Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John Adams

Freedom Of Choice Act

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure, when people run out of stuff to say? And Finway... I guess you just reminded me of one more detail I left out. >.<

The embryo has the potential but, unlike the comatose person, it never was a person. The comatose person fills "Who they were", the regular person fills "Who they are". The embryo just fills "Who they will be", which is impossible to even determine.

 

I would also like to say that this will be my last post here because Superkid seems impossible to be convinced of the importance of the babies life ( also, have you noticed that Bly has not posted in awhile, hmmm).

 

I would like to say that in not giving the baby the chance to live you are taking away its fundamental rights. Life ( the chance to live), liberty(this has nothing to do with this subject, but it helps the flow), and the pursuit of happiness ( which you are not giving them by killing them). But don't get me wrong, I think that abortion is acceptable if the mother is endangered (only because it would hurt the friends and family around them), if the baby would have a life of suffering, or if they would hurt the people around them.

 

I won't even be looking at this thread, so good bye.

Sorry I seem like such filth to you, goodbye. How dare I have an opinion?

I do think the baby's life is important and should be spared the abortion if favorable conditions are met and it wouldn't suffer. Plus I've already said that I think the time limit for abortion should be 6 weeks, not 9 months when the thing already has an active and working brain. But whatever, since you're so disgusted and left you won't read this. :D

Besides, is it even a "baby" when it's just an embryo? My idea of baby is fetus at the earliest.

I'll be ceasing to participate in this thread too, since I think I've said all that I can say... though Finway's twice proven me wrong on that. :cool:

Edited by Superkid711

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I'm entering this thread a little late, and I've only read the first 6 pages and the latest one, but doesn't the freedom of choice bill only give women the right to terminate the pregnancy "prior to fetal viability"? And isn't that somewhere around six to seven months? So where's all of this nine month abortion stuff coming from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel like I'm entering this thread a little late, and I've only read the first 6 pages and the latest one, but doesn't the freedom of choice bill only give women the right to terminate the pregnancy "prior to fetal viability"? And isn't that somewhere around six to seven months? So where's all of this nine month abortion stuff coming from?

 

The baby is nearly full developed at 6 - 7 months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.

Well still, that's far too late, as Angel Bunny said. And as I've said before, I have no idea why anyone in their right mind would wait that long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... I read through half of this, yes half of all the posts, and I got bored of the flame war that was going on, so now I'll post.

 

1) I am both for and against this. I don't see why it shouldn't be legal if it's not technically murder (yet to be decided??), but I'm inherently against the whole idea. If it isn't murder than allow it, just make sure that it is the absolute, bottom line, extreme last resort possible. If it is murder than even under the circumstance of the mother's life being in danger I don't know if you can constitute murder as the correct procedure. In either case sex education should be the VERY top of the list when it comes to education, so that abortion is the last resort.

 

2) As for abortion being an option after birth, that is plane wrong, abortion after viability is plane wrong. If abortion is the only reasonable option (which I personally doubt, but what do I know) than it should be done long before a viable human being exists.

 

 

For the sake of argument -- for those of you who are so obviously diametrically opposed to abortion -- tell me, if abortion was illegal under ANY circumstance, would YOU therefore be willing to pony up the cash from you own pockets to raise these unwanted children?

 

>.<

 

Personally yes, if I were in the position to pay to take care of a child or many I would, and technically I do. There are many programs that help people in third world countries take care of their children in a reasonable way. I personally financially support one of those programs, I know people who are willing to adopt a child if it means that it will not be aborted, and since we're on the topic of paying for this why not just have the government do it? We pay the government to do most everything else for us these days, if they are going to make it so easy for people to have abortions than why not make it just as easy to keep the baby if money is the reason for not keeping it.

Some day I may adopt children, I don't know what the future holds in store for me, but I'm certainly open to it provided that I can afford to take care of those children in a reasonable way.

And also, I doubt that it really costs 2-3k/m to take care of one child. I'm the oldest of three and all three of us have been homeschooled all of our lives and all of us probably will be through graduation, which means that we cost more than normal (school supplies, my mom does not work full time, and I take classes at a private school) and I'm pretty sure that we don't cost 3k/m. But once again, what do I know... I'll ask them tomorrow lol...

 

 

-As yet undecided until further evidence comes into play on this subject-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure, when people run out of stuff to say? And Finway... I guess you just reminded me of one more detail I left out. >.<

The embryo has the potential but, unlike the comatose person, it never was a person. The comatose person fills "Who they were", the regular person fills "Who they are". The embryo just fills "Who they will be", which is impossible to even determine.

This is what we're debating. Neither an embryo nor a comatose person has CONSCIOUSNES, so how can one "be" and the not other "not be"? The comatose person had a past, yes, but that doesn't matter. I've been pointing it out multiple times. They both, however, have a strong potential for a future, which I believe is enough to consider them both people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also like to say that this will be my last post here because Superkid seems impossible to be convinced of the importance of the babies life ( also, have you noticed that Bly has not posted in awhile, hmmm).

 

LOL - life, as they say, goes on and I've been busy. What time I have had on here was mainly dedicated to helping Magical get the Seer's Diary guide together, and frankly, I've neither the patience nor interest to go fisking through the misogynists arguments any further.

 

You're not going to convince me that abortion is wrong -- and I'm certainly not going to manage to enlighten you. I'm tired to watching you people play "ipse dixit".

 

In closing, I will reiterate the following points:

 

1. According to the stats I posted earlier, 61% of all abortions in the United States occur within the first 6 weeks. At that point, the embryo is about a third of an inch long, and its "head" has barely started to develop. There is no brain and no heart.

 

(b) It appears from these discussions that the anti-abortionists seem to imply that abortions is only employed as some form of "birth control" by "lose women" because they are "too lazy" to bear children. This is, of course, entirely false -- but it only goes to demonstrate the truly appalling view that, it seems, certain men have about women they deem "loose" and "lazy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also like to say that this will be my last post here because Superkid seems impossible to be convinced of the importance of the babies life ( also, have you noticed that Bly has not posted in awhile, hmmm).

 

LOL - life, as they say, goes on and I've been busy. What time I have had on here was mainly dedicated to helping Magical get the Seer's Diary guide together, and frankly, I've neither the patience nor interest to go fisking through the misogynists arguments any further.

 

You're not going to convince me that abortion is wrong -- and I'm certainly not going to manage to enlighten you. I'm tired to watching you people play "ipse dixit".

 

In closing, I will reiterate the following points:

 

1. According to the stats I posted earlier, 61% of all abortions in the United States occur within the first 6 weeks. At that point, the embryo is about a third of an inch long, and its "head" has barely started to develop. There is no brain and no heart.

 

(b) It appears from these discussions that the anti-abortionists seem to imply that abortions is only employed as some form of "birth control" by "lose women" because they are "too lazy" to bear children. This is, of course, entirely false -- but it only goes to demonstrate the truly appalling view that, it seems, certain men have about women they deem "loose" and "lazy".

 

 

Who implied that all people who get abortions are like that

 

I simply stated that some people are and im sure you know thats true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also like to say that this will be my last post here because Superkid seems impossible to be convinced of the importance of the babies life ( also, have you noticed that Bly has not posted in awhile, hmmm).

 

LOL - life, as they say, goes on and I've been busy. What time I have had on here was mainly dedicated to helping Magical get the Seer's Diary guide together, and frankly, I've neither the patience nor interest to go fisking through the misogynists arguments any further.

 

You're not going to convince me that abortion is wrong -- and I'm certainly not going to manage to enlighten you. I'm tired to watching you people play "ipse dixit".

 

In closing, I will reiterate the following points:

 

1. According to the stats I posted earlier, 61% of all abortions in the United States occur within the first 6 weeks. At that point, the embryo is about a third of an inch long, and its "head" has barely started to develop. There is no brain and no heart.

 

(b) It appears from these discussions that the anti-abortionists seem to imply that abortions is only employed as some form of "birth control" by "lose women" because they are "too lazy" to bear children. This is, of course, entirely false -- but it only goes to demonstrate the truly appalling view that, it seems, certain men have about women they deem "loose" and "lazy".

 

 

Who implied that all people who get abortions are like that

 

I simply stated that some people are and im sure you know thats true.

 

Perhaps it is true -- but does that deny them, therefor, of their rights?

 

Just because someone doesn't prescribe to your sense of morality, whatever that may be, it doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it is true -- but does that deny them, therefor, of their rights?

 

Just because someone doesn't prescribe to your sense of morality, whatever that may be, it doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Since you insist that morality differs from every person, do you think that it is socially acceptable for a person to kill another person if they believe that it is morally correct?

 

That way of thinking got us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and many others who killed for what they believed in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Emanick

First of all, personal morality has little to do with the question. If the fetus is alive, it's not the woman who loses out if the abortion is performed, so why should it be her choice whether it lives?

 

Many seven-month babies die outside of the womb. I was under the impression that nearly all medical experts believed seven-month babies to be as alive as nine-month babies. The definition of viability that this act gives is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it is true -- but does that deny them, therefor, of their rights?

 

Just because someone doesn't prescribe to your sense of morality, whatever that may be, it doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

 

So its okay for skanks to go out and sleep with everyone then use murder as a form of birth control?

 

Wow nice logic.

 

Why do guys get slammed with child support for doing this where is our easy out choice?

Edited by The Angel Bunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it is true -- but does that deny them, therefor, of their rights?

 

Just because someone doesn't prescribe to your sense of morality, whatever that may be, it doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Since you insist that morality differs from every person, do you think that it is socially acceptable for a person to kill another person if they believe that it is morally correct?

 

That way of thinking got us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and many others who killed for what they believed in.

 

Wow - you're still trying to bring Hitler et al into the argument, eh?

 

Like a dog to a bone. >.<

 

Okay -- first of all, if you're going to attempt to classify a one-third inch long clump of cells with no brain or heartbeat as a "person", then so be it. Fine -- yes, I advocate the killing of a "person" by that definition.

 

Happy now?

 

Oh -- and tell me, since you're so "morally" opposed to "killing" another "person", perhaps you should read the bible? It advocates the killing, murdering, plundering, rape, slavery and torture of people.

 

As such, it makes Christians equal to Hitler, Stalin and Mao and, by your logic, makes them also equal to pro-abortionists.

 

Oh - and before you bring your pick and choose Christianity into play, or deny the facts, let's cite a few chapters and verse, shall we?

 

I'm particularly fond of the story in Numbers 31, where "god" tells Moses to slaughter all the Midianites, but to keep the virgin girls as slaves. Good stuff that - real family entertainment. The very stuff of moral fibre.

 

Likewise, I really enjoy the Psalm where David proclaims he will "wash his feet in the blood of the wicked" -- yeppers, that sure sounds like morally upstanding ground-work to me, too.

 

Now, before you entirely lose my point in the midst of your "moral outrage", let us, once again, make it abundantly clear that trying to equate anti-abortionists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao "and many others" with pro-abortionists is a non-sequitor.

 

Oh -- for the sake of making it abundantly clear -- "non-sequitor" means "that which does not follow". You cannot equate anti-abortionist mass murderers with pro-abortionists, plain and simple.

 

Furthermore, if you want to try to continue to equate that line of logic, it merely demonstrates that you're a hypocrite.

 

First of all, personal morality has little to do with the question. If the fetus is alive, it's not the woman who loses out if the abortion is performed, so why should it be her choice whether it lives?

 

Many seven-month babies die outside of the womb. I was under the impression that nearly all medical experts believed seven-month babies to be as alive as nine-month babies. The definition of viability that this act gives is absurd.

 

In Canada, and I am sure elsewhere, a fetal death over 5 months old requires proper registration of death and funerary rites.

 

Perhaps it is true -- but does that deny them, therefor, of their rights?

 

Just because someone doesn't prescribe to your sense of morality, whatever that may be, it doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

 

So its okay for skanks to go out and sleep with everyone then use murder as a form of birth control?

 

Wow nice logic.

 

Why do guys get slammed with child support for doing this where is our easy out choice?

 

You know, the term "skanks" speaks volumes. It really does. It tells me that you have no respect, whatsoever, for women and, as such, really explains your position on this issue most clearly.

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, if you took the time to actually demonstrate some RESPECT for women, you might see things a little differently.

 

Likewise, as someone who’s actually HAD abdominal surgery to eliminate a fetal growth that was life-threatening, I can tell you that having such a procedure performed is no picnic. Particularly since my second procedure was somewhat botched and I nearly died.

 

So, if you’re assuming that women just run off to the hospital to get abortions done for “kicks”, then you seriously need to clear your cranium from your posterior cavity.

 

Honestly. :cool:

Edited by Blyaunte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it disturbing how guys can be against this if it's not even about their own kid. What another woman does with her unborn child is none of your bussiness. Mind your own bussiness.

 

If people would do that some more, they might actually get a chance to live in a happy way. I'm not gonna tell a stranger on the street to go home and brush his teeth.

Edited by K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it disturbing how guys can be against this if it's not even about their own kid. What another woman does with her unborn child is none of your bussiness. Mind your own business.

 

If people would do that some more, they might actually get a chance to live in a happy way. I'm not gonna tell a stranger on the street to go home and brush his teeth.

 

This was a point I attempted to make earlier. I find it curious that these “men” want to exert a modicom of control over certain women with whom they haven’t any emotional or physical bond, yet they perceive it as their “right” to speak for “the unborn” about which they really haven’t any emotional or physical bond.

 

Frankly, I’d rather not envision a world where some random man can exert his patriarchial will over me simply because he deems his morality to be superior to mine. Honestly, I thought that THAT aspect of Western society was left behind when we were given the right to vote. >.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was a point I attempted to make earlier. I find it curious that these “men” want to exert a modicom of control over certain women with whom they haven’t any emotional or physical bond, yet they perceive it as their “right” to speak for “the unborn” about which they really haven’t any emotional or physical bond.

 

Unless I am mistaken, arguing for, or speaking for, does not require the one doing the arguing, or the one doing the speaking, to have formed a bond, either physical or emotional, with the one who is being argued for, or spoken for.

 

It is the right of each and every human on this planet to speak up for the oppressed, when the oppressed are unable, or unwilling to speak, either in their own defence, for their own persecution, or for them self. This is a right that forming a physical bond with the subject, is not required.

 

On an unrelated topic, I believe you are attempting to spell the word Modicum, when you wrote "modicom".

 

Frankly, I’d rather not envision a world where some random man can exert his [patriarchal] will over me simply because he deems his morality to be superior to mine. Honestly, I thought that THAT aspect of Western society was left behind when we were given the right to vote. >.<

 

Yet you deem your morality great enough that your party should be granted the right to kill their children without legal recourse? From the point of the party's children, the party's morality is supposedly great enough that their existence should we taken away from them because their parent decides they should no longer exist, based upon the party's morality.

 

Innocent life should be preserved, not taken away.

 

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

Unless I am mistaken, the child/ children who are aborted are losing, or have already lost, their right to life. As a consequence of losing their right to life, they lose further rights: the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness.

 

These losses are only acceptable should the mother lose their life by having the child (one or more). The lose of these rights are not acceptable as a result of laziness or unwillingness to take responsibility for one's prior action(s).

 

~John

Edited by John Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was a point I attempted to make earlier. I find it curious that these “men” want to exert a modicom of control over certain women with whom they haven’t any emotional or physical bond, yet they perceive it as their “right” to speak for “the unborn” about which they really haven’t any emotional or physical bond.

 

Unless I am mistaken, arguing for, or speaking for, does not require the one doing the arguing, or the one doing the speaking, to have formed a bond, either physical or emotional, with the one who is being argued for, or spoken for.

 

The point of the matter is that, if it's none of your business, why should you be involved?

 

It is the right of each and every human on this planet to speak up for the oppressed, when the oppressed are unable, or unwilling to speak, either in their own defence, for their own persecution, or for them self. This is a right that forming a physical bond with the subject, is not required.

 

Funny- I don't see you speaking up for the poor oppressed women who are being forced to bear children against their will.

 

On an unrelated topic, I believe you are attempting to spell the word Modicum, when you wrote "modicom".

 

Awesome - a spelling nazi - just what every discussion needs.

 

Frankly, I’d rather not envision a world where some random man can exert his [patriarchal] will over me simply because he deems his morality to be superior to mine. Honestly, I thought that THAT aspect of Western society was left behind when we were given the right to vote. :cool:

 

Yet you deem your morality great enough that your party should be granted the right to kill their children without legal recourse? From the point of the party's children, the party's morality is supposedly great enough that their existence should we taken away from them because their parent decides they should no longer exist, based upon the party's morality.

 

See - there's the problem - and this is where you are so grossly mistaken. You are assuming that I want my "morality" enforced on others when, in effect, I have no moral imperative here. I don't care. They choose to have it or they choose to terminate it. There's no morality involved either way as far as I am concerned. Why they keep it or terminate it is entirely arbitrary.

 

I. DON'T. CARE.

 

It's no skin off my nose if they want to keep it or not.

 

To you, it is imperative that they keep it -- no matter the cause or affect.

 

What is important to me is that they have the choice - to exercise their own free will -- to exercise it according to their own conscience.

 

You, on the other hand, have already done the thinking for them, and made their choice for them. As such, YOU are enforcing YOUR WILL upon them, whether they like it or not.

 

I'm not.

 

All I want is for people like YOU to stop trying to oppress other people. Period.

 

Innocent life should be preserved, not taken away.

 

Ah yes -- a clump of cells less than 1/3 of an inch long, possessing neither brain nor heart is "innocent life".

 

>.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it is true -- but does that deny them, therefor, of their rights?

 

Just because someone doesn't prescribe to your sense of morality, whatever that may be, it doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Since you insist that morality differs from every person, do you think that it is socially acceptable for a person to kill another person if they believe that it is morally correct?

 

That way of thinking got us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and many others who killed for what they believed in.

 

Wow - you're still trying to bring Hitler et al into the argument, eh?

 

Like a dog to a bone. >.<

 

Okay -- first of all, if you're going to attempt to classify a one-third inch long clump of cells with no brain or heartbeat as a "person", then so be it. Fine -- yes, I advocate the killing of a "person" by that definition.

 

Happy now?

 

Oh -- and tell me, since you're so "morally" opposed to "killing" another "person", perhaps you should read the bible? It advocates the killing, murdering, plundering, rape, slavery and torture of people.

 

As such, it makes Christians equal to Hitler, Stalin and Mao and, by your logic, makes them also equal to pro-abortionists.

 

Oh - and before you bring your pick and choose Christianity into play, or deny the facts, let's cite a few chapters and verse, shall we?

 

I'm particularly fond of the story in Numbers 31, where "god" tells Moses to slaughter all the Midianites, but to keep the virgin girls as slaves. Good stuff that - real family entertainment. The very stuff of moral fibre.

 

Likewise, I really enjoy the Psalm where David proclaims he will "wash his feet in the blood of the wicked" -- yeppers, that sure sounds like morally upstanding ground-work to me, too.

 

Now, before you entirely lose my point in the midst of your "moral outrage", let us, once again, make it abundantly clear that trying to equate anti-abortionists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao "and many others" with pro-abortionists is a non-sequitor.

 

Oh -- for the sake of making it abundantly clear -- "non-sequitor" means "that which does not follow". You cannot equate anti-abortionist mass murderers with pro-abortionists, plain and simple.

 

Furthermore, if you want to try to continue to equate that line of logic, it merely demonstrates that you're a hypocrite.

 

First of all, personal morality has little to do with the question. If the fetus is alive, it's not the woman who loses out if the abortion is performed, so why should it be her choice whether it lives?

 

Many seven-month babies die outside of the womb. I was under the impression that nearly all medical experts believed seven-month babies to be as alive as nine-month babies. The definition of viability that this act gives is absurd.

 

In Canada, and I am sure elsewhere, a fetal death over 5 months old requires proper registration of death and funerary rites.

 

Perhaps it is true -- but does that deny them, therefor, of their rights?

 

Just because someone doesn't prescribe to your sense of morality, whatever that may be, it doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

 

So its okay for skanks to go out and sleep with everyone then use murder as a form of birth control?

 

Wow nice logic.

 

Why do guys get slammed with child support for doing this where is our easy out choice?

 

You know, the term "skanks" speaks volumes. It really does. It tells me that you have no respect, whatsoever, for women and, as such, really explains your position on this issue most clearly.

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, if you took the time to actually demonstrate some RESPECT for women, you might see things a little differently.

 

Likewise, as someone who’s actually HAD abdominal surgery to eliminate a fetal growth that was life-threatening, I can tell you that having such a procedure performed is no picnic. Particularly since my second procedure was somewhat botched and I nearly died.

 

So, if you’re assuming that women just run off to the hospital to get abortions done for “kicks”, then you seriously need to clear your cranium from your posterior cavity.

 

Honestly. :cool:

 

People who abuse it as I posted before you said it was still there right in above post I never implied that this was all people.

 

 

 

So, if you’re assuming that women just run off to the hospital to get abortions done for “kicks”, then you seriously need to clear your cranium from your posterior cavity.

 

Its a crazy world and i've seen enough mindsets like this just at my school.

 

My mom at 30 is having another kid and even though she is financially stable and mature theres people telling her to get a abortion.

 

So don't tell me that people getting abortions for no apparent reason is a rarity cause its not it happens everyday

Edited by The Angel Bunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People who abuse it as I posted before you said it was still there right in above post I never implied that this was all people.

 

Funny, referring to women who have abortions as "skanks" indicates that you've apparently got this notion that women who have abortions are loose and dirty, and are too lazy to meet consequences of their actions.

 

Is there some *other* definition of "skank" of which I was not made aware?

 

Likewise, you, and certain people like you, seem to indicate that having an abortion isn't facing any consequences. I'm curious how you arrive at this concept. It's as though having an abortion is a get-out-pf-jail free card or something.

 

So, if you’re assuming that women just run off to the hospital to get abortions done for “kicks”, then you seriously need to clear your cranium from your posterior cavity.

 

Its a crazy world and i've seen enough mindsets like this just at my school.

 

My mom at 30 is having another kid and even though she is financially stable and mature theres people telling her to get a abortion.

 

So don't tell me that people getting abortions for no apparent reason is a rarity cause its not it happens everyday

 

Frankly, I don't care how many children your mother has, how mature she is or anything else for that matter.

 

However, the point of the matter is that she has the CHOICE -- so should every other woman.

 

Oh -- and not every choice has to be JUSTIFIABLE to YOU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, referring to women who have abortions as "skanks" indicates that you've apparently got this notion that women who have abortions are loose and dirty, and are too lazy to meet consequences of their actions.

 

Is there some *other* definition of "skank" of which I was not made aware?

 

Likewise, you, and certain people like you, seem to indicate that having an abortion isn't facing any consequences. I'm curious how you arrive at this concept. It's as though having an abortion is a get-out-pf-jail free card or something.

 

Please include a reference to where I said all women who have abortions are skanks?

 

I could of swore I meant that towards people who would have an abortion for no apparent reason or ones who sleep around with many people and have one(that is the definition of a skank is it not?

 

And don't be so hypocritical cause I could of swore you made references towards guys in previous posts.

 

 

Spoken like a typical man. As though carrying a child for 9 months is no “work” at all. Right?

 

Tell you what – how about YOU undergo 36 hours of labour, then get back to me about WHO is lazy – mmkay?

Edited by The Angel Bunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it is true -- but does that deny them, therefor, of their rights?

 

Just because someone doesn't prescribe to your sense of morality, whatever that may be, it doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Since you insist that morality differs from every person, do you think that it is socially acceptable for a person to kill another person if they believe that it is morally correct?

 

That way of thinking got us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and many others who killed for what they believed in.

 

Wow - you're still trying to bring Hitler et al into the argument, eh?

Still waiting for you to dismiss it.

 

Like a dog to a bone. >.<

 

Okay -- first of all, if you're going to attempt to classify a one-third inch long clump of cells with no brain or heartbeat as a "person", then so be it. Fine -- yes, I advocate the killing of a "person" by that definition.

I personally believe it's a "person," but that's not even what I've been arguing about the entire time. The honest truth is you or I or anybody has absolutely no idea what defines a person as a "person." So we shouldn't make the judgement whether they live or die. What we do know, however, is that it's a living human being. If you want me to point it out how I arrived at that conclusion it will be the twenty-someth time at least, so please, don't.

 

Happy now?

No.

 

"It's easy for those who are already out of the water to forget about those who could still drown."

 

What gives you the right to declare your views completely infallible and take a life, even though you have no idea whether it's a person or not (even though it is a living human being).

 

Oh -- and tell me, since you're so "morally" opposed to "killing" another "person", perhaps you should read the bible? It advocates the killing, murdering, plundering, rape, slavery and torture of people.

 

As such, it makes Christians equal to Hitler, Stalin and Mao and, by your logic, makes them also equal to pro-abortionists.

The Bible advocates killing in retaliation and such, not killing for the sake of keeping power, prestigue, or gaining such things, let alone selfishness or sloth, which you and I both know many abortions are for (I'm referring to the latter two here).

 

Oh - and before you bring your pick and choose Christianity into play, or deny the facts, let's cite a few chapters and verse, shall we?

 

I'm particularly fond of the story in Numbers 31, where "god" tells Moses to slaughter all the Midianites, but to keep the virgin girls as slaves. Good stuff that - real family entertainment. The very stuff of moral fibre.

You obviously overlooked something. Allow me to point it out.

Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

Hopefully you'll see your error.

 

Likewise, I really enjoy the Psalm where David proclaims he will "wash his feet in the blood of the wicked" -- yeppers, that sure sounds like morally upstanding ground-work to me, too.

Do you honestly think that's meant to be taken literally? :cool:

 

Now, before you entirely lose my point in the midst of your "moral outrage", let us, once again, make it abundantly clear that trying to equate anti-abortionists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao "and many others" with pro-abortionists is a non-sequitor.

Actually, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all forced abortions and sterilization on those who weren't deemed "fit" to have children, such as blacks, hispanics, slavs, amongs others. Plus they all killed for their own purposes, which is what abortion equates to.

 

Oh -- for the sake of making it abundantly clear -- "non-sequitor" means "that which does not follow". You cannot equate anti-abortionist mass murderers with pro-abortionists, plain and simple.

I'm aware of that.

 

I can equate "anti-abortionists who killed thousands for their own personal gain and leisure" to "pro-abortionists who take innocent lives for their own personal gain."

 

Anti-abortion and mass murderer or pro-abortion, it's still killing for your own reasons.

 

Furthermore, if you want to try to continue to equate that line of logic, it merely demonstrates that you're a hypocrite.

Because of the Bible? Heck, I could be the most hardcore atheistic God-hating person in the world and still use this argument. Here's a little rule of debate for you: Dismiss the argument, not the arguer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you honestly think that's meant to be taken literally?

Do you honestly think the whole book is meant to be taken literally?

 

No. It's all made up to an idealistic image of the world, to what humans should go for, made in times of war and crisis.

 

It's a historical novel damnit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting for you to dismiss it.

 

You are hilarious – it’s a non-argument. You’re hysterically trying to equate the Holocaust -- the calculated slavery, torture and murder of millions of mostly Jewish victims -- to abortion in the United States.

 

You’re attempting to draw a parallel between the insentient cluster of dividing embryonic cells and the fully aware and suffering already born person who was the doomed concentration camp inmate.

 

Honestly, to attempt such a comparison is to trivialize, to diminish the sadism and horror which was the reality of Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald and the other death factories.

 

The same applies to Stalin and Mao – you’re trying to equate a cluster of cells, ONE THIRD OF AN INCH LONG WITHOUT A HEART OR A BRAIN, with live, active, feeling human beings – the MILLIONS of people who suffered REAL physical HORROR in concentration camps and gulags around the world.

 

Dismissed. Done.

 

I personally believe it's a "person," but that's not even what I've been arguing about the entire time. The honest truth is you or I or anybody has absolutely no idea what defines a person as a "person." So we shouldn't make the judgement whether they live or die. What we do know, however, is that it's a living human being. If you want me to point it out how I arrived at that conclusion it will be the twenty-someth time at least, so please, don't.

 

"It's easy for those who are already out of the water to forget about those who could still drown."

 

What gives you the right to declare your views completely infallible and take a life, even though you have no idea whether it's a person or not (even though it is a living human being).

 

Tell me – is it right for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to FORCE an individual to use his or her body to preserve the life of someone who is already born?

 

For example, let’s say, President Obama needed your liver – could the government just take yours without your permission?

 

Why not define everyone and everything as a “person”, and thereafter require all citizens to make their bodies and bodily parts readily available to others, including those already out of the womb, who might need them in order to go on living?

 

Why restrict the "right to life" to the unborn?

 

Once you accept the notion, based on some "inherent right to life", that a woman can be compelled to allow her body to be used for the benefit of a fetus, why not demand the same benefit for those already born?

 

How about requiring every able-bodied citizen make his body accessible to any patient who might need it in order to survive?

 

Would you agree to this kind of law?

 

What part of your own body are you willing to offer to someone who may require it to ensure their continued existence?

 

Or do you think only female bodies should be available for use as life support?

 

Oh -- and tell me, since you're so "morally" opposed to "killing" another "person", perhaps you should read the bible? It advocates the killing, murdering, plundering, rape, slavery and torture of people.

 

As such, it makes Christians equal to Hitler, Stalin and Mao and, by your logic, makes them also equal to pro-abortionists.

The Bible advocates killing in retaliation and such, not killing for the sake of keeping power, prestigue, or gaining such things, let alone selfishness or sloth, which you and I both know many abortions are for (I'm referring to the latter two here).

 

You obviously overlooked something. Allow me to point it out.

 

Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

 

Hopefully you'll see your error.

 

Ahhh -- so it’s okay to kill, then? My bad. How silly of me. So it’s okay to kill people under certain “mitigating circumstances”, then?

 

Oh, well - that’s an entirely different kettle of fish. Isn’t it?

 

So, tell me, what did the “suckling babies” that your god told Moses to slaughter DO to the Israelites that it required such brutal RETALIATION?

 

I’m curious. No. Really. I am. These suckling babies did what, exactly? Well - for one thing, it must have been pretty awful, for them to deserve to be slaughtered, right?

 

Perhaps the “ten commandments” should read: “Though shalt not kill, unless it’s in retaliation? Then it’s okay to slaughter suckling children, right?

 

Likewise, I really enjoy the Psalm where David proclaims he will "wash his feet in the blood of the wicked" -- yeppers, that sure sounds like morally upstanding ground-work to me, too.

Do you honestly think that's meant to be taken literally? >.<

 

You mean, we’re NOT supposed to take ANYTHING in the bible literally?!?!?!

 

There’s a shocker. :cool:

 

Or are you advocating that people should “pick and choose” only those biblical passages that they find conscionable, and then take THOSE literally?

 

Nope - sorry - it’s an all or nothing sort of procedure.

 

Actually, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all forced abortions and sterilization on those who weren't deemed "fit" to have children, such as blacks, hispanics, slavs, amongs others. Plus they all killed for their own purposes, which is what abortion equates to.

 

The truth is that Hitler outlawed abortion for German women, the better to increase the numbers of "pure Aryans" for his Third Reich. At the same time, he made sure abortions were performed on pregnant women who were members of groups he considered "genetically inferior" or "undesirable".

 

Stalin likewise eliminated the undesirable elements of his society through selective purges.

 

Mao never enforced abortions - the one-child rule came into effect after Mao was long dead, and since then abortion has been used as a form of birth control to keep China’s population at a “manageable level” – albeit with over 1 billion people, that’s not so easy to do.

 

The lesson here is that a government which can outlaw abortion can likewise mandate abortion – particularly for whatever “groups” of people that they deem “undesirable”. That’s the whole crux of this biscuit – once the government has control over what we can do with our bodies, control of everything else immediately follows.

 

Here's a little rule of debate for you: Dismiss the argument, not the arguer.

Your arguments were dismissed ages ago -- you’re merely trying to keep them on life support. I have demonstrated, time and again that, each time you attempt to lay down a means of controlling another person, and thereafter attempt to justify said control by drawing hysterical comparisons to sadistic dictators, you’re being hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting for you to dismiss it.

 

You are hilarious – it’s a non-argument. You’re hysterically trying to equate the Holocaust -- the calculated slavery, torture and murder of millions of mostly Jewish victims -- to abortion in the United States.

 

You’re attempting to draw a parallel between the insentient cluster of dividing embryonic cells and the fully aware and suffering already born person who was the doomed concentration camp inmate.

 

Honestly, to attempt such a comparison is to trivialize, to diminish the sadism and horror which was the reality of Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald and the other death factories.

 

The same applies to Stalin and Mao – you’re trying to equate a cluster of cells, ONE THIRD OF AN INCH LONG WITHOUT A HEART OR A BRAIN, with live, active, feeling human beings – the MILLIONS of people who suffered REAL physical HORROR in concentration camps and gulags around the world.

 

Dismissed. Done.

What Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did, in such events as the Holocaust, was kill millions of living human beings for their own selfish purposes. Over forty-five million HUMAN lives have been lost. That's what I'm talking about.

 

Plus, you have even stated in this topic that you have nothing against killing living human beings (you're pro-abortion, and I've pointed out several dozen times that abortion takes a living human being's life).

 

Tell me – is it right for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to FORCE an individual to use his or her body to preserve the life of someone who is already born?

 

For example, let’s say, President Obama needed your liver – could the government just take yours without your permission?

 

Why not define everyone and everything as a “person”, and thereafter require all citizens to make their bodies and bodily parts readily available to others, including those already out of the womb, who might need them in order to go on living?

 

Why restrict the "right to life" to the unborn?

I don't see where you're going with this. I believe all human beings should have a right to live and to remain alive.

 

And, please, if you're going to use the whole "it's their body" argument, save yourself the trouble and don't. An embryo is a totally different human being then the mother, as they have different DNA and different cells, period. Their not the same. Women can do whatever the hell they want with their own bodies, I'm just saying that their right to their own body shouldn't include another human being who obviously is not part of them.

 

Once you accept the notion, based on some "inherent right to life", that a woman can be compelled to allow her body to be used for the benefit of a fetus, why not demand the same benefit for those already born?

 

How about requiring every able-bodied citizen make his body accessible to any patient who might need it in order to survive?

I'm saying that a woman who has reckless sex and gets pregnant shouldn't be allowed to take another person's life. What you're saying is that if we don't want someone there, we have a right to take their life. The embryo/fetus 'using her body for it's benefit' like your making it out to be, it's relying on her because she had sex, much like a child relies on it's parents or a comatose person relies on machines and computers and nurses and, overall, society to keep them alive.

 

Would you agree to this kind of law?

As stated above, no.

 

What part of your own body are you willing to offer to someone who may require it to ensure their continued existence?

See above.

 

Or do you think only female bodies should be available for use as life support?

Wow, trying to paint me as a sexist/controllist. Must be my teenage-boyhood that makes me eager to have children. >.<

 

And for life support for an embryo that a woman, by nature and her anatomy, agreed to have by having unprotected sexual intercourse? Yes. You can't just kill a comatose person if you don't want them. The same should be said about an embryo/fetus.

 

Ahhh -- so it’s okay to kill, then? My bad. How silly of me. So it’s okay to kill people under certain “mitigating circumstances”, then?

Under certain conditions, killing is necesary. Imagine if a person with a knife approaches you, ready to stab you to death, while you had a gun in hand? What would you do? Let them kill you?

 

But, obviously, in 99.9% of circumstances, an embryo/fetus isn't a threat to the mother's life in any way.

 

Oh, well - that’s an entirely different kettle of fish. Isn’t it?

 

So, tell me, what did the “suckling babies” that your god told Moses to slaughter DO to the Israelites that it required such brutal RETALIATION?

Maybe it's because their the sons and daughters of those who attacked the Israelites, who, after conquering them, the Israelites simply couldn't sustain for? And what passage is this in the Bible?

 

Plus, our society can spend money to go to war and things like that, we can obviously afford to pay for the innocent lives that would otherwise be lost.

 

I’m curious. No. Really. I am. These suckling babies did what, exactly? Well - for one thing, it must have been pretty awful, for them to deserve to be slaughtered, right?

 

Perhaps the “ten commandments” should read: “Though shalt not kill, unless it’s in retaliation? Then it’s okay to slaughter suckling children, right?

To be honest, the fifth commandment originally was supposed to read "Thou shalt not murder." It was most likely changed by someone not knowing the different between murder and killing.

 

Likewise, I really enjoy the Psalm where David proclaims he will "wash his feet in the blood of the wicked" -- yeppers, that sure sounds like morally upstanding ground-work to me, too.

Do you honestly think that's meant to be taken literally? :cool:

 

You mean, we’re NOT supposed to take ANYTHING in the bible literally?!?!?!

 

There’s a shocker. :D

 

Or are you advocating that people should “pick and choose” only those biblical passages that they find conscionable, and then take THOSE literally?

 

Nope - sorry - it’s an all or nothing sort of procedure.

What the Church (and others) teach is that some aspects of the Bible are OBVIOUSLY symbolic. And I mean really obviously. Look at parables, many proverbs and psalms, a lot of the creation story, etc. It's not "picking and choosing," it's knowing when something's symbolic or not.

 

Besides, haven't you ever heard that the Bible is a book of faith, not purely facts?

 

Actually, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all forced abortions and sterilization on those who weren't deemed "fit" to have children, such as blacks, hispanics, slavs, amongs others. Plus they all killed for their own purposes, which is what abortion equates to.

 

The truth is that Hitler outlawed abortion for German women, the better to increase the numbers of "pure Aryans" for his Third Reich. At the same time, he made sure abortions were performed on pregnant women who were members of groups he considered "genetically inferior" or "undesirable".

 

Stalin likewise eliminated the undesirable elements of his society through selective purges.

 

Mao never enforced abortions - the one-child rule came into effect after Mao was long dead, and since then abortion has been used as a form of birth control to keep China’s population at a “manageable level” – albeit with over 1 billion people, that’s not so easy to do.

 

The lesson here is that a government which can outlaw abortion can likewise mandate abortion – particularly for whatever “groups” of people that they deem “undesirable”. That’s the whole crux of this biscuit – once the government has control over what we can do with our bodies, control of everything else immediately follows.

Nobody's telling you what you can do with your own bodies, as long as it doesn't interfere with another living human being. You can go mutate yourself, cut yourself, jump into a vat of toxic waste, I really don't care, and nobody else does. However, when you step out of your own limits and take another human beings life, that's what makes some people mad.

 

Honestly, quit pulling the "it's my body and my right to chose," argument. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that your DNA is exactly the same as each and every one of your children's and that you don't respond to stimuli individually but as one and things like that, which I really pray to God you aren't (because that would be the most foolish thing I've ever seen on these forums, period).

 

Here's a little rule of debate for you: Dismiss the argument, not the arguer.

Your arguments were dismissed ages ago -- you’re merely trying to keep them on life support. I have demonstrated, time and again that, each time you attempt to lay down a means of controlling another person, and thereafter attempt to justify said control by drawing hysterical comparisons to sadistic dictators, you’re being hypocritical.

I've responded to each and every argument you posted, many of which remain un-responded to by you. I'm not 'keeping them on life support,' I'm explaining what they actually mean and the critical flaws in your way of thinking (see above several comments on the "it's my body so I get to choose" argument).

 

And, as I've stated at least a dozen times in this topic, I quite frankly don't care about what you do with your body at all. It's your body, your rights over it, whatever. I'm perfectly fine knowing that you can do whatever the hell comes into your mind-as long as it doesn't affect another living human being.

 

But hey, I'm just another over-controlling teenage boy who wants my girlfriend to have as many babies as possible, remember? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.