Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kamikaze on June 15, 2006, 08:10:21 pm
-
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=state&id=4265424
The proposal would go further than a South Dakota abortion ban - considered the most restrictive in the United States - by outlawing abortions even when a woman's life is in danger. Like the South Dakota ban, the Ohio proposal would make no exceptions for rape.
-
ugh, why is the government convinced that its their business whether someone gets an abortion or not. i advocate the position that it isnt anybody's damn business except for the person getting the damn baby gotten rid of.
-
Agreed. I'm of the opinion that A) there's too many people in the world as it is, and B) any mother that's actively seeking to abort her child clearly doesn't want it, for whatever reason, and it probably wouldn't have a very cheerful childhood anyhow.
-
Agreed. I'm of the opinion that A) there's too many people in the world as it is, and B) any mother that's actively seeking to abort her child clearly doesn't want it, for whatever reason, and it probably wouldn't have a very cheerful childhood anyhow.
A: No everybody in world can fit in Texas.
B:How would you feel if your Mother had a Abortion with you?
-
He wouldn't feel anything. :p
-
B:How would you feel if your Mother had a Abortion with you?
i wouldnt, thats the beauty of being nipped before youre conscious
-
B:How would you feel if your Mother had a Abortion with you?
i wouldnt, thats the beauty of being nipped before youre conscious
So you rather be a bunch of dead cells then a walking and talking person? It doesn`t matter if your conscious or not. It`s what those cells will turn into is what concerns me. Imagine one of those babies being a great leader or someone who cured the common cold.
But unfortuntly he/shes mother had to much fun one night and wanted to kill the poor thing because it was inconvienit (sp?).
-
you aren't born a great leader, you become one. sure, the opportunity is gone, but there's still thousands of more opportunities. (about one every month per female, i don't think there's going to be a problem)
-
So you rather be a bunch of dead cells then a walking and talking person? It doesn`t matter if your conscious or not. It`s what those cells will turn into is what concerns me. Imagine one of those babies being a great leader or someone who cured the common cold.
But unfortuntly he/shes mother had to much fun one night and wanted to kill the poor thing because it was inconvienit (sp?).
Imagine one of those babies being Hitler or someone who invented a new disease.
Also, if you read the proposed law, you know you are saying those "mothers" who were raped were having "too much fun one night".
-
Making abortions illegal will not stop them.
The government has no right to make this decision.
The parent will find other ways to deal with the child. Whether it be adoption (which will likely lead to a child in a foster home, since there are way more children than there are people looking to adopt), abandonment, abuse, infanticide, or what have you.
If the parents truly dont want the child, they will get rid of it, whether you like it or not. Allowing abortion only makes it so that one life is lost, rather than risking two.
-
You all failed to answer my question however. Which pretty much tells me that none of you would wanted to die if it your mother thought it was bad time kids. The Rape issue is another matter altogether. Oviously the mother did not intentally get pregnant. I`m going to go both ways on this one. It wasn`t the babies fault that the mother was laid by a rapping moron. On the other hand.......I don`t know......... :blah:
What I meant above is about women that do it with their boyfriends and fullheartedly want to have sex.
-
sex=fun
babies=no fun
-
Heh... I'm so so on abortion, it's just that both sides seem so stupid and full of it. Abortion is one of those things that I don't no what to think, and I think it's just fine that way. Still, it's really stupid that they would make it illegal even if the mother was in danger.
-
well, the best viewpoint for males to take is that its none of our damn business what they do, i guess. ppl without uteruses shouldnt be involved at all.
-
Ugh. I'm so tired of this. Roe v. Wade, damn it! I'm against abortion unless it has to do with rape or saving the mother, but I believe it's your choice. That sounds contradictory, doesn't it? Let me put it this way: it's none of my business.
-
Well at least somehere here has similer morals I have.
Making abortions illegal will not stop them.
The government has no right to make this decision.
The parent will find other ways to deal with the child. Whether it be adoption (which will likely lead to a child in a foster home, since there are way more children than there are people looking to adopt), abandonment, abuse, infanticide, or what have you.
If the parents truly dont want the child, they will get rid of it, whether you like it or not. Allowing abortion only makes it so that one life is lost, rather than risking two.
You must have missed it. In about every constitution it states "Murder is illegal".
-
Then what is murder? That's the question.
If you base your morality on valuing sentience, 'personhood' then abortion is not an issue in the current rules since the cells have not developed to the point of having a nervous system let alone being a viable individual.
If you're basing it off of 'it's genetically human, it's a person period' then wouldn't miscarriages be morally reprehensible on the same level? Especially if it was even remotely possible for modern medical science to stop it? The only way to avoid this is to evoke predestination of some sort, which then means that in the end the arguement collapses to one of religion and dogma in which there is no room for rational discourse.
This is a difference between having a forward-thinking concept of 'personhood' which is necessary for future issues dealing with artificial intelligence as opposed to a reactionary concept founded mainly in religion with only recent attempts to 'secularize' it which is, by its very nature, forced to confront one issue at a time.
-
You all failed to answer my question however.
Because your question is stupid. A fetus will not think "Oh, I hope I won't be aborted" because it cannot think.
What I meant above is about women that do it with their boyfriends and fullheartedly want to have sex.
Then maybe these states trying to outlaw abortion should require some useful sexual education in schools.
-
You all failed to answer my question however. Which pretty much tells me that none of you would wanted to die if it your mother thought it was bad time kids.
That is one of the stupidest arguements i've heard since TrashMan debated the inclusion of Battleships in the FS universe (:p). Of course nobody would want to be dead, why the hell would you even ask that? Not to mention the somewhat idiotic statement 'thought it was a bad time for kid', as that is one hell of an oversimplification of what goes through a woman's head when she considers an abortion.
The Rape issue is another matter altogether. Oviously the mother did not intentally get pregnant. I`m going to go both ways on this one. It wasn`t the babies fault that the mother was laid by a rapping moron. On the other hand.......I don`t know......... :blah:
No, you can't go 'both ways' on the issue. You're chastising us over considering rights for abortion, so you have to make a damn conclusion on this, as it's one of the biggest issues within the whole fubar situation.
What I meant above is about women that do it with their boyfriends and fullheartedly want to have sex.
Riiiight, because we're living in the middle-ages when sex is not fun, it's shameful, and it should only be done on sparse occasions when we want to bring another kid into this world. Shame on all of you for even thinking of having sex, especially those of you who are thinking of it right now as you read this sentence. Shame, shame, shame.
See, the problem I see with you, is that you believe the life of the baby still inside the womb is more important than everything else going on around it. You're effectively saying that the mother should be stripped of her rights when she is pregnent, ignore any physical or mental issues that may complicate the situation, and be condemned to a role not as the giver of life, but simply a vessel for this sacred child. Then, when the child is born, you don't care about it any more, your interest is gone. You don't care that this kid will be born into abject poverty, or into a war-torn landscape, or into the hands of abusive or neglective parents, or the countless other situations when that child is better off dead. And if you believe there isn't a situation like that, then there's no helping you. Stop thinking of that thing in her belly as a sacred being that should be protected at all costs, and starting thinking about the rights of the mother, and of the child once it is born.
You must have missed it. In about every constitution it states "Murder is illegal".
Oh God, you're not one of those people, are you. Y'know, I think I did miss that part about murder. I think I also missed the part where it says a foetus is a person. Can you point that part out for me? :rolleyes:
w00t! Fifteen-hundred posts!
-
Should we consider jews people too? Hitler didn't.
Should we consider mentally retarded people human?
Should we consider people with missing limbs people? Or are they not "whole" people.
The ability to dream is not human? A baby starts dreaming and forming thoughts in only about 70 days.
-
:nervous: (waves little white flag)
I`m a little scared now. :shaking:
Riiiight, because we're living in the middle-ages when sex is not fun, it's shameful, and it should only be done on sparse occasions when we want to bring another kid into this world. Shame on all of you for even thinking of having sex, especially those of you who are thinking of it right now as you read this sentence. Shame, shame, shame.
I never said that. :blah:
See, the problem I see with you, is that you believe the life of the baby still inside the womb is more important than everything else going on around it. You're effectively saying that the mother should be stripped of her rights when she is pregnent, ignore any physical or mental issues that may complicate the situation, and be condemned to a role not as the giver of life, but simply a vessel for this sacred child. Then, when the child is born, you don't care about it any more, your interest is gone. You don't care that this kid will be born into abject poverty, or into a war-torn landscape, or into the hands of abusive or neglective parents, or the countless other situations when that child is better off dead. And if you believe there isn't a situation like that, then there's no helping you. Stop thinking of that thing in her belly as a sacred being that should be protected at all costs, and starting thinking about the rights of the mother, and of the child once it is born.
Um.... if you can`t afford the child give to the government or close family to watch it. If you get better financhally(sp?) simply take it back.
I totally lost this arguement.
sigh........
-
so, as a result, you should change your beliefs, and argue in favor of freedom, the right to do whatever the frak you want. even for women.
-
Well at least somehere here has similer morals I have.Making abortions illegal will not stop them.
The government has no right to make this decision.
The parent will find other ways to deal with the child. Whether it be adoption (which will likely lead to a child in a foster home, since there are way more children than there are people looking to adopt), abandonment, abuse, infanticide, or what have you.
If the parents truly dont want the child, they will get rid of it, whether you like it or not. Allowing abortion only makes it so that one life is lost, rather than risking two.
You must have missed it. In about every constitution it states "Murder is illegal".
You begin with the assumption it's murder. Stop forcing your opinions on others.
My view allows the individual to choose. If the person thinks it's murder, then they won't have an abortion, will they? Your side denies anyone that right, and makes up their mind for them.
The government has no right to make that decision.
Should we consider jews people too? Hitler didn't.
My point exactly. Hitler was the government of Germany. And therefore, the government decreed that the Jews should be eliminated. No government should have the right to define what is and what isn't worthy of life.
Should we consider people with missing arms or legs people?
Should we consider people with missing limbs people? Or are they not "whole" people.
The ability to dream is not human? A baby starts dreaming and forming thoughts in only about 70 days.
Dreaming does not make an entity human. My dog dreams.
-
EDIT: Raa's post sums it up, DB.
I never said that. :blah:
You had the tone of a catholic, implying that a woman shouldn't have sex for pleasure, and if she gets pregnant it's her own damn fault.
Um.... if you can`t afford the child give to the government or close family to watch it. If you get better financhally(sp?) simply take it back.
That statement is testament to the fact that most people like you don't really care what happens to the kid after it's born, just as long as it is born.
Have you any idea of the psychological damage that will be inflicted upon the child if it's given to another family, only to be taken back at an arbitrary point by its crack-whore mother because she now wants it?
-
so, as a result, you should change your beliefs, and argue in favor of freedom, the right to do whatever the frak you want. even for women.
No....
Just because I lost one arguement doesn`t mean i`m going to change my views on life.
-
drat *kicks dirt*
i thought i had one. oh well, another loss for the cause of freedom
-
I feel like killing someone. And since you convinced me to believe to doing whatever the frak I want, I think I'll start now, especially since I don't believe its murder. People who don't believe in murder don't do it, simple as that, but they shouldn't stop me from my right to jab a knife in someones face.
...
..
.
Ooookaaay. Does anyone know how to get stains out of rugs?
-
The ability to dream is not human? A baby starts dreaming and forming thoughts in only about 70 days.
The Supreme Court ruled that fetuses are not valid people when considering the Constitution.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Abortion)
When weighing the competing interests the Court also noted that if the fetus was defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment. However, given the relatively recent nature of abortion criminalization, the Court determined that the original intent of the Constitution up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not include the unborn.
Biologically speaking, until the 8th week of gestation it is still an embryo. Not even a fetus. Comparing embryos and fetuses to Jews is a bit of a poor comparison, to say the least.
-
I think I'll blow up Washington DC because their it has been proved that politicians and lawyers aren't really people so therefore they have no right to live.
-
lol, go ahead, you'd be doing this country a big favor
-
Next, I'd move on to the UN and the European Union. Soon the world will be free from all evil.
-
Oh, stop being so melodramatic DB. How about actually making a good counterpoint rather than just laying in the sarcasm and pouting.
-
drat *kicks dirt*
i thought i had one. oh well, another loss for the cause of freedom
Wait!
I see a light shining through my window!
I feel cleansed! I totally have a different view of life!
Wait! It was just a car never mind. :P
-
Oh, stop being so melodramatic DB. How about actually making a good counterpoint rather than just laying in the sarcasm and pouting.
Sarcasm is a much more effective tool than angry words.
The point is, it should be up to the states to decide the issue.
Personally, I believe this law goes too far. However, I believe someone who willingly has intercourse and is impregnated should take responsibility for their actions. I also believe the father should have some say in the matter.
-
The point is, it should be up to the states to decide the issue.
Why? This is a matter of freedom, bodily rights, and the legal definition of personhood. I think it is most definitely a national issue. Why should a state be able to remove the rights of women for the sake of some non-person fetus?
Or are you saying that the definition of personhood under the Constitution is subject to the interpretation of the states? That doesn't make any sense at all. It isn't the job of state legislatures to interpret the Constitution.
-
You know, something's occured to me.
If we're gonna allow exceptions for rape, what particularly, is gonna be required to get that exception?
I ask because it takes 3 months here to get a trial date for a speeding ticket. And that doesn't require an investigation, search, trial, and it's rarely ever going to be
appealed. Seems that if we wait to grant the exception until rape is proven....well, so much time will have passed that abortion isn't going to be an option.
The alternative is to take the woman's word for it - which just makes me wonder how many women will yell rape just to get that abortion, even if it was completely consensual.
Is there going to be a penalty for women falsifying (or even just smudging a bit) rape for the sake of abortion? What's about in cases where they were both completely drunk and did the nasty without thinking? I suspect that may be technically rape as is, and I wonder if perhaps such a law would create a situation where women are faced with calling it rape (even if they were drunk and awfully into it) or being denied an abortion?
Edit: Well, to the above, as far as I remember, if it's not national security or interstate commerce, it's supposed to be left to state and local. Not that that's every stopped fedgov, but that was the general plan.
Man, no wonder politicians use this to their advantage. So many complications that finding loopholes and excuses is almost a sure thing.
-
The point is, it should be up to the states to decide the issue.
Why?
According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion.
Edit: Well, to the above, as far as I remember, if it's not national security or interstate commerce, it's supposed to be left to state and local. Not that that's every stopped fedgov, but that was the general plan.
Precisely.
-
However, I believe someone who willingly has intercourse and is impregnated should take responsibility for their actions.
"Crikey, look at me leg! It's gangrenous!"
"How'd'you do that, then?"
"Long story, mate - bit of a tangle with the local wildlife, own stupid fault."
"What are you gonna do about it?"
"Gonna get rid of it. Get the doctor to 'ack it off. Have it 'put to death', sorta, you know?"
"What?! You can't do that! That's the easy way out, just getting rid of it like that! You gotta keep it, that's what taking responsibility is all about!"
"Alright, alright, I'll keep the bloody leg. This'd better work out, though."
Blaise rules. :D
-
To quote the Simpsons:
Kang: "Abortions for all!"
[crowd boos]
Kang: "Very well, Abortions for none!"
[crowd boos]
Kang: "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for the others!"
[crowd cheers]
About sums it up.
-
I wonder if they've considered that they're acually endangering lives by outlawing it. I mean, the need for abortion is still there, they just can't do it legally. So by outlawing legal abortion, they're not only handing over money to shady "doctors" [I use that term loosely] who give back-alley abortions that are extremely dangerous to the mother, but also a likely rise in self-abortion, y'know the kind with a bathtub and a coathanger, which is also extremely dangerous to the mother. I honestly can't see the good thing about this bill other than playing to the agenda of politicians who want the fundy vote.
-
The point is, it should be up to the states to decide the issue.
Why?
According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion.
Edit: Well, to the above, as far as I remember, if it's not national security or interstate commerce, it's supposed to be left to state and local. Not that that's every stopped fedgov, but that was the general plan.
Precisely.
QFT.
-
Or are you saying that the definition of personhood under the Constitution is subject to the interpretation of the states? That doesn't make any sense at all. It isn't the job of state legislatures to interpret the Constitution.
All right. Show me the passage where it defines personhood. Hmm? What's that? It doesn't!
It's remitted to the states then.
-
It's not the direct answer, but:
FETAL PERSONHOOD
An important part of the abortion debate is when the fetus achieves personhood. However, due to the conflation of two or more meanings of the word "person," the issue appears unresolvable. In one sense of "person," any human organism is a person. In other senses, a "person" is a moral or legal designation that generally is assumed to carry with it the right to life. In the United States, this would mean at what point does the fetus gain the rights described in the constitution.
Under English and United States common law, personhood has long been regarded as coming into being at the moment of live birth. In England, the 1989 case of R v Tait confirmed this legal view.
Many people on the "pro-choice" side of the abortion argument believe that a fetus should achieve legal personhood only after birth, or at least after it is viable, or can live for a sustained period outside the mother with assistance from life support. A fetus is generally considered viable 24 weeks after conception. Some proponents of this point of view would argue that the fetus is no different from an appendage of the mother, because, like an organ, the fetus cannot live if removed.
Many people on the "pro-life" side of the abortion argument believe that legal personhood begins at conception. Proponents of this point of view point to the development of the fetus as evidence of its human personhood. For example, after 18 days a fetus's heart begins to beat. After 42 days brain waves are recorded and reflexes are observed. After 8 weeks, if you poke a fetus's hand with a sharp object, it will withdraw its hand and open its mouth. After 18 weeks it can cry.
-
this thread needs a nihilist touch.
first of all we all know when ever a politician speaks of abortion its really just to get elected/votes/higher aproval ratings. simply preach its abolition to the right and rant about the right to choice to the left. its really like people who play bf2 fighting over the planes, or script kiddies who loiter around irc chellels tring to score op status. political childishness is by far a bigger problem than abortion. theres always more important issues, but its sick when little issues that involve only one psedo-life take precidence over issues of larger scope.
that said i have a views on abortion, il start with the least offensive one in hopes you will read my whole post. people pick ineffieteint solutions to simple problems, or delay in making a desicion and thus cut off your options. starting with rape, if a woman is raped, it is her responsibility to report it immediatley so that they may be treated with the "rape kit".. you see we have theese things called morning after pills. it takes about 3 days for sperm to travel to the egg, taking the morning after pill prevents the egg andsperm from fusing (or at least create an invironment where the embryo cannot form). even with an embryo theres no guarantee of a feotus, its an iffy thing as it is, so i dont consider preventing an embryo from forming murder, unlike say aborting in the 2nd or 3rd trimester. morning after pills stop the problem before it becomes a life. women who report rape early can also be prevented from getting aids as well through the use of anti-retroviral medication. so there are many reasons rape should be reported asap. this should be explained in sex education, never have i been in a sex ed class that explained this.
morning after pills are a solution for when contraception fails, a rubber breaks, or you forgot your birth control pill. theres no reason an accidental pregnancy should occure. sex demands responsibility, so people who are irresponsible shouldnt be having sex. people who fail to use contraception dispite not wanting a child deserve not only to have an abortion but rather be forced to and sterilised for being stupid and attempting to pass their stupid genes down the line. likewise (while it has nothing to do with abortion) women who get knocked up on purpose so that they may collect welfare and child support and thus get a free ride in life should be shot, hung, and shot again, sex as a manipulation tool should not be tolerated. along this line rapists should get the death penalty, to reduce the need to want an abortion, we dont need rapist genes in the genepool. rape babies are prone to mental problems and when this mingles with rapist geenes it creates more potential rapeists. when both nature and nurture say the same thing, you know what will happen.
abortion should be legal if done immediately by prevention of embryonic formation, or if thats not possible before the feotal stage. if the baby has fewer neurons that a cray supercomputer has transistors, its probibly safe to assume sentience hasnt developed yet. of course you religious types will argue about the soul forming at conception. in reality you have no idea how soul formation occures or works. maybe your texts explain this. for you the soul is just what you call that what you fail to understand about the human essence. i perfer to go by a reasonable analasis, that the essence of a human is definded by the neurologial patterns operating through physical, electrical, chemical, and quantum level processes. if theese processes arent suffietiently developed, then conciousness cannot be confirmed.
as for the "how would you feel if your mother had an abortion with you" question. id feel alright about it, it would probibly be better off for everyone, but of course she didnt because otherwise she couldnt have collected welfare all her life.
...and death to those of you who think im kidding
-
I think third trimester is too late for an abortion. If you can get the kid out, and they're still alive, it's a person in my book. First, sure go get an abortion. Second is where I'm fuzzy on.
-
B:How would you feel if your Mother had a Abortion with you?
i wouldnt, thats the beauty of being nipped before youre conscious
So you rather be a bunch of dead cells then a walking and talking person? It doesn`t matter if your conscious or not. It`s what those cells will turn into is what concerns me. Imagine one of those babies being a great leader or someone who cured the common cold.
But unfortuntly he/shes mother had to much fun one night and wanted to kill the poor thing because it was inconvienit (sp?).
Technically, he wouldn't have a say in the matter any more than the trillions of sperm+egg combinations that also never arise. Plus, bringing up the 'imagine those cells' arguement is patently ridiculous; imagine those cells were the next Hitler or Pol Pot?
The ability to dream is not human? A baby starts dreaming and forming thoughts in only about 70 days.
Having deleted the 3 prior and irrelevant strawmans, I'd like you to cite a source for that, because in all I have read it's simply not true. Brain wave patterns do not form until 21 weeks. (moreso, I'd be inclined to ask exactly what a foetus could dream of at 70 days, what with the lack of any sensory input whatsoever)
Next, I'd move on to the UN and the European Union. Soon the world will be free from all evil.
so you're citing, what, current UN whipping boys like Iran or North Korea as beacons of good?
I feel like killing someone. And since you convinced me to believe to doing whatever the frak I want, I think I'll start now, especially since I don't believe its murder. People who don't believe in murder don't do it, simple as that, but they shouldn't stop me from my right to jab a knife in someones face.
Irelevant strawman. Murder is a 2 part action, where the 'victim' party is clearly defined to be conscious and self-aware, i.e. the characteristics that assign value to human life.
Or, you can extend the analogy, remove the importance of thought/sentience (the human distinguishing factor which leads us to value our lives) and eating an egg is the same as infanticide.
I think third trimester is too late for an abortion. If you can get the kid out, and they're still alive, it's a person in my book. First, sure go get an abortion. Second is where I'm fuzzy on.
24 weeks is where most/many countries place limits, except to save the mother. Conscious thought is tagged at 21/22 weeks, although even then that is actually prior to the formation of fully working (in particular) lungs. Although premature babies IIRC have been born alive prior to 24 weeks, they are prone to developmental defects (such as severe disability) and also very few ever survive to leave intensive care.
-
24 weeks is where most/many countries place limits, except to save the mother.
Exceptuating countries which totally forbid and consider abort illegally under any cirscunstance. Though there are a few countries, they are not to be ignored.
Rape is one of the usual arguments to validate abortion, though I can't tell in which ones, some countries consider incest too.
-
24 weeks is where most/many countries place limits, except to save the mother.
Exceptuating countries which totally forbid and consider abort illegally under any cirscunstance. Though there are a few contries, they are not to be ignored.
Rape is one of the usual arguments to validate abortion, though I can't tell in which ones, some countries consider incest too.
I can't help but feel obliged to mention as a matter of interest the likes of Nigeria, which does that yet has a higher abortion rate than much of europe (* (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html) + (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/06/99/world_population/380570.stm)). The real impact of illegalising abortion in most countries would seem to be simply increasing maternal deaths in botched 'back alley' abortions.
-
Personally, I believe this law goes too far. However, I believe someone who willingly has intercourse and is impregnated should take responsibility for their actions. I also believe the father should have some say in the matter.
Kindly explain to me why aborting the feotus in a woman who was raped isn't murder but aborting it in one who chose to have sex is?
-
am i the only one who finds it amusing to call eggs for breakfest "delicious chicken abortions"? just a thought.
-
This law sounds like natural selection's tool for weeding out bad mothers.
-
am i the only one who finds it amusing to call eggs for breakfest "delicious chicken abortions"? just a thought.
I call them fried foetal fancies, myself.
Maybe that explains the odd looks I keep getting in cafes, though.
-
Personally, I believe this law goes too far. However, I believe someone who willingly has intercourse and is impregnated should take responsibility for their actions. I also believe the father should have some say in the matter.
Kindly explain to me why aborting the feotus in a woman who was raped isn't murder but aborting it in one who chose to have sex is?
I've always asked that question to people who support abortion only for rape, usually they just talk in circles until they tell me it's none of my buisness
-
Personally, I believe this law goes too far. However, I believe someone who willingly has intercourse and is impregnated should take responsibility for their actions. I also believe the father should have some say in the matter.
Kindly explain to me why aborting the feotus in a woman who was raped isn't murder but aborting it in one who chose to have sex is?
I've always asked that question to people who support abortion only for rape, usually they just talk in circles until they tell me it's none of my buisness
In reality, they just think it's good punishment for 'immorality' to force a women to have an unplanned child. Quite often verging on the every sperm is sacred territory, I think.
-
for eugenics sake abort thr rape babys! rapists should not be allowd to procreate. i take no sides in the nature / nurture argument as both sides have merit. to say one means more than the other is lunacy. when somone has both the genes of a rapist and grew up in a loveless home because they were the spawn of terror, the rape baby has a good chance of following in their fathers footsteps. so by alowing abortion in case of rape, youre supporting evolution. you can say the same thing about abortion in case of stupidity, but sence stupidity is a less offensive crime. you can instead of abort the feotus, say impose mandatory marriage between the idiots that didnt use a rubber, or abort and sterilize the both of them. to be fair, let them choose.
-
for eugenics sake abort thr rape babys! rapists should not be allowd to procreate. i take no sides in the nature / nurture argument as both sides have merit. to say one means more than the other is lunacy. when somone has both the genes of a rapist and grew up in a loveless home because they were the spawn of terror, the rape baby has a good chance of following in their fathers footsteps. so by alowing abortion in case of rape, youre supporting evolution. you can say the same thing about abortion in case of stupidity, but sence stupidity is a less offensive crime. you can instead of abort the feotus, say impose mandatory marriage between the idiots that didnt use a rubber, or abort and sterilize the both of them. to be fair, let them choose.
That is complete bollocks, really, and I presume it's just stirring-up-ness in the same sense as 'nuke the world' etc.
-
for eugenics sake
Eugenics is a horrific, stupid idea. Please don't say things like "supporting evolution" about eugenics. That's not what evolution is. It's not even close. You're twisting the ideas of generations of scientists to support a lunatic, inhumane idea.
-
That is one of the stupidest arguements i've heard since TrashMan debated the inclusion of Battleships in the FS universe (:p).
I debated the posiblity of existacne of Battleship inside the confines and rules of the FS universe...adn it wasn't stupid by a long shot..well, not as much as you anyway:D
------------
ON TOPIC:
Iffy issue...You have to come to an agreement when life does being, when a person really becomes a person. Technicly speaking, a young fetus doesn't have a brean to speak of, but it might have a soul...
Either way, a subject I'd rather keep awayfrom.
-
Prove souls exist.
-
The 'soul' arguement is totally irellevant, because not only is the very existence of a soul debatable, so is the nature and definition of it, and all those things are actually defined solely by the personal and nebulous concept of religion. And we all know that legislating on the sole (soul - geddit? hoho) basis of religion is clearly wrong and an affront to those who believe differently.
-
for eugenics sake abort thr rape babys! rapists should not be allowd to procreate. i take no sides in the nature / nurture argument as both sides have merit. to say one means more than the other is lunacy. when somone has both the genes of a rapist and grew up in a loveless home because they were the spawn of terror, the rape baby has a good chance of following in their fathers footsteps. so by alowing abortion in case of rape, youre supporting evolution. you can say the same thing about abortion in case of stupidity, but sence stupidity is a less offensive crime. you can instead of abort the feotus, say impose mandatory marriage between the idiots that didnt use a rubber, or abort and sterilize the both of them. to be fair, let them choose.
That is complete bollocks, really, and I presume it's just stirring-up-ness in the same sense as 'nuke the world' etc.
im dead serious, what, you think im some 14 year old script kiddie with a morbid sence of humor? mankind has clearly lost somthing sence the acception of civilization. as for nuke the world, that creates a situation where the human race could potentially have a future. a society is not worth having if it cannot sustain itself in the extreme long term. a star burns brightest when its about to go out.
for eugenics sake
Eugenics is a horrific, stupid idea. Please don't say things like "supporting evolution" about eugenics. That's not what evolution is. It's not even close. You're twisting the ideas of generations of scientists to support a lunatic, inhumane idea.
eugenics is a program for controlling evolution by manipulation of breeding. hitlers implementation was not perfect and was established out of racism instead of a actual need to improve humanity. i personally support eugenics as a corrective measure to fix problems in the way people procreate, such as rape, unwanted birth or sexual manipulation on part of women (the ones who get knocked up so as to collect welfare and child support, thus living an apathetic life). if parents want a child then theirs a good chance they planned it out and a better chance that child can grow up without problem. however if a situation arises when a potential child (embriotic, not feotic) is to be denied a normal life due to irresponsible human behavior then measures should be taken to ensure the avoidance of a next generation of serial killers, rapists, and crazies.
-
im dead serious, what, you think im some 14 year old script kiddie with a morbid sence of humor? mankind has clearly lost somthing sence the acception of civilization. as for nuke the world, that creates a situation where the human race could potentially have a future. a society is not worth having if it cannot sustain itself in the extreme long term. a star burns brightest when its about to go out.
Actually, I thought you were acting a bit of a twat..... one of the very definitions of civillisation and humanity is, after all, not resolving differences by peaceful means.
-
for eugenics sake
Eugenics is a horrific, stupid idea. Please don't say things like "supporting evolution" about eugenics. That's not what evolution is. It's not even close. You're twisting the ideas of generations of scientists to support a lunatic, inhumane idea.
Err, no it isn't. Eugenics is a very good idea. It's exactly the same as breeding a better breed of dog or cow. Just when applied to the human race, issues of morality pop up. Saying its a "stupid idea" is just allowing yourself to be swept up in the negative connotations the word has picked up.
Now, I'm not a card carrying eugenecist by any stretch and I don't endorse it, because of the moral issues mentioned earlier. But consider, if two people with a crippling physical/mental genetic disability wanted to have a child where there was a 100% chance of the child having the same disability, wouldn't you consider that terribly selfish? That right there is base level eugenics.
adn it wasn't stupid by a long shot..well, not as much as you anyway:D
Oooh... Cutting.
-
due to there being a number of deeply ingrained emotional systems built into humanity needed to allow us to live socaly, I don't think eugenics will ever work, I do on the other hand have hope for genetic engeneering.
-
I'm quite hoping fundis / worry warts will allow scientists to do research into this because it'll help a lot of people.
-
due to there being a number of deeply ingrained emotional systems built into humanity needed to allow us to live socaly, I don't think eugenics will ever work, I do on the other hand have hope for genetic engeneering.
well if eugenics does away with emotionally disturbing situations, such as rape, then it would have a positive stabilizing effect on the built in emotional systems as well. still eugenics can only solve half of that problem. the nurture part of the equation remains unresolved. one must engineer a means to ensure that every human being is allowed to live an emotionally stable life. seems most people cannot think beyond their own existance, and untill that problem is solved mankind will not progress.
-
the problem with the eugenic aproch is two fold, there is the whole 'it wrong to dictate who you can and can't have childeren with' argument, wich is mostly ingrained in empathetic emotions, wich is mostly ingrained in instinctive behavior (imho), but perhapse the bigger problem is it is indirct and slow, it would take many many generations to acomplish with eugenics what genetic engeneering could do in a single generation, all that is needed is a firm understanding of what genes do what, natural selection would fill in any gaps we miss no need for an unatural selection process, when we have the ability to rewrite the genome.
-
either way its still a long term thing. genetic engineering is a less safe aproach, as then you have to deal with bugs in the code, so to speak.
-
like I said, natural selection will iron out the bugs.
-
The whole concept of eugenics is daft, because it's based entirely on human notions of 'ideal' which are biased and skewed by human faults.
-
for eugenics sake abort thr rape babys! rapists should not be allowd to procreate. i take no sides in the nature / nurture argument as both sides have merit. to say one means more than the other is lunacy. when somone has both the genes of a rapist and grew up in a loveless home because they were the spawn of terror, the rape baby has a good chance of following in their fathers footsteps. so by alowing abortion in case of rape, youre supporting evolution. you can say the same thing about abortion in case of stupidity, but sence stupidity is a less offensive crime. you can instead of abort the feotus, say impose mandatory marriage between the idiots that didnt use a rubber, or abort and sterilize the both of them. to be fair, let them choose.
This apply only to male to female rape ?, I don't need to cite the others, right ?
The Evolutionary theory sees (male) propensity to rape (females) as being based on natural selection as an evolved reponse to better transmit the male (rapists') genes to future generations. For example, Ellis states that the "world record for the number of offspring fathered by a human male is 888, whereas 69 offspring is the most ever borne by a one human female." These sex disparities mean that those males who can inseminate the largest number of females by "whatever methods necessary (including force)" might win in the contest to pass down their genes. However, once again this theory fails to explain male-male, female-male and female-female rape. In fact, the occurrence of male-male and female-female rape, where genes cannot be passed down at all, would seem to contradict the evolutionary theory of rape.
So, if a a woman rapes a man, gets pregnant, of course she wanted to, then the baby should be aborted because she will pass rapist genes to her baby, or maybe that theory is so well based that "just applies for men" or there is just an excellent explanation that proves that, or maybe masculism has joined science...
-
The whole concept of eugenics is daft, because it's based entirely on human notions of 'ideal' which are biased and skewed by human faults.
to a degree that is true, but there is some **** thats frik'n obviusly something that no one should have to live with, plenty of genetic deseises.
-
The whole concept of eugenics is daft, because it's based entirely on human notions of 'ideal' which are biased and skewed by human faults.
to a degree that is true, but there is some **** thats frik'n obviusly something that no one should have to live with, plenty of genetic deseises.
That's fair enough - all we have to be careful not to lapse into discrimination - although the modern context of eugenics almost always refers to 'improving' the body rather than repairing it. Certain genetic illnesses can be pretty clearly classed - and fairly - as defective in the sense of expected 'normal' human functionality, so I don't think developing cures or screening is the same as, say, picking breeding pairs.
Um, so the concept of 'improving' humanity as a species through human selection is just stupid.