Aileron Posted October 25, 2005 Report Posted October 25, 2005 LerrJett++...I obviously did NOT have the rape case in mind thank you very much. Monte, while you are correct in that the Apollo project did not require emotional resources, our country does happen to have those too. If the biological parents are unable to raise the child, there are plenty of people willing to adopt, or could be coaxed into adopting with the right program (50% off your taxes if you adopt an unwanted child would be an example of coaxing.) The point is we could make it work so that abortion isn't necessary. We just have to come up with a really smart plan, that may be unpopular...thus the problem is Congress. As for the regrets...I am right in that women always regret their abortions after they have them and never regret not having an abortion if they decide to give birth to the child, though I was sneaky. Its a biological effect of pregnancy. During pregnancy certain hormones in the woman's (or even the man's if you are looking towards post-modern cases) body are produced. These hormones affect their judgement, making them want to have the baby. The hormones are programmed in sequence with a normal pregnancy. If after nine months they don't get the reactions they would normally see for mothering a child, the "know" that something happened to the baby and the mother feels emotional pain. Thus, while my statement was correct, its the hormones and not the mind that is making the mother's joys/regrets in this case. Those women who made a "lifestyle choice" when they are perfectly capable of supporting the child are despicable, as are their husbands. While their legal right to abort is debatable, they have no moral right to abort in this case. l88gerbils, for ex. 1 its obviously right to seperate. (Abortion if not aborting kills the mother)ex. 2 means nothing and is a red herringex. 3 You should stay attached to him, but the world should accomidate itself to you for those 9 months so that you don't have to make a decision to give up your career or dreams.ex. 4 you didn't change any paremeters The Thompson arguement is good, but you didn't cite it exactly. Besides, the arguement I gave (FTO) counters it except for cases of rape and if the mother's life is in danger. Paine, I'd rather make 2 people sacrifice one decision (which might be viewed as a consequence of one of their former decisions anyway) than have one person sacrifice his/her whole existence. The needs of the few do outweigh the wants and it-would-be-nice-ifs of the many. I mean, the term "shotgun wedding" comes from people marrying each other at gunpoint...which proves that most people would rather marry somebody than be shot. Thus, life is more important than choice in marriage.
MonteZuma Posted October 25, 2005 Report Posted October 25, 2005 Those women who made a "lifestyle choice" when they are perfectly capable of supporting the child are despicable, as are their husbands. While their legal right to abort is debatable, they have no moral right to abort in this case.In that case, I reckon that you will probably have many 'despicable' friends in your lifetime. I think most abortions are a lifestyle choice.
SeVeR Posted October 25, 2005 Report Posted October 25, 2005 If the biological parents are unable to raise the child, there are plenty of people willing to adopt, or could be coaxed into adopting with the right program (50% off your taxes if you adopt an unwanted child would be an example of coaxing.) I don't agree at all. People shouldn't be given a reason to take a child other than because they want to dedicate their whole life to it. I'm all for adoption but if you make it too tempting you'll get people adopting for the money and they won't give a !@#$%^&* about the child. Sometimes the solutions create even more problems. I thought you were for tackling the problem at the source? The money you propose for lowering taxes should go to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, then there'll be less abortions to start with. For a start i think we should stop spending 5 hours teaching teenagers how to put a condom on and show them pictures and films of all the horrors of STDs, the emotional and financial problems that come with taking care of a child and we should show them the abortion procedure in full. We should show them interviews with people who are going to die in the next few years because of AIDS. We should educate on all methods of contraception (not just the condom) and we should never tell them "you're not allowed to do it". Hammer in some reality but don't give them rules to break.
»i88gerbils Posted October 25, 2005 Report Posted October 25, 2005 okay, so you're saying it's okay to kill people then. Cool. So really "pro-life" is a misnomer. Got it. It's really anti-choice.
MonteZuma Posted October 26, 2005 Report Posted October 26, 2005 It is wrong to take a human life. Let's just make that a definition for now.Sure. But what is your definition of human life? I think human life begins with consciousness. Until that point, there is no more human life than there is in sperm or ovum. I don't subscribe to the 'potential life' idea. Every sperm and every egg is a potential life. Every Sperm is Sacred There are Jews in the world.There are Buddhists.There are Hindus and Mormons, and thenThere are those that follow Mohammed, But,I've never been one of them. I'm a Roman Catholic,And have been since before I was born,And the one thing they say about Catholics isThey'll take you as soon as you're warm. You don't have to be a six-footer.You don't have to have a great brain.You don't have to have any clothes on. You're a Catholic the moment Dad came,Because... Every sperm is sacred.Every sperm is great.If a sperm is wasted,God gets quite irate. Children: Every sperm is sacred,Every sperm is great,If a sperm is wasted,God gets quite irate. Little Girl: Let the heathens spill theirs,On the dusty ground.God shall make them pay forEach sperm that can't be found. Children: Every sperm is wanted.Every sperm is good.Every sperm is neededIn your neighbourhood. Mother: Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,Spill theirs just anywhere,But God loves those who treat theirSemen with more care. Men on toilets: Every sperm is sacred.Every sperm is great.Women: If a sperm is wasted,Children: God gets quite irate. Priest: Every sperm is sacred.Bride and Groom: Every sperm is good.Nannies: Every sperm is neededBabies: In your neighbourhood! Everyone: Every sperm is useful.Every sperm is fine.Undertakers: God needs everybody's.Male mourner: Mine! Female mourner: And mine!Corpse: And mine! Nuns: Let the Pagans spill theirsO'er mountain, hill, and plain.Statues: God shall strike them down forEach sperm that's spilt in vain. Everyone: Every sperm is sacred.Every sperm is good.Every sperm is neededIn your neighbourhood. Every sperm is sacred.Every sperm is great.If a sperm is wasted,God gets quite iraaaaate!
»SD>Big Posted October 26, 2005 Report Posted October 26, 2005 I think human life begins with consciousness. ... Every sperm and every egg is a potential life. i agree... until the egg is fertalized... as i've said before. a sperm is a sperm, an egg is an egg. a fertalized egg is a human in its most basic stage. the fertalized egg the first step in a human's life, the burial the last. everything inbetween is time.
MonteZuma Posted October 27, 2005 Report Posted October 27, 2005 I think that this boils down to the fact that some people think that zygotes and embryos are sacred, and others do not. There is no scientific solution to resolve this. The only question that remains outstanding in my mind is whether or not people who think that zygotes and embryos are sacred should be able to impose their will on those that don't. Again, this will probably never be resolved. The way I look at it, the embryo does not have an opinion either way. It has no willl to live. It has no plans for the future. It has no awareness of itself or its situation. Why should an embryo have rights that over-rule those of a living, self-sufficient, conscious, informed woman with an ability to make complex decisions based on information, personal experience and personal cir!@#$%^&*stances? To say that women can't sensibly make these choices, or that their will should be ignored in favour of the will of anti-abortionists or the rights given to the embryo by law-makers strikes me as an insult.
»i88gerbils Posted October 27, 2005 Report Posted October 27, 2005 I don't think it is correct to assume that any single woman can make the correct decision every single time. Just like that people are inherently not perfect. We are not logical sometimes, nor emotional. The perfect person finds the balance between all environmental & natural factors to make a decision. Abortion should not be outlawed nor should it be socially laissez-faire. Instead, on a case-by-case basis a doctor (and second opinion) should be allowed to reccomend any treatment he finds best for a woman based on her physical, psychological, and social conditions. In fact it may be best to rely on multiple opinions for a specific case. A question on this is would a doctor who chooses greed or personal reasons & then performs an abortion be held liable for his decision in court? Will there always be individuals who seek loopholes just to make money or satisfy a friend? I'm not sure. Common social occurences leads me to distrust. Everyone is always trying to do things for their own personal gain, right? (prisoner's dilemna?) Blah.
MonteZuma Posted October 28, 2005 Report Posted October 28, 2005 I don't think it is correct to assume that any single woman can make the correct decision every single time. Just like that people are inherently not perfect. We are not logical sometimes, nor emotional. The perfect person finds the balance between all environmental & natural factors to make a decision.So? Abortion should not be outlawed nor should it be socially laissez-faire. Instead, on a case-by-case basis a doctor (and second opinion) should be allowed to reccomend any treatment he finds best for a woman based on her physical, psychological, and social conditions. In fact it may be best to rely on multiple opinions for a specific case.I am in favour of any kind of counseling or support service that helps, but pregnancy isn't a disease of the mind or the body. I'm not sure that treatment is the right word. These women aren't ill. You seem to assume that women aren't capable of seeking out the support that they need without some kind of force (legal?). I think that most women are very well informed and make their decision based on good information. I think that all society needs to do is ensure that the community are well-informed about the issues. A question on this is would a doctor who chooses greed or personal reasons & then performs an abortion be held liable for his decision in court? Will there always be individuals who seek loopholes just to make money or satisfy a friend? I'm not sure. Common social occurences leads me to distrust. Everyone is always trying to do things for their own personal gain, right? (prisoner's dilemna?)Maybe. But doctors aren't charity workers. They work so that they make money. If they make money and women get the abortions they want then why intervene?
SeVeR Posted October 28, 2005 Report Posted October 28, 2005 Why should an embryo have rights that over-rule those of a living, self-sufficient, conscious, informed woman with an ability to make complex decisions based on information, personal experience and personal cir!@#$%^&*stances? To say that women can't sensibly make these choices, or that their will should be ignored in favour of the will of anti-abortionists or the rights given to the embryo by law-makers strikes me as an insult.I think that all society needs to do is ensure that the community are well-informed about the issues. Absolutely agreed, you've saved me the effort of replying again.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 28, 2005 Report Posted October 28, 2005 Placing the rights of one human being over another isn't ever good. Then again, that goes into if you believe an embryo is a human or not, the whole arguement is circular. Why should an embryo have rights that over-rule those of a living, self-sufficient, conscious, informed woman with an ability to make complex decisions based on information, personal experience and personal cir!@#$%^&*stances? So wait, obviously the female didn't make a good decision when she decided to spread her legs without some form of birth control. She didn't have the foresight to realize the concequences of her actions whenever she had sex, so what makes you think she has the potential to realize the concequences of an abortion? Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control, which in my opinion it currently is.
SeVeR Posted October 28, 2005 Report Posted October 28, 2005 Putting on a condom and throwing it away afterwards is killing the living sperm cells. They have no more consciousness than a fetus yet like the fetus also have potential for creating life. I think that if you are anti-abortion you should be anti-birth-control. Every act of sexual intercourse using contraception is "killing a potential life"... i don't know about you but i have little problem with it.
»i88gerbils Posted October 28, 2005 Report Posted October 28, 2005 There is no mention of illness of the body. However, if you wish to term behavioral issues as an "illness" like you think of something you can cure, then you're probably not thinking about it properly. Additionally, I tried to make it clear that I am not pessimistic about women, but sometimes of Western society in general. So what you're saying is that if I keep having abortions I am making the correct decision? I disagree. At some point in time we must realize that there are other behavioral problems that must be recognized before giving "yet another a bortion" to a woman. Just like giving another beer to someone who has said they are the designated driver or, in yet a better analogy, giving money to a man on the street when it is obvious that it will do little to improve his lifestyle. If you wish to respond to the post please take in mind that last sentence.
Aileron Posted October 28, 2005 Report Posted October 28, 2005 The "every sperm is sacred" joke a small sidepoint in the FTO arguement. While the fetus has a future life, a sperm does not. It will either die off on its own, or be destroyed when it fertilizes an egg. Its wrong to kill a being which has a future of personhood. Since at the sperm and egg stage there is no such being, killing off sperms and eggs are allowed at this point. Why should an embryo have rights that over-rule those of a living, self-sufficient, conscious, informed woman with an ability to make complex decisions based on information, personal experience and personal cir!@#$%^&*stances? To say that women can't sensibly make these choices, or that their will should be ignored in favour of the will of anti-abortionists or the rights given to the embryo by law-makers strikes me as an insult. Suppose a woman had a five year old nephew. Her rich father died recently, and left his entire fortune to his grandson(the nephew). If the nephew died, the fortune would p!@#$%^&* to the aunt. Does the fact that the aunt is a living, self-sufficient, conscious, informed woman with an ability to make complex decisions based on information, personal experience and personal cir!@#$%^&*stances give her the right to murder the five year old who is far less sentient and has much less experience than she does? We say that she can't make this choice because it amounts to murder. Everyone's rights end where another person's rights begins. Since everybody has the right to enjoy the future portions of their personhood ie. an inallienable right to life, and since fetuses have a future of personhood, the woman has no rights to superceed over that right...even the inallienable right to liberty does not superceed this.
»i88gerbils Posted October 28, 2005 Report Posted October 28, 2005 If a non-sentient fetus brings unhappiness then it goes against the "pursuit of happiness".
»Ducky Posted October 28, 2005 Report Posted October 28, 2005 Does the fact that the aunt is a living, self-sufficient, conscious, informed woman with an ability to make complex decisions based on information, personal experience and personal cir!@#$%^&*stances give her the right to murder the five year old who is far less sentient and has much less experience than she does?You are compairing a being with little to no life, with that of someone with 5 years of life. Am I missing something? People can !@#$%^&* and whine all they want about killing tissue and potential life, all the while putting pets to "sleep".People do what conveniences them and makes thier own life better.You guys call people murderer in a demeaning way. We all kill !@#$%^&*, whether we actually want to or not. When you had to put your dog or cat to sleep; Did you flip a coin and decide or did you weigh in all the factors. Obviously you chose that silent embrace was a better route for her than to live suffering. Is that what they wanted? You don't know, you made an informed decision with the knowledge you had. Mothers aren't flipping coins and deciding, they make perfectly qualified decisions.----------- But hey, "Human life is better." or whatever you guys can choke down.
Confess Posted October 29, 2005 Author Report Posted October 29, 2005 As for Rape Cases-- It is harder for a woman to become pregnant during a rape, they become too tense and inturn, are not able to become fertilized.--No, i dont know from expirence -- If sex was kept between a married man and woman, this would not be as a big of a problem.The principle "if you're not willing to do the time, dont do the crime!" really applys here, although needs to be reworded..If you arent willing to have a baby, DO NOT HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX. Murder is defined as "To put an end to". Are you not putting an end to a childs life?
AstroProdigy Posted October 29, 2005 Report Posted October 29, 2005 What if the condom breaks? Should everyone stop having premarital sex? If that happened, I don't know what I would do...probably !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inate someone.
»Ducky Posted October 29, 2005 Report Posted October 29, 2005 I distinctly said that it is murder, and just about anything else someone does of convienance with animals falls into the category of murder. I'm guilty of the same acts, but I'm not sitting here !@#$%^&* footing words around in an attempt to make myself look superior or somehow more saintly.
Trained Posted October 29, 2005 Report Posted October 29, 2005 I do not beleive in abortion. I beleive if you get pregnant you should have the kid either way. If you dont want the kid, have it and put it up for adoption, give the child to someone who actually wants it, give it a good home, and something to look forward to in life. Dont kill the child.
Confess Posted October 30, 2005 Author Report Posted October 30, 2005 Are you saying that animal life is more precious than a human beings life? Flippen hippy..
MonteZuma Posted October 30, 2005 Report Posted October 30, 2005 So wait, obviously the female didn't make a good decision when she decided to spread her legs without some form of birth control. She didn't have the foresight to realize the concequences of her actions whenever she had sex, so what makes you think she has the potential to realize the concequences of an abortion? ... Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control, which in my opinion it currently is.We all make mistakes. I agree that abortion is a lousy form of birth control, but I reckon most people will have sex without birth control, and not want to have a child as a result of it, at some time in their lives. We are fallible creatures.
MonteZuma Posted October 30, 2005 Report Posted October 30, 2005 So what you're saying is that if I keep having abortions I am making the correct decision? I disagree.It is hard to find reliable stats, but it seems that 75% of women who have abortions will only ever have one abortion in their lifetime. Those that have more than one are from disadvantaged backgrounds (example). At some point in time we must realize that there are other behavioral problems that must be recognized before giving "yet another a bortion" to a woman.Behavioural problems (when they exist) need to be recognised and treated. But I believe that most women that have abortions do not have any more behavioural problems than you or I.
MonteZuma Posted October 30, 2005 Report Posted October 30, 2005 Does the fact that the aunt is a living, self-sufficient, conscious, informed woman with an ability to make complex decisions based on information, personal experience and personal cir!@#$%^&*stances give her the right to murder the five year old who is far less sentient and has much less experience than she does?A 5yo is no more or less sentient than an adult. Murder is murder. Murder is "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being". Zygotes and embryos are not sentient and destroying them is not murder.
Recommended Posts