hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
If he's studied any at all, I assure you it came from Of Pandas and People.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
Have you heard of it?
Yet Another Abortion Debate Thread
- Thread starter aimeeandbeatles
- Start date
If he's studied any at all, I assure you it came from Of Pandas and People.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
Have you heard of it?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Enough to know life when I see it
Not much, however.
If you've not studied much biology then you will have very little idea about life and how it operates. You are calling for the death of people based on a concept you admit to not knowing a whole lot about and that greatly worries me.
Do you not feel as though you have a duty to actually learn about workings of biology before calling for the death of specialists in the subject?
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
No, the state obviously needs the authority to imprison criminals in some way. But I'd argue that while the state has the right (in certain cases, etc) to deprive you of liberty, it does not ever have the right to deprive you of your life, except by your own consent.
Thus, if the state goes through the proper process and imprisons you, it's not kidnapping. But if the state executes you, it's morally equivalent to murder, in that there is no process that can justify that action.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
The fact that you continue to repeat something that you've been very plainly shown is completely wrong disturbs me.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,811
This issue is one... of many considerations, of many ideas.
My views are let to be set on the issue due to still trying to consider when life begins.
In consideration to the different views of when a collective of cells becomes a human, one can see the primal roots of the complex nature of this. The theory 'Quickening' dose have a intresting take on the issue, along with the idea of life being at the moment of tissue seperation, along with the first signs of brain activity or the idea of life beginging when the fetus could survive outside the womb. There are many alterative signs of when life starts then just the fertilisation of certain cells, although it is logical to observe why many conclude that as the start of life. As you see... the reason I have not settled a view on the issue is from the... difficult to pin point life's begining, be it the moment of the building blocks being deployed or the moment of the construction's foundation be placed. 'Gradualism' could be conclusive though as people become less happy about aborting the fetus as its develops. It is a vague notion... of wonder.
However I do propost that birth control such as conceptions should be a primal consideration for family planning. I am however against the idea of making abortion illegal for the safety of women who would end up taking life risking back street surgeries instead and in consideration of the issues I raised on the continuing debate on where life truely begins.
My views are let to be set on the issue due to still trying to consider when life begins.
In consideration to the different views of when a collective of cells becomes a human, one can see the primal roots of the complex nature of this. The theory 'Quickening' dose have a intresting take on the issue, along with the idea of life being at the moment of tissue seperation, along with the first signs of brain activity or the idea of life beginging when the fetus could survive outside the womb. There are many alterative signs of when life starts then just the fertilisation of certain cells, although it is logical to observe why many conclude that as the start of life. As you see... the reason I have not settled a view on the issue is from the... difficult to pin point life's begining, be it the moment of the building blocks being deployed or the moment of the construction's foundation be placed. 'Gradualism' could be conclusive though as people become less happy about aborting the fetus as its develops. It is a vague notion... of wonder.
However I do propost that birth control such as conceptions should be a primal consideration for family planning. I am however against the idea of making abortion illegal for the safety of women who would end up taking life risking back street surgeries instead and in consideration of the issues I raised on the continuing debate on where life truely begins.
Mango Elephant
Deity
It seems I've returned to the forums just in the nick of time. There is a lot of misinformation, deception, confusion, and outright silliness being posted by the left in a lot of threads, and they needs to be addressed. Well have no fear, CFC OT, because...
Right, so on to business. I'll just start right here in this abortion thread where the silliness is running rampant and utterly out of control.
"PRO LIFE CANNOT BE FOR DEATH PENALTY" - This being the easiest, I thought I'd just knock it out of the way really quick. Why is it easy? Because the very phrase "pro life" is specific to the abortion issue and really has nothing to do with the death penalty which is a totally separate issue. "But, but, but... how can you be for taking life in one instance and preserving it in another"??? Well that's simple as well. I cherish innocent life, but someone who has had the death penalty applied to them has done something so henious and wickedly evil that to call them innocent is truly silliness of the highest order. In fact, I am going to start my own little list of users that insist on trying blast people for being pro-life (abortion) and also supporting the death penalty and just refuse to acknowledge their existence in any abortion or death penalty threads because they're just not worth talking to in those threads. Sorted.
"THEOCRACY, THEOCRACY, THEOCRACY!!" - Even if some other people decide to frame abortion around a religious argument and cite religious beliefs why it is wrong, which hey they're totally free to do as they do make some pretty good points, it really isn't a religious issue at all. It is totally a life issue. If you accept that the embryo/xygote/fetus/whatever stage/ is human, which I do, then clearly it deserves the protections that come along with that. Honestly, I think I am one of the very few on this whole board that holds a truly consistent view on abortion. It is not acceptable to save the life of a mother, or because of rape, or because of incest, or whatever else. Why? For the same reason that taking a gun and shooting a random innocent person in the street is unacceptable if that would hypothetically somehow save the life of the mother. Murder is wrong no matter what. Really, it is just that simple. Sorted.
"HYPOCRICY, HYPOCRICY, HYPOCRICY!!" - To suggest that we pro-lifers are hypocrites if we are against abortion but don't happen to offer any alternative solution is like suggesting someone is a hypocrite because they are against shooting destitute old people without offering a solution to free nursing home care. An innocent life is an innocent life, regardless of the point in life they are at. I could go on about how I am all for shelters and homes to help pregnant women and whatnot, but I shouldn't have to justify being opposed to the taking of an innocent life.
"EUGENICS ARE COOL, YO!" - Yes, that was hyperbole, and I don't actually think you guys are meaning that, but it really comes across that way sometimes when you all bring up down syndrome and other issues. Do they deserve to die just because they are not "perfect humans?" What's next? Screenings and automatic abortions for cleft palates, being ginger, six fingers on a hand? As it has for every possible issue under the sun, country music comes to the rescue! This time with a song which illustrates the utter ridiculousless of this point of view. Go ahead, watch this clip and tell me this person is unworthy of life simply because he was born.
Link to video.
"CONDOMS AND EDUCATION!!!" - What about them? Really, what about them? If I say I am all for that and yet some people still get pregnant, I doubt that's going to change anyone's position that is pro-choice just because, sure, I'll say let's give away condoms and teach people how to roll them down bananas. It's all about personal responsibility. IF you wanna go out and have fun, be prepared for the consequences and ready to accept them. Oh, and guys, yes, this goes for you as well. We really need to do something about deadbeat dads big time.
Right, so on to business. I'll just start right here in this abortion thread where the silliness is running rampant and utterly out of control.
"PRO LIFE CANNOT BE FOR DEATH PENALTY" - This being the easiest, I thought I'd just knock it out of the way really quick. Why is it easy? Because the very phrase "pro life" is specific to the abortion issue and really has nothing to do with the death penalty which is a totally separate issue. "But, but, but... how can you be for taking life in one instance and preserving it in another"??? Well that's simple as well. I cherish innocent life, but someone who has had the death penalty applied to them has done something so henious and wickedly evil that to call them innocent is truly silliness of the highest order. In fact, I am going to start my own little list of users that insist on trying blast people for being pro-life (abortion) and also supporting the death penalty and just refuse to acknowledge their existence in any abortion or death penalty threads because they're just not worth talking to in those threads. Sorted.
"THEOCRACY, THEOCRACY, THEOCRACY!!" - Even if some other people decide to frame abortion around a religious argument and cite religious beliefs why it is wrong, which hey they're totally free to do as they do make some pretty good points, it really isn't a religious issue at all. It is totally a life issue. If you accept that the embryo/xygote/fetus/whatever stage/ is human, which I do, then clearly it deserves the protections that come along with that. Honestly, I think I am one of the very few on this whole board that holds a truly consistent view on abortion. It is not acceptable to save the life of a mother, or because of rape, or because of incest, or whatever else. Why? For the same reason that taking a gun and shooting a random innocent person in the street is unacceptable if that would hypothetically somehow save the life of the mother. Murder is wrong no matter what. Really, it is just that simple. Sorted.
"HYPOCRICY, HYPOCRICY, HYPOCRICY!!" - To suggest that we pro-lifers are hypocrites if we are against abortion but don't happen to offer any alternative solution is like suggesting someone is a hypocrite because they are against shooting destitute old people without offering a solution to free nursing home care. An innocent life is an innocent life, regardless of the point in life they are at. I could go on about how I am all for shelters and homes to help pregnant women and whatnot, but I shouldn't have to justify being opposed to the taking of an innocent life.
"EUGENICS ARE COOL, YO!" - Yes, that was hyperbole, and I don't actually think you guys are meaning that, but it really comes across that way sometimes when you all bring up down syndrome and other issues. Do they deserve to die just because they are not "perfect humans?" What's next? Screenings and automatic abortions for cleft palates, being ginger, six fingers on a hand? As it has for every possible issue under the sun, country music comes to the rescue! This time with a song which illustrates the utter ridiculousless of this point of view. Go ahead, watch this clip and tell me this person is unworthy of life simply because he was born.
Link to video.
"CONDOMS AND EDUCATION!!!" - What about them? Really, what about them? If I say I am all for that and yet some people still get pregnant, I doubt that's going to change anyone's position that is pro-choice just because, sure, I'll say let's give away condoms and teach people how to roll them down bananas. It's all about personal responsibility. IF you wanna go out and have fun, be prepared for the consequences and ready to accept them. Oh, and guys, yes, this goes for you as well. We really need to do something about deadbeat dads big time.
Hey, now General Mattis has come out and admitted to the world that sometimes it's fun!
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
When life begins is an important question but I doubt one can answer it well without defining or discovering what is the life in the first place.
It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms. This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance. Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.
I may say I am a vitalist in sence that for me the actual life requires presence not only of functioning of physical corpse but also of a life force/soul.
It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms. This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance. Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.
I may say I am a vitalist in sence that for me the actual life requires presence not only of functioning of physical corpse but also of a life force/soul.
I don't think we'll ever figure out when life began. 3 billion years ago?
I presume you are an Christian. So you know you are sinner. I wonder what Jesus meant when he spoke about forgiveness, compasion and turning other cheek in your opinion. Yet you are willing to judge and throw the stone. So much for the outright silliness.
Now tell me how do you define human life or where do you take the guts to decide what scientists and philosophers have hard time to decide? Well obviously you dont. Non of you socaled "prolife" has presented any arguments/facts on that. You just believe in it that way so dont tell us that it is not religious argument. So much for the deception.
GhostWriter16
Deity
The bold is the one time that I really do struggle with it. If your son had a temporary moment of insanity and tried to kill you, and you killed him in order to protect yourself, would you be held guilty in a court of law?
I know in at least some cases, abortion to save the life of the mother may resemble this.
I'm honestly not sure about that rare case. I'm open to be convinced.
Well my guess would be that the world is perhaps in the second half of first trimestr(not very developed) - so the abortion is still quite posible...
Regarding your first part, I don't really care what you think of my religious views. My relationship with God is just that, my relationship with God, not my relationship with God as others deem it should be, and I don't have to justify it to you or any other person.
As far as how I decided where life begins, well.... see there is things thing called biology. It's a science. It has nothing to do with religion. If you insist on continuing to bring religion into this thread in relation to me, I'll cease responding to you because as I've said, abortion has nothing to do with religion, period.
This is my final post explaining my religious views as they do not pertain to abortion.
Well I dont care for your religious views either but if you talk about yourself being consistent then I am asking you consistent with what?
What are you talking about? This is complex issue. Biology decide when life begins in its own way so does ethic, medical science or spirituality. Does biology tell you that abortion should be punished by death? So you just want to use biology to fit your religious frame of mind.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
You can't really call pure biology into this. As El Mac has pointed out so many times in all these threads, there is no clear delineation between life and not life. Both parents are human life, the sperm and the egg are both human life, the fertilized egg is human life, the fetus is human life, and an infant is human life.
If you want to declare that "life begins", you have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere. Fertilization is an emotionally compelling choice, but not a biologically meaningful one.
Maybe true (and I certainly giggled!)
I hope to look back on this period of my life during our post-human future with a somewhat nostalgic eye regarding our near-complete lack of cognition.
Agentman! (love ya!)
Would you be mad or outraged if I gave one of your (hypothetical) pet dogs an abortion*? How about if I shot one of your dogs, or if I shot their (hypothetical) puppies? Is giving a (edit: lol forgot about the censor) female dog an abortion the same (morally) as drowning a sack of (sleeping) puppies?
*assume an unplanned pregnancy, please!
Or, to completely dodge the property issue ... how do you feel about me putting down my dog (for convenience-sake, and for convenience alone) relative to me giving my dog an abortion because I don't wanna deal with her accidental litter? Not 'should it be legal', but 'how do you feel morally about it?'
