Abortion.
-
I do not consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I *am* anti-"Roe vs Wade". I think it was a gross abuse of the power of the court to simply decide in a non-democratic way that a fetus is not a human being. Obviously, pregnancy represents a medical condition, and there may be any number of valid medical reasons for the termination of a pregnancy. Like a lot of people, however, I do not consider birth control to be a legitimate reason. Also, we now have an environment where no expense may be spared to save a premature fetus in one room of a hospital, while in the next room an equally well developed fetus and equally deserving of life, can be destroyed and washed away as so much sewage. You have to be pretty morally bankrupt not to apprecicate the hyprocricy of that. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: I do not consider myself to be anti-abortion Why is it that the ONLY group of people that the liberal "politically correct" crowd won't call by the name that said group wants to be called by is the PRO LIFE group? Is it because it is hard to argue with someone who says "I am Pro Life"? How do you combat that "How despicable, I can't believe you would be PRO LIFE!" Doesn't have the same ring to it as "anti-abortion" does it? I can't call a black person black but you can call me an "anti-abortionist", sad. -Jack To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I do not consider myself to be anti-abortion Why is it that the ONLY group of people that the liberal "politically correct" crowd won't call by the name that said group wants to be called by is the PRO LIFE group? Is it because it is hard to argue with someone who says "I am Pro Life"? How do you combat that "How despicable, I can't believe you would be PRO LIFE!" Doesn't have the same ring to it as "anti-abortion" does it? I can't call a black person black but you can call me an "anti-abortionist", sad. -Jack To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Stan Shannon wrote: I do not consider myself to be anti-abortion Jack Stan said he did-not say anything about you he was talking about himself. Yes I understand the semmantic difference you are making. But Stan can call himself anything that he wants. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I do not consider myself to be anti-abortion Why is it that the ONLY group of people that the liberal "politically correct" crowd won't call by the name that said group wants to be called by is the PRO LIFE group? Is it because it is hard to argue with someone who says "I am Pro Life"? How do you combat that "How despicable, I can't believe you would be PRO LIFE!" Doesn't have the same ring to it as "anti-abortion" does it? I can't call a black person black but you can call me an "anti-abortionist", sad. -Jack To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Geez, Jack, thats a first, me being referred to as a part of the "political correct crowd", a liberal. I think I will frame that so the people who know me will get a good laugh. :-D Did you read my entire post? Or did I just misunderstand yours? Or is one of us simply incapable of abstract thought? I'm easy, I'll rephrase that however you like. "I do not consider myself to be pro-life". I have no problem with that. Frankly, however, if my ability to articulate a logically effective argument were so poor that I had to resort to silly semantic devices such as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" to enlist the stupid and the gullible to my cause, I think I would find a diffrent cause more in keeping with my intellectual abilities - such as whether vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
Geez, Jack, thats a first, me being referred to as a part of the "political correct crowd", a liberal. I think I will frame that so the people who know me will get a good laugh. :-D Did you read my entire post? Or did I just misunderstand yours? Or is one of us simply incapable of abstract thought? I'm easy, I'll rephrase that however you like. "I do not consider myself to be pro-life". I have no problem with that. Frankly, however, if my ability to articulate a logically effective argument were so poor that I had to resort to silly semantic devices such as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" to enlist the stupid and the gullible to my cause, I think I would find a diffrent cause more in keeping with my intellectual abilities - such as whether vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: Geez, Jack, thats a first, me being referred to as a part of the "political correct crowd", a liberal. I wasn't really calling you a liberal, If you took it as such I am very sorry, I do not think any non-liberal should be called such names. This is something I often get 'upset' about because it is a big double standard. They want to tell us what we can and cannot call groups of people but at the same time they do not honor what the pro-lifers want to be called. I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't try to play the righteous role all the time. So weather you meant to or not (it doesn't sound like you did), you touched a chord that doesn't ring well in my ears. No hard feelings? -Jack To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
-
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag So you don't feel that someone with SCID (Severe Combined Immunodefiency) has any rights? If someone cannot survive outside of a bubble than we have the right to kill them at our convenience? Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months So when the day comes that medical science can take a second old embryo out of the womb and put it into a machine that carries it full term, you will then change your mind about the whole abortion issue? It will be able to survive outside the womb at that point. Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society Then we should kill *EVERYONE* that is currently in jail, no matter what their crime, as they are no longer a functioning part of society. Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. This is the ONLY application of the murder law? Yes, I know you are trying to make a point, but noone in their right mind would think it is ok for some nut to blow people up for any reason. Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant. If you believe life begins at conception then abortion is unacceptable. People like myself who are against abortion do not have some sinister plan to derail the rights of women across the country, we genuinely believe it results in the death of a human life that has just as many rights as the woman who bears it. You can't demonize someone for that. -Jack To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Geez, Jack, thats a first, me being referred to as a part of the "political correct crowd", a liberal. I wasn't really calling you a liberal, If you took it as such I am very sorry, I do not think any non-liberal should be called such names. This is something I often get 'upset' about because it is a big double standard. They want to tell us what we can and cannot call groups of people but at the same time they do not honor what the pro-lifers want to be called. I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't try to play the righteous role all the time. So weather you meant to or not (it doesn't sound like you did), you touched a chord that doesn't ring well in my ears. No hard feelings? -Jack To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Jack Handy wrote: This is something I often get 'upset' about because it is a big double standard. They want to tell us what we can and cannot call groups of people but at the same time they do not honor what the pro-lifers want to be called. I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't try to play the righteous role all the time. So weather you meant to or not (it doesn't sound like you did), you touched a chord that doesn't ring well in my ears. I don't blame you for that, and it goes far beyond abortion. Almost every issue that breaks down along left vs right lines meets with the same difficulty. I've just learned to laugh it off. You can only stay so angry for so long. Believe me, sooner or later blood pressure *will* become a problem. So just take a deep breath, give the devil his due, and try to structure your logic in a pleasant and persuasive way. Jack Handy wrote: No hard feelings? Not a bit. Life's too short. :rose: "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused:
Martin Marvinski wrote: I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused: Pro-choice no question about it. People who go anti-abortion are generally religious or stupid or a combination of both. If men (yes the loudest in the debate seem to be men) were to suffer this sort of atrocity things would be different. Imagine if men could get the shit beaten out of them, then get fucked up the arse by possibly multiple perpetrators. Then get pregnant so that 9 months later they could suffer the pain of giving birth to a child that would be a daily reminder of the rape. Sounds like an ill thoughtout ideal. Also in the first few weeks there is little more than multiple cells stuck together not a foetus or a child. Another thing if the authorities, religious and elected think that the unborn child is technically alive why do they not allow for the burial of a still born child. If I want an abortion I can't as it is alive and has rights. If it is still born it wasn't anything and doesn't even warrant burial. Which seems to be the core belief of many a religion and society. As always those in power or pulling at the heart strings for what they believe to be the truth are very selective in the "facts" they use in their arguements. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "He orginally got the Tweezers of Destruction through the scanners but then popped back outside for a smoke." - Chris Maunder 26/03/2002
-
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Hey Domenic, amazingly balanced point of view for an American and only 13 at that (OK, I'm sorry I just had to put that US jibe in). Some could say that I am impressed as you have pretty much the same point of view as I do, but that really isn't the case. You have taken out the emotion, the ingrained rubbish fed to us as kids by society and expressed your views validly after research. If you have the time please revisit this thread and view my irate and emotional repsonse at the end of the thread. I ask this as you have said you have researched the issue and seem to know what you are talking about. I have made a couple of comments sound like facts that may not actually be facts. I would be intersted if you could confirm or shoot them down. If you are unsure you may be able to ask about them in class. I know this seems a fair bit to ask, but I am unemployed and the morons I get to associate with down at the dole office wouldn't know what I am talking about. I could search the web but if I type the wrong question I will get rubbish in response. I would really like to get to understand this debate a bit better. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "He orginally got the Tweezers of Destruction through the scanners but then popped back outside for a smoke." - Chris Maunder 26/03/2002
-
hmmmm Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
****Colin Davies wrote: Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Yes, as this is the going to be the downfall of humanity. Survival of the fittest has been removed from the equation and too many genetic defects are being allowed into the gene pool and then to later reproduce. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "He orginally got the Tweezers of Destruction through the scanners but then popped back outside for a smoke." - Chris Maunder 26/03/2002
-
****Colin Davies wrote: Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Yes, as this is the going to be the downfall of humanity. Survival of the fittest has been removed from the equation and too many genetic defects are being allowed into the gene pool and then to later reproduce. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "He orginally got the Tweezers of Destruction through the scanners but then popped back outside for a smoke." - Chris Maunder 26/03/2002
I agree totally here, but what can we do? Kill of a being that still has the mind of a human? Or in the case of the mentally damaged, kill of a being that has the body of a human? No matter what we do, it will be construed as inhumane by a vocal majority, and I don't exactly get the best feeling in my stomach myself X| But the gene pool is getting so increasingly polluted... I think that all the really really smart people, without any personality flaws, should move off-planet and set up their own perfect culture, isolated from the muck humanity has become. :rolleyes:
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused: Pro-choice no question about it. People who go anti-abortion are generally religious or stupid or a combination of both. If men (yes the loudest in the debate seem to be men) were to suffer this sort of atrocity things would be different. Imagine if men could get the shit beaten out of them, then get fucked up the arse by possibly multiple perpetrators. Then get pregnant so that 9 months later they could suffer the pain of giving birth to a child that would be a daily reminder of the rape. Sounds like an ill thoughtout ideal. Also in the first few weeks there is little more than multiple cells stuck together not a foetus or a child. Another thing if the authorities, religious and elected think that the unborn child is technically alive why do they not allow for the burial of a still born child. If I want an abortion I can't as it is alive and has rights. If it is still born it wasn't anything and doesn't even warrant burial. Which seems to be the core belief of many a religion and society. As always those in power or pulling at the heart strings for what they believe to be the truth are very selective in the "facts" they use in their arguements. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "He orginally got the Tweezers of Destruction through the scanners but then popped back outside for a smoke." - Chris Maunder 26/03/2002
Sorry I took so long to get back to you, I was obtaining statistics from my debate partner, and it took longer than expected. Michael Martin wrote: People who go anti-abortion are generally religious or stupid or a combination of both. I wouldn't exactly say that. They just have different beliefs upon the definition of when a blob of tissue is considered human enough to have rights, sometimes based on religion, or sometimes not. These may of course be stupid in our opinion. Michael Martin wrote: Imagine if men could get the sh*t beaten out of them, then get f***ed up the arse by possibly multiple perpetrators. Then get pregnant so that 9 months later they could suffer the pain of giving birth to a child that would be a daily reminder of the rape. Here's where the statistics come in. Of course, these are statistics, and subject to twisting as necessary. Although only one in one thousand rape victims get pregnant, this is still a large number. With 4,000 abortions daily, and 2% for rape... you do the math. Interestingly enough, it is said that 93% of abortions are for "social reasons" (:~ I assume this would mean not being able to support the baby, or not wanting one, although I'm not exactly sure how you get that from "social reasons"), 4% for health, and 2% for rape. And I guess the remaining 1% is miscellaneous. However, the statistics STRONGLY favor abortions in the case of teenage girls. According to one source, children born to teenage moms are:
- 50% more likely to be premature, and low birth weight babies (less than 5.5 lbs).
- 50% more likely to repeat a grade.
- More likely to drop out of school.
- 2-3 times more likely to be subjects of abuse.
- Girls are 83% more likely to be moms themselves before 18.
- Boys are 2.7 times more likely to be imprisoned.
:wtf: :eek: Michael Martin wrote: Also in the first few weeks there is little more than multiple cells stuck together not a foetus or a child. Exactly. When do fetuses get rights? Certainly not while they're still a blob of cells... Michael Martin wrote: Another thing if the authorities, religious and elected think that the unborn child is technically alive why do they not allow for the burial of a still born child. That's a good point that I hadn't heard before. Yet another
-
Sorry I took so long to get back to you, I was obtaining statistics from my debate partner, and it took longer than expected. Michael Martin wrote: People who go anti-abortion are generally religious or stupid or a combination of both. I wouldn't exactly say that. They just have different beliefs upon the definition of when a blob of tissue is considered human enough to have rights, sometimes based on religion, or sometimes not. These may of course be stupid in our opinion. Michael Martin wrote: Imagine if men could get the sh*t beaten out of them, then get f***ed up the arse by possibly multiple perpetrators. Then get pregnant so that 9 months later they could suffer the pain of giving birth to a child that would be a daily reminder of the rape. Here's where the statistics come in. Of course, these are statistics, and subject to twisting as necessary. Although only one in one thousand rape victims get pregnant, this is still a large number. With 4,000 abortions daily, and 2% for rape... you do the math. Interestingly enough, it is said that 93% of abortions are for "social reasons" (:~ I assume this would mean not being able to support the baby, or not wanting one, although I'm not exactly sure how you get that from "social reasons"), 4% for health, and 2% for rape. And I guess the remaining 1% is miscellaneous. However, the statistics STRONGLY favor abortions in the case of teenage girls. According to one source, children born to teenage moms are:
- 50% more likely to be premature, and low birth weight babies (less than 5.5 lbs).
- 50% more likely to repeat a grade.
- More likely to drop out of school.
- 2-3 times more likely to be subjects of abuse.
- Girls are 83% more likely to be moms themselves before 18.
- Boys are 2.7 times more likely to be imprisoned.
:wtf: :eek: Michael Martin wrote: Also in the first few weeks there is little more than multiple cells stuck together not a foetus or a child. Exactly. When do fetuses get rights? Certainly not while they're still a blob of cells... Michael Martin wrote: Another thing if the authorities, religious and elected think that the unborn child is technically alive why do they not allow for the burial of a still born child. That's a good point that I hadn't heard before. Yet another
Domenic [_Geek_n] wrote: Sorry I took so long to get back to you, I was obtaining statistics from my debate partner, and it took longer than expected. No worries, thanks for being so thorough. Domenic [_Geek_n] wrote: That's a good point that I hadn't heard before. Yet another inconsistency in our legal system. *sigh*... This is the part I wasn't 100% sure of. I know that still born babies weren't buried once upon a time but I am not sure if this is correct now. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "He orginally got the Tweezers of Destruction through the scanners but then popped back outside for a smoke." - Chris Maunder 26/03/2002