Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Deepblue on October 06, 2004, 05:07:39 pm
-
I maintain neutrality, but do to the number of political ( :ick: ) threads popping up there might as well be balance.
Uno:
http://hundredpercenter.blogspot.com/2004/10/bloggers-catch-kerry-cheating.html
Dos:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_el_pr/debate_web_sites_1&printer=1
Tres:
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2004/10/06/news/local/top/abortion.txt
-
Don't get me started on the issues of abortion, specifically Pro-life nutcases.
-
This is all piddly ****, though. The political threads are about proof of the UK & US governments lying to go to war, this is....what? A slip of the tongue, a blog and someone who's not good at clarifying his opinion.
-
oh please. look the debates aren't really debates.
besides
(http://photos1.blogger.com/img/133/1923/750/13.jpg)
(http://www.orwelliantimes.com/graphics/bush_back.jpg)
-
Yeah, the 'analysis' of the Kerry-Bush debate was actually posted on the ABC (?) website the morning beforehand, before being suddenly pulled. It's as bogus as a 3 pence piece
-
Originally posted by vyper
Don't get me started on the issues of abortion, specifically Pro-life nutcases.
Don't get me started on the issues of abortion, specifically Pro-Choice Butchers.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Uno:
http://hundredpercenter.blogspot.com/2004/10/bloggers-catch-kerry-cheating.html
refuted - even Faux News isn't trying to claim it anymore
it was a pen
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Don't get me started on the issues of abortion, specifically Pro-Choice Butchers.
Don't get me started on people who don't understand the law, and are going to try and force their UNQUALIFIED OPINION down people's throats forcing those persons to give up their bodily integrity for another
don't claim to be a pro-lifer either, you are pro-death penatly (i am neutral on it) so shuve it
---------------------------------------------
No Previous Decisions can deny you your rights, you have the RIGHT to bodily integrity and you cannot be forced to give that up for another ("Bad Samartian Doctrine")
The only way they can give up that right is _voluntarily_ _temporarily_ in not getting an abortion
Having Sex does not constitute forfeiture of their right
Not using a contraceptive/contraceptive failure does not constitute forfeiture of their right
-
Don't get me started on those that wish to sacrifice a human life because it is not convenient for them[thee aborter].
-
fetuses are not a "human life" because they are not their own life - they cannot survive outside the body of an individual (their mother) so they are not an individual
-
redmenace: You pro-life folks are just as willing to sacrifice lives. A young girl who is forced to not abort a baby due to anti-abortion law is going to have a terrible life and/or suffer a ton of pain.
-
SHE MADE HER CHOICE. NOW PAY THE PRICE.
Now if she is raped that is different. But not consensual sex.
All right this getting out of hand.....I am going to stop posting on this subject.
-
you are ignorant of the particulars of the law
Originally posted by Kazan
Having Sex does not constitute forfeiture of their right
Not using a contraceptive/contraceptive failure does not constitute forfeiture of their right
-
yeah, cut it out guys, this arguement goes nowhere
-
"staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in that debate."
It wasn't a pen.
@Rictor, Orwellion times? Thats a veeery neutral source. :rolleyes:
That kind of thing can be easily doctored. Someone reaching his hand into a pocket and pulling something out cannot. I am almost willing to bet that the video does not include that "T" shape.
Abortion... murder is a greater crime than death and people should be responsible, however choice is important
Heres another thing I found interesting:
During the election universities liberal clubs/groups have been putting up signs that say essentialy "stop the draft - vote Kerry."
THIS IS A HOAX! There is a draft bill in congress however it was sponsored by two democrats. Congress recently had a vote on the bill to determine its likelihood of succeeding. It was shot down by a 200 to 1 margin (400 something to 2).
-
the picture is on many websites, I just linked to this one. Mostly blogs have it. But the picture is an original, unedit screen-capture
http://www.isbushwired.com/
though that wasn't my point. My point was: who cares, the debates are scripted to some degree anyway.
-
Deepblue: he still didn't cheat - and all the whacko rightists have stopped trying to claim it
-
"If you're so pro-life then do me a favour, don't block med clinics, lock arms and block cemetaries. I wanna see how fucking commited you are to this premise"
-
Um, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush was wired, not with a microphone of something of that nature, but health moniters/GPS trackers and other equipment used for security. I really doubt that he was cheating do to his lackluster performance (Kerry looked/sounded more proffesional despite the fact he was INCREDIBLY wrong about some issues (bilateral talks? wth is he thinking?)).
EDIT: Concerning the debates... I listened to it both on radio and saw it on the TV. When I was listening on the radio Bush seemed to be doing better, however when I watched on the TV, Kerry seemed to do better. Interesting no?
-
Hey Kazan, try this...the law is wrong.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
SHE MADE HER CHOICE. NOW PAY THE PRICE.
Now if she is raped that is different. But not consensual sex.
All right this getting out of hand.....I am going to stop posting on this subject.
That's ridiculous, especially since many of the people who oppose abortion also oppose proper sexual education and prefer that abstinence bull****.
Plus, the girl is a greater loss than the unborn baby. The baby has no memories or experience worth quantifying. The girl has most likely lived 10+ years. You're wanting to wreck 10 years worth of life and experience just for some blob of tissue that can't even think properly?
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Hey Kazan, try this...the law is wrong.
Try this concept: the law is _not_ wrong, because i was arguing from the fundamental axioms of rights not specific to any country
we just fortunately have (for the most part) the best setup legal system for protecting the rights of the people, so the two are in agreement
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Plus, the girl is a greater loss than the unborn baby. The baby has no memories or experience worth quantifying. The girl has most likely lived 10+ years. You're wanting to wreck 10 years worth of life and experience just for some blob of tissue that can't even think properly?
You sir, have a very cold heart.
This was exactly the WRONG THING TO SAY if you wanted to validate your point of view. I have lost all respect for your position after seeing this. A "blob of tissue" that will become... something greater, this "blob" has a potential. It has no say in the matter and its existence is not its own fault. It is the fault of the girl and her counterpart, all actions have a consequence and they chose to take that risk. The risk of the girl dying however are extremely small while abortion is 100% fatal for the unborn baby.
What you are implying is universaly wrong.
The truth is a person would rather live for a brief time rather than never at all.
-
Deepblue: what he's saying isn't universally wrong - it's what it boils down to if you claim a fetus has rights (Which it doesn't, beecause it's not an individual)
-
IIRC Current medical guidelines - at least in the Uk, I presume in the US - prohibit abortion after the time which the foetus develops consciousness.
Thus, any arguments against abortion before that legal deadline, are based around the existance of a soul. As this is a clearly religious matter, and as laws have to be secular to be fair and just, there should not be a law to prohibit abortion full-stop.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
IIRC Current medical guidelines - at least in the Uk, I presume in the US - prohibit abortion after the time which the foetus develops consciousness.
Thus, any arguments against abortion before that legal deadline, are based around the existance of a soul. As this is a clearly religious matter, and as laws have to be secular to be fair and just, there should not be a law to prohibit abortion full-stop.
:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:
-
Deepblue: Yeah, but an aborted baby can't "rather live" because their thoughts aren't that complex and they aren't going to develop to a state where they can think that.
The whole "potential" argument is silly. It has just as much potential to be a retarded, useless human that can't think very well for its whole entire life. It might end up leading a life as a homeless person and dying on the street. By your "a person would rather live" sort of logic a person would rather be unborn than live and die in a pitiful, stupid, absolutely unenjoyable life like that.
Also, what about having sex? Many sperm are sacrificed for a single sperm that eventually becomes a fetus (these sperm have "potential" too). Is this murder?
-
'Every sperm is sacred' (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/MeaningOfLife/every_sperm_is_sacred.au)
-
How do you determine what is and what is not an individual? Are you claiming that you have the supreme ability to decide what deserves to live and what deserves to die? There is no justice left in the world if that is what you think. No one can say what something is, only that it came to be.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Deepblue: Yeah, but an aborted baby can't "rather live" because their thoughts aren't that complex and they aren't going to develop to a state where they can think that.
The whole "potential" argument is silly. It has just as much potential to be a retarded, useless human that can't think very well for its whole entire life. It might end up leading a life as a homeless person and dying on the street. By your "a person would rather live" sort of logic a person would rather be unborn than live and die in a pitiful, stupid, absolutely unenjoyable life like that.
Also, what about having sex? Many sperm are sacrificed for a single sperm that eventually becomes a fetus (these sperm have "potential" too). Is this murder?
Wrong. I would rather live a horrible life than not live life at all. While misory abounds, there is no person who has lived that can truthfully say they have not found joy in there lives, their very existence. Your other argument is silly, this is not a concious act but rather a fact of nature. You cannot stop the sun from burning out and destroying all life in this solar system. You cannot hold somthing responsible for its actions if it does not have free agency.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Are you claiming that you have the supreme ability to decide what deserves to live and what deserves to die?
What, like Bush? Or Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, Carter, Nixon and in fact almost every US president in the past 100 years?
Who has more right over life and death: a parent over their own unborn, unconscious fetus (baby, call it what you will), or a politician over the lives of people, fully grown and conscious people, halfway around the world?
You can't really be against abortion and still think that politiiians can decide life and death without running into a contradiction.
-
Deepblue: How about masturbation then? Is that murder? What about menstrual cycles? By *not* having sex while ovulating a woman is, by conscious inaction, killing "potential humans".
I don't care if you'd rather live a horrible life rather than die since you clearly haven't lived the kind of life I'm describing (by definition, since you're saying you can find joy in a life however horrible). Also, If that's all the strength you need behind an argument, *I* would rather have been aborted if living meant a totally joyless life spent in a cardboard box for a week before dying.
-
"You cannot stop the sun from burning out and destroying all life in this solar system. You cannot hold somthing responsible for its actions if it does not have free agency."
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
How do you determine what is and what is not an individual? Are you claiming that you have the supreme ability to decide what deserves to live and what deserves to die? There is no justice left in the world if that is what you think. No one can say what something is, only that it came to be.
a fetus that cannot live outside of it's mother without the asistance of advanced medical sciences is not an individual
for obvious reasons
-
*taps micraphone*
Tin Can reporting from the hectic boards of HLP. Kazan has just finished a counter attack and is still mustering his forces. The enemy retreats to re-think their strategy, and all must continue!
In short, Kazan has WMD's. We must destroy him!
-
lol Tin Can
how are you going to halt the advance of the Unstoppable Force of Reality? :P
-
Meet the Colossus! The largest space faring warship ever constructed!
-
Originally posted by Kazan
a fetus that cannot live outside of it's mother without the asistance of advanced medical sciences is not an individual
for obvious reasons
We cannot live outside the Earth and its resources. Are we not individuals?
(warming up Sathanas BFreds)
-
Deepblue: that's a false analogy and you very well know it --
1) your statement is false: all the things we need to live can be found elsewhere (and artificially combined) -- infact probabilities say that there is event a planet that's natural condition matches those
2nd) the earth is not a lifeform that we are _PART_ of
3rd) we have our own, personal, conscious thought
-
If you people can't see the difference between an egg/sperm and a fertilized egg, there's something wrong with you. These "menstruation/masturbation" arguments are just straw men. The real issue comes down to the fertilized egg. If natural processes are not interfered with, in nine months a fully developed human being will be born, without any help from exterior forces. Whether or not the fetus, at any stage of development, is capable of rational thought/surviving outside of the uterus is irrelevant. The point is, destroying it prevents that development from reaching its completion. By the way, we have a word for stopping the process of life: murder. How's that for logic, Kazan? :rolleyes:
And enough with the whole, "Better to be dead than to live life as an unwanted child." Pardon my French, but that is the biggest crock of s*** I've ever heard. Once again, a straw man to help abortion advocates maintain their sense of moral superiority. No human being can determine, from present conditions, the future quality of an unborn child's life. It's an impossibility. How can you stand there in cold blood and say that ending a life is better than living a life, no matter the quality? Any person's circumstances can change; someone born from the lowest means may go on to be one of the most influential people in the world's history. And yet, you seem to be perfectly willing to dispose of all of that potential to protect some ficticious "right to choose." Guess what: that right to choice does not extend to harming someone else, "potential life" or not. Go ahead; keep denying the truth. Ever wonder why the women involved in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are now completely against abortion? Ever wonder why Planned Parenthood was founded by a woman who campaigned for eugenics? Ever wonder at the testimony of so many ex-abortion industry workers, at the lies hurled at the patients? Hmmm, maybe these people have figured it out. Keep deluding yourself there; hopefully someday you'll gain a shred of humanity.
-
murder is only terminating the life on an individual a fetus is not an individual
as for the rest of your post -it's typical rhetorical and is completely pointless
-----
Even if a fetus had rights (Which it does not - since it is not an individual) they wouldn't trump the mothers rights. So you have a one persons rights (bodily integrity) vs another 'persons' "right-to-live" (no such right)
Who's rights hold weight? Now you're forcing a situation where you have to quantify the strength of one persons claim to rights against the others
so the only way you can reasonably quantify that by who is older - and that's unquestionably the mother.
-
A foetus is not, as Kazan said, a human being. It has not reached (up to the point where abortion is prohibited) a stage where it can be considered an independent, living entity - but is rather an abstract collection of cells.
If you look at it in that exact point in time, then it's not any more human than a cell culture. If you look at potential, it's not any more valid because that abstract collection of cells could be the next Ghandi or the next Hitler. If you look at murder as destroying the possibility of life, then destroying frozen sperm or eggs is murder.
I think the pro-choice argument is breathtakingly simple - the mother makes the choice whether or not to devote their own body to nourishing & growing a fertilised egg. I think that choice should be preserved, and I think the diversity of opinion pro & against shows that a prohibitive law would be unfair.
(as well as the argument in my first post in this thread)
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Meet the Colossus! The largest space faring warship ever constructed!
That has got to rank as the best comeback I've seen in a very long tims. :lol:
-
Hows that? :nervous:
-
Just wait till you're in a position where someone you know has to make a choice like this Deep, you'll suddenly realize how clean cut it is NOT.
-
You misunderstand our position, the position is clean cut. Abortion is wrong in all but the most lifethreatening circumstances.
What needs to be added is this, it takes away the responsibility of the sexual act, which is what this boils down to for me. If you play, you've got to be willing to pay or you go home. If you have promiscuous sex with multiple partners, with or without protection, you have to be willing to take the responsibility of that act. That is becoming pregnant. There are options available if the mother doesn't want to keep it. It's just a matter of convenience so the slut who get's the abortion can keep up her promiscuous lifestyle.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You misunderstand our position, the position is clean cut. Abortion is wrong in all but the most lifethreatening circumstances.
a position being clean cut doesn't make it correct liberator
What needs to be added is this, it takes away the responsibility of the sexual act, which is what this boils down to for me.
it does no such thing - because not wearing protection carries the risk of STDs
choosing to have sex does not constitute forfeiture of ones right to bodily integrity
If you play, you've got to be willing to pay or you go home.
irrevelant pseudotautology
If you have promiscuous sex with multiple partners, with or without protection, you have to be willing to take the responsibility of that act.
Yeah - it's called STDs - and if you think abortion being legal promotes promiscuous sex you don't understand causal relationships at all
There are options available if the mother doesn't want to keep it.
Abortion being the only one of them that doesn't _Force_ her to sacrifice her bodily integrity - the only one which doesnt' violate the Bad Samaritan Doctrine and therefore _MUST_ be a legal option otherwise her rights are violated (Engaging in sex, not wearing protection, do not constitute forfeiture of ones rights)
It's just a matter of convenience so the slut who get's the abortion can keep up her promiscuous lifestyle.
if you even believe for one second that even a significant minority percentage of abortions are for this reasoning then you're grossly misinformed (of course that's to be expected - antichoicers need to promote this false view of abortion to help their position)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You misunderstand our position, the position is clean cut. Abortion is wrong in all but the most lifethreatening circumstances.
What needs to be added is this, it takes away the responsibility of the sexual act, which is what this boils down to for me. If you play, you've got to be willing to pay or you go home. If you have promiscuous sex with multiple partners, with or without protection, you have to be willing to take the responsibility of that act. That is becoming pregnant. There are options available if the mother doesn't want to keep it. It's just a matter of convenience so the slut who get's the abortion can keep up her promiscuous lifestyle.
Why is promiscous sex wrong, then? (from a biological perspective it's good, diversifies the gene pool)
-
SEX IS BAD AND EVIL.
Also, I like foetus on toast. Mmmm.
-
"Bodily integrity"--Ha! By having sex in the first place, the woman has to risk that "bodily integrity." There's absolutely no reason why this is not true. Any half-wit knows that sex has an inherent chance of pregnancy, even with contraceptives. If you're not willing to take that risk, you shouldn't be having sex. I don't think it can get any more clear-cut.
Aldo, as I said before, sperm and egg cells by themselves do not represent actual life; left to their own devices, they'll do nothing more than float around. It's a very big step up to a fertilized egg, a genetically unique new lifeform that is genetically programmed to grow and develop over the nine months of pregnancy. A fertilized egg doesn't have the "potential" for life--it is human life. As for not being an individual: why is a fetus not an individual? Don't give me "it depends on the mother's body"; we have people whose entire lives depend on ventilators, and they're not seen as a part of the machine that allows them to live. As I said above, the mother bears the responsibility of caring for her unborn child; unwanted or not, it is the result of her conscious choice to have sexual intercourse. Also, for that matter, if you're going to define a fetus as an "abstract collection of cells," by that logic, every human being is a similar abstract collection of cells. Stop and think about that for a moment: every cell in your body was derived from that single fertilized egg. So, what makes you different from it? If we're all clumps of cells, what's wrong with murdering anyone you feel like? And if you define some point of development as a "point of humanity," why can't it just as easily be pushed farther and farther back? When you step back and look at it, the moment you were conceived, everthing that is you was contained in that tiny cell. And yet, it's not "human." Riiight... Liberator is dead-on: abortion is murder. It's as simple as that. Try explaining that to a feminazi, though...
Also, Kazan, way to go on completely ignoring my post and spewing out some psychobabble BS. Hope your intellect is getting to be well-fed. :rolleyes: I just can't wait for the day when the judicial mockery that is Roe v. Wade is overturned; all of your "logic" won't mean a thing then. The people of this country are slowly starting to wake up and realize that abortion does involve the ending of a human life. This holocaust will not be allowed to continue; the unborn will finally have a voice and the "unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
-
01010 you are eating the soul of our future! Repent and may God have mercy on you for your selfish massacre of potential lifeforms!
Chicken eggs are potentially chickens, I believe we should ban eating of chicken eggs as it is a cruel and savage act which prevents a potential chicken from having a chance at life. And stop eating that beef, by eating that you are promoting the slaughter of cows and other tasty animals.
(All comments made in this post are beans and should not be taken seriously - but for the record I agree with pro-choice)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
choosing to have sex does not constitute forfeiture of ones right to bodily integrity
Yes it does, you voluntarily give up that right when, as a girl, you spread your legs for anybody that comes by, or as a guy, if you stick your member in any conveinent orifice.
you don't understand causal relationships at all
Oh, I don't know, seems to me your acting like a bunch of animals acting on instinct alone, less than human. They used to kill sluts who slept around.
if you even believe for one second that even a significant minority percentage of abortions are for this reasoning then you're grossly misinformed
Crackhead sluts having sex with or for their dealers to get their next hit, teenagers who should have known better, ect. Need I go on?
I am aware that not all abortions performed are for convenience, I also don't pretend that they are all for the benefit of the mother either. You talk like having an abortion is like pulling up to the drivethru and ordering a burger with a side of fries. It's a major surgical procedure with loads of health risks for the patient even if it's done in a hospital. All I want abortions limited to only when medically neccessary.
If you want rut around like some beast in heat, I won't and can't stop you. But I will be damned before I condone the mass murder of mid-late term abortions.
Oh, BTW, a slut can be either a male or a female.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Aldo, as I said before, sperm and egg cells by themselves do not represent actual life; left to their own devices, they'll do nothing more than float around. It's a very big step up to a fertilized egg, a genetically unique new lifeform that is genetically programmed to grow and develop over the nine months of pregnancy. A fertilized egg doesn't have the "potential" for life--it is human life. As for not being an individual: why is a fetus not an individual? Don't give me "it depends on the mother's body"; we have people whose entire lives depend on ventilators, and they're not seen as a part of the machine that allows them to live. As I said above, the mother bears the responsibility of caring for her unborn child; unwanted or not, it is the result of her conscious choice to have sexual intercourse. Also, for that matter, if you're going to define a fetus as an "abstract collection of cells," by that logic, every human being is a similar abstract collection of cells. Stop and think about that for a moment: every cell in your body was derived from that single fertilized egg. So, what makes you different from it? If we're all clumps of cells, what's wrong with murdering anyone you feel like? And if you define some point of development as a "point of humanity," why can't it just as easily be pushed farther and farther back? When you step back and look at it, the moment you were conceived, everthing that is you was contained in that tiny cell. And yet, it's not "human." Riiight... Liberator is dead-on: abortion is murder. It's as simple as that. Try explaining that to a feminazi, though...
The purpose of sperm & eggs are to create life. Each one represents half of a unique genetic code that forms a human being.
A foetusis an abstract collection of cells because the cells have not diversified into their specific forms. This is why stem cells are so prized - they are non differentiated cells. So at the stage of inital development, the foetus is simply a a collection of as yet undifferentiated cells.
consciousness occurs when those cells have differentiated to a degree that a brain - as well as other organs that a human being requires to live - has formed. Before that, there is no consciousness, and thus no individual. After this point, abortion is considered illegal in most (all?) countries that allow it.
(Like you said, if you push this principle far enough, then the simple loss of eggs or sperm would then be considered 'murder', or 'half murder' if you base it on genetic quantity)
With regards to the responsiblity of the female, if it is her choice to have sex it is also her choice whether or not to have a child. As it is her body which will provide the raw materials, she should have a say. (it's also worth noting that abortion isn't simply some woman screwing around - a 'slut' as lib so eloquently put it - and callously going for a quick op to avoid the hassle of a child)
I see it as simple. If you can provide scientific proof that a foetus has consciouness prior to the accepted period, then you can call abortion murder. Otherwise, it isn't because there is no scientifically definable individual to murder.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Yes it does, you voluntarily give up that right when, as a girl, you spread your legs for anybody that comes by, or as a guy, if you stick your member in any conveinent orifice.
legally, and ethically incorrect
-
Mongoose: you haven't been worth replying to in depth this entire thread, because you have been engaged in nothing but demagoguery and attempts at character assasination.
If you think that Roe V Wade will be overturned you're woefully misinformed - the only way that it could possible be done is GWB managing to appoint judges would who rule by their religions over the consitution of this country.
BTW: I was waiting for one of you to attach Bodily Integrity. I guess since you purport that the "Right to bodily integrity" doesn't exist I get to cleave your arms, legs and genitalia you from.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Yes it does, you voluntarily give up that right when, as a girl, you spread your legs for anybody that comes by, or as a guy, if you stick your member in any conveinent orifice.
Oh, I don't know, seems to me your acting like a bunch of animals acting on instinct alone, less than human. They used to kill sluts who slept around.
Crackhead sluts having sex with or for their dealers to get their next hit, teenagers who should have known better, ect. Need I go on?
I am aware that not all abortions performed are for convenience, I also don't pretend that they are all for the benefit of the mother either. You talk like having an abortion is like pulling up to the drivethru and ordering a burger with a side of fries. It's a major surgical procedure with loads of health risks for the patient even if it's done in a hospital. All I want abortions limited to only when medically neccessary.
If you want rut around like some beast in heat, I won't and can't stop you. But I will be damned before I condone the mass murder of mid-late term abortions.
Oh, BTW, a slut can be either a male or a female.
I notice you;ve not given a reason why consensual sex is bad, but rather quoted a bunch of lazy stereotypes, crude insults and aimed at some easy targets (crackhead sluts? teenagers? Why not go for immigrants and complete the set?)
Oh, and by pointing out the seriousness of an abortion operation, you've also helped illustrate that the decision to have one is not taken casually, which illustrates the importance of such a choice and that it is not take lightly.
-
But it will develop a conciousness if it is not destroyed first. That is murder. That is like killing someone in a como in cold blood. They don't have a thought in their mind so its not murder right? Besides I always hated the guy and he would just make my life miserable. Thats the attitude you have. Its wrong.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
legally, and ethically incorrect
explain
aldo, the problem I have is that they don't think that far ahead. They wouldn't have to risk an abortion if they actually thought about the act instead of going with the instinct to **** their brains out.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
But it will develop a conciousness if it is not destroyed first. That is murder. That is like killing someone in a como in cold blood. They don't have a thought in their mind so its not murder right? Besides I always hated the guy and he would just make my life miserable. Thats the attitude you have. Its wrong.
eh? Don't know what the hell you're on about the latter part.
Simply, the law does not deal with 'the future'. It deals with the present, and when the foetus is not conscious. If the law was expanded to examine the future consequences, then you'd be walking onto the shakiest of grounds - because you cannot prove how a child will develop, whether or not it will form a consciousness, whether or not it will be miscarried, etc. What you are debating, is the possible development of a set of undifferentiated cells.
If you expand the murder analogy, then murder is defendable on a whole through speculating what the actions of the victim might be - i.e 'he would have attacked me if I hadn't killed him'. Law cannot deal with the unknown, the unproveable -in other words, the future.
Law, deals with facts, and facts alone. The fact is that in the timeframe in which abortion is legal, a foetus has not developed an individual human consciouness.
-
@Deep : No you retard the person in the coma had already developed a level of sentience (sp?). The egg/feutus/et al has not.
You're making very desperate arguments.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
explain
aldo, the problem I have is that they don't think that far ahead. They wouldn't have to risk an abortion if they actually thought about the act instead of going with the instinct to **** their brains out.
what's wrong with having sex for non-procreational purposes, given that it is - as you say - a base instinct. Much like eating, sleeping and going to the toilet, may I add.
-
[q]what's wrong with having sex for non-pocreational purposes[/q]
Absolutely nothing. ;7
-
Desperate? No, but according to your logic the comotose person is not an individual. If we do not think of the future, we will eventually destroy ourselves. We must ALWAYS think of the future.
-
But people in a coma have had experiences, while foetuses haven't.
I agree that killing a foetus is bad and all, but the problem is I think it's worse to ruin the life of someone who is already living. It isn't fair for either side of this argument.
-
Nothing is fair. Thats the way the world works. :(
-
People in comas can also have their life support terminated depending on their current medical situation.
RE: deepblue; law deals in the truth, not what may happen. That is the fundamental point of it. Of course, making judgements on how a child will turn out at the early stages of foetal development could be seen as a step towards eugenics.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Desperate? No, but according to your logic the comotose person is not an individual. If we do not think of the future, we will eventually destroy ourselves. We must ALWAYS think of the future.
if you think my logic dictates that, then your understanding of my logic is vague and incomplete
or more likely you're purposely ignoring various nuances to it
-
I wonder what would happen, if Deep accidentally ended up getting a girlfriend pregnant who was about to start a degree at uni. Would he argue she should be forced to go through a pregnancy she didn't seek, and lose many important options for her future due to raising the child?
I think he'd either be an ass (and get dumped might I add), or change his position very quickly. It's easy to make these judgements when you're not in the position of having to do the things you condem.
-
no he'd argue that he would never get into such a situation (which is utter and complete bull****)
but if he did get into that situation he would argue that his girlfriend would dump all hope for her future and carry the baby
or even more likely he would say the following even less likely situation: she'd be able to raise a child and go to college simultaneously (which _can_ happen, but for every 1 girl that can do so 99 cannot)
-
Pfft, everyone with brains knows that pregnancy is a fucking STD anyway. At least if you get AIDS you don't have to worry about feeding and clothing the damn germ.
-
lol
oh BTW: Mongoose - i think the jews would be rather pissed at you for calling abortion a Holocaust - you're exploiting their suffering for your political gain, you bastard
-
Help me understand something, it's okay for marriage partners to run around on each other before marriage and not after?
Perhaps you'll understand a more colloquial truism: When you have sex with a person, you're also having sex with everybody else they've ever had sex with.
-
Perhaps you're generalizing. Let me clarify what we're defending:
Two young people, have relationship, end up having sex. Relationship ends eventually. End of story.
You seem to think having sex out of marriage must always be spur of the moment just-met-the-dirty-wee-whore-bag.
-
Liberator. Me and my G/f have been together nearly four years, I have no plans to ever marry and yet I know I do not want anyone else, she is currently at university and neither of us had partners before meeting. If she got pregnant she would abort the child, we have discussed this, we are careful, we use contraceptives and also she is on the pill, here is my question:
Why should some piece of flesh that is nothing more than a few bundled cells with NOTHING human about it be allowed to ruin both mine and my G/F's lives if the contraception were to fail? Why is it that you christian fundamentalist ****wits demonise sex and view a child as PUNISHMENT for what you percieve to be a sin, when the bible tells you to be fruitful and multiply?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Two young people, have relationship... Relationship ends eventually. End of story.
This is why you wait to have sex till you're married, the risks and consequences involved in having sex are too important to toss off while in search of "a good time".
-
[q]This is why you wait to have sex till you're married, the risks and consequences involved in having sex are too important to toss off while in search of "a good time".[/q]
erm... Toss off? Sorry, bad choice of words there man :D
You know it's purely about "in search of a good time". It's often about love, and you don't need to be married to truly love each other and have fun while doing so.
I just feel sorry for you, because you're missing out on so much really.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Help me understand something, it's okay for marriage partners to run around on each other before marriage and not after?
Perhaps you'll understand a more colloquial truism: When you have sex with a person, you're also having sex with everybody else they've ever had sex with.
no, when you have sex with someone you have sex with them. You don't have abloody great gangbang with everyone they've ever met (well, there's probably the odd exception).
So what is your point?
(nice touch to have the completely stupid-stroke-inane assumption that non-marital sex implies 'slut')
And, in case you're not aware of this whole area, fidelity( & love ) doesn't require a ring.
-
I still want Lib to answer my question.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I still want Lib to answer my question.
It's probably beyond his comprehension that people can stay together without being shackled at the altar.
-
01010: I apologize for not replying to the question, I didn't see it. Most likely because it was overrun as I was perusing other threads.
I'll put it as simple as I possibly can.
If a couple love each other that much then:
A)They can wait to have sex till they get married
B)They shouldn't have a problem getting married and publically declaring their feelings for each other.
If the couple can't wait, well you pays your money, you takes your chances as the saying goes.
If they are too young to marry legally, they are too young to be having sex and risking pregnancy and, as Kaz is fond of pointing out, Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
01010, if your GF did get pregnant and subsequently got an abortion it would be an act solely for her(and your) convenience of not having to care for a child.
-
Why do they have to get married?
What law is it that says you cannot be a loving couple - or indeed parents if you so choose - if you are not married?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
If they are too young to marry legally, they are too young to be having sex and risking pregnancy and, as Kaz is fond of pointing out, Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
Er, the legal age for sex is 16 (at least here) which is two years below the legal age for marriage so that's wrong.
And, er, from what I gather Liberator, you don't have a girlfriend so you couldn't possibly have been in this kind of situation or even in the possibility of the situation. So your view is somewhat skewed. It's easier to judge things from a distance because it's not going to affect you personally.
-
There is, of course, no law; other than society's expectations.
Traditional Western mores say that the male in a relationship like we are discussing is responsible for providing for his family.
You're pathetic if you won't make a public declaration to care for the potential mother of your children.
-
I do not want to marry, I stated that, I view it as unnecessary if two people love each other, I'm not going anywhere and neither is she, so why waste time and money especially when couples here (U.K) that live together for a few years get the same benefits as a married couple. Marriage to me is an archaic and unecessary institution that is a byproduct of a religion that I do not subscribe to, you cannot use your own religion steeped morality to dictate someone elses life especially if they do not subscribe to that religion. I have no problem publically declaring my feelings for her either, everyone I know knows that I adore her and vice versa.
It would not be a matter of convenience either, in what way is an abortion "convenient", in what way is that tragedy anything but ****ing NECESSARY in a situation where it would impair TWO REAL PEOPLE'S lives to a degree that NONE of the family unit would have a decent quality of life? My G/F would be devastated if she had to abort a child, it is not something she would EVER do as "convenience" as you so eloquently put it, it would be the choice between starting a family now with a poor quality of life for the family unit, or abort the child and start a family later on where all members of the family can enjoy a good life and hopefully raise a child that is a productive and helpful member of society.
Seriously, you ****ing fundamentalist are so backward thinking, you bemoan single parent families and their so called destruction of societys moral fibre, and yet you advocate them being single parent families with your hypocritical logic.
-
Why doesn't staying together count as a public declaration?
Why doesn't being in love count?
What difference does a sliver round an index finger make between 2 people already in love?
What is the difference between marital and non-marital sex if the couple involved are faithful to each other and in love?
Is this based around anything other than your own personal, religious beliefs around marriage?
-
the psychological risks and consequences of not having sex until marriage is a key factor in the higher rate of marriage failure amoung fundamentalist christians
for one - without knowing it's very unlikely for two individuals to have the same sex drive: differences in sex drive can ruin marriages
oh BTW: you act like it's only unwed mothers getting abortions - MARRIED WOMEN GET THEM TOO
-
The only way differences in sex drive ruining marriages is if the more libidinous member of the couple is a selfish twit.
Single parents wouldn't be single parents if they had given some forethought as to their actions or at least their partner.
That's all I'm asking for, A LITTLE ****ING FORETHOUGHT!
-
Maybe you should be thinking outside the confines of force-fed stereotypes when considering the rest of the world?
-
Why?
You don't think outside you're force fed stereotypes when thinking about me or others of my position.
-
Liberator: well fortunately millions of fundamentalist christian men think it's the sole responsibility of their women to tend the home, kids, and satisfy the men's every sexual whim at their desire
and the women are supposed to enjoy it.
_SURE_
-
Liberator: So you're saying you don't think outside your force fed stereotypes because he isn't? That's a great excuse, remind me to use it some time.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Why?
You don't think outside you're force fed stereotypes when thinking about me or others of my position.
you're showing one of your force fed stereotypes by thinking _we're_ doing the same
no everybody stereotypes or even listens to attempts of people to force feed them stereotypes
guess what: my KNOWLEDGE of the atrocities religion causes is academic, not from stereotyping.
-
Liberator & Deep - opinion on the morning after pill? (and the pill itself for that matter?)
-
Okay, this is where I get in trouble with others. I'm okay with the "morning after" pill. So long as it's truly the morning after(2-3 days), at this point it's still just a mass of cells. A month out is a different story, by this point it's already well-organized and on it's way to being a person.
I do believe however that so-called "morning after" should be withheld from general distribution until it is perfected. RU-whatever has had far too many dangerous side-effects to be considered safe.
Understand, my ultimate goal is to eliminate the atrocity that is abortion.
This extends to other(forgive me) bleeding edge topics such as cloning and, to a much lesser extent, stem cells.
I don't think cloning should be undertaken with the express goal of cloning a human. The goal should be to learn how to clone individual organs for transplant.
I cannot condone the murder of innocents to gain stem cells for research. If they can be obtained in a different method, good, if they can't, too bad.
Nano will eventually catch up and be able to do most anythng they hope for stem cells to be able to do.
-
[q]if they can't, too bad.[/q]
Try living with diabetes, injecting yourself four times a day, testing your blood every day, fearing loss of eyesight and other complications even if you do everything right, and then tell me it's too bad that stem cell research shouldn't be allowed if it breaches your definition of human life.
Nature will always find a way - it might hurt, it might be violent, nature will find a way. We are part of nature, we have found a way to find cures to diseases like diabetes.
-
I might venture an opinion.....having been married and divorced, and now living happily in so-called 'sin'....
Sex is great, but can also be terrible - try before you buy.
If you want a document to say that you are a couple, then fine, if not, also fine.
How many marriages end in divorce?
Unmarried couples, and even singles are capable of bringing up children.
Love and sex are both seperate and together, sometimes you have one without the other, but both together is the best thing. So, if you really love someone, you should not wait until after the wedding before finding out that you hate each other sexually. It's unfair, simply as that...
Oh, and try to keep religion out of the life of you and your partner, it only causes trouble.
I'm sure this one will run and run
-
Hey, guess what Kazan: couples who cohabit before marriage have a much higher instance of divorce than those who first have sex after marriage. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? :rolleyes:
And by the way, everyone, not only fundamentalist Christians feel that sex before marriage is wrong. I'm a Catholic, and that's what I feel as well. Sex serves two purposes: the union of the husband and wife in the ultimate expression of love, and the procreation of new life. Taking either one out of the equation nullifies the whole purpose of marriage. 01010, sex is not a sin: it's the ultimate expression of love, the ultimate revealing of a man and woman to each other. A child is not a "punishment" of every sort; it is the joining of man and woman in the very act of creation. When the egg and sperm meet, a new and separate human entity has been brought into the world. Fully human, from the beginning. Is this viewpoint so hard to understand? (Kazan, I'm not bothering to ask you; you've already proven so.) If sex is the ultimate expression of love, shouldn't it be reserved for the ultimate commitment of two people to each other, marriage? If the act of conception is so unique, and so special, shouldn't the fertilized egg be treated with the utmost respect, instead of as a "mass of cells"? What happened to the time when a pregnancy was seen as a great gift, instead of an "inconvenience"? I'll tell you when: when our overly hedonistic, self-indulgent, selfish culture decided that sex was "recreational," instead of something to be treated with great respect.
Kazan, within four more years from now, we will have a Supreme Court that actually follows by the dictates of the Constitution, instead of fabricating some right to "privacy" and extending that to someone's body. Guess what: in a pregancy, there aren't just two concerns, there are three. And, since I think we all agree that the continuation of the species is so important, shouldn't even the barest "potential" of new human life be treated as something important?
P.S. To all those talking about pregnancy ruining a woman's entire life, ever hear about adoption? If a mother/couple knows she/they can't give a good home to her/their child, adoption is a true show of love for that child. Tens of thousands of couples out there are looking to adopt; is it too much of a sacrifice to give the unborn child, and a childless couple, a lifetime of happiness? Funny, all you pro-murder (I'm fed up with this "anti-choice" BS) people seem to completely ignore adoption, don't you? Admit it: it has nothing to do with the well-being of the woman; you just want to keep having sex without ever once thinking of the consequences. Real good sign of maturity, there. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Hey, guess what Kazan: couples who cohabit before marriage have a much higher instance of divorce than those who first have sex after marriage. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? :rolleyes:
this statement is totally and completely false
And by the way, everyone, not only fundamentalist Christians feel that sex before marriage is wrong. I'm a Catholic, and that's what I feel as well.
1st) catholicism is a form of fundamentalist chrisitanity
2nd) this statement is completely ethnocentric shows that you're ignorant to the reality of the world (see: hinduism, most other non-abrahamic religions)
Sex serves two purposes: the union of the husband and wife in the ultimate expression of love, and the procreation of new life.
italicized content only part that's relevant and pertinant - rest of statement is irrelevant opinion demonstrative of reductionism
Taking either one out of the equation nullifies the whole purpose of marriage.
irrelevant
01010, sex is not a sin: it's the ultimate expression of love, the ultimate revealing of a man and woman to each other.
this statement is indicative of homophobism
A child is not a "punishment" of every sort; it is the joining of man and woman in the very act of creation.
and they have the right to choose not to create - and choosing thus doesn't require them not to engage in intercourse
When the egg and sperm meet, a new and separate human entity has been brought into the world.
WRONG it is completely and totally biologically dependant upons it's mothers body, and does not have consciouness of it's own -- this statement is indicative of religious ethnocentrism because it requires your religious belief of a "soul" to validate
Got news for you: YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR RELIGION, SO ALL RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS ARE UNSUPPORTED
Fully human, from the beginning. Is this viewpoint so hard to understand?
The capability to understand a viewpoint does not require one find it factual - your viewpoint is religious and therefore legally irrelevant
to pass laws based only on religious belief qualifies as religious persecution. You so want to deprive others of the right to be free from religious persecution: should i take the same doctrine with you?
Since you do not believe others should be free from your religious persecution should I persecute you?
(Kazan, I'm not bothering to ask you; you've already proven so.)
Resorting to personal insults eh? I understand your entire argument, down to the very foundations, which you yourself do not.
If sex is the ultimate expression of love, shouldn't it be reserved for the ultimate commitment of two people to each other, marriage?
no: because you can have love outside marriage
If the act of conception is so unique, and so special, shouldn't the fertilized egg be treated with the utmost respect, instead of as a "mass of cells"?
the false part of this statement is "act of conception is so unique" -- all that follows from an invalid anticedant is invalid
What happened to the time when a pregnancy was seen as a great gift, instead of an "inconvenience"? I'll tell you when: when our overly hedonistic, self-indulgent, selfish culture decided that sex was "recreational," instead of something to be treated with great respect.
demogaguery - pointless and irrevelant and utterly devoid of facts
Kazan, within four more years from now, we will have a Supreme Court that actually follows by the dictates of the Constitution,
Yeah, George Bush will not be president
the patriot act will be overturned, the unconstitutional extensions of copyright laws will be overturned, the unconstitutional abridgements of fair use rights will be overturned, the unconstitutional Department of Faith-Based Iniatives will be abolished, the unconstitutional school-vouchers programs shall be abolished
instead of fabricating some right to "privacy" and extending that to someone's body.
This statement is so devoid of knowledge of constitutional law that it would take an entire book to address it
Guess what: in a pregancy, there aren't just two concerns, there are three. And, since I think we all agree that the continuation of the species is so important, shouldn't even the barest "potential" of new human life be treated as something important?
no - because a single conception is not important - only aggregate conception rates.
P.S. To all those talking about pregnancy ruining a woman's entire life, ever hear about adoption?
A) Requires her to carry the child to term thus violating the Bad Samaritan Doctrine
B) more children are put up for adoption each year than adopted
C) the foster care system is horrendous
Funny, all you pro-murder
you cannot call it such a term : murder is only the termination of a life of an INDIVIDUAL
(I'm fed up with this "anti-choice" BS)
THEN STOP BEING IT - You are trying to force your religious opinion down the throats of others with force of law - that is not only unconstitutional, it is a violation of everything that is American
people seem to completely ignore adoption, don't you?
No: we just know that it's not only not a perfect system, it's not even an acceptable system - all superceeded by the fact that it violates the mothers right to bodily integrity to force her to carry the child to term
Admit it: it has nothing to do with the well-being of the woman; you just want to keep having sex without ever once thinking of the consequences. Real good sign of maturity, there. :rolleyes:
Once again with the lame personal insults and demogaguery completely and utterly devoid of fact
-
Nope...that would be you (http://www.ivillage.com/relationships/debate/livetogether/articles/0,,525009_527212,00.html)
P.S. Lots of other sources on Google if you discredit that one for some unknown reason.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
01010, sex is not a sin: it's the ultimate expression of love, the ultimate revealing of a man and woman to each other. A child is not a "punishment" of every sort; it is the joining of man and woman in the very act of creation. When the egg and sperm meet, a new and separate human entity has been brought into the world. Fully human, from the beginning. Is this viewpoint so hard to understand? (Kazan, I'm not bothering to ask you; you've already proven so.) If sex is the ultimate expression of love, shouldn't it be reserved for the ultimate commitment of two people to each other, marriage? If the act of conception is so unique, and so special, shouldn't the fertilized egg be treated with the utmost respect, instead of as a "mass of cells"? What happened to the time when a pregnancy was seen as a great gift, instead of an "inconvenience"? I'll tell you when: when our overly hedonistic, self-indulgent, selfish culture decided that sex was "recreational," instead of something to be treated with great respect.
Get this ****nut cause I'm through explaining to you retards. I AM NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO ANY RELIGION, I DO NOT FOLLOW THE SAME MORAL CODE AS YOU, I DO NOT EVER INTEND TO MARRY AS I DO NOT SEE IT IN THE SAME LIGHT AS YOU.
I'm glad I spelled that out for you, now, why do you ****ers assume that there is no respect for sex? In my case, I adore my G/F, I love her to bits, what difference would a ****ing piece of paper make to that? A little ring and a church service have NOTHING to do with love, they are purely symbolic for your chosen religion, which is neither mine nor my other half's religion.
The problem here is that YOU view conception and childbirth as a miracle, I view it as a complete waste of ****ing time, you are trying to force your views on others.
Also, if you can seriously think that a couple that have been together for four years do not have respect for each other both mentally, physically and sexually without being married then you are deluded.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Nope...that would be you (http://www.ivillage.com/relationships/debate/livetogether/articles/0,,525009_527212,00.html)
P.S. Lots of other sources on Google if you discredit that one for some unknown reason.
biased project
-
Originally posted by 01010
Also, if you can seriously think that a couple that have been together for four years do not have respect for each other both mentally, physically and sexually without being married then you are deluded.
:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:
-
Calm down, man. I'm not forcing you to do anything; I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on marriage to you. I'm simply stating what they are. I think that you do have respect for your girlfriend; thinking anything else would be ridiculous. I am positive you adore your girlfriend, and I realize that you don't attach the importance to marriage that I do.
However, I still am in disbelief as how you can consider raising a child a "waste of time." Consider this: if everyone else thought this way, neither you nor your girlfriend would be here. In fact, the human race would cease to exist :p.
Edit: As I said, Kazan, there's plenty of other sources, including the original government study that that article is based on.
-
Well, if nothing else I think we've found out which HLPers are not getting laid for quite some time.
You know guys, this is why revolutions and seperation of church and state happen... this is why folk get taken out and shot/crucified/et al. Do not screw with people's freedom - you will suffer the consequences.
-
I mean, the worlds a ****ed up place and an abortion is a ****ed up thing, I don't think any here would deny that, it's not made any easier by apparently "compassionate" fundamentalists telling these people that they are going to hell for what they are doing. I'd have a lot more respect for a lot of so called Christians if they actually used there religion to preach love and compassion for all people, rather than preaching hate on people that are already in a tender situation.
I won't even get into the irony of pro-lifers that murder doctors.
However, I still am in disbelief as how you can consider raising a child a "waste of time." Consider this: if everyone else thought this way, neither you nor your girlfriend would be here. In fact, the human race would cease to exist :p.
[/b]
Yeah, and the more I see of the human race the more I wish people thought like me.
-
I don't plan to "get laid," at least not until after I am married. And by the way, abortion is no "freedom," at least not to the unborn child. Also by the way, the original definition of "separation of church and state" has been so warped that it barely resembes what the Framers intended.
Edit again (everyone stop posting so fast :p): 010101, I'm not saying that anyone who has an abortion is going "straight to Hell," or anything like that. In fact, the Catholic Church has established something called Project Rachel, which provides counseling and support for women who have undergone abortions and are suffering emotional/mental trauma. I feel no hate for people who have had abortions, only pity, since they felt that that was their best option. Also, people who murder abortion doctors do not represent the pro-life movement or its values; they are going against what it stands for.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Calm down, man. I'm not forcing you to do anything; I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on marriage to you.
by being anti-choice you have
Consider this: if everyone else thought this way, neither you nor your girlfriend would be here. In fact, the human race would cease to exist :p.
irrevelant - nor is this thread of argumentation pertinent to the discussion at hand
Edit: As I said, Kazan, there's plenty of other sources, including the original government study that that article is based on.
this study itself is the problem - it was manipulated to produce the result they wanted, not a result resembling the reality of the situation
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I don't plan to "get laid," at least not until after I am married. And by the way, abortion is no "freedom," at least not to the unborn child. Also by the way, the original definition of "separation of church and state" has been so warped that it barely resembes what the Framers intended.
Only in that the "Wall of Seperation between Church and State" [Thomas Jefferson] is now under assault from christian fundamentalists who, in their ignorance of history, have forgotten one of the hard-learned lessons of the formation of this country
The founding fathers were of _all_ western religious flavors of the time: Catholic, Protestant, Deist, Theist, Agnostic, Atheist - they _ALL_ agreed on the Seperation of Church and State as a NECCESITY for freedom
-
Mongoose, like I said to the others - I pity you more than anything else.
-
Give me a break, Kazan. Every time someone produces evidence contrary to what you believe, you discredit somehow. You're refusing to stand up and give valid arguments, instead hiding behind claims of "irrelevance." That other discussion is pertinent; it's a response to something in 010101's post. And as for being "anti-choice," I'm not imposing my beliefs; I'm trying to save innocent lives. And this "separation" was supposed to prevent governmental intervention in religious affairs, not obliterate every trace of religion from government.
Vyper, you and your ilk are the ones deserving of pity. If you can't see the beauty of life, then your perceptions of this world must be very warped.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Give me a break, Kazan. Every time someone produces evidence contrary to what you believe, you discredit somehow.
I only believe that which has the best evidence
You're refusing to stand up and give valid arguments, instead hiding behind claims of "irrelevance."
When something that is off topic then it's irrevelant
And as for being "anti-choice," I'm not imposing my beliefs; I'm trying to save innocent lives.
If you don't understand how this is imposing your views upon others in an act of religious perscution then you have clearly demonstrated why you cannot be trusted with the power to influence the future of this country
And this "separation" was supposed to prevent governmental intervention in religious affairs, not obliterate every trace of religion from government.
It was supposed to keep government out of religion, that neccesitates keeping religion out of government
-
I understand Kazan and the rest of you to a lesser degree now.
Originally posted by Kazan
biased project
If a piece of information doesn't agree with or at least discredit the opposition it's biased and therefore irrelevant.
As I've repeatedly said, and as you well know Kazan, the "separation of church and state" quote you and your ilk are so fond of bringing up anytime a person of faith stands-up for themselves and their rights was actually written to the ladies of a church is Pennsylvania(IIRC) who were worried that the new United States would enforce a state religion like the Anglican Church they had fled England to escape.
Originally posted by Kazan
It was supposed to keep government out of religion, that neccesitates keeping religion out of government
Quite the opposite in fact, it requires men of high ethics and morals that Christianity, and religion in general, incubates.
-
[q]Vyper, you and your ilk are the ones deserving of pity. If you can't see the beauty of life, then your perceptions of this world must be very warped.[/q]
I see the beauty in ENJOYING LIFE.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I understand Kazan and the rest of you to a lesser degree now.
People suck, why create more of them?
That's my stance, it's not that complicated.
-
WTH does that quote have to do with what you said?
-
[q]Quite the opposite in fact, it requires men of high ethics and morals that Christianity, and religion in general, incubates.[/q]
So Muslim/Catholic men who would force their daughters to stay home and never choose their own path should be allowed into govt because they are defending _a_ particular morality?
Thats the road you're going down.
-
You stated that you understand us to a lesser degree, I therefore made my position in this debate clear.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Liberator. Me and my G/f have been together nearly four years, I have no plans to ever marry and yet I know I do not want anyone else, she is currently at university and neither of us had partners before meeting. If she got pregnant she would abort the child, we have discussed this, we are careful, we use contraceptives and also she is on the pill, here is my question:
Why should some piece of flesh that is nothing more than a few bundled cells with NOTHING human about it be allowed to ruin both mine and my G/F's lives if the contraception were to fail? Why is it that you christian fundamentalist ****wits demonise sex and view a child as PUNISHMENT for what you percieve to be a sin, when the bible tells you to be fruitful and multiply?
Um... you cant "be fruitful and multiply" if you are killing children.
-
I just realized something... Your arguments are extremely similar to the idea that if I eat fatty food I should not have to get fat and its not my fault idealogy.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Um... you cant "be fruitful and multiply" if you are killing children.
It's past, but way to focus on one thing. They aren't children either, more like tumours, or parasites if you like.
Originally posted by Deepblue
I just realized something... Your arguments are extremely similar to the idea that if I eat fatty food I should not have to get fat and its not my fault idealogy.
Nope. You eat fatty foods then get fat it's your own fault and you have to deal with it.
You get pregnant and you don't want the child you have to deal with it. It's a fairly simple idea.
I just don't see why any of it is anyone but the people directly involved with the abortions business. Are your lives that empty that you have to try to control other peoples?
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]if they can't, too bad.[/q]
Try living with diabetes, injecting yourself four times a day, testing your blood every day, fearing loss of eyesight and other complications even if you do everything right, and then tell me it's too bad that stem cell research shouldn't be allowed if it breaches your definition of human life.
Nature will always find a way - it might hurt, it might be violent, nature will find a way. We are part of nature, we have found a way to find cures to diseases like diabetes.
:wtf:
I have a friend who has diebetes and does inject himself every day, despite this he is firmly against stem cell research and abortion.
-
After 9 months does a tumor suddenly have the ability to learn and develop and gain an understanding of the universe?
-
So fetus are now children? I supposed the next step would be to criminalise masturbation as sperm is going to be wasted and therefore "potencial human beings" are going to be "killed". After that women will be put under arrest if they do not get preignant every 9 months because they are wasting valuable "potencial human beings". Yeah... that's the path to take... :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
After 9 months does a tumor suddenly have the ability to learn and develop and gain an understanding of the universe?
I think you grossly overestimate the vast majority of humanities capabilities there.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]Quite the opposite in fact, it requires men of high ethics and morals that Christianity, and religion in general, incubates.[/q]
So Muslim/Catholic men who would force their daughters to stay home and never choose their own path should be allowed into govt because they are defending _a_ particular morality?
AFAIK, Catholic fathers don't do that much anymore.
The Islamic faith is suffering through it's own Dark Age right now and to compare it to Christianity is fallacious at best.
Christianity has undergone a radical shift since the beginning of the Renasiance, disregarding the more draconian and pointless pieces of the dogma, condensing it down to the Message, which is God loves you and has a plan for you, but it's up to you to follow it.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
So fetus are now children? I supposed the next step would be to criminalise masturbation as sperm is going to be wasted and therefore "potencial human beings" are going to be "killed". After that women will be put under arrest if they do not get preignant every 9 months because they are wasting valuable "potencial human beings". Yeah... that's the path to take... :doubt:
Read the whole thread, that topic was already covered. You can go back and read my explanation.
-
[q]I have a friend who has diebetes and does inject himself every day, despite this he is firmly against stem cell research and abortion.[/q]
Then he's a bloody fool. Take it from one who knows - the price is worth paying to cure this condition.
-
You have diabetes?
-
[q]
AFAIK, Catholic fathers don't do that much anymore.[/q]
It is if the guy the girl's interested in is a Protestant.
Odd how a complete fallacy can turn so many people actually...
-
BTW I really don't appreciate the insults. We can afford to be civil.
-
[q]You have diabetes?[/q]
Yes Deep I do. So you can understand I'm a little less than sympathetic to your argument.
-
Ah well, everyone has a different oppinion but doing so does not make you a fool.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
BTW I really don't appreciate the insults. We can afford to be civil.
insults?
-
The world is bleak...
What happened to my "I'm sick of it..." thread. I feel like ranting again...
-
[q]Ah well, everyone has a different oppinion but doing so does not make you a fool.[/q]
It does when that opinion may kill you or end in you losing your bodily functions one day. I'm sorry, but your freind is plain wrong and he needs to take a look at what will happen to him 4o-50 years from now.
-
the islamic faith isn't very far behind christianity anything thought to the contrary is ethnocentrism
-
Deepblue, I've read Mongoose's answer, but you fail to see that if the "natural processes" are not interfered, a child will also be born out of sperm and eggs, after all procreation IS natural! Actually, either everything or nothing is natural for everything is either part of nature or nothing is.
-
[q]the islamic faith isn't very far behind christianity anything thought to the contrary is ethnocentrism[/q]
Alright, so they're all equally backward and fascist. I won't argue against that.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Why?
You don't think outside you're force fed stereotypes when thinking about me or others of my position.
Well, that's bollocks. I've never said you can't hold your opinion. What I have said is that a free and fair society has to be secular to have equal rights for all - religious or otherwise. What you have said, is indicative of poor stereotyping tailored to suiting your argument. You don't agree with premarital sex, so all those who do it are sluts and animals (exact words used). You don't believe that people can be commited without being married - again, there are millions of couples to prove you wrong.
So the only basis I can find for this argument, is stereotyping. If you have factual evidence, prove me wrong.
Originally posted by Liberator
I understand Kazan and the rest of you to a lesser degree now.
If a piece of information doesn't agree with or at least discredit the opposition it's biased and therefore irrelevant.
As I've repeatedly said, and as you well know Kazan, the "separation of church and state" quote you and your ilk are so fond of bringing up anytime a person of faith stands-up for themselves and their rights was actually written to the ladies of a church is Pennsylvania(IIRC) who were worried that the new United States would enforce a state religion like the Anglican Church they had fled England to escape.
Quite the opposite in fact, it requires men of high ethics and morals that Christianity, and religion in general, incubates.
I think history has proven that laws and morals are tailored by societal needs, not religion. In fact, I think you'd find that the laws and morals set in religion are set there to find a way of enforcing them upon the populace - i.e. 'obey your god'.
Also, the seperation of church and state is exactly why abortion has to be legalised. Unless you can find scientific evidence that a foetus is intelligent - i.e. an individual - before the time limit, there is no argument against it.
Again, nations have to be secular to be free and fair. Any other way is clearly discriminatory against other religions and aetheists.
I think the major change, BTW, in Christianity is that less and less people subscribe to it because they find it irrelevant in todays society.
-
Who needs religion to tell you what to think, nowadays we have T.V.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Who needs religion to tell you what to think, nowadays we have [Fox News]
fixed it :D
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
I maintain neutrality, but do to the number of political ( :ick: ) threads popping up there might as well be balance.
Dos:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_el_pr/debate_web_sites_1&printer=1
I just noticed - this one is incomplete;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3723090.stm
Mr Cheney could not even win support from the Factcheck.org website.
In a statement the site's editors said the vice president "wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton."
"In fact we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad," the statement said.
It concluded: "Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."
-
I'm severely irked by the notion that sex is sacred. Sex is sacred if both parties want it to be that way, but I see no reason to judge people for indulging in meaningless pleasure. The taboo our society has placed on indulgence is unhealthy. How can it make sense to assume that sex is a sacred expression when it brings pleasure so indiscriminately? These vaunted moral standards that people seem so eager to impose are unrealistic and arbitrary.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The taboo our society has placed on indulgence is unhealthy.
:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:
-
Indulgence for pure gratification of self and no other purpose is what is unhealthy. Suffering breeds strength; indulgence breeds weakness.
aldo, are you in the wrong thread? :p
Ghostavo, in my earlier post, I was referring to having one egg cell or one sperm cell sitting by itself. Alone, neither of these things will do anything more than just float/swim around. However, take a fertilized egg in utero, leave it alone for nine months, and you have a baby. That's the key difference. Also, what is up with some of these utterly ridiculous arguments about women being arrested for not having sex while ovulating, or for people being arrested for masturbation? This has nothing to do with the current argument and is laughably absurd. Most noably of these is the notion of what one's intention is. When a woman has an abortion, she's willingly and knowingly ending some type of life, whether you consider it to be human or not. Does a woman have similar control (by natural means) over the menstrual cycle? Of course not; don't be ridiculous. Ovulation is just a natural bodily function; it can no more be controlled or directed than one's nose can from running. As for masturbation, that has to do with one's personal beliefs. At any rate, in either case, the type of cell in question is incapable of developing into a fully functional human being on its own. This is not true with the fertilized egg. It will develop into a baby without any outside interference; willfully doing anything to halt this development is an abortion and prevents this life from being realized. That's murder in my book, at least.
One more thing: arguments about imposing religious beliefs on others don't hold up here. Many atheists are pro-life; the issue goes beyond religious convictions or even moral issues. The main issue is the consideration of a human, at any stage of development, from conception until natural death, of being worthy of protection and the right to live unmolested. This is why I and many others work to get abortion outlawed; we see this as murder, and we wish to stop it.
-
Your unbridled hedonism appalls me, too much of anything, especially indulgance, is a bad thing. What's to look forward to on the wedding night if you've already had the "cake" months before? Before you get in a tizzy again, I believe that it is right and proper for a man to marry the woman he loves.
-
too little of something can be as dangerous as "too much of anything" liberator -
marriage is _NOTHING_ but a piece of paper - it's just officially telling everyone else what you should have already known for a long time, and they should have unofficially known for a long time
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I'm severely irked by the notion that sex is sacred. Sex is sacred if both parties want it to be that way
This is precisely why I absolutely hate this debate. I have trememndous respect for those who choose to abstain from sex before marriage. Not because it's "right" or "wrong" to do it (both options being heavily biased by society or religion) but because it is something that they personally believe in. It's better than most can do. However, that doesn't mean I want them to pretend that they are on higher moral ground for doing it, or for them to try to impose their beliefs on others.
Now first off you can't pretend that everyone ascribes to those beliefs (no, not even all Christians), so the abstinance as sex-ed crap is utterly worthless. Secondly, while I might think somewhat less of a person if they had unprotected sex often enough to get into a situation where getting an abortion became a viable option (nevermind that cost is always ignored. No operation is cheap, and I don't know of any insurance company that covers an abortion if it isn't absolutely necessary) on more than one or two occasions, the option really has to be there for those who don't. Please spare me the bigotry that is the "slut" / "animal" argument, because that completely leaves the man out of the equation. (Besides the fact that it's a) untrue, b) demeaning and c)extremely close-minded, I can think of a number of situations where the consequences of one's actions might not be weighed as heavily as it should. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that.) Without all of those things, the pro-life argument is left standing on a very shaky support. So lets move on to the "life begins at..." argument. While the US currently only has a temporary ban on third trimester abortions (it will expire sooner or later), the ban does exist. And this is good, because third-trimester abortions are significantly risky to the mother. It's also good because not only does a fetus actually approach a viable state at this mark, it also finishes developing all of the internal and external traits that make it a fully functional human being during that time span. So life doesn't begin at birth. Then again, it doesn't begin at conception either, as it's still just an egg. (Actually, by definition, life is, it is not created. A baby is the continuation of the "life" of the parents in a strictly biological sense). The only distinction left then is when does the baby become human enough to earn a "right" to life - when does it become a being independent of its mother - and that doesn't happen until after the point at which an abortion is no longer possible by law.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
marriage is _NOTHING_ but a piece of paper - it's just officially telling everyone else what you should have already known for a long time, and they should have unofficially known for a long time
There are those of us who believe it is a sacred covenant of undying love between a man and a woman, a vow of fidelity, trust, and total kinship, but I guess that's beside the point, isn't it?
-
that is a religious belief and therefore it is unconstitutional to legislate from that assumption, furthermore it doesn't make your statement right
numerous religious positions blatantly contradict fact, most religious "solutions" to problems end up doing nothing but exhasterbating said problems - that's enough evidence against using religious reasoning for law if you ignore the constitutional issue
-
Good god, how do you respond to this stuff so fast? :rolleyes:
-
I'm monitoring the thread, i type fast, and i've participated in arguments like this thousands of times
-
Kazan, I have what will come across as a dumb question, but please indulge me.
What did organized religion ever do to you? Your irrational hatred is entirely too visceral to be based on simple disagreement.
-
your presumption that my displeasure with "organized religion" [incorrect again: i dislike _ALL_ religious, just fundamentalist psychopaths more than others] is based upon irrationality is completely and totally wrong
my displeasure with religion comes from the fact that is is unequivocally an act of basing your worldview upon irrationality. Someone who bases their worldview upon irrationality cannot be trusted to make rational deicisions, and therefore them voting makes them dangerous to the survival of a country: theorectically.
In this case theory and reality agree 100% and we have a long history of demonstrating this. This thread itself is a demonstration of the problem of people basing their worldviews off irrationality.
Religion is the biggest threat to the survival of our species in the modern era - nd it is the cause of most of the wars in human history. It once, very long ago, served a purpose to meld society, but now we've outgrown it - we have the knowledge to know better, but still members of our species think reality is whim to their emotional "needs"
-
Interesting, you say God doesn't exist then, because there is no proof. The problem is this, you're breathing the proof, you're walking on it, you see it in the sky at night.
A belief in God doesn't imply irrationality, just that when rationality and science fails to explain or define something, you still have a way to explain it. One doesn't neccessaryily exclude the other.
-
Liberator, don't try it. Number 1, your "proof" rests in faith, which is something that you must consciously choose to have. (If you don't choose to have it - which I suspect that you might not - you have a distorted perception of humanity, history, and reality in its very essence). Faith rests on, well, faith. If Kazan does not have that faith, then your arguments are complete nonsense to him.
-
Uhgggg all you guys are arguing back and forth on who's right and who's wrong. Question, has this argument of yours accomplished anything at all? I mean really you guys are going in a huge never ending loop. Arguements don't do anything but cause strife which is clearly evident in this thread. Heres what I say If you have an opinion please keep it to yourself and if your having trouble holding it in.... take a metal bat and hit yourself on the head a couple of times (sure enough you will forget about what you were going to say :D ).
-
Originally posted by Falcon
Uhgggg all you guys are arguing back and forth on who's right and who's wrong. Question, has this argument of yours accomplished anything at all? I mean really you guys are going in a huge never ending loop. Arguements don't do anything but cause strife which is clearly evident in this thread. Heres what I say If you have an opinion please keep it to yourself and if your having trouble holding it in.... take a metal bat and hit yourself on the head a couple of times (sure enough you will forget about what you were going to say :D ).
This sort of argument isn't going to pursuade anyone like Lib or Kazan. There are people in the middle however who haven't quite decided or who don't hold any firm beliefs. That's who the debate is for.
If you don't like the argument don't read it.
As for causing strife most of us are adults or capable of acting like one. I've not seen any of this spill over in the modding forums etc so what's the harm?
Originally posted by Liberator
Interesting, you say God doesn't exist then, because there is no proof. The problem is this, you're breathing the proof, you're walking on it, you see it in the sky at night.
What a load of crap. Even if that is proof of a god (and it isn't) how is it proof of YOUR god? Without refering to the bible tell me how any of that proves that you're right and the Hindus are wrong?