Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (63 users)
Active: 8117 users | |
|
Please attempt to distinguish between a child and a foetus so that both sides of this debate can attempt to communicate in a common language. You may argue that a child and a foetus have the same rights, that both have souls, that the potential of a foetus to become a child makes it have the same value or whatever but please, please understand that they are two different words which refer to two separate and distinct parts of human development. This is not opinion, this is just what the words mean. People who use child when they mean foetus will be moderated for being lazy/stupid.  KwarK United Kingdom. June 04 2012 07:14. Posts 21021 | Profile Blog # |
On June 04 2012 04:37 Southwards wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 04 2012 04:15 JieXian wrote:
On June 04 2012 00:57 Holophonist wrote:
On June 03 2012 18:50 pyrogenetix wrote:
On June 03 2012 17:56 Birdie wrote:
On June 02 2012 10:22 KlaCkoN wrote:
On June 02 2012 09:50 Mordiford wrote:
On June 02 2012 09:06 Reason wrote:
Pro-life arguments are akin to accusing a man who masturbates of murdering children because he could impregnate a woman with those sperm instead, and shouldn't those sperm be allowed the chance to see the light of day instead of just dying slowly in a sock?
In fact you could argue the act of sex is the most immoral act of all, because in order for one life to come into being millions of possible lives are lost in the process.
Also the first time a young girl begins to ovulate it is therefore her duty to get pregnant as soon as possible, give birth, then get pregnant on her next cycle then give birth again and continue this process until the day she is no longer fertile, because the eggs die if they are not fertilised, and that is murder!
The arguments are not good on both sides. The arguments for abortion are excellent and the arguments against it are terrible.
Nobody is suggesting you can go up to a woman a few hours before labour and say
"Hi there, you haven't given birth yet, so technically it's not alive. I can reach up into your womb, tear your baby out and flush it down the toilet with no hesitation!"
That's not what pro-choice is about.
What pro-life is about is that the moment you fall pregnant and you literally do just have a bundle of multiplying cells inside you that is a life and it absolutely must be given the chance at life because otherwise it's murder!
That's what this law supports, and it's stupid.
You obviously have to draw the line somewhere, that is the only "controversial" thing about this discussion.
Where do you draw that line?
Not should there be a line?
The decision of where to draw the line should be made by medical professionals.
The 22 week line of Sweden sounds right to me.
It's just over halfway through pregnancy, and the baby could technically survive outside the womb.
However, I am uneducated in this matter so my opinion on where to draw this line is irrelevant, and so is yours, unless you are a medical professional who has some serious evidence to support where you propose to draw this line.
Wherever this line is drawn, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, 20 weeks, 25 weeks or anything before, after or in between I trust the decision can be made, definitively and justifiably, based on current knowledge. That's all we can ever do, at any given time, so to propose we shouldn't attempt to draw the line and have an even less acceptable solution (100% yes or no abortion) because we don't know enough yet is also stupid.
If our medical knowledge continues to increase and the line is moved, forward or backward, which is probably inevitable, that's simply progress. I doubt the line would move much, and as time goes on the chances of it moving again lessen, and the size of this change, if it does happen, also decreases.
I think this is a matter of human rights, and just like torture or murder in any civilised country is considered a breach of human rights, so should be any policy on abortion other than pro-choice before this deadline.
After the deadline there is no choice, you give birth to the child then put it up for adoption etc if you don't raise it yourself.
Once again, there is a massive distinction between sperm and eggs and the combination of genetic material that results in an embryo and eventually a child. Gametes will never become a functioning child on their own, a zygote requires a combination of genetic material which will eventually result in a human being. The actual reasoning for your "line" is non-existant, so just as the 22 week line may seem right to you, the 1 day line may seem right to someone else, or the 8 week line may seem right to someone else. Some may be fine with aborting any point before the birth. You haven't actually given solid reasoning, in addition you make the overarching statement that pro-life arguments are bad and pro-choice arguments are good without actually addressing any of the arguments. I'm morally pro-life, but I acknowledge that the lines drawn tend to ultimately be arbitrary therefor it is not entirely reasonable to ban abortion, particularly in cases where the pregnancy is a result of rape. You claim that pro-life arguments are terrible without actually addressing them. What makes an unborn-child a human life and at what point? You can choose the point arbitrarily but your reasoning for why will always be very flimsy, it comes down to some specific attribute that may or may not be universal.
No the reasoning isnt non existant, the line is drawn when its starts becoming possible for the child to survive outside of the womb. Once its possible to develop a child in a test tube from day one the ethical dilemmas surrounding issues like in vitro fertilization or abortion will become a whole lot more interesting. As it stands old men demanding what women do or do not do with their bodies stinks of regression to me.
The abortion issue is not and never has been about the woman's body; it is about the separate entity living inside the woman. We don't allow people outside of the womb to kill others (other than criminals in certain instances in some countries), so why should we allow people to kill those who are inside the womb? Whether or not the foetus could continue to develop outside the womb is also irrelevant. Until a human reaches maturity, they are in a state of growth; newborn babies rely on outside help just as much as babies inside the womb, and are in a state of growth from the moment of conception. I also don't understand the argument about it being OK to abort a baby which comes about as a result of a rape. Rape is a terrible thing, but how does it in some way make it OK for the baby, which has done nothing in and of itself, to be punished for something it didn't do? If the woman gives the baby up for adoption, so be it. If she hates the baby because of the rape, then so be it. But she does not have the moral right to kill that baby, before birth or after, regardless of the circumstances causing the baby. Apologies if my post broke the foetus/child rule, it should be fairly clear what I'm talking about though.
I'm sorry but this post just makes me furious. You're saying a woman should have to put up with 9 months of pregnancy from rape just because you consider the baby inside her womb "has the right to life", because it did "nothing wrong". Sorry but this sugar coated, poetic, romantic view on human life has to stop somewhere. You as a male will never understand what it is like to be pregnant, and setting laws just because you think "every baby should be given the miracle of life" is selfish and naive, bordering on stupidity. I still think people have this notion that we humans have some sort of higher value than animals, that we are a huge rank above all other animals on earth. We show it through thinking that we have actual afterlives, and so many people buy into this shit. People step on spiders and kill flies without a moments hesitation, yet killing little babies is such a debated issue. We are not unique. The world is not going to end if we kill human embryos. The advantages of abortion greatly outweigh the disadvantages if you have a functioning brain. I really don't see the merit of bringing more children into a planet that is already overpopulated, already filled with orphanages full of children living shitty lives. I would like all of you pro life people to actually go to an orphanage and talk to the kids there, see if they are happy. I really don't understand this mentality that human life is so sacred, almost holy, that nobody can mess with it. That once created, must let it come out into the world. Seriously if I was aborted I wouldn't give a shit. If women ruled the world and men were the ones getting pregnant and carrying babies and a bunch of stupid old women set these laws just because they feel that that is the ethical/moral/religious decision, I would be fucking livid. You are ruining young women's lives, you do realize that. I guess it's not cool to care about women anymore?
You're not sorry. You're a horrifying individual and I thank God (the real one) that you wield no power over any other human being (I'm assuming/hoping you're not a parent). We are unique. Sentience matters. Human life IS sacred. Sorry (not really). All of this matters if not for objective reasons, then for subjective. I'm not going to try to prove to you that there is some kind of higher power, and without believing that there's no objective reason to believe in anything involving preserving life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. What I will say is that preserving life whenever possible is, at the very least, erring on the side of caution. Seriously... get real. You're using instances of rape to justify your position? Isn't it something like 1% of all abortions are because of rape? What's the other 99%? When are you guys going to stop using these emotionally driven (yet statistically insignificant) arguments? The rape argument crumbles the moment you grow up and realize the world isn't perfect. Any pro-life person who makes an exception for rape/endangering the mother hasn't put much thought into their position. You either believe it's a human or you don't. You can't commit murder (assuming it should be considered a human) because the mother was raped. The world is a terrible place where terrible things happen. Committing another terrible act to make up for another doesn't make sense. The rape argument is like me saying "hey my diablo 3 account got hacked a week ago... so I'm just gonna take yours since you're not using it yet"
Well look who's emotionally driven.
We are unique. Sentience matters. Human life IS sacred. Sorry
-You think you are unique. -The woman's sentience matters too - she'll have to live with her choice. And you better be a vegan and be against killing mosquitos and other 'pests', otherwise you can only say human's the foetus' sentience matters. -Human life is sacred to you as a Christian but that woman may be an atheist were sacred is not in her vocabulary.
What I will say is that preserving life whenever possible is, at the very least, erring on the side of caution.
dafuk? You telling me that having the child is the safe thing to do while having an abortion is taking a risk?
The rape argument is like me saying "hey my diablo 3 account got hacked a week ago... so I'm just gonna take yours since you're not using it yet
No it's like you saying "hey someone violated me and created a new character in my D3 account a week ago", and since 1) You have to carry a ball in my belly everywhere I go for 9 months until the character becomes fully created in which I'll be in terrible terrible pain for the process to be completed - hindering 2) and 3) for the time being 2) You need to work to feed both myself and my character (and maybe other characters) everyday 3) You need to study to be able to get more money from working to ensure I can buy good items from the AH to ensure all my characters are gosu 4) You need to level all of them them up everyday and make sure every one of them have a good future 5) You need to spend every second making sure my characters don't die because they can't respawn, so you've decided that the best choice is to delete the character before it's fully created because you don't have the means to do so/and so you can forget about the nightmarish incident. (I do know that there are holes in the comparison since the situation is way more complicated than D3. Oh and if you take some parts out it applies to the other 99% you were talking about.)
On a personal note I have never had sex with my girlfriend of a year. Its not because I don't want to or I think sex is bad, but its because I know that there is a failure rate with contraception and that I could not afford to have a child. I don't think this is very unreasonable -_-
Use the pill + condoms + whatever else you can get your hands on. Trust me.
|
| | The angels have the phone box | |
|
|
| Rassy Netherlands. June 04 2012 07:16. Posts 1554 | Profile # |
On June 04 2012 07:12 hzflank wrote:
I know this will make me look bad, but someone has to just say it. This whole debate can be summed up in a simple sentence:
You cannot reason with most religious people.
Its not only religious people who have 2nd thoughts about abortion, just as there are probably a few religious people who have no problem with it at all.
Ghostcom Denmark. June 04 2012 08:09. Posts 1697
"It is quite obvious that this thread has polarized greatly, so perhaps it is about time to conclude that the 2 sides disagree due to different moral views - and that neither moral view can claim to be the correct from an objective point of view...
Last edit: 2012-06-04 08:09:49"
This is to much common sense for the thread to handle Last edit: 2012-06-04 08:15:24 |
|
|
 superbarnie United States. June 04 2012 08:04. Posts 280 | Profile # |
On June 01 2012 05:05 SnipedSoul wrote:
The world is moving backwards.
The world is not moving backwards and it has never been.
The worlds has and is getting worse and worse. Moving backwards would mean it is getting better, which it is not. |
| | Zerg OP | CreansRNub | k-Poop | Zerg OP | Sea lions | \\m// |
|
|
| Ghostcom Denmark. June 04 2012 08:09. Posts 2592 | Profile # |
On June 04 2012 08:04 superbarnie wrote:The world is not moving backwards and it has never been. The worlds has and is getting worse and worse. Moving backwards would mean it is getting better, which it is not.
Yes, the dark age was the best time ever.............
It is quite obvious that this thread has polarized greatly, so perhaps it is about time to conclude that the 2 sides disagree due to different moral views - and that neither moral view can claim to be the correct from an objective point of view...Last edit: 2012-06-04 08:09:49 |
|
|
| radscorpion9 Canada. June 04 2012 08:47. Posts 1386 | Profile # |
I think its a bit irrational to place so much value on a clump of cells, or a developing foetus. The moral reason why we don't kill each other isn't because *life* is sacred, but because consciousness and human awareness is sacred. Once something can begin to show these traits, it is valuable enough to be considered human. This is of course the main reason we have no problem killing animals, because they're considered less conscious and aware than humans, so its "okay". So the only difference here is that with a zygote/foetus, there is a potential for life.
A zygote starts off as a single diploid cell, a completely unaware piece of biological machinery. The "potential" for a human is no greater in those humble beginnings than it is as a concept in the minds of two adults...a couple are just as "guilty" of not allowing life to flourish by deciding not to have a baby as they are by aborting it when it is in this extremely primitive, totally unaware form.
There is no functional difference between the two - in one case a zygote will eventually come to have awareness through a long physiological process...in the other case the concept of having a baby will eventually become a reality once the couple make the decision, fertilize an egg, and then allow the zygote to form through the same process. In both cases, the zygote (or later, foetus) has no awareness...its just that in one case there is a physical cell, or a group of them, and in the other there isn't.
So if the potential for having a baby is the same in both cases, and we don't condemn people for deciding not to have a baby, the only real difference is that in one case there is a physical component and in the other there isn't. What does it matter? Just because there is a physical precursor to life is practically irrelevant, why should it matter logically as to the value of this entity (in this case, as its not fully developed)?
Its like valuing a person's corpse after they're dead. I understand why people do it emotionally, but I assure you the person does not care about his body once he has passed away and would be perfectly fine having it cremated. There is no harm done in removing a physical clump of cells in much the same way, both have no consciousness or awareness, or the ability to feel any pain.
Last edit: 2012-06-04 08:49:14 |
|
|
| gameguard Korea (South). June 04 2012 12:41. Posts 2115 | Profile Blog # |
On June 04 2012 02:01 Reason wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 04 2012 01:49 frogrubdown wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 04 2012 01:27 Reason wrote:
Don't take me the wrong way. I understand what you are trying to get at here, that these arguments are not very convincing given their beliefs. While this might be true, I think that is going to be true of any argument presented to them, because of their beliefs.
The arguments you propose should be more convincing aren't arguments at all, you are just stating the opposite beliefs and hoping/expecting that that will be more effective at changing their views.
I don't think this is the case, I think those three arguments you highlighted are an excellent starting point in the case for why abortion is necessary, though I'm not saying better arguments don't exist I think it's a good start and more than enough to make it abundantly clear that pro-choice is the right choice.
Trying to change core beliefs like all life is sacred etc I think requires more work than convincing arguments on any single topic of discussion, even abortion. I mean either you recognise one life isn't really that special or important, it's not rare, we are already overpopulated etc, which are all facts, and are the kind of person who is capable of acknowledging these facts and using them to form decisions about things like for example being pro-choice about abortion because it's obviously the right thing to do, or you are not.
If you are not one of these people, rather you are pro-life on the abortion topic, it really means a lot more, it means you hold a set of beliefs that have no means of being tested or measured. There is no reason to feel the way you do, you just feel that way anyway. It's pretty similar to being religious actually, being pro-life, honestly I think most of these sentiments come from religious teachings.
Evolution isn't even unanimously accepted and taught in schools yet. If we as a species we are still that stupid then of course you are going to get people who refuse to listen to reason on topics like abortion.
If people don't listen to science then there is something wrong inside their heads and we should try to fix that at the root which is basically religion. I mean how many non religious people do you hear denying scientific facts because they contradict their own baseless made up beliefs? None because only religious people would be so stupid as to make up their own beliefs then refute any and all evidence to the contrary.
I'm not talking about people with spiritual beliefs or people who believe there is a God. I'm talking about people who fail to recognise all the major religions in the world are just copies of older religions stuck together and all claiming all the other religions are false and they are the one true religion/God. It's just a joke and you have to be blind not to see it, if you do even the slightest bit of research it's clear all religions are man made nonsense.
Believe in a God however or having spiritual beliefs of a personal nature means none of these things. You can believe God created the universe and still accept any teachings of science because only man made religions teach things that are not true then try to disagree with the truth when it becomes apparent. Just want to make this clear because I'm sure there are some really intelligent people out there who do have some kind of spiritual beliefs but are not stupid enough to follow modern religious teachings and I specifically don't want to offend these people, in fact I want to praise them.
Fair points (though as a fellow naturalist, I think end up valuing life (especially the human kind) somewhat more than you do). The post I wrote directly above yours responds as much to this as your prior post, so I won't belabor the points. That said, if certain positions are beyond the reach of argument, it's possible that (what to them is) rhetoric is the best path, and maybe rhetoric about rape-victims represents an especially promising kind. But there are also reasons to be dubious here. I recall hearing about studies in which it was shown that one good argument is more effective than one good argument combined with several bad ones. The basic idea is that when someone encounters what they take to be a bad argument against their position, they only get more entrenched in it because they take it as evidence that their opponents are not credible. It's possible that this is all that happens when you expose such people to the three arguments I discussed. Then again, sc2superfan101 mentioned above that many pro-lifers like the rape exception, so maybe that one actually is effective. I have to imagine, though, that most pro-lifers would only be entrenched by the disability argument, finding it symptomatic of a disturbing eugenics program.
I think the arguments about poor quality of life and not forcing your beliefs on others are kind of poor arguments because they are not specific enough. Poor quality of life can arise from any number of issues and the fact is a lot of people have a poor quality of life without being the child of a rape victim and also a lot of people who have a poor quality of life are still happy. Forcing your beliefs on others is just an age old argument that applies to nothing in particular so I doubt the inclusion of these two arguments would do anything to strengthen the case. It's one of these awkard situations where really any example you give just strengthens their case because whatever scenario you come up with they just point out the moral problems and say "pro-life" and that's the end of it. I bring up religion because I really do feel it's a similar problem. It's the core belief that every life is precious and must survive at all cost no matter what which has no real justification. I mean why is it so precious? You won't get a physical or mathematical answer. It's just "I feel" this or "I've decided that it is" and how the hell can you just do that? For pro-life people who really can't understand the line has to be drawn somewhere, think about sex. I can sit next to your 15 year old daughter with a stop watch and if I touch her before she is 16 it's statutory rape and people might even call me a pedophile but if she was born at 6am 16 years ago and the clock strikes 6 I can jump on top of her because she is now a consenting adult. If the majority of the world is happy to have a line drawn (do any countries have no laws on sex out of curiosity?) where people become old enough to have sex and 5 seconds before that time you are just a little child and if I touch you I'm a rapist but 10 seconds later you are a sexy young woman and it's called "getting lucky" to have intercourse with you then why do people have a problem with accepting a line also needs to be drawn with abortion?
forcing your beliefs arguement is really the only sensible one that could be made. Like you said, any kind of logical or pragmatic viewpoint on this issue is just dismissed because their beliefs on what is human/sacred/right/moral is fundamentally different. We can go on and on about where to draw the line without ever comming to a consensus. In the end, pro choice gives just that, a choice. No one is gonna force you to get an abortion because they think the earth is overpopulated or because they think you will make a bad parent. On the other hand, pro-life is basically saying everyone should adhere to their viewpoint on what is basically a philosophical issue. |
|
|
| Birdie New Zealand. June 04 2012 12:46. Posts 1323 | Profile Blog # |
No one is
gonna force you to get an abortion because they
think the earth is overpopulated or because they
think you will make a bad parent.
That is actually what some people suggest, and is the logical next step.
On the other hand,
pro-life is basically saying everyone should adhere to their viewpoint on what is basically a
philosophical issue.
No, it's a moral issue. You would agree that everyone should adhere to the viewpoint that killing is wrong, right? This is a belief that most governments and people force on other people, right? Abortion is the same issue; it is erronous to suggest that it is wrong to force a belief on someone. |
| | Red classic | A butterfly dreamed he was Zhuangzi | The guy Nagisama has nightmares about. | |
|
|
| Holophonist United States. June 04 2012 12:56. Posts 295 | Profile # |
On June 04 2012 06:38 Recognizable wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 04 2012 00:57 Holophonist wrote:
On June 03 2012 18:50 pyrogenetix wrote:
On June 03 2012 17:56 Birdie wrote:
On June 02 2012 10:22 KlaCkoN wrote:
On June 02 2012 09:50 Mordiford wrote:
On June 02 2012 09:06 Reason wrote:
Pro-life arguments are akin to accusing a man who masturbates of murdering children because he could impregnate a woman with those sperm instead, and shouldn't those sperm be allowed the chance to see the light of day instead of just dying slowly in a sock?
In fact you could argue the act of sex is the most immoral act of all, because in order for one life to come into being millions of possible lives are lost in the process.
Also the first time a young girl begins to ovulate it is therefore her duty to get pregnant as soon as possible, give birth, then get pregnant on her next cycle then give birth again and continue this process until the day she is no longer fertile, because the eggs die if they are not fertilised, and that is murder!
The arguments are not good on both sides. The arguments for abortion are excellent and the arguments against it are terrible.
Nobody is suggesting you can go up to a woman a few hours before labour and say
"Hi there, you haven't given birth yet, so technically it's not alive. I can reach up into your womb, tear your baby out and flush it down the toilet with no hesitation!"
That's not what pro-choice is about.
What pro-life is about is that the moment you fall pregnant and you literally do just have a bundle of multiplying cells inside you that is a life and it absolutely must be given the chance at life because otherwise it's murder!
That's what this law supports, and it's stupid.
You obviously have to draw the line somewhere, that is the only "controversial" thing about this discussion.
Where do you draw that line?
Not should there be a line?
The decision of where to draw the line should be made by medical professionals.
The 22 week line of Sweden sounds right to me.
It's just over halfway through pregnancy, and the baby could technically survive outside the womb.
However, I am uneducated in this matter so my opinion on where to draw this line is irrelevant, and so is yours, unless you are a medical professional who has some serious evidence to support where you propose to draw this line.
Wherever this line is drawn, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, 20 weeks, 25 weeks or anything before, after or in between I trust the decision can be made, definitively and justifiably, based on current knowledge. That's all we can ever do, at any given time, so to propose we shouldn't attempt to draw the line and have an even less acceptable solution (100% yes or no abortion) because we don't know enough yet is also stupid.
If our medical knowledge continues to increase and the line is moved, forward or backward, which is probably inevitable, that's simply progress. I doubt the line would move much, and as time goes on the chances of it moving again lessen, and the size of this change, if it does happen, also decreases.
I think this is a matter of human rights, and just like torture or murder in any civilised country is considered a breach of human rights, so should be any policy on abortion other than pro-choice before this deadline.
After the deadline there is no choice, you give birth to the child then put it up for adoption etc if you don't raise it yourself.
Once again, there is a massive distinction between sperm and eggs and the combination of genetic material that results in an embryo and eventually a child. Gametes will never become a functioning child on their own, a zygote requires a combination of genetic material which will eventually result in a human being. The actual reasoning for your "line" is non-existant, so just as the 22 week line may seem right to you, the 1 day line may seem right to someone else, or the 8 week line may seem right to someone else. Some may be fine with aborting any point before the birth. You haven't actually given solid reasoning, in addition you make the overarching statement that pro-life arguments are bad and pro-choice arguments are good without actually addressing any of the arguments. I'm morally pro-life, but I acknowledge that the lines drawn tend to ultimately be arbitrary therefor it is not entirely reasonable to ban abortion, particularly in cases where the pregnancy is a result of rape. You claim that pro-life arguments are terrible without actually addressing them. What makes an unborn-child a human life and at what point? You can choose the point arbitrarily but your reasoning for why will always be very flimsy, it comes down to some specific attribute that may or may not be universal.
No the reasoning isnt non existant, the line is drawn when its starts becoming possible for the child to survive outside of the womb. Once its possible to develop a child in a test tube from day one the ethical dilemmas surrounding issues like in vitro fertilization or abortion will become a whole lot more interesting. As it stands old men demanding what women do or do not do with their bodies stinks of regression to me.
The abortion issue is not and never has been about the woman's body; it is about the separate entity living inside the woman. We don't allow people outside of the womb to kill others (other than criminals in certain instances in some countries), so why should we allow people to kill those who are inside the womb? Whether or not the foetus could continue to develop outside the womb is also irrelevant. Until a human reaches maturity, they are in a state of growth; newborn babies rely on outside help just as much as babies inside the womb, and are in a state of growth from the moment of conception. I also don't understand the argument about it being OK to abort a baby which comes about as a result of a rape. Rape is a terrible thing, but how does it in some way make it OK for the baby, which has done nothing in and of itself, to be punished for something it didn't do? If the woman gives the baby up for adoption, so be it. If she hates the baby because of the rape, then so be it. But she does not have the moral right to kill that baby, before birth or after, regardless of the circumstances causing the baby. Apologies if my post broke the foetus/child rule, it should be fairly clear what I'm talking about though.
I'm sorry but this post just makes me furious. You're saying a woman should have to put up with 9 months of pregnancy from rape just because you consider the baby inside her womb "has the right to life", because it did "nothing wrong". Sorry but this sugar coated, poetic, romantic view on human life has to stop somewhere. You as a male will never understand what it is like to be pregnant, and setting laws just because you think "every baby should be given the miracle of life" is selfish and naive, bordering on stupidity. I still think people have this notion that we humans have some sort of higher value than animals, that we are a huge rank above all other animals on earth. We show it through thinking that we have actual afterlives, and so many people buy into this shit. People step on spiders and kill flies without a moments hesitation, yet killing little babies is such a debated issue. We are not unique. The world is not going to end if we kill human embryos. The advantages of abortion greatly outweigh the disadvantages if you have a functioning brain. I really don't see the merit of bringing more children into a planet that is already overpopulated, already filled with orphanages full of children living shitty lives. I would like all of you pro life people to actually go to an orphanage and talk to the kids there, see if they are happy. I really don't understand this mentality that human life is so sacred, almost holy, that nobody can mess with it. That once created, must let it come out into the world. Seriously if I was aborted I wouldn't give a shit. If women ruled the world and men were the ones getting pregnant and carrying babies and a bunch of stupid old women set these laws just because they feel that that is the ethical/moral/religious decision, I would be fucking livid. You are ruining young women's lives, you do realize that. I guess it's not cool to care about women anymore?
You're not sorry. You're a horrifying individual and I thank God (the real one) that you wield no power over any other human being (I'm assuming/hoping you're not a parent). We are unique. Sentience matters. Human life IS sacred. Sorry (not really). All of this matters if not for objective reasons, then for subjective. I'm not going to try to prove to you that there is some kind of higher power, and without believing that there's no objective reason to believe in anything involving preserving life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. What I will say is that preserving life whenever possible is, at the very least, erring on the side of caution. Seriously... get real. You're using instances of rape to justify your position? Isn't it something like 1% of all abortions are because of rape? What's the other 99%? When are you guys going to stop using these emotionally driven (yet statistically insignificant) arguments? The rape argument crumbles the moment you grow up and realize the world isn't perfect. Any pro-life person who makes an exception for rape/endangering the mother hasn't put much thought into their position. You either believe it's a human or you don't. You can't commit murder (assuming it should be considered a human) because the mother was raped. The world is a terrible place where terrible things happen. Committing another terrible act to make up for another doesn't make sense. The rape argument is like me saying "hey my diablo 3 account got hacked a week ago... so I'm just gonna take yours since you're not using it yet"
You can not prove that there is a ''higher power''... That's the whole point of a belief. It's a belief...Which is what makes it so scary. Anyway, correct me if I misunderstood that sentence, but do you think atheists just go around and kill people, are unhappy and don't want to be free? Humans aren't special. We are just higher on the food chain than all the other animals. Also, am I the only one that hates the ''pro-life'' brand people who are pro abortion have given themselves. It automatically makes everyone against abortion, anti-life. I'm not anti life, the benefits of abortion just drastically outweigh the negatives.
Yes, that's a misunderstanding. To say that objective good comes from God doesn't mean that only christians can be good. It just means the "good" they're doing is only "good" because of where "good" comes from. Without an objective good, there's no point in discussing anything. There are just a set of arbitrary laws we've banded together to form for... some reason?
And you can call a belief a "scary thing" but everything you think you know is simply a belief. The scientific truths that we all currently believe (including myself) are themselves so far outside the realm of understanding for 99.9999% of the population (myself included again) that we're still acting on faith. It's just that we trust the people who happen to be the current smartest and most talented people of our time. Bottom line: nobody has the true answers. Not me, and not you. The difference is that I recognize that. Not all pro-life arguments are backed up by scripture.
|
| | Just like my Grandpa used to say, "Never forget that the... thing.. and there was like.... a guy with this. Hmmm......" |
|
|
| neversummer United States. June 04 2012 12:58. Posts 156 | Profile # |
It is not within the rights of man to judge the morality of others.
It is not within the rights of man to tell women what to do with their bodies.
If any blindy religious individuals would like to attack a straw man by bringing up crime prevention like murder, rape and theft, then I encourage you to do so. I will, however, politely decline to respond. |
| | Those scientists better check their hypotenuses, dude. |
|
|
| Holophonist United States. June 04 2012 13:04. Posts 295 | Profile # |
On June 04 2012 04:15 JieXian wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 04 2012 00:57 Holophonist wrote:
On June 03 2012 18:50 pyrogenetix wrote:
On June 03 2012 17:56 Birdie wrote:
On June 02 2012 10:22 KlaCkoN wrote:
On June 02 2012 09:50 Mordiford wrote:
On June 02 2012 09:06 Reason wrote:
Pro-life arguments are akin to accusing a man who masturbates of murdering children because he could impregnate a woman with those sperm instead, and shouldn't those sperm be allowed the chance to see the light of day instead of just dying slowly in a sock?
In fact you could argue the act of sex is the most immoral act of all, because in order for one life to come into being millions of possible lives are lost in the process.
Also the first time a young girl begins to ovulate it is therefore her duty to get pregnant as soon as possible, give birth, then get pregnant on her next cycle then give birth again and continue this process until the day she is no longer fertile, because the eggs die if they are not fertilised, and that is murder!
The arguments are not good on both sides. The arguments for abortion are excellent and the arguments against it are terrible.
Nobody is suggesting you can go up to a woman a few hours before labour and say
"Hi there, you haven't given birth yet, so technically it's not alive. I can reach up into your womb, tear your baby out and flush it down the toilet with no hesitation!"
That's not what pro-choice is about.
What pro-life is about is that the moment you fall pregnant and you literally do just have a bundle of multiplying cells inside you that is a life and it absolutely must be given the chance at life because otherwise it's murder!
That's what this law supports, and it's stupid.
You obviously have to draw the line somewhere, that is the only "controversial" thing about this discussion.
Where do you draw that line?
Not should there be a line?
The decision of where to draw the line should be made by medical professionals.
The 22 week line of Sweden sounds right to me.
It's just over halfway through pregnancy, and the baby could technically survive outside the womb.
However, I am uneducated in this matter so my opinion on where to draw this line is irrelevant, and so is yours, unless you are a medical professional who has some serious evidence to support where you propose to draw this line.
Wherever this line is drawn, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, 20 weeks, 25 weeks or anything before, after or in between I trust the decision can be made, definitively and justifiably, based on current knowledge. That's all we can ever do, at any given time, so to propose we shouldn't attempt to draw the line and have an even less acceptable solution (100% yes or no abortion) because we don't know enough yet is also stupid.
If our medical knowledge continues to increase and the line is moved, forward or backward, which is probably inevitable, that's simply progress. I doubt the line would move much, and as time goes on the chances of it moving again lessen, and the size of this change, if it does happen, also decreases.
I think this is a matter of human rights, and just like torture or murder in any civilised country is considered a breach of human rights, so should be any policy on abortion other than pro-choice before this deadline.
After the deadline there is no choice, you give birth to the child then put it up for adoption etc if you don't raise it yourself.
Once again, there is a massive distinction between sperm and eggs and the combination of genetic material that results in an embryo and eventually a child. Gametes will never become a functioning child on their own, a zygote requires a combination of genetic material which will eventually result in a human being. The actual reasoning for your "line" is non-existant, so just as the 22 week line may seem right to you, the 1 day line may seem right to someone else, or the 8 week line may seem right to someone else. Some may be fine with aborting any point before the birth. You haven't actually given solid reasoning, in addition you make the overarching statement that pro-life arguments are bad and pro-choice arguments are good without actually addressing any of the arguments. I'm morally pro-life, but I acknowledge that the lines drawn tend to ultimately be arbitrary therefor it is not entirely reasonable to ban abortion, particularly in cases where the pregnancy is a result of rape. You claim that pro-life arguments are terrible without actually addressing them. What makes an unborn-child a human life and at what point? You can choose the point arbitrarily but your reasoning for why will always be very flimsy, it comes down to some specific attribute that may or may not be universal.
No the reasoning isnt non existant, the line is drawn when its starts becoming possible for the child to survive outside of the womb. Once its possible to develop a child in a test tube from day one the ethical dilemmas surrounding issues like in vitro fertilization or abortion will become a whole lot more interesting. As it stands old men demanding what women do or do not do with their bodies stinks of regression to me.
The abortion issue is not and never has been about the woman's body; it is about the separate entity living inside the woman. We don't allow people outside of the womb to kill others (other than criminals in certain instances in some countries), so why should we allow people to kill those who are inside the womb? Whether or not the foetus could continue to develop outside the womb is also irrelevant. Until a human reaches maturity, they are in a state of growth; newborn babies rely on outside help just as much as babies inside the womb, and are in a state of growth from the moment of conception. I also don't understand the argument about it being OK to abort a baby which comes about as a result of a rape. Rape is a terrible thing, but how does it in some way make it OK for the baby, which has done nothing in and of itself, to be punished for something it didn't do? If the woman gives the baby up for adoption, so be it. If she hates the baby because of the rape, then so be it. But she does not have the moral right to kill that baby, before birth or after, regardless of the circumstances causing the baby. Apologies if my post broke the foetus/child rule, it should be fairly clear what I'm talking about though.
I'm sorry but this post just makes me furious. You're saying a woman should have to put up with 9 months of pregnancy from rape just because you consider the baby inside her womb "has the right to life", because it did "nothing wrong". Sorry but this sugar coated, poetic, romantic view on human life has to stop somewhere. You as a male will never understand what it is like to be pregnant, and setting laws just because you think "every baby should be given the miracle of life" is selfish and naive, bordering on stupidity. I still think people have this notion that we humans have some sort of higher value than animals, that we are a huge rank above all other animals on earth. We show it through thinking that we have actual afterlives, and so many people buy into this shit. People step on spiders and kill flies without a moments hesitation, yet killing little babies is such a debated issue. We are not unique. The world is not going to end if we kill human embryos. The advantages of abortion greatly outweigh the disadvantages if you have a functioning brain. I really don't see the merit of bringing more children into a planet that is already overpopulated, already filled with orphanages full of children living shitty lives. I would like all of you pro life people to actually go to an orphanage and talk to the kids there, see if they are happy. I really don't understand this mentality that human life is so sacred, almost holy, that nobody can mess with it. That once created, must let it come out into the world. Seriously if I was aborted I wouldn't give a shit. If women ruled the world and men were the ones getting pregnant and carrying babies and a bunch of stupid old women set these laws just because they feel that that is the ethical/moral/religious decision, I would be fucking livid. You are ruining young women's lives, you do realize that. I guess it's not cool to care about women anymore?
You're not sorry. You're a horrifying individual and I thank God (the real one) that you wield no power over any other human being (I'm assuming/hoping you're not a parent). We are unique. Sentience matters. Human life IS sacred. Sorry (not really). All of this matters if not for objective reasons, then for subjective. I'm not going to try to prove to you that there is some kind of higher power, and without believing that there's no objective reason to believe in anything involving preserving life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. What I will say is that preserving life whenever possible is, at the very least, erring on the side of caution. Seriously... get real. You're using instances of rape to justify your position? Isn't it something like 1% of all abortions are because of rape? What's the other 99%? When are you guys going to stop using these emotionally driven (yet statistically insignificant) arguments? The rape argument crumbles the moment you grow up and realize the world isn't perfect. Any pro-life person who makes an exception for rape/endangering the mother hasn't put much thought into their position. You either believe it's a human or you don't. You can't commit murder (assuming it should be considered a human) because the mother was raped. The world is a terrible place where terrible things happen. Committing another terrible act to make up for another doesn't make sense. The rape argument is like me saying "hey my diablo 3 account got hacked a week ago... so I'm just gonna take yours since you're not using it yet"
Well look who's emotionally driven. -You think you are unique. -The woman's sentience matters too - she'll have to live with her choice. And you better be a vegan and be against killing mosquitos and other 'pests', otherwise you can only say human's the foetus' sentience matters. -Human life is sacred to you as a Christian but that woman may be an atheist were sacred is not in her vocabulary.
Show nested quote +What I will say is that preserving life whenever possible is, at the very least, erring on the side of caution.
dafuk? You telling me that having the child is the safe thing to do while having an abortion is taking a risk?
Show nested quote +The rape argument is like me saying "hey my diablo 3 account got hacked a week ago... so I'm just gonna take yours since you're not using it yet
No it's like you saying "hey someone violated me and created a new character in my D3 account a week ago", and since 1) You have to carry a ball in my belly everywhere I go for 9 months until the character becomes fully created in which I'll be in terrible terrible pain for the process to be completed - hindering 2) and 3) for the time being 2) You need to work to feed both myself and my character (and maybe other characters) everyday 3) You need to study to be able to get more money from working to ensure I can buy good items from the AH to ensure all my characters are gosu 4) You need to level all of them them up everyday and make sure every one of them have a good future 5) You need to spend every second making sure my characters don't die because they can't respawn, so you've decided that the best choice is to delete the character before it's fully created because you don't have the means to do so/and so you can forget about the nightmarish incident. (I do know that there are holes in the comparison since the situation is way more complicated than D3. Oh and if you take some parts out it applies to the other 99% you were talking about.)
I chose my words carefully and I specifically said emotionally driven and statistically insignificant. But I expected that kind of pointless jab so whatever.
Also the counter d3 argument doesn't make any sense (not that mine made too much) because deleting a d3 character doesn't cause any harm. You have to have harm being done to somebody else in order to make it comparable (in my opinion). The whole idea is that the fetus has a future has a sentient, living human being. A d3 character will never be anything other than pixels. But all of that aside the real point of the comparison was to say that just because somebody did something bad, it doesn't mean you can do anything you want to make it right FOR YOU. And it was mainly directed at people who claim to be pro-life except in the case of rape. It's wrong or it isn't. Rape doesn't make abortion any less wrong.
*EDIT*
Forgot to respond to the erring on the side of caution thing. Yes but not in the way you're thinking. I mean we're all just speculating on the morality of abortion one way or the other. Obviously I personally believe that the ultimate judgement of what's right and wrong is with God, but I'm sure you can agree that there's a higher moral code or law than simply what you currently believe to be good or just. What I mean is you may hold positions now that you will later decide were wrong or ill conceived or whatever. Think of that concept as your god, your judge. That's what I mean when I say a pro-life decision is erring on the side of caution.
Last edit: 2012-06-04 13:12:52 |
| | Just like my Grandpa used to say, "Never forget that the... thing.. and there was like.... a guy with this. Hmmm......" |
|
|
| skidog13 United States. June 04 2012 13:14. Posts 1 | Profile # |
| i struggle with the separation of a fetus and a human life. to me, the fact that a fetus has the [/i]potential to become[/i] a human makes me feel that abortion is the same as killing a person. and to argue that because the child may have something like down-syndrome makes it okay to kill it, is like saying it would be okay to kill anyone with down-syndrome. i think that puts us on a slippery slope to eugenics... |
|
|
| gameguard Korea (South). June 04 2012 13:14. Posts 2115 | Profile Blog # |
On June 04 2012 12:46 Birdie wrote:
Show nested quote +No one is
gonna force you to get an abortion because they
think the earth is overpopulated or because they
think you will make a bad parent.
That is actually what some people suggest, and is the logical next step.
Show nested quote +
On the other hand,
pro-life is basically saying everyone should adhere to their viewpoint on what is basically a
philosophical issue.
No, it's a moral issue. You would agree that everyone should adhere to the viewpoint that killing is wrong, right? This is a belief that most governments and people force on other people, right? Abortion is the same issue; it is erronous to suggest that it is wrong to force a belief on someone.
its not the same thing because there is no dispute or controversy on murder. Everyone agrees that senseless killing is wrong and detrimental to society. And no, not everyone agrees that abortion is murder. |
|
|
| Holophonist United States. June 04 2012 13:15. Posts 295 | Profile # |
On June 04 2012 12:58 neversummer wrote:
It is not within the rights of man to judge the morality of others.
It is not within the rights of man to tell women what to do with their bodies.
If any blindy religious individuals would like to attack a straw man by bringing up crime prevention like murder, rape and theft, then I encourage you to do so. I will, however, politely decline to respond.
This is the kind of waste of time that makes me furious. The WHOLE discussion is whether or not it's "her body". To simply say you can't tell a woman what to do with her body doesn't actually SAY anything at all. It totally sidesteps the ENTIRE ARGUMENT. |
| | Just like my Grandpa used to say, "Never forget that the... thing.. and there was like.... a guy with this. Hmmm......" |
|
|
| DarkPlasmaBall United States. June 04 2012 13:16. Posts 20098 | Profile Blog # |
On June 04 2012 12:58 neversummer wrote:
It is not within the rights of man to judge the morality of others.
It is not within the rights of man to tell women what to do with their bodies.
If any blindy religious individuals would like to attack a straw man by bringing up crime prevention like murder, rape and theft, then I encourage you to do so. I will, however, politely decline to respond.
Are you saying that I can't judge you based on your moral beliefs and your actions based on those beliefs?
Of course I can. I have every right to. And it would be silly of me not to, especially if I strongly disagree with them and if your beliefs aren't based on strong reason. (I can just as easily judge you and agree with you too, of course.) By judgment, I mean merely evaluating or assessing. And why shouldn't we judge one another, as long as there's no prejudice? You're to blame for my judgment, whereas I'm to blame for my prejudice. We can surely have an open, honest discussion about the things we disagree with, which is how progress is often made. |
| | "Those who can, teach. Those who can't, whine about teachers." ~Me |
|
|
| Rassy Netherlands. June 04 2012 13:17. Posts 1554 | Profile # |
On June 04 2012 08:47 radscorpion9 wrote:
I think its a bit irrational to place so much value on a clump of cells, or a developing foetus. The moral reason why we don't kill each other isn't because *life* is sacred, but because consciousness and human awareness is sacred. Once something can begin to show these traits, it is valuable enough to be considered human. This is of course the main reason we have no problem killing animals, because they're considered less conscious and aware than humans, so its "okay". So the only difference here is that with a zygote/foetus, there is a potential for life.
A zygote starts off as a single diploid cell, a completely unaware piece of biological machinery. The "potential" for a human is no greater in those humble beginnings than it is as a concept in the minds of two adults...a couple are just as "guilty" of not allowing life to flourish by deciding not to have a baby as they are by aborting it when it is in this extremely primitive, totally unaware form.
There is no functional difference between the two - in one case a zygote will eventually come to have awareness through a long physiological process...in the other case the concept of having a baby will eventually become a reality once the couple make the decision, fertilize an egg, and then allow the zygote to form through the same process. In both cases, the zygote (or later, foetus) has no awareness...its just that in one case there is a physical cell, or a group of them, and in the other there isn't.
So if the potential for having a baby is the same in both cases, and we don't condemn people for deciding not to have a baby, the only real difference is that in one case there is a physical component and in the other there isn't. What does it matter? Just because there is a physical precursor to life is practically irrelevant, why should it matter logically as to the value of this entity (in this case, as its not fully developed)?
Its like valuing a person's corpse after they're dead. I understand why people do it emotionally, but I assure you the person does not care about his body once he has passed away and would be perfectly fine having it cremated. There is no harm done in removing a physical clump of cells in much the same way, both have no consciousness or awareness, or the ability to feel any pain.
Are you now realy saying that there is no fundamental difference between a couple who decides they want to have a baby, and a couple who already has a 1 week old fetus?
That the idea of a fetus is the same as a real fetus?
This is to weird to respond to tbh but ok.
There is a change that the couple who is planning to have a baby will change their mind, there is also a change that conception will not take place at all.
The potential is not the same.
/boredLast edit: 2012-06-04 13:20:49 |
|
|
| gameguard Korea (South). June 04 2012 13:23. Posts 2115 | Profile Blog # |
On June 04 2012 13:17 Rassy wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 04 2012 08:47 radscorpion9 wrote:
I think its a bit irrational to place so much value on a clump of cells, or a developing foetus. The moral reason why we don't kill each other isn't because *life* is sacred, but because consciousness and human awareness is sacred. Once something can begin to show these traits, it is valuable enough to be considered human. This is of course the main reason we have no problem killing animals, because they're considered less conscious and aware than humans, so its "okay". So the only difference here is that with a zygote/foetus, there is a potential for life.
A zygote starts off as a single diploid cell, a completely unaware piece of biological machinery. The "potential" for a human is no greater in those humble beginnings than it is as a concept in the minds of two adults...a couple are just as "guilty" of not allowing life to flourish by deciding not to have a baby as they are by aborting it when it is in this extremely primitive, totally unaware form.
There is no functional difference between the two - in one case a zygote will eventually come to have awareness through a long physiological process...in the other case the concept of having a baby will eventually become a reality once the couple make the decision, fertilize an egg, and then allow the zygote to form through the same process. In both cases, the zygote (or later, foetus) has no awareness...its just that in one case there is a physical cell, or a group of them, and in the other there isn't.
So if the potential for having a baby is the same in both cases, and we don't condemn people for deciding not to have a baby, the only real difference is that in one case there is a physical component and in the other there isn't. What does it matter? Just because there is a physical precursor to life is practically irrelevant, why should it matter logically as to the value of this entity (in this case, as its not fully developed)?
Its like valuing a person's corpse after they're dead. I understand why people do it emotionally, but I assure you the person does not care about his body once he has passed away and would be perfectly fine having it cremated. There is no harm done in removing a physical clump of cells in much the same way, both have no consciousness or awareness, or the ability to feel any pain.
Are you now realy saying that there is no fundamental difference between a couple who decides they want to have a baby, and a couple who already has a 1 week old fetus? That the idea of a fetus is the same as a real fetus? This is to weird to respond to tbh but ok. There is a change that the couple who is planning to have a baby will change their mind, there is also a change that conception will not take place at all. The potential is not the same. /bored
he said the "functional outcome" is the same. Which is true. |
|
|
| neversummer United States. June 04 2012 14:14. Posts 156 | Profile # |
On June 04 2012 13:15 Holophonist wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 04 2012 12:58 neversummer wrote:
It is not within the rights of man to judge the morality of others.
It is not within the rights of man to tell women what to do with their bodies.
If any blindy religious individuals would like to attack a straw man by bringing up crime prevention like murder, rape and theft, then I encourage you to do so. I will, however, politely decline to respond.
This is the kind of waste of time that makes me furious. The WHOLE discussion is whether or not it's "her body". To simply say you can't tell a woman what to do with her body doesn't actually SAY anything at all. It totally sidesteps the ENTIRE ARGUMENT.
If three lines of text on a TL forum make you furious, then you should probably seek professional help. If you can't infer, based upon the clear (at least I thought it was?) statement I presented, that I am in fact pro-choice and would therefore argue that it is HER body (yea, pretty sure I said that outright actually, not sure where the confusion was), then you should probably seek professional help.
On June 04 2012 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 04 2012 12:58 neversummer wrote:
It is not within the rights of man to judge the morality of others.
It is not within the rights of man to tell women what to do with their bodies.
If any blindy religious individuals would like to attack a straw man by bringing up crime prevention like murder, rape and theft, then I encourage you to do so. I will, however, politely decline to respond.
Are you saying that I can't judge you based on your moral beliefs and your actions based on those beliefs? Of course I can. I have every right to. And it would be silly of me not to, especially if I strongly disagree with them and if your beliefs aren't based on strong reason. (I can just as easily judge you and agree with you too, of course.) By judgment, I mean merely evaluating or assessing. And why shouldn't we judge one another, as long as there's no prejudice? You're to blame for my judgment, whereas I'm to blame for my prejudice. We can surely have an open, honest discussion about the things we disagree with, which is how progress is often made.
You're arguing semantics. I'm implying there is only one being qualified to judge humanity. He is not of this Earth.
OH MY GOD HE'S RELIGIOUS AND HE'S PRO-CHOICE. It's because I, like you, am not qualified to judge the decisions of other people, unless those decisions put other people (i.e, non-fetus) at risk. |
| | Those scientists better check their hypotenuses, dude. |
|
|
| Chocolate United States. June 04 2012 14:29. Posts 1519 | Profile Blog # |
On June 04 2012 13:14 skidog13 wrote:
i struggle with the separation of a fetus and a human life. to me, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a human makes me feel that abortion is the same as killing a person. and to argue that because the child may have something like down-syndrome makes it okay to kill it, is like saying it would be okay to kill anyone with down-syndrome. i think that puts us on a slippery slope to eugenics...
[/i][/i]
I think the difference between a fetus and a human life is quite apparent. Obviously, they are both human, but one is born and the other is not. One has a developed brain, the other has either no brain or a developing one. I dont think anyone in this thread is arguing for abortion of an 8month old fetus, but I think most prochoice would be fine with the abortion of a child of less than 8 weeks or use of the morning after pill.
Sperm and egg cells also have the potential for life. Fetuses are the next step, but I dont see how a bunch of cells constitute a being that has independent rights.
The down-syndrome argument is that a couple that is trying to get pregnant probably does not want a down syndrome child. Such a child will require lots of care and financial support as long as the parents are alive, hampering their ability to provide for children that are "normal." No one honestly wants a child with down syndrome when they plan a family, and after the parents die (or maybe before) it will probably not live in good conditions. |
|
|
| pyrogenetix China. June 04 2012 14:42. Posts 5055 | Profile Blog # |
If human life is not sacred or special or to be valued in any way according to you, then in that case we may as well go ahead with euthenasia, abortion, and eugenics. Let's kill all criminals, as they're detrimental to society. Let's kill all mentally or physically retarded people, because they're detrimental to society. This is the logical next step from what you are suggesting.
That's another topic but I'm actually not against any of that, especially euthanasia.
I guarantee you that 90% of all children in orphanages won't commit suicide just because their life is "shitty". People really like to live, even if their life is not great. Survival is paramount to most people's way of life; otherwise, they would 't be alive. The aborted babies are no different; if they had the chance to live they would take it and hold on to it same as everyone else.
Are you sure?
Can any pro-choicer (so called, the words used in abortion discussions are extremely political, even the word abortion itself) explain to me why it is that the rights of a woman to have a more comfortable life come before the rights of a baby to live? I've never understood how that works.
Because the pros of having a normal life getting higher education and a career is better than dropping out of school and becoming a young mother which can spiral into becoming a burden on society, which may very well lead to bad upbringing of children resulting in tons shitty teenagers?
You're not sorry. You're a horrifying individual and I thank God (the real one) that you wield no power over any other human being (I'm assuming/hoping you're not a parent).
Why would I wield any power over any human being? Where were you going with that? I'm an atheist by the way so, have fun stereotyping us even more.
Actually I am sorry, for a lot of things.
I feel sorry for the women who have to endure raising a child they are not ready to have.
I am sorry for humans that we still have this discussion in 2012.
I am sorry for the world that we will never realize our full potential because of religion continuously holding us back.
I am sorry for our future which looks bleak because we will probably die much earlier than we should, probably because of some stupid nuclear war started by someone who thinks God (the real one) is on his side and not his enemy's.
We are unique. Sentience matters. Human life IS sacred. Sorry (not really).
That really is your opinion. How I see it, in the grand scheme of things as in the universe exploding where stars form and burn out, planets are created and destroyed etc, sentient life on this small rock floating in vacuum really isn't such a big deal. Again, this goes back to how humans have this inflated sense of themselves, as if we are not to be messed with or something. As if we are paramount to this planet's survival, as if we are part of the solution, as if we are not the reason animals are going extinct every day.
All of this matters if not for objective reasons, then for subjective. I'm not going to try to prove to you that there is some kind of higher power, and without believing that there's no objective reason to believe in anything involving preserving life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. What I will say is that preserving life whenever possible is, at the very least, erring on the side of caution.
That really is your personal opinion shaped by your upbringing and personal experience, and if you cannot recognize that and you are still forcing this onto other people it only shows how ignorant you are.
Seriously... get real. You're using instances of rape to justify your position? Isn't it something like 1% of all abortions are because of rape? What's the other 99%? When are you guys going to stop using these emotionally driven (yet statistically insignificant) arguments?
I feel like the pro life side have this predetermined view that everybody except for them go around having casual sex with anyone BECAUSE abortion is legal, as if making abortion illegal is a deterrent to having sex. Proper education is the best solution. People need to recognize the responsibility one has to face for having a child. I always talk this through with my girlfriend before having sex, that if she does get pregnant despite condoms, we are in no position in life to support a child. STD education is also important. Most people do use contraception because having sex is enjoyable while having a child is not. Your parents didn't just have sex that one time when conceiving you, they did it hundreds of times, simply for the intimacy and love they have for each other. Saving sex for marriage is really a personal choice I do not agree with. I know a lot of people who get married just to have sex and their marriages have broken down because they were too young.
I am not using rape to justify my position, I am simply appalled that in instances of rape, the woman is still not allowed to have an abortion. Most cases of abortion come from failed contraception. In any case, there should be a record for repeat abortion seekers and help given to them if they have other problems like sex addiction etc.
There really is no good argument against abortion for the rest of us who use contraception and have responsible sex just because a few nymphomaniacs love to fuck without protection.
The rape argument crumbles the moment you grow up and realize the world isn't perfect. Any pro-life person who makes an exception for rape/endangering the mother hasn't put much thought into their position. You either believe it's a human or you don't. You can't commit murder (assuming it should be considered a human) because the mother was raped. The world is a terrible place where terrible things happen. Committing another terrible act to make up for another doesn't make sense. The rape argument is like me saying "hey my diablo 3 account got hacked a week ago... so I'm just gonna take yours since you're not using it yet"
I reread this paragraph several times and still don't get what you're trying to say here. The diablo 3 analogy is very confusing. |
| | Yea that looks just like Kang Min... amazing game sense... and uses mind games well, but has the micro of a washed up progamer. |
|
|
| brokor Greece. June 04 2012 15:07. Posts 220 | Profile # |
On June 04 2012 12:41 gameguard wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 04 2012 02:01 Reason wrote:
On June 04 2012 01:49 frogrubdown wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
On June 04 2012 01:27 Reason wrote:
Don't take me the wrong way. I understand what you are trying to get at here, that these arguments are not very convincing given their beliefs. While this might be true, I think that is going to be true of any argument presented to them, because of their beliefs.
The arguments you propose should be more convincing aren't arguments at all, you are just stating the opposite beliefs and hoping/expecting that that will be more effective at changing their views.
I don't think this is the case, I think those three arguments you highlighted are an excellent starting point in the case for why abortion is necessary, though I'm not saying better arguments don't exist I think it's a good start and more than enough to make it abundantly clear that pro-choice is the right choice.
Trying to change core beliefs like all life is sacred etc I think requires more work than convincing arguments on any single topic of discussion, even abortion. I mean either you recognise one life isn't really that special or important, it's not rare, we are already overpopulated etc, which are all facts, and are the kind of person who is capable of acknowledging these facts and using them to form decisions about things like for example being pro-choice about abortion because it's obviously the right thing to do, or you are not.
If you are not one of these people, rather you are pro-life on the abortion topic, it really means a lot more, it means you hold a set of beliefs that have no means of being tested or measured. There is no reason to feel the way you do, you just feel that way anyway. It's pretty similar to being religious actually, being pro-life, honestly I think most of these sentiments come from religious teachings.
Evolution isn't even unanimously accepted and taught in schools yet. If we as a species we are still that stupid then of course you are going to get people who refuse to listen to reason on topics like abortion.
If people don't listen to science then there is something wrong inside their heads and we should try to fix that at the root which is basically religion. I mean how many non religious people do you hear denying scientific facts because they contradict their own baseless made up beliefs? None because only religious people would be so stupid as to make up their own beliefs then refute any and all evidence to the contrary.
I'm not talking about people with spiritual beliefs or people who believe there is a God. I'm talking about people who fail to recognise all the major religions in the world are just copies of older religions stuck together and all claiming all the other religions are false and they are the one true religion/God. It's just a joke and you have to be blind not to see it, if you do even the slightest bit of research it's clear all religions are man made nonsense.
Believe in a God however or having spiritual beliefs of a personal nature means none of these things. You can believe God created the universe and still accept any teachings of science because only man made religions teach things that are not true then try to disagree with the truth when it becomes apparent. Just want to make this clear because I'm sure there are some really intelligent people out there who do have some kind of spiritual beliefs but are not stupid enough to follow modern religious teachings and I specifically don't want to offend these people, in fact I want to praise them.
Fair points (though as a fellow naturalist, I think end up valuing life (especially the human kind) somewhat more than you do). The post I wrote directly above yours responds as much to this as your prior post, so I won't belabor the points. That said, if certain positions are beyond the reach of argument, it's possible that (what to them is) rhetoric is the best path, and maybe rhetoric about rape-victims represents an especially promising kind. But there are also reasons to be dubious here. I recall hearing about studies in which it was shown that one good argument is more effective than one good argument combined with several bad ones. The basic idea is that when someone encounters what they take to be a bad argument against their position, they only get more entrenched in it because they take it as evidence that their opponents are not credible. It's possible that this is all that happens when you expose such people to the three arguments I discussed. Then again, sc2superfan101 mentioned above that many pro-lifers like the rape exception, so maybe that one actually is effective. I have to imagine, though, that most pro-lifers would only be entrenched by the disability argument, finding it symptomatic of a disturbing eugenics program.
I think the arguments about poor quality of life and not forcing your beliefs on others are kind of poor arguments because they are not specific enough. Poor quality of life can arise from any number of issues and the fact is a lot of people have a poor quality of life without being the child of a rape victim and also a lot of people who have a poor quality of life are still happy. Forcing your beliefs on others is just an age old argument that applies to nothing in particular so I doubt the inclusion of these two arguments would do anything to strengthen the case. It's one of these awkard situations where really any example you give just strengthens their case because whatever scenario you come up with they just point out the moral problems and say "pro-life" and that's the end of it. I bring up religion because I really do feel it's a similar problem. It's the core belief that every life is precious and must survive at all cost no matter what which has no real justification. I mean why is it so precious? You won't get a physical or mathematical answer. It's just "I feel" this or "I've decided that it is" and how the hell can you just do that? For pro-life people who really can't understand the line has to be drawn somewhere, think about sex. I can sit next to your 15 year old daughter with a stop watch and if I touch her before she is 16 it's statutory rape and people might even call me a pedophile but if she was born at 6am 16 years ago and the clock strikes 6 I can jump on top of her because she is now a consenting adult. If the majority of the world is happy to have a line drawn (do any countries have no laws on sex out of curiosity?) where people become old enough to have sex and 5 seconds before that time you are just a little child and if I touch you I'm a rapist but 10 seconds later you are a sexy young woman and it's called "getting lucky" to have intercourse with you then why do people have a problem with accepting a line also needs to be drawn with abortion?
forcing your beliefs arguement is really the only sensible one that could be made. Like you said, any kind of logical or pragmatic viewpoint on this issue is just dismissed because their beliefs on what is human/sacred/right/moral is fundamentally different. We can go on and on about where to draw the line without ever comming to a consensus. In the end, pro choice gives just that, a choice. No one is gonna force you to get an abortion because they think the earth is overpopulated or because they think you will make a bad parent. On the other hand, pro-life is basically saying everyone should adhere to their viewpoint on what is basically a philosophical issue.
Yet courtrooms often as not force people to pay alamony or w/e (don't know the terminology in english) for a child/person they never asked for.
so a woman has a choise to abort or keep the baby but a man has no say whatsoever.
that's a great choise you got there dude...
the current system is gender biased as all family related laws.
the woman has all the power and the man can do nothing but obey the court.
it is a sign of great inequality and cultivates oppression, not democracy or choise.
personally i am against abortion, but since i am a democratic person at heart i want everyone to be able to do whatever he wants with his body.
so if a woman wants to have an abortion, the state should be able to make it as safe and as accessible to her as possible.
yet still if a man does not desire an offspring he has no say in the matter. and adding on that, he oughts to support a life he never wanted.
oh the irony. |
| |
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next All |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
WCS
