DISCUSSION: Status of the Unborn [Archive]

Gatomon41

03-28-2007, 12:34 AM

Contraception would of course be much better, though, and it's a shame that many religous authorities are still discouraging contraception as sinful. The Roman Catholic Church has probably been responsible for more back-alley abortions than most other causes.

This is the mopst ignorant statement I have evr heard. It's like saying the cops are responsible for illegal crimes because they're there to prevent it.

A shame too that U.S. politicians and U.S. schools are pushing abstinence only education. Abstinence only education is great when it works, but when it fails it makes unwanted babies.

If people don't want children, then don't do it. It's called cause and effect. Every consquence has a reaction. There's also something called responbility, which I seem to remember that people are supposed to take responbility for their actions. Instead, they try to blame it on others.

Guess what? I'm tired of people not taking responbility. If they're not mature enough to raise a child, then they are not mature enough for sex.

As for the main topic, all humans, from conception to death, are humans. I don't care what stage, ability, life or strength, they're my brothers and sisters. I take offense if anyone calls them a thing. They're not just "tissue" or "cells", but my fellow humans. Human life is sacred, and to destroy it wantonly would only destroy our society.

Anyone remember the Eugenics movement back in the early 20th century? Or the horrors unleashed in WWII? The days in which people were labeled as animals or useless and then disposed of. I had hoped we have learnwed from that nightmare. But even today we have not learned about the diginty of humanity.

Even now people call their fellow men "parasites" or "tissue" or "waste to society". It sickens me.

En Sabah Nur

03-28-2007, 12:36 AM

In my opinion, life begins as soon as the heart starts to beep. That is how you tell if a person is alive or not. An embryo, at its conception to it's fetus stage is nothing more than a parasite, living in a host body. When you can tell that the heart starts to work, thats when life begins. But this is just my opinion, nothing more.

The Guitar Slayer

03-28-2007, 01:06 AM

Uh oh, someone brought up the Roman Catholic Church. /close thread.

Considering that the Catholic Church has funded places such as Birth Haven, foster homes for single mothers that have been kicked out, battered women's shelters, and other such charities, I would do my homework before you lay back-alley abortions at their feet....since, you know, they're patently against any sort of termination, minus natural biological events. They rather the woman have the baby, and they offer support services for that, as well as after-abortion care.

The Catholic Church doesn't promote unnatural birth control like condoms, but it does promote birth control. NFP works. If you think you could get pregnant, then well, the obvious answer is not to have sex during those days of the month that you could. Abstinence is the surefire way not to get knocked up.

Also, it's not as if by listening to the Catholic Church that the ears are blocked from all other info. If you're not going to keep it in your pants (as the Church says), you might as well ignore the "no birth control" idea they endorse; they're Part I and II of the same concept. Deny one and so you must deny the other. Otherwise, you're just asking to be knocked up. Go all the way in one direction (no sex = no baby) or all the way in the other (protected sex = no baby); don't be a moron and take the middle path. There's a world of ways to be responsible. And that's guys and girls alike.

So yeah, not the Catholic Church's or any particular religion's fault. Do your homework.

If anything, it is originally Victorian sentimentalities that make women go out and abort children: the notion of shame, the idea that a women is supposed to be "pure" before marriage (and a kid is evidence to the contrary), and what constitutes a whore. Victorian times were a two-faced world -- prim and proper on the outside, raging disease and unsanitary practices within. If you ever do research on Jack the Ripper and the world he lived in, you get the idea...or even Les Miserables in France -- same trends. Things had to be hidden to maintain societal appearances; at this time historically, being religious wasn't a requirement, and it was rather a virtue to be academically inclined and somewhat above all the hocus pocus. Aborting unwanted babies was "not right" but they shunned the mother afterward. Or, if she had the child, they were on the street. It was all about being the toast of the town, conspicuous consumption. And what you did privately was ... not to be shared. And having a baby out of wedlock with an "undesirable" suitor who wouldn't benefit the family was a big no no.

Now in this day and age of mother's rights versus fetus rights, it's a matter of choice and body rights, supposedly. Why it costs me $600 to $900 to exercise my "right", I don't know. I don't need to pay a toll for my freedom of speech or my right to exercise religion. It's a hell of a price to pay financially, physically, and emotionally for a "right." Emotionally - people keep track of their "would-have-been" due dates. They wonder what could have been. Usually, the relationship the kid came from doesn't last once you abort it.

That said, I'm opposed to termination of pregnancies. If you can't take care of your kid or can't grasp the concept of contraception, keep it in your pants next time and give the child away to someone who can't have their own baby.

Martianinvader

03-28-2007, 01:30 AM

Let's have less Homer Simpson, and more money for public schools!

Antiyonder

03-28-2007, 02:39 AM

I don't know, honestly, when a fetus becomes a person. I do see that there's often a societal need for abortion, and I don't see how you can force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term.

The woman in question knows that her action will possibly result in childbirth, so it's not like she an innocent victim. And of course I don't understand why people create negative labels for babies born out of wedlock. The baby has no control if the man and woman in question do it, so why condemn the child for actions that are out of their hand?

Harvey Two Face

03-28-2007, 02:57 AM

I consider the fetus a person, an identity, but hasn't got a chance to express their own opinion (obviously being stuck in the womb) and is therefore is at a major disadvantage when it is up to the mother in considering abortion. But also consider this, the fetus has never experienced true life, what the world outside the womb is like, and even so, it doesnt even have the ability to remember anything from early life and so people might consider that it doesnt matter if the child is aborted seeing its never known life. But im assuming that the major consensus is that it is a human life, with a unique make up and personaltiy and therefore has its own rights, but seeing that it is the mother that is initially burdened with the child many find this hard to see while favouring the mothers view if they decide not to have a child. In any case my opinion would be that this child has a right to live, and no one, not even the mother has the right to take life away from him/her. Even if they are born into a life not so fortunate they still have the chance to experience life itself.

Juu-kuchi

03-28-2007, 06:16 AM

Even now people call their fellow men "parasites" or "tissue" or "waste to society". It sickens me. But doesn't an unborn fetus' have some forms of parasitic characteristics? I mean technically it is feeding from and growing inside the 'host body'.

But then again, there's that whole issue of semantics, maybe we should not have made having an abortion a 'constitutional right'. I read an interesting article that had stated:

"Why abortion doesn't play such a divisive role in countries like France and Italy may have something to do with the fact that, as The Economist pointed out in an article on the 30th anniversary of Roe, these nations didn't legalize the procedure by declaring it a constitutional right. Most European countries did so "through new legislation and, occasionally, referenda," decriminalizing abortion on the grounds of health rather than rights and leaving open the possibility that, should popular opinion back them, right-to-life advocates could reverse the status quo through conventional political channels."

I'll just leave this thread (forever) with a question: Has anybody ever seen that Maude episode where she had an abortion?

Clayface

03-28-2007, 08:09 AM

Ok, we've got a controversial subject matter here, so it's time for some reminders.

First, I'd like to point out that though this does have the potential to become a political discussion, it isn't yet, and doesn't have to be. Everyone please revisit the Politics and the Cafe (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=145071) thread. Specifically, I'd like to point out this part of the thread:

Discussions that are inherently moral merely question accepted notions of right and wrong. The transition from moral to political takes place when said moral issue is taken up as a partisan cause. (i.e. Gay marriages are a moral issue that has been used in many situations in a partisan manner to influence the voting decisions of various religious sects, and therefore has made the transition to political.)

Topics such as the Terri Schiavo case are inherently moral discussions, not political. The extent in which the gov't had a hand in the decision was minimal to non-existant. That the case was taken to each level of the courts and turned away (because it was not their decision to make) should say as much.

Inherently moral discussions have the potential to become political discussions but are not guaranteed to. A thread's potential to become political will not cause it to be closed prematurely. Such discussions may not be closed until they do turn political, they become heated or arguments have begun to recycle.

I'd also like to point everyone to the Cafe Rules and FAQ (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=52891) thread, and these particular sections:

4. Courtesy: Do not flame other posters. Treat your fellow board-mates with respect. Do not seek to inflame or aggravate them.

Controversial topics
Technically, posting on controversial topics (like religion) is against Toon Zone rules. For the time being, political discussions have been banned from the Cafe. As far as other allowable topics, please observe the following guidelines:

1. Argue, don't bash. If you have a point to make, make it in a reasonable and reasoned manner. Remember, you ought to be trying to persuade your fellow posters, not intimidate them.

2. Be calm. Remember, the people you are arguing against are not evil; they merely have a different opinion. You must to treat that opinion with basic amount of respect if you are going to have any hope of getting them to change it.

3. Be substantive, not merely satirical. Politicians as politicians are a proper target for ridicule, and we here at Toon Zone make no brief for them. However, mocking a politician is not the same as arguing against his or her positions, and is a cheap substitute for them. Note also that mocking a politician is a good way to anger and inflame other posters who like, respect, or admire that politician. Remember, do not seek to inflame or aggravate your fellow posters.

Taking the conversation into religion territory will cause this thread to be closed.

Also, calling any person or their arguments ignorant is a good example of not following the above rules and of not being respectful.

That said, the thread will be left open for now, but will be closely monitored, and, of course, closed should things get too heated or too political.

Shawn Hopkins

03-28-2007, 01:34 PM

You can call me ignorant all you want, but it doesn't make it untrue. The church has always told people explicitly not to use the only methods of birth control that really work almost all the time, and that has resulted in unwanted babies and abortions.

When we're talking about abstinence education we're talking about kids here. They're not completely rational adults able to make their own decisions and unlikely to screw up. If they make one little mistake with abstinence, here comes 14-year-old with a baby. If they try to be abstinent, fail, and fall back on condoms, no baby. Which is better?

People are human, they make mistakes. There are scientific methods out there to mitigate or prevent these mistakes, but too many people are too high in their ivory towers, chanting "personal responsibility" and working against the acceptance of these methods.

The Guitar Slayer

03-28-2007, 04:12 PM

The church has always told people explicitly not to use the only methods of birth control that really work almost all the time, and that has resulted in unwanted babies and abortions.

If you're not going to keep it in your pants (as the Church says), you might as well ignore the "no birth control" idea they endorse; they're Part I and II of the same concept. Deny one and so you must deny the other.

And this just in, NFP as effective as the pill. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=63567)

Granted, that is when you know how to do it right -- any success rate is contingent on reading the instructions and doing it right, whether it's on pill packs, condom boxes, or NFP. So go with what you know on that count.

That's it on that topic for me. To the original question:

The way you phrase it, it seems it's already decided; "unborn human being" = human being. Humans have inalienable rights. "Fetus" is more scientific, distanced term for an unborn human being, but they are the same to those who believe life starts at conception. People will argue that there is a difference between them, but the grey area comes in when a "fetus" becomes "human." Is it when it can feel pain? Is it when it's outside of the mother and breathing? And who is the best determining source? Scientists? Mothers? Doctors?

While I see a need for a population to eliminate unnecessary people for various considerations at any age, life for me begins at conception.

Care to elaborate on what constitutes "unnecessary people?"

GWOtaku

03-28-2007, 04:20 PM

I believe there is a moral obligation on our part to consider a fetus a living person. From my perspective, the only tangible difference between a fetus and a baby is that the fetus, being inside the womb, is unseen and so is far easier for many to talk about in a detached, theoretical (i.e. those that argue about it in terms of rights), even cold manner. It's little surprise to me that so many abortion foes are women that went through it, or doctors or nurses that have seen fetuses or progressively more realistic photos/video of them inside the womb first hand. As an unmarried man I'm sure I can't begin to comprehend the depth of their beliefs. I think we are getting a clearer view of the birth process than ever before thanks to technology, and as we do it surely becomes far harder to argue against the humanity of the unborn the closer we watch them. That's my opinion.

Let me put out some objective reasoning: Look, at the heart of the issue are two very loaded, very complicated questions.

1. Is there is a soul inside?
2. At what point does human consciousness truly begin?

The first lends itself to religious thinking, the latter is more secular and may lend itself better to general discussion. Take your pick. I would summarize the issue as follows:

(A). Whichever question you prefer to ask, the issue is a very serious one but also difficult to define clearly. The matter of the soul is hard to nail down exactly because its a religious question, and the precise origins of consciousness and self-awareness are not clearly defined either.

(B). The fierce debate and arguments in many quarters notwithstanding, we should agree that it is impossible to know with absolute certainty when a baby is conscious enough to be considered fully "human" like the rest of us. To say that you do is basically an act of supreme hubris, assuming a level of omniscience no human has.

(C). If we accept B, then there is a possibility that legitimate human lives are in fact destroyed as a result of abortion. Maybe not, but maybe they are. Fundamentally, we are presented with a clear moral choice: to err on the side of life, or to take a chance and hope we're not making a mistake.

(D). The trouble with abortion is that if legitimate human lives are at stake, then as a society we're making a colossal mistake except when it has to be done to save the mother--a life for a life. The most valuable resource available to humans is human life itself. Given this and the moral choice presented in C, we should play it safe and thereby sleep better at night. The other point of view would say that there may be good reason to think its not a conscious person or that there is no soul--but who are we to say its not or that there isn't? And it seems to me that the supposed upsides to abortion, even if they were all accurate and true (I don't concede this), can't possibly outweigh the human life issue.

So, that's what I think. Hopefully the above is some good food for thought.

EscaflownePilot

03-29-2007, 09:45 AM

So, that's what I think. Hopefully the above is some good food for thought.It definitely is - a rare objective approach. It's the view of many of the doctors and women who have gone through this that I tend to fall back on for all of this, and I myself saw an exhibit at a museum displaying all the primary stages of an unborn fetus (as in, real fetuses) and it was definitely a very powerful, affirming thing to see for my anti-abortion views. The other thing I turn to is all the grief a normal mother feels at nearly any stage of pregnancy when the baby is killed within the womb due to an attack or an accident. My aunt apparently lost an unborn baby due to something of the sort many years ago, and she and my uncle both still feel it as a tremendous loss to this day, as though the child had been born and living for many years.

However, the problem then with basing abortion on questions like "when does the soul develop?" and "when does the human conscience develop?" is that neither necessary defines human life. If it is determined at what point any of these (perhaps vague) measures of human life begins, and abortion is declared okay, let's say, in the first trimester, because it's somehow proven that the human conscience hasn't formed or because the fetus feels no pain or whatever measure you're using, you then, by extension, would have to consider those fully grown adults who are retarded to a point of severely lacking what makes our conscience or soul (which itself is a huge debatable topic) or those who've undergone severe head trauma to leave them in such a state, and to be fair, if we allow abortion up to the point where these characteristics are formed, then we'd also have to allow murder/euthanasia of mentally retarded/severely traumatized people who fall into similar categories.

To me, the unborn fetus is all about potential. The potential to be a viable human is more than enough for me to be against abortion, and that potential begins as soon as the fetus begins to form, because from there a viable potential for life begins, regardless of whether you consider it a human being at this point, or not.

When we're talking about abstinence education we're talking about kids here. They're not completely rational adults able to make their own decisions and unlikely to screw up. If they make one little mistake with abstinence, here comes 14-year-old with a baby. If they try to be abstinent, fail, and fall back on condoms, no baby. Which is better?I'll start by saying I agree that both abstinence and birth control should be taught, but even so, I think it's terribly unreasonable to expect that, simply because kids are kids, they shouldn't be expected to feel the consequences of their actions. In any decent sex ed, whether contraception, abstinence, or both are taught, the consequences of not using SOME form of protection are taught. Kids know these consequences, and what happens when abstinence or condoms fail, and while they are much more impulsive than most adults, part of becoming an adult is learning that you can't impulsively do things like this without expecting consequences.

As far as I'm concerned, nearly every abortion supporter supports it for the sole reason of wanting to get out of responsibility. All that "I have a right to do what I want with my body" and "it's not fair that a 14 year old who couldn't keep her pants on have to carry a baby for nine months" arguments can almost always be traced back to a mother or father who doesn't want to take responsibility for his/her actions, and wants it all taken away at the expense of an at least viable potential lifeform, if not a full out life form.

Temple Fugate

03-29-2007, 10:12 AM

I haven't seen anyone mention rape yet. There is plenty of discussion on NFP and the woman being careful to use protection and all of that, but what about those rare instances where someone is impregnated as a result of an unwilling sexual encounter?

Personally I've been going back-and-forth on the ethics of abortion for a while. On one hand it's vital that the baby who is unspoken for be given a chance, but on the other what if their future life ends up being a bleak and tortured one as a result of an uncaring, negligent parent? Would it be best to put it out of its misery before it enters the cruel world waiting for it? You never know until it's too late how their lives will turn out.

Then there's the subject of overpopulation. Less babies being born = longer time period before mankind starts dying off due to limited resources.

Maybe I sound ignorant, but that would be because I am ignorant. I'll never have a baby, ever. (I know because I'm a guy. Surprise.) I don't know the statistics on babies being birthed as a result of rape. I don't know which religions deny which contraceptives. I just have opinions that contradict each other often.

Right now, my stance is that it should be up to the mothers to decide whether or not to have an abortion. They're the ones having a baby (by their own fault or not) and they're the best judges of what kind of future that baby is going to have. Not the government, not any religious institution.

Clayface

03-29-2007, 10:26 AM

I haven't seen anyone mention rape yet. There is plenty of discussion on NFP and the woman being careful to use protection and all of that, but what about those rare instances where someone is impregnated as a result of an unwilling sexual encounter?

Yep, the issue of abortion is far more complicated than it's been presented here so far. This topic comes up here at TZ periodically - do a search for "abortion" and you'll find many threads from the past about it where all this has been argued again and again. I discuss the rape issue a little bit in this old thread (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=70223).

Mr. Manager

03-29-2007, 10:30 AM

I think it's okay if the woman was raped or if the woman will die if the baby is born.

GWOtaku

03-29-2007, 02:09 PM

posted by EscaflownePilot:

To me, the unborn fetus is all about potential. The potential to be a viable human is more than enough for me to be against abortion, and that potential begins as soon as the fetus begins to form, because from there a viable potential for life begins, regardless of whether you consider it a human being at this point, or not.

Marvelous point, the rest of your post is great too. The more I think about it I see quite a few pitfalls to tying humanity too closely to self-awareness alone. I agree with you and my argument isn't complete without your point, so well done.

posted by Temple Fugate:

Personally I've been going back-and-forth on the ethics of abortion for a while. On one hand it's vital that the baby who is unspoken for be given a chance, but on the other what if their future life ends up being a bleak and tortured one as a result of an uncaring, negligent parent? Would it be best to put it out of its misery before it enters the cruel world waiting for it? You never know until it's too late how their lives will turn out.

I'm glad this got brought up because IMHO, it has to be one of the worst abortion arguments ever made. Seeking to predict the future like this is a first class example of "an act of supreme hubris, assuming a level of omniscience no human has," to requote myself. Its bad reasoning on so many levels: it decides a future with no way of knowing the final outcome for sure. There's the ethical matter of the potential life having no say on whether it wants to take its chances. It assumes that a life of problem and pain isn't worth living period--says who? Those that are themselves relatively well off? Would they still hold their views if they became poor and destitute the next day? Is their response to the millions of poor in the world that if only they weren't alive they'd be much better off? They wouldn't "be" period. And doesn't the entire exercise assign value to people based on one person's biased opinion of what makes a good life and what doesn't? The entire line of thinking is untenable.

As you say, giving chance is essential. People are molded by their environment and by their choices, you can't decide what they're going to be with an incomplete picture of one-half of the equation. Its a crazy & arrogant proposition for one to try and play God, assigning himself omniscience and making decisons for others he has no standing to make. So IMHO this is one point that you should dismiss completely when you think about this issue.

Shawn Hopkins

03-29-2007, 02:30 PM

I'll start by saying I agree that both abstinence and birth control should be taught, but even so, I think it's terribly unreasonable to expect that, simply because kids are kids, they shouldn't be expected to feel the consequences of their actions. In any decent sex ed, whether contraception, abstinence, or both are taught, the consequences of not using SOME form of protection are taught. Kids know these consequences, and what happens when abstinence or condoms fail, and while they are much more impulsive than most adults, part of becoming an adult is learning that you can't impulsively do things like this without expecting consequences.

.

Do you live in Smallville? Not every unwanted baby will be adopted by a nice, friendly old couple who will love it as their own. In fact, most will live awful lives. Is it worth bringing a child into a world of suffering just to prove some moral point about responsibility? What is the purpose of stigmatizing and making mysterious and difficult to obtain the scientific birth control methods that could prevent this suffering?

Wouldn't it be better to make it easy to allow people to get to a point in their lives where they can actually care for a child?

GWOtaku

03-29-2007, 02:42 PM

posted by ShawnHopkins:

Not every unwanted baby will be adopted by a nice, friendly old couple who will love it as their own. In fact, most will live awful lives. Is it worth bringing a child into a world of suffering just to prove some moral point about responsibility?

So people shouldn't be born and live if they can't be guaranteed a life of comfort and a lack of suffering? Who decides how much comfort or how little suffering is good enough? Suffering is as much a part of life as joy; you can't get rid of it and you sure can't argue against life by wringing your hands over what someone might go through.

Shawn Hopkins

03-29-2007, 02:56 PM

So people shouldn't be born and live if they can't be guaranteed a life of comfort and a lack of suffering? Who decides how much comfort or how little suffering is good enough? Suffering is as much a part of life as joy; you can't get rid of it and you sure can't argue against life by wringing your hands over what someone might go through.

You act like there's a random, even chance that unwanted children might have difficult lives. There's not, there's a great likelihood.

But beyond the fact that I was talking about contraception and not abortion, think about your argument. Taking it on its face would mean that we should force women to concieve as much as possible and that birth control should be banned, because who can say that baby that would be prevented by birth control wouldn't have a great life, maybe even be president? Hell, he might be the tenth son of a retarded dirt farming single mother, but there's a chance it'll be great.

RD!

03-29-2007, 03:02 PM

I swear if abortion is ever illegal I will make it my life's duty to become a doctor specifically for doing secret abortions. I can't believe in such an overcrowded world with resources slowly drying up and the cost of living going up that there are actually people who will fight so passionately against a woman aborting her fetus.

There's such a hypocritical logic to giving such human rights to a fetus when it completely tramples over both the man and women's rights. You all understand child birth is painful and can permanently damage a woman's body. If I tore a woman's vagina or cut her open to take something out against her will I'd be put in jail. If a woman does not want that baby why should force her to endure that. Furthermore, if we forbid a woman from aborting a fetus I would say she's then obligated to charge that baby with sexual assault (being human and all). Now I'm aware that's ridiculous but so should forceful child birth.

Guess what? I'm tired of people not taking responbility. If they're not mature enough to raise a child, then they are not mature enough for sex. If you're mature enough to use birth control and condoms you're mature enough to have sex. They're not 100% protective though and if something happens you should fully have the right to abort it. If this right extends to people who are more careful then so be it. I'm mature enough to drive a car; I wear my seat belt, I'm observant, I never drink and drive... if I'm hit and injured in an accident should I have to roll with it because I was mature enough to accept accidents happening?

I think it's okay if the woman was raped or if the woman will die if the baby is born.This is the argument of someone who does not really believe what they think they believe. On the first part, if you believe a fetus is alive then it should not matter under any circumstance how it came to be, in your view its still a life. The latter part of this argument is even worse, by accepting the baby as a living being you're choosing whose life is more important.

Supporting abortion has to be all or nothing. I know this was a lot of obtuse ranting but this is something I strongly believe in. The fate of abortion should not be decided by men with largely religious motives.

RD!

03-29-2007, 03:07 PM

You act like there's a random, even chance that unwanted children might have difficult lives. There's not, there's a great likelihood.Exactly. The people making decisions for mothers with unwanted babies are well off politicians or people who know that if they had a baby they'd be fine. People are going to fight tooth and nail for that baby to be born but once it is then its over. The baby is sentences to likely grow up in a poor condition either with its mother or in foster care. The mother is sentenced to raising a child she didn't want or probably doesn't have the means to if she wanted to.

GWOtaku

03-29-2007, 03:18 PM

posted by ShawnHopkins:

You act like there's a random, even chance that unwanted children might have difficult lives. There's not, there's a great likelihood.

You've managed to completely talk past the substance of what I've said, I'm afraid. You continue to talk about difficulty and suffering. But we all experience these things and I find it terribly unpersuasive to use suffering as an argument, as though birth is only good if it meets somebody's artifical standard of an ideal life. You can't guarantee anybody a pain-free existence, you have to take the bad with the good in life, you might as well acknowledge this.

But beyond the fact that I was talking about contraception and not abortion, think about your argument. Taking it on its face would mean that we should force women to concieve as much as possible and that birth control should be banned, because who can say that baby that would be prevented by birth control wouldn't have a great life, maybe even be president? Hell, he might be the tenth son of a retarded dirt farming single mother, but there's a chance it'll be great.

This is a fantastically absurd straw man. Most of the thread has been about unborn fetuses and everything I've said is in that context. You seem to be asserting that my argument amounts to saying that wearing a condom is morally equivelant to killing a person, which is of course completely ridiculous and any careful reader can tell that this isn't a part of my argument at all.

I don't care how much contraception is out there, in fact births among the young are down thanks to a combination of contraception and abstinence so in terms of education I'm basically a fan of doing more of what we're doing.

Shawn Hopkins

03-29-2007, 03:35 PM

This is a fantastically absurd straw man. Most of the thread has been about unborn fetuses and everything I've said is in that context. You seem to be asserting that my argument amounts to saying that wearing a condom is morally equivelant to killing a person, which is of course completely ridiculous and any careful reader can tell that this isn't a part of my argument at all.

Then why did you try to take apart a comment I made about contraception?

And it's true, if you take your argument about "potential" life to it's logical end, wearing condoms is killing a potential person. There will be an unfertilized egg and a viable sperm that will be washed down the drain.

GWOtaku

03-29-2007, 04:21 PM

posted by ShawnHopkins:

Then why did you try to take apart a comment I made about contraception?

Well I didn't try, I did. I did it because I believe your suffering argument is extremely flawed. You'd be better off pointing to hard evidence of the benefits of contraception + abstinence eduation, which is out there.

And it's true, if you take your argument about "potential" life to it's logical end, wearing condoms is killing a potential person. There will be an unfertilized egg and a viable sperm that will be washed down the drain.

There's nothing logical about it, you're just framing the entire thing out of context. There's no beginnings of a person here. Tons of sperm goes unfertilized naturally all the time, nobody claims that each one is a murdered human being. You're putting forth a fringe argument no one is making and knocking it down; this does nothing to respond to what I've said or persuade anyone about your own position.

EscaflownePilot

03-29-2007, 05:42 PM

Then why did you try to take apart a comment I made about contraception?

And it's true, if you take your argument about "potential" life to it's logical end, wearing condoms is killing a potential person. There will be an unfertilized egg and a viable sperm that will be washed down the drain.You can't keep taking every argument for "face value" like this, though.

Just by looking at our design, it's pretty obvious based on the number of sperm that can be produced and killed off before even one sperm fertilizes an ovum, that sperm is a relatively disposable item.

Just by looking at our design, whether you believe we came from a god, monkeys, or chance fate, the female body simply was not designed to allow every little piece of sperm that enters the vagina to develop into more than just sperm. And from the way the male body produces sperm, and it's short lifespan if it doesn't reach an ovum, it's clear that we just weren't designed so that each and every sperm becomes a life.

But we were designed such that a vast majority of all fetuses formed become human beings - so much so that it's very easy to believe that we are intended by design (again, not in a religious context) to give birth to all fetuses, yet the woman's body alone is designed to reject a whole buttload (uh... bad pun) of sperm before letting just one in.

So, with that slippery-slope argument out of the way, you are then just playing God by deciding who is going to have your definition of a bad life. And I could even fathom someone arguing that it's justifiable to kill off a human who will have a scientifically quantifiable bad life IF it were predicted at a 100% rate of accuracy.

But right now, we can't. We can't even quantify issues like quality of life yet - to one, being rich is the only form of a quality life you could have, but for all we know, a mentally retarded person's thrill of accomplishment when being praised for counting money correctly could be quantified as far exceeding the thrill you or I would have when winning the lottery or falling in love.

Maybe I am living in Smallville, but until you can look every single person who has come from an adoption shelter in the eye, and say "you should be dead right now, because we predicted you'd have an absolutely terrible life", I say this argument is just a way of getting out of the responsibility of pregnancy by blaming other unrelated, external factors. Someone could easily use your same argument not as an excuse for abortion, but rather as a reason why the adoption process should be revamped.

I'll just leave this thread (forever) with a question: Has anybody ever seen that Maude episode where she had an abortion?Wow, that's three times this week I've heard this show mentioned somewhere and I've never heard of it up to now. Time for some googling.

The Guitar Slayer

03-30-2007, 12:55 AM

I see overpopulation coming up a lot, and I'll just say this.

It's a myth.

In the world, we have enough resources to feed everyone, house everyone, and basically give everyone a good living. However, there are a few problems.

1. Desertification - thanks to colonization and now multinational companies, we have a variety of crops being grown in non-native countries as well as traditional ways being tossed in favour of mass production. Rotating crops isn't happening anymore, so the same crop is growing in the same place every year and depleting the soil. That doesn't happen when you switch crops around and, at times, leave a plot alone for a year. As a result, the dirt is essentially being strip-mined of nutrients, causing it to be barren, ultimately turning it into desert. As a result, it's a less viable place for humans to settle. Also a result, there's less food. As a result, people migrate toward city centres where food is available, but people are more tightly compacted, thus giving the appearance of overpopulation.

2. Disproportionate wealth. We got people with 6 Jaguars, 2 Lamborghinis, 7 houses, and 10,000 pairs of shoes. It's the communist in me, but I believe that while you can have conspicuous consumption, there's a line between that and obscenity.

3. Hoarding and mismanagement on a government level. The US alone has millions of pounds of surplus food lying around in its food stores, and yet we still have people dying of starvation. Why aren't they being used? Why aren't they going into homeless shelters? If we have them and other emergencies stores, why aren't they being broken into? What are they saving these food stores for? Or, if not for hungry people, then who? One may say "emergencies" but if that was the case, why did post-Katrina happen the way it did?

So the world can support the population if it's respected. It's being manipulated for maximum profit by the big companies, so as a result, there are people starving and rushing into the cities for faster easier food. "Population control" isn't the problem. So technically, we don't need to abort x amount of fetuses in order to keep the world turning.

Shawn Hopkins

03-30-2007, 12:51 PM

The Guitar Slayer

03-30-2007, 02:24 PM

Shawn Hopkins

03-30-2007, 03:50 PM

It's a point to be made, considering many European countries are desperate to boost their population. They want to raise the average of 1.4-1.9 children per household to 2+. To say that the planet can't sustain that increase (which will ultimately be exponential) is as misleading as saying we "need" to abort or euthanize a certain number of the world population per year.

That's a weird tangent. Who cares about Europe? The problem is the increasing number of people in developing countries, especially the destruction of natural habitat necssary to feed, clothe and house them. There's a need to discourage rampant population growth in many places.

And just because we could theoretically survive it, it doesn't mean that should be an excuse to let the population balloon to 12 billion. The planet could probably sustain twice as many people as now, maybe more, but we'd either all be relatively miserable or some of us would be happy and the rest would be living a walking nightmare.

But abortion is not the answer to this. Sensible, scientific birth control and economic policies that make people wealthy enough that, as is the case in Europe, they do not need large families to survive. This is my final word on this off-topic topic, but the Catholic church has hurt the chances of that by telling people, especially in the developing world, that something that hurts no one and is the most rational, easiest (much easier than the complex NFP) way to prevent unwanted pregancy is a sin.

Gatomon41

03-30-2007, 04:30 PM

That's a weird tangent. Who cares about Europe? The problem is the increasing number of people in developing countries, especially the destruction of natural habitat necssary to feed, clothe and house them. There's a need to discourage rampant population growth in many places.
The problem then is not the population. It's rather more eeconomical. If people do not have the resources, then they need to create more resources, or change the system that does not provide enough resources. With poor adminstration and/or outside economic forces that limit resource development, it is unlikely things would improve throyugh a pointless solution. To say limiting the population as a solution would be tanamount to a doctor killing a patient instead of curing the flu.

And just because we could theoretically survive it, it doesn't mean that should be an excuse to let the population balloon to 12 billion. The planet could probably sustain twice as many people as now, maybe more, but we'd either all be relatively miserable or some of us would be happy and the rest would be living a walking nightmare.
Actually, we have enough resources to supply everyone on Earth with the basics for billions. Why world hunger contiunes is because we are unable to transport food to those who need it. Sure, we can't provide luxary for 6 Billion, but we can support 12 Billion with the necessarities. Men do not survive on iPods, and thus can survive without them.

But abortion is not the answer to this. Sensible, scientific birth control and economic policies that make people wealthy enough that, as is the case in Europe, they do not need large families to survive. This is my final word on this off-topic topic, but the Catholic church has hurt the chances of that by telling people, especially in the developing world, that something that hurts no one and is the most rational, easiest (much easier than the complex NFP) way to prevent unwanted pregancy is a sin.
It does not matter what a human thinks is best, an evil deed is still an evil dweed. The worse disasters have been caused by those who did not have moral considerations, but only thought of a quick and easy solution.

The problem with birth control is that it's impossilbe. There's always a chance a person will get pregant if they have sex. There's a 60% chance of getting pregant even with condom use, at least acording to my Health class. And if the person get's pregant? What then? No, birth control is no solution at all. It's just a lame excuse for people to act immature and throw responsbility to the wind.

The only 100% way of not geting pregant is not having sex.

Shawn Hopkins

03-30-2007, 05:34 PM

[QUOTE=Gatomon41;2474127]
The problem with birth control is that it's impossilbe. There's always a chance a person will get pregant if they have sex. There's a 60% chance of getting pregant even with condom use, at least acording to my Health class. And if the person get's pregant? What then? No, birth control is no solution at all. It's just a lame excuse for people to act immature and throw responsbility to the wind.

[QUOTE=Gatomon41;2474127]

Where the hell do you go to school, Oral Roberts? That statistic is completely untrue. When used correctly the pregnancy rate is about three percent.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/

It's higher when used incorrectly, but still only 10 to 14 percent according to the World Health Organization.

Other birth control methods are effective, too. Much lower pregnancy rates than 60 percent.

If the condom breaks or the woman forgets to take the pill there are morning after pills.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs244/en/index.html

All of these things should be available and their use should not be discouraged. My whole point in this thread, and this is the last time I'm making it, is that abortion is bad and the best way to prevent it is to make it easier for people not to get pregnant in the first place. Unfortunately, some people put their own moral and religous principles above easing the suffering of others.

Romanesque

03-30-2007, 07:12 PM

Tangents, tangents.

Has anyone ever considered that there may be certain incentives in many developing nations to have a larger family? Not too long ago, it was more or less typical for people in Europe & the US to have large families. It wasn't just a matter of lacking birth control. Children are a resource. Yeah, you usually have to feed them enough to keep them alive, but that's no different than any other investment. Thus, I'm not so sure about birth control's effectiveness at population control in these countries. A certain level of development is going to be required, by which point birth rates are likely to decline anyway, for various socio-economic reasons. If birth control is involved, they'll then be capable of dealing with it themselves.

At the lower end of the scale, where people are starving, the whole hunger thing has greater immediacy than being supplied with birth control.

As for condoms, I believe the failure rate is better expressed like so: 10 to 20% will become pregnant in a year (depending on who you cite). Over a lifetime, the pregnancy rate would be higher. That's typical use, not incorrect use. Incorrect use at all times would imply much higher failure rates. :p With no birth control, something like 85% will become pregnant in a year. Perfect use is just that, perfect, not typical. To keep things in perspective, I'd also have to assume that those using condoms are trying their best to avoid pregnancy, while a reasonable number of those using no birth control may be trying their best to become pregnant.

Yeah, it's better than nothing, but we're talking population control, not personal use. Saying "be sure to do it right" isn't a practical response. Massive educational efforts are the necessary road to take, but even then, how much is it going to take for a developing nation just to attain the 10 to 20% figure that we have for typical use? How many of those people we'd educate would be better aided by pocketing the sex-ed money we'd spend internationally?

Overall point, this all rather complicated...

--Romey

Shawn Hopkins

03-30-2007, 07:44 PM

As for condoms, I believe the failure rate is better expressed like so: 10 to 20% will become pregnant in a year (depending on who you cite). Over a lifetime, the pregnancy rate would be higher. That's typical use, not incorrect use. Incorrect use at all times would imply much higher failure rates. :p With no birth control, something like 85% will become pregnant in a year. Perfect use is just that, perfect, not typical. To keep things in perspective, I'd also have to assume that those using condoms are trying their best to avoid pregnancy, while a reasonable number of those using no birth control may be trying their best to become pregnant.

Yeah, it's better than nothing, but we're talking population control, not personal use. Saying "be sure to do it right" isn't a practical response. Massive educational efforts are the necessary road to take, but even then, how much is it going to take for a developing nation just to attain the 10 to 20% figure that we have for typical use? How many of those people we'd educate would be better aided by pocketing the sex-ed money we'd spend internationally?

Overall point, this all rather complicated...

--Romey

Typical use means not using it all the time, though. That needs to be clear. Perfect use means using it all the time and, uh, I guess putting it on correctly. If you're wearing a condom and you're wearing it right, the chances of getting someone pregnant are very low.

The 10 to 14 percent comes from WHO, so I think it's an international number. It's not the job of the US to educate anybody, but WHO and agencies like them should be able to educate condoms without things like a rumor that condoms are permeable to HIV stopping them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/10_october/09/panorama_holy_city.shtml

You're right, people in poor countries want to have more children, usually. If they got rich like the people in the U.S. the family sizes would shrink. All I'm saying is, don't try to deny them a chance to control their family sizes when they get too large with dogma. Your post ignores my other point, that the U.S. Government is pushing ineffective abstinence-only education and ineffective abstinence-only education only. We have one poster already who was apparently told something blatantly untrue in their health class.

P.S.

I'm starting to sound like I've got something against the Catholic Church. I don't. My girlfriend is Catholic, I go to her church almost every Sunday and I have a lovely time. I do disagree with some of their policies, however.

Romanesque

03-30-2007, 07:57 PM

Typical use means not using it all the time, though. That needs to be clear. Perfect use means using it all the time and, uh, I guess putting it on correctly. If you're wearing a condom and you're wearing it right, the chances of getting someone pregnant are very low.And I'd remind you again, when talking about population control, you can't preach the personal responsibility angle, because other peoples' usage is not something you can control directly.

The 10 to 14 percent comes from WHO, so I think it's an international number.I know I've seen similar numbers quoted for the US alone, though. Before throwing around the 10 to 14% around as an international rate, I'd probably want to know more about how that result was reached.

WHO and agencies like them should be able to educate condoms without things like a rumor that condoms are permeable to HIV stopping them.Of course, third world HIV concerns are a whole 'nuther can of worms, which is why I avoided that tangent.

Your post ignores my other point, that the U.S. Government is pushing ineffective abstinence-only education and ineffective abstinence-only education only. We have one poster already who was apparently told something blatantly untrue in their health class.Personally, I think the more information, the better. I'm for teaching both the advantages of abstinence and contraceptives, but sometimes, it seems there's just as much hostility toward the dual approach as the abstinence only approach. 'Course, if I had my way, we'd be starting sex-ed in kindergarten, beginning with basic reproductive biology...

I'm starting to sound like I've got something against the Catholic Church. I don't. My girlfriend is Catholic, I go to her church almost every Sunday and I have a lovely time. I do disagree with some of their policies, however.Eh, that's ok. I don't always agree with the Catholic Church either. ;-)

--Romey

Gatomon41

03-31-2007, 02:40 PM

Where the hell do you go to school, Oral Roberts? That statistic is completely untrue. When used correctly the pregnancy rate is about three percent.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/
No, just the typical public high school of the USA. 40-60% chance of getting pregant even with condom use. Even with 3%, it's still a chance of child birth.

It's higher when used incorrectly, but still only 10 to 14 percent according to the World Health Organization.

Other birth control methods are effective, too. Much lower pregnancy rates than 60 percent.

The point is, people still can get get pregant. Contraception is not a solution, just a short-term and ultimatley futile. the real problem is with peoplethemselves, who are immature or foolish enough not to consider the consquences of what they're going to do.

You want to end the problems of "overpopulation"? Maybe refreshers in High School Health could help. It's like most people don't realize the purpose of procreation. If people can't realize that, then they shopuldn't be given a free ride because they don't want responsbility.

If the condom breaks or the woman forgets to take the pill there are morning after pills.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs244/en/index.html

Which is really starving a baby to death abortion. It's pre-natal infancticde, and no better than the eugenics movements of the 1930's. Agian, not a moral acceptable solution.

All of these things should be available and their use should not be discouraged.
There are some people who claim the same for certain illegal substances and acts. But face it, it's an intrinsilly evil action. I will not support an evil action that further encourages the scandal of a permissive, irresponsible society.

My whole point in this thread, and this is the last time I'm making it, is that abortion is bad and the best way to prevent it is to make it easier for people not to get pregnant in the first place. Unfortunately, some people put their own moral and religous principles above easing the suffering of others.
Maybe because it is immoral?

I'll put it this way, Moral and religous Laws are just like the laws of nature, men do not create them, nor can they choose them. There is right and wrong. The Church by its very nature can not support anything that is immoral. Why? Because an immoral act is wrong, an error. It would eqvailent to scienists decrying a fraudlent report, and you go off slaming them because the report hold promising new technology, even if all of it is wrong.

Humans are free to follow or not follow those moral laws, but like any other law, there is cause and effect.

I've seen the effects of people who don't follow morality, or ignore it in the name of effectiveness. Good people, but in the end they turn into monsters. I see it here, the people arround me, everywhere.

Kagetsu

03-31-2007, 02:51 PM

I think it's okay if the woman was raped or if the woman will die if the baby is born.This is a problem that is really separate. Medical intervention is going to be done by Doctor and Patient. Don't worry that gestapo tactics are going to cost lives. Rape is still the choice of "end" the life or carry to term and give the baby to the state.

Care to elaborate on what constitutes "unnecessary people?"
That term defines what a given society deems. For Spartans it was the infirm, the Nazi, anyone who came to mind, the middle east, the Infidels, for us it's what our income is likely to send to college.

I see overpopulation coming up a lot, and I'll just say this.

It's a myth.

Wow, I didn't think anyone could believe this anylonger. There is a finite limit to arable land, presevation of food stuffs and a whole range of socio-polical problems with that idea.

Abstinence, ignorance, and irresponsiblity. The sex drive is too strong to ignore. Birth control is the best way. The problem is parents "I don't want teachers telling MY children about sex". We still have a very stupid way of thinking about sex. It's not a dirty little secret, everyone will have to deal with it. Very young children can find a little about sex, they should be allowed to understand long before it becomes a problem. And keeping people from contraception is just plain nuts.

JustJack

03-31-2007, 03:11 PM

No, just the typical public high school of the USA. 40-60% chance of getting pregant even with condom use. Even with 3%, it's still a chance of child birth.

Y'know, I kind of agree here. People ARE too stupid to properly use something as simple as a condom. Hell, I have an exe who I hear was apparently too stupid to take her pill every day, and now she's in this position.

Public High Schools use scare tactics to convince children otherwise...now that is a fact you can place a period behind and end the conversation with. Condom use, as well as other birth control methods generally have a 97-98% success rate when used properly. I'd use the example that I and my girlfriend of two years don't have a baby on the way as proof that it not only can, but DOES work.

As for overpopulation...say what you will, but I'll think less of this as a myth when the government issues Soylent Green vouchers in the mail. Everything is running out. Our resources are running out...space is even running out. People are starving across the globe (not just third world countries), and families are forced to use their money for a roof over their heads and not for a meal, yet someone here has the nerve to describe overpopulation as a myth?. I'm hard to offend, but I find that simply ignorant.

Gatomon41

03-31-2007, 03:25 PM

Public High Schools use scare tactics to convince children otherwise...now that is a fact you can place a period behind and end the conversation with.
The statistic came from a Textbook.

As for overpopulation...say what you will, but I'll think less of this as a myth when the government issues Soylent Green vouchers in the mail. Everything is running out.
Not for a couple of centuries at least, plus with trends toward microzation and renewable resources, we should be fine for at least 100 or so years. We just need to cut back.

Our resources are running out...
The nonrewable resources, yes, but careful and wise reuse of renewable resource could last for a long time.

space is even running out.
Only in cities, There's more than enough land for people to live on.

People are starving across the globe (not just third world countries),
Not because we're running out of food, it's people of transportation and ill advised economic policies. China once sent food to North Korrea on trains. North Korea sent tohe food back and kept the trains. Hardly a farmer's fault when maleviolent people cause others to starve.

and families are forced to use their money for a roof over their heads and not for a meal,
A result of an apathic society that does nothing to help those in need.

yet someone here has the nerve to describe overpopulation as a myth?. I'm hard to offend, but I find that simply ignorant.
There is no overpopulation propblem. The real problems are economic and social. Trying to get rid of the people who need the resources, instead of diverting them to these people is not the answer. It would be like putting a band-aid on a cracked nuclear reactor.

Shawn Hopkins

04-02-2007, 06:40 PM

No, just the typical public high school of the USA. 40-60% chance of getting pregant even with condom use. Even with 3%, it's still a chance of child birth.

The point is, people still can get get pregant. Contraception is not a solution, just a short-term and ultimatley futile. the real problem is with peoplethemselves, who are immature or foolish enough not to consider the consquences of what they're going to do.

You want to end the problems of "overpopulation"? Maybe refreshers in High School Health could help. It's like most people don't realize the purpose of procreation. If people can't realize that, then they shopuldn't be given a free ride because they don't want responsbility.

Which is really starving a baby to death abortion. It's pre-natal infancticde, and no better than the eugenics movements of the 1930's. Agian, not a moral acceptable solution.

There are some people who claim the same for certain illegal substances and acts. But face it, it's an intrinsilly evil action. I will not support an evil action that further encourages the scandal of a permissive, irresponsible society.

Maybe because it is immoral?

I'll put it this way, Moral and religous Laws are just like the laws of nature, men do not create them, nor can they choose them. There is right and wrong. The Church by its very nature can not support anything that is immoral. Why? Because an immoral act is wrong, an error. It would eqvailent to scienists decrying a fraudlent report, and you go off slaming them because the report hold promising new technology, even if all of it is wrong.

Humans are free to follow or not follow those moral laws, but like any other law, there is cause and effect.

I've seen the effects of people who don't follow morality, or ignore it in the name of effectiveness. Good people, but in the end they turn into monsters. I see it here, the people arround me, everywhere.

Wow. That's a lot of text to say, because God said so. Well, whose god then? Yours? Mine? How about Islamic law? You gonna grow a beard or wear a burka because Muslims believe Islamic law to be absolute?

You seem to expect people to keep it in the pants except when they plan to have a baby. That's not going to happen. Sex is just too much fun, too much of a natural human drive to be that constrained because of something written in a dusty old book and enforced by people that took a vow of celibacy. Contraception isn't 100 percent perfect, but since people aren't giving up sex it's a lot better than producing a baby every time..

Gatomon41

04-02-2007, 08:51 PM

Wow. That's a lot of text to say, because God said so.
It's actually alot more complicated than that. There's various religous and philosophical reasoning that's it's based upon. Contraception defies the 6th Commandment, according to the 3rd part of the Catechism, Section 2, article 2, Article 6. This is based on 72 references, including not just resources from scripture, but also from religous councils, the writings of several philsophers, and encyclicals. You have yet to provide me a reason why Contraception would be morally acceptable.

You seem to expect people to keep it in the pants except when they plan to have a baby.
That would be counterintuntive to the purpose if people plan for a familly if they did then.

That's not going to happen. Sex is just too much fun, too much of a natural human drive to be that constrained because of something written in a dusty old book and enforced by people that took a vow of celibacy.
Alot of people are driven to do stupids things because of the the reasoning of "desire" or "fun". Like that kid in Florida who killed a Hobo because he was bored.

The difference is that as humans, we're supposed to be intellgent enough to realize when it is smart to do something, and when it is foolish. It's called wisdom.

Contraception isn't 100 percent perfect, but since people aren't giving up sex it's a lot better than producing a baby every time..
Then some people are truly ignorant. What do people think is the purpose of reproduction? Do they need to take health class agian?

Eddie G.

04-02-2007, 11:42 PM

It's actually alot more complicated than that. There's various religous and philosophical reasoning that's it's based upon. Contraception defies the 6th Commandment, according to the 3rd part of the Catechism, Section 2, article 2, Article 6. This is based on 72 references, including not just resources from scripture, but also from religous councils, the writings of several philsophers, and encyclicals.Could you quote these philosophers? Are their opinions based on a universal truth about the world, or based in spirituality?

You have yet to provide me a reason why Contraception would be morally acceptable.Could you give me a reason why it's unacceptable not based in God or scripture?

Alot of people are driven to do stupids things because of the the reasoning of "desire" or "fun". Like that kid in Florida who killed a Hobo because he was bored.

The difference is that as humans, we're supposed to be intellgent enough to realize when it is smart to do something, and when it is foolish. It's called wisdom.Okay, listen, most people have sex before marriage, 90% of the US population and the truth is that someone who was born in the 1940's is actually more likely to have engaged in premarital sex than I am depsite the TV, despite society being more open about sex, despite homosexuality and Atheism being more accepted, despite more open sexual education, and despite everything that is supposed to make this a sex crazed society. People like having sex, you can't change that, you can't fight it, they're going to do it. You can tell them they have the option not and obviously some will follow that, most won't and that's never going to change, ever. That's why we need contraception. I have sex because it's fun, but also because I'm mature enough to use contraception with a trusting partner and have crazy wild orgasms. It's both fun, wise, and good for your health.

Then some people are truly ignorant. What do people think is the purpose of reproduction? Do they need to take health class agian?Sex with humans and certain types of primates and other animals is as much a social and recreational activity as much as it is the basis of life.

Gatomon41

04-04-2007, 12:20 AM

Could you quote these philosophers? Are their opinions based on a universal truth about the world, or based in spirituality?
St. Augustine in this Confessions is referenced in the section listed I quoted. Both actually, though some would not accept the truth.

Could you give me a reason why it's unacceptable not based in God or scripture?
Sure, beacue birth control helps spread the scandal of prematieral marriage, and making vulgar a beautiful act, turning it into a hedonistic "recreation" as if it were a video game. Also, it is contratry to the natural fiunction of sex, ie. having offspring.

Perhaps the worse thing is that it helps further denys the rights of the unborn and born. Children are seen as a drain on resources, and not as children. People instead are more interested in "fun" than taking responsbility. This also adds the scandal of giving people a reason to avoid responbility.

Okay, listen, most people have sex before marriage, 90% of the US population and the truth is that someone who was born in the 1940's is actually more likely to have engaged in premarital sex than I am depsite the TV, despite society being more open about sex, despite homosexuality and Atheism being more accepted, despite more open sexual education, and despite everything that is supposed to make this a sex crazed society.
If 90% opf people jumped off a bridge, does it still make it right? Of course not. No matter if it's fun or people are unable to control their instincts well, it does not mean it is right. The ends never justify the means.

People like having sex, you can't change that,
Fortinately. I think it's a needed incentive.

you can't fight it, they're going to do it.
Nor do I want to. The human race would die off then.

You can tell them they have the option not and obviously some will follow that, most won't and that's never going to change, ever.
I wouldn't say things stay the same. Optmistically, I hope people finally decide to think for themselves and not let their instinct think for them and decide to make the choice of abstience. Then agian, we are human, and the tendency to mess up repeatly is in our history.

That's why we need contraception. I have sex because it's fun,

Just because it's pleasurable, does not mean it is always needed to be done. It's just hedonistic to do something, even something wrong, because it's pleasurable. I do not find it justifiable enough to allow an intringcally eivl act just for the reason for use in another intringsically immoral act.

but also because I'm mature enough to use contraception with a trusting partner and have crazy wild orgasms. It's both fun, wise, and good for your health.
It's never wise to have relations to anyone that's you're not going to spend your life with. The breakup will be painful if the relationship fails.

Sex with humans and certain types of primates and other animals is as much a social and recreational activity as much as it is the basis of life.
Humans, though bioloigcally animal, are not at the same level of animals. Animals lack reason and a soul. We do not. We also have many negative consquence as a result of people unable to rise above their instincts.

Antiyonder

04-04-2007, 01:04 AM

Perhaps the worse thing is that it helps further denys the rights of the unborn and born. Children are seen as a drain on resources, and not as children.

No kidding. While I don't believe in killing off people for perserving resources, why children? Why not serial killers, rapists and child/animal abusers? They're not going to be doing anything worthwhile, whereas with children there's a good chance of them growing into helpful and responsible members of society.

People instead are more interested in "fun" than taking responsbility. This also adds the scandal of giving people a reason to avoid responbility.

I believe fun as Shawn put is one reason. The other is that some do so only to please their friends in the locker room or office (depending on age group). If people are going to engage in sexual activity, they so at least do so on their own term for themselves, not so they have something to gossip.

Eddie G.

04-04-2007, 01:26 AM

Sure, beacue birth control helps spread the scandal of prematieral marriage, and making vulgar a beautiful act, turning it into a hedonistic "recreation" as if it were a video game. Also, it is contratry to the natural fiunction of sex, ie. having offspring.You're argument only works on the basis that premarital sex is an immoral act. Without using God, why is premarital sex immoral?

If 90% opf people jumped off a bridge, does it still make it right? Of course not. No matter if it's fun or people are unable to control their instincts well, it does not mean it is right. The ends never justify the means.If jumping off the bridge ended in an orgasm instead of dying then sure. Listen, let's be clear, there is no golden age. Sex amongst humans is and always has been something recreational and no matter what regulations, religion, or social standards are present, nature wins in the end. You have this idea that people having sex for fun degrades the concept of sexual human relations, but that's how it started out, there was never a time where it wasn't a social and recreational thing, it isn't degrading anything, that's just the nature of the act.

I wouldn't say things stay the same. Optmistically, I hope people finally decide to think for themselves and not let their instinct think for them and decide to make the choice of abstience. Then agian, we are human, and the tendency to mess up repeatly is in our history.People do think for themselves. I'm not some crazy rapist who just has sex with anything I make decisions and I have standards and I respect the act of sex as something wonderful.

Just because it's pleasurable, does not mean it is always needed to be done. It's just hedonistic to do something, even something wrong, because it's pleasurable. I do not find it justifiable enough to allow an intringcally eivl act just for the reason for use in another intringsically immoral act.What makes it evil though? Sure, I have sex because it's fun. I play baseball because it's fun. I eat chicken because it tastes good. Why aren't these things considered evil? Why single out sex?

It's never wise to have relations to anyone that's you're not going to spend your life with. The breakup will be painful if the relationship fails.Have you had sex, or been in a relationship? Because I don't think you have. The last girl I dated, we didn't have a serious relationship. We dated because we enjoyed each other's company and because we both rocked in the sack. Eventually we realized that our relationship wasn't progressing and we had to break up? You know what it was actually like? We laid in her bed and held each other and laughed and made fun of each other and talked about why this wasn't working out and apologized and made discoveries about each other. It was far from painful and it was a great experience because I learned from it.

Now, I've had painful breakups, but in the end, I learned from them. As far as my sexual experiences, I learned from those too. I learned how to become a better lover. And honestly, if you're saving yourself for one person and treating sex as something just for making babies, you're really not letting yourself experience one of the most amazing things availble to you which is recreational sex. The same goes for a relationship/marriage if you treat it as something just for the sake of making babies and praising God.

Humans, though bioloigcally animal, are not at the same level of animals. Animals lack reason and a soul. We do not. We also have many negative consquence as a result of people unable to rise above their instincts.Yes, but we still are human. We're selfish. We're smelly. We eat too much. We poop. And we screw like crazy. We make laws and sign contracts and create institutions to keep order, but denying our basic nature does not work and never will.

Antiyonder

04-04-2007, 05:05 AM

Sex with humans and certain types of primates and other animals is as much a social and recreational activity as much as it is the basis of life.

It's a part of life yes, but it doesn't define us.

People do think for themselves.

Apparently, you've never heard of peer pressure.

And honestly, if you're saving yourself for one person and treating sex as something just for making babies, you're really not letting yourself experience one of the most amazing things availble to you which is recreational sex.

I can't speak for Gatomon41, but as I said earlier, the choice to have sex needs to be your choice and only your choice (I'm not refering you specifically). If/When I ever have sex, it'll be a way to express my love, not because I feel like I missing something.

And we screw like crazy. We make laws and sign contracts and create institutions to keep order, but denying our basic nature does not work and never will.

There's a difference between denying and controlling. Killing for instance is just as much in our nature as sex. Yet, you don't see murder at every single solitary corner do you? That's because we have other ways to curb our anger/tension.

If you're mature enough to use birth control and condoms you're mature enough to have sex. They're not 100% protective though and if something happens you should fully have the right to abort it. If this right extends to people who are more careful then so be it. I'm mature enough to drive a car; I wear my seat belt, I'm observant, I never drink and drive... if I'm hit and injured in an accident should I have to roll with it because I was mature enough to accept accidents happening?

A faulty comparison. Does taking the victim of an accident to a hospital put someone else at risk? No. Does abortion come at the expense of a child's life? Yes.

And again I'll ask, if we really need to lower the population why not eliminate serial killers, rapists and child/animal abusers.

The Guitar Slayer

04-04-2007, 10:02 AM

People are starving across the globe (not just third world countries), and families are forced to use their money for a roof over their heads and not for a meal, yet someone here has the nerve to describe overpopulation as a myth?. I'm hard to offend, but I find that simply ignorant.

If you had bothered to read the rest of the post rather than just the grabber, I substantiated my claims. Desertification happens. City migration happens. Disproportionate wealth is clearly present just by looking at the ghettos and then at Paris Hilton and Co. Bad economic policies are absolutely clear in this age of the internet -- you can watch the little arrows go up and down.

Ignorance is lacking knowledge (such as how to use birth control properly and consistently). What I have presented is dissenting opinion as to "overpopulation." We have the space, the money, and the resources to take care of everyone on this planet -- if people are willing to stop abusing the land, wake up and figure out how to either put a condom on or simply stop screwing around, stop wasting money on frivolous things, and are willing to find alternative energy sources. Should the world tank out and we begin to starve en masse (as if we're not already), it's not because there are too many people -- we're just stupid because we could have stopped the problem before it started. People are starving in Africa -- so we send aid to Africa when we feel like it or when the celebrities tell us to. It's not as if we can't give all the time -- it's because we're not willing.

Oh, and as to this other side argument thing that's going on: Sex is fun. If you can't figure out why people would want to have sex without wanting kids, then you've either never had sex or had really bad sex. That doesn't matter to this topic, nor does morality about sex in and out of relationships. What matters is "baby/fetus/parasite/bundle of joy" and his/her/its rights, including at what stage does he/she/it gain the right to "live." That can dovetail into being responsible while having sex, but not to the actual moral implications of the act itself. Ergo, cool it on that front.

Shawn Hopkins

04-04-2007, 03:32 PM

If you had bothered to read the rest of the post rather than just the grabber, I substantiated my claims. Desertification happens. City migration happens. Disproportionate wealth is clearly present just by looking at the ghettos and then at Paris Hilton and Co. Bad economic policies are absolutely clear in this age of the internet -- you can watch the little arrows go up and down.

Ignorance is lacking knowledge (such as how to use birth control properly and consistently). What I have presented is dissenting opinion as to "overpopulation." We have the space, the money, and the resources to take care of everyone on this planet -- if people are willing to stop abusing the land, wake up and figure out how to either put a condom on or simply stop screwing around, stop wasting money on frivolous things, and are willing to find alternative energy sources. Should the world tank out and we begin to starve en masse (as if we're not already), it's not because there are too many people -- we're just stupid because we could have stopped the problem before it started. People are starving in Africa -- so we send aid to Africa when we feel like it or when the celebrities tell us to. It's not as if we can't give all the time -- it's because we're not willing.

Oh, come on! Overpopulation is not a myth. As long as there is a finite amount of land it's a possibility. It seems what you're saying now is the world is not already overpopulated, which is true, but don't try to say it can't possibly happen.

On the sex thing, I'm going to quote that great philosopher, George Michael, who said "Sex is natural, sex is fun, sex is best when it's one on one" and also "Sex is natural, sex is good, not everybody does it, but everybody should." And "wake me up, before you go, go," which is still being studied.

I'm a particularly late bloomer in this regard, but I've discovered that it is definitely not something to avoid, if done right it's something both people involved want and it can be done in a way that it enriches people's lives and doesn't hurt anybody. The only reason not to do it because "the Bible said so."

Kagetsu

04-04-2007, 03:49 PM

Wow. That's a lot of text to say, because God said so. Whoa, be careful of this. I admire Gatomon for bring this to light. On a small scale, everything can seem simplistic. But you are dealing with human tribal, economic, and religious beliefs. It's not something that can be dismissed with logic. people don't want to work hard to feed and provide for someone else. Always remember you are dealing with "Humans" who will gladly see others go down to elevate themselves.

Antiyonder

04-04-2007, 03:54 PM

Oh, come on! Overpopulation is not a myth. As long as there is a finite amount of land it's a possibility. It seems what you're saying now is the world is not already overpopulated, which is true, but don't try to say it can't possibly happen.

It seems like no one's acknowledge my comment on the matter concerning the population concept. Afraid to admit that I have a point? You know killing the criminal element as opposed to a yet to be born baby.

On the sex thing, I'm going to quote that great philosopher, George Michael, who said "Sex is natural, sex is fun, sex is best when it's one on one" and also "Sex is natural, sex is good, not everybody does it, but everybody should."

Like I said, if/when I have sex, it'll be of my own accord. Not because Eddie G., ShawnHopkin and George Michael says so.

Shawn Hopkins

04-04-2007, 05:20 PM

It seems like no one's acknowledge my comment on the matter concerning the population concept. Afraid to admit that I have a point? You know killing the criminal element as opposed to a yet to be born baby.

It's a terrible idea. Christianity holds all human life sacred, so that should be a no go for Christians. From a secular perspective, we have laws that allow people to be executed in some places for certain crimes, but I don't think we're at the point where we're so overpopulated that we should play God with criminals who don't earn the death penalty. How do you know they won't reform?

Besides, overpopulation is not a factor in why women abort babies. It's not a "this criminal must die so this fetus may live situation."

Sorry you're missing out on all the sex.

Antiyonder

04-04-2007, 05:30 PM

Sorry you're missing out on all the sex.
Because anyone who doesn't have sex is worthless right? I'll say it again. Yes sex is a major part of being human or any animal, but it doesn't define us. Unlike you, I resist peer pressure.

It's a terrible idea. Christianity holds all human life sacred, so that should be a no go for Christians.
Yet killing a baby is much better right?

Shawn Hopkins

04-04-2007, 06:25 PM

I think I resisted peer pressure pretty well, too, considering I didn't have sex until after college.

Killing a baby isn't better. If you're really a Christian, what you have to ask yourself is the question this thread got derailed from. Is a fetus a person or when does it become one? I'd expect Christians to be against abortion, but I don't think they should dictate public policy for people that don't feel the same way any more than I think they should be the single authority to tell governments to end the death penalty.

Eddie G.

04-04-2007, 07:14 PM

It's a part of life yes, but it doesn't define us.No, it partially does define us. It's not the only thing that defines us, but it's a part of who we are. For the most part people are sexual beings and will have sex with whoever they want.

Apparently, you've never heard of peer pressure.Even with peer pressure, people are making a choice, it's just a dumb one. We should teach kids to have sex with responsible partners, to be caring, and to do it when they're ready.

I can't speak for Gatomon41, but as I said earlier, the choice to have sex needs to be your choice and only your choice (I'm not refering you specifically). If/When I ever have sex, it'll be a way to express my love, not because I feel like I missing something.That's sweet, but it's naive. Listen, if/when you have sex you're going to be very scared and suck at it. It's not going to be nice, but it's also going to be rather awkward, I'm afraid. It is your choice, but Gatoman said that my choice to have sex and relationships before marriage was not wise. That's just silly. Responsible sex with someone you care about, but don't want to marry is a good thing because it helps you become comfortable and confident about sharing your body while learning how to pleasure others. If you're not ready for sex then that's fine, don't have sex. If you're not having sex because of the reasons that Gatomon is listing and consider it purely for baby-making then you're just not letting yourself be human and really are missing out on something amazing.

There's a difference between denying and controlling. Killing for instance is just as much in our nature as sex. Yet, you don't see murder at every single solitary corner do you? That's because we have other ways to curb our anger/tension.Yes, but see I can go back to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and they have very good reasons why murder is wrong because it's an invasion of a person's right to their body. There are deep reasons that explain why we don't commit murder based on some universal truth. It's not simply because God says so. You must also understand that I'm not saying go have sex on the street with homeless people, what I'm saying is that teaching premarital sex as something wrong and evil is just baseless. When treated with respect and responsibility, there is nothing wrong with premarital sex. It's good for your health and mind.

Because anyone who doesn't have sex is worthless right? I'll say it again. Yes sex is a major part of being human or any animal, but it doesn't define us. Unlike you, I resist peer pressure.So, you came to the conclusion to not have sex on your own? There was no outside force that helped direct this point of view at all?

Yet killing a baby is much better right?Nobody is saying we should kill babies, the argument is about what constitutes a baby.

The Guitar Slayer

04-04-2007, 08:01 PM

Cool your heels. All of you. I don't care who what when where why and how you bone things. Off-topic.

Back to the argument at hand. Babies/fetuses/parasites/bundles of joy -- when do they become human? What rights do they have? Why wouldn't they be considered as human? Under what circumstances?

As to destroying criminals -- well, we all make mistakes. And we have sent innocent people to death row and have executed them. Killing criminals is a sad commentary on our judicial system -- the only way to stop a criminal from re-offending is to kill him? That's rather nice and finite, not to mention a tad on the barbaric side.

The argument against the death penalty is stronger than the one against abortion in a number of arenas based on the fact that these people (though rather crummy examples) are indisputably human. They are definitely sentient, living beings. Humans. They definitely feel pain. They definitely are aware. They definitely fear.

When life starts -- when a clump of cell's humanity starts -- is debated. That's the question here.

Antiyonder

04-04-2007, 08:48 PM

My apology for going off-topic, but if it's ok I at least want to finish up on this. It will be my last statement.

Killing a baby isn't better. If you're really a Christian, what you have to ask yourself is the question this thread got derailed from. Is a fetus a person or when does it become one? I'd expect Christians to be against abortion, but I don't think they should dictate public policy for people that don't feel the same way any more than I think they should be the single authority to tell governments to end the death penalty.

Now if you would have read my other posts, I already stated in the first place that I don't believe in killing. I was merely asking why the fetus/baby as opposed to them. Here's the post again:

While I don't believe in killing off people for perserving resources, why children? Why not serial killers, rapists and child/animal abusers? They're not going to be doing anything worthwhile, whereas with children there's a good chance of them growing into helpful and responsible members of society.

Next time try reading the messages entirely rather than skimming it.

That's sweet, but it's naive. Listen, if/when you have sex you're going to be very scared and suck at it. It's not going to be nice, but it's also going to be rather awkward, I'm afraid. It is your choice, but Gatoman said that my choice to have sex and relationships before marriage was not wise. That's just silly. Responsible sex with someone you care about, but don't want to marry is a good thing because it helps you become comfortable and confident about sharing your body while learning how to pleasure others. If you're not ready for sex then that's fine, don't have sex. If you're not having sex because of the reasons that Gatomon is listing and consider it purely for baby-making then you're just not letting yourself be human and really are missing out on something amazing.

Sorry you're missing out on all the sex.

I'm waiting for the right person, as naive as it sound. Know something? There are people out there who have sex and still end up miserable for one reason or another, so who's to say people can't be happy if they don't have sex.

I will agree that sex is a wonderful and natural thing, but I disagree that a person is a piece of trash, a loser or an outcast for not having it.

So, you came to the conclusion to not have sex on your own? There was no outside force that helped direct this point of view at all?

As a matter of fact yes. All entering Christianity did was reinforce that belief. You and Shawn are the ones who are trying to pressure me into changing my opinion (As shown on the last two underlined statements). Now, while I don't necessarilly agree with sex before marriage, I don't view people as scum for it. So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't treat me as a pitiful creature just because I'm a virgin.

Shawn Hopkins

04-05-2007, 10:15 AM

My apology for going off-topic, but if it's ok I at least want to finish up on this. It will be my last statement.

Now if you would have read my other posts, I already stated in the first place that I don't believe in killing. I was merely asking why the fetus/baby as opposed to them. Here's the post again:

Next time try reading the messages entirely rather than skimming it.

I did, of course, and I did respond to it. But since you're slow to catch on, I'll say it again. It's not an either or thing. We are not overpopulated, at least in the U.S., so there's no reason to kill criminals to make room for all the fetuses. Fetuses are not aborted for population control reasons. It's a stupid, off-topic argument that only you seem interested in.

Eddie G.

04-05-2007, 12:29 PM

So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't treat me as a pitiful creature just because I'm a virgin.That really wasn't my intent. The argument was if premarital sex is deviant and unwise behavoir and I was justifying it. You have the right to be a virgin, but don't justify personal choices with the idea that everyone else is unwise, or deviant.

I did, of course, and I did respond to it. But since you're slow to catch on, I'll say it again. It's not an either or thing. We are not overpopulated, at least in the U.S., so there's no reason to kill criminals to make room for all the fetuses. Fetuses are not aborted for population control reasons. It's a stupid, off-topic argument that only you seem interested in.In fact, there are parts of Europe which are underpopulated.

What this argument really comes down to is if there is a period during pregnancy where the embyro/fetus is not a self-aware being and is really just a clump of genetic material. We must also decide if cases of rape, incest, and medical situations that would put the mother in danger, or make life intolerable for a child justify the existence of abortion.

Gatomon41

04-05-2007, 05:23 PM

What this argument really comes down to is if there is a period during pregnancy where the embyro/fetus is not a self-aware being and is really just a clump of genetic material.
I think this is shoddy reasoning. We were all embryos and fetuses and turned out fine. Being self-aware is not a diffintion of being a human.

We must also decide if cases of rape, incest, and medical situations that would put the mother in danger, or make life intolerable for a child justify the existence of abortion.
No abortion is justifiable, since it is the moral eqvalent to infantcide.

Shawn Hopkins

04-05-2007, 06:33 PM

In fact, there are parts of Europe which are underpopulated.

According to the news today many major US cities would also be losing population if not for an influx of immigrants.

Eddie G.

04-05-2007, 06:43 PM

I think this is shoddy reasoning. We were all embryos and fetuses and turned out fine. Being self-aware is not a diffintion of being a human.Well, then what is the definition of being human? An embryo is a form of life, but it's not self-aware and defining it as a form of life equal to a full grown infant brings us to some problems. Is a single sperm, or egg equal to a human being and if so then does the fact that most sperm and eggs do not go through the process that creates an embryo count as murder? Should we consider animals and simple celled organisms to be the equal of human beings simply because they're alive?

No abortion is justifiable, since it is the moral eqvalent to infantcide.Okay, so if a woman is incapable of actually going through the process of child birth and the child will also most likely die too then you would rather that the mother bring the child to full term and then die giving birth to a complex creature which also most likely die, instead of terminating a simple being with no self-awareness and saving her own life?

JustJack

04-07-2007, 08:08 PM

No abortion is justifiable, since it is the moral eqvalent to infantcide.

A man in my congregation had to chose between his wife and their baby about 3 or 4 years back. He chose his wife. Was that unjustified? When he came back to church the following Sunday, would you tell him he's going to hell for that choice?

I'm not using that to justify abortion at all. I'm using that as an example to say you're simply wrong that "no abortion is justifable."

Gatomon41

04-08-2007, 04:34 PM

A man in my congregation had to chose between his wife and their baby about 3 or 4 years back. He chose his wife. Was that unjustified?

I don't know, aince I do not have all the datum, I can not say.

When he came back to church the following Sunday, would you tell him he's going to hell for that choice?
No, but he probably knows in his heart wither or not what he did was right or not. He just lost a child, no parent should go through that.

I'm not using that to justify abortion at all. I'm using that as an example to say you're simply wrong that "no abortion is justifable."
No abortion iis justifiable, peroid. There is no, if, and, or butts.

The Guitar Slayer

04-08-2007, 04:40 PM

No, but he probably knows in his heart wither or not what he did was right or not. He just lost a child, no parent should go through that.

...but he should go through losing the love of his life. Baby > Mommy, you say? Well, gee, aren't we then tossing the woman's life aside? But she's already had her time on this planet, so let's kill her so this mass of tissue can live...if it survives the death of its mother, that is.

No abortion iis justifiable, peroid. There is no, if, and, or butts.Of course not....there wouldn't be any butts after it's been aborted and disposed of correctly.

Gatomon41

04-08-2007, 04:50 PM

...but he should go through losing the love of his life. Baby > Mommy, you say? Well, gee, aren't we then tossing the woman's life aside?
Would you say the same for a woman who didn't do a thing to push her son away to save her own life? If given a choice, true parents (regardless of gender) would sacrifice their lives for a child.

But she's already had her time on this planet, so let's kill her so this mass of tissue can live...if it survives the death of its mother, that is.

Humanity can be descirbed as "bags of ugly water" as well. It dosn't mean they are just that. Humanity can not define the status of life just because of the stage of life or age. that would descrerate the diginity of all humans. And we seen the actions of men who see their fellow men as nothing more as garabage.

Of course not....there wouldn't be any butts after it's been aborted and disposed of correctly.
It's terrible when men do not see their brothers, worse when men see their fellow men as garbage.

The Guitar Slayer

04-08-2007, 08:00 PM

Would you say the same for a woman who didn't do a thing to push her son away to save her own life? If given a choice, true parents (regardless of gender) would sacrifice their lives for a child.

First off, the situation we're dealing with is a man who had to make a medical decision regarding his wife and the unborn child. Sucky decision to make. He loses either way. But then you spin it into, "it's the same this as if a mother didn't push her kid out of the way of a truck." How the hell could the father have saved the child's life? He's not a doctor, nor can he change the universe so he wins either way. He had an either or choice, and he had to make a decision.

"True parents?" Ok, that's just ****ed up. Unborn fetus supersedes all other life? One to one, a fetus is more valuable than a living, breathing, unarguably alive person? So let's say that I'm happily pregnant. I'm in a car accident. It's me or the kid. Is it, then, by your definitions, morally incorrect of me to say, "I want to live and have kids and a life in the future" instead of dying and leaving one child absolutely alone in the world?

As to the rest of your comments, I was being facetious in the original text and mocking what is, in my opinion, an overly simplistic view mixed with bad grammar.

Seriously, mate, you need to see the world in more than monochrome, and you're giving Pro-Lifers a bad rep too. I'm opposed to abortion, but the harsh, merciless line you're taking disgusts me.

Gatomon41

04-08-2007, 09:23 PM

First off, the situation we're dealing with is a man who had to make a medical decision regarding his wife and the unborn child. Sucky decision to make. He loses either way. But then you spin it into, "it's the same this as if a mother didn't push her kid out of the way of a truck." How the hell could the father have saved the child's life? He's not a doctor, nor can he change the universe so he wins either way. He had an either or choice, and he had to make a decision.

"True parents?" Ok, that's just ****ed up. Unborn fetus supersedes all other life? One to one, a fetus is more valuable than a living, breathing, unarguably alive person?
The fetus is a person, in case you forgot, all humans go through the process of life from conception, then fetus then birth and so on. Unless you're saying people skip fetus stage, a fetus is still a human, just at an early stage of life.

So let's say that I'm happily pregnant. I'm in a car accident. It's me or the kid. Is it, then, by your definitions, morally incorrect of me to say, "I want to live and have kids and a life in the future" instead of dying and leaving one child absolutely alone in the world?

One child is already there. As a parent, you should sacrifice your life for your child. It dosn't matter if you beget more children, you have a child right then and there. You have a hard choice then. But the ultimate form of love is self-sacrifice for someone else. the child may be alone, but then you have to prepare for that, find good guardians and prepare the kid for a good life.

As to the rest of your comments, I was being facetious in the original text and mocking what is, in my opinion, an overly simplistic view mixed with bad grammar.
Good hearted satire is one thing, mean-spiritness is another.

Seriously, mate, you need to see the world in more than monochrome, and you're giving Pro-Lifers a bad rep too. I'm opposed to abortion, but the harsh, merciless line you're taking disgusts me.
It's not a harsh nor merciless, just the responsible thing to do.

There are no easy answers to these questions. However, parents have a responbility to do what is best for their children. That responsilbity sometimes requires parents to make hard decisions. And what about the pre-born child? Humans are called to protect life, not end it. We have no say who should live or die, nor should we attempt to.

And don't think I don't feel for people in that situtation. I do. I hope no one ever has to make a decision like that.

The right thing to do is often the hardest option.

JustJack

04-09-2007, 12:01 AM

The fetus is a person, in case you forgot, all humans go through the process of life from conception, then fetus then birth and so on. Unless you're saying people skip fetus stage, a fetus is still a human, just at an early stage of life.

Okay, okay...let's just agree you're too stubborn to acknowledge some people don't regard an unborn fetus in the same way they may regard someone who they've vowed to spend their life with...:shrug:

One child is already there. As a parent, you should sacrifice your life for your child. It dosn't matter if you beget more children, you have a child right then and there. You have a hard choice then. But the ultimate form of love is self-sacrifice for someone else. the child may be alone, but then you have to prepare for that, find good guardians and prepare the kid for a good life.

This isn't a father sacrificing himself for his child. This is a man forced to chose between the life of a woman he loves, and a child that he has yet to ever meet or see. It's not like the mother has the choice here...it's fallen into someone else's hands. You're saying the father should just "take one for the team" and lose the love of his life because there's a some shaky moral ambiguity surrounding the question. At some point we make up our own outrageous moral's, I guess.

There are no easy answers to these questions. However, parents have a responbility to do what is best for their children. That responsilbity sometimes requires parents to make hard decisions. And what about the pre-born child? Humans are called to protect life, not end it. We have no say who should live or die, nor should we attempt to.

Ooo...I call shinanigans! Sounds like a little hypocritical, don't it? We should have no say who should live or die...unless it's a choice between baby or mommy? Kill mommy....it's the responsible thing that daddy should do. Sensible too, like a big wet turd.

And don't think I don't feel for people in that situtation. I do. I hope no one ever has to make a decision like that.

The right thing to do is often the hardest option.

And it's a shame that when someone not only has to make that hard decision, but also decided against what some others feel is morally responsible; and is then looked down upon or better yet is talked about behind their back because of it.

Captain Zechs

04-09-2007, 12:21 AM

One child is already there. As a parent, you should sacrifice your life for your child. It dosn't matter if you beget more children, you have a child right then and there. You have a hard choice then. But the ultimate form of love is self-sacrifice for someone else. the child may be alone, but then you have to prepare for that, find good guardians and prepare the kid for a good life.

Wow. How can you even say that? Why would you ever want to live a life like that as a kid. I know I would not, knowing, that because of me, my mother died, yeah, GREATTTTTTTTT life. But, seriously, I would never want to grow up without parents and be alone.

Anyways,

I just watched a movie about this in AP Environmental...it was really long, like 4 hours...it had bits about overpopulation and whatnot, but yeah, maybe, if I am not lazy I will get the notes paper I had out and type up some things.

Daniel P

04-09-2007, 04:41 AM

I was staunchly pro-life until about a year ago. I think if you had asked me then, I would have said something like this: Abortion is always wrong unless the woman's life is in danger (and even then, medical science is so far advanced that these necessary abortions are largely a myth). The product of conception is a separate, unique human being with its own unique DNA different from that of the mother's; it possesses a soul; abortion at any stage of the pregnancy is the same thing as murdering any other human being. Children who were the result of rape or incest do not lose their right to life because of the crimes of their father. The morning-after pill should be illegal because in a small percentage of cases it will prevent implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterus. And so on.

I had a religious deconversion around this time, and while I initially tried to reconcile my pro-life views with my newfound atheism, my outlook on the abortion issue eventually shifted as well. Lack of religion was not the only main factor in my change of opinion on abortion; in fact, there was another, more significant reason at the time. Also, I will say that being pro-life and being an atheist are not at all incompatible. However, it just didn't work for me. I won't get into all of the reasons, but it would be fair to say that I have done a complete turn-around on the abortion issue.

I am now entirely pro-choice, and oppose all commonly proposed restrictions on abortion that are frequently debated within the American political arena today.

The fetus is always living; as is an embryo, or sperm, or an unfertilized egg. In making that comparison I do not mean to devalue the fetus, but it is not an entirely irrelevant comparison to make. In fact, I would say that the initial question in the original post is (probably unintentionally) framed incorrectly. There is no debate that the fetus is living, or even human. However, I do not believe that one becomes a human person until birth.

The more one studies pregnancy and the associated complications that can occur, the more one begins to think of the issue through pro-choice lens. If anyone is looking for examples, I would suggest reading about ectopic pregnancies (for which the only cure is termination) or anencephaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly) (where the fetus is developing without a forebrain, and will normally be born unconscious and unable to feel pain, among other things). Another thing that is helpful is to meet women who have had an abortion. While people often think that putting a "human face" on the issue means examining the humanitarian aspect of the aborted embryo or fetus, I think it is equally if not moreso sobering to understand the viewpoint of the woman who undergoes the procedure. Approach this issue with caution and respect, above all.

The Guitar Slayer

04-09-2007, 03:27 PM

The fetus is a person, in case you forgot, all humans go through the process of life from conception, then fetus then birth and so on. Unless you're saying people skip fetus stage, a fetus is still a human, just at an early stage of life.

Ok, let's look at it like this, Skippy.

In terms of human life value:

Human = fetus
Human = woman
Woman = mother, ergo Mother = Human

Following me? Good.

Fetus = Human = Mother in terms of values of human life.

Now, if Daddy had to make a choice with crappy options, then either solution is acceptable being as a fetus is just as valuable as the mother. You insist upon equal human value for the baby. That's all fine and well.

But you call father a bad parent because he chose his wife over an unborn child? He had to choose between one life and another. They are supposedly equal, according to all the stuff you're spewing. But then you insist that Baby > Mommy because "all abortions are wrong."

Isn't all killing wrong? And wouldn't he be killing his wife? So if Murder = Abortion, then isn't Death of Mother = Death of Baby?

Both outcomes suck. I don't understand how you could possibly say either one is the better decision.

One child is already there. As a parent, you should sacrifice your life for your child.Oh, and how many children do you have, sir? Until you are a parent, don't say what they should and should not do. World isn't black and white.

But the ultimate form of love is self-sacrifice for someone else. Wrong. Self-sacrifice is nothing if you have taken away the only thing that child has in the world. Once you're dead, all your troubles and issues are over with. Done. Finished. It's the living that deal with the aftermath and all the **** you've left behind. And at that six month stage, it can go either way as to whether the child survives or not. Are his little lungs strong enough? Can he live without my immunities? Is his brain all there? If he dies, will his entire life be one giant mass of pain without his mother there to hold his hand in his little incubator?

Not even the Catholic Church says it's wrong to pick yourself in this situation. It is clearly stated in the Catechism and in Bishops papers that every effort should be made to save Mommy and Baby. It's immoral to do something intentionally bad to Baby (i.e., a straight up abortion), but if Mommy needs heavy anesthesia to save her life in surgery, they can risk the unborn child. In the course of saving Mommy, should the little guy not make it, then it's a misfortune. It's sad. It's a bad situation, and all options should be explored, but soup to nuts, it ain't wrong to save Mommy at the possible price of Baby.

Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia on this subject. Hello, textual citing!

However, if medical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10122a.htm) treatment or surgical operation, necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) to save a mother's life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm), is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm) is thereby directly attacked. Moralists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14601a.htm) agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04211a.htm) are verified, namely:

That we do not wish the evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
That the immediate effect be good in itself;
That the evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) that good might come of it -- a procedure never allowed;
That the good effect be as important at least as the evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) effect. All four conditions (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04211a.htm) may be verified in treating or operating on a woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm); the immediate effect intended, the mother's life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm), is good -- no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother -- the saving of the mother's life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm) is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm). Of course provision must be made for the child's spiritual as well as for its physical life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm), and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03592a.htm) requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm).
the child may be alone, but then you have to prepare for that, find good guardians and prepare the kid for a good life. It's a snap decision when you're in a car accident. No time to call Grandma and Grandpa or your best friend Sally. You have to decide what happens in a span of about thirty seconds before the two of you die, or else it will be, "Mommy and Baby, together in death" -- problem solved.

It's not a harsh nor merciless, just the responsible thing to do. Who are you to dictate responsibility? Who are you to take the moral high ground when you yourself aren't a parent, don't have a spouse, and are simply regurgitating propaganda off those free bookmarks you get from the Pro-Life club? Granted, those things are catchy and cute, but if you actually went to a meeting, you'd find the world isn't black and white. There's a lot of grey in there.

Daniel P

04-09-2007, 05:54 PM

As a parent, you should sacrifice your life for your child.

Please learn about ectopic pregnancies. Unless an abortion is performed, both the mother and fetus will die. There is no sacrifice the mother can make so that the baby is born.

sarita

04-09-2007, 07:58 PM

Please learn about ectopic pregnancies. Unless an abortion is performed, both the mother and fetus will die. There is no sacrifice the mother can make so that the baby is born.

Yes THANK YOU! Thank you for bringing this up.

I've sadly encountered this kind of situation at work. Several months ago, I took care of a woman who found out while hospitalized that she had an ectopic pregnancy. :crying: I felt so badly for her. My heart just goes out to her. She was already so ill (I think she had some kind of pneumonia-and I do remember that she had a chest tube, and those are no fun), and on top of that she now had to deal with the fact that she basically had to have an abortion. I mean, there's no way getting around this-ectopic pregnancies are never viable, and in addition to the death of the embryo, they could also lead to the death of the mother. So, what exactly was she supposed to do??? Just die???

God bless that poor woman. I still think about her often and wonder how she is doing.

And Jack, I hope your friend in your congregation is getting the support he needs right now. That's just an awful thing to have to go through, and then to have to deal with judgmental people on top of it all. :(

Gatomon41

04-28-2007, 06:50 PM

Please learn about ectopic pregnancies. Unless an abortion is performed, both the mother and fetus will die. There is no sacrifice the mother can make so that the baby is born.

But it is still infantcide, regardless. Nothing can change that.

Edit: However, there are times in which a lesser evil must be commited. I don't know if ectopic pregancies are one of those times. It will require much seeking of moral answers.

Gatomon41

04-28-2007, 07:04 PM

But you call father a bad parent because he chose his wife over an unborn child? He had to choose between one life and another. They are supposedly equal, according to all the stuff you're spewing. But then you insist that Baby > Mommy because "all abortions are wrong."
So are all infantcides.

And wouldn't he be killing his wife? So if Murder = Abortion, then isn't Death of Mother = Death of Baby?
The circumstances that I understood it was that either the child survives or the mother survives.

Oh, and how many children do you have, sir? Until you are a parent, don't say what they should and should not do. World isn't black and white.
That's just an ad hoc argument. I may not be a parent, but I still know my ethics.

Parents are supposed to love their children. If the parent choses themselves over saving a child, its selfishness. Love is not about oneself, but rather about giving onto others.

Wrong. Self-sacrifice is nothing if you have taken away the only thing that child has in the world.
But the child could had a father, a familly, friends. The child would not have been alone. A death of a mother is sad. But there are other reasons in the world to live.

Once you're dead, all your troubles and issues are over with. Done. Finished. It's the living that deal with the aftermath and all the **** you've left behind.
Maybe for you it is. But the world is fornately not relatvistic...

Not even the Catholic Church says it's wrong to pick yourself in this situation. It is clearly stated in the Catechism and in Bishops papers that every effort should be made to save Mommy and Baby. It's immoral to do something intentionally bad to Baby (i.e., a straight up abortion), but if Mommy needs heavy anesthesia to save her life in surgery, they can risk the unborn child. In the course of saving Mommy, should the little guy not make it, then it's a misfortune. It's sad. It's a bad situation, and all options should be explored, but soup to nuts, it ain't wrong to save Mommy at the possible price of Baby.
One catholic Saint sacrificed her life to save her child instead of haviing a life saving surgery in the 1960's. The child is now a doctor herself, and is very happy. I think St. Gianna Beretta Molla example of how she lived is a much more outstanding example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla

Who are you to dictate responsibility? Who are you to take the moral high ground when you yourself aren't a parent, don't have a spouse, and are simply regurgitating propaganda off those free bookmarks you get from the Pro-Life club?
Agian, that's an ad hoc fallacy. Unless you have a logical point, were done here.

Granted, those things are catchy and cute, but if you actually went to a meeting, you'd find the world isn't black and white. There's a lot of grey in there.
I know the lines are blured, and people themselves are grey. But actions determine what is moral and not. It is you perhaps without the vision to realize that there are still dark and light vaules in the world.

Gatomon41

04-28-2007, 07:24 PM

This is a difficult issue for anyone reading this thread. No doubt tempers have flared, as well as moral and controversial issues discussed. But keep in mind that as a community, we should try to respect one another. I mean no offense, and I appoligse for my bluntness to all those who I might have touched a nerve.

There are no easy answers certain isssues brought up on this thread. I myself been podering and reflecting upon the issues on this thread for weeks. Only today did I find an anser to one issue, but others remain unanswered. I will admit there are desperate times that call for desperate measures. The question for myself, is when are such measures acceptable morally? That will take time, reflection, alot of talking and reading before I can answer that.

Captain Zechs

04-28-2007, 07:30 PM

Who are you, however, to tell a woman what to do with her body? You don't really have the right to tell a woman what she is doing is not morally correct.

Gatomon41

04-28-2007, 07:37 PM

Who are you, however, to tell a woman what to do with her body? You don't really have the right to tell a woman what she is doing is not morally correct.

I don't make up what's moral or not. Morals and ethics are created beyond your or mine control. I simply state what they are. No matter what you or I believe, morality does not and will not change for anyone. People can only percieve the world, not make it.

BTW, no human owns their body. It's more of a loan until we have to give it back to the earth.

The Guitar Slayer

04-28-2007, 07:42 PM

So are all infantcides.

So is all murder. Death bites. We get it. Human = human. Human death = human death. Human death = sad. It doesn't matter who it happens to if you're working it from a pro-life angle. Mommy and Baby are equally valuable to God, and He doesn't want to see either of them up there too soon. That said, if He has to see one up there sooner rather than later, He isn't going to be pissed off at who comes first.

The circumstances that I understood it was that either the child survives or the mother survives. Yup. What I'm saying is that the "death of the mother" is equal in value to the "death of the baby." Either way, it is death. Neither is desirable, but Mommy and Baby are equal in terms of life and death. Just because one is tinier and cuter doesn't mean the bigger one should die.

I may not be a parent, but I still know my ethics. You don't seem to, actually. I would debate that.

Parents are supposed to love their children. If the parent choses themselves over saving a child, its selfishness. Love is not about oneself, but rather about giving onto others. It's not selfishness; it's a crummy decision to make either way. The situation I put forth is one where the viability of the fetus/baby is debatable. Six months -- a rather sharp edge in terms of fetal development. If this kid has no way of living without Mommy's continued survival, he's doomed either way; it's just a matter of whether or not you want to make Mommy collateral damage. Miracles happen, but they don't in every situation. Don't count on them. You can't pop a kid out whose lungs aren't fully formed or doesn't have a complete brain and expect it to live for long. It's not fair to him, and it's especially cruel to make him suffer through it without his mother.

Our instinct is to preserve self and young. One of those has to be broken or else it is, "Mommy and Baby, together in death."

But the child could had a father, a familly, friends. The child would not have been alone. A death of a mother is sad. But there are other reasons in the world to live. But the mother could have a lover, a family, friends. The mother would not have been alone. A death of a baby is sad. But there are other reasons in the world to live.

A woman's death is just as sad as a baby's death. All infanticide is wrong, but so is all murder. Unless you're saying that women are just a means to an end, which is propagation of the human race. Doesn't matter how many of them die as long as we get a baby, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe for you it is. But the world is fornately not relatvistic...Um. Yeah, it is. The world rocks or the world sucks based upon your relativity to it. There is no objectivity in the grand scheme of things. In microcosms, sure. But the world? Yeah, show me a completely objective guy and I'll show you someone who's lived under a rock.

One catholic Saint sacrificed her life to save her child instead of haviing a life saving surgery in the 1960's. The child is now a doctor herself, and is very happy. I think St. Gianna Beretta Molla example of how she lived is a much more outstanding example. That's nice. Admirable. I'm not saying it's wrong. And neither is a woman's who decided to live instead of her fetus when it's a life or death situation. Woman's life value = baby's life value. You seem to deny that, stating the infant's Right to Life is superior to his mother....which leads back to the very apparent belief on your part that saying that women are just a means to an end, which is propagation of the human race.

Agian, that's an ad hoc fallacy. Unless you have a logical point, were done here. Erm, again, you're soap-boxing your morals and condemning others without having lived a difficult, emotion-packed situation. There's a problem right there that I don't need to be Mr. Spock to proclaim.

It is you perhaps without the vision to realize that there are still dark and light vaules in the world.I have great vision. 20/15 in fact with perfect colour recognition. But in terms of inner vision, I question whether you're seeing beyond yourself and your own religious world. The world you've been raised in is not the same world the rest of the population necessarily has experienced. Do not assume you're preaching to the choir. And do not dare to presume that someone with different opinions cannot see the light and dark "vaules" in the world.

Captain Zechs

04-28-2007, 07:43 PM

I see no established morals saying a woman cannot get an abortion.

And that is your own personal belief.

Gatomon41

04-28-2007, 07:49 PM

I see no established morals saying a woman cannot get an abortion.
Back in anceint Sparta, they probably would have said the same thing about their infantcide.

As I said, what you percieve is not always what you know.

The Guitar Slayer

04-28-2007, 07:55 PM

As I said, what you percieve is not always what you know.

But I thought you said that the world wasn't relativistic? If it isn't, then we all perceive the same thing and have the same interpretation...which is illogical, being as vast interpretations and opinions on such things exist. And you contradicted yourself there. Make up your mind, toots.

Gatomon41

04-28-2007, 08:02 PM

But I thought you said that the world wasn't relativistic? If it isn't, then we all perceive the same thing and have the same interpretation...which is illogical, being as vast interpretations and opinions on such things exist. And you contradicted yourself there. Make up your mind, toots.
Perhaps you misunderstood.

Does not a person witness the same event differently than the one seeing the same event at a different viewpoint? Both saw it from a different view, but what detemines what happens at an event is the event itself.

Humans percieve things differently because they chossen different viewpoints. Some wish to see, others see with rose-color glasses, others perfer to shut their eyes.

The Guitar Slayer

04-28-2007, 08:12 PM

SilverKnight

04-28-2007, 08:14 PM

Back in anceint Sparta, they probably would have said the same thing about their infantcide.

As I said, what you percieve is not always what you know.Could you do me a favor and get off your high horse? You're making my neck hurt by having to crane it up so much.

That being said, the debate has been going on for decades, with both sides having argued every single viable point so far into the ground that they're starting to pop out somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Regardless of your so obvious disdain at the legality of abortions, it does not change the fact that legally or not, they'd still happen. You seem to be going under the impressoin that if someone snapped their fingers and poofed the amendment out of existence, that this magical little sparkling rainbow of pure love and happiness would spring up from the horizon and that all would be right with the world. No abortion = no problem. Wrong. Life sucks, my friend. Legalizing abortions, whether you agree with it or not, amounts to very little in the grand scheme of things. And don't go spouting something pretentious and melodramatic like, "Murder is never very little." The situation inherent with all of this is already rife with enough theatrics.

Does that make a good enough reason to legalize it? Not really, but since an unborn child does not yet have the mental capacity to make their own decisions, it falls to Mommy to do that for her. Saying that a woman is not allowed to choose the fate of her body and her child by way of the state is a complete contradiction. How? See my point below.

Also, just for the sake of clarifcation on my previous point, it is not discrimination that an unborn child isn't considered capable of making their own decisions in a court of law (in case something that is currently lacking a fully functioning brain isn't reason enough), for kiddies that have already popped out of Mommy aren't considered capable of making their own decisions, either. For the US, empancipated minors can show up around as early as 12 or 13. I'll repeat that: 12 or 13. That means a good 12 or 13 years after they were nestled snug as a bug in Mommy's stomach. That also means that for those 12 or 13 years, Mommy has been the one designated as their legal guardians. So, explain to me how it's remotely logical that a woman shouldn't be allowed to make decisions regarding their child until it's a screaming, wriggling little thing wrapped in a blanket? Because logic is awesome.

P.S. - My personal opinion on the matter? Women who get knocked up carelessly and then run off to an abortion clinic as a bandaid get very little respect from me, but then, if they're that stupid, they probably shouldn't breed, anyway. Yes. It's callous. That's life.

Hah. Life. I made a funny.

I don't make up what's moral or not. Morals and ethics are created beyond your or mine control. I simply state what they are. No matter what you or I believe, morality does not and will not change for anyone. People can only percieve the world, not make it. ...

...

...What??

Okay, sparky. Let me enlighten you to the situation in which you happen to find yourself in. Morals and ethics are lovely fluid things that are ordinarily created and fostered by the society you live in. The morals our society has is not the same as the morals ancient Rome had, nor would they be the same morals as the Babylonians, or the ancient Japanese, or the Inca, or the Egyptians had. That's the beauty and sucky thing about morals and ethics--they are actually in our control. A person's moral and ethical beliefs are entirely under our control, for what we perceive to be right and wrong is a product of our beliefs. Meaning, what I believe may not be what you believe. What you believe may not be what Joe Bob down the street believes. What Joe Bob believes probably--and hopefully--isn't what Nero or Ghengis Khan believed. Suggesting that a human being cannot come to their own conclusions regarding what they feel in their mind and heart is the correct course of action is quite possibly the most vainglorious show of hubris I have ever had the misfortune of stumbling over.

But, y'know, that's just what I think. >shrug< God forbid.

Scirel

04-28-2007, 08:28 PM

Okay, I have a clear opinion on abortion, but...I honestly don`t know what set it fits in, pro choice or pro life, so i thought I might enlist the aid of the experts here.

I believe that abortion due to consensual sex is immoral and wrong unless the birth fo the child would kill the mother. In other words, I think abortion should only be legal in cases of rape( an isue which hasn`t been taked about here at all, strangely) and life-endangerment.

My question is in definition of choice. If the woman chooses to have sex, it is her responsibility to go with the consequences of her descision. She should have to carry the baby. However, if the act itself was forced upon her, I think that she should be able to abort if she chooses to, since she never had a choice in doing the act of sex itself.

Lastly, in the case of life endangerment, no person should have to sacrifice their own life against their will for any reason. The potnetial of the current takes precendence over the potential of the unknown.

To be completely honest, I as a man, think that men shouldn`t have a say in this issue at all, since it is one that we could not possibly understand and empathyze with, but that's just me.

The Guitar Slayer

04-28-2007, 08:30 PM

What SK said. I just about blew a vein in my forehead when I read the original statement. That also would have occurred if someone else hadn't picked up on that; the aforementioned statement basically denies every single thought behind EVERY philosophy and religion, including Christianity.

Outlander00

04-28-2007, 09:24 PM

I must say that this thread is getting dragged away from its original topic, especially by certain individuals who want to turn this into a pseudo - religious/political topic (the later being against CTZ rules). And whats worse is that the individuals are basing their opinions on rather circumstantial evidence and arguments without any hard proof to back it up. Id suggest that everyone (especially these certain individuals) simmer down, post with intelligence and not hearsay and not create flaming situations.

In terms of my opinion (which is just that: I dare people to attack me on an idea as oppose to a belief), that a life is a life when it becomes self aware.. which is quite late in the pregnancy actually. However, ultimately, my opinion is trumped by the law of the land and Ill adhere to it. Period.

JustJack

04-28-2007, 11:26 PM

Perhaps you misunderstood.

Does not a person witness the same event differently than the one seeing the same event at a different viewpoint? Both saw it from a different view, but what detemines what happens at an event is the event itself.

Humans percieve things differently because they chossen different viewpoints. Some wish to see, others see with rose-color glasses, others perfer to shut their eyes.

Perception isn't truth. Your differing viewpoint doesn't equate moral truth. Just because someone see's something from a different angle doesn't mean they see thru rose-tinted glasses, or that their eye's are shut. With this particular subject, any stance you take is filled with moral ambiguity. You may feel the entire idea of abortion is wrong. Someone else may feel your view point of protecting the life of a child is immoral because of your insensitivity towards everyone else involved. Many (most) others don't believe in original sin, and thus feel the moral obligation in a "mother or child" situation is to save the mother's life. Some may think your attitude has corrupted your entire argument.

Your perception may insult everyone else's viewpoint, because you're calling them immoral and blind to the truth.
I think it's then fair to say such a viewpoint can also be looked upon with as much scrutiny, and seen as being just as much (if not, more) immoral than other people's opinions on the matter.

Viewpoints like yours, I'm guessing, have a lot of basis in the idea of original sin. I was raised Christian, and never once came across "original sin" in the bible. I understand it's a firmly held belief in Catholicism, and I see how it makes the idea of abortion that much more difficult. I'll give you that much, and lay off some pressure. Do others the same courtesy of not condemning them or calling them blind for their differing opinions.

Gatomon41

04-29-2007, 03:21 AM

An event happens. Fine and dandy. But it's still relativistic based upon that person's perception.

That's poor reasoning. A person can not change how an event happens, or when an event happens, or wither or not an event happens just because of how they see it. The point is, the event is an example of how certain things are objectifiable, and can not be changed because an indivudal thinks it. Despite what Descartes thinks, no one can think who they are.

Okay, sparky. Let me enlighten you to the situation in which you happen to find yourself in. Morals and ethics are lovely fluid things that are ordinarily created and fostered by the society you live in.
No, those are social rules. The moral laws I'm talking about is a much different, scuh as the source of those rules.

The morals our society has is not the same as the morals ancient Rome had, nor would they be the same morals as the Babylonians, or the ancient Japanese, or the Inca, or the Egyptians had. That's the beauty and sucky thing about morals and ethics--they are actually in our control.
Actually, humanity has the choice to follow moral laws or not. The consquences of breaking those rules however still happen wither or not the person realizes it.

A person's moral and ethical beliefs are entirely under our control, for what we perceive to be right and wrong is a product of our beliefs. Meaning, what I believe may not be what you believe.
That's already understandable. Some people have made the decision not to believe certain things. It dosn't mean they're making the right choice though.

Suggesting that a human being cannot come to their own conclusions regarding what they feel in their mind and heart is the correct course of action is quite possibly the most vainglorious show of hubris I have ever had the misfortune of stumbling over.
I never said that. In fact, I'm befuddled by how you even interpretated this from my statement. :confused: I never said people are unable to make the right ethical choices.

What I did state was that morality comes from an objectifable source. Because this source is objectifable, morality can not be changed by indivdual thought, social and evironmental changes, or anything temporal for that matter.

Perception isn't truth. Your differing viewpoint doesn't equate moral truth.
That's the point I've been trying to make. How one person perseves the world is not the truth.

What probably confuses people is the idea of Objectifable Truth and Morality. Or rather (more confusingly), why do I believe that Morals are Objectifiable? How can you say that since it's just a belief and other people have different ideas?

However, this idea of mine did not appear out of no where. Nor is not just based on cultural teaching,. It is, instead, also supported by intellecual reasoning and sources by theologians, philosphers, and other thinkers. However, all this does is support the belief. It dosn't mean anyone is going to accept it.

Viewpoints like yours, I'm guessing, have a lot of basis in the idea of original sin. I was raised Christian, and never once came across "original sin" in the bible.
Orginal Sin is the term to discribe humanity's fallen nature. You probably won't find the direct term in the Bible, but the concept exists right in Genesis.

An analog of this would be how the US Consitution and how Justices rules on the basis on alot of things not writen directly in the consitution.

understand it's a firmly held belief in Catholicism, and I see how it makes the idea of abortion that much more difficult. I'll give you that much, and lay off some pressure. Do others the same courtesy of not condemning them or calling them blind for their differing opinions.
I do not codemn anyone (we're all in the same boat together). It is sometimes that I'm rather blunt or too direct. I am sorry if I've done anything to upset anyone in anyway.