Abortion... It cannot be murder because:

If one does not take a Biblical stance, one must admit that this planet is overpopulated and rather than give some the responsibility of deciding who to cull, it would be best to start with the unwanted pregnancies. Unloved people generally are more likely to cause issues for the rest of us, after all...

And if one takes a truly Biblical approach, one will admit that in the Judaic laws (that Jesus said he was not here to change), the soul does not enter the body until the first breath. Given this, any abortion is merely removing a soulless bit of flesh.

And though I think "partial birth" abortions are a wee bit barbaric, I don't see them as murder. The first breath has not been taken and there is no soul involved.

I would love to debate any on this question.

(Copied from another post of mine... Too lazy, I guess. <grin> )

I'm a big fan of abortions.

MORE ABORTIONS, I SAY!

Better that a child never be born into this world than to be born unto a family that doesn't want him or can't take care of him properly.

As soon as the child is concieved, it is my feelings that soul is born. Even though you can't see it and it can't speak to you, it is there. And abortion is murder, unless the circumstances are extreme.

The Angel Gabriel(pbuh) as been accredited as the angel who selects souls from heaven to be birthed into the material world and spends the nine months as the child is being developed informing the new person of what he or she will need to know on Earth, only to silence the child before birth by pressing his finger onto the child's lips, thus producing the cleft below a person's nose.

quote:Originally posted by Wings Of Azrael:

And abortion is murder, unless the circumstances are extreme.

If you think it's murder, it's always murder.

Circumstances merely justify it.

quote:The Angel Gabriel(pbuh) as been accredited as the angel who selects souls from heaven to be birthed into the material world and spends the nine months as the child is being developed informing the new person of what he or she will need to know on Earth, only to silence the child before birth by pressing his finger onto the child's lips, thus producing the cleft below a person's nose.

What a nice story.

I sure wish I remembered what he told me, as I've had to figure it all out myself.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Well there is no factual proof of such of the Angel Gabriel(pbuh), but I read it from some Judeo-Christian lore and believe it to be true. I believe if the child is concieved by rape or something of an extreme nature, that God would not grant it a soul. My belief, not yours. And who knows, may be another Angel came by and erased your memory.

[This message has been edited by Wings Of Azrael (edited 09-08-2003).]

Fucking angels.

First, they come down in search of human bitches and cause God to destroy humanity in the Enochian era, now they erase my memory.

There's going to be hell to pay after I die, I'll tell you that right now.

quote:Originally posted by Wings Of Azrael:

I believe if the child is concieved by rape or something of an extreme nature, that God would not grant it a soul.



So that means that there are a bunch of soulless people walking around today since they were products of rape.

And since they don't have souls then they don't need their soul to be "saved" from anything since it doesn't exist (for them, specifically).

So they have no reason to follow any religion that subscribes to the soul precept.

Maybe so. They are possibly those who are destined to unbelief. If there are those out there, and the repented and believed in God, God would grant them mercy and compassion. God is Compassionate, the Merciful.

If they are destined to not believe, how are they to repent and believe?

They're destined not to.

And even if they did, they have no soul, so they don't have any reason to hope for heaven or fear hell, thus eliminating the entire driving force behind many religions.

Cause' I mean, that's the whole object of the game. To dodge hell and make it to heaven. That's the entire fucking point. That's all there is to it.

So if you don't have any reason to worry about heaven or hell, then you have no reason to subscribe to any religion that uses such systems since it can;t do anything for you.

A warning word about religions that promise afterlife and eternal punishment like christianity...It collapsed the Roman Empire, it can collapse you too.



But, I believe there is no god. The only soul we have is the electrical activity in our brain system, which can sometimes transfer to the energy of a specific structure that gives off it's own energy, like a house for example. We call this a ghost. This disembodied series of electrical siginals is waste from your brain, and your brain gets rid of it by transferring it to the world around you. Because of this, you don't even have to be dead to be a "ghost" but you can be.

SO THERE'S MY DEFINITION OF A SOUL, take it or leave it.

Thats just what I believe.



The moral? Get an abortion if you want one.



-MD

MD, that sounds even more rediculous than most religions.

quote:Originally posted by Wings Of Azrael:

As soon as the child is concieved, it is my feelings that soul is born. Even though you can't see it and it can't speak to you, it is there. And abortion is murder, unless the circumstances are extreme.

I disagree with the theological underpinnings of this statement, but there does exist an element of truth. At the exact moment of conception, there is created an entity with a unique genetic code - it cannot be biologically considered part of the mother, or, for that matter, the father. Once it has a distinct genetic code, it is by definition a distinct organism. And as such, it does fall under the Non-Coercion Principle, my preferred moral compass in a world devoid of universal principles.

Besides, if the kid thinks his life is hard, he'll "abort" himself as soon as he discovers Nine Inch Nails and razor blades.

For once I almost kinda agree with Armed&Angry. His statement was almost surreal due to the truth content. As I just stated in another thread...no one person is predetermined to be an unbeliever. God gives you the choice. But the knows due to the fact he gave you the choice, there will be people who don't believe.

[This message has been edited by Wings Of Azrael (edited 09-08-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Kikey_Kikeowitz:

I'm a big fan of abortions.

MORE ABORTIONS, I SAY!

Better that a child never be born into this world than to be born unto a family that doesn't want him or can't take care of him properly.

Thanks, KK... At first I had a knee-jerk reaction, thinking, not "for" abortions, per se. But then I thought about it and, y'know - I think more abortions might be an appropriate step to solving child abuse, neglect, and that ever-growing issue, overpopulation.

Let only those prepared to love, support, and otherwise care for the individual they bring to the moment of first breath actually do the bringing.

One thing rather off the topic but related. If one gives astrology any credit, it is interesting that all figuring begins at birth, not at conception. This might suggest that the soul does enter at first breath. Just more to think about.

[This message has been edited by Amaterasu (edited 09-08-2003).]

WOA, I just kinda agreed with you. Don't be a dick about it.

P.S. Bourbon and bacon! Yummy!

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

I disagree with the theological underpinnings of this statement, but there does exist an element of truth. At the exact moment of conception, there is created an entity with a unique genetic code - it cannot be biologically considered part of the mother, or, for that matter, the father. Once it has a distinct genetic code, it is by definition a distinct organism. And as such, it does fall under the Non-Coercion Principle, my preferred moral compass in a world devoid of universal principles.

Besides, if the kid thinks his life is hard, he'll "abort" himself as soon as he discovers Nine Inch Nails and razor blades.

I must ask, A&A, if one holds that the conception is somehow...shall we say, sacred, for lack of a better term...why is it more sacred than the conception of a cat or a dog (amongst others) which we routinely abort pregnancies of in "fixing" our pets once pregnancy occurs? What gives the fetal tissue of a human animal greater importance than that of any other animal?

The answer to that is most frequently given in terms of a religious standpoint: the soul makes it different. But if there is no soul before first breath, of course, that view does not hold either.

But since you are claiming no religious stance, I find it interesting that you still suggest that eliminating unwanted potential is in any way a problem.

A valid question, though it will require some background to answer.

First and foremost, my studies in the area of evolutionary psychology have revealed one simple fact: Nature is brutal. Every animal's brain is hardwired to produce a predilection for dominance, as the domination of a peer sets to flowing an inordinate amount of the particular hormones that make you confident, aggressive, and happy. The lack of these hormones leads to "biological apoptosis," to use Howard Bloom's terminology - what we would call severe clinical depression. Hence, dominance is a required fact of life and cannot be avoided without a level of brain restructuring that our current technology simply will not allow.

In nature, this dominance takes the form of actual, physical violence. However, humans possess the unique mental faculties that allow for other methods of dominance, such as polite debate and free-market capitalism. Hence, violence is undesirable - not because it's inherently unethical by the edict of some illusory God, but because it's inherently wasteful.

This is the key that sets mankind beyond the animals. We have the power to voluntarily forgo aggressive violence in favor of other means of establishing the social order. Keep this in mind, we'll come back to it in a moment.

Okay, so if there's no God, and hence no universal ethical standard, from whence do we derive codes of behavior? I propose simply that we disallow the initiation of force, fraud, and breach of contract, simply because these are the barest essentials of a functioning society. These protocols keep people from interfering with each others lives, and hence allow every man to decide his own ethical set, so long as he respects the above rules. These ideas, collectively, are known as the Principle of Non-Coercion, and they give rise to a philosophy we call secular (or atheistic) libertarianism.

Animals, of necessity, cannot fall under this system, simply because they lack the mental machinery. They cannot respect their end of the bargain - i.e. not to initiate violence against others - and hence, why should any human respect theirs? It must also be said that the animal kingdom, as a whole, has evolved by leaps and bounds due to human hunting and the need to escape it. One could argue that humanity has helped animals, depending on your criteria.

Aborting a baby strikes me - though certainly no all of my fellow libertarians - as a grave violation of the Principle of Non-Coercion. Since the baby cannot consent to being aborted, the abortion counts as the initiation of force, which is definitely a violation.

Sorry, this is a bit lengthy, but I hope it clears things up.

depends on the circumstances....you are denying a child's life, wanted or not, that child was given the option to live and you are taking it away. I spit on the women who complain about it being there right because it's there body. I would only allow an abortion if it is best for the child like kikey said if the child is unwanted or will have a horrible life that will lead to him or her to degrade society. If the world is over populated, get the whole world to not have sex for a week, or any certain amount of time. though i believe that everyone who has an abortion for the benefit of the woman should be shot in the street in public execution and then have there bullet riddled body dragged out and put on public display.

No, no. That was actually very enlightening, AA.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 09-09-2003).]

*laughs at A&A* I wasn't being a dick. Bacon & Burbon?*lol* Probably not a good combination, but knock yourself out man.

I will, goddammit! I'm telling you, you're really missing out on this pork and alcohol stuff. Oh God... it's like there's a party in my liver, and there's no cover for the LADIES!!!

I will say you are probably the funniest fucker here.*chuckles quietly at last post*

If abortion is murder, then I can't see why the worlds' religions would be against it. If you look at history, Judeo-Christian-Islam has had no problem with murder.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

A valid question, though it will require some background to answer.

(etc....)

An interesting perspective, A&A. Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

My thoughts, reflecting on your input, go like this: if we are capable of removing our behavior, in the interest of avoiding waste, from physical violence (pro wrestling not withstanding <grin> ), we are also capable of recognizing that we have excessess - specifically in supportable bodies on this planet's surface.

If we decide to do no culling, we will cause severe loss from food riots at the very least. At the rate we are multiplying, that is not that far off. We must take a global view at this time in history or else.

So, given that, and given the many children born unwanted, hated even, wouldn't a good place to cull, at least initially, be in these unwanted ones before they are born? Just because they have been conceived doesn't mean that there is anything more (again) sacred about them, and given that they are unwanted, they are probablisically going to be the causes of problems in society if allowed to be born.

If we HAVE to cull (and we do), isn't this the most logical place?

[This message has been edited by Amaterasu (edited 09-09-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Hammer&Sickle:

depends on the circumstances....you are denying a child's life, wanted or not, that child was given the option to live and you are taking it away. I spit on the women who complain about it being there right because it's there body. I would only allow an abortion if it is best for the child like kikey said if the child is unwanted or will have a horrible life that will lead to him or her to degrade society. If the world is over populated, get the whole world to not have sex for a week, or any certain amount of time. though i believe that everyone who has an abortion for the benefit of the woman should be shot in the street in public execution and then have there bullet riddled body dragged out and put on public display.

If the potential mother does want their future child, the abortion issue is moot. Women just don't want to be told that they MUST bring all pregnancies to term. So "spit[ing] on the women who complain about it being there right because it's there body" and then saying you support abortion in cases where the child is not wanted seems absurd, don't you think? And we have no way of knowing if any given potential human will "have a horrible life that will lead to him or her to degrade society." Another seeming absurdity, to support abortion in such a case.

And frankly, the most absurd suggestion of all was to "get" people not to have sex. Who is going to do this and how? I am hard pressed to envision the worst 1984 nightmare accomplishing this even for a moment, let alone any length of time that would matter in terms of overpopulation.

And just how do you plan to determine what benefit a woman has in having an abortion? The benefit is always (barring medical necessity - which I guess she should be shot over according to you) getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy - which you have said is ok.

Please tell me your post was tongue-in-cheek!

quote:Originally posted by Amaterasu:

If we HAVE to cull (and we do), isn't this the most logical place?

[This message has been edited by Amaterasu (edited 09-09-2003).]

Yes, if we have to, and you accept the moral validity of "culling." I most certainly do not. The value of human life is a philosophical principle that we simply cannot sacrifice, no matter the circumstances. Once killing unborn children is no longer an effective measure, what do we do? Kill more criminals? Kill unproductive members of society? Where does it end? I'd rather live in an insanely overcrowded world than one in which the subtle social fabric of society has been slowly and quietly collapsed.

And I think your fears of a population crisis are overdrawn anyway. By Thomas Malthus' calculations, we should have experienced this meltdown about two hundred years ago.

Nature has a way of trimming back the herd, without us having to lose our humanity in the process. Expect pestilence, my personal favorite of the Horsemen, to make a comeback in a big way in the next century. We've had some close calls on this already - and Hong Kong, in particular, has some truly nasty flus on tap. According to international authorities, one strain of flu contained in the city, had it been allowed to escape, could have killed 3 billion, yes BILLION, people, or roughly half of the human race.

*wonders why agreeing with A&A is becoming a regular occurence*

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

A valid question, though it will require some background to answer.

First and foremost, my studies in the area of evolutionary psychology have revealed one simple fact: Nature is brutal. Every animal's brain is hardwired to produce a predilection for dominance, as the domination of a peer sets to flowing an inordinate amount of the particular hormones that make you confident, aggressive, and happy. The lack of these hormones leads to "biological apoptosis," to use Howard Bloom's terminology - what we would call severe clinical depression.

Sorry, this is a bit lengthy, but I hope it clears things up.

This clears up nothing since it is so far off base and distorted by some one to try to prove a certain way of thinking. I am thinking you are a major fan of Howard Bloom,for those of you who dont know this man got here http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id152/pg1/

this guy has been into every form of people manlipution over the years he could find. Even you state is from his teachings, almost directly quoted.

Recent findings in whales, dolphins, elephants and hundreds of other social structures all show that the higher level social societies are all based on cooperation, not dominance. recent studies with animals show that animals are perfectly capable of bargaining (female monkeys trade foos for sex)and do so by social interaction. Do some recent reading,animals do initiate violence against each other(watch a well fed cat"play" with a mouse, read how bears stalk and repeatedly attack the same victim, not for food.) Animals are the full range of "human" emotions. Compassion, forethought hate, revenge, love, child care. dominance is not a required fact of life, neither in nature or in human civilization. What you and your buddy Bloom failed to address in you theories is that man and for the most part animals are not governed by dominance, if that was the case we would have dead animals every where from the dominance. You have been watching too much animal planet, and not reading enough of the "recent" studies.

Your buddy Bloom promotes himself as a scientist, a philosofer, a authority on nature, a authority on the human mind a authority on the "Big bang". The only thing this man has going for him is he learned by managing rock stars how to manlipulate people to sell what ever he is selling, and how to change ange alter his product into whatever the people will by, he did it with rock stars and he does it with his books. He sells snake oil to idiots.His ideas of the "Global Brain"

These are quotes from your expert

"Howard Bloom: First of all, you have to realise that plants are often very clever at seducing animals into doing their work for them."

"About 8000 years ago, a whole bunch of grasses came up with the “idea” of harnessing these very peculiar interesting looking animals called human beings,"

The guys sells himself self to be

a philosopher

an expert in cancer research

a evolutionary scientist

an expert on the middle east

an expert on ancient rome

an expert on supercomputers

a history expert

a physcology expert

a zoological expert

an expert in micro-biology

and more, and all this besides the fact that he spent the first half of his life, not in school learning any of this, no he was selling rock stars, like AC/DC.

The mans brand new science, The International Paleopsychology Project , is laughed out of both creationist and evolutionist camps.

Bloom claims he brainstormed with the head of Physics at NYU before he reached the age of twelve another acedemic claims that cannot be subtaniated. and claims to have been and expert in the fields of physics, computers, chemistry,immunology all before his freshman year of college

Heclaims to have founded several art magizines, art studios and claims to be the inventor and founder of heavy metal magazines. He claims to be one of the major factors into the development of Rap, disco, and punk rock.And all this without a shread of evidence.

Its no wonder this guy doesnt belive in God, he thinks he is God. He is a bullshit artist, and just because someone makes claims on the website, doesnt make it true.

[This message has been edited by jester461 (edited 09-09-2003).]

Though you offerred a lot of specific criticism about that Bloom fella that I never would have known, you beat me to makung fun of his idea. As soon as I read that I laughed it off as hateful jewish garbage.

Down, boy! Is it possible you could, I dunno, provide some sources for any of your claims? That'd be a real helper.

Has it occurred to you that maybe the creation of cooperative social organisms is, in fact, a means of dominating other social organisms? You see, we call these instances of dominance between "cooperative" groups "war." Think, chuckles.

I don't "almost directly quote," I directly quote once, with an appropriate citation. The rest of the post has nothing to do with Bloom; he doesn't subscribe to any of my views about abortion or the Non-Coercion Principle. Bloom is also not the only author who's works I've read, as my study on the subject actually began with Robert Wright's "Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny" and continued with such authors as Matt Ridley and the old standby, Richard Dawkins. I notice you don't bother arguing with any of the rest of my post... telling, eh?

The quotes you give are - duh - an example of Bloom's style of writing, dipshit, not statements to be taken literally. Both statements are merely colorful ways of saying things that science has, in fact, proven virtually beyond doubt.

Tell you what. Argue about things that are relevant to the discussion, and quit with the uninformed straw-man arguments, m'kay?

I think abortion is just fine. I like mine over-easy with a side of bacon and some toast.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

Down, boy! Is it possible you could, I dunno, provide some sources for any of your claims? That'd be a real helper.

Has it occurred to you that maybe the creation of cooperative social organisms is, in fact, a means of dominating other social organisms? You see, we call these instances of dominance between "cooperative" groups "war." Think, chuckles.

I don't "almost directly quote," I directly quote once, with an appropriate citation. The rest of the post has nothing to do with Bloom; he doesn't subscribe to any of my views about abortion or the Non-Coercion Principle. Bloom is also not the only author who's works I've read, as my study on the subject actually began with Robert Wright's "Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny" and continued with such authors as Matt Ridley and the old standby, Richard Dawkins. I notice you don't bother arguing with any of the rest of my post... telling, eh?

The quotes you give are - duh - an example of Bloom's style of writing, dipshit, not statements to be taken literally. Both statements are merely colorful ways of saying things that science has, in fact, proven virtually beyond doubt.

Tell you what. Argue about things that are relevant to the discussion, and quit with the uninformed straw-man arguments, m'kay?

All of his claims are on his personnel web site, you can find all of his glorious acheivements there. and if you dont want the man discussed, dont bring in him as a expert on the subject and quote from him.

And as for this subject, the subject is simple.No one is sure on the intelligence of dolphins, but hundreds and thousands of people united and spent hundred of thousands of dollars and stopped the tuna trade from killing them. People want to save the whales and the turtles and the snowy owl and the spotted owl. They spend hundreds of thousands of euros a year to save unwanted dogs from Spain and Italy and the Canary Islands, and import them to Holland and the U.S. to save them and they are found homes or cared for by charities for the rest of their lives.We spend billions every year to fed famine starved children in third world countries that statisically will die within a year anyway, through no fault of ours, yet we try and try and try to save them. Then, when no one is even sure on when life begins, when the soul enters, when conciousness starts or other key issues, yet we are willing to take that chance to get dismember, liquify,and throw away a "possible" person.

We spend billions on unwanted things all over the world, yet justify killing an unwanted "possible" human in our own country. We see the value of saving a blind six week old puppy, that was unwanted and was set on fire in Spain, but see no value in a "possible" human,and will dismember and liquify it, in its mothers womb, because it might be unwanted.

I wont go on and explain the conclusion of this statement because if you can't figure out the obvious contridication of our morality and our priorities than it would matter any way.

Soul, no soul, wanted unwanted, it doesn't matter.

And in closing, my brother is eleven months older than me. I was born because they used to think a woman couldnt get pregnant when nursing. I was a mistake, and my father made that clear that I was not wanted. I spent my childhood paying for that mistake. I had a front tooth knocked out, various robs cracked, my orbital socket broken,(eye socket), my skull fractured. I made it through that. I hold a BS in Electronic Engineering and a BA in Theology( and no I am not tied to any "religion"). I now live in the the Netherlands after living all over the world for work. I married a Dutch photo model( not a superstar, but she just did a few calanders and clothes ads and such, but she is wonderful) we have a twelve year old daughter. The point is this, it is not better to be aborted than to be unwanted. I have my own opinions of abortion, particulairly since if it was legal in 1961 I might not be here,so I cant comment on if it is right or wrong because I am biased, but the "unwanted" agruement is bullshit. Even the "unwanted" deserve a chance.

Hell not just more abortions, more deaths. THe world's overpopulated

I don't buy into any bullshit about a "soul" entering the baby as soon as it's conceived. There's no evidence of any such thing as a soul; it's purely a theological concept, and as such cannot be used as a basis for law (separation of church and state, hmmm?). In other words, the "soul" is not the state's business. If you have a problem with abortion because of the baby's "soul", then don't have an abortion, but it's grossly unconstitutional to force your views on the matter on anyone else, especially through law.

In short, any religious justification for banning abortion is unconstitutional.

While the embryo does have its own distinct genetic code at the moment of conception, it is by no means a person yet. Especially while the embryo still consists only of a handful, or tens, or hundreds, or thousands or millions of cells, it does not have the basic machinery to function as a human, either mentally or physically. Until the brain develops late in the pregnancy to the point where it could begin to form the beginnings of intelligence, it's certainly not a human consciousness that would be snuffed out.

Furthermore, until such time as the baby is capable of surviving outside the mother, it is not a separate organism. It is 100% made of the mother's flesh (aside from the insignificant bit of organic matter of a single sperm cell), and 100% dependent on the mother. It is, in fact, a parasite in the most literal sense of the word.

Until such time as the fetus can survive outside the womb, I see it as a gross violation of a woman's rights to deny her an abortion (just as it would be a horrifying violation of her rights to deny her the right to remove a leech).

Three year olds cant survive by themselves outside of the womb either.

Jester,

I wasn't asking for a link to Bloom's claims, I was asking for a link to the studies that supposedly show the selfless cooperation of dolphins and such. I quoted a single phrase from one of Bloom's books, because it's a good phrase that captures the idea rather nicely. I fail to see why such an issue has been made of it, and again I point out the above user's failure to argue with any of the rest of my post.

Environmentalist behavior is hardly selfless. It's based, at its heart, on self-preservation, stemming from the belief that humanity is about to kill this planet, and ourselves with it. I disagree with this assertion, but I understand the logic. In addition to this, there are those who glom onto the successful movement (and it has been relatively successful) to achieve fame, kinship, or some purpose to their life.

Forgive me, but you will have to elaborate on the point to all that. It's certainly not "obvious," though I'm sure it would be if you organized it coherently. Help me out here.

I will, however, agree with you that abortion is wrong - I have all along, as you'll notice if you read the thread from the beginning - and that it is better to be unwanted than aborted. Three of my good friends stem from unwanted pregnancies, including one who was the result of a sexual assault. They're all still good people who're a whole lot of fun to hang out with.

And Zorro, your view here appears to be terribly skewed, although perhaps I merely misunderstand you. You couldn't possibly be insisting that a child isn't a person until it's capable of supporting itself, could you? It seems that would justify "abortions" right up to the age of 18, and quite a bit longer for the mentally handicapped.

I hereby bump thee.

*sigh*

Come on people... do I have to spell it out for you? Don't be stupid, and don't bandy words when you know what the fuck I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the child's body itself being able to perform its functions on its own.

A 3-year-old wouldn't survive long without care from a parent, but it's capable of surviving as a separate entity. It is capable of performing all the necessary operations to maintain life in the body, i.e. pumping blood with its own heart, breathing, ingesting and digesting food. It simply needs food and safety to be provided by a caretaker.

The body of most babies within the mother is incapable of keeping itself alive. The body cannot indepently support its own function. Until such time, it's a parasite that is very nearly part of the mother.

Up until such time as the fetus is capable of supporting its own body functions, I think it's up to the mother to decide whether or not to abort.

Once the fetus could maintain body function outside the womb, I think abortion should be prohibited.

I don't take the idea of a "soul" into account because according to the Constitution, law must be based on purely secular reasons.

Do not take that tone with me, my good man. Your distinctions are entirely arbitrary, and have no basis in logic anyway.

So the baby isn't leeching actual bodily fluids anymore. It's still entirely dependent on the mother for food, shelter, and clothing. Just because it can breathe independently doesn't mean it can survive. So, no a 3-year-old is not "capable of surviving as a separate entity." You are the one playing semantics.

It's also important to note that a baby is absolutely nothing like a leech, and the term "parasite" hardly describes thing accurately. The mother's body is specifically designed to care for that "parasite"; it's not like a mosquito came along and started stealing blood. And try to keep things in perspective - in the overwhelming majority of cases, the "parasite" is there because the mother and her consort failed to demonstrate even the most basic of responsible sexual behaviors (like, I dunno, putting on a condom).

I'm tempted to deal with your last paragraph, and point out the fact that virtually all law is based on ethics derived from religion, and that the constitution simply forbids the overt support of one religion over others, but then I'd be splitting hairs. I think I've made my point.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

And as such, it does fall under the Non-Coercion Principle

Can you coerce something incapable of making a decision or having a preference?

It's still entirely dependent on the mother for food, shelter, and clothing. Just because it can breathe independently doesn't mean it can survive. So, no a 3-year-old is not "capable of surviving as a separate entity.

Listen to what I'm saying. The 3-year-old can't survive without care very well because it doesn't have the knowledge to gather its own resources. However, 3-year-olds can and do survive without parental care.

I'm talking about body functions. A 3-year-old's will continue without the support of another organism (and by support, I mean direct assistance in the actual performing of the body functions).

An embryo or early fetus is not a viable organism outside the womb. No amount of provision of food and resources will help it survive. Its body just doesn't work on its own.

This is not arguing semantics, it's simple biology. A fetus will die if removed from the womb, simply because it is removed from the womb. A 3-year-old will not die just because she leaves her parents' house. She'll probably scavenge food bits from garbage or beg from strangers.

My distinctions are not arbitrary, they're based on simple biological facts.

As for calling a baby a parasite, the fact that the mother's body is designed to support it doesn't make it any less of a parasite. It has something of a symbiotic relationship with the mother (it clings to the mother for vital support, and in turn propogates the mother's genes). Nonetheless, it's a parasite.

The fact that the fetus was conceived out of irresponsibility is not pertinent to the issue.

As for law being based on ethics derived from religion... yes, this is the origin of most law. However, most of these ethics have secular validity based on logic. You don't need to believe in God to think it's wrong to harm someone or steal from them.

What I'm saying is that a purely theological concept cannot be justification for a law.

Thou Shalt Not Kill is a theological concept that is written into our law that keeps me from doing with you as I wish, and you seem to have no trouble with that concept.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Can you coerce something incapable of making a decision or having a preference?

Yes. Yes, you can. A severely retarded individual may be incapable of a preference or a decision. This does not mean they do not have rights as a person.

Now back to Zorro. I hear what you're saying, and it's all true from a biological perspective. It's still not relevant to the conversation. There is of course a difference between actually sharing bodily fluids with the mother and receiving food from her. However, they touch on the same concept - that of humanity being determined by the ability to survive. It just seems rather arbitrary.

And fact that the fetus was conceived out of irresponsible behavior most definitely is pertinent to the discussion. The fact is that, rather than ending the life of even an inviable cell-cluster, she could have taken a pill or scored some free condoms from Planned Parenthood. She and her consort allowed the child to take up residence in her womb. She could have prevented this whole moral quandary from arising. Knowing this, if a woman and her mate continue to avoid birth control, and she becomes pregnant, I'm afraid I just can't muster a lot of sympathy for her. To act irresponsibly, and then dodge the consequences by killing what will someday be an intelligent being, just strikes me as wrong. But hey, I'm wierd like that.

I understand where you're coming from on the religious issue - I was nitpicking more than anything, to be perfectly honest. I'm not advocating religious justification for law, and if you'll read back through the thread, you'll notice my repeated professions of atheism. Just thought I'd clear that up, in case there's some confusion.

quote:Originally posted by Spirit of '22:

Thou Shalt Not Kill is a theological concept that is written into our law that keeps me from doing with you as I wish, and you seem to have no trouble with that concept.

Didn't you read my post? I said that it's possible for religious and secular reasons to coincide. You don't have to believe in God to think it's wrong to kill someone. I pay no heed to the Ten Commandments, yet I still think it's wrong to kill. Why? Because it's depriving someone of their rights, not because God said so.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

And fact that the fetus was conceived out of irresponsible behavior most definitely is pertinent to the discussion. The fact is that, rather than ending the life of even an inviable cell-cluster, she could have taken a pill or scored some free condoms from Planned Parenthood. She and her consort allowed the child to take up residence in her womb. She could have prevented this whole moral quandary from arising. Knowing this, if a woman and her mate continue to avoid birth control, and she becomes pregnant, I'm afraid I just can't muster a lot of sympathy for her. To act irresponsibly, and then dodge the consequences by killing what will someday be an intelligent being, just strikes me as wrong. But hey, I'm wierd like that.

I agree that preventative measures are definitely a better method of birth control. I think abortion should be a last resort. I don't think that changes the morality of the issue, though.

I don't really care if something will be sentient; if it's not at the moment, it's not, and that's pretty much all that matters. Since it's not sentient now, aborting it doesn't violate the rights of a sentient being.

If that were the case, birth control would be equally wrong, since it prevents the sentient being from developing before it becomes sentient, just as abortion does.

Furthermore, I think practicality weighs into the issue as well. Aborting an unwanted child before it's even sentient is certainly preferable to subjecting it to a childhood where it is unwanted.

Most people who have abortions do so because their circumstances are not good for raising a child. If a girl is pregnant at 16, she will not make a good mother, and I think the child would be better off never existing than being raised under poor circumstances.

Personally, I think you should have to apply for a license to have a child... if you don't qualify economically and psychologically, you don't get to fuck up a person from the day they're born.

Didn't you read my post? I said that it's possible for religious and secular reasons to coincide. You don't have to believe in God to think it's wrong to kill someone. I pay no heed to the Ten Commandments, yet I still think it's wrong to kill. Why? Because it's depriving someone of their rights

Great. And you think those rights begin at birth. I dont believe anyone has rights, but believe the soul exists, well, before conception, but in this world, at conception. That is a commmon religious perspective anyway. The one thing you cited from that one religion says nothing about religion in general.

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

I don't really care if something will be sentient; if it's not at the moment, it's not, and that's pretty much all that matters. Since it's not sentient now, aborting it doesn't violate the rights of a sentient being.

Where do we draw the line? Is someone severely injured and left in a vegetable - i.e. non-sentient - state eligible to be "aborted" if they become burdensome?

Birth control isn't even in the same ballpark. Until fertilized, the ovum is just another cell in the mother's body. The way I see it, the entity becomes a baby - a future sentient being - when it ceases to possess the same DNA as the mother, and thus, by definition, becomes a separate organism, albeit a totally dependent one.

And who are we to say that a child is unworthy to live? One of my close friends is the product of a brazen date rape; after many long nights swilling cheap liquor and ruminating about matters philosophical, I'm awfully glad he wasn't aborted. Similarly, my pal Joe was "supposed to be a blowjob"; despite the unwanted circumstances of his birth, he's still developed in a hell of a guy with a great sense of humor and a pragmatic outlook on life. It's not our place to decide for a child whether they get a shot at life. If somebody thinks their circumstances are unbearable, they're fully capable of aborting themselves.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

Yes, if we have to, and you accept the moral validity of "culling." I most certainly do not. The value of human life is a philosophical principle that we simply cannot sacrifice, no matter the circumstances. Once killing unborn children is no longer an effective measure, what do we do? Kill more criminals? Kill unproductive members of society? Where does it end? I'd rather live in an insanely overcrowded world than one in which the subtle social fabric of society has been slowly and quietly collapsed.

<shrug> Hey, if it comes down to dog eat dog, I guess that's ok. I would rather control the birth rate as a solution. I suppose life is better than quality life - though I can't see why.

quote:And I think your fears of a population crisis are overdrawn anyway. By Thomas Malthus' calculations, we should have experienced this meltdown about two hundred years ago. [/quote/]

Oh, I agree that "experts" don't agree when the maximum will be exceeded. But they do agree it will happen sooner or later given current trends.

[quote]Nature has a way of trimming back the herd, without us having to lose our humanity in the process. Expect pestilence, my personal favorite of the Horsemen, to make a comeback in a big way in the next century. We've had some close calls on this already - and Hong Kong, in particular, has some truly nasty flus on tap. According to international authorities, one strain of flu contained in the city, had it been allowed to escape, could have killed 3 billion, yes BILLION, people, or roughly half of the human race.

Yah. Life is better, writhing in illness, pollution, filth, hunger, etc. than any quality of life. <wink>

A&A, perhaps I am an idealist who would rather see the quality of life for those already here not deteriorate further into the maws of Nature and Her absolute solutions. I just don't relish the picture of where we are headed if we do nothing but what we already are doing.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

And fact that the fetus was conceived out of irresponsible behavior most definitely is pertinent to the discussion. The fact is that, rather than ending the life of even an inviable cell-cluster, she could have taken a pill or scored some free condoms from Planned Parenthood. She and her consort allowed the child to take up residence in her womb. She could have prevented this whole moral quandary from arising. Knowing this, if a woman and her mate continue to avoid birth control, and she becomes pregnant, I'm afraid I just can't muster a lot of sympathy for her. To act irresponsibly, and then dodge the consequences by killing what will someday be an intelligent being, just strikes me as wrong. But hey, I'm wierd like that.

Just curious... If I had sex, even trying to get pregnant at times, for 20 years and believed I could not get pregnant (having failed for 2 decades), and suddenly find myself pregnant, is that irresponsible behavior? Could I "qualify" for an abortion under your "rules?"

I say MORE abortions, but I propose this, all abortions should include a mandantory hystorectomy(sp). That would kill(not murder) two birds with one stone. Think about it, now little suzzie can get her fill of cock without ever seeing the doctor again except to treat her for gonnorhea.

Plus she won't have to "worry" about taking the pill or whether johnny has a condom or not.

Amaterasu, perhaps I'm simply an idealist who believes that you do not have the right to decide whether a child lives or dies. Other matters are subservient to this simple thought.

The example you provide is kinda ridiculous. If you had sex for two decades trying to conceive, and then you finally pulled it off, why would you want an abortion? Seems vaguely counterproductive. Rule of thumb - if you wanna screw, and you don't want kids, take a pill or put on a condom. Otherwise, contact your local orphanage.

Doofnoil, that's a really stupid idea. Why not just pass out pill "starter kits" or something? You can't just cut her ovaries out by order of law.

Abortions for everyone!

(Booooooooo!!!)

All right then, abortions for no one!

(Booooooooo!!!)

Umm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

(Yaaaaaaaay!!!)

if your never born, how can you die? fuck everyone who disagrees with abortion its completely right.

Life is just a prolonged death.....it would be merciful to have an abortion, religious or not. It you are religious, your babies going to heaven......for the price of your going to hell. If you are not religious, not killing the child, that would be murder, as they're gunna die anyway....so don't put em through the shit we get in life (heck, if your thinking about having an abortion, its because you don't want the baby or it won't have a good home, so they are better off dead).

*waits for the many flames sure to come*

quote:Originally posted by L3d3ni:

Abortions for everyone!

(Booooooooo!!!)

All right then, abortions for no one!

(Booooooooo!!!)

Umm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

(Yaaaaaaaay!!!)



Now that was pretty funny...

Did you steal that bit from someone else?

quote:Originally posted by munch:

if your never born, how can you die? fuck everyone who disagrees with abortion its completely right.

Wow, what a great rebuttal! You sure aren't a complete and utter dumbass, no sirree! How about you argue instead of being an irritating shit?

Same for the other guy who just posted. I've covered this stuff already. Read the rest of the thread, I'm not gonna retype it.

"If you look at history, Judeo-Christian-Islam has had no problem with murder."

No. If you look at history, the governments of Abrahamic religions had no problems with murder, but the Church, Synagogue and Mosque certainly did.

Murder yes, killing no.

unborn souls go to limbo not heaven, where they stay in perpetual unawareness for all of eternity. The soul will never be capable of being born or being aware of it's own existance.

And I see absolutely no problem with invasive surgery to remedy pregnancy, you get a dui and you get your license revoked, you kill someone you get 10-life. We've already established that halting reproductive processes is a right that we humans obviously possess as evidenced by law. How is this different? and the girl's eggs could be frozen prior to the hystorectomy so that when she ACTUALLY decides to have a child, there won't be any doubt about her intentions.

quote:Originally posted by Doofnoil2:

unborn souls go to limbo not heaven, where they stay in perpetual unawareness for all of eternity. The soul will never be capable of being born or being aware of it's own existance.



Well that's shitty. They'd be better off simply not existing.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

Amaterasu, perhaps I'm simply an idealist who believes that you do not have the right to decide whether a child lives or dies. Other matters are subservient to this simple thought.

Ah! Is a fetus a child? That must first be answered. I say not. I presume you say so. What criteria make answering this question absolute?

quote:The example you provide is kinda ridiculous. If you had sex for two decades trying to conceive, and then you finally pulled it off, why would you want an abortion? Seems vaguely counterproductive. Rule of thumb - if you wanna screw, and you don't want kids, take a pill or put on a condom. Otherwise, contact your local orphanage.

LOL. Actually, that is exactly what happened to me. For the first 10 years or so, I tried to get pregnant when life seemed appropriate to raising a child. Then I gave up. When, around the 20 year mark, I did get pregnant, I was unemployed, single (unmarried - the father is still in my life), and the father was unemployed as well. Needless to say, I didn't think this the most auspicious of starts for an resultant child. That I did not abort is irrelevant to the question, of course. Was I "irresponsible?" Could I have aborted - by your "rules?"

Originally posted by Doofnoil2:

unborn souls go to limbo not heaven, where they stay in perpetual unawareness for all of eternity. The soul will never be capable of being born or being aware of it's own existance.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Well that's shitty. They'd be better off simply not existing.

Hmmmm.... I'm trying to delineate the difference between "simply not existing" and being "in perpetual unawareness..." Seems to me that they are effectively the same from a subjective standpoint. If a chair (a perpetually unaware thing) exists, it only makes a difference in its existance to any objective observer. To itself, there is no difference in existing or not.

quote:Originally posted by Synthetic Darkness:

Life is just a prolonged death.....it would be merciful to have an abortion, religious or not. It you are religious, your babies going to heaven......for the price of your going to hell. If you are not religious, not killing the child, that would be murder, as they're gunna die anyway....so don't put em through the shit we get in life (heck, if your thinking about having an abortion, its because you don't want the baby or it won't have a good home, so they are better off dead).

*waits for the many flames sure to come*

An interesting, if obviously morbid perspective... Some of us believe immortality can be achieved - in theory at least. So living may be no longer an issue of dying. Now if we conquer death, we need only address taxes and we'll have it made!

Most scientists have agreed that the human population will level off at 8 billion, because of overpopulation, enforced family planning, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Amaterasu:

An interesting perspective, A&A. Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

My thoughts, reflecting on your input, go like this: if we are capable of removing our behavior, in the interest of avoiding waste, from physical violence (pro wrestling not withstanding <grin> ), we are also capable of recognizing that we have excessess - specifically in supportable bodies on this planet's surface.

If we decide to do no culling, we will cause severe loss from food riots at the very least. At the rate we are multiplying, that is not that far off. We must take a global view at this time in history or else.

So, given that, and given the many children born unwanted, hated even, wouldn't a good place to cull, at least initially, be in these unwanted ones before they are born? Just because they have been conceived doesn't mean that there is anything more (again) sacred about them, and given that they are unwanted, they are probablisically going to be the causes of problems in society if allowed to be born.

If we HAVE to cull (and we do), isn't this the most logical place?

[This message has been edited by Amaterasu (edited 09-09-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by L3d3ni:

Abortions for everyone!

(Booooooooo!!!)

All right then, abortions for no one!

(Booooooooo!!!)

Umm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

(Yaaaaaaaay!!!)

YEAH!!!!!111!!

Murder. If you can't figure out how purposely killing a child is murder. Than you're a dumbass.



Shek

OK, I'm not planning on miring myself down in this debate. I'm just interested in people's opinions on the day-after pill. At this point, most of the more intense emotional responses about the fetus (that is looks like an organism, that it looks like a baby) are avoided. This could provide a more simplified solution to mistakes (the condom breaks) or cases of rape. It could be anonymous, safe, cheap and easy.

But not everyone starts declaring a fetus a seperate entity just because it looks different, and there's always the "slippery slope" option.

Oh, fuck it. I'm gonna break into this. Here's a problem I haven't yet heard voiced concerning the problems surrounding declaring a fetus to be a person. You get into ubprecedented situation of weighing one life against another. How would you decide the case of a pregnant mother who will probably not survive a live birth? Is the mother's life more important than that of the child, or vice-versa? Likewise, if the mother is having triplets (thus increasing the risk to herself), do those three lives collectively outweight her one?

quote:Originally posted by Prince Charming:

Murder. If you can't figure out how purposely killing a child is murder. Than you're a dumbass.



Shek

Ok... Convince me a fetus is a child. By definition, at least, a "child" is outside of a mother's body; a "fetus" is attached internally.

quote:Originally posted by Amaterasu:



LOL. Actually, that is exactly what happened to me. For the first 10 years or so, I tried to get pregnant when life seemed appropriate to raising a child. Then I gave up. When, around the 20 year mark, I did get pregnant, I was unemployed, single (unmarried - the father is still in my life), and the father was unemployed as well. Needless to say, I didn't think this the most auspicious of starts for an resultant child. That I did not abort is irrelevant to the question, of course. Was I "irresponsible?" Could I have aborted - by your "rules?"

Irresponsible is perhaps too strong a word. However, I am glad that you didn't abort. I would say, no, you wouldn't have a right to abort, although I do understand your point of view here. Forgive me, but I've been drinking that filthy commie vodka since about six, so I'm gonna have to speak more coherently of this tommorrow.

If you feel comfortable answering - did you keep the child, or put him/her up for adoption? I do not mean to pry, answer at your leisure.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

Irresponsible is perhaps too strong a word. However, I am glad that you didn't abort. I would say, no, you wouldn't have a right to abort, although I do understand your point of view here. Forgive me, but I've been drinking that filthy commie vodka since about six, so I'm gonna have to speak more coherently of this tommorrow.

If you feel comfortable answering - did you keep the child, or put him/her up for adoption? I do not mean to pry, answer at your leisure.

<smile> I am as we speak listening to my mother (whom I came to live with 8 months ago because I was about to have a baby and had no money - at the age of 46, dammit!) playing with my 8 month old daughter. I am still looking for work and when I find some on my par (I was making $30 an hour before 9/11), Dad will join me and my daughter wherever the work is (he is in his home town looking to provide as well, and if that pans out, Lili and I will move there).

Though I love my daughter, I still hold that abortion is an acceptable practice. That she is The Best Baby in the Universe is merely my luck that the person she is becoming is a lovely one.

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Most scientists have agreed that the human population will level off at 8 billion, because of overpopulation, enforced family planning, etc.



Interesting. I have heard a gamut of estimates of when the planet absolutely will not support a burgeoning population. Never have I heard, even from one scientist, that we will (I presume) stop having sex enough to slow the birth rate to the death rate, or become infertile so widespread that the birth rate drops to match the death rate...

Please cite your source(s).

There are plenty of weak living people that take up space, plus with abortions you don't know if you just eliminated good genetic material.

I say kill not the defenselesss and kill the living first, and kill children only if they're retarded or have many other defects.

quote:Originally posted by Joe Boo:

If abortion is murder, then I can't see why the worlds' religions would be against it. If you look at history, Judeo-Christian-Islam has had no problem with murder.

Those three religions preached the most against murder but followers don't follow the true teachings, abortion is also allowing Caucasians to be destoryed racially. Plus murder is forgiven in times of combat and war.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

Yes, if we have to, and you accept the moral validity of "culling." I most certainly do not. The value of human life is a philosophical principle that we simply cannot sacrifice, no matter the circumstances. Once killing unborn children is no longer an effective measure, what do we do? Kill more criminals? Kill unproductive members of society? Where does it end? I'd rather live in an insanely overcrowded world than one in which the subtle social fabric of society has been slowly and quietly collapsed.

And I think your fears of a population crisis are overdrawn anyway. By Thomas Malthus' calculations, we should have experienced this meltdown about two hundred years ago.

Nature has a way of trimming back the herd, without us having to lose our humanity in the process. Expect pestilence, my personal favorite of the Horsemen, to make a comeback in a big way in the next century. We've had some close calls on this already - and Hong Kong, in particular, has some truly nasty flus on tap. According to international authorities, one strain of flu contained in the city, had it been allowed to escape, could have killed 3 billion, yes BILLION, people, or roughly half of the human race.

An even better way would be for the Vikings to come back they've annihiliated whole races and cultures just to have resources and land..

Biology: A study of Life

Giancoli

Also this has been widely discussed in The American Journal of Science.



quote:Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Interesting. I have heard a gamut of estimates of when the planet absolutely will not support a burgeoning population. Never have I heard, even from one scientist, that we will (I presume) stop having sex enough to slow the birth rate to the death rate, or become infertile so widespread that the birth rate drops to match the death rate...

Please cite your source(s).

Also if you were knoledgeable of current theology, you would know that the Church has in fact accepted murder in special circumstances of capital punishment and self-defense.



quote:Originally posted by Keltoiberserker:

Those three religions preached the most against murder but followers don't follow the true teachings, abortion is also allowing Caucasians to be destoryed racially. Plus murder is forgiven in times of combat and war.

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Biology: A study of Life

Giancoli

Also this has been widely discussed in The American Journal of Science.

Hmmm. Ok, I don't know what was said by whom and how many, but one book and some discussion (with people on both sides of the issue, I might presume) does not "most scientists" make. I can accept that some scientists have reached this conclusion (that population will level off), and maybe it will in the sense that so many will die of starvation and filth given the planet's inability to support any more, but I just don't see the race as a whole, saying, Hey! We're overpopulated. Let's stop having sex! (Or, Let's always use birth control.)

I just don't see a comfortable solution to the overpopulation issue.

quote:Originally posted by Keltoiberserker:

... abortion is also allowing Caucasians to be destoryed racially.

I am having a difficult time believing that this would ever be an issue. Plenty of Caucasians reproduce. It would have to be extremely radical an occurrance to destroy any major ethnic group.

And not just Caucasians have abortions... That the majority of abortions are chosen by Caucasians is rather moot from an ethnic deletion standpoint. The percentage of pregnancies, even amongst Caucasians, that are aborted is extremely small.

I DON'T SEE ABORTIONS as wrong...hell if a family cant shell out money for the kid fuck him...i hear this alot though" what if you were that 'child'" i say i wouldn't know cuz i'm fucking dead

g'day http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)