do i quickly hope you ditch that attitude when talking to them.
Life is life.. the woman who has been ***** should have no say on the life of another human being.. it is that child's fault that it was the result of ****??


EDIT: also did you know that something like 40% of all pregnancies end in abortion... not of the medical kind but of the natrual kind. In fact most women won't know they are pregnaunt. So if the body termenates 40% of these pregnancies then perhaps it knows best, perhaps the human body itself knows where life begans... who else would be better to ask?

If so, you say it with your own words. Let the body choose,not you..
For that matter, if for natural reasons the baby dies, that is unavoidable..
I mean, sickness happens, and people die naturally. That is a fact of life. But we should not choose when or how that life ends.

[Essex]

alright but what if your brother (god forbid) slipped into a coma? I'm not saying that you can't get something out of interacting with the handicapped or even a vegetable but there comes a point where you have to ask why is this person still here? What is their to gain for them? Sure I can be kept alive for years to come but why?

This isn't really about abortion really more of the medical euthinasia stuff maybe or that one case in flordia where they wanted to remove the womans feeding tube.

bah i'm too sleepy to go on i'll check on this thread in da morning.

[Essex]

well hal that last bit was mearly food to chew on i guess.

I guess i'm a bit cynical. I hear people argue about this topic and keeping people alive who are clearly never going to wake up... or argue against a patient letting a doctor end their suffering all for the cause of life is precious you shouldn't end life... yet often these are the same ones supporting things like the war in iraq where countless people on both sides are dying... how does it differ? Also they might be the type who want everyone to own a gun...they want to be able to protect themselves in case... well to do that youd have to kill a person.

I guess the main problem I have is the people who are against this are so pro-death in so many other areas that they come off sounding hypocritical. If all life is so special then how can you justify any killing ever, even if self defense and so on?

As for me thinking all life is useless no i don't think that. In fact if I was in a situation where my girlfriend would have a baby (which again will never happen i'm a big ol queer) I would not want her to have an abortion. I'm not for the act of abortion... I don't like the idea of it. However I am not going to say that in all cases it is wrong, I am not going to say that for all people it is wrong, i'm not going to call someone a sinner and damn them to hell because i don't know. That's why i'm pro-CHOICE i belive in the choice not the act.

[ProtectorOfLife]

I believe purpose defines existence. As a true vegetable (like in a coma) you can have no purpose and therefore shouldn't be forced to live. I'm talking your own personal purpose. You can't keep someone alive on the off chance of someone else learning a lesson from you. Thats not fair to the original person. I dont want to delve into THIS discussion here though, this thread is long enough already with the abortion debate. If anyone else wants to make a thread about it ill post in sometime.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

What is nature? Humans are still animals, and are still "natural." We've come "from nature." Thus any actions we take would be natural. Unless you think aliens or Gods gave us the idea of abortion. It's just the progression of time. Nothing supernatural about it.

As for human morality, it could also be argued that it's incredibly immoral to force a child into a continuing cycle of misery, neglect, and alcoholism that they, in turn, will subject their children to. It's a matter of perspective, you can spin it any way you choose. Who are you to force your biased perspective on others? That's immorality.

Lolz....sorry, I was unaware that abortion was a natural thing. I don' think so, but that's just my opinion. Also, adoption is an option, and it's not for YOU to say that a child that is saved from abortion would go through the "cycle" you speak of.
Either way you cut it, it should have guidelines. Women should not be allowed to keep screwing irresponsibly and continue to have abortions. It's just not healthy....point blank.
Compromise.

[Essex]

i must say as wild as it is (just joking) jolly has probably the best idea here. That is one of compromise. I know that I would be willing to make a comproimse that allowed abortions but one with guidelines. but for the pro-lifers it would be hard because again that "every life is special" stuff would be there.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Uh-huh. And anyone who tells you that they know for sure that tunafish can't think is also full of it. Or fleas. Or rocks. Were you planning to start the Pro-Object Integrity Association on the off-chance that cars have minds?

As for babies, let alone fetuses being "beautiful and pure," what a laod of romantic twaddle. Fetus are basically lump of cells at the beginning, as pure and beatiful as a heart or a cancer or a fungus for that matter. They then progress to the point of activity, where they start carelessly kicking and discomforting their benefactor. After they're born, they're grasping, selfish, nasty buggers that demand their every need be instantly attended to and possess the world's biggest entitlement complex. Once they begin to develope some more, they realize they can get extra attention by fake crying, and will do so relentlessly until even the most determined of parents will give in. It's not until they're older yet that they begin to develop the rudiments of morality, and even then only if it's constantly reinforced.Throughout this early process, the notion of reciprocating any of the immense resources of love, food, comfort, care, and energy lavished on them is utterly alien.

In short, there's a reason why "infantile" does not mean "pure and beautiful."

So you believe that an irresponsible woman should be allowed to keep screwing and continue to have abortions to her heart's delight?

[Halcyon's Dawning]

well hal that last bit was mearly food to chew on i guess.

I guess i'm a bit cynical. I hear people argue about this topic and keeping people alive who are clearly never going to wake up... or argue against a patient letting a doctor end their suffering all for the cause of life is precious you shouldn't end life... yet often these are the same ones supporting things like the war in iraq where countless people on both sides are dying... how does it differ? Also they might be the type who want everyone to own a gun...they want to be able to protect themselves in case... well to do that youd have to kill a person.

I guess the main problem I have is the people who are against this are so pro-death in so many other areas that they come off sounding hypocritical. If all life is so special then how can you justify any killing ever, even if self defense and so on?

However I am not going to say that in all cases it is wrong, I am not going to say that for all people it is wrong, i'm not going to call someone a sinner and damn them to hell because i don't know. That's why i'm pro-CHOICE i belive in the choice not the act.

On the protection issue, personally i dont like the idea of owning guns for protection, but in any case, in self defense, I would not try to kill someone, i would only try to stop the attack in whatever way i could.. not for the purpose of their death, but for the purpose of my protection.
And I don't believe in wars very much.. i don't like the idea of war in general, although in some cases it may be necessary (but that is another complete issue which we hopefully won't get into on here..). I believe killing is never justified.. I mean, if you kill someone by accident in self defense.. that's another matter. Purpose is everything..

And if you believe in the choice not the act, well.. the choice IS the act.
You can't just be nonchalant.. If you say that, you believe that people should have the choice to kill each other without reprimand as well..

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Innocence can't be the only qualification because ants, rats, most pests that we kill all the time are innocent. I'm going to assume that you didn't mean that you don't want me to kill some ants in my house just because those ants are innocent. We need another qualifier.

I wish people would stop comparing humans to ants, rats, and other such vermin.
Humans are different because we are aware of our existence, and have more than instincts to guide us. We have reasoning capability....we are different, and I really don't have to explain this.
If you're going to compare us to ants and such....then why even have murder laws and such? I'm sorry, but that argument is kind of weak.

[Essex]

i'm probably not being very clear cause i'm very freaking tired.

I will very luckily never have to deal with this issue in my life. I personally don't think that there is a soul in a fetus, i don't think the fetus is what would we call "alive" i don't think it thinks, I don't think it feels until the brain is fully formed. So yes I"m anevil bastard that thinks you can abort prior to week 12 probably. If it was me in the situataion i would try my damndest not to abort but does that mean i suddenly think the child is alive and a real person with real feelings? No.

Please i don't want people jumping on me saying i'm going to hell for what i belive in and i'm a murder. Guess what i'm not a murder i've never had an abortion so save it for someone else.

Screw this i'm going to bed night night :)

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Actually that was my point. Death is not a big deal for me if I have no concept that I am alive. I've seen ants get accross water by making a bridge of ants who drown until they have a path. They have no concept of life and so death means nothing.

Simply put if I didn't know I was alive I wouldn't care if I was dead.

Okay, then I guess you wouldn't care if someone came and killed you in your sleep tonight, or in that case killed someone that was close to you while they weren't aware of it.
You couldn't possibly get upset, because they wouldn't care if they died without knowing it, right?
I mean, you wouldn't care right?
All of the pro-choice arguments are kind of weak tonight, simply because you really don't believe what you're saying. You're trying to be impartial to human life, and unless you're a serial killer, or something else that doesn't allow you basic human emotions, you cannot do this.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

"All of the pro-choice arguments are kind of weak tonight, simply because you really don't believe what you're saying. You're trying to be impartial to human life, and unless you're a serial killer, or something else that doesn't allow you basic human emotions, you cannot do this."

good post, jolly.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

If I had it my way, abortions would be illegal except for extreme cases such as the safety of the mother, or ****, and incest.
The point is, this is not going to happen over night. There should be compromise right now, like I've stated in my earlier posts. This is what pro-lifers should be shooting for, because if you shoot for the whole thing right now, it's not going to happen.
We would at least cut down on abortions a great deal by compromising right now and evolve this into outlawing abortion at some point.
Also, religion cannot be brought into this as a political issue due to separation of church and state. This only weakens our argument as far as legislation goes. There are many more arguments besides the religous one.
I truly believe that abortion is extremely WRONG due to irresponsibility and should NOT be allowed in any case. But we have to work through the red tape to get their people. Compromise it step by step.
Great posts by the way from Cale, Abe, and all of the other people that are pro-life. It's good to see that many others are passionate about this.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

If you believe in something, and hold it to be true, you cannot settle for a compromise. What is right, is right. What is wrong, is wrong. No matter what.
Sorry, I will NEVER compromise and say that abortion should EVER be legal.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

If you believe in something, and hold it to be true, you cannot settle for a compromise. What is right, is right. What is wrong, is wrong. No matter what.
Sorry, I will NEVER compromise and say that abortion should EVER be legal.

Well it is right now, and to get where you want to go, you have to use your head sometimes and not your heart.
We have to break this down step by step, because it's never gonna happen by going for the gusto all at once.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

lol I am using my head. I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, if you do not show that you completely believe what you are talking about, why would anyone ever go for it?? If you are not strong in your belief, why should anyone else be..
See what I'm saying?

[psimage]

Essex is prolly gone for the night, but maybe this post won't be buried in the morning :)

Personally, I think that pro-choicers who are against war or the death penalty are far more hypocritical than pro-lifers who support said policies. It's easy to square being pro-life with being pro-war and pro-death penalty. I believe that it si absolutely wrong to kill an INNOCENT person and should never be done if possible. As such, I will never support or condone putting innocent people to death, or the intentional targeting of civilians or intentional sacrifice of soldiers in war. Nor can I, in good conscious, allow people to intentionally kill their children. But putting dangerous criminals to death is perfectly acceptable, and will earny my applaud any day. And as for war, we try to kill the people that need killing. There are war crimes trials for those who do otherwise.

What boggles my mind, though, are people that think that war should be avoided at all costs because SOME innocents will die, and those that think that no matter their danger to sicuety, noone should be exectued, and yet at the same time argue that murder is perfectly acceptable as long as they're doing it to a fetus.

Sure, you can say that by 12 weeks it's thinking. But that raises 2 concerns.

Firstly, that makes it killable at 11 weeks 6 days 23 hours.....what vital change occurs in that hour that suddenly makes it inviolate where it was disposable beforehand?

Secondly, you seem to be asserting that murdering something that doesn't think or feel is fine. Unconcscious people, whether knocked out by a sudden physical blow, or possibly in a coma, aso do not think or feel. They would feel no pain if I were to slit their throats, and they would never know the difference. If you support the murder of fetuses because they're unthinking and unfeeling, but oppose the random murder of unconscious humans, I'd appreciate you explicating the difference for me, because I don't seem to understand.

PS - Halcyon, surely you think abortion should be legal when the mother's life is in jeopardy, right? After all, there are several justifiable forms of homicide, and self-defense is one of them.

[Riden]

No life and no thing is special. Speciality is born in the minds eye of each and every individual, and since no one person has control over the entirity of existance you should not be telling someone else how/what/when/where to think/live just because you perceive it as such.

Onto what I believe: A featus that is not fully grown is not self-aware and therefore not 'alive' in the sense of the Human word. As such there is really nothing wrong with wanting to get rid of it, if it dosn't suit the bearer (16 year old girl that made a bad decision for example). A featus before it becomes self aware is just like a plant, and I don't see thousands of people screaming "PLANTS HAVE RIGHTS! DON'T PULL OUT THE WEEDS!"

But like I said, it's up to each person to make their own decisions about themselves, other people have no right to make those decisions for them.
This is why most governments today fail, they forget that their job is to watch over the country and makesure everything runs smoothly, it is not their job to control peoples lives to whatever end they see fit.

First serious post ive made in a long time :scratch:

[psimage]

[QUOTE=psimage]Essex is prolly gone for the night, but maybe this post won't be buried in the morning :)

Personally, I think that pro-choicers who are against war or the death penalty are far more hypocritical than pro-lifers who support said policies. It's easy to square being pro-life with being pro-war and pro-death penalty. I believe that it si absolutely wrong to kill an INNOCENT person and should never be done if possible. As such, I will never support or condone putting innocent people to death, or the intentional targeting of civilians or intentional sacrifice of soldiers in war. Nor can I, in good conscious, allow people to intentionally kill their children. But putting dangerous criminals to death is perfectly acceptable, and will earny my applaud any day. And as for war, we try to kill the people that need killing. There are war crimes trials for those who do otherwise.

What boggles my mind, though, are people that think that war should be avoided at all costs because SOME innocents will die, and those that think that no matter their danger to sicuety, noone should be exectued, and yet at the same time argue that murder is perfectly acceptable as long as they're doing it to a fetus.

Sure, you can say that by 12 weeks it's thinking. But that raises 2 concerns.

Firstly, that makes it killable at 11 weeks 6 days 23 hours.....what vital change occurs in that hour that suddenly makes it inviolate where it was disposable beforehand?

Secondly, you seem to be asserting that murdering something that doesn't think or feel is fine. Unconcscious people, whether knocked out by a sudden physical blow, or possibly in a coma, aso do not think or feel. They would feel no pain if I were to slit their throats, and they would never know the difference. If you support the murder of fetuses because they're unthinking and unfeeling, but oppose the random murder of unconscious humans, I'd appreciate you explicating the difference for me, because I don't seem to understand.

PS - Halcyon, surely you think abortion should be legal when the mother's life is in jeopardy, right? After all, there are several justifiable forms of homicide, and self-defense is one of them.

Jolly Roger, why should abortion be legal in cases of **** or incest? One crime should not beget another. Just because someone was ***** doesn't mean it's right to murder an innocent child. Sure, it sucks to be *****....I think we all know that. But surely, it would be wrong to turn one serious crime into two. As for incest, why in the world should that be legal? If it was non-consentual, see "****," same rules apply. Since you're talking about it as a different occurence, I'll assume that said incest was consentual. Now, why in the world would you possibly make abortions legal for that? Incest is a bit of a problem or backwoods societies on the whole, but there is almost certainly nothing wrong with any given child born of an incestuous union.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

PS - Halcyon, surely you think abortion should be legal when the mother's life is in jeopardy, right? After all, there are several justifiable forms of homicide, and self-defense is one of them.
In a case like that, NO, abortion should NOT be legal. Performing an operation which COULD result in the death of the fetus IS however allowable. It is not therefore something being done for the purpose of killing the fetus, but for the purpose of trying to save the mother.
The intent is everything, as I have said numerous times. If you are intending to kill the fetus, WRONG. If through the operation it is possible that the fetus die, that is a chance you must take in order to save the mother.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm not saying that you can't get something out of interacting with the handicapped or even a vegetable but there comes a point where you have to ask why is this person still here? What is their to gain for them? Sure I can be kept alive for years to come but why?


You put it in perspective by saying "what is there to gain from them?". There is nothing they can give in terms of reciprocal communication or interaction, but they give their example. In them we see the frailty of the human condition, and they awaken our hearts and allow us to progress in virtue and generousity. If these aspects of life are not valued, than indeed, one cannot get anything from them. But I believe that they are some of our most important citizens.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No life and no thing is special. But like I said, it's up to each person to make their own decisions about themselves, other people have no right to make those decisions for them.


Something I find in common with pro-choice advocates is the common thread that there's not alot of respect for the self. Like I mentioned to a few others earlier in this thread, one's view of abortion is linked with one's value system. If there is no value in life, than let us all be slaughtered. What would stop you from allowing yourself to be thrown off a cliff? No objective order = no meaning, no worth. Let's go shoot ourselves now, save us the trouble k? :cheesy:

Ironically, in the last statement, he says "others have no right to make the decision". This would make me laugh myself off my chair if it wasn't such a morbid subject. Is it right for the mother to choose death FOR her son or daughter? hmm.. Now, tell me what you really meant by that. :flip:

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Something I find in common with pro-choice advocates is the common thread that there's not alot of respect for the self. Like I mentioned to a few others earlier in this thread, one's view of abortion is linked with one's value system. If there is no value in life, than let us all be slaughtered. What would stop you from allowing yourself to be thrown off a cliff? No objective order = no meaning, no worth. Let's go shoot ourselves now, save us the trouble k? :cheesy:

Ironically, in the last statement, he says "others have no right to make the decision". This would make me laugh myself off my chair if it wasn't such a morbid subject. Is it right for the mother to choose death FOR her son or daughter? hmm.. Now, tell me what you really meant by that. :flip:
LOL well said AoA!!

[psimage]

Halcyon: so what's your stance on killing in self defense? If you think it's wrong to kill no matter what, I understand, just wondering. There is no one procedure that maximizes survival chance for both fetus and mother, and how much weight would you give the mother in these circumstances? Save the fetus and probably save the mother, or abandon any prospect of saving the fetus ("abort" it) and save the mother guaranteed?

PS- nice post AoA. I've noticed the same thing....there are a lot of people who simply don't value life, and only someone who has no value in his/her own life can find no value in other people's.

[Riden]

Something I find in common with pro-choice advocates is the common thread that there's not alot of respect for the self. Like I mentioned to a few others earlier in this thread, one's view of abortion is linked with one's value system. If there is no value in life, than let us all be slaughtered. What would stop you from allowing yourself to be thrown off a cliff? No objective order = no meaning, no worth. Let's go shoot ourselves now, save us the trouble k? :cheesy:

Ironically, in the last statement, he says "others have no right to make the decision". This would make me laugh myself off my chair if it wasn't such a morbid subject. Is it right for the mother to choose death FOR her son or daughter? hmm.. Now, tell me what you really meant by that. :flip:

Actually you took my first statement in that out of context, with the rest of what I said it makes perfect sense. Is it up to you to say that a chocolate bar wrapper is useless/worthless yet a Featus is the center of the universe? No it's not.
How do you not know that chocolate bar wrappers are peices of an all powerful god that was, for some strange reason, put on earth to watch over the rest of us and make sure we follow his/her/it's point of view, and infact his/her/it's point of view actually means anything to someone else?

The point was if something is special to you, then it is special to YOU. It's not up to you to decide things that have nothing to do with you. If it screws with your head too much then maybe you should seek some of that so called 'professional' help, and if thats not enough then maybe its time to just end it all :(
Just dont take the rest of us with you :scared:

For the last part, you did not understand my statment properly.
If the Featus is not self aware, then it is not a child, and so a mother cannot CHOOSE death FOR her son, as she does not currently have a son.
It is the exact same thing with chickens and eggs, have you bought and eaten an egg in your life? MURDERER!!!

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Halcyon: so what's your stance on killing in self defense? If you think it's wrong to kill no matter what, I understand, just wondering. There is no one procedure that maximizes survival chance for both fetus and mother, and how much weight would you give the mother in these circumstances? Save the fetus and probably save the mother, or abandon any prospect of saving the fetus ("abort" it) and save the mother guaranteed?


On killing in self defense, I already addressed that on the previous page I believe, but my basic beliefs run as follows:
It is wrong to kill for the intent of killing. It is wrong to defend yourself for the purpose of killing. If however through trying to defend yourself, you kill, and nothing could have been helped, that is not your fault. But when you defend yourself, your object should not be to kill the other person, but prevent them from killing you.. do you see the difference??

And this is therefore also applied to my view on abortion, which I thought I had made clear.. no, there is no one procedure that maximizes survival chance. Generally, the choice in those matters is up to the mother, whether to try to save the baby or try to save herself. No one human being has priority over another. Life is life, a soul is a soul, whether of a different age or capacity. Usually there is no situation where you would have to 'abort' the child. There would be no call for that. However, as I previously stated, in an operation to save the mother, it is possible that the child might not survive, in which case it could not be helped. Usually in those cases, every attempt is made to also save the child. But in the efforts to save the mother, perhaps it could not be helped.. There is no situation where it is GUARANTEED that through trying to save the mother, the baby will die, although it may be likely.
As I have been saying, it is the purpose and intent that matter.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Actually you took my first statement in that out of context, with the rest of what I said it makes perfect sense.


LOL - Riden my man, you'd be well advised to practise some careful syntax if you want your readers to understand you. Your sweeping statement "No life and no thing are special" was painfully clear. That's like picking up a children's book, flipping open the cover and finding a mystery novel. Your opener paved the way for your understanding of the topic, which is clearly demonstrated in the rest of your text. For someone who took the time to edit his post for revision, you've missed that it seems :uhhuh: .


The point was if something is special to you, then it is special to YOU. It's not up to you to decide things that have nothing to do with you. If it screws with your head too much then maybe you should seek some of that so called 'professional' help, and if thats not enough then maybe its time to just end it all :(
Just dont take the rest of us with you :scared:


If anything, it seems my post on objective reality seemed to be messing around yours, if indeed you have read the preceeding posts :scratch:. The subjective clause you posted here flows immediately from the value you placed on life and things. Seeing only the subjective value - special to only ME or YOU - denies an objective order, which, ironically, you made reference to in your next sentance in saying that it it's not up to me or anyone else to perceive rights and wrongs.


For the last part, you did not understand my statment properly.
If the Featus is not self aware, then it is not a child, and so a mother cannot CHOOSE death FOR her son, as she does not currently have a son.
It is the exact same thing with chickens and eggs, have you bought and eaten an egg in your life? MURDERER!!!

Well, I guess you haven't read the preceeding posts on the thread after all. Yeah, that blob of cells is not a human, so let's just kill it anyway. No harm there - other than the fact that the process of life is snuffed out at its onset. That argument has already been dealt with. With the merging of egg and sperm it's a whole new ballgame - we have a developing human being, which is no different than you and I now, only on a much lesser scale. When mommy chooses to end that, she ends the process, and ultimately, the life of a person.

[Riden]

LOL - Riden my man, you'd be well advised to practise some careful syntax if you want your readers to understand you. Your sweeping statement "No life and no thing are special" was painfully clear. That's like picking up a children's book, flipping open the cover and finding a mystery novel. Your opener paved the way for your understanding of the topic, which is clearly demonstrated in the rest of your text. For someone who took the time to edit his post for revision, you've missed that it seems :uhhuh: .
Im sorry, I didn't realize I was posting in the children's book section.
I'll make sure to post in the big person's area next time.
One statment alone is worthless without anything backing it up, and uh, yea, I don't 'revise' my posts to make them more what people want, the edit was correcting some spelling and grammar -_-

If anything, it seems my post on objective reality seemed to be messing around yours, if indeed you have read the preceeding posts :scratch:. The subjective clause you posted here flows immediately from the value you placed on life and things. Seeing only the subjective value - special to only ME or YOU - denies an objective order, which, ironically, you made reference to in your next sentance in saying that it it's not up to me or anyone else to perceive rights and wrongs.
Not really.
You are on the wrong track again. It is not up to someone to tell someone else how to act/live IF it has nothing to do with them. The fate of a Featus (that is infact not 'alive' in the sense of the Human word which I have already stated, goes with the chicken and egg statment as well) growing inside a mother is ONLY up to the mother and father as it has only to do with them.
You could say that it could affect many other people, but this is only a non-physical indirect affect and therefore only an opinion, indirect opinion's mean nothing when weighed against direct facts. As it stands the world is run by opinions which is a sad thing, if you do not do what the general opinion of people directs you to do then you are wrong and evil (see: religion).

But if say someone is found murdering an innocent person (person = alive/self-aware) then it directly affects alot of people, friends, family, neighbours etc, and therefore gives birth to the idea that killing people (people = alive/self-aware) in society is generally wrong, which is perfectly correct as society could not fuction without such ideals. The fact remains that a Featus is not a person, it could one day be one yes, but it currently is not and has no rights.
Just because you saw a show on TV that you hated in every way, dosn't mean it should be taken off the air, other people will like it, if it's not for you, dont watch it, dont force your idea onto everyone else, the only people who have the decision of the fate of that tv show are the people who own that TV network.

If you want your opninion to be made a reality, then you and you alone have to be wholely responsible for the consequences of people in that situation but do not share your opinion.
So.. did you think when you were little, Gee! I want to be the father of 201154386 babys when I grow up!! :winner:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

(person = alive/self-aware)
The fact remains that a Featus is not a person, it could one day be one yes, but it currently is not and has no rights.


I've taken care to extract what's truly at stake from that mass of hieroglyphs. Rights? Since when did the human constructs of legislation dictate ontology? (goto dictionary.com for the meaning of that word). You have this idea that a person must be "self aware" to be truly a person. That's odd.. I've dealt with this previously - have you not scrolled back and read the thread like I asked you? Essentially, if you were to lose your self awareness - which could easily happen by means of accident for example, could I no longer call you a human being? See what the "rights" activists have to say about that one. We are all in stages of development. There are faculties that you posess that you are yet unaware of - and it's my hope that you do discover these. A human being need not have to "think", or "sense" to be a human. Once that egg is fertalized.. BOOM! That's it. This "featus" technicality argumentation is effortlessly discarded. What adds insult to injury is the reference to "rights". Have the courage to look beyond time-engendered human laws. Human nature is the same throught all ages of its existence - human rules are not. End of discussion.

[Riden]

REALLY?
Wow, thanks for clearing that up, thats why YOU want everyone to not "KILL" their featus. Your RULE is obviously Human nature, because Human rules are not.
Yea, you need to do a bit of figuring out before making up nonsense. :scratch:

A Featus has never gained self-awaness and has therefore never been turly 'alive'. Someone who has become a vegetable through an accident has been self-aware. Coma like states are not fully understood, especially not by you, and cannot be used as an example, but it should fall upon the family to decide the fate of said person as it affects them directly.
If the person has no friends/family etc, then noone has the right to end his/her life altough their fate would fall upon the doctors as they have to take care of them, not much you can really do or say about that.

"This "featus" technicality argumentation is effortlessly discarded", no sorry it's not, you just don't want to agree or listen to other people that have a different view, and ONCE AGAIN: Since it has NOTHING to do with you, you have NO RIGHT to have anything to do with it. Get over yourself and stop being such a 'saviour of human souls', we don't need you.

All a featus is, is the combination of egg and sperm. So you could say, by your line of thinking, that everytime a man jacks off or blows into a condom etc, or when a female has her time of the month, that they are infact killing their babys, they are not babys yet but they had the potential to create one if intercouse is done properly. Exactly the same with a featus, it is not a baby yet, but it has the potential to grow into one, it is still just a reaction of sperm and egg, not actually 'alive'. So yea, I guess the entire human are mass baby killers, shame on us :(

And its funny how you seem to ignore all of the good points in my posts and try to work on the ones that could have holes (all of which have none), or take things out of context, and don't go deciding things by yourself with your be all and end all statment of "End of discussion."

You need to learn that you cannot control people just because you think otherwise. Something that many, many other people need to learn. Leave people be and stop interfering.

[SpiritWalker]

WTF @ This thread.. 8 pages in like 2 days!

Not gonna read any of that.. but I'll say that I don't have enough reason in me to justify death of a child or to deny a mother her choice to have an abortion.

Just a funny thing I just thought of, I never really looked at the word like this till now. Abortion, sounds like a mission type of thing. Sex is the mission, when you get pregnant the mission is at risk and it's ABORT ABORT! :lol: Hehehe.. he.. ok.. *runs away*

[Ryu]

Wow this is still going strong

Halcyon, wow, you have almost exactly the same view as me
:)

I'd like to get the contact info of several ppl here like halcyon, cale, AoA, etc
PM me if you want to share

[Essex]

A human being need not have to "think", or "sense" to be a human. Once that egg is fertalized.. BOOM! That's it.

you my friend have a much different view of what life is. To you life is simply being, breathing, and organ fucntions, and the ocassional involuntary action. To me that is not being "alive" that is simply natural function. To be alive to me is to be self-aware. That's what makes us different form the animals (or so we think honestly I'd be surprised if we aren't the stupidest of all creatures)

So many people are upset and they claim that pro-choice peoples arguements are weak. Well of course they sound weak in comparison. The idea of saving little babies from the evil liberals and *****s sounds romantic and is a good ideal

But it's not really that simple. I'm in no means qualifed to argue this postion, I haven't had the issue brought up all the often. Many of our belifes are brought out from our familes. It was never a topic brought up when it was mom just said she was pro-choice and I thusly became that way to. Since I've grown up I've felt the same way... jus how I was raised. I can't vocalize why I feel the way I do. But perhaps someone else can do it better for me.

This is a exerpt from the Opinon of the surpreme court which essentially leaglized Abortion in Roe v Wade. These are the words of Justice Blackmun

"We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.

In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.

Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do this, and, because we do, we [410 U.S. 113, 117] have inquired into, and in this opinion place some emphasis upon, medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man's attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries. We bear in mind, too, Mr. Justice Holmes' admonition in his now-vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905):

"[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."

We live in a nation and world of laws. While you may prefer to not have any laws, let nature dicate the course of things, or follow Gods word you can't do that in this country. You have to follow the law. You may be disgusted by it you may hate it and everyone who is pro-choice but too bad it's the law. The law may change and at that point I'll be on your side of the fence but as it is the Pro-choice side is not there we have the law backing us up.

[SpiritWalker]

To be alive to me is to be self-aware. That's what makes us different form the animals (or so we think honestly I'd be surprised if we aren't the stupidest of all creatures)
Just on a note, a baby aint really selfaware of his existence either, so saying that, is kinda justifying 'abortion' till the baby has an age of somewhat 1 year old (don't know the exact age when a baby can actually recognize himself and stuff and actually shows intelligent behaviour).

[Kronious]

WOW hey get up this morning and still posts still coming in.
BTW good posts Halcyon :thumbsup:

Off to work

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I stay away from abortion debates because of the sheer hostility that comes from them. But I really have to commend everyone as with a few exceptions, this thread could simply be considered just a heated discussion.

I will continue to stay away from the abortion topic for now, but I did want to comment on this.

Out of curiosity, why do you bother living? I know this is a bit of a twist since the topic is on abortion, but this issue on souls demands it. What is your ultimate purpose in life, if you believe there is no soul?

You are clearly religious, and thus you views on life in general flow towards heaven being our destination. Is it that difficult to believe you can have a purpose in something without heaven being your ultimate purpose? Can you not believe someone could survive without a soul?

How about "living life" as a purpose? Taking care of your family? Growing and learning? Becoming the most intelligent and caring being you can? You don't need god or religion for any of those things. You can use him for them, but you don't have to rely on him for it.

[Cale The Dark]

you know that jane roe in Roe vs. Wade actually ended up recanting on that. yeah, apparently she felt really crappy for the thousands of murders she spawned. i believe she called it a "holocaust". i find this amuseing that the figurehead of the entire pro-abortion movement is on our side.

this is a pointless debate. we are running in circles. we went through the whole "when is the child aware thing and is it aware?" and now people are bringing that back up. studies have shown that the fetus can feel pain and responds to stimuli at a fairly early age. what more do you want? that's about all a week old baby does. in my mind (and this might be too black and white for some of you) there are simply the people who want to murder the innocent babies (because that's what the fetus is to me) and those who want to give the babies every chance possible to live. while i feel that abortion is always wrong (unless the mother will die without it, then it's her choice) i will take whatever i can get. if by pushing the cut-off date on abortions back we can save even 1 baby it would be worth it.

oh and people need a new word other than alive. maybe type out self-aware each time because a fetus is alive. a plant or animal is alive. being alive is simply the act of living.

by the way essex, i don't think you were even this anti-religion in the *** marriage debates. i think it's funny that you look at the pro-life people as bible thumping religious wackos trying to force their beliefs down your throat and i look at pro-choice people as godless baby killers. no offense, but i find this polarization of views as somewhat ammusing. we are about as opposite as people can get and this kind of diverisity never ceases to amaze me.


~why do people always associate a soul with christianity? the concept of the soul is present in every religion on the planet. even if you think that all religion is bullsh*t, you have to admit there is something that makes us different...something that lets us care about others, feel love and emotional pain. something that truly seperates us from the animals. you don't have to call it a soul, just acknowledge that it's there.

[Essex]

have I been that anti-religious in this thread? I very well could be there's so many pages I'm not going to go back over and look lol but if I was I really haven't meant to be. When I say something like "those who support this do dad da da" I'm not talking about christian i'm talking about conservatives and not even all of them, (of course most conservatives are christian or religious at least)

Trust me Cale I can get very anti-religious because I've felt very very negatively about religion in the past but I generally don't want to offend anyone and I respect everyones seperate religious views.

When hal was talking about a soul it was rather clear she was talking about a christian soul, most hindus who also belive in souls, don't start a converstaion by asking what your purpose in life is... that's a very chrisitan trait.

It is odd that the Roe in Roe V Wade became pro-life but that's probably because of all the screutinty that was put on her. The stress and what not, you would have to admit that no matter who is right or wrong it would always be easier to be pro-life. However I wasn't talking about Roe (not her real name btw) I was talking about the court ruling and our system of laws that have ruled abortion to be legal in the here and now.

I don't think that all pro-lifers are religious bible thumping wackos. I would say that Ryu has expressed his point very well without ever falling back on religion to do so (not that it's bad to do that sort of thing) I can only remember few times he even mentioned religion, and I know for sure in the begining he did not. (then again that was 10 pages ago lol)

I know many people who are just as liberal as I am who are pro-life it's a hot debate, with a lot of feelings on both sides. When I say most pro-lifers, I'm generally talking about the conservatives and you can make some broad generalizations about them just as you can do with liberals (i.e. godless ;p )

Anywho I've lost track of where i'm going so i'll hush up now.

[Tetzel]

I can't read all the pages and pages that have come from this, so I'll just post why pro-choice seems the right call for me.

You can cry "murder" all you want, as if it's the end all be all, but let's assume it is "murder" for a moment. Who does it hurt? No friends or family have made emotional attachments to the child, society is not effected one way or another. In fact, unless the mother tells other people, like grandparents, the only people who really are affected are her, the father (if he cares), and the child. No one else is harmed at all by the procedure.

The mother and father will have the most emotional pain. They're the ones who have to live with the guilt and "what if's" the rest of their lives. If they want to make that very tough decision, who are you to deny them their right?

The remaining issue is that the child has been snuffed out of life unfairly. But, ultimately, what is wrong with this? If you believe in Heaven, that's where the child goes. No problem. If you believe in reincarnation, it just comes back as another child somewhere, no worse for wear. If you don't believe in an afterlife, you're going to die and never feel again anyway, and looking at time in a relative fashion, life isn't that long and the kid's probably not missing out on much (not a very pleasant life view, is it?).

Murder and death are considered abhorrent in society because of the effects death leaves on others. To the one actually murdered, it's just a faster form of the inevitable. In an abortion, the only after-effects of the "death" are on the parents who have made the choice themselves. None of you are hurt in anyway by this procedure. The parents are the only ones allowed to make this choice, as it is their child and, as was mentioned earlier, they are the only ones affected until more attachments to it are made. If someone else kills the child and mother, punish them to the full extent of the law because of the emotional damage done to others. If the mother makes the decision, she's got to live with it and that ought to be deterrent enough.

As for compromise, sure, let's compromise. You adopt five children and don't have any yourself and I'll let you ban abortion. But why should you suffer for someone else's mistakes? Just let all of those rejected, unwanted children (and there will probably be a lot of them) rot in a foster home or adoption agency; someone will take them all to a nice, loving, nurturing home eventually and you won't have to worry about it ever again. Right?

[Eiger]

Have at it guys. I'm staying the H E double toothpicks away from this one. :lol:

[SaroDarksbane]

It is the exact same thing with chickens and eggs, have you
bought and eaten an egg in your life? MURDERER!!!
Actually, your analogy works against you because under US law, I can be prosecuted for crushing the eggs of an endangered species.
You can cry "murder" all you want, as if it's the end all be all, but let's assume it is "murder" for a moment. Who does it hurt?
Who does it hurt? You mean besides the child, right?
No friends or family have made emotional attachments to the child, society is not effected one way or another. In fact, unless the mother tells other people, like grandparents, the only people who really are affected are her, the father (if he cares), and the child. No one else is harmed at all by the procedure.

Hey, this would work great for homeless people too. Just kill 'em all. Then they wouldn't bug you on the streets; people would be happier without them around. And it's not like homeless people have much to live for. Every homeless person should be a wanted homeless person. It's a win-win!

[Riden]

~why do people always associate a soul with christianity? the concept of the soul is present in every religion on the planet. even if you think that all religion is bullsh*t, you have to admit there is something that makes us different...something that lets us care about others, feel love and emotional pain. something that truly seperates us from the animals. you don't have to call it a soul, just acknowledge that it's there.

Yes.
Greymatter.
The thing inside your head, wraped in bone with a chewy caramel center.. er yea.
The large mental capacity of humans coupled with being fully self aware is what seperates us from the proverbial animals.
So, when religious types are talking about their souls, they're talking about their brains?.. ok, if you say so..

[TheDagdaMor145]

You can cry "murder" all you want, as if it's the end all be all, but let's assume it is "murder" for a moment. Who does it hurt? No friends or family have made emotional attachments to the child, society is not effected one way or another. In fact, unless the mother tells other people, like grandparents, the only people who really are affected are her, the father (if he cares), and the child. No one else is harmed at all by the procedure.

i scincerely hope you are not serious about this. by your argument, all homeless people in the world who people do not have emotional ties to could be murdered.

i just wanted to bring into light something that essex and cale touched upon with some serious facts. that is, the reason "roe" changed her mind and is now 'pro-life'.

the reason is that she has since learned of and experienced herself the long-term effects of having an abortion. the human female body does not take kindly to it, and there are many common side effects that scar many women's health for life. so, in the same way that drugs are illegal because of the harmful effects to the body, she argues that abortion should be illegal.

(also, that is a good answer to the question 'who does it hurt?' because many many times it hurts the woman in irreperable ways)

as eiger put it, im gonna stay out of this.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

~why do people always associate a soul with christianity? the concept of the soul is present in every religion on the planet. even if you think that all religion is bullsh*t, you have to admit there is something that makes us different...something that lets us care about others, feel love and emotional pain. something that truly seperates us from the animals. you don't have to call it a soul, just acknowledge that it's there.

I didn't refer to the person in question as Christian, simply religious. Yes I agree that there is something that makes us different, however I can just as easily call it personality. It doesn't have to be a soul, which I won't even bother going into detail on how no one can prove a soul exists, but it was meant for that one post above.

Soul issues aside, I believe the poster was refering to heaven as being your overall purpose in life. Either that of the following of god. I disagree, you can live for many other things than solely the need to get into heaven. If your only purpose and loyalty on this planet is to god and heaven, then I feel that is a pretty weak view. If you have to rely solely on god for a reason to keep on living everyday, in the hopes of getting into heaven, then I feel that is weakness. There are many things in this world that give you reason to keep on living, I listed several in my post so I won't repeat them.

[Riden]

Actually, your analogy works against you because under US law, I can be prosecuted for crushing the eggs of an endangered species.

Um, no, no it dosnt.
Last time I checked, chickens are not an endangered species.
Also, last time I checked, humans are not an endangered species either.

If your talking about an endangered species then its completly different because you wouldn't want the species to die out now would you :\?

But, fact is, were not talking about endangered species at all, so its all gud.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

You are clearly religious, and thus you views on life in general flow towards heaven being our destination. Is it that difficult to believe you can have a purpose in something without heaven being your ultimate purpose? Can you not believe someone could survive without a soul?

How about "living life" as a purpose? Taking care of your family? Growing and learning? Becoming the most intelligent and caring being you can? You don't need god or religion for any of those things. You can use him for them, but you don't have to rely on him for it.

That wasn't the point of my question. The point of my question was in order to try to find a point at which an embryo becomes a human. Without a soul, whoever I was directing that to was classing humans as the same as animals, in which case, we have no real purpose to life, and killing in general shouldn't be rebuked or admonished.


REALLY?
Wow, thanks for clearing that up, thats why YOU want everyone to not "KILL" their featus. Your RULE is obviously Human nature, because Human rules are not.
Yea, you need to do a bit of figuring out before making up nonsense.

A Featus has never gained self-awaness and has therefore never been turly 'alive'. Someone who has become a vegetable through an accident has been self-aware. Coma like states are not fully understood, especially not by you, and cannot be used as an example, but it should fall upon the family to decide the fate of said person as it affects them directly.
If the person has no friends/family etc, then noone has the right to end his/her life altough their fate would fall upon the doctors as they have to take care of them, not much you can really do or say about that.

If you are going to sa that coma like states are not fully understood, well for that matter neither is the state of a zygote, of a FEtus.


"This "featus" technicality argumentation is effortlessly discarded", no sorry it's not, you just don't want to agree or listen to other people that have a different view, and ONCE AGAIN: Since it has NOTHING to do with you, you have NO RIGHT to have anything to do with it. Get over yourself and stop being such a 'saviour of human souls', we don't need you.
Ok, Riden, up till now we have been trying to keep this argument civil. I would ask you, if you're going to post, do so in a polite manner. We are not attacking people, we are attacking points. Attacking someone because of their beliefs is immature and irrelevant. Please stick to arguing the body of their argument.


All a featus is, is the combination of egg and sperm. So you could say, by your line of thinking, that everytime a man jacks off or blows into a condom etc, or when a female has her time of the month Ok first of all, a woman cannot control her time of month and is not therefore KILLING her child. That is a useless point which undermines your point. Try to sort through the randomness of your thoughts and write some solid points.. I for one will be more likely to listen to what you have to say.

, that they are infact killing their babys, they are not babys yet but they had the potential to create one if intercouse is done properly. Exactly the same with a featus, it is not a baby yet, but it has the potential to grow into one, it is still just a reaction of sperm and egg, not actually 'alive'.
If you had read the earlier posts, I thought that was made clear. An egg or a sperm are not in actuality complete, and cannot become what they will be unless they are united. Once they are united, however, they become a new creation, which, if left unhindered WILL develop into a human. It's all there, just needs to develop. What a thing is, it is intrinsically from the beginning of its existence. It changes physically, but what it IS does not change. That time of beginning is when the zygote is formed.


You need to learn that you cannot control people just because you think otherwise. Something that many, many other people need to learn. Leave people be and stop interfering.
Although sometimes AoA can be harsh in his arguments, they are sound(for the most part), and he is not 'interfering'. The whole point of this thread is to debate the issue. You seem determined merely to attack AoA. If so, please make your own thread for AoA bashing. And he is not trying to control people, obviously. He is merely trying to show the truth of the matter. If you are not willing to debate in a civil and intelligent way, please rethink posting at all.

[SpiritWalker]

Then God looketh upon his creation and saw it was good and beautifull, he then said to man "don't kill thy unborn children, use these instead" and God handed man condoms. Man was pleased, as he could now **** his brains out without having to deal with the annoying consequence of children. And they lived happily ever after! :bow:

[Halcyon's Dawning]

You can cry "murder" all you want, as if it's the end all be all, but let's assume it is "murder" for a moment. Who does it hurt? No friends or family have made emotional attachments to the child, society is not effected one way or another. In fact, unless the mother tells other people, like grandparents, the only people who really are affected are her, the father (if he cares), and the child. No one else is harmed at all by the procedure.
Actually, it hurts the mother quite a bit. You can usually ask any woman who has gone through an abortion, there is a serious psychological affect. Most women arent aware of this before they go through with it, and have to go through therapy after.

[Tetzel]

i scincerely hope you are not serious about this. by your argument, all homeless people in the world who people do not have emotional ties to could be murdered.


If they don't have to suffer a bit in the action, why do you think it's wrong? Seriously, why? Death is not a bad thing, why do you see it as such?

As for emotional ties, I won't deny they exist and will probably hurt severely. That's why it is VERY VERY important that there should be very severe warnings, testimonies of others who have experienced abortion, and other concerns brought before the person who wishes to have the abortion. If the mother, knowing all of these things, still wishes to go through with it, that is their choice. Why should you make it for them?

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Please, SpiritWalker, lets NOT get into contraception in this argument :p.. maybe another thread? :s

[Halcyon's Dawning]

As for emotional ties, I won't deny they exist and will probably hurt severely. But that's why there should be very severe warnings, testimonies of others who have experienced abortion, and other concerns brought before the person who wishes to have the abortion. If they, knowing all of these things, still wish to go through with it, that is their choice. Why should you make it for them?
Yes, there should be warnings. Sadly, most of the time there are not. Do you think the doctors want to warn their patients of all that, with the money at stake? Humm.
Most women are sadly unaware of the consequences of their actions, and of the true situation at hand.

[SpiritWalker]

Please, SpiritWalker, lets NOT get into contraception in this argument :p.. maybe another thread? :s
Why not, it's all about that. If people weren't so incredibilly stupid and just didn't have sex without a condom when they don't want the risk of having a child, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. People = morons.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Well.. I don't believe in contraception, so I would tend to disagree with that. But that is a TOTALLY different argument.. lol if you want to, start a new thread on that and ill jump right in.. but this ones about abortion and its consequences, not the reasons that contraception happened.
If we just go on that, then people will attack you with the 'what about rate' situation. If there was ****, no condom could have been used :p..
So.. yea.

[SpiritWalker]

What is there not to believe...? You don't believe they exist.. or they don't work.. or it's just a myth.. what? That's like saying I don't believe in planes, trains and automobiles..

Anyway this is the viable thread to put in the contraception stuff. People need to stop being retards and think before they act. And don't gimme that *****-abortion crap, just remove the damn thing if it bothers you that much.

The only reason I am pro-abortion is because this world is getting flooded with (stupid) people, and something needs to be done, and abortion is one of those things, just like contraception is one of them.

Edit: why is ra.ped censored...?

[Tetzel]

The only reason I am pro-abortion is because this world is getting flooded with (stupid) people, and something needs to be done, and abortion is one of those things, just like contraception is one of them.


The problem is stubborn people, not stupid ones. Though the two are often synonymous.

I'd take an idiot who admits he's wrong any day over a genius who never will.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

dunno bout that censor, its kinda silly if you ask me.
As to contraception, i dont think that it is a good thing. It robs intercourse of what it was meant to be. It is selfish $ex, in that you are only trying to get the physical pleasure without any of the responsibilty that should go along with it. You are saying I love you with your body, but saying I don't love you enough to go all the way and make a commitment to you forever. That is a very shorthand argument.. because this is an abortion thread lol. If everyone wants to change the topic to contraception, sure, but if we keep both I know I for one will have trouble keeping up with two topics on one thread.

[SaroDarksbane]

If your talking about an endangered species then its completly different
No it isn't.

Crushing an egg is the same under the law as killing one of the species.

That was the entire point. Whether or not it's endangered or not makes no difference. The law treats it the same.

[Riden]

If you are going to sa that coma like states are not fully understood, well for that matter neither is the state of a zygote, of a FEtus.
Sorry, the state of the fetus (didn't realize I had been spelling it wrong >_<) is understood. Comotose states are still not fully understood. Its not about 'what I say', it's about what is fact, and what isn't :\

Ok, Riden, up till now we have been trying to keep this argument civil. I would ask you, if you're going to post, do so in a polite manner. We are not attacking people, we are attacking points. Attacking someone because of their beliefs is immature and irrelevant. Please stick to arguing the body of their argument.
I have been, but I tend to get annoyed when I have to restate my point over and over when someone can't/won't/ understand it or ignores it, so I apoligise.

Ok first of all, a woman cannot control her time of month and is not therefore KILLING her child. That is a useless point which undermines your point. Try to sort through the randomness of your thoughts and write some solid points.. I for one will be more likely to listen to what you have to say.
Not really. Sometimes people can't control their actions or make mistakes or get things forced upon them etc, therefore it can be the exact same thing.
The point of that was, a fetus is still an incomplete piece of matter, even though it grows. Kind of like a wart. (Bad example but whatever)

If you had read the earlier posts, I thought that was made clear. An egg or a sperm are not in actuality complete, and cannot become what they will be unless they are united. Once they are united, however, they become a new creation, which, if left unhindered WILL develop into a human. It's all there, just needs to develop. What a thing is, it is intrinsically from the beginning of its existence. It changes physically, but what it IS does not change. That time of beginning is when the zygote is formed.
Then, by your reasoning, we should all be mindless sacs of growing matter that are parasitic in nature. Sorry, but no.
And can you answer me why then people pull out weeds? If left unhindered weeds can sprout flowers of their own. The fact is most people don't like weeds as they affect everything else in the garden and so pull them out.

Although sometimes AoA can be harsh in his arguments, they are sound(for the most part), and he is not 'interfering'. The whole point of this thread is to debate the issue. You seem determined merely to attack AoA. If so, please make your own thread for AoA bashing. And he is not trying to control people, obviously. He is merely trying to show the truth of the matter. If you are not willing to debate in a civil and intelligent way, please rethink posting at all.
I was never trying to 'attack' anyone, it's as I stated above.
Anyway, 'trying to show the truth of the matter?' HA! I didn't realize AoA was a god-like being and we should all follow his ideals before he will smite us until we can be smote nomore.
Please, the, so called, 'truth' of the matter can never actually be known, as there is no actual one real truth. That is why everyone should be able to choose how they want things, that only affect them, to be decided.
Simple as that.

[SpiritWalker]

I'd take an idiot who admits he's wrong any day over a genius who never will.
I'd take a genius who is smart enough to use a condom or ask if the girl has/uses some sort of contraception of her own, over a stupid moron who admits he was wrong after he knocked over his 1 nightstand who doesn't want to keep the baby.

Both topics can be discussed. I find your view of sexual intercourse very medieval and overly romantic and too much directed at the act of spawning a little you. If sex wasn't meant to be more than just a reproduction tool God wouldn't have made it so damn good to do. I say God here, because your post flows over with tight/strict/harsh christian views of sex.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Then God looketh upon his creation and saw it was good and beautifull, he then said to man "don't kill thy unborn children, use these instead" and God handed man condoms. Man was pleased, as he could now **** his brains out without having to deal with the annoying consequence of children. And they lived happily ever after! :bow:

And lo the man SpiritWalker did forget about the story of the dragon. Indeed the dragon did copulate with a female dragon. Verily did the dragon wear a condom. Verily did the female dragon use birth control pills. Yes verily the one semen did charge through the condom, did swim past the medication, and did fertilize the egg. Thus a baby xXxDraGoNxXx girl was born.

:lol:

99.9% my white butt. :cheesy:

[Halcyon's Dawning]

First of all, if we're going to talk about God, God made it pleasurable because God rocks. It was meant to be this awesome thing, which unites man and woman, for the purpose of life. That's not to say that life will necessarily happen, because as we all know, not every sexual act ends in childbirth. Because God knows we can only handle so much. It's not directed at the act of 'spawning a little you', but it is OPEN to it.

OK-- ill be bak on later tonite to hopefully reply to everything else. I have an essay to write..

[Riden]

No it isn't.

Crushing an egg is the same under the law as killing one of the species.

That was the entire point. Whether or not it's endangered or not makes no difference. The law treats it the same.

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.
We live in different countries as well so the law dosn't really enter into it at all.

[Tetzel]

I'd take a genius who is smart enough to use a condom or ask if the girl has/uses some sort of contraception of her own, over a stupid moron who admits he was wrong after he knocked over his 1 nightstand who doesn't want to keep the baby.

Heh, you're quite right there. But if the idiot learned from his mistake, I'd say that problem's soon remedied. People make mistakes; if you can swallow your pride and learn from them, the world becomes a much better place.

[SpiritWalker]

99.9% my white butt. :cheesy:
My guess is you were one of the 0,1% :scratch:

[BhsCrew]

Good Morning all! I just got back from a beutiful row and I figured I'd make post before I went to class.

The reason I think a persons life is important is because that person thinks that their life is important. If your life is important to yourself then I respect that and I hope that it is long and happy. To believe that your life is important you must have enough intelligence to realize that you exist and that you wouldn't want to die. If something is physicially alive but has no brain function then to me it has no life. It has no hopes, desires, thoughts, feelings, or perceptions.

We must think that our own life is special because otherwise we are just one of 6 billion people. If a few million of us were wiped out here or there it would have little effect on the world as a whole. However those few million people would all have lost the most important thing in their lives, themselves. And for that reason it would be a tremendously tragic event.

My answer Halcyon's Dawning's question about my purpose in life is as follows.
I believe that we don't exist for any reason. There is no greater power telling us what to do. I believe that it is up to every person to find their own purpose in life, that special thing that makes you feel happy and complete. With no soul and no purpose handed down to me by god I am a free man. I can point my life towards my goals and dreams rather than worrying about what plan god might have in store for me. I am free and I am happy. I wouldn't have it any other way.

You wanted the basics of my philosophy so I hope that it answered your questions. I gotta go to class so I'll be gone for a few hours. Later.

[SpiritWalker]

It's not directed at the act of 'spawning a little you', but it is OPEN to it.
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).

[The.Jolly.Roger]

[QUOTE=psimage]Essex is prolly gone for the night, but maybe this post won't be buried in the morning :)

Personally, I think that pro-choicers who are against war or the death penalty are far more hypocritical than pro-lifers who support said policies. It's easy to square being pro-life with being pro-war and pro-death penalty. I believe that it si absolutely wrong to kill an INNOCENT person and should never be done if possible. As such, I will never support or condone putting innocent people to death, or the intentional targeting of civilians or intentional sacrifice of soldiers in war. Nor can I, in good conscious, allow people to intentionally kill their children. But putting dangerous criminals to death is perfectly acceptable, and will earny my applaud any day. And as for war, we try to kill the people that need killing. There are war crimes trials for those who do otherwise.

What boggles my mind, though, are people that think that war should be avoided at all costs because SOME innocents will die, and those that think that no matter their danger to sicuety, noone should be exectued, and yet at the same time argue that murder is perfectly acceptable as long as they're doing it to a fetus.

Sure, you can say that by 12 weeks it's thinking. But that raises 2 concerns.

Firstly, that makes it killable at 11 weeks 6 days 23 hours.....what vital change occurs in that hour that suddenly makes it inviolate where it was disposable beforehand?

Secondly, you seem to be asserting that murdering something that doesn't think or feel is fine. Unconcscious people, whether knocked out by a sudden physical blow, or possibly in a coma, aso do not think or feel. They would feel no pain if I were to slit their throats, and they would never know the difference. If you support the murder of fetuses because they're unthinking and unfeeling, but oppose the random murder of unconscious humans, I'd appreciate you explicating the difference for me, because I don't seem to understand.

PS - Halcyon, surely you think abortion should be legal when the mother's life is in jeopardy, right? After all, there are several justifiable forms of homicide, and self-defense is one of them.

Jolly Roger, why should abortion be legal in cases of **** or incest? One crime should not beget another. Just because someone was ***** doesn't mean it's right to murder an innocent child. Sure, it sucks to be *****....I think we all know that. But surely, it would be wrong to turn one serious crime into two. As for incest, why in the world should that be legal? If it was non-consentual, see "****," same rules apply. Since you're talking about it as a different occurence, I'll assume that said incest was consentual. Now, why in the world would you possibly make abortions legal for that? Incest is a bit of a problem or backwoods societies on the whole, but there is almost certainly nothing wrong with any given child born of an incestuous union.

Let me rephrase the incest part. I think it should be allowed in cases of incest ****. If an uncle rapes his 15 year old niece and she is impregnated, I think it should be allowed within the first 6-10 weeks of the pregnancy. As far as **** goes, I do think it should be left up to the victim. Sure, she could have the child adopted, but carrying a child through the term from **** would have some very bad, undeserved emotional/and maybe physical effects on the woman.
Besides, would you want to be the bastard child of a rapist? Or, would you want to be the bastard child of an incest ****? Think about that very carefully. Of course, this should be done in the first 6-10 weeks, as I have stated constantly in any situation.
There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. Each side to the extreme should not expect this to go TOTALLY their way, because it won't. So why not compromise, and get some of what you want then none?
Of course pro-choicers do not have to worry about this because women are free to have abortions, at this point, as much and whenever they want to. That should certainly not be allowed as I have stated before.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

All a featus is, is the combination of egg and sperm. So you could say, by your line of thinking, that everytime a man jacks off or blows into a condom etc, or when a female has her time of the month, that they are infact killing their babys, they are not babys yet but they had the potential to create one if intercouse is done properly. Exactly the same with a featus, it is not a baby yet, but it has the potential to grow into one, it is still just a reaction of sperm and egg, not actually 'alive'. So yea, I guess the entire human are mass baby killers, shame on us :(


Nope. I've responded to this earlier. Cells live and die every day, as semen or eggs in the womb will die within weeks and be recreated regardless. One cannot stop the cycle of generation and corruption. However, what is truly at stake here is VALUES. When you abort a featus, be it self aware or not, you stop the process of life. Unfertalized eggs and sperm will die anyway, but when merged, they contuine under normal conditions to a a human being - the actualization of its potential. Try reading my text more carefully.


And its funny how you seem to ignore all of the good points in my posts and try to work on the ones that could have holes (all of which have none), or take things out of context, and don't go deciding things by yourself with your be all and end all statment of "End of discussion."

You need to learn that you cannot control people just because you think otherwise. Something that many, many other people need to learn. Leave people be and stop interfering.

What good points? I have yet to find any decent argumentation, only emotional runoff. Do you feel controlled? If anything, I'm offering a perspective against the strong current that most get swept up by. What's sad about this is that people's lives are at stake. If you feel controlled or impelled by my position, it would only be because you are resisting the objective value of the argument. So I'd say you're the pot calling the kettle black when you refer to me as being stubborn.

[Tetzel]

One cannot stop the cycle of generation and corruption. However, what is truly at stake here is VALUES. When you abort a featus, be it self aware or not, you stop the process of life.

Perhaps you should reconsider your values? Death, no matter the cause or form, is an inevitability. If the death won't cause pain to others who don't know and accept the risk, what is the problem with it?

[Ryu]

Thanks Essex, i tried as its the best way to get a message across

Sperm die on their own so whether you ejaculate or not, their gonna die if they dont fertilize an egg so the argument doesnt work


I think if abortion had a ~2 week waiting period than it would decrease a lot, spur of the moment makes it more dangerous, altough it stillwouldnt be right

[CokotheReborn]

Death is the most important part of life, without death nothing could function!

[AgeOfAbnegation]

you my friend have a much different view of what life is. To you life is simply being, breathing, and organ fucntions, and the ocassional involuntary action. To me that is not being "alive" that is simply natural function. To be alive to me is to be self-aware. That's what makes us different form the animals (or so we think honestly I'd be surprised if we aren't the stupidest of all creatures)


As I've said to the guy who started this thread, one's outlook comes from one's value ststem. You may not like going there, but it's inevitable. To clarify my position on life, life is "being embodied". It is expressive of our lived state on the temporal plane. This requires a body. Now my detractors on this thread have added a qualifier to this, saying that one must not only be embodied, but be aware and have functionality. I have used the argument of the removal of one's functions and functionality (especially in circumstances when this is temporary) to demonstrate that this is not so.


So many people are upset and they claim that pro-choice peoples arguements are weak. Well of course they sound weak in comparison. The idea of saving little babies from the evil liberals and *****s sounds romantic and is a good ideal


While I have been agressive on this thread (especially to Riden), I have not stooped to the level of dubbing anyone "evil". I strive to offer readers a perspective based on reason. Ideals are irrelevant.



But it's not really that simple. I'm in no means qualifed to argue this postion, I haven't had the issue brought up all the often. Many of our belifes are brought out from our familes. It was never a topic brought up when it was mom just said she was pro-choice and I thusly became that way to. Since I've grown up I've felt the same way... jus how I was raised. I can't vocalize why I feel the way I do. But perhaps someone else can do it better for me.


This is true. Alot of our outlook on life comes as a result from our past experiences, etc. However, is that justification enpugh to put children to death? This is serious business, and is why I'm as agressive as I have been on this thread. Even if there be two sides of this argument, is that reason enough to stop the process of life?


have inquired into, and in this opinion place some emphasis upon, medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man's attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries. We bear in mind, too, Mr. Justice Holmes' admonition in his now-vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905):

"[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."

We live in a nation and world of laws. While you may prefer to not have any laws,


Essex, that was inconsistent. Whoever said I disregarded laws? If anything, I've been preaching law and natural law for quite some time on the off-topics. I remarked in my reply to Riden that the law of the land - or laws created by human beings - do not necessarily reflect or agree with the natural laws of the universe, or the natural moral laws (and we can discuss that subsequently). Let's be clear on that one.


let nature dicate the course of things, or follow Gods word you can't do that in this country. You have to follow the law. You may be disgusted by it you may hate it and everyone who is pro-choice but too bad it's the law. The law may change and at that point I'll be on your side of the fence but as it is the Pro-choice side is not there we have the law backing us up.

Well Essex, letting nature dictate the course of things was my position all along. I've been arguing against the position of those who would hinder the natural processes of life. I would contend against this statement in line with my last paragraph. In Kant's "conflict of faculties", he outlines that philosophy must safeguard the lawmaking artifice. What if you were living in **** germany? Would you follow the law of the land and assist in the death of an entire ethnic group, or would that give you pause? Reread your last paragraph and meditate on what's truly at stake. When human laws are contrary to natural laws, we have a problem.

[Eiger]

There's now a poll up on this topic with 5 choices for you to pick your poison on. It's anonymous, so vote without fear! You can find it here: http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=170986 (http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=170986)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Perhaps you should reconsider your values? Death, no matter the cause or form, is an inevitability. If the death won't cause pain to others who don't know and accept the risk, what is the problem with it?

There are some values, that being of objective nature, cannot be changed. Granted, death is inevitable - we will all die someday, somehow. This is why to understand what's truly at stake, we must raise the discussion to the level of values. If there were no intrinsic value in the preservation of life, then I would be agressively pro-choice. Yet, objevtive value-ordering allows us to see past this fallacy.

[ProtectorOfLife]

Childbirth is one of the most painful processes in life a girl can go through. Just physically, its horrible. Many women choose to except such a harsh responsibility even at risk to their own life. Women die from childbirth everyday. It is bad enough of a thing to go through alone, but if you add the emotion of not wanting the baby who put you through this hell, well, its not fair to force on a woman something of this level. Its not guys. You need to take a look at yourself and question your own morals. Your over zealous "ideals" have corrupted your views and are endangering human beings. Not potential ones, REAL ones. Beliefs are one thing, laws are another, it should never be against the law for a woman to have an abortion. And the fact that any of you are trying to change this scares me. Another thing that scares me is the suicidal people who blow up abortion clinics. Even if there is no one in that clinic (which in most cases there has been) you are putting people out of jobs (like you care right? who cares if those "baby killers" make a living) and you are indangering peoples lives (say someone walks by on the sidewalk when you decide to blow this place up, boom they're dead). I understand this is a total extreme and a rarity, but it is spawned from the same hate some of you are feeling now. Putting a potential human life over a real one is crazy and I fail to understand what makes you think you have not only the right to decide that, but to place those harsh consequences on someone else. A woman should never have a baby before she is ready, it could ruin her life as well as the baby's which by the way is no longer just a "potential" when its born. The only compromise I can see being made here is to put a timelimit on when you can abort your baby. I am not the all deciding factor here, I do not understand the full mechanics of the process of a growing baby but for the sake of arguement lets just say 3 months into the pregnancy a woman could no longer abort the child. And by that time she had full time to A) Discover she even had the baby B) decide whether she really wanted the baby or if it was an accident (or ****) and would ruin her life and C) made sure she had it in her to take on the responsibility (as well as physically) of something of this level. Now I would like to point out that as harsh of an idea as it seems to abort a baby for financial reasons, what if you simply cant afford all the nutricious food for yourself, let alone the baby to thrive on and at result the baby could die anyway? Now I understand there are SOME ways to get help with this but its not always enough and its not always so simple as to someone just handing you money. I think I've carried this on long enough as most probably wont even read it anyway...

[BhsCrew]

There are some values, that being of objective nature, cannot be changed. Granted, death is inevitable - we will all die someday, somehow. This is why to understand what's truly at stake, we must raise the discussion to the level of values. If there were no intrinsic value in the preservation of life, then I would be agressively pro-choice. Yet, objevtive value-ordering allows us to see past this fallacy.

I would disagree that there is an intrinsic value in preserving everything that is alive without any thought to what it is that you are preserving. Otherwise we would just keep every person who ever died on life support until the end of time. For me a person has to have thoughts and feelings to be alive, just the fact that blood runs through somethings veins doesn't make it worthwhile to protect it.

There's no shortage of humans and we are in no danger of dying out. The value that we are protecting is the value of each human to live their life how they see fit, and to attempt to live out their hopes and dreams. It is the richness of the human mind that makes us who we are not just the fact that we are breathing.

[Riden]

Nope. I've responded to this earlier. Cells live and die every day, as semen or eggs in the womb will die within weeks and be recreated regardless. One cannot stop the cycle of generation and corruption. However, what is truly at stake here is VALUES. When you abort a featus, be it self aware or not, you stop the process of life. Unfertalized eggs and sperm will die anyway, but when merged, they contuine under normal conditions to a a human being - the actualization of its potential. Try reading my text more carefully.
Yes, eggs and sperm die anyway, a fetus is the combination of the two so why is it so special when compared to its components? Yes, it has the pontential to grow into a human baby, but that is all it is, POTENTIAL.
Potential is tangible in the idea that it is up to whoever it directly affects weather to realize it or not. Either way there is no big waste if it is not realized, you might think as it such, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just don't force those opinions.

What good points? I have yet to find any decent argumentation, only emotional runoff. Do you feel controlled? If anything, I'm offering a perspective against the strong current that most get swept up by. What's sad about this is that people's lives are at stake. If you feel controlled or impelled by my position, it would only be because you are resisting the objective value of the argument. So I'd say you're the pot calling the kettle black when you refer to me as being stubborn.
Emotional runoff? Funny, that's what I thought you were all about. My postion was rather cold and defined "Leave people be and mind your own business" basicly.
Do I feel controlled? No, I wouldn't be posting if I felt controlled now would I ;p
The point was, if your opinion was to become a reality, then it would be controlling the lives over which it should not.

I dont remember calling you stubborn? But it's 8am and I've had no sleep so I guess anythings possible, and I bid you farewell and happy hunting.

Oh and btw, the pot calling the kettle black is race discrimination, somthing a pro-lifer shouldn't be eh ;)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I would disagree that there is an intrinsic value in preserving everything that is alive without any thought to what it is that you are preserving.

Replying to my posts demands careful reading. I mentioned "value ordering", not generalized value.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Oh and btw, the pot calling the kettle black is race discrimination, somthing a pro-lifer shouldn't be eh ;)

:scratch:

Um... a joke? Or serious? No... just... no.

[BhsCrew]

Replying to my posts demands careful reading. I mentioned "value ordering", not generalized value.

Fine. I value the life of the fetus below the will of the mother. I've objectivly value ordered. Have I seen past the fallacy?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yes, eggs and sperm die anyway, a fetus is the combination of the two so why is it so special when compared to its components? Yes, it has the pontential to grow into a human baby, but that is all it is, POTENTIAL.
Potential is tangible in the idea that it is up to whoever it directly affects weather to realize it or not. Either way there is no big waste if it is not realized, you might think as it such, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just don't force those opinions.


No big waste? In terms of a "thing", it is what it is, regardless of its developmental state. To use your chicken and egg thing, the egg is still a chicken per se - while the "being" remains the same, time and space will give it a changing "form". Do you see what I mean? To be in "potential", is still to be on the path towards being "actual". In terms of eggs and sperm, they on their own will reach their actualization of corruption (death) as they are. However, once they are merged, a new being with a new potential is realized - the human being - which will travel a new route to its full actualization in time. Yet, I would underscore that it is already actualized in its "being", based on what I've stated earlier.


Emotional runoff? Funny, that's what I thought you were all about. My postion was rather cold and defined "Leave people be and mind your own business" basicly.
Do I feel controlled? No, I wouldn't be posting if I felt controlled now would I ;p
The point was, if your opinion was to become a reality, then it would be controlling the lives over which it should not.


Well you were right in saying that your position was "cold". Perahps you're willing to let the injustices of the world go on unabated, but I certainly am not. I'm not concerned with others calling me an arrogant idealist, as I simply do not just toot my horn. I offer the perspective that reason provides. If you do not believe that one can cannot "discover" the truth of matters, and that "opinion" is the highest level of clarity that one can ascend to, than you should keep your mouth zipped about all matters - as they won't make any difference regardless. To say that there is no absolute truth is an absolute-truth statement. There are objective truths and values. Arrogance is not to be found in stating these, rather, it is only in those who believe that their opinions have a bearing on reality - as you believe yours do. This was demonstrated in your request for me to "stop interfering". Never.


I dont remember calling you stubborn? But it's 8am and I've had no sleep so I guess anythings possible, and I bid you farewell and happy hunting.


If that's the case, you'd be well advised to continue the thread at a time when you're more able to think clearly.


Oh and btw, the pot calling the kettle black is race discrimination, somthing a pro-lifer shouldn't be eh ;)

LMAO - haven't you heard that expression before? I'm not sure how people talk in New Zeland, but I thought that was universally understood. My bad. A "pot" calling a "kettle" black is ironic, because pots were usually made of black iron, whereas kettles were not. It refers to hypocracy, and has nothing to do with any racial connotation.

[BhsCrew]

A "pot" calling a "kettle" black is ironic, because pots were usually made of black iron, whereas kettles were not. It refers to hypocracy, and has nothing to do with any racial connotation.

I thought that kettles were also black. So the pot was calling the kettle black (which it is), but the pot is ignoring the fact that it is black as well.

Oh well the saying works pretty well either way.

[Frekke]

Did you know that adult male lions will often kill male cubs they come across?

How about that among raptors, the mother will kill some of her offspring if there are too many in the nest.

Natural laws indeed.



Frekke

[Cale The Dark]

Yes.
Greymatter.
The thing inside your head, wraped in bone with a chewy caramel center.. er yea.
The large mental capacity of humans coupled with being fully self aware is what seperates us from the proverbial animals.
So, when religious types are talking about their souls, they're talking about their brains?.. ok, if you say so..


humans aren't the only things with brains on this planet. hell, we don't even have the biggest brains. what i was talking about is morality. right from wrong, and emotional connections. there was an orangatang that was able to recognize itself in the mirror i believe, does this mean it is on the level of humans? does this mean it has a soul? i think not.

oh and sarrodarksbane i was going to put that exact post about killing the homeless. you beat me to it!

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Fine. I value the life of the fetus below the will of the mother. I've objectivly value ordered. Have I seen past the fallacy?

No, you exist in the fallacy. Objective value ordering is not concerned with personal will and volition. It simply means the objective structure and value within the universe. A person's outlook need not agree with this. If you like to read, I recommend Max Scheler's "Ordo Amoris", from his "selected philosophical essays" for reference to the order of values. Value ordering is simply the degree of worth ascribed to a given thing or concept in reality. It is not dictated by humans, which are integrated into this reality, but by the creator and sustainer of the universe, AKA God. Yet, we, by our own reason, can apprehend the value ordering by observing, with careful use of speculative reason, the hierarchical structure of the cosmos. THis is not an exercise in arrogance as some would assert, but one of humility - as it's a journey of discovery and hard work. Lastly, one does not have a "monopoly" on this knowledge, as it's open to all who would embark on that journey of understanding.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Did you know that adult male lions will often kill male cubs they come across?

How about that among raptors, the mother will kill some of her offspring if there are too many in the nest.

Natural laws indeed.

Frekke

I may have to retire from this thread, all this correcting is taking up lots of my time.. Here is a fine example of reactionary thinking. Each genus is ordered to a specific "position" in reality that works together in the greater universal framework of flora and fauna. I'm afraid natural law is a bit more complex that that sweeping generalization.

[BhsCrew]

No, you exist in the fallacy. Objective value ordering is not concerned with personal will and volition. It simply means the objective structure and value within the universe. A person's outlook need not agree with this. If you like to read, I recommend Max Scheler's "Ordo Amoris", from his "selected philosophical essays" for reference to the order of values. Value ordering is simply the degree of worth ascribed to a given thing or concept in reality. It is not dictated by humans, which are integrated into this reality, but by the creator and sustainer of the universe, AKA God. Yet, we, by our own reason, can apprehend the value ordering by observing, with careful use of speculative reason, the hierarchical structure of the cosmos. THis is not an exercise in arrogance as some would assert, but one of humility - as it's a journey of discovery and hard work. Lastly, one does not have a "monopoly" on this knowledge, as it's open to all who would embark on that journey of understanding.

So you assume that God exists and that he atributes a value to everything. You also assume that you know what God's values are.
How do you know? Did God come out of the sky and give you a list?

I woud argue that the values that you speak of were created my man and that they are no better or worse then another set of values created again by us. Then again I would also argue that God is a creation of man and does not exist in the various forms that people give him.

I guess since we're on the subject, what is your list of values? Is it short enough to post? Do you have a website to link us to?

[BhsCrew]

I may have to retire from this thread, all this correcting is taking up lots of my time.. Here is a fine example of reactionary thinking. Each genus is ordered to a specific "position" in reality that works together in the greater universal framework of flora and fauna. I'm afraid natural law is a bit more complex that that sweeping generalization.

So when a species was unable to compete and died off that was its specific position in reality? What about all the species that don't work together but instead seek to destroy and wipe out their neighbors? If everything has a plan then why is it so messy and competitive? Why do some species thrive by causing pain and misery to others?

[Cale The Dark]

Oh and btw, the pot calling the kettle black is race discrimination, somthing a pro-lifer shouldn't be eh ;)

lol. that is freaking hillarious. it reminds me of the apprentice when that black woman was accusing the other girl of racism because she said that. only a person of very low intellect or just insanely ignorant would think that that is a racial slur. it's about hypocrisy because they were both supposedly black....and the one called the other black.....yeah.

[Frekke]

I may have to retire from this thread, all this correcting is taking up lots of my time.. Here is a fine example of reactionary thinking. Each genus is ordered to a specific "position" in reality that works together in the greater universal framework of flora and fauna. I'm afraid natural law is a bit more complex that that sweeping generalization.

I'm sorry.. which sweeping generalization did I make?

What I was trying to show was that infanticide occurs in nature.
How then can infanticide be unnatural?

Frekke

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So you assume that God exists and that he atributes a value to everything. You also assume that you know what God's values are.
How do you know? Did God come out of the sky and give you a list?


We can know more about God than we realize. Your sarcastic notation of supernatural experience arises from the fast-food knowledge mentality precipitated by our culture. Instead of reading my post carefully as I suggested earlier, you saw "GOD" and jumped on that reply button. As Scheler asserts, we can know the rank ordering of value, as it is present in reality, and in this case, in our own hearts

"The heart itself is a structured counter-image of the cosmos of all possible things worthy of love; to this extent it is a micro-cosmos of the world of values" (ordo amoris p. 116)

As we can see physical structures and hierarchy in the world by observation, the "law of love" is written in our hearts. As one is attentive to this, one can understand the value ordering more clearly. We need not have divine revelation to understand these truths. Where the problematic arises is when one values a lesser good as a universal good. In this case, it's killing the unborn to make ends meet, and not trusting in God to sort out the ins and outs.


I woud argue that the values that you speak of were created my man and that they are no better or worse then another set of values created again by us. Then again I would also argue that God is a creation of man and does not exist in the various forms that people give him.


Argument discarded. Values can be superimposed by man, but it goes along with a rejection of objective values. To say that God is an artifice of man - like people who say religion is a crutch - is utter fallacy. The existence of God is philosophically demonstrable, and should be well within your grasp. You did not create yourself, and you do not sustain your existence, or anything else for that matter. To say that the creator of the cosmos is a fabrication of a miniscule-minded human is foolery in its highest expression.


I guess since we're on the subject, what is your list of values? Is it short enough to post? Do you have a website to link us to?

Sorry, I do not have a grocery list of values that I could offer to provide as a movie trailer. Start with the text I've offered you. It's a process, not a quick fix.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So when a species was unable to compete and died off that was its specific position in reality? What about all the species that don't work together but instead seek to destroy and wipe out their neighbors? If everything has a plan then why is it so messy and competitive? Why do some species thrive by causing pain and misery to others?

I don't see why a directive of the creator must necessarily have to make sense to us.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm sorry.. which sweeping generalization did I make?

What I was trying to show was that infanticide occurs in nature.
How then can infanticide be unnatural?

Frekke

In your earlier post, you disregarded natural law, yet you provided us with the fact that infantcide does occur. Was this to justify aboirtion? I saw the generalization in that the same law can be applied to us. That's it.

[Tetzel]

It simply means the objective structure and value within the universe.
I don't know about your universe, but mine pertains solely to my perspective and my experiences. I can't be sure you exist, that anything exists, other than my own demented thoughts. To claim that there is a universal "list of values" or its' sesquipedalian philosophical equivalent is proposterous. You have defiled the very essence of consciousness by imposing a belief system on another being with the sole argument that that is the way things simply "are."

You can claim that we're wrong, but that's what you get by using lofty, tough sounding philosophical doctrine to those who have no idea what you're talking about. If we're wrong, simply it. If you can't chances are it doesn't make any sense.

[BhsCrew]

Actually I read your post very carefully. I just disagree with your idea that there is one truth to seek out that goes for all things.

I am well aware of the philosophy used to prove God's existance, but I haven't found any of it to be absolute. Most of it uses circumstantual evidence and large leaps of faith. Thomas of Aquinas and others like him are hardly the final word on the subject.

You talk alot about values and value systems, but you seem to discredit a huge body of cultural anthropological work that points out that every culture's value system is subjective. You assume that what you've discovered is actually the truth that would work for the entire world.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I don't know about your universe, but mine pertains solely to my perspective and my experiences. I can't be sure you exist, that anything exists, other than my own demented thoughts. To claim that there is a universal "list of values" or its' sesquipedalian philosophical equivalent is proposterous. You have defiled the very essence of consciousness by imposing a belief system on another being with the sole argument that that is the way things simply "are."

You can claim that we're wrong, but that's what you get by using lofty, tough sounding philosophical doctrine to those who have no idea what you're talking about. If we're wrong, simply it. If you can't chances are it doesn't make any sense.

You dare accuse me of being a philsophical charlatan? I try to be as clear as I can, and offer texts for reference. I'd say that's quite a bit more than you're doing with your mudslinging. The reason why I take a strong tone in this thread is because of the subject matter - lives are at stake. I dont post on every thread on this forum. If you read my earlier posts carefully, you would note that I refer to "discovery". I also mentioned, in anticipation of this slagg, that I did not hold the monopoly of knowledge. I've been doing philosophy for 7 years, and I would not bother you people if I didn't know my shyt. The text I offer you to undertstand my thinking is Kant's critique of pure reason, his "conflict of faculties", and Max Scheler's "selected philosophical essays". THat's it. Never approach me with that tone.

[Frekke]

In your earlier post, you disregarded natural law, yet you provided us with the fact that infantcide does occur. Was this to justify aboirtion? I saw the generalization in that the same law can be applied to us. That's it.

Actually I wasn't trying to justify abortion. Men are not raptors and lions after all. Personally I think thats a good thing. What I was saying is there isn't some natural imperative to preserve individual lives. In fact, nature is only concerned with the individual in so far as it is a part of the whole (hence the mother raptor killing an individual offspring because it maximizes her reproductive potential over time).

Now, where does man fall into this whole. I'll leave that to the individual as I would not presume to tell another man their place. Personally, I prefer to think of myself as a free individual, but prefering that belief does not make it so. I just find the alternative too depressing to dwell on.

Frekke

[BhsCrew]

You dare accuse me of being a philsophical charlatan? I try to be as clear as I can, and offer texts for reference. I'd say that's quite a bit more than you're doing with your mudslinging. The reason why I take a strong tone in this thread is because of the subject matter - lives are at stake. I dont post on every thread on this forum. If you read my earlier posts carefully, you would note that I refer to "discovery". I also mentioned, in anticipation of this slagg, that I did not hold the monopoly of knowledge. I've been doing philosophy for 7 years, and I would not bother you people if I didn't know my shyt. The text I offer you to undertstand my thinking is Kant's critique of pure reason, his "conflict of faculties", and Max Scheler's "selected philosophical essays". THat's it. Never approach me with that tone.

Well if you've been reading philosophy for seven years then you should know that most philosopers spend their entire lives trying to discover the nature of god or debating whether there is one set of values for life. You've only been at this seven years and you already believe that the set of values you've arrived at are the word of god and absolutly right beyond a shadow of a doubt. That does take a certain level of arrogance.

Now I've never considered myself humble but I would never go so far as to say that I know so much in my reading and discussion that my beliefs are 100% right and the entire rest of the world is ignorant and misguided.

[Tetzel]

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.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Actually I read your post very carefully. I just disagree with your idea that there is one truth to seek out that goes for all things.

I am well aware of the philosophy used to prove God's existance, but I haven't found any of it to be absolute. Most of it uses circumstantual evidence and large leaps of faith. Thomas of Aquinas and others like him are hardly the final word on the subject.

You talk alot about values and value systems, but you seem to discredit a huge body of cultural anthropological work that points out that every culture's value system is subjective. You assume that what you've discovered is actually the truth that would work for the entire world.

No, you did not read it carefully enough. I said "philosophically demonstrable", not proven. God cannot be proven, but can be demonstrated in the use of reason. Aquinas did not prove God, but in his philosophy did provide 5 ways of demonstrating it. Try actually reading his text, which starts out with proofs AGAINST the existence of God, instead of doing a 2 minute google search.
Also, do not make assumptions about the scope of my own study. If you want to discuss it, I promise we will.

As for culture, It does not move against the the objectivity of values. You jumped the gun again. Never do that in this type of discussion. Referring to Scheler again, he writes that the multiplicity of cultures still upholds the universal value-ordering. You'll see that across cultures, while they have radically different expression, their goals are intrinsically the same. In this, we see that all people seek fulfillment and transcendence one way or another. It is essentially the interplay of the one and the many.

Anyway, I'm taking a break for a bit, I've gotta cool off.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok, one last notation, then I gotta take off. In reference to "imposing morals" etc, stop and look at what you've posted. My whole thing on this thread had to do with stopping others from imposing their own morals in killing human children. Savvy?

Secondly, and it's the last time I'll say it. Do I have all the answers, no. Can we "discover" truths about our life? Yes. I work hard in grasping these things, and I will post them regardless. I try to make it clear that these aren't merely subjective opinions, but objective maxims, and I have presented you with some texts.

Other than that, sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes.

[BhsCrew]

No, you did not read it carefully enough. I said "philosophically demonstrable", not proven. God cannot be proven, but can be demonstrated in the use of reason. Aquinas did not prove God, but in his philosophy did provide 5 ways of demonstrating it. Try actually reading his text, which starts out with proofs AGAINST the existence of God, instead of doing a 2 minute google search.
Also, do not make assumptions about the scope of my own study. If you want to discuss it, I promise we will.

As for culture, It does not move against the the objectivity of values. You jumped the gun again. Never do that in this type of discussion. Referring to Scheler again, he writes that the multiplicity of cultures still upholds the universal value-ordering. You'll see that across cultures, while they have radically different expression, their goals are intrinsically the same. In this, we see that all people seek fulfillment and transcendence one way or another. It is essentially the interplay of the one and the many.

Anyway, I'm taking a break for a bit, I've gotta cool off.

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.

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.

It works fine that you are taking a break as I have to leave for a while anyway. This damn life keeps getting in the way of my forum debates. :)