This is a fucking disgrace
-
Rob Graham wrote:
You have absolutely no right to kill (or have someone else kill) that person before or after removing them from your home. That's is what abortion is, too.
Let me ask you something. If doctors today had the technology to terminate a pregnancy by tranferring the fetus to an environment where he would very likely grow to a healthy child and beyond, would today's abortions still be legal? My point is that abortions result in the death of the fetus only because there's no other choice. You remove the fetus from the womb; it dies. The intent is to remove it, not to kill it.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
You do have a choice it's called "Doing the right thing" by not aborting and put it up for adoption. Two wrongs don't make it right. This much might be too much for your little brain. :doh: It's people like you who can't think beyond their little head that is the problem.
-
RichardGrimmer wrote:
their "quality of life" is substantially diminished
I am sure you dont advocate killing all babies that are born with a disability or abnormality.
RichardGrimmer wrote:
The advances made
I was referring to understanding the life of a foetus in the womb. Regarding screening, same thing. You suggest it is OK to kill a disabled or deformed foetus, but not a normal one. Where do you get that double standard from and where do you draw the line? As for the mothers life, this is the only solid reason, but isnt necessarially tied to abortion law. Take the case of siamese twins. An operaiton would be caried out because of the risk to the two of them, even though there is a very hogh risk one will die. To preserve one life, one is sacrificed, and it is up to the doctor who gets the organs, the life. The situation of a mother at risk could be trated the same way outside of abortion law.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Al Beback wrote:
There is no other defense. This is it. I give up trying to explain it.
Perhaps there is no defense at all, then.
Al Beback wrote:
You haven't? Let's hear it then, if you have the balls.
No balls required. This is probably the only thing I agree with HRC on; to quote: "Abortions should be safe, available and (extremely) rare". I think the circumstances that justify killing the fetus are extremely few, and must be carefully evaluated in each case. I do not believe that there is a simple general rule that is applicable, and I think the fetus's term and viability should play a significant role in the decision, with late term abortions limited to intervention to save the mother's life. Although I would not personally condone the use of early term (weeks, not months) abortion as a substitute for contraception, neither would I prohibit it (not because I think it is right, but because prohibition doesn't work). I think abortion remains dangerously close to murder, but am willing to cede that judgment to the mother, at least early in the term. I think that pretending that abortion is anything other than killing a potential human being is shameful self deception. Anyone choosing to obtain or recommend abortion must be willing to accept responsibility for extinguishing that potential as part of the decision making process, and be prepared to live with the guilt that follows. I accept that my position is not particularly defensible, and makes me a moral relativist, but it is what it is.
Rob Graham wrote:
Perhaps there is no defense at all, then.
In my opinion that's the only defense for causing the death of a human being; the fact that that human being is using another human being's body without her consent, and removing him/her from that body ends its life. It's sad, but I believe that the sanctity of our bodies must be respected above all else.
Rob Graham wrote:
This is probably the only thing I agree with HRC on; to quote: "Abortions should be safe, available and (extremely) rare".
I agree. In a perfect world abortions would never be necessary because no pregnancy would ever be unwanted. That takes education (on contraception) and discipline; something we lack a lot of in our society.
Rob Graham wrote:
I think that pretending that abortion is anything other than killing a potential human being is shameful self deception.
Nope, but I hate having to repeat myself.
Rob Graham wrote:
I accept that my position is not particularly defensible, and makes me a moral relativist, but it is what it is.
Yes, and I could sit here and knit pick at whatever little absurdities I could find on your position, but I'll pass. I prefer to have a civil discussion without the need to ridicule.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
Oakman wrote:
That may be what you believe.
You attempt to deceive yourself -- and anyone else you can -- as per your usual habit. That was, in fact (and so obviously so), but *your* "argument" taken to its conclusion.
Yep. It never bothers you in the slightest that you have no idea what is happening around you, does it? Pathetically safe and secure in your claustrophobically dark and tiny self-created universe with its seas of urine and continents of feces, you shout invective out at the rest of the universe, angry because you are unable to destroy the intelligence, beauty and happiness that others experience, but you can only perceive without understanding. Grunting like a sow rooting among the garbage of her pen, you nervously assure yourself that your self-congratulatory posts somehow make an impact on the world, when in fact they are objects of scorn and derision. Scribble what you will, you make no more difference to me or to the universe than do any of the other morons who write their graffitti on the stalls of the bus-station mens-room. Have a nice day.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
You do have a choice it's called "Doing the right thing" by not aborting and put it up for adoption. Two wrongs don't make it right. This much might be too much for your little brain. :doh: It's people like you who can't think beyond their little head that is the problem.
Madmaximus wrote:
You do have a choice it's called "Doing the right thing" by not aborting and put it up for adoption.
Thanks for your valuable opinion.
Madmaximus wrote:
Two wrongs don't make it right.
Actually, it's "Two wrongs don't make a right." But thanks for the irrelevant cliche.
Madmaximus wrote:
This much might be too much for your little brain. It's people like you who can't think beyond their little head that is the problem.
My little brain can't understand. Don't bother explaining.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
I don't think the Pope will be helpfull in this regard. Try 1-900-WE-WHACKM instead.
Rob Graham wrote:
Try 1-900-WE-WHACKM instead.
No need. Tim Craig already volunteered. http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&select=2564056&fr=1#xx2564056xx
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
What we do know is that all will be judged justly on the last day.
Are you talking "sheep and goats" or Great White Throne?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
only supposition and speculation and faith
yup.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Sheep and goats but I don't see why you distinguish, there is only one great and terrible day of the Lord, the day of judgement, the last day. I've come across some seriously bent interpretations of Revelation but never one that tries to justify 2 judgement days.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
'life is in the blood'
Didn't Dracula say that?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Even the Devil can quote scripture, so I wouldn't be surprised :)
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
'life is in the blood'
Didn't Dracula say that?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
By the way I'm downing the Chicken soup and feeling much better, might be the eye drops, might not, don't really care right now just glad to be able to see what I'm typing :-D
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Sheep and goats but I don't see why you distinguish, there is only one great and terrible day of the Lord, the day of judgement, the last day. I've come across some seriously bent interpretations of Revelation but never one that tries to justify 2 judgement days.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
The way I heard it, there's the last day (Sheep and Goats) which judges all of those who are alive, and then there's the Throne, when the graves are opened and everybody else gets their shot at explaining why they broke their sister's favorite doll when they were ten.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
So what is it, assuming you're a materialist, that you think is in an oak that isn't in an acorn?
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
I don't know what you mean by "materialist" in that context. Oaks have leaves. Roots. Xylem. Phloem. Nests. Beetles. Acorns. Acorns do not, but they have the potential to. In exactly the same way a fertilised egg is not a human being but it has the potential to grow into one.
-
MPs throw out bids to reduce abortion limit[^] Despite the advances made, it is still legal to kill a foetus of 24 weeks which has a 47% chance of surviving if born. In Europe its generally 12 weeks. When does life start? 10, 12 weeks? When can it be stated that an individual exists, even IF they need a life support machine in the form of a womb to do so. Its a long fucking way before 24 weeks though.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Life starts when you give up computers.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Life starts when you give up computers.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Life starts when you give up computers
How would you know?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
How would you know?
The same way you would? ;P
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
-
Oakman wrote:
How would you know?
The same way you would? ;P
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
-
fat_boy wrote:
When does life start?
From the standpoint of abortion, it's irrelevant. The fact that someone is declared "alive" does not give that them the right to occupy and use another person's body without that person's consent.
fat_boy wrote:
Despite the advances made, it is still legal to kill a foetus of 24 weeks which has a 47% chance of surviving if born.
I agree that it's disgraceful. The intent of abortion should not be to kill a fetus but to remove it from the woman's body. If the fetus can be removed and kept alive, it should be. However, in that case, I would prefer that the woman be forced to carry it to term for a few more months. Unfortunately, who's to stop her from drinking, smoking, abusing drugs, or doing other nasty things to herself (and the fetus) in the mean time?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
The "right" is "obtained" when "another person" decides to act in such a way as to create that "someone".
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
The "right" is "obtained" when "another person" decides to act in such a way as to create that "someone".
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
The "right" is "obtained" when "another person" decides to act in such a way as to create that "someone".
That is your opinion and I respect it. But please keep in mind that not everyone shares it. For human beings, the act of sex is almost never accompanied by a desire to procreate. It is usually done for the pleasure of it. And just like there's no law that says that your body has to forever be the host of whatever STD you happen to catch from sex, there should also not be a law that forces you to host a fetus that begins growing inside of it.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
DRHuff wrote:
The "right" is "obtained" when "another person" decides to act in such a way as to create that "someone".
That is your opinion and I respect it. But please keep in mind that not everyone shares it. For human beings, the act of sex is almost never accompanied by a desire to procreate. It is usually done for the pleasure of it. And just like there's no law that says that your body has to forever be the host of whatever STD you happen to catch from sex, there should also not be a law that forces you to host a fetus that begins growing inside of it.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Al Beback wrote:
That is your opinion and I respect it
This is why I usually don't comment on abortion related issues. Everyone has their opinion and almost nobody ever changes their mind. Why get into a fight?
Al Beback wrote:
For human beings, the act of sex is almost never accompanied by a desire to procreate
But it is always accompanied by the potential to procreate. Personal responsibility about your actions should have some influence on your actions and its consequences. My principal argument against abortion is its use as retroactive birth control - and even there my argument is that I don't pay for other peoples condoms or birth control pills so why should I have to pay for their "I'm to stupid or lazy to bother" method of birth control? (I live in Canada - home of socialized medicine (where BTW we have NO laws governing abortion since our Supreme Court struck down our last one and the gov't has been to chickenshit to tackle the topic since))
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Madmaximus wrote:
You do have a choice it's called "Doing the right thing" by not aborting and put it up for adoption.
Thanks for your valuable opinion.
Madmaximus wrote:
Two wrongs don't make it right.
Actually, it's "Two wrongs don't make a right." But thanks for the irrelevant cliche.
Madmaximus wrote:
This much might be too much for your little brain. It's people like you who can't think beyond their little head that is the problem.
My little brain can't understand. Don't bother explaining.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Madmaximus wrote: You do have a choice it's called "Doing the right thing" by not aborting and put it up for adoption. Thanks for your valuable opinion. Yes, it is better then your stupid gibberish lies you have been spewing. Reading your stuff is like talking to a 4 year old.
Al Beback wrote:
Madmaximus wrote: Two wrongs don't make it right. Actually, it's "Two wrongs don't make a right." But thanks for the irrelevant cliche.
Actually it is correct. Now go pull your head out of your ass and go and learn something.
Al Beback wrote:
Madmaximus wrote: This much might be too much for your little brain. It's people like you who can't think beyond their little head that is the problem. My little brain can't understand. Don't bother explaining.
Good, don't waste my time until you finish Elementary school.
-
Al Beback wrote:
That is your opinion and I respect it
This is why I usually don't comment on abortion related issues. Everyone has their opinion and almost nobody ever changes their mind. Why get into a fight?
Al Beback wrote:
For human beings, the act of sex is almost never accompanied by a desire to procreate
But it is always accompanied by the potential to procreate. Personal responsibility about your actions should have some influence on your actions and its consequences. My principal argument against abortion is its use as retroactive birth control - and even there my argument is that I don't pay for other peoples condoms or birth control pills so why should I have to pay for their "I'm to stupid or lazy to bother" method of birth control? (I live in Canada - home of socialized medicine (where BTW we have NO laws governing abortion since our Supreme Court struck down our last one and the gov't has been to chickenshit to tackle the topic since))
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
Personal responsibility about your actions should have some influence on your actions and its consequences.
Yes, I agree. But it doesn't change the fact that the fetus does not have a right to a woman's womb unless the woman grants it that right.
DRHuff wrote:
My principal argument against abortion is its use as retroactive birth control
Yes, it's truly sad when it's used that way by the same person, over and over again. (Although it could be argued that such women are better off not having children.) I'm not sure what the right answer is for helping women not consider doing it more than once.
DRHuff wrote:
- and even there my argument is that I don't pay for other peoples condoms or birth control pills so why should I have to pay for their "I'm to stupid or lazy to bother" method of birth control? (I live in Canada
Wow, that sucks. Abortions are not free here in the US.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
