Political veiws on abortion and other things

[VampireCharizard]

I personally am conservative/republican and I can see some key disputes and differences between them and liberals/democrats. What i don't get is how the pro-choice peeps can make SO LITTLE SENSE IT'S UNFREAKIN BELEIVABLE! i'm sorry but umm... for example: Scott peterson is on trial for DOUBLE murder. For his wife and UNBORN son. Now that's counted as murder, but oddly, abortion is not. As a republican, I appose abortion and see it as murder. I'm sorry i used murder for the word I just feel strongly about this. I know the baby that scott supposedly killed was at a much more mature stage of pregnancy, but life is life, and it's getting on my nerves how people can literally kill their unborn child. It may be Hanity's persuasive powers getting to me or the fact that i live with the most conservative woman in the state, but conservative veiws just seem to make more common sense. And wut's with the Bush-bashing?!?! grr!

[CaptainDean]

First of all, you're an idiot. People like you make me sick.

Secondly, the reason women get abortions is typically because they are not able to care for the child. Why would you bring a child into this world when you know it's just going to destroy your life, and it's own life will be totally ****ed from birth? It's called the right to choose.

The "Bush-bashing" you speak of happens because quite frankly, Bush is also an idiot. He's crapped all over education, the economy, human rights, and sent not only his own army, but the army of several other nations off to fight a war based on fabricated and falsified evidence to topple a harmless regime.

[VampireCharizard]

You can ALWAYS put the child up for adoption! At least give it a chance to LIVE IT'S LIFE! the baby could grow up and have a seperate life from their parents - a GOOD life, but they don't even give their child a CHANCE to LIVE! it sickens me beyond beleif and as for the right to choose, screw that they shouldn't have a choice over whether an INNOCENT child lives or dies. AND HOW COULD CARING FOR A LOST LIFE SICKEN YOU?!?!?!

[kainashi]

no wonder you have girl problems. :monocle2:

[VampireCharizard]

dammit! why does no one agree with me?!?! lol

[CaptainDean]

Because you're wrong?

[VampireCharizard]

how the hell am i wrong? :what: cause what, they don't wanna go through some pain ok a LOT of pain, so they kill their baby? :evil: they can always do adoption as I've pointed out, and maybe no one's agreeing with me cause only two liberals have been replying. There has to be at least one person who has COMPASSION for dead babies... :mad2:

[gomez]

I'm really not into politics, so when you speak of this "conservative" and "liberal" stuff, I have no friggin idea what you are talking about. I have a general idea of what they might represent, but thats it. I would pretend to go along with my AP History teacher when she would talk about politics and the like.

Abortion should be a woman's right, but I'm not sure where I stand with the whole 'the unborn can be counted as a life' thing. But I do want Scott Peterson to be found guilty and go to prison for life, or better, die. It's so obvious how guilty he is.

[VampireCharizard]

it's easy to see he's obviously guilty.....

[Suite Madame Blue]

I don't know why I'm even bothering to post to this topic, because I know how it's going to go: My reasonable post will get ignored, this thread will disintegrate into a flame war, and a mod will close the topic. Here goes anyway. Foolish me.

I'm a Republican too, and I support abortion. And, for the record, I'm also adopted. Yes, killing is wrong. HOWEVER - it's more wrong to bring an unwanted baby into the world and subject it to a lifetime of neglect and possibly abuse. I'm lucky - I was wanted by somebody, abortion was illegal in 1967, and my birth mom didn't believe in abortion anyway. Others are not so lucky. I know of a few young mothers where I live who got pregnant while in high school or right after, and were pressured to keep their babies BY THEIR PEERS. Other 17-year-old girls who can barely take care of themselves, let alone a child. You just know they'll end up on welfare and be a burden to the state. And welfare means higher taxes.

The problem really is that the religious groups have given lots and lots of money to the Republican party to push their own agenda, including anti-abortion, and money talks. Republicans have to remember their party's core philosophy: The government stays out of people's private lives. What I do with my body is none of the government's concern, including abortion. It's better to terminate a pregnancy than to cause suffering to an already-born child. It's better still to teach our children about sex and responsibility early, so they learn that if you're going to have sex, you'd better take precautions, and be prepared to deal with the results.

For the record, the abortion issue will never be resolved. One side is arguing science, the other side is arguing religion. Neither side is willing to find a common ground for the purpose of rational debate.

EDIT: Yep, the flames are happening already!

[Krystalline Kabutops]

VC Post 1: I think you've answered your own question here, but here's one for you: If life is so important, then why do you eat things that used to live? Name any food, it's got something living in there. Sometimes we just have to make choices about these things. Also, abortion is a way of keeping worl population in check. Better to "kill" a few fetuses then have concious, feeling people in a third world country dying of starvation. Addtionally, Captain Dean is right on all those counts about Bush.

VC Post 2: You're forgetting how painful childbirth is. That's an important factor.

VC Post 3: The whole debate over abortion is centered on one question: When does conciousness begin? Conservatives think that it starts as soon as the egg has been fertilized, or at some other early stage. Liberals believe that once it is recognizably human, it has conciousness. Frankly, I think both sides are way off, but the Liberals aren't quite as far off as you and your kin.

Suite Madame Blue: Awesomely put. Couldn't agree more.

[VampireCharizard]

I don't even know which is for which -science is for abortion? :sweat4: idk but I'm still against it. You all have very good points, but You're not going to convince me or anyone that feels this strongly that's it's ok to have an abortion. because we know it's not. I realize that most teenage girls can't or maybe won't take care of their child but they can do adoption and Im sorry that there are abbusive people but i still feel it's better to allow your child to live their life out to the fullest. and the republican party keeps the govt. out of personal life, and allow you to do what you want with YOUR body, but your child is not your body or YOUR soul. It may be part of your body, but it won't be for long. and even if they are abused as children, they will grow up to have their own life and maybe have children and get married and get a job, be president, the possibilties are endless, but if you have an abortion... the child will have NO possibilites NO hope NO joy in life. and it seems a bit selfish to have an abortion so you don't have any pain. just to point out I'm trying not to flame anyone and i won't be in the later parts of this post... Flame me all you want I'm not changing my mind that abortion is wrong and as for the living thing eating thing. just so you're clear on this - THAT'S HOW THE WORLD WORKS. you expect us to eat rocks? no. Now I'm against canibals so there! shove that up your arse! And we don't all eat human beings. we also all don't kill. except murderurs. and stuff. oh bloody hell know what i mean And I admit there may have been a few reasons not to go to war with iraq, but you rather sadam hussein be IN power? and the casualties in a year's time are nothing compared to what we lost in WW 1, 2, the korean war, ect's year's time. the averages easily double or triple or quadiradicallytriplyquadrupale the casualties so there with my number thingy

[Suite Madame Blue]

and even if they are abused as children, they will grow up to have their own life and maybe have children and get married and get a job, be president, the possibilties are endless,
Your thinking is naive. Abused children will most likely grow up to be nothing but abusers, unless they have a positive outside influence.

The arguments generally swing this way:

Liberals/Democrats - pro-abortion - science
Conservatives/Republicans - anti-abortion - religion

Keep in mind that there are both pro- and anti-abortionists within each party. As for adoption, it would be nice if every baby were wanted, but that's not the case. Some babies are just deemed unadoptable for whatever reason. Also, look at the booming business of fertility clinics. Unfortunately, there's still a stigma associated with adoption, as if the child is somehow second-rate, and as if the birth mother is somehow cruel for "giving away" her own child. I am pro-adoption, for obvious reasons, but I'm also realistic.

Your beliefs are your beliefs. You're not an idiot for believing that way. Just be sure to educate yourself so that you can defend them coherently and intelligently, without resorting to personal abuse yourself. And be prepared to walk away knowing that you can't change another's beliefs, because the abortion issue has a way of polarizing people.

[Iveechan]

I didn't read the long paragraphs.

I'm against the partial birth type of abortion. I think that when the fetus starts reacting the outside noise and begins to make its presence known then you should not abort. But, you know, first trimester thing, it's fair game. Abortion is really needed for cases where a woman was raped or, god forbid, just careless and ended up doing a HUGE mistake. Some people will say "Well, let the idiot learn her lesson, she should have been more careful", but it's wrong to punish the baby too. I soppose death is also punishment but... hrm. I normally try to stay away topics like these because it's such a foggy and grey area. I'm not liberal by the way nor a conservative. I dislike grouping myself. I just have my own opinion on things.

[The Muffin Man]

I don't know why I'm even bothering to post to this topic, because I know how it's going to go: My reasonable post will get ignored, this thread will disintegrate into a flame war, and a mod will close the topic. Here goes anyway. Foolish me.

I'm a Republican too, and I support abortion. And, for the record, I'm also adopted. Yes, killing is wrong. HOWEVER - it's more wrong to bring an unwanted baby into the world and subject it to a lifetime of neglect and possibly abuse. I'm lucky - I was wanted by somebody, abortion was illegal in 1967, and my birth mom didn't believe in abortion anyway. Others are not so lucky. I know of a few young mothers where I live who got pregnant while in high school or right after, and were pressured to keep their babies BY THEIR PEERS. Other 17-year-old girls who can barely take care of themselves, let alone a child. You just know they'll end up on welfare and be a burden to the state. And welfare means higher taxes.

The problem really is that the religious groups have given lots and lots of money to the Republican party to push their own agenda, including anti-abortion, and money talks. Republicans have to remember their party's core philosophy: The government stays out of people's private lives. What I do with my body is none of the government's concern, including abortion. It's better to terminate a pregnancy than to cause suffering to an already-born child. It's better still to teach our children about sex and responsibility early, so they learn that if you're going to have sex, you'd better take precautions, and be prepared to deal with the results.

For the record, the abortion issue will never be resolved. One side is arguing science, the other side is arguing religion. Neither side is willing to find a common ground for the purpose of rational debate.

EDIT: Yep, the flames are happening already!

Read her post. And LISTEN to what she has to say.

Why? BECAUSE SHE CAN HAVE KIDS AND IT'S HER ****ING BODY THAT'S GONNA GO THROUGH WITH THIS! God...why the **** are there so many GUYS trying to end abortion? Until your wife/girlfriend/sister(just for you, Vamp) comes up to you with the decision of getting an abortion, shut UP. You can be against it all you want, but unless you are personally able to get an abortion or personally affected by one, pro-life is out of your hands. "But what about pro-choice?" Because we say "Hey. Do what ya want." See? See? CHOICE.

Anyway, Abortion isn't birth control. I'll agree with anyone on that. But a girl who's 15 and raped, or her boyfriend said "Oh we won't get pregnant the first time" or something like that shouldn't have a baby she can't take care of. It's just not fair to her OR the child that they suffer because of some problem. Adoptions not always such an amazing idea anyway. As the child grows up, they may eventually wonder WHY they were left for adoption. They're not all as lucky as Madam Blue and ending up coming out as well-adjusted members of society.

[VampireCharizard]

when my sister (19) got pregnant, she was pressured beyond beleif to get an abortion by her friends, the child's father, and even her mother. She refused because she knew she held a life with her - even thoguh she couldn't afford the child, and her boyfriend was a crack head, she kept her baby, got a second job, ect. she came out well and my sister is still almost struggling through every day life but her baby gives her joy and happiness. And we have a beuatiful addition to our family and she doesn't regret anything so yes it has affected me

[The Muffin Man]

when my sister (19) got pregnant, she was pressured beyond beleif to get an abortion by her friends, the child's father, and even her mother. She refused because she knew she held a life with her - even thoguh she couldn't afford the child, and her boyfriend was a crack head, she kept her baby, got a second job, ect. she came out well and my sister is still almost struggling through every day life but her baby gives her joy and happiness. And we have a beuatiful addition to our family and she doesn't regret anything so yes it has affected me


Wait...

"My sister was pressured to get an abortion, even by her boyfriend who's a crackhead, and my mother who I've said is one of the biggest conservatives in the state/country...Not only did you toss in the crackhead line(Either your sisters an idiot for having a kid WITH HIM, or you tried to attack pro-choice) AND you can't keep your story about your mom straight.

[VampireCharizard]

i guess i didn't make it clear that we don't have the same mom O_o sorry bout that we're half bro/sis we share the same dad and he's not really a crack head i just said that cause he was encouraging her to get an abortion. He's nice and stuff oh he's sane too. lol

[CaptainDean]

Lying does not make for a good argument when you get caught.

[Wigglytuff]

Dean wins this thread.

- Wigglytuff

[VampireCharizard]

bloody hell just cause I'm conservative and have different beleifs than you does NOT mean that I lie about who is my sister or mother and who is not. You're simply using our political differences to make my mistake into a stupid lie. And really, why the hell would i lie about my mother to win a stupid little debate that wasn't even SUPPOSED to be a debate? screw you, and your entirley false accusations.

[Wigglytuff]

It's idiots like you who ruin Misc. because you guys kill the place with all these stupid religious/retarded debates.

[Heald]

Lying does not make for a good argument when you get caught.And no one told this to TRO while he was here because...?

IMHO, abortion can be a touchy issue. I say ban abortions. That way it is equal. Men can't get abortions. Ban abortions, neither can women. Equality.

And if anyone thinks that is my real opinion and argument had better go fornicate themselves with a hot iron rod.

In truth, I really don't care. Some babies die, some babies live. If my girlfriend/fiancée/wife/lifemate was pregnant with my seed, I would probably be against abortion.

[VampireCharizard]

it wasn't meant to be a debate and if you don't like it , then don't come to this preticullar thread. (for wigglytuff)

[Little_Pikachu]

I'm pro abortion, pretty much for the reasons above stated. Womans body, womans choice (isn't that a magazine?). Politically? This isn't a political issue. It's one womans choice to ruin her life for 9 months or not. I don't think that guy should've been done for double murder. If you want to start charging people for killing things which are unaware of what's going on and no one wants, then start arresting people who kill animals... Heck, let's arrest kids who pick flowers!

If I didn't know that you were male prior to this topic, I would've definatly guessed now.

[Crazy]

If a woman is raped then abortion is fine due to the fact that it wasn't their fault. Now if a woman had sex intentionally(bad spelling) then she should take care of the baby that her and her idiotic boyfriend had. Simple as that.

[VampireCharizard]

I understand that under the circumstances of rape, abortion... may be a good choice... but as crazy pointed out not if it was consential (i can't spell either) IDK i shouldn't have posted this... lol

[Kris]

He shouldnt get double murder, only single murder. Thats not fair on him at all.

I dont know what to say about abortion really, I know if I got pregnant at the moment I would defiantly have an abortion as I couldnt have a child at the moment. It wouldnt be fair on the child when it was born.

But then I do look at it that it is a child that is being killed.

I dont know, I just hope I dont come up to it.

[Charles Legend]

I with Vampie on this Life is the Gift of God the father, now tell me is it right for man to pick a chose who lives and who dies? No it's not the 8th comamet that God gave Mosses plainy states that"thou Shal not kill" which means God vewes Abortion as killing a person, and that the solotion is for the mother that dose not want the baby is to cary the baby then give it up for adoption.....


I, don't care what yopu say, if a coule wants to have sex and not take the full responce abilaties of becomeing parants then they should juast avoid having Sex.....

Because werther you like or not God made sex for the prouse of gioving humans the blessing of haveing and rasing up a family, so to thouse of you that are librals go suck a limon, you think just becuse you have aten of t6he frout of knowlage that you have the mind of God well sorry to burst your bouble of irerents but you don't all you go by is your own human understanding alone!

Just open up your eyes at what your throwing awaya baby is a baby at the time of conseption, In the mind of God Abortion is just as bad as the killing of say a child or an adut, And it's are responce abilaty not a right to pick wearther of not to Portect Life at all levals! It's most Crictal doring the frist nine months of life!

You may not agree with me but Babies even ones that are still in the form of a fertized egg have Soul/sprite and Derve to live, no mader the hardships and triles they may face in there Lifves.....

God gave Life these babies for a reson, and you know in your heart what I am saying is the truth and you can't deniy it, my words are like the salt that is erating your wond and you can fell it buring to can't you?

oh and for the record I am a conseritive/Repuclacon and I am also a Stong beliver in Jesus who becam a man to die for are sins, on that the Cross of calvory, he sacorficed himself for all mankind inlouding babies still in ther mother's womb so, don't you think it's fair that we honer his sacorfice by giving babies the chace to live like Jesus did so that we could be with him in Eteraty if we beived in him, that sonds like a good deal to me.

How about you, are you going to folow him in portecting livesor are you going to folow the world and the was of Satin?

Myslf, I like many before am giving up evry thing to folow him, not because I have to but because is the Right thing to do.

Anywas as you may have noticed I am aginst Abortion all the way, and I am Pro life and por adoption....

btw Opaque Onigoori to answered your questions

1.It's only wrong to kill People, and pets not cows and other farm animals for food.

1.2 True but it's still wrong to do.


2. I may not be a woman but I can tell you one thing, who gives a rip if childbirth is painful, is Painfal becuse you wemon still carry the curse GFod placed on Eve after she sined, so git over it

3. I strongly belive that conseption has three paerts to it,Fertlization,
planting, the Start of Growth.


1. Fertalization of the Egg, just like like in plants.

2.Like a famer planting corn seeds in the ground, so dose the feralized Egg plant it's self in the Urtro lining.

2.1.Like a Seedling just starting to lay it's frist root So dode the Fretlized Egg devide in to many cells that stat the formation of baby/ies.

Can't you atlest grasp that life begins when we plant are seeds?

~Ryu

[phaedrus]

The "Bush-bashing" you speak of happens because quite frankly, Bush is also an idiot. He's crapped all over education, the economy, human rights, and sent not only his own army, but the army of several other nations off to fight a war based on fabricated and falsified evidence to topple a harmless regime.

Bushism of the Day:

"Is our children learning?"


I with Vampie on this Life is the Gift of God the father, now tell me is it right for man to pick a chose who lives and who dies? No it's not the 8th comamet that God gave Mosses plainy states that"thou Shal not kill" which means God vewes Abortion as killing a person, and that the solotion is for the mother that dose not want the baby is to cary the baby then give it up for adoption.....

Abortion does not consider an embryo a human.

[CaptainDean]

Learn how to speak English before trying to make a political statement. Is that too much to ask?

[Checkmate]

Republicans have to remember their party's core philosophy: The government stays out of people's private lives. What I do with my body is none of the government's concern, including abortion.

But what you do with someone else's body is plenty of the government's concern. That's why murder is illegal.

This whole debate centers around the question "Is a fetus a baby?" For one thing, 'fetus' is the latin word for baby. But I doubt anyone cares about that. Babies have their own heartbeat, brain activity, etc. Their organs don't just spontaneously appear in place when they're born. Here's some more food for thought:

http://humanlife.net/actionalerts.html

[Heald]

Learn how to speak English before trying to make a political statement. Is that too much to ask?For George W. Bush? Yes.

[CaptainDean]

Actually I was talking to Ryu Slayer X 2.0 but good point.

Checkmate, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

[Sorovis]

Checkmate brings up a good point. The child, whether it has conscious thought at the time or not, has the potential be a great person. Even if he/she grew up to be an average citizen, nobody has the right to take a child's future away.

Deciding whether a someone lives or dies should not be a question of convenience. The world has other means of keeping the human population in check.

[Heald]

Ryu Slayer X 2.0, please post more often. I haven't laughed that hard since WPM posted that picture of the spinny circle.

Come on, I'm dying to hear more about Jesus' 'sacorfice' and how you are a 'conseritive/Repuclacon'.

[VampireCharizard]

Scott peterson (if he did indeed murder his wife AND unborn son) was totally aware of the fact that his wife was pregnant and close to bringing LIFE to this world. And I beleive that conception is the start of life. (obviously) And so what if he has typos? did you even READ it or just stare in awe your stupidity at the paltry errors? I got the message clearly and you should have too. *with the aid of the article* so the mother ENDS a life and causes EXTREME pain (to a baby 20 wks into pregnancy) just to avoid her own discomforts? absolutely sickning if that's her only reason. :mad2:

[Angel Blossom]

*cough* I think I now realized why people at ummmm treat Dean like he's an *******. -_-

First of all, how is VampireCharizard wrong? My God, have you ever heard of something we call an opinion? He could have easily said that you were wrong, Dean, but he didn't. He probably has more common sense than you do. Second of all, Wigglytuff, the person you defended is the reason why Miscellaneous is nothing but arguments & flame-filled debates. It could have been an intelligent discussion, but your friend just had to be a jerk about the whole topic.

Now, anyway..

Scott Peterson's actions should be counted as a double murder. She was in a late stage of pregnancy. What difference does it make if the baby is inside of her or out? It is a human being who had potential; it could have lived and grown up like the rest of us. Same with abortions, IMO. Maybe the fetus isn't up and running, but think about it. It will be. I agree completely with Sorovis. Taking the life, the future of a human who may have done so much for the world or who may have been an average being is wrong.

Also, I know this sounds harsh, but I've realized that it isn't right for the life of the baby either if the woman had sex irresponsibly or if she was raped. Its still a fetus, isn't it? I know that if I were raped, I would want an abortion, but it still isn't right because the fetus is still a life either way. Besides rape, I think that women should take responsibility for what they do. Don't give me that "woman's body, woman's choice" ****. I mean, if they were being dumb with men all night, they have to pay for their idiotic behavior.

It is their fault when they don't wait until they're ready for a baby. Even if they are young, I think that the parents or someone else needs to take care of it. Running away from your problems by abortion is just stupid, to be honest. Put it up for adoption or whatever, but don't take its life away.

EDIT: No, Dean, I won't kiss your ass. :wave:

[CaptainDean]

Kiss my ****ing ass Kris.

[VampireCharizard]

she's right! I didn't post this thread for a debate. You jumped in and not only call me an idiot, but put down the president of the United states, the dude who was ELECTED to be our leader. I admit he's made some mistakes, but not the most out of any president. You just can't handle that he beat Clinton's ass licker.

[Heald]

Okay, just for you VC, I shall decipher this for everyone else:
I'm with VC. Life is the gift of God. Is it right for man to choose who lives and who dies? No, God gaves Moses the 8th Commandment 'thou shalt not kill' which means God views abortion as killing a person and the solution is that if the mother does not want the baby then she should give it up for adoption.God said 'thou shalt not kill'. It is arguable if abortion is killing. Therefore God did not say that abortion is killing a person. Therefore your argument collapses.
I don't care what you say, if a couple wants to have sex but not want to become parents they should abstain from sex.Or use contraception.
God made sex for the purpose of giving humans the blessing of having children and raising a family, so those of you who are liberal can go suck a lemon. You think your opinion is right but guess what: you're wrong! My opinion is right because it says so in the Bible so ner!Whether God made sex or not, humans can still derive pleasure from it and should be able to without the risk of having children when they're not financially or emotionally fit to do so.
A baby's life begins at conception. God thinks abortion is just as bad as killing a child or an adault. It is our responsibility to protect life at all levels. It is most critical during the gestation period.This is arguable and is an opinion with no evidence to back it up. I refuse to argue against it.
Fertilised eggs have souls as well and deserve to live, no matter the hardships and trials they may face in their lives.Here's a free tip: when you use souls as an argument, people begin to take you less seriously.
God gave life to these babies for a reason. You know in your heart what I am saying is the truth and you can't deny it. My words are like the salt that is [this actually made no sense at all and so I refuse to even try to decipher it - HPK]Arguable. Next.
For the record I am a conservative/Republican and I am a strong believer in Jesus who became a man to die for our sins on the cross. He sacrificed himself for all mankind including fetuses so don't you think it's fair that we honour his sacrifice by giving babies the chance to live like Jesus did so that we could be with him in eternity if we believe in him. That sounds like a good deal to me.You assume your audience is Christian. Considering the vast majority of the TPM population are atheists, and moronic atheists at that, this is a feeble argument. Another free tip: you cannot use Bible stories as evidence.
How about you, are you going to follow him in protecting lives or are you going to follow the world and the ways of Satan?Please shut up.
Myself, I, like many before me, am giving up everything to follow him not because I have to but because it is the right thing to do.You have a computer and an internet connection. Sell your computer and give the money to the poor, then give the equivalent of internet fees to the poor. It is the right thing to do, after all.
Anyway as you may have noticed I am pro-life, pro-adoption, anti-choice.No shit.
You just can't handle that he beat Clinton's ass licker.Despite the fact he actually got less votes than Gore?

[VampireCharizard]

you see, in an american democracy, you ELECT for canidates for a position of command. The participant with the most votes of the people wins, and gains control. BUSH IS IN CHARGE! Hmm... I think that means THAT HE GOT THE MOST F-ING VOTES! DEAL WITH IT you're in England what the hell do you know about the details of US votes and stuff? I say stay out of our business cause do you even care? Unless of course you're joking about living in the UK.

[Aipom Of Doom]

you see, in an american democracy, you ELECT for canidates for a position of command. The participant with the most votes of the people wins, and gains control. BUSH IS IN CHARGE! Hmm... I think that means THAT HE GOT THE MOST F-ING VOTES! DEAL WITH IT you're in England what the hell do you know about the details of US votes and stuff? I say stay out of our business cause do you even care? Unless of course you're joking about living in the UK.

Gore - 50,999,897
Bush - 50,456,002
Source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

So how did Bush get more votes?

[Sorovis]

Careful Charizard. Whether or not such claims are true, I have also heard that Gore actually recieved more votes than Bush. Again, I have nothing to support this, but that does not mean it may not have happened.

[VampireCharizard]

ok.... then we should be burning in hell with Gore dragging us down. I'm confused as to why Bush won then.

[Heald]

Bush - 50,456,002 popular votes
Gore - 50,999,897 popular votes

Frankly, I don't understand that even though more people voted for Gore, Bush got sworn in because of the electoral vote. In the UK, if more people vote for a candidate than the other, then that candidate becomes Prime Minister.

[CaptainDean]

For someone spouting so much right-wing propoganada and ignorance, I thought you'd at least have a basic idea of how your political system works.

[Iveechan]

People are just looking at the pregnancy aspect and generally blowing everything out of proportion. As TMM said, abortion should not be used as birth control. And most people don't want to ever go through it. It's an operation and an emotional experience. I don't think there's any human in the world who keeps getting pregnant and getting abortions. Most likely it will only happen once in someone's life (like rape or being underage). I don't think that a few fetuses dying each year is so terrible.

What we need to work on is starting at the core. Teach young men and women about respect (not raping someone among other things) and abstinence (it takes more than a semester of health class where they make you watch corny videos). Too often people just don't do anything about their stupid kids and more problems are caused. For now keep abortion for a first trimester thing.

And about the thou shalt not kill thing, what about war? Folks who die there are more alive than any fetus but it's ok to kill them.

[VampireCharizard]

i knew about the basic order of the american voting system. I however do not know the exact details of EVERY singel election, including the bush/gore. All I know is that Bush won, he's in office, and Gore isn't thank god or whoever you want to if you happen to be atheist as HealdPK pointed out in response to Ryu's excellent reasoning. And You don't have to be religious to think that killing is bad, so whatever

[VampireCharizard]

that's how wars are won, and I'm sorry, but that's how conflicts are resolved for now. death, fighting, bloodshead. But other countries bring this to us - do you really beleive that America or just Bush who you all seem to be focusing on really wants ONLY to kill and cause pain for no apparent reason? I know someone who did. Sadam Hussein! If we hadn't taken him out, he and his sons would still be wreaking havoc and terror on their own people. Last time i checked, that was bad. ;)

[Heald]

Ryu's excellent reasoninghttp://img48.photobucket.com/albums/v146/HealdPK/lmao.jpg

He basically waved the 8th Commandment and Jesus' sacrifice in my face. That is not excellent reasoning. That is not even an argument. Unless you are a Christian, you are immune to that argument. He is basically saying abortion is wrong unless you're Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist, Taoist, Atheist, Pagan, Geordie, Scouse or Welsh.

Unless you haven't noticed, God is not evidence.

[VampireCharizard]

To you there is no god. To me, there may be a god. a higher power that may have created earth, animals, us. I'm still debating against myself whether he really exists to me. but again, the theme and main message of his post was that humans; by science, by god, by who/whatever, we wern't meant to destroy a newly created life, and crush all of their future. We have no right.

[Hikaru]

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2185/is_1_12/ai_69974541

http://www.panix.com/~levner/dvm/whats-wrong-with-the-electoral-college.html

Here are two articles with opposing opinions on the electoral college.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/electoral.html#system

Here is an overview of the system.

[Sorovis]

Actually If I remember correctly Heald is Christian, or at least some denomination of it. What he is pointing out is that unless everyone here was Christian (which is not true in the least), pointing out that God forbade abortion would be ineffective.

[VampireCharizard]

did i say he was atheist? oops I don't think it wil hurt his ego much. He's able to poke fun at someone who just makes a few gramatical mistakes, but manages to write something much more - enlightning? yeah that's the word- than anything he she british dude could write or did he she write something big and uplifting before i arrived?

[Heald]

Actually If I remember correctly Heald is Christian, or at least some denomination of it. What he is pointing out is that unless everyone here was Christian (which is not true in the least), pointing out that God forbade abortion would be ineffective.Someone gets it. It's a miracle.

And in religious debates, I'd rather be considered of no fixed faith. That way I have no bias whatsoever.
did i say he was atheist? oops I don't think it wil hurt his ego much. He's able to poke fun at someone who just makes a few gramatical mistakes, but manages to write something much more - enlightning? yeah that's the word- than anything he she british dude could write or did he she write something big and uplifting before i arrived?You. Are. A. Complete. Asshat.

First of all, being British has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever and I really don't care if you decide to slag me off for being British but this really does show your immaturity.

Secondly, Ryu's post was hardly enlightening. He merely stated that God could potentially be against abortion due to the 8th commandment, then jabbered on about Christian bullshit I doubt he even understands. In a debate, you must have material, concrete evidence to back up your opinions and arguments. You cannot force your opinions or arguments upon others if your evidence is flawed. Whether you like it or not, the existence of God is ambiguous and so unless you're prepared to actually see the other side of the coin, the side where maybe, just maybe there is a possibility that God does not exist, then for the rest of this debate you're just going to sound like some diehard closeminded Christian retard. We have enough asshat Atheists on this board, we don't need any asshat Christians to give decent Christians like Sorovis a bad name.

[VampireCharizard]

sovoris, answer truthfully am i or ryu giving you a bad name? really I'm wondering. And btw I'm not really christian or religious at all. I think there is a possibility of a God or higher power, but regardless if there IS a God or something else, or nothing all together, abortion in my eyes is wrong. And I just described your flaming ass as british. I didn't say it was bad. MY immaturity?!?!?! I merly DESCRIBED you as 'british dude'. look at :
Ryu Slayer X 2.0, please post more often. I haven't laughed that hard since WPM posted that picture of the spinny circle.

Come on, I'm dying to hear more about Jesus' 'sacorfice' and how you are a 'conseritive/Repuclacon'. I don't think I'm the most immature here. Ryu tries to make a point, and all you do is laugh in his face and tell him to do it again so you can have a laugh. As for saying you're a 'british dude' Now I take it back because it's insulting the British. oh btw I didn't want this to be flame-fest 2004 but i guess you and that Dean ***** can't take some people veiwing things differently. I realize that I have issues and bones to pick with liberals and democrats and pro-choice peeps, but I didn't start the flaming. RIGHT after my post wham Dean freak called me an idiot, and bush too so screw you and him. :nut: how's that for immaturity you ass

[Hikaru]

I don't think we can have a legitimate debate with certain people posting in the thread.

[Rei_Zero]

But what you do with someone else's body is plenty of the government's concern. That's why murder is illegal.

This whole debate centers around the question "Is a fetus a baby?" For one thing, 'fetus' is the latin word for baby. But I doubt anyone cares about that. Babies have their own heartbeat, brain activity, etc. Their organs don't just spontaneously appear in place when they're born. Here's some more food for thought:

http://humanlife.net/actionalerts.html
What about an embryo? Note that fetus and embryo are different.

EDIT: Didn't know there was a second page ^^;
Don't forget that potential can just as easily be bad as good.

BTW: This place is going to the dogs. Nearly all the decent debaters have left the building. I wonder why?

[phaedrus]

Bush - 50,456,002 popular votes
Gore - 50,999,897 popular votes

Frankly, I don't understand that even though more people voted for Gore, Bush got sworn in because of the electoral vote. In the UK, if more people vote for a candidate than the other, then that candidate becomes Prime Minister.

it's called an early birthday gift from jeb bush.

bush's friends cleared out votes, allowed late votes, and everything.

cleared out black/hispanic votes (88%, i believe)
cleared out felons AND votes of people who were "similar" to felons
allowed late absentee ballots

just a few

[Hikaru]

Strat, you obviously don't know what happened in Florida. Gore campaigned for recounts in heavily Jewish/minority counties where he was leading already, to maximize recounted votes for himself. Also, there is no proof of any anti-black conspiracy. If anyone was in gross violation of the law, it was the State Democratic Committee.

[Checkmate]

First of all, being British has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever

Neither does the election of 2000.

Also, the Bible is against abortion. There's a psalm about God knitting David in his mother's woom. But I didn't post that because as is obvious and already posted, most of the people on this site don't care.

Also, I like how everyone (except Rei) is attacking Ryu and VC and yet ignoring my post. Are you afraid that I'll actually have a non-biblical counter that will be viewed as an intelligent representation of my side? (been posting with Sorovis way too long!)

Rei, here's the way I think about it. I examine the woman's reaction to circumstances to be a fair representation of what those circumstances actually are.

When a woman has a miscarriage, she is tremendously distraught. I've heard that it is the same emotion that she would have if her baby died young or if she at all out-lived her offspring.

A woman does not weap, however, during her monthly period when she loses and egg. The fetus is obviously significantly different from an egg.

Now as far as the difference between an embryo and a fetus. There isn't really much of one. It's like the difference between a string and a rope. One is definetly a string. The other, definetly a rope. But yet you can't determine precisely the point at which a string becomes long enough to be considered a rope.

While a fertilized egg doesn't seem like a life to my personal mental perception, for integrity's sake of making a hard and fast rule, I would say that an embryo should be considered life. But it's hard to really say.

[Razola]

I only support abortion in cases of rape and maybe if the mother's life is in peril.

[VampireCharizard]

That was an excellent analogy btw checkmate :lol: and why AREN'T you picking on checkmate (not to pin the flames on you ;) ) but seriously you all criticize the bible's text and the people who use it as law - which in a way, it is to many, but then you don't criticize the cold hard evidence that CANNOT be denied, or you just ignore it.

[RedStarWarrior]

I don't agree with abortions after the first trimester, however, I am a strong advocate of rights and I believe that it is every woman's right to decide whether or not to get an abortion.

[Rei_Zero]

Hahaha Checkmate. You like attention don't you? jk


Now as far as the difference between an embryo and a fetus. There isn't really much of one. It's like the difference between a string and a rope. One is definetly a string. The other, definetly a rope. But yet you can't determine precisely the point at which a string becomes long enough to be considered a rope.
I will focus on this portion of your post, since that is the only one with an answer to my question. I'm pretty sure that it is determined that the developing baby is an embryo in the first 8 weeks of developement (the first trimester) and a fetus there after. By the end of that, the now fetus has a fully functional nervous system. If that is the case, advocaters of the fact that life begins at the start of conscienceness could plausibly support abortion of an embryo (the first trimester) but not a fetus.

On a side note, people are persecuted for accidental killings. In a perhaps twisted but logical sense, if developing babies are considered life, then wouldn't miscarrying also be considered accidental killing?

[VampireCharizard]

the issue of baby deaths is confusing. Sadning of course but very confusing. You do have a point about the accidental 'murder' but it really isn't murder. complications of the baby's body is what to blame, although sometimes it is he mother's body. they should be charged if the miscarraige was because of the mother heavily drinking, smoking, drugs, certain medicines that she was aware of being a risk, ect. IDK

[Crystal Mew]

People will always do what they want anyways, so....IMO I think abortion is wrong...yes. Because the baby is alive, and growing...and I just think its kinda wrong .-.; Having an abortion will change your life forever...you'd probably always wonder 'what would have happened if I kept it?' but what can I say....if you never want to be in that situation ( not including rape of course) abstinence is the best way :wave:

But of course, a woman (I guess) has the right to do whatever she wants, so if an abortion is what she wants, then she should have it. I just am not for it, but thats just me.

[The Muffin Man]

But what you do with someone else's body is plenty of the government's concern. That's why murder is illegal.



Have you ever taken anti-biotics? Then you're a ****ing monster! Why? Because that living organism is inside your body! How dare you kill it for your own well being! What's that? It's a parasite?

Thanks. That's all I needed.

[Sorovis]

The Muffin Man, if you can't tell the difference between Influenza and a human child please just leave the topic.

For Rei Zero, an accidental killing and a miscarriage are two very different things. For one, babies at that time are susceptable to many more illnesses and maladies than the average mature(ing) human. A miscarriage would be more along the lines of a risky surgery gone wrong than say, a car accident. An interesting point nonetheless.

[The Muffin Man]

The Muffin Man, if you can't tell the difference between Influenza and a human child please just leave the topic.



If you can't tell the difference between a parasite and a human being, please leave the topic.

[phaedrus]

A woman does not weeap, however, during her monthly period when she loses and egg. The fetus is obviously significantly different from an egg.

it's called fertilization, and splitting of zygotes, i believe.



Now as far as the difference between an embryo and a fetus. There isn't really much of one. It's like the difference between a string and a rope. One is definetly a string. The other, definetly a rope. But yet you can't determine precisely the point at which a string becomes long enough to be considered a rope.

yes you can. egg+sperm=embryo. embryo->fetus. the string and rope prove nothing but that one's a string and one's a rope. and you didn't even prove it.

[Rei_Zero]

And everyone is susceptible to being hit by a car when crossing the road. It doesn't matter. What if the mother was having family problems and miscarried due to stress? What if the car had break problems and ran a person down? People only walk so fast when crossing the street. Just trying to point out the logic behind it.

[Sorovis]

To Rei Zero

Duely noted. Remember though, once a person has lived for years and made his/her niche in society: making friends, working somewhere (or going to school for that matter), their abscence will be much more noticable than that of an unborn baby's. There will be more emotions attached, and that has a lot to do with it.

[The Muffin Man]

Duely noted. Remember though, once a person has lived for years and made his/her niche in society: making friends, working somewhere (or going to school for that matter), their abscence will be much more noticable than that of an unborn baby's. There will be more emotions attached, and that has a lot to do with it.

Is this to Rei or myself? It seems to be aimed at both.

[phaedrus]

Is this to Rei or myself? It seems to be aimed at both.

read the title, sonny. reading DOES get people places. maybe not bush, but that's beside the point. carry on.

[Scythemantis]

Most animals are of an intelligence identical to a human child, esspecially a pig, which is the same as a three-year-old, and slaughtered very gruesomely and painfully. If you eat meat, you have no buisiness being pro-life. A human fetus is a mindless vegetable compared to most of the creatures we eat every day.

I wrote a filthy awful comic about abortion a long time ago. Not to be taken seriously. Badly drawn to the point of almost being unreadable! :D HERE! (http://scythemantis.homestead.com/files/timmyandtheoriginofspecies.jpg) (course, you wouldn't understand the beginning unless you saw the previous comic about why reading is FUN!)

[Sorovis]

I edited the name in instead of making a whole post out of it (after The Muffin Man read it, of course).

[phaedrus]

I edited the name in instead of making a whole post to just say that (after The Muffin Man read it, of course).

gotcha. as i said, carry on.

[Razola]

Most animals are of an intelligence identical to a human child, esspecially a pig, which is the same as a three-year-old, and slaughtered very gruesomely and painfully. If you eat meat, you have no buisiness being pro-life. A human fetus is a mindless vegetable compared to most of the creatures we eat every day.
Apples to oranges.

We're talking potential here. The fetus has much more potential to be smarter than a pig. Hell, based on your statements, the child is much more deserving to live since it'll be just as smart as an adult pig when it's still young.

[Checkmate]

Raz, thank you for pointing out the nonsense in comparing pigs to children.

Muffin Man, tape worms are parasites. Parasites drain the juices of unwilling hosts. A fetus is not a parasite anymore than the child is in the first few years of their life.

Would you suggest that a breast feeding child is a parasite? Or even the fact that the baby takes food, water, milk, and certain *ahem* services from their parents while giving nothing in return. Would you call that an economic parasite?



If you can't tell the difference between a parasite and a human being, please leave the topic.

Well put.

Rei Zero, I do like attention, but I was also pointing out that it seemed they were avoiding me, and I wanted to call attention to them avoiding me.

[The Muffin Man]

Raz, thank you for pointing out the nonsense in comparing pigs to children.

Muffin Man, tape worms are parasites. Parasites drain the juices of unwilling hosts.
3 guesses how a fetus gets its' nutrients.


A fetus is not a parasite anymore than the child is in the first few years of their life.

Would you suggest that a breast feeding child is a parasite? Or even the fact that the baby takes food, water, milk, and certain *ahem* services from their parents while giving nothing in return. Would you call that an economic parasite?
The child can survive on its' own. It consumes its' own food and converts it into energy. The fetus CANNOT. Thus it feeds off the nutrients the host takes in.

[Rei_Zero]

And now starts the repitition. Potential may not always be a good thing.

Perhaps Abortion is viewed as alright to a certain extent because the embryo is a midway between alive and not alive but it hasn't yet made much of a mark on the world. That is part of the reason why killing has such a big impact on people. It removes something that had already made its mark.

[The Muffin Man]

And now starts the repitition. Potential may not always be a good thing.

Perhaps Abortion is viewed as alright to a certain extent because the embryo is a midway between alive and not alive but it hasn't yet made much of a mark on the world. That is part of the reason why killing has such a big impact on people. It removes something that had already made its mark.


Anyone who's seen my topic before the nazis got it knows my stance on this.

[Razola]

3 guesses how a fetus gets its' nutrients.
Quit trying to look smart, because it's futile.

Parasites harm the host. Guess what a baby does? Increases the population of the mother's species. OH SNAP, THAT REALLY HURTS.

[Sorovis]

The Muffin Man, I had no idea you were being serious. But like Raz said, comparing unborn human babies to parasites is terribly inaccurate.

There are three forms of symbiosis: Parasitism, commensalism, and mutualism. Guess which one babies fall under? None of them. Parasites live in an organism and benefit at the expense of that organism; organisms in a commensal relationship benefits from one organism without harming that creature; and organisms in a mutual relationship mutually benefit from each other. A child is created and nurtured inside the mother-- and then is given birth to. This is a form of incubation, not symbiosis, because the child and mother are of the same species.

[Razola]

I also should mention that Peterson should be charged with double homocide. Unless his wife was on her way to abortion clinic when she died, we should probably assume that she wanted to keep the child. Intent is the key word here.

[Scythemantis]

Hell, based on your statements, the child is much more deserving to live since it'll be just as smart as an adult pig when it's still young.

As far as I'm concerned that's the same as saying a mentally disabled person is slightly less deserving to live than an exceptionally intelligent person. Organisms are organisms to me.


Parasites harm the host. Guess what a baby does? Increases the population of the mother's species. OH SNAP, THAT REALLY HURTS.

No offense but that's an extremely stupid argument. You can't deny that pregnancy and birth have harmful side effects. Increasing human numbers and the magic of childcare do not repair this damage.

As someone who's studied parasitology for many, many years, allow me to step in and clear up this particular sub-argument:

A baby is not considered a true parasite, but the RELATIONSHIP between a mother and a developing fetus is true parasitism. The fetus draws nutrients from another organism and gives nothing in return. The only reason it is not a "parasite" per se is because it is the same species as its "host". A parasite is an organism adopting a different species as both its food source and its environment.

Incidentally, though...HELL YEAH THAT REALLY HURTS! I despise human baby-foctories and strongly believe that noone should have more than one child if they can help it, and adoption should always be considered over pregnancy. ALWAYS. Parents who just can't wait to fill their shiny new house with wonderful funderful babies are spitting in the faces of countless children who don't have food, homes or loving families.

[crypto]

I knew it would come down to animals. And I wholeheartedly agree--if human babies shouldn't be killed, or humans in general, than neither should animals. Hence why I've been a vegetarian for 6 years. The argument that the Rightards have on us on this one is that "God sez dat only da humans have da souls." :lol: Okilydokily...

Anyway, my stance on abortion is this: you can have up to two abortions, no matter what the circumstance, but you cannot use it as a form of birth control. Any more than two, you get your uterus sewed-up. Plus, the abortions have to be in a certain alotted time--preferably the most underdeveloped stage of the fetus. Anything past a month or two is pushing it in my eyes.

Same goes for sexual offenders. Castrate them after their second sexual offense, or sew them up if they are female (unlikely). Hey, it will keep them from corrupting youth/having unwanted babies/passing their genes along.

As for the person who said that an unborn child might bring something special to the world, how do you know the unborn child isn't the next Hitler? It's a double-edged sword, kiddies...and unfortunately Bush is wielding it.

[phaedrus]

Anyway, my stance on abortion is this: you can have up to two abortions, no matter what the circumstance, but you cannot use it as a form of birth control. Any more than two, you get your uterus sewed-up. Plus, the abortions have to be in a certain alotted time--preferably the most underdeveloped stage of the fetus. Anything past a month or two is pushing it in my eyes.

then there's no SEX!!!!WTFMATE!!!!! just get sterilized, it's probably cheaper anways....



Same goes for sexual offenders. Castrate them after their second sexual offense, or sew them up if they are female (unlikely). Hey, it will keep them from corrupting youth/having unwanted babies/passing their genes along.


WTFNOKIDS!!!! it's called imprisonment or execution or rehabilitation

[crypto]

then there's no SEX!!!!WTFMATE!!!!! just get sterilized, it's probably cheaper anways....



WTFNOKIDS!!!! it's called imprisonment or execution or rehabilitation

Obviously you're retarded. I said if somebody uses abortion as a form of birth control, i.e. instead of condoms, and they use it twice, they should just be sterilized. People would still have kids...just not retarded people.

Obviously you read my post with haste or with a biased opinion. In other words, STFU.

[phaedrus]

Obviously you're retarded. I said if somebody uses abortion as a form of birth control, i.e. instead of condoms, and they use it twice, they should just be sterilized. People would still have kids...just not retarded people.

you just said sew up the uterus 1 post ago.



Obviously you read my post with haste or with a biased opinion. In other words, STFU.

getting feisty?

[Lulu]

Abortion is wrong,It's taking away a childs life that hasn't even started,Abortion isn't another form of birth control It's MURDER.If a child is unwanted it shouldn't be killed or Abused (soz had to put that in there) It should be put up for adoption since that is the best way,even though adoption isn't the greatest thing!If a woman does not want to get pregnant either don't have sex or use the pill or a condom!

[crypto]

you just said sew up the uterus 1 post ago.



getting feisty?

Yes I said that, but only if it's a sexual offender. Obviously the death penalty isn't plausible, plus making them sterile would be much more of a punishment.

Yes, I am always feisty.

[Razola]

As far as I'm concerned that's the same as saying a mentally disabled person is slightly less deserving to live than an exceptionally intelligent person. Organisms are organisms to me.
Of course they are less deserving. They are going to be less productive if both retard and normal person live to their potential.


No offense but that's an extremely stupid argument. You can't deny that pregnancy and birth have harmful side effects. Increasing human numbers and the magic of childcare do not repair this damage.
It's a hell of a better argument than calling unborn children parasites. TMM also neglects the fact that the mother CHOOSES to get pregnant. Last time I checked parasites aren't invited by their hosts.


A baby is not considered a true parasite, but the RELATIONSHIP between a mother and a developing fetus is true parasitism. The fetus draws nutrients from another organism and gives nothing in return. The only reason it is not a "parasite" per se is because it is the same species as its "host". A parasite is an organism adopting a different species as both its food source and its environment.
There is a benefit for the mother. She is doing her job to her species and creating another generation of offspring. That's why she has the child in the first place.


Incidentally, though...HELL YEAH THAT REALLY HURTS!
Look at the bigger picture. They choose to become pregnant. There's a benefit to the mother.


As for the person who said that an unborn child might bring something special to the world, how do you know the unborn child isn't the next Hitler? It's a double-edged sword, kiddies...and unfortunately Bush is wielding it.
Quite using this stupid argument. How many people are famous? How many infamous? Now how many are just normal people? A lot more. A WHOLE lot more. So chances are you're killing an average joe. Nice one, lefttard.

[crypto]

Quite using this stupid argument. How many people are famous? How many infamous? Now how many are just normal people? A lot more. A WHOLE lot more. So chances are you're killing an average joe. Nice one, lefttard.

News flash: I was pointing out the flaws in that argument to the people who were using it.

Plus, it's not always the woman's choice to get preggo.

Dude, no wonder nobody here likes you. You need to settle your ass down.

[Red Angel]

Heated argument, isn't this?

Oh, and those who oppose abortion becuase the embryo could "potentially contribute to society": why don't you look to any given third world country? I'm pretty sure that all the impoverished people there could use the resources you're about to use on that kid you don't need, and, unlike the embryo, there's no quetion of them being human and being quite ready to contribute to society without potty training.

[Brain]

I think that abortion should be allowed from the moment of conception to the moment of birth.

If some action has a practical use, and that it has predictable and observable benefits, e.g. allowing already established human beings to live a life of better quality by sacrificing a being no one cares about, then it is an action which I support. The balance of an abortion seems fairly positive to me (or no one would do it) so abortion is ok in my book. Seriously, I really don't give a crap whether the baby is a parasite or a lump or cells or a human being or anything, I just don't see how it's relevant. If "killing" it has observable benefits then let's just do it. We've seen worse.

Life is a renewable resource anyway. There's nothing sacred about it.

As for the potential issue, it's irrelevant. There are numerous accounts of important scientific discoveries which have been done simultaneously by several people who didn't even know about each other. If you kill someone who would have made an important contribution to society, then someone else will do it sooner or later, it's unavoidable. People aren't nearly as unique as we would like to believe - they are very easily replaced. Besides, you could as well argue that an unwanted baby would ruin its mother's life and prevent her from making important contributions to society.

[Lulu]

Someone may care about the baby but don't know it because it wasn't born,Adoptive parents would care about it if it was put up for adoption and they adopted it.Also you can't just replace a person or a life,Each life is special to at least one other person,It's not like a plant once it dies you go out and buy a new one,It's special and every one IS unique!

[Iveechan]

But not every kid who gets put up for adoption even gets adopted. It's easier when the kid is a baby, but once a few years pass, then people would rather not deal with a kid who has a defined personality. Oprah may go on and on about those magical adoption stories, but in truth, adoptions are few and far between.

[Razola]

News flash: I was pointing out the flaws in that argument to the people who were using it.
You both use it.

"Because you could be killing Beethoven, amirite?"
"More like 'Because you could be killing Hitler, amirite?"

Since there are far more normal people that don't do anything seriously wrong, I'd say pro-life wins that argument.


Plus, it's not always the woman's choice to get preggo.


I only support abortion in cases of rape and maybe if the mother's life is in peril.
Read much?


Dude, no wonder nobody here likes you. You need to settle your ass down.
OH NOES! A BUNCH OF FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLDS ON THE INTARWEB DON'T LIKE ME!

Settle down? It's a bunch of symbols on a screen. It's not like I'm throwing chairs or threatening to eat your children.

Stop taking it so damn seriously.

[The Muffin Man]

Quit trying to look smart, because it's futile.

Parasites harm the host.


Quit trying to look smart, because it's futile.

Practice what you preach. Ever heard of a symbiotic relationship? The fetus sucks nutrients from the host, and in turn keeps the species alive. Technically it's a symbiotic relationship.

[Razola]

Practice what you preach. Ever heard of a symbiotic relationship? The fetus sucks nutrients from the host, and in turn keeps the species alive. Technically it's a symbiotic relationship.
THEN IT'S NOT A PARASITE YOU DOLT.

Now your last five posts or so have no meaning. Are you trying to look stupid on purpose by hinting that fetus = parasite or what? Or is it some grandoise explanation of your your views using deep, elaborate symbolism.

[The Muffin Man]

THEN IT'S NOT A PARASITE YOU DOLT.

Now your last five posts or so have no meaning. Are you trying to look stupid on purpose by hinting that fetus = parasite or what? Or is it some grandoise explanation of your your views using deep, elaborate symbolism.

You mean a parasite isn't a creature that feeds off its' host and without the host, would die?

Oh dear it looks like biology was wrong!

No, wait. think it's Raz who's wrong. Maybe if he pulled his head out of his self-righteous ass for once and gave it some "thought".

[Red Angel]

You mean a parasite isn't a creature that feeds off its' host and without the host, would die?

You know, I believe there's a word you missed between "its'" and "host". That word is "unwilling".

[The Muffin Man]

You know, I believe there's a word you missed between "its'" and "host". That word is "unwilling".

Rape, anyone?

[Syberia]

Originally posted by Raz:
I only support abortion in cases of rape and maybe if the mother's life is in peril.
Asked and answered.

[Red Angel]

Rape, anyone?

You have a point. However, don't cotraceptive drugs work for up to 72 hours AFTER the event? And you still can't argue that it is a partasite becuase it happens to be a natural body function. Name me a life form that produces parasites for itself.

[Razola]

You mean a parasite isn't a creature that feeds off its' host and without the host, would die?

Oh dear it looks like biology was wrong!

No, wait. think it's Raz who's wrong. Maybe if he pulled his head out of his self-righteous ass for once and gave it some "thought".
God damn, you REALLY ARE this stupid. Like said before, you are missing two vital elements:

A. An unwilling host (95% of the time the mother wants it).
B. A negative effect to the mother (the purpose of birth is to increase specie population, and isn't created to hurt the mother).

You can stop trying to win, TMM. You're only going to make yourself look worse.

[RedStarWarrior]

According to dictionary.com a parasite is "an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." Now, last time I checked a baby doesn't contribute to the survival of the host, despite continuing the species. I see nothing about harming the host in this most basic definition. The only thing that would keep a human fetus from being considered a parasite is the use of the word 'different'. Now, different can merely mean that it isn't the parasite itself or it can mean that it is a seperate species. However, I lean towards the latter since the word 'another' could be substituted if the first definition of different was the intended one to prevent misconstruction. In conclusion, TMM is incorrect, but his belief isn't that radical. It is merely a simple mistake.

[Razola]

That isn't a good defintion, as there is third type of relationship where one benefits and the other is just there.

Parasites specifcally harm the host.

[Checkmate]

cotraceptive drugs still create an abortion inside your body, Red Angel. A child is conceived at the time of sex. If you have an embryo and then you don't, that means something got rid of it. (the drug) So if you're completely against abortion, even the abortion of an embryo, then one would be against contraceptive drugs.

I haven't studied the matter a whole lot, but I'm personally against the abortion of even an embryo. It's not a question of whether or not he's the next Hitler or the next Pope. What matters is that it's a human life. No one has the right to take a human life.

People need to realize that when two people have consensual sex, (stupid move even with birth control) and then they have an abortion they are making the only innocent party suffer. It's not the baby's fault, but the baby gets punished for it. How much sense does that make?

Scythemantis, as much as you study animals, how do you say 'an organism is an organism'. Organisms survive by killing other organisms of different species. (unless they're photosynthetic) But that stops when it's your own species. But I suppose you're pro-choice and that might answer my question. If you are, is that to say that you don't see the difference between your own species and another?

I most likely sound edgy when you're reading this, but I'm actually just trying to understand your views. Sorry for the way it probably reads.

My question is this: What is the difference between abortion and murder. Both a fetus and a person are living things. I, personally, consider them both to be human. What's the difference?

[The Muffin Man]

God damn, you REALLY ARE this stupid. Like said before, you are missing two vital elements:

A. An unwilling host (95% of the time the mother wants it).
Does the mother just say "I want this egg fertilized!*pop*" all the time? Is every pregnancy planned? Quit pulling numbers out of your ass


B. A negative effect to the mother (the purpose of birth is to increase specie population, and isn't created to hurt the mother).
You're not even saying the same thing. It DOES negatively effect the mother. In order to nurish the fetus, she has to eat more. Why? BECAUSE IT'S TAKING NUTRIENTS FROM HER. That's pretty negative, if I do say so myself. Christ, Raz, are you really this stupid or are you trying to prove some sort of point here?


You can stop trying to win, TMM. You're only going to make yourself look worse.

You keep saying that, and you just come off as an arrogant *******, not as some sort of righteous defender of truth.

[The Muffin Man]

That isn't a good defintion, as there is third type of relationship where one benefits and the other is just there.

Parasites specifcally harm the host.

Yeah really. What the hell does Dictionary.com know?

[RedStarWarrior]

Raz, you may want to note that a parasite is not capable of mutualism. If it helps its host by providing substinance or whatnot, then it isn't a parasite.

[Brain]

I haven't studied the matter a whole lot, but I'm personally against the abortion of even an embryo. It's not a question of whether or not he's the next Hitler or the next Pope. What matters is that it's a human life. No one has the right to take a human life.

Anyone has the right to take any human life if it isn't forbidden by law.


People need to realize that when two people have consensual sex, (stupid move even with birth control) and then they have an abortion they are making the only innocent party suffer. It's not the baby's fault, but the baby gets punished for it. How much sense does that make?

The baby doesn't get punished at all. Murder is not a punishment for the victim, it is a punishment for the people it knows, and who care about it. Come to my house with an AK-47 and shoot me in the head before I can figure out what's going, and the only people you're going to punish are my family and my friends. I will be dead, so obviously, I won't give a crap. I mean, if no one cared about me, if my absence didn't affect anything, and that someone would try to kill me, although I would resist, I wouldn't view it as morally wrong. Worthless, but not wrong, because there is nothing wrong about actions that have no negative impact on anything.

Murder is outlawed because people care about other people, and to give them a sense of security. No one cares about an embryo or fetus, and it won't affect anyone's sense of security.

Anyway, when you kill a living being you don't harm it. You just terminate its existence. It ceases to work. You can't harm something that does not function. What you can harm, are living beings who DO function. This said, I don't see anyone harmed in the case of an abortion.


My question is this: What is the difference between abortion and murder. Both a fetus and a person are living things. I, personally, consider them both to be human. What's the difference?

Even if it was murder, why would it be outlawed? Murder isn't always wrong you know. Plenty of wars, as well as death penalty, have demonstrated this, though I personally would say that abortion is much more justified than any of these two.

Anyway, the difference is that no one cares about the fetus, and that's the only reason you need. Life doesn't have any inherent worth. It is renewable. It's worth nothing when taken out of context.


Someone may care about the baby but don't know it because it wasn't born,Adoptive parents would care about it if it was put up for adoption and they adopted it.Also you can't just replace a person or a life,Each life is special to at least one other person,It's not like a plant once it dies you go out and buy a new one,It's special and every one IS unique!

If it isn't born it isn't born. There is no point in hypothetic scenarios, because you can push them as far as your imagination will allow you to. You're not going to miss something that never existed in the first place.

And yes, everyone is unique, but actually, so is every plant, and so is every rock. That doesn't mean they can't be replaced. "Life" is an overrated concept, because, well, actually, it just doesn't mean anything. Living beings are legos. They are nature's building blocks. There's an infinite supply of these building blocks, and even if they all think they're special, the fact remains that nature has plenty of choice to build its castle. If one block falls, there's a hundred more waiting in line.

Cells can be replaced, plants can be replaced. So can humans. We aren't exactly a finality, you know.

But that's just my own philosophical bullshit, I guess :(

edit: **** ass **** ***** ******

edit2: damn I thought the censor was gone :(

[Red Angel]

cotraceptive drugs still create an abortion inside your body, Red Angel. A child is conceived at the time of sex. If you have an embryo and then you don't, that means something got rid of it. (the drug) So if you're completely against abortion, even the abortion of an embryo, then one would be against contraceptive drugs.

I suppose if you're completely adamant about a 72-hour fertilized egg being "alive", you have a point. But then answer me this: by your definition, doesn't a woman commit murder every time she has her period? Each of those eggs has the "potential" to become a child, no?


My question is this: What is the difference between abortion and murder. Both a fetus and a person are living

... and so is the chicken you ate last night. Well, assuming you're not vegetarian, and even vegetables are alive, to an extent. I'd even go so far as to say that a 72-hour old fertilized egg is quite a bit less developed than a vegetable.


I, personally, consider them both to be human. What's the difference?

That's really a matter of opinion, and you're free to think what you will on the issue, obviously. As far as I'm concerned, "potential" really doesn't cut it. I'm sure one of the couple billion bacteria you killed today had the "potential" to evolve into some super-sentint species, given a couple billion years.

[Iveechan]

So far, Brain's post was my favorite one. No, really, I found it enlightening. I have never thought of death as being punishment only to people who cared for the being and not the being itself. Oh yeah, last week my body murdered one of my eggs :*(

[Razola]

Does the mother just say "I want this egg fertilized!*pop*" all the time? Is every pregnancy planned? Quit pulling numbers out of your ass
You think fetuses loom on blades of grass, awaiting their next victim? The majority are planned. Last time I checked, the majority of parasites are not invited by their host.


You're not even saying the same thing. It DOES negatively effect the mother. In order to nurish the fetus, she has to eat more. Why? BECAUSE IT'S TAKING NUTRIENTS FROM HER. That's pretty negative, if I do say so myself. Christ, Raz, are you really this stupid or are you trying to prove some sort of point here?
So increasing the population isn't a benefit to you all? Big picture people. My point is to look at the big picture.


You keep saying that, and you just come off as an arrogant *******, not as some sort of righteous defender of truth.
You realize that lines like that don't make you look any better right?

[Razola]

Yeah really. What the hell does Dictionary.com know?
BECAUSE DICTIONARY.COM IS THE ONLY SOURCE FOR DEFINITIONS, AMIRITE?


Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: 'par-&-s&-"ti-z&m, -"sI-
Function: noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures
Preganancy does not always hurt the mother, because we want the mother to live to increase the population some more.

I'm enjoying myself.

[Red Angel]

So increasing the population isn't a benefit to you all?

Probably not, actually. Just ask China.

[The Muffin Man]

Raz, just because Dictionary.com doesn't agree with you doesn't make it wrong.


2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

Usually =! Always.

[RedStarWarrior]

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food.
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery.
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in.
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.

Looks like MW agrees that a parasite doesn't have to hurt the host. Now, this is coming from your source, Raz.

BTW, TMM already pointed out the error in your statement based on the word 'usually' so I will say nothing but that I second it.

[Razola]

A fetus is not as parasite, people. It develops into a human being.

And the hell do these semantics all have to do with abortion anyways?

[Sorovis]

Anyone has the right to take any human life if it isn't forbidden by law.

I love the term 'right' you use to say why people can take eachother's lives. Really, the only time someone has the right to take someone's life is if their own is in danger or if the person is being executed.


The baby doesn't get punished at all. Murder is not a punishment for the victim, it is a punishment for the people it knows, and who care about it. Come to my house with an AK-47 and shoot me in the head before I can figure out what's going, and the only people you're going to punish are my family and my friends. I will be dead, so obviously, I won't give a crap. I mean, if no one cared about me, if my absence didn't affect anything, and that someone would try to kill me, although I would resist, I wouldn't view it as morally wrong. Worthless, but not wrong, because there is nothing wrong about actions that have no negative impact on anything.

Totally incorrect. To assume that murder has no negative impacts on the murderer him/herself is to simply be blind to the truth. Killing another human being has detrimental effects on the human mind-- murder, execution, anything of the like. Not only that, but like you said the people who knew you would feel terrible; even if you were merely an aqaintance.

Murder is simply wrong. It cuts short a person's chances of being great, average, or even happy. It does not matter if they will most likely be miserable, because that is their choice and theirs alone.


Murder is outlawed because people care about other people, and to give them a sense of security. No one cares about an embryo or fetus, and it won't affect anyone's sense of security.

Obviously people do, or abortion would be relatively unopposed.

Murder is outlawed so that each person has their own equal chance to enjoy their life, along with what you said above. Killing a person is not like killing a dear, even if you have never met them in your life. Ask anybody who has gone to war, accidentally run someone over, etc.. There is sublime discomfort in such an action, which frequently makes itself known in dreams; there is also conscious consequences, such as remembering the moment vividly again and again. Whether or not you believe humans are anything special, the unique side effects of killing one is undeniable.


Anyway, when you kill a living being you don't harm it. You just terminate its existence. It ceases to work. You can't harm something that does not function. What you can harm, are living beings who DO function. This said, I don't see anyone harmed in the case of an abortion.

I will touch on this issue soon; I will need more research before I do, however.


Even if it was murder, why would it be outlawed? Murder isn't always wrong you know. Plenty of wars, as well as death penalty, have demonstrated this, though I personally would say that abortion is much more justified than any of these two.

War is not murder, first and foremost. The death penalty I also am not sure on, but that is for a different debate. What you seem to be missing though, is that the death penalty is someone's choice. The person who is being executed chose to do the crimes that ultimately landed them in the electric chair, or the gas chamber. Someone did not just knock them out on the street and throw them in; that would be murder. War is a person's choice as well. No one is driven in terror onto the field with no intention of fighting and then starts shooting completely against his/her will. The decision for an abortion, if you will notice, is not made by the child who will be killed. Thus it cannot be compared to war or execution.


Anyway, the difference is that no one cares about the fetus, and that's the only reason you need. Life doesn't have any inherent worth. It is renewable. It's worth nothing when taken out of context.

Life is renewable, people are not. Last I checked, there is such a thing as individuality, in which no two people are exactly alike. While human beings will always be present despite abortion, the person the child killed may have become will never have the chance to exist.


If it isn't born it isn't born. There is no point in hypothetic scenarios, because you can push them as far as your imagination will allow you to. You're not going to miss something that never existed in the first place.

Obviously it did exist, or it could not have been killed.


And yes, everyone is unique, but actually, so is every plant, and so is every rock. That doesn't mean they can't be replaced. "Life" is an overrated concept, because, well, actually, it just doesn't mean anything. Living beings are legos. They are nature's building blocks. There's an infinite supply of these building blocks, and even if they all think they're special, the fact remains that nature has plenty of choice to build its castle. If one block falls, there's a hundred more waiting in line.

In case you haven't noticed, human beings are not governed by nature the same way animals are. A single person can cause a nuclear war and destroy all human life; a single person can stop that war before it happens.

Rocks are not living things, so I am going to directly to plants. Plants you see, have no free will. They cannot get up and walk around; they cannot pull an AK-47 and shoot someone to oblivion. Plants are plants, people are people. They are too different to compare on these grounds.


Cells can be replaced, plants can be replaced. So can humans. We aren't exactly a finality, you know.

Personality is not infinately renewable. There is a difference between human and personality.

And I still agree with Raz. Human beings, no matter what stage, are not parasites. Ticks are parasites, tapeworms are parasites, human beings are just not.

"Parasites, animals or plants which live and feed for at least a considerable part of life either in or upon other animals or plants, called 'hosts', to which they are generally harmful to a greater or lesser extent." --Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia

Take this, along with the fact that human beings are the same species, and you can clearly see that human beings, in any stage, could not be considered biological parasites. Babies in their mothers are being incubated, and were created inside their mothers. They do not hide in their mother's food and feed of the unwilling mother's digested nutrients once they get to the womb. The mother is willing; which is not the case with parasites. It is reproduction, people, please learn the difference.

Oh, and for Adonis's definition, note "...useful or adequate return." Reproduction of course is an adequate return, correct?


Yeah really. What the hell does Dictionary.com know?

This is classic. Remember when I used the same site for a definition of homophobe? What was your response then?


And we all know Dictionary.com is the only source in the world.

Oh yeah, that's right. Maybe the same applies here, no?

[RedStarWarrior]

Actually, I concur that zygotes, embryoes and fetuses aren't parasites. I am just saying that TMM wasn't that off base when he made the analogy.

[Sorovis]

Sorry Raven. I must have missed that.

[RedStarWarrior]

In conclusion, TMM is incorrect, but his belief isn't that radical. It is merely a simple mistake.
See above.

Also, don't worry, we all miss things sometimes in reading.

[The Muffin Man]

This is classic. Remember when I used the same site for a definition of homophobe? What was your response then?



You...you DO understand the concept of sarcasm, right?

And Raz, I think it's because the pro-life'rs are trying to pull up "BUT MURDER IS ILLEGAL!" so me being a pro-choicer decided to pull up the "But you take antibiotics. And that kills something too."


Personality is not infinately renewable. There is a difference between human and personality.

Umm...A fetus doesn't have a personality, what are you trying to say here?

[Iveechan]

A fetus does have all the parts for a personality eventually. At the moment Mr. Sperm gets together with Mrs. Egg, all the building blocks come are there, they just need time to grow. Personality is both inherited and developed by outside environment.

[Hikaru]

I am pro-choice up until a certain time in the "life" of a fetus, and I support all forms of morning after pills and contraception.

Here is about the timeframe where I draw the line:

8 weeks - The unborn child, called a fetus at this stage, is about half an inch long. The tiny person is protected by the amnionic sac, filled with fluid. Inside, the child swims and moves gracefully. The arms and legs have lengthened, and fingers can be seen. The toes will develop in the next few days. Brain waves can be measured.

10 weeks - The heart is almost completely developed and very much resembles that of a newborn baby. An opening the atrium of the heart and the presence of a bypass valve divert much of the blood away from the lungs, as the child's blood is oxygenated through the placenta. Twenty tiny baby teeth are forming in the gums.

12 weeks - Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.


http://www.w-cpc.org/pictures/adam/mo2.JPG
At about 10 weeks.

For me, it's about when you can detect brain activity, and probably when the baby can feel pain. To lighten the post, here's a picture of a guy dressed like Zoidberg:


http://gpclan.girlpower.dhs.org/graphics/stuff/zoidberg_costume.jpg

[Sorovis]

The Muffin Man, I thought in the least you would be able to tell that I based that entire point off of you being sarcastic. I'm sorry I have to clarify this for you, but in the first quote of yours I used, you were talking to Raz as if he were a moron for not accepting Dictionary.com's answer; in the second you told me that Dictionary.com was not the only dictionary in the world and that it was not necessarily correct. I did not know it was that hard for you to understand something so obvious.

Iveechan, my point is that all people have a personality and that if any person is killed, that specific personality is lost. I did not mean for that to be used for unborn children; at least not yet. All I was doing was countering Brain's response regarding the unimportance of life.

[The Muffin Man]

The Muffin Man, I thought in the least you would be able to tell that I based that entire point off of you being sarcastic. I'm sorry I have to clarify this for you, but in the first quote of yours I used, you were talking to Raz as if he were a moron for not accepting Dictionary.com's answer; in the second you told me that Dictionary.com was not the only dictionary in the world and that it was not necessarily correct. I did not know it was that hard for you to understand something so obvious.

Up till the bolded part, I would be willing to say "Oh. My mistake." But you HAD to go and make that little remark, didn't you?

IveeChan, my point is that all people have a personality and that if any person is killed, that specific personality is lost. I did not mean for that to be used for unborn children; at least not yet. All I was doing was countering Brain's response regarding the unimportance of life.[/QUOTE]

Then you open yourself for the "Killed the next Hitler" crap.

[The Muffin Man]

I am pro-choice up until a certain time in the "life" of a fetus, and I support all forms of morning after pills and contraception.

To lighten the post, here's a picture of a guy dressed like Zoidberg:


http://gpclan.girlpower.dhs.org/graphics/stuff/zoidberg_costume.jpg


Hooray! He's useful!

[Sorovis]

Up till the bolded part, I would be willing to say "Oh. My mistake." But you HAD to go and make that little remark, didn't you?

Arrogance to be met with arrogance...


Then you open yourself for the "Killed the next Hitler" crap.

Not unless I use that argument for unborn children, which I have yet to do.

[Kris]

Hiakru we studied this in school once and nearly everyone said they agreed with abortion, then we were told how quickly the baby actually develops and everyone suddenly became unsure.

It is amazing how quickly features on a baby so appear, like hearts, eyes, brains.

It really makes you think aswell.

[Razola]

And Raz, I think it's because the pro-life'rs are trying to pull up "BUT MURDER IS ILLEGAL!" so me being a pro-choicer decided to pull up the "But you take antibiotics. And that kills something too."
So because we kill bacteria, we should legalize abortion? Keep in mind that I'm not die-hard prolife, but just showing weakness in the argument.

So if we kill bacteria, can we legalize murder too? In other words, we don't outlaw murder because it's just the act of killing. It's because we are trying to be somewhat civilized in this human society.

Like I said before, only for rape and endangerment of life. All other reasons are snuffing out a potential life just because it inconviences you, and that's just disgusting.

[Iveechan]

Just for future reference, it's Iveechan. No capital "c".

[Sorovis]

Apologies; edited my post to correct the error.

[The Muffin Man]

So because we kill bacteria, we should legalize abortion? Keep in mind that I'm not die-hard prolife, but just showing weakness in the argument.


You misunderstand. I only brought up the bacteria thing BECAUSE the hardcore pro-lifers bring up that argument. Not because I think it justifies anything. It's just as farfetched and stupid.

And Sorovis - Ever heard of being the bigger person, rather than retaliating with more arrogance than was shown in that post towards you?

[VampireCharizard]

:sleep: i've been sleeping the past three days not looking at this issue and it dawned on me i should catch up on my reading before it gets out of hand and i find that three pages have been added :lol: ok... Parasites... that's totaly ridiculous seeing as how they're the same species. And as mentioned before, what living thing creates a parasite within themselves? If you haven't noticed, all mamals do so. Except that one that lays eggs.
http://www.genevaschools.org/austinbg/class/gray/platypus/adult1.gif ya... did that work? it better have. ok so... since when is a dictionary an unreliable source of information? why would they purposely (or accidentaly) get the definition of a word wrong :what: and Raz and TMM have been debating so much about the validity of the theory that a fetus is a parasite, I don't even know which one is pro life or pro choice... :nut: and using anti-biotics have absolutely NOTHING to do with abortion whatsoever. Again i say (as others have too) it's the way of life for organisms to kill and usually ingest OTHER species of organisms to SURVIVE. 'cept for canibals but that's yet ANOTHER issue brought up by this.
http://martian.netmag.easyspace.com/canibal.jpg i hope that one worked, too... I'm sure there's somthin I forgot, but Whatever

[Sorovis]

And Sorovis - Ever heard of being the bigger person, rather than retaliating with more arrogance than was shown in that post towards you?

Was it not just you who told Raz to 'practice what you preach'? I would take your own advice if I were you. Don't be so hypocritical.

Also, I have never in my life heard pro-life supporters bring up the bacteria argument; could you maybe direct us to a link? I'd really like to see where your getting this from.

[VampireCharizard]

that's waht i forgot to add in with my post... ;) the bacteria thingy

[Iveechan]

Bacteria are pretty damn harmful so you HAVE to kill them. Antibodies are a form of self defense (even though the bacteria are retaliating by becoming more resistant). No matter how hard you try, you cannot go through life without harming a single living creature. I mean, you drive a car and add to the pollution, so you're contributing to harming every other living thing on earth.

[Sorovis]

Not all bacteria are harmful. Many are actually very beneficial to the human body and their presence is necessary for a human to live. In regards to harmful bacteria, it is true that it is impossible to avoid killing them.

This however, is not important to the argument. Killing single-celled bacteria is very different from killing an unborn baby, no matter what stages of development it is in.

[Charles Legend]

I have a few more things to say that may or may not Speak to your hearts

Are we not All entitled to a life?
To live to Smell the roses?
To eat the Sweet honey of the earth?
To play in the soft sand of a beach?
To hear a Sweet musical melodies?
To love and to be loved?
Is this not a world were we can make Art out of Raw materials?
Is this not a world where if you Believe in dreams can come true, they can?
Is this not a world where the imposable is possible?
Are not a Man’s creations only limited to his own Imagination?
Why do kill are own flesh and blood, Are they just not as Entitled to live as us outside the womb?

Or is this this reality just one big fat lie, and that it really never Existed at any time?
If the above Question is true. Then who and what are we? Are we just a vase amount of mater reliving the Past?

Anyways the only time that I fell that Abortion is right is if and only if she were to be killed giving birth to it however you liberals have blown that point way out of proportion and have Deserved many Women in to thinking that every time they get pregnant weather by choice or not that they need an abortion, yes I am saying even if she was raped she should keep it, why you ask because why Should the baby suffer and get killed just because their a product of rape, how ever much you think about it as being wrong for the woman to keep it just remember that it is still a life and if given the chance to live it. I ask you is it Right for us to meddle in the future of the unborn? I say no it is not, like a seed you well never know what it can be unless you plant it and let it grow the same is true of a baby you well never know what they well be if you never give them the Chance to live.....

How ever Let me make one thing Clear as Crystal I am Pro Choice, and I fully agree that a woman has the right to do with her body. But face the fact that the baby growing in her is not her baby it’s a whole defiant person growing in her, and She Should be happy that She is Blessed with a child of her very own and helping to Ensure the Survival of mankind.

~Ryu

[Sorovis]

Your input is appreciated, Ryu, but please remember that the majority of the people on these forums do not follow the Christian faith, nor do they believe in God. While your response may be effective in the Christian spiritual sense, I am afraid scientific answers and evidence are the only things that will be accepted by the Pokemasters population in general. Just keep that in mind.

And for the rest of you, I will ask that you restrain any hostile comments sent in Ryu's direction, please. No direct insults are necessary on this thread or anywhere else.

[Metallixs Girl]

I'm not very good at debating, but I would just like to say that I agree 100% with Ryu. Very well-said Ryu, every unborn baby deserves all the chance it can get to be born, and if it's not supposed to live then God will call it to heaven (and for the non religeous, nature will take its course) when it's time. But I don't believe we have the right to decide to deprive an already concieved and developing baby of life. Exept if it would severly (medically) damage or kill the mother.

[phaedrus]

I'm not very good at debating, but I would just like to say that I agree 100% with Ryu. Very well-said Ryu, every unborn baby deserves all the chance it can get to be born, and if it's not supposed to live then God will call it to heaven (and for the non religeous, nature will take its course) when it's time.

very religious already. the other point is, what would YOU consider an unborn baby. a fertilized egg? an embryo? what IS the point that it's considered a baby? third trimester?


But I dont believe we have the right to decide to deprive an already concieved and developing baby of life. Exept if it would severly (medically) damage or kill the mother.

in the broad sense, the death of a zygote/embryo isn't gonna destroy the world. sure, in a microscopic sense, it can mean the whole world, but everyone has to move on. not only that, there's re-conceiving.

[Metallixs Girl]

I said "already concieved and developing" so to me it's a baby at the moment of conception. When my mom told me she was pregnant with my 2 siblings, I immediately believed they were growing babies who weren't formed yet or "ready to come out of mom's tummy", but I never believed they weren't babies, since pregnant = a baby in the stomache, and I never ever think of a pregnancy as anything less than a developing baby. :)

[Iveechan]

I never said ALL bacteria.

[Rudoku]

I have no problems with abortions. If it were ever made illegal here, I'd invest in coat hangers and wet-dry vacs, and be rich, because it wouldn't stop.

[Sorovis]

I never said ALL bacteria.

You did not say some bacteria either; to me it looked like all.

It is true however if abortion made illegal, it would not stop. While not the same as The Prohibition of the 1920's in the United States, I suspect there may be a similar reaction if abortion was illegal. Underground organizations would still do it and all of that; plus it would enrage pro-choice supporters to a point that could (and most likely would) lead to rioting.

[Sarcastic Assassin]

I realize that most teenage girls can't or maybe won't take care of their child but they can do adoption and Im sorry that there are abbusive people but i still feel it's better to allow your child to live their life out to the fullest. and the republican party keeps the govt. out of personal life, and allow you to do what you want with YOUR body, but your child is not your body or YOUR soul. It may be part of your body, but it won't be for long. and even if they are abused as children, they will grow up to have their own life and maybe have children and get married and get a job, be president, the possibilties are endless, but if you have an abortion... the child will have NO possibilites NO hope NO joy in life. and it seems a bit selfish to have an abortion so you don't have any pain. just to point out I'm trying not to flame anyone and i won't be in the later parts of this post... Flame me all you want I'm not changing my mind that abortion is wrong and as for the living thing eating thing. just so you're clear on this - THAT'S HOW THE WORLD WORKS. you expect us to eat rocks? no. Now I'm against canibals so there! shove that up your arse! And we don't all eat human beings. we also all don't kill. except murderurs. and stuff. oh bloody hell know what i mean

First of all, abortion isn't limited to a teenager who got a little too drunk, and woke up pregnant. Imagine a situation where an older (ie, 45+ [menopause usually kicks in at 45-50]) woman becomes pregnant, but doesn't want to have a child, either because she thinks she's too old, or because she can't support it financially, or for other reasons. As for living life, I'm all for it. For me, life is awesome; but picture a baby born into the poorest section of a city. The mother decides not to go through with an abortion. Again, this mother may be 19 or 39; but she's a mother, with a newborn. That's another liability that she has to cover. She has to provide shelter, clothes (along with diapers), food, a bed, an education (though it's largely paid for by the government, there's still lunch money, school supplies, etc), some security for the future, but most importantly, a little tender, loving care. In addition to her personal needs. Of course, there's a father, but if a woman's going to get an abortion, the father most likely doesn't really have much of a say in it (assuming he's not around).

EDIT: Just a quick note. It takes a man and a woman to make a child. Why can't the woman decide not to have a child? It was the woman who gave the child life, so why can't she take it away? Oh wait, there's God. Well, where was God on September 11? Where's God when the sweatshops in Venezuela pop up? Where's God when American troops torture prison inmates, for no clear reason? Is it in God's plan for Big Tobacco CEO's to make billions, while their victims suffer from emphysema?

[Metallixs Girl]

In case that's not a rhetorical quistion, I have to say: No, it was Satan's. Why does everyone get mad at God for Satan's doings?

[Red Angel]

In case that's not a rhetorical quistion, I have to say: No, it was Satan's. Why does everyone get mad at God for Satan's doings?

Oh, sure, blame the third party. And that's where any mention of God vs. Satan should stop becuase this is going to become another religious discussion, which I'm sure we don't need.

[Sorovis]

First of all, abortion isn't limited to a teenager who got a little too drunk, and woke up pregnant. Imagine a situation where an older (ie, 45+ [menopause usually kicks in at 45-50]) woman becomes pregnant, but doesn't want to have a child, either because she thinks she's too old, or because she can't support it financially, or for other reasons. As for living life, I'm all for it. For me, life is awesome; but picture a baby born into the poorest section of a city. The mother decides not to go through with an abortion. Again, this mother may be 19 or 39; but she's a mother, with a newborn. That's another liability that she has to cover. She has to provide shelter, clothes (along with diapers), food, a bed, an education (though it's largely paid for by the government, there's still lunch money, school supplies, etc), some security for the future, but most importantly, a little tender, loving care. In addition to her personal needs. Of course, there's a father, but if a woman's going to get an abortion, the father most likely doesn't really have much of a say in it (assuming he's not around).

No matter what circumstances the person is born into, they may still become great, have an important influence on someone, etc.. Again, people do not have the foresight to see all ends, and cannot determine whether someone's life will be miserable or incredible.


EDIT: Just a quick note. It takes a man and a woman to make a child. Why can't the woman decide not to have a child? It was the woman who gave the child life, so why can't she take it away? Oh wait, there's God. Well, where was God on September 11? Where's God when the sweatshops in Venezuela pop up? Where's God when American troops torture prison inmates, for no clear reason? Is it in God's plan for Big Tobacco CEO's to make billions, while their victims suffer from emphysema?

This is not God's will, rather the effects of sin. Due to sin we have rape, September 11, murder, everything. It is not God's neglegance nor his will that causes this pain, it is our own will and actions. Remove sin, you remove pain. Unfortunately, sin can be as small as a jealous thought, and human beings are not strong enough to resist sin for all of their lives.

Note that it is the American soldiers that torture prison inmates, and terrorists who caused the Twin Towers to collapse. Not God's will, but Man's.

After reading Red Angel's above post, I agree. Let us get back on topic before this becomes too derailed. If you have religious questions, or feel like bashing Christianity, take it to a new thread and I will be more than happy to meet you there.

[RedStarWarrior]

In case that's not a rhetorical quistion, I have to say: No, it was Satan's. Why does everyone get mad at God for Satan's doings?
God created Satan.

[Brain]

I love the term 'right' you use to say why people can take eachother's lives. Really, the only time someone has the right to take someone's life is if their own is in danger or if the other person agrees.

Actually, the latter is illegal. Other than that it pretty much corresponds to what I said doesn't it?


Totally incorrect. To assume that murder has no negative impacts on the murderer him/herself is to simply be blind to the truth. Killing another human being has detrimental effects on the human mind-- murder, execution, anything of the like.

Negative impact on the murderer? What? I never said anything on whatever impact it could have to the murderer. And frankly no one cares about the impact on the murderer, that's his action, that's his problem.


Not only that, but like you said the people who knew you would feel terrible; even if you were merely an aqaintance.

Of course, and that is the reason why murder is considered as wrong. However, it does not apply to abortion.


Murder is simply wrong. It cuts short a person's chances of being great, average, or even happy. It does not matter if they will most likely be miserable, because that is their choice and theirs alone.

I am too pragmatical to see any value to that argument. My views on the notions of right and wrong are purely statistical. In short, I won't bother.


Obviously people do, or abortion would be relatively unopposed.

No one does. They'll be like "eww abortion that's so wrong" and then they'll forget about it. Sure maybe some fat **** in Wyoming cares that some californian girl's baby is getting aborted, but that's just because he opposes abortion, and once it's done, he'll just keep eating and forget about it until the next time he hears something similar.

The example is gross and yeah I had fun coming up with it, but the point was/is, that no one GENUINELY cares about an aborted baby.


Murder is outlawed so that each person has their own equal chance to enjoy their life, along with what you said above.

Sounds good, but it's not a potent definition.


Killing a person is not like killing a dear, even if you have never met them in your life.

Deers are awesome you heartless jerk.


Ask anybody who has gone to war, accidentally run someone over, etc.. There is sublime discomfort in such an action, which frequently makes itself known in dreams; there is also conscious consequences, such as remembering the moment vividly again and again. Whether or not you believe humans are anything special, the unique side effects of killing one is undeniable.

Are we still talking about abortion? I mean, I know what you're talking about, but seriously, what kind of doctor will feel that way after killing an embryo? I could understand for a fetus in its late stages, but no one who is moderately sensitive is going to feel bad for killing an embryo.


War is not murder, first and foremost.

Oh come on it's the same damn thing, except that it's bigger, better and legal.


The death penalty I also am not sure on, but that is for a different debate. What you seem to be missing though, is that the death penalty is someone's choice. The person who is being executed chose to do the crimes that ultimately landed them in the electric chair, or the gas chamber. Someone did not just knock them out on the street and throw them in; that would be murder.

What you seem to be missing, is that many people who intimately know the murderer may have strong feelings for him or her, and that executing said person may have a very negative impact on these people. The execution of a murderer has a much more negative impact than killing a fetus on both the people he or she knew, and on other people who may feel insecurized by such a measure. Add in the fact it's ineffective, and you've got a real loser.


War is a person's choice as well. No one is driven in terror onto the field with no intention of fighting and then starts shooting completely against his/her will.

What about the people he/she's gonna shoot? War doesn't just involve soldiers.


The decision for an abortion, if you will notice, is not made by the child who will be killed. Thus it cannot be compared to war or execution.

No one cares about the child, and no one cares about whatever it may choose. It's unwanted, period.


Life is renewable, people are not. Last I checked, there is such a thing as individuality, in which no two people are exactly alike.

People are renewable for the purpose they fulfill. There is no such thing as a person doing something no one else can do. Individuality is a tool, and many different individualities can achieve identical or very similar results.


While human beings will always be present despite abortion, the person the child killed may have become will never have the chance to exist.

And we should care because...?


In case you haven't noticed, human beings are not governed by nature the same way animals are.

hahaahahahaha

I'll leave it at that.


Rocks are not living things, so I am going to directly to plants. Plants you see, have no free will. They cannot get up and walk around; they cannot pull an AK-47 and shoot someone to oblivion. Plants are plants, people are people. They are too different to compare on these grounds.

Free will is such a made up notion it's not even funny. The fact of getting up and walking around is irrelevant. If there is such a situation where plants can be replaced, then there is such a situation where humans can be replaced.


Personality is not infinate. There is a difference between human and personality.

I fail to see the point.


my point is that all people have a personality and that if any person is killed, that specific personality is lost. I did not mean for that to be used for unborn children; at least not yet. All I was doing was countering Brain's response regarding the unimportance of life.

I never said anything about the unimportance of life. I was rather talking about the statistical unimportance of a single life. One life is nothing. It is the addition of these nothings that make up something.

The goal of a good society isn't to save every life that can be saved, the aim is to optimize the quality of the lives which exist, while maintaining a self-sufficient reproductive pool whose optimality is not required. In that regard, abortion, even though it ends the life of the fetus, is an action that is acceptable on the basis that it improves the quality of life of the mother without having nefast side effects. Besides, relatively few people make use of that measure, so it doesn't have any impact on survival.

If flipping a coin at a baby's third anniversary and killing him or her if it's tails could significantly improve the world's global happiness, then it would be the right thing to do. Obviously, in the real world, that wouldn't make anyone happy. However, in the case of abortion, it does.


I have a few more things to say that may or may not Speak to your hearts

Are we not All entitled to a life?
To live to Smell the roses?
To eat the Sweet honey of the earth?
To play in the soft sand of a beach?
To hear a Sweet musical melodies?
To love and to be loved?
Is this not a world were we can make Art out of Raw materials?
Is this not a world where if you Believe in dreams can come true, they can?
Is this not a world where the imposable is possible?
Are not a Man’s creations only limited to his own Imagination?
Why do kill are own flesh and blood, Are they just not as Entitled to live as us outside the womb?


Life isn't a right. It's a privilege. It has always been. Get over it.


I ask you is it Right for us to meddle in the future of the unborn? I say no it is not, like a seed you well never know what it can be unless you plant it and let it grow the same is true of a baby you well never know what they well be if you never give them the Chance to live.....

So I should feel bad for eating sunflower seeds now? They could have been so beautiful if I planted them :(

Anyway, there is about 99% chance that the newborn will end up being a mediocre human being. When you know the baby is unwanted and may suffer from that condition, when you know parents aren't going to do a good job, when you know it will be tough as hell to put the baby in adoption, I would say that keeping it just isn't worth the gamble. You can't just give a chance to everyone, you know.

Meat farms won't stop slaughtering cows in the vain hope to see the first talking cow, miracle of evolution ;\


In case that's not a rhetorical quistion, I have to say: No, it was Satan's. Why does everyone get mad at God for Satan's doings?

<theological curiosity>Why wouldn't God just kill Satan? I mean, I thought the Dude was omnipotent :(</theological curiosity>

[Sorovis]

Actually, the latter is illegal. Other than that it pretty much corresponds to what I said doesn't it?

Just pointing out how strange it seemed phrasing it as the 'right' to kill, no matter how true it may be. I think maybe some of your reasons for murder may have been off, or something along those lines. If not, I most likely got carried away.


Negative impact on the murderer? What? I never said anything on whatever impact it could have to the murderer. And frankly no one cares about the impact on the murderer, that's his action, that's his problem.

Yes, but you said the only things that killing someone punished were the people who knew the murdered person, which is not true. It has many negative effects, both conscious and unconscious. And actually, if the murderer suffers the mental consequences, he/she becomes perhaps more likely to kill again.


Of course, and that is the reason why murder is considered as wrong. However, it does not apply to abortion.

Just meant to make my point clear; I'm not quite ready to debate abortion effectively, as I have said.


I am too pragmatical to see any value to that argument. My views on the notions of right and wrong are purely statistical. In short, I won't bother.

Statistics cannot provide pure answers. They are too corrupted by factors around them, ie. bias, misinformation, misconception, an unknown agent that effects the outcome, etc.. They can still be useful; just not to answer everything.

If you were to poll all of the human population on whether or not homosexuality was acceptable, you would always come across those who were not serious, misled by incorrect information, or too biased. Just an example, but it just goes to show statistics do not necessarily represent the correct answer.


No one does. They'll be like "eww abortion that's so wrong" and then they'll forget about it. Sure maybe some fat **** in Wyoming cares that some californian girl's baby is getting aborted, but that's just because he opposes abortion, and once it's done, he'll just keep eating and forget about it until the next time he hears something similar.

The example is gross and yeah I had fun coming up with it, but the point was/is, that no one GENUINELY cares about an aborted baby.

The mother perhaps? Keep in mind in some cases of abortion the mother does sometimes care about the child and does not want to have to resort to abortion. The mother (and quote possibly the father) may have wanted the baby in the first place.


Sounds good, but it's not a potent definition.

Didn't mean for it to be. Just pointing out some reasons as to why murder is illegal.


Deers are awesome you heartless jerk.

Yes I know, but they are not going to have such an impact on the world as people do. Deers are different than people on many counts.


Are we still talking about abortion? I mean, I know what you're talking about, but seriously, what kind of doctor will feel that way after killing an embryo? I could understand for a fetus in its late stages, but no one who is moderately sensitive is going to feel bad for killing an embryo.

First, no, I did not mean for this to apply to abortion. I have no evidence or basis to say this happens during such a procedure. I was trying to make clear the negative consequences of murder.


Oh come on it's the same damn thing, except that it's bigger, better and legal.

Not necessarily. If someone attacks you and your only other option is to allow yourself to be killed and your land and friends slaughtered as well, there is no sin in defending yourself. 'Thou shalt not murder', not 'Thou shalt not kill'. This frequent misinterpretation has led to quite a few illogical and foolish arguments.


What you seem to be missing, is that many people who intimately know the murderer may have strong feelings for him or her, and that executing said person may have a very negative impact on these people. The execution of a murderer has a much more negative impact than killing a fetus on both the people he or she knew, and on other people who may feel insecurized by such a measure. Add in the fact it's ineffective, and you've got a real loser.

Yes, but it was ultimately the person's choice that landed him/her in Death Row, as opposed to you, who had no idea what was going on even when you were shot in the head with an AK-47. It is the murderers fault that his/her friends must deal with his/her death, and not your fault for being shot in the head for no reason. I would also like to note I am just debating the importance of human life; I did not intend for this to apply to abortion.


What about the people he/she's gonna shoot? War doesn't just involve soldiers.

It should; the killing of civilions is murder, as they did not choose nor did they want to be involved. There is no reason to kill them because they had not provided an actual threat to the soldiers' lives.


No one cares about the child, and no one cares about whatever it may choose. It's unwanted, period.

Not always the case; there are also cases where the child is wanted, but circumstances may make having the child more trouble than the mother thinks it is worth. Trust me, or look into it yourself, abortion is not always just a procedure.


People are renewable for the purpose they fulfill. There is no such thing as a person doing something no one else can do. Individuality is a tool, and many different individualities can achieve identical or very similar results.

No one has replaced Alexander the Great, nor will anybody ever do so. His talents were best applied to his time period, and now that that period has passed, even if he was killed as a child, if he were to reincarnate himself now he would not have the same impact with his life and actions as he did so many thousands of years ago.


And we should care because...?

Because that person may have had a signifigant effect on the world.


Free will is such a made up notion it's not even funny. The fact of getting up and walking around is irrelevant. If there is such a situation where plants can be replaced, then there is such a situation where humans can be replaced.

Free will is as real as the air around us.

Plants do not have free will and cannot have the same impact as humans. Not only due to a lack of free will, but due to their not being consciously aware of their surroundings, and of course their limitations on movement. Let us also note that humans are capable of taking immediate action to defend themselves if they are under attack, working as groups in many instances to eliminate a, under normal circumstances, superior threat. Plants and humans are too different to compare on these grounds, as you can plainly see.


I fail to see the point.

Humans can be replaced, their individual personalities cannot. That was my point; sorry if it may have seemed unclear due to how I typed it.


I never said anything about the unimportance of life. I was rather talking about the statistical unimportance of a single life. One life is nothing. It is the addition of these nothings that make up something.

One life can determine the life of many or all. Start a nuclear war by the push of a button, and millions will die, all by the choice of one. Individual life can make all the difference.


The goal of a good society isn't to save every life that can be saved, the aim is to optimize the quality of the lives which exist, while maintaining a self-sufficient reproductive pool whose optimality is not required. In that regard, abortion, even though it ends the life of the fetus, is an action that is acceptable on the basis that it improves the quality of life of the mother without having nefast side effects. Besides, relatively few people make use of that measure, so it doesn't have any impact on survival.

Killing one another should never be an option to improve the quality of life around us. In some cases, such as murderers, there is no other considerable option. In the case of unborn babies, they should not be aborted for reasons such as the mother's well being in most cases. If it was not the mother's choice and her life were in danger, there may be an exception.


If flipping a coin at a baby's third anniversary and killing him or her if it's tails could significantly improve the world's global happiness, then it would be the right thing to do. Obviously, in the real world, that wouldn't make anyone happy. However, in the case of abortion, it does.

Even if killing the child increased global happiness, it should not be a choice, as there are other methods of increasing happiness. As for a real world case such as abortion, unless the mother's life is in danger, the child should not be killed. Again it is not human decision who should live or die; or at least it should not be.


Life isn't a right. It's a privilege. It has always been. Get over it.

And none of us has the right to take that privilege from another. Would you take person's privilege to walk simply because it benefitted you? I really hope not.


Anyway, there is about 99% chance that the newborn will end up being a mediocre human being. When you know the baby is unwanted and may suffer from that condition, when you know parents aren't going to do a good job, when you know it will be tough as hell to put the baby in adoption, I would say that keeping it just isn't worth the gamble. You can't just give a chance to everyone, you know.

Being a mediocre human is not necessarily bad. Nor, again, should a person have the right to take the child's future away, regardless of chance. Again, humans are incapable of seeing all ends; that mediocre person may do something incredible during the course of their life.


Meat farms won't stop slaughtering cows in the vain hope to see the first talking cow, miracle of evolution ;\

Stop being ridiculous. Cows could not talk from a single mutation and you know it. That would be like if I brought up that abortion may kill the first flying super intelligent human. Just no.


<theological curiosity>Why wouldn't God just kill Satan? I mean, I thought the Dude was omnipotent :(</theological curiosity>

I believe Checkmate has answered this one before and I do not recall the answer. I will let him handle it:


Well, for one thing, he will. Just not yet. For another thing, he does bind him. It is biblical fact that Satan has to ask God for permission to do just about anything. That leads us to the question of why would God let him tempt us?

Possibly so that God the father may reward us. A father delights in rewarding his son, but cannot reward him if the son does nothing to deserve the reward. Temptation=opportunity for reward. Overcoming temptation= recieving reward (definetly in heaven with a potential for reward on Earth as well) This also helps to explain the salvation question. By accepting Christ's blood sacrifice, you are seen as perfect in the eyes of God. Blood atones for sins. (the fact that blood is needed to atone for sin could give some limited insight into the seriousness of the matter)

I think this answers that question fairly. Essentially Satan is under God's control, and God allows him to tempt us to see if we will choose the right path. And God will destroy Satan in the coming future.

[Metallixs Girl]

I apologise, I was in a hurry when I typed that post about Satan. Satan = sin, so I agree with Sovoris's post about Man's doing. God doesn't control man. If someone makes a new thread I may elaberate more. :)

[The Muffin Man]

and using anti-biotics have absolutely NOTHING to do with abortion whatsoever.

Neither does God, Satan, or having a penis, yet all factors seem to somehow make there way into this discussion.(The last one being guys usually debating wether it's right or wrong.)

Yes I know I'm also a guy debating, but if my girlfriend/fiance/wife decides to have an abortion, I'll support her. If she decides for adoption, I'll support her. If she decides to keep it, I'll support her. Why? Because it's not my body. It's not any gods body. It's HERS.

EDIT - It's the freaking scientific term o_O;

[Suite Madame Blue]

It is true however if abortion made illegal, it would not stop. While not the same as The Prohibition of the 1920's in the United States, I suspect there may be a similar reaction if abortion was illegal. Underground organizations would still do it and all of that; plus it would enrage pro-choice supporters to a point that could (and most likely would) lead to rioting.
Until January 22, 1973, abortion was illegal in the US, and had been since the mid-1800's. Before then, a woman could legally abort her pregnancy, but the procedure was extremely dangerous, and 30% of women died from it. Connecticut (in 1821) and New York (in 1828) were the first states to outlaw it for the health of the mother. Since then, medicine has obviously improved to the point where abortion is a medically safe procedure. Before Roe v. Wade overturned the laws against abortion, there were indeed a lot of underground clinics that engaged in unsafe practices that harmed their patients. Emergency rooms also had to perform "cleanup" duties because of home jobs that women performed on themselves using wire hangers. Many of them were rendered infertile because they damaged themselves so badly.

Again, this is a debate that will never be resolved, because you just can't argue medicine against morals. Talk about comparing apples to oranges! Most of the advances we've made in the medical field would never have come about if we proceeded in a "moral" way! Leonardo da Vinci was dissecting cadavers and making detailed drawings of organs and even unborn fetuses in the 1400's, and was kicked out of the Vatican for doing so, because according to the Pope's "moral code", da Vinci was practicing witchcraft and necromancy! And yet, the study of cadavers is commonplace, and even necessary, for today's med student. Sorry for the digression - I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel last week, and it seemed to apply to this discussion. Plus it illustrates how morals change over time.

[Rei_Zero]

You guys have brought up this baby could be great thing for the final time...
1. Potential isn't always good. It's good just as it's bad. And most of the time it's an average Joe who won't exist as a individualistic personality because (hopefully before his brainwaves develop) he is killed off before he can even possess an inkling of thought, therefore being taken out before he is an average Joe or whatever.
2. If people are so worried of the potential greatness then we shouldn't be doing harm to anything. We shouldn't disarm nukes because one day the nukes may have great potential to save us from an incoming comet. Or we can't destroy the comet that "may" hit us because if it misses and hits some other form it has the potential to help start life (a theoretical scenario). We can't chop down that tree because it will help the other trees keep green house gases in check. The "potential" arguement is not plausible because it doesn't just apply to humans. It applies to every thing else that can do something. To try to follow the "potential" arguement is to try to follow a big what if that may never occur. If you're worried about potential of an embryo then you should also be worried about potential of a piece of cloth, a house, a cow even. Yet we aren't are we? See that old worn down house that homeless people will one day inhabit? Let's take it down. That cow has an antibody against mad-cow disease? Oops, its already in the slaughter house and it never got to reproduce or be analyzed. That piece of cloth chould have saved someone bleeding to death but right now it's sitting in a dump truck going to the dump.


The mother perhaps? Keep in mind in some cases of abortion the mother does sometimes care about the child and does not want to have to resort to abortion. The mother (and quote possibly the father) may have wanted the baby in the first place.
And that just doesn't make any sense. In most cases, its the mother who decides on the issue. Why the heck would she do something if she doesn't want to. This is, of course, saying the woman is a sensible person, unless she was blackmailed.

P.S.

[Suite Madame Blue]

In most cases, its the mother who decides on the issue. Why the heck would she do something if she doesn't want to. This is, of course, saying the woman is a sensible person, unless she was blackmailed.
The only 2 reasons a mother would decide on aborting a baby that she wanted - that I can think of - would be if one of her prenatal tests came back showing that there was something wrong with this baby, or that continuing the pregnancy would be harmful to the mother.

I don't consider blackmail to be a significant factor in making the decision to have an abortion. What secret could possibly be so bad that a woman or couple would agree to end a pregnancy because of it? Maybe it happens in a small percentage of cases, but most women would rather die themselves than terminate a wanted pregnancy. Bribery is a more likely scenario, where somebody, such as the father or his family, offers the woman money to abort. However, that's a case of somebody not wanting the baby, and if the woman takes the bribe she obviously didn't want the baby that bad either. Either scenario is sick, twisted, and perverted. Nobody should interfere with what is already a difficult decision to make.

I also am sick of the "potential" arguments. They rank up there with the "parasite" discussion. In one my first posts to this thread I mentioned the fact that an unwanted baby is more likely to be neglected or abused. Nobody has bothered to go into this, and only one or two people have mentioned it in passing. We can only argue what is, not "What ifs".

[Sorovis]

Until January 22, 1973, abortion was illegal in the US, and had been since the mid-1800's. Before then, a woman could legally abort her pregnancy, but the procedure was extremely dangerous, and 30% of women died from it. Connecticut (in 1821) and New York (in 1828) were the first states to outlaw it for the health of the mother. Since then, medicine has obviously improved to the point where abortion is a medically safe procedure. Before Roe v. Wade overturned the laws against abortion, there were indeed a lot of underground clinics that engaged in unsafe practices that harmed their patients. Emergency rooms also had to perform "cleanup" duties because of home jobs that women performed on themselves using wire hangers. Many of them were rendered infertile because they damaged themselves so badly.


Again, this is a debate that will never be resolved, because you just can't argue medicine against morals. Talk about comparing apples to oranges! Most of the advances we've made in the medical field would never have come about if we proceeded in a "moral" way! Leonardo da Vinci was dissecting cadavers and making detailed drawings of organs and even unborn fetuses in the 1400's, and was kicked out of the Vatican for doing so, because according to the Pope's "moral code", da Vinci was practicing witchcraft and necromancy! And yet, the study of cadavers is commonplace, and even necessary, for today's med student. Sorry for the digression - I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel last week, and it seemed to apply to this discussion. Plus it illustrates how morals change over time.

Morals don't necessarily changed over time, at least not Biblical ones. Layed down in the Old Testament, they really haven't changed since. However, over time people began to twist the meanings of the Ten Commandments in particular and alter them in slight ways to the point of where just about anything could be considered a sin. The Bible hasn't changed, the Church has. What was predominant in those times was the Church, and as it frequently abused this authority given to it, so Galileo and others were shunned. This just goes to show that anything can be corrupted by power.


I also am sick of the "potential" arguments. They rank up there with the "parasite" discussion. In one my first posts to this thread I mentioned the fact that an unwanted baby is more likely to be neglected or abused. Nobody has bothered to go into this, and only one or two people have mentioned it in passing. We can only argue what is, not "What ifs".

I have not meant for that to be taken as a serious argument, as I have stated numerous instances on the thread. All I have been saying is that these things need to be thought about when an abortion is considered. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this but I do not mean for the 'potential' arguments to be taken as arguments. I am not saying that abortions should be illegal due to potential, and I never have.


You guys have brought up this baby could be great thing for the final time...
1. Potential isn't always good. It's good just as it's bad. And most of the time it's an average Joe who won't exist as a individualistic personality because (hopefully before his brainwaves develop) he is killed off before he can even possess an inkling of thought, therefore being taken out before he is an average Joe or whatever.

No, just read what I typed in my last paragraph. I am saying people should consider potential before abortion, and that even if a person grows to be average it is not necessarily a bad thing. So please stop with bashing the 'potential' argument because its not an argument.


2. If people are so worried of the potential greatness then we shouldn't be doing harm to anything. We shouldn't disarm nukes because one day the nukes may have great potential to save us from an incoming comet. Or we can't destroy the comet that "may" hit us because if it misses and hits some other form it has the potential to help start life (a theoretical scenario). We can't chop down that tree because it will help the other trees keep green house gases in check. The "potential" arguement is not plausible because it doesn't just apply to humans. It applies to every thing else that can do something. To try to follow the "potential" arguement is to try to follow a big what if that may never occur. If you're worried about potential of an embryo then you should also be worried about potential of a piece of cloth, a house, a cow even. Yet we aren't are we? See that old worn down house that homeless people will one day inhabit? Let's take it down. That cow has an antibody against mad-cow disease? Oops, its already in the slaughter house and it never got to reproduce or be analyzed. That piece of cloth chould have saved someone bleeding to death but right now it's sitting in a dump truck going to the dump.

I said consider the potential, not avoid every little action because of the potential; consider it, don't avoid decisions due to the possible negative consequences. So let's just move on, and note that I have stated many times not to take the 'potential' point as an argument.


And that just doesn't make any sense. In most cases, its the mother who decides on the issue. Why the heck would she do something if she doesn't want to. This is, of course, saying the woman is a sensible person, unless she was blackmailed.

Terrible lack of imagination here. Let's consider for one moment that perhaps a married couple has wanted a child for years, and finally the wife became pregnant. Then let's consider that maybe the wife becomes unbelievably ill, and she must choose between having a child and living herself. Since the child is still a fetus and unborn, she decides to have an abortion, even though she does not want to. It is not so farfetched that due to self preservation a mother would choose herself over her developing child; especially with arguments abound that claim that it isn't really a baby at all.

That is just one example of where the mother may not want to have an abortion but has no or little choice. It's not impossible, in fact it has happened many times before.

[Rei_Zero]

There's also don't make decisions due to the possible negative consequences. Really, a human being is one of the biggest wildcards on Earth so its impossible to say that this baby will turn out good or bad. Anyways, we both agree this arguement is moot, right?


Terrible lack of imagination here. Let's consider for one moment that perhaps a married couple has wanted a child for years, and finally the wife became pregnant. Then let's consider that maybe the wife becomes unbelievably ill, and she must choose between having a child and living herself. Since the child is still a fetus and unborn, she decides to have an abortion, even though she does not want to. It is not so farfetched that due to self preservation a mother would choose herself over her developing child; especially with arguments abound that claim that it isn't really a baby at all.

That is just one example of where the mother may not want to have an abortion but has no or little choice. It's not impossible, in fact it has happened many times before.
And of course, without abortion that mother would most likely be dead, and if she chose to abort then that means she would rather live. Of course, the fact that embryoes are living or not are debatable, hence the preference for a first trimester abortion.

[Sorovis]

There's also don't make decisions due to the possible negative consequences. Really, a human being is one of the biggest wildcards on Earth so its impossible to say that this baby will turn out good or bad. Anyways, we both agree this arguement is moot, right?

Agreed; moot point.


And of course, without abortion that mother would most likely be dead, and if she chose to abort then that means she would rather live. Of course, the fact that embryoes are living or not are debatable, hence the preference for a first trimester abortion.

True indeed, but this does not stop the mother from developing an emotional attachment to her future child, does it? Certainly not. My point here is that mothers may indeed develop bonds with the unborn children and not wish to resort to having an abortion. I have gotten that point through, yes?

[Suite Madame Blue]

As long as the child was planned for, and/or wanted (some pregnancies may be unplanned, but the child is still wanted) yes, the mother will develop an emotional attachment to her unborn child. Funny, there's an article on the front page of today's paper about this very aspect of the abortion topic: how sonograms and certain prenatal tests can identify such birth defects as Down Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, or congenital heart conditions. And how the doctors and genetic counselors, in an effort to be neutral, dump all sorts of information on the parents and leave the decision up to them whether or not to abort. According to the article, parents often end up throwing out their religious and political beliefs, and following their personal feelings. Even the ones who felt that abortion was the right decision for their situation still grieve, because the attachment was already there.

[Sorovis]

That still means there can be an emotional attachment. That was all I was trying to say.

[Rei_Zero]

But then without abortion the mother could be dead. See my point? Looks like we're at another draw.

[Sorovis]

Not quite. The only thing I was trying to say was that the mother in some instances may become emotionally attached to the child, which is certainly true. This was merely a point, however, and not necessarily an important one at that since it does not always happen.

[Rei_Zero]

Exactly. Which is why that doesn't contribute to the arguement...So does anyone want to bring anything else up? Or has this become another dead topic/debate/flamewar?

[Razola]

You guys have brought up this baby could be great thing for the final time...
1. Potential isn't always good. It's good just as it's bad. And most of the time it's an average Joe who won't exist as a individualistic personality because (hopefully before his brainwaves develop) he is killed off before he can even possess an inkling of thought, therefore being taken out before he is an average Joe or whatever.
So killing a random Joe in the street is okay? Admit it, the potential argument is won by the pro-lifers. You are more likely going to off a normal person than either extremely good or bad people. Last time I checked, normal people are expendable like that.


And that just doesn't make any sense. In most cases, its the mother who decides on the issue. Why the heck would she do something if she doesn't want to. This is, of course, saying the woman is a sensible person, unless she was blackmailed.
Based on this I must assume that you support child abuse because it's the mother's child and she can do what she wants. C'mon.

[RedStarWarrior]

Exactly. Which is why that doesn't contribute to the arguement...So does anyone want to bring anything else up? Or has this become another dead topic/debate/flamewar?
Well, it isn't a dead topic nor a flamewar. Also, I see nothing wrong with a debate as long as it doesn't turn into a flamewar.

[Sorovis]

Exactly. Which is why that doesn't contribute to the arguement...So does anyone want to bring anything else up? Or has this become another dead topic/debate/flamewar?

I never said it contributed to the original argument. Of course, if you'll notice, about ninety-percent of the topics that have been discussed here don't exactly relate to abortion. Ie., whether human babies are parasites.

[Suite Madame Blue]

Based on this I must assume that you support child abuse because it's the mother's child and she can do what she wants. C'mon.
Raz, that's fallacious reasoning. You're using a slippery-slope argument to show why you think abortion is wrong. Just because a person is pro-abortion doesn't mean he or she is an abuser, or even just neglectful. What pro-lifers don't like to acknowledge is that there are degrees of wrongness. That doesn't make pro-choicers cold-hearted killers; it makes us realistic. We understand quite well that ending a life is wrong, even a potential life. However, we also understand that it's more wrong to harm the already-born people in the world. Child abuse is something that I think everyone here will agree is wrong. Where we all disagree is whether abortion constitutes abuse. But even you made the distinction between the two in your quote above!

Education is the key to this issue. Parents need to demystify sex by talking to their kids about age-appropriate topics. The schools need to ignore all the BS that the various special-interest groups fling their way (including both pro-life and pro-choice propaganda), and teach the FACTS. Most people don't get the whole story until university, and by then it's too late. Nobody should ever be afraid of information; it's the only way to make a decision.

[Kris]

This is why I liked my social lessons. In one term we studied birth, abortion etc. We were told about how abortion works, where we can get ti from and how to get advice on it.

But then they also told us about how quickly the baby develops, we were given the FACTS, the TRUTH. Not a teachers opinion.

I learnt more that way :)

[Brain]

Statistics cannot provide pure answers. They are too corrupted by factors around them, ie. bias, misinformation, misconception, an unknown agent that effects the outcome, etc.. They can still be useful; just not to answer everything.

If you were to poll all of the human population on whether or not homosexuality was acceptable, you would always come across those who were not serious, misled by incorrect information, or too biased. Just an example, but it just goes to show statistics do not necessarily represent the correct answer.

I wasn't talking about that kind of statistics. Actually, I meant quite the opposite. Basically, for me, something is right if it increases global happiness. And calculating, or approximating, the result of an action on global happiness is principally statistical. This of course implies that an action which is right in a certain context could be wrong in another, and that the "true" right or wrong would have to be evaluated on a case per case basis.

I don't accept the simplistic vision according to which certain types of actions are always right or always wrong, although I reckon it is a relatively efficient way to work, since the human mind does work that way to an extent. However, I think that it's a good thing to understand that fundamentally, right and wrong are not tightly associated with specific actions, and that what could seem a priori inconsistent, such as allowing the murder of a fetus but not of a baby, is not necessarily inconsistent, if you look at it the right way.


The mother perhaps? Keep in mind in some cases of abortion the mother does sometimes care about the child and does not want to have to resort to abortion. The mother (and quote possibly the father) may have wanted the baby in the first place.

You don't get an abortion if you don't want to, unless the mother's life is endangered, which is a totally different problem. Quite obviously, I'm only defending abortion to the extent that the mother actually wants it.


Yes I know, but they are not going to have such an impact on the world as people do.

They certainly won't have an impact if no one lets them the chance to evolve and become super awesome deers with built in lasers and kickass fire boots, and no, that wasn't meant to be taken seriously.


Not necessarily. If someone attacks you and your only other option is to allow yourself to be killed and your land and friends slaughtered as well, there is no sin in defending yourself. 'Thou shalt not murder', not 'Thou shalt not kill'. This frequent misinterpretation has led to quite a few illogical and foolish arguments.

What about the side who initiated the attack in the first place? "Self defense" only applies for one side, not for both, unless they simultaneously decided to destroy each other.


Yes, but it was ultimately the person's choice that landed him/her in Death Row, as opposed to you, who had no idea what was going on even when you were shot in the head with an AK-47. It is the murderers fault that his/her friends must deal with his/her death, and not your fault for being shot in the head for no reason. I would also like to note I am just debating the importance of human life; I did not intend for this to apply to abortion.

My point is that killing a murderer is not a punishment for the murderer as much as it is a punishment for his or her relatives. I agree that they should be able to understand the situation, but still... no one is going to suffer if a baby is aborted, so I think that killing a murderer has worse overall consequences.


Free will is as real as the air around us.

Every real event is probabilistic, i.e. a combination between pure determinism (maths) and pure randomness. Free will makes it sound as if humans functioned otherwise, which is absurd. We aren't anything more than complex chaotic machines, because as a matter of fact, everything is a chaotic machine of a certain complexity.

In other words, free will only exists in language. It is a concept that has a meaningful effect on us, but which doesn't help to a meaningful representation of reality.


Plants do not have free will and cannot have the same impact as humans.

Depends on what you mean by impact. Humans could derivate photosynthesis from plants to produce the most efficient energy ever seen, and plants would have quite a lot of impact. I'll leave it to you to decide whether a craftsman has more impact than his tools. I would say that, in the end, they both have similar impact, but that's not something I would bother to defend.


Humans can be replaced, their individual personalities cannot. That was my point; sorry if it may have seemed unclear due to how I typed it.

It's debatable. If there is such a thing as an innate personality, it may be possible to understand it as a brain function, and to eventually retrieve personalities from fetuses. You could probably even conceive personalities à la carte, and implement them into embryos in vitro. But that's a whole other story.


Killing one another should never be an option to improve the quality of life around us. In some cases, such as murderers, there is no other considerable option. In the case of unborn babies, they should not be aborted for reasons such as the mother's well being in most cases. If it was not the mother's choice and her life were in danger, there may be an exception.

Even if killing the child increased global happiness, it should not be a choice, as there are other methods of increasing happiness. As for a real world case such as abortion, unless the mother's life is in danger, the child should not be killed. Again it is not human decision who should live or die; or at least it should not be.

Well, a priori, comfort isn't any less important than life. They are all data to compute, and which one takes the cake is up to circumstances and calculators. I don't see any pragmatical reason to give life special importance.

Okay, look, here's a method. When you want to take a decision, it's simple:

1) define goal
2) compute options
3) pick best results

Setting as goal: "save every living being that may end up being a fully grown human" is neither realistic nor useful. You have to find better. For example, "optimize the global happiness of humanity while keeping a growth rate for population equal to x percent" is a much more sensical objective. And if the best results involve killing three million frenchmen, that you're sure that your goal is correctly defined, that you didn't omit any major options, and that you computed them right, then let the heads roll.

In the case of abortion, with the goal I aforementioned in mind, the probability that the baby will have a significantly positive impact is too low to be considered. In all likelihood, if we let it live, it will have mediocre impact, and if we kill it, it will have an almost guaranteed positive impact in short term, or even in long term, both locally (for the mother) and globally (for women's rights). As long as abortion doesn't become a nasty habit, and violates the necessary growth condition, it is an option that should be available.

Keep in mind that my reasoning is completely based on logic, common sense and mathematics, and on the necessity to optimize a quantity. That's what turns my brain on, and there isn't any workaround. The only point you can really contest is whether or not you believe my goal is correct. I believe that my goal makes more sense, and I could defend it better if needed.

I would say that my general approach is pretty awesome, because it really, really narrows the debate. Define a goal. The rest ensues automatically. Voilà.

So what is the objective of society? What should it do? Why?


Stop being ridiculous. Cows could not talk from a single mutation and you know it. That would be like if I brought up that abortion may kill the first flying super intelligent human. Just no.

I know it's not likely, but I thought the example was entertaining. Didn't you? :(


I think this answers that question fairly. Essentially Satan is under God's control, and God allows him to tempt us to see if we will choose the right path. And God will destroy Satan in the coming future.

Fair enough.


So killing a random Joe in the street is okay? Admit it, the potential argument is won by the pro-lifers. You are more likely going to off a normal person than either extremely good or bad people. Last time I checked, normal people are expendable like that.

Actually, no, pro-lifers don't even win this argument, because having a baby at a very young age could compromise the future of many girls. As much as abortion would remove the baby's potential, not practicing it could ruin the mother's potential. Moreover, in general, the potential of a young woman is very easy to judge. You wouldn't just ruin the life of a potential nobel prize winner (eg a 15 years old girl who would start her doctorate albeit being emotionally unstable) in the hope of getting someone better, which is far less likely. You'd get an average Joe... that's not bad... but that's not enough.

It's a gamble between the potential of the baby and the potential of the mother. If you want to talk potential, you must take in account the potential of every affected entity. Ideally, that should be the method of decision, even if it is not practical and does seem pretty inconsequent.

[Sarcastic Assassin]

Getting back to abortion, I think the whole thing centers around when you believe life begins for the child-to-be. Pro-lifers would argue it begins at the moment of conception (when the sperm pierces the egg), and therefore, abortion is illegal. Pro-choicers, I'm sure, would disagree.

Fetuses/embryos being parasites? How did this topic get so off track? First of all, in most cases, humans are exceptions to almost every biological theory (consider people who are infertile, having children: this invalidates Darwinian evolution). Second of all, parasitism only exists when the host is being harmed. I would say this relationship is more mutualistic, like that fish that hangs around with sharks, and eats what the shark doesn't, and cleans the shark when necessary. In most cases, the mother-to-be must eat more than necessary, but she certainly isn't being harmed in the process.

[Sorovis]

Actually it has been decided already that humans are not parasites. That is accurate information nonetheless.


Education is the key to this issue. Parents need to demystify sex by talking to their kids about age-appropriate topics. The schools need to ignore all the BS that the various special-interest groups fling their way (including both pro-life and pro-choice propaganda), and teach the FACTS. Most people don't get the whole story until university, and by then it's too late. Nobody should ever be afraid of information; it's the only way to make a decision.

Thing is though information is constantly changing, being adjusted. It was not so long ago that it was believed by nearly all that there were only eight planets in the Solar System; now it is known that there are nine (possibly eight and a planetoid). Science is constantly changing; it is impossible to give flat-out facts because frankly, they may be wrong. Then you have the problem of bias. Quite simply, it is not realistic to only present students the facts, because the 'facts' differ from each side of an argument. One side may exploit one set of facts and overlook another, and vice versa. Bias cannot be eliminated unless we were to rely on computers to teach, and we all know what that would lead to...



I wasn't talking about that kind of statistics. Actually, I meant quite the opposite. Basically, for me, something is right if it increases global happiness. And calculating, or approximating, the result of an action on global happiness is principally statistical. This of course implies that an action which is right in a certain context could be wrong in another, and that the "true" right or wrong would have to be evaluated on a case per case basis.

No, with a case for case basis you leave too much room for confusion and chaos. A specific order must be set to ensure order. Humans are an organized species; we live because of set rules and regulations.

And about the global happiness thing, that just cannot work. Calculations are one thing, actual facts are totally different. I could publish a lie such as that homosexuality is genetic and totally unavoidable, and that homosexuals should simply be left alone; that their sexual orientations are totally natural. Despite all of the opposition I would recieve, it is very likely that there would be a decent percentage of the population that would believe me; because they wanted to, because they agreed with my conclusions, whatever. That would mean the statistical calculations of a world population could be decided by a lie. Humans are too unpredictable to rely upon.


I don't accept the simplistic vision according to which certain types of actions are always right or always wrong, although I reckon it is a relatively efficient way to work, since the human mind does work that way to an extent. However, I think that it's a good thing to understand that fundamentally, right and wrong are not tightly associated with specific actions, and that what could seem a priori inconsistent, such as allowing the murder of a fetus but not of a baby, is not necessarily inconsistent, if you look at it the right way.

With this system, murder could be looked upon as justified. If I were a charismatic speaker and popular, then I could get away with murdering an unpopular person, simply by having people look at my point of view. 'He cheated me out of my paycheck', or 'he stole my credit card', whatever. There must be a set base of rules that control people; otherwise people will end up controlling people. This sounds strange, yes, but now we have a base set of rules that we follow upon that cannot be altered case to case. If we did not, the strong would prey on the weak, and we would lose much of the intellectual and social advantages we one held over animals.


You don't get an abortion if you don't want to, unless the mother's life is endangered, which is a totally different problem. Quite obviously, I'm only defending abortion to the extent that the mother actually wants it.

Obviously yes. However, there may be no other choice; whether or not the mother originally wanted it, abortion may be the only option to save her life. This boils down to which is more important; the child, or the mother? Due to the amount of time the mother has had on this earth, and the fact that generally much or all of the decision lies on the mother, it is likely she will choose abortion. Self preservation always plays a role.


What about the side who initiated the attack in the first place? "Self defense" only applies for one side, not for both, unless they simultaneously decided to destroy each other.

In some cases however, attacks may be initiated for the overall benefit of one's country. If the opposing country has nuclear weapons and threatens to use them, for the safety of a country it would be wise to initiate an attack before the enemy and try to end any potential threats. This is not to say I totally agree with the war on Iraq; such actions should only take place if the country is in serious danger. In some instances, you see, self-defense may take place by launching the first attack.


My point is that killing a murderer is not a punishment for the murderer as much as it is a punishment for his or her relatives. I agree that they should be able to understand the situation, but still... no one is going to suffer if a baby is aborted, so I think that killing a murderer has worse overall consequences.

Before you say this you must realize that to keep that murderer alive, money from taxes is required. From our own pockets, no matter how insignifigantly small the sum may be from person to person, we give support to keep this criminals alive. The question is: should we? That murderer had a choice, whether to kill or not; it is his/her fault, it was in his/her power. If that person chose to damage society and take another's chance of freedom and life, then they should have to suffer the consequences. And due to a person's fear of what may lie after death, execution can be quite a terrifying and ultimate punishment.


Every real event is probabilistic, i.e. a combination between pure determinism (maths) and pure randomness. Free will makes it sound as if humans functioned otherwise, which is absurd. We aren't anything more than complex chaotic machines, because as a matter of fact, everything is a chaotic machine of a certain complexity.

Regardless, humans have a greatly expanded list of options than animals with any number of enhanced or unique abilities of reasoning and thought. Whereas humans may respond to a sizeable threat by building weapons and setting up an army, animals will not even realize the threat until the only options are fight or flight. We have free thought to organize and verbalize sentances to convey our feelings and emotions; animals do not. Humans have expansive (and almost limitless) sets of options that any other living creature has never had.


In other words, free will only exists in language. It is a concept that has a meaningful effect on us, but which doesn't help to a meaningful representation of reality.

It is free will nonetheless. A person's words can alter what another will do; suddenly the probability of what that listening person will do changes as he/she hears and understands new available options, or perhaps previously unseen consequences.


Depends on what you mean by impact. Humans could derivate photosynthesis from plants to produce the most efficient energy ever seen, and plants would have quite a lot of impact. I'll leave it to you to decide whether a craftsman has more impact than his tools. I would say that, in the end, they both have similar impact, but that's not something I would bother to defend.

Without the craftsman the tool cannot be used; it is useless unless put in capable hands. Alone plants can do nothing beyond serve themselves, but with plants people can do something greater; it is not the gun that kills someone, but the person wielding it.


It's debatable. If there is such a thing as an innate personality, it may be possible to understand it as a brain function, and to eventually retrieve personalities from fetuses. You could probably even conceive personalities à la carte, and implement them into embryos in vitro. But that's a whole other story.

Yes indeed. Then one must consider despite how much of a personality is predetermined, it is also affected greatly by the environment and other elements around. I would not be debating with you now if I had not decided to stand up to The Rusted One so many months ago; it is an outside factor that has kindled my passion for debating, even if genetics may have designed me to be somewhat gifted there in the first place.


Well, a priori, comfort isn't any less important than life. They are all data to compute, and which one takes the cake is up to circumstances and calculators. I don't see any pragmatical reason to give life special importance.

Life affects life; human life affects life with a conscious intention. Again, it is one human who can start a nuclear war, consequently killing millions, or perhaps building. With animals, life is not individually important, rather it all can all be predicted. With humans, there are so many more options it is hard to comprehend.

If one man kills another, he will become more likely to do it again. If that man gains the technology and potential, he can turn that murder towards many instead of one.


Okay, look, here's a method. When you want to take a decision, it's simple:

1) define goal
2) compute options
3) pick best results

Setting as goal: "save every living being that may end up being a fully grown human" is neither realistic nor useful. You have to find better. For example, "optimize the global happiness of humanity while keeping a growth rate for population equal to x percent" is a much more sensical objective. And if the best results involve killing three million frenchmen, that you're sure that your goal is correctly defined, that you didn't omit any major options, and that you computed them right, then let the heads roll.

But not all ends to actions can be seen. Something may happen when killing those frenchmen for instance that could drastically affect the originally intended outcome. Such a risk is unnecessary due to the high chance of being influenced to the point of where it does not meet the goal. Kill the frenchmen; their companions will seek revenge, and you will die before that goal can be realized or reached. (note that I am not specifically talking about fetuses here but in a larger picture)


In the case of abortion, with the goal I aforementioned in mind, the probability that the baby will have a significantly positive impact is too low to be considered. In all likelihood, if we let it live, it will have mediocre impact, and if we kill it, it will have an almost guaranteed positive impact in short term, or even in long term, both locally (for the mother) and globally (for women's rights). As long as abortion doesn't become a nasty habit, and violates the necessary growth condition, it is an option that should be available.

The value of human life however, if preserved and looked at from moral stance as opposed to mathmatical, overall the value of human life will be better retained in the human mind and murder will be avoided much more frequently. (note again that I am not focusing on abortion but rather the point that mathmatically calculating whether or not killing one would benefit the world is impossible, due to the almost infinate amount of outcomes in the immediate and distant future)


Keep in mind that my reasoning is completely based on logic, common sense and mathematics, and on the necessity to optimize a quantity. That's what turns my brain on, and there isn't any workaround. The only point you can really contest is whether or not you believe my goal is correct. I believe that my goal makes more sense, and I could defend it better if needed.

Your goal certainly makes sense, and I am very willing to continue this due to how much I am learning from it (not to mention the very welcome challenge!). Never before have I so heavily considered the mathmatical outlook on life, and I must say it does fascinate me. If you want to continue it, please do. If this topic gets closed during the process, then let us start another topic specifically for this, or perhaps in private messages if absolutely necessary.


I would say that my general approach is pretty awesome, because it really, really narrows the debate. Define a goal. The rest ensues automatically. Voilà.


So what is the objective of society? What should it do? Why?

If we were to debate this I am afraid I would have to take a conservative Christian view. Due to our conflicting beliefs, I am now having doubts as to whether we can realistically continue such a refined discussion. If you find an option that suits us both, I would be glad to hear it (keep in mind after debating with you I usually get a headache or somewhat sleepy; as of now I couldn't sit back and consider our options).


I know it's not likely, but I thought the example was entertaining. Didn't you? :(

Yes indeed. Again any continuation of this is very welcome and encouraged by me. I have not been met with a good challenge for a very long time, and it is about time I actually put deep and thought and consideration into my posts.

[Razola]

Actually, no, pro-lifers don't even win this argument, because having a baby at a very young age could compromise the future of many girls. As much as abortion would remove the baby's potential, not practicing it could ruin the mother's potential. Moreover, in general, the potential of a young woman is
I hear adoption's pretty cool.

Also, this is killing off a kid because it's a burden to you. That's not right. You messed you up, don't wipe away a life. Step up to the plate and take charge.


very easy to judge.
Perhaps. Let's see...she's not smart enough to listen to her parents or school and have your boyfriend wear a rubber. Based on her common sense, I'm putting my money on the fetus.


You wouldn't just ruin the life of a potential nobel prize winner (eg a 15 years old girl who would start her doctorate albeit being emotionally unstable) in the hope of getting someone better, which is far less likely.
Give me a break. You're saying a Nobel Prize winner is dum enough to not to use a contraceptive?


You'd get an average Joe... that's not bad... but that's not enough.
You're proof that this 15-year-old is going to become the next Nobel Prize winner is pretty flimsy.


It's a gamble between the potential of the baby and the potential of the mother. If you want to talk potential, you must take in account the potential of every affected entity. Ideally, that should be the method of decision, even if it is not practical and does seem pretty inconsequent.
What-ifs are nightmares indeed. How about the girl learns some responsibilty for once and takes care of her kid? Maybe both can win that Nobel then.

[The Muffin Man]

So killing a random Joe in the street is okay? Admit it, the potential argument is won by the pro-lifers. You are more likely going to off a normal person than either extremely good or bad people. Last time I checked, normal people are expendable like that.


Based on this I must assume that you support child abuse because it's the mother's child and she can do what she wants. C'mon.

*Rubs temple*Jeez...why is it that the pro-lifer "potential argument"? Because every OTHER argument that holds water is countered with "Well does that make it OK to do this?"

Read every post that's not pro-life. Now, please point out where any of them says anything even REMOTELY the same as "It is OK to kill anyone you want, abuse children, etc."...Until you can find this statement BESIDES in this post by a serious argument, I will just assume that you think it's wrong to step on bugs, eat meat or planets, breath(Might be killing bacteria!) and taking antibiotics and getting vaccinated. You never said it, but no one ever said they thought it was OK to kill innocent bystanders for no reason either.

[Rei_Zero]

XD Raz, you crack me up.
Note that I mentioned something about an embryo's personality? Because it has none. It has a potential for personality but that doesn't yet exist. That's why the potential arguement is moot. The embryo has yet to become an average joe, or an Einstein, or a Napoleon. It may become one, or it may not. Those things aren't determined till the thing actually enters the world, and in my view by then it is too late for abortion. You don't know what it will become and if your sincerely worried about potential then you can just halt the entire world.

[Razola]

Read every post that's not pro-life. Now, please point out where any of them says anything even REMOTELY the same as "It is OK to kill anyone you want, abuse children, etc."
You want me to wade through this entire thread? That's mean.

I basically don't see a point in killing off a kid because it's a burden. Just because "it's her child" doesn't make it right. We don't allow moms to off their kids once they are out of the womb. Why in it? And what's the gain here?

Rape is obvious. No one should be forced to have a kid, especially like that. And if the mother's life is in danger. If we can gurantee the mother's safety, no sense in risking both.



...Until you can find this statement BESIDES in this post by a serious argument, I will just assume that you think it's wrong to step on bugs, eat meat or planets, breath(Might be killing bacteria!) and taking antibiotics and getting vaccinated. You never said it, but no one ever said they thought it was OK to kill innocent bystanders for no reason either.
I've said it several times in animal threads. My Species > Other Species

Human laws and morals apply to humans. Animals don't give damn about them.

EDIT: You just made no sense Rei Zero. So because it doesn't have anything means the potenial argument is null? Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Brain]

I'm going to start over.

Here is my method:

First of all, I must define an objective for society. There are several candidates to be considered:

1- "We must save every life up from complexity level N everytime it is feasible."
2- "We must optimize the development of technology, aka the spatial expansion of complexity."
3- "We must maximize global happiness [while keeping a growth rate of N%]."

There are many others, and there are much more complex ramifications, but I'll only consider these simple versions of the three major possibilities I see.

I consider that goal 1. is irrealistic, and too general to be useful. I consider that goal 2. is the path that society will naturally follow, but that's a whole other story. I could explain my theories about the true importance of humanity (one that places everything in perspective), and how nature really works if you want me to. 2. is, in all likeliness, nature's goal, and we are totally subject to it, whereas as humans, 3. would probably be the way to go, consciously.

So, in my opinion, goal 3. is the most potent one, because seriously, I don't see how anyone could oppose measures that would undoubtedly make everyone globally happier. I assume that happiness can be quantified by measuring hormone rates and such, that it can also be estimated with reasonable accuracy, and that it is a goal that could theoretically be attained (as opposed as minimizing the amount of "evil", which can't be quantified in any satisfactory manner - it's too abstract).

There is a possibility that you mentioned, which would be a christian view of things. I however consider that it would not work, because it really is too abstract. If an action was undoubtedly making everyone happier, but was considered a biblical sin (a lie, perhaps?), I still think that it should be the way to go. I mean, seriously, metaphysical religious considerations about afterlife set aside, how can anything be any better than happiness?

Anyway, I'll take 3. as my goal. You could be tempted to add clauses to that objective. For example, you could be tempted to add a "no murdering" clause, pretending that life is a fundamentally special and important feature that should not be subject to normal considerations.

My claim, however, is that 3. is actually SUFFICIENT to cover that clause, precisely because everyone claims that life is a fundamentally special and important feature that should not be subject to normal considerations. Therefore, in order to attain global happiness, to some extent, that rule has to apply in order to make people feel more secure thus happier, and we have covered the clause. Voilà.

Now, the problem is to actually implement 3. It is obvious that it cannot be applied on a straight case per case basis, which would be the ideal method, because no one has the resources needed for that. Therefore, we must work with approximations. We have a goal in mind, and we must create rules in order to satisfy it the best we can.

Most, if not all of the universally reckognized moral rules can be easily derivated from 3. and shown to be almost optimal for several reasons. However, what we must keep in mind, is that our goal is not to just follow these rules, but to OPTIMIZE them in order to better meet 3. That's my real point. Rules are not finite. They are approximations, and as such, there is always the possibility to refine them in order to make them more accurate. Therefore, rules are bound to change and exceptions are bound to occur in order to better fulfill the requirements.

Abortion is an action that, regardless of the true status of the fetus, would better fulfill 3. No one who is not responsible for the action genuinely cares about the baby, and the quality of life of the mother will be increased. Therefore, global happiness will rise. Therefore, no matter if it's murder or not, it should be accepted. With my approach, with goal 3., that's the only reasoning I have to make.

In other words, for me, the ideal society would want to meet goal number 3 and would do so by implementing all rules that could be shown to work well. There could be other possibilities. I suspect that 2. is actually the strongest of the three (because nature "chooses" it almost systematically).

Anyway, you can always defend another goal if you have good reasons to do so. You could also see something I didn't, and show that my claims that abortion would increase global happiness are unfounded. Abortion certainly is another approximation that is not necessarily going to fulfill that objective every single time - moreover, it is thinkable that it would have negative consequences most of the times under certain specific social circumstances, although I think that, right now, it has a positive effect on global happiness most of the time.


I hear adoption's pretty cool.

I hear it is needlessly complicated.


Also, this is killing off a kid because it's a burden to you. That's not right. You messed you up, don't wipe away a life. Step up to the plate and take charge.

See my argument above for insight on how I consider your argument as irrational: ending a life isn't wrong because it's ending a life. Come on. Dig deeper. As a matter of fact, that argument is typically religious. Life isn't sacred or anything. It's data like any other, if you wish to give it weight, then explain why it has to have weight. Why can't you just wipe away a life? There are circumstances to every action, and I am always willing to consider them instead of making a priori decisions such as those you are advocating. All depending on your objectives, there are cases where wiping away lives is not justified, and cases where it is. And of course, you always have to explain and justify your objectives instead of assuming they are right without putting an ounce of thought in your choice.


Perhaps. Let's see...she's not smart enough to listen to her parents or school and have your boyfriend wear a rubber. Based on her common sense, I'm putting my money on the fetus.

You can be smart and irresponsible at the same time and you know it.


Give me a break. You're saying a Nobel Prize winner is dum enough to not to use a contraceptive?

Of course. It's not the same type of intelligence at all.


You're proof that this 15-year-old is going to become the next Nobel Prize winner is pretty flimsy.

Examples don't exactly necessitate proof, hence why they are examples.


What-ifs are nightmares indeed. How about the girl learns some responsibilty for once and takes care of her kid? Maybe both can win that Nobel then.

That's another gamble, and it's generally advised to pick the option which gives the greatest payoff, even if it means you have to make up for someone's irresponsibility.

edit:


I've said it several times in animal threads. My Species > Other Species

Human laws and morals apply to humans. Animals don't give damn about them.

Quoting in agreement.

[Lulu]

Why is everyone blaming women for abortion?Although I feel it is wrong It's not always the womens fault.Sometimes a condom or the pill is used but they don't work,A condom only works like 87% of the time,somethinglike that.Also sometimes the father of the child forces the mother to have an abortion because they don't want a kid.

[Checkmate]

I'm going to start over.

Good, because I haven't read the last two pages.


Here is my method:

First of all, I must define an objective for society. There are several candidates to be considered:

1- "We must save every life up from complexity level N everytime it is feasible."
2- "We must optimize the development of technology, aka the spatial expansion of complexity."
3- "We must maximize global happiness [while keeping a growth rate of N%]."

There are many others, and there are much more complex ramifications, but I'll only consider these simple versions of the three major possibilities I see.

I consider that goal 1. is irrealistic, and too general to be useful. I consider that goal 2. is the path that society will naturally follow, but that's a whole other story. I could explain my theories about the true importance of humanity (one that places everything in perspective), and how nature really works if you want me to. 2. is, in all likeliness, nature's goal, and we are totally subject to it, whereas as humans, 3. would probably be the way to go, consciously.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ok. On to the point. Number 3.


So, in my opinion, goal 3. is the most potent one, because seriously, I don't see how anyone could oppose measures that would undoubtedly make everyone globally happier. I assume that happiness can be quantified by measuring hormone rates and such, that it can also be estimated with reasonable accuracy, and that it is a goal that could theoretically be attained (as opposed as minimizing the amount of "evil", which can't be quantified in any satisfactory manner - it's too abstract).

I agree with you so far, and I'll take your word on the hormones stuff.


There is a possibility that you mentioned, which would be a christian view of things. I however consider that it would not work, because it really is too abstract.

You may have to elaborate. Christianity (notice I didn't say religion) is not abstract. It's largely black and white. Your proposition is more abstract than Christianity.


If an action was undoubtedly making everyone happier, but was considered a biblical sin (a lie, perhaps?), I still think that it should be the way to go. I mean, seriously, metaphysical religious considerations about afterlife set aside, how can anything be any better than happiness?

Here's the flaw with that theory. You said "undoubtedly making everyone happier". Undoubtedly? You can't do that. For instance, one might lie under the philsophy "whatever he doesn't know can't hurt him." But then the person that was lied to finds out anyway and is deeply hurt that you lied to them in addition to what was originally going to hurt them. Also, any efforts to make that person happy by means of them trusting your honesty are hampered.

As humans are finite beings, we cannot say that something will undoubtedly make people happier. This applies as well to obedience of Christianity. I could make someone unhappy by doing something that pleases God.

In conclusion, since humans do not know the future, any action a human can make will not 'undoubtedly' bring about any certain effect. You cannot know for sure.



Anyway, I'll take 3. as my goal. You could be tempted to add clauses to that objective. For example, you could be tempted to add a "no murdering" clause, pretending that life is a fundamentally special and important feature that should not be subject to normal considerations.

I personally think everyone obeying the Bible flawlessly would bring about your objective. (and will in time)


My claim, however, is that 3. is actually SUFFICIENT to cover that clause, precisely because everyone claims that life is a fundamentally special and important feature that should not be subject to normal considerations. Therefore, in order to attain global happiness, to some extent, that rule has to apply in order to make people feel more secure thus happier, and we have covered the clause. Voilà.

Making people happy will not cause global perfection. Global perfection will make people happy. That's what I think of your argument. I know it's not a perfect response to the above quote.


Now, the problem is to actually implement 3. It is obvious that it cannot be applied on a straight case per case basis, which would be the ideal method, because no one has the resources needed for that. Therefore, we must work with approximations. We have a goal in mind, and we must create rules in order to satisfy it the best we can.

Again, the problem with this is human imperfection and lack of knowledge. Ironically, the best way to implement your above strategy would be complete, universal obedience to the laws of the Bible since they are created by an infinite being. This is assuming you believe that it's God's word, which I know you, Brain, do not. But you must admit, total global obedience to an infinite loving being does make sense, in theory.


Most, if not all of the universally reckognized moral rules can be easily derivated from 3. and shown to be almost optimal for several reasons. However, what we must keep in mind, is that our goal is not to just follow these rules, but to OPTIMIZE them in order to better meet 3. That's my real point. Rules are not finite. They are approximations, and as such, there is always the possibility to refine them in order to make them more accurate. Therefore, rules are bound to change and exceptions are bound to occur in order to better fulfill the requirements.

I disagree. Rules, (especially biblical ones) need to be obeyed completely or not at all. Humans can always create an excuse for disobeying. (haven't you ever heard of a girl call their need for cosmetic attention an 'emergency) This dates back to people's opinion of what is just cause for breaking a rule. And since opinions differ, you could not create any rule that met with complete agreement and obedience. Some people would see something as wrong that others would see as right.

This is why the laws of man cannot always be trusted.


Abortion is an action that, regardless of the true status of the fetus, would better fulfill 3. No one who is not responsible for the action genuinely cares about the baby, and the quality of life of the mother will be increased. Therefore, global happiness will rise. Therefore, no matter if it's murder or not, it should be accepted. With my approach, with goal 3., that's the only reasoning I have to make.

You say 'will' like a prophet. The truth is not all mothers like their decision in the long term. They have dreams of babies calling out and I think I've even heard of dreams of babies' body parts in trash cans. That doesn't sound to me like an increase in quality of life.

Also, you are not taking into account the enormous joy that a parent recieves from raising a child (and the heartache as well)


In other words, for me, the ideal society would want to meet goal number 3 and would do so by implementing all rules that could be shown to work well. There could be other possibilities. I suspect that 2. is actually the strongest of the three (because nature "chooses" it almost systematically).

Have you ever heard of something called the millenial kingdom? When Jesus returns to Earth for the third time after the seven worst years of human history (we're currently awaiting the second which will precede the said seven years) he'll set up a utopian kingdom on Earth made up of Christians. (I'm not sure whether or not others are there) Everyone completely follows God's rules. It's a completely sinless society. (In my opinion, this will mean that our minds are opened to greater capacities so that we understand the truth of God's laws.) It's said that infants will be able to sleep right next to an alligator or lion and it will be fine. It's perfection!

From your above quote, it would seem you might like this idea.


Anyway, you can always defend another goal if you have good reasons to do so.

Nope. Your goal seems fine.


You could also see something I didn't, and show that my claims that abortion would increase global happiness are unfounded.

I think did, but maybe not decisively


Abortion certainly is another approximation that is not necessarily going to fulfill that objective every single time - moreover, it is thinkable that it would have negative consequences most of the times under certain specific social circumstances,

I agree.


although I think that, right now, it has a positive effect on global happiness most of the time.

I disagree.


See my argument above for insight on how I consider your argument as irrational: ending a life isn't wrong because it's ending a life. Come on. Dig deeper. As a matter of fact, that argument is typically religious. Life isn't sacred or anything. It's data like any other, if you wish to give it weight, then explain why it has to have weight. Why can't you just wipe away a life? There are circumstances to every action, and I am always willing to consider them instead of making a priori decisions such as those you are advocating. All depending on your objectives, there are cases where wiping away lives is not justified, and cases where it is. And of course, you always have to explain and justify your objectives instead of assuming they are right without putting an ounce of thought in your choice.

Right now, for discussion's sake, assume that the Bible is completely true. Just for a moment. That would mean that there is a God that loves you and me. Who wants us to be happy and has told us how to be happy. (his law) If everyone obeyed it completely, we would be happy. Without certain alterations this will not happen, but you can understand my point. We are finite. God is not. God knows the outcome of every possible scenario imaginable. And he has told us that in the long run we will [I]always[I] come out better by obeying.

If you just assume that the Bible is right, then your theories and suggestions would work. If you just take God's simple rules the world will become happier.

The question is whethor or not the Bible is true? A topic I would gladly debate, but not on this thread.

[Sorovis]

I'm going to start over.

Here is my method:

First of all, I must define an objective for society. There are several candidates to be considered:

1- "We must save every life up from complexity level N everytime it is feasible."
2- "We must optimize the development of technology, aka the spatial expansion of complexity."
3- "We must maximize global happiness [while keeping a growth rate of N%]."

There are many others, and there are much more complex ramifications, but I'll only consider these simple versions of the three major possibilities I see.

I consider that goal 1. is irrealistic, and too general to be useful. I consider that goal 2. is the path that society will naturally follow, but that's a whole other story. I could explain my theories about the true importance of humanity (one that places everything in perspective), and how nature really works if you want me to. 2. is, in all likeliness, nature's goal, and we are totally subject to it, whereas as humans, 3. would probably be the way to go, consciously.

I agree with three as well, along with your views on two. However, it is not always necessary to kill fellow human beings (without serious crimes and hostilities on their part of course) to maximize global happiness. There are always other options; ones that should be considered before the killing of 'insignifigant' people is ever initiated. Goal one is to a degree too broad as you have already stated; obviously there are cases where people must be killed, ie. insane and otherwise unstable individuals who are a danger to themselves and fellow humans in proven cases, and cannot be contained safely. This is not to say, however, that goal one is entirely unrealistic.


So, in my opinion, goal 3. is the most potent one, because seriously, I don't see how anyone could oppose measures that would undoubtedly make everyone globally happier. I assume that happiness can be quantified by measuring hormone rates and such, that it can also be estimated with reasonable accuracy, and that it is a goal that could theoretically be attained (as opposed as minimizing the amount of "evil", which can't be quantified in any satisfactory manner - it's too abstract).

True; morals are, however, necessary; we should not have to step out of these rules and beliefs in order to increase overall happiness. It is proven that human beings are more at ease and in comfort in structured environments in which activities are governed by realistic rules. True though, for the most part people are not opposed to increasing global happiness; but that is why we have many debates today. Many say that steps taken to increase the happiness and comfort step too far out of line of moral values; that these steps may have dangerous consequences, either unseen or in the future.


There is a possibility that you mentioned, which would be a christian view of things. I however consider that it would not work, because it really is too abstract. If an action was undoubtedly making everyone happier, but was considered a biblical sin (a lie, perhaps?), I still think that it should be the way to go. I mean, seriously, metaphysical religious considerations about afterlife set aside, how can anything be any better than happiness?

Happiness can be an illusion; a veil. It is not absolute and can be obtained through unsatisfactory means. Humans are unpredictable; we are a lustful, decieving, and greedy race to say in the least, and to utilize lies and other helf-truths would not at all be wise because it would encourage such methods to be used in the future. Once you begin to step beyond the bounds of morals, you begin to lose your bearings and beliefs. One wrapped in the misconception that morals are an illusion is more likely to engage in dangerous activities without immediate consequences; a lack of foresight on their part. In order to obtain the limited and overrated 'happiness', they may harm others in their way, not considering anything but themselves. This would cause anarchy eventually unless brought under control; each individual striving for themselves as opposed to eachother. Simply put, lies and other such tiny sins should not be capitalized; they are dangerous and destructive in the long run. Foresight is necessary to see this; that and the understanding that human beings are not flawless and all-knowing.


Anyway, I'll take 3. as my goal. You could be tempted to add clauses to that objective. For example, you could be tempted to add a "no murdering" clause, pretending that life is a fundamentally special and important feature that should not be subject to normal considerations.

Life is fundamentally special; I keep saying again and again that a single human can affect and/or destroy the lives of millions, and that much should be recognized. We are a social race; we require the benefits and support of others in order to excel, or survive for that matter. A realization that human life is important is necessary in order for the survival of the human race.


My claim, however, is that 3. is actually SUFFICIENT to cover that clause, precisely because everyone claims that life is a fundamentally special and important feature that should not be subject to normal considerations. Therefore, in order to attain global happiness, to some extent, that rule has to apply in order to make people feel more secure thus happier, and we have covered the clause. Voilà.

To some extent, that is the problem. If you go to one level, you will want to go to another, and another, and so on. It is in human nature to push the limits, and in allowing the murder of specific individuals, no matter how apparently beneficial it may seem, may stretch itself far beyond the original intentions. Once the conception that human life is valuable and important is discarded, many things that should not happen will; murder, anarchy, deceptions, whatever. Believing that killing any individuals to an extent reaches a goal of happiness simply ignores important factors such as human nature and will.


Now, the problem is to actually implement 3. It is obvious that it cannot be applied on a straight case per case basis, which would be the ideal method, because no one has the resources needed for that. Therefore, we must work with approximations. We have a goal in mind, and we must create rules in order to satisfy it the best we can.

Most, if not all of the universally reckognized moral rules can be easily derivated from 3. and shown to be almost optimal for several reasons. However, what we must keep in mind, is that our goal is not to just follow these rules, but to OPTIMIZE them in order to better meet 3. That's my real point. Rules are not finite. They are approximations, and as such, there is always the possibility to refine them in order to make them more accurate. Therefore, rules are bound to change and exceptions are bound to occur in order to better fulfill the requirements.

The murder of certain individuals is not, however. Nowhere in a person's morals does it state the termination of others in order to optimize the human race directly or indirectly. Execution is a different thing, if just possible this is what you have in mind, because individuals who have been and will be executed have proven to be dangerous to those around them. This is different than the murder of seemingly inferior people who have done nothing wrong, because execution is an enforcement of the rules; murder by all definitions, is most certainly not.


Abortion is an action that, regardless of the true status of the fetus, would better fulfill 3. No one who is not responsible for the action genuinely cares about the baby, and the quality of life of the mother will be increased. Therefore, global happiness will rise. Therefore, no matter if it's murder or not, it should be accepted. With my approach, with goal 3., that's the only reasoning I have to make.

No, I have already made a point that not in all cases is the aborted fetus not wanted or loves, but instead the opposite frequently takes place. Quite simply, abortion is generally a decision on which life should be spared; the mother, or the child. Otherwise abortion should not be used because, assuming the aforementioned fetus has a heartbeat and working nervous system, it is failing to recognize importance of a human life, or life at all, for that matter. What may come from this? The killing of deformed or damaged humans; those with down syndrome, in a wheel chair, those who are physically weak by genetics. What does this sound like to you? Let me give you a hint: it happened in the 1940's, and some eleven-million people died as a result of it.


In other words, for me, the ideal society would want to meet goal number 3 and would do so by implementing all rules that could be shown to work well. There could be other possibilities. I suspect that 2. is actually the strongest of the three (because nature "chooses" it almost systematically).

Anyway, you can always defend another goal if you have good reasons to do so. You could also see something I didn't, and show that my claims that abortion would increase global happiness are unfounded. Abortion certainly is another approximation that is not necessarily going to fulfill that objective every single time - moreover, it is thinkable that it would have negative consequences most of the times under certain specific social circumstances, although I think that, right now, it has a positive effect on global happiness most of the time.

My problems are with the abortion of fetuses tha exhibit all signs of life. My reasoning for this is clearly stated in my above paragraph. Whether you share this view, or think I am an insane, uptight Christian, that is your choice. I have, however, clearly explained my beliefs on this particular topic, and you may indeed see much of how I think in the above paragraphs. I've said it before and I'll say it again, arguing with you is definately worth it, and I will await your reply if you choose to present one. Otherwise, your ideas and beliefs I understand, and to a degree concur with, so do not think all of this typing was for naught. Until next time.

[Razola]

I'm out of the debate. I finished making posts of such lengths when TRO left.

[The Muffin Man]

Why is everyone blaming women for abortion?Although I feel it is wrong It's not always the womens fault.Sometimes a condom or the pill is used but they don't work,A condom only works like 87% of the time,somethinglike that.Also sometimes the father of the child forces the mother to have an abortion because they don't want a kid.

First of all, spaces after sentences. Christ, you're like Ryu Slayers slightly more literate sister.

Secondly, Who the hell is blaming anyone for abortion? It's not some evil epidemic. But if you mean why are women left to deal with it so often, well guess who can't have kids? The father. Guess who can? The mother. Guess who should have more leway about her own body? The mother.


EDIT - And Raz, I'm here mainly to make sure Lulu and Ryu Slayer learn at least semi-proper grammar and english. Other than that I've given up after my topic (Copy and paste argument, edit sides and reasons slightly) was proven true.

[Razola]

I've been on sites with dedicated debate forums. You don't need novel-esque posts to debate. Just basic summations.

[Sorovis]

First of all, spaces after sentences. Christ, you're like Ryu Slayers slightly more literate sister.

Has it ever occured to you that perhaps English may not be Ryu's first language? It's not that difficult of a concept. Ryu has also not shoved his beliefs down your throat any more than you have done to him, so stop your whining.

[phaedrus]

Has it ever occured to you that perhaps English may not be Ryu's first language? It's not that difficult of a concept. Ryu has also not shoved his beliefs down your throat any more than you have done to him, so stop your whining.

sure, even if the language isn't a first, i think spaces after sentences is established as a regular whatever is your first language (unless the first language is chinese or japanese or some random african language)

so you have just implied that spaces after sentences is a belief...because you don't want TMM shoving "[use] spaces after sentences" down "[his] throat".

cited sources: your above post, and TMM's post

unless they're in like 1st grade, the ESL department SHOULD have established spaces after sentences a hell of a long time ago.

[Sorovis]

sure, even if the language isn't a first, i think spaces after sentences is established as a regular whatever is your first language (unless the first language is chinese or japanese or some random african language)


Anyways the only time that I fell that Abortion is right is if and only if she were to be killed giving birth to it however you liberals have blown that point way out of proportion and have Deserved many Women in to thinking that every time they get pregnant weather by choice or not that they need an abortion, yes I am saying even if she was raped she should keep it, why you ask because why Should the baby suffer and get killed just because their a product of rape, how ever much you think about it as being wrong for the woman to keep it just remember that it is still a life and if given the chance to live it. I ask you is it Right for us to meddle in the future of the unborn? I say no it is not, like a seed you well never know what it can be unless you plant it and let it grow the same is true of a baby you well never know what they well be if you never give them the Chance to live.....


Read Much?

----


so you have just implied that spaces after sentences is a belief...because you don't want TMM shoving "[use] spaces after sentences" down "[his] throat".

I have no idea where you are getting this from nor do I care. The only thing I have to say is that I was talking about Ryu's Christian beliefs; not his nonexistent spacing problem.


cited sources: your above post, and TMM's post

Let us not forget the nonexistent posts by Ryu in which spacing was absent...

[VampireCharizard]

I'm not blaming Sovoris because he's defending Ryu Slayer when I say wasn't this a debate on abortion as opposed to what it has become: a flaming the grammer skills of our co-members? :what:

[RedStarWarrior]

All who are flaming Ryu....stop it right now! Thank you for sticking up for him, Sorovis.

[The Muffin Man]

All who are flaming Ryu....stop it right now! Thank you for sticking up for him, Sorovis.

I will when he stops butchering the English language and making intelligent religious people look HORRIBLY bad. Until then I'm not flaming him. I'm merely asking that he leave the poor english language alone.


Has it ever occured to you that perhaps English may not be Ryu's first language? It's not that difficult of a concept. Ryu has also not shoved his beliefs down your throat any more than you have done to him, so stop your whining.

Actually I believe constantly telling people the Bible has the solutions to their problems is alot more than I've done. Besides, if it isn't his first language, he should at least take the hints that he needs to learn to comprehend it alot better. You know, the OBVIOUS hints that tell him outright.

Secondly, Sorovis you idiot I was talking about Lulu not spacing. The "sister" part was because they BOTH butcher the English language and BOTH act like the bible is the only way to solve problems. Or did you just decide to read around that part, so that I looked like a fool?


Read Much?

Raven, do your job a little bit better next time and close topics like these -_-;;

[Razola]

If he's so devoted to it, Ryu should write in the same style as the Bible. The style's outdated, but it'll decrease eye strain by at least 78%.

[RedStarWarrior]

Raven, do your job a little bit better next time and close topics like these -_-;;
You will stop now or else. There are 3 other moderators, 4 s'mods, and 1 admin that also visit this forum besides me. They can close this if they wish. However, many of the topics wouldn't be closed if people like you didn't go off on tangents. I can read and understand what Ryu says and that is good enough for me. He doesn't need to have perfect English to be understood so drop it.

[Sorovis]

I will when he stops butchering the English language and making intelligent religious people look HORRIBLY bad. Until then I'm not flaming him. I'm merely asking that he leave the poor english language alone.

Look, I could yell and scream at you for making people in general look bad; you know, coming to a topic and claiming fetuses are parasites and such things? You have no room to criticize Ryu; the way he types is HIS choice, not The Muffin Man's. All you can do is make him laugh, depressed, or mad; unless that was your goal.


Secondly I believe constantly telling people the Bible has the solutions to their problems is alot more than I've done. Besides, if it isn't his first language, he should at least take the hints that he needs to learn to comprehend it alot better. You know, the OBVIOUS hints that tell him outright.

And I believe constantly telling me or anyone else who disagrees with you they are idiots for not falling in line with your beliefs is along those same lines; especially considering your beliefs are basically the opposite of Ryu's. Such as constantly calling the Bible a worthless piece of literature? Stop it, seriously, you have no room to talk.


Secondly, Sorovis you idiot I was talking about Lulu not spacing. The "sister" part was because they BOTH butcher the English language and BOTH act like the bible is the only way to solve problems. Or did you just decide to read around that part, so that I looked like a fool?

No I am aiming this to you in general for attacking Ryu every time he shows his face, ie. Mikey's topic, here, wherever. Why don't you attack Roarkiller for his terrible 'atrocities' of 'butchering' the English language? You see, how someone types is their choice, not yours. Leave it alone so we can please get back on topic.


Raven, do your job a little bit better next time and close topics like these -_-;;

From this I for some reason get the idea you are insulting Ryu just to get the thread closed. I for one enjoy debating on these types of topics, and would appreciate if it was allowed to run its course.


Why is everyone blaming women for abortion?Although I feel it is wrong It's not always the womens fault.Sometimes a condom or the pill is used but they don't work,A condom only works like 87% of the time,somethinglike that.Also sometimes the father of the child forces the mother to have an abortion because they don't want a kid.

Everyone is not blaming women, rather they expect an abortion to be the mother's choice. Much of the time nowadays it is the mother's choice, but you are correct in some instances the mother may be forced to have one against her will.

[The Muffin Man]

Look, I could yell and scream at you for making people in general look bad; you know, coming to a topic and claiming fetuses are parasites and such things? You have no room to criticize Ryu; the way he types is HIS choice, not The Muffin Man's. All you can do is make him laugh, depressed, or mad; unless that was your goal.
First of all, if you actually read any of my actual posts, you can see the "Fetus = parasite" thing was to show how blown out of proportion people can act in this argument. I said it in one of my posts I'm sure. But it made me look like less of an ass, so I can understand if you didn't want to read it.

Secondly, How he types is his choice. But when he types so incoherently that NO ONE can read it unless we really stress and strain, it becomes MY problem and THEIR problem as well.




And I believe constantly telling me or anyone else who disagrees with you they are idiots for not falling in line with your beliefs is along those same lines; especially considering your beliefs are basically the opposite of Ryu's. Such as constantly calling the Bible a worthless piece of literature? Stop it, seriously, you have no room to criticize.
No, I tell people who disagree with little or no reason idiots because they are. I don't care what someones beliefs are. Besides, I only retort with calling the bible FICTION(I've never once called it a "worthless piece of literature", or at least don't recall wording it like that exactly) when someone claims it's ALL TRUE. Now quit digging for criticism.




No I am aiming this to you in general for attacking Ryu every time he shows his face, ie. Mikey's topic, here, wherever. Why don't you attack Roarkiller for his terrible 'atrocities' of 'butchering' the English language? You see, how someone types is their choice, not yours. Leave it alone so we can please get back on topic.
Why not got on Healds case? He doesn't like how Ryu butchers the english language either. And I HAVE gotten on Roarkillers case, but I've given up because he at least isn't an idiot when he types like one. And the reason you're aiming at me is obviously because you don't like me. You've posted on the opposite side of my arguments in just about every debate I've been involved with. Way too many debates I'm in and way too many opposite stances you've taken really kind of makes me suspicious that, just maybe, you're just picking that side because I don't agree. And Raz before you post, no I'm not being paranoid and claiming everyone is out to get me. I can search for every debate involving me and Sorovis and I guarantee that we will rarely ever - If ever - be on the same side.




From this I for some reason get the idea you are insulting Ryu just to get the topic closed.

You're a genius! Oh I do believe you've caught me! You're deduction that "My deity says its' wrong so it is!" has pushed me into a corner for every last page of this debate! I fear I can no longer hold up with such arguments! I must withdraw because I have no real point! I'm just an awful man who hates babies and wants them to all die! Oh dear!

Gimme a break, Sorovis. I want the topic closed because ever since page 1 my formula for a debate(Copy and paste, edit your PoV into their post) is basically held true.

And before you act like the victim, the formula was not aimed at you at all. It's GENERAL. "Your" is anyone. So don't act like I'm singling you out.

[Heald]

Why not got on Healds case? He doesn't like how Ryu butchers the english language either.Meh. I merely laughed at it and translated it for him, then argued against it.

I really wasn't on Ryu's case because he can't spell, I got on his case because he used God as evidence against abortion. No offence to anyone out there, but God is not considered concrete evidence. Biblical morals can not be used in a debate to back up your opinions. You actually have to have your own opinions. Otherwise, you're flaccid amoebas who just follows either the 'God rox' crowd or 'God sux' crowd.

- HealdPK

The Best of the Forum

[RedStarWarrior]

The topic isn't being closed under Suzie's order, so give it a rest, Mike. Sorovis, please ignore Mike from now on. Any posts or parts of posts he makes after this will be deleted if they don't contribute to the topic of abortion.

Lulu, I think condoms work around 98% of the time, unless they break. Also, the mother is not always responsible as sometimes a pregnancy may threaten her health and thus require her to get an abortion in order to live.

[The Muffin Man]

The topic isn't being closed under Suzie's order, so give it a rest, Mike. Sorovis, please ignore Mike from now on. Any posts or parts of posts he makes after this will be deleted if they don't contribute to the topic of abortion.

Lulu, I think condoms work around 98% of the time, unless they break. Also, the mother is not always responsible as sometimes a pregnancy may threaten her health and thus require her to get an abortion in order to live.

99.8 I believe it was, if you use spermacide.

[RedStarWarrior]

Yes, you are correct, Mike. I tend to not use spermacide, though. Hell, I don't even use condoms most of the time.

[The Muffin Man]

Yes, you are correct, Mike. I tend to not use spermacide, though. Hell, I don't even use condoms most of the time.

*Snickers*Like YOU need 'em ;)

Sorry, had to burn Scott.

[Sorovis]

Sorovis, please ignore Mike from now on.

As you wish.


And I think condoms work around 98% of the time, unless they break. Also, the mother is not always responsible as sometimes a pregnancy may threaten her health and thus require her to get an abortion in order to live.

Yes, condoms generally do their job well in terms of preventing impregnation. Generally it's the STD's people are worried about when condoms are brought into the picture and questioned. Missed that point when I originally answered Lulu.

[Checkmate]

First of all, if you actually read any of my actual posts, you can see the "Fetus = parasite" thing was to show how blown out of proportion people can act in this argument.

It seems to me you're just trying to cover yourself after getting hammered on that point.


I said it in one of my posts I'm sure. But it made me look like less of an ass, so I can understand if you didn't want to read it.

I'm not sure that's possible.


Secondly, How he types is his choice. But when he types so incoherently that NO ONE can read it unless we really stress and strain, it becomes MY problem and THEIR problem as well.

I, personally, don't have trouble reading it. Perhaps your 'stressing and straining' to read it just indicates your lower level of intelligence.


No, I tell people who disagree with little or no reason idiots because they are.

You seem to fall under that criteria yourself.


I don't care what someones beliefs are. Besides, I only retort with calling the bible FICTION(I've never once called it a "worthless piece of literature", or at least don't recall wording it like that exactly) when someone claims it's ALL TRUE. Now quit digging for criticism.

There are half-decent arguments out there to say that it was embellished, but anyone who calls it pure fiction merely proclaims there ignorance in a quite boastful manner.


You're a genius! Oh I do believe you've caught me! You're deduction that "My deity says its' wrong so it is!" has pushed me into a corner for every last page of this debate! I fear I can no longer hold up with such arguments! I must withdraw because I have no real point! I'm just an awful man who hates babies and wants them to all die! Oh dear!

While, I know you're being sarcastic (as is your defense mechanism when all else fails) you seem to have quite accurately captured your position on this thread. Once again you show your ignorance. Before I came on these threads Sorovis never once used the argument you accuse him of using. And still rarely (if ever) does. I'm the one that tends to use that, and that has more to do with my not being able to be met with any coherent debate to prove otherwise. Don't accuse Sorovis of doing things that I do and he doesn't.

I apologize for the spam nature of this post, but the actual debate seems to have died and I felt compelled to reply to this. Raven, I do not intend to continue a spam conversation with the Muffin Man so do not worry.

[RedStarWarrior]

*Snickers*Like YOU need 'em ;)

Sorry, had to burn Scott.
LOL...it's okay, Mike. Yes, I should have used them with this one girl because she got pregnant. Of course, we decided to keep it but she had a miscarriage which sucked. The trauma of that contributed to our breakup.

[The Muffin Man]

It seems to me you're just trying to cover yourself after getting hammered on that point.

Seems to me that you really don't have an argument besides "YOU ARE INFERIOR TO ME LOLZ", so I'm just gonna go ahead and point out why you're an idiot throughout this post. First pont - You can use that excuse whenever you can't think of an argument. "Ummm...That's because you're wrong!"



I'm not sure that's possible.

To look like less of an ass? Aww thanks.



I, personally, don't have trouble reading it. Perhaps your 'stressing and straining' to read it just indicates your lower level of intelligence.

I can guarantee I'm smarter than you. One of the main reasons I won't state. But I also actually read words. I'm one of the few who doesn't read the first and last, like that study indicated most people do.



You seem to fall under that criteria yourself.
I disagree with myself for no reason...?




There are half-decent arguments out there to say that it was embellished, but anyone who calls it pure fiction merely proclaims there ignorance in a quite boastful manner.
Well first of all, yes there are decent arguments out there. Not here, but there are. Secondly, of course it's not ALL fiction. But then again, Star Wars isn't all fiction...



While, I know you're being sarcastic (as is your defense mechanism when all else fails) you seem to have quite accurately captured your position on this thread. Once again you show your ignorance. Before I came on these threads Sorovis never once used the argument you accuse him of using. And still rarely (if ever) does. I'm the one that tends to use that, and that has more to do with my not being able to be met with any coherent debate to prove otherwise. Don't accuse Sorovis of doing things that I do and he doesn't.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I was not being sarcastic. I was merely pointing out that, because of HIS beliefs, all women should be disallowed from deciding over there own bodies and that reasoning cannot be counter-argued! I was not being sarcastic!


I apologize for the spam nature of this post, but the actual debate seems to have died and I felt compelled to reply to this. Raven, I do not intend to continue a spam conversation with the Muffin Man so do not worry.
"*Jabs a cow with a fork*I don't intend to agitate this creature anymore."

You know, Checkmate. If you're going to "Not do anything", you might as well NOT START...

[RedStarWarrior]

Okay Mike, your response was justified this time. Checkmate, I understand that you won't continue this, but you shouldn't have posted anything in the first place.

[Pokemaster Matt]

And Raz before you post, no I'm not being paranoid and claiming everyone is out to get me. I can search for every debate involving me and Sorovis and I guarantee that we will rarely ever - If ever - be on the same side.


In before Raz- you're being paranoid. And just because someone doesn't agree with you pretty much all the time doesn't mean they're doing it to spite you, or whatever. How often did TRO and Raz agree? I never remember them gettting paranoid about it.

[Sorovis]

Please let us get back on topic or let this thread die. Insult matches as Adonis has said are not necessary nor allowed. In all honesty, if you want to start a thread called 'Sorovis (and Checkmate?) Suck!', then feel free. But really, don't be suprised if I make a special appearance.

[RedStarWarrior]

I will start deleting all posts that don't contribute to the topic.

[Sorovis]

So as of now it has been established that a) fetuses are NOT parasites, b) abortion is not always a preferred course of action, and c) that the potential argument is about as productive as stabbing yourself in the eye.

If I remember correctly Hikaru posted something about how after a certain point a fetus has all of the qualities of human life except free will (which Brain has raised points against in the mean time) and free thought. I have no links at the current time to back this up, but I recall hearing somewhere that certain people have memories from when they had not yet been born. So let's not just discard the idea that unborn babies don't necessarily count as life-- or human life for that matter.

[Metallixs Girl]

Can babies hear noise from inside the womb? I heard that if you play soothing music, it sooths the baby. Is that proven?

[Sorovis]

Yes, that is true. After the child's nervous system and all of that has developed, he/she can do many things that exhibit awareness, ie. kicking from inside when pressure is applied from outside.

[RedStarWarrior]

Even before the unborn child can hear, music can affect it. The mood of the mother can affect the child as chemicals (adrenaline, etc.) released in her blood stream flow to the child and thus it experience similar feelings.

[Sorovis]

I suppose from my viewpoint abortion should not be an option if the child has developed enough to where it could feel pain if it was aborted; or only perhaps in cases where the mother may die otherwise. Quite simply, I despise people who take the risks of having sex and then get an abortion simply because it is the convenient thing to do. That shows either disregard of another's life and/or laziness.

Regardless of whether you believe unborn babies count as human life, pregnancy should nonetheless remain a consequence of intercourse, as it shows a sign of maturity (or foolishness; we will assume otherwise). Those who do not abide by the steps to avoid impregnation should not be allowed to take the easy way out.

[The Muffin Man]

In before Raz- you're being paranoid. And just because someone doesn't agree with you pretty much all the time doesn't mean they're doing it to spite you, or whatever. How often did TRO and Raz agree? I never remember them gettting paranoid about it.

Actually, I remember Sorovis having a similar side as me in a post before mine, but after I posted, he suddenly disagreed with the side he was just on.



Yes, that is true. After the child's nervous system and all of that has developed, he/she can do many things that exhibit awareness, ie. kicking from inside when pressure is applied from outside.

But that's well after the time that abortion is illegal anyways.

[Pokemaster Matt]

Actually, I remember Sorovis having a similar side as me in a post before mine, but after I posted, he suddenly disagreed with the side he was just on.

Never mind then. Maybe you aren't completely paranoid.


But that's well after the time that abortion is illegal anyways.

You mean legal, right?



Anyway, just to stay on topic, IMO, abortion should only be legal if a) You do it before it develops too far, and b) the birth would pose a serious threat to the mother's welfare.

[Kirei]

Never mind then. Maybe you aren't completely paranoid.



You mean legal, right?



Anyway, just to stay on topic, IMO, abortion should only be legal if a) You do it before it develops too far, and b) the birth would pose a serious threat to the mother's welfare.

I think what Mike meant was that it was after the time it becomes illegal to abort (It's 24 weeks here in the UK). If I were to have an abortion, I'd hope the have it WAY before 24 weeks, not only is the procedure much more complicated but I think by then the baby has developed quite far. If you don't believe me, I read an article in this morning's paper about a baby that was aborted at 25 weeks (for medical reasons it had to be aborted or the mother could have died) and the baby actually survived the abortion and is now expected to survive fine outside the womb - so if a baby at 25 weeks is developed enough that it could survive being born that prematurely, I think 24 weeks is too long and the legal time scale to have an abortion should be made lower. :196:

[Sorovis]

Actually, I remember Sorovis having a similar side as me in a post before mine, but after I posted, he suddenly disagreed with the side he was just on.

My view has basically remained the same throughout the thread. So either our views still agree or never did in the first place.


But that's well after the time that abortion is illegal anyways.

Then in that case I really don't have much against the standing laws. Still doesn't seem right to me even before then, but then again I really have no arguments to use at the time anyways.

[The Muffin Man]

My view has basically remained the same throughout the thread. So either our views still agree or never did in the first place.

Not this thread. I shoulda been a bit clearer, sorry.



Then in that case I really don't have much against the standing laws. Still doesn't seem right to me even before then, but then again I really have no arguments to use at the time anyways.

Yes, the standing laws outlaw abortion after like 3 or so months, when the fetus begans to take shape and at that point it becomes closer to murder. I'm not against outlawing it past 3 months. I'm against outlawing it totally.

[Sorovis]

Well in that case it seems our views are not so different after all. I don't think it should be outlawed totally either; especially when it may place the mother in a life or death situation.

Aside from that I am interested in finding where exactly I agreed with you. It definately isn't anything dealing with religion, I'm guessing that much.

[Checkmate]

People are talking about when it's too late to have an abortion, but there's one problem I've always had with drawing such lines. I'm not certain about the US laws, but going by Kirei's 24 weeks, I raise this question.

Is this to say that at 168 days the baby is considered human, but at 167 days it is an insignificant piece of a female's body equivalent to an appendix? Is that to say that if you have an abortion late at night that you'd better hurry lest you not do the deed until 12:00 AM at which time it becomes murder?

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to draw a line and say this is when it's alive and until then it's an appendix. I mean that is seriously what this boils to.

When it's conceived, it becomes a life. Period.

[Sorovis]

Generally the line is drawn once the fetus exhibits signs of basic life and develops many (or most) of the major body systems required for life. Basically once it is almost ready to start an independant life outside of the mother's body. Obviously yes, this line is not solid and most likely does (or should) differ on a case to case basis.

I am undecided on the whole affair as must be apparent by now, and I can see from both sides of the argument; simply put, I have decided to not choose a definate side until I look into the matter myself, which will not be soon.

[Checkmate]

But I still maintain that the idea of drawing a line to say to tell the difference between life and not life seems to me ludicrous and I don't understand how one can even try to draw a line.

[Prodigy]

Food for thought..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm


- From 12 weeks, unborn babies can stretch, kick and leap around the womb - well before the mother can feel movement

- From 18 weeks, they can open their eyes although most doctors thought eyelids were fused until 26 weeks

- From 26 weeks, they appear to exhibit a whole range of typical baby behaviour and moods, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccoughing, and sucking.

[Sorovis]

That certainly intrigues me. Not to mention makes me reconsider the justification of allowing abortion up until the twentieth week or so. If the fetus is capable of those types of actions and reactions at the thirteenth week, then it quite simply has become too developed to kill off. By then it would have a nervous system, and would most likely be able to feel the abortion taking place, which is indeed a disturbing thought...

[GreenShirT]

I think it is a fair bet that before a certain time an unborn baby is not living or isnt really aware of what is going on around it (regardless of whether it moves) and it should probably be upto the mother to decide if she wants to keep her unborn baby or not and no one should be able to tell her otherwise. It isn't like this world is under populated afterall and people die everyday, ok these could possibly be alot younger than most people who die (if there weren't any abortion laws) but the babys haven't experienced anything so they won't miss it.

[Sorovis]

Doesn't mean we should kill them off. I can think of a much more moral friendly approach; don't get pregnant in the first place. Aside from cases of rape, that essentially covers that issue.

[The Muffin Man]

Doesn't mean we should kill them off. I can think of a much more moral friendly approach; don't get pregnant in the first place. Aside from cases of rape broken condom, stupid teenagers, misled teenages, drunkenness, that essentially covers that issue.

Yeah, Rapes not the only way an unwanted pregnancy happens. Even if they DO wear a condom, and they don't want a baby, it CAN break.

[Sorovis]

Stupid teenagers are a problem for more than just unintended pregnancy, and should be treated as one. Broken condoms are a small enough issue to where I'm going to consider it in the same category as rape. Drunkenness might as well be under the 'stupid teenagers' category.

Of course there is one solution to all of this; outlaw premarital sex. Sure, it'll never succesfully be enforced, and I am sure it is an unpopular idea here, but it really does eliminate most of those problems, really.

[The Muffin Man]

Stupid teenagers are a problem for more than just unintended pregnancy, and should be treated as one. Broken condoms are a small enough issue to where I'm going to consider it in the same category as rape. Drunkenness might as well be under the 'stupid teenagers' category.

Of course there is one solution to all of this; outlaw premarital sex. Sure, it'll never succesfully be enforced, and I am sure it is an unpopular idea here, but it really does eliminate most of those problems, really.

Now I KNOW outlawing premarital sex is religion based. And you just couldn't stop yourself, could you?

You know what we need to do? Not outlaw anything. Because all it's gonna do is make the crime for it even worse. People will even be getting VDs, but due to the laws can't do a damn thing about it. Abortion will be MORE rampant, and not even done by doctors but anyone with a coathanger and 5 minutes! Why, you ask? Because it'll be illegal to have premarital sex, and if they get a VD or pregnant, they can't go to the doctor because he can tell the cops what happened(I'm pretty sure they can tell the police if you've, say, been shot for breaking into a house) and then we'll be in an even WORSE situation than before.

This isn't speculation. You KNOW damn well that this is gonna happen.

[Heald]

Now I KNOW outlawing premarital sex is religion based. And you just couldn't stop yourself, could you?Extramarital sex (which includes all sex which isn't exclusive with your life partner i.e. premaritial, adultery) does have religious roots but all religions ban extramarital sex, basically. It also has moral roots. Extramarital sex becoming more accepted has caused an increase in divorces, broken families and the like. Extramarital sex is also the root of every STD.

I'm not getting on your case Mike, but extramarital sex has many more problems than benefits. Saving sex for marriage is indeed much more a moral issue than a religious issue.

[RedStarWarrior]

Extramarital sex is also the root of every STD.
I would like to see you prove that outrageous statement. Extramarital sex is a cause of the quick spreading of STDs but not the direct root of them.

[Sorovis]

Agreeing with Heald. Premarital sex and the like does cause many of the problems mentioned. May not be how STD's originated, but it does spread them much quicker, along with causing many more problems.

[phaedrus]

Extramarital sex (which includes all sex which isn't exclusive with your life partner i.e. premaritial, adultery) does have religious roots but all religions ban extramarital sex, basically. It also has moral roots. Extramarital sex becoming more accepted has caused an increase in divorces, broken families and the like.


Just letting you know in Buddhism, one ultimate test of your Karma is having sex and not getting 'bad energy' from it. If you get through that with more Karma than before, then you are an Enlightened One, in a sense. And Buddhists (hardcore Buddhists) are ALWAYS single.

NOTE: if you didn't read my stuff in parentheses, i'll repeat it again - only hardcore Buddhists do that kind of crazy stuff. since i'm more of the softcore type, no, i don't plan on doing something to that degree.

[Heald]

I would like to see you prove that outrageous statement. Extramarital sex is a cause of the quick spreading of STDs but not the direct root of them.AIDs was virtually non-existant until the idea of mutiple sexual partners came around. It isn't the root, so I concede that (I'm quite tired, give me a break) but if people only had at most one sexual partner, STDs would actually be destroyed.

[Sorovis]

The religions that frown upon premarital sex have a good point though. For one, most people unless they are mature enough to be married, are not responsible to the point to where they can be trusted to have sex in the first place. Generally unplanned for pregnancies that could have been prevented or the passing of STD's happens due a couple's lack of foresight; something that is developed (generally) as they mature. Imagine sexual intercourse to be like a gun; if you are not responsible enough to use (or engage in) it safely and sanely, then you should not have one at all, as you may end up harming others.

[HavoX]

Agreeing with Heald. Premarital sex and the like does cause many of the problems mentioned. May not be how STD's originated, but it does spread them much quicker, along with causing many more problems.

I used to know a girl who grew up in a farm, and...

Don't even think about it, Jon.
~ L_P

Anyway, there are many ways that can be done to prevent STDs, but alot of people with the disease can't be so sure whether they have it until they get tested for it.

[Checkmate]

Now I KNOW outlawing premarital sex is religion based. And you just couldn't stop yourself, could you?

You 'KNOW' this because you see Sorovis as religious. (moreso than he probably sees himself)

I see you as (for lack of a more delicate term) an idiot.(moreso than you probably see yourself) Is your logic to say that all your arguments are idiocy based?

Why not just accept that Sorovis' idea (while seemingly radical) makes sense. It would effectively put a stop to the spread of [I]sexually[I] transmitted deseases if adhered to, though I know most would not obey such a law.

But still, why should you decide 'well people won't obey it so why make it?' People won't obey the law against murder so why make it?

Perhaps your argument is idiocy based.

[Sorovis]

The best way to avoid it though is to simply avoid sexual intercourse until one is mature enough to responsibly engage in it. Problem solved. Of course then, as The Muffin Man said, there would be the issue of enforcing such a law, and of course, passing it.

[The Muffin Man]

You 'KNOW' this because you see Sorovis as religious.


No, actually, because I know the bible is AGAINST premarital sex.

[The Muffin Man]

You 'KNOW' this because you see Sorovis as religious. (moreso than he probably sees himself)

I see you as (for lack of a more delicate term) an idiot.(moreso than you probably see yourself) Is your logic to say that all your arguments are idiocy based?

Why not just accept that Sorovis' idea (while seemingly radical) makes sense. It would effectively put a stop to the spread of [I]sexually[I] transmitted deseases if adhered to, though I know most would not obey such a law.

But still, why should you decide 'well people won't obey it so why make it?' People won't obey the law against murder so why make it?

Perhaps your argument is idiocy based.

Because murder isn't commited by a larger scale of people than you'd like to admit.


Bolded - Because it DOESN'T make sense.

[Systematic Revolution]

Why not just accept that Sorovis' idea (while seemingly radical) makes sense. It would effectively put a stop to the spread of [I]sexually[I] transmitted deseases if adhered to, though I know most would not obey such a law..


What in the blue hell? Since when is eliminating premarital sex going to effectively put a stop to the spread of sexually transmitted disease? Are you aware of a) the divorce rate in this country? b) almost everyone cheats on their husband/wife? Outlawing premarital sex would be dumb. It's impossible to reinforce it, for one thing. What, is God going to monitor everything and alert the police when you have sex? (Thanks to TMM for that one) You're pretty ignorant if you think outlawing premarital sex will stop the spread of STDs. Gee, get married and go screw your secretary who will go screw some guy she meets at the club who will screw his girlfriend. It's still going to spread. Until we find a real cure for each STD, nothing is going to halt the spread. Even finding a cure won't do it. Sorry to burst your fairy tale bubble, but if you honestly think that outlawing premarital sex will do ANYTHING, you're insane.

~SR

EDIT: Also, even if people DID obey the law, it would still spread. It would just spread slower. I will give you that. It would stem the flow a bit, but it's still going to spread.

[Sorovis]

Banning premarital sex would do more than just slow the spread of STDs. It would also lessen the number of idiots who accidentally have children, and perhaps stop the rate of abortions for one. Quite simply, teenagers in general are not mature enough to responsibly handle something like sex. Just like you don't give guns to kids on streets, it would not at all be wise to support something like premarital or exramarital sex.

I would also like to say the devorce rate is so high most likely due to a lack of maturity in the couple (or just one person), and premarital sex. Sexual intercourse creates a deep emotional bond between people, and when that bond has been broken and stretched so many times, it simply does not work in the way it should and thus husband and wife do not share the same emotional attachment as they should (and would most likely help their marriage last).

[The Muffin Man]

Banning premarital sex would do more than just slow the spread of STDs. It would also lessen the number of idiots who accidentally have children, in a hosptial where they could get cared for and perhaps stop the rate of abortions in the office of a doctor who knows what he is doing for one. Quite simply, teenagers in general are not mature enough to responsibly handle something like sex. Just like you don't give guns to kids on streets, it would not at all be wise to support something like premarital or exramarital sex.


I would also like to say the devorce rate is so high most likely due to a lack of maturity in the couple (or just one person), and premarital sex.

...*Sighs**rubs temples*What is it with you and this crusade against premarital sex?


Sexual intercourse creates a deep emotional bond between people, and when that bond has been broken and stretched so many times, it simply does not work in the way it should and thus husband and wife do not share the same emotional attachment as they should (and would most likely help their marriage last).

This isn't gonna help them any more than anything else. It's alot deeper than that.