XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
Basically the whole Abortion argument boils down to whether the person in the womb is or is not eligible for basic human rights. Any argument ultimately leads to this (as we have seen), so discussing anything beyond this idea is irrelevant and a waste of my employers money
lol, agreed
It's funny how off topic this stuff can get. And the biggest thing is that the main point (whether fetus' have human rights) is the one topic that gets avoided. Interesting. It's like people intentionally avoid the real issue for some reason. I wonder what a phycologist would say about this.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
That's not a good test. First, the fetus has been removed and frozen. Next, the fetus is not necessarily your own. Finally, you are trying to test people's priorities, not what is considered right or wrong. Of course right or wrong is very ambiguous and such, but that is why there is such a debate on the issue. My point is that your test is faulty and does not prove anything.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
haha right.
safe to say 99% of em do not adopt. and frankly if you don't adopt, you have no friggin right to complain.
for most lifers, once your born your on your own. its just important you get born no matter what apparently
these people waste their time protesting in front of clinics for potential children when real life children go hungry, get abused, die in the US every day, not to mention what goes on around the world. the pro life position is rather clean and convenient cause for the lazy activist who likes to keep their hands clean. sitting on a sidewalk and yelling is easier then helping real people.to force your views on others in such a contentious issue is pure arrogance. only one side is intent on such force. the other side gives you a choice.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
not really. pro life groups consider that frozen fetus a potential life, as with any other fetus. they think its wrong to destroy it. if in any case you choose your dog over a human fetus which is a "human life" and sacred in pro lifes eyes, there are no cases where you'd choose against its safety.
would i give up my dog to save a real kids life? sure. wouldn't be easy, but i would. but for a fetus? screw the fetus.
if you even have a twinge of doubt at whether you'd give up your pet for a human..errr well fetus....
it proves that a fetus is not as sacred as you think.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
haha right.
safe to say 99% of em do not adopt. and frankly if you don't adopt, you have no friggin right to complain.
for most lifers, once your born your on your own. its just important you get born no matter what apparently
to force your views on others in such a contentious issue is pure arrogance. only one side is intent on such force. the other side gives you a choice.
1.) Just because we do not adopt doesn't mean that we have no say on the issue. We aren't the ones having sex all willy nilly and then killing our child. That's the issue. Not who's taking care of the child.
2.) You use a common logical fallacy there. You are trying to divert people's attention away from the topic at hand and onto something else.
3.) Your third paragraph proves absolutely nothing. You are saying that pro-life people are wrong because we don't offer a choice? That's wrong in itself, but it's also wrong because women and men do have a choice. They have a choice as to whether or not to have sex. That's the choice. The rape issue is a whole different topic. We are talking about the rule, not the exception here. Special considerations must be taken into account when a women is raped and we aren't discussing that right now.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
You are still testing values, not right or wrong. Just because I would save a dog instead of a fetus doesn't mean that a fetus doesn't have rights. If your dog and someone else's child were stuck in a burning building and you only had time to save one, would you just snatch up that other kid and leave your dog w/o hesitating? After saving the child, you may cry afterward that your dog died. Is that wrong? No. It doesn't mean that your dog wasn't important, you just made a decision based on your values. You may even second guess your decision in a few days when you really start missing your dog. That's because your test only tests our values at a given time. I might make the same decision as you and say, screw the fetus, but that may be because the dog is alive and barking at the time while the fetus is just sitting there in the freezer. It's easy to just ignore something that looks lifeless. But that doesn't make it less valuable or precious. BTW: I'm also assuming here that it's actually possible to thaw that fetus. It isn't.
Before a certain time period, the brain is not fully formed. Without the brain, there is no personhood, period. People who believe otherwise certainly have the right to have that belief, just like all the people who believe there's an invisible man in the sky who is in control of the world. Unfortunately, in THIS world, in THIS DAY IN AGE, you do not have the right to force your beliefs on others. You can try and convince people to believe what you believe, but when you start legislating personal opinions into law, thats where the line needs to be drawn. I mean, if we can legislate a personal opinion like anti-abortion into law, why should it end there? Lets just go ahead and make it against the law to eat fast food. In fact, why don't we make it against the law to play football since people get seriously injured and sometimes killed playing it. Who cares if it's someones personal choice?
This is like arguing about a person's right to die if they get in a bad accident and lose full control of all but their basic life functions. Who are you to dictate that the people who will have to support (monetarily) a human vegetable don't have the right to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead? I mean, they're a human right? Pulling the plug is MURDER!
The fetus didn't choose to be concieved, but if the fetus doesn't have consciousness then up until that point the fetus is not a person. The fetus is an organism that will eventually grow into a person given the chance.
Ultrasound testing is a good start. I personally don't think fetuses should be aborted any later than halfway through conception, but who am I to judge others? I have a pro-choice for everyone else stance. Personally I dont approve of it and if I got someone pregnant and they wanted to have an abortion I would try as hard as I could to convince them not to have the abortion, even if that meant I would have to take full custody of the child and raise the baby on my own -- however, beyond that, what right do I have to dictate to another person what they can or cannot do with their body? None -- AND NEITHER DO YOU.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
ussualy one would talk about morals and ethics not values and right and wrong which are vague and more or less interchangable.
anyways, yes you decide which is more valuable. but according to pro life thought, human life or potential life trumps all in regards of value. atleast supposedly.
I disagree, I have every right and even a duty to intervene in anyway I can to save the life of an innocent. Whether it be through a vote for a political leader, picketting an abortion clinic, or futily arguing ad nauseam on ATOT
Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
I disagree, I have every right and even a duty to intervene in anyway I can to save the life of an innocent. Whether it be through a vote for a political leader, picketting an abortion clinic, or futily arguing ad nauseam on ATOT
You also have every right to get your teeth kicked in by me if you ever harrass someone I know who's getting an abortion done.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
Human life is important, but the choices we make don't always reflect that. That is why your test is faulty. If we always did what was right or wrong, or ethically sound, then your test would be ok. I don't think there is a person alive who always does the right thing in all situations. We act based on how we are feeling at the time. I may save the dog, but in my heart I know that the fetus deserves to live as well.
MrColin
Platinum Member
- May 21, 2003
- 2,403
- 3
- 81
Like it or not, we live in a food chain, God is just pretend. If those of us who lack the good judgement to prevent unwanted conception decide to terminate, we ALL benefit. Check out Jerry Springer sometime, do we really need those people breeding?
If you don't like abortion don't have one, and keep your silly religion out of my GF's pants.
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
I disagree, I have every right and even a duty to intervene in anyway I can to save the life of an innocent. Whether it be through a vote for a political leader, picketting an abortion clinic, or futily arguing ad nauseam on ATOT
You also have every right to get your teeth kicked in by me if you ever harrass someone I know who's getting an abortion done.
Bring it on B!TCH!! HEEYAAAW!!! *begins running through TKD kata*
(I'm done arguing in here, going back to useless neffing)
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
still, the decision you make sheds light on your ideas on what is more valuable. the way you make jugement calls...
i may accidentally step on an ant and not think much of it, even though in a way it deserves to live.. i might also set out ant bait later.
Carl Sagan has a good essay on the subject of Abortion that either side should read. It's non-inflammatory but makes you think. It's in his book Billions & Billions which is a nice collection of essays he wrote on various subject matter. There are a lot of interesting things I read in that essay. In particular, in the U.S. a couple hundred years ago, proported abortificants were commonly advertised in, of all places, Church newsletters and newspapers (though the language used was euphemistic, sort of like the marijuana-growing^H^H^H^H^H err hydroponic advertisements you see). As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, it's teachings on abortion have swayed back and forth, with famous Saints like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine being pro-abortion (in the early terms only) and others being pro-life.
The evidence on which the Catholic Church based its current stance on abortion is also quite interesting. In fact, from 1312 onward, the long-standing canon law of the Church was that first-trimester abortions were okay. It is only very very recently in history that they've been completely pro-life. In fact, the current pro-life stance of the Catholic Church which was adopted more-or-less by other Christian Churches dates back to 1869, and not any earlier.
As far as the United States is concerned, from colonial times to the nineteenth century, abortion was the right of a woman to make until "quickening". Second or third-trimester abortions were a misdemeanor. It was only by 1900 that all states in the Union had banned abortion at any time except to save a woman's life. And, to many pro-choice and pro-life advocates' surprise, it wasn't due to pressure by religion but rather, for the most part, by the American Medical Association. In a bid to restrict the practice of abortions to only licensed doctors to shore up business for their membership, the AMA lobbied for an all-out ban on abortions. Their official line was that only a properly trained medical doctor could then make the moral decision of when it was necessary for an abortion to take place because only a doctor could tell when the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's health.
As far as my personal belief is concerned, I tend to side with these earlier held beliefs that very early-term abortions aren't a problem. I dislike some of the logic some people use to justify their opinion though. For instance, I don't think that the decision for an abortion should rely on what is technologically capable at the time. Saying it's right to terminate a fetus at the second trimester because it cannot live outside the womb is putting the actual decision in the hands of technology and avoiding the moral question entirely. Moreover, as a scientist, I don't buy the line that at the moment a sperm and egg meet that a human being is formed. Unknown to billions of people on this earth, a great percentage of these women have had sex and the sperm has penetrated an egg but the fertilized egg has not taken to the walls of the uterus but been naturally aborted. People don't seem to have a problem with this. Which is why I advocate conception and in the case where these defenses falter, the so-called "morning after pill" which is effective up to 72 hours after the sexual encounter and does exactly what the body naturally does quite often - cease to begin the pregnancy (to a doctor, a pregnancy does not start until the fertilized egg has attached itself to the walls of the uterus). Abortion, in this day and age should be the remotest of options for couples wishing not to get pregnant thanks to the plethora of contraception our there.
The evidence on which the Catholic Church based its current stance on abortion is also quite interesting. In fact, from 1312 onward, the long-standing canon law of the Church was that first-trimester abortions were okay. It is only very very recently in history that they've been completely pro-life. In fact, the current pro-life stance of the Catholic Church which was adopted more-or-less by other Christian Churches dates back to 1869, and not any earlier.
As far as the United States is concerned, from colonial times to the nineteenth century, abortion was the right of a woman to make until "quickening". Second or third-trimester abortions were a misdemeanor. It was only by 1900 that all states in the Union had banned abortion at any time except to save a woman's life. And, to many pro-choice and pro-life advocates' surprise, it wasn't due to pressure by religion but rather, for the most part, by the American Medical Association. In a bid to restrict the practice of abortions to only licensed doctors to shore up business for their membership, the AMA lobbied for an all-out ban on abortions. Their official line was that only a properly trained medical doctor could then make the moral decision of when it was necessary for an abortion to take place because only a doctor could tell when the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's health.
As far as my personal belief is concerned, I tend to side with these earlier held beliefs that very early-term abortions aren't a problem. I dislike some of the logic some people use to justify their opinion though. For instance, I don't think that the decision for an abortion should rely on what is technologically capable at the time. Saying it's right to terminate a fetus at the second trimester because it cannot live outside the womb is putting the actual decision in the hands of technology and avoiding the moral question entirely. Moreover, as a scientist, I don't buy the line that at the moment a sperm and egg meet that a human being is formed. Unknown to billions of people on this earth, a great percentage of these women have had sex and the sperm has penetrated an egg but the fertilized egg has not taken to the walls of the uterus but been naturally aborted. People don't seem to have a problem with this. Which is why I advocate conception and in the case where these defenses falter, the so-called "morning after pill" which is effective up to 72 hours after the sexual encounter and does exactly what the body naturally does quite often - cease to begin the pregnancy (to a doctor, a pregnancy does not start until the fertilized egg has attached itself to the walls of the uterus). Abortion, in this day and age should be the remotest of options for couples wishing not to get pregnant thanks to the plethora of contraception our there.
Hmm, so personal opinions can't be law... I see. Alright then, let's decriminalize murder first off since I'm sure not everyone thinks it's wrong. While we're at it let's legalize all drugs since the person doing them is only hurting themselves after all. Plus who are all those square sober people to push their opinion on them? Let's also make stealing leagal since lots of people don't view it as bad. Etc, etc. The list goes on. I realize the point you're trying to make but your argument is completely stupid.
Also to the other ignorant part of your argument about us losing freedoms when opinions become law in case you've been sleeping through the past decade that's already happening. What do you call seat belt laws, the attempt (it'll happen) to ban ephedrine/ephedra, laws against doctor assisted suicide, etc? You can't blame something for having a potential outcome when said outcome is already here.
By the way, nice little threat at the end of your post. I've always wondered what makes geeks like you bust out the e-threats. Must make you feel really tough or something?
Anyway, to summarize my views of the pro-choice movement those people stand for one thing and one thing only. The movement to eliminate all forms of personal responsibility in our society. When you strip away all the crap that's what it really boils down to. I did something without thinking about it/with disreagard for the possible consequences. I don't want to pay the price for it. I shouldn't have to pay the price for it and that's my legal right. That's abortion in a nutshell, pure and simple.
Great post, about the best I've seen in here, including my own
informative yet not inflammatory
yukichigai
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 76
The same way someone thinks that crashing a full plane into a skyscraper will send them to heaven.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter