Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hazaanko on November 23, 2007, 04:02:52 pm
-
Oh snap.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/23/save-the-planet-have-an-abortion/
-
Let's just support these measures in the Third/Developing world. Western populations are already starting to decline, so we need to bring most of the African and Asian nations into that fold.
I propose a high-level infiltration of the Catholic church over the next hundred years to replace all the die-hards from the Vatican with more even-minded people, thus allowing for a change in their views on both condoms and abortion. Boom, you've got a massive drop in the population growth rate in umpteen ****ty little third-world nations.
-
Did anyone here read Huntington ?? Younger more vigorous (higher reproduction rate) and agressive civilisation - Asia or muslims will destroy older, more advanced but more apathing civilisation (us).
It's already visible - our western society fall into apathy and economic fall while other civilisations gain critical mass manpower. We don't even bother in space exploration any more (comparing to Cold War Scale).
It's go like that:
bad conditions -> high reproduction rate --> overpopulate --> bad conditions and pollution --> critical mass of people expand (of flee) to other teritories or/and develop technology for expansion.
perfect conditions --> very small reproduction --> no reason to expand --> no reason for development (scientific or any other kind).
Main driving for of human kind was dealing with hostile conditions. Today most European nations have reproduction rate below zero. Average Living/work conditions are one of the best if not best of the world, but as you can see during last 20 years, Europe states become minor players comparing to USA, China or India.
I not claim that China or India are better than EU, but those two countries have fair abount of change do this withing 10 or 20 years, while EU will start falling even faster.
I do not belive in any religion so I don't care about "God" crap.
For single human beign I for abortion, but for wide scale abortion movement (society scale) I'm strongly against.
What an irony that our (European) existance and living condition must become bad for our own good.
-
In addition I'm also against "Ecology" crap.
The worse and overpopulated Earth will be, the bigger change for real space exploration will be.
-
You go argue about that Mr. Who, I'm gonna go take a nap. Tell me if anyone says anything remotely new or interesting.
-
Sound theory, but hardly a fact - It's all about populace mentality.
If any human pair had 2-3 kids, everything would be OK.. but some pairs have 15 while others have 1 or none...
As for hte Vatican, you're wrong about that. No sex = no children. More effective than any other method you can propose, be it condoms or abortion..and a lot more humane too.
-
As for hte Vatican, you're wrong about that. No sex = no children. More effective than any other method you can propose, be it condoms or abortion..and a lot more humane too.
Don't know what fantasy realm you live in, but I was talking about the real world. :wtf:
Seriously. Think about this for a second: Do people have sex? Yes. Always. There's no stopping it save for a little snippy-snippy. Given that people will always have sex and there is no possible way to prevent it without going to rather extreme measures, the use of condoms, the pill and the occasional abortion are the best options.
Think of it like this: If someone told you never to have sex, be it the Pope or the Grand Pooba, would you stay abstinate your entire life?
-
*activates alternate Nuke mode*
ah, **** it. let's just blow up the planet. then that'll control the human population growth :D
/end Nuke mode
-
Let's ignore the other reasons and go for reason number one that the guy behind that link is a ****ing moron.
Save the planet: Have an abortion
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised
Do I actually need to explain why a sterilised woman doesn't need an abortion? :p
-
Its called a joke Karajorma. Relax. The conservatives aren't having a hostile take-over party.
-
As for hte Vatican, you're wrong about that. No sex = no children. More effective than any other method you can propose, be it condoms or abortion..and a lot more humane too.
Don't know what fantasy realm you live in, but I was talking about the real world. :wtf:
Seriously. Think about this for a second: Do people have sex? Yes. Always. There's no stopping it save for a little snippy-snippy. Given that people will always have sex and there is no possible way to prevent it without going to rather extreme measures, the use of condoms, the pill and the occasional abortion are the best options.
Say hello to the Fairy Godmother for me, will ya?
People have sex if they so choose. You speak of sex as if it is a impossible thing NOT to have. I don't know where you live, but sex is one of the most important thing in the western world today (SADLY so). And you keep forgetting it's an OPTION. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is forcing you.
Think of it like this: If someone told you never to have sex, be it the Pope or the Grand Pooba, would you stay abstinate your entire life?
Depends. If I found a woman of my dreams, no. I'd have children...1 or 2 max..thats a optimal number.
If I havn't found one I would have no touble keeping my mojo in check. Power or will and all that stuff...you might have heard of it.
-
It was her choice.
But really, population explosions dont do anyone any good. More people need more food, which certainly requires more water. Considering the shifting rainfall patterns, many areas in the third world are already becoming drier and drier.
This map is the regions that have water stress now
(http://www.undp.org/gef/adaptation/images/water.jpg)
Most of the world's population growth will be in the middle east and centeral asia. Combine this with the existing water issues in those areas and combine that with the changes in the rainfall pattern. The result is big trouble.
You speak of sex as if it is a impossible thing NOT to have.
It is, if there was no biological imperitive to have it we would have gone extinct thousands of years ago.
I not claim that China or India are better than EU, but those two countries have fair abount of change do this withing 10 or 20 years, while EU will start falling even faster
China's is still growing just because of the population momentum. India's has hardly slown down and is still growing much too fast. It wont be too much longer because they have the same population, and not much longer after that before India has more people. It's actually a much bigger problem for India because it is 1/3 the size....
-
The way of the panda bear
-
People have sex if they so choose. You speak of sex as if it is a impossible thing NOT to have. I don't know where you live, but sex is one of the most important thing in the western world today (SADLY so). And you keep forgetting it's an OPTION. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is forcing you.
As Kosh said, procreation is a biological imperative. More than that, sex is rather nice. Think of it this way: Chocolate is nice. It's really nice, in fact. However, having too much of it is unhealthy. We all want to eat chocolate, but some people don't want to get fat. How do we resolve this paradox? I would suggest people watch how much they eat, and make sure they don't over-do it. You seem to be suggesting that the only option if you don't want to get fat is to not eat chocolate. Ever. Given that a lot of people like chocolate, and it is somewhat widely available, what would be the more effective option from a sociological standpoint, rather than a position of black-and-white absolutism?
Not to mention we're ignoring the major problems with abstinence-only education, which is that it teaches ignorance. People are going to do it anyway, so we might as well teach them how to protect themselves and their parters, rather than just telling them not to think about it and setting a good number of them up for making big mistakes down the track. From a purely logical standpoint, not having sex is the best, sure-fire way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, etc. However, from a practical standpoint, that's just wishful thinking. People have sex, nothing is going to stop that, so let's make sure they know what the hell they're doing and don't cock it up. (Pun intended :p)
Depends. If I found a woman of my dreams, no. I'd have children...1 or 2 max..thats a optimal number.
If I havn't found one I would have no touble keeping my mojo in check. Power or will and all that stuff...you might have heard of it.
Okay, what about after you have two children? Are you saying that you'd swear off all sex so as not to have another kid? Yeah, good luck.
Although, as they say; Marriage is the world's best contraceptive. So there you go. :p
-
Let's just support these measures in the Third/Developing world. Western populations are already starting to decline, so we need to bring most of the African and Asian nations into that fold.
I propose a high-level infiltration of the Catholic church over the next hundred years to replace all the die-hards from the Vatican with more even-minded people, thus allowing for a change in their views on both condoms and abortion. Boom, you've got a massive drop in the population growth rate in umpteen ****ty little third-world nations.
why dont we just nuke the vatican
i have the perfect solution to the overpopulation issue. use all the babies as a food source. you know sorta like veal :D
-
Let's just support these measures in the Third/Developing world. Western populations are already starting to decline, so we need to bring most of the African and Asian nations into that fold.
I propose a high-level infiltration of the Catholic church over the next hundred years to replace all the die-hards from the Vatican with more even-minded people, thus allowing for a change in their views on both condoms and abortion. Boom, you've got a massive drop in the population growth rate in umpteen ****ty little third-world nations.
why dont we just nuke the vatican
Too many regional bastions of influence throughout the world. While you propose cutting off the head will make the body wither, the truth of the matter is that removing the head will merely allow ten more to rise in its place.
Yes, you read right. I am implying that the Catholic Church is a ****ing Hydra.
-
we could nuke it twice :D
-
*activates alternate Nuke mode*
ah, **** it. let's just blow up the planet. then that'll control the human population growth :D
/end Nuke mode
Why do that again? Global warming will do all those effects, but leave the smart alive. :p
-
Its called a joke Karajorma. Relax. The conservatives aren't having a hostile take-over party.
Yes. What I was making was also called a joke. It even had a smiley face after it for those unable to understand the concept. :p
we could nuke it twice :D
You'd better wait till I've had a chance to visit the ****ing Colosseum first! :p
-
In addition I'm also against "Ecology" crap.
The worse and overpopulated Earth will be, the bigger change for real space exploration will be.
*thinks
**thinks harder
The more people, the bigger chance of going to space
...
sex makes people!
*strains to think
so.... i.... need to HAVE AS MUCH SEX AS I CAN SO I CAN GO TO SPACE!!!
-
I propose a high-level infiltration of the Catholic church over the next hundred years to replace all the die-hards from the Vatican with more even-minded people, thus allowing for a change in their views on both condoms and abortion. Boom, you've got a massive drop in the population growth rate in umpteen ****ty little third-world nations.
You're not up to date. The Church has accepted the use of condoms(only in certain circumstances) and accepts abortion, too(only when the mother is risking her life).
we could nuke it twice :D
Why don't you change its location first? :p
Move it to a desolated place...like your Alaska :P
-
maybe italy should take their patch of land back
in the most violent and brutal means possible :D
-
maybe italy should take their patch of land back
in the most violent and brutal means possible :D
I don't get it...we should conquer Europe and North Africa, again?!? :eek2:
-
You're not up to date. The Church has accepted the use of condoms(only in certain circumstances) life).
Unfortunately, those circumstances don't seem to include AIDS-ridden African nations.
and accepts abortion, too(only when the mother is risking her
That's not exactly something that should be trumpeted. "Yeah, you can have an abortion... but only if you're literally about to die." Yep, that's progress that is. At this rate, they might give the OK to oral sex by the year 3000! Joy!
-
Unfortunately, those circumstances don't seem to include AIDS-ridden African nations.
Who told you that? The use of condoms is accepted when either partner has AIDS or stuff like that. The situation in Africa is particular, they think that without sex the spreading of AIDS can be contained. They just don't know that people can't survive without it.
- and accepts abortion, too(only when the mother is risking her life
That's not exactly something that should be trumpeted. "Yeah, you can have an abortion... but only if you're literally about to die." Yep, that's progress that is. At this rate, they might give the OK to oral sex by the year 3000! Joy!
Now help me finding the problem about this one!
1) Abortion when the mother is risking her life...Ok;
2) Abortion when the mother just doesn't want a child...NOT Ok;
I'm replying to your post because someone 18 years ago followed the second principle expressed above. I wouldn't be here otherwise.
-
Now help me finding the problem about this one!
1) Abortion when the mother is risking her life...Ok;
2) Abortion when the mother just doesn't want a child...NOT Ok;
I'm replying to your post because someone 18 years ago followed the second principle expressed above. I wouldn't be here otherwise.
But it's not always (read: never) that black-and-white.
What about an unwanted child that would be born into a neglectful household? What about an unwanted child that would be born into a household unable to support it? What about an unwanted child that would be born into a home wrought by upheaval, such as a warzone? What about... etc.
There are many, many different things that factor into the wellfare of a child, and the cold, hard fact remains that - sometimes - dead is better. Making a blanket ban on abortion intrinsically causes a lot more suffering than allowing it on a provisional basis.
-
Let me think...
What about "he can be adopted"? Just look at me, I now have a normal life and I play videogames like any other :P
-
Let me think...
What about "he can be adopted"? Just look at me, I now have a normal life and I play videogames like any other :P
You're operating on the assumption that the child will be born in a country with a well-developed or effective child protection/wellfare system. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Heck, even in developed, western nations like the US or Australia, child protection still has its fair share of abysmal failures.
I take it you were adopted? Well, that'd be super, since you've come out with a good lifestyle. Internet access alone says that much. Of course, how many aren't so lucky?
-
abortion is ok so long as you eat the fetus
-
Thankyou once again for your valued insight, Nuke. This forum would surely be a darker place without you.
-
You're operating on the assumption that the child will be born in a country with a well-developed or effective child protection/wellfare system. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Heck, even in developed, western nations like the US or Australia, child protection still has its fair share of abysmal failures.
I somewhat share your opinion, though I think that abortion condemns to death a child who has a chance of having a normal life. If a child has 95% probabilities of becoming a baby soldier, prostitute or dying at the age of 1...I believe in the remaining 5%. He/she has the right to live, no matter of what.
I take it you were adopted? Well, that'd be super, since you've come out with a good lifestyle. Internet access alone says that much. Of course, how many aren't so lucky?
Yes, I'm American(surprised, eh? :P). I don't criticize my lifestyle...and I didn't like what people said of me a few years ago :doubt:
I know there are unlucky children, but they have the right to live and fight for a future!
abortion is ok so long as you eat the fetus
Uhm...we're not dogs... :P
Thankyou once again for your valued insight, Nuke. This forum would surely be a darker place without you.
:lol:
-
I somewhat share your opinion, though I think that abortion condemns to death a child who has a chance of having a normal life. If a child has 95% probabilities of becoming a baby soldier, prostitute or dying at the age of 1...I believe in the remaining 5%. He/she has the right to live, no matter of what.
While I find your attitude towards this issue quite heartening, your emotions are merely complicating this matter. We all want to believe in that 5%, but it's exactly that belief that will see millions of children born into a life of prostitution, abuse, and early death.
In our nice, cushy, western lifestyles, we can't even hope to understand what these children would be born into. I know I certainly can't, and i'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that we don't have many child soldiers on this forum to enlighten us. You'll probably notice that most people dead-set against abortion have either had good lives or are otherwise have no idea of the horrors that life can hold, and yet the seem to hold this insane belief that any life is better than nothing. We need to look past the baseless emotion surrounding this issue and look at the cold, immutable facts: Life sucks, and there are times when a baby simply should not be brought into this world. No ifs, no ands, no buts, it just shouldn't be born.
-
But you can't kill them.
"It shouldn't be born"?!? It's not acceptable. You can't say something like that! A child deserves to be born!
-
"It shouldn't be born"?!? It's not acceptable. You can't say something like that! A child deserves to be born!
Into a short, painful and traumatic life? How can you be the judge of that? How can I, for that matter? The point is, we can't! And certainly neither can the man in the Vatican. Therefore, the only way to know is for the mother to decide, as she is the ultimate authority on the wellfare of her child.
Why should it be up to anyone but the mother?
-
The man in Vatican have the right to say "No, by doing this you're killing a person" and make their opinion public. I live in a country where politics are strongly influenced by Vatican. I might not share their opinions, but I should let them talk.
What if, thanks to abortion, you kill 100 babies...5 of which had a chance of having an acceptable lifestyle? Or...
"There's no food..."
"Kill them! They shouldn't be born!"
After a month...
"We have just received supplies coming from Europe!"
"D'oh!"
:rolleyes:
-
The man in Vatican have the right to say "No, by doing this you're killing a person" and make their opinion public. I live in a country where politics are strongly influenced by Vatican. I might not share their opinions, but I should let them talk.
They can talk, but what right do they have to dictate the actions of African women half a world away, living vastly different lives in a vastly different land than anything the old men of the Vatican have experienced? My point is that this issue is too damn complicated to be dealt with by blanket declarations, and thus the choice must fall to the parent rather than some arbitrary body of individuals.
What if, thanks to abortion, you kill 100 babies...5 of which had a chance of having an acceptable lifestyle? Or...
"There's no food..."
"Kill them! They shouldn't be born!"
After a month...
"We have just received supplies coming from Europe!"
"D'oh!"
:rolleyes:
Okay, let's say those 100 all survive. The lucky 5 you mentioned go on to have rich, fulfilled lives. The other 95 rarely get their teenage years, with may falling to disease or parental abuse early on. The few that remain ultimately end up working the streets as teenage prostitutes, and a few very special ones will be drafted into the local militia at age 11 to participate in ethnically cleansing the neighboring province. None of these children will live to reach 21.
But the important thing is they're alive, isn't it? We can go on living our cushy lives, safe in the comfort that life goes on. Sure, they might not have lived for long, but it's better they at least had a chance at life. Right?
-
They can talk, but what right do they have to dictate the actions of African women half a world away, living vastly different lives in a vastly different land than anything the old men of the Vatican have experienced? My point is that this issue is too damn complicated to be dealt with by blanket declarations, and thus the choice must fall to the parent rather than some arbitrary body of individuals.
I doubt it. There are plenties of African and Asian Cardinals plus priests who spend years in those places. There's one who comes back for a while every 5 years. I met it twice in the past ten years.
I think they know more about poor societies than any other. No, wait: ignore that "I think".
Okay, let's say those 100 all survive. The lucky 5 you mentioned go on to have rich, fulfilled lives. The other 95 rarely get their teenage years, with may falling to disease or parental abuse early on. The few that remain ultimately end up working the streets as teenage prostitutes, and a few very special ones will be drafted into the local militia at age 11 to participate in ethnically cleansing the neighboring province. None of these children will live to reach 21.
But the important thing is they're alive, isn't it? We can go on living our cushy lives, safe in the comfort that life goes on. Sure, they might not have lived for long, but it's better they at least had a chance at life. Right?
First of all, those 5 who have a normal life are enough to justify the prevention of a massacre. Even 1 would be enough to justify it. They will die at the age of 4? Of 9? Of 11? Of14? Of 17? Of 20? They will have a chance of being helped. Read above...what if you kill them right before the arrival of supplies, including food and water?
-
Just so I can get a gauge of where you stand, let me ask you a hypothetical: Would you willingly kill a 5-year-old girl to save 100 people?
-
This is turning into a nonsense...
It's not a matter of "save a certain number of children, many of which are going to die soon". You're simply not in the right position to say "they shouldn't be born!". Why would you kill them if in, let's say 7 years, a consistent amount of supplies will reach their village? Why don't you think that, in a future, the situation might change?
100 years ago Italians of the Southern regions lived pretty much like the Africans. They moved to countries like the USA, Germany, France, Switzerland, Argentina and Brasil to work. Many of them succeded, and the situation here has completely changed, because people lived to make this a better place. If you kill the babies, if you don't help them and change the situation of their countries...you solve nothing! The 5 lucky children you mentioned could become doctors, are you aware of it?!?
-
It's not a matter of "save a certain number of children, many of which are going to die soon". You're simply not in the right position to say "they shouldn't be born!". Why would you kill them if in, let's say 7 years, a consistent amount of supplies will reach their village? Why don't you think that, in a future, the situation might change?
Exactly! I'm not in a position to dictate the fate of children. But neither is the Vatican! I'm merely saying that there are ****ty situations out there, and that it's wrong to make black-and-white declarations on the topic. Are you saying that the mother is incapable of deciding whether or not her situation is suitable to allow a child to be born?
And for the love of Pete, we're not talking about "killing babies"! You're turning this into a loaded discussion by making it sound like i'm advocating infanticide.
-
People have sex if they so choose. You speak of sex as if it is a impossible thing NOT to have. I don't know where you live, but sex is one of the most important thing in the western world today (SADLY so). And you keep forgetting it's an OPTION. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is forcing you.
As Kosh said, procreation is a biological imperative. More than that, sex is rather nice. Think of it this way: Chocolate is nice. It's really nice, in fact. However, having too much of it is unhealthy. We all want to eat chocolate, but some people don't want to get fat. How do we resolve this paradox? I would suggest people watch how much they eat, and make sure they don't over-do it. You seem to be suggesting that the only option if you don't want to get fat is to not eat chocolate. Ever. Given that a lot of people like chocolate, and it is somewhat widely available, what would be the more effective option from a sociological standpoint, rather than a position of black-and-white absolutism?
Not to mention we're ignoring the major problems with abstinence-only education, which is that it teaches ignorance. People are going to do it anyway, so we might as well teach them how to protect themselves and their parters, rather than just telling them not to think about it and setting a good number of them up for making big mistakes down the track. From a purely logical standpoint, not having sex is the best, sure-fire way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, etc. However, from a practical standpoint, that's just wishful thinking. People have sex, nothing is going to stop that, so let's make sure they know what the hell they're doing and don't cock it up. (Pun intended :p)
I love it when people don't read what I say at all....
Biological imperative? What does that have to do with the possibility of having sex or not. Yeah, we'll go extinct if EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET refuses to have sex, but was I talking about that? No.
Sesh, you're talking as if there are no people in history who lived a happy, long life without sex. Well, surprise - there have been and there are.
It's the same thing as chocolate in a way - nice, but you can live without it if you so choose.
Secondly, I'm not suggesting anything. I've said - it's an option. One of many. So don't put words in my mouth pls.
Depends. If I found a woman of my dreams, no. I'd have children...1 or 2 max..thats a optimal number.
If I havn't found one I would have no touble keeping my mojo in check. Power or will and all that stuff...you might have heard of it.
Okay, what about after you have two children? Are you saying that you'd swear off all sex so as not to have another kid? Yeah, good luck.
Although, as they say; Marriage is the world's best contraceptive. So there you go. :p
I *COULD* swear off sex. I don't know why it's such a big problem for you, but for me it isn't. yeah, sex is great - but so are many other thing in life. that doesn't mean I can't live without them. Besides, since when is sex the cornerstone of marriage? Once you get old you won't be able to preform anyway - you telling me the marriage is over then? Plase...
Into a short, painful and traumatic life? How can you be the judge of that? How can I, for that matter? The point is, we can't! And certainly neither can the man in the Vatican. Therefore, the only way to know is for the mother to decide, as she is the ultimate authority on the wellfare of her child.
Why should it be up to anyone but the mother?
You can't know the future..no one can. So how can you condem a child to death becoause of your FEAR that things will turn out bad?
Speaking of which, why should it be up to the mother? The person in question can very well be drunk, on drugs or simply immature and irreseponsible.
It's a terrible thing to grow up in a broken family..but that can be remedied in a way, or avoided. Death before birth can't.
-
There's a difference between your opinion and the opinion of priests.
The mother? I hear of mothers killing their children. Who said that the mother is the only person able to decide the fate of her child? Unless she's going to die, the child must live! The child can be adopted...but he/she must live!
You're not advocating infanticide :rolleyes:
-
You can't know the future..no one can. So how can you condem a child to death becoause of your FEAR that things will turn out bad?
So after accusing me of not reading your posts, you go ahead and misread mine! :p
I'm not condemning anyone. We're talking about preventing life from forming, not snuffing out an existing person. If anything, "condeming" would be more applicable to the child being born into an abusive, neglectful or dangerous household.
Speaking of which, why should it be up to the mother? The person in question can very well be drunk, on drugs or simply immature and irreseponsible.
It's a terrible thing to grow up in a broken family..but that can be remedied in a way, or avoided. Death before birth can't.
Why should it be the mother's option? Because it's her child. She created it, it's quite literally a part of her, and yet you somehow believe she can't be trusted with it? There can be no denying that there are indeed unfit mothers out there, but why should a vast minority warrant decrying abortion in virtually every case.
You've also fallen into the trap of believing there is always an out for children born into abusive or neglectful households. Well, what if there isn't? What if the child is subjected to violent or even sexual abuse because the child protection/wellfare system is either insufficient to act or doesn't exist at all? It's incredibly naive to believe that a child in an unfit household or in an otherwise ****ty situation will be snatched up by child wellfare in every case, or even in a majority of cases
There's a difference between your opinion and the opinion of priests.
Why?
The mother? I hear of mothers killing their children. Who said that the mother is the only person able to decide the fate of her child? Unless she's going to die, the child must live! The child can be adopted...but he/she must live!
Oh yeah? I hear of Priests that sexually abuse altar boys. Why did I dredge that up, you might ask? No reason, because arbitrary references are just that; arbitrary. So let's take the high road and leave them out of this.
I never said that a mother should be the only authority in the wellfare of her child. I merely meant she should be the principal authority, which should never be superseded by blanket declarations, and certainly not by declarations based on religious dogma.
Let me just set something straight here: We're not talking about living people here. We're talking about the potential for human life. Let's not get caught up in our emotions as if we were discussing strangling newborns! This isn't murder or euthanasia or whatever you want to call it, this is preventing a human life from coming into existence. It simply can't be equated to ending a human life because to do so you need a human life to end!
-
You can't know the future..no one can. So how can you condem a child to death becoause of your FEAR that things will turn out bad?
So after accusing me of not reading your posts, you go ahead and misread mine! :p
I'm not condemning anyone. We're talking about preventing life from forming, not snuffing out an existing person. If anything, "condeming" would be more applicable to the child being born into an abusive, neglectful or dangerous household.
Are you atheist? If there's no afterlife...it would be a good reason to let a child live.
Speaking of which, why should it be up to the mother? The person in question can very well be drunk, on drugs or simply immature and irreseponsible.
It's a terrible thing to grow up in a broken family..but that can be remedied in a way, or avoided. Death before birth can't.
Why should it be the mother's option? Because it's her child. She created it, it's quite literally a part of her, and yet you somehow believe she can't be trusted with it? There can be no denying that there are indeed unfit mothers out there, but why should a vast minority warrant decrying abortion in virtually every case.
You've also fallen into the trap of believing there is always an out for children born into abusive or neglectful households. Well, what if there isn't? What if the child is subjected to violent or even sexual abuse because the child protection/wellfare system is either insufficient to act or doesn't exist at all? It's incredibly naive to believe that a child in an unfit household or in an otherwise ****ty situation will be snatched up by child wellfare in every case, or even in a majority of cases
As I said, mothers can kill their children. And I don't consider a mother who is taking abortion in consideration(even when she's risking her life) a valid one. In case of risks, she will most likely let her child die...but be sure that she will regret the decision for the rest of her life.
And those "mothers" we're talking about aren't normal "mothers": they might be 15 years old girls, not 23+ years old women who are married!
There's a difference between your opinion and the opinion of priests.
Why?
Simple. The Church has all the right to promote life while you don't have the right to promote death.
The mother? I hear of mothers killing their children. Who said that the mother is the only person able to decide the fate of her child? Unless she's going to die, the child must live! The child can be adopted...but he/she must live!
Oh yeah? I hear of Priests that sexually abuse altar boys. Why did I dredge that up, you might ask? No reason, because arbitrary references are just that; arbitrary. So let's take the high road and leave them out of this.
I never said that a mother should be the only authority in the wellfare of her child. I merely meant she should be the principal authority, which should never be superseded by blanket declarations, and certainly not by declarations based on religious dogma.
Let me just set something straight here: We're not talking about living people here. We're talking about the potential for human life. Let's not get caught up in our emotions as if we were discussing strangling newborns! This isn't murder or euthanasia or whatever you want to call it, this is preventing a human life from coming into existence. It simply can't be equated to ending a human life because to do so you need a human life to end!
Principal authority...when possible. A girl can't be the principal authority. We're not talking about living people here? We're not talking about condoms, we're talking about abortion that, when not necessary, can and should be considered the assassination of a child!
Ok, poor people should use condoms as they can't guarantee a normal lifestyle to their children, but...abortion kills a living human being!
-
Are you atheist? If there's no afterlife...it would be a good reason to let a child live.
I don't see how the question of an afterlife even enters into this discussion.
As I said, mothers can kill their children. And I don't consider a mother who is taking abortion in consideration(even when she's risking her life) a valid one. In case of risks, she will most likely let her child die...but be sure that she will regret the decision for the rest of her life.
And those "mothers" we're talking about aren't normal "mothers": they might be 15 years old girls, not 23+ years old women who are married!
Forgive me, but I noticed that you're male. From that, I would deduce that you're yet to have children, and thus cannot be considered a mother. Now, while I often see the "you don't know what it's like, so you can't comment" line of reason to be fallacious and downright moronic in most cases, in this case it actually applies: You're not a mother, or even a parent, and thus you don't know what the **** you're talking about. I hate to word it so strongly, but that's just the way it is. Having a child a unique experience that neither you nor I can understand until we've encountered it first hand, and as males we can never truly understand it as a woman can. As such, you simply cannot state with any certainty or weight what can and cannot be considered "normal" in that situation, so you'll have to excuse me if I consider your personal view of what constitutes a 'normal' mother to be irrelevant given the circumstances.
Of course, that's sidestepping the issue that we're not talking about well-adjusted 23-year-old, married mothers in comfy, developed nations. We're talking about unwanted pregnancies to unfit mothers in unsuitable conditions. If a mother doesn't want a child, and abortion is off the table, what is she to do? Giving it up at an orphanage or adoption facility isn't exactly the norm around the world, and more often than not the child will simply be abandoned to rot in an alleyway someplace. But the important thing is that it's alive, isn't it! Heaven forbid it be aborted before it even becomes a real person, lest it miss out on the chance to lie cold and alone in a deserted alleyway, screaming its tiny head off as it slowly starves to death. And don't say that that doesn't happen, because you know as well as I do that **** like that happens far too often in the world.
Simple. The Church has all the right to promote life while you don't have the right to promote death.
Yeah, i'm promoting death. Heck, i'm a regular Charles Manson! :rolleyes:
Principal authority...when possible. A girl can't be the principal authority. We're not talking about living people here? We're not talking about condoms, we're talking about abortion that, when not necessary, can and should be considered the assassination of a child!
'Assassination of a child'? Blimey! :rolleyes:
What do you define as "necessary"? When the mother will die if the baby is born? Let's see how far you'll go: What if the mother might die if the baby is born, is abortion okay then? Where do you draw the line between putting the wellfare of the mother before the child?
but...abortion kills a living human being!
Please refer to the final paragraph of my previous post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,50596.msg1022741.html#msg1022741), in that a foetus is potential, not a human being incarnate. If you could point me to legal statue declaring a foetus as a fully-functioning human being of equal or greater value than the mother that carries it, i'd be much obliged.
-
I'm not condemning anyone. We're talking about preventing life from forming, not snuffing out an existing person.
Abortion = by that time life is already formed. Are you perhaps confusing this with condoms?
If anything, "condeming" would be more applicable to the child being born into an abusive, neglectful or dangerous household.
It's a possibility. but then again, the future is an unknown. Maby having the child might snap some sense in the mother/father and they start behaving more responsible - it happened before. Or not.
Either way there's no way to know for sure. A lot of people who were born in "bad" families ended up as perfectly nice persons. And there's always social services and adoption.
There are no guarantees, but there aren't any for anything in life. You might get killed tomorrow by a brick falling from a roof.
Why not kill yourself now then?
Why should it be the mother's option? Because it's her child. She created it, it's quite literally a part of her, and yet you somehow believe she can't be trusted with it? There can be no denying that there are indeed unfit mothers out there, but why should a vast minority warrant decrying abortion in virtually every case.
It's not "her" child in the property sense. She doesn't own it. You don't own life.
But it's not good for anyone to have the final word on sensitive subjects tough.
You've also fallen into the trap of believing there is always an out for children born into abusive or neglectful households. Well, what if there isn't? What if the child is subjected to violent or even sexual abuse because the child protection/wellfare system is either insufficient to act or doesn't exist at all? It's incredibly naive to believe that a child in an unfit household or in an otherwise ****ty situation will be snatched up by child wellfare in every case, or even in a majority of cases
I'm very well aware of that that not all can be saved. But you don't know WHICH can and which can't. Killing them all is simply wrong.
Let's assume you had a child that has a rare and uncurable desease, and there's a test run of a new drug going on that could cure your child. Chanses that your child can make it into the test group are 10%. Chances that it will help your child are 50%. So ther's basicly just 5% chance that oyu child will be better. Would you still pllay and try to get into the test group?
Of course you would. Anyone would try.
Let me just set something straight here: We're not talking about living people here. We're talking about the potential for human life. Let's not get caught up in our emotions as if we were discussing strangling newborns! This isn't murder or euthanasia or whatever you want to call it, this is preventing a human life from coming into existence. It simply can't be equated to ending a human life because to do so you need a human life to end!
See my first reply.
-
but...abortion kills a living human being!
Please refer to the final paragraph of my previous post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,50596.msg1022741.html#msg1022741), in that a foetus is potential, not a human being incarnate. If you could point me to legal statue declaring a foetus as a fully-functioning human being of equal or greater value than the mother that carries it, i'd be much obliged.
Legality has nothing to do with this.
A fetus IS a living human being. It grows, it develops. Yes, it's still undeveloped but does that make it any less worth?
It's a potential? that's a wierd definition? when then, does it stop being a potential and becomes a "person"? And how do you define potential? Since at 20 years a human has to potential to become many things. It's STILL changing and developing - it's a ongoing process.
Sentience? How do you mesure it anyway? Is it a proper thing to even mesure? Is it the only thing one should mesure?
So don't give me that bull****, about it not being a real "person" and therefore it's not worth much. It's human, it lives. It's wort every bit as much as your scrawny ass - in fact, far more!
-
Are you atheist? If there's no afterlife...it would be a good reason to let a child live.
I don't see how the question of an afterlife even enters into this discussion.
Well, innocent and pure souls deserve to go to the Paradise, stuff like that... :rolleyes:
As I said, mothers can kill their children. And I don't consider a mother who is taking abortion in consideration(even when she's risking her life) a valid one. In case of risks, she will most likely let her child die...but be sure that she will regret the decision for the rest of her life.
And those "mothers" we're talking about aren't normal "mothers": they might be 15 years old girls, not 23+ years old women who are married!
Forgive me, but I noticed that you're male. From that, I would deduce that you're yet to have children, and thus cannot be considered a mother. Now, while I often see the "you don't know what it's like, so you can't comment" line of reason to be fallacious and downright moronic in most cases, in this case it actually applies: You're not a mother, or even a parent, and thus you don't know what the **** you're talking about. I hate to word it so strongly, but that's just the way it is. Having a child a unique experience that neither you nor I can understand until we've encountered it first hand, and as males we can never truly understand it as a woman can. As such, you simply cannot state with any certainty or weight what can and cannot be considered "normal" in that situation, so you'll have to excuse me if I consider your personal view of what constitutes a 'normal' mother to be irrelevant given the circumstances.
Of course, that's sidestepping the issue that we're not talking about well-adjusted 23-year-old, married mothers in comfy, developed nations. We're talking about unwanted pregnancies to unfit mothers in unsuitable conditions. If a mother doesn't want a child, and abortion is off the table, what is she to do? Giving it up at an orphanage or adoption facility isn't exactly the norm around the world, and more often than not the child will simply be abandoned to rot in an alleyway someplace. But the important thing is that it's alive, isn't it! Heaven forbid it be aborted before it even becomes a real person, lest it miss out on the chance to lie cold and alone in a deserted alleyway, screaming its tiny head off as it slowly starves to death. And don't say that that doesn't happen, because you know as well as I do that **** like that happens far too often in the world.
Just two things:
1) :wtf:
2) I have somewhat experienced abortion and we're talking about abortion. And a mother can be immature, they're just normal girls/women, and someone got them pregnant. Having sex without condoms and/or forgetting to use the pill doesn't make a female a good mother.
I don't understand why you keep claiming that children should die without having a chance of succeding in their life? I told you, they might be doctors able to help the others and promote the use of condoms!
I know there are places where growing a child up is difficult...but there are other places where children can grow up and become someone. I can mention some "bastards" like Richard Wagner, Colombus, Thomas Edward Lawrence, Leonardo da Vinci, Giovanni Boccaccio, Casanova, Alexandre Dumas jr, Jack London, Eduardo De Filippo and Antonio De Curtis.
They didn't have mature parents...now tell me if what they did is inferior to what "people with a normal lifestyle" did.
Simple. The Church has all the right to promote life while you don't have the right to promote death.
Yeah, i'm promoting death. Heck, i'm a regular Charles Manson! :rolleyes:
Yes.
Principal authority...when possible. A girl can't be the principal authority. We're not talking about living people here? We're not talking about condoms, we're talking about abortion that, when not necessary, can and should be considered the assassination of a child!
'Assassination of a child'? Blimey! :rolleyes:
What do you define as "necessary"? When the mother will die if the baby is born? Let's see how far you'll go: What if the mother might die if the baby is born, is abortion okay then? Where do you draw the line between putting the wellfare of the mother before the child?
Depends on the maturity of the mother. Do you think the words "Will" and "Might" can influence the choice of a mother in a radical way? The friend of one of my cousins died in order to ensure the survival of her child. My best friend's mother risked to die but managed to survive. My mother aborted a few months before adopting me. Depends on the individuals... I admire the first two people I mentioned...the first one has been unlucky but I consider her a fine person.
Mothers should do whatever they can for their children but, as I said, depends on the individuals.
-
Simple. The Church has all the right to promote life while you don't have the right to promote death.
Yeah, i'm promoting death. Heck, i'm a regular Charles Manson! :rolleyes:
Well, you're not exactly promoting life for the infant, so...
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100% on the abortion issue. I'm just pointing out holes in peoples' thought processes. :p
-
You can't kill what was never alive.
-
"Alive" doesn't necessarily mean "anything that came out from the *****"...
-
Oh, let's not go there.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how easily people come to opinions about other people's decisions, especially people they have never met and know nothing about.
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but the danger lay in assuming that your opinion is the only possible right answer, because there is no 'right' answer, that's why I'm Pro-Choice, because it's about choice, not about what other people decide for you.
Is abortion murder? To Anti-abortionists, of course it is, to Pro-abortionists, of course it isn't, who's to say who is right? God? Well, frankly, if it's up to God, I'd appreciate it if anyone who isn't God refrain from trying to do his job for him...
-
He was in my old address book, but I lost that a few years back.
-
Oh snap.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/23/save-the-planet-have-an-abortion/
Oh well. In this case, thei'll be extinct anyway soon.
-
You can't kill what was never alive.
What do you mean it's not alive? Its growing and developing - it IS alive by any definition of life we know.
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but the danger lay in assuming that your opinion is the only possible right answer, because there is no 'right' answer, that's why I'm Pro-Choice, because it's about choice, not about what other people decide for you.
You assumption Flippy, that doesn't have to be correct. You are assuming that your assumption is correct. :P
-
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but the danger lay in assuming that your opinion is the only possible right answer, because there is no 'right' answer, that's why I'm Pro-Choice, because it's about choice, not about what other people decide for you.
Who the hell said that a fetus is not a human being?!? :wtf:
-
You think of it as a human being because that supports what you feel about abortion, that's my entire point. I believe otherwise. Depending on what school of thought you follow and how you interpret those results, you will get different answers to the same question. That doesn't mean that either answer is wrong, it just means it's all down to personal choice.
The way I see it, passing a law that any unmarried mother must have a termination would be a terrible, terrible thing. In exactly the same manner as a law saying that no-one can have an abortion would be a terrible thing. It doesn't mean you must have an abortion, it just means you can.
-
Well it ain't a cat or a horse.
It's clearly a LIVE member of a human species.
F'course you can try arguing semantics of what it actually means being alive or human, but IMHO it's pretty obvious what the truth is.
-
But then, is a Yolk a Bird?
-
But then, is a Yolk a Bird?
Yep. A rather dead bird on your dinner plate usually.
-
Heh, that's the thing about abortion, it's really the epitome of the Chicken and the Egg question :)
-
But then, is a Yolk a Bird?
Yep. A rather dead bird on your dinner plate usually.
You're kidding? Both of you?
-
But then, is a Yolk a Bird?
Bad analogy. :p
A yolk is a bird as much as an ovum is a person: not at all.
A better question would be, "Is Balut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut) a duck?" :p
-
But then, is a Yolk a Bird?
Yep. A rather dead bird on your dinner plate usually.
You're kidding? Both of you?
Let's just say we weren't aiming at debating the issue ;)
-
Heh, that's the thing about abortion, it's really the epitome of the Chicken and the Egg question :)
I dunno if I got the point across with my last sentance - the yolk IS a bid (and a live bird). However, when you see it it's very much dead and on your plate (since in 99% of all cases, thats where you'll see it)
-
The real issue here is: where do we draw the line between bundle of cells and human person with rights? Right now, we draw the line at birth, and late-term abortions are almost universally considered kind of icky. Abortion of a bundle of cells is not infanticide. As Obi-Wan Kenobi so badly worded, "only a Sith deals in absolutes." If you take the standpoint that abortion of the bundle of cells, before development of the brain, before development of the heart is wrong because of that bundle's potential, then every human being on the face of the earth should be having as much sex as possible because every single spermatozoon and ovum that dies is wasted potential.
-
...then every human being on the face of the earth should be having as much sex as possible because every single spermatozoon and ovum that dies is wasted potential.
Every sperm is sacred!!
-
...then every human being on the face of the earth should be having as much sex as possible because every single spermatozoon and ovum that dies is wasted potential.
Every sperm is sacred!!
The menstrual cycle is a sin!
-
The menstrual cycle is a sin!
Yes it is!
In a better world nobody would be able to decide if another person should die or not.
As far as abortions go "this child will have a bad life" is not a good reason. It should be up to that person to decide if life is worth living, if he/she thinks it isnt then he/she are free to end it.... Remarkably very few people decide to try, and those who fail dont always try again.
Reguardless of how you feel, or what your viewpoint is, it will change when you either have a child, or have to make the choice of keeping or aborting a child.
Its easy to talk about it without having to have made the choice.
-
The real issue here is: where do we draw the line between bundle of cells and human person with rights? Right now, we draw the line at birth, and late-term abortions are almost universally considered kind of icky. Abortion of a bundle of cells is not infanticide. As Obi-Wan Kenobi so badly worded, "only a Sith deals in absolutes." If you take the standpoint that abortion of the bundle of cells, before development of the brain, before development of the heart is wrong because of that bundle's potential, then every human being on the face of the earth should be having as much sex as possible because every single spermatozoon and ovum that dies is wasted potential.
Not quite so. A sperm cannot grow into a human. It's not a human, it's the males half of genetic data.
It's not a human..yet. But once a child is concieved, it is 100% human and it grows. We're not talking about potential anymore, it IS human. Just a very early stage human.
Speaking of which, when does the brain begin to form? Should we consider it "alive and human" from that point onward? Is there's some sort of proto-sentience before that?
Would you consider someone that is turned into a vegetable due to a accident a non human then? Since brain no worky anymore? Or someone in a coma?
-
Heh, that's the thing about abortion, it's really the epitome of the Chicken and the Egg question :)
I dunno if I got the point across with my last sentance - the yolk IS a bid (and a live bird). However, when you see it it's very much dead and on your plate (since in 99% of all cases, thats where you'll see it)
Oh... wow.
No you nitwit. It's not a bird. It's an unfertilised egg. Nutrients and just about bugger all else.
-
I dunno if I got the point across with my last sentance - the yolk IS a bid (and a live bird). However, when you see it it's very much dead and on your plate (since in 99% of all cases, thats where you'll see it)
You've got to be kidding.
First, the eggs you see on plates and whatnot are not fertilized, meaning they have as much to do with bird as sperm have to do with humans. Secondly, the yolk is not even a living being nor will it ever be unless you count being the food source for the embryo as a life form.
You might as well say the placenta is a mammal.
-
<insert beaver joke?>
-
First, the eggs you see on plates and whatnot are not fertilized, meaning they have as much to do with bird as sperm have to do with humans. Secondly, the yolk is not even a living being nor will it ever be unless you count being the food source for the embryo as a life form.
Yup, the eggs you see on the plate are dead.
Hold on, the yolk is the yellow stuff? Or is it the white stuff? English ain't my native language so I might have mixed them up.
IIRC, the yellow stuff doesn't need to be fertilized to grow into a chicken (but it needs to be fertilized to end up as a rooster...methinks). Either way to put it, the embrio is alive.
-
First, the eggs you see on plates and whatnot are not fertilized, meaning they have as much to do with bird as sperm have to do with humans. Secondly, the yolk is not even a living being nor will it ever be unless you count being the food source for the embryo as a life form.
Yup, the eggs you see on the plate are dead.
Hold on, the yolk is the yellow stuff? Or is it the white stuff? English ain't my native language so I might have mixed them up.
IIRC, the yellow stuff doesn't need to be fertilized to grow into a chicken (but it needs to be fertilized to end up as a rooster...methinks). Either way to put it, the embrio is alive.
Yolk is the yellow stuff yes. And the yolk is not the embryo.
And tell me you're kidding about the next bit... seriously...
-
I'm not. Alltough I'm too lazy to check if it's true. Remeber reading about it, but I'm not sure if it was about chicken or some other animal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the white stuff in the egg is what the embryo uses for sustanance.
either way, we are talking about humans here - human embryos. And I fail to see how they don't qualify as alive.
-
IIRC, the yellow stuff doesn't need to be fertilized to grow into a chicken (but it needs to be fertilized to end up as a rooster...methinks).
Oh that is just too ****ing funny for words. :lol:
Are you seriously telling us that chickens can reproduce asexually to create females but have to reproduce sexually to produce males?
-
I'm not. Alltough I'm too lazy to check if it's true. Remeber reading about it, but I'm not sure if it was about chicken or some other animal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the white stuff in the egg is what the embryo uses for sustanance.
either way, we are talking about humans here - human embryos. And I fail to see how they don't qualify as alive.
The egg white (white stuff) is not what the embryo uses primarily as a food source, it's the yolk (yellow bit). The egg white is used mostly as shock protection. In short, the yolk is not the embryo.
I agree with the next part, embryos are alive. But that's not the point in the abortion argument. It's if its a human life that matters, and as such alive and alive are diferent adjectives in this case. Just as you don't get arrested for squashing an ant, can you get arrested for killing an embryo? That's the point of the argument.
-
Oh that is just too ****ing funny for words. :lol:
Are you seriously telling us that chickens can reproduce asexually to create females but have to reproduce sexually to produce males?
Nah..it was another animal. Can't remember which one it was. :blah:
Just as you don't get arrested for squashing an ant, can you get arrested for killing an embryo? That's the point of the argument.
I doubt you'll find many people who love and respect animals as much as I do, but even I wouldn't put a insect and a human on the same scale or worth.
-
Just as you don't get arrested for squashing an ant, can you get arrested for killing an embryo? That's the point of the argument.
I doubt you'll find many people who love and respect animals as much as I do, but even I wouldn't put a insect and a human on the same scale or worth.
That's the bloody point, is it a human or not! :p
-
*Interjection*
The human body produces natural abortions at all points in embryonic and fetal development, but the majority take place prior to 24 weeks gestation. We presently consider 22 weeks gestation to be the threshold point for survivability of a premature birth.
There is a natural point at which an embryo can be considered a functional human being in development, and this tends (in most estimates) to start anywhere around 20-30 weeks gestation.
To add more fuel to the fire...
A fertilized ovum does not a human being make. A fertilized ovum is little different from the few totipotent stem cells kicking around in some of our bones (specifically, the femur). If anything, it's less human, because it hasn't yet proved it can survive.
No to mention, we have the interesting conundrum of how many "people" an embryo is. Up until a few hundred cells, differentiation hasn't really occurred (yes, the axes are set by that point and regions are defined as developmental points, but it isn't yet set in stone) so if we start plucking off individual cells and growing them we find that they can in turn grow to the few hundred cell stage and beyond... does that mean an embryo at the few hundred cell stage is actually several hundred people, or just one? That's a point some catholic groups are wrestling with given the advance of embryo splitting where we can pluck a single cell from an embryo and use it to generate embryonic stem cell lines AND grow the embryo to term (one group in particular seems to think this procedure would be better utilized to produce more good little Catholics than medically treat the living ones we've got, but idiots generally abound so that should be no surprise).
Once again, a little knowledge of biology can turn your views on their head. Life, for any species, does not begin at conception. Life begins at the point in development in which an indepedent viable organism is present. People can debate until the apocalypse about when that point is, but it sure as hell is not conception.
*fans flames and retreats to shelter*
-
As for hte Vatican, you're wrong about that. No sex = no children. More effective than any other method you can propose, be it condoms or abortion..and a lot more humane too.
If this theory worked so well Africa wouldnt be in such a state.
-
*Interjection*
The human body produces natural abortions at all points in embryonic and fetal development, but the majority take place prior to 24 weeks gestation. We presently consider 22 weeks gestation to be the threshold point for survivability of a premature birth.
There is a natural point at which an embryo can be considered a functional human being in development, and this tends (in most estimates) to start anywhere around 20-30 weeks gestation.
*fans flames and retreats to shelter*
It might be correct, but TrashMan is right when he says that a human being grows up. The embryo is a human being.
-
It might be correct, but TrashMan is right when he says that a human being grows up. The embryo is a human being.
I just edited my post, so read it again.
An embryo has the potential to be between zero and several hundred human beings. Existence of a fertilized ovum does not imply the presence of a single living human being. Potential != destiny.
-
You compare a embryo with several cells from you leg. Those cells won't grow and develop into a adult human.
A embryo will. That's a cruical difference.
Once again, a little knowledge of biology can turn your views on their head. Life, for any species, does not begin at conception. Life begins at the point in development in which an indepedent viable organism is present. People can debate until the apocalypse about when that point is, but it sure as hell is not conception.
:wtf:
When does it being then? When you say so? I find your definition of the begining of life lacking.
-
Here's my take on it. Science doesn't understand life. Science doesn't understand consciousness. Sure, science is cool and impressive and all... but when you get right down to it, science doesn't know jack @#$% about a whole helluva lot of stuff that is staring us in the face every second of every day. This isn't a religion vs science thing for me. Religion doesn't know either (but of course it generally professes that an abortion is a bad choice).
When and where does a human life -actually- begin? Nobody knows for sure (except God if you believe that). You can scream at the top of your lungs "Its just a fetus! Its just a fetus! Its just a fetus!" all day long, but you prove nothing.
You're taking a helluva chance having an abortion just going off the possibility that a fetus is not an individual life. And all of that for what!?!? For convenience. Because you mussed it up, were lazy, inconsiderate, or just plain stupid. I'm not talking about when both the mother's and the baby's life are in danger or the mother is a rape victim etc - that would be a completely different category. But the mother - engaging in consensual sex must be prepared for the consequences that comes with it. You don't start killing people on the street because it makes your life convenient or you think that they would be better off dead. So why even take that chance with something that may very well be alive?
-
You compare a embryo with several cells from you leg. Those cells won't grow and develop into a adult human.
A embryo will. That's a cruical difference.
Stem cells from my leg COULD grow into another human being under the correct circumstances, just like a totipotent embryo can become an adult human being under the correct circumstances. It's a matter fo probability (and for the record, the probability, even with medical intervention, is quite low in BOTH cases - extremely few preganancies actually make it to term).
When does it being then? When you say so? I find your definition of the begining of life lacking.
Just because totipotent stem cells CAN become a human being doesn't mean they will. Human life begins at the stage of adult viability - about 20 weeks gestation (about the same time that spontaneous muscle movement begins, indicating activation of the central nervous system). Prior to that, a fetus merely has the potential to grow into a viable organism; it isn't actually viable YET.
I'm not going to actually convince you because abortion debates typically are about how people feel about the issue, not what they rationally think.
As it happens, I do not personally agree with the use of abortion as just another method of birth control, but that it should be used only in extenuating circumstances to terminate pregnancy. That said:
1. I would never presume to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body; ultimately, she is physically sharing her body and I don't think anyone should have to do that against their will;
2. I am well aware of the social havoc unwanted pregnancies can cause (health care, crime, social services intervention, child welfare, etc) and can recite some rather alarming statistics of what unwanted pregnancies do in developed nations.
In an ideal world, very few would get pregnant by accident and of those that did, a healthy support network would be there to help, guide, and support them and the child to produce a productive adult. In reality, that is EXTREMELY rare. Unwanted pregnancies contribute to fully 16% of all criminal activity, either directly or indirectly, and account for more than half of the children's services interventions.
-
Stem cells from my leg COULD grow into another human being under the correct circumstances.
I'll belive that when I see it...in other words - never.
I'm not going to actually convince you because abortion debates typically are about how people feel about the issue, not what they rationally think.
In other words, you are rational and I am not? Typical.
I hate it when people think themselves so high and mighty, like they absorbed all the freaking knowledge of the world, and anyone who doesn't agree is ignorant, brainwashed or stupid.
I don't know for sure when life begins, and I'm not willing to take a chance with a human being. It's just not right to gamble with other peoples lives.
Also, I'd like to know where you pulled out those suspicious statistics.
-
Stem cells from my leg COULD grow into another human being under the correct circumstances.
I'll belive that when I see it...in other words - never.
Given that human cloning is banned that's a pretty neat cop out.
-
In other words, you are rational and I am not? Typical.
That's not what he meant and you know it. He was talking about you approaching the issue too emotionally, letting your feelings muddy the waters of what should be a rational discussion.
I hate it when people think themselves so high and mighty, like they absorbed all the freaking knowledge of the world, and anyone who doesn't agree is ignorant, brainwashed or stupid.
I don't know for sure when life begins, and I'm not willing to take a chance with a human being. It's just not right to gamble with other peoples lives.
I like what you did there. You argue that we should all err on the side of caution, by which you mean your side. But of course you're right, because it's only the pro-choice side that feels completely self-absorbed, all-knowing, and decries any view contrary to their own. :rolleyes:
We're not "gambling with human lives" because we all can't decide where the heck human life begins. I totally understand where you're coming from, and if I shared your view I too would be outraged at the very notion of abortion; truly ending a human life in progress. However, the fact alone that there is a significant number of people who feel strongly for one side and the other means the issue default to the person with the most invested in this: the mother. Both sides of this debacle modern society calls a "debate" continue to bicker like children with no end in sight, and therefore the only logical choice is to leave it in the hands of the parent to make a logical, sensible and responsible choice in the matter.
-
In other words, you are rational and I am not? Typical.
That's not what he meant and you know it. He was talking about you approaching the issue too emotionally, letting your feelings muddy the waters of what should be a rational discussion.
I am being rational.
I like what you did there. You argue that we should all err on the side of caution, by which you mean your side. But of course you're right, because it's only the pro-choice side that feels completely self-absorbed, all-knowing, and decries any view contrary to their own. :rolleyes:
Did I say I was right? But I have to state that the consequences of, as you so eloquently put it "my view" are less dire.
We're not "gambling with human lives" because we all can't decide where the heck human life begins.
So how can you state you're not gambling if you don't know?
Remember, modern law dictates that the parent is ultimately responsible for his or her child, and must shoulder the burden of decision-making until the child reaches the appropriate age. Why should this be any different while the child is still in the womb?
True, but the decisions are not of the "should you kill your child yes/no" type, now are they?
Also note the bolded word.
-
True, but the decisions are not of the "should you kill your child yes/no" type, now are they?
Also note the bolded word.
Again, you're going under the pretense that your view is right and the foetus constitutes an actual human life. What is so obscene about leaving it up to the mother to decide whether her situation warrants the abortion, whether she believes it is right to have an abortion, and whether or not she considers what's growing inside her to be a human life?
-
*Summons Blaise
Russel Pascal*
That "we lose nothing" thing can be easily applied to this subject. We should consider an embryo a human being, it's the best thing to do :P
The mother can't decide. She's not going to guide her child for the rest of his/her life, she's important only for the first years of life. In other words, she's not in the right position to condemn a child to death. No one can do it.
-
Blaise Pascal's the twat behind Pascal's Wager. That hardly qualifies him as a deep thinker.
And yes that's an ad hominem but he's dead and I couldn't give a stuff.
-
I don't like Blaise Pascal, either...he's the way too religious for a philosopher. Ops, he was...
But his principle can be applied in this situation. It's better to consider the embryo a...human being.
-
It's certainly better to judge the Embryo as a Human Being if you are anti-abortion, however, if you are pro-abortion/choice, you would believe otherwise. That's the root and soul of the problem, if we decide in one direction, we suddenly are ignoring everyone who doesn't agree, that is why it has been left up to choice for the first stage of pregnancy, so we don't have one set of beliefs dictating to another.
-
Embryo is human
IF STATEMENT IS TRUE
* best consequence - Human lives on, is a productive member of society
* worst consequence - Human lives on, turns into a criminal or is miserable
IF STATEMENT IS FALSE
* best consequence - less humans on planet. Less responsibility for parents
* worst consequence - death of a defenseless human being
-
The problem is that morality is not subjective. You can't say, "Oh, okay, if you believe life begins at conception, then it begins at conception for you. But I believe the mother should determine that for herself." No. Life begins when it begins, regardless of what you or I or the mother or anyone else thinks. The mother's beliefs and feelings are irrelevant. Fire is still fire whether you believe it's caused by oxygen or phlogiston.
So, you may justify aborting a 10-week old fetus based on your belief that it's not yet a living person. But are you willing to take the chance that you could be wrong? Are you comfortable with the possibility that you may be ending a human life without knowing it?
Are you willing to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, without knowing whether the gun is loaded?
-
It's certainly better to judge the Embryo as a Human Being if you are anti-abortion, however, if you are pro-abortion/choice, you would believe otherwise. That's the root and soul of the problem, if we decide in one direction, we suddenly are ignoring everyone who doesn't agree, that is why it has been left up to choice for the first stage of pregnancy, so we don't have one set of beliefs dictating to another.
No. I'm against abortion because I see it as a barbarian action. Mefustae's statements, according to which many babies shouldn't be born, is unacceptable. Damn it, I suffered a lot...but I'm here! When a person becomes old tries to forget everything and...succeeds. No one has intention of passing his/her life thinking to the past! Why would you prevent a human being from trying to have a normal life?
And the word "abortion" doesn't refer to the act of putting an end to a pregnancy on its first stage only. It's more generalized.
Embryo is human
IF STATEMENT IS TRUE
* best consequence - Human lives on, is a productive member of society
* worst consequence - Human lives on, turns into a criminal or is miserable
IF STATEMENT IS FALSE
* best consequence - less humans on planet. Less responsibility for parents
* worst consequence - death of a defenseless human being
Perfect application of Pascal's principle :yes:
I have to say, however, that it is incomplete. The research would benefit of the use of embryos.
The problem is that morality is not subjective. You can't say, "Oh, okay, if you believe life begins at conception, then it begins at conception for you. But I believe the mother should determine that for herself." No. Life begins when it begins, regardless of what you or I or the mother or anyone else thinks. The mother's beliefs and feelings are irrelevant. Fire is still fire whether you believe it's caused by oxygen or phlogiston.
So, you may justify aborting a 10-week old fetus based on your belief that it's not yet a living person. But are you willing to take the chance that you could be wrong? Are you comfortable with the possibility that you may be ending a human life without knowing it?
Are you willing to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, without knowing whether the gun is loaded?
:yes: :yes: :yes:
-
That's a good analogy if there is actually some definite answer to the question 'where does life begin', is it at the first signs of brain activity, after all if there's no brain activity then is the child human? What about when it reacts to external stimuli? A Human who can't react to external stimuli isn't much use to humanity, after all. So, once again, it's pick and choose time depending on where you want life to begin, and the chances are that the moment of 'life' will be as early as possible for those who would oppose abortion. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but it doesn't mean they are irrefutably right either, it will always boil down to choice.
-
It doesn't matter. Even if an embryo is a potential human being, it cannot be killed. You're trying to make this discussion a matter of opinions...
Look at an embryo. Wait a few months and look at the baby.
Look at an embryo. Kill it. Wait a few months and think about the human being you killed. You're an assassin.
Preventing a human being from living is pretty much like killing him/her. No, wait...it's worse!
-
By that logic, every time a woman goes through a menstrual cycle, she is murdering thousands of children.
-
Look at an embryo. Wait a few months and look at the baby.
That happens for less than 1 in every 100 embryos. Approximately 98 in every 100 embryos are naturally aborted by the mother's body before the second trimester. An additional 1 in 100 die between the beginning of the second trimester and full term. Embryo's do not have destinies, they have probabilities of survival.
I don't see anti-abortion groups out there trying to improve the health of pregnant women (in fact, I frequently see otherwise) nor do I see them heavily involved in correcting the social ills such as malnutrition that are frequently a cause of natural emrbyonic death (not that addressing those ills would reduce that statistic much, mostly it's a product of the inefficiencies of sexual reproduction on the whole). But damn, they're good a telling a woman what she's allowed to do with a pregnancy she doesn't want for whatever reason!
The absolute irony is that its frequently people with strong religious convictions that are anti-abortion; and I do not use the term pro-life for a very specific reason which I am about to elaborate upon.
Oddly enough, religious institutions are possibly the most selectively pro-life groups on the planet. In many cases they're almost pro-death. I'm going to skip over the obvious history of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (to pick on three good examples) throughout the past two millenia and their various holy wars, persecutions, oppressions, and state-sanctioned mass slayings and move straight to present day.
-Mid-1990s: A series of Catholic Cardinals issue a statement opposing the distribution and use of condoms in a series of addresses across the African continent, notably in Christian-populated areas. Africa contains the vast majority of the world's active HIV cases which are passed between heterosexual couples. Death toll to date due to HIV/AIDS and its social consequences through war, famine, and secondary illness: some 30 million people.
-Catholicism, strict Judaism, and strict Islam still condemn equal treatment of women and access to health care for women in certain circumstances. Theoretical maximum fertility rate of an average woman: 13.0 children. Actual maximum average number of children to average women in particular nations in Africa and in social groups denying women health care access and birth control: ~9.0 children per woman. Reason for discrepancy: persistence of sexually transmitted disease and inadequate pre-, peri-, and post-natal care during pregnancies lead to high rates of sponatenous (natural) misscarriage.
-High rates of HIV/AIDS infection in third world nations are directly linked to the state of women's health care. In regions where access to health care for women is prohibited on religious groups, infection rates more than quadruple. HIV transmission is largely eliminated when women are at reduced risk of infection (that is, men get HIV more frequently from women than do women from men).
-Islam prohibits abortion due to the "killing" of an unborn fetus, yet many of the same Islamic sects openly support or quietly condone suicide bombings, martyrdom, murder, and open warfare on religious and political groups.
-Strict Judaism prohibits abortion, yet Israel as a nation has directly contributed to thousands/millions of Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian deaths over the past 50 years; those nations have killed innocent Jews by the thousands in turn, all the while extremists in both prohibit the abortion of early embryos.
So, the next sanctinmonious ******d belonging to a religious institution who wants to tell me that a woman should not have the right to intervene in the probability of embryonic development because you're killing a person should have a good long reflection on their belief set.
A basic understanding of biology will tell you rather simply that an early embryo is not yet a person, it merely has some unknown probability of becoming one.
Even if it were a person and you want to engage in a moral argument, we kill people on a daily basis for all kinds of beliefs, so I would quite willingly sacrifice a few undeveloped totipotent cells bundles if it lowers the crime rate, reduces social chaos associated with the problems of unwanted pregnancies, and simultaneously improves the overall health of women and the general population. We do it with fully grown adults (in which probability is not a factor; they ARE human beings) on a daily basis. Call me immoral/amoral or a monster all you like; deluding yourself into thinking that humans as a society share life and protect it, especially among children, unborn children, and those embryos with the potential to become children will not make it so.
-
Perfect application of Pascal's principle :yes:
And like all applications of Pascal's wager so ridiculously simple as to miss the point.
1. A collection of 8 cells being any more a human life than a sperm and egg that haven't yet contacted each other is a religious point of view. Don't ****ing kid yourself that it comes down to anything other than whether or not we get souls at conception or not. There are animals with much more capacity to feel pain or emotions that humans will quite happily snuff out without a care in the world because they are tasty, annoying or simply were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
2. Whether or not you can abort a collection of 16 cells has absolutely nothing to do with it's potential to become a human either. Pro-life believe it already is, Pro-choice believe it isn't yet and won't be until it has a central nervous system.So lets stop arguing about whether it will become a human or not. That's a complete non-issue.
3. Since it is a religious point why can't those of you who are religious leave those of us who aren't the **** alone. So we go to hell. We don't care. We don't believe in it anyway. And we don't appreciate you attempting to force us to act the way you think we should act to protect us from going to an eternal torment we don't ****ing believe in anyway.
-
By that logic, every time a woman goes through a menstrual cycle, she is murdering thousands of children.
No, those are only the bricks of life. They're not a human being...not alone. :P
-
^^ what he said. Eggs and sperm alone are not meant to nor designed to grow into a human.
Also, don't even try to make this a religion vs science thing. Because at its root - its not. Naming a few examples of bad decisions from one side isn't going to get you anywhere, because people on both sides of the argument have been stupid.
-
Because at its root - its not. aming a few examples of bad decisions from one side isn't going to get you anywhere, because people on both sides of the argument have been stupid.
Therefore, the only logical course of action is to leave the ultimate choice to the person with the most invested in the decision; the mother.
I'm not going to play the sexism card because I actually don't believe that's what it is, but i'd really like to know why some people believe that a woman can't make a responsible choice for her child. Because, in the end, who's ****ing business is it of anyone but the mother what she chooses to do with her body. Remember, the foetus is attached to her, it needs her to survive, and thus it can quite literally be considered a part of her.
-
It should also be mentioned that part of the reason that couples used to 'time' their sexual activity was because it could work as a form of contraception. Any eggs that were fertilised were flushed out with the infertile ones during menstruation if fertilisation took place at a particular point in the cycle. It still happens accidentally all the time.
Edit: Basically, timing intercourse is often considered a means of getting pregnant, and it can be, but it can also be used as a means of avoiding it, though by no means a reliable one.
-
Catholicism, strict Judaism, and strict Islam still condemn equal treatment of women and access to health care for women in certain circumstances.
Eh? Since when do catholics condem equal treatment of women? :wtf:
As for the "it's just a bunch of cells" argument - so are you when you think about it. Why do I think human life begins at conception?
Simply - growth begins at that point. The plains are laid, the development started.
-
-High rates of HIV/AIDS infection in third world nations are directly linked to the state of women's health care. In regions where access to health care for women is prohibited on religious groups, infection rates more than quadruple. HIV transmission is largely eliminated when women are at reduced risk of infection (that is, men get HIV more frequently from women than do women from men).
Let's not forget that the HIV infection percentages in many African states are about 1/3 of the population and rising.
-
By that logic, every time a woman goes through a menstrual cycle, she is murdering thousands of children.
No, those are only the bricks of life. They're not a human being...not alone. :P
But it's lost potential.
I thought that's what mattered. Those stem cells are essentially just potential as well, and are still just bricks. There's no guarantee they will develop to form a child.
As Flipside said, fertilized eggs can even be flushed out.
-
Because at its root - its not. aming a few examples of bad decisions from one side isn't going to get you anywhere, because people on both sides of the argument have been stupid.
Therefore, the only logical course of action is to leave the ultimate choice to the person with the most invested in the decision; the mother.
I'm not going to play the sexism card because I actually don't believe that's what it is, but i'd really like to know why some people believe that a woman can't make a responsible choice for her child. Because, in the end, who's ****ing business is it of anyone but the mother what she chooses to do with her body. Remember, the foetus is attached to her, it needs her to survive, and thus it can quite literally be considered a part of her.
If thats what you think logic is.... then by that same logic, a mother would have the right to kill the child at any time before it reaches adolescence. Because a child for many years after it is born needs its mother in order to survive. When a woman gets pregnant, it is not just her body anymore (so the argument goes).
Like mothers decisions are always infallible? I'm not sure what planet you're from, but I personally know so-called 'mothers' that have made bad bad BAD decisions for their children. And beyond that, of course, are stories like mothers killing or leaving their children in dumpsters etc.
So if you're saying that I believe a woman can't make a responsible choice for her child... I'd say you're completely correct. Because women and mothers are people. They can be stupid. They can be selfish. They can be evil. Just like everybody else.
-
Just like everybody else.
Exactly! So why should the choice be up to an arbitrary body of people that are similarly stupid, selfish and evil? If we're all stupid, selfish and evil - and we are - then I must pose the question yet again: Why is it so obscene to leave the ultimate choice in this matter to the person with the most invested in the decision; namely, the mother?
-
Just like everybody else.
Exactly! So why should the choice be up to an arbitrary body of people that are similarly stupid, selfish and evil? If we're all stupid, selfish and evil - and we are - then I must pose the question yet again: Why is it so obscene to leave the ultimate choice in this matter to the person with the most invested in the decision; namely, the mother?
You and I are thinking alike, my friend. Lets just abolish government and laws completely because the person who knows best is always the person present. ANARCHY ANARCHY ANARCHY
(on a slightly less sarcastic note... wouldn't the person with the most invested in the decision be.... the child? I'm just asking)
-
:wtf:
-
:wtf: :wtf:
-
(on a slightly less sarcastic note... wouldn't the person with the most invested in the decision be.... the child? I'm just asking)
Oh, right, how could I have forgotten. The "child", which may or may not be considered an actual human being, and regardless has no voice of opinion of its own! You're right, that little foetus does have more invested in the decision, but unfortunately it hasn't got a mouth, vocal cords, or even a brain with which for formulate an opinion, let alone express it. Therefore, as in the modern legal world, when a child is incapable of making a decision, the matter defaults to the parent.
And yet, you would have that decision default to an arbitrary group of strangers completely ignorant of the individual situation the woman and the foetus are in. Where exactly is the logic in that?
-
It should also be mentioned that part of the reason that couples used to 'time' their sexual activity was because it could work as a form of contraception. Any eggs that were fertilised were flushed out with the infertile ones during menstruation if fertilisation took place at a particular point in the cycle. It still happens accidentally all the time.
That's actually a very good point Flipside. Because the Roman Catholic church doesn't agree with other forms of contraception it supports the use of the Rhythm Method and other similar Natural Family Planning methods of contraception. Furthermore the Catholic church doesn't even allow withdrawal methods of contraception. The sperm must end up in the vagina.
So in other words if you believe that the life begins at conception the fact is that the Catholic Church's position on contraception is take no steps to prevent the formation of new lives and just hope the body rejects them in time so they die. If you believe that life begins at conception then this practice has ended more lives than abortion ever will. So before having a go at everyone else Catholics need to take a good long look at their religion and at the very least start allowing withdrawal as a method of contraception.
Hell even the ****ing Iranians allow that one! :rolleyes:
-
(on a slightly less sarcastic note... wouldn't the person with the most invested in the decision be.... the child? I'm just asking)
Oh, right, how could I have forgotten. The "child", which may or may not be considered an actual human being, and regardless has no voice of opinion of its own! You're right, that little foetus does have more invested in the decision, but unfortunately it hasn't got a mouth, vocal cords, or even a brain with which for formulate an opinion, let alone express it. Therefore, as in the modern legal world, when a child is incapable of making a decision, the matter defaults to the parent.
And yet, you would have that decision default to an arbitrary group of strangers completely ignorant of the individual situation the woman and the foetus are in. Where exactly is the logic in that?
You're assuming an awful lot by saying it has no opinion of its own. And because it can't speak, it doesn't deserve life? Shall we euthanize the blind and deaf? And who says it is incapable of making a decision? I have friends who are mothers who would wholeheartedly disagree. I've felt the kicks the 'fetus' can make as evidence. You're just going back to the old conceited argument that you KNOW that an embryo can't be alive.
Look, I'm all against the government sticking their nose into our lives, but on matters of life and death - I think that is one of the few areas where the government -should- have a say. imo - Time and energy should be spent on adoptions if so needed - not abortion clinics.
-
You're assuming an awful lot by saying it has no opinion of its own. And because it can't speak, it doesn't deserve life? Shall we euthanize the blind and deaf? And who says it is incapable of making a decision? I have friends who are mothers who would wholeheartedly disagree. I've felt the kicks the 'fetus' can make as evidence. You're just going back to the old conceited argument that you KNOW that an embryo can't be alive.
You're taking the piss, right? You're implying that something that hasn't even grown a brain yet can formulate an opinion? Now, i've always found the idea of instinct and genetic memory to be really cool, but to take it to such an extreme as to say a foetus has a desire to survive before it's even developed sentience is going a tad far.
Regardless, you'll notice that my post that you quoted didn't actually refer to a foetus as a human being or not, merely that it has no opinion on this matter. Thus, the decision defaults to the mother as the primary participant in the matter.
-
You're assuming an awful lot by saying it has no opinion of its own. And because it can't speak, it doesn't deserve life? Shall we euthanize the blind and deaf? And who says it is incapable of making a decision? I have friends who are mothers who would wholeheartedly disagree. I've felt the kicks the 'fetus' can make as evidence. You're just going back to the old conceited argument that you KNOW that an embryo can't be alive.
You're taking the piss, right? You're implying that something that hasn't even grown a brain yet can formulate an opinion? Now, i've always found the idea of instinct and genetic memory to be really cool, but to take it to such an extreme as to say a foetus has a desire to survive before it's even developed sentience is going a tad far.
Regardless, you'll notice that my post that you quoted didn't actually refer to a foetus as a human being or not, merely that it has no opinion on this matter. Thus, the decision defaults to the mother as the primary participant in the matter.
Can a newborn 'formulate an opinion?' How do we know it has an opinion? Because we can then see it with our own two eyes? On your own terms, an infant isn't really alive either. It merely makes sounds, moves, and is multi-cellular.
An embryo - from the get-go, is an individual human entity. Does it even matter if we can communicate with it? Call it whatever you want. A human embryo, a human fetus, a human infant. It is a human. You don't end a human's life because it doesn't contribute an opinion.
-
A fetus is merely a potential child you say?
In a sense that's true. There's no way to tell the future - the mother can have a natural abortion, complications may arise, heck, she might get killed tomorrow by a falling brick together with a child. So in a way it is a potential future adult.
BUT assuming everything goes alright and no one interferes with it's development it WILL become a baby.
You have a child? Well it's only a potential adult, since it may decide to kill itself or it may die due to some freak accident/desease before it reaches adulthood. But we KNOW that it WILL become an adult wihtout our interferance and baring some tragic event that's OUT OF OUR CONTROL.
So shooting the kid and using the "it's just a potential adult" phrase is a fallacy. Concetrating on what you don't know instead of what you do is a step in the wrong direction. It's not about the child/fetus dying. It's about you pulling the trigger - it's about control.
So in other words if you believe that the life begins at conception the fact is that the Catholic Church's position on contraception is take no steps to prevent the formation of new lives and just hope the body rejects them in time so they die. If you believe that life begins at conception then this practice has ended more lives than abortion ever will. So before having a go at everyone else Catholics need to take a good long look at their religion and at the very least start allowing withdrawal as a method of contraception.
Where do you get this one?
And especially the underlined. That statement makes no sense at all.
-
Can a newborn 'formulate an opinion?' How do we know it has an opinion? Because we can then see it with our own two eyes? On your own terms, an infant isn't really alive either. It merely makes sounds, moves, and is multi-cellular.
The difference is that there is no debate as to whether a newborn baby constitutes a human life. Therefore, any comparison is moot.
An embryo - from the get-go, is an individual human entity. Does it even matter if we can communicate with it? Call it whatever you want. A human embryo, a human fetus, a human infant. It is a human. You don't end a human's life because it doesn't contribute an opinion.
I disagree. Many other people disagree. In fact, a whole lot of people disagree with that. Of course, a whole lot of people agree completely with you. The fact of the matter is that it's not a clear-cut case, and as everyone can't agree then we have no right to force one view or the other on women considering abortion.
Therefore, the only fair thing to do is to leave it up to the mother. If she believes her foetus is a human life, she won't have the baby. If she doesn't, she's free to make that choice. What business is it of any of ours to force any one view upon her?
-
I disagree. Many other people disagree. In fact, a whole lot of people disagree with that. Of course, a whole lot of people agree completely with you. The fact of the matter is that it's not a clear-cut case, and as everyone can't agree then we have no right to force one view or the other on women considering abortion.
Willing to bet that I can find people who won't agree on some pretty common moral norms or scientific facts?
I can find people who believe cannibalism is O.K. So by your logic, since not everyone agrees, we have no right to force our view on them.
I can find people who believe a whole lot of sick stuff. So by your logic, since not everyone agrees, we have no right to force our view on them.
The gist of the matter is - better to err on the side of caution, then to err on the side of convenience.
-
The gist of the matter is - better to err on the my side, then to err on the side of anyone else
Fixed that for you, mate. :doubt:
I know i'm not going to convince you, but I might as well get my point across: We're talking about major slices of society, not just fringe groups or loonies. With major debate and no end in sight, then the only fair decision is to pick neither side and leave it up to the mother. To neither advise abortions nor restrict them, just leave it up to the woman that has to go in and get a vacuum cleaner stuck where the sun don't shine.
Now how about you challenge that notion, rather than just repeating how right you are and how wrong abortion is. Eh?
-
I can find people who believe cannibalism is O.K. So by your logic, since not everyone agrees, we have no right to force our view on them.
We don't. But they don't have the right to force their belief that cannibalism is okay on people who think it isn't. Which means they're pretty much stuck for people to eat.
So in other words if you believe that the life begins at conception the fact is that the Catholic Church's position on contraception is take no steps to prevent the formation of new lives and just hope the body rejects them in time so they die. If you believe that life begins at conception then this practice has ended more lives than abortion ever will. So before having a go at everyone else Catholics need to take a good long look at their religion and at the very least start allowing withdrawal as a method of contraception.
Where do you get this one?
And especially the underlined. That statement makes no sense at all.
I would have thought the chain of logic was pretty easy to follow.
If you don't use condoms you get more eggs fertilised. You believe that fertilised eggs are a human life. Yet the Catholic Church insists that married couples use family planning methods that result in more eggs being fertilised and simply hoping that they don't get to implant in time to lead to a pregnancy.
In other words, more dead embryos than using a condom.
-
I can find people who believe cannibalism is O.K. So by your logic, since not everyone agrees, we have no right to force our view on them.
We don't. But they don't have the right to force their belief that cannibalism is okay on people who think it isn't. Which means they're pretty much stuck for people to eat.
You think they would ask politely "Can I eat you"? :wtf:
I would have thought the chain of logic was pretty easy to follow.
If you don't use condoms you get more eggs fertilised. You believe that fertilised eggs are a human life. Yet the Catholic Church insists that married couples use family planning methods that result in more eggs being fertilised and simply hoping that they don't get to implant in time to lead to a pregnancy.
In other words, more dead embryos than using a condom.
It's not... planing intercourse significantly reduces chances of fertilisation. If eggs do get fertilised, what makes you think they will result in a dead embryo? :wtf:
They would result in pregnancy, but how that will end up is anyone guess. Probably OK unless you actually plan on having an abortion.
Fixed that for you, mate.
I know i'm not going to convince you, but I might as well get my point across: We're talking about major slices of society, not just fringe groups or loonies. With major debate and no end in sight, then the only fair decision is to pick neither side and leave it up to the mother. To neither advise abortions nor restrict them, just leave it up to the woman that has to go in and get a vacuum cleaner stuck where the sun don't shine.
Now how about you challenge that notion, rather than just repeating how right you are and how wrong abortion is. Eh?
How conveniently it is to just ignore the consequences of your actions, isn't it?
Tell you what - I believe your life is worthless. Clearly we won't agree on that matter. therefore it's impossible to tell what is right. Since your life MAY be worthless, Why don't I just shoot you right now.
-
BUT assuming everything goes alright and no one interferes with it's development it WILL become a baby.
If eggs do get fertilised, what makes you think they will result in a dead embryo?
Because, as you among others conveniently ignored, fertilized eggs do result in a dead embryo 98% of the time, and a dead fetus about 1% of the time. Only 1% (or possibly less) of actual fertilizations and embryonic development result in a living, breathing child at the end of the gestational period.
You want to talk about killing people after 20 weeks gestation, then you go right ahead, but by every means that we actually define a human life a developing embryo is not even remotely a person until at least that point.
However, as Mefustae has been reiterating over and over, this is a contentious issue and the debate is not going away. In the absence of social consensus, reasonable, progressive, democractic nations err on the side of human freedoms and provide freedom of choice to human beings who we KNOW exist and we KNOW are going to impacted by the decision, rather than relying on the what-if factor.
Morally, I don't agree with women using abortion as a simple, ordinary means of birth control, but:
1. That case is rare anyway; relatively few abortions are the result of an ordinary accidental pregnancy.
2. I wouldn't dream of letting my personal morals directly, significantly, and continually impact the individual lives in which I have no stake.
I notice nobody bothered to address my points on how the organizations that are the biggest anti-abortion advocates kill fully developed adults and children on a daily basis either. I'd like that hypocrisy explained somewhere if you want to keep going on about how wrong it is to kill embryos.
-
I can find people who believe cannibalism is O.K. So by your logic, since not everyone agrees, we have no right to force our view on them.
We don't. But they don't have the right to force their belief that cannibalism is okay on people who think it isn't. Which means they're pretty much stuck for people to eat.
You think they would ask politely "Can I eat you"? :wtf:
If they wanted their cannibalism to not be considered a crime they would have to. I have no problem with two cannibals of sound mind eating each other. The problem is that they'd have to prove themselves of sound mind and I suspect that's the hurdle they'd fall at, not whether it is moral to eat another human being. As long as both parties are willing why is it anyone else's business?
You're trying to turn it into some stupid comment about how it is okay to allow a cannibal to attack and kill random people off the street which is a complete strawman as you damn well know.
It's not... planing intercourse significantly reduces chances of fertilisation. If eggs do get fertilised, what makes you think they will result in a dead embryo? :wtf:
They would result in pregnancy, but how that will end up is anyone guess. Probably OK unless you actually plan on having an abortion.
Go back and study some biology before you try telling me I'm wrong.
Fertilisation != pregnancy. A woman is not pregnant until the embryo has implanted. Something that usually occurs 6 days after fertilisation if it occurs!
Many fertilisations do NOT result in implantation and thus do not result in pregnancy. In many cases this is because the couple using the Rhythm Method deliberately avoid intercourse so that fertilisation only occurs during the time it is unlikely to result in implantation.
The Rhythm Method results in a lot more fertilisations than barrier contraception does. So if you do believe that life begins at conception it's a pretty callous method of birth control. The couple deliberately abstain from sex during the time of the month when sex will result in pregnancy and only have sex during the time when fertilisation may occur but the embryo will most likely die since it is unlikely to implant.
-
And to claim that life only begins once the egg is implanted in the wall of the womb and growing would be a perfect example of what I meant by the moment of life being 'where it is convenient' for what you accept personally.
Thing is, if, all of a sudden, it got moved forward a couple of days, why not a couple of weeks or months? It's already proved that the moment of life moves around for convenience, so why should it be to one particular groups convenience alone?
-
And to claim that life only begins once the egg is implanted in the wall of the womb and growing would be a perfect example of what I meant by the moment of life being 'where it is convenient' for what you accept personally.
Thing is, if, all of a sudden, it got moved forward a couple of days, why not a couple of weeks or months? It's already proved that the moment of life moves around for convenience, so why should it be to one particular groups convenience alone?
I'm not against abortion just because I consider an embryo a human being. The fact that the embryo is a potential human being is sufficient.
-
I'll have to look into some of those statements.. My biology is a little rusty (had a crappy professor sadly)
-
And to claim that life only begins once the egg is implanted in the wall of the womb and growing would be a perfect example of what I meant by the moment of life being 'where it is convenient' for what you accept personally.
Thing is, if, all of a sudden, it got moved forward a couple of days, why not a couple of weeks or months? It's already proved that the moment of life moves around for convenience, so why should it be to one particular groups convenience alone?
I'm not against abortion just because I consider an embryo a human being. The fact that the embryo is a potential human being is sufficient.
The embryo is a potential human being. This is true. But so is a sperm cell. So is an ovum. These are both potential human parts. Does a bundle of cells need your protection? Does it have rights? It is human by definition, of course. But a person? Do you consider this to be a person? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg) It cannot think. I doubt it could feel. It has not made a single decision in the short period it has been an organized structure of cells. If you allow it to grow, sure. But for now, it is just another step along the road to creating a thinking, feeling, deciding person, just like your sperm cells are right now. Your sperm cells have exactly the same amount of sentience as a newly-fertilized egg. An embryo has no rights because it is not a person. It has no thoughts, it has no feelings. It is the preparation, the groundwork for a human being to grow from. It is not a person, it has no personality, it has no culture, it is just an embryo. It is body, not mind, not soul. It is barely even that. How do you define "person"?
-
And to claim that life only begins once the egg is implanted in the wall of the womb and growing would be a perfect example of what I meant by the moment of life being 'where it is convenient' for what you accept personally.
Thing is, if, all of a sudden, it got moved forward a couple of days, why not a couple of weeks or months? It's already proved that the moment of life moves around for convenience, so why should it be to one particular groups convenience alone?
I'm not against abortion just because I consider an embryo a human being. The fact that the embryo is a potential human being is sufficient.
The embryo is a potential human being. This is true. But so is a sperm cell. So is an ovum. These are both potential human parts. Does a bundle of cells need your protection? Does it have rights? It is human by definition, of course. But a person? Do you consider this to be a person? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg) It cannot think. I doubt it could feel. It has not made a single decision in the short period it has been an organized structure of cells. If you allow it to grow, sure. But for now, it is just another step along the road to creating a thinking, feeling, deciding person, just like your sperm cells are right now. Your sperm cells have exactly the same amount of sentience as a newly-fertilized egg. An embryo has no rights because it is not a person. It has no thoughts, it has no feelings. It is the preparation, the groundwork for a human being to grow from. It is not a person, it has no personality, it has no culture, it is just an embryo. It is body, not mind, not soul. It is barely even that. How do you define "person"?
No, not really. Of themselves they have no potential to become and individual whatsoever.
I myself, just as you are (unless you are a robot, as some may suspect), a bundle of cells. Mixed chromosomes. I am: neither my father nor my mother ever since conception. And boy... am I glad I survived Roe vs. Wade.
And once again... you do not know if it has a 'personality', a 'culture', nor 'soul'. You said yourself it is just based upon doubt. Now that seems like a hasty assumption. Are you willing to bet upon the stakes of another person's life for that?
-
And once again... you do not know if it has a 'personality', a 'culture', nor 'soul'. You said yourself it is just based upon doubt. Now that seems like a hasty assumption. Are you willing to bet upon the stakes of another person's life for that?
You're working on a completely baseless proposition: That an embryo or foetus can form personality or is capable of decision-making processes. Since there is quite literally no evidence to suggest anything of the sort, why even consider it? For that matter, since there is no evidence to back up your opinion, why should that opinion be held in any higher regard at all against any other? We're seeing a lot of "maybes", "probablys" and other assumptions, but when it comes down to it, most people weighing in on this discussion don't really know all that much. In fact, that's actually the case for this entire debate in modern society, in that most people who like to weigh in with their opinion really don't know squat about the fine details.
Therefore, as no clear option appears to be the 'right' one, we must leave the decision up to the person who will undergo the procedure: The mother. The will of the foetus is irrelevant as it is yet to be even suggested that the foetus has a will of its own.
And boy... am I glad I survived Roe vs. Wade.
Your parents considered aborting you? And they actually told you they had considered aborting you?! :wtf:
-
And once again... you do not know if it has a 'personality', a 'culture', nor 'soul'. You said yourself it is just based upon doubt. Now that seems like a hasty assumption. Are you willing to bet upon the stakes of another person's life for that?
You're working on a completely baseless proposition: That an embryo or foetus can form personality or is capable of decision-making processes. Since there is quite literally no evidence to suggest anything of the sort, why even consider it? For that matter, since there is no evidence to back up your opinion, why should that opinion be held in any higher regard at all against any other? We're seeing a lot of "maybes", "probablys" and other assumptions, but when it comes down to it, most people weighing in on this discussion don't really know all that much. In fact, that's actually the case for this entire debate in modern society, in that most people who like to weigh in with their opinion really don't know squat about the fine details.
Therefore, as no clear option appears to be the 'right' one, we must leave the decision up to the person who will undergo the procedure: The mother. The will of the foetus is irrelevant as it is yet to be even suggested that the foetus has a will of its own.
And boy... am I glad I survived Roe vs. Wade.
Your parents considered aborting you? And they actually told you they had considered aborting you?! :wtf:
Based on the limited science that certain people profess to 'know'.... We really don't know. There really ARE a lot of maybes and probablys.
Pro-abortionists are also working on completely baseless propositions. That the embryo ISN'T capable of deciding, or doesn't have a personality (which to me and many others is an absolutely ridiculous assumption). At that point, it basically becomes eugenics all over again - because you're classifying a human by what it is or isn't capable of doing. There is also no evidence that the embryo doesn't have a will of its own.
And I agree that it should be left up to the mother in certain circumstances. For example: rape victims, or where the mother's life is in serious jeopardy from complications in the pregnancy etc.
But abortions of convenience: no.
-
Pretty ****ing hard to have a personality or culture when you're a bundle of 8 cells and have no brain yet though surely?
Will you at least agree that an early embryo hasn't got an of the features Koopa mentioned (except for a soul which is quite frankly unprovable in either direction).
-
Pretty ****ing hard to have a personality or culture when you're a bundle of 8 cells and have no brain yet though surely?
Will you at least agree that an early embryo hasn't got an of the features Koopa mentioned (except for a soul which is quite frankly unprovable in either direction).
I'm not going to say that it *doesn't* have them because I really don't know. But I can certainly see where you're coming from - and you already know this was coming, but its not necessarily culture or personality that makes it human. At least, not the definition of culture or personality that you're thinking of. But there really is no way to tell. Do we even know if a newborn infant is capable of having its own personality or culture? Or is it just inherited from the parent? I personally -believe- that a large part of who a person is begins right at conception. You are your DNA, after all. Or, pray-tell, are you actually saying that there is such a thing as the soul?!?!!? *gasp*
-
Of course I'm not saying that there is such a thing. Re-read my post.
And no you are not your DNA.
I'm not going to say that it *doesn't* have them because I really don't know.
But then if you're going to use the I really don't know argument how can you say any animal doesn't have them? Do you have an objection to killing flies? Cause a fly has a much more advanced brain than an 8 cell embryo. Are you going to try to say we know flies don't have culture?
-
Well, there's no denying that the embryo IS a complete human (as in - everything that needs to come together for it to form, has...the only thing it needs is time), while the sperms by itself, or just the egg aren't.. or skin cells for that matter.
As for the embryo death rates - I don't know where you got the 99% death numbers but I'm HIGHLY sceptical of them.
Alternativly, this is the issue of CONTROL.
There is difference in just letting things go their natural way and activly trying to stop such procedures.
I have no influence on wether the embryo will implant or not. However, once it's implanted, I do have a influence on letting it stay there or not (a.k.a. - abortion)
when given an option, I'll always give life a chance - even a small one.
-
Yes, it is an issue of control, and who exerts it on whom, and why.
That's the problem.
-
There is a difference between choosing to end a pregnancy naturally and choosing to abort. No one is saying that there isn't. But if you truly believe that life begins at conception it's pretty callous to say "Well they are dying naturally so I don't care" Lots of people in the 3rd world are dying naturally of diseases. I guess since that's natural we don't need to lift a finger to stop it either.
If you truly believe that life begins at conception you shouldn't be willing to create life until you are ready to carry it to term. That means either using contraception or completely abstaining from sex even after marriage except when trying to have children.
To do otherwise is to display a very hypocritical level of insensitivity to the death of your own children.
EDIT : Just to qualify that, there is another option, just have as many kids as you happen to have without using any form of family planning/contraception.
-
Wrong. Family planing is OK.
There's nothing wrong with it, since the child always has a CHANCE to be born, at least. Abortion = no chance. at all.
-
But family planning is a case of trying to make sure it doesn't get born, even if the egg is fertilised, whether that succeeds or not is irrelevant. The only difference is that Abortion is a medical procedure and has a <> 100% success rate, whereas family planning is not, however the intention behind both acts is to prevent the birth of a child.
-
Well, there's no denying that the embryo IS a complete human (as in - everything that needs to come together for it to form, has...the only thing it needs is time), while the sperms by itself, or just the egg aren't.. or skin cells for that matter.
I guess I have several complete humans sitting in both legs, all they have to do is be prompted with a little electrical shock.
"Time" is not the simple factor you make it out to be. Timing is probably the most complicated factor in all of genetics. That's why so many embryos do not development.
As for the embryo death rates - I don't know where you got the 99% death numbers but I'm HIGHLY sceptical of them.
You can be skeptical all you like, but until you disprove them you'd better respect them. Consider that I have a 5-year education in molecular genetics, including focusses on immunology and developmental genetics. Or, even better, look it up for yourself.
It's one thing for you to argue opinion, its quite another to outright deny biological fact merely because it doesn't fit your belief system. Look it up if you think I'm making up numbers.
-
Just to get things into perspective here - we talking about abortion in general (as in, no matter how old the embryo/foetus is) or just the very early abortion/very late abortion.
I just want to know WHEN do you guys consider abortion a bad decision.
EDIT: If those numbers are correct then I have to re-think my position.
-
Wrong. Family planing is OK.
There's nothing wrong with it, since the child always has a CHANCE to be born, at least. Abortion = no chance. at all.
Let me walk you though an example. We have two couples. Couple A use the combined contraceptive pill and a barrier method (condoms). If that fails and they woman gets pregnant they have decided to have an abortion. Couple B use traditional Christian family planning methods. Both couples have already had as many children as they want to have.
Since couple A are using the pill the wife doesn't ovulate (much). When she does the sperm find it hard to get past the cervix anyway. The chances of her actually getting an egg fertilised is low.
Couple B are using the Rhythm Method. They're using the most draconian version which means they abstain from sex from the end of the woman's period until the end of her fertile cycle. Despite this the couple will still get several more eggs successfully fertilised than couple A. They are counting on the failure of implantation or early miscarriage (within the first month) to prevent the women from ever getting noticeably pregnant.
Couple B will kill more embryos during the remainder of their marriage than Couple A will. Couple A have taken every step they can to prevent fertilisation short of abstaining. Couple B have taken every step a good Catholic can take but their efforts are still not as good as couple A. Hell Couple A could probably have a couple of abortions and STILL not kill as many embryos as couple B.
Your argument is to say well Couple A choose to have the abortion. My counter-argument is that it doesn't matter. If abortion is premeditated murder as some pro-life people like to claim then the Rhythm Method and other NFP methods are murder by reckless disregard.
The simple fact is that no matter what you like to claim Couple A are doing nothing that Couple B aren't doing. The only difference is that they know when they are doing it. (or at least know more often when they are doing it). Couple B know that their chosen method of contraception will kill several embryos. They ignore it. Couple A hope to never have to kill an embryo but when the woman does become pregnant they choose to terminate.
So it comes down to this. Lets assume that an embryo is alive, with all the rights you believe it should have. What number of babies are couple B allowed to kill by not caring that they die before what they are doing becomes more wrong than a single planned abortion?
Actually think about that question. I know you want to try to say it's different but is it really? Do a couple who will let several babies die by doing nothing really have less guilt than a couple who kill a single baby?
-
Haha. That is funny.
-
Just to get things into perspective here - we talking about abortion in general (as in, no matter how old the embryo/foetus is) or just the very early abortion/very late abortion.
I just want to know WHEN do you guys consider abortion a bad decision.
When do I personally feel that abortion should not be a parental consideration? ~20 weeks gestation.
When do I feel abortion should no longer be a legal option? When the baby is actually born. Until that point, the parents have absolute right to decide, in particular the mother.
EDIT: If those numbers are correct then I have to re-think my position.
Y'think? =)
-
*SNIP*
Just FYI, as growing up in a Catholic family I can tell you that catholics consider all forms of contraception and... "nonprocreative sexual activity" :wtf: immoral. So Couple B shouldn't even be using rhythm.
Unless we're not talking about catholics, in which case you can define "christians" in whatever way you want.
-
Orthodox Catholics barely believe in going to the bog.
-
Just FYI, as growing up in a Catholic family I can tell you that catholics consider all forms of contraception and... "nonprocreative sexual activity" :wtf: immoral. So Couple B shouldn't even be using rhythm.
You what?
1. You've just ruled out post menopausal women having sex. Ever. I've certainly never heard a priest say they can't.
2. Various popes have said that marital sex for non procreative reasons is just fine. There's a long article about the subject here (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html).
3. At least two popes I can think of have said that Natural Family Planning is fine. Pope Pious XII actually referred to the Rhythm Method itself while John Paul II referred to several different forms of NFP.
On July 17, 1994, John Paul II clarified the Church's position during a meditation said prior an angelus recitation.
Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood ... as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so.
Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child.
Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.
EDIT : Oh **** it. Here's the paragraph from the Humanae Vitae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html). Don't argue I'm wrong. Take it up with the Vatican's webmaster now or Pope Paul VI after you die.
Recourse to Infertile Periods
16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
-
Root of the problem in cartoon form: http://www.snafu-comics.com/?strip_id=217
-
Root of the problem in cartoon form: http://www.snafu-comics.com/?strip_id=217
:lol:
wow
Not quite it, but I like this guys idea.
^sarcasm
-
1. You've just ruled out post menopausal women having sex. Ever. I've certainly never heard a priest say they can't.
2. Various popes have said that marital sex for non procreative reasons is just fine. There's a long article about the subject here (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html).
3. At least two popes I can think of have said that Natural Family Planning is fine. Pope Pious XII actually referred to the Rhythm Method itself while John Paul II referred to several different forms of NFP.
:eek2: Talk about research! Thanks KJ, you taught me what I "should have" learned in Sunday School. Maybe if you taught it I'd have paid attention. But thanks, I didn't know what I was talking about.
-
Not a problem. I do find it funny that Catholics don't seem to actually listen to the pope that much though.
I spent years arguing with Catholics about evolution before noticing that Pope John Paul II had actually come out and said that Darwin was correct years earlier but no one had actually paid attention. :rolleyes: :D
-
Like anything pertaining to religion or philosophy opinions tend to go back and forth. Also, there are many things that the church "frowns upon" but doesn't exactly rule out, such as cremation. So all that really matters (if you want to be technical about it) is what the church most recently says, which Wikipedia, interestingly enough, has an entire page devoted to the topic. And yes, it hardly mentions John Paul II's comment. I mean, you can't take everything a politician says as fact; one statement is more likely a screwup than a reasoned decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
Apparent conclusion: Vatican still hasn't made up its mind. Not trying to make any points here, just FYI.
-
Actually the position of the Vatican seems to be that they have made up their mind on evolution (It's virtually the same as the science version) but they haven't decided on abiogenesis yet.
To be honest they're actually taking a more sensible position on the subject than most of the other Abrahamic religions. Their point of view seems to based around the premise that science can't explain the soul, that's up to religion. Given that the existence or non-existence of the soul is a philosophical point and not a scientific one I tend to agree with them.
In the case of the earlier arguments with Catholics I'd been arguing with Catholics who espoused the Young Earth view. And in that case it's obvious that not only were they disagreeing with me, they were disagreeing with the pope. :D
-
Just FYI, as growing up in a Catholic family I can tell you that catholics consider all forms of contraception and... "nonprocreative sexual activity" :wtf: immoral. So Couple B shouldn't even be using rhythm.
Unless we're not talking about catholics, in which case you can define "christians" in whatever way you want.
You need to talk to the pastor at Saint Gregory the Great here, like right now. I don't think Father Jim's heard about this yet.
Or things have changed since then. Former =! Current, beware of using experiences more than a year old or so on controversial topics.