One of humanity's main problems has been deciding what freedoms should be granted to people. Because there will inevitably be conflicting interests, and people coul claim such things as "freedom to murder".
So, I believe the answer is: Grant freedom where it does not interfere with another's freedom.
but then you get into the problems of things like abortion. are you interfering with the woman's reproductive freedom or the fetus's freedom to exist?
Well the woman would decide to have the abortion or not. It's all her own freedom, and no one else should be allowed to manipulate that.
Well for the most part, the fetus is the mother's body, so there's not much we can do.
Sentience isn't the issue that most people use as rationale to object to abortion - it's the soul. Religious people debate whether fetuses (feti?) have souls. No, there's no scientific explanation, but nobody cares in this instance. That's the debate, and frankly it wouldn't be up to an agnostic to deliberate otherwise.
So in the end, it's all about choice, and there shouldn't be a law saying you MUST NOT abort, even if you don't believe in this religion. That is bullcrap.
Bah. I say souls have nothing to do with it. It all depends on how the child's brain is developed.
At the start it's just a ball of stem cells.
Then it develops...
Etc...
And it's brain is only fully developed at 4 years of age.
I think it does depend on the stage of pregnancy. People seeking an abortion should get it as fast as possible.
As for contraceptives... The female body naturally kills off millions of sperm with a natural defense mechanism, to ensure only the strongest survive anyway. An argument for evolution AND contraceptives
Not sure a living thing has to be carbon-based. Just because all life on earth is doesn't mean life couldn't survive based on silicon...
Another point for Pro-choice is that if abortion is illegal, mothers will still seek abortion, but the cost will go up, there will be no regulation or sanitation and no surety of the "doctor"'s intentions. Like Prohibition, banning something just gives criminals a chance to profit by it.
Of course, i'm in the minorty.
I believe that if you become pregnant, you are commited to have that baby. If you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption. There are couples that are so desperate to have a baby, that they are willing to pay for all your doctor visits, and you never even have to see the baby. Isn't that a much better alternative to killing it? (i'm a christian, btw)
I think the ONLY exception is if the birth of the baby could in some way harm the mother. (like if she's too young)
Riley
...Once again, choice, DV. You can always go ahead and have the baby and then put it up for adoption if you want. OR you can abort, or keep the child. But just because you wouldn't abort a child doesn't mean that the person next to you has to choose that same choice, regardless. What if you HAD to abort? Would you like that?
So if you are the father, and the mother wants to abort it, you HAVE to go along with it? It's your kid too, isn't it?
You have a point there DV. The couple needs to reach an agreement.
so the father shouldn't have any say, since it's not his body?
You don't have to be able to reproduce in order to be living. What about people who have sex changes? They can't make children anymore but they're still alive.
I agree that the father should have a choice. I forgot to mention that.
And Solo, what contradiction? Also, it's still up to the woman IN A PERFECT WORLD because IN A PERFECT WORLD the Church does not run the State.
the baby, whether considered living or not, is part mother and father. the father should have just as much say. he helped start the process, he should have a say in how to deal with it. every other issue in a relationship takes two people to deal with, so should this. its no different.
nate
isnt that why they say when married two become one? they are one body then. no?
having a different opinion is not 'failure'. its diversity. learn to deal with that.
im aware of non married couples having babies. but thats also why the premarital sex debate is hot. but thats another thread.
however, when couples get married, obviously its still 2 people. but its one relationship, one path, one commitment. to say that 2 people work together in everything except this would be very difficult to justify.
caveat, obviously many couples dont look at marraige the same way. and many dont see it as a joint effort. but there are execeptions to every rule.
"You don't have to be able to reproduce in order to be living. What about people who have sex changes? They can't make children anymore but they're still alive."
The definition was meant to relate to species, not individuals. If the species can usually reproduce, it counts, regardless of any changes made to individuals.
And you're entitled to it. But, I can argue any reasoning behind it, all I'd like.
I thought this was a debate. In a debate, if you post an opinion, be prepared to defend it.
Not from flaming, but from reason.
Precisely. You get to voice it, we don't have to agree, and we can argue against it.
It's like the umpteenth time we've clarified that, but anyway...
I think I said before that the mother and father should decide together, but it all depends on the situation. If the father is not present, for example, and cannot be reached - I mean that the father has abandoned the mother - it's up to the mother entirely. If, in the Court of Law, the father is found to be a rapist, etc., the mother again has entire choice. But if it was consensual sex and the mother was impregnated by accident let's say, then it's up to the family to decide.
I agree with JJJ here. No intelligent guy would do that without some very very good reasons, lots of "encouragement" and perhaps requiring variing stages of intoxication.
People who have sex changes can still reproduce. What about Thomas Beattie?
so you both feel that a woman is the only one to have a say in an abortion simply because she carries it. however, do you know how safe and painless abortions are now? are you aware that minimal damage occurs to the mother? are you aware that only about 1% of abortions are from rape? and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)? unwanted or inconvenient? is that a legit reason to kill a baby? and you are saying the mother is the only one who can determine that? i disagree.
also, what about adoptions? say a child is 15, and the mother no longer wants to take care of the child. is she the only one that can decide to keep 'her' child then?
function better? how so? wheres the 'proof' on that? what 'functioning' are you refering to?
agreed solo. if you are not wanting a child....then dont make one. duh!
i had reasoning. and it was that your reasoning wasnt convincing enough to change my mind. a baby is a living organism. fetus or not, its living. comparing it to an appendage is just ludacris. and i noticed that you missed that again.
those in commas can not reason, or think. they are braindead. but they are still living. brain function isnt the only thing that determines life. there are disorders that make children unable to feel pain, reason, or critically think. but they are still living. a fetus has all the necessaties of life.
coma's not commas. lol
I was gonna say, Mister Jay-Jay-Jay...
Anyway... Frankly, it's ultimately going to be up to the mother any way you approach it. At the last second, the mother might refuse to abort and have the child, or perhaps she in fact wants to abort so she goes to the hospital. SHE IS THE ONE IN THE OPERATING ROOM, so essentially as much as we'd like the family to make the decision, it'll be up to the mother. It's her body, and although the child is half of the father's DNA, it's half of the mother's DNA too.
No, I'm agreeing with you JJJ. For the most part at least. The father shouldn't limit the mother's decisions.
Speaking from my own perspective, if it's not aware, then who cares?
But scientifically speaking, it's alive at conception... Also, it is technecally aware of the abortion, but yeah. I'm not a fetus anymore, so I don't care too much.
those stats were not pulled out of my butt gem. they were from the Center for Bio Ethical Reform.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
....your stats have no baring on where my stats come from. they are still valid to my point. and unless proven otherwise, facts. therefore, not irrelevant nor coming out of my butt.
Trust me...? lol
I think I see what Fleshy and Solo are trying to say. (Maybe you know this, but I want to clarify.)
A fetus is not sentient, but it's still living. It's still, more-or-less, a human. People in comas or with mental disabilities that hinder reason, etc. are still living - are still human - but perhaps they lack most or all of the essential aspects of sentience. They can still be considered a human. So some that believe killing a fetus is killing a human base this on the fact that, despite the fetus not being able to reason, etc., it is still a human (in their opinion at least).
Yes, fetuses (feti?) are technically parasites, but you don't kill them like you kill a tapeworm for instance. A fetus can kill a mother, but that's due to improper health or perhaps a disease, or pre- or post-mature birth. A tapeworm is designed to kill a human. Well, perhaps it isn't designed to do so, but that's what happens. A tapeworm has a better chance and is made to consume - I'll put it - it's host. A fetus is meant to grow, and by nature of the human body, the fetus is protected by the mother and is nurtured through her.
Humans are meant to have offspring (even if it isn't the meaning of life :P) and just because harm can possibly be done to the mother, it doesn't mean we should forsake the future of the species.
[DON'T FLIP OUT, I'm just re-posting this so you don't have to read it vertically.]
Hey, I'm just saying what they believe.
you still havent graced us with a legit reason to exclude the father from the process. 2 people make a child, 2 should be allowed a say.
if you dont take things seriously, people tend to do the same to you. just a word of advice.
as for reading it, ive read everything you said. but none of it is a clear 'winner' for this argument. both sides have valid points. no clear winner here.
im so glad you learned to copy and paste. but its really a waste here to do so. we all can read. i said that you havent given a strong enough argument to exclude the man from the process. then i stated that you have prematurely declared yourself a winner. the reality is that both sides, pro choice/pro life, have good arguments. while you are arguing that a woman has the right only simply because a fetus isnt 'living' is a shakey argument. who determines what life is? whats the defining say? this argument has been around for decades. to say it is finished because you have spoken is not a legit reason.
even the sacred wiki doesnt agree with you fully on quote mining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
i have stated my opinions on the matter, as many people have. which is my point. both sides are equally armored. both have strong arguments. there is no clear 'winner' with this one.
as for gem, not everyone agrees with that simplified list of what makes life. thats just one side. common though it may be, its still only one belief.
still a stalemate on the abortion issue. no clear answer. thats the point.
you took atleast one of the quotes out of context.
as for avoiding....sure. ive addressed this topic at hand. if i havent catered to your every need here, oh well. that wasnt my priority.
however, feel free to ask again. and ill jump right on it.
i addressed that 4 days ago.
and to imply that is THE scientific definition of life is misleading. thats a pseudo truth.
so agnostics and atheists can push their beliefs on the 'faith' (defined here as those with religious beliefs)? thats what everyone does when they vote. they push for their beliefs to become law. what you are implying is that religious people cant vote. thats unconstitutional. atleast in america.
Don't use negative evidence Solo. It was a valid challenge.
Since no-one has argued against the separation of church and state I'll just assume that everyone agrees with it. The state uses science for definition. To our knowledge, science has not clearly defined life. It is unlawful to take life away from someone, or murder. It is under certain conditions however, lawful to take life away from an animal because they're not sentient. So the question really is if sentience is the definition between okay or not. Does that make it acceptable to kill retarded people? I think since science cannot clearly define life and since whether or not sentience is the defining line will be debated until the end of time, abortion will probably become legally ambiguous...nah it should be legal.
Yes, people with mental problems ARE sentient. I must make this very clear. They have developed brains, but in different ways. An embryo has not developed a brain. A vegetable is not sentient, all conscious thought has ceased. The mentally disabled are conscious, their difficulty lies in communicating and social interaction.
If anyone of you claims they are not again, I must start a flame war. I'm not kidding around here.
Right there with ya, Rommy. Disabled people are as sentient as we are - it's their INTELLIGENCE that's impaired, at least when dealing with mentally-retardation. Intelligence is your aptitude to learn and increase your knowledge. Despite their hinderence, mentally-retarded people can still learn, it's just moar difficult. Never forsake the mentally-disabled! Or you'll be like Hitler.
Thanks for calling me a nazi. Seriously though. didn't mean to sound bigoted or anything. That was just a case of stupid. If state and religion are separated and sentience is the defining line for murder, then that means half the argument is over. Abortion should be legal. Whether or not it is moral, however, will never be resolved.
I was explaining mental retardation not taking one's sentience. I SUPPORT choice, and you make a very good point Melike.
Well I think now we have the abortion subject *somewhat* settled, unless we really want to argue the moral side. Another hot subject that I'm curious about is media. Many of societies' problems today are blamed on offensive media. With all this freedom we have, we've seen a lot more poor behavior. (Without the poor behavior abortion might not be as hot of a topic if you catch my drift. ) There are rating systems in place but they're being called "ineffective". In the midst of the information age most anything is available for view for those seeking it, and many who aren't. Is the rating system fine? Is some material just not just to be made or viewed? Is media a cause of problems? Thoughts?
the problem with the ratings system (mainly on tv), is that most people dont even take note of them. yes, some parents do block anything above a certain rating, but the fact is, most dont. and for the rest of us, who dont have kids or are adult enough to watch whatever we want, its just a nuisance. nothing frustrates me more than to have too much crap on my screen when im watching tv. youve got the station emblem, the rating warning, credits rolling, news stations have a stock ticker, espn has the scores ticker etc etc etc. it really frustrates me.
I hate the people who would censor the media, as well as everything they stand for. They reciprocate and encourage the paranoia of ingnorant parents who treat their kids like f*cking babies who need to be shielded from all outside influence. I should know. As a child I was separated from popular culture and, as well as other reasons, I became a social pariah. This is no longer the case, but I still hold a grudge against people who seek to censor and conceal information under the pretext of "protection". Far more than morally though, that is a technique used to fool and brainwash the public! It sickens me!
Now on to the subject of games. What *cough* "people" like jack thompson don't understand is that the attraction of games comes not from violence. It comes from conflict. This conflict can be against ANYTHING, look at the success of Nintendo, even among hardcore gamers like myself. Players in the most hardcore shooter are not trying to hurt people. They are merely having a friendly competition. It is all pretend. Players know, just as they do in a board game, that the game is about competing, not hurting. Multiplayer videogames are very similar to team sports, the medium and visuals used to convey the game change nothing about the nature of the competition.
Now. I can expand a part of that argument to cover media in general. Just as players know it is only a game, instinctively, no matter the age or background, audiences for TV and Cinema know they are watching fiction (well, except for "true stories" and documentaries.) When a character dies on screen, it is not "real" and is not accepted as such, just as when a player "dies" in game, it is NOT treated like death. It is merely a bloodless defeat, harming only a player's score and pride. When you chainsaw an enemy in Gears, with the accompaniing gore, it is NO different to being caught in a game of hide and seek, or touched in a game of tag. The players instincively know the difference between games and real life.
Those who would eliminate competition from games would destroy them. They rely on conflict. Conflict is as essential for games as it is for drama, novels, etc...
Finally: I wish, I really wish the news was attacked and vindicated in the same way, but the reporters would have a hard time trying to shift blame. No more "Xbox murders. Over an Xbox. With an Xbox. There was one in the apartment so it's EEEEEVIIIL AND SATAN INCARNATE!" And also the news being censored would be worse (if only slightly) than games.
lol, "Coming up next on channel umpteen news, sex slave trade, drug wars, battleground about gay marriage, and other material that would get us sued if this wasn't the news."
lol Melike.
I'm right there with you (again, I know I'm such a suck-up lol) Rommy. JACK THOMPSON IS TEH EVILLL!! (Although he was restricted or something because of inappropriate conduct; the irony - he was saying how video games promote inappropriate and violent behaviour) Anyway, I've noticed, particularly on Fox News aka the Scourge of the Public that whenever video games are in the news, they are accompanied by tragedies or just plain scorned. A great and more recent example is "Mass Effect for the SeXBox360?!" I heard it and I laughed for two whole minutes. Then, wiping tears from my eyes, watched the video and I have to say, Geoff Keighley handled himself very nicely. Problem is the bitch he was debating with was so...STUPID! I hate it when they say, "Well there's a study about violence in video games," or "I just have to go with the research." THAT RESEARCH IS BULLSHIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!!111111one If it was true, we'd be having riots everyday! And we don't have riots because of kids who play video games! In the end the woman was just selling her book on how to be perfect, which is pretty fucking weird if you ask me.
Gah! I'm so pissed right now! Let's talk about media in general.
Yesterday, I managed to find a copy of Michael Moore's documentary called Bowling for Columbine. If you haven't heard about it, it's a muckraker documentary about gun control laws and the NRA. Anyway, Moore goes to say in one of the segments that the media is all about FEAR. It manipulates us with terror threats and what have you. Remember Y2K? That was plausible. But nothing happened. That's just FEAR. Oh, and the BEST example was fairly recent - the government addressed the nation, saying "There will be an attack of some sort with weapons of mass destruction on the USA some time before 2013." WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUCK!! THAT IS THE MOST DASTARDLY ACT OF INSTILLING PURE FEAR IN EVERYONE FOR NO FUCKING REASON!!! WHERE THE HELL DID THEY PULL THAT HUNK OF FUCK OUT OF THEIR ASSES!??!?1/1/1/1/????????//!/!1
Ahhhhh... I was going to quote my Martian War again, but I'm too riled up. Because the problem is that the media is controlled, manipulated, censored, and it's just so unreliable. Except for the independant stuff which is what I watch, mostly The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and Frontline: The War Briefing. THOSE news hours tell you WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Watch those shows if you can't find anything else. (BTW it's on PBS, so I doubt you get that in Aussieland or the Newest of the Zealands.)
So, so far everyone thinks that media should not be restricted, people blaming media for problems are idiots, and the coincidence of increase in freedom of media and increase in more *ahem* casual lifestyles means nothing? lol, okay. (Yes I realize I just made many reckless blanket statements, that was the point)
Timeghost...very sexy.
What really bugs me is how the military works for companies, and war is just about getting money and what have you. America should be like Switzerland; have a great home army and a civilian militia (you know, kinda what the founding fathers wanted) and scare off any foreign belligerents from invading US soil. Plus an advanced counter-ICBM system should be installed so that there are no weakpoints. We handle affairs through diplomacy, and we DON'T get involved in civil wars. Also, don't replace evil dictators with corrupt presidents. That solves nothing. Refer to Russian-Georgian War of 2008. We need to be a nation that accepts people while defending itself. I know it's no easy task, but sending young men and women to die in the deserts of Iraq and mountains of Afghanistan is worse.
In fact, after the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan, the US also just forgot about the people they had been supplying FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft infantry shoulder-launched missle launchers to, the Afghans. If we didn't leave them, the Mujahideen wouldn't have taken over, and Afghanistan would be a friendly state. That would probably make Pakistan the hub of terrorism, and we'd probably have a war between Pakistan VS US, India, Aghanistan, and perhaps others. Still, if we try and negociate, we could avoid that war, but it might have been inevitable.
Ah, I'm fantasizing about What If history. Still, it's fun. Anyway, I really get pissed when soldiers get killed like cannon-fodder. Disgusting. Absolutely revolting.
It's so fun to think that all of life's problems are caused by evil people and not by an apathetic selfish population. Sorry, I just find most of that movie hard to believe. In fact, 'social movement' sounds like a mask for anarchy. Maybe I'm just a poor fool hypnotized by today's 'vain entertainment'. Also, am I the only one who noticed how much this movie likes Ron Paul?
RON PAUL IS A GOD!!!! Haha, no.
Why must you always put words in our mouths? An apathetic population ALLOWS those "evil people" to do whatever they please. And of course it's a mask of anarchy. That's how governments fall! It says in the Constitution (paraphrased) that if a government becomes tyrannical, it's the DUTY of the people to revolt and abolish that tyranny.
women do that now 3j. blaming the legalizing/illegalizing of something for the consequences of ones choices is ridiculous.
how women live their lives is not my responsibility (outside my future wife's). therefore their choices are their own. not mine. if abortion is illegal, then i would want them to abide by the law. thats common sense.
would you rather make murder legal? simply because people are gonna murder whether its legal or not? no. you would uphold the law. so yes, if it was illegal, id uphold it. and id feel fine with it. at that point, if women want to break the law, thats their choice, and their consequences they face.
even if abortions became illegal, saving someone's life would still be legal. a woman who is physically threatened by an unborn child would still be given an abortion to save her life. illegal abortions would be there to eliminate the 'convenient' abortions of slacker parents, or women who cant skeep their pants on.
great Fleshy (thanks for the title 3j, i think ill use it for a bit)
lol i like how your posts on abortion are 'relevant' and my posts are not. and im the totalitarian power hungry ruler lol.
point still stands, whether abortions are legal or not, women will still mutilate their bodies in ungodly ways to hide their deeds. that isnt a factor on whether it should be legal or not.
even though abortions are legal women still go to horrible extents to get an abortion in back allies, shady clinics, and self mutilations. it happens even now. thats mutilating their bodies in ungodly ways.
and yet, many more will rethink before they try and have that extra child they cant afford.
according to your superior knowledge, shouldnt your all knowing solutions 'prevent' me from 'running in circles'?
lol didnt it hit you yet that this whole abortion thing is not a 'proven' end? youve yet to do so here.
ive addressed your 'points'. you ust seem to be too involved on this power trip and laughing too much. thats what happens though when you get too big for your britches lol
"Go write more lame ass low-rated stories, and stop lying."
haha. now youve hit an all time low. thats funny though cause its meant to hurt but doesnt. thats what happens when people feel threatened though.
first, i did address it. second, your 'paraphrasing' is an extremely lose translation that is no where near what the actual statement says. third, you didnt have to repost it, you assumed you did. finally, no matter how many times you repeat yourself (irony, gotta love it lol), i havent lied.
What you said was that it will make girls rethink (not have sex) before they have that child they can't afford. Of course, you're wrong...
wasnt it you that once said if you make a claim without backing it up, you only look stupid? prove it that im wrong. i dare you
show where i 'admitted' anything here. i didnt. i never said it would stop women from having sex, it would deter it however. deter and stop are 2 different words.
making abortion illegal doesnt 'make' woman go to back alleys to have abortions. thats a bad correlation. its a woman's choice, always is and always will be. only when the government sanctions 'all women must have abortions in back alleys' can you blame the government.
you have a horrible defense here.
unless shes in some sort of cult or the like, even religion cant 'make' a woman do what they want. its still her final choice.
Okay Fleshy, do we have to keep saying the same things over and over again?
We (the side that I'm on) have already said that a woman can make the choice to keep the child. If she wants to abort, it's her choice and WE MUST RESPECT THAT. So instead of having her self-abort in a back-alley or whatever, give her a clinic so the abortion can be safer. No, abortions are never completely safe, but why should that eliminate the solution? Nothing's 100% safe. It's better than a clothes hanger.
Once again, we are not FORCING women to abort - it's an option!
Why can't you grasp that?
Okay, sure. Let's get into that. People are talking about legalizing marijuana under restrictions like tobacco and alcohol. It is a victimless crime directly, but drugs like marijuana can consume your life and push you to harm others because of it. Then again, legalization would reduce violence and black markets. I don't know.
Once again, it's choice. Yay cliches, but honestly - illegalizing drugs only breeds mafias and black markets based on it.
The two best decisions are either legalizing drugs, but still saying that drugs are bad - although that would pose a question "if it's not illegal, why is it bad."
THEREFORE, the bestest decision is to eliminate marijuana and all other drug production. I know it's not easy, but it'd be the only way to put the question finally to rest.
Personally, I'd never do drugs. Never. Never ever ever evarrr.
A drug is a substance that alters the chemical workings of the body. So yeah; calling drugs "eeevil" is stupid. The problem is the drugs' side effects and the inherent dangers and costs you need to go through in dealing with the gangs. The "legal" drugs such as nicotine, morphine and caffiene should be treated on an even ground as the "illegal" ones such as marijuana and cannabis, and arguments based soley on the effects the drugs have. Just because it's legal doesnt make it good and just because it's illegal doesnt mean it's bad.
Oh, and on the abortion thing; Fleshy, are you saying women shouldnt be able to have casual sex? Also; banning abortions means banning abortions. You cannot backpedal and say: "people who need it...". A ban is a ban. It eliminates all choice. It's another restriction on sexuality. If it is legal, people won't be compelled, they will have the choice. IMO, forcing abortions into the coat-hangar domain as a scare tactic is cruel.
Bah, nobody needs medical drugs. Homeopathy works well enough, and there's no side-effects.
Rommy
no, im not saying women cant have sex. as for 'backpedaling', marijuana is illegal but yet legal in medical situations. medicinal purposes are an exception. same should be with abortions. as for the coat hanger thing, i never used that one. so fair enough lol
Yes fleshy, I was referring to your derisive comments that suggest women should "think twice" before doing it.
Also, how are abortions not medical? When they use coat-hangars. And the status of marijuana is not universal. I'm pretty sure it's completely illegal in Australia, and I'm aware that in the US the laws vary by state.
everyone should think twice before they do anything. thats a common bit of advice. nothing wrong with that. lol so go after that all you want. it wasnt me that made that up.
abortions are medical.... i never said they werent. but i never mentioned coathangers as a way to go about it. i think that was 3j or someone. but not me. as for my example of Mary Jane. even when it is illegal, it is still used for medicinal purposes. no back pedaling there. unless you claim the government has back pedaled. in which case, whatever.
Fleshy, how is an abortion not medical? It's always medical! Just because the sex was casual doesn't mean the operation is.
Marijuana should be kept for medical reasons, not for casual use, and should only be produced in small quantities for that purpose.
Yeah, AND they should be allowed because the woman should have a choice.
You are contradicting yourself. You wish abortions banned except for "medical" use. You have just said agreed that abortions are medical, but don't support the dangerous back-alley abortions, so the only kind of abortion you wish to ban is the "coat-hangar" method. People won't use such methods if they have a safer way, so you must clearly be in support of abortion clinics, both because of your support of "medical" abortions and that you don't like the idea of un-medical abortions will have. QED.
I wish we could debate something without constantly falling back to abortion.
id explain that you were wrong about your assumptions of my rommy, but one gets tired of being accused of running in circles when they use truth. lol
**me
beaten points lol and your definition of beaten points is...? when you claim victory? or when you randomly say "epic fail"?
i havent dodged anything. i tend to side with making abortion illegal. the 'rape' cases are a touchy subject for both sides of the arguement. i dont claim to know the answer to it either. however, even with abortion being illegal, there would always be exceptions. as there is with most every law.
whether abortion is immoral or not has never been the core of my argument. lol
as for 'religous people' getting abortions. they are human too. passing judgment on them only would be strange.
You just don't get it. Religion does not control people's lives. If they subscribe to a religion, fine. They can choose to follow the religion's rules and guidelines. Forcing people who haven't subscribed to a religion to follow it's rules is totalitarian, unethical and exactly what Al-Qaida are trying to do. (On the off chance that a religion's rule is the same as a government law, it is the government, not the religion, who controls the law.) Basically, you have the freedom to choose. Join a religion and follow their rules, fine. Don't join, don't obey, that's fine too. But do not get confused between the rules of a religion and the laws of a country. The two are not the same and should never be affiliated. Using a purely religious argument to enact a law restricting freedom is unethical.
I know you'll want to point out that most religions forbid murder and so do most governments. But governments are still separate and the law against murder is not there because murder is wrong, but because it is necessary to prevent chaos. The law needs to make people feel safe. Just because the interests of religion and law coincide does not make them the same.
a religious person getting an abortion is breaking their own rules
in some cases, yes. but not all religions frown on abortions. so thats only half true.
as for my core arguement. first it was the man should have a say in what is half his. therefore, abortion should be run by him as well as the mother. then it was whether it should be legalized. i say it shouldnt simply because i do consider it murder. as you said, murder is not an ethical issue. morals or ethics are shaky arguments at best in many cases. so its best to not go there. caught up now?
" abortion should be run by him as well as the mother."
let me rephrase, "the IDEA of abortion should be discussed by both 'parents' involved."
and its fine that you said that. i wasnt debating it again. i was stating what my original points were because you asked.
the fact that i call it murder is because of what i perceive to be happening. the killing of a human being. that has nothing to do with morals. murder is murder whether its moral to do so or not.
Oo remember me Miccy2000?
Yep hi. Okay, my two cents, *drumroll*ABORTION! (circus music) Okay abortion in early stages, yeah totally go for it, but the problem there is, to put it in laymans terms. "So I was at work the other day doing my doctoring job and some bitch is all like hey dudez, i got knocked up real good, ya wanna suck out my problems with ya tube thing? And im all yo sure thing girl, how long you been pregged? She's all oh dude, its kinda two days over the time im legally allowed and I'm all ah thats okay, Dr Aborto got da hook up. But then the silly gal go tell her friends and dey all coming up for aborboz saying 'oh its just 3 days late, then 4, then before you know it im trying to liquefy and suck up they're 13 year old off the waiting lounge floor, wassup with that shit?" Okay now if you thought that paragraph was insulting black people or something that says more about you than me so shutup, it's a phase I'm going through... so yep, they aren't worthy of life at the beginning sure, as the song goes Baby baby I don't cry When all my little sperm cells die All that matters is you and I Come with me lets bake a pie -Unfinished song, by Miccy2000 ...moving on, as the fetus grows, it gets closer to being alive, and we'll push the boundaries. My view is not faith based, I'm a pastafarian (if you haven't been touched by his noodly appendage, look it up), but humans push boundaries, its whaaaat we do. Now JJJ your homosexualgenesis thing- -I'm sorry I'm on antidepressants, I make even worse discriminatory jokes than usual, I'm pro gay rights btw- -there are people (I THINK, it's TWO O' FOUR AM right now, I'm sleep deprived) who do not have properly functioning homeostasis, it's called homeostatic imbalance, and yes I got that word off wikipedia. It apparently causes horrible things like diabetes, dehydration, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, gout and stuff, which I also got off wikipedia.... Okay what I'm really getting at is, the definition of life before birth is a debatable one, and using that argument might not be the right way.... I don't have to worry about abortion right now, due to my immense lack of a vagina (on a body or on someone else's), so for now I'm fairly balancing atop the spikey fence of the debate, waiting for me to fall onto one side or have a rusty fence post anal rape me. DRUUUUUUGS As I think I mentioned above, I AM ON DRUGS! Prozac I think people underrate, but really, it truly does change the way you think and act, and I've had like a huge saga, battle, epic tale of romance and tragedy since it came into my life- no I'm not fucking joking there, it's both helped and ruined my life, and without wanting to sound like an attention seeking emo shit, probably stopped me from ending it on a few occasions- but yeah, drugs, if you're educated about the drug, you KNOW what it can, and probably will do to you, and you use it and get fucked up, it's your fault. Marijuana should be legal, there's no proof it's ever killed anyone, but the government doesn't get tax from it like it's murderous alcohol, which kills many a person when used incorrectly. Yeah bring on more debates guys, this is the longest post I've ever done I think, I'm freakin hardcore. Miccy, who respects the insults you will probably throw at him, to which he accepts the majority of and apologises for any spelling mistakes and fatigue/happy pill induced errors or unintended offence.
nice debating with you lol good to see you have an open mind to others opinions 3j.....oh, and thanks for telling me what i think too.
When opinions clash with facts, then they're wrong, like creationism rofl. Also Miccy, all good points, but you should know that I dropped the life debate awhile ago, right now, we're sticking with the only way you can debate life is on a moral ground.
And more recently I mentioned that the morality of it is irrelevant. So it really doesn't matter if it's alive or not, from a practical legislature point of view.
Well, morality is not exactly essential to law. Otherwise there'd be no executions.
Oh and Miccy: good work, between all of us we have established both sides of the argument on abortion pretty well. And I fully support the pastafarians, the suppression of them needs to be stopped.
Rommel, totally correct, executions are DEFINITELY taking a life, and we KNOW that people feel pain in the vast majority of executions. And botched executions, I know it probably wasn't ultra realistic but the first time I saw the Green Mile with the botched electrocution scene, yeah that was fucked up and really got to me. Animals also, they feel pain, the majority of you here eat meat I'm pretty sure, but I don't. If I had my way, slaughterhouse practices would all be illegal, but you guys don't agree with me, and I acknowledge your reasons, with which I respectfully agree. Yes my religion does worship a God that is made partly of dead cow, but I don't have much objection to the killing of animals so much as to the method by which they're slaughtered and raised. Thankyou for your support of the cause btw Rommel, I'll think of you next time I go pirate preaching. Yeah, essentially my large point that Rommel brought up is that yeah, make abortion illegal in the states that don't have execution and it will make moral sense, however in my opinion, the idea that different states in the same country can have different laws to What deserves death over imprisonment? When we begin to be 'alive'? Who should be imprisoned for having sex? What drugs we should be allowed to use? Having different laws in different states of the same country makes no sense, the idea that if I decide to fuck a guy, abort a baby, kill a man or use a drug in one place and be killed or imprisoned for it but have no consequences by committing it say, a few metres away, over a border. Should state borders define what deserves forfeit of our freedom? Or our lives? Of who we should be allowed to have sex with and what a life is, when something is underage sex or pedophillia, or illegal practice? In a world where borders define things, our lives are insane, and nobody can truly decide what is right or wrong.
Hm I guess that's a relatively acceptable excuse.
Yes, when it comes down to it, anything that doesn't dramatically affect the social stability of others (mass murder sprees and school shootings do, but using marijuana and having abortions doesn't), it shouldn't be illegal, simply immoral in the opinions of others
You know, like erm, I dunno, something people think is immoral, porn and violent video games, whatever dude, you know what I mean.
"Yes, when it comes down to it, anything that doesn't dramatically affect the social stability of others (mass murder sprees and school shootings do, but using marijuana and having abortions doesn't), it shouldn't be illegal, simply immoral in the opinions of others"
Precisely my view. Restricting freedom soley for its own sake or on the opinion of a few prudes is stupid. And when it comes down to it, it is pretty much the same as my statement at the beginning of the thread: Freedom unless it violates another freedom.
Does a fetus have a right to live?
Does a chicken have a right to live?
Does a spider have a right to live?
Does a virus have a right to live?
LOL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Djohakx_FE
What about embryos?
I wonder how far back the ones opposed to abortion think humanity goes. Because that blob of stem cells with a tail doesnt look human, can't think, breathe or feel pain, they don't have a spine, nervous system, brain, heart or any of the organs and faculties that mark humanity.
Stem cell harvest?
Just kidding, because that would bring the stem cell thing into an already confused debate.
(You would, JJJ.)
Why must you kill the fetus? Why not have all aborted fetuses (feti!?!?!?!?!!!/11/11//11//!11?/!/1) go to a research place for stem cell research?
And yes, the rights should be forfeited. If they don't want to take care of the baby, why should they "take care" of the fetus?
Haha! Surrogacy kind of eliminates the "illegal" camp, entirely.
But I thought abortion involved killing the fetus. Isn't surrogacy a different procedure?
I agree with everything said so far, pretty much, more or less. By the way JJJ if I ever do something other than silly joke songs and join a metal band, I'll use that name, assuming you don't have a similar idea. The alliteration is just mind blowing.
Pro-life motherfuckers! Trying to fuck us around! Assraping woman's rights And putting them six feet underground! It's about time we turned around! We can't let those fucks beat us!
SO FORFEIT THE FETUS! FORFEIT THE FETUS!
Hey I actually ended up writing that into a full song, took about half an hour, and it was 12.30 at night, so it needs some improving but yeah.
I've never posted a serious song of mine on the net for serious public critique, so if you want to check it out I'd appreciate it. Thanks a shitload to JJJ for the idea haha, awesomeness. It's on my profile :)
Aside from the amount of F-Bombs dropped that would put the Capital Wasteland go to shame, very powerful. Nice job, Miccy. EPIC NICE JOB.
Fucking. EPIC!
Just brilliant! Sums up the argument perfectly adds some emotion and it's got rhythm you could rap to.
It's good how you point out that they don't know when life begins either...
Time to point out flaws in the Pro-life argument:
If the reason an embryo or fetus must be kept alive is that it is a human being, it does not have the same capabilities. It cannot think, speak, move and early enough in the development process it doesn't even have a spinal cord, brain and is shaped like a ball. That is not a human being.
If the reason an embryo or fetus must be kept alive is that it will develop into a human being, we'll have to take a look at the sex cells. No matter what, there is a massive casualty rate among sperm even naturally, each one of them able to develop into a human. And, if you argue abstinence, the sex cells from both parties will never grow into a human being ANYWAY, so you get the same result. Regardless of the method, you will end up preventing the development of a human being, so why are abortion and contraception so different?
As for the "soul" argument, if they exist, no-one knows when they come into being, so you can hardly claim unborn babies, without a brain and therefore a mind, could have them without being able to claim that pretty much everything related to humans can have them. Feces. skin flakes. sperm. dandruff. If you use this argument, you also admit that it's possible every individual human cell has a soul.
actually, I'm pretty sure the self-propelled movement and DNA make it alive.
If by "alive" you mean human... At contraception it's a Zygote, then later a ball of stem cells. I'd hardly call that human. Still no brain, spinal cord, mental faculties, ability to feel pain...
Frankly, define the title of 'human' however you want. Whether it starts out as a sperm cell or a fetus, that's your call. BUT IT AIN'T MINE SO DON'T FORCE ME TO ABORT OR NOT!
Thanks a lot guys, the positive feedback on the song means a lot to me, I really would like to record it someday, if only I had like, a really good metal guitarist and a drummer.... hard to find they are.
But yeah getting any positive feedback on something I've done that isn't funny means a lot to me, thanks.
Definitely that's what I had in mind.
It'd be fairly raw guitar with high gain and alternating pitches, and the vocals would be akin to Slipknot's Spit it Out, which influences the feel of this song heavily, and the chorus bit would sound more like something by Scars on Broadway, Daron Malakian's (the guitarist from System of a Down) band, high pitched but not quiiiite screamo, more clarity than screamo.
Anybody who has any further input, love to get some :)
Could work well as a rap, too, cause of the rhythm. Minus the screamo bits.
Lol yes rap, but I'd prefer it more like Zac De La Rocha (Rage Against the Machine) type rap then like 50 Cent or some of that shit.
Just doesn't give it the right.... feel, if you will.
Okay I've just been reading over this some more and thought I'd say a few things. It's what I do.
First and foremost, I don't think that abortion is always right, if a woman is like a week or so away from going into labour, the fetus does actually show life, it moves and stuff.
Also I read about late abortions, it's supposed to be done as painlessly as possible, assuming it's done properly.
But basically what happens is they get the fetus pretty much into the birth canal then sedate it or something and use a pipe to suck the inside of it's head out. When this happens, the skull, which is not yet fully formed, sort of collapses, so it comes ouf of the vagina easily.
I just thought that was sorta gross.
On the other hand, if abortion WAS illegal and this was done 'back alley' abortion, they might not have proper sedatives, and something that could easily be called a living thing could be having some sort of customised vacuum cleaner with blades stabbing into it in attempts to suck out the brain, maybe suck out some of it's other organs first in the process.
Better yet just get the baby out and throw it in a bin, which happens a lot.
I think the core of how this stuff works is WHEN and HOW the abortion is done, that's the real issue, but abortion being illegalized outright for any and all reasons, this is not correct, I do not believe a ball of stem cells have feelings.
Also DV13 (I think it was you), before after your stated opinion, you said you were a Christian.
I respect this fact, even if I myself am opposed to all religions (aside from my own, arr), but saying it at the end is like saying that you really don't like Jerry Seinfeld and then saying 'by the way, I'm a neo-nazi'.
Just, time it better I reckon.
Damn I wish RoadtoEmmmaus was here. He'd probably give us another round of debating.
