Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's wrong with this picture?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 121 of 172 (65946)
11-11-2003 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by joshua221
11-11-2003 7:52 PM


I'm only 15 and sorry for saying that, but my opinion stays the same on abortion.
Then you should be totally pro-birth control, right? After all, it's better to prevent a baby than to abort one after the fact, don't you think?
What I can't abide or understand are the people who oppose both BC and abortion. That just doesn't make any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by joshua221, posted 11-11-2003 7:52 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by joshua221, posted 11-12-2003 9:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 122 of 172 (65957)
11-12-2003 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Lizard Breath
11-11-2003 7:20 PM


Liz, you said you could watch the changes in women's bodies from the moment of conception. That means you somehow had to know when the egg was fertilized.
Could you deal with the other two points? Most importantly the fact that women are in fact tied physically with their unborn child, and so they are not two wholly separate entities. And then that that is a significant difference between the unborn and the infirm.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-11-2003 7:20 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 123 of 172 (65962)
11-12-2003 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Lizard Breath
11-11-2003 10:40 PM


liz writes:
But where the rubber meets the road, it's wishy washy gobbly gook... Pro Choice = Pro Abortion = ending a human life.
I'll tell you what, I'm willing to accept the label of "proAbortion" if you are willing to accept the label of "proStateReligion".
Without the gobbeldygook... proLife= proStateReligion= forcing one definition of life regarding the unborn on everyone else, specifically a religious definition.
That way both positions will be equally unappealing!
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-11-2003 10:40 PM Lizard Breath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-12-2003 7:26 AM Silent H has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 124 of 172 (65967)
11-12-2003 1:31 AM


And now a side-note of questionable taste
Apparently the song goes back further, but I know it from a recording by Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon.
"Will the Fetus Be Aborted"
The lyrics (more than I recall Jello and Mojo doing) are available at http://www.telemark.net/atheistmusic/artist.dbm?artistid=9
Maybe vulgar, but also powerfully states one side of the debate.
Moose

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 125 of 172 (65975)
11-12-2003 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Lizard Breath
11-11-2003 10:40 PM


Re: Murder
quote:
The more available and easier you make it for anyone to have an abortion for any reason, the less people are going to concern themselves with the responsibility of enguaging in intercourse and the more unwanted babies are going to be created and destroyed.
That's completely preposterous. Noone would ever put their body through becoming pregnant and having an abortion (and paying for it) if at all necessary. It's preposterous to assume that people would, say, avoid spending a puny sum on birth control pills to instead pay for an abortion, and have to suffer the social stigma of it.
quote:
I thought the availability of low cost safe abortions was a kind and humane gift to desperate women to save them from the back alley shiesters. So if anything, I would think that being called Pro Abortion would be a desirable affiliation because it conveys something positive - compassion.
You're not getting it, despite constantly being told it: None of us *want* to see abortions happen. However, pregnancy and childrearing aren't some sort of game here. It's not a "whoops!" like you spill a glass of milk. It's about as completely serious, and life-affecting, life-altering, life-risking things that can happen to the average woman in her lifetime. If we were discussing an "inconvenience", none of us would ever support abortion. That's not what we're discussing. Thus, we support giving woman a "choice".
quote:
So I don't care if 90% of pro choicers think it would be better to not have to have the abortion, that's an easy way to look good on both sides of the issue. But where the rubber meets the road, it's wishy washy gobbly gook.
We choose not to make all-encompasing generalized value judgements for other people on things that will completely alter their life because "we feel we know better than them" what is right and wrong.
quote:
The act ends a human life
We're back to point 1 that I presented in my set of 3, now aren't we? That the only issue really up for debate here is whether the mother and the embryo are moral equivalents.
quote:
Removing a damaged splene does not end a human life and removing a Dandelion definitly does not end the damn thing's life - this I can vehemetly attest to. A splene will never grow into it's own human entity, it's a part of the human organ lineup, but the cells making up the fetus are definitly going to become it's own human entity.
Pick something other than a dandelion - an ant, then. You keep dodging, and I'm not going to let you skip out on this. 1) You see nothing wrong with killing human cells and destroying human DNA, correct? 2) You see nothing wrong with killing a unique combination of DNA, correct? 3) Why do you combine (1) and (2) to get something that you have a huge problem with? I am not asking you to equate either (1) or (2) individually to an abortion. However, what we are discussing is the combination of (1) and (2): Destroying something that is a unique combination DNA in a group of human cells.
Furthermore, I would like to see my blueprint analogy addressed, and why you either A) feel that it is not representative of the situation, or B) feel that there is a tragedy in destroying a blueprint that is equal or nearly equal to the tragedy of destroying a building based off of it.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-11-2003 10:40 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 126 of 172 (65984)
11-12-2003 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by MrHambre
11-11-2003 6:07 AM


Re: Is My Halo On Straight?
quote:
So when the fundies call the fetuses "innocent children," who do you suppose they're saying is guilty?
...and there was me thinking we were all born guilty ... you
know original sin and all that ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by MrHambre, posted 11-11-2003 6:07 AM MrHambre has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 127 of 172 (65986)
11-12-2003 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by joshua221
11-11-2003 2:36 PM


quote:
There is a fine line between stopping a pregnancy then destroying one. And By the way, I think if they were banned, women would be more careful and unwanted pregnancies would decrease.
Abortion was illegal in the UK until (I think) the 1960's.
That had no impact on unwanted pregnancies, and put women's
lives and health (mental and physical)at risk when they sought
'back street' abortions.
Also, why do you think it is the women who have to be more
careful ... it takes two you know.
quote:
...if it is out of their control, (or some complication happens threatening their lives, or the babies) I think that it is in God's hands, and when her life is threatened it comes down to who she would rather let live the baby or herself.
So you are pro-choice then (in some circumstances)?
In the situation you describe (or with Schraf's widow) pro-life
and pro-choice are the same (just looking at different lives).
Why would your God place this burden of choice on someone
anyhow? ... the health problem/compication inderlying
the issue was instigated by God in your worldview.
quote:
Although contreceptives are are good in the sense of reducing abortions, they shouldn't be needed for the most part if only sex occurred after marriage. When the two married would be bonded so closely that a child would probably be great.
I'm bonded very closely to my wife ... but a pregnancy at the
moment would be very far from great. We have three children
under 8 already and I'm not wealthy, nor do I feel I have enough
hours in the day to work, spend time with my wife, and spend
adequate time with my children.
According to the arguments presented so far abstinance is still
murder. If I choose not impregnate my wife (or any other
fertile female for that matter -- though I suspect my
wife would have more than a little to say on that one )
I have wilfully prevented a potential human from coming to full development.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 11-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by joshua221, posted 11-11-2003 2:36 PM joshua221 has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 128 of 172 (65987)
11-12-2003 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Asgara
11-11-2003 7:39 PM


Re: Superman
I know someone who was 4 months pregnant before they
even knew, because they were still having periods and
no other body changes gave cause for concern ... go figrue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Asgara, posted 11-11-2003 7:39 PM Asgara has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 129 of 172 (65988)
11-12-2003 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Lizard Breath
11-11-2003 10:40 PM


Re: Murder
quote:
The more available and easier you make it for anyone to have an abortion for any reason, the less people are going to concern themselves with the responsibility of enguaging in intercourse and the more unwanted babies are going to be created and destroyed
I don't know about anywhere else, but I believe in the UK
that the NHS can refuse to perform an abortion if they feel
that the individual is using abortion as birth control.
They can still go private, but that costs.
This means that (in the UK) there is at least a financial
incentive to be cautious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-11-2003 10:40 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 130 of 172 (65989)
11-12-2003 4:36 AM


If 'life' means that a soul has been attached, and souls
are immortal, why is killing wrong?
You cannot kill a soul, or can you?

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 131 of 172 (66010)
11-12-2003 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by NosyNed
11-11-2003 11:21 PM


Re: Murder
That's a good point and a tough call to make concerning a soul. The physical body aspect is cut and dry because you can detect the initial cells of the fetus with the use of decent ultra-sound equipment. The spirit aspect is also fairly easy to detect, especially when now the EEG and EKG show activity @ 40 days into the development.
You can also tell when the body no longer has a spirit when a qualified coroner or doctor legally pronounces them dead. A soul is fair more subjective.
I do know that life does not need a soul to exist, just a physical body and a spirit, which is what all of living nature has. If the evolutionary model is used, then there can't be any such thing as a soul because it's only real purpose is to carry the entity of the person into an after life realm. So under the evolutionary model, there is no such thing as a soul and no eternal after life. It's man's religion that comes in and invents those concepts. I don't observe evolution creating things without a purpose so if there's no afterlife, then no need for a soul.
Then why would evolution start the creative process of building a human from initial cells without intending to finish the task and make it a human? Evolution wouldn't, every ovum that starts out is intended by nature to become a human once fertilized. Not all make it due to varying dynamics of the enviorment,(actually I think Rei stated that it's only a small percentage of fertilized ovums ever make it through the guantlet of enviromental obstacles, I assume this is evolutions way of ensuring you get a quality product) but it just means that the pregnancy becomes a miscariage.
What I don't understand is when man intervenes in evolution and willfully terminates the pregnancy, why all of a sudden is it taboo to call what has just been killed, a human. Why the sugar coating by saying "Well, it needs to be born to be a human or it needs to show brain activity" when everyone knows what's being stitched together by evoultionary forces in the womb. If all it is, is matter and a life force, who cares if it's human? No biggie so why the discomfort in calling it a human.
Also, I said earlier that people like the term that we as a human race are showing our finest face of compassion by providing safe, accessable abortions to a desperate group of women. So then say it like it is,
Pro Abortion = Pro Compassion
Pro Life = Pro Oppression
Then let the best face of the human race shine forth and be Pro Abortion because the more abortions that can be performed, the more compassion is manifest to an all to often victimized sect of our civilization - women.
[This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 11-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by NosyNed, posted 11-11-2003 11:21 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Rei, posted 11-12-2003 12:25 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 132 of 172 (66012)
11-12-2003 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Silent H
11-12-2003 12:53 AM


Pro State Religion is definitely a bad thing. Look at Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia and that's what state releigion will get you. Not only do you loose respect for the unborn, They've lost all respect for human life and replaced it with extremisms.
Pro Life doesn't mean that you have your baby and then get right on over to church, kneel down and pray, kiss the Pontiff's ring and then say 3 Hail Mary's or we'll kill you.
There's a difference between having respect for the unborn by saying carry the pregnancy to term and then give it up for adoption, verses saying that you must not abort the baby or our God will thump you via the clubs in our hands under the authority of State Religion.
If evolution is willing to go forward with the process of building the zygote into a human, and doesn't choose to miscarry naturally, then why not give evolution the benefit of the doubt and see if society gets the next Einstein or Hawkins. Give the child up for adoption and put the ball in the Pro Life court.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2003 12:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by sidelined, posted 11-12-2003 7:39 AM Lizard Breath has replied
 Message 134 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-12-2003 7:41 AM Lizard Breath has not replied
 Message 137 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2003 11:19 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 133 of 172 (66013)
11-12-2003 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Lizard Breath
11-12-2003 7:26 AM


Lizard Breath
Do you have a plan on how to go about financing the whole of the venture to raise children who are unwanted into adults who have some hope for a decent life? I mean,it is all good and fine to have the feeling for unborn children but how about organizing a means of caring for them?
Put together an actual plan showing how to deal with as many possible contingencies as possible and try to get it off ground .If you are so concerned with the 'inhumanity' of abortions then help those children instead of joining the endless bantering of opinion that so many pro-lifers live for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-12-2003 7:26 AM Lizard Breath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-12-2003 8:35 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 136 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-12-2003 9:05 AM sidelined has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 172 (66014)
11-12-2003 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Lizard Breath
11-12-2003 7:26 AM


Pro State Religion is definitely a bad thing. Look at Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia and that's what state releigion will get you.
Iraq?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-12-2003 7:26 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 135 of 172 (66018)
11-12-2003 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by sidelined
11-12-2003 7:39 AM


Go start your own thread,
That's a real typical come back to someone who expresses a different view, but you need to check yourself sly before you make those comments.
First off, you don't know anything about me or just what I'm involved in concerning any of this issue. You just made the typical stereo type assumption that I'm a babbling do-gooder and once I've had my fun I'll flush this web site. If you can post my real name on this forum, my affiliations, where my money and time go and what I do for fun and for an occupation, and prove to everyone here that I'm just spewing vocal poop, then go for it.
Otherwise, stop attacking my character and stick to the topic or atleast stick to addressing my statement. I have not and hopefully will not attack anyone's personal character, actions or life history on this forum. I view it that if someone is honoring me by taking the time to read my posts and type a response, they are already held in high esteme by me reguardless of what they say. Now I may disagree with them and you might sense some passion in my writings, but I don't attack them personally. I repect and am thankful for everyone who is on this forum because your thoughts make for a very idea rich audience.
I will not put up with having my personna questioned as a cheap street corner sneer by anyone. If you want to start a thread on how to solve and pay for a national adoption agency to stem the volume of non-life threatening abortions performed in this country, then do so an I'll gladly read what others have to say and possibly contribute if I have anything worthy to input without cheapening your thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by sidelined, posted 11-12-2003 7:39 AM sidelined has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024