Pro-Choice or Pro-Life (to kill or not to kill?, should that be the question, is that the question?

[TAsunder]

<< Quit horsing around and be serious. This is a joke, right? >>



I think it's a pretty cool idea, but there's probably no practical way of implementing it. Even if the technology is there, what are the chances that it would be free? Even if free, what are the chances that there wouldn't be a lot of hokey-pokey and discrimination involved? It's kind of like socialism.. good in theory, bad in practice (most of the time anyway).

 

[Thorn]

<< I don't have a whit of a clue what a battle of whits is, but I admit that your whit is superior to mine. I am sorry that you don't have a whit of understanding about what I wrote as well. I was only attempting to elaborate on someone else's point, but accidentally let slip in my psychopathic tendencies. I am not sure that what you stated was a fact, since the only statement you made was concerning the rules governing a battle of whits, and I'm pretty sure that someone with no arms could still win a battle of whits against someone else, depending of course on what a battle of whits is.

As for your question, I am a natural idiot. I am proud of this fact, as some people work all their lives to attain the status. In reality, it's probably more like regret as defined by Devito's character in The Big Kahuna... >>


Very funny... Touche'.

Anyway, if you were serious about the former statements though... I still think you're tweaked.

 

[Elledan]

<<Quit horsing around and be serious. This is a joke, right?

If not, seek help. Soon. >>

Our technology at its present state isn't advanced enough yet to accomplish this, but once we're able to do it, it'll be at least a good alternative to adopting children from other couples for couples who can't get children.

It might even replace 'normal' pregnancy, since during a 'normal' pregnancy quite a lot babies die due to shocks or other external factors (or internal, due to some failure in the body of the female) a growing chamber would be safer and ensure much healthier offspring, since they can be controlled every second, instead of being locked up in a nearly inaccessible organ in the female's body.

 

[SirFshAlot]

I wouldn't call it exactly a 'joy' to 'bring children into their lives'

you're twisting my words like your views

I was referring to the joy of children, not childbirth.
My words; &quot;to bring the joy of children into their lives&quot;.

If you have personal experiences of children not being a joy, then you have my sympathies. You are truly suffering in that case.

 

[Elledan]

<<If you have personal experiences of children not being a joy, then you have my sympathies. You are truly
suffering in that case. >>

My parents are running a day-nursery, in a building close to our house. I've enough personal experience with children, and I don't think that they're a joy. Maybe for a few hours a day (fascinating to see how fast they can learn and are making progress), but taking care of them (feeding, cleaning, keeping them busy, etc.)? Nope, that's something I wouldn't call a joy.

So maybe 20% of the time you spend with 'your' child can be called 'fun' or 'joy', but the rest is just plain annoying.

 

[jobert]

>>if it's so horrible and damaging, then why are so many women willing to go through it more than the first time to
bring the joy of children into their lives?>>

Because they're programmed to do so.
BTW I wouldn't call it exactly a 'joy' to 'bring children into their lives'. The parents (or at least the female) is programmed to think it's ok and nice. It's in the genes.<<


FINALLY we're getting to the basis of the Right to Kill Babies
rationale: We didn't create these babies out of free will;
it was involuntary instinctive behavior preprogrammed in our genes!
Therefore we have the right to rid ourselves of them in whatever
way we choose. Besides, kids at day care centers can be a bit
of a pain sometimes.

 

[jobert]

I sure hope you use double or triple birth control, Ellie.

 

[jobert]

>>I was referring to the joy of children, not childbirth<<

Would you believe,
there are quite a few (weirdo?)
women who consider childbirth one of
the most joyful moments of their lives.

'Guess they must be crackpots, right Ellie?

 

[FettsBabe]

How old are you? You sound really young. If so, I can understand where your view point is coming from. I would be irritated to if I had a daycare next to my home. I like peace and quiet. However, the joy of a child will probably grow on you (many years from now) when you find someone and fall in love. To think that two people who love each other can create a life...its fascinating. One day you will understand.

 

[wxman]

SirfFishalot...

This information is around, it always has been. All you need to do is seek. When you're ready, it'll be there. Nothing is ever really hidden.

--Scott

 

[Daedalus]

<< Choice. My body, my decision. Nobody else's >>

Your Body? My Ass!

 

[Daedalus]

<<Look Dude, just because we are Pro-Choice doesn't mean the we want women to have an abortion.>>

Open heart surgey is legal too but I don't think many people elect to have it unless it could [sam kinison mode]SAVE THEIR LIFE[/sam kinison mode]

 

[Elledan]

<<How old are you? You sound really young. If so, I can understand where your view point is coming from. I would
be irritated to if I had a daycare next to my home. I like peace and quiet. However, the joy of a child will probably
grow on you (many years from now) when you find someone and fall in love. To think that two people who love
each other can create a life...its fascinating. One day you will understand. >>

No.

'Love' is no longer an option for me. Don't ask me why, but I just don't 'feel anything' when I see girls (or boys, for the smartasses at this board). I just know that I'm not able to 'fall in love'.

I know that the reason a boy likes girls is because he's 'programmed' to do so. I've reprogrammed myself, you could say. I've set myself a few targets in this life that I will accomplish before this body 'of me' starts to fail. 'Love' and creating offspring isn't one of those targets.

If you really want to know it: I'm 17, nearly 18 and live in the Netherlands.
I'm, however, much 'smarter' than the average 17-year old. I like to spend my time reading scientific articles (I'm currently reading a book on Event-symmetric space-time, interesting material), programming (picked up PHP in less than four weeks, now learning JS and C++).

I also teached myself proper English, am now doing the same for German.
Another 'interesting' fact is that I don't spend any time with going out with friends or on other things considered to be 'fun' by the average teenager, the only thing I do all day is 'assimilating' knowledge, learning new things, broaden my horizon.

 

[Pastore]

pro life here

 

[Elledan]

<<>>if it's so horrible and damaging, then why are so many women willing to go through it more than the first time
to
bring the joy of children into their lives?>>

Because they're programmed to do so.
BTW I wouldn't call it exactly a 'joy' to 'bring children into their lives'. The parents (or at least the female) is
programmed to think it's ok and nice. It's in the genes.<<


FINALLY we're getting to the basis of the Right to Kill Babies
rationale: We didn't create these babies out of free will;
it was involuntary instinctive behavior preprogrammed in our genes!
Therefore we have the right to rid ourselves of them in whatever
way we choose.>>

jobert is biting charcasm the only way you can defend whatever view you're supporting?

If you don't have anything constructives to tell us, you'll better leave this thread.

 

[jobert]

>>If you don't have anything constructives to tell us, you'll better leave this thread.<<

Ellie...

Aw shucks.
I was just about to compliment you
on your command of the English language.

(You might want to look up &quot;sarcasm&quot;.)

 

[~zonker~]

I just think pro-choice is such a clever euphemisim...

I think it should be legal, but after the first trimester only under certain circumstances. Partial birth abortions should be banned... it's a disgrace. The government should keep it's stinking hands out of the issue and provide no funding whatsoever for the procedure.

This is in a sense, a form of population control...

 

[Elledan]

<<>>If you don't have anything constructives to tell us, you'll better leave this thread.<<

Ellie...

Aw shucks.
I was just about to compliment you
on your command of the English language.

(You might want to look up &quot;sarcasm&quot;.)>>

Will you please shut up? First, this has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion. It is only a very weak try to discredit me.
Second, it's late here, I've had a long day and the last thing I need is some smarta$$ trying to be funny.

Now, are you going to make some useful arguments or do you just keep making fun of others?

 

[bluemax]

<< The issue is not that of the body of the baby. As we know they are a dime a dozen, however the soul of that child, of myself, can never be killed. It is eternal. And a soul would never inhabit the body of an unborn child that is going to be aborted.
You have to step back and look at the whole picture, not just the mothers choice/no-choice issue. That unborn body has no soul attached to it, so it really isn't an issue at all. No one is killed, and God's eternal plan goes on, without missing a beat. >>



No, sorry, that's NOT how it works. The soul is not immortal in your sense. A soul doesn't get to &quot;go back and try again&quot; with a woman who WON'T abort it... but it's not 100% defined where an aborted/miscarried baby's soul goes... that depends on the parent as well. A lost parent is a very good indicator of a lost child and vice versa.

There's no free rides, and assuming God will give this baby another chance with another woman is &quot;playing the odds&quot; with the deck stacked against you big-time. Especially since one of the ten commandments is &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot;. Straightforward ain't it?

 

[Mountain]

i almost was an abortion. two older sisters with ellers-danlos syndrome. inherited from dad. dad felt horrible about passing along the gene. thought maybe third child should be aborted. mom took lots of vitamins instead. came out the sturdiest child on the planet. mensa member. college football. six kids all good. enough brain that even the 60's and 70's did not fry it all.(tried hard, though). BUT since i'm not female, my opinion should not count as much. how about teaching people ( youngsters) the way to orgasm without the baby makin'. abortions for violent unwanted sex. sure. to avoid consequences. bad.

 

[ultravox]

I did not write this but agree with it completely....

&quot;Here's hypocrisy, a mother can give birth at home, and suffocate the baby when it pops out, murder one, the country is outraged, she gets locked up 10-20.
A mother gives partial birth, only the head is somwhat in the birth canal, the doc jabs an ice pick in the back of its head, sucks out its brains, while it wiggles and tries to cry, she is applauded for excersising her right to 'choose', a catchy cliche for murder &quot;

 

[Moonbeam]

Ornery, your argument is persuasive and simple, but I think too simple. In comming to terms with rights there must be an analysis that encludes the balencing of rights. In granting a fetus the right to life you can voilate a woman's right to liberty or persuit of happiness. On the one hand is a conscious individual with a fully developed notion that they exist and on the other a dependent relatively self unaware entity to which you wish to ascribe full rights at the expense of the other. If you do not wish to decide this issue religiously it must be done to the best of our ability. Inalienable is a constitutional right which certainly has religious underpinnings even though I would make a case for it's correctness on philosophical grounds. Anyway, when you get down to a practicle level, this issue was decided by the supreme court. Therefore the inalienable argument is incorrect at this time. The right you claim is legally invalid.

For MrPalco who is fixed in black and white, the alternative is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of existential imperitive. Life requires that women have control over whether a they MUST carry any baby conceived under any condition to term. The unjust of the uninvolved to force that is just as evil and monsterous as murder. These two mutually incompatable and intollerable exclusivities cannot be resolved emotionally. Yet a decission must be made. It seems that when presented with two unacceptable alternatives the right course is to do all possible to keep the choice from having to be made in the first place. Beyond that it is a decission over the lesser of two evils. It would seem that at conception and some time thereafter we are talking only about tissue that will become consious. Choosing a consious mother's rights over those of unconsious tissue seems a lesser evil. It is what the courts have decided and the opinion of the majority, I think. The alternative is also to support slavery, to make a woman an unwilling baby factory.

The way to make pro life more palliatable is to demonize women. They spread their legs so they have to pay the price. That would mean though that men have no say in what a woman does because he has to pay the price of knowingly having sex with a woman who might have an abortion. He might want to raise the child, but it's tough luck. He has to pay the price for his irresponsibility.

What we know about religion is what men say or men say was spoken by man-gods. It's all ultimately secular humanism propounded long ago before all of the kinds of issues we face today arose. It's not a problem to allow belief to rule one's personal life. I personally choose not to create an unwanted pregnancy. To go beyond that and determine what another is free or not free to do, when the issues on both sides are so contentious, I think, gets to looking a bit fanatical.

 

[ArkAoss]

to quote elledan:
&quot;&quot;also teached myself proper English, &quot;&quot;
the word is TAUGHT
And glad to hear you successfully did a self-labotomy.

I'll tell you all what I'm for, pro-life and that there shouldn't be a need for abortion. Shouldn't be no rapists, no 12yr olds getting preg by 25 yrold half brain-dead punks, shouldn't be no kids with birth defects, or brain damage.
But thats a pipe dream.

no death for baby's
(I had a nice thread going on back in december about this; got some thoughts flowing then)

 

[Whitedog]

I don't believe an unborn should be aborted just because the mother doesn't want it. It should be illegal. I agree on Red Dawns view that if a mother is in danger of her life, that's a different story, you shoud save the mother even if it envolves aborting the baby.

I believe God frowns upon unwanted baby abortions... as a sin.

 

[Whitedog]

&quot;I'll tell you all what I'm for, pro &quot;

Pro what? hehehe