New Abortion Laws

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: New Abortion Laws
bogus standard candidate Infiltrator Member # 4592	written Friday, March 25 2005 19:30 Profile #100 I have some questions (perhaps towards the anti-abortionists, or whoever wants to address them) What will you do about the abortions that are done illegally? How will you stop them? How do you plan to prevent women from ever aborting? What are the plans going on to that effect, in whatever country you happen to live? Fine if you want to forbid something, but shouldn't you be trying to eradicate the reason that is making these women abort? Why are they doing it? -------------------- quote: "I suffer from spiritual malaise," said Cugel meaningfully. "which manifest itself in outburst of vicious rage. I implore you to depart, lest, in an uncontrollable spasm, I cut you in three pieces with my sword, or worse, I invoke magic." Random Jack Vance Quote Manual Generator Apparatus (Cugel's Saga) Posts: 604 \| Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
Dolphin Shaper Member # 5437	written Friday, March 25 2005 19:49 Profile #101 Very well, I am able to respect how you feel. I understand that you feel an embryo to be a baby. I respect your religion and your right to defend what you claim to be life. This being said there is little need for further debate. You are set in your way to “protect” what will be, and I and others seem to disagree with your “morals.” What can more come of this? You can convince me no more than I can convince you. [ Friday, March 25, 2005 19:50: Message edited by: Dolphin ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 \| Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, March 25 2005 20:04 Profile Homepage #102 quote: Indeed. But that wasn't what I was arguing. To clarify, I don't care about potential people (such as eggs and sperm), I only care about actual people. A skin cell is not capable of growing into a new human being by itself. It would have to have things done to it until it became a one-celled embryo. At that point it becomes a child and should be given the rights of one. In particular, the right to live. Ontology alert. At some point we're going to have to start arguing over why certain rights ought to hold under certain circumstances. Personally, my ethical system doesn't include the concept of absolute and inviolable rights; to me, rights are, at best, convenient rules of thumb, the observance of which tends to do more good than harm. quote: For my own answer, I would ask 'by what resoning would you say that it IS part of the woman? Personally, I wouldn't and I don't. I merely said that many people on my side of the argument do. I'm trying to get out of the habit of speaking on behalf of others, I really am. quote: A newly formed embryo qualifies as an individual organism, by any definition of organism you care to throw at it. It qualifies as a member of the human species by any definition of human species that you care to throw at it. It therefore qualifies as an individual human being. Does it qualify as a person? Would you care to tell me what the difference between a human being and a person is? More rights-based talk. I'm getting uncomfortable defending a position I more or less agree with based on an ethical system that I don't, so I'm going to start arguing in utilitarian terms. Now, I think it should be obvious that if you kill an infant before its nervous system has developed, or an adult who's asleep or unconscious, you don't directly cause them any suffering. (In fact, even killing a conscious person isn't necessarily going to cause them that much suffering, depending on how quickly you go about doing it). Killing them is wrong (if it is wrong) because of the harm caused to others who care about them, and because of the potential future benefits that may have accrued to them and that they are now deprived of on account of being dead. On the other hand, you've also prevented any future suffering they might experience, and any harm their continued survival may have caused others is now done away with. Overall, whether killing a given individual is wrong or not depends on the overall effect on everyone who's directly or indirectly affected by their death. Now, the world, as it is, is overpopulated; if there were fewer people, on average they'd be better off. In the case of abortion, the mother is presumably better off having it than not having it (or she wouldn't have chosen to have the abortion), the conceptus isn't any worse off than if it were never conceived in the first place, and there probably aren't too many other people who've formed emotional attachments to it before it's even been born, so in most cases nobody else is seriously affected. (You could argue that the father could be affected, and you'd have a point, although I rather suspect that in most cases of abortion the father either approves of it or is nowhere to be found. Still, if he has a particularly strong objection I can see circumstances under which that ought to be taken into account.) -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Creator BoE Posse Member # 112	written Friday, March 25 2005 20:04 Profile #103 quote: Originally written by behind stingy cactus: I have some questions (perhaps towards the anti-abortionists, or whoever wants to address them) What will you do about the abortions that are done illegally? How will you stop them? Basically, I don't think we will be able to, any more than we are able to completely stop any illegal activity. Or do you mean how would we enforce such laws? I think taking away a doctor's licence to practice medicine if he is convicted of performing an illegal abortion and someone who was not a doctor woul have to face criminal charges. I think this would be a good method of enforcement. To punish the crime as it deserves however, would require a charge of murder, but I will take saving the innocent over punishing the guilty any day. quote: Originally written by behind stingy cactus: How do you plan to prevent women from ever aborting? What are the plans going on to that effect, in whatever country you happen to live?[/QB] You make it sound like there's some sort of conspiracy. My plan is to convince women (and men) that abortion is murder. I think far fewer would want abortions if they knew what they were doing. quote: Originally written by behind stingy cactus: Fine if you want to forbid something, but shouldn't you be trying to eradicate the reason that is making these women abort? Why are they doing it?[/QB] They do it because society pressures them to do it, and they don't see anything wrong with it. I would like to change society so that it is far more supportive of pregnant women, instead of saying, in effect "You're pregnant? Get rid of it. You don't want to be tied down. You want to be like us playboys, footloose and fancy free." This would include greater finacial support for families, and child care organisations. It's a huge task, and may be beyond my reach, but I'm going to give it my best. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 \| Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
The Creator BoE Posse Member # 112	written Friday, March 25 2005 20:30 Profile #104 quote: Originally written by Dolphin: Very well, I am able to respect how you feel. I understand that you feel an embryo to be a baby. I respect your religion and your right to defend what you claim to be life. This being said there is little need for further debate. You are set in your way to “protect” what will be, and I and others seem to disagree with your “morals.” What can more come of this? You can convince me no more than I can convince you. My belief of when life begins is based in science not religion. And it is my premise (that an embryo is a baby) not my morals that you disagree with. We are both against murder. Could you explain to me why you said an embryo is not alive? It won't convince me, but I would like to understand your position more. Thuryl your last post was a pleasure to read. I toally disagree with it, but you clearly stated you premises (i.e. the absence on absolute right and wrong, and that the world is overpopulated), and drew logical conclusions from them. The only way this discussion can continue is if we were to debate those premises, but thats another couple of cans of worms. Edit: Sorry for the double post. The way things have been, I thought someone else would have posted before I finished writting [ Friday, March 25, 2005 20:33: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 \| Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
bogus standard candidate Infiltrator Member # 4592	written Friday, March 25 2005 20:31 Profile #105 Thanks, Creator. I think that sexual education will be a good thing. However, sometimes people end up getting pregnant without wanting to, and having taken all the necessary precautions. Although it may sound shallow to say this, should those women give birth? What if they can't raise the child properly at that time? I understand the point of view of pro lifers, but sometimes it seems to be too radical: no abortion under any circumstance, period. What should a woman who is under such circumstances, or others, do? Give the baby to adoption or just swallow up her complaints and raise him/her? If the baby goes to adoption, that would be taking the baby away from a family (which may or many not be a good thing) And if the mother has to raise a kid without the ability, at the moment to do so, then what? She should just do so and that's it? I understand the fear that some may have that making this legal may turn into rampart sex without care, but that already exists in some people. I've posted this elsewhere, but I've stumbled upon women who wants to have sex without any protection, claiming to be on the pill, which may or may not be true but for me it's a risk I'm not willing to take. Do you think that, perhaps, with adecuate programs that instruct people and a good moral base we can make abortion legal, or will be it a moot point under those circumstances? On the other hand this kind of solution may be so distant, if even possible as to make it obsolete. A problem I have is that even if you close down all doctors who practice illegal abortions, that still will not keep them from doing them. Or from people to try to find, in desperation, other methods that will be far more dangerous for, not only the fetus, but also the mother. I wonder if this compromise is even possible: making abortion legal, so that it can be properly if it needs to be done. Offering sexual education to people. Showing them the result of abortions and informing them on this procedure/results might result in people being more careful. Also, perhaps providing anti-contraceptives so that people can easily acquire them and use them. In this country, at least, many of the problems with abortion happen in some of the poorer areas, distributing condoms in those areas might not be a bad idea--though it may sound difficult, since the population there is quite big. A problem that I see is that this seems to be a no win scenario. It seems unlikely that we will ever avoid abortion, and if no doctor can execute it properly, I think that in the long run we are doing more wrong than good. I didn't mean it as a conspiracy. I sometimes do think that politicians use the matter of pro-life and pro-choice as banners for their campaigns, but that's about it as far as that goes. -------------------- quote: "I suffer from spiritual malaise," said Cugel meaningfully. "which manifest itself in outburst of vicious rage. I implore you to depart, lest, in an uncontrollable spasm, I cut you in three pieces with my sword, or worse, I invoke magic." Random Jack Vance Quote Manual Generator Apparatus (Cugel's Saga) Posts: 604 \| Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
Dolphin Shaper Member # 5437	written Friday, March 25 2005 20:58 Profile #106 An embryo, mind you I mean in the fist trimmest. It is blob of cells that has yet to become a hand, heart, or brain. Women's bodies reject very early embryos organically for several reasons. It is the earliest stages; life is not yet a guarantee even by nature's standards. To me what is life? Bacteria are alive, as are ameba. It is seen as something different simply for being human. Thus to make this blob of cells more than just that, it must be defined as human. What is a human to me? Human is not necessarily a term simply for having the DNA of the species. Back to skin, they are human skin cells, just as it is a human embryo. Once a fetus has a nervous system, a beating heart, a brain, even organs it is “alive” in the human sense. It has functioning systems of digestion, blood flow, and sensations are perceived. Just as shedding the ovum and uterine lining every month is not preventing life, neither is aborting what has not yet become to protect that life of the potential mother. Be it body or soul. [ Friday, March 25, 2005 21:02: Message edited by: Dolphin ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 \| Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
The Creator BoE Posse Member # 112	written Friday, March 25 2005 21:14 Profile #107 "No abortion period." May seem radical today, but I'm sure "No slavery period." seemed radical too once. Having abortion be legal for the sakes of those who would have them anyway is like making drugs legal in order to make it safer for those who would use them anyway. I certainly have no problem with contraceptives (such as condoms, and pasectomies). However many so-called contraceptives are in fact abortives that kill the fetus early in the pregancy. But if they were the only abortions, it would still be a vast improvement. A society where it didn't matter if abortion was legal or not because no-one would have one would be great, but if we are honest, it will never happen. People will always be looking for the quick way out. Yes, it really is an ugly mess. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 \| Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Friday, March 25 2005 21:19 Profile Homepage #108 quote: Originally written by buried spelunker cowry: Thanks, Creator. I think that sexual education will be a good thing. However, sometimes people end up getting pregnant without wanting to, and having taken all the necessary precautions. Although it may sound shallow to say this, should those women give birth? What if they can't raise the child properly at that time? I understand the point of view of pro lifers, but sometimes it seems to be too radical: no abortion under any circumstance, period. What should a woman who is under such circumstances, or others, do? Give the baby to adoption or just swallow up her complaints and raise him/her? If the baby goes to adoption, that would be taking the baby away from a family (which may or many not be a good thing) And if the mother has to raise a kid without the ability, at the moment to do so, then what? She should just do so and that's it? If I may answer... Basically, yes, no matter what we do there will be unwanted pregnancies. In these cases, the woman should give birth and either give the child up for adoption or raise it herself. Yes, this inflicts a certain amount of hardship on her. I'd like to see that alleviated by means other than abortion. Financial support for families is a good thing, for example. And I'd definitely like to see the adoption system working better. I hope that answers your question satisfactorily. Edit: Beat. [ Friday, March 25, 2005 21:21: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
bogus standard candidate Infiltrator Member # 4592	written Friday, March 25 2005 22:14 Profile #109 Yes, thank you both Ash Lael and Creator. I understand more where you two come from. -------------------- quote: "I suffer from spiritual malaise," said Cugel meaningfully. "which manifest itself in outburst of vicious rage. I implore you to depart, lest, in an uncontrollable spasm, I cut you in three pieces with my sword, or worse, I invoke magic." Random Jack Vance Quote Manual Generator Apparatus (Cugel's Saga) Posts: 604 \| Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, March 25 2005 23:34 Profile Homepage #110 quote: Originally written by The Creator: "No abortion period." May seem radical today, but I'm sure "No slavery period." seemed radical too once. Still is radical, you mean. Regardless of laws, there's still slavery, and coercive labour practices that amount to the same thing, in every country. Indentured servitude is illegal in (for example) India and yet it's still widespread there. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Custer Bob's Big Date Member # 3151	written Saturday, March 26 2005 00:47 Profile Homepage #111 "No abortion period" is impractical. There are cases in which carrying a pregnancy to term will be fatal to the mother, and in that case an abortion should occur. Even if you consider that embryo a human life, it's a matter of choosing one corpse over two. Then there's cases in which it's medically imperative rather than necessary. And what about untenable pregnancies - say, someone without any money whatsoever having a child in India? They can't feed all that they have now. Overall, a stance like 'no abortion' cannot be anything but political, I'm sorry. I don't think there's any solid moral basis for it, when you look at it deep down, unless you're willing to add a LOT of codicils. Specific points of contention: quote: Having abortion be legal for the sakes of those who would have them anyway is like making drugs legal in order to make it safer for those who would use them anyway. They do this in many countries. You will be surprised to learn that not everyone in the Netherlands is shooting up needle drugs. There are situations in which it might be a moral contradiction on first glance, but the facts must be addressed. Tough-love parenting is specious; tough-love lawmaking is insane. quote: I certainly have no problem with contraceptives (such as condoms, and pasectomies). However many so-called contraceptives are in fact abortives that kill the fetus early in the pregancy. But if they were the only abortions, it would still be a vast improvement. No, it destroys a pre-embryonic mass which is as likely as not to naturally abort without the woman learning of it. I don't see where you draw the line with 'life', to be honest. The first trimester is pretty reasonable, because after that you start seeing vaguely viable life, but no living birth has ever occurred at or under three months, and a woman can go almost that long without even knowing she's pregnant. There's no variegation by sex, the embryo is physically indistinguishable from that of a pig, and there's no brain. You might as well call the rhythm method genocide; there's next to no difference in terms of physical viability. [ Saturday, March 26, 2005 00:55: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 \| Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
ef Guardian Member # 2476	written Saturday, March 26 2005 01:03 Profile #112 quote: No abortion, period. Throughout this discussion it strikes me that few of you, pro or contra, seem to have any idea of a woman's reality. If you had, you could not argue as you do; you are as far removed from a woman's feelings and thoughts as you can possibly be. Do you think we really care for all this theory? What do we have to do with it? We confront real life situations and have to find solutions for real life problems. When it comes to things like abortion, it does not matter what culture we live in or what religion we have been brought up to believe in, we understand each other very well. What you ask of us when you prohibit abortion is to go in hiding. Not to confide in you, nor trust you. Well, there are vast areas in this world where this is the reality anyway. Life starts within us and we have the option to let it come to fruition or to terminate it. Yes, this is a vast power. One that men have sought to control throughout the ages, though they never really succeeded. And never will. If you want to change that, please go into your labs and be happy with your clones. Give them exactly the genes you feel most comfortable with and raise them yourselves. That is not our pair of shoes, nor our side of the table. Choice, as Drakey put it, is a woman's prerogative. We do respect men who respect us. [ Saturday, March 26, 2005 01:05: Message edited by: ef ] -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 \| Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
Custer Bob's Big Date Member # 3151	written Saturday, March 26 2005 01:45 Profile Homepage #113 quote: Throughout this discussion it strikes me that few of you, pro or contra, seem to have any idea of an embryo's reality. If you had, you could not argue as you do; you are as far removed from a embryo's feelings and thoughts as you can possibly be. FYT Luridly illogical, insulting to my intelligence, etc. I understand you have an elevated opinion of women, but that doesn't make them a different species operating under an entirely different set of moral and psychological principles. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 \| Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Drakefyre Triad Mage Member # 7	written Saturday, March 26 2005 01:58 Profile Homepage #114 Prohibition is perhaps an apt analogy. Prohibition did greatly reduce alchohol consumption in the US, but its main problem was the creation of organized crime groups and widespread corruption in local law enforcement. Outlawing abortion will get you backalley abortionists and some police officers 'convinced' to turn a blind eye. I believe that there is a point of no return somewhere in the second trimester when it's too late for an abortion unless the mother's health is threatened. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 \| Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Saturday, March 26 2005 03:20 Profile Homepage #115 quote: Originally written by Bad-Ass Mother Custer: "No abortion period" is impractical. There are cases in which carrying a pregnancy to term will be fatal to the mother, and in that case an abortion should occur. Even if you consider that embryo a human life, it's a matter of choosing one corpse over two. Then there's cases in which it's medically imperative rather than necessary. "No abortion ever" is, of course, an unrealistic hope. I realise this. I'd like to see medicine able to make such medical problems solvable in other ways. I'd like to see all unwanted pregnancies dealt with in other ways. It's not gonna happen, I know. Of course, I'd like to see no starvation ever and no murder ever as well. :P These things aren't gonna happen either. But I still see them as good things to aim for. [quote]And what about untenable pregnancies - say, someone without any money whatsoever having a child in India? They can't feed all that they have now.[/quote]Saying what 'should be done' in such a situation is more or less beside the point, isn't it? I mean, the moralistic response is to say that situation should be prevented. The practical response is to say that a woman in that situation isn't going to worry about what the laws are. [quote]Overall, a stance like 'no abortion' cannot be anything but political, I'm sorry. I don't think there's any solid moral basis for it, when you look at it deep down, unless you're willing to add a LOT of codicils.[/quote]A statement like 'A stance like 'no abortion' cannot be anything but political' can not be anything but political. Sorry. :P But seriously, not wanting to kill babies is a legitimate moral basis, surely? Ignore whether it's an issue of medical technology or legislation. Assume for a moment that life does begin at conception. I don't think it's in any way an invalid position. [quote]They do this in many countries. You will be surprised to learn that not everyone in the Netherlands is shooting up needle drugs. There are situations in which it might be a moral contradiction on first glance, but the facts must be addressed. Tough-love parenting is specious; tough-love lawmaking is insane.[/quote]Out of interest, how does the drug use rate in the Netherlands compare with coutries where drug use is illegal? [quote]No, it destroys a pre-embryonic mass which is as likely as not to naturally abort without the woman learning of it.[/quote]Flat contradiction is a fun and useful debating tactic! I mean, seriously. Are you expecting to change someone's mind with that? Just saying "You're wrong" isn't getting anyone anywhere. [quote]I don't see where you draw the line with 'life', to be honest. The first trimester is pretty reasonable, because after that you start seeing vaguely viable life, but no living birth has ever occurred at or under three months, and a woman can go almost that long without even knowing she's pregnant. There's no variegation by sex, the embryo is physically indistinguishable from that of a pig, and there's no brain. You might as well call the rhythm method genocide; there's next to no difference in terms of physical viability. [/quote]Why do you think physical viability is the measure we should use to determine whether someone has the right to live? [ Saturday, March 26, 2005 04:21: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Saturday, March 26 2005 04:20 Profile Homepage #116 Sorry for the long post, but I believe it would be better than individual replies, which would flood the topic. Anyway, to the people addressed here, don't limit yourselves to read your part. Read this post as a whole, please. quote: Originally written by Kelandon: And, er, a society cannot simultaneously "longer value individual human worth" and also "worship at the feet of the idol Self". Why? quote: With your self-contradictory histrionics, you've given no coherent argument here, except perhaps that the embryo is different from the woman carrying it. Even if that were true, that still doesn't give any reason to believe that the embryo is a fully alive human. The embryo is a human life. I don't understand what is half-human life or whatever. I don't understand why being dependent of the mother to survive, gives the mother the right to... Not let him survive. Can you explain better that your point of view? @Thuryl: "Stolen property", now that's a heartless statement. No human being is "property" of another, so your analogy doesn't apply. @Dolphin: quote: The majority of what you are saying is not scientifically grounded. You speak of your own “morals.” Who determines what is right and wrong to do with one's own body? Oh no? I think I shown some scientific grounds, not mere opinions. Show me your scientific grounds for your claims. But I liked your question: "Who determines what is right and wrong to do with one's own body?" Just replace "one's own body" with "the pre-baby's body". ;) quote: An unconscious blob of cells feels no fear or pain. So, if someone drugs you, you wouldn't fear or feel pain, so it would be alright to kill you, right? Why do you think it's ok to kill life, if that life is in a stage of development where fear and pain are not developed? And we are talking about the initial stages of pregnancy, because in later stages there's pain, believe me. Read the "blob or baby?" article in the other topic. Maybe it will clear things out about this aspect. quote: You want to save lives? Adopt a child from an impoverished country. Give to charities, orphanages, or homeless shelters. Especially orphanages since you plan on filling them with unwanted children. Sure. If I see my neighbour molesting a child, I won't stop him, because I'm not in condition to adopt the child. Gee... And it's better to be in orphanages and have a chance to have a successful life, no matter the difficulties, than denying that chance, by murdering the child. quote: There is no end in sight to this discussion, and neither side sees the other's view. I think your side is the one that see the other's view. Because I already addressed your points in other posts/articles. But you didn't answer my points. Just think about it. @andrew miller: quote: Quit frothing at the mouth. The rate of abortions in the US is about 22 per 1,000 live births, hardly one-third of all children conceived. Where are you getting this? I've read from a credible portuguese magazine. Where did you get yours'? quote: I don't worship your version of God, and I don't like your version of God. The majority of the rest of the world doesn't worship your version of God either. It seems as though your basis for making such determinations is incredibly limited. You can threaten me with the consequences for of what will happen in the hereafter, but you know what? I'm comfortable with that risk. Do you know why? Because I'm a good person, and I don't judge people on the basis of religious hearsay - I weigh individuals by their acts, and I put it in the perspective of my own choices. What is my version of God? My arguments are not based on religion or God, as you've read, so I don't know why your diverging from the subject, avoiding to address the points I posted. In no place I've claimed you should follow my God's version or you'll be punished. I've been talking about human life protection and human rights. So don't try to throw sand to our eyes and limit yourself to the topic. Thank you. quote: That you think you know what's right and seek to enforce your morals on others is the worst kind of hubris. You're the one enforcing morals on others: on the murdered baby, being intolerant to me (I'm agains't abortion, you're agains't pro-life people). Besides, norals are always enforced. The law is an enforment. When you say rapists should be jailed, you're imposing you morals to the rapists. I say human life is precious and has the right to live. No one has the right to decide another's death. I think that's reasonable, don't you? Did you read the "2 years old child" example in this topic earlier pages? You should. quote: Nevermind that you probably only selectively follow what you preach - come talk to me about the righteousness of your faith when you only ever have sex for the sake of procreation, not merely for pleasure. And here's an unfair and clear attack to my person. Did I attack you? Did I insult you? Did I act incorrectly to you? See how intolerant you are? Insulting and labeling me? You have no real arguments on the subject, so you direct your offenses to me, on a personal level. Btw, where did I say sex is only for procreation? There's condomns, pills, etc. You don't have to use abortion... quote: Is your nation much better than mine? From what I've gathered, Portugal has the second highest rate of teen pregnancies in the EU. I'm sure all of them were planned. That information is not accurate. By I won't even discuss it, because that's not this topic subject. I'm not talking about what's the best country. I'm talking about abortion and its malificence. quote: What this is really about is that you would take away people's choice of religion. Thank God I have the freedom in my country to escape the tyranny of religious authoritarianism such as yours. I pray to God that my country will remain that way forever. Another lie. Where am I imposing my religion? I'm defending human life and human rights. I'm not talking about religion or using religious arguments. Once again, you're throwing sand to our eyes, diverging from the subject. Please, don't be so intolerant and tyrant with me. @Custer: quote: 'Separation of church and state' were fighting words in most Catholic countries well into the 20th century. They don't exactly have it now, and I'm pretty sure Portugal is legally Catholic. Nope. The State is separate from the catholic church. And I think it should remain like that. My country is majorly catholic (i'm not included ;) ), but the State is independent. What's the country that says "In God we Trust"? :P @ef: quote: Southern european catholicism is usually not as extreme and violent as Overwhelming. I get images of resurfacing Inquisition, listening to him. You're being unfair to me. Where am I being violent and extreme? There are people defending baby killing (or pre-baby, fetus, or whatever-killing), and I'm the violent one? For trying to defend babies lives, I'm labelled as violent and compared to inquisition. See how pro-abortion twist things and are the intolerant ones? Gee... To all: Why some of you are making this a religious issue? -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Saturday, March 26 2005 04:31 Profile Homepage #117 As a quick aside, going back to the first few posts, it turns out I was mistaken. It would seem full term abortions are legal here, with no restrictions. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Dolphin Shaper Member # 5437	written Saturday, March 26 2005 08:33 Profile #118 Overwhelming- please read the earlier posts everyone has made so I don't have to repeat myself over and over. quote: But I liked your question: "Who determines what is right and wrong to do with one's own body?" Just replace "one's own body" with "the pre-baby's body" Twisting my words doesn't make your point, and “pre-baby” as in not a baby. quote: So, if someone drugs you, you wouldn't fear or feel pain, so it would be all right to kill you, right? Why do you think it's ok to kill life, if that life is in a stage of development where fear and pain are not developed? And we are talking about the initial stages of pregnancy, because in later stages there's pain, believe me. Read the "blob or baby?" article in the other topic. Maybe it will clear things out about this aspect. This has already been said. Please refer to Thuryl's response to this, as he stated it quite nicely. Again if you read anything I write you would know I am commenting only on the fist trimester, and have said nothing about supporting later pregnancy abortions. quote: And it's better to be in orphanages and have a chance to have a successful life, no matter the difficulties, than denying that chance, by murdering the child. \ This is arguable. Children who grow up in orphanages may or may not have good lives. It can cause severe psychological problems for children to feel unloved and unwanted. Murdering the child would be wrong, but we are not discussing an existent child. We are discussing the potential to one day be a child. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 \| Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Saturday, March 26 2005 13:17 Profile #119 Overwhelming, your morality has to come from somewhere. Otherwise, on what grounds can you defame the U.S. lifestyle of social relativism? If your morality is derrived from a source other than religion, then ultimately it has as much authority as its backers are able to enforce. In that case, the foundation of your morals is arbitrary, not absolute. Why is the life of an embryo or fetus important? Because it has a soul? This is a religious belief. If this isn't the basis for your pro-life stance, why is the life of a baby human any different than the life of the billions of chickens or cows destroyed and consumed every year? Search for "U.S. abortion rate" in Google, and you'll find any number of articles that will indicate that the U.S. abortion rate is between 22-24 abortions per 1000 preganacies - I'm not pulling that out of the air. One-third of all pregnancies is a gross inaccuracy. [ Saturday, March 26, 2005 13:18: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, March 26 2005 13:31 Profile Homepage #120 quote: @Thuryl: "Stolen property", now that's a heartless statement. No human being is "property" of another, so your analogy doesn't apply. You missed my point. It's not the embryo that's stolen property, it's the woman's uterus, which the embryo happens to be making use of. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Saturday, March 26 2005 13:51 Profile Homepage #121 quote: Originally written by Dolphin: Overwhelming- please read the earlier posts everyone has made so I don't have to repeat myself over and over. And I tell you the same, because it's clear you didn't read anything I wrote. quote: “pre-baby” as in not a baby. It's a human life. If you think it's not, justify it. You still didn't manage to do so. I've already posted articles showing that it is. quote: This is arguable. Children who grow up in orphanages may or may not have good lives. Still sounds better than having no chance to have a good life. Why should the mother choose her child's death? Anyway, the child, when able to choose, can suicide, doesn't need the mother's homicide. There's nothing as final and unfixable as death. quote: We are discussing the potential to one day be a child. Please, read my other posts. We are talking about human life, not a potential human life.Why? I wrote about that. Now tell me, morally and scientificaly why the fetus is not human life. -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Saturday, March 26 2005 13:55 Profile Homepage #122 quote: why is the life of a baby human any different than the life of the billions of chickens or cows destroyed and consumed every year? I wouldn't like to be at your side. :P Do you believe in what you're asking? If not, why? I want reply this yet, as I believe your question doesn't reflect your opinion. quote: Search for "U.S. abortion rate" in Google, and you'll find any number of articles that will indicate that the U.S. abortion rate is between 22-24 abortions per 1000 preganacies - I'm not pulling that out of the air. One-third of all pregnancies is a gross inaccuracy. My bad. Still, an average of 1.500.000 preborn children killed every year is a considerable number. A tragedy. -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Overwhelming Infiltrator Member # 4637	written Saturday, March 26 2005 14:03 Profile Homepage #123 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: quote: @Thuryl: "Stolen property", now that's a heartless statement. No human being is "property" of another, so your analogy doesn't apply. You missed my point. It's not the embryo that's stolen property, it's the woman's uterus, which the embryo happens to be making use of. Sure. [sarcasm]It was the embryo who chose to be there. He's the guilty one, the criminal and the parasite. So let's kill it.[/sarcasm] quote: Let's say that we developed the technology to grow an entire, fully-grown human being from any one of your cells: a cell from the lining of your stomach, a cell from a hair follicle, any cell at all. This isn't completely unfeasible in principle. Now, would this mean that every cell in your body is now a separate person? This one I forgot to reply. It's not possible what you say. Anyway, only after fecundation we consider a human life. It's a human being with his own genetic code, 46 chromossomes, unique identity. Anyway, the question is not if the embryo/fetus is a potential human. The question (or the fact) is that the embryo/fetus is a human life. -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 \| Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Saturday, March 26 2005 14:53 Profile #124 quote: Originally written by Overwhelming: quote: why is the life of a baby human any different than the life of the billions of chickens or cows destroyed and consumed every year? I wouldn't like to be at your side. :P Do you believe in what you're asking? If not, why? I want reply this yet, as I believe your question doesn't reflect your opinion. quote: Search for "U.S. abortion rate" in Google, and you'll find any number of articles that will indicate that the U.S. abortion rate is between 22-24 abortions per 1000 preganacies - I'm not pulling that out of the air. One-third of all pregnancies is a gross inaccuracy. My bad. Still, an average of 1.500.000 preborn children killed every year is a considerable number. A tragedy. If you don't answer my questions, we can't have a dialogue. I think that my questions concerning the basis for your morality are very relevant. Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00