Non-threaded

Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

A place to sit back, hang out, and make monkey noises about anything you'd like.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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?

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Yes but what he's saying is that does the woman's choice interfere with the fetus's freedom?

My belief is that abortion should be legal, no question. The fetus is not sentient, and at this point, unless the woman embraces it as a child, it is practically a parasite. Do parasites have freedom? Also what sort of life would this child have?

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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  

Freedom?

15 years ago
Fuck the Pro-Life mentality. Point is, it should always be the womans choice.

Freedom?

15 years ago
My opinion is that it should depend on the situation of the child and the mother. Is the baby 2 weeks old or 8 months old? It would be a foul thing to do, kill an 8 month old child. If the baby doesn't even have a brain yet, then how the hell does it count as life? The scientific explanation for a living thing includes:

1.Maintains homeostasis
2.Takes in energy and uses it
3.Grows and changes over time
4.Contains carbon
5.Able to reproduce

Unborn babies-
cannot maintain homeostasis.

If you miss one, you don't apply as a living thing.

By the way this is just my opinion, and some stuff I looked up (There might be one or two things I missed, but I remember from biology that there were five). So maybe this is food for thought.

murder-the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Murder is covered in law, abortion is legal in most places, therefore (in my opinion) abortion is not murder.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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

Freedom?

15 years ago

...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?

Freedom?

15 years ago

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?

Riley

Freedom?

15 years ago

You have a point there DV. The couple needs to reach an agreement.

Freedom?

15 years ago
What if you're the father and the mother wants to stick a close hanger up her vagina and self abort it? How are you going to stop her? What if you're the father and she wants to kill herself because she's facing an internal morale battle because her moronic parents taught her that she doesn't have a choice?

Freedom?

15 years ago
Point is, it's her kid first and foremost. If she doesn't want to go through the rigors of pregnancy, then she shouldn't have to.

Freedom?

15 years ago

so the father shouldn't have any say, since it's not his body?

 

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Ive had this debate with a friend. We decided that (in only a perfect world...) abortion should be legal in extraneous circumstances (i.e. rape). If the woman decided to have sex and then got pregnant, she must face the consequences and have the baby (and yes, my argument is religious, so sue me). If the woman was raped then she should be given the option of abortion (and yes i am aware of my own contradiction).

I am aware of the contradiction, but its sort of a compromise. Basically if your gonna have sex, be stuck with the consequence, if you could not help it, then you get the option. (But as always it will never be as simple as that...)

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
The father does not have to worry about their body for their entire life afterwards. No matter what the father wants, it's the woman who has to deal with the consequences and not the father. Fuck what the father wants.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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

Freedom?

15 years ago
He helped start the process, but he doesn't have to deal with the effects on the body of the mother. It's her body and it should of course be her say.

Freedom?

15 years ago

isnt that why they say when married two become one? they are one body then. no? 

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Uhh, no. First of all, not all pregnant people are married, obviously. Some couples never get married for religious purposes. Second of all, they are obviously "one body" ONLY in the philosophical sense. I don't suddenly develop breasts when I get married. At least, not without a lot of junk food.

Being philosophically one body and being one body are very different things.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Also, of all people wanting abortions, how many are married couples? I'd bet that that's a very low percent. Fail of an argument right there.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Oh man, don't get me started on opinions. When an opinion is that fathers and mothers should have equal consent over the mother's body, I have every right to say that is terrible.

So if you're aware of non-married couples having sex, how can you justify giving equal rights to both people over a woman's body, based on the fact that philosophically marriage links the two people?

Freedom?

15 years ago

"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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
just for clarification anubis,the contradiction existed in my idea above. I wasn't referring to the father having rights.

Also religion IS the reason for my view that abortion should not be allowed. Thats my opinion...

Freedom?

15 years ago

And you're entitled to it.  But, I can argue any reasoning behind it, all I'd like.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Ok please, when someone voices an opinion, please respect it. we live in a democratic society where we are allowed to voice our views. And we don't need to be put on a battlefield everytime we voice it either. Thats why its an opinion and not an argument.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Yeah, exactly. In a democracy, we have the right to oppose any opinion as well.

Freedom?

15 years ago

Precisely. You get to voice it, we don't have to agree, and we can argue against it.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
I still, respectfully disagree with that.

If the mother doesn't want the kid, why should she have to give up her body for the rest of her life (face it, a mothers body is never the same afterwards, except on like the rarest of occasions). That doesn't make sense.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Oh right. Cuz the dude wants to be a father. No, that's fucked.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago

People who have sex changes can still reproduce.  What about Thomas Beattie?

Freedom?

15 years ago
Wow, I love these forums.

One the issue of whether or not the father has a say in the execution of the baby, I'm going with JJJ on this one. The only pain the father goes through the whole time is the hole the hospital bill is burning is his wallet, that's even if the father is present. Women get to carry extra weight, get morning sickness, have those cravings , get stretch marks(not all the time), worry about everthing they do because they're carrying a baby, go through labor, get their vagina stretched like fucking bubblegum, hope to not die in the process, hope their child doesn't die in the process, then deal with the after-effects. I'm thinking it's a good thing i'm a guy, no?

Freedom?

15 years ago
Amen. Well explained.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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?

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
(ive skipped alot of this thread, ok the whole thing so this may have already been addressed) wait then, if all these problems, then make the choice to not have sex or to use birth control.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Sexually active people (and couples) function better, this is proven. Unless they have a morale issue with abortion, why should they have to give up sex?

Freedom?

15 years ago

function better? how so? wheres the 'proof' on that? what 'functioning' are you refering to?

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago

agreed solo. if you are not wanting a child....then dont make one. duh!

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Q) so you both feel that a woman is the only one to have a say in an abortion simply because she carries it

A) Yes

Q) however, do you know how safe and painless abortions are now?

A) Yes. That's Good.

Q) are you aware that minimal damage occurs to the mother?

A) Yes. That's Good. Better than going through a pregnancy with higher risks and lasting effects.

Q) are you aware that only about 1% of abortions are from rape?

A) I'll take your word for it. So what?

Q) 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?

A) It is not a baby. It's a fetus. And it's no more alive than your arm is. If your arm is inconvenient to you (IE: has the potential to kill you), they will remove it.

Q) and you are saying the mother is the only one who can determine that?

A) Yes

Statement) i disagree.

Response) That's nice. Way to have no reasoning behind it.

Q) 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?

A) Well she can decide to not take care of the child, sure. But then I think it should go to it's father at that point, if he doesn't want it either then yes, it goes into social services.

Freedom?

15 years ago
(Notice how I address EVERY point in your post?)

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Can it think? Can it feel? Can it reason? When it's first coenceived, it can do none of those things. It doesn't have a brain, or nerves, or anything really. It is NOT alive.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago

coma's not commas. lol

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
lol. A person or a child has a brain.

Freedom?

15 years ago
LOL. Contrary to how that sentence sounds, children are people rofl.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
This is true, but if there was a law passed to say that the mother can only get an abortion if the father agrees, wouldn't you say that that's wrong? Or do you agree with Fleshy here, ahahha.

Freedom?

15 years ago

No, I'm agreeing with you JJJ. For the most part at least. The father shouldn't limit the mother's decisions.

Freedom?

15 years ago
OK, I wasn't accusing you of not, I was just wondering :)

And I agree, the father is there as support, imo, until the baby is born, where he is there as an equal rights parent.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Lol Fleshy. A fetus doesn't meet the requirements for a living thing. It BECOMES a living thing when it slides out of his/her's mommy's vagina. Then VOILA (or POOF), it's alive. You can't argue that, it's science. They made the requirements (they being scientists).

And the statistics you pulled out of your ass don't mean anything. Who cares what reason the women would like to have an abortion? Some people, Fleshy, are extremely irresponsible. That's why they're pregnant in the first place. Would you want a human to be irresponsibly raised and taught the ways of life? So that it can fuck up the next generation and pretty soon we have a family tree of f-ups (we call them the Bush family in my house)? Think man. Sometimes it's just better off. Yes, better off dead than alive.

Well, I hope I made my point.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
very elitist attitude. next you'll be saying there is a certain intelligent level before someone can successfully reproduce.

Freedom?

15 years ago
also, you guys are all gungho about the way the women feels and has to go through if she gets pregnant, but you must also be aware that having an abortion has the same mental effects on the woman.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Even if she does, which I am not ready to concede without some strong evidence presented because I do not believe it, she still doesn't have to go through the life-lasting physical effects.

Freedom?

15 years ago
evidence? go google it...

Freedom?

15 years ago
http://www.epigee.org/pregnancy/psychological.html

Seems like it's on a case by case basis to me.

Freedom?

15 years ago
that statement can be applied to pregnancy....

Freedom?

15 years ago
You know what can also be applied to pregnancy and childbirth, and on a consistent basis?

Weight Gain
Morning Sickness (x1000)
Random Cravings (x100000)
Many hours of surreal pain in delivery
Cramps all throughout the pregnancy
Loss of life activities due to fear and weight

and on a less likely note, death.

So if the woman doesn't want to deal with that, can you blame her?

Freedom?

15 years ago

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

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
They're still pulled out of your butt, considering they're essentially irrelevant (as addressed by my above post)

Freedom?

15 years ago

....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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Err. I don't have stats, what the fuck are you talking about them having relevance to your stats?

Also, I've already admitted that they're facts: See my Q/A post.

So, let's see: Your stats established a few things.

1. Abortions are extremely safe.

Is your point that abortions are safe? If it's not, then guess what, those stats are irrelevant to your point.

2. Abortions are mostly for social situations.

Well I've conceded that this is true, and probably integral to your argument, but you failed to give a reason to why it's wrong. Here's how it went.

Fleshy: Is that a legit reason to kill a baby?

3J: It's a fetus. And it's no more alive than your arm is. If your arm is inconvenient to you (IE: has the potential to kill you), they will remove it.

Fleshy: a baby is a living organism. fetus or not, its living. comparing it to an appendage is just ludacris

3J: Can it think? Can it feel? Can it reason? When it's first coenceived, it can do none of those things. It doesn't have a brain, or nerves, or anything really. It is NOT alive

Fleshy: those in comas 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.

3J: lol. A fetus doesn't have a brain. Isn't a brain a necessity of life? Howbout a heart? Howbout any vital organs? They're called vital for a reason, a little hard to live without.

Fleshy: No response

So there you go, I've won and I didn't have to go ad hominem on you.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Won what?

3J: lol. A fetus doesn't have a brain. Isn't a brain a necessity of life? Howbout a heart? Howbout any vital organs? They're called vital for a reason, a little hard to live without.

Didnt zero respond that scientifically speaking, "life" begins from conception. Therefore your argument is scientifically unsound among other things (i.e. religiously).

I do believe that means that you are killing a baby when you have an abortion. And I stand by what i said earlier that if you dont want to face the consequences, dont get pregnant (i.e. use preventative measures, we are not stuck in the stone age where there is nothing we can do to prevent it...)

Freedom?

15 years ago
You don't think pregnancies still happen to women on birth control and using condoms? Newsflash: It does, trust me.

Alright, so even conceding that the fetus is alive, if it were killed, it would have no way of feeling any pain, and since it's not aware, probably of realizing anything. ALSO, tape worms are alive, they're deemed parasites and killed. An unwanted child is a parasite to a mothers body. Harsh connection, and I'm really not that extremist about it, but the facts stand.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago

[DON'T FLIP OUT, I'm just re-posting this so you don't have to read it vertically.]

 

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Bahahah! Did I say all mothers should kill their unborn children? HAHAHA.

There are several differences between a sentient in a coma and a fetus, I trust you all realize that. If not, feel free to ask and I'll outline them for you. *rolls eyes.

To say that killing a fetus is immoral, because killing a person in a coma is immoral, is a little gob smacking to me.

Freedom?

15 years ago

Hey, I'm just saying what they believe.

Freedom?

15 years ago
If you're saying that they believe that I said that I wanted all mothers to kill their unborn children, well.. someone's delusional ahahah

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAAHAHHA
ROFL
AHAHAHAHHAHA
OMG
SERIOUSLY?
WHAT THA FUCK!
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHA
I so fucking have, why don't you fucking read what I fucking wrote for like 90% of this thread? Especially starting at the beginning.

My 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th (sorta 9th, 10th,), 13th, and 14th posts ALL address it. BAHAHAHAHHA

Freedom?

15 years ago
I seriously laughed out loud and choked on my spaghetti when I read that.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
"you still havent graced us with a legit reason to exclude the father from the process" - Fleshy

"both sides have valid points" - Fleshy

ROFL! IT'S SO BLOODY HARD TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Aaaagghhhhhhhh!!!!! My eyes burn when I read this!

"Quote Mining" or copy/pasting is a valid technique that only strengthens your argument and shows commitment to your side.

"(I don't care what you say about "quote mining." It shows dedication and strengthens any argument, and you know it.)" - Zero

And he's right. Trying to invalidate copy and pasting is like trying to invalidate memory.

So, how would you include the man in the process? I've already said that he can do his best to convince the woman, would you say that she can't get an abortion unless he agrees?

Also, check what Gem said at the top about living things (since you can read, I won't bother copying it down here for you) :)

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
That implies that we've taken something out of context, and should be easily disprovable as malevolent quote miners are not using pieces of text that they're opponents have said, they use famous people or bystanders who can't defend themselves.

Thanks for avoiding my question about male/female partners. I guess that's what I get for giving you a chance.

That's the scientific side, considering church and state aren't supposed to be mixed, that's THE side.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
It's not about catering to my every need, you should know that. Here's what I said, although, considering you can read, I shouldn't have had to quote it, right? *Rolls Eyes (Come on man!)

"So, how would you include the man in the process? I've already said that he can do his best to convince the woman, would you say that she can't get an abortion unless he agrees?"

And name the quote, and tell me what the context was.

Freedom?

15 years ago

i addressed that 4 days ago.

 

 

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

Freedom?

15 years ago
That doesn't answer the question at all. The question is, would you legally force the woman not to have an abortion, if the father didn't allow it?

Freedom?

15 years ago

and to imply that is THE scientific definition of life is misleading. thats a pseudo truth.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Nate is right, no one has won. Both sides put up valid arguments however if it was that quick to come to a "winner," the legislation system would not have taken so long to pass the laws that it did.

The truth is there can never be a "winner" in such a debate because it treads on important moral values that are held differently by different people. And I did call it a debate above, so at some point it needs to be put to rest...

Freedom?

15 years ago
Actually, that's not true. The morale issue of whether or not abortion should be legal, has been very clearly won by the pro-choice side. Or at least it should be. Look at it this way:

EVEN if you believe that abortion is immoral, it's because of your FAITH, or religion. "and yes, my argument is religious, so sue me" - Solostrike

If religion is the reason behind your argument, then since we have seperation of church and state, it can ONLY apply to the people who bind themselves to the rules of your religion. IT CANNOT GO TO LEGISLATURE.

So, really, the idea of making abortion illegal is really really really dumb.

Freedom?

15 years ago
No, it isnt dumb, religion isnt the ONLY reason for making abortion illegal. I said moral issues but not specifically (tho including) religion.

What it all comes down to for me is:

The fetus is a life, and to kill that life because of foolishness is revolting.

I will say that i take exception to cases of rape, where its not the woman's choice.

(and this why i was talking about a perfect world, cause only in a perfect world would a law be passed that discriminated against cases of pregnancy (i.e. my idea of the law would never pass))

Freedom?

15 years ago
It's only revolting if you see it as a life. Now, that's a religious thing, since science doesn't, or it wouldn't be legal.

And just because it's not rape, it's not necessarily foolishness.

Freedom?

15 years ago
i thought we already got over that its NOT a religous thing. The fetus is defined as a life....

and if your arguing me based on YOUR belief that "a fetus is not a life" than i'll stop the argument right here cause the argument will not go anywhere as it strays away from the facts and becomes a personal belief rather than an argument (maybe im not wordin that correctly). I mean to say I don't care to argue personal moral standpoints because it is pointless to do so (i.e. i have mine and you have yours, i respect yours and i dont judge...)

Freedom?

15 years ago
See Below.

Freedom?

15 years ago
btw, regardless of what you feel, church and state will never be completely seperate.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Whether they are or will be, and whether they should be are different things.

Freedom?

15 years ago
different but what is most important is what 'is' presently the situation.

Freedom?

15 years ago
OK so for fucks sakes, lets get this out in the open.

You'd like to push your faith on agnostics and atheists by making abortion illegal?
You pig.

Freedom?

15 years ago
actually no. like i said, i wasn't faith driven.

Freedom?

15 years ago
look a couple posts up for my reasons

Freedom?

15 years ago
You are faith driven, it's not scientifically proven that it's a life.

Freedom?

15 years ago
life starts at conception, we already got past that...

Freedom?

15 years ago
as a scientific standpoint.

for once in history:

scientific view = religious view

Freedom?

15 years ago
Nope.

"The scientific explanation for a living thing includes:

1.Maintains homeostasis
2.Takes in energy and uses it
3.Grows and changes over time
4.Contains carbon
5.Able to reproduce

Unborn babies-
cannot maintain homeostasis." - Gematria

Care to disprove it?

Even if you want to, there is no set definition for life, no one can come to a conclusion, so you've moved into faith.

Freedom?

15 years ago
i have more to say, i need to read your post below, but i want to say here that

you have also moved into faith as well...

Freedom?

15 years ago
so your saying people on life support are not living things?

btw i took the bio11 course and we got a more indepth definition. also to note, a living thing is suppose to take MOST or all of those charactersitics.

note the word MOST

Freedom?

15 years ago
Anyways, it's been established that science has not come to a concrete definition for life. It's up to belief.

Freedom?

15 years ago
LOLOLOLOL. ok.

Freedom?

15 years ago
you can reply below as i basically say the same thing but i am laughing because i thought believing something based on faith was "infringing" on your belief, however you seem to be doing the same thing... <-- clarification

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Was that an anti-Canadian comment? I'll assume it wasn't. Anyways, what I'm doing is agreeing with the idea that bloody fucking church doesn't get mixed with the government, lest we devolve into the dark ages of religious massacres.

And

"i addressed that 4 days ago.


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"

"That doesn't answer the question at all. The question is, would you legally force the woman not to have an abortion, if the father didn't allow it?"

Freedom?

15 years ago
democracy allows us to vote on our beliefs. if our beliefs coincide with a "church" belief, you can't stop that...

Freedom?

15 years ago
Continue discussion below, this thread has clusterfucked.

Freedom?

15 years ago
To solostrike:

Essentially, what I'm saying is that we should let each person decide whether or not they believe a fetus is alive, and abortion is immoral or not. I'm not arguing with you based on belief, I'm saying let each person choose.

What you're saying is that you should outlaw it, because of YOUR OWN PERSONAL SUBSET OF FUCKING BELIEF.

It's bullshit.

Freedom?

15 years ago
personal subset of belief?

but that is how we all vote. when i go to the polls (and yes i can do that in a month) i vote based on my personal belief, if my belief is religiously fueled, i see a greater benefit in it.

What is so wrong for me to believe that way? The fact that I am not atheist and therefore am not voting in favour of an atheist view is upsetting to you?

Freedom?

15 years ago
The fact that you seek to take freedom away from a non-religious person who just wishes to do as they see fit within they're own moral subset of belief does bother me. The fact that it doesn't bother you... well.. wow.

Freedom?

15 years ago
To push religion on an a-religious person is below low.

Freedom?

15 years ago
pot calling the kettle black.

and there are alternatives to an abortion. another woman can carry the baby in the womb. my personal belief is this: the fetus is a life (as i stated) and i dont agree with killing a life. So what i want to see is that fetus be carried in a surrogate mother or the embryo's frozen (or w/e they do nowadays).

To kill a life is below low.....

Freedom?

15 years ago
I agree, I don't consider it a life, and since you can't prove it is, trying to force your belief on me is pathetic. I just want the freedom to do as I wish when it comes to abortion, you wish to take that freedom because of your own beliefs.

Freedom?

15 years ago
in response to that and the "its up to belief" post above:


I do consider it a life. Your imparting your belief on the freedom of the fetus (the life). You are taking the freedom from that life.

Do you see where i am coming from now? You think i am fueled by a religious cause and i am infringing on your right becuase of the religious belief, but that is not where i am coming from. I am concerned for the fetus. why should the fetus die because (as you say) an atheist believes it is a not a life and (as you say) another fetus lives because a religious person believes it is a life. That is discrimination.

Which is why i suggested the above. the baby doesn't need to be aborted. And there are MANY women who are willing to be surrogate mothers as the number of couples entering fertility clinics is rising. I obviously wont go digging for exact numbers but you can put two and two together.

As you see i am not trying to force the belief, i am trying to find an alternative to killing life, or something that will BECOME life.

And i value my belief just as much as you value you yours, so don't infringe on MY freedom by saying that i am low for having a certain belief that does not coincide with yours.

The things you said are very rude as i could just as easily say the same thing about you NOT being religious and therefore infringing on my religious beliefs.

Have some tolerance and respect...

Freedom?

15 years ago
"And i value my belief just as much as you value you yours, so don't infringe on MY freedom by saying that i am low for having a certain belief that does not coincide with yours. " - Solostrike

I NEVER SAID THAT. Believe whatever the fuck makes you happy.

"The things you said are very rude as i could just as easily say the same thing about you NOT being religious and therefore infringing on my religious beliefs.

Have some tolerance and respect..." - Solostrike

Oh yeah, how? Say em. Me not being religious DOES NOT infringe upon your religion. You being religious DOES infringe (or at least you're trying to make it infringe) on my lack of religion. Tolerance and respect? LOL!

Anyways we think different, I'm alright with you thinking what you want, but you're not alright with me thinking what I want, that's the bottom line.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Posts ago you werent alright with the way i was thinking, screaming obscenities. Its funny how when you can't argue back the points you go on the tangent that you are being personally attacked. it always happens. This has nothing to do with me wanting to change your mind, at some point in this thread i said that both sides had valid points, in fact this thread has become very enlightening.

I would like to hear your rebuttle, i have given you my view, which is that there are alternatives to abortion, i don't see how religion is infringing on that when the end result is the same, you don't have to carry a baby.

also, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but when a good argument is brought to the table, it doesn't mean that i am not alright with your thinking, it means i have found a solution. empty statements are what they are...empty, but believe whatever you want to believe if it makes you happy...

Freedom?

15 years ago
i am not hear to change someone's mind. i am hear to learn and debate.

i did a stem cell research report a while back where i learned that most cases of abortions remain just that, very few go to help stem cell research. I realized that since the woman did not want the fetus/embryo's w/e they are called at w/e point in the pregnancy, it should be a law that it goes to stem cell research (effectively the mother has given up custody/whatever of the child). Then i thought, why not have the fetus/embryo put in a surrogate mother (and btw the mother who gave up the child/fetus can still contribute to stem cell research), and i thought, at least a life would be saved.

This is what i have brought to the table. I think my previous post was incoherent, however i want to make it clear that your stupid remarks of "your not alright with me thinking the way i think" is pure ludacris, like where do you come up with these comments?

Freedom?

15 years ago
Alright, money. Alternate surgeries are much more expensive, finding the right host mother, etc..

And as for the personal attack thing, just think about it, your very argument is based on limiting my rights based on your morale views.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Solo, you aren't alright with me thinking the way I think, if you were, you wouldn't be trying to stop all athiests and agnostics from being able to abort, although I do agree that having it saved for stem cell research or surrogated are acceptable too, as long as mothers aren't forced to carry babies they don't want.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Also the only time I was screaming obsecenities were when you were talking about using your faith to restrict my girlfriends rights. That's bullshit.

Freedom?

15 years ago
there is no restricting. the woman doesnt have to carry a child, and the child lives on in someone else. do you not agree that everyone wins (i.e. the woman and the child)

Freedom?

15 years ago
Well, I agree no-one loses, unless it's a riskier procedure or more expensive, I don't really know anything about those.

HOWEVER, I don't think the fetus wins, because I don't think it can really win or lose at this point. I don't think it's really alive and thus, that's like saying, "did the mirror lose when you smashed it?" Well... Yes it did, but it doesn't know that.

However, I conceded that barring financial or safety reasons, the alternatives are better. I still don't think abortion should be illegal.

Freedom?

15 years ago
But i just found something that DOESNT limit any rights, if at all. I stand by moral view that having an abortion kills a life, i think that if a girl doesnt want a child, she should keep her legs crossed, or use preventative measures. So i have found a solution that deviates from that course completely! So that it satisfies both sides but better than a compromise.

And tis odd, i thought health care in canada was free? and ive already stated the rising occupancy of fertility clinics...

Freedom?

15 years ago
OK seriously, you don't know what you're talking about here, I'll share a personal story.

My girlfriend and I are sexually active, I'm 16, she's 16, no laws broken. We've been sexually active for about eight months, together. About three-four months ago, she got pregnant.

I was using a condom AND she was on birth control. That's protective measures, unfortunately condoms break and birth control is not 100%. She didn't get an abortion, but she would have, had she not miscarried.

Point is, telling a girl to cross her legs is insensitive.

Freedom?

15 years ago
also, saying "you can't prove it" means your going on faith as well..

Freedom?

15 years ago
I am and I admit that! But what I believe isn't restricting anyone.

Freedom?

15 years ago

Don't use negative evidence Solo. It was a valid challenge.

Legally Ambiguous?

15 years ago

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.

Legally Ambiguous?

15 years ago
lol, the retarded are still sentient.

Legally Ambiguous?

15 years ago

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.

Legally Ambiguous?

15 years ago

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.

Legally Ambiguous?

15 years ago

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.

Legally Ambiguous?

15 years ago
Total Agreement.

Legally Ambiguous?

15 years ago

I was explaining mental retardation not taking one's sentience. I SUPPORT choice, and you make a very good point Melike.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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?

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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."

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.)

Freedom?

15 years ago

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)

Freedom?

15 years ago
Problem is that the media is in the pockets of the Illuminati. At the end of Zeitgeist II, he gives you six steps to helping us turn the world around, one of them is to tune out of the media. He specifically mentions Fox and CNN but all mainstream media.

Ironically another one of them was "Keep the Internet Free". It's our last hope. This is because it's the only way we can spread the true information. The things were:

1 - Expose the Fed Cartel
Boycott City Bank, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America

2 - Boycott the News Networks
Don't watch TV news channels, such as CNN, NBC, ABC and Fox. Visit independent Internet news sources instead and protect the internet

3 - Boycott the Military
Soldiers work for corporations, not for the people. Peopaganda makes us believe that war is natural and military is an honorable institution.

4 - Boycott the Energy Companies
Get off the grid and make your home and car self sustainable using solar, wind and other renewable energy sources that have become affordable.

5 - Reject the Political System
Focus to dissolve the outdated system of politics, in favor of technological redesign. There is no difference between which party is in power. Leaders are placed in their positions by lobbyists and corporations.

6 - Create Critical Mass
Join the Zeitgeist Movement. You can do so by visiting www.TheZeitgeistMovement.com.

You guys really need to see zeitgeist and zeitgeist II.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Careful, the one on the right is the one you should watch first.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Zeitgeist

15 years ago

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?

Zeitgeist

15 years ago

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.

Zeitgeist

15 years ago
Couldn't have said it better, Anubis. The fault is with the Illuminati (NWO) but it was us who allowed them to take this power.

Freedom?

15 years ago
If we make abortion illegal, women will just do it with clothes hangers in back alleys. People have been performing abortions on themselves for millenia and making it illegal won't stop it, it will just mean a lot more women die.

Freedom?

15 years ago

women do that now 3j. blaming the legalizing/illegalizing of something for the consequences of ones choices is ridiculous.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Would you rather women got abortions in clinics or in back alleys? When people can't have the kid due to social situations or other situations, they will abort, and if they don't have a clinic to go to, they will resort to less safe, healthy choices.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
So you'd impose the law, knowing women will perform abortions on themselves?

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
I wouldn't make murder legal, no. But that's totally irrelevant. It's irrelevant because I'm not talking about making something legal, I'm talking about making something ILLEGAL.

Abortion clinics are there so that women can have safe abortions, whether or not you agree with the morality of it, making it legal or illegal won't change the amount of abortion, you won't be saving the fetuses (I can just see a field of fetuses worshiping the great Fleshy), you'll just be killing the mothers.

Let's say for a moment that I agree and say that abortion is immoral. I'd still say it should be legal for practical purposes.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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)

 

Freedom?

15 years ago
lol, go right ahead, the irony will make me laugh every time I see it.

Here's your post, the parts in brackets are irrelevant to the discussion we're having:

(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.)

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
"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."

Uhh no... If abortions are legal, they'll go to clinics. That's not mutilating their bodies.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Not to the same extent, I bet that more women get abortions at clinics than in back alleys. Without clinics, some will just not get abortions, this is true, but many will instead go to back alleys and mutilate.

Freedom?

15 years ago

and yet, many more will rethink before they try and have that extra child they cant afford.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
L-O-L

Alright guys, I'm done with this argument. He's successfully gone full circle AGAIN, ignoring the perfect opportunity to move forward and progress the debate, he ignores my point that it's going to cause many people to die, and instead slags women, who's life he will never understand.

Freedom?

15 years ago

according to your superior knowledge, shouldnt your all knowing solutions 'prevent' me from 'running in circles'? 

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
You Say A, I disprove it with B, nothing stops you from saying A again, you just look stupid.

Freedom?

15 years ago

lol didnt it hit you yet that this whole abortion thing is not a 'proven' end? youve yet to do so here.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
When you're ready to address one of my points, or make your own, I'll reply. What you just said is hilarious, because I'm not trying to prove whether abortion is moral or not, seriously come on, try harder.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
You NEVER addressed this:

"Not to the same extent, I bet that more women get abortions at clinics than in back alleys. Without clinics, some will just not get abortions, this is true, but many will instead go to back alleys and mutilate."

(and I can't believe I actually had to repost it for you.)
All you said was.. "and yet, many more will rethink before they try and have that extra child they cant afford.
nate"

Which paraphrased means: "Yeah well.. I'll stop some girls from having sex!"

Go write more lame ass low-rated stories, and stop lying.

"ive addressed your 'points'" - LIE!

Freedom?

15 years ago

"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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
No, I'll make a wheelchair comment when I plan on attacking you, and how the fuck would I feel threatened over the internet? Are you moronic, or just fucked up?

And, I think you meant "loose" translation, but whatever. 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... They'll still have sex, one day when you get into the heat of the moment, you'll see why.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Well, first of all, I'm glad that you have finally admitted to saying that you think that making abortion illegal will stop girls from having sex.

The fact that we've established that girls have abortions in back alleys, proves that they'd still have the sex.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
OK, well it won't deter girls from having sex then. Because of the fact that regardless of whether or not it's legal, girls still commit self-abortion in back-alleys. So by making it illegal, you're just going to cause more of that to happen. Great idea.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
Considering that circumstances (hilariously enough, often due to religion) force girls to hide pregnancies from parents or communities, they will do all in their power to rid themselves of the kid. If there are clinics to go to, good! If not, then back alleys it is.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom?

15 years ago
See Below.

Freedom?

15 years ago
What I'm saying is, yes, perhaps the girl should probably keep it, as opposed to use a clothes hanger, but this isn't a perfect world and often times that won't happen so are you going to make it safe for her to abort, or not?

Freedom?

15 years ago
lol this is sounding like those "safe" drug clinics they wanted to implement last year. Instead of getting high outside, you could get high in the clinic and not be charged for it, because its "safer". But the point is, its illegal and people shouldnt be doing it in the first place.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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?

Freedom?

15 years ago
I'm glad Anubis and Solo get what I'm trying to say, rofl. However Solo, drugs are drugs, inside and out, you're still putting heroin in you, etc. With abortions, it's vastly safer to do it in a clinic than in a back alley.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
"but drugs like marijuana can consume your life and push you to harm others because of it"

A person under the influence of marijuana is much less likely to be violent than someone under the influence of alcohol. A person can go through physical withdrawals from both alcohol and tobacco (as well as psyche withdrawals), with marijuana it's just a psyche withdrawal. So a person going through withdrawals or under the influence of alcohol (and tobacco but only for withdrawals) is much more dangerous than for marijuana.

That being said, I think both tobacco and marijuana are disgusting and I'd never do either.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
Sugar and caffeine, as well as alcohol are all drugs dude. You do do drugs, every day. You just have to know where the cut off is. For most people it's somewhere before or after marijuana.

Remember that tobacco is both legal and bad.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

Bah, nobody needs medical drugs. Homeopathy works well enough, and there's no side-effects.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

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

nate

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
He didn't accuse you of saying they can't have sex, just casual sex, which you seem to be against?

And it's funny how you backpedaled about backpedaling.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
Yeah in British Columbia, where I live (that's a province in Canada for those who don't know) laws are very lax. If you get caught, the cops probably just confiscate it, they don't usually do anything about it at all.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
I think he means abortions should be allowed in rape cases..

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

Yeah, AND they should be allowed because the woman should have a choice.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

I wish we could debate something without constantly falling back to abortion.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
Melike, the topic of this thread is freedom, if you'd like to open a different thread for a different topic, feel free :)

And Rommel hit the nail on the head. QFT

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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

nate

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
OK wait what? Your Rommy? Pretty sure he's not your Rommy. What are you on?
Also, you get accused of running in circles when you revert to already beaten points on a regular basis, not on the rare occasion when you speak truth.

What you've done here is not-so-cleverly tried to dodge the point.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

**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.

nate

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
No, when sufficient evidence is provided and no rebuke to the evidence is provided. As in, a forfeit.

So, for a moment let's say that abortion is immoral. It's totally irrelevant! People have aborted for thousands of years, and making it illegal won't stop that, it will only raise the mortality rate.

PS: It's ironic how religious people actually get a lot of abortions, because teenagers can't face their parents and tell them that they're pregnant. Possibly one of the most ironic situations ever.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
Although murder is wrong, governments don't classify abortion as murder. Also Fleshy, since you still seem to not get it, a religious person getting an abortion is breaking their own rules, that's like a wealthy monk. I'm not passing judgement, one of my best friends, girlfriends is Jehova's Witness and she just got an abortion, I'm just saying that it's strange how the politicians fighting so hard to get it outlawed, often have family using the service.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
"whether abortion is immoral or not has never been the core of my argument. lol" - Fleshy

Pretty sure it has, if not then what is?

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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?

nate

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

" 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."

nate

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
The fact that you consider it murder is due to morality. Since you can't prove scientifically that it's murder, it must be. Murder is not an issue at all, so obviously it's not an ethical issue. Murder is an act, deciding what IS murder, is of course an ethical and moral issue.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
and again, I never said the father can't try and persuade the mother, IE: Discuss it with her... but in the end of the day, it's her decision.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

and its fine that you said that. i wasnt debating it again. i was stating what my original points were because you asked.

nate

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
Yes, and why you see it that way, is because of your morality. Whether or not you consider a fetus to be murder-able is based on whether or not you consider it to have a soul (or whatever word you'd like to substitute in). A plant is alive, killing it is not murder.

If killing a fetus is murder, it is because you believe it is sentient, WHICH for the lack of scientific evidence, makes it a moral question.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

nate

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
wait a minute here, a while back you mentioned that its hard to define life scientifically, something like that, whereby you dropped the issue of the fetus not being, basically, a person based on the scientific definition. SOmething like that or another at least.

But we've established that life begins with the fetus, we've established that getting an abortion IS killing a life. We have established that through science! So whats the issue here now? The fact is, the fetus is a life. Therefore, moral grounds or no moral grounds, killing the fetus is killing a life...

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
ahh! i found it LOL "Alright, so even conceding that the fetus is alive, if it were killed, it would have no way of feeling any pain, and since it's not aware, probably of realizing anything."

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
why does it not matteR?

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago
Please read Solo. I'll repeat it later, I gotta run.

Freedom with Drugs

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
I sorta see what you're saying about the abortion-execution thing Miccy, although I think that again, since we can't prove that abortion = execution, we can't prove that it's a sound line of belief, it comes to down to morality.

Also, there's still the practical side of things. Making abortion illegal will kill a lot of women, through "back-alley abortions". People have been performing abortions for millennia and it wont stop due to some law, your best bet is to make it legal and try to tell people not to do it, due to how "wrong" you think it is. Much like alcohol.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Exactly!

You could also argue that marijuana is much less likely to harm an adult than alcohol.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Especially considering marijuana tends to make people sleepy and not violent.

Freedom?

15 years ago

"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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
seems the argument to reason is, doesnt that mean it violates the fetus' freedom to live? obviously we've basically been arguing that, but i want it to be re-iterated.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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?

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
hmm, well there are better things to do with the fetus/embryo then just flushing it down the medical drain.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

Stem cell harvest?

Just kidding, because that would bring the stem cell thing into an already confused debate.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
yeah, ive strayed away from that, but there is more than JUST that.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
Solo, you could be right about there being "Better alternatives". I agree with you there, and I think that someone should try and suggest these things, but I was talking to my dad the other day about this and he said that a LOT of harvested fetus' actually don't just get "flushed down the drain".

Anyways, can we all agree that even if some of us think abortion is a terrible act, it should remain legal because if it isn't, women will mutilate themselves the same way they have for thousands of years before safer abortions came around?

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
I agree with that, majority of cases involve keeping the fetus for some kind of benefit or another.


Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
Do the women have to agree to this? I think if they decide to get an abortion, they should forfeit the rights to what happens to the fetus.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
Oh for sure, they forfeit the rights. However, i wonder if allowing the mother to specify before abortion where the fetus should end up would work? As in, they get to choose if its for stem cell research (which doesnt necessarily even require a fetus) for surrogacy (and to whom it actually goes to) etc. Or shall the doctors decide all this? I mention this to get perspective, however I believe the doctors, or more realistically, the government gets full and all rights.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
Yeah, seems to me that if you want to forfeit the fetus, (DUDE THAT WOULD BE THE GREATEST NAME FOR A BAND EVER. Forfeit the Fetus ROFLCOPTER) then you're forfeiting your rights to where it goes.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

(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?

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

Haha! Surrogacy kind of eliminates the "illegal" camp, entirely.

But I thought abortion involved killing the fetus. Isn't surrogacy a different procedure?

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
it would be a different "procedure" but the end result for the woman is the same, she does not need to carry a child.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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!

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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 :)

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
OMG MADE MY DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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...

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
not much time for me to post, but just to point out, sperm cell isnt considered life, its when the sperm wraps around the egg is when its considered life, i.e. when it gets fertilized...

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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...

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
ROFL!

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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!

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago
I think it needs a little screamo, maybe as an echo to forfeit the fetus.

Singing/Shouting: FORFEIT THE FETUS (Screamo echo fade: Forfeit the Fetus)

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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 :)

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

Could work well as a rap, too, cause of the rhythm. Minus the screamo bits.

Sanctity of Life

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago

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.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Well thought out post, but I think it was Zero who said that.

Freedom?

15 years ago

Damn I wish RoadtoEmmmaus was here. He'd probably give us another round of debating.

Freedom?

15 years ago
Or just correct you for misspelling his name. No, he probably wouldn't, he's pretty non-confrontational.