[ShadowWolf_IH]

to me it isn't about religeon, it's about life.  I believe in life....and you know what mean by that.  So i tend to think about how the taking of it is wrong when that life will probably become a human being.  I just don't think that a child's life should be an alternative.  again i agree with the medical emergencies.

[edit] actually teen sex is a sore point with me, an abortion during these years teaches that it is a viable form of birth control.  non consentual sex is a tough one...because in some women, the psychological damage created by aborting the child is greater than the psychological damage created by carrying it full term, in others the popsite is true.  so how do we regulate this?

not to open another can o worms, but i was watching discovery a few months ago, and scientists have linked being a thrill junkie with a gene, it has two forms, long and short, short version is a librarian, long version is a surfer who never learned to swim...oh wait that's me [/edit]

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Bobboau
so are you saying "you hold it for another three weeks missy" or "time for induced labor" [/QUOTE

probably the first - considering they waited that long then they already chose to carry it through the hard parts



simplier solution: don't reach this point in the first place, improve comprehensive sex education, and improve birth control technology - completely eliminate "abstinance-only" (ignorance only) education

[Bobboau]

agreed

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
to me it isn't about religeon, it's about life.  I believe in life....and you know what mean by that.  So i tend to think about how the taking of it is wrong when that life will probably become a human being.  I just don't think that a child's life should be an alternative.  again i agree with the medical emergencies.

so then we go back to the nebulus definition of life. why is it that sperm+egg = human, how is there this magical instant were before you had nothing and after you have the most valuable thing posable, don't tell me it's a mirical as we can watch the mechanics of it unfold, and yet at some point during this proces there is an instant were you atribute full status of liveing human life to it, even when it is clearly not a fully liveing human life.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
it's not based on my religeous beliefs.  it's based on spaghetti sauce.  the ingredients are sauce when they are combined  It's what i beleive.

[Kamikaze]

From Kazan:


a baby cannot make the choice to be/not be circumcised - but circumcising it is still violating it's right to genital integrity

That's a toughie. I'd say that circumcision is entirely a religious decision and that forcing the baby to physically adhere to a religion isn't acceptable.

The issues of abortion, euthanasia and non-consentual sex are issues that are controversial even among the non-theistic. So even after religious decisions on those issues are axed there will still be a standstill where limiting choice will have to be considered.

So that method of deciding is a last resort when even informed, non-theistic opinions clash.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH

an abortion during these years teaches that it is a viable form of birth control.  
on the other hand a baby will destroy her future, I've seen it happen about two dozen times. as stated sex education can help here emincely. and abortions are not cheap, a condom is nothing in comparison, this negates the 'viability' of abortion as birth controle emencely in my oppionion

non consentual sex is a tough one...because in some women, the psychological damage created by aborting the child is greater than the psychological damage created by carrying it full term, in others the popsite is true.  so how do we regulate this?
I say the simplest answer is: we don't
 

[Bobboau]

alright, so humans = 1 sperm+ 1 egg.
emotions, thought, metabolism, are all irrelivent?

To me cake isn't cake untill it's finished cooking.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
actually teen sex is a sore point with me, an abortion during these years teaches that it is a viable form of birth control.

Do you think that with better sex ed. that could work out?

  non consentual sex is a tough one...because in some women, the psychological damage created by aborting the child is greater than the psychological damage created by carrying it full term, in others the popsite is true.  so how do we regulate this?

I suppose that's a disadvantage to regulation. If abortion were regulated then I think the best way to deal with it is to go with what the majority of women experience. That's still unfortunate for many women but it's better than no abortion at all. It'd be interesting if there were some way to test which would be more damaging to a particular individual. I'm not sure women would necessarily trust a psychologist's evaluation though.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

I am all for regulating abortion, but as i have shown here, there are of scenarios that i don't have the answer to.  I haven't the foggiest how to get around them.  

Now we can throw in the fact that we have linked a personality trait directly to genetics.  So we bring about the legal issues of other scenarios.  What happens if someone actually gets away with "genetics" as a defense in a murder case?  i know that this is far fetched, but considering that we have linked being a thrill junkie to genetics...is it really THAT far fetched?  What if there is a murderer gene?  Or a rapist gene?  Or....broad spectrum, a gene that controls violent behavior?  do we force an abortion because that child will probably grow up to be a violent criminal?  I'm not being sarcastic, because these are some of the questions that i thought immediately on learning about genetics being linked to a personality trait.  The legal ramifications of it.

which also then begs the question...is it a personality trait controlled by genetics that dictates which will be more damaging?  Abortion, or carrying a product of violent crime?

what are your thoughts?

[Bobboau]

that would essentaly be eugenics, a misguided atempt to controle evoultion, wich was doomed to failure from the begining do to the fact that evolution by definition cannot be controled. traits we see as 'bad' may indeed have positive benifits, the only way to find out is to let it play. if someone has a 'murder gene' it does not excuse them from the law, it simply means they have some degree of hightened likelyhood that they are going to break it, and receve the same, evolutionaraly dead ended, consequences.
perhaps there is a gene that gives some women a higher disposition to accepting abortion, in a few generations there will likely be far fewer of these women.

but this is looking at the situation objectively and externaly, probly not the perspective you are interested in. just because a person has a gene does not mean they will act on it. as my previous statment explains reasoning that if someone has a trait that they are destoned to exibit it, from a scientific point, is foolish and will not yeild the desired results. every person has above all else the ability to think and chose

[ShadowWolf_IH]

i agree with all of being able to think and choose...yet we have people getting off on insanity pleas because they didn't get hugged enough as a child.  we are already blaming the parents for aberrant behavior.  The legalities of some of the genetics stuff just friggin scares me when you view it in the light i am viewing it in.

[Kamikaze]

It's already been done in other forms in the past. Nazi Germany had a eugenics system for creating "ideal" populations. I'm glad it didn't survive.

I'd be against any eugenics system. I think anyone has the chance to be a murderer or a saint whatever their genes say.

EDIT: In my opinion any murderer should get rehabilitation (I'm against capital punishment) so the insanity plea thing is moot to me. If they're insane they should get treatment for that. Of course, maybe this isn't practical with the resources governments have (capital punishment and lifetime jailing uses up a lot of tax money too though and society gets no net benefit from these).

[Bobboau]

if a person TRUELY is insane when they kill someone, then it realy is little more than man slaughter, they didn't know what they were doing. such people are a danger to the larger population, given that they can wrec fatal consequences without realiseing what they are doing, so for safety reasons the nut has to be locked away.

if you are pathologicly 'bad', as in you know your killing someone, but you like it, or something to that effect, this is not an excuse, your gett'n the chair.

any court ruleings that violate these rules I oppose.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

ya know, i like the fact that texas didn't do away with Death Row, we put in an express lane.  To be honest, i think that if more crimes carried the death penalty people would be lass apt to commit them.

Yeah an insane person needs help, and in order to protect the populace he needs to be locked away, but some people need a very painful and inhumane punishment.  damn i am hardline about that.  at any rate, now that the thread has calmed down and started to make sense again, i am off to bed.

[Bobboau]

as am I

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
That's a toughie. I'd say that circumcision is entirely a religious decision and that forcing the baby to physically adhere to a religion isn't acceptable.

You do realise that circumcision is also an acceptable medical treatment, right?

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Ghostavo


You do realise that circumcision is also an acceptable medical treatment, right?

If it's the best way to treat the condition I wouldn't care. I think Kazan was referring to the issue of religious circumcision anyway though.

[Fineus]

It's so nice to wake up to this kind of thing. Again.

Kazan, Lib - I'm making you both "monkeys" for the time being. Please don't complain about it as you bought it on yourselves.

That is all.