Abortion. [Archive]

Tyrant

2004-11-14, 04:57

Why Abortions Are Performed<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.

<LI>Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;

<LI>1% because of fetal abnormalities;

<LI>3% due to the mother's health problems.</UL>

Source: Central Illinois Right To Life

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (US)<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%

<LI>Wants no (more) children: 7.9%

<LI>Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%

<LI>Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%

<LI>Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%

<LI>Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%

<LI>Risk to maternal health: 2.8%

<LI>Risk to fetal health: 3.3%

<LI>Other: 2.1%</UL>

Source: Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives. 1998, 24(3):117**8211;127 & 152 As reported by: The Alan Guttmacher Institude Online.

Some points to consider if anyone's hiding behind the 'rape/incest/health' argument.

Rhodric

2004-11-14, 05:23

quote:Originally posted by the ultimate pimp:

Abortion is wrong, if you dont want a baby why dont you just where a condom. What if your mom aborted you. I also think homosexuality is wrong.The purpose of sex is to have a baby. If your gay or a lesbian how can you have a baby.

[This message has been edited by the ultimate pimp (edited 11-14-2004).] quote:The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.like some guy said on the no-breeding thread, "oh shit, the condom broke".

i think the above statistic implies that the majority of abortions are like having a retroactive condom, like a morning after pill only it's a month after. when you say 'don't get an abortion use a condom', your forgetting that often a condom is used and it breaks or falls off.

as for your other comments... there may have been a time when the purpose of sex was to breed, survival of the fittest style. but that meaning is gone, because there is no reason at all for humans in general to have babies - we're already on top of the fuking food chain.

no no no, instead the only meaning left to sex is getting off. if you choose to get off with someone of the opposite sex, so flucking what?

Shattered_Faith

2004-11-14, 05:46

Well if the basis of an argument against abortion relies on the fact that the fetus will become a human, then using birth control should be considered wrong considering it prevents human life from forming, right?

chainy

2004-11-14, 06:05

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Throw in the fact that if life begins at conception there are three dead people for every living one because most zygotes never implant.

Its even higher than that. I think its like 90% of them never implant or die off during the first few days.

chainy

2004-11-14, 06:09

Tyrant

2004-11-14, 07:31

we're already on top of the fuking food chain.

Several days ago, I saw a man so fat that his bloated belly hung down to his shin, riding down the road in an electric cart, giving ME a condescending look when I gazed in disbelief.

If we're on top of the food chain, we're also becoming the weakest link therein.

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-14, 07:55

[This message has been edited by dearestnight_falcon (edited 11-14-2004).]

Edit - Actually, I don't think I want that rant to stay there, it might give people the wrong impression, and I don't want to burn any more bridges.

[This message has been edited by dearestnight_falcon (edited 11-27-2004).]

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-14, 07:56

Oh well, I guess if abortion is banned, we can go back to what we did 2000 years ago

- infantacide.

Just to piss you off.

Rhodric

2004-11-14, 08:05

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

we're already on top of the fuking food chain.

Several days ago, I saw a man so fat that his bloated belly hung down to his shin, riding down the road in an electric cart, giving ME a condescending look when I gazed in disbelief.

If we're on top of the food chain, we're also becoming the weakest link therein.

we are on top of the food chain.

and the fact that a fat fuck like that has more chance for survival than a powerful animal like a tiger proves it.

jackketch

2004-11-14, 08:37

quote:The young ones haven't witnessed the horror days, you know the ones, when the leading cause of death amoung women was botched abortions.

/me wonders if you have any evidence for that claim?

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-14, 12:09

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib_5-03.html

oookay... thats actually annoying.

I'm still trying to find it...

Obviously, I am at least half wrong, since any sugeon around that long ago would have long since retired/died, but um... yeah...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

I'll look for it, I did read it somewhere...

But that does give a nice indication of what roe vs wade did.

I got rather pissed off at this thread, thats all, because it ends up just being a bunch of people reiterating their opinions, which no one is going to change.

napoleon_complex

2004-11-14, 13:36

quote:Originally posted by Shattered_Faith:

Well if the basis of an argument against abortion relies on the fact that the fetus will become a human, then using birth control should be considered wrong considering it prevents human life from forming, right?

There is a difference between not allowing human life to form(Birth Control) and killing human life which has already been formed(abortion).

Abortion is murder because it is the unnecessary(most of the time) killing of a human being.

Birth Control is not allowing the human a possible human to form. Birth control is the denial of life, not the destroying of life.

theBishop

2004-11-14, 13:45

I'm not saying i fully disagree napoleon, but what about the thousands of embryos at fertility clinics that are going to be thrown out this year.

That's a destruction of life, but i don't see anti-abortionists bombing fertility clinics and murdering chemists.

napoleon_complex

2004-11-14, 14:01

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

Oh well, I guess if abortion is banned, we can go back to what we did 2000 years ago

- infantacide.

Just to piss you off.

Both are murder, so what's the difference?

Tyrant

2004-11-15, 00:39

we are on top of the food chain.

and the fact that a fat fuck like that has more chance for survival than a powerful animal like a tiger proves it.

Let's put 'em in a room together and see who's on top.

jackketch

2004-11-15, 00:51

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib_5-03.html

oookay... thats actually annoying.

I'm still trying to find it...

Obviously, I am at least half wrong, since any sugeon around that long ago would have long since retired/died, but um... yeah...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

I'll look for it, I did read it somewhere...

But that does give a nice indication of what roe vs wade did.

I got rather pissed off at this thread, thats all, because it ends up just being a bunch of people reiterating their opinions, which no one is going to change.

quote: By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200

yes that kinda ties in with the figures i've seen for european countries in the late 70's (about 100 deaths a year).

does saving 100 women a year justify the 1/2 million or so estimated abortions (in germany) annually?

again it all comes down to when does human existence begin?

before the point of human existence then only catholics and fanatics would condemn abortion for destroying the potential for human life.

and after that point most reasonable 'pro choicers' would have to admit that it is 'killing' if not murder.

this question desparetly needs 'solving'.

xtreem5150ahm

2004-11-15, 03:03

quote:Originally posted by Shattered_Faith:

Well if the basis of an argument against abortion relies on the fact that the fetus will become a human, then using birth control should be considered wrong considering it prevents human life from forming, right?

i agree.

on a side note-- when i was growing up, my dad used to refer to "throwng something away" as "eighty-sixing it"... was not the pill called "RU-486" (are you for 86)?... always made me wonder if there may have been some correlation.

xtreem5150ahm

2004-11-15, 05:30

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

To anti choice people -

If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. stop trying to force your morality on everyone else.

well, isnt that what is ultimately in the balance of the debate...it really isnt about murdering a life, it is about OBJECTIVE morals vs. SUBJECTIVE morals. in other words, do we have the choice to pick and choose when to apply morals?

[b]The only man who should have any say whatsoever is the father, and even then he should be able to state where he stands, and nothing more, the decision is that of the mother, the person who is carrying the fucking fetus in her stomach.

only if morals are subjective.

Life begining at conception is the biggest load of shit.

"Life" begins long before, both sperm and egg are alive.

living cells, yes. but by themselves can not create a life.

I'm sick of good for nothing, biggoted religious nuts trying to turn secular countries into their little private theocracies.

Why? Because if you convince yourself that there is no moral authority, then you can do whatever you want, with no consequence(s) for your action(s)?

Oh... and just to let you militant fucks know, for every abortion clinic that is bombed, two dozen churches will be. FUCKS.

Question: How often do you go to the pub, and get bombed?

Anyone that resorts to bombing a clinic (or church) is really messed in the head, and aren't the best witnesses of right and wrong.

Rust

2004-11-15, 05:47

I just had to reply.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

well, isnt that what is ultimately in the balance of the debate...it really isnt about murdering a life, it is about OBJECTIVE morals vs. SUBJECTIVE morals. in other words, do we have the choice to pick and choose when to apply morals?

Huh? How does agreeing with abortion mean morals are subjective, or vise-versa?

quote:

living cells, yes. but by themselves can not create a life.

Err... if they are living then they have life.

quote:

Why? Because if you convince yourself that there is no moral authority, then you can do whatever you want, with no consequence(s) for your action(s)?

1. The consequences would be legal, or in the case there are no laws, "vigilante" for lack of a better word.

2. You can't even prove any moral authority other than the law!

xtreem5150ahm

2004-11-15, 06:03

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rust:

I just had to reply.

Huh? How does agreeing with abortion mean morals are subjective, or vise-versa?

the debate of abortion is a debate of what is life and what is murder, so it is a debate OF morals.

quote:

living cells, yes. but by themselves can not create a life.

Err... if they are living then they have life.

a sperm cell and/or an egg cell are living cells, but they can not be a human life without the joining of the two. the key words in my statement were cell and human not "living" and "a life"

1. The consequences would be legal, or in the case there are no laws, "vigilante" for lack of a better word.

this is why i said "subjective" vs. "objective"

2. You can't even prove any moral authority other than the law!

and you can prove that law is (objective) moral authority?

deptstoremook

2004-11-15, 06:11

To the poster: I have a couple real killer arguments for pro-choice.

Utilitarianism

All flaws of the theory aside, if abortion is legal, there will be a greater preservation of human life. The logic is such: if abortion is made illegal, women will still have them illicitly. In an illicit abortion there is a greater risk for death. So leaving abortions legal will mean a lower net loss of life, something any Judeo-Christian (and the vast majority of pro-lifers are Judeo-Christian) will have to respect.

Legislating Morals

John Stuart Mill will be on your side for this one, and he is a very powerful name to pull out of your hat. We can't legislate morals (and indeed, this is a moral issue), because morals are completely and utterly subjective. We may only pass legislation, according to Mill, on two principles: that this action will cause harm to A) another, or B) society. And indeed, abortion causes no harm to society (think about it before responding), so we only need to address A). Does abortion cause harm to another person? Perhaps. Perhaps the fetus is alive, perhaps it is not. But according to my first argument, even if the fetus is alive, leaving abortion legal is the lesser of two evils.

This case is totally unbeatable.

Rust

2004-11-15, 06:13

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

the debate of abortion is a debate of what is life and what is murder, so it is a debate OF morals.

Of course. That is very different from them being subjective or not subjective.

The abortion debate is what is moral/immoral, not when.

quote:

a sperm cell and/or an egg cell are living cells, but they can not be a human life without the joining of the two. the key words in my statement were cell and human not "living" and "a life"

"Human" doesn't appear in that statement which I quoted, hence it couldn't be a "key word".

He said that "life" beggins before conception, and he is correct since those cells are alive.

quote:

this is why i said "subjective" vs. "objective"

Huh? You asked what would be the consequences and I answered. There being laws in place has nothing to do with morality ultimately being subjective or objective.

quote:

and you can prove that law is (objective) moral authority?

No, since I believe they are subjective. The point is, you are implying there is another objective morality, which you cannot prove.

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-15, 08:17

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No, since I believe they are subjective. The point is, you are implying there is another objective morality, which you cannot prove.

Exactly.

Although personally, I do believe in a supreme moral authority - the sacred words of an invisible, incorporeal, by definition unmeasurable, pink fluffy bunny rabit who controls the universe, and who wants us to abort fetuses because he eats the souls of unborn children.

Sarcasm aside, I'm fine in responding to violence with violence.

And quite frankly, I find it ammusing when people like Falwell and Phelps get so worked up with "rightious indignation".

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

so what does being rightious entail?

Oh, I don't know, mainming, killing, kicking guys in the balls. That sort of stuff.

theBishop

2004-11-15, 16:07

I don't think it is a moral debate at it's core. I think it's a scientific debate. The question is "When does life start".

Hopefully we all agree that murder is wrong; so we're not really debating the morality of murder we're debating whether or not killing a fetus is murder. That hinges upon if the baby is "alive" at that point.

People who say the fetus "is just a bunch of cells" are really off base. At a suprisingly early stage of development a fetus has all the main features of a baby. If you want to make that argument, it only stands in the first month or maybe 2 months of pregnancy.

napoleon_complex

2004-11-15, 20:44

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Utilitarianism

All flaws of the theory aside, if abortion is legal, there will be a greater preservation of human life. The logic is such: if abortion is made illegal, women will still have them illicitly. In an illicit abortion there is a greater risk for death. So leaving abortions legal will mean a lower net loss of life, something any Judeo-Christian (and the vast majority of pro-lifers are Judeo-Christian) will have to respect.

This is assuming that a fetus isn't alive so you're theory can be debunked. If a fetus is a human life then legal abortion would result in more deaths than if abortion were illegal.

quote:Legislating Morals

John Stuart Mill will be on your side for this one, and he is a very powerful name to pull out of your hat. We can't legislate morals (and indeed, this is a moral issue), because morals are completely and utterly subjective. We may only pass legislation, according to Mill, on two principles: that this action will cause harm to A) another, or B) society. And indeed, abortion causes no harm to society (think about it before responding), so we only need to address A). Does abortion cause harm to another person? Perhaps. Perhaps the fetus is alive, perhaps it is not. But according to my first argument, even if the fetus is alive, leaving abortion legal is the lesser of two evils.

You think way too narrow mindedly for this. This is a moral debate which is why moras should be at the center of the debate. Why do people insist on throwing morality out of debates based on morals? Is abortion immoral? Yes, therefore it should be illegal, but I agree with it being legal.

quote:This case is totally unbeatable.

You're too cocky for your own good. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Also why don't pro-choice people just admit that abortion is murder? I've accepted the fact that I agree with murder, I can live with that. By not saying that abortion is murder you only weaken your case, because it shows how dense you are.

NightVision

2004-11-15, 21:30

o.......k it still isn't a human though.

Tyrant

2004-11-15, 22:23

deptstoremook:

Utilitarianism

All flaws of the theory aside, if abortion is legal, there will be a greater preservation of human life. The logic is such: if abortion is made illegal, women will still have them illicitly. In an illicit abortion there is a greater risk for death. So leaving abortions legal will mean a lower net loss of life, something any Judeo-Christian (and the vast majority of pro-lifers are Judeo-Christian) will have to respect.

While I don't disagree with the logical process therein (for once), the same argument could be made for the legalization of heroin.

Legislating Morals

John Stuart Mill will be on your side for this one, and he is a very powerful name to pull out of your hat. We can't legislate morals (and indeed, this is a moral issue), because morals are completely and utterly subjective. We may only pass legislation, according to Mill, on two principles: that this action will cause harm to A) another, or B) society. And indeed, abortion causes no harm to society (think about it before responding), so we only need to address A). Does abortion cause harm to another person? Perhaps. Perhaps the fetus is alive, perhaps it is not. But according to my first argument, even if the fetus is alive, leaving abortion legal is the lesser of two evils.

I will reiterate my counter-argument to your first point in addressing so-called 'A)': you cannot endorse one negative action in hopes of alleviating a problem very loosely connected with the results of the previous action. This actually leads me to my addressing point 'B'.

In New Jersey (my homestate), a law was passed in 2002 that negated the requirement of parental consent in order to have an abortion for a girl under 18. (Source (http://www.plannedparenthoodnj.org/library/files/69_newjersey.pdf)) Seventeen other states have similar absences of requirements for parental consent, but Alaska, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma leave it to the discretion of the clinics in spite of laws passed requiring parental consent, and in all states with laws requiring parental consent, a judge has discretionary authority on upholding this requirement. (Source (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionissues/a/aateenabortion.htm))

What do these circumstances imply? That a girl does NOT have to pay any attention to sexual responsibility, because laws are being passed to protect her from the consequences.

Also taking into account my previously cited statistics, concerning how about 95% of abortions are for reasons other than rape, incest, and fetal/maternal endangerment, we therefore conclude that not only are abortion laws protecting the loss of personal integrity of the woman - not only are abortion laws supporting the ability to use abortion as an ultimate form of birth control - but that girls still in high school, girls still under the financial and social protection of their parents, are also free of such responsibility.

And in case you're going in the direction you seem to be leaning towards, notice that I haven't even begun to argue about abortion from a scientific perspective, much less from a Christian perspective. I am simply saying, quite literally, "Reap what you sow."

napoleon_complex

2004-11-15, 22:59

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

o.......k it still isn't a human though.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Rust

2004-11-15, 23:32

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

This is assuming that a fetus isn't alive so you're theory can be debunked. If a fetus is a human life then legal abortion would result in more deaths than if abortion were illegal.

Even if the fetus is considered a human life, then the argument can still be made. The amount of women doing abortions by themselves, endangering the fetus and their own life, the amount of babies dropped in trash cans (i.e. "Dumpster babies" if you will), the amount of children in foster care - all of those would raise if abortion were illegal.

quote:You think way too narrow mindedly for this. This is a moral debate which is why moras should be at the center of the debate. Why do people insist on throwing morality out of debates based on morals? Is abortion immoral? Yes, therefore it should be illegal, but I agree with it being legal.

Because morals are subjective, therefore debating them, and solely them, leads to nothing.

quote:

Also why don't pro-choice people just admit that abortion is murder? I've accepted the fact that I agree with murder, I can live with that. By not saying that abortion is murder you only weaken your case, because it shows how dense you are.

Because the vast majority of them, like myself, base themselves on Science. When and if Science agrees it is a human life, then and there would I say it is murder.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-15-2004).]

napoleon_complex

2004-11-15, 23:56

quote:Even if the fetus is considered a human life, then the argument can still be made. The amount of women doing abortions by themselves, endangering the fetus and their own life, the amount of babies dropped in trash cans (i.e. "Dumpster babies" if you will), the amount of children in foster care - all of those would raise if abortion were illegal.

While more illegal abortions will be performed, most women will actually just go ahead and have their baby, or just not be stupid enough to get pregnant in the first place.

quote:Because morals are subjective, therefore debating them, and solely them, leads to nothing.

Well the debate wouldn't be solely morality, but morality should be the largest part of the debate. Should society accept something that is morally wrong even if it doesn't hurt society or maybe even benefits society?

quote:Because the vast majority of them, like myself, base themselves on Science. When and if Science agrees it is a human life, then and there would I say it is murder.

What makes science qulified to answer a subjective question? Who is the science community to determine what is a human and what isn't?

Rust

2004-11-16, 00:41

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

While more illegal abortions will be performed, most women will actually just go ahead and have their baby, or just not be stupid enough to get pregnant in the first place.

Add to that the rest of the things I mentioned and you have the same thing, if not worse.

quote:

Well the debate wouldn't be solely morality, but morality should be the largest part of the debate. Should society accept something that is morally wrong even if it doesn't hurt society or maybe even benefits society?

I was pointing out why people "throw morality out".

quote:What makes science qulified to answer a subjective question? Who is the science community to determine what is a human and what isn't?

The same community that determined what is human in the first place!

If you ignore the Scientific community, then you wouldn't even have a debate in the first place, because you couldn't even define what is "murder" (i.e. ending a life) or what is human!

napoleon_complex

2004-11-16, 01:47

quote:Add to that the rest of the things I mentioned and you have the same thing, if not worse.

Why is more women having their baby worse?

quote:I was pointing out why people "throw morality out".

Do you think morality should play a major role in the abortion discussion.

quote:The same community that determined what is human in the first place!

If you ignore the Scientific community, then you wouldn't even have a debate in the first place, because you couldn't even define what is "murder" (i.e. ending a life) or what is human!

I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to the scientific community, but they shouldn't be the deciding factor on a subjective question. What constitutes as a human should not be left up to scientists, it should be left up to people.

Rust

2004-11-16, 02:14

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Why is more women having their baby worse?

I'm saying that more women would still have abortions, and while that rate would lower, the amount of newborns killed or abandonded at birth (i.e. "dumpster babies") would dramatically increase.

quote:

Do you think morality should play a major role in the abortion discussion.

It should in that all laws, in my opinion, dictate a version of morality. That being said, I would want the moral argument at a minimum; not a "major role".

quote:

I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to the scientific community, but they shouldn't be the deciding factor on a subjective question. What constitutes as a human should not be left up to scientists, it should be left up to people.

We've already left them to decide everything else! What "life", "human", "animal" and "dead" are!

They, if anybody, are the only ones with any authority to decide what is "life" and "human". Whether society accepts that is another matter, since I'm not arguing that, but what I and others believe.

napoleon_complex

2004-11-16, 03:08

quote:I'm saying that more women would still have abortions, and while that rate would lower, the amount of newborns killed or abandonded at birth (i.e. "dumpster babies") would dramatically increase.

This is really a perspective thing; on one hand with abortion banned the total number od Feti(plural of fetus???) drops, but there would be an increase in infanticide and deaths of mothers; on the other hand with legal abortions there is a lot less infant/mother deaths, but many times the amount of fetal deaths.

quote:It should in that all laws, in my opinion, dictate a version of morality. That being said, I would want the moral argument at a minimum; not a "major role".

Good enough for me, I was just wondering what your opinion was on the matter.

quote:We've already left them to decide everything else! What "life", "human", "animal" and "dead" are!

They, if anybody, are the only ones with any authority to decide what is "life" and "human". Whether society accepts that is another matter, since I'm not arguing that, but what I and others believe.

I wouldn't go as far to say we let them decide as to whats "dead", "life", "human", and "animal", but more or less they create the guidelines to which the normal citizens and politicians make their own decisions as to what constitutes as "dead", "life", "human", and "animal". Scientists should provide the evidence to either disprove or support something like whether or not a fetus is alive, not make the decisions based on that evidence. I would also like to add that there is quite a sizeable faction within the science community that thinks the fetus is alive and should be considered a human.

Rust

2004-11-16, 03:37

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

This is really a perspective thing; on one hand with abortion banned the total number od Feti(plural of fetus???) drops, but there would be an increase in infanticide and deaths of mothers; on the other hand with legal abortions there is a lot less infant/mother deaths, but many times the amount of fetal deaths.

Correct. I know myself know which one I would rather live.

quote:

I wouldn't go as far to say we let them decide as to whats "dead", "life", "human", and "animal", but more or less they create the guidelines to which the normal citizens and politicians make their own decisions as to what constitutes as "dead", "life", "human", and "animal". Scientists should provide the evidence to either disprove or support something like whether or not a fetus is alive, not make the decisions based on that evidence. I would also like to add that there is quite a sizeable faction within the science community that thinks the fetus is alive and should be considered a human.

This isn't about evidence. The evidence is already there. It is about deciding if X parameters mean life or not. My opinion is that solely the scientific community has the authority to decide this. And yes, the scientific community has divides, and that's exactly why we're waiting.

theBishop

2004-11-16, 03:54

quote:My opinion is that solely the scientific community has the authority to decide this. And yes, the scientific community has divides, and that's exactly why we're waiting.

....exactly

However, i wonder how many people will be so selfish as to still have abortions anyway even if they understand that they will be murdering an innocent person. This is of course assuming that scientists will come down on the side of fetus = living human.

As i stated in a previous post a fetus shows signs characteristics of a baby at a suprisingly early stage of development. I used to be casually pro-choice, but in the last year I've been moving towards a fairly solid (though peacful) pro-life viewpoint and it has nothing to do with religion.

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-16, 06:04

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

....exactly

However, i wonder how many people will be so selfish as to still have abortions anyway even if they understand that they will be murdering an innocent person. This is of course assuming that scientists will come down on the side of fetus = living human.

As i stated in a previous post a fetus shows signs characteristics of a baby at a suprisingly early stage of development. I used to be casually pro-choice, but in the last year I've been moving towards a fairly solid (though peacful) pro-life viewpoint and it has nothing to do with religion.

As far as I can see, its a fuzzy line. Like life itself.

Someone who is brain dead - are they alive?

Their cells are alive, but they are long gone.

I think most people (cept the "conception'ers") would agree that abortion is more iffy the later it is performed.

Cash Stealer

2004-11-16, 06:50

Fuck religious standings, and fuck morals.

If a girl is pregnant, it should be her choice to get an abortion or not. It's her own fucking growth inside of her!

Nobody but the girl should have any say in the matter. Its her choice, not yours.

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-16, 07:33

quote:Originally posted by Cash Stealer:

Fuck religious standings, and fuck morals.

If a girl is pregnant, it should be her choice to get an abortion or not. It's her own fucking growth inside of her!

Nobody but the girl should have any say in the matter. Its her choice, not yours.

Yeah, thats my view too.

If you don't like abortion, don't get one, this goes double for men.

Sarter

2004-11-16, 11:04

I would like to approach the subject at a different angle altogether.

First let me state that I am Pro-Choice, but that I admit that abortion is murder by technicality that a human being is created by the joining of the egg and sperm.

The perspective I wish to impart is one that is forward-looking. In other words, what will happen in the long term, and is there anyway to avoid it?

Case 1:

The World's population is ever-increasing, despite recent declines in some European nations. An exponential increase is much more likely than a gradual stagnation, if the present situation continues.

Case 2:

The Earth has a limited amount of arable land. Some countries are already reaching their limit. Most of the arable land left available will be harder and harder to use (think sides of mountains). Many estimates predict that arable land will run out well before the year 3000.

Case 3:

The limited amount of arable land effectively puts a cap on Earth's population, very likely the first one that will occur. As this limit is reached, people will starve in greater and greater numbers. This has already started in certain African countries. Note that despite starvation these countries still have a high population growth.

Case 4:

China, which has the largest population, already has legislation to promote 1-child families. This legislation basically taxes people more if they have additional children.

Case 5:

The US, for the most part, enacts Utilitarian legislation. If people were starving at a sufficient rate, then the US would surely fully legalize abortion to try to slow the growth of its population.

In conclusion, legalized abortion is an inevitability. This, unfortunately, nullifies any moral argument that abortion should be illegal. In fact, the sooner it is legalized, and the more that it is encouraged, the better for the world. It is a necessary evil.

Tyrant

2004-11-16, 16:28

I think there are better ways to control population than putting God knows how much research and money into abortion technique so that some rich cunt can squat her kid and still go clubbing.

You know what they should legalize? DUELS. Someone gets on your nerves or dishonors you in some way, slap him in the face with a glove, take him outside, whip out a sword, and cut a line from his right ear to his left hip. Anyone who refuses a challenge should be outcast from the state out of utter shame, and the victor should be given criminal immunity for that particular crime.

This privilege will be exclusive to men, so that, not only will population control become a manly consideration, if not an outright sport, but women will seek men that have genuine martial talent and uprightness of personality. That way, the fat weiner losers and psychologically corrupt maniacs will have enough self-respect to actually learn how to fight, learn how to cope with reality, and improve themselves physically and mentally, ultimately resulting in an increase in the caliber of men the nation produces.

Problem solved.

Sarter

2004-11-16, 17:25

The scary thing is, Zell Miller would agree, and he's a Senator.

napoleon_complex

2004-11-16, 20:53

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

Yeah, thats my view too.

If you don't like abortion, don't get one, this goes double for men.

Do you think abortion is murder?

I am pro-choice, but I also think that abortion is murder. I am willing to accept the fact that I agree with the legal killing of immature infants, are you ok with that?

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-18, 02:19

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Do you think abortion is murder?

I am pro-choice, but I also think that abortion is murder. I am willing to accept the fact that I agree with the legal killing of immature infants, are you ok with that?

Technically, it's murder if the courts say it is.

There isn't some universal rule what is murder and what isn't its subjective.

It's not like you look up, and written in the stars is: "the killing of a fetus is murder if it is over 12 weeks."

It certainly needs to be thought through carefully though.

But, to answer your question, no. And if the courts defined it as murder? I still wouldn't change my mind.

But people should certainly understand the facts, which is what pisses me off about many pro-lifers - they distort, misslead, and fuck over peoples emotions to push their agenda.

But anyway, I would much prefer that abortion never happened, thats for sure.

But unfortunately, the same people who are against abortion are against contraception, and I must say -

Since you believe its murder, I ask you...

Which is worse? Murder, or teenagers being told how to have pre-marital sex without getting pregnant?

For fucks sake, expecting teenages to abstain from sex is like expecting a hall of politicians to vote to lower their own salaries. It isn't going to fucking happen.

Aegea

2004-11-18, 16:03

I agree with dearestnight_falcon, the only man who should have a say in it is the father, and even then, it's really up to the mother, since SHE will be the one giving birth...

I personally wouldn't like to be told I had no choice whether to abort my baby or not. But's that's just my opinion... I'll leave you all to continue now...

theBishop

2004-11-18, 16:17

Yeah, but Aegea, you had a choice to have sex with the girl. And furthermore, you had a choice to use a condom (and or the pill, diaphragm, implant, vicectomy, etc).

I too feel a bit leery about the government banning abortion, but with so many options to prevent pregnancy, I also feel like at some point you have to take some fucking responsibility.

napoleon_complex

2004-11-18, 16:29

The government supports the teaching of abstinence, but protection is still the biggest thing being taught in schools to prevent stds/pregnancy. I go to a catholic school and we spent two weeks on birth control and protection during sex.

It also isn't like condoms aren't easy to get, I believe you can get them for free in health clinics. The pill isn't that expensive, it's much cheaper than an abortion.

People are lazy and as a result, unborn infants must pay the price.

Aegea

2004-11-18, 17:02

I agree that if you don't want a baby you SHOULD use your brain and wear a condom, take pills, whatever, but sometimes it fails. What then?

But anyway, it's a weird thing of mine. I like to have choices, it makes me feel like I'm in control of my life and my thoughts. (One reason why I left school) Being told that I can't abort my baby unless there's a reason on medical grounds would probably drive me insane...

Thanks for replying to me with an answer that makes sense, Bishop!

napoleon_complex

2004-11-18, 19:29

But if everyone who has an abortion would spring the few dollars for a pack of condoms, the total number of abortions would hover in the thousands. There should be no reason to have an abortion other than for medical reasons.

People who have to get abortions other than for medical reasons should be shot, not because they are killing an immature infant, but because they are stupid.

theBishop

2004-11-18, 22:54

quote:you SHOULD use your brain and wear a condom, take pills, whatever, but sometimes it fails. What then?

This question is coming from the mindset that you NEED to have sex. You do not. No one will ever tell you that a condom is a 100% effective solution against pregnancy, so it's on you if it fails.

If you're having sex and you're not prepared to father a child, that's a risk you need to be willing to take.

Sarter

2004-11-18, 23:18

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

This question is coming from the mindset that you NEED to have sex. You do not.

A very good point, but too idealistic.

History has shown that policies that go against human nature are doomed to fail. Communism and alcohol prohibition come to mind.

ASH_shop_S-mart

2004-11-18, 23:21

Abortion should be left up to the mother. I don't think you nor I should tell a mother that she can't have an abortion cause I think it's wrong.

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-18, 23:34

This is a little irrelavent, but anyway, according to the views of many pro-life'ers "the pill" is actually a form of abortion/murder.

Same as the morning after pill - they work the same way.

They don't prevent fertilization, they prevent implantation in the uterus.

Interestingly, something like 40% of fertilized embryos don't implant anyway, these drugs just make is more like 99%.

Anyway...

We don't just need better contraceptive education, we need beter contraceptives.

I'm quite happy to admit condoms aren't perfect, in fact, no one should rely on a single barrier method alone.

However, one American friend of mine told me this story:

Her 13 year old niece was at the house shared by her Aunt and her aunts boyfriend.

She noticed a packet of condoms that had been left out, and remarked -

"I don't know why he bothers, they don't even work"

Upon questioning where she got that idea, the Aunt found that school was to blame.

How nuts is that???

napoleon_complex

2004-11-18, 23:55

Vascectomy has always proven effective when wanting to prevent pregnancy.

theBishop

2004-11-19, 04:42

quote:A very good point, but too idealistic.

Then allow me to direct you to me other statement:

quote:If you're having sex and you're not prepared to father a child, that's a risk you need to be willing to take.

That's a statement i hold by. I would classify myself as pro-choice, anti-abortion. But these people who take the "pro-choice" stance and act like they have a right to possibly take an innocent life (i said "possibly") just because their condom broke is total bullshit.

Take some fucking responsibility. In 6 years of public school sex ed, i was never told a condom was foolproof.

theBishop

Tyrant

2004-11-19, 07:39

The Bishop makes a point that I've often wondered about the abortion arguments.

What is wrong with women that think the government owes them the development of a technique, requiring millions of dollars of technological and biological research into making sure the operation won't kill you on the spot, in sterile, exclusive, specialized clinics with certified doctors, to clean up after their mess because women don't want to have the foresight to recognize that, in spite of alcoholic visual enhancement, the truck-driving, spitoon-aiming, slimy Mendellian nightmare with fewer chromosomes than fingers, that, other than a drunken sympathy fuck, couldn't get laid in a prison full of women with a pound of pot beneath his only remaining nut, might not stick around for long after the cigarette-smelling, grease-ejaculating, sorry excuse for an orgasm in the back of his father/brother's truck is over and done with?

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-19, 10:02

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

The Bishop makes a point that I've often wondered about the abortion arguments.

What is wrong with women that think the government owes them the development of a technique, requiring millions of dollars of technological and biological research into making sure the operation won't kill you on the spot, in sterile, exclusive, specialized clinics with certified doctors, to clean up after their mess because women don't want to have the foresight to recognize that, in spite of alcoholic visual enhancement, the truck-driving, spitoon-aiming, slimy Mendellian nightmare with fewer chromosomes than fingers, that, other than a drunken sympathy fuck, couldn't get laid in a prison full of women with a pound of pot beneath his only remaining nut, might not stick around for long after the cigarette-smelling, grease-ejaculating, sorry excuse for an orgasm in the back of his father/brother's truck is over and done with?

Point taken.

Einstein

2004-11-19, 21:47

Well, lets say a man and a women make love, and the man and women are not in a good physical, mental, locational and/or financial position to concieve a child at this time. Would it be worth trying to raise a child under such poor conditions that the child could grow up to be diseased or disabled physically/mentally. Even if the child wasn't to grow up physically/mentally disabled, would you want to see a child raised by parents who want nothing to do with their child.... now i could easily argue against myself and come up with much better points on the negative side to win the debate but this is just something to think about...

theBishop

2004-11-19, 22:40

If carrying the baby to term would be disatorous to the woman's health, i wouldn't look down on that woman's decision at all.

If a parent is unable to properly provide for a child, then they should do the right thing and let a more qualified couple raise the child. There are thousands of couples on waiting lists to adopt a child. Most of those couples would prefer an infant and 80% are upper middle class.

I resent your additude that a mentally disabled person should be aborted. Yes, you didn't come out and say that, but it definitely seems to be inferred. People with mental handicaps should not be swept under the rug, they should be encouraged. With some work they can contribute just as much as any person that doesn't have a handicap.

Furthermore, it happens more frequently than you think that a doctor says an infant will have a disability that simply never materializes. If their parents had aborted them, they would prevented a perfectly heathy child from living.

theBishop

napoleon_complex

2004-11-19, 23:40

Very well said Bishop.

Watch This!

2004-11-20, 00:00

Well said Bishop. Importantly he mentions that " quote: People with mental handicaps should not be swept under the rug, they should be encouraged ."

This point needs to be heard more often; seeing as many people disregard the mentally challenged and are all for aborting them. Who are you to declare their demise if they are not perfectly mentally?

Children are not machines, they are human beings.

[This message has been edited by Watch This! (edited 11-20-2004).]

Sarter

2004-11-20, 00:45

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

If a parent is unable to properly provide for a child, then they should do the right thing and let a more qualified couple raise the child. There are thousands of couples on waiting lists to adopt a child. Most of those couples would prefer an infant and 80% are upper middle class.

Thank you for standing up for the disabled.

However, when you say there are thousands of couples on waiting lists to adopt a child, you are very misleading:

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/afcars/rpt0199/ar0199e.htm

How many children are waiting to be adopted? 110,000

[This message has been edited by Sarter (edited 11-20-2004).]

theBishop

2004-11-20, 02:29

I don't think i was being misleading, at least not purposely. Most people lookng to adopt are looking for infants.

The mean age according to your statistics are ~8 years old. The tradgedy that is many of those children's lives is a topic for another discussion.

As i've said before, I consider myself pro-choice. However, it seems clear to me that abortion, without some serious medical or emotional excuse (i.e. rape, death, etc) is a very, VERY selfish act. With so many couples willing to give their left-nut (figuratively speaking) to have a baby, the choice to abort seems nearly unforgivable to me. The most common argument against adoption is "but it's so hard to give up a child you just gave birth to". What a terrible argument. That's the equivalent of saying "if i can't have you , no one will!".

Also, abortion is expensive. Along with their left-nut, the "adopters" will usually pay for the entire medical costs of the pregnancy as well as many other needs the woman may have.

I don't think the government should take the choice away; but for all the reasons i've stated, I feel strongly that unwanting, or unprepared mothers should do what's right for their baby. The nine month "inconvenience" is something they should be willing to deal with considering they made the choice to handle sex irresponsibly.

Hopefully my arguments don't sound like a "right-wing" or unforgiving viewpoint. I am a christian, and i do think the bible is relatively clear that life begins at conception. But even without the bible, and indeed most of my feelings on abortion are not spirtually concieved, I think its still fairly obvious that abortion should be approached by people as "something to be avoided at all costs" rather than a magic procedure that makes your problems disappear.

Regardless of whether or not abortion is murder, the possibility that it might be murder should be enough to make people think twice. In too many cases, it is not.

theBishop

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-20, 03:53

^^^

Nah, you don't sound too "right wing".

Tyrant

2004-11-20, 20:32

<OL TYPE=1>

<LI>People with mental handicaps are only successful with the dependence and sympathy of other people. I would restore my honor by stabbing myself hara-kiri style if I had to live my entire life, from womb to tomb, at the mercy of others.

<LI>I have several friends - very close ones - that would have died at birth had the parents listened to the doctors. I have a litany of other reasons why I don't listen to doctors anyway, so this is merely one amongst a thousand.

<LI>In a successful and healthy society, a set of parents that are unprepared to have children but fornicate anyway would be thrown out of the community for their dishonoring their holiest obligations of continuation of heritage and legacy.

<LI>In the case of abortion in the case of potential maternal death, the traditional world considered the greatest sacrifice of a mother to die while giving birth to a child, much in the same way that a soldier's greatest heroic deed is to give his life for his empire and his lord. Don't fuck with what's sacred.

<LI>Abortion IS being used for selfish reasons altogether, even counting immanent death as an acceptable excuse for abortion. </OL>

If my wife or girlfriend were to ever abort a child I conceived with her, I would sacrifice her body to appease the gods for her unholy transgression.

Einstein

2004-11-22, 04:23

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

If carrying the baby to term would be disatorous to the woman's health, i wouldn't look down on that woman's decision at all.

If a parent is unable to properly provide for a child, then they should do the right thing and let a more qualified couple raise the child. There are thousands of couples on waiting lists to adopt a child. Most of those couples would prefer an infant and 80% are upper middle class.

I resent your additude that a mentally disabled person should be aborted. Yes, you didn't come out and say that, but it definitely seems to be inferred. People with mental handicaps should not be swept under the rug, they should be encouraged. With some work they can contribute just as much as any person that doesn't have a handicap.

Furthermore, it happens more frequently than you think that a doctor says an infant will have a disability that simply never materializes. If their parents had aborted them, they would prevented a perfectly heathy child from living.

theBishop

Right, that came out wrong. I mean...well no matter how i say this, it can be tunred against me but... like i said, if the parents didn't have any relatives to pass on a child to, weren't in the financial position to raise the child, and on top of that, the child did have a mental or physical disorder...then the cost of living could be double or tripled. I am not saying that is reason for that person to be aborted, but if the parents are not intersted in even having a child then it might not be in the childs best interest to be raised by them.

This naturally leaves adoption, its easy to say thousand of couples are on the waiting list to adopt a child but, there are well over 520,000 children waiting to be adopted in the united states alone. And almost 50 percent of adoptions are made within the biological family (step dad, aunt... ect.)On avg, ther are about 127,000 adoptions a year in the US. So if 50 percent of those are biological adoptions... that leaves about 63,000 our of 450,000 are adopted by kind ppl who just want a child.

So, if your only hope was to have someone who wasn't in ur biological or intermediate family... who doesn't mind paying the trippled cost of living we talked about earlier...then your in luck. But, chances are slim. This isn't to mention the bad foster homes all around the world.

Basically i am saying adoption isn't all what its made out to be and no matter how many statistics i see that proves me wrong... I still see babies with teen parents who are too stoned of their minds to even posses the will power to care for a child... parents who live in their cars, yet somehow don't have the audacity to at least try to put their kid in a better place... because everyone know that weman are made of sand...

EDIT: btw i threw in that sand thing just cuz i was listenen to chatterbox on gta 3

[This message has been edited by Einstein (edited 11-22-2004).]

hippiechick

2004-11-22, 07:34

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

I though we were debating what a human is? Some people say a zygote is human as soon as it is formed.

what we really need to do is ask ourselves when does life begin? well, to answer this question, we'll ask another. when does life end? when your heart stops? No, they have a machine which can pump blood through the body. When they stop breathing? No, they have a machine for that too. it's called an iron lung. So when does life end? i'll tell you. it's when their are no present brain waves apparent in the entire body. Well then what is a fetus until it has brain waves, you ask? a malignant tumor! thats right, a tumor. Now, if the doctor informed you that a tumor was growing inside your body, i doubt that you would be trying to decide whether to name it jennifer or Tommy, would you?- ready for the fireballs.

hippiechick

2004-11-22, 07:40

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

To anti choice people -

If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.

There, problem solved, stop trying to force your morality on everyone else.

The only man who should have any say whatsoever is the father, and even then he should be able to state where he stands, and nothing more, the decision is that of the mother, the person who is carrying the fucking fetus in her stomach.

Life begining at conception is the biggest load of shit.

"Life" begins long before, both sperm and egg are alive.

Genetically, yes, actuall recognizably human thought? not until well into the second trimester.

Electrical activity does not equate to cognitive thought dumbasses, every cell in the body has electrical activity in it.

I'm sick of good for nothing, biggoted religious nuts trying to turn secular countries into their little private theocracies.

The republican party is fucking infested with the scum. At least asscroft has resigned, but its still bad.

And now here in Australia, we have god damn family first.

Oh... and just to let you militant fucks know, for every abortion clinic that is bombed, two dozen churches will be. FUCKS.

Because of pieces of shit like you, I'm seriously considering studying medicine simply because I know what will happen when all the older doctors retire.

(EDIT: stupid claim I thought I could back up, but then found my resource lacking.

I've got it somewhere, but its somewhere in one of five medically based abortion books, which are like 500 pages. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) )

You fucks.

I wish you would all have your collective raptures underneath a mushroom cloud, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone!

EDIT: sorry bout the tone of this post, but I was rather pissed when I saw yet another thread on abortion.

And yes, I do realize the irony in that I started the first recent one.

[This message has been edited by dearestnight_falcon (edited 11-14-2004).]

AMEN! FUCK! i hate watching these bible sucking assholes try and push their beliefs on everyone else. i agree wholeheartedly with you. if they don't like it, tough. it's just like if they don' beleive in one polotician, they vote for another. we have choices too.

theBishop

2004-11-22, 15:58

Hippiechick, i like your deduction of when life begins. I disagree with the conclusion, but its a logical conclusion nontheless.

However, brainwaves are measurable at 40 days (week 6). And virtually all abortions take place after week 6. So according to your arguments, you should be in the same boat as me. Pro-choice, but opposed to abortion. Maybe even pro-life if thats the only argument you have.

Also, as I've said before it may not be good enough to just say "If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one". That's how i used to feel, but it doesn't work. IF abortion is murder, it's not something that we can stand by and accept.

"If you don't agree with Murder don't kill people!" Problem solved right? (Wrong). A free society requires justice, to let murder go unpunished is unjust. Again, I'm not claiming that abortion is murder, but i think that it *might* be and we need more study.

theBishop

The Sex Turnip

2004-11-22, 18:37

quote:Originally posted by great_sage=heaven:

Well after the 3rd trimester the fetus has developed a nervous system. So whatever you think about it, it's pretty wrong after that.

Bullshit, just because it has a nervous system doesn't make it fully concious and/or worthy of life. REMEBER KIDS, HAVING KIDS IS NOT A RIGHT, ITS A PRIVLEDGE.

Nemisis

2004-11-22, 22:39

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Abortion should be legal up to the late stages of pregnancy. I just hope the pro-choice people would just admit that abortion is the murder of a baby.

Ok so when is it actually a baby? Some say from the moment of conception. I think this is BS. In early stages of development it's a collection of cells.

If we take cells from an adult and help them multiply in a lab, then keep then alive for a period of time, Would it be muder if you let those same cells die?

After a certain point yes I agree it becomes a tiny human being. The problem with this issue is that men don't have to carry the baby for 9 months. They don't run the risk of hemorrhaging to death giving birth to that child. why should that baby's life become more important than the mothers?

napoleon_complex

2004-11-22, 23:27

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

Ok so when is it actually a baby? Some say from the moment of conception. I think this is BS. In early stages of development it's a collection of cells.

If we take cells from an adult and help them multiply in a lab, then keep then alive for a period of time, Would it be muder if you let those same cells die?

After a certain point yes I agree it becomes a tiny human being. The problem with this issue is that men don't have to carry the baby for 9 months. They don't run the risk of hemorrhaging to death giving birth to that child. why should that baby's life become more important than the mothers?

Can you find me sata on how many abortions are performed to prevent the mother "hemorrhaging to death"? The fact is, most abortions are performed simply because they are unwanted. Do abortion happen because of rape, incest, possible harm to mother/child? Yes But the vast majority of all abortions are done because that baby is an 'inconvenience' to the mother. Should the option of abortion remain open? Yes. But only to those who actually need that option.

Also a group of cells taken from an adult does not have the potential to be a human, just like individual sperm and eggs do not have the potential to be a human. They are alive, but they are not human nor do they have the potential at that moment to be human.

Rust

2004-11-22, 23:33

There's no such thing as "potential at that moment". Potential, by its very definition, is fullfilled at a later time. And as if having this non-existent, "potential at the moment" somehow vindicated the argument...

Those cells do have the potential to become a human being.

theBishop

2004-11-22, 23:49

If you don't interfere with a skin cell, it will not develop into a person.

If you don't interfere with a zygote, it will.

Rust

2004-11-22, 23:55

Wrong. You're merely restricting what "interference" is with a definition that suits your case and not mine. Without a mother, and the nutrition ( a form of interference) she provides, a zygote wouldn't grow to be anything.

peanuthead08

2004-11-23, 00:02

reading all of this makes my head hurt. i think that if you have sex you should assume responsibility and have the baby. but if you're raped you shouldnt have to. i would never do it but i think women should have the choice. it pisses me off that men dont have to assume any responsibility and women have to walk around with a kid in their stomach for nine damn months! sorry i guess im mad at god and at guy but its not really they're fault. im rabbling

peanuthead08

napoleon_complex

2004-11-23, 00:02

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

There's no such thing as "potential at that moment". Potential, by its very definition, is fullfilled at a later time. And as if having this non-existent, "potential at the moment" somehow vindicated the argument...

Those cells do have the potential to become a human being.

They have no potential by themselves to become human. They can become human, but not then and there.

theBishop

2004-11-23, 00:25

This is an innane argument.

Yes, a skin cell contains the instructions to create a human, so does hair, blood, semen, etc.

But a zygote is an early stage of human development. A fucking skin cell is not going to grow into a human under any circumstances. Even if you extract the DNA, you still need an egg. Its just not the same thing.

And regardless, what's your point?

Rust

2004-11-23, 00:34

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

They have no potential by themselves to become human. They can become human, but not then and there.

The zygote has no potential to become human by itself either!

theBishop:

quote:But a zygote is an early stage of human development. A fucking skin cell is not going to grow into a human under any circumstances.

Of course it can. Not in the circumstances in which you are restricting them to, but you can clone a living being using a skin cell.

quote:

Even if you extract the DNA, you still need an egg. Its just not the same thing.

And regardless, what's your point?

Correct. The skin cell still does have the potential.

The point was, there is no such thing as "potential at the moment". Moreover, that you cannot base yourself on "potential" since normal cells have a potential to become human life.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-23-2004).]

napoleon_complex

2004-11-23, 00:48

quote:The zygote has no potential to become human by itself either!

If it wasn't aborted it would have the potential. A zygote in the mother will 99.9% of the time develop into a human A regular cell will never develop into a human under the same circumstances.

Rust

2004-11-23, 00:52

Now you arrive at the same thing I said to the Bishop. You're deliberately defining the interference needed to suit your case.

You're arbitrarily declaring that having the mother nurture the zygote is not outside interference, but taking a skin cell and using it in cloning is. I could abitrarily define that having them other nurture the zygote is outside interference but taking the skin cell and cloning a human being with it is not.

theBishop

2004-11-23, 01:02

/theBishop bangs head against wall

Are you trying to say that a skin cell is just as human as a zygote or fetus?

Or are you just trying to correct napleon?

As much as i'd like to continue arguing a point that we all seem to understand, i'd much prefer the discussion related to pro/con abortion. Since that's what the thread dictates.

Rust

2004-11-23, 01:06

I was correcting napoleon, but now that we've changed the topic from the correction, I'm arguing that both skin cells and a zygote have the same potential.

Moreover, how the hell can you definie which is "more human", when neither is human to begin with? That's an even more arbirariy concept.

Ezratal

2004-11-23, 01:09

Abortion is not allowed after the third trimester... and before then the fetus hasn't developed enough to even be defined as living being, let alone a human. So it isn't living and it's not human, it merely has the potential to be... but so does every sperm ejaculated during masturbation. Shall we try to ban that too?! Birth control is the same thing.... It's all eliminating what could become human. If you think abortion should be banned then so should masturbation and birth control... and condoms.

In conclusion, 4b0r7!0n 1s 0k4y!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Ezratal (edited 11-23-2004).]

theBishop

2004-11-23, 01:19

But they don't have the same potential

The key is the egg. Nothing becomes human without it (as far as we currently understand).

quote:Moreover, how the hell can you definie which is "more human", when neither is human to begin with? That's an even more arbitrary concept.

Oh really?

Chronologically speaking, if you were going to create a human from skin cell (something that hasn't be accomplished yet afaik) you'd have to:

0. Skin Cell

1. Extract the DNA

2. Inject the DNA into an Egg

3. Fertilized egg becomes a Zygote

4. Zygote becomes Blastocyst

5. Blastocyst to Embryo

6. Embryo to Fetus

7. Fetus to Human

As you can see, Zygote is closer to human in the chronology. Totally objective.

theBishop

Rust

2004-11-23, 01:28

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

But they don't have the same potential

The key is the egg. Nothing becomes human without it (as far as we currently understand).

Correct. And? The skin cell can be implanted in the egg.

quote:

Oh really?

Chronologically speaking, if you were going to create a human from skin cell (something that hasn't be accomplished yet afaik) you'd have to:

0. Skin Cell

1. Extract the DNA

2. Inject the DNA into an Egg

3. Fertilized egg becomes a Zygote

4. Zygote becomes Blastocyst

5. Blastocyst to Embryo

6. Embryo to Fetus

7. Fetus to Human

As you can see, Zygote is closer to human in the chronology. Totally objective.

theBishop

And the alternative would be to use sperm... which would take more than a decade to produce normally (from birth to puberty). Thus taking more metabolic processes which in turn take more social procedures to produce the food needed in order to maintain life. Hence, by your own "objective" chronology, the sperm takes more time to produce, hence "less human".

That's not even debating what the fuck does Chronology have to do with being human or not... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-23-2004).]

theBishop

2004-11-23, 01:33

Ezratal,

quote:before then the fetus hasn't developed enough to even be defined as living being, let alone a human

This is just incorrect. Not only is a fetus, definitely a living thing, it shows brain activity by week 6. Sure, it's probably not conscience "i think therefor i am stuff", but there is activity. By 20 Weeks (2nd Trimester), the REM can be detected, meaning the developing baby is dreaming.

quote:So it isn't living and it's not human, it merely has the potential to be...

What qualifies as human is a big part of this discussion and there is no definite answer yet. Your assertions have no weight.

quote:but so does every sperm ejaculated during masturbation. Shall we try to ban that too?! Birth control is the same thing.... It's all eliminating what could become human.

I'm not the one arguing that skin, hair, and sperm are humans-to-be. I don't think its abortion until after fertilization. The point is not the "prevention of life", it's defining the point at which an abortion (or birth control if you want) is killing a person.

theBishop

PS: 4b0rX10n m4y b3 murd3r 1m n0X 5ur3

theBishop

2004-11-23, 01:42

I'm not talking about time passed, I'm talking about development.

A zygote is farther along in the development than the skin cell.

Rust

2004-11-23, 01:47

Okay, granted. Yet that does nothing to refute the argument.

Ezratal

2004-11-23, 01:50

What the fuck are you talking about?... While it is true that what makes a human a human is a big discussion certainly the only criteria isn't recognizing motion or sound... Animals can do that. A fetus doesn't even fucking breathe then... The definition of human doesn't include fetuses.. they do NOT meet the criteria. They don't meet the scientific thought of living beings because they aren't breathing.

Sarter

2004-11-23, 02:23

quote:Originally posted by Ezratal:

They don't meet the scientific thought of living beings because they aren't breathing.

There are many scientific definitions of 'living', and I have never heard of one that requires the being to breathe.

Here is a fairly standard definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

napoleon_complex

2004-11-23, 02:24

Explain to me the scientific thought on what constitutes as a living human Ezratal.

theBishop

2004-11-23, 02:33

We go through stages of development even after we're born. We're no smarter than a dog the day we are born, does that mean we aren't human?

If you bake cookies or something, there's no point when the cookies are exactly "done" so at what point are they cookies?

At some late stage of pregnancy the fetus could be cut out and be "born". Maybe it would have problems or something, but it would still be a human.

Regarding your "breathing = living" argument, they still need oxygen. The mother provides the oxygen through the placenta. The cells that make up the fetus are living.

theBishop

great_sage=heaven

2004-11-23, 02:47

When you're born you're nervous system has developed and you can think (on a simple level).

Before the third trimester the fetus has neither.

That was a bad comparison.

And at 'some late stages of pregnancy', they wouldn't have an abortion any way, because they don't have abortions after the third trimester.

Oh, and plants need oxygen. That argument is beside the point.

[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 11-23-2004).]

Ezratal

2004-11-23, 02:51

All living things fight for survival when in the grip of death. Fetuses don't fight being aborted. Also the central nervous system hasn't developed.

I win!

[This message has been edited by Ezratal (edited 11-23-2004).]

Tyrant

2004-11-23, 04:06

I've never seen trees fight.

napoleon_complex

2004-11-23, 04:06

Ezratal

2004-11-23, 04:24

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I didn't realize we were having a contest for the biggest idiot on totse. In that case congratulations on your emphatic victory.

Why thank you! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

LostCause

2004-11-23, 09:08

My personal belief on abortion is that as long as the fetus is inside the womans womb her womb is it's entire universe as far as the fetus can conceive, therefore the woman not only is giving and sustaining it's life but exists as it's only proper realm of existance.

As long as the fetus is inside the womb the carrier is it's goddess.

And if a god can decide to destroy all of mankind in a "rapture" and have that be okay (because even if god is faultered he's perfect as far as we're concerned because we are only intended to strive to be as he is) then as long as the woman is the fetus's goddess she has complete right and rule to destroy, terminate, and murder if it is so called the fetus.

Cheers,

Lost

napoleon_complex

2004-11-23, 12:27

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

My personal belief on abortion is that as long as the fetus is inside the womans womb her womb is it's entire universe as far as the fetus can conceive, therefore the woman not only is giving and sustaining it's life but exists as it's only proper realm of existance.

As long as the fetus is inside the womb the carrier is it's goddess.

And if a god can decide to destroy all of mankind in a "rapture" and have that be okay (because even if god is faultered he's perfect as far as we're concerned because we are only intended to strive to be as he is) then as long as the woman is the fetus's goddess she has complete right and rule to destroy, terminate, and murder if it is so called the fetus.

Cheers,

Lost

Does the same apply to an infant? Without the mother they couldn't survive. They are entirely dependent upon the mother for sistinence, so according to you a mother could easily murder her newborn, correct?

LostCause

2004-11-24, 05:27

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Does the same apply to an infant? Without the mother they couldn't survive. They are entirely dependent upon the mother for sistinence, so according to you a mother could easily murder her newborn, correct?

No, the woman siezed to be the "goddess" when the child is outside of her body. She is no longer the fetus's infinite universe. The child now is in a completely different realm of existence and she is now simply it's mother.

So, no, I don't believe murder of an infant is okay. But, after the baby is born it's survival isn't completely dependant on the mother. I mean, anyone can take care of the baby after that.

Cheers,

Lost

LostCause

2004-11-24, 05:31

O, and as a quick addendum (and nothing personal), but in my opinion I think - out of respect - men should keep their opinions to themselves about matters such as abortion. You'll never know what it's like to worry about getting pregnant, you'll never know what it's like to carry a baby for nine months and worry constantly about it's health and future, you'll never know what it's like to give birth, or be a mother. So, frankly, any opinion you have on anything surrounding the matter is pretty senseless.

You have no frame of reference to speak of. However, men always seem to think they know anyways.

It's such a fool shame you're all in charge of these matters, because it really isn't any of your business. But, it's just another way for men to keep women from having any control over their sexuality. Another tool to keep women scared, weak, and ashamed of their bodies.

Cheers,

Lost

theBishop

2004-11-24, 05:49

OK, I was willing to agree to disagree until that last point. "You have no idea what it's like" is no argument.

"You can't say shit about Osama Bin Laden because you have no idea what its like to be a muslim repressed by the christian west"

We can say what ever we want about what ever we want because on some level we all have a good/bad compass. We may not agree but we all feel a duty to promote "good" however we percieve it.

LostCause

2004-11-24, 05:57

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

OK, I was willing to agree to disagree until that last point. "You have no idea what it's like" is no argument.

"You can't say shit about Osama Bin Laden because you have no idea what its like to be a muslim repressed by the christian west"

We can say what ever we want about what ever we want because on some level we all have a good/bad compass. We may not agree but we all feel a duty to promote "good" however we percieve it.

Sorry, I disagree. This isn't something situational like Osama Ben Laden being a Muslim repressed by western culture. This is biology. I may not know what it's like to be a Muslim repressed by western culture, but I know what it's like to be a female repressed by a male dominated culture. I know what it's like to be repressed for being gay, for being white, for being Jewish, etc... That's situational.

I don't know what it's like to be a bee. I don't know what it's like to be a crocodile. I don't know what it's like to be a man. Those are biological.

You can't know what it's like, because you have no frame of reference to it.

Cheers,

Lost

inquisitor_11

2004-11-24, 12:02

To quote one of my sociology tutors "I'm tired of middle-aged men in gray suits making decsions about the inner-workings of a woman"

...or words to that effect

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-24, 12:38

I think theBishop hit a nerve...

Speaking of which, where has Digital_Savior been lately?

Digital_Savior

2004-11-24, 19:48

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I was correcting napoleon, but now that we've changed the topic from the correction, I'm arguing that both skin cells and a zygote have the same potential.

Moreover, how the hell can you definie which is "more human", when neither is human to begin with? That's an even more arbirariy concept.

Define "human".

Digital_Savior

2004-11-24, 19:57

quote:Originally posted by Ezratal:

What the fuck are you talking about?... While it is true that what makes a human a human is a big discussion certainly the only criteria isn't recognizing motion or sound... Animals can do that. A fetus doesn't even fucking breathe then... The definition of human doesn't include fetuses.. they do NOT meet the criteria. They don't meet the scientific thought of living beings because they aren't breathing.

I would like to point out that fetus' have been documented "breathing" in the womb. They are not taking in air, but they are performing the act of breathing, in preparation for birth.

The amniotic fluid goes in and out of the lungs, in a pseudo-breathing representation.

Blood is pumping through their veins as well, I might add.

By the way, do you not consider an amoeba to be "living" ? Last time I checked, they don't "breath", in a conventional sense.

Digital_Savior

2004-11-24, 20:01

quote:Originally posted by great_sage=heaven:

When you're born you're nervous system has developed and you can think (on a simple level).

Before the third trimester the fetus has neither.

That was a bad comparison.

And at 'some late stages of pregnancy', they wouldn't have an abortion any way, because they don't have abortions after the third trimester.

Oh, and plants need oxygen. That argument is beside the point.

[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 11-23-2004).]

That is completely false. The nervous system begins to form sometime shortly before the 8th week of gestation.

The nervous system (to include the brain) is fully formed at the time of birth (full gestation, of course).

To say otherwise proves that you failed freshman Anatomy and Physiology.

People don't have abortions after the third trimester has begun ? Where are you getting this garbage, Sesame Street ?

When do you think the majority of Partial Birth Abortions take place ?

Here's an idea...GOOGLE: "Partial Birth Abortions" or "Third Trimester Abortions", and see what revelations you uncover.

Digital_Savior

2004-11-24, 20:08

quote:Originally posted by Ezratal:

All living things fight for survival when in the grip of death. Fetuses don't fight being aborted. Also the central nervous system hasn't developed.

I win! [This message has been edited by Ezratal (edited 11-23-2004).]

Hmmm...I guess you missed my thread on abortion, wherein I provide a link to a video of a fetus being aborted. You can see it "screaming", and writhing to get away from the suction needle.

But, since I am a generous sort, I will post it for you, AGAIN.

- http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm (part 4 and 5, to get to the point)

The infant's heart rate starts at 140 BPM, and as the abortion begins, it shoots up to 200 BPM. I would venture to say that the infant is experiencing fear, which means it is to some degree cognizant. (it is seen sucking it's thumb prior to the abortion)

It is 11 weeks old, gestationally.

YOU LOSE. (unfortunately)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 11-24-2004).]

Digital_Savior

2004-11-24, 20:11

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

My personal belief on abortion is that as long as the fetus is inside the womans womb her womb is it's entire universe as far as the fetus can conceive, therefore the woman not only is giving and sustaining it's life but exists as it's only proper realm of existance.

As long as the fetus is inside the womb the carrier is it's goddess.

And if a god can decide to destroy all of mankind in a "rapture" and have that be okay (because even if god is faultered he's perfect as far as we're concerned because we are only intended to strive to be as he is) then as long as the woman is the fetus's goddess she has complete right and rule to destroy, terminate, and murder if it is so called the fetus.

Cheers,

Lost

What kind of merciful, loving goddess would abort her own creation ?

Goddess copulates willingly (in most cases) with the infinite knowledge of what such actions can manifest...goddess should be responsible for her creation, for she knew she was creating it.

God does not destroy mankind in the rapture. Please read Revelation again for a more accurate account.

Tyrant

2004-11-24, 20:38

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

A THOUSAND HAILS TO DIGITAL_SAVIOR!!

Only a few hours after she was summoned, she indiscriminately owned all pro-abortion arguments on this thread with a confidence that could only come from a recognition of the obvious!

I would like to speak with you on a more direct and personal basis. Do you have AOL or AIM?

Digital_Savior

2004-11-24, 20:47

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

O, and as a quick addendum (and nothing personal), but in my opinion I think - out of respect - men should keep their opinions to themselves about matters such as abortion. You'll never know what it's like to worry about getting pregnant, you'll never know what it's like to carry a baby for nine months and worry constantly about it's health and future, you'll never know what it's like to give birth, or be a mother. So, frankly, any opinion you have on anything surrounding the matter is pretty senseless.

You have no frame of reference to speak of. However, men always seem to think they know anyways.

It's such a fool shame you're all in charge of these matters, because it really isn't any of your business. But, it's just another way for men to keep women from having any control over their sexuality. Another tool to keep women scared, weak, and ashamed of their bodies.

Cheers,

Lost

Why would a woman (a.k.a goddess) worry about getting pregnant, if the baby is at her mercy, per the "womb is the universe" constitution ?

Men have just as much right to make decisions about their babies as women do, since without men, babies could no be created. (even in a petri dish, sperm is needed to fertilize)

I think what you have said is a major problem with the world today...men have lost their place. They are no longer highest in the food chain, and they have lost all control.

Because of that, boys do not know how to grow into men, and we see the rise of crime, homosexuality, and broken homes. (that was a blanket statement, so please try to see into it a bit deeper)

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, I don't happen to believe that men are in the least bit in control of abortion.

Feminism has taken it's hold, and therefor it's toll, on this country.

If you do some research, you will find that most of the founders and presidents of the associations and support groups for abortion are women...funded by women...advocated by women.

I haven't seen too many examples (in my lifetime) of women being brainwashed into being weak, and frightened.

Models in magazines do not make us feel inadequate and overweight...WE do. We know what healthy humans ought to act/function like, and anything beyond that is abnormal.

I am 5'2", and 147 pounds, which is obviously not optimal. But I don't degrade myself into thinking that I am fat, or unlovable because Calista Flockhart weighs 10 pounds. I am what I am, and that is why I am me.

Sorry, Lost, but I must disagree with you, on all aspects of this post.

LostCause

2004-11-24, 21:04

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What kind of merciful, loving goddess would abort her own creation ?

Goddess copulates willingly (in most cases) with the infinite knowledge of what such actions can manifest...goddess should be responsible for her creation, for she knew she was creating it.

God does not destroy mankind in the rapture. Please read Revelation again for a more accurate account.

I never said anything about the goddess being an all loving or mercifull goddess. In fact, in all of my studies I'm come to the belief that a god is not synonamous with those terms. I don't believe a god has to be loving or mercifull. In all probability any god has very little awareness of you, if one so exists.

And why should you be responsible for your creation? If she's the goddess she can do whatever she wants. Besides, what if she feels the child is sick and in pain? That's just like asking why god lets us die. Why would an all loving god kill us?

Because may be he isn't an all loving god. Or because may be we don't deserve to live. Or because may be death is better. Who knows? That's for gods to decide.

I was using The Rapture as a lamins terms example. The flood, in Genesis, would be a more accurate example.

Cheers,

Lost

Digital_Savior

2004-11-24, 22:37

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

I think theBishop hit a nerve...

Speaking of which, where has Digital_Savior been lately?

LOL

Shhhhhh...

Digital_Savior

2004-11-24, 22:44

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I never said anything about the goddess being an all loving or mercifull goddess. In fact, in all of my studies I'm come to the belief that a god is not synonamous with those terms. I don't believe a god has to be loving or mercifull. In all probability any god has very little awareness of you, if one so exists.

And why should you be responsible for your creation? If she's the goddess she can do whatever she wants. Besides, what if she feels the child is sick and in pain? That's just like asking why god lets us die. Why would an all loving god kill us?

Because may be he isn't an all loving god. Or because may be we don't deserve to live. Or because may be death is better. Who knows? That's for gods to decide.

I was using The Rapture as a lamins terms example. The flood, in Genesis, would be a more accurate example.

Cheers,

Lost

Then it is most evident why you cannot fathom the inner-workings of the Christian God, nor allow yourself to follow Him (a.k.a. "it").

If even woman cannot be capable of the love and mercy that should be the core attributes of any deity, then woe to mankind.

I believe that love is essential, in order to create in the capacity that both man, and God can.

Whether it be love of self, or love of the creation, matters not.

If a child falls ill or is in any amount of pain while in the womb, God knows about it. And if He knows about it, then it is happening for a reason.

God doesn't kill us. Our original design was created so that we would never perish physically...once sin became a factor, that design was altered. All that has really changed is that our physical self dies, but our souls live on for eternity. I don't see that we have lost much.

God IS an All-Loving God, however some people mistake that to mean that He is an All-Forgiving God.

He is, if you can find it in you to be repentent, otherwise, the law has been clearly given.

In His perfection, He cannot logically be in the presence of sin.

Since we are the walking personification of sin, we must find a way to be blameless. We can only do that by accepting Christ.

That's off topic, though...

To get back to it, I have to say that your view is slightly skewed, and carries the stench of a wound upon it.

The Flood DID cause death. The Rapture won't.

Mixing apples and oranges, my friend. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Thanks for explaining your thoughts.

Digital_Savior

2004-11-24, 22:48

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

A THOUSAND HAILS TO DIGITAL_SAVIOR!!

Only a few hours after she was summoned, she indiscriminately owned all pro-abortion arguments on this thread with a confidence that could only come from a recognition of the obvious!

I would like to speak with you on a more direct and personal basis. Do you have AOL or AIM?

*blush*

Awww...Tyrant.

I have AIM. You can email me at ladyofthemyst@hotmail.com (a dummy account), and I will reply with my screen name.

I look forward to speaking with you.

OsirisGuy429

2004-11-24, 23:45

Well I'm not reading six pages about killing fetuses as much fun as that sounds. I will however, post an excerpt from a mock campaign speech I had to write for my government class. There is some humor in it as well:

Abortion: You’re all baby killers. I’m not going to make abortion illegal, but all patients must register before they kill innocent beating hearts, minds, and spines. This list will be looked at every year and men with suits and sunglasses will arrive at the houses of these baby killers and will be executed. If they can kill for screwing themselves up then we can kill them because they put a drain on our society.

Will I get into deeper detail, no.

EDIT: Spelling.

[This message has been edited by OsirisGuy429 (edited 11-24-2004).]

Digital_Savior

2004-11-25, 00:00

By the way Sean, I didn't forget about you, and your very kind thread.

I will be posting my reply to it soon, God willing.

Hope all is well with you and yours.

Social Junker

2004-11-25, 03:18

Nice to see you back, Digi, it's been a while (at least since I've seen you post). http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) I haven't been around this forum much recently (due to college), so maybe I just missed you.

Charles Thunder

2004-11-25, 04:41

I say we ban abortions and send all the unwanted children to the anti-abortion activists.

LostCause

2004-11-25, 12:36

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Then it is most evident why you cannot fathom the inner-workings of the Christian God, nor allow yourself to follow Him (a.k.a. "it").

If even woman cannot be capable of the love and mercy that should be the core attributes of any deity, then woe to mankind.

I believe that love is essential, in order to create in the capacity that both man, and God can.

Whether it be love of self, or love of the creation, matters not.

If a child falls ill or is in any amount of pain while in the womb, God knows about it. And if He knows about it, then it is happening for a reason.

God doesn't kill us. Our original design was created so that we would never perish physically...once sin became a factor, that design was altered. All that has really changed is that our physical self dies, but our souls live on for eternity. I don't see that we have lost much.

God IS an All-Loving God, however some people mistake that to mean that He is an All-Forgiving God.

He is, if you can find it in you to be repentent, otherwise, the law has been clearly given.

In His perfection, He cannot logically be in the presence of sin.

Since we are the walking personification of sin, we must find a way to be blameless. We can only do that by accepting Christ.

That's off topic, though...

To get back to it, I have to say that your view is slightly skewed, and carries the stench of a wound upon it.

The Flood DID cause death. The Rapture won't.

Mixing apples and oranges, my friend. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Thanks for explaining your thoughts.

Okay, Digi. Now I know where you and I stand, at least, religion wise. And I'm so so so not into (nor have I any desire) to "prove you wrong" or challenge your beliefs in any way. In fact, I wouldn't even dare to think you are wrong and I am right.

Consider, I have no fucking clue. After all my studies in religion - I still have no fucking clue. In fact, I have less of a clue.

But, while we're here and while we're openly discussing this on a agree to disagree basis, I will contest.:

On the matter of the christian god, I can not only fathom it, but I think it's an awesome idea. I have a lot of family that are christians and I think it's fucking awesome they "have Jesus". No matter what goes wrong in their lives they have the definitive answer that they have Jesus. And yay for that.

But, I don't. Not because I can't fathom it or understand it. I just don't feel it. If that offends, I opologize.

And my only direct issue with what you said lies in your statement:

"If even woman cannot be capable of the love and mercy that should be the core attributes of any deity, then woe to mankind."

My problem with this is, who are you to decide what kind of attributes a deity should have. Perhaps woe to mankind. But, your god is your god and if you believe that you are made in his image, nomatter if he is faultered he is still perfect to you, because - being made in his image and to strive to be as he is - you can only hope (even in his fault) to be so perfect.

So, how can you say what a deity should or shouldn't be? The deity is the one who decides such things.

And if your deity isn't all-loving then, yes, woe to mankind. But, would you even know if he's not all-loving, since his love is the only way for you to comprehend and measure the intensity and meaning of love?

Also, I disagree with your statement:

"In His perfection, He cannot logically be in the presence of sin."

No. 1: God is not logical. God defies logic. So, there's no sense in trying to say what god can or can't do or be in terms of human logic.

No. 2: All that is came of god, supposedly, and therefore sin comes of god. Sin is like the anti-matter in the universe. It's the negative energy that makes positive energy positive. A give and take in the universe. God IS sin, if he is anything. His presence is only good in the presence of sin and therefore he is only as good as the rest of everything without him is bad.

That's a less than perfect illustration, but hopefully you get where I'm going with this.

"I have to say that your view is slightly skewed, and carries the stench of a wound upon it."

Nice one. But, it wont hold up in court.

*smile*

I like you, Digi. I really don't want you to be offended and I really don't want you to think I'm trying to fuck with you. So, just take this for what it's worth: my opinion.

You asked and you have received.

Cheers,

Lost

great_sage=heaven

2004-11-25, 20:20

quote: That is completely false. The nervous system 'begins to form' sometime shortly before the 8th week of gestation.

Did I say begins to form? No, I said developed (when it actually works), which makes all the difference. Sheesh.

Ok the only stupid argument I had was people don't have abortions after the third trimester, because there was talks of inforcing that (Canada), and I assumed a law was passed. But no. On that note, I'll go out and say that post third trimester abortions should be illegal, period.

SurahAhriman

2004-11-25, 23:49

DS, A fetus cannot seperate itself from it's enviroment. Animals can fear. That arguement holds no ground. Animals have nervous systems. The entire reason I don't consider a fetus a person is because it lacks sentience. It essentially is at the same level as an animal. And even the Bible condones killing animals. Hell, it condones killing fetus's. I seem to remember a certain command from God along the lines of "cut open their pregnant women, and dash the head of the fetus against a stone".

Also, in response to Lost's Goddess analogy, the Christian has killed (aborted?) his creations many times. The flood. Sodoom and Gemorrah.

Side note: Feminism is the belief that women should have equal opportunity to education and jobs. It goes overboard alot, but thats the entire point of it. FemiNazi's are a completely different matter.

I don't really want to get involved with another of these debates. I had my fill of that last year when Tyrant and I filled five or so pages wrangling. I just agree with Clinton. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Or, in a perfect world, used to cleanse the gene pool (I kid, I kid.). But any Biblical reason to oppose abortion is great for persnal life, but intristically flawed as a reason to make it illegal. America is suppoed to protect it's citizens from the tyranny of the majority. If even one person in America if pro-choice, then the fact that everyone else disagrees with them should not prevent them from being allowed to do so. That would only be the case if Abortion violated another persons rights, and a fetus is not sentient. It is not a person.

SurahAhriman

2004-11-26, 00:01

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

I think there are better ways to control population than putting God knows how much research and money into abortion technique so that some rich cunt can squat her kid and still go clubbing.

You know what they should legalize? DUELS. Someone gets on your nerves or dishonors you in some way, slap him in the face with a glove, take him outside, whip out a sword, and cut a line from his right ear to his left hip. Anyone who refuses a challenge should be outcast from the state out of utter shame, and the victor should be given criminal immunity for that particular crime.

This privilege will be exclusive to men, so that, not only will population control become a manly consideration, if not an outright sport, but women will seek men that have genuine martial talent and uprightness of personality. That way, the fat weiner losers and psychologically corrupt maniacs will have enough self-respect to actually learn how to fight, learn how to cope with reality, and improve themselves physically and mentally, ultimately resulting in an increase in the caliber of men the nation produces.

Problem solved.

Oh, if only. But it's the same point of contention we had last time. I agree completely on the need for personal virtue. I just disagree that everyone else should be held to the same moral standards I hold myself, or you hold yourself.

This is why I can't wait for the FDA to approve the subdermal pills that will render a man sterile for a period of time from a month to several years. This whole thing will become almost a moot point.

Tyrant

2004-11-26, 03:12

SurahAhriman:

Hahaha... good times.

Happy Thanksgiving, dude.

Fire7

2004-11-26, 20:42

Abortion

That word kinda makes some people upset, nervous, and puts some into wierd mood swings.

I beleive if a man doesnt want a child and suggests an abortion and the women refuses he shouldnt have to pay child support and he should have no contact with the child until the child is of age and decides he/she is ready

If the woman wants an abortion and the man does not, but the women does anyways

I believe the women should be tried for murder in the first degree. Locked up and thrown away.

Thats Just me,, I had to add my 2

cents......

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-27, 00:02

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm (part 4 and 5, to get to the point)

Ohhh, my god...

the Silent scream!

Oh man, thats one great movie that is.

If you haven't seen it yet, please do so, but watch it with the sound turned down.

You need to be told what you're seeing to get the desired response...

Anyway, for an alternate viewpoint: http://eileen.250x.com/Main/7_R_Eile/SilentScream.html http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/silentscream.HTM

I would actually like to recomend

"The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195090462/103-9249353-4807831?v=glance

If its at a local library, you its worth a read. Course, if you live in the bible belt, it will probably be stuffed full of Jack Chick tracts. :P

dearestnight_falcon

2004-11-27, 00:11

quote:Originally posted by Fire7:

Abortion

That word kinda makes some people upset, nervous, and puts some into wierd mood swings.

I beleive if a man doesnt want a child and suggests an abortion and the women refuses he shouldnt have to pay child support and he should have no contact with the child until the child is of age and decides he/she is ready

If the woman wants an abortion and the man does not, but the women does anyways

I believe the women should be tried for murder in the first degree. Locked up and thrown away.

Thats Just me,, I had to add my 2

cents......

Ok... so lets figure out what you just said...

Woman is pregnant - both her and man are responsible, but she is hit hardest by the consequences.

If man desires an abortion, but woman does not, he gets to fuck off, without needing to support her.

If woman desires an abortion, but man does not, she ends up in prison.

Thats fucking stupid.

You deserve to have you balls cut off for even thinking up a philosphy on abortion that is that retarded.

At least the pro-lifers would generally force BOTH parents to care for the child, since they both had a part in making it, but you seem to think that its all the womans job.

There are probably a few pro-choicers who believe its fine for the man to be except from paying support and whatnot, but they also stress that he has absolutely no say in the abortion decision.

As far as I'm concerned you have combined the worst elements of both viewpoints into one.

Good going retard.

SurahAhriman

2004-11-27, 21:46

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

SurahAhriman:

Hahaha... good times.

Happy Thanksgiving, dude.

A bit late, but happy Thanksgiving. (Damn 56k)

Pixelated Keyboard

2004-11-27, 23:49

Ignoring the psychological damage that having an unwanted baby can cause to the mother, father or even relatives, I will focus on only the welfare of the child for now.

A futus can, unlike most people assume, think and feel even before he/she (it) is born... but it has no memory to store these emotions. That is why it does not entirely matter whether or not it wants to live, because it can't actually know it. Secondly, how does the baby know it wants to live? An instinct, but I don't think it would care about it until its life is threatened... and how would it know that it is going to die, to be afraid?

This is all, of course, relative to after it has developed such emotions. Before that I see no problem with it, only afterwards is it debatable. Still, I think someone should be able to chose, as they have more emotions and a memory than the baby.

theBishop

2004-11-27, 23:59

Unacceptable Pixelated Keyboard.

Plenty of people have memory problems. By your logic someone should choose whether not to kill every person with advanced alzheimers or some other memory loss condition.

Plus a "normal" person isn't going to care that they are dead after the fact, so your argument is sort of mute anyway.

Also, even though we are "ignoring" it. I would venture to guess there's a lot more documented cases of "psycholohgical damage" caused by guilt after an abortion. If a mother has the baby and lets a more prepared family raise it the mother has no reason to feel guilty.

In many cases, the adoptive parents can set up an arrangement to allow the mother to have some contact with her child. Although i have not studied the matter, i'm pretty confident there's more psychological problems related to abortion than to adoption. Prove me wrong if you like.

theBishop