useless
Social Justice Rogue
So you don't legally, and even morally, really have a leg to stand on at all?
The Ugly side of Pro-Choice....
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
- Status
GhostWriter16
Deity
Did I claim to have a leg to stand on legally?
Morally I do, and I've proven it to you. But you and a whole host of other people are living in denial of facts.
Morally I do, and I've proven it to you. But you and a whole host of other people are living in denial of facts.
Zack
99% hot gas
What do you mean it isn't life? Of course it's alive. If it wasn't, sex wouldn't work.
You're using a connation instead of the denotation.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Are you saying that murder is only when you seperate a body from a soul, and not when you deprive that body of a soul?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I point out to you definition #5 on that list.
However, I was never denying I was using the connotative definition. Most people would say, "The Nazis murdered Jews (Whoever brings up Godwin's law, read my sig first)," yet TECHNICALLY they didn't. So what? It was murder by any moral definition.
However, I was never denying I was using the connotative definition. Most people would say, "The Nazis murdered Jews (Whoever brings up Godwin's law, read my sig first)," yet TECHNICALLY they didn't. So what? It was murder by any moral definition.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Not really, you haven't proven at all how it is moral. What facts? Nothing but opinionated, subjective bile about how Abortion is "killin' 'er babbies" and such.
Zack
99% hot gas
Did you even read the link or anything I've said?
It's a secondary definition (just like the slang was), and that's when it is used as a verb, which you have not been doing.
Moral definition ? Can't say I've heard anyone say that before.
It is potential for life - a life aborted from a chance every time the sperm is not utilized in a shot-at-conception manner.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Since NO one knows when the soul enters, why take the chance?
The united states has legalized the choice for woman to take the chance. That makes it easier to accept psychologically.
Zack
99% hot gas
Where are you going with this? How did you get from Point A to Point B?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Zack, you keep saying it is not murder, and since 1973 a woman has had the right to make that decision. At the state level there are states that have on their laws abortion is illegal. You keep saying that it is not murder and pointing to the definition of murder. I can only assume that your opinion must be in line with the 1973 ruling as opposed to the state law since you refuse to "declare" how you really feel about the matter. Are you trying to just correct Dommy on his use of murder, and not even talking about abortion?
Zack
99% hot gas
I was correcting Dommy's use of the word.
The state laws outlawing abortion did not prosecute early term abortions as murder. And when they did prosecute at all, it was the aborton providers and not the pregnant women that were charged with anything. 1922 was the last case where a woman was held guilty for an abortion in regards to her own child.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
It was still a law. It was up to the courts to decide if the law was broken. So technically it could be looked at as "someones" interpretation of the event.
Rape: The victim is traumatized, but the effect of the rape or the potential to bring into existence a human life will not be realized for a few weeks at least. Hatred for what is inside her body would be a rational and pre-meditated act of getting rid of the human life forming inside her.
Incest is rape.
Birth defects: The decision to terminate is not natural selection, it is human intervention.
The life of the Mother: More woman have been killed by botched abortions than woman have been kept alive due to an abortion. There may or may not be any factual statistics, who wants to admit to them?
The bulk of abortions: woman just feel they want to get rid of the human forming inside her to ease the burden on society. While this may not be the irrational, psychological reasoning that our society has come up with, it is the ugly truth. Otherwise, they would carry to term and give the baby up for adoption. More often than not it is an outside party that has convinced the woman to have an abortion. That is why it is psychologically damaging. It is ok to have unbridled sex, we have humane ways to deal with it. Why do some people refer to it as an accident? It is a logical fact that in oder to procreate you have to produce a sperm and an egg. It is logical to conclude that abstinence is the strongest way to avoid procreating. Science has just found out ways to avoid the facts altogether.
Now, other than saying that is just my opinion, I would like to hear some rational ideas that refute my opinion.
Rape: The victim is traumatized, but the effect of the rape or the potential to bring into existence a human life will not be realized for a few weeks at least. Hatred for what is inside her body would be a rational and pre-meditated act of getting rid of the human life forming inside her.
Incest is rape.
Birth defects: The decision to terminate is not natural selection, it is human intervention.
The life of the Mother: More woman have been killed by botched abortions than woman have been kept alive due to an abortion. There may or may not be any factual statistics, who wants to admit to them?
The bulk of abortions: woman just feel they want to get rid of the human forming inside her to ease the burden on society. While this may not be the irrational, psychological reasoning that our society has come up with, it is the ugly truth. Otherwise, they would carry to term and give the baby up for adoption. More often than not it is an outside party that has convinced the woman to have an abortion. That is why it is psychologically damaging. It is ok to have unbridled sex, we have humane ways to deal with it. Why do some people refer to it as an accident? It is a logical fact that in oder to procreate you have to produce a sperm and an egg. It is logical to conclude that abstinence is the strongest way to avoid procreating. Science has just found out ways to avoid the facts altogether.
Now, other than saying that is just my opinion, I would like to hear some rational ideas that refute my opinion.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
Umm, humans have always been looking for ways to not have babies.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Society is founded on laws. Not Dommy's personal opinion.
Laws can be moddified. Anyhow, the equal protection clause in the 14th and SC precedent pretty clearly establishes they should have the same civil right to unions.
A strange and primarily American abberation is not indicative of the west as a whole.
And the often contradictory Word of God is right?
@Ajidica: I'm only about 1/3rd of the way through your video, and there's no way I'm going to refute each and every contradiction that was found. I'm going to comment on two, and if you want to know more, send me them ONE OR TWO AT A TIME.[/quote]
I honestly don't care about your opinions on parts of the bible. I was too lazy to copy&paste wikipedia so I just found that video.
So we are trusting that someone accurately translated the infallible word of God if they can't do basic arithmetic?
Yet God was telling the Israelites how much they should cost. If it was so important that God had to set out the exact values, I'm sure it had value in the eyes of the Almighty God.
Pray tell, what is the moral definition from murder and how does it differ from manslaughter?
Again, for the first few weeks an embryo is no more a person then my left foot. Personhood requires the capacity for sentience, something an early embryo cannot do.
Citation needed.
Yet it fails because it fails to take into account basic human nature. At the basic level we only have two goals:
1. Survive.
2. Impregnate something to pass on our DNA.
In short, abstinence at the overriding anti-conception practice fails because humans are horny. That basic fact is especialy prevalent among young adults, primarily in men because the decision making part of the brain isn't fully formed until around 24.
Edited to address pro-life concerns.
While this may not be the irrational, psychological reasoning that our society has come up with, it is the ugly truth. Otherwise, they would procreate, carry to term and give the baby up for adoption. More often than not it is an outside party that has convinced the woman to abstain. That is why it is psychologically damaging.
So identical twins have half a soul each while chimeras have two? Interesting.
Sounds a lot like made up nonsense.
EDIT: You seem to have come to moral conclusions without any concept of what scientifically happens during reproduction. If you begin with a hypothesis that zygotes are people, you end up with nonsensical results like the above. Therefore we can conclude that our hypothesis about zygotes is wrong.
Clearly birthed babies are people; they are aware, they breathe, they feel pain. Therefore there is some point during foetal development that personhood could be said to have been obtained. Seems obvious to me that this point is the one after which abortion should be no-noed. The 20 weekish mark is where awareness starts to kick in... this is where I'd draw the line.
- Status
