View Full Version : Abortion: A few comments in favour of it
Ausinus
12-06-2006, 01:59 AM
A foetus or embryo is not capable of independent though, and is in essence and extension of the mother, much as an arm or toe. If a person wishes to sever their toe, who are we to deny them their choice.
The whole 'potential for life' issue (imo) is not valid. Its not a matter of "potential for life", its a matter of if the mother is physically, financially and psychologically capable of supporting the post natal life. Would you rather have the baby die of starvation if the mother cannot afford food for it? Or die of disease due to medical expenses? Or who is to say said child would not have a hereditary defect which would cause them pain and/or death? Worse still, what if there are natal complications and the mother dies? Doctors can identify if there will be such complications and without abortion we are condemning the mother to pain and possibly death.
This is the essence of the law. While it may be 'good' to bring another person in to the world, it would not be 'right' if this would cause detriment to any involved party. It is similar to the question of "would you kill a relative to save the lives of everyone in the city?". It is about balancing outcomes.
Feel free to challenge me if you want, i am stating my reasoning behind the issue.
General Septem
12-07-2006, 12:12 AM
There is no "potential" for life. The life is already there. The fetus's heart beats, their brainwaves can be recorded, they grow, and they have their own DNA.
You must not know much about pregnancy.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-07-2006, 09:10 PM
The whole 'potential for life' issue (imo) is not valid. Its not a matter of "potential for life", its a matter of if the mother is physically, financially and psychologically capable of supporting the post natal life.
It does not matter if the birth mother is capable. The government can and should be responsible for finding someone to do this if the mother is unwilling. There will always be someone who is willing and grateful for the chance.
Would you rather have the baby die of starvation if the mother cannot afford food for it? Or die of disease due to medical expenses?
Yes. At least you are giving the child a chance. Death by any means is still death. The difference is that with abortion you are REFUSING the person from having a chance to live.
This is the essence of the law. While it may be 'good' to bring another person in to the world, it would not be 'right' if this would cause detriment to any involved party. It is similar to the question of "would you kill a relative to save the lives of everyone in the city?". It is about balancing outcomes.
I see a flaw in your argument here in how you give value to each outcome. I believe that the life of any one person, especially a completely innocent person, is much more valuable than the outcomes or cost of bringing it into the world. If you want balance, I strongly believe that the balance exists in the life of the person.
Ausinus
12-07-2006, 10:45 PM
Every mother should have the option of abortion. Not as a contraceptive, but as a failsafe.
Forcing a mother to carry a child she doesnt want is a removal of civil rights. It would be like the government banning people from seeking a cure to STD's.
Additionally, the ban of legal abortion could lead to a rise in self done abortions or illegal abortions which are dangerous.
Besides, its protected by the fourth amendment. How do you think the Supreme Court introduced it in the first place?
Forcing a mother to carry a child she doesnt want is a removal of civil rights.
No, at that point she has no civil rights in regards to the child. She waived those rights when she had sex.
Ausinus
12-07-2006, 10:50 PM
That is tantamount to punishment for sex, which also breaches the 8th amendment.
It is also creating a gender role. WOmen do not have to have children. This isnt the Dark Ages anymore.
Accidents do happen you know. Rape, the condom can break, the pill can fail. Abortion is there to create a failsafe.
No it's not a punishment for sex, since again sex in the right context can be a beautiful thing and was created as such. It all comes down to responsibility again, you made the choice now it's time to own up to that choice and live with the consequences of it.
If anything it's more a "punishment" (if you must call it that) for abusing what was meant to be a beautiful thing done out of love, not lust.
Ausinus
12-07-2006, 11:05 PM
No it's not a punishment for sex, since again sex in the right context can be a beautiful thing and was created as such. It all comes down to responsibility again, you made the choice now it's time to own up to that choice and live with the consequences of it.
If anything it's more a "punishment" (if you must call it that) for abusing what was meant to be a beautiful thing done out of love, not lust.
Did you not understand what i said about contraceptive accidents?
"The law is reason free from passion" - Aristotle
Religious ideas such as non procreative sex being bad have no place in the law. (and It breaches the 1st Amendment) And again, it counts as cruel and unusual punishment (breaches the 8th Amendment)and a removal of civil rights (breaches 9th Amendment) which is unconstitutional.
Did you not understand what i said about contraceptive accidents?
I did see that, but my point still stands. Whether you use contraceptives or not you're still abusing the gift God gave you. If you don't want a baby, then simply WAIT. It's not that hard to understand, and it's not as impossible as it may seem.
Incidentally I never said that there should be a law banning it. It would be impossible to maintain though anyhow.
It really shouldn't have to be in law to start with, if we'd all stop and think before we do something instead of acting on impulses. That brain up there isn't just for show.
Ausinus
12-07-2006, 11:14 PM
Why do you not get it?
Not everyone is a christian, so your argument is not universal. Since the law is supposed to be universal, it cannot apply. We did have a time when Christianity ran the nations. That was called the Middle Ages. This is now.
If we were to ban abortion based on that argument, it would conflict with the 1st Amendment. So, I would naturally appeal to the Supreme Court.
And mind you, the human body is not designed for celibacy.
"Celibacy is the essence of vulgarity" - Robert Ingersol
Whether a person is christian or not, should not make a difference. It's common sense, you cannot for any reason kill another human being bottom line.
The Supreme Court is a joke today, and has a lot to do with the problems in society, abortion of course being one of them.
Just because the human body isn't designed for celibacy per se, doesn't mean it can't be acheived. It's a little something called self control and self discipline.
Ausinus
12-07-2006, 11:29 PM
Whether a person is christian or not, should not make a difference. It's common sense, you cannot for any reason kill another human being bottom line.
The Supreme Court is a joke today, and has a lot to do with the problems in society, abortion of course being one of them.
Just because the human body isn't designed for celibacy per se, doesn't mean it can't be acheived. It's a little something called self control and self discipline.
But abortion is not killing a human being. If this truly is a debate, then we must go with the legal status quo and say a foetus of 24 weeks or younger is not a human.
The Supreme Court is not a joke. Pehaps it seems that way to you due to them mostly making rational, secular decisions. They are there to support our rights, and they are doing a damn good job of it in regards to abortion.
I would imagine the process of celibacy to be somewhat like suppresive excretive processes. Our anatomy is geared towards reproduction, since it is a factor in the evolutionary mechanism. Why do you think all those people wanted priests to be allowed to marry?
I miss the days of ancient rome, when sex was a free thing.
The Supreme Court is not a joke. Pehaps it seems that way to you due to them mostly making rational, secular decisions. They are there to support our rights, and they are doing a damn good job of it in regards to abortion.
They are just hurting us in the long run. They lead us to sin, so in effect they are doing the work of Satan. He's at the root of it all. Also too, if we can't protect our weakest members (the unborn), then how strong of a society are we really?
I would imagine the process of celibacy to be somewhat like suppresive excretive processes. Our anatomy is geared towards reproduction, since it is a factor in the evolutionary mechanism. Why do you think all those people wanted priests to be allowed to marry?
It is geared towards reproduction, but we don't have to have it to survive. People can and do live without it. Beyond that if a person waits it will mean that much more when they finally marry and have sex for the first time. If you've already had sex beforehand, the wedding night isn't as special as it should be.
Ausinus
12-07-2006, 11:47 PM
They are just hurting us in the long run. They lead us to sin, so in effect they are doing the work of Satan. He's at the root of it all. Also too, if we can't protect our weakest members (the unborn), then how strong of a society are we really?
They are being secular and making decisions based on evidence without moral consequence. They are proving how strong we are as a society, that we can make our own choices.
If that is the work of satan then HAIL SATAN!
It is geared towards reproduction, but we don't have to have it to survive. People can and do live without it. Beyond that if a person waits it will mean that much more when they finally marry and have sex for the first time. If you've already had sex beforehand, the wedding night isn't as special as it should be.
As a species, we need reproduction. You dont know how evolution works do you?
But not everyone gets married do they? And so they shouldn't, its not a requirement in these times.
In regards to extramarital sex, it is another form of civil freedom, which shows how our society has progressed.
They are being secular and making decisions based on evidence without moral consequence. They are proving how strong we are as a society, that we can make our own choices.
If that is the work of satan then HAIL SATAN!
No it proves how weak we are when it allows us to kill an innocent human life who did nothing to deserve its fate other then exist. And if there is no moral consequence, then why can't we drive drunk, or go on a shooting spree? No moral consequence for doing it right?
Obviously you and I know that's wrong, as their are laws in place to protect us from ourselves in that regard. God's laws are in place for the exact same reason.
As a species, we need reproduction. You dont know how evolution works do you?
But not everyone gets married do they? And so they shouldn't, its not a requirement in these times.
In regards to extramarital sex, it is another form of civil freedom, which shows how our society has progressed.
No it shows how society has gone down the tubes, and how we've devalued life itself. We don't even have any respect for women anymore. Women are nothing but objects seemingly. If we respected them, we wouldn't be lusting after them as much as we do. We don't even see them as human beings anymore, but rather playthings that we can do whatever we want with (whether in reality or fantasy), and then move on to the next one. Don't you think there's something wrong with that picture?
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 12:30 AM
No it proves how weak we are when it allows us to kill an innocent human life who did nothing to deserve its fate other then exist. And if there is no moral consequence, then why can't we drive drunk, or go on a shooting spree? No moral consequence for doing it right?
You do know the definition of moral consequence right?
Obviously you and I know that's wrong, as their are laws in place to protect us from ourselves in that regard. God's laws are in place for the exact same reason.
God's laws are not in place, or else there would be a lot more stoning.
And god is actually pro abortion.
Romans 13: 1 -2
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Since the government has declared abortion legal, you can say it is a mandatory requirement of your faith to not interfere in politics.
No it shows how society has gone down the tubes, and how we've devalued life itself. We don't even have any respect for women anymore. Women are nothing but objects seemingly. If we respected them, we wouldn't be lusting after them as much as we do. We don't even see them as human beings anymore, but rather playthings that we can do whatever we want with (whether in reality or fantasy), and then move on to the next one. Don't you think there's something wrong with that picture?
As I recall when the christians were in charge of things, women were branded as second class citizens. At least in todays society they have the same opportunities as men. They can go to university, they can get jobs, they can have ambition. And your definition of 'lusting' is called sexual freedom. Women can and do the same. Women have the right to do want they want with their body, and abortion comes under that right.
who897
12-08-2006, 12:35 AM
Whether a person is christian or not, should not make a difference. It's common sense, you cannot for any reason kill another human being bottom line.
The Supreme Court is a joke today, and has a lot to do with the problems in society, abortion of course being one of them.
Just because the human body isn't designed for celibacy per se, doesn't mean it can't be acheived. It's a little something called self control and self discipline.
If you don't like the Judical Branch, the Legislative Branch, or the Executive Branch, guess what your free to leave this great country. Go find your self some back assward country where you can feel right at home. I'm noticing more and more frequently how often you are reverting to your little theological idea's to prove your point. Guess what, you'll never win bub. Your little idea of a god will never take precedence in a court of law or any form of legislator because of the simple fact we seperate church from state. That is what make this country great, that is what make abortion legal, that is why I feel safe taking a shit at night.
As for showing no respect for women, your little congragation of Pro-lifers are the ones that are trying to regress women's rights, by stripping them of their right of choice. I guess you think everyone thinks of women as a notch on their bedpost, which couldn't be further from the truth, but untill you've actaully had sex, you have pretty much no experence to say what you are saying. If anything women are using men a hella lot more then men are using them now adays, but alas you wouldn't know that.
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Since the government has declared abortion legal, you can say it is a mandatory requirement of your faith to not interfere in politics.
That's pretty funny. Too bad they don't like to listen to their own little book of what they think to be "right", only what they think is right.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 12:37 AM
who897, thank you for agreeing. :D
Additionally, abortion is protected by the 5th Amendment. So ajk, you cant do jack shit.:P
who897
12-08-2006, 12:40 AM
Don't thank me yet....I'm also pro death penalty, but that's a different topic.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 12:41 AM
Don't thank me yet....I'm also pro death penalty, but that's a different topic.
I am too, dont worry. ;)
who897
12-08-2006, 12:53 AM
Could you elaberate the thing about the 5th. I know it has to do with not incrimanting yourself, but I lack understanding of how it is implied to protect abortion rights.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 01:25 AM
It was actually a lot of amendments. The first, fourth, firth, ninth and fourteenth amendments. In the case Roe.v.Wade in 1973, the court ruled that these amendments combine to form a constitutional right to privacy, and that abortion came under the privacy right.
The fifth amendment basically says that you are not required to incriminate yourself. Thus if an abortionist and a willing mother were to abort a baby, neither could be forced give evidence. The 4th amendment prevents doctors from giving evidence, as it comes under the unreasonable search part of the amendment to tell a court without the consent of the mother.
Originally the court planned to give it only to pregnant women who needed it for health reasons and rape, but due to the 14th amendment (equal rights) they had to give it to women who wanted an abortion for other reasons.
Thomas Jefferson, YOU KICK ASS! :D!
General Septem
12-08-2006, 10:15 AM
Every mother should have the option of abortion. Not as a contraceptive, but as a failsafe.
Forcing a mother to carry a child she doesnt want is a removal of civil rights. It would be like the government banning people from seeking a cure to STD's.
Additionally, the ban of legal abortion could lead to a rise in self done abortions or illegal abortions which are dangerous.
Besides, its protected by the fourth amendment. How do you think the Supreme Court introduced it in the first place?
We're not forcing her to carry the child, we're just saying she can't kill him/her.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-08-2006, 12:39 PM
We're not forcing her to carry the child, we're just saying she can't kill him/her.
Exactly right! If you can find a way to allow the child to survive outside the womb, more power to you! But so long as you know that this is not possible, by taking it out you are knowingly killing it. You invited the child in through the act of sex (in the situations that I am contending anyways) and so now you have no right to kill this child.
Ape-Shit
12-08-2006, 02:01 PM
The stats are in: 37% of all women who gave birth last year were not married. I wounder what the percentage of those women who are not listed above chose abortion?
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 04:58 PM
We are not forcing the mother to carry the child, we're just saying she cant kill him/her.
Well how then do you propose we do it? Pre natal induction can be very dangerous and I dont see any other practical way of doing it. If a mother doesnt want to carry the foetus and cant get rid of it, then is counts as forcing her to do it.
You invited the child in through the act of sex (in the situations that I am contending anyways) and so now you have no right to kill this child.
You are not listening. The idea behind abortion is to provide a failsafe in the event of contraceptive failure or rape. Having sex is not inviting a child.
And it is a right, the right of free choice. Anyone who does not agree with the supreme court's decision should go and live in a conservative religious country like Iran.
You are not listening. The idea behind abortion is to provide a failsafe in the event of contraceptive failure or rape. Having sex is not inviting a child.
Wrong. Anyone with even a bit of common sense knows that when you have sex you open yourself up to the possibilty of conception. Ergo, if you're not ready for that responsibility, you shouldn't open yourself to that possibility until you are ready for it.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 05:04 PM
Wrong. Anyone with even a bit of common sense knows that when you have sex you open yourself up to the possibilty of conception. Ergo, if you're not ready for that responsibility, you shouldn't open yourself to that possibility until you are ready for it.
But everyone also knows use can use a condom, take the pill, vasectomy and historectomy, etc. Its called contraception.
But everyone also knows use can use a condom, take the pill, vasectomy and historectomy, etc. Its called contraception.
Yes but that doesn't eliminate the chance of a pregnancy. It isn't foolproof by any means for the first two. And if anyone has a vasectomy or historectomy, then they are being extremely selfish. Sex isn't all about pleasure, never was. There's a greater purpose for sex, a purpose that goes beyond ourselves alone.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 05:14 PM
Yes but that doesn't eliminate the chance of a pregnancy. It isn't foolproof by any means for the first two.
Which is why abortion is needed.
And if anyone has a vasectomy or historectomy, then they are being extremely selfish.
How is it selfish? Its called freedom of choice. Its what gives you the right to be catholic, and me the right to be atheist.
[QUEST]Sex isn't all about pleasure, never was. There's a greater purpose for sex, a purpose that goes beyond ourselves alone.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Perpetuating the species and ensuring evolution. But we found another use for it. Just like we found another use for nuclear energy after creating the nuclear bomb.
Which is why abortion is needed.
Again no, if you were smart enough you'd realize it's not foolproof, and know better then put to yourself in such a situation to start with.
How is it selfish? Its called freedom of choice. Its what gives you the right to be catholic, and me the right to be atheist.
It goes against what sex was meant to be for, and that is to unite and become one body, doing so by creating new life. Obviously pleasure is a part of it too, but it shouldn't be the only part of it. It's not all about us nor should it be.
[QUEST]Sex isn't all about pleasure, never was. There's a greater purpose for sex, a purpose that goes beyond ourselves alone.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Perpetuating the species and ensuring evolution. But we found another use for it. Just like we found another use for nuclear energy after creating the nuclear bomb.[/QUOTE]
There is no other use for it, you can't have one without the other, without playing God in the process.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 05:34 PM
Again no, if you were smart enough you'd realize it's not foolproof, and know better then put to yourself in such a situation to start with.
I know its not foolproof, but neither is conception. It is there as a backup to contraceptives. And what about women who get raped?
Your defintion of knowing better is adhering to obsolete beliefs. The reason christianity has those beliefs is because they didnt have effective contraceptives back when those rules were formulated. Society has changed.
[QUOTE]It goes against what sex was meant to be for, and that is to unite
and become one body, doing so by creating new life. Obviously pleasure is a part of it too, but it shouldn't be the only part of it. It's not all about us nor should it be. .
Why do you think we have pleasure when we have sex? In order to make us WANT to have sex. We are simply harnessing it for another purpose. Then again, you not having sex might have clouded your view somewhat.
I say again, nuclear energy was meant for destruction, but we found another way to utilise it.
There is no other use for it, you can't have one without the other, without playing God in the process.
So masturbation and nonconceptive sex are playing god then?
General Septem
12-08-2006, 09:22 PM
Well how then do you propose we do it? Pre natal induction can be very dangerous and I dont see any other practical way of doing it. If a mother doesnt want to carry the foetus and cant get rid of it, then is counts as forcing her to do it.
Then so be it. Find another way then. We're not forcing her to carry it, we're saying she cannot kill it. It's like having an annoying co-worker; you're free to do what you will about it but you may not kill this co-worker.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 09:27 PM
But we dont another way, then mothers would be forced to carry it or abstain. And that is a breach of civil rights.
You are right, I would like to have a way to remove it without killing it. Its just ATPIT, I place greater importance on personal rights.
Pragmatism over idealism.
THOMAS JEFFERSON IS THE GREATEST!:D
But we dont another way, then mothers would be forced to carry it or abstain. And that is a breach of civil rights.
You are right, I would like to have a way to remove it without killing it. Its just ATPIT, I place greater importance on personal rights.
Which again is selfish, because you're putting yourself on a higher pedestal then that of the baby.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 09:53 PM
Well I would rather be selfish than give up my civil rights.
General Septem
12-08-2006, 09:55 PM
Well I would rather be selfish than give up my civil rights.
Do you have a civil right to commit murder?
Well I would rather be selfish than give up my civil rights.
So you honestly think you're life means more then that of a baby? Lest you forget, we are all created equal.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 10:20 PM
I do not think that at all.
Abortion bans imperil women's lives and restrict choice. That is my issue, not comparison of life. I would be anti abortion too if there was a choice that allowed the foetus to survive. But the point is that there isnt and so I take the more liberal choice.
Besides, the arguement that you put forth is unfair to the mother. You say that she should not use contraceptives, and so she will get pregnant. Then you say she should have to carry the baby to term for having sex, even if she doesnt want to. Then your logical conclusion is abstinence. And preventing people from sex for gratification is truly a breach of civil rights. What guys and girls do in the privacy of their bedrooms is not your concern.
Besides, the arguement that you put forth is unfair to the mother. You say that she should not use contraceptives, and so she will get pregnant. Then you say she should have to carry the baby to term for having sex, even if she doesnt want to. Then your logical conclusion is abstinence. And preventing people from sex for gratification is truly a breach of civil rights. What guys and girls do in the privacy of their bedrooms is not your concern.
When it becomes a threat to human life I think it is my concern and it should be the concern of others as well. The womb should be the absolute safest place a baby can be in, not a place where they can be sucked out at will.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 10:36 PM
Sexual gratification is not a threat to human life, save for STD's and even then they can be averted with contraceptives. Besides, you dont need to have sex to get impregnated. Perhaps in the future people will have sex for pleasure and not for conception. Who knows?
Not in and of itself no but when it leads to abortion (which it often times does), then it does become a threat to human life.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 10:51 PM
Well then educate people on how to use contraceptives properly and it doesnt. There is only a 10% failure rate through condoms, and that is with people not using them properly. Then you add that in with fertility, menstrual cycle, as well as if the mother actually does want to have the baby. Then your abortion rates are quite small comparitively. And then the proportion left will be people who need abortions and who are pro choice.
The problem with this is that types like you with contraceptive opposition give the mother a catch 22.
I'm against contraceptives, simply because it goes against one of the main purposes of sex, that is of course to create new life.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 10:57 PM
But we can create life without sex no? Which makes your argument invalid.
General Septem
12-08-2006, 11:00 PM
But we can create life without sex no? Which makes your argument invalid.
You still can't extract spermatoza without sexually stimulating the male dick, so your argument is invalid. Plus these other methods are unnatural.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 11:04 PM
Well abstincence is unnatural too, why dont you complain about that?
Not exactly, it can seem hard at first and feel weird, but as time goes on your body will adjust to it.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 11:08 PM
How is it natural? The human body has evolved to have sex, we're not celibates.
General Septem
12-08-2006, 11:10 PM
Well abstincence is unnatural too, why dont you complain about that?
Who says it's unnatural? It's the most intimate physical connection a couple can share, it's only natural that it should only be shared between one man and one woman, otherwise it loses its meaning.
How is it natural? The human body has evolved to have sex, we're not celibates.
No, but you can be if you will it to be so. It's only as impossible as you think it is. If you think you can't do it, you won't, but if believe you can then you will. It's all about perception. How you see it is how it's going to be.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 11:14 PM
There is only subjective unnaturality placed upon non conceptive sex. Abstinence is biologically unnatural. Our bodies are structured to have sex.
Besides, the person you lose your virginity to is not necessarily going the person you spend your life with. Did you know 1/3 marriages end in divorce?
who897
12-08-2006, 11:15 PM
To progress you must let go of your past. It's a shame really, I pity you all, cuz you refuse to live in the now. How lonely it must be. Abortion is more beautiful then conception. Conception is only one dimenisional. When else can you see the begining, the middle, the end of something. It should bring into perspective how much to cherish your own life because at any time it could be taken away. If there is one thing I've learned from aboriton, it is that there should have been a lot more of them. I have never killed a man, but I have been pleased by reading the obituaries.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 11:17 PM
Who, do you agree abstinence is unnatural?
To progress you must let go of your past. It's a shame really, I pity you all, cuz you refuse to live in the now. How lonely it must be. Abortion is more beautiful then conception. Conception is only one dimenisional. When else can you see the begining, the middle, the end of something. It should bring into perspective how much to cherish your own life because at any time it could be taken away. If there is one thing I've learned from aboriton, it is that there should have been a lot more of them. I have never killed a man, but I have been pleased by reading the obituaries.
Wow you are a sick sick man then.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 11:21 PM
It is his choice.
Just like it is a woman's choice if she wants an abortion.
It is his choice.
Just like it is a woman's choice if she wants an abortion.
No it isn't. She is not making a choice for herself, but for the baby. She has no right to choose whether a human being lives or dies. Nonewhatsoever.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 11:26 PM
You are so sexist.
In your view, once women become pregnant they have no rights.
I am not sexist at all. I'm all for women to have rights FOR THEMSELVES, not rights for another being. Abortion falls into the latter category.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 11:28 PM
But the foetus is a part of the mother, so what she does to herself is her right. Women are not breeding machines anymore, we live in the 21st Century.
General Septem
12-08-2006, 11:30 PM
You are so sexist.
In your view, once women become pregnant they have no rights.
You only said that to be an asshole.
But the foetus is a part of the mother, so what she does to herself is her right. Women are not breeding machines anymore, we live in the 21st Century.
But it's not her, it's the child. If she wanted to do it strictly to herself and herself alone that would be different. However since it involves the child, she cannot.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 11:38 PM
But it's not her, it's the child. If she wanted to do it strictly to herself and herself alone that would be different. However since it involves the child, she cannot.
What do you not understand; the child is part of the mother prior to 24 weeks as it cannot exist without the mothers biological support.
But it's still a life, not her life. The mother has no right to decide whether a being should live or die, period.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 11:46 PM
The baby shares the same circulatory system and digestive system prior to 24 weeks, essentially the same life. If you a referring to a soul, they have not been proven and cannot be taken into account.
General Septem
12-08-2006, 11:47 PM
The baby shares the same circulatory system and digestive system prior to 24 weeks,.
But different DNA. Fail.
Ausinus
12-08-2006, 11:49 PM
So? If it was just DNA, it would be nothing more than a corpse.
Don't forget too, though it may be connected to the mother, it can think, feel and do things while in that womb. It can recognize different voices after a time.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 12:01 AM
Maybe then, we should terminate it still in embryonic stage prior to 10 weeks, would that make you happy?
No because it's still a human being right from conception. And that's the facts.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 12:10 AM
An embryo is just a bunch of cells! You probably kill more through cuts and scrapes than through embryonic abortion. Besides, embryos have a use in stem cell research.
It's much more then that, as that "clump of cells" represents another being. You may not agree with that, but that's just how it is.
Adult stem cells can do the same thing embryos do without snuffing a life out.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 12:21 AM
It does not do any thing except gestate, and more embryos are lost due to other reasons than are aborted.
No they cant. Embryonic stem cells have so far produced a more effective generative property than adult stem cells. The only reason that we cant find out more is cause religious groups protest it.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 08:49 AM
So? If it was just DNA, it would be nothing more than a corpse.
But it's not. It is composed of living human cells, which happen to be a person's entire body. I never said it was "just DNA", I said the fetus's DNA is different from the mother's and is therefore not the same organism.
who897
12-09-2006, 06:30 PM
Hey the mother makes a choice in abortion. I am still waiting for the fetus to object to it. I have yet to hear a fetus say, oh wait nope don't feel like being aborted. By the fetus's lack of making a decision it has made a choice to be aborted.
Hey the mother makes a choice in abortion. I am still waiting for the fetus to object to it. I have yet to hear a fetus say, oh wait nope don't feel like being aborted. By the fetus's lack of making a decision it has made a choice to be aborted.
Life is still life, regardless of how old or young it is, or if it's capable of making a decision. By your reasoning, a person could be killed because they were out cold at the time of the murder, so they couldn't defend themselves.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 08:01 PM
But what would you define life as? I think this is the problem with this discussion, we have yet to define life.
But what would you define life as? I think this is the problem with this discussion, we have yet to define life.
Life is a person conceived in the womb, right from the moment it happens. As soon as that happens, it's a life.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 08:08 PM
But what would you define life as? I think this is the problem with this discussion, we have yet to define life.
We're talking about human life here, and through scientific observation - not speculation - a fetus is determined to be a living human.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 08:08 PM
But more importantly, what makes it different from an animal life? If it is about it's humanity, I think foeti are not humans due to thier incapability of reasoning.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 08:10 PM
But more importantly, what makes it different from an animal life? If it is about it's humanity, I think foeti are not humans due to thier incapability of reasoning.
Feoti are genetically human beings, therefore they are human. Reasoning doesn't play into it or it'd be legal to kill children with Down's Syndrome.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 08:11 PM
But biologically we are animals. Therfore the only trait that separates us is our capacity for reason.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 08:15 PM
But biologically we are animals. Therfore the only trait that separates us is our capacity for reason.
Yes, but this trait separates us as a species, not as individuals.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 08:16 PM
But you forget, genetic variation is present in animals too.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 08:18 PM
But you forget, genetic variation is present in animals too.
I'm not talking about that. I'm saying, genetically and biologically, foeti are human beings. No human being should kill another human being except to protect oneself from an unjust attacker.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 08:29 PM
I say again, other human beings have the capacity for reasoning. they have human rights because of this, which is why we dont execute people without a fair trial. In regards to people with down syndrome, they have reasoning capacity, it is only impaired. Foeti do not have the capacity for reason at all.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 08:32 PM
I say again, other human beings have the capacity for reasoning. they have human rights because of this, which is why we dont execute people without a fair trial. In regards to people with down syndrome, they have reasoning capacity, it is only impaired. Foeti do not have the capacity for reason at all.
It is not reasoning that gives us our right to live but the fact that we are human. The right to life is an inalienable human right, not an inalienable right among those who are capable of reason. That would make it a personal right, not a human right.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 08:33 PM
But the fact we 'are' human stems from our capacity to reason. If we did not reason we would be animals.
But the fact we 'are' human stems from our capacity to reason. If we did not reason we would be animals.
Not neccessarily. Do all animals have 10 fingers and ten toes? No. Do all animals have only two legs? No. Do animals have the ability to communicate through speech? No. It's traits such as those that separate us from the animals.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 08:45 PM
But the fact we 'are' human stems from our capacity to reason. If we did not reason we would be animals.
We're human for the same reason dogs are dogs... we just are.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 08:55 PM
Not neccessarily. Do all animals have 10 fingers and ten toes? No. Do all animals have only two legs? No. Do animals have the ability to communicate through speech? No. It's traits such as those that separate us from the animals.
We have the same skeletal structure as most of the class Mammalia, indeed most of the Primate order have 5 phalanges. And some primates have the capacity for bipedal motion as well.
In fact, even our ancestors homo habilis, erectus and neadertalensis would be given human rights if it were down to anatomy.
And many animals can communicate, just not through speech. Foeti cannot speak by the way. And if speech was a requirement for humanity, would not parrots be counted as humans?
It is our ability to say that if I do this, then this will happen that makes us humans. It is the difference between us and animals, that we have an advanced superego, as opposed to just an id and an ego.
who897
12-09-2006, 10:38 PM
We're human for the same reason dogs are dogs... we just are.
Dogs are aminals, humans are animals, I guess that means all animals should be afforded all rights due to a human.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 10:39 PM
Dogs are aminals, humans are animals, I guess that means all animals should be afforded all rights due to a human.
No, because not all animals are humans. All humans are mammals but not all mammals nor all animals are human.
Humans are technically not animals either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-09-2006, 10:43 PM
It is our ability to say that if I do this, then this will happen that makes us humans. It is the difference between us and animals, that we have an advanced superego, as opposed to just an id and an ego.
I must disagree with you. I can tell that my dog has the ability to reason, and everyone will definately say the he is not human. For example, he knows that he is not supposed to go up on the table, and he doesn't when I'm not around because he knows he will get punished for it. Yet when I am not around he sometimes reasons that that slice of pizza that I left on the table is worth taking in hopes that I don't realize that he got it. He is still sneaky about it because he still knows that it is wrong and wants to get away with it.
Furthermore, the argument has been that it is more than reason alone which makes us human. No one is saying that the ability to reason doesn't factor in, but we require more than just one variable to define us as human.
I would argue that if you are looking for a SINGLE DEFINING FACTOR of humanity, DNA is the way to go. If it is alive and has what is defined as Human DNA, I don't think that there is any example which says that it is not then a living human. Abortion promoters just don't want to accept this obvious truth because they then must accept tat they're wrong.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 10:45 PM
Humans are not animals in that they reason, but foeti cannot reason.
Additionally, i am using animal in the sense we are members of the kingdom animalia.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 10:47 PM
Humans are not animals in that they reason, but foeti cannot reason.
Humans are not animals period. Reason doesn't play into it. Humans are humans because we are humans. There's no reason for it other than that we just are.
who897
12-09-2006, 10:49 PM
They all look abortable to me. Just looking at different embryos, they look gasp all alike.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 10:52 PM
They all look abortable to me. Just looking at different embryos, they look gasp all alike.
I'll bet you think blacks look alike too?
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 10:54 PM
Humans are not animals period. Reason doesn't play into it. Humans are humans because we are humans. There's no reason for it other than that we just are.
Our classification.
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo Sapiens (WISE man)
Subspecies: Homo Sapiens Sapiens
There it is. We are animals. The distinction between us and nonhuman animals is our ability to reason. If we couldn't reason then we would be animals.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-09-2006, 10:57 PM
Humans are not animals in that they reason, but foeti cannot reason.
Additionally, i am using animal in the sense we are members of the kingdom animalia.
I don't follow you. Are you saying that we are animals or we are not animals? This post of yours appears to argue for both....
General Septem
12-09-2006, 10:58 PM
There it is. We are animals. The distinction between us and nonhuman animals is our ability to reason. If we couldn't reason then we would be animals.
The distinction between humans and nonhumans is that humans are human. That's the difference. Not our ability to reason, that doesn't cover it all. There are many other differences too, but they can all be summed up into one broad explanation: we are human, and they are not. We are merely a different species than any other animal.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-09-2006, 11:02 PM
We are animals. The distinction between us and nonhuman animals is our ability to reason. If we couldn't reason then we would be animals.
Let's try to play off of your argument here, (even though I pointed out that my dog can reason). Does one have to currently have the ability to reason to be a human? We know that without negative intervention it will have this ability to reason, and further more we can write the date on our calendar when this will most likely happen. So if we know that it will have the ability to reason without our denying it that ability, couldn't we define this as human as well?
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 11:02 PM
I must disagree with you. I can tell that my dog has the ability to reason, and everyone will definately say the he is not human. For example, he knows that he is not supposed to go up on the table, and he doesn't when I'm not around because he knows he will get punished for it. Yet when I am not around he sometimes reasons that that slice of pizza that I left on the table is worth taking in hopes that I don't realize that he got it. He is still sneaky about it because he still knows that it is wrong and wants to get away with it.
Let me refine my arguement. Animals do not have an advanced ability to reason. This is explained by psychology.
The mind has three parts, the ego, which is the conscious part, and the subconcious parts, the id and the superego. The id's mantra is "get pleasure, avoid pain". This is why he wants the pizza. The superego gives the ability to reason. It says "if i do this, then this will happen". Our advanced reasoning is because we can say "if i do this, then this will happen because of this" and also we can reason beyond our own experiences. "If something does this, then this will happen". The id and superego are always in conflict.
I would argue that if you are looking for a SINGLE DEFINING FACTOR of humanity, DNA is the way to go. If it is alive and has what is defined as Human DNA, I don't think that there is any example which says that it is not then a living human. Abortion promoters just don't want to accept this obvious truth because they then must accept tat they're wrong.
But our close relatives have very similar DNA, and have greater reasoning capacity that foeti. Then they can said to be more human than foeti. The arguement has been what makes a foetus different from an animal. Nothing, imo.
And we are not wrong, we support civil liberty.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 11:06 PM
But our close relatives have very similar DNA
Similar DNA? Close only matters in horseshoes and darts, and we're not playing either of those.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-09-2006, 11:09 PM
Let me refine my arguement. Animals do not have an advanced ability to reason. This is explained by psychology.
The mind has three parts, the ego, which is the conscious part, and the subconcious parts, the id and the superego. The id's mantra is "get pleasure, avoid pain". This is why he wants the pizza. The superego gives the ability to reason. It says "if i do this, then this will happen". Our advanced reasoning is because we can say "if i do this, then this will happen because of this" and also we can reason beyond our own experiences. "If something does this, then this will happen". The id and superego are always in conflict.
Is there proof that there is no animal that has the same ability to reason as you have just described here?
But our close relatives have very similar DNA, and have greater reasoning capacity that foeti. Then they can said to be more human than foeti. The arguement has been what makes a foetus different from an animal. Nothing, imo.
"Similar" is where your argument fails. Human DNA and Similar to Human DNA are not the same. I'm not saying anywhere that the one with the best ability to reason is the one that is human, you are. So it then appears that you are arguing that some animals are more human than young babies.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 11:21 PM
Is there proof that there is no animal that has the same ability to reason as you have just described here?
If there was, there would be another dominant species on the planet.
Besides, animals are more id creatures. They do not try to find out why something happens if they do an action.
"Similar" is where your argument fails. Human DNA and Similar to Human DNA are not the same. I'm not saying anywhere that the one with the best ability to reason is the one that is human, you are. So it then appears that you are arguing that some animals are more human than young babies.
Imo, some animals are more human than foeti.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 11:23 PM
If there was, there would be another dominant species on the planet.
Therefore all humans are above all other animals, and therefore, a human's right to life cannot be said to be based on reason.
Do infants possess reason?
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-09-2006, 11:25 PM
Imo, some animals are more human than foeti.
I understand that. I am asking you if you believe that some animals are more human than babies by the same logic?
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-09-2006, 11:32 PM
If there was, there would be another dominant species on the planet.
There is no way to prove this statement.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 11:32 PM
Therefore all humans are above all other animals, and therefore, a human's right to life cannot be said to be based on reason.
Do infants possess reason?
Dominant meaning numerous and spreas out. Which stems from reason. That is our own definitive trait. We cannot make honey. We cannot fly using our own bodies. We cannot see in the dark, or in the ultraviolet spectrum. We compensate for this by reasoning to make use of technology. Therefore, humans right to life can be said to be based on reason.
Yes. They in fact do, posess reason. Foeti do not possess any reason, as they have no knowledge. They cannot think "if i kick my mother, then i will make my mother uncomfortable, because kicking hurts people". Infants can think "If i kick my mother, she will get angry, because kicking hurts people.":
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 11:34 PM
There is no way to prove this statement.
There is indeed. It is because of our advanced reasoning abilities we have become the dominant species. If we look at our history, we can say that if another animal possessed advanced reasoning capabilities, then they would have become as profilic as we are.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 11:35 PM
Infants can think "If i kick my mother, she will get angry, because kicking hurts people.":
Can they think this five seconds out of the womb? If so, what changes in that five seconds that makes them not human at one instant and human the next?
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 11:37 PM
Experience.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 11:39 PM
Experience.
So which is it, reason or experience?
Since you think the religious close their eyes to reason, do you support their massacre? Then you must agree with the Holocaust, seing as how the victims were just unreasonable Jews.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-09-2006, 11:47 PM
There is indeed. It is because of our advanced reasoning abilities we have become the dominant species. If we look at our history, we can say that if another animal possessed advanced reasoning capabilities, then they would have become as profilic as we are.
That is not proof. It is meerely supposition. I could just as easily suppose that maybe there are other species that have this ability to advanced reasoning, but choose the easy life over hard work because their reasoning says that this is more profitable.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 11:48 PM
So which is it, reason or experience?
Reason based on experience. If you want more info, study psychology a bit, its really interesting.
Since you think the religious close their eyes to reason, do you support their massacre? Then you must agree with the Holocaust, seing as how the victims were just unreasonable Jews.
How dare you insult me like that! I do not think the religious close their eyes to reason! And I would never advocate their massacre. I think they take things on faith without empirical evidence.
I am not saying we should allow abortion because foeti cannot reason. Its not like im saying OMG A FOETUS LETS KILL IT BECAUSE IT HAS NO RESONING CAPABILITY! I am saying that the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the foetus because of this.
General Septem
12-09-2006, 11:49 PM
I do not think the religious close their eyes to reason! And I would never advocate their massacre. I think they take things on faith without empirical evidence.
Yet you have this quote in your sig:
"To see with faith, one must close the eye of reason" -Benjamin Franklin
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-09-2006, 11:58 PM
I am not saying we should allow abortion because foeti cannot reason. . . I am saying that the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the foetus because of this.
If you are for abortion based on this argument, then saying "we should allow abortion because foeti cannot reason" is no different from saying "the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the foetus because of [the mother's ability to reason and the baby's lack thereof]."
The baby has the ability of reason. It simply has not yet fully developed it.
Ausinus
12-09-2006, 11:59 PM
That is not proof. It is meerely supposition. I could just as easily suppose that maybe there are other species that have this ability to advanced reasoning, but choose the easy life over hard work because their reasoning says that this is more profitable.
It is not a supposition it is an inference based on historical evidence.
We know that our defining trait is advanced reasoning, as our other traits can be matched or exceeded by other species. We know that we have evolved to the dominant species on the planet. We also know that animals do not attempt to find out why. Therefore we can reason that other species do not possess our advanced reasoning abilities.
And we know it is not more profitable, as by working hard we can have a better life by creating medicines, grow our own food etc.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 12:01 AM
And we know it is not more profitable, as by working hard we can have a better life by creating medicines, grow our own food etc.
But the apes don't seem to be having trouble. In fact they'd be happy as a pig in shit if it weren't for us screwing up the environment. Perhaps the animals are smarter than us, because last time I heard of a monkey knocking down forests, I was watching King Kong.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 12:01 AM
If you are for abortion based on this argument, then saying "we should allow abortion because foeti cannot reason" is no different from saying "the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the foetus because of [the mother's ability to reason and the baby's lack thereof]."
It is different, if the foetus was grown in a jar I would not advocate abortion.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 12:04 AM
We know that our defining trait is advanced reasoning, as our other traits can be matched or exceeded by other species. We know that we have evolved to the dominant species on the planet. We also know that animals do not attempt to find out why. Therefore we can reason that other species do not possess our advanced reasoning abilities.
Good. So reason with me. We know that the feotus possesses the same reasoning abilities, it simply needs to develop them. Refusing it the right to develop this ability does not make it any less human.
Reasoning ability may be a defining trait, but is not equal among all humans. The basic DNA structure of what makes a human a human is.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 12:09 AM
It is different, if the foetus was grown in a jar I would not advocate abortion.
That's like a neo-Nazi saying if Jews didn't have big noses he wouldn't advocate beating them up.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 12:09 AM
It is different, if the foetus was grown in a jar I would not advocate abortion.
Why not? What makes the life of the foetus in the jar more important than the life of the natural foetus?
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 12:16 AM
Why not? What makes the life of the foetus in the jar more important than the life of the natural foetus?
The mother.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 12:17 AM
That's like a neo-Nazi saying if Jews didn't have big noses he wouldn't advocate beating them up.
Or like saying that if gays have sex with other men then he would go to hell.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 12:19 AM
The mother.
Please don't make me talk to you the same way that I would talk to a child. Give explanations of your answers along with them. Tell me the why when it is apparant that it is needed to validate the answer, even if it is not asked for.
(FYI - I STARTED OUT BY ASKING FOR THE WHY ANYWAYS!)
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 12:24 AM
Please don't make me talk to you the same way that I would talk to a child. Give explanations of your answers along with them. Tell me the why when it is apparant that it is needed to validate the answer, even if it is not asked for.
(FYI - I STARTED OUT BY ASKING FOR THE WHY ANYWAYS!)
Sorry.
My explanation is that the mother has the right to personal freedom (one of the reasons which is because she can reason), which supersedes the foetus' rights.
It would be like taking away a glove from a homeless person in winter to give to an armless person. Taking away the mother's rights for a foetus who cannot choose to follow or waive those rights. They cannot understand them because they cannot reason.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 12:27 AM
It would be like taking away a glove from a homeless person in winter to give to an armless person. Taking away the mother's rights for a foetus who cannot choose to follow or waive those rights. They cannot understand them because they cannot reason.
But killing an armless person to give his gloves to a homless person is not right either.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 12:28 AM
But killing an armless person to give his gloves to a homless person is not right either.
But the armless person has no gloves. Because they cannot use them.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 12:31 AM
It would be like taking away a glove from a homeless person in winter to give to an armless person. Taking away the mother's rights for a foetus who cannot choose to follow or waive those rights. They cannot understand them because they cannot reason.
Certain rights are not based on choice. Life is one of these. It is illegal for a person to commit suicide, yet this is a definate choice that he has made.
On the other hand we can assume what the choice would be from the fact that we know all species do what they can to survive and a SUPREME majority of anyone who had a choice would definately choose life.
If we know what the choice would be then its outcome should be no different simply because the person is unable to give a clear yes or no on the subject.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 12:40 AM
Certain rights are not based on choice. Life is one of these. It is illegal for a person to commit suicide, yet this is a definate choice that he has made. On the other hand we can assume what the choice would be from the fact that we know all species do what they can to survive and a SUPREME majority of anyone who had a choice would definately choose life. If we know what the choice would be then its outcome should be no different simply because the person is unable to give a clear yes or no on the subject.
But the person has the right to life, the foetus does not(And suicide is not a crime). Thats the point. The foetus is inviable outside the mother, so the rights of the foetus are only what the mother gives it.
If we are referring to instinct to act as the choice of the foetus for the purpose of making laws, then rape shouldnt be a crime either. Its a humans instinct to have sex and reproduce and by your arguement its the 'choice' of everyone.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 12:44 AM
But the armless person has no gloves. Because they cannot use them.
Suppose they do.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 12:49 AM
Its a metaphor for the fact the foetus itself has no rights. Its rights are only given to it by the mother, as it is inviable outside the womb.
And if we were to count abortion as murder, then women who sought abortions would be killed wouldnt they? How unjust.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 12:51 AM
But the person has the right to life, the foetus does not(And suicide is not a crime). Thats the point. The foetus is inviable outside the mother, so the rights of the foetus are only what the mother gives it.
Every human has an undeniable right to life regardless of the governing body, and a foetus is human.
If we are referring to instinct to act as the choice of the foetus for the purpose of making laws, then rape shouldnt be a crime either. Its a humans instinct to have sex and reproduce and by your arguement its the 'choice' of everyone.
Please sit back and think about this accusation. If you had the choice, would you have sex with your father? This is just one example among millions which proves that any person would say no if able to choose. A person's choice on something such as this relies on much more than the simple act of it. On the other hand, a person's choice on life will remain the same even under most extreme circumstances that would make the outcome less favorable.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 12:51 AM
And if we were to count abortion as murder, then women who sought abortions would be killed wouldnt they? How unjust.
Only if you're for the death penalty, which I'm not.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 12:58 AM
And if we were to count abortion as murder, then women who sought abortions would be killed wouldnt they? How unjust.
This is only an argument against the death penalty. A valid one at that.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:12 AM
She is not governing it. The foetus is living off her in the most dependent way that without her it would die, regardless of environment, custody or laws.
A choice to life is fueled by self preservation and fear of death. Foeti do not know what death is, and do not have self preservation instincts. People make a choice based off their knowledge. Saying that "if they did have" is not valid, as the fact is if we based a law off it, then it wouldn't apply to foeti as they are.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:15 AM
This is only an argument against the death penalty. A valid one at that.
Well what should the punishment be then? $1000 dollars, life in jail?
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 01:20 AM
A choice to life is fueled by self preservation and fear of death. Foeti do not know what death is, and do not have self preservation instincts. People make a choice based off their knowledge. Saying that "if they did have" is not valid, as the fact is if we based a law off it, then it wouldn't apply to foeti as they are.
Babies do not know what death is. Babies are no more able of self preservation than is a foetus. By this a baby would fall under the same category, would you deny the baby the right to live if it depended on them making the choice against someone else?
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:23 AM
Babies do not know what death is. Babies are no more able of self preservation than is a foetus. By this a baby would fall under the same category, would you deny the baby the right to live if it depended on them making the choice against someone else?
No, babies have self preservation instincts, its not the capability of it.
In regards to the former, this is ONE of the reasons for abortion. Not the only one. The main reason is its viability. Babies can survive without being in the womb, foeti cannot.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 01:24 AM
Well what should the punishment be then? $1000 dollars, life in jail?
I don't think there should be a "penalty" for any crime. A penalty only creates more pain. I think that a consequence for any crime ought to be some sort of retribution paid back to those it affected. Find some way that the criminal will give back to its victims. It cannot always be the same thing, but monetary ammounts can be calculated to try and make things as even as possible. Keep these people under state custody until their debt has been repaid.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:26 AM
I don't think there should be a "penalty" for any crime. A penalty only creates more pain. I think that a consequence for any crime ought to be some sort of retribution paid back to those it affected. Find some way that the criminal will give back to its victims. It cannot always be the same thing, but monetary ammounts can be calculated to try and make things as even as possible. Keep these people under state custody until their debt has been repaid.
So imprison a mother for trying to excercise control over her own vagina and uterus?
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 01:28 AM
No, babies have self preservation instincts, its not the capability of it.
How can you be certain that babies have these instincts yet foetus do not, even when the most basic lifeforms have self preservation instincts?
In regards to the former, this is ONE of the reasons for abortion. Not the only one. The main reason is its viability. Babies can survive without being in the womb, foeti cannot.
I don't think it makes a difference where they are able to survive. They are both still human and both ought to still have the same rights to life. The right to life ought to trump any other right, regardless of how developed a person is.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:30 AM
How can you be certain that babies have these instincts yet foetus do not, even when the most basic lifeforms have self preservation instincts?
A self preservation instict is a psychological reaction to negative stimuli. Foeti, prior to 24 weeks, do not have the proper neural connections to feel pain, and cannot see the things they are being aborted by.
I don't think it makes a difference where they are able to survive. They are both still human and both ought to still have the same rights to life. The right to life ought to trump any other right, regardless of how developed a person is.
So the right to life ought to trump right to self control then?
But you're not controlling yourself, you're controlling the life of the unborn child.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:34 AM
Youre controlling what is in your uterus.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 01:36 AM
A self preservation instict is a psychological reaction to negative stimuli. Foeti, prior to 24 weeks, do not have the proper neural connections to feel pain, and cannot see the things they are being aborted by.
Still, if something threatens their life the foeti will do whatever it CAN to survive. You have only listed two advanced ways in which psychological stimuli push us to react. The foetus is not yet completely developed but still human, so it will not find as many ways to keep itself alive as a fully developed human can. A person who is blind and cannot feel pain will still do whatever possible to survive.
So the right to life ought to trump right to self control then?
I don't understand what you're getting at here.....
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:38 AM
Still, if something threatens their life the foeti will do whatever it CAN to survive. You have only listed two advanced ways in which psychological stimuli push us to react. The foetus is not yet completely developed but still human, so it will not find as many ways to keep itself alive as a human can.
It doesnt feel pain. It cannot recieve negative stimuli. And it cannot see in the darkness of the womb.
I don't understand what you're getting at here.....
Control over your own body.
Youre controlling what is in your uterus.
Yes but it's still not strictly your body. If it was that would be different, but because there's another life within you, that life overrides the right to control your body in that regard.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:43 AM
Yes but it's still not strictly your body. If it was that would be different, but because there's another life within you, that life overrides the right to control your body in that regard.
The jury is still out on whether it is a life. And nothing should EVER strip you of the right to control your own body. Why do you think we are allowed to get away with manslaughter for self defence?
The jury is still out on whether it is a life. And nothing should EVER strip you of the right to control your own body. Why do you think we are allowed to get away with manslaughter for self defence?
No the jury is not still out on whether or not it's a life. It is a life from the moment of conception period. I don't care if you agree with that or not, it is still and always will be a fact.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 01:45 AM
It doesnt feel pain. It cannot recieve negative stimuli. And it cannot see in the darkness of the womb.
Yet it will still react and survive as best it can.
Control over your own body.
Yes, the right to life overrides the right to control over your own body, at least in the case where you willingly performed the act of sex.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:45 AM
No the jury is not still out on whether or not it's a life. It is a life from the moment of conception period. I don't care if you agree with that or not, it is still and always will be a fact.
No that is a pro life and catholic belief. Humanists believe life starts at birth. And humanism is why you can still practice catholicism ajk.
No that is a pro life and catholic belief. Humanists believe life starts at birth. And humanism is why you can still practice catholicism ajk.
Again no, it is not just a catholic belief, it is a fact. Ask any scientist. This is not an opinion matter nor should it be.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 01:48 AM
Why do you think we are allowed to get away with manslaughter for self defence?
Because you have the right to LIFE! Your right to life trumps all other rights. If someone threatens your right to life they bring the value of their own right to life below the value of yours. So your right to life TRUMPS their right to life!
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:49 AM
It disgusts me how abortion on demand is legal in Turkey and Greece, two highly religious countries, and yet this country which has the freedom of religion in its CONSTITUTIOn is still debating it.
And excuse me I have asked a scientist and he says life starts at birth. My biology teacher who has a Masters in biology.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 01:50 AM
Humanists believe life starts at birth.
yet we can see that something is alive before birth. Check that ultrasound!
It disgusts me how abortion on demand is legal in Turkey and Greece, two highly religious countries, and yet this country which has the freedom of religion in its CONSTITUTIOn is still debating it.
And excuse me I have asked a scientist and he says life starts at birth. My biology teacher who has a Masters in biology.
Well he is wrong then.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:51 AM
Well he is wrong then.
DO you have a masters in biology?
DO you have a masters in biology?
Doesn't matter if I do or not, I know for a fact he is wrong.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 01:55 AM
Does this scientist know the basis for this debate? Ask him to look at the arguments posted and then declare his opinion on the issue, otherwise it is an argument that is not suited to this debate.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 01:56 AM
Doesn't matter if I do or not, I know for a fact he is wrong.
Do you now? Scientific definition of life is things which posess-
Homeostasis
Metabolism*
Growth
Adaption*
Response to Stimuli*
Reproduction*
And foeti do not do the things with an asterisk.
And i will not believe you until you go to a decent university and get a masters in biology.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 01:58 AM
Then this scientific definition is invalid. One falicy of it is that there are many people alive today that are unable to reproduce, yet nobody would declare these people as not alive.
Hell, by this definition nobody is truly alive until after puberty!
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 02:03 AM
Then this scientific definition is invalid. One falicy of it is that there are many people alive today that are unable to reproduce, yet nobody would declare these people as not alive.
Life is a definition that applies at the species level. Individuals do not count in it. However, foeti do not do these things universally.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 02:19 AM
Life is a definition that applies at the species level. Individuals do not count in it. However, foeti do not do these things universally.
If that's your acertation then I'll give you examples where foeti DO do these things.
Metabolism - They sustain their own life by taking the nutrients given to them and using them to not only maintain themselves, but to grow as well.
Adaption - They will adapt to their environment in order to survive as best they can just like any other living being would.
Response to Stimuli - They do not respond to as many stimuli as a fully developed human does, yet they still respond to the more basic stimili that any lifeform does
Reproduction - They are in essence reproducing themselves. Growing and creating new cells all the time. They are no less qualified in this area than any child is who has not yet developed sexually.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 02:23 AM
If that's your acertation then I'll give you examples where foeti DO do these things.
Metabolism - They sustain their own life by taking the nutrients given to them and using them to not only maintain themselves, but to grow as well.
Adaption - They will adapt to their environment in order to survive as best they can just like any other living being would.
Response to Stimuli - They do not respond to as many stimuli as a fully developed human does, yet they still respond to the more basic stimili that any lifeform does
Reproduction - They are in essence reproducing themselves. Growing and creating new cells all the time. They are no less qualified in this area than any child is who has not yet developed sexually.
Yet they are dependent on the mother for this.
They are in a homeostatic environment, so they do not adapt.
Name a stimulus they respond to please.
Very well then, lets strike reproduction from the record.
Name a stimulus they respond to please.
They can recognize one voice from another after a time.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 02:29 AM
Yet they are dependent on the mother for this.
They are in a homeostatic environment, so they do not adapt.
Name a stimulus they respond to please.
Very well then, lets strike reproduction from the record.
Just as any other lifeform is dependant on its environment for its nutrients.
They adapt to the changes that happen to that homeostatic environment. If the mother starts smoking, the foetus will adapt to it.
As far as a stimulus, do you think that a baby's kick while in the womb is always done without any reason, without stimulus to precede it?
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 02:29 AM
They can recognize one voice from another after a time.
After 24 weeks. Which is my ideal cut off time. Look, I dont want abortion as a contraceptive, I want it to be there as a failsafe for women who want it.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 02:37 AM
After 24 weeks. Which is my ideal cut off time. Look, I dont want abortion as a contraceptive, I want it to be there as a failsafe for women who want it.
And what I'm trying to say is that the only difference between an abortion in the first week and that done after the baby has developed enough by yours, or other standards is TIME. Both forms of life are identical in all other arguable aspects, and TIME does not sound like a good reason at all to kill someone.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 02:39 AM
And what I'm trying to say is that the only difference between an abortion in the first week and that done after the baby has developed enough by yours, or other standards is TIME. Both forms of life are identical in all other arguable aspects, and TIME does not sound like a good reason at all to kill someone.
After 24 weeks, the foetus is viable outside the womb. Thats how its different.
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-10-2006, 02:42 AM
After 24 weeks, the foetus is viable outside the womb. Thats how its different.
But this is a difference that is realized only by time. People these days are becomming far too impatient. You chose to give the life a chance, and so you chose to live with the 9 months of change that it causes to your body. Let's start living up to the decisions that we make.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 02:46 AM
But this is a difference that is realized only by time. People these days are becomming far too impatient. You chose to give the life a chance, and so you chose to live with the 9 months of change that it causes to your body. Let's start living up to the decisions that we make.
But my point is that it should be a failsafe for contraceptives, like when the condom fails etc. Or rape, or serious health risks.
who897
12-10-2006, 03:25 AM
But this is a difference that is realized only by time. People these days are becomming far too impatient. You chose to give the life a chance, and so you chose to live with the 9 months of change that it causes to your body. Let's start living up to the decisions that we make.
There is no difference realized in time. It's all the same, no matter how you look at it. Weither now or 100 yrs down the road, the inevitable will take place. Perhaps this is the most efficent means of using that time? And no, 9 months of time is a fairy tale number. In either case it will still be in your mind till haha your times up. Abortion is a choice to a decision made, and that's the beauty of it, it gives someone a choice.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 07:27 AM
A self preservation instict is a psychological reaction to negative stimuli. Foeti, prior to 24 weeks, do not have the proper neural connections to feel pain, and cannot see the things they are being aborted by.
Foeti can feel pain after 12 weeks, actually.
So the right to life ought to trump right to self control then?
If it didn't, murder would be legal.
who897
12-10-2006, 02:52 PM
If it didn't, murder would be legal.
Those rights are on par, but when the 2 are in conflict of each other. Which should take precidence? I say "choice".
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 03:41 PM
Those rights are on par, but when the 2 are in conflict of each other. Which should take precidence? I say "choice".
I agree. Anyway, it should be an failsafe to contraceptives and for rape and health risks.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 03:46 PM
Those rights are on par, but when the 2 are in conflict of each other. Which should take precidence? I say "choice".
Murder is a choice, but the right to life certainly trumps that.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 03:48 PM
Murder is a choice, but the right to life certainly trumps that.
Tell that to the people who are acquitted on the basis of self defense.
Different situation. You can't compare that with abortion.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 03:57 PM
Different situation. You can't compare that with abortion.
Yes you can. Both abortion and self defense are to be secure in your person.
Yes you can. Both abortion and self defense are to be secure in your person.
No because with self defense your life is actually in danger.
Getting pregnant does not generally put you in danger. Granted sometimes giving birth can, but even then the baby's right to life trumps that of the woman simply because the woman has had a chance to be alive and experience life, while the baby has not.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:02 PM
No because self defense your life is actually in danger. Getting pregnant does not generally put you in danger. Granted sometimes giving birth can, but even the baby's right to life trumps that of the woman simply because the woman has had a chance to be alive and experience life, while the baby has not.
No, you can kill in self defense on the basis of assault or rape too. The judiciary has acquitted on that basis. Plus the current abortion are based on the fact that whatever happens in the mothers womb is her choice to disclose.
"the right of the people to be secure in their person, house papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated"
From the 4th amendment.
No, you can kill in self defense on the basis of assault or rape too. The judiciary has acquitted on that basis.
Maybe so, but it doesn't mean they are right.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:04 PM
Maybe so, but it doesn't mean they are right.
Hey ajk, its that peice of paper that gives you the right to be catholic. It doesnt mean its right, but its called civil liberty.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 04:11 PM
Tell that to the people who are acquitted on the basis of self defense.
Self defense is different. The fetus is not an unjust attacker.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:13 PM
Self defense is different. The fetus is not an unjust attacker.
But forcing the mother to unwillinglu carry it is violating her right to be secure in her person.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 04:17 PM
But forcing the mother to unwillinglu carry it is violating her right to be secure in her person.
"Secure in her person"? What about the fetus's right to be sercure in his person?
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:18 PM
"Secure in her person"? What about the fetus's right to be sercure in his person?
The foetus has no rights, as it is inviable outside the mother.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 04:21 PM
The foetus has no rights, as it is inviable outside the mother.
But the right to life is an inalienable human right, and it is a scientific fact that a fetus is human.
The foetus has no rights, as it is inviable outside the mother.
It does have rights, or at least it should. It's a human life plain and simple, even if it is in the mother.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:25 PM
It does have rights, or at least it should. It's a human life plain and simple, even if it is in the mother.
Listen.
The abortion takes place in the mother's womb. Its protected by the 4th amendment because no one can see it.
Neither the mother or the abortionist have to give evidence. Protected by the 5th amendment as they do not have to incriminate themselves.
Doctors cannot say if the mother has had an abortion in a court of law without the mother's consent. Protected by the 4th amendment to be secure in their persons .
All mothers have the right to an abortion. Protected by the 14th amendment by giving all mothers the right.
Base off this, the supreme court ruled that condemning abortion would count as unreasonable due to the right to be secure in their persons from unreasonable searches. What happens in her uterus is her choice alone.
Listen.
The abortion takes place in the mother's womb. Its protected by the 4th amendment because no one can see it.
God can see it, and both the abortionist and the mother will have to answer for that murder when their time on earth is done.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 04:30 PM
The abortion takes place in the mother's womb. Its protected by the 4th amendment because no one can see it.
The same would be true if a mother killed her child in her home.
Neither the mother or the abortionist have to give evidence. Protected by the 5th amendment as they do not have to incriminate themselves.
A murderer does not have to provide evidence he committed a murder either, but it is still wrong.
If abortion is not a crime, why should the fifth amendment even come into play?
All mothers have the right to an abortion. Protected by the 14th amendment by giving all mothers the right.
Nobody has a right to commit murder, by the 14th amendment nor anything else. The 14th does not specifically grant anyone the right to have an abortion.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:31 PM
God can see it, and both the abortionist and the mother will have to answer for that murder when their time on earth is done.
The law is based on humanist ideas, not christian ones. Bannning it because of a christian idea is a breach of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".
You dont like it, go to a religious country without constitutional rights like Iran.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 04:37 PM
The law is based on humanist ideas, not christian ones. Bannning it because of a christian idea is a breach of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".
You dont like it, go to a religious country without constitutional rights like Iran.
Pro-life is not an inherently Christian belief, although most Christians are inherantly pro-life. Pro-life is just taking the facts and reasoning that it is wrong to kill any human being except to protect another human being from an unjust attacker.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:40 PM
Pro-life is not an inherently Christian belief, although most Christians are inherantly pro-life. Pro-life is just taking the facts and reasoning that it is wrong to kill any human being except to protect another human being from an unjust attacker.
I was responding to ajk's arguement that "god will judge the mother". I am saying that the law does not take into account if god exists or not. And so it shouldnt.
I was responding to ajk's arguement that "god will judge the mother". I am saying that the law does not take into account if god exists or not. And so it shouldnt.
Bear in mind He is going to judge us all, regardless of what we did or did not do on earth.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:43 PM
Bear in mind He is going to judge us all, regardless of what we did or did not do on earth.
Until god's existence is accepted BY EVERYONE then we cannot make laws on that basis.
It disgusts me how greece, where you still have to be greek orthodox to hold a government post, has abortion on demand and this country with freedom of religion still debates it.
Until god's existence is accepted BY EVERYONE then we cannot make laws on that basis.
But that will never happen. Doesn't change the fact that truth is still truth even if some don't agree with it.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:46 PM
But that will never happen. Doesn't change the fact that truth is still truth even if some don't agree with it.
How is it truth? God's existence cannot be disproven because it HAS never been proven.
The law is concerned with physical matters, HERE AND NOW, not something which 'may' happen after death.
How is it truth? God's existence cannot be disproven because it HAS never been proven.
Because it simply is. Do I know why God made things as He did? No, but I still have to abide by His laws.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:51 PM
Because it simply is. Do I know why God made things as He did? No, but I still have to abide by His laws.
You cannot prove something unless you can disprove it. - Dr. Karl Popper
You cannot prove something unless you can disprove it. - Dr. Karl Popper
See this is the problem with society right there. We want a logical explanation for everything when some things simply cannot be explained. Rather they just are.
General Septem
12-10-2006, 04:52 PM
You cannot prove something unless you can disprove it. - Dr. Karl Popper
Can you disprove the theory of evolution?
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 04:55 PM
See this is the problem with society right there. We want a logical explanation for everything when some things simply cannot be explained. Rather they just are.
And that is why we make up deities. To explain what is unexplainable. The ancient greeks did not know what caused lightning. So they made up Zeus and said that Zeus caused lightning. The Israelites did not what made the earth, so they made up God and said God created everything.
who897
12-10-2006, 06:21 PM
See this is the problem with society right there. We want a logical explanation for everything when some things simply cannot be explained. Rather they just are.
Seems to me, that you have something seriously wrong w/ everything we as a society do. You label just about everything you don't agree with as "the problem with society". Maybe the problem isn't society.....
If someone breaks into your home, even if they do not have a weapon, or show any intent to do you harm, you can still shoot them and say self defence. That is the homeowners choice, even if they left the door wide open.
Someone puts a penis in vagina and ejaculates (breaking and entering).
Those cells don't know the concept of harm so lets just say it means you no harm, yet. Yet instead of a house where things can be replaced, this is a body which is in violation, and instead of shooting it, it is being evicted from the premises. This is the womens choice, even if they left their legs wide open.
who897
12-10-2006, 09:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxdV_HqmYM
It had me laughing for hours.
Ausinus
12-10-2006, 10:30 PM
OMFG SO FUNNY :D:D:D
See ajk, this is what will happen if we ban abortion lol :D
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-11-2006, 02:19 PM
Yet instead of a house where things can be replaced, this is a body which is in violation, and instead of shooting it, it is being evicted from the premises. This is the womens choice, even if they left their legs wide open.
This is where you're wrong. If you invite the intruder in then you cannot kill him, this is clearly stated in the law. I rent out rooms in my house, and if I don't like the friends that my tenants bring over that's just too bad for me. I can only tell them to leave if they start breaking the law or lease while there. Even then I may only be able to tell them to stop this misdeed and if they comply they can still stay.
It is no different in this analogy with a woman. She invited the penis in, she knew what the penis might do while inside so she cannot kill any person because of it.
Ausinus
12-11-2006, 05:26 PM
This is where you're wrong. If you invite the intruder in then you cannot kill him, this is clearly stated in the law. I rent out rooms in my house, and if I don't like the friends that my tenants bring over that's just too bad for me. I can only tell them to leave if they start breaking the law or lease while there. Even then I may only be able to tell them to stop this misdeed and if they comply they can still stay.
It is no different in this analogy with a woman. She invited the penis in, she knew what the penis might do while inside so she cannot kill any person because of it.
Women have a right to choose. Hell, even countries like Greece and Turkey have abortion on demand.
Women have a right to choose. Hell, even countries like Greece and Turkey have abortion on demand.
While that maybe true it still doesn't justify the act. It's still wrong and it always will be wrong.
Ausinus
12-11-2006, 05:30 PM
While that maybe true it still justify the act. It's still wrong and it always will be wrong.
We are all entitled to our own opinion ajk. Freedom of speech and expression.
Seth=L
12-11-2006, 06:17 PM
Women have a right to choose. Hell, even countries like Greece and Turkey have abortion on demand.
So you think that the Governments of these countries are always right.:rolleyes:
Ausinus
12-11-2006, 06:22 PM
So you think that the Governments of these countries are always right.:rolleyes:
No, but they are FAR more religious than this one. Separation of church and state my ass.
Seth=L
12-11-2006, 06:25 PM
No, but they are FAR more religious than this one. Separation of church and state my ass.
Granted, our nation is greatly connected to it's foundry religion, of course they are far from moral all things considered. Are Government and most governments for that matter are corrupt to a degree that we cannot comprehend.
Ausinus
12-11-2006, 06:28 PM
Granted, our nation is greatly connected to it's foundry religion, of course they are far from moral all things considered. Are Government and most governments for that matter are corrupt to a degree that we cannot comprehend.
Well then, go join the anarchists. Humanity is synonymous with heirarchy.
Seth=L
12-11-2006, 06:30 PM
Well then, go join the anarchists. Humanity is synonymous with heirarchy.
I will watch Fight Club again and do just that.:D
Ausinus
12-11-2006, 06:37 PM
Germaine Greer says choice over life.
who897
12-11-2006, 06:58 PM
The penis was invited, even the sperm was invited, but they hit the egg and something undesirable was brought into the equation.....it's like having a no dog clause then in your tenet acknoledgement form. In this case, the embryo is the dog and it needs to go away then, not next week, not 9 months from now. NOW NOW NOW NOW, which is kinda funny cuz of what now is an acronym for.
We are all entitled to our own opinion ajk. Freedom of speech and expression.
But again this is not an opinion matter. I'm right and you're wrong here plain and simple.
General Septem
12-11-2006, 07:52 PM
The penis was invited, even the sperm was invited, but they hit the egg and something undesirable was brought into the equation.....it's like having a no dog clause then in your tenet acknoledgement form. In this case, the embryo is the dog and it needs to go away then, not next week, not 9 months from now. NOW NOW NOW NOW, which is kinda funny cuz of what now is an acronym for.
The gun barrel to one's own head was invited, the pulling of the trigger was invited, but damndest thing, I didn't expect a fucking bullet to come out of the son of a bitch and blow my head off. I want my money back.
Ausinus
12-11-2006, 08:38 PM
The gun barrel to one's own head was invited, the pulling of the trigger was invited, but damndest thing, I didn't expect a fucking bullet to come out of the son of a bitch and blow my head off. I want my money back.
Haha funny:D
Seth=L
12-11-2006, 08:53 PM
But again this is not an opinion matter. I'm right and you're wrong here plain and simple.
You have a very "matter of fact" tone. It is going to make it very difficult for you to make your point doing that.:D
who897
12-11-2006, 10:24 PM
The gun barrel to one's own head was invited, the pulling of the trigger was invited, but damndest thing, I didn't expect a fucking bullet to come out of the son of a bitch and blow my head off. I want my money back.
Bit extreme aye. But I'll bite. 1st, penises and houses not exactly the most leathal things in the world, especially when flacid. 2nd while we know that a fertilized egg is possible, there are things we can do to prevent it from interfering w/ our lives. ie abortion. We also know, that a gun to the head is a very permament solution to a simple problem. Abortion is a great solution to a difficult problem. 3rd I hope you still have the reciept, cuz you prolly wont get shit back w/o it.
You have a very "matter of fact" tone. It is going to make it very difficult for you to make your point doing that.:D
People can think what they want of me, but I will not back down from what is truth.
who897
12-11-2006, 11:27 PM
People can think what they want of me, but I will not back down from what is truth.
Spoken like a true arogant, zealot, ignorant asshole. Bravo Bravo, couldn't have said it better myself. Sometimes, I don't even need to argue w/ you, you definatly dig your own hole most of the time. What am I talking bout, all the time, and that's the truth.
Spoken like a true arogant, zealot, ignorant asshole. Bravo Bravo, couldn't have said it better myself. Sometimes, I don't even need to argue w/ you, you definatly dig your own hole most of the time. What am I talking bout, all the time, and that's the truth.
I could care less what others think of me. I really could. Because as the bible says: "Blessed are the persecuted, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
Brains_Behind_Operation
12-12-2006, 12:08 AM
Bit extreme aye. But I'll bite. 1st, penises and houses not exactly the most leathal things in the world, especially when flacid. 2nd while we know that a fertilized egg is possible, there are things we can do to prevent it from interfering w/ our lives. ie abortion. We also know, that a gun to the head is a very permament solution to a simple problem. Abortion is a great solution to a difficult problem. 3rd I hope you still have the reciept, cuz you prolly wont get shit back w/o it.
Something a little less extreme then:
I went to the restaurant and had a nice meal. I gave them my credit card to pay for it, but I heard that a friend's credit card was never charged for the meal so I expected the same of mine. The damn thing showed up on my next credit card bill. I WANT MY MONEY BACK! (Of course, I can't give the food back because I already ate it, but I was expecting the machine to screw up for me just like it did for my buddy).
Seth=L
12-12-2006, 09:55 AM
I could care less what others think of me. I really could. Because as the bible says: "Blessed are the persecuted, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
Yes, but if your purpose is true then you really should take a different approach. If a preacher, prophet, or priest in your case was wanting to bring more people to God and save people. If they said, "your wrong about everything", that would not get them very far. They would have a much friendlier, and understanding approach. You do not show any understanding or empathy for your fellow man or women that disagrees with your position. If you intend to preach, do so accordingly, or you won't have anyone on your side. This means you save no one.
who897
12-12-2006, 10:31 AM
Something a little less extreme then:
I went to the restaurant and had a nice meal. I gave them my credit card to pay for it, but I heard that a friend's credit card was never charged for the meal so I expected the same of mine. The damn thing showed up on my next credit card bill. I WANT MY MONEY BACK! (Of course, I can't give the food back because I already ate it, but I was expecting the machine to screw up for me just like it did for my buddy).
Give it a couple of days, you could give the food back.
Ausinus
12-12-2006, 10:26 PM
Give it a couple of days, you could give the food back.
-__- Get your mind out of the gutter please.
who897
12-12-2006, 11:00 PM
-__- Get your mind out of the gutter please.
I will never try and restict where my mind goes. Some times the gutter has the most interesting and colorful thoughts. Plus, thinking out side of the box could possibly help some rather rigid and quite square folks.
Seth=L
12-12-2006, 11:38 PM
Ah, ha, ha, ha...Squares are funny.:D
Ausinus
12-12-2006, 11:57 PM
Fundies are MORE funny. "YOURE GOING TO HELL" HAHA :D:D:D
England Expects
12-13-2006, 09:21 AM
Who wants to go to heaven anyway. There'd be no fucker else there!!
Ausinus
12-13-2006, 05:17 PM
Id rather go to hell. At least id have socrates there to talk to.
who897
12-13-2006, 06:13 PM
Yeah, and you'd get to screw who ever ya wanted.
Ausinus
12-13-2006, 09:41 PM
:D Indeed. Plus I think Satan's a nice guy. At least HE advocates gay rights!:D
General Septem
12-13-2006, 09:42 PM
When's the last time you had sex in a fireplace?
Ausinus
12-13-2006, 09:48 PM
Yesterday :D
Plus, the christian heaven, hell and purgatory idea was originally a hellenic one. Elysian Fields, Tartarus and the Asphodel Plains.
who897
12-14-2006, 10:36 AM
Yeah, ya ever see devils advocate...everything seemed pretty nice bout that guy..except him trying to make his kids have sex. (key word try) But I guess that's better then letting your own son getting killed for shits and giggles.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.