Abortion - What do you think about it?

[Hurricane]

FL, I think you would have enjoyed living amongst the Taleban in Afghanistan. They share the same views as you.

By the way, you never answered the question I asked you earlier, so I ask again:

1. Do you consider a siamesic twin, with one body but two heads and two brains as a) two human beings with shared body parts, or b) one human being with an extra head and brain?

2. Do you consider a child with one brain but two pair of legs or arms, or even two hearts, as a) one human being with serious bodily defects or b) two human beings, the other one with a serious mental handicap.

 

[CurtSibling]

Is it time for this thread to retire?

Some interesting conclusions can be drawn from it.

It's been a worthy thread.

 

[WinstonJen]

FL, you are one of the sickest, most heartless people I know. Don't you have any sense of compassion? As far as I can tell, you don't care about the poor woman who has to make the decision - all you care about is being morally 'correct' and defending your own twisted viewpoint.

 

[CurtSibling]

As I said already,
I think the whole topic is too hardcore to be taken lightly.

When you are talking about life (and death) there can be no frivolity.

The individual circumstances must come into consideration in this debate,
Blanket statements are not applicable.

I don't see anyone here as being totally vindicated and correct.

You have to be there before you understand.

 

[WinstonJen]

Originally posted by CurtSibling

You have to be there before you understand.

I understand. I wonder how many pregnant rape victims FL has met. None? I wonder why?

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by WinstonJen


I understand. I wonder how many pregnant rape victims FL has met. None? I wonder why?

Well, I try not to judge people, before I know their experiences.
That's one for the templar to answer himself...

 

[WinstonJen]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


Well, I try not to judge people, before I know their experiences.
That's one for the templar to answer himself...

If his views remain the same after he has seen the damage done to rape victims, he is truly heartless with no compassion for people.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by philippe
hhmmmmm akka and traguard dont attack his personality attack him with a brilliant argument where there is no counter argment

Read, let's say, the last ten replies I made except the last one (well, I had to vent out the frustration of speaking to a wall).

It's at 90 % arguments and reasonning, where he did not countered anything. The fact that he brang the people in coma comparison and killing someone sleeping, while I already proved him that there is a fundamental difference between them and an embryo, is the perfect example on why it's completely useless to debate with him : he just does not listen nor is able/willing to understand reasonning.
You can consider it a personnal attack, I call it a simple obervation.

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Demetrias
Yes sex is a Natural Part of a Relationship. But should only be part of a Marriage relationship. If the people having sex are not ready to have a kid they should not have sex. Sex for recreation is a bad idea.

And Yes i am a Virgin and Pray every night to GOD that i stay that way until i get married.

You are joking of course?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Reading through this thread's latter section,
I have to say that FearlessLeader2 holds the high ground.

He has kept the head and not flamed,
And gave valid reasoning to back up his moral stance.

Are you sure you read the same posts as I do ?
So far, FL spent more time saying we're just evil irresponsible murderers, and consider any pro-choice as a bad parent, a moralityless person, and an irresponsible teen. If that's not flame, then I don't know what is.

And after 16 pages he still does not have ANY reasonning about why it's morally bad to destroy an embryo, except that
1) an embryo could, LATER, become human.
2) Pregnancy acts like a punishment for so-called irresponsible women.
Is it THAT you call valid reasonning ?

I can think of no good reason for a healthy child to be eliminated,
Only if a mother's or the child's life is in danger or if the quality of the child's life is nil.
There are sometimes valid medical reasons for abortion.

I can't think about any good reason for a healthy child to be eliminated either. Still, the CORE of this debate is about if the embryo is a child or a pack of cells. If it's the former, then abortion could only be used for medical reason. If it's not, then there is no point in condemning abortion, just like there is no point in slicing your own finger or in burning a piece of meat.
My point is clear, and I repeated my reasonning ad nauseam : what define a human is his mind. As en embryo has still not started to develop a mind, it has then not started to become human.
PROVE me that an embryo is a full human person, and then I'll agree and join the ranks of the pro-life people.
To do this you will need to :
1) Define what IS a full human person.
2) Prove that an embryo matchs the criteria.

When it comes to people deciding on abortion to get rid of a merely 'unwanted' child...
Then that is wrong.
Having sex without thinking about the consequences is the province of cretins, that is basic.
People should take the responsibility for their actions.

It's completely out of topic. You're talking about sexuality here, not about abortion. I propose that the sexuality side to be debated in another thread.
Abortion comes essentially to one point : is the embryo a person or not ?

Pregnancy via sex attacks is a tough scenario to you all to discuss,
It is too horrible a thing for a woman to suffer,
It would be really have to be looked at on an individual basis.

(Rapists and sex attackers should hang. In my opinion.)

These words are not the law, just my viewpoints.

Same as above : if an embryo is not a full person, then abortion is just a standard medical treatment and how the girl became pregnant is irrelevant.
If the embryo is a full person, then abortion is murder, and then even a rape doesn't justify it (still, there is possibility to get rid the mother of the pregnancy while keeping the embryo alive, by transferring it in vitro or to a voluntaree mother).

So it's always, and only, a point about : is the embryo a full person or not ?

I made arguments and reasonning about it NOT being a full person. I wait for a FULLY SUPPORTED argument proving it IS a full person. I mean an argument supported by proofs and reason, not moral judgement or emotion-based attacks, or calls to God.

 

[Switch625]

A short analysis of the debate thus far:

First, a note to Akka: Sexuality cannot be separated from the abortion debate. After all, women can only get pregnant through sex (outside a lab, at any rate).

Akka, you argue that since the embryo is just a "pack of cells" it is not wrong to abort it. I say, I'm leaning toward FL2's argument that it's the potential embodied in that embryo that is important. Nothing you have said makes me think otherwise. The personal attacks against FL2 have not helped your position.

Troq, you argue that banning abortion will not reduce incidences of abortion, thereby forcing women to have dangerous procedures done that would threaten her life. In theory, I lean toward your point of view, except that I would severely limit which abortions could be obtained legally. Unfortunately, you have made your arguments in such a way that I wouldn't want to be on a debating team with you.

FL2, your arguments are based on black and white morality. Well, in reality absolutes are tough to come by. Some things may be absolutely wrong at all times, but abortion is not one of them. Like killing, sometimes it is necessary. If carrying a baby to full term would significantly endanger the life of the mother, I would support abortion in that instance. Abortion for birth control is right out, however.

From a debating judge point of view, FearlessLeader2 has won this debate. Not because of his view, but because of his technique. FL2 has used far fewer personal attacks in his posts than Akka and Troq. I will just ignore the one liners from people calling FL2 "Taliban" or "monster." Talk about irrelevant.

From a topical point of view, the debate is a draw. I say this because neither side has convinced me to get off the fence.

Feel free to continue, but I've heard all I want to. I'm outta here.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Switch625
A short analysis of the debate thus far:

First, a note to Akka: Sexuality cannot be separated from the abortion debate. After all, women can only get pregnant through sex (outside a lab, at any rate).

Of course it can.
We are debating about if abortion is right or wrong. Not about how a woman get to become pregnant.

Akka, you argue that since the embryo is just a "pack of cells" it is not wrong to abort it. I say, I'm leaning toward FL2's argument that it's the potential embodied in that embryo that is important. Nothing you have said makes me think otherwise. The personal attacks against FL2 have not helped your position.

I still wait for you :

1) To define what is a human being.
2) To prove me that an embryo match the criterias to be considered a human being.
3) To explain me why the potential embodied in the embryo gives it any rights.

I also wait for you to counter my arguments that :
1) A human person is defined by his mind.
2) The mind is hosted in the brain.
3) As the embryo has no brain, it has no mind.
4) Hence the embryo is not a person.

And I would advise you to reread FL posts. I actually think he made at least as much personnal attack than I did.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Akka


Are you sure you read the same posts as I do ?
So far, FL spent more time saying we're just evil irresponsible murderers, and consider any pro-choice as a bad parent, a moralityless person, and an irresponsible teen. If that's not flame, then I don't know what is.

My good Akka,

Please do not start having a go at me, due to not having Fearless2 to talk to.

I gave my opinion.
I ain't picking no favourites here, I respect you and FL2's views.

Just don't drag me into the arena with you guys.

 

[The Troquelet]

I'm unsubscribing this thread, so don't direct anything to me please because I won't be here to reply anymore I have better ways to waste my time...

 

[Fez_Monk]

*steps in, notices the raging crossfire from both sides, and escapes un-scathed*

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'd rather have the points for substance than style. A style victory is worthless in this matter.

There are people who want to know where I draw the line between person and embreyo.

I do not draw any such line.

Why?

Because one's humanity should be judged by more than one factor, not by one's current physical or mental condition. Yes, anyone of any species that can demonstrate sentience deserves all the rights reserved to humans on this world. But humans deserve this right by dint of species.

Why? Because we know, and have all of history to back it up, that all humans have the traits of sentience and capacity for abstract thought. It is true that not all of them exercise these capacities, and that some are born with lesser function in this regard, but as a whole, humans are virtually guaranteed to be capable of demonstrating the mental attributes that embody humanity at some point in their lives.

Call 'humanity' a nation, if you will. Having human DNA makes one a citizen by blood. Others need to demonstrate a reason for their inclusion, and sentience is an acceptable criterion for admission to me. I'll grant a 'green card' to any creature that can demonstrate sentience and the capacity for abstract thought, but humans get in free, just for being human.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Hurricane


You are joking of course?

Why do you mock Demetrias for displaying self-control? I would think that congratulations and encouragement to continue would be far more appropriate.

Demetrias, I applaud your conviction to do what is right, and eschew that which is not. Your courage and faith are a credit to you.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by WinstonJen
If his views remain the same after he has seen the damage done to rape victims, he is truly heartless with no compassion for people.

You know, I can't even remember how many times I have clearly stated my view on abortion for rape victims and mothers with serious medical problems, so it really irritates me when people make a view up for me, and then attack that view.

I am NOT one of those people who wants to outlaw every abortion. I am one of those people who wants to outlaw every abortion performed as a means of retroactive contraception.

Time and again, I have stated that I support counselling for rape victims, a blanket coverage of all their pre-natal care if they opt to bear and raise or give up for adoption the rapist's child, and, if, in the end they cannot bring themselves to do so, to make abortion an option for them.
The above also applies to incest pregnancies. Try to remember that in a rape/incest pregnancy, there are TWO victims. Why should one automatically die without any consideration of the possibility that they might want to live?

The other form of abortion that I have also gone on record as supporting is that which is a medical imperative to save the mother's life, and then only if she is not willing to bear the risk of a childbirth that endangers her. There are some women out there who understand that love is their greatest gift, and that its greatest expression is in laying one's life down for another. Pregnant women diagnosed with cervical cancer have passed on treatment long enough to bear their child, even when they knew the disease would progress enough to kill them before treatment could save them, and they have died. Such people are the noblest of all, who would give their lives willingly for another, and they have the right to do so if they so choose.

On the converse, some will not be willing to die for a child that only might survive, because they are certain to die before it can be brought full term, and their decision to save their own life should have no stigmata attached to it. This is one choice that should be left to the mother.

These are MY views on these two subjects. The next time someone decides to shove a hand up my butt and make different words come out of my mouth, I am going to unleash a flame war the likes of which none of you have ever seen, nor e'er will again.

DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!! That is my perogative, and mine alone.

 

[Hurricane]

Nice to see some reason in your thoughts, FL2! I really got the impression that your black/white-morality meant you wanted to ban abortion in all cases. Nice to know you understand that that is just plain silly.

And I still think Demetrias is joking. I can´t believe anybody with a free will in the 21th century still believes in that Christian-fundamental crap.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Hurricane
Nice to see some reason in your thoughts, FL2! I really got the impression that your black/white-morality meant you wanted to ban abortion in all cases. Nice to know you understand that that is just plain silly.

My morality is still black and white. There are no shades of grey in what I said above. Killing two out of spite is wrong, therefore kill one to save the other. Forcing a woman to bear the child of the man who raped her, when her mental state is likely to degrade into madness is likewise evil. If she can bear the child and either raise it herself or let it be raised ignorant of its parentage, so much the better, but not everyone has that strength within them.

Originally posted by Hurricane
And I still think Demetrias is joking. I can´t believe anybody with a free will in the 21th century still believes in that Christian-fundamental crap.

And I still applaud her(?) for it. That 'crap' as you put it, happens to ring true in my heart as well, so I'm not fond of your demonstrated lack of respect for my worldview. I would appreciate it if you could at least try to keep the discussion above board...