<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 17 2004, 09:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 17 2004, 09:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->@Kester: I fail to see the sadness in my statement. I would like to see your reasons for disapproval. You would probably have condemned a lot of the baby massacres that happened before "civilized" humanitarianism, but you can't condemn killing the same babies before they are out of the womb? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like I've said to Hawkeye, I haven't once said my stance on the situation so please don't pretend I have, or decide how I think. I said I think its sad that you think abortion is killing entire generations. Because abortion happens in such a small % of pregnancys I fail to see how anyone could think this is "killing entire generations". The sadness falls less on the subject, but more on the way someone can think that.
The lines are blurred here because of semantics. Nothing is more impressive than the verbal gymnastic capability of someone trying to redefine life so as not to include babies in the womb. When showing you the "human life cycle" in class, your teacher never cuts out the bit in the womb, were you watch an zygote turn into an embryo turn into a fetus and then turn into a human. If you leave a fertilized zygote alone in a womans body, it will turn into a human and come out. It wont need 2.5 million generations of evolution to potentially become another sentient being - it will almost always produce a human baby.
To kill is to deprive someone of life. We deprive animals of life because we are superior, but we do not do so to other humans and feel good about ourselves. "The truest test of a civilised society is how it treats its weakest member" - it doesnt get any weaker here, completely dependant upon the mother for food and shelter, cant fight back when you go to kill it, with the entire debate on its right to exist hinging on "does the mother want it".
We were all there in the womb, and we all survived because our mother's didnt take up the option that is being advocated here. I dont care whether you take my life in the womb, or out in the world, I've still lost it. In our society, it used to be that the younger you were, the more people looked after you - women and children first. Guess not any more
Sperm and eggs are entirely separate matter to "potential human life". They contain identical DNA to their parents, so they are not a different form of human life. Our body destroys millions of cells every day, and we dont complain because they are our bodies cells. Sperm and eggs are our bodies cells. A zygote has completely different DNA - therefore its a different person. Also, a zygote on its own in a womans uterus will turn into a human, a sperm cell or an egg cell on its own in a womans uterus will do nothing.
Kester: Now might be the time to verbalise your position on things - heaps of people have an opinion but refuse to say it because they dont like other people going after the flaws in their overall position, prefering rather to just present specifics they dont think anyone can argue against.
all this relies heavily on the indivudial situation. You can't make a generalization of everything. <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::hive::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/hive5.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='hive5.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Have you read any of the last 7 pages? I guess you haven't, they make an interesting read. Read them and then post a message on what you think, as many people have stated that already so as such you are adding nothing to this debate.
Once you've done all that elaborate on you post. You will notice almost all the post in this thread go into detail and are not one line comment. I'm sorry if this sounds a little harsh but your just repeating things that have already been said in the worst possible way.
Also we're talking about a very sensitive subject can we try and keep the maturity level up and leave out the emoticons of a rine shooting a hive, anyone else see that in the same way I do?
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I totally agree. In fact, I propose a solution that would solve the world's hunger problems.
These fetuses... we let them be birthed. Now wait just a moment Hawkeye, you just said you agreed. I do agree in fact. Let me finish.
We let them be birthed, and instead of costing the mother resources to raise these children, we take them to a farm as a new form of food production. The cost would be minimal. We could pin them up and feed them hay. The parents of course get a percentage of the profits in order to not discourage this type of behavior.
The females could be hooked to pumps for breast milk for legitimate non-abortion babies that could be bought at the supermarket. When they get too old, they can be slaughtered and sold for meat.
The men would have to be castrated though, because otherwise they would reproduce in an uncontrolled fashion. Their meat would also be too hard to consume.
Since these "abortions" happen all the time, we're talking about millions of unaborted men, women, and children growing on farms providing millions of others with food.
There's the minor issue of "murder," but you don't have to worry about that seeing how they come from fetuses that were meant to be aborted anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an interesting idea Hawkeye, however the argument is flawed. Not because of your opinion on abortions, but because of your opinion on time. You see a fetus as a human, fully grown, full thinking, and having complete life experience. However thats not true. No one will deny the fact that if a fetus is allowed to develop it will have all of those things, but right now, at this moment the fetus has none of these things.
This is one of the many places that our ideologies differ. You say that <b>when</b> a fetus is allowed to grow up it will have experienced all of these things. You talk of a fetus as a living breathing part of society that is fully capable of a thought process and has experiences to base his thoughts in. All (at least all arguments I've seen) Pro-Life arguments all back on the simple fact that if something is living is has already lived and that if we kill it now we are denying it of the experiences that it has already lived and the living part of it will feel sad about it. Because your killing something that already has feelings and therefore killing a fetus is a crime.
However I see things a little differently. I see a fetus as the <b>potential</b> to become a human being with those emotions and thought processes. However, as of now is see a fetus as little more than a couple cells. If we kill this fetus now that fetus will never even realize that its alive, let alone have the ability for feeling sorry about its death. To it, because at the moment it lacks the ability to think about its death, its death means nothing.
To explain this view a little better let me use Hawkeye's example. If we kill the fetus while its still in the womb it will never have experienced anything. It will not have touched anyones life. Therefore it does not exist as a human, merely as something with the potential to become human. However as soon as its born and we put it to work in this farm it becomes human and develops a thought process and feelings. At that point it starts to become he human he had the potential to become in the womb and it is a crime to kill it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nuketheplace+Oct 18 2004, 02:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nuketheplace @ Oct 18 2004, 02:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is an interesting idea Hawkeye, however the argument is flawed. Not because of your opinion on abortions, but because of your opinion on time. You see a fetus as a human, fully grown, full thinking, and having complete life experience. However thats not true. No one will deny the fact that if a fetus is allowed to develop it will have all of those things, but right now, at this moment the fetus has none of these things.
This is one of the many places that our ideologies differ. You say that <b>when</b> a fetus is allowed to grow up it will have experienced all of these things. You talk of a fetus as a living breathing part of society that is fully capable of a thought process and has experiences to base his thoughts in. All (at least all arguments I've seen) Pro-Life arguments all back on the simple fact that if something is living is has already lived and that if we kill it now we are denying it of the experiences that it has already lived and the living part of it will feel sad about it. Because your killing something that already has feelings and therefore killing a fetus is a crime.
However I see things a little differently. I see a fetus as the <b>potential</b> to become a human being with those emotions and thought processes. However, as of now is see a fetus as little more than a couple cells. If we kill this fetus now that fetus will never even realize that its alive, let alone have the ability for feeling sorry about its death. To it, because at the moment it lacks the ability to think about its death, its death means nothing.
To explain this view a little better let me use Hawkeye's example. If we kill the fetus while its still in the womb it will never have experienced anything. It will not have touched anyones life. Therefore it does not exist as a human, merely as something with the potential to become human. However as soon as its born and we put it to work in this farm it becomes human and develops a thought process and feelings. At that point it starts to become he human he had the potential to become in the womb and it is a crime to kill it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In that case, women and children first should be a thing on the past. Killing a child should be less of an offence as killing an adult.
I dont care about people feeling sad about dying. That's not what makes the killing wrong. Its the deprivation of life - abortion does the same thing as killing an adult, thats one that wont ever get to live again.
Whats worse? Breaking a mans legs before he starts running, or just before he crosses the finish line? According to an abortionist, just before he crosses the finish line, because for a second there he was actually racing and thought he could win. For an anti-abortionist, leg breaking is friggen NOT cool and as such we dont think it should be done at all. But here is where an abortionist comes into his/her own - its not malicious leg breaking, its a "temporary bone structure realignment" - its "would you REALLY want to put the runner through all that effort of running" - "wouldnt it be kinder to simply prevent the chance of him losing, and realign his leg before the race".
In the same way, killing a fetus to prevent it becoming a human is nothing more than a word shuffle for most abortionists. My friend has a younger brother because her mother decided not to abort, despite planning to. The joy this child has brought to her family prompted a complete rethink of her pro-abortion stance - she could not have condoned any action that would have lead to her brother not existing. Everyone deserves a chance at life - you kill a fetus, and the person it would have developed into is denied life.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't care about people feeling sad about dying. That's not what makes the killing wrong. Its the deprivation of life - abortion does the same thing as killing an adult, thats one that wont ever get to live again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marine01, you misunderstand my ideas on death. Because this discussion is about what constitutes murder, and therefore what constitutes death, I feel it would be worth to talk about. I have no experience from a religious view point so therefore I'm not going to try and talk about that. However, from a atheist view point (or at least mine) death doesn't mater. From my view point death is the end, there is nothing that comes after it. I don't think, I don't feel. If I were to die five minutes after I wrote this it wouldn't mater to me. I wouldn't care, all that would mater is the way people felt about me. My life would be remembered by the works I did and the people that I toutched during my time on this earth
This ties into abortion because a fetus, although human has had no chance to communicate with other humans and therefore has had no chance to affect someone else's life. Because of this his death doesn't mater. As for your statement about killing kids being less of a crime than killing adults the argument is invalid because even though kids have had less of a chance to communicate with other people they have still had a chance to communicate with them. This makes them living in the eyes of humanity. Because life is scared they should not be killed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whats worse? Breaking a mans legs before he starts running, or just before he crosses the finish line? According to an abortionist, just before he crosses the finish line, because for a second there he was actually racing and thought he could win. For an anti-abortionist, leg breaking is friggen NOT cool and as such we don't think it should be done at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This analogy is invalid because your imposing feelings on something that has none yet. A runner would anticipate the race and therefore it crule to brake his legs before or during the race. However a fetus has no ability for a thought complex, if it even has thoughts. It doesn't realize what happens to it. I guess the best response is that the runner analogy would have to be if he had his legs broken before he even knew he was eligible for the race didn't realize that he ever had is legs broken.
what the? so you would support being able to break a person's legs while they're sleeping, or put them in a coma, and it wouldn't matter because they couldn't feel it?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nuketheplace+Oct 17 2004, 11:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nuketheplace @ Oct 17 2004, 11:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't care about people feeling sad about dying. That's not what makes the killing wrong. Its the deprivation of life - abortion does the same thing as killing an adult, thats one that wont ever get to live again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marine01, you misunderstand my ideas on death. Because this discussion is about what constitutes murder, and therefore what constitutes death, I feel it would be worth to talk about. I have no experience from a religious view point so therefore I'm not going to try and talk about that. However, from a atheist view point (or at least mine) death doesn't mater. From my view point death is the end, there is nothing that comes after it. I don't think, I don't feel. If I were to die five minutes after I wrote this it wouldn't mater to me. I wouldn't care, all that would mater is the way people felt about me. My life would be remembered by the works I did and the people that I toutched during my time on this earth <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds like you skipped a few logical steps there, Nuke. If you're an atheist, death should be the ONLY thing that matters, it will be the ultimate end to everything you will ever set out to do. It's all nice to think about you being remembered, but you're not going to be around to see it. It doesn't matter. Eat your dog, rape your sister, and kill your parents, and in the long run, you won't be any worse off then the policeman who jumps in front of a bullet for an innocent.
If death is the end of all, then why not let as many people get as much life in as possible? Because it would mean we'd have to work harder to ensure their protection?
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Oct 18 2004, 12:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct 18 2004, 12:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nuketheplace+Oct 17 2004, 11:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nuketheplace @ Oct 17 2004, 11:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't care about people feeling sad about dying. That's not what makes the killing wrong. Its the deprivation of life - abortion does the same thing as killing an adult, thats one that wont ever get to live again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marine01, you misunderstand my ideas on death. Because this discussion is about what constitutes murder, and therefore what constitutes death, I feel it would be worth to talk about. I have no experience from a religious view point so therefore I'm not going to try and talk about that. However, from a atheist view point (or at least mine) death doesn't mater. From my view point death is the end, there is nothing that comes after it. I don't think, I don't feel. If I were to die five minutes after I wrote this it wouldn't mater to me. I wouldn't care, all that would mater is the way people felt about me. My life would be remembered by the works I did and the people that I toutched during my time on this earth <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds like you skipped a few logical steps there, Nuke. If you're an atheist, death should be the ONLY thing that matters, it will be the ultimate end to everything you will ever set out to do. It's all nice to think about you being remembered, but you're not going to be around to see it. It doesn't matter. Eat your dog, rape your sister, and kill your parents, and in the long run, you won't be any worse off then the policeman who jumps in front of a bullet for an innocent.
If death is the end of all, then why not let as many people get as much life in as possible? Because it would mean we'd have to work harder to ensure their protection? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank you for assuming that, to an athiest, life matters in the least.
What I gather from what Nuketheplace is saying is that, in order to be killed, you must of lived. And validates that to relate to this arguement by saying that a fetus hasn't lived, in such, as it has none of the regonisable signs of life.
And Legionnaired I think thats the most narrow-minded thing I've heard in a while, to say the only thing should matter to an atheist is death. I'm an atheist and have no thought on the subject of death, it is far from the only thing that matters, and actually matters very little. I live life for the here and now, making sure me and my fiancee are happy and that we have enough money to get by. I don't think about my death and how it will be the "ultimate end" to everything I'll ever set out to do.
I still don't understand why people are so hung up on people dying for others? I've always asked why but so far everyone has ignored my points and just continued on fighting over things that they'll never settle because you can't prove at what point a foetus becomes human (although the point of conception seems to be 'it' for most of the 'pro-lifers' here).
As for the race analogy? Abortion isn't like breaking their legs before the race, its like taking down all the promotional posters so that the potential racer would never even find out about the race (and bear in mind that in this particular race the competitor would probably be the equivalent of an asthmatic with a weight problem and one leg shorter that the other and the other racers would all be olympic athletes!).
As always, some people die for others to live, I'm not saying that is a good thing but it is necessary. I'd far prefer that 16yr old rape victim (or even that 16yr old bimbo that'll jump on anyone for a drink or two) to become the doctor or lawyer she wanted to be and then become a parent in the future when she is capable of being a decent parent.
I'm quite surprised none of the more religious people have mentioned the idea of souls yet, glad of it though, makes things simpler.
Well, I had a good weekend, nice to see this thread extended. I wen't back and read all the posts I missed - trying to play catchup.
This is how I like to frame the question. If you are going to be pro-choice, you have to make a logical decision as to exactly "when" a foetus becomes a human. Unfortunatly, none of you can seem to do that.
Nuke seems to think that "communication" is the key - the first cry of a new-born. Others seem to think that it is when the "potential" to be human becomes a reality (I assume somewhere in the 3rd trimester when a kid can survive outside the womb.) Still others say when it can feel pain, has brain waves, when it "looks" normal...
I am going to put it to you all that these are arbitrary. There are grown people to whom some of these do not apply, yet we extend rights to them with no problems.
See, this is easy for pro-lifers. There is no symantics involved in "conception", no grey areas. Just pure understanding that if you leave the kid alone, he will grow into a person like you and me.
So there you have it - my definition of murder concerning abortion is to "actively do something to end unique life". There is no arbitrary time limit, no conditions that must be met, no feelings, no potential/reality crap, no need to communicate. All that is bogus and aimed at creating loopholes so that "want" becomes a deciding factor.
As for those who believe that death is the end - her is a challenge. Explain to me how you can condemn murder as "wrong", support abortion, and be concerned about making the world a better place when death is the end, and were all going to get there anyway. If death is the fate for all, then why does quality of life matter? You can't take anything with you, there is no memory, no gain or loss in what is done here on earth. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
I'm not trying to be mean or disrespectful - I just don't understand the logic. Show me the rationalle.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 18 2004, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 18 2004, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for those who believe that death is the end - her is a challenge. Explain to me how you can condemn murder as "wrong", support abortion, and be concerned about making the world a better place when death is the end, and were all going to get there anyway. If death is the fate for all, then why does quality of life matter? You can't take anything with you, there is no memory, no gain or loss in what is done here on earth. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because i would rather enjoy what time we have here then abusing it.
On another level thats like saying NS won't be around for ever and people will forget about it, so why don't I cheat? I know that I don't cheat because I like to play within the rules, it makes it a better experience and the same goes for life . It doesn't matter if it all ends and I take no memories, while I'm here I'll enjoy it and keep within the boundaries set by our society.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 18 2004, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 18 2004, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> See, this is easy for pro-lifers. There is no symantics involved in "conception", no grey areas. Just pure understanding that if you leave the kid alone, he will grow into a person like you and me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And that is why that stance is a very easy stance to take, "its wrong because it is" is basically the arguement pro-lifers have, whereas the pro-choice side of the arguement its much harder and they take more of a view saying, yes its not an easy desicion to make, but sometimes it is actually in the best interest of the involved parties. They're not saying that killing an embryo or foetus is right, but there not saying its totally wrong either and when certain circumstances arise maybe this would be the best option.
To be honest the pro-life side takes very little thought.
My point exactly. Pro-Lifer's see wrong as wrong. Killing= the loose. Enough of this relativistic morals crap.
Some 16 year old sleeps with her boyfriend, gets pregnent, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for her? She made a choice, fully knowing the concequences of that choice. Killing a baby doesn't make it right.
Heck, I'll even take on the rape issue. Look, I'm sorry that you (hypothetical woman) got raped. I hope whoever did it drops the soap in jail. Does that justify taking a life? Granted, I wound't expect you to take care of the child - but let it live, give it up for adoption. I'll take it - just let it live. Put up with 9 months of discomfort. Someone was horrible to you and abused you, please don't reciprocate that action to this child.
Life has a whole lot less grey than what most people make it out to have. Grey areas are usually an excuse to be selfish, as is the case with all these abortion scenerios.
Pro-Choicer's like to appear as though they are "looking out for the woman", they have her interests in mind. I think it is about the money. It is a huge industry based on poor choices - $100 and all your problems with disappear. In order for that ruse to work, they have to take the truth out of it - it isn't a person, it is a feotus, it is a clump of cells, it only has "potential" to be a person, it can't communicate. Have a baby when your ready, those mean pro-lifer's - they don't care about you, we care about you. It's your body, you can do what you want with it - after all, that feotus wouldn't survive without you. Besides, your too young to be a mom, who is going to take care of it? Common, $100 and you won't ever have to think about it agian. Doctor recommended!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, this is easy for pro-lifers. There is no symantics involved in "conception", no grey areas. Just pure understanding that if you leave the kid alone, he will grow into a person like you and me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You hit the nail on the head with that one. It is easy to be a pro-lifer because there is no grey area to deal with. It is far more intuitive than to say "well 3 months.. no no.. 4 months and he's alive."
And let me clarify something here. It isn't that we believe that a fetus is a full grown person. I'm not sure if you are saying that to show how absurd we are for being pro-lifers or because you really believe it. Let me assure you though in any case, that we know what a fetus is. However, we also know that a fetus has good chance of growing up to being a human. The probability of success does not dominate whether or not we should kill a fetus.
If that were the case, then perhaps we should kill all children with leukemia because they are terminally ill and have very little chance of making it. It would be less painful for the children, and they *probably* wouldn't make it anyway. Why don't we? Well for one thing, that's horribly cruel. And secondly, there is a chance they'd pull through however small.
We're not even talking about minor probabilities with fetuses anyway. We're talking about huge probabilities that they will be human beings. So if you take a fetus that would have become a fully grown human being, and you kill it, are you still killing the fetus, or the person he would become?
*Edit* About the "let the woman decide thing" makes about as much sense as letting black people kill white people because they have been oppressed a couple centuries ago. You can't justify murder like that. */Edit*
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 18 2004, 09:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 18 2004, 09:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My point exactly. Pro-Lifer's see wrong as wrong. Killing= the loose. Enough of this relativistic morals crap.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes you're right, I mean minor birth defects like the brain developing outside of the skull shouldn't influence your thinking at all. You should rather just let the fetus die naturally, because your high-horse doesn't balk for anything, eh Pepe ?
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 19 2004, 06:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 19 2004, 06:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 18 2004, 09:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 18 2004, 09:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My point exactly. Pro-Lifer's see wrong as wrong. Killing= the loose. Enough of this relativistic morals crap.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes you're right, I mean minor birth defects like the brain developing outside of the skull shouldn't influence your thinking at all. You should rather just let the fetus die naturally, because your high-horse doesn't balk for anything, eh Pepe ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Pro-Life approaches it as a doctor should approach it, the most important thing is the preservation of life. You cannot survive with a brain existing outside the body, so you are dead either way. We wouldnt mind there, so long as the least painful method was chosen and there was a 0% possibility of survival. But that isnt your average abortion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And Legionnaired I think thats the most narrow-minded thing I've heard in a while, to say the only thing should matter to an atheist is death. I'm an atheist and have no thought on the subject of death, it is far from the only thing that matters, and actually matters very little. I live life for the here and now, making sure me and my fiancee are happy and that we have enough money to get by. I don't think about my death and how it will be the "ultimate end" to everything I'll ever set out to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misunderstood him - he was showing you the rational conclusion of your own beliefs. Just because you choose to take the "hands over ears, eyes firmly shut" approach doesn't make Legionaired closedminded, it just makes you wilfully ignorant and living in denial. The only way you can get by is by pretending your end isnt coming. The people nuke touches in this life will die one day. And the people they touched will die, and everyone ever associated with him will die. Nothing he did will have an effect on anything, nor be remembered by anyone. At that point, he may as well have never existed. Thats a horrible thing to have to believe - or in Kesters position, to have to ignore.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 18 2004, 01:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 18 2004, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is how I like to frame the question. If you are going to be pro-choice, you have to make a logical decision as to exactly "when" a foetus becomes a human. Unfortunatly, none of you can seem to do that.[/quote]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for those who believe that death is the end - her is a challenge. Explain to me how you can condemn murder as "wrong", support abortion, and be concerned about making the world a better place when death is the end, and were all going to get there anyway. If death is the fate for all, then why does quality of life matter? You can't take anything with you, there is no memory, no gain or loss in what is done here on earth. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
I'm not trying to be mean or disrespectful - I just don't understand the logic. Show me the rationalle.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My point is that pro-choice has nothing to do with when the foetus can be classified as human, whats matters is that the mothers life comes before the baby's. Thanks for ignoring my point.
Secondly, I do believe that death is the end and I see it in completely the opposite way. This is the only life you've got so you have to make the most of it and take responsibility for your actions, respect the fact that everyone else has the same limited life span as you and we all deserve to enjoy it.
But if there were an afterlife then why care about this one? Why worry about a few miserable years when straight afterwards you will be literally living in heaven where you have no cares or worries, where everyone is happy etc. An afterlife makes this life like the adverts at the cinema, there might be the odd few seconds worth paying attention to but you may as well just sit back, chat to your mates and wait for the main feature to start.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Pro-Life approaches it as a doctor should approach it, the most important thing is the preservation of life. You cannot survive with a brain existing outside the body, so you are dead either way. We wouldnt mind there, so long as the least painful method was chosen and there was a 0% possibility of survival. But that isnt your average abortion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As was said earlier, a kid with leukemia is going to die, in fact we are all going to die in the end, that is definitely a possibility of 0% survival. If you believe so strongly in the sanctity of life then you should let the child with its brain hanging out be born and let it die naturally. At least that way its gets a tiny bit more of that precious life you keep going on about. Or does that not count as a life anymore? Even though it must be having the same kind of experience in the womb as all the other foetus'.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited October 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 19 2004, 09:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 19 2004, 09:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only way you can get by is by pretending your end isnt coming.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone does this. Aetheists try not to dwell on their inevitable end. The faithful say it isn't going to happen to them. But if you want an emotive way of expressing a truth:
<i>True believers get by thinking that a magical man/woman/bling wearing elephant/worm/deity of choice exists and will ensure some kind of fuzzily defined eternal existance, because somehow this same omnipotent, omniscient being cares about them on a personal basis.</i>
Emotive language.
The issue here is largely a emotional one, not a scientific or logical one, which is why such emotive terms are used. Given that most anti-abortionists use bleach and fly swatters, their stance on "right to life" should actually be rephrased as "right to human life". They are not pro-life, they are pro-foetus.
A gamete is just as much a "potential human" as a bundle of undifferentiated cells. They are simply at different stages of development. Both require outside assistance to prosper. A foetus can no more survive without massive quantities of proteins, minerals and carbohydrates (to name a few) than a sperm will survive without a womb and an egg.
From the perspective of "developmental potential" an ape or even phytoplankton has the potential to become a sentient being similiar to a human. The only way I can see of justifying the special status of a bundle of cells that may become a human is by imbuing them with a soul.
If that's the case, does this mean that a woman's uterus is a place of religious significance? Or am I commiting mass murder every time I engage in one handed surfing?
Or does it simply mean that the distinction between the two stances is not based on real, measurable, scientific facts and is simply a difference between science and belief?
I believe the latter is the case and that as such, pro-life is an appropriate title for people who are anti-abortion. As the stance of pro-life is based around an emotional response, it is suitable for people who espouse such a view to use emotional terminology.
The whole point I am making here is that the debate is about how someone feels, not what the facts are. As a consequence, it is impossible to remove emotive language from the discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Oct 19 2004, 06:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Oct 19 2004, 06:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 19 2004, 09:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 19 2004, 09:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only way you can get by is by pretending your end isnt coming.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone does this. Aetheists try not to dwell on their inevitable end. The faithful say it isn't going to happen to them. But if you want an emotive way of expressing a truth:
<i>True believers get by thinking that a magical man/woman/bling wearing elephant/worm/deity of choice exists and will ensure some kind of fuzzily defined eternal existance, because somehow this same omnipotent, omniscient being cares about them on a personal basis.</i>
Emotive language.
The issue here is largely a emotional one, not a scientific or logical one, which is why such emotive terms are used. Given that most anti-abortionists use bleach and fly swatters, their stance on "right to life" should actually be rephrased as "right to human life". They are not pro-life, they are pro-foetus. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> whoa whoa whoa. hold on a minute there, <i>what are you talking about?</i> not logical? w-t-f. so you're saying that it's not logical that if a fetus is a human child, then abortion is murder and therefore morally, legally, and in every possible way reprehensible? The only people who use emotive arguments here are people who appeal to the "poor mother" scenario and try to evoke compassion for recklessness and irresponsibility.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A gamete is just as much a "potential human" as a bundle of undifferentiated cells. They are simply at different stages of development. Both require outside assistance to prosper. A foetus can no more survive without massive quantities of proteins, minerals and carbohydrates (to name a few) than a sperm will survive without a womb and an egg.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And no more than you can survive yourself without the same. Except you can provide for yourself, whereas the fetus cannot. Which means that we have a responsibility to protect it. Nem0 thinks that a state should be judged by how it treats its weakest members; I argue that this is not the socially and economically downtrodden but rather those in the womb.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From the perspective of "developmental potential" an ape or even phytoplankton has the potential to become a sentient being similiar to a human. The only way I can see of justifying the special status of a bundle of cells that may become a human is by imbuing them with a soul. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what the? really, apes and phytoplankton have just about 0% chance to become human. if they have such a chance, why don't we see spontaneously forming babies in the jungles and the oceans? right, because <b>it doesn't happen</b>. yet another ridiculous argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If that's the case, does this mean that a woman's uterus is a place of religious significance? Or am I commiting mass murder every time I engage in one handed surfing?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> wow, massive non-sequitur. going from zygote to gamete may be a logical step for you, but here's the difference - once you conceive, what you abort is no longer totally yours. unless women produce sperm, in which case i am seriously mistaken and will now proceed to go cry in a corner.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Or does it simply mean that the distinction between the two stances is not based on real, measurable, scientific facts and is simply a difference between science and belief? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> nice try, no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The whole point I am making here is that the debate is about how someone feels, not what the facts are. As a consequence, it is impossible to remove emotive language from the discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
um? emotive language doesn't need to be. Only arguments based on emotion.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited October 2004
Split my post up into smaller parts. That way you can make an unrelated remark about every single word. Your commentary is one of the finest pieces of conversational terrorism I've seen in ages.
Unfortunately, since your post is split up into individual parts, it makes most sense to respond in the same way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->whoa whoa whoa. hold on a minute there, what are you talking about? not logical? w-t-f. so you're saying that it's not logical that if a fetus is a human child, then abortion is murder and therefore morally, legally, and in every possible way reprehensible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say any of that. <b>You</b> said that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only people who use emotive arguments here are people who appeal to the "poor mother" scenario and try to evoke compassion for recklessness and irresponsibility.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is patently untrue and provable by looking through the thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And no more than you can survive yourself without the same. Except you can provide for yourself, whereas the fetus cannot. Which means that we have a responsibility to protect it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no link between the fetus's inability to protect itself and us having any responsibility to do it. That's your belief, not an inescapable fact. If you wish to cache your beliefs in such a way, there is no grounds for exchange for us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->what the? really, apes and phytoplankton have just about 0% chance to become human. if they have such a chance, why don't we see spontaneously forming babies in the jungles and the oceans? right, because it doesn't happen. yet another ridiculous argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it that you live in Arkansas and thus reject the concept of evolution? This type of rhetoric was used to try science teachers almost one hundred years ago. Your derision might impress your peers, but it isn't convincing me of the fallacies in my argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->wow, massive non-sequitur. going from zygote to gamete may be a logical step for you, but here's the difference - once you conceive, what you abort is no longer totally yours. unless women produce sperm, in which case i am seriously mistaken and will now proceed to go cry in a corner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological material that belongs to the father in a developing foetus is negligible by mass. But if you still feel it is relevant, then all you have argued for is that men should have a say in what happens to a foetus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->um? emotive language doesn't need to be. Only arguments based on emotion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like you to expand on this point, if only for my edification.
...well, i did my best to split your post up according to separate thoughts. maybe you should propose a different way for me to reply, instead of saying "omg ur stoopid way to misinterpret my post dur hur hur split it up even mor so i ken laugh at u"
:massive rolleyes:
*edit*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't say any of that. You said that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only people who use emotive arguments here are people who appeal to the "poor mother" scenario and try to evoke compassion for recklessness and irresponsibility.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is patently untrue and provable by looking through the thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And no more than you can survive yourself without the same. Except you can provide for yourself, whereas the fetus cannot. Which means that we have a responsibility to protect it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no link between the fetus's inability to protect itself and us having any responsibility to do it. That's your belief, not an inescapable fact. If you wish to cache your beliefs in such a way, there is no grounds for exchange for us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> what the? really, apes and phytoplankton have just about 0% chance to become human. if they have such a chance, why don't we see spontaneously forming babies in the jungles and the oceans? right, because it doesn't happen. yet another ridiculous argument. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it that you live in Arkansas and thus reject the concept of evolution? This type of rhetoric was used to try science teachers almost one hundred years ago. Your derision might impress your peers, but it isn't convincing me of the fallacies in my argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wow, massive non-sequitur. going from zygote to gamete may be a logical step for you, but here's the difference - once you conceive, what you abort is no longer totally yours. unless women produce sperm, in which case i am seriously mistaken and will now proceed to go cry in a corner. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological material that belongs to the father in a developing foetus is negligible by mass. But if you still feel it is relevant, then all you have argued for is that men should have a say in what happens to a foetus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> um? emotive language doesn't need to be. Only arguments based on emotion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like you to expand on this point, if only for my edification. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
alright i'll try a new format, since you didn't like the previous one.
1) Did you, or did you not, on October 19 2004 at 6:12 AM, post the following? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The issue here is largely a emotive one, not a scientific or logical one<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2) do you mean that there is no link between individual means and the responsibility of the state to supply those means? how would you defend welfare systems, or prison systems, or military spending, in that case? especially when the state's given responsibilities are to provide some measure of security for the individuals that give it license?
3) nice try on the attempt to pin me up as a blind creationist who doesn't acknowledge evolution. But what you suggested was that somehow magically DNA would be able to leap over several million (or hundred million, in the case of phytoplankton) years of evolution, if that is indeed what happened, and produce a human child. To me that is ridiculous and just shows to what lengths you need to go to rationalize abortion.
4) The biological matter that constitutes you is almost 0% from your mother by the time you read this. Does this mean that you support "relationships" defined by molecular content? Cause if so, I'd be more related to roast beef (yum!) than anything else.
*edit* 5) Emotional arguments are fine, but arguments that only work because they appeal to emotions are not. The discussion forum rules specifically state
"3.: Try to stay rational. Nobody wishes to forbid you your personal opinion, but unless it is grounded on rational thought, as opposed to emotional reactions, it can't be seriously discussed. You can tell people that you "dislike the Republicans/Democrats because I hate Bushs/Clintons accent.", but it's not exactely possible to form argumentations around such a claim. Stating that you "dislike the Republicans/Democrats because I can't agree with their tax policy." would be a little better."
which is why I try to keep from religious arguments in threads except when they are asked for. However, I think we can all agree that murder is a crime and morally reprehensible in any religion or non-religion.
So basically, in the end the debate comes down to whether or not the fetus is a child.
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Oct 19 2004, 06:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Oct 19 2004, 06:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Your commentary is one of the finest pieces of conversational terrorism I've seen in ages. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> sorry about the doublepost, but thanks.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Oct 14 2004, 08:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Oct 14 2004, 08:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As long as you don't use the word "pro-choice". So what am I? Anti-choice?
I don't believe in this crap about women's choices. They don't even give another organism inside them a chance. Now, I believe it's ok under certain condition (Eg. Both the baby and the mother will not survive if they continue, hence, abortion is needed), but abusing medical advancement because of their reckless behavior, I don't believe in. Victim of rape? Yes, the rapist should be shot in the head. But I believe everyone should be given a chance to live, no matter how slim, even the child of a rapist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bravo my sentiments exactly.
You pro-choice guys say that pro-life guys ONLY care about human life. So I'll be the first to openly admit that we CARE about preserving human life. You make it seem so horrible that animals on the contrary, might be mistreated and we wouldn't care. Hello? Anybody see the irony here? Caring about animals and animal fetuses, but thinking we're crazy for preserving human life?
All I've heard are rebuttles to pro-life attacks. You tell me why we should abort fetuses. Aside from fetuses that will die anyway or rape cases, tell me a legitimate reason why any woman that has a baby has a right to abort that baby purely by choice. Ignoring for a second the case where aborting a fetus would preserve the mother's life. I want a good reason.
I'm not looking for a case specific response. We're dealing with a general case where any woman can abort a fetus, so your reason for allowing abortions should cover every single case. Can you do this without sounding conceited?
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
This isn't meant to be a thread about whether abortion is right or not, but whether the terms used in the debate are appropriate.
And now, to disregard that fact...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I've heard are rebuttles to pro-life attacks. You tell me why we should abort fetuses. Aside from fetuses that will die anyway or rape cases, tell me a legitimate reason why any woman that has a baby has a right to abort that baby purely by choice. Ignoring for a second the case where aborting a fetus would preserve the mother's life. I want a good reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because we feel like it? Because foetuses taste good on toast?
The point here is that only pro-lifers see anything wrong with abortion. Pro-lifers take the general stance of what someone is doing is <b>wrong</b>. That is a moral stance.
You cannot argue with a moral stance unless it is based on specific principles. <i>If</i> it is based on principles, you can debate how those principles apply in the cited instance. The main principle that is "violated" by abortion is that it is wrong to murder someone. However, that then leads on to the quite different issue of what constitutes a human being.
Pro-choice advocates do not see a foetus as a human being. Consequently, removing the cellular growth from a woman's uterus is not commiting murder.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 19 2004, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 19 2004, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...well, i did my best to split your post up according to separate thoughts. maybe you should propose a different way for me to reply, instead of saying "omg ur stoopid way to misinterpret my post dur hur hur split it up even mor so i ken laugh at u"
:massive rolleyes:
*edit*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't say any of that. You said that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only people who use emotive arguments here are people who appeal to the "poor mother" scenario and try to evoke compassion for recklessness and irresponsibility.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is patently untrue and provable by looking through the thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And no more than you can survive yourself without the same. Except you can provide for yourself, whereas the fetus cannot. Which means that we have a responsibility to protect it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no link between the fetus's inability to protect itself and us having any responsibility to do it. That's your belief, not an inescapable fact. If you wish to cache your beliefs in such a way, there is no grounds for exchange for us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> what the? really, apes and phytoplankton have just about 0% chance to become human. if they have such a chance, why don't we see spontaneously forming babies in the jungles and the oceans? right, because it doesn't happen. yet another ridiculous argument. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it that you live in Arkansas and thus reject the concept of evolution? This type of rhetoric was used to try science teachers almost one hundred years ago. Your derision might impress your peers, but it isn't convincing me of the fallacies in my argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wow, massive non-sequitur. going from zygote to gamete may be a logical step for you, but here's the difference - once you conceive, what you abort is no longer totally yours. unless women produce sperm, in which case i am seriously mistaken and will now proceed to go cry in a corner. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological material that belongs to the father in a developing foetus is negligible by mass. But if you still feel it is relevant, then all you have argued for is that men should have a say in what happens to a foetus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> um? emotive language doesn't need to be. Only arguments based on emotion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like you to expand on this point, if only for my edification. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
alright i'll try a new format, since you didn't like the previous one.
1) Did you, or did you not, on October 19 2004 at 6:12 AM, post the following? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The issue here is largely a emotive one, not a scientific or logical one<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2) do you mean that there is no link between individual means and the responsibility of the state to supply those means? how would you defend welfare systems, or prison systems, or military spending, in that case? especially when the state's given responsibilities are to provide some measure of security for the individuals that give it license?
3) nice try on the attempt to pin me up as a blind creationist who doesn't acknowledge evolution. But what you suggested was that somehow magically DNA would be able to leap over several million (or hundred million, in the case of phytoplankton) years of evolution, if that is indeed what happened, and produce a human child. To me that is ridiculous and just shows to what lengths you need to go to rationalize abortion.
4) The biological matter that constitutes you is almost 0% from your mother by the time you read this. Does this mean that you support "relationships" defined by molecular content? Cause if so, I'd be more related to roast beef (yum!) than anything else.
*edit* 5) Emotional arguments are fine, but arguments that only work because they appeal to emotions are not. The discussion forum rules specifically state
"3.: Try to stay rational. Nobody wishes to forbid you your personal opinion, but unless it is grounded on rational thought, as opposed to emotional reactions, it can't be seriously discussed. You can tell people that you "dislike the Republicans/Democrats because I hate Bushs/Clintons accent.", but it's not exactely possible to form argumentations around such a claim. Stating that you "dislike the Republicans/Democrats because I can't agree with their tax policy." would be a little better."
which is why I try to keep from religious arguments in threads except when they are asked for. However, I think we can all agree that murder is a crime and morally reprehensible in any religion or non-religion.
So basically, in the end the debate comes down to whether or not the fetus is a child. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't debate your partisan inferrals. Stick to the facts of my post.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 18 2004, 04:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 18 2004, 04:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]Pro-Choicer's like to appear as though they are "looking out for the woman", they have her interests in mind. I think it is about the money.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, this is where it gets personal. I was out of this conversation, for good I thought, but since nobody else is apparently taking issue with this statement, I have to:
I'm sorry, but you offend me. I am a man. Some would laugh and mock me for saying this, but I can unzip my pants to prove this. And no, I won't, so stop drooling. Where was I? Oh yes, man. I am a man. Since this is a gaming forum, I believe that I am only one amongst many men in this discussion. Furthermore, I believe many of those on MY side of this discussion are men. Now, abortion doctors are a minority. Don't ask me for percentages, you know I don't have them, and I believe that neither do you. But I believe that abortion doctors are significantly less than, say, one percent of the populaton. Now, I'm inclined to say that this percentage is so small that it hardly matters for this discussion.
So I and many of those of the same opinion as me are men who have nothing to gain from abortion. If the child is aborted, we don't get any money from it. If it is NOT aborted, it's her problem. Hell, **** 'em then chuck 'em. Let THEM worry about the child. Not my problem, right? If I thought only about myself, I would not care about abortion at all, since it doesn't concern me. So, what can my motivation be for supporting abortion? Could it be concern for my fellow man? Could it be that I'm worried that a fourteen-year old is not emotionally, or indeed physically ready for a baby? Could it be that I don't want the kid to grow up without a mother that loves it, a mother who wanted the child she had? No, this is pure egoism on my part. No wait, I have fallen for corporate propaganda. These thoughts in my brain are not mine at all. Now excuse me while I set fire to a puppy, because burning puppies are fun. That was not my idea by the way, "the industry" told me.
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>And now, Dr. Med. Murd. A.B. Ortion, can I finally have the money you promised for supporting child murd... I mean abortion?</span>
Comments
Like I've said to Hawkeye, I haven't once said my stance on the situation so please don't pretend I have, or decide how I think. I said I think its sad that you think abortion is killing entire generations. Because abortion happens in such a small % of pregnancys I fail to see how anyone could think this is "killing entire generations". The sadness falls less on the subject, but more on the way someone can think that.
To kill is to deprive someone of life. We deprive animals of life because we are superior, but we do not do so to other humans and feel good about ourselves. "The truest test of a civilised society is how it treats its weakest member" - it doesnt get any weaker here, completely dependant upon the mother for food and shelter, cant fight back when you go to kill it, with the entire debate on its right to exist hinging on "does the mother want it".
We were all there in the womb, and we all survived because our mother's didnt take up the option that is being advocated here. I dont care whether you take my life in the womb, or out in the world, I've still lost it. In our society, it used to be that the younger you were, the more people looked after you - women and children first. Guess not any more
Sperm and eggs are entirely separate matter to "potential human life". They contain identical DNA to their parents, so they are not a different form of human life. Our body destroys millions of cells every day, and we dont complain because they are our bodies cells. Sperm and eggs are our bodies cells. A zygote has completely different DNA - therefore its a different person. Also, a zygote on its own in a womans uterus will turn into a human, a sperm cell or an egg cell on its own in a womans uterus will do nothing.
Kester: Now might be the time to verbalise your position on things - heaps of people have an opinion but refuse to say it because they dont like other people going after the flaws in their overall position, prefering rather to just present specifics they dont think anyone can argue against.
Once you've done all that elaborate on you post. You will notice almost all the post in this thread go into detail and are not one line comment. I'm sorry if this sounds a little harsh but your just repeating things that have already been said in the worst possible way.
Also we're talking about a very sensitive subject can we try and keep the maturity level up and leave out the emoticons of a rine shooting a hive, anyone else see that in the same way I do?
I totally agree. In fact, I propose a solution that would solve the world's hunger problems.
These fetuses... we let them be birthed. Now wait just a moment Hawkeye, you just said you agreed. I do agree in fact. Let me finish.
We let them be birthed, and instead of costing the mother resources to raise these children, we take them to a farm as a new form of food production. The cost would be minimal. We could pin them up and feed them hay. The parents of course get a percentage of the profits in order to not discourage this type of behavior.
The females could be hooked to pumps for breast milk for legitimate non-abortion babies that could be bought at the supermarket. When they get too old, they can be slaughtered and sold for meat.
The men would have to be castrated though, because otherwise they would reproduce in an uncontrolled fashion. Their meat would also be too hard to consume.
Since these "abortions" happen all the time, we're talking about millions of unaborted men, women, and children growing on farms providing millions of others with food.
There's the minor issue of "murder," but you don't have to worry about that seeing how they come from fetuses that were meant to be aborted anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an interesting idea Hawkeye, however the argument is flawed. Not because of your opinion on abortions, but because of your opinion on time. You see a fetus as a human, fully grown, full thinking, and having complete life experience. However thats not true. No one will deny the fact that if a fetus is allowed to develop it will have all of those things, but right now, at this moment the fetus has none of these things.
This is one of the many places that our ideologies differ. You say that <b>when</b> a fetus is allowed to grow up it will have experienced all of these things. You talk of a fetus as a living breathing part of society that is fully capable of a thought process and has experiences to base his thoughts in. All (at least all arguments I've seen) Pro-Life arguments all back on the simple fact that if something is living is has already lived and that if we kill it now we are denying it of the experiences that it has already lived and the living part of it will feel sad about it. Because your killing something that already has feelings and therefore killing a fetus is a crime.
However I see things a little differently. I see a fetus as the <b>potential</b> to become a human being with those emotions and thought processes. However, as of now is see a fetus as little more than a couple cells. If we kill this fetus now that fetus will never even realize that its alive, let alone have the ability for feeling sorry about its death. To it, because at the moment it lacks the ability to think about its death, its death means nothing.
To explain this view a little better let me use Hawkeye's example. If we kill the fetus while its still in the womb it will never have experienced anything. It will not have touched anyones life. Therefore it does not exist as a human, merely as something with the potential to become human. However as soon as its born and we put it to work in this farm it becomes human and develops a thought process and feelings. At that point it starts to become he human he had the potential to become in the womb and it is a crime to kill it.
This is one of the many places that our ideologies differ. You say that <b>when</b> a fetus is allowed to grow up it will have experienced all of these things. You talk of a fetus as a living breathing part of society that is fully capable of a thought process and has experiences to base his thoughts in. All (at least all arguments I've seen) Pro-Life arguments all back on the simple fact that if something is living is has already lived and that if we kill it now we are denying it of the experiences that it has already lived and the living part of it will feel sad about it. Because your killing something that already has feelings and therefore killing a fetus is a crime.
However I see things a little differently. I see a fetus as the <b>potential</b> to become a human being with those emotions and thought processes. However, as of now is see a fetus as little more than a couple cells. If we kill this fetus now that fetus will never even realize that its alive, let alone have the ability for feeling sorry about its death. To it, because at the moment it lacks the ability to think about its death, its death means nothing.
To explain this view a little better let me use Hawkeye's example. If we kill the fetus while its still in the womb it will never have experienced anything. It will not have touched anyones life. Therefore it does not exist as a human, merely as something with the potential to become human. However as soon as its born and we put it to work in this farm it becomes human and develops a thought process and feelings. At that point it starts to become he human he had the potential to become in the womb and it is a crime to kill it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In that case, women and children first should be a thing on the past. Killing a child should be less of an offence as killing an adult.
I dont care about people feeling sad about dying. That's not what makes the killing wrong. Its the deprivation of life - abortion does the same thing as killing an adult, thats one that wont ever get to live again.
Whats worse? Breaking a mans legs before he starts running, or just before he crosses the finish line? According to an abortionist, just before he crosses the finish line, because for a second there he was actually racing and thought he could win. For an anti-abortionist, leg breaking is friggen NOT cool and as such we dont think it should be done at all. But here is where an abortionist comes into his/her own - its not malicious leg breaking, its a "temporary bone structure realignment" - its "would you REALLY want to put the runner through all that effort of running" - "wouldnt it be kinder to simply prevent the chance of him losing, and realign his leg before the race".
In the same way, killing a fetus to prevent it becoming a human is nothing more than a word shuffle for most abortionists. My friend has a younger brother because her mother decided not to abort, despite planning to. The joy this child has brought to her family prompted a complete rethink of her pro-abortion stance - she could not have condoned any action that would have lead to her brother not existing. Everyone deserves a chance at life - you kill a fetus, and the person it would have developed into is denied life.
Marine01, you misunderstand my ideas on death. Because this discussion is about what constitutes murder, and therefore what constitutes death, I feel it would be worth to talk about. I have no experience from a religious view point so therefore I'm not going to try and talk about that. However, from a atheist view point (or at least mine) death doesn't mater. From my view point death is the end, there is nothing that comes after it. I don't think, I don't feel. If I were to die five minutes after I wrote this it wouldn't mater to me. I wouldn't care, all that would mater is the way people felt about me. My life would be remembered by the works I did and the people that I toutched during my time on this earth
This ties into abortion because a fetus, although human has had no chance to communicate with other humans and therefore has had no chance to affect someone else's life. Because of this his death doesn't mater. As for your statement about killing kids being less of a crime than killing adults the argument is invalid because even though kids have had less of a chance to communicate with other people they have still had a chance to communicate with them. This makes them living in the eyes of humanity. Because life is scared they should not be killed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whats worse? Breaking a mans legs before he starts running, or just before he crosses the finish line? According to an abortionist, just before he crosses the finish line, because for a second there he was actually racing and thought he could win. For an anti-abortionist, leg breaking is friggen NOT cool and as such we don't think it should be done at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This analogy is invalid because your imposing feelings on something that has none yet. A runner would anticipate the race and therefore it crule to brake his legs before or during the race. However a fetus has no ability for a thought complex, if it even has thoughts. It doesn't realize what happens to it. I guess the best response is that the runner analogy would have to be if he had his legs broken before he even knew he was eligible for the race didn't realize that he ever had is legs broken.
Marine01, you misunderstand my ideas on death. Because this discussion is about what constitutes murder, and therefore what constitutes death, I feel it would be worth to talk about. I have no experience from a religious view point so therefore I'm not going to try and talk about that. However, from a atheist view point (or at least mine) death doesn't mater. From my view point death is the end, there is nothing that comes after it. I don't think, I don't feel. If I were to die five minutes after I wrote this it wouldn't mater to me. I wouldn't care, all that would mater is the way people felt about me. My life would be remembered by the works I did and the people that I toutched during my time on this earth <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like you skipped a few logical steps there, Nuke. If you're an atheist, death should be the ONLY thing that matters, it will be the ultimate end to everything you will ever set out to do. It's all nice to think about you being remembered, but you're not going to be around to see it. It doesn't matter. Eat your dog, rape your sister, and kill your parents, and in the long run, you won't be any worse off then the policeman who jumps in front of a bullet for an innocent.
If death is the end of all, then why not let as many people get as much life in as possible? Because it would mean we'd have to work harder to ensure their protection?
Marine01, you misunderstand my ideas on death. Because this discussion is about what constitutes murder, and therefore what constitutes death, I feel it would be worth to talk about. I have no experience from a religious view point so therefore I'm not going to try and talk about that. However, from a atheist view point (or at least mine) death doesn't mater. From my view point death is the end, there is nothing that comes after it. I don't think, I don't feel. If I were to die five minutes after I wrote this it wouldn't mater to me. I wouldn't care, all that would mater is the way people felt about me. My life would be remembered by the works I did and the people that I toutched during my time on this earth <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like you skipped a few logical steps there, Nuke. If you're an atheist, death should be the ONLY thing that matters, it will be the ultimate end to everything you will ever set out to do. It's all nice to think about you being remembered, but you're not going to be around to see it. It doesn't matter. Eat your dog, rape your sister, and kill your parents, and in the long run, you won't be any worse off then the policeman who jumps in front of a bullet for an innocent.
If death is the end of all, then why not let as many people get as much life in as possible? Because it would mean we'd have to work harder to ensure their protection? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for assuming that, to an athiest, life matters in the least.
And Legionnaired I think thats the most narrow-minded thing I've heard in a while, to say the only thing should matter to an atheist is death. I'm an atheist and have no thought on the subject of death, it is far from the only thing that matters, and actually matters very little. I live life for the here and now, making sure me and my fiancee are happy and that we have enough money to get by. I don't think about my death and how it will be the "ultimate end" to everything I'll ever set out to do.
As for the race analogy? Abortion isn't like breaking their legs before the race, its like taking down all the promotional posters so that the potential racer would never even find out about the race (and bear in mind that in this particular race the competitor would probably be the equivalent of an asthmatic with a weight problem and one leg shorter that the other and the other racers would all be olympic athletes!).
As always, some people die for others to live, I'm not saying that is a good thing but it is necessary. I'd far prefer that 16yr old rape victim (or even that 16yr old bimbo that'll jump on anyone for a drink or two) to become the doctor or lawyer she wanted to be and then become a parent in the future when she is capable of being a decent parent.
I'm quite surprised none of the more religious people have mentioned the idea of souls yet, glad of it though, makes things simpler.
I wen't back and read all the posts I missed - trying to play catchup.
This is how I like to frame the question. If you are going to be pro-choice, you have to make a logical decision as to exactly "when" a foetus becomes a human. Unfortunatly, none of you can seem to do that.
Nuke seems to think that "communication" is the key - the first cry of a new-born. Others seem to think that it is when the "potential" to be human becomes a reality (I assume somewhere in the 3rd trimester when a kid can survive outside the womb.) Still others say when it can feel pain, has brain waves, when it "looks" normal...
I am going to put it to you all that these are arbitrary. There are grown people to whom some of these do not apply, yet we extend rights to them with no problems.
See, this is easy for pro-lifers. There is no symantics involved in "conception", no grey areas. Just pure understanding that if you leave the kid alone, he will grow into a person like you and me.
So there you have it - my definition of murder concerning abortion is to "actively do something to end unique life". There is no arbitrary time limit, no conditions that must be met, no feelings, no potential/reality crap, no need to communicate. All that is bogus and aimed at creating loopholes so that "want" becomes a deciding factor.
As for those who believe that death is the end - her is a challenge. Explain to me how you can condemn murder as "wrong", support abortion, and be concerned about making the world a better place when death is the end, and were all going to get there anyway. If death is the fate for all, then why does quality of life matter? You can't take anything with you, there is no memory, no gain or loss in what is done here on earth. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
I'm not trying to be mean or disrespectful - I just don't understand the logic. Show me the rationalle.
Because i would rather enjoy what time we have here then abusing it.
On another level thats like saying NS won't be around for ever and people will forget about it, so why don't I cheat? I know that I don't cheat because I like to play within the rules, it makes it a better experience and the same goes for life . It doesn't matter if it all ends and I take no memories, while I'm here I'll enjoy it and keep within the boundaries set by our society.
And that is why that stance is a very easy stance to take, "its wrong because it is" is basically the arguement pro-lifers have, whereas the pro-choice side of the arguement its much harder and they take more of a view saying, yes its not an easy desicion to make, but sometimes it is actually in the best interest of the involved parties. They're not saying that killing an embryo or foetus is right, but there not saying its totally wrong either and when certain circumstances arise maybe this would be the best option.
To be honest the pro-life side takes very little thought.
Some 16 year old sleeps with her boyfriend, gets pregnent, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for her? She made a choice, fully knowing the concequences of that choice. Killing a baby doesn't make it right.
Heck, I'll even take on the rape issue. Look, I'm sorry that you (hypothetical woman) got raped. I hope whoever did it drops the soap in jail. Does that justify taking a life? Granted, I wound't expect you to take care of the child - but let it live, give it up for adoption. I'll take it - just let it live. Put up with 9 months of discomfort. Someone was horrible to you and abused you, please don't reciprocate that action to this child.
Life has a whole lot less grey than what most people make it out to have. Grey areas are usually an excuse to be selfish, as is the case with all these abortion scenerios.
Pro-Choicer's like to appear as though they are "looking out for the woman", they have her interests in mind. I think it is about the money. It is a huge industry based on poor choices - $100 and all your problems with disappear. In order for that ruse to work, they have to take the truth out of it - it isn't a person, it is a feotus, it is a clump of cells, it only has "potential" to be a person, it can't communicate. Have a baby when your ready, those mean pro-lifer's - they don't care about you, we care about you. It's your body, you can do what you want with it - after all, that feotus wouldn't survive without you. Besides, your too young to be a mom, who is going to take care of it? Common, $100 and you won't ever have to think about it agian. Doctor recommended!
It makes me sick.
You hit the nail on the head with that one. It is easy to be a pro-lifer because there is no grey area to deal with. It is far more intuitive than to say "well 3 months.. no no.. 4 months and he's alive."
And let me clarify something here. It isn't that we believe that a fetus is a full grown person. I'm not sure if you are saying that to show how absurd we are for being pro-lifers or because you really believe it. Let me assure you though in any case, that we know what a fetus is. However, we also know that a fetus has good chance of growing up to being a human. The probability of success does not dominate whether or not we should kill a fetus.
If that were the case, then perhaps we should kill all children with leukemia because they are terminally ill and have very little chance of making it. It would be less painful for the children, and they *probably* wouldn't make it anyway. Why don't we? Well for one thing, that's horribly cruel. And secondly, there is a chance they'd pull through however small.
We're not even talking about minor probabilities with fetuses anyway. We're talking about huge probabilities that they will be human beings. So if you take a fetus that would have become a fully grown human being, and you kill it, are you still killing the fetus, or the person he would become?
*Edit* About the "let the woman decide thing" makes about as much sense as letting black people kill white people because they have been oppressed a couple centuries ago. You can't justify murder like that. */Edit*
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes you're right, I mean minor birth defects like the brain developing outside of the skull shouldn't influence your thinking at all. You should rather just let the fetus die naturally, because your high-horse doesn't balk for anything, eh Pepe ?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes you're right, I mean minor birth defects like the brain developing outside of the skull shouldn't influence your thinking at all. You should rather just let the fetus die naturally, because your high-horse doesn't balk for anything, eh Pepe ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pro-Life approaches it as a doctor should approach it, the most important thing is the preservation of life. You cannot survive with a brain existing outside the body, so you are dead either way. We wouldnt mind there, so long as the least painful method was chosen and there was a 0% possibility of survival. But that isnt your average abortion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And Legionnaired I think thats the most narrow-minded thing I've heard in a while, to say the only thing should matter to an atheist is death. I'm an atheist and have no thought on the subject of death, it is far from the only thing that matters, and actually matters very little. I live life for the here and now, making sure me and my fiancee are happy and that we have enough money to get by. I don't think about my death and how it will be the "ultimate end" to everything I'll ever set out to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misunderstood him - he was showing you the rational conclusion of your own beliefs. Just because you choose to take the "hands over ears, eyes firmly shut" approach doesn't make Legionaired closedminded, it just makes you wilfully ignorant and living in denial. The only way you can get by is by pretending your end isnt coming. The people nuke touches in this life will die one day. And the people they touched will die, and everyone ever associated with him will die. Nothing he did will have an effect on anything, nor be remembered by anyone. At that point, he may as well have never existed. Thats a horrible thing to have to believe - or in Kesters position, to have to ignore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for those who believe that death is the end - her is a challenge. Explain to me how you can condemn murder as "wrong", support abortion, and be concerned about making the world a better place when death is the end, and were all going to get there anyway. If death is the fate for all, then why does quality of life matter? You can't take anything with you, there is no memory, no gain or loss in what is done here on earth. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
I'm not trying to be mean or disrespectful - I just don't understand the logic. Show me the rationalle.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point is that pro-choice has nothing to do with when the foetus can be classified as human, whats matters is that the mothers life comes before the baby's. Thanks for ignoring my point.
Secondly, I do believe that death is the end and I see it in completely the opposite way. This is the only life you've got so you have to make the most of it and take responsibility for your actions, respect the fact that everyone else has the same limited life span as you and we all deserve to enjoy it.
But if there were an afterlife then why care about this one? Why worry about a few miserable years when straight afterwards you will be literally living in heaven where you have no cares or worries, where everyone is happy etc. An afterlife makes this life like the adverts at the cinema, there might be the odd few seconds worth paying attention to but you may as well just sit back, chat to your mates and wait for the main feature to start.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Pro-Life approaches it as a doctor should approach it, the most important thing is the preservation of life. You cannot survive with a brain existing outside the body, so you are dead either way. We wouldnt mind there, so long as the least painful method was chosen and there was a 0% possibility of survival. But that isnt your average abortion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As was said earlier, a kid with leukemia is going to die, in fact we are all going to die in the end, that is definitely a possibility of 0% survival. If you believe so strongly in the sanctity of life then you should let the child with its brain hanging out be born and let it die naturally. At least that way its gets a tiny bit more of that precious life you keep going on about. Or does that not count as a life anymore? Even though it must be having the same kind of experience in the womb as all the other foetus'.
Everyone does this. Aetheists try not to dwell on their inevitable end. The faithful say it isn't going to happen to them. But if you want an emotive way of expressing a truth:
<i>True believers get by thinking that a magical man/woman/bling wearing elephant/worm/deity of choice exists and will ensure some kind of fuzzily defined eternal existance, because somehow this same omnipotent, omniscient being cares about them on a personal basis.</i>
Emotive language.
The issue here is largely a emotional one, not a scientific or logical one, which is why such emotive terms are used. Given that most anti-abortionists use bleach and fly swatters, their stance on "right to life" should actually be rephrased as "right to human life". They are not pro-life, they are pro-foetus.
A gamete is just as much a "potential human" as a bundle of undifferentiated cells. They are simply at different stages of development. Both require outside assistance to prosper. A foetus can no more survive without massive quantities of proteins, minerals and carbohydrates (to name a few) than a sperm will survive without a womb and an egg.
From the perspective of "developmental potential" an ape or even phytoplankton has the potential to become a sentient being similiar to a human. The only way I can see of justifying the special status of a bundle of cells that may become a human is by imbuing them with a soul.
If that's the case, does this mean that a woman's uterus is a place of religious significance? Or am I commiting mass murder every time I engage in one handed surfing?
Or does it simply mean that the distinction between the two stances is not based on real, measurable, scientific facts and is simply a difference between science and belief?
I believe the latter is the case and that as such, pro-life is an appropriate title for people who are anti-abortion. As the stance of pro-life is based around an emotional response, it is suitable for people who espouse such a view to use emotional terminology.
The whole point I am making here is that the debate is about how someone feels, not what the facts are. As a consequence, it is impossible to remove emotive language from the discussion.
Everyone does this. Aetheists try not to dwell on their inevitable end. The faithful say it isn't going to happen to them. But if you want an emotive way of expressing a truth:
<i>True believers get by thinking that a magical man/woman/bling wearing elephant/worm/deity of choice exists and will ensure some kind of fuzzily defined eternal existance, because somehow this same omnipotent, omniscient being cares about them on a personal basis.</i>
Emotive language.
The issue here is largely a emotional one, not a scientific or logical one, which is why such emotive terms are used. Given that most anti-abortionists use bleach and fly swatters, their stance on "right to life" should actually be rephrased as "right to human life". They are not pro-life, they are pro-foetus.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
whoa whoa whoa. hold on a minute there, <i>what are you talking about?</i> not logical? w-t-f. so you're saying that it's not logical that if a fetus is a human child, then abortion is murder and therefore morally, legally, and in every possible way reprehensible? The only people who use emotive arguments here are people who appeal to the "poor mother" scenario and try to evoke compassion for recklessness and irresponsibility.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
A gamete is just as much a "potential human" as a bundle of undifferentiated cells. They are simply at different stages of development. Both require outside assistance to prosper. A foetus can no more survive without massive quantities of proteins, minerals and carbohydrates (to name a few) than a sperm will survive without a womb and an egg.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And no more than you can survive yourself without the same. Except you can provide for yourself, whereas the fetus cannot. Which means that we have a responsibility to protect it. Nem0 thinks that a state should be judged by how it treats its weakest members; I argue that this is not the socially and economically downtrodden but rather those in the womb.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
From the perspective of "developmental potential" an ape or even phytoplankton has the potential to become a sentient being similiar to a human. The only way I can see of justifying the special status of a bundle of cells that may become a human is by imbuing them with a soul.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what the? really, apes and phytoplankton have just about 0% chance to become human. if they have such a chance, why don't we see spontaneously forming babies in the jungles and the oceans? right, because <b>it doesn't happen</b>. yet another ridiculous argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
If that's the case, does this mean that a woman's uterus is a place of religious significance? Or am I commiting mass murder every time I engage in one handed surfing?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow, massive non-sequitur. going from zygote to gamete may be a logical step for you, but here's the difference - once you conceive, what you abort is no longer totally yours. unless women produce sperm, in which case i am seriously mistaken and will now proceed to go cry in a corner.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Or does it simply mean that the distinction between the two stances is not based on real, measurable, scientific facts and is simply a difference between science and belief?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nice try, no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The whole point I am making here is that the debate is about how someone feels, not what the facts are. As a consequence, it is impossible to remove emotive language from the discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
um? emotive language doesn't need to be. Only arguments based on emotion.
Unfortunately, since your post is split up into individual parts, it makes most sense to respond in the same way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->whoa whoa whoa. hold on a minute there, what are you talking about? not logical? w-t-f. so you're saying that it's not logical that if a fetus is a human child, then abortion is murder and therefore morally, legally, and in every possible way reprehensible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say any of that. <b>You</b> said that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only people who use emotive arguments here are people who appeal to the "poor mother" scenario and try to evoke compassion for recklessness and irresponsibility.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is patently untrue and provable by looking through the thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And no more than you can survive yourself without the same. Except you can provide for yourself, whereas the fetus cannot. Which means that we have a responsibility to protect it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no link between the fetus's inability to protect itself and us having any responsibility to do it. That's your belief, not an inescapable fact. If you wish to cache your beliefs in such a way, there is no grounds for exchange for us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->what the? really, apes and phytoplankton have just about 0% chance to become human. if they have such a chance, why don't we see spontaneously forming babies in the jungles and the oceans? right, because it doesn't happen. yet another ridiculous argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it that you live in Arkansas and thus reject the concept of evolution? This type of rhetoric was used to try science teachers almost one hundred years ago. Your derision might impress your peers, but it isn't convincing me of the fallacies in my argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->wow, massive non-sequitur. going from zygote to gamete may be a logical step for you, but here's the difference - once you conceive, what you abort is no longer totally yours. unless women produce sperm, in which case i am seriously mistaken and will now proceed to go cry in a corner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological material that belongs to the father in a developing foetus is negligible by mass. But if you still feel it is relevant, then all you have argued for is that men should have a say in what happens to a foetus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->nice try, no.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->um? emotive language doesn't need to be. Only arguments based on emotion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like you to expand on this point, if only for my edification.
:massive rolleyes:
*edit*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't say any of that. You said that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The only people who use emotive arguments here are people who appeal to the "poor mother" scenario and try to evoke compassion for recklessness and irresponsibility.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is patently untrue and provable by looking through the thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And no more than you can survive yourself without the same. Except you can provide for yourself, whereas the fetus cannot. Which means that we have a responsibility to protect it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no link between the fetus's inability to protect itself and us having any responsibility to do it. That's your belief, not an inescapable fact. If you wish to cache your beliefs in such a way, there is no grounds for exchange for us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
what the? really, apes and phytoplankton have just about 0% chance to become human. if they have such a chance, why don't we see spontaneously forming babies in the jungles and the oceans? right, because it doesn't happen. yet another ridiculous argument.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it that you live in Arkansas and thus reject the concept of evolution? This type of rhetoric was used to try science teachers almost one hundred years ago. Your derision might impress your peers, but it isn't convincing me of the fallacies in my argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
wow, massive non-sequitur. going from zygote to gamete may be a logical step for you, but here's the difference - once you conceive, what you abort is no longer totally yours. unless women produce sperm, in which case i am seriously mistaken and will now proceed to go cry in a corner.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological material that belongs to the father in a developing foetus is negligible by mass. But if you still feel it is relevant, then all you have argued for is that men should have a say in what happens to a foetus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
um? emotive language doesn't need to be. Only arguments based on emotion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like you to expand on this point, if only for my edification.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
alright i'll try a new format, since you didn't like the previous one.
1) Did you, or did you not, on October 19 2004 at 6:12 AM, post the following?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The issue here is largely a emotive one, not a scientific or logical one<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2) do you mean that there is no link between individual means and the responsibility of the state to supply those means? how would you defend welfare systems, or prison systems, or military spending, in that case? especially when the state's given responsibilities are to provide some measure of security for the individuals that give it license?
3) nice try on the attempt to pin me up as a blind creationist who doesn't acknowledge evolution. But what you suggested was that somehow magically DNA would be able to leap over several million (or hundred million, in the case of phytoplankton) years of evolution, if that is indeed what happened, and produce a human child. To me that is ridiculous and just shows to what lengths you need to go to rationalize abortion.
4) The biological matter that constitutes you is almost 0% from your mother by the time you read this. Does this mean that you support "relationships" defined by molecular content? Cause if so, I'd be more related to roast beef (yum!) than anything else.
*edit*
5) Emotional arguments are fine, but arguments that only work because they appeal to emotions are not. The discussion forum rules specifically state
"3.: Try to stay rational.
Nobody wishes to forbid you your personal opinion, but unless it is grounded on rational thought, as opposed to emotional reactions, it can't be seriously discussed. You can tell people that you "dislike the Republicans/Democrats because I hate Bushs/Clintons accent.", but it's not exactely possible to form argumentations around such a claim. Stating that you "dislike the Republicans/Democrats because I can't agree with their tax policy." would be a little better."
which is why I try to keep from religious arguments in threads except when they are asked for. However, I think we can all agree that murder is a crime and morally reprehensible in any religion or non-religion.
So basically, in the end the debate comes down to whether or not the fetus is a child.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
sorry about the doublepost, but thanks.
I try.
I don't believe in this crap about women's choices. They don't even give another organism inside them a chance. Now, I believe it's ok under certain condition (Eg. Both the baby and the mother will not survive if they continue, hence, abortion is needed), but abusing medical advancement because of their reckless behavior, I don't believe in.
Victim of rape? Yes, the rapist should be shot in the head. But I believe everyone should be given a chance to live, no matter how slim, even the child of a rapist.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bravo my sentiments exactly.
All I've heard are rebuttles to pro-life attacks. You tell me why we should abort fetuses. Aside from fetuses that will die anyway or rape cases, tell me a legitimate reason why any woman that has a baby has a right to abort that baby purely by choice. Ignoring for a second the case where aborting a fetus would preserve the mother's life. I want a good reason.
I'm not looking for a case specific response. We're dealing with a general case where any woman can abort a fetus, so your reason for allowing abortions should cover every single case. Can you do this without sounding conceited?
And now, to disregard that fact...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I've heard are rebuttles to pro-life attacks. You tell me why we should abort fetuses. Aside from fetuses that will die anyway or rape cases, tell me a legitimate reason why any woman that has a baby has a right to abort that baby purely by choice. Ignoring for a second the case where aborting a fetus would preserve the mother's life. I want a good reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because we feel like it? Because foetuses taste good on toast?
The point here is that only pro-lifers see anything wrong with abortion. Pro-lifers take the general stance of what someone is doing is <b>wrong</b>. That is a moral stance.
You cannot argue with a moral stance unless it is based on specific principles. <i>If</i> it is based on principles, you can debate how those principles apply in the cited instance. The main principle that is "violated" by abortion is that it is wrong to murder someone. However, that then leads on to the quite different issue of what constitutes a human being.
Pro-choice advocates do not see a foetus as a human being. Consequently, removing the cellular growth from a woman's uterus is not commiting murder.
:massive rolleyes:
*edit*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't say any of that. You said that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The only people who use emotive arguments here are people who appeal to the "poor mother" scenario and try to evoke compassion for recklessness and irresponsibility.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is patently untrue and provable by looking through the thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And no more than you can survive yourself without the same. Except you can provide for yourself, whereas the fetus cannot. Which means that we have a responsibility to protect it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no link between the fetus's inability to protect itself and us having any responsibility to do it. That's your belief, not an inescapable fact. If you wish to cache your beliefs in such a way, there is no grounds for exchange for us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
what the? really, apes and phytoplankton have just about 0% chance to become human. if they have such a chance, why don't we see spontaneously forming babies in the jungles and the oceans? right, because it doesn't happen. yet another ridiculous argument.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it that you live in Arkansas and thus reject the concept of evolution? This type of rhetoric was used to try science teachers almost one hundred years ago. Your derision might impress your peers, but it isn't convincing me of the fallacies in my argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
wow, massive non-sequitur. going from zygote to gamete may be a logical step for you, but here's the difference - once you conceive, what you abort is no longer totally yours. unless women produce sperm, in which case i am seriously mistaken and will now proceed to go cry in a corner.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological material that belongs to the father in a developing foetus is negligible by mass. But if you still feel it is relevant, then all you have argued for is that men should have a say in what happens to a foetus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
um? emotive language doesn't need to be. Only arguments based on emotion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like you to expand on this point, if only for my edification.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
alright i'll try a new format, since you didn't like the previous one.
1) Did you, or did you not, on October 19 2004 at 6:12 AM, post the following?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The issue here is largely a emotive one, not a scientific or logical one<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2) do you mean that there is no link between individual means and the responsibility of the state to supply those means? how would you defend welfare systems, or prison systems, or military spending, in that case? especially when the state's given responsibilities are to provide some measure of security for the individuals that give it license?
3) nice try on the attempt to pin me up as a blind creationist who doesn't acknowledge evolution. But what you suggested was that somehow magically DNA would be able to leap over several million (or hundred million, in the case of phytoplankton) years of evolution, if that is indeed what happened, and produce a human child. To me that is ridiculous and just shows to what lengths you need to go to rationalize abortion.
4) The biological matter that constitutes you is almost 0% from your mother by the time you read this. Does this mean that you support "relationships" defined by molecular content? Cause if so, I'd be more related to roast beef (yum!) than anything else.
*edit*
5) Emotional arguments are fine, but arguments that only work because they appeal to emotions are not. The discussion forum rules specifically state
"3.: Try to stay rational.
Nobody wishes to forbid you your personal opinion, but unless it is grounded on rational thought, as opposed to emotional reactions, it can't be seriously discussed. You can tell people that you "dislike the Republicans/Democrats because I hate Bushs/Clintons accent.", but it's not exactely possible to form argumentations around such a claim. Stating that you "dislike the Republicans/Democrats because I can't agree with their tax policy." would be a little better."
which is why I try to keep from religious arguments in threads except when they are asked for. However, I think we can all agree that murder is a crime and morally reprehensible in any religion or non-religion.
So basically, in the end the debate comes down to whether or not the fetus is a child. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't debate your partisan inferrals. Stick to the facts of my post.
Okay, this is where it gets personal. I was out of this conversation, for good I thought, but since nobody else is apparently taking issue with this statement, I have to:
I'm sorry, but you offend me. I am a man. Some would laugh and mock me for saying this, but I can unzip my pants to prove this. And no, I won't, so stop drooling. Where was I? Oh yes, man. I am a man. Since this is a gaming forum, I believe that I am only one amongst many men in this discussion. Furthermore, I believe many of those on MY side of this discussion are men. Now, abortion doctors are a minority. Don't ask me for percentages, you know I don't have them, and I believe that neither do you. But I believe that abortion doctors are significantly less than, say, one percent of the populaton. Now, I'm inclined to say that this percentage is so small that it hardly matters for this discussion.
So I and many of those of the same opinion as me are men who have nothing to gain from abortion. If the child is aborted, we don't get any money from it. If it is NOT aborted, it's her problem. Hell, **** 'em then chuck 'em. Let THEM worry about the child. Not my problem, right? If I thought only about myself, I would not care about abortion at all, since it doesn't concern me. So, what can my motivation be for supporting abortion? Could it be concern for my fellow man? Could it be that I'm worried that a fourteen-year old is not emotionally, or indeed physically ready for a baby? Could it be that I don't want the kid to grow up without a mother that loves it, a mother who wanted the child she had? No, this is pure egoism on my part. No wait, I have fallen for corporate propaganda. These thoughts in my brain are not mine at all. Now excuse me while I set fire to a puppy, because burning puppies are fun. That was not my idea by the way, "the industry" told me.
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>And now, Dr. Med. Murd. A.B. Ortion, can I finally have the money you promised for supporting child murd... I mean abortion?</span>