NationStates Jolt Archive

This is inspired by a post that I made in the "Pro life perspectives" thread. I wanted to see what everyone thinks of it though.

NC = Me, Neo Cannen

PCP = Pro Choice person

NC: If a women has sex and concieves, she has an obligation to keep the child until birth

PCP: Why?

NC: Because she had sex

PCP: Why does that make her bound to have the child?

NC: Because sex is essentially the creation of a life. If the woman was unwilling to create life she shouldnt have sex.

PCP: What about contreception, if the woman wanted sex for pleasure only surely she should not have to have a child

NC: Contreception is not 100% effective. By having sex, a women is esstially creating life. She decreses the chance of that life being created by using contreception but she does not eliminate it.

PCP: Are you saying that sex for any reason other than procreation is wrong

NC: No, I am not saying that. However I am saying that sex's ultimate purpose is to create a life. If a couple have sex they are essentially concenting to the possibilty of them creating a life. They can lower that posibility through contreception but that does not eliminate it. Sex can be for pleasure only for a coulpe, but that does not mean that pleasure only will be the result.

PCP: Why does sex being the creation of a life mean that she should carry the child?

NC: Because in the creation of a life you should afford that life the same protection you would wish yourself. You would not wish to be killed so you should defend the life of that child.

PCP: Ah but the fetus is not alive for X, Y and Z science reasons!

NC: Irrelevent. If a couple have had sex they are essentially concenting to the creation of a life. If you create life, you should therefore accomadte it the same protections you yourself have. The fetus may not be alive but it is in the process of becoming one. Stopping it is akin to killing it, in the same way that you would be killing someone if you locked someone in an airlock in space and began decompressing it, when you had full ability to recompress it.

If anyone has any questions I am happy to attempt to answer.

Just out of curiousity, what is the obligation of the man who impregnated the woman? I don't see that mentioned anywhere in your philosophy, nor did I see it mentioned in the other thread.

Thanks.

Ok, that's your position, but it doesn't work for me.

1 People have sex for other reasons than to procreate.

2 Life and human life are two different things. I don't recognize anything without a functioning human brain as human as being a human life. If I did I would have to be morally opposed to removing people's tonsils.

3 Potential to become human isn't enough. If so I've wiped out entire civilizations by shooting them into kleenex, women's mouths, and onto women's bodies (as opposed to in women's bodies)

3 Potential to become human isn't enough. If so I've wiped out entire civilizations by shooting them into kleenex, women's mouths, and onto women's bodies (as opposed to in women's bodies)

and so you just described the position of the Church.. which is why masterbation, and controception as well as fornication is disallowed

The foetus is not an individual until it is born, or at least has a working brain. Until then it is a part of the woman's body. Her body is her property to do with as she will, plain and simple.

and so you just described the position of the Church.. which is why masterbation, and controception as well as fornication is disallowed .

The only church that disallows contraception (to my knowledge) is the Catholic church. Other Christian denominations allow it, and even encourage it.

Just out of curiousity, what is the obligation of the man who impregnated the woman? I don't see that mentioned anywhere in your philosophy, nor did I see it mentioned in the other thread.

Thanks.

He should look after her as much as is possible. If the women is impregnated without concent then I think he should have look after the child without her help.

As you have moved the discussion:

1. Sex may mean the possibility of pregnancy that is not the same as saying "sex is essentially the creation of life."

2. Nor does that mean that consent to sex is equal to consent to pregnancy.

3. Even if it meant consent to pregnancy, that is not the same as consent to carry to birth.

PCP: Why does sex being the creation of a life mean that she should carry the child?

NC: Because in the creation of a life you should afford that life the same protection you would wish yourself. You would not wish to be killed so you should defend the life of that child.

Here is the part where you really fail to provide any reasoning. You are beggin the question of why the life must be protected.

Any life deserves the same treatment as you would wish for yourself?

"That child" has no wishes and never will if aborted.

PCP: Ah but the fetus is not alive for X, Y and Z science reasons!

NC: Irrelevent. If a couple have had sex they are essentially concenting to the creation of a life. If you create life, you should therefore accomadte it the same protections you yourself have. The fetus may not be alive but it is in the process of becoming one. Stopping it is akin to killing it, in the same way that you would be killing someone if you locked someone in an airlock in space and began decompressing it, when you had full ability to recompress it.

Consent to sex != consent to carry pregnancy to birth. Major leap.

"In the process of becoming" a person != person.

Yes, abortion is "killing" something. So is swatting mosquitos and pulling up dandelions, so?

Adult, functioning human being in airlock != embryo.

We've been going around this and you have yet to justify a moral obligation to carry conceived life to term.

And, btw, "life" is irrelevant. Personhood is relevant.

Again

He should look after her as much as is possible. If the women is impregnated without concent then I think he should have look after the child without her help.

So would it be safe to assume the following?

If woman must remain pregnant, providing full support to the fetus, until the baby is born, then the male that impregnated should have to fully support her for that time? Not as much as possible, but full support. After all, she is providing full support to the fetus, and he is as responsible as she is.

Ok, that's your position, but it doesn't work for me.

1 People have sex for other reasons than to procreate.

Yes but sex is ultimately for procreation and no contreception is 100% effective. If you cant deel with those consequences then dont have sex.

2 Life and human life are two different things. I don't recognize anything without a functioning human brain as human as being a human life. If I did I would have to be morally opposed to removing people's tonsils.

3 Potential to become human isn't enough. If so I've wiped out entire civilizations by shooting them into kleenex, women's mouths, and onto women's bodies (as opposed to in women's bodies)


Thats only assuming that abiogenesis is accurate and that a sentient being will evolve from snot bactira

and so you just described the position of the Church.. which is why masterbation, and controception as well as fornication is disallowed
how is someone who is not married supposed to, urr... well you know, then?

Y
Thats only assuming that abiogenesis is accurate and that a sentient being will evolve from snot bactira
he wasnt talking abute bacteria

and so you just described the position of the Church.. which is why masterbation, and controception as well as fornication is disallowedYeah, I've never really been satisfied with that one. By that logic the rhythm method is equally sinful, but the Church doesn't seem to mind it.

So: why does god dislike condoms but not the rhythm method?

how is someone who is not married supposed to, urr... well you know, then?
I seriously doubt that the ban on masturbation has ever been one of the church's more followed dogmas.

I will speak as the catholic here. (YES I AM RELIGIOUS HA HA HA)

First the goal of life is to create life. How is not too important unless it is cloning (Yes cloning bad. Yes I hate Dolly.). Humans such as Cro magnums used to stay with there partner for four years then the father leaves to seek a younger partner(this serves a purpose, it decreases chances for birth defects.). The reason sex is pleasurable for humans, dolphins, and that monkey like thing I don't like(I don't like humans or dolphins either.) so the partners stay together longer. The longer you wait to get pregnant the more likely the child would have birth defects but overall the longevity of life increases(Dont ask how I know.). So having more then one partners is bad. Why you may ask ProAbortion people(You make me sick)? You pass(If you have) stds and other diseases, and other reasons I forgot.

One thing I dont get about liberals, why are they proabortion but were against having schiavo starved to death. Not so much difference there is there now?

1. Sex may mean the possibility of pregnancy that is not the same as saying "sex is essentially the creation of life."

2. Nor does that mean that consent to sex is equal to consent to pregnancy

I've allready explained this. There is no 100% effective contreception so by having sex, a women must accept the possibility of becoming pregnant


3. Even if it meant consent to pregnancy, that is not the same as consent to carry to birth.

Here is the part where you really fail to provide any reasoning. You are beggin the question of why the life must be protected.

Any life deserves the same treatment as you would wish for yourself?

"That child" has no wishes and never will if aborted.

Consent to sex != consent to carry pregnancy to birth. Major leap.

"In the process of becoming" a person != person

What your saying is "It has no will or sentience, kill it before it does". It is not a person yet no, but it is becoming one. Unlike bactira and mosquitos it will become a person if you leave it be. Let me put it another way, you have been dating a girl for a while now, but she is a little insecure and thinks you like other women more than her, which is not true. Youve been together for a few years and you decide to pop the question. However Jim who knows about her insecurities lies to her, telling her you slept with Carol who is better than her in bed and has bigger boobs. Your girlfriend believes him and leaves you. If Jim hadnt said that your relationship would have developed into a marriage and you would have lived happly ever after. Ergo he killed the possibilty of your marriage. In the same way you kill a life by killing something growing into a life. If you kill me aged 17 you also kill me aged 24.

The foetus is not an individual until it is born, or at least has a working brain. Until then it is a part of the woman's body. Her body is her property to do with as she will, plain and simple.

So if she wants to kill herself why dont we make it legal?

Well, I'm on the fence between pro-life and pro-choice? There's an in-between, why yes, yes their is!

Well, killing unborn babies is wrong. They are human by the law of abiogenesis, not a "thing". They have been known to react and respond to stimuli. Though they look barely human, you cannot change the fact of their identity as a human being. You can argue that they're an inconvenience, can't you? Well, let's assume I play football as a line-backer. Right now I'm kinda shrimpy. I need mass - I won't be fat, I'll be pure muscle... but I need to eat a lot more... spending a lot of money on food. Well, as all this money is going down my throat, I clearly am incovenicencing my parents. Do my parents have the right to end my life for being an inconvenience? No. Biologically, there are only like two places where you can draw the line of what consititues a human being. THe moment of conception. The moment of birth.. yet a month before birth they look almost exactly like a baby. Any point between conception and birth is completely ARBITRARY!

Now, if I have these views, how can I be on the fence? Well, friends and neighbors, what about illegal abortion!? State-sanctioned killing is better than what is happening in a back alley with a coat hanger!

Comments?

I've allready explained this. There is no 100% effective contreception so by having sex, a women must accept the possibility of becoming pregnant



What your saying is "It has no will or sentience, kill it before it does". It is not a person yet no, but it is becoming one. Unlike bactira and mosquitos it will become a person if you leave it be. Let me put it another way, you have been dating a girl for a while now, but she is a little insecure and thinks you like other women more than her, which is not true. Youve been together for a few years and you decide to pop the question. However Jim who knows about her insecurities lies to her, telling her you slept with Carol who is better than her in bed and has bigger boobs. Your girlfriend believes him and leaves you. If Jim hadnt said that your relationship would have developed into a marriage and you would have lived happly ever after. Ergo he killed the possibilty of your marriage. In the same way you kill a life by killing something growing into a life. If you kill me aged 17 you also kill me aged 24.

Wow good point. Never thought of it that way.

So would it be safe to assume the following?

If woman must remain pregnant, providing full support to the fetus, until the baby is born, then the male that impregnated should have to fully support her for that time? Not as much as possible, but full support. After all, she is providing full support to the fetus, and he is as responsible as she is.

No. The Father is only responsible to the child.

No. The Father is only responsible to the child.
So only the female has any responsibility to the fetus?

How sexist.

I've already explained this. There is no 100% effective contreception so by having sex, a women must accept the possibility of becoming pregnant

No. You keep responding to one thing when I say something else.

Possibility of pregancy != essentially creating human life

Accepting the possibility of becoming pregnant != accept moral burden to give birth

You are making huge leaps. And I have pointed this out repeatedly.

What your saying is "It has no will or sentience, kill it before it does". It is not a person yet no, but it is becoming one. Unlike bactira and mosquitos it will become a person if you leave it be.

And this is morally relevant because?

Could become person = person. Mmmkay?

Let me put it another way, you have been dating a girl for a while now, but she is a little insecure and thinks you like other women more than her, which is not true. Youve been together for a few years and you decide to pop the question. However Jim who knows about her insecurities lies to her, telling her you slept with Carol who is better than her in bed and has bigger boobs. Your girlfriend believes him and leaves you. If Jim hadnt said that your relationship would have developed into a marriage and you would have lived happly ever after. Ergo he killed the possibilty of your marriage. In the same way you kill a life by killing something growing into a life. If you kill me aged 17 you also kill me aged 24.

Your mind works in mysterious ways. But truth shall out.

Jim killed the possibility of my marriage. It would be absurd to say "Jim ruined my marriage." I never had a marriage (in your weird hypothetical).

Wow good point. Never thought of it that way.

Thank you, its nice to be apriciated once in a while

I've allready explained this. There is no 100% effective contreception so by having sex, a women must accept the possibility of becoming pregnant

and there is no 100% effective method of preventing nuclear bombs from being dropped on you as you walk down the street. therefore by walking down the street you consent to getting nuked?

we accept all sorts of things as being possible outcomes of our actions. that does not imply that we should just suck it up and accept those outcomes. at all.

So only the female has any responsibility to the fetus?

How sexist.

How? The female could mostly(almost forgot that before sending) take care of herself but they both have to take care of the child to make sure it reaches birth and biologically the father is only responsible till the child is four.

Another alternative, You could have the "FETUS"(Baby, cough!) then put him/her up for adoption or find foster parents instead of "putting the "FETUS" down" like a dog. :gundge:

So the woman supports the fetus during birth, because the man doesn't have to do much to help her, since she can help herself. (Yeah right)
And then he can justifiably abandon her when the kid is 4?

That is just plain dumb.

Another alternative, You could have the "FETUS"(Baby, cough!) then put him/her up for adoption or find foster parents instead of "putting the "FETUS" down" like a dog. :gundge:

I'm sure there are so many people willing to adopt.

Guess what? There aren't.

If the women is impregnated without concent then I think he should have look after the child without her help.
Whoa, whoa, step back a minute here. Are you seriously saying that you want a rapist looking after a child? Okay, even leaving aside the fact that rape is a crime, so this man is likely to be in jail, would you really want a rapist raising any child?

and there is no 100% effective method of preventing nuclear bombs from being dropped on you as you walk down the street. therefore by walking down the street you consent to getting nuked?
:D Well put.

No. You keep responding to one thing when I say something else.

Possibility of pregancy != essentially creating human life

-If I roll a dice, I must be prepared to accept a posibilty of any number 1-6

-If a women has sex, she must accpet the posibility of becoming pregnant as there is no 100% effective contreception.


Accepting the possibility of becoming pregnant != accept moral burden to give birth

Your creating life, life should not be killed.


And this is morally relevant because?

Jim killed the possibility of my marriage. It would be absurd to say "Jim ruined my marriage." I never had a marriage (in your weird hypothetical).

If you kill me aged 20, you also kill me age 24. Killing is wrong, at any stage in life.

and there is no 100% effective method of preventing nuclear bombs from being dropped on you as you walk down the street. therefore by walking down the street you consent to getting nuked?

we accept all sorts of things as being possible outcomes of our actions. that does not imply that we should just suck it up and accept those outcomes. at all.

Being nuked while walking in the street is a much lower probablity than having a child after having sex. Moreover the two are not linked, by walking down the street you are not causing the bombs to come down on you. But by having sex, you are creating a life.

Another alternative, You could have the "FETUS"(Baby, cough!) then put him/her up for adoption or find foster parents instead of "putting the "FETUS" down" like a dog.

Of course there is this little problem of nine months of pregnancy for the baby factory (woman, cough). But a clump of cells has more rights than a fully grown autonomous person of the wrong gender, right?

and there is no 100% effective method of preventing nuclear bombs from being dropped on you as you walk down the street. therefore by walking down the street you consent to getting nuked?

Let this enlighten you.

Okay you have sex which you know can result in birth although you use protection

No possibilty a human would be nuked, nukes dont hit the ground. :-D
That is equivalent of saying you would get annihilated in the next second just impossible :D

and so you just described the position of the Church.. which is why masterbation, and controception as well as fornication is disallowed

Father Guido Sarducci calls Masturbation a minor offense and claims that when you pay for your sins you can get 3 for $1USD. "The Church" might want to adapt some new positions. Doing the missionary thing gets boring if you're forced into that position all of the time.

Being nuked while walking in the street is a much lower probablity than having a child after having sex. Moreover the two are not linked, by walking down the street you are not causing the bombs to come down on you. But by having sex, you are creating a life.
But since theres still that 1 chance in a million that the street you walk on could explode, walkers and joggers alike must accept that their actions may result in nuclear explosion.

There is no 100% prevention for nukes afterall.

I could then argue that by walking down the street, you are essentially creating nuclear war.

But since theres still that 1 chance in a million that the street you walk on could explode, walkers and joggers alike must accept that their actions may result in nuclear explosion.

There is no 100% prevention for nukes afterall.

I could then argue that by walking down the street, you are essentially creating nuclear war.

No, because you are not causing the bombs to come down

Where as sex is causing the creation of a life

Nuclear explosions and walking are not causally linked. Sex and pregnancy are

Ok, that's your position, but it doesn't work for me.

1 People have sex for other reasons than to procreate.

2 Life and human life are two different things. I don't recognize anything without a functioning human brain as human as being a human life. If I did I would have to be morally opposed to removing people's tonsils.

3 Potential to become human isn't enough. If so I've wiped out entire civilizations by shooting them into kleenex, women's mouths, and onto women's bodies (as opposed to in women's bodies)

1. that shouldn't be legal.

2. human life is life, they are exactly equal. if you are going to kill a squirrel then you could kill a human. lowering humans down to the status of all other life is what should be done. need food? kill a human, they're abundant.

3. same as 2 pretty much. human life is worth nearly nothing. life is a very important thing indeed, but it's worth nearly nothing.

EDIT: after all, it's just a chemical proscess.

(note: i am not christian, so don't take this to mean that; cause i'm actually anti-christian)

-If I roll a dice, I must be prepared to accept a posibilty of any number 1-6
-If a women has sex, she must accpet the posibility of becoming pregnant as there is no 100% effective contreception.

So what you're saying here is that if we take a risk, and it doesn't pay off, we're not allowed to do anything to correct that? So if you try to shoot a pheasant and accidentally fatally injure another person, you shouldn't try to save them, because you accepted the possibility of the bullet hitting them when you fired the gun?

Your creating life, life should not be killed.

I assume, then, that you are also an ardent vegan, never wear leather, and watch the pavement in front of you for insects at all times? It's not Life that's the issue here, it's Sentience.

If you kill me aged 20, you also kill me age 24. Killing is wrong, at any stage in life.

No, if I kill you aged 20 (and you're sorely tempting me), you're never aged 24.

It seems to me that you guys/gals dont understand all of the variables in stuations such as these. What if the woman was raped? What if it was a child of incest? What if she was a 12 year old and was going to die if the baby, which could have been a result of rape, was born? What if the father runs, because according to some of you that is the only human that can take care of a child? What if the baby was horrifically mentally retarded or deformed? The list goes on and on. You also must take into concideration that as soon as you take something away, it is human nature to try to attain it again unless it was inconvenient to them in the first place. And much like what Bashan had said, would you rather have a proffesional doctor do it where only the fetus is "murdered", or some guy in an alley wanting a quick buck wind up killing both the mother and fetus? And many of your arguments would be shit in court because it is based all on religion, and congress can not and will not make a law promoting or "dissing" (for lack of a better word) a religious group.

But since theres still that 1 chance in a million that the street you walk on could explode, walkers and joggers alike must accept that their actions may result in nuclear explosion.

There is no 100% prevention for nukes afterall.

I could then argue that by walking down the street, you are essentially creating nuclear war.

You can prevent having sex but you cant prevent from exploding.

This is inspired by a post that I made in the "Pro life perspectives" thread. I wanted to see what everyone thinks of it though.

NC = Me, Neo Cannen

PCP = Pro Choice person

NC: If a person stays healthy and doesnt poison their body or become unhealthy and fat, they have an obligation to donate tissue and organs to anyone who needs them to live.

PCP: Why?

NC: Because they chose to keep their body healthy.

PCP: Why does that make them bound to donate organs?

NC: Because health is essentially the creation of a resevoir of healthy parts, no one has a right to two healthy kidneys, one will suffice.

PCP: What about things like individual rights? What if somone doesnt intend to donate organs when they work out and eat healthy? What if they like to excercise but want to poison themselves so they can save their organs?

NC: Intent is not important, a human life hangs in the balance and regardless of why the person decided to be healthy and fit, they are obligated to donate uneeded organs to save Life.

PCP: Are you saying that staying fit and healthy for reasons other than tissue donation is wrong?

NC: No, I am not saying that. However I am saying fitness' and healths' ultimate goal is to preserve life, and a person of certain health is obligated, because they chose to be healthy, to share their healthy body parts so long as it will not kill them outright to do so.

PCP: Why does working out and being healthy imply that a person should have to donate organs and tissue?

NC: Because in the creation of health you create, deliberately, the conditions for life to continue and you therefore afford to other lives the same regard that you afford your own. If you work to be healthy for yourself, you are obligated to save other lives. If you want to waive this obligation you are free to choose to be unhealthy.

PCP: Ah but people have rights not to be compelled to do such things, law X, Y Z!

NC: Irrelevent. If a person works to be healthy then they do so with the prior knowledge that their organs and tissue can save other lives, and Life outweighs individual convenience. If a person does not want to consent to donate organs and tissue, they have the option to freely choose to be unhealthy. It is a choice they make and are responsible for.

If anyone has any questions I am happy to attempt to answer.

1 People have sex for other reasons than to procreate.
1. that shouldn't be legal.

:| Please tell me you're being sarcastic, and not simply medieval.

:| Please tell me you're being sarcastic, and not simply medieval.

huh? no i'm not being sarcastic, but i don't understand what you mean by being medieval?

No, because you are not causing the bombs to come down

Where as sex is causing the creation of a life

Nuclear explosions and walking are not causally linked. Sex and pregnancy are
The causation you are referring to is by no means direct. As someone has already brought to your attention:

Consented Sex =/= Consented Pregnancy and
Consented Sex =/= Consented Birth

If these things were equal women would essentially be forced to submit their bodies to unwanted changes for an extended period of time, simply for engaging in a pleasurable activity. Not to mention, the banning of abortion would likely result in an uprise of home-abortions, which are far more difficult to deal with.

NC: If a person stays healthy and doesnt poison their body or become unhealthy and fat, they have an obligation to donate tissue and organs to anyone who needs them to live.

PCP: Why?

NC: Because they chose to keep their body healthy.

So how would you choose who, out of the millions of people with healthy kidneys out there, should have to donate one? Some kind of anti-lottery?

huh? no i'm not being sarcastic, but i don't understand what you mean by being medieval?I just didn't think anybody had thought like that for centuries. Still, it's your loss.

I'm pro death. There are too many people in the world, and there is no proof whatsoever that killing is wrong. Curbing populations is paramount to the safety of the society as a whole.

Note how I don't waste entire threads and other people's time by attempting to prostheletyze.

You can prevent having sex but you cant prevent from exploding.

ok, i gots another one. so the sex is the action, yeah? and the fertilization of an egg is the possibility. and the contraception is the steps taken to make the possibility more unlikely.

back to my person walking down the street. there is a very real possibility that they will sprain their ankle or break their leg in the process. if they take the proper precautions - watch where they are going, pay attention to where they step, etc - they can significantly reduce that possibility. but sometimes you still slip up; literally. is this person allowed to remedy the broken ankle, or do they have a moral obligation to live crippled for life? should they really just have never gotten out of bed at all?

mere possibility of outcome does not mean we have to accept that outcome and live with it.

I'm pro death. There are too many people in the world, and there is no proof whatsoever that killing is wrong. Curbing populations is paramount to the safety of the society as a whole.

Ooo, can I be the one to choose who dies? :D

ok, i gots another one. so the sex is the action, yeah? and the fertilization of an egg is the possibility. and the contraception is the steps taken to make the possibility more unlikely.

back to my person walking down the street. there is a very real possibility that they will sprain their ankle or break their leg in the process. if they take the proper precautions - watch where they are going, pay attention to where they step, etc - they can significantly reduce that possibility. but sometimes you still slip up; literally. is this person allowed to remedy the broken ankle, or do they have a moral obligation to live crippled for life? should they really just have never gotten out of bed at all?

mere possibility of outcome does not mean we have to accept that outcome and live with it.

You're cooking with gas today.

1. that shouldn't be legal.

haha

man, i'm almost willing to let the crazies get away with this one.

imagine the civil disobedience...

You've got to feel sorry for them, haven't you?

You've got to feel sorry for them, haven't you?
This is easily the funniest name on NS so far, are you a member of the labour party ;)

Ooo, can I be the one to choose who dies? :D

You miss the point.
It's like maintaing the fox population or cattle population.

It's not that anyone wants it, it's just something that has to be done. That's why the young and the old are the ones that are targeted. That's why the stupid, inept, or insane are targeted. That's how nature maintains the balance. And like it or not, humans integrate it into society without consciously knowing it nor being willing to accept it.

This is easily the funniest name on NS so far, are you a member of the labour party ;)
Why, thank you. :) No, I'm not a member, I just thought I'd reserve the name so that I can sell it on to them at a massive profit at a later date.

A fetus is a parasite, and a woman should have the right to remove any and all parasites withing her.

Why, thank you. :) No, I'm not a member, I just thought I'd reserve the name so that I can sell it on to them at a massive profit at a later date.
You know with business minds like this we don't need to worry bout the economy :D

This is inspired by a post that I made in the "Pro life perspectives" thread. I wanted to see what everyone thinks of it though.

NC = Me, Neo Cannen

PCP = Pro Choice person

NC: If a women has sex and concieves, she has an obligation to keep the child until birth

PCP: Why?

NC: Because she had sex

PCP: Why does that make her bound to have the child?

NC: Because sex is essentially the creation of a life. If the woman was unwilling to create life she shouldnt have sex.

PCP: What about contreception, if the woman wanted sex for pleasure only surely she should not have to have a child

NC: Contreception is not 100% effective. By having sex, a women is esstially creating life. She decreses the chance of that life being created by using contreception but she does not eliminate it.

PCP: Are you saying that sex for any reason other than procreation is wrong

NC: No, I am not saying that. However I am saying that sex's ultimate purpose is to create a life. If a couple have sex they are essentially concenting to the possibilty of them creating a life. They can lower that posibility through contreception but that does not eliminate it. Sex can be for pleasure only for a coulpe, but that does not mean that pleasure only will be the result.
Where does this analysis come from? What's the rationale as to why sex is only to procreate? If it comes from some sort of biological determinism, then forget it. Two reasons:
1. Animals have sex for pleasure as well (the chimpanzee is one example), proving that it's some that's not only for procreation in nature, which where your argument must be based.

2. This sort of analysis would essentially propose eliminating any activity that may not do what nature intended it to (although nature's intentions are always a sketchy justification for federal laws and court rulings). Groups of people were founded originally solely for survival reasons. Does that mean that, say, English, Philosophy, and non-clinical Psychology departments shouldn't exist because they're groups formed for a reason besides survival? Adapting natural impulses is an important part of the human experience and what elevates us above animals.

The purpose of sex means different things to different people. What gives you the right to legislate what sex means to me or anyone else?


PCP: Why does sex being the creation of a life mean that she should carry the child?

NC: Because in the creation of a life you should afford that life the same protection you would wish yourself. You would not wish to be killed so you should defend the life of that child.

PCP: Ah but the fetus is not alive for X, Y and Z science reasons!

NC: Irrelevent. If a couple have had sex they are essentially concenting to the creation of a life. If you create life, you should therefore accomadte it the same protections you yourself have. The fetus may not be alive but it is in the process of becoming one. Stopping it is akin to killing it, in the same way that you would be killing someone if you locked someone in an airlock in space and began decompressing it, when you had full ability to recompress it.

If anyone has any questions I am happy to attempt to answer.

This is entirely predicated on your earlier argument being true, which it patently is not. Additionally, the example about unintended consequences while walking is also particularly powerful. I'll give you another example, one perhaps more loaded. It's a known fact that in certain places, Black American drivers are more likely to be arrested for traffic violations than ones of other races. Does that mean that choosing to drive is an acceptance of being discriminated against because there's a chance it'll happen? I think not.

Finally, even if you win the entirety of your argument, why is it the state's role to impose this belief on other people. In other words, if you're opposed to abortion, don't get one.

How? The female could mostly(almost forgot that before sending) take care of herself but they both have to take care of the child to make sure it reaches birth and biologically the father is only responsible till the child is four.

The father is only responsible for his child until age 4?

How long is the mother responsible for the child?

So far you have established that the mother is responsible for the fetus and the child, but the father is only responsible for the child, and only for four years.

Is the mother's responsibility complete then as well? Should the child be expected to fend for itself once it reaches the age of four? Or are you suggesting that a woman's responsibility to a child must continue until it is an adult, and it is only the father whose responsibilities disappear earlier?

You have a very...interesting...philosophy, Jidea.

The purpose of sex means different things to different people. What gives you the right to legislate what sex means to me or anyone else?





In a theocracy, such as the one neo cannan pines for, laws exist soley on the basis of certain people's ideas about religion.

Basic rights do not exist in a theocracy, basic rights do not exist unless they are predicated on a guarantee by force of arms. Ie, if the government violates said rights, the government is to be done away with by the people who whom the rights are guaranteed.

Pretending that certain laws or rights are based on divine will creates super-legal status for 'divine right' laws. Super-legal status cannot be contested in court or amended.

That is why faith-based government is savagely dangerous to liberty.

State-sanctioned killing is better than what is happening in a back alley with a coat hanger!

Comments?

Contraceptives have come a LONG way from those days. I admit they're not 100% effective, so if a woman doesn't want a child she shouldn't spread her legs.

That's only my opinion.

Contraceptives have come a LONG way from those days. I admit they're not 100% effective, so if a woman doesn't want a child she shouldn't spread her legs.

That's only my opinion.


If a woman does not want to have a child, but does want to have sex, then she should use contraceptives.

If those fail or if, for some strange reason, she does not want to use contraceptives, she should have an abortion.

Contraceptives have come a LONG way from those days. I admit they're not 100% effective, so if a woman doesn't want a child she shouldn't spread her legs.

That's only my opinion.

Sometimes it is better to keep silent and have people think you are an idiot than share your opinion and remove all doubt.

That's only my opinion.

If a woman does not want to have a child, but does want to have sex, then she should use contraceptives.

If those fail or if, for some strange reason, she does not want to use contraceptives, she should have an abortion.

No. Only reason to have sex should be to have a child. If they want sex for another reason there are ways to make it 100% effective to not be pregnant including several operations.

ok, i gots another one. so the sex is the action, yeah? and the fertilization of an egg is the possibility. and the contraception is the steps taken to make the possibility more unlikely.

back to my person walking down the street. there is a very real possibility that they will sprain their ankle or break their leg in the process. if they take the proper precautions - watch where they are going, pay attention to where they step, etc - they can significantly reduce that possibility. but sometimes you still slip up; literally. is this person allowed to remedy the broken ankle, or do they have a moral obligation to live crippled for life? should they really just have never gotten out of bed at all?

mere possibility of outcome does not mean we have to accept that outcome and live with it.

No, having a child is preventable by not having sex. The man walking on the street didnt have to sprain his leg if he didnt leave home or took a bus. That is called preventable. Now if someone else shoots a nuke at you then that is unpreventable since you did everything you could to live but doing nothing is all you can do

No. Only reason to have sex should be to have a child. If they want sex for another reason there are ways to make it 100% effective to not be pregnant including several operations.


The psychological pathology of puritanism aside, neither a man nor a woman has any innate responsibility to use contraceptives, abortion is a perfectly acceptable way to avert the creation of a child.

One of the operations (sometimes no operation is necessary) which is 100% effective at preventing the creation of a child is abortion.

No. Only reason to have sex should be to have a child. If they want sex for another reason there are ways to make it 100% effective to not be pregnant including several operations.

This message is brought to you by SEX

It's fun. It's educational. It's good for you.

You should try it! You just might like it!

Now if someone else shoots a nuke at you then that is unpreventable since you did everything you could to live but doing nothing is all you can do

That is an outright lie, any person, through diligent effort and conscious choice can construct a bunker and supply it with food and water in a location which is not going to be attacked in a nuclear war.

When you open the door and make people entirely culpable for unintended consequences, guilt for every wrong falls to the victim just as much as to the wrongdoer.

The psychological pathology of puritanism aside, neither a man nor a woman has any innate responsibility to use contraceptives, abortion is a perfectly acceptable way to avert the creation of a child.

One of the operations (sometimes no operation is necessary) which is 100% effective at preventing the creation of a child is abortion.


"The psychological pathology of puritanism"

"The psychological pathology of puritanism"

"The psychological pathology of puritanism"

It just rolls of the tongue. I likey, I likey!

The psychological pathology of puritanism aside, neither a man nor a woman has any innate responsibility to use contraceptives, abortion is a perfectly acceptable way to avert the creation of a child.

One of the operations (sometimes no operation is necessary) which is 100% effective at preventing the creation of a child is abortion.

Not talking about that. I am talking about things like tube tying and stuff.

I am not a puritan.

Not talking about that. I am talking about things like tube tying and stuff.

I am not a puritan.


And, pray tell, why is tube tying the price of sex?

Abortion is safer.

Not talking about that. I am talking about things like tube tying and stuff.

I am not a puritan.


You would have us believe that your contention that "sex should only ever be for procreation" is not a mark of puritanism ?

I suppourt the facts that girls who have sex without protection or with lotsa people are just BEGGING for a pregnancy. Those specific females are DUMBASSES and I really see the logic behind your position, but what about rape? If that stopped altogether I would have no problem with pro-life, but it won't stop completely. If a woman was raped and got pregnant would she really want that man's child, a constant reminder of her being violated?

I suppourt the facts that girls who have sex without protection or with lotsa people are just BEGGING for a pregnancy. Those specific females are DUMBASSES and I really see the logic behind your position, but what about rape? If that stopped altogether I would have no problem with pro-life, but it won't stop completely. If a woman was raped and got pregnant would she really want that man's child, a constant reminder of her being violated?

Does having sex with "lotsa people" increase your chances of becoming pregnant?

Let's see - nope. No more than having sex multiple times with the same fertile person.

Are men that have sex without protection DUMBASSES? Yes.
Do they lose the right to control their own body as a result? Nope.

Does having sex without protection mean you should be punished with an unwanted pregancy? Nope.

Now, you were saying?

So only the female has any responsibility to the fetus?

How sexist.
no... both the male and female have responsibility to the fetus.


Accepting the possibility of becoming pregnant != accept moral burden to give birth
Err... yes it is. If you accept that you may become pregnant, you accept that you may give birth.

could become person = person
Yes.... As explained in this thread so many times.

Thank you, its nice to be apriciated once in a while Yea, I always noticed Neo Cannen get flamed down. Not even argued down: flamed down. they can't counter his arguments, so they make remarks about his personality/age.

and there is no 100% effective method of preventing nuclear bombs from being dropped on you as you walk down the street. therefore by walking down the street you consent to getting nuked?
the possibility of a nuke falling on your head is 10^(-20) (appproximation), so its safe to say it is 100% that one won't fall on your head. The possibility of getting pregnant is 1/3. With contraception, 1/20(condoms only), 1/100(pill), or 1/2000(both condom and pill.

I'm sure there are so many people willing to adopt.

Guess what? There aren't.
WRONG! THere are a lot of adopting couples. THere are more adopting coulples, then there are abandoned babies, especially in the US. In fact, some american couples adopt babies from china, because of that reason.


Whoa, whoa, step back a minute here. Are you seriously saying that you want a rapist looking after a child? Okay, even leaving aside the fact that rape is a crime, so this man is likely to be in jail, would you really want a rapist raising any child?Not necesarily look after. Just send payment. If he is in jail, he can do jail work (colonies) and the state will send her a check on his behalf.

Of course there is this little problem of nine months of pregnancy for the baby factory (woman, cough). But a clump of cells has more rights than a fully grown autonomous person of the wrong gender, right?
Yes, a clump of cells that will become a fully functioning human in less than 9 months, has more rights to live a full life, than a woman has rights to not be inconvinienced by pregnancy. 9 months of inconvinience, and a day of labor is a small price to pay for another human being entering the world. Think about it this way: one of the aborted fetuses, could have grown up to cure cancer. Or make the world a better place. What if Gandi's mother decided to abort him? Or Nelson Mandelas? Or what if your mother decided to abort you? Would you like it?


There is no 100% prevention for nukes afterall.
Well, there is a chance that yuo will die for a second. Your house may have a power surge, and your keyboard will electrocute. Or you may get a heart attack. Or there might be an earthquake. Or a nuke will fall on your head (although modern nukes detonate in the air, so if it falls on your head, it won't detonate and only kill you) So yea ,there is a chance that you will die. You don't even need to go outside.

if the woman was raped?
What if it was a child of incest?
What if she was a 12 year old and was going to die if the baby, which could have been a result of rape, was born?
What if the father runs, because according to some of you that is the only human that can take care of a child?
What if the baby was horrifically mentally retarded or deformed?
1+2 the baby could be adopted.
3 if the birth threates mothers life, it can be terminated.
4 any life is better than no life at all. Ask a cripple if they want to die? or a mental patient.


would you rather have a proffesional doctor do it where only the fetus is "murdered", or some guy in an alley wanting a quick buck wind up killing both the mother and fetus?
Argument that if it is illegal, it will be done unproffesionaly, should never be used. Otherwise, we should legalize profesional hitman (non profesional hitman can kill other people too by accident), and selling all kinds of drugs.

:| Please tell me you're being sarcastic, and not simply medieval. I believe so too, that's why I am not planning to have sex for other reasons that procreation. But that's only for me, i am not enforcing this on other people.

Consented Sex =/= Consented Pregnancy Yes it is, because you are aware that if you have sex, you have a chance to be pregnant. SO by having sex, you accet the chance of pregnancy.

I'm pro death. There are too many people in the world, and there is no proof whatsoever that killing is wrong. Curbing populations is paramount to the safety of the society as a whole.
So why dont you kill yourself?

back to my person walking down the street. there is a very real possibility that they will sprain their ankle or break their leg in the process. if they take the proper precautions - watch where they are going, pay attention to where they step, etc - they can significantly reduce that possibility. but sometimes you still slip up; literally. is this person allowed to remedy the broken ankle, or do they have a moral obligation to live crippled for life? should they really just have never gotten out of bed at all?
First of all, criple for 9 months, not life. Second of all, if them being a cripple for 9 months allows someone else to live a full life for 70 years, then yes, they should be a criple for 9 months.

A fetus is a parasite, and a woman should have the right to remove any and all parasites withing her. The child parasites on his/her parents for 18 years, expecting them to provide food, shelter, clothing etc. So do the parents have the right to kill their kids as long as the kid is not 18? Better not tell my mom that: I am 16 years old!

One of the operations (sometimes no operation is necessary) which is 100% effective at preventing the creation of a child is abortion. But the abortion is done when the fetus is already born. It has the DNA of the future person. And if you remove/kill all cells of a certain DNA, then you killed the person/animal of that DNA pattern

"The psychological pathology of puritanism"

"The psychological pathology of puritanism"

"The psychological pathology of puritanism"

It just rolls of the tongue. I likey, I likey!
Do you have any to point arguments, or are you just going to make useless posts all throughout this thread? This is a 3rd off topic post I have seen in this thread.

If a woman was raped and got pregnant would she really want that man's child, a constant reminder of her being violated?
Adoption, adoption, adoption. A person whose father is a rapist is no worse that a person whose father is a diligent middle class man, so why should one live, and other die before they even see the world.

Are men that have sex without protection DUMBASSES? Yes.
Do they lose the right to control their own body as a result? Nope.

But the men lose control of their wallet, or at least a considerable part of it.

Does having sex without protection mean you should be punished with an unwanted pregancy? Nope.
First of all yes. When you gamble, you should be punished with losing.
Second of all, try to think of a baby not as a punishment, but a blessing.

So why dont you kill yourself?

Because apparently I'm smarter than 99.9% of America, and maybe 98% of the world, and with those odds, I probably WOULD make a difference.
In any event, the stupidity and screwups of others is not reason for me to kill myself.

And thank you for your cliche and idiotic retort.

Think over what I said, instead of brushing it aside because it doesn't sit well with your indoctrined ideologies.

And in answer to your question, the inane answer is "she can always put it up for adoption," the irony being that such people usually do call the baby "it". Note that such people know nothing of the conditions or reliability of adoption and adoption centers, and the ramifications on the child, who would die within 100 years having accomplished nothing but lived miserably anyways.
"it", because the gender is uncertain. And are yuo saying that ALL adopted kids live miserable life? I doubt it. And ask any miserable person if they want to be killed right there right now, the majority will say no.

Because apparently I'm smarter than 99.9% of America, and maybe 98% of the world, and with those odds, I probably WOULD make a difference.
In any event, the stupidity and screwups of others is not reason for me to kill myself.

And thank you for your cliche and idiotic retort.

Think over what I said, instead of brushing it aside because it doesn't sit well with your indoctrined ideologies.
The only thing I like about yuor proposal, is that we get to kill George W Bush :)

[Rightfully accuses me of oversimplification and generalizing]. And ask any miserable person if they want to be killed right there right now, the majority will say no.

Possibly. But dying now or dying later isn't that different in the grand scheme of things.

Now then, moving aside any rationalist or nihilistic sentiment, common sense dictates that populations have to be controlled, and abortion is just one of the many ways present in our society.

The only thing I like about yuor proposal, is that we get to kill George W Bush :)

But killing is wrong, cries the voice of "morals".

So is eating meat, says I, as I take a bite out of a cheeseburger.

I'm not praising killing. I'm saying it's a necessary evil. Until peoplel get their act together, people need to be killed tfor convenience and maintaining the balance. That or you can wait for another black plague.

Possibly. But dying now or dying later isn't that different in the grand scheme of things.

Now then, moving aside any rationalist or nihilistic sentiment, common sense dictates that populations have to be controlled, and abortion is just one of the many ways present in our society.
So, since you will still die (we all will), would you rather die now or later?

As for population control, the Earth can fit billions of more humans. Most of the earth is uninhabited. And NASA already started a Moon colonization program, (first station should be complete by 2040), which will open up a lot more room to live.

But killing is wrong, cries the voice of "morals".

So is eating meat, says I, as I take a bite out of a cheeseburger.

I'm not praising killing. I'm saying it's a necessary evil. Until peoplel get their act together, people need to be killed tfor convenience and maintaining the balance. That or you can wait for another black plague.
I was kidding.. I don't actually want to kill Bush, I just want him out of the Oval Office, and back on his ranch in Texas.

This should be pretty simple.

If a couple have sex, for whatever reason, be it pleasure or an attempt at pregnancy, they accept the chance and the responcibility that pregnancy could be an outcome.

Said couple then has to decide if they can and/or SHOULD carry the child to term, by looking at their situations, as well as the situation/development of the child (rape, incest, extream deformities, health concerns, etc.) and make informed choices.

If they cannot, they should have the option to either abort or place for adoption as their own belifes/ conciousness allows.

This is their choice and responcibility, no one elses. If, however, people are willing to yell, scream, and generally throw tempertantrums about the idea of people chosing something they DON'T like, I assume then that they are voluntering to help raise and support said child in a proper, and healthy, manner.

So, have you sent in your $147,000 (estimation on how much it takes to raise a child in the US)?

That's what I don't get about you rabbid pro-lifers, you scream about how abortion is murder and how many deaths have occured, but you don't seem to give a damn once that child is actually born, how it's life will be, and where it will end up. So if you say it's your responcibility to stop them killings, you should also take the responcibility to raise that child and support it.

Taking choice away, any choices, assumes a power then to deal with the conciquences and to care for those concequencies.

Oh, and please excuse the poor spelling, being on a computer with no spellcheck and no access to a dictionary sucks.

Err... yes it is. If you accept that you may become pregnant, you accept that you may give birth.


No you dont, you accept that you may become pregnant but you do so in the full knowledge that it is your option to have an abortion and not give birth.



Yea, I always noticed Neo Cannen get flamed down. Not even argued down: flamed down. they can't counter his arguments, so they make remarks about his personality/age.


That is an outright lie.





Yes, a clump of cells that will become a fully functioning human in less than 9 months, has more rights to live a full life, than a woman has rights to not be inconvinienced by pregnancy. 9 months of inconvinience, and a day of labor is a small price to pay for another human being entering the world. Think about it this way: one of the aborted fetuses, could have grown up to cure cancer. Or make the world a better place. What if Gandi's mother decided to abort him? Or Nelson Mandelas? Or what if your mother decided to abort you? Would you like it?

A clump of cells has zero rights. No rights whatsoever, none. People have rights, clumps of cells do not have rights. Possiblity-of-a-person does not confer any rights. To allow such a piece of law would be profoundly imprudent and irresponsible.

If you want to play a game of fictional "what ifs," inject reason. How many people are criminals v. how many people save lives and free slaves. Extend that line of reasoning to low income people with single mothers.

If we are to take your what-if imagination as the basis of policy, a policy of abortion results as a simple matter of long term cost-benefit crime reduction.




Yes it is, because you are aware that if you have sex, you have a chance to be pregnant. SO by having sex, you accet the chance of pregnancy.

Again, accepting the tiny likelihood of pregnancy does not imply accepting the possiblity of carrying a pregnancy to term. Also, rape victims make no such choice.







The child parasites on his/her parents for 18 years, expecting them to provide food, shelter, clothing etc. So do the parents have the right to kill their kids as long as the kid is not 18? Better not tell my mom that: I am 16 years old!


Disingenuity which borders on dishonesty.

A child does not act parasitically to their parents at any point after they are delivered from the womb.


But the abortion is done when the fetus is already born. It has the DNA of the future person. And if you remove/kill all cells of a certain DNA, then you killed the person/animal of that DNA pattern


A fetus cannot be 'born' because it hasnt developed sufficiently. Possibly "learn english" alert.

PCP: Why does that make her bound to have the child?

NC: Because sex is essentially the creation of a life. If the woman was unwilling to create life she shouldnt have sex.

PCP: What about contreception, if the woman wanted sex for pleasure only surely she should not have to have a child

NC: Contreception is not 100% effective. By having sex, a women is esstially creating life. She decreses the chance of that life being created by using contreception but she does not eliminate it.


Here is where you go wrong, because I dispute the fact that the end to which sex progresses is sex. The purpose of sex is to solidify and cement a meaningful and loving relationship between people.

To evaluate this claim, let's try a couple of thought experiments.

Situation 1:

Sid and Nancy are two people who have been married for 30 years, and have 3 kids. Sid is 57, Nancy 55. Nancy went through menopause 14 years ago. Sid and Nancy still enjoy each other's company, including sexual relations. Question: Is what Sid and Nancy are doing unnatural?

The clear intuition in this case is that no, it's not; it's rather quite admirable that the two still find each other attractive after 30 years together. However, under you definition of what the "natural" purpose to which sex progresses, we would have to say that in fact, it is unnatural, because it is sex that cannot lead to the natural end to which sex progresses, namely children, as Nancy (being post-menopausal as she is) can no longer bear children. So the obvious intuitions we get is first that Sid and Nancy should either no longer have sex, or Sid should have sex with someone to whom the natural end to which sex progresses (procreation) is still a possibility, and second that this collides violently with our views of what constitutes a successful relationship. My definition of the natural end of sex, the cementing of a loving relationship, however, has no such problems.

But perhaps this is an isolated incident. Let us consider a second possibility.

Situation 2:

Mary is 16. Last year she was sitting in the passenger seat when a drunken driver veered into the lane her car was in and collided head-on with the car Mary was riding in. Despite being belted in, Mary suffered severe damage, including a blood clot that lodged itself in an artery feeding the uterus. As a result, much of her uterus died and had to be removed as necrotic tissue. Mary can no longer have children. Mary is still a virgin. Question: Should Mary ever be allowed to have sexual relations, even supposing she marries?

Again, the intuition we get from this thought experiment is: "of course!" She should be able to have as much sex with her husband as she want. However, once again, your definition collides with this intuition, because Mary is not able to bear children. Moreover, as most men wouldn't want to marry in situations where they could not have sex with their wife (which is the implication drawn from your definition), you seem to imply that it would be natural and thereby perfectly moral for Mary to never marry and never experience sexual relations. My definition jives quite well with the intuitions. As such, it seems that again, my definition is superior to yours, or more accurately, to the person you got that definition from, Thomas Aquinas. However, if you accept that my definition is indeed superior, then you must also by extension accept that sometimes children are an unwanted and even detrimental byproduct of the main purpose to which sex tends, and as such, sometimes contraceptives and even abortions can and should be allowed to deal with them.

Err... yes it is. If you accept that you may become pregnant, you accept that you may give birth.

Notice the difference between:
1. accept that you may give birth
2. accept moral obligation to give birth


Yes.... As explained in this thread so many times.

No. Could become a person != person.

As I have explained to NC in another thread and in this one.

Acorn != tree

Larva != butterfly

Embryo != person

Yea, I always noticed Neo Cannen get flamed down. Not even argued down: flamed down. they can't counter his arguments, so they make remarks about his personality/age.

Please point to where I have flamed NC -- better yet, report it.

Please point to where NC countered my arguments. Look real hard.

the possibility of a nuke falling on your head is 10^(-20) (appproximation), so its safe to say it is 100% that one won't fall on your head. The possibility of getting pregnant is 1/3. With contraception, 1/20(condoms only), 1/100(pill), or 1/2000(both condom and pill.

Where did you get these ridiculous statistics?

Yes, a clump of cells that will become a fully functioning human in less than 9 months, has more rights to live a full life, than a woman has rights to not be inconvinienced by pregnancy. 9 months of inconvinience, and a day of labor is a small price to pay for another human being entering the world. Think about it this way: one of the aborted fetuses, could have grown up to cure cancer. Or make the world a better place. What if Gandi's mother decided to abort him? Or Nelson Mandelas? Or what if your mother decided to abort you? Would you like it?

If I had been aborted, I would never know and couldn't care.

9 months of pregnancy and the pains of labor is a ridiculously high price to pay simply to satisfy the need of some fanatics to control others.

And what if the embryo is the next Hitler? Or the anti-Christ? Try to make actual arguments and not irrelevant appeals to emotion.

Yes it is, because you are aware that if you have sex, you have a chance to be pregnant. SO by having sex, you accet the chance of pregnancy.

Again, accept chance of pregnancy != accept obligation to give birth.

First of all, criple for 9 months, not life. Second of all, if them being a cripple for 9 months allows someone else to live a full life for 70 years, then yes, they should be a criple for 9 months.

I'm sure many lifes might be saved if you volunteer for painful medical experiments for the next 9 months. Are you morally obligated to do so?

The child parasites on his/her parents for 18 years, expecting them to provide food, shelter, clothing etc. So do the parents have the right to kill their kids as long as the kid is not 18? Better not tell my mom that: I am 16 years old!

Please look up the terms "parasite" and "body."

Then think about whether one has a right to remove a parasite from one's own body.

But the abortion is done when the fetus is already born. It has the DNA of the future person. And if you remove/kill all cells of a certain DNA, then you killed the person/animal of that DNA pattern

"The abortion is done with the fetus is already born"?? That would be birth.

Giving birth != abortion

Yes, abortion kills something. So?

What are you having for dinner? Bet it used to be alive.

Do you have any to point arguments, or are you just going to make useless posts all throughout this thread? This is a 3rd off topic post I have seen in this thread.

Thank you, self-appointed thread police. We didn't have your sparkling contributions then, so we had to make due.

If you'd now like to respond to my many on-point arguments, that would be swell.

Second of all, try to think of a baby not as a punishment, but a blessing.


Unles the baby is homosexual or disobeys you, in which case you throw it out and disown it.

or at least thats what *you'd* do. (link pending)

But the men lose control of their wallet, or at least a considerable part of it.

If you think money is equivalent to control over one's own body, how much would you cost as a slave?

Presumably no more than a child support payment.

First of all yes. When you gamble, you should be punished with losing. Second of all, try to think of a baby not as a punishment, but a blessing.

Um, you managed to contradict yourself in 2 sentences.

Care to see if you can pull it off in 1 sentence?

And perhaps a woman can decide for herself if a baby is a blessing.

The possibility of getting pregnant is 1/3. With contraception, 1/20(condoms only), 1/100(pill), or 1/2000(both condom and pill.

haha

dare i ask - source?

As for population control, the Earth can fit billions of more humans. Most of the earth is uninhabited. And NASA already started a Moon colonization program, (first station should be complete by 2040), which will open up a lot more room to live.
It can fit them. It can't support them. What you're advocated in the wholesale starvation of billions of people.

And as for stations on the Moon? That's bullshit. We would need technology far more advanced that ours for that to even be a remote possibility.

Adoption, adoption, adoption. A person whose father is a rapist is no worse that a person whose father is a diligent middle class man, so why should one live, and other die before they even see the world.
So, you want to force a woman to go through the agonizing pain of labor just because she was raped? How compassionate of you.

Sadist.

Because you obviously don't understand the pain of childbirth, imagine getting your intestines pulled out of your ass.

NC: Because sex is essentially the creation of a life. If the woman was unwilling to create life she shouldnt have sex.
You've already screwed up your argument here. Sex is not the creation of life.

Since you basically used the same argument through the rest of your imaginary debate... there isn't much point in reviewing the whole thing.

Because you obviously don't understand the pain of childbirth, imagine getting your intestines pulled out of your ass.

"It's like taking your bottom lip and stretching it over the back of your head."

Sorry to interrupt this serious debate with a bit of humor, but I couldn't resist. :)

"It's like taking your bottom lip and stretching it over the back of your head."

Sorry to interrupt this serious debate with a bit of humor, but I couldn't resist. :)
God, how have I forgotten what that's from????

"It's like taking your bottom lip and stretching it over the back of your head."

Sorry to interrupt this serious debate with a bit of humor, but I couldn't resist. :)
I thought about posting that, but I decided to come up with a more gruesome example.

God, how have I forgotten what that's from????

Family Guy.

Because you obviously don't understand the pain of childbirth, imagine getting your intestines pulled out of your ass.
Actually I'm pretty sure intestines don't have any nerve endings, so the pain you'd experience is not even comparable. More like urinating an orange :eek: .

So, since you will still die (we all will), would you rather die now or later?

As for population control, the Earth can fit billions of more humans. Most of the earth is uninhabited. And NASA already started a Moon colonization program, (first station should be complete by 2040), which will open up a lot more room to live.

That's disgusting a frightening. Suddenly we can claim all of the "unclaimed" land in the world? Forget the endangered species, the vegetation, the birds, the mammals, the reptiles, let's fill it all up with our own filth?

You want the world to be filled to capacity? You want more idiots, murderers and rapists? [For you:] You want more Bush supporters?

It's not about room, it's about ramifications.

How are you going educate and support all of these people? Too many people for too few jobs. Too few schools for too many people. What about food? Money? Housing? Material?

Racial and religious and political and ideoligical and downright illogical fighting ensues. More famine, more disease, more terror. More evil than rectifying the collision of a sperm and an egg.

You think more people is going to solve any of the worlds' problems? The more [ignorant, careless, and stupid] people, the quicker the world and civilization goes to hell.

And yes, one child makes the difference. A net increase in population of 2.3 people every second is too much.

If your own parents don't want you, what the hell is the rest of this indescribably stupid world going to want with you? What will you provide? If your parents can have you, they can always have another kid... ergo, you can be replaced. You think a woman's going to use all her eggs and a guy will use all of infinite supply of sperm to procreate? [Insert rant on Catholics].


And once again, "good" and "evil" are relative. My religious (hey, Malthus was religious :P) arguement aside.

Actually I'm pretty sure intestines don't have any nerve endings, so the pain you'd experience is not even comparable. More like urinating an orange :eek: .
They do. That's why appendicitis hurts so much.

Actually I'm pretty sure intestines don't have any nerve endings, so the pain you'd experience is not even comparable. More like urinating an orange :eek: .
wouldn't it just be like extracting a dildo in the shape of a melon. We piss our kids off not piss them out ;)

Well whichever analogy you choose, the point is: childbirth=painful. Not something that should be forced upon anybody.

That's disgusting a frightening. Suddenly we can claim all of the "unclaimed" land in the world? Forget the endangered species, the vegetation, the birds, the mammals, the reptiles, let's fill it all up with our own filth?

You want the world to be filled to capacity? You want more idiots, murderers and rapists? [For you:] You want more Bush supporters?

It's not about room, it's about ramifications.

How are you going educate and support all of these people? Too many people for too few jobs. Too few schools for too many people. What about food? Money? Housing? Material?

Racial and religious and political and ideoligical and downright illogical fighting ensues. More famine, more disease, more terror. More evil than rectifying the collision of a sperm and an egg.

You think more people is going to solve any of the worlds' problems? The more [ignorant, careless, and stupid] people, the quicker the world and civilization goes to hell.

And yes, one child makes the difference. A net increase in population of 2.3 people every second is too much.

If your own parents don't want you, what the hell is the rest of this indescribably stupid world going to want with you? What will you provide? If your parents can have you, they can always have another kid... ergo, you can be replaced. You think a woman's going to use all her eggs and a guy will use all of infinite supply of sperm to procreate? [Insert rant on Catholics].


And once again, "good" and "evil" are relative. My religious (hey, Malthus was religious :P) arguement aside.


No worries, horrible diseases will decimate the population.

The Puritan Misery Mob doesnt care, either.

I'm pro-life. Completely pro-life. Which is why I'm very firmly in favor of abortions.

Look, let's face it, the point of sex is to have more children. To create more humans. It's a biological process designed for that purpose. That does not mean there aren't other effects (pleasure, emotional closeness, emotional stability). But, really, those other effects are secondary.
The point of creating more humans? Why were we designed in this way? So that we can genetically diversify our population, and spread it. That way if a really big tiger finds our villiage, and kills everyone, our genes have already spread to other villiages. And if our villiage was full of smart people, there's a good chance those "smart" genes have been passed on. Hopefully the next villiage has the don't-be-eaten-by-tigers genes. And hopefully some child will have both.
OK, I know this is an extremely oversimplified version. But let's face it, that's why breeding with other people is a good idea. Otherwise, why wouldn't we asexually reproduce, creating an exact genetic copy.

So, we have sex to make more humans, and spread them across the planet. Fine. All well and good. Wow, we were successful at it. We've won! Until we leave the planet, there is no further benefit to breeding more. We've got the evolutionary need, because once it was important to our species. It's still important to the species overall, but on an individual level? No. No it's not. If I never have a child, the human species won't suffer for it. In fact, the human species will probably benefit from it. I already consume more than my fair share of resources on this planet. I'm aware that not everyone on the planet would be able to live my lifestyle. I'm blessed, greedy, and selfish. I don't want my child to live any worse a lifestyle than I had. As such, I don't see that I have any moral right to bring a child into this world. I don't have the right to expect my child to get more than their fair share of the worlds resources. I want my child to live a good life, and I don't think a "fair" share would provide that. There are just too many people.

So, until we advance our technology to a level that we can maintain everyones standard of living on the limited resources we have available, find more resources, or reduce the human population, I can't morally feel justified in having a child.

If I'm not morally justified in having a child, I don't intend to. Whether it's an accident or not. It's much worse, morally, to shoot someone intentionally than to accidentally shoot them. Either way, I don't want to do that.

Maybe I shouldn't have sex? OK, I'm selfish in that way. I want to have sex. I enjoy it. Maybe I'll make someone pregnant accidentally, I take all proper precautions, but it could happen. I believe the woman has an equal, or greater, say in whether the child should be brought to term. I wouldn't attempt to influence her decision (I hope! Can't say until it happens!) but I'd give her my opinion. I'd be torn apart by the idea that what could potentially be my child will not ever grow and exist as a person. That would really seriously damage me. But it's the right (if painful) thing to do, to my moral way of thinking. I'm not thinking about only that child, I'm thinking about the human race overall.

When animal populations grow too large, so their environment can't support them, there are three possible outcomes. Wars, famine, or culling.

Humans fight wars, it's unfortunate. Usually over a limited number of resources. Ugh. They are going to continue fighting wars, but I hope to never see a war about getting enough food to the population (and yes, starvation is historically one of the greatest instigators of wars and revolutions)

Famines are horrible. There are people right now, right this second, that are suffering them. That aren't being granted their fair share of the earths resources. Have you seen the photos? Have you ever been to one of those places? Have you seen a six year old child on the street, so thin you can count each and every rib, where you can see his muscles decaying? Decaying to the point that they are loosing coherency and parts of them look like bags of water? Hope I didn't put you off your food, anyone who was eating. I didn't want to eat that day, when I walked past him, pretended I didn't see him, not half a meter from me. I couldn't do anything, because he wasn't the only one. How can that not change me? I feel bad that I'm going to go home tonight, and watch a dvd with my friends on a projector screen. And laugh and have fun. I'm rich, I can afford what I want. I very rarely send money to charities. I like to think I'm doing my bit, with my occasional donation, but there is so much more I can do. I'm lazy and selfish, and accept that. I'm comfortable with who I am. I'm comfortable with the fact that I'd rather watch a movie than volunteer in a soup kitchen.

I'm not going to make things worse, at least I can do that. I'm not going to add another child for the world to maintain. I'm a smart, intelligent person, who, I believe, could raise a child well. I have nothing but respect for my father and the values he instilled in me. I'd like to do the same for someone. I'm going to adopt.

"but what if your child solves world hunger" I'm asked. My girlfriend especially wants to know, she really wants to have children at some point.
My response...why should I expect my child to solve world hunger? I'm not solving world hunger. More people in the world are likely to make the problem wose. When I sort my life out, and stop consuming so many resources, when I get my own family to the stage where we're using only our fair share, and can set a good example, when I'm curing diseases and making the world a better place, then I can justify bringing another person into it and running the gamble that they will make it even better. At least I'll know I haven't made it worse.

Save one life, how much do you destroy, over enough generations?

No worries, horrible diseases will decimate the population.

The Puritan Misery Mob doesnt care, either.

And it will start all over again, the people having learned nothing.

1 now is 10 in the Crunch.

Although I don't agree, someone had to say it.

I'm not going to add another child for the world to maintain.

Awww. Not enough intelligent, understanding, and selfless people (like you) are in this world, and one child (or even two) wouldn't do too much damage.

All I'm getting at is that:
1. I loathe people with more than 2 children, it shows ignorance, selfishness, stupidity,and lack of compassion and understanding for the rest of humanity

2. The right to kill a child is the right of the creators of the child

3. If two children is still too many, it can be rectified in the future with child laws (such as those in China)

1. I loathe people with more than 2 children, it shows ignorance, selfishness, stupidity,and lack of compassion and understanding for the rest of humanity

Do you loathe my parents? They accidentally had more than two children.

Do you loathe my parents? They accidentally had more than two children.

Possibly. They should've killed one of your siblings before anyone got too attached to them. (Accidentally?)

Seriously, some self control and common sense isn't too much to ask.

Possibly. They should've killed one of your siblings before anyone got too attached to them. (Accidentally?)

Seriously, some self control and common sense isn't too much to ask.

My mom had twins.

Although I wouldn't have minded too much if they'd offed my little brother....:D

Well, you're obviously more conscious and aware than most people about the situation, and that, if any, is reason enough that you can (and should) have a child. Not enough intelligent people like you who are understanding and selfless in this world, and one child (or even two) wouldn't hurt, especially since that replaces the parents.

All I'm getting at is that:
1. I loathe people with more than 2 children, it shows ignorance, selfishness, stupidity,and lack of compassion and understanding for the rest of humanity

2. The right to kill a child is the creator of the child's right

3. I really really like cheeseburgers
I'm troubled by the intellectual arrogance you've shown in your posts. You act as if only the intelligent have a right to survive, while those who you deem to be less intelligent can, you know, go to hell. The government can sure tell them what they can do with their bodies, or so would be the logical end result of the strange synthesis of the Malthusian calculus and Social Darwinism you've been extolling the virtues of on this thread. Calculating human life is, in my mind, extremely dangerous. This sort of calculation in fact was the only possible justification for events like the Holocaust (these people are less worthy of life than others becuase they're (Jewish, retarded, homosexual, Polish, Roma, and other groups that Hitler didn't like). And if you view the Holocaust as a way to keep populations down, I won't be the only one extremely hurt, offended, angry, and upset. Not to mention that I'd rather die perish in Malthus' crunch then live in a human society that condoned genocide as a means of controlling population.

Moving on...

I assume you make an exception for women forced to serve their husbands' fundamentalist religious believes in your 1.

2. I agree wholeheartedly.

3. I agree again, although in principle you should object to them because they keep human productivity down by making people indolent and fat.

Awww. Not enough intelligent, understanding, and selfless people (like you) are in this world, and one child (or even two) wouldn't do too much damage.

All I'm getting at is that:
1. I loathe people with more than 2 children, it shows ignorance, selfishness, stupidity,and lack of compassion and understanding for the rest of humanity

2. The right to kill a child is the right of the creators of the child

3. If two children is still too many, it can be rectified in the future with child laws (such as those in China)

Are we trying to outdue the Puritan Misery Squad when it comes to insensitivity and lack of respect for human rights?

Possibly. They should've killed one of your siblings before anyone got too attached to them. (Accidentally?)

Seriously, some self control and common sense isn't too much to ask.
Who's they? The government????

Again, the society you call for eliminates the crux of human existance - emotion. You see, people have emotional attachments to others, particularly their children. Murdering someone's children is a callous and inhuman act that turns society into a ax-wielding machine rather than a place for the human race to grow and develop. What to you seems like "common sense" to me seems like a dangerous path to walk down.

Are we trying to outdue the Puritan Misery Squad when it comes to insensitivity and lack of respect for human rights?
You should have seen the post before it was edited.

What bothers me is that rape doesn't seem to matter at all in this debate.
Or the feelings of the woman.
As far as I am concerned, a fetus is merely a parasite living off its mother until birth.
yes, like a tapeworm
It changes her whole life.
Why do we always strive to protect the mystery? Does her life matter at all? No, of course not, this incubated infestation is put above her despite contributions she may have made to society.

What's more is that you have NOT described any moral imperative to keep that baby alive. You call it a responsiblity. Sure, sex is dangerous, but should one be so punished for a simple mistake.
My answer is no.
Not without a true reason.

No one has adressed th financial issues behind having a child.
The first year after birth costs usually around $11,000.
Most teenagers (who want an abortion) don't have that kind of cash.
Pro-choice all the way.
Not just for financial reasons either.
-The Holy Empire of Calvacus

- I'm in no way supporting genocide, et al.

Although, some could say the bottle neck did help Jews out quite a bit. (Preemptive: and suddenly my words aren't so "evil" because I reveal that I was "born Jewish" -- whatever that means.)

- All I'm saying is, population has to be kept down.

- And if you agree with point 2, I have no quarrels with you. If you disagree, that is a far more dire human rights violation than any I would propose, support, or impose.

- There is a battle in my mind between cold logic, rationality, and nihilism, and a hopeless romantic sensitive bleeding heart liberal. The outcome is indefinite, the words, changing every second -- which is better than being stuck in a train of thought.

- "They" is the parents. I'm not calling for an end to emotion, I'm calling for an end to stupidity and unbridled chemical reactions dictating our lives. One man's morals is another man's weaknesses or stupidity.

- Cheeseburgers are good if you keep your mass down.
The point was that noone but the far left objects to killing animals, and most people don't even care about how brutally they are killed (I care).

- Feel free to peg me when you "figure me out", because I sure as hell haven't.

What bothers me is that rape doesn't seem to matter at all in this debate.
Or the feelings of the woman.
As far as I am concerned, a fetus is merely a parasite living off its mother until birth.
yes, like a tapeworm
It changes her whole life.
Why do we always strive to protect the mystery? Does her life matter at all? No, of course not, this incubated infestation is put above her despite contributions she may have made to society.

What's more is that you have NOT described any moral imperative to keep that baby alive. You call it a responsiblity. Sure, sex is dangerous, but should one be so punished for a simple mistake.
My answer is no.
Not without a true reason.

Good points. And well said.

2. The right to kill a child is the right of the creators of the child

God killed his son for the sake of humanity, why can't you?
Or was it that he killed himself -- the mythology is so fuzzy about that aspect.

But seriously, Malthus aside, people can do what they want with their own flesh and blood. That's why they can brainwash them with the views above and get away with it. That's why they can dictate what they can and can't do for nearly 2 decades and get away with it. I mean, we're practically cloned from our parents. If I can rip up my drawings, I can rip out my child.

My mom had twins.

Although I wouldn't have minded too much if they'd offed my little brother....:D

I've often run that possibility in my head as well. My solution is equally "evil".

1. I'd hate to be a twin
2. I'd hate to have a twin
3. I'll follow the solution in the Giver and off the weaker one.

Hey, it's a tough situation, but "just one more" a billion times over is no small thing.

2. The right to kill a child is the right of the creators of the child

God killed his son for the sake of humanity, why can't you?
Or was it that he killed himself -- the mythology is so fuzzy about that aspect.

But seriously, Malthus aside, people can do what they want with their own flesh and blood. That's why they can brainwash them with the views above and get away with it. That's why they can dictate what they can and can't do for nearly 2 decades and get away with it. I mean, we're practically cloned from our parents. If I can rip up my drawings, I can rip out my child.

No.

Malthus is wrong and twisted.

And parents do not own their children. Children are not to be abused. They are not to be killed.

Children do not have the same rights as adults, but they do have a right to life.

Ripping up a drawing is morally different from killing a child.

The comparison is unworthy.

- I'm in no way supporting genocide, et al.

Although, some could say the bottle neck did help Jews out quite a bit. (Preemptive: and suddenly my words aren't so "evil" because I reveal that I was "born Jewish" -- whatever that means.)

- All I'm saying is, population has to be kept down.

- And if you agree with point 2, I have no quarrels with you. If you disagree, that is a far more dire human rights violation than any I would propose, support, or impose.

- There is a battle in my mind between cold logic, rationality, and nihilism, and a hopeless romantic sensitive bleeding heart liberal. The outcome is indefinite, the words, changing every second -- which is better than being stuck in a train of thought.

- "They" is the parents. I'm not calling for an end to emotion, I'm calling for an end to stupidity and unbridled chemical reactions dictating our lives. One man's morals is another man's weaknesses or stupidity.

- Cheeseburgers are good if you keep your mass down.
The point was that noone but the far left objects to killing animals, and most people don't even care about how brutally they are killed (I care).

- Feel free to peg me when you "figure me out", because I sure as hell haven't.
I was discussing the assumptions behind your statements, you know, questioning the ability of one person to make value judgements about another - my argument was that this mentality is the only one in which genocide can be committed. My other statements were essentially to preempt any sort of Malthusian answer to that claim, i.e that genocide would be good in order to keep population down.

I understand that overpopulation is a problem, I just tend to think that an absolutely unfeeling and awful society would be worse than no society at all. I'm glad that you've provided some sort of moral check on your overpopulation arguments (acknowledging that genocide was bad).

If by "bottle neck" you mean Holocaust, I'm pretty damn sure it didn't help the Jewish people at all. Its largest cultural centers were destroyed and the religion itself was nearly wiped out. I feel like Israel wasn't much of a consolation prize, given the grief that that's caused as well (I do support the existance of the State of Israel, I just don't think that I would trade Israel for the Holocaust).

I absolutely, unequivocally, support a woman's right to choose. Even if I had moral qualms, its simply not my or the governments' place to intervene. So there's no quarrel on the surface between you and I, it's just that I wanted to question the methodology behind your statements.

Go bleeding heart liberal side!

I think all of human existance and society can be reduced to a few chemical reactions. They are, after all, what create and cause emotion. I'm a fan.

I think animals shouldn't be killed any more brutally than necessary (which is not very much, considering modern technology). I really do enjoy cheeseburgers. TASTEYUMS!!! (I had to be incoherent and childish at least once).

I'm not trying to "figure you out," merely just bringing something I find troubly to your attention.

No.

Malthus is wrong and twisted.

And parents do not own their children. Children are not to be abused. They are not to be killed.

Children do not have the same rights as adults, but they do have a right to life.

Ripping up a drawing is morally different from killing a child.

The comparison is unworthy.
I agree with you, but I'd hesitate to call him "twisted." Malthus is simply an act utilitarian, and if you were too, you'd agree with him.

You're right that parents can't abuse or kill their children. Once they've been born, they have the moral status of any other living human being. Legalizing child murder to keep down population would be absolutely no different in terms of its effect, constitutional and otherwise, from legalizing murder for fun.

There can be no "proof" to those for abortion rights. There is ALWAYS going to be another excuse that somebody is going to come up with to justify murder. I am not for abortion, I will never condone it, and I just hope you can live with yourself and further face God with it one day.

God save the children who cannot save themselves.

There can be no "proof" to those for abortion rights. There is ALWAYS going to be another excuse that somebody is going to come up with to justify murder. I am not for abortion, I will never condone it, and I just hope you can live with yourself and further face God with it one day.

God save the children who cannot save themselves.
Erm, come back when you've:
1. Read the rest of the thread and the numerous arguments it contains about abortion.

2. Learned to be coherent.

There can be no "proof" to those for abortion rights. There is ALWAYS going to be another excuse that somebody is going to come up with to justify murder. I am not for abortion, I will never condone it, and I just hope you can live with yourself and further face God with it one day.

God save the children who cannot save themselves.

The pot calls the kettle. :rolleyes:

And if God saves them, what are your knickers in a twist about?

Hmm. I suppose I get my comeuppance for making my quip about Malthus without knowing too much about him. Swift is cooler anyways.

In my two sides quarreling, the nihilist is attempting to throw the ideas behind liberal ideas into the most "negative" light, which too the nihilist aren't really that negative anyways.

- I don't advocate controlling, abusing, or indoctrining children. In fact, a while ago a proposed a human rights bill to the UN that would prevent just that.

- My musings ruffled your feathers, and I am glad. I'm just showing what the opponent sees. And if that's what they see, I'm still alright with all my liberal "killing".

- Personally, I'm for the whole, "tie her tubes if she's a slut" idea for limiting abortions. I don't like killing babies any more than the next person, though they sure make scary garden gnomes.

- Some Jews (besides me) might like to differ. In any event, it hasn't really kept us down, now has it?

- I really don't know what else to say to convince you that I'm a "good" and "moral" person, probably more so than most people in the world.

And if God saves them, what are your knickers in a twist about?

You stole my point!

There is ALWAYS going to be another excuse that somebody is going to come up with to justify murder. I

Like war, capital punishment, burning homosexuals and infidels, killing insects, eating meat, and chopping down trees?

I thought you liked doing that?

No.

Malthus is wrong and twisted.

And parents do not own their children. Children are not to be abused. They are not to be killed.

Children do not have the same rights as adults, but they do have a right to life.

Ripping up a drawing is morally different from killing a child.

The comparison is unworthy.
This reminds me of something my dad use to say to my brother all the time... something like "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!" (usually accompanied by a fist shake).

He was of course joking, but that stuck with me. Meh.

Hmm. I suppose I get my comeuppance for making my quip about Malthus without knowing too much about him. Swift is cooler anyways.

In my two sides quarreling, the nihilist is attempting to throw the ideas behind liberal ideas into the most "negative" light, which too the nihilist aren't really that negative anyways.

- I don't advocate controlling, abusing, or indoctrining children. In fact, a while ago a proposed a human rights bill to the UN that would prevent just that.

- My musings ruffled your feathers, and I am glad. I'm just showing what the opponent sees. And if that's what they see, I'm still alright with all my liberal "killing".

- Personally, I'm for the whole, "tie her tubes if she's a slut" idea for limiting abortions. I don't like killing babies any more than the next person, though they sure make scary garden gnomes.

- Some Jews (besides me) might like to differ. In any event, it hasn't really kept us down, now has it?

- I really don't know what else to say to convince you that I'm a "good" and "moral" person, probably more so than most people in the world.

Can't say I'm a fan of the "tied tubes" solution. I don't believe in government intereference in matters of sexuality, rape of course being an exception.

<Heeee. Fetus garden gnomes. Reminds me of a game back in 6th grade called Fetus Wars...Oh. Better not describe that here. Someone might have a Bible and lack a sense of humor>

We've done our best with a bad hand.

No, I understand where you're coming from. You and I just have different philosophies of morality. I've tried to explain my problems with yours, you with mine, and it's been a very interesting exchange. The "ruffling of feathers" has helped me sort out just why I disagree with you, a question I didn't know the answer to prior to now.

Like war, capital punishment, burning homosexuals and infidels, killing insects, eating meat, and chopping down trees?

I thought you liked doing that?
They did. They just like things with unrecognizable body parts more.

Erm, come back when you've:
1. Read the rest of the thread and the numerous arguments it contains about abortion.

2. Learned to be coherent.

I have read the posts. Read what I said and comprehend it first; then quote it. On second thought, I'll save you the brain cell. What I said in essence is "there is ALWAYS an excuse that abortion is ok or even right." Better?
Second, I'm quite coherent.

There can be no "proof" to those for abortion rights. There is ALWAYS going to be another excuse that somebody is going to come up with to justify murder. I am not for abortion, I will never condone it, and I just hope you can live with yourself and further face God with it one day.

God save the children who cannot save themselves.

Um, actually you've got this backwards.
If you say
1. After conception, life has been created (or will be, which is just as important)
2. Destroying life is evil

then, that will always lead to
3. Abortion is evil

simple logic.
No, I'm not arguing on your side. All the pro-abortion people aren't questioning that chain of events. They are questioning whether life has been created immediately after (during) conception, they are questioning whether conception is the same as having a fully formed human, for the purposes of human rights, and they are questioning whether destroying life is ALWAYS evil.
If any of those three steps is flawed, then this chain of logic is flawed.
If you don't accept any challenge to those premises, then there is no way to convince you otherwise.

Like war, capital punishment, burning homosexuals and infidels, killing insects, eating meat, and chopping down trees?

I thought you liked doing that?
Ok, so I was wrong. They'll come up with an excuse or change the subject. Sorry.

Ok, so I was wrong. They'll come up with an excuse or change the subject. Sorry.

Apparently those who advocate the subjugation of women in the name of holy embryos can't be bothered with reasons or logic. Just an appeal to a fictional character and ad hominem attacks.

Awww. Not enough intelligent, understanding, and selfless people (like you) are in this world, and one child (or even two) wouldn't do too much damage.

'fraid I can't agree.
Well, I can. Kind of.
It won't do "too much damage" but it will do a little. It will still, in a very small way, add to the problem. If everyone adds to the problem, even in a small way, we end up with a very big problem.

I could throw litter onto the beach. And I could say "alright guys, just throw one wrapper onto the beach, so it doesn't get too polluted. Oh, you threw three! Bad!
Nope, that just doesn't work for me. Sure, it's better to just throw one wrapper than two. Or three. And, with children, because I will die, as will my partner, if between the two of us we only leave one person, there are less people in the world, overall.
Over enough time.
Assuming everyone else follows the same attitudes.

If my child doesn't, and has three children...hey, we've already added more to the population.
And it's not like as soon as I have a child, I stop existing. I'm probably going to be around to see my grandchildren, or even great grandchildren, with the way modern medicine is going. Which is a lovely thing. But means that the world population is still going up.
The world population would continue to grow, if we only had one child each. It would continue to grow at a reducing rate, until it stops and starts decreasing, but for a while at least it would continue growing.

And, if only everyone would have only one, or even only two children. If only. But I'm not living in a world alone, there are other people who will have six or seven. I can say "I hate them" but that won't help anything, and really I don't hate them. I'm pleased for them. I hope their children grow up strong and healthy. I'd rather they didn't have any more children.

I don't think it's ok to say "I'm only adding my share of new people" to the world, when we've got such a problem. I don't think it's ok to do "just a little extra damage" when there's already a lot of damage which we can't handle yet.

I also don't think I have the right to tell people that they shouldn't have children. But I damn well will stand up for their right to have abortions, and not add another person to the problem.

No, I understand where you're coming from. You and I just have different philosophies of morality. I've tried to explain my problems with yours, you with mine, and it's been a very interesting exchange. The "ruffling of feathers" has helped me sort out just why I disagree with you, a question I didn't know the answer to prior to now.

- The tube tying was a joke. I am well read in dystopian novels (please recommend me some to read) and am quite aware of the problems of government intervention.
I'm quite the libertarian (when I'm not bickering with the authoritarian enlightened despot, with educated appointed advisors, within me), if that clears up any more misconceptions...

- Please tell me what the difference is. You seem more learned and educated than me. I truly hope that my views aren't too different from yours. [/not sarcasm]

Are we trying to outdue the Puritan Misery Squad when it comes to insensitivity and lack of respect for human rights?



Childish claptrap like saipea's is only going to severely confuse the anti abortion mob.

Ok, so I was wrong. They'll come up with an excuse or change the subject. Sorry.

You didn't answer the question. Aren't you guilty of at least one of those murderous sins?

I have read the posts. Read what I said and comprehend it first; then quote it. On second thought, I'll save you the brain cell. What I said in essence is "there is ALWAYS an excuse that abortion is ok or even right." Better?
Second, I'm quite coherent.

Again, showing some significant lack of understanding of the discussion going on here. We've presented a finite number of reasons why abortion should be legal. If you could provide compelling argument to change my mind, then great, I'd be anti-choice. But until you convince me that the government's role is to interfere in my private life, then I'll happily stand by Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Lawrence v. Texas.

Brain cells don't die when people think. There HAVE to be better ways to call me stupid.

The sentence structure of your original post was awkward. Consider revision...oh, you already did that. Good job then. You took away my excuse to be petty.

I don't think it's ok to say "I'm only adding my share of new people" to the world, when we've got such a problem. I don't think it's ok to do "just a little extra damage" when there's already a lot of damage which we can't handle yet.

I also don't think I have the right to tell people that they shouldn't have children. But I damn well will stand up for their right to have abortions, and not add another person to the problem.

I am a god. I say you are smart enough to have a child or two. This will help the world more than it will hurt it as it will helpt tip the balance in favor of the learned and self aware. I also say you are being far too diplomatic and stubborn to handle. The choice is yours, but you know a god's opinion now.

It truly is a shame that you feel you must punish yourself for the misdeeds of others. That's not going to do anything, nor will your selflessness be noted by anyone other than yourself.

And as a god, I say that people should be limited as to the number of children they can have. Nature has left the building, it's time for the wise and worthy to keep mankind from destroying itself. If I had my day, I'd take a lightening bolt to that dumb hick in Mississippi (or whatever) who had 15 children. That's just sick.

Sorry about the god trip. But you're too stubborn and I'm too rude to say it any other way.

- The tube tying was a joke. I am well read in dystopian novels (please recommend me some to read) and am quite aware of the problems of government intervention.
I'm quite the libertarian (when I'm not bickering with the authoritarian enlightened despot, with educated appointed advisors, within me), if that clears up any more misconceptions...

- Please tell me what the difference is. You seem more learned and educated than me. I truly hope that my views aren't too different from yours. [/not sarcasm]

My fear of government intervention in sexuality comes largely from French philosopher Michel Foucault. I'd recommend reading History of Sexuality (all three volumes) and Discipline and Punish.

The difference that I alluded to above was that your population control views rely on a purely utilitarian view of morality, where the greatest good for the greatest number is the most moral action, and that the greatest good is preserving life. Therefore, you see population control as the best thing society because it in the end saves the greatest number of lives. I, however, come from a more deontological viewpoint, which states that there are certain inviolable moral rules whose violations would in fact be worse for society than whatever utilitarian consquences could be thrown at me.

Thank you, by the way, for the compliment. I really appreciate it. I think you yourself are a very intelligent person who really does want what's best for the world. I think you should just take a look at the competing moral philosophies and see which one best suits what you think society should look like. Making your own decisions about that sort of thing is closest to my views.

The anti abortion mob seems to like to contrive numbers games to justify its religious ideas.


In that tradition, i submit a game of probability and cost-benefit all my own.

According to most christian doctrine, the souls of aborted 'babies' go straight to heaven.

Heaven is the main goal of every life.

Life lasts ~80 years (less if you're poor), heaven lasts a billion trillion quadrillion years times a trillion times fifty trillion &c &c.

In the course of living life, a person may drift out of the christian faith, if they die while not believing in jesus christ as their savior, they go to eternal torment for those billion trillion &c. years.

Taken as a whole, is the risk of your child going to eternal damnation instead of eternal paradise worth the selfish act of bearing him or her?

Every woman has the option of giving a 100% guarantee that their baby's eternal soul goes to paradise for all eternity. A 100% guarantee that their baby's eternal soul will not go to hell.

Even a .001% risk of your child's eternal soul going to hell is too great, the only morally right thing to do is to abort the baby and ensure paradise.

If you dont want you baby to go to hell, dont bear it to term. Simple as that.

Women have a personal responsibility for the immortal souls of their children if they choose not to have an abortion. They are guilty of the damnation because it was *them* who decided to take the risk. Women too selfish to get an abortion are responsible for untold numbers of hell burning eternal souls, especially in our increasingly irreligious modern world.

LOL
Puritan Misery Squad
I love it.

Who said the thing about Puritans being afraid somewhere, some how, someone might be happy?

Childish claptrap like saipea's is only going to severely confuse the anti abortion mob.

Aww. Tat's maen.

Confusion is a step toward understanding. I'm just calling things as I see them and don't see them.

LOL
Puritan Misery Squad
I love it.

Who said the thing about Puritans being afraid somewhere, some how, someone might be happy?

The inimitable Nietzschean: Henry Louis Mencken.

Aww. Tat's maen.

Confusion is a step toward understanding. I'm just calling things as I see them and don't see them.


Nono you misunderstand. They're going to conflate garbage like "people should be allowed to kill their children" and "we need population control" with reasonable, correct defenses of abortion.

Deleuze - Upon reassessment your philosophy is painfully clear, though I'm afraid I do indeed disagree. For the moment, the ends-justifying-the-means so long-as-the-means-don't-corrupt-the-ends idea appeals more to me, though I'm sure the second point of that idea is the debatable difference in our views.

New Granada - You just restated this prattling claptrap's point. Kudos.

Nono you misunderstand. They're going to conflate garbage like "people should be allowed to kill their children" and "we need population control" with reasonable, correct defenses of abortion.

Population control is one of the myriad arguments for legalized abortion. I don't see why it shouldn't be discussed here.

LOL
Puritan Misery Squad
I love it.

Who said the thing about Puritans being afraid somewhere, some how, someone might be happy?

New Granada gets full credit for the phase.

And for correctly identifying H.L. Menken as the source of the saying.

Nono you misunderstand. They're going to conflate garbage like "people should be allowed to kill their children" and "we need population control" with reasonable, correct defenses of abortion.

They already confuse fairy tales with law codes for morality and truth, so I really don't see the problem with adding to their delusion.

Population control is one of the myriad arguments for legalized abortion. I don't see why it shouldn't be discussed here.

There is a difference between population control and legalized abortion.

There is also a difference between discussing population control as a reason for legalized abortion and deliberately confusing population control and abortion.

Saipea openly admits seeking to confuse population control, abortion, and infanticide.

This helps no one -- no matter how amusing Saipea may find it.

There is a difference between population control and legalized abortion.

There is also a difference between discussing population control as a reason for legalized abortion and deliberately confusing population control and abortion.

Saipea openly admits seeking to confuse population control, abortion, and infanticide.

This helps no one -- no matter how amusing Saipea may find it.

I never openly admitted seeking to confuse the two.
I happen to think that those three ideas are linked. (on occasion)
It really is a matter of looking at things, which was the point I was trying to make.

The point is that you accuse me of giving anti-abortionists a persumption that was already in their heads to start with. I did nothing except muse over what they thought and maintain that abortion, infanticide, and population control, would still be satisfactory in my nihilistic view.

I then went on to say that as a person of common sense, one can choose whether or not they wish to keep their own creation, regardless of the reason... and then the liberal in me contradicted my points about controlling the number of kids people can have -- I do that a lot.

It sounds like the PCP was being a bit naive trying to talk sense into an obstinate pontificate. It's much more productive to simply let dogmatic people asphyxiate on their own beliefs.

Though I used to be a lifeguard, my personal take is that when people who can't swim jump off the boat of reason, one shouldn't go diving in after them trying to pull the fools back aboard. There's simply no sense in risking your own sanity to save someone who willingly gave theirs away. Save the people who've fallen overboard, not the people who jumped.

Where does this analysis come from? What's the rationale as to why sex is only to procreate? If it comes from some sort of biological determinism, then forget it. Two reasons:
1. Animals have sex for pleasure as well (the chimpanzee is one example), proving that it's some that's not only for procreation in nature, which where your argument must be based.

You can have sex just for pleasure. But if you have sex you must consider pregnancy to be a possible result because there is no 100% effective contriception. If you can't accept that then dont have sex.


2. This sort of analysis would essentially propose eliminating any activity that may not do what nature intended it to (although nature's intentions are always a sketchy justification for federal laws and court rulings). Groups of people were founded originally solely for survival reasons. Does that mean that, say, English, Philosophy, and non-clinical Psychology departments shouldn't exist because they're groups formed for a reason besides survival? Adapting natural impulses is an important part of the human experience and what elevates us above animals.

I was not saying that sex is only for procreation. What I was saying is that you must consider procreation to be an outcome if you have sex. You cant claim that you "didnt want a child" because there was always a chance that you would have one. By having sex a women is commiting to the possibility of a child. A lowered posibility if using contreception but still a posibilty.


The purpose of sex means different things to different people. What gives you the right to legislate what sex means to me or anyone else?.

I am not legislating the purpose of sex. I'm simpley saying that if you cant accept the outcome of sex being a life then dont have sex. If I roll a six sided dice, it would be rather stupid of me to complain about getting a 5 and that its unfair. After all it was always a posibility and I should be prepared for it.


This is entirely predicated on your earlier argument being true, which it patently is not. Additionally, the example about unintended consequences while walking is also particularly powerful. I'll give you another example, one perhaps more loaded. It's a known fact that in certain places, Black American drivers are more likely to be arrested for traffic violations than ones of other races. Does that mean that choosing to drive is an acceptance of being discriminated against because there's a chance it'll happen? I think not.


Again, no causal link. The drivers are not causing the prejudice, the officers are causing that all by themselves.


Finally, even if you win the entirety of your argument, why is it the state's role to impose this belief on other people. In other words, if you're opposed to abortion, don't get one.

If one person believes killing a person by slitting their throat is not murder that does not change anything. Crime is not reltive, if a government believes abortion to be murder, it can outlaw it if it chooses. Beliefs do not come into crime.

This is inspired by a post that I made in the "Pro life perspectives" thread.
If anyone has any questions I am happy to attempt to answer.

Trimmed out everything that wasn't just the bias of the original poster...

1) Sex is basically creating life? So - is eating basically creating excrement? Hard though it seems to be for you to grasp - we have sex, and we eat... even sleep, for other reasons than babies, toilet material and to recover from exhaustion.

You are confusing one of the possible outcomes, with the 'purpose of the act'.

Take a girl to dinner... are you doing it to generate bodily waste? No? To gain energy? No? To feed your starving bodies? No? Three outcomes (all true) - but none of them matches the 'purpose' of the meal - which is a social event.


2) No form of contraception is 100% reliable? What about abstinence? That's a form of contraception - but, that's the point you were trying to make, right?

Okay - what about anal sex? I have yet to hear of a girl getting pregnant from it...

How about gay sex? I haven't heard of many lesbians or homosexual males impregnated during the course of 'regular' same-sex encounters.


3) Why pick on the act of intercourse? A third of all 'fertilised' eggs drop straight through without implanting - and that is assuming a 'normal' uterus shape. How about arguing that the meal was the reason for the sex? Then - by your logic - any girl that allows a man to buy her dinner, is asking for a baby, right?

In fact - since the girl had to leave the house to meet the man, to be asked out for dinner, which eventually lead to the sex... by your logic - the girl leaving the house is the reason for the pregnancy, right?

The thing I don't get... Christian hardliners that think like this, and yet see some distance between their 'philosophy' and the Taliban.


4) So - a girl doesn't want to be pregnant - but she had sex, and fell pregnant 'accidentally'. You are arguing she should have the child anyway? So - you would 'punish' the mother, by the 'gift of life'?

How is that a mature way of dealing with the situation? And why should the girl be 'punished' for her action? And, what gives you the right to regulate whether she is punished or no?

What about the 'child' you are insisting should be carried to term? Why would you wish a life of 'being a mistake' on a child?


5) What about the effects of pregnancy on the female body? And no - I'm actually not talking about psychological, or weight-gain... even though both are real issues. I'm talking about the fact that a girl is potentially damaging her body, JUST by carrying a baby. If she is too poor, too embarrassed, to pressured (or whatever) to have a decent diet, and all the necessary supplements - she is drastically increasing risks to her body... osteoporosis, for example... or pregnancy diabetes.

Why should your so-called 'moral code' take precedence over the physical health of another person?

Bravo, Grave n Idle

It's all about Puritanism. Y'know, that deep, motivating fear that somewhere, somehow, someone is having a good time.

Naw, skip that. It's all about control.

Or is it all about just being right? Or is it righteous?

Nope.

I GOT IT!

It's all about doing unto others, just like the Bible says. No religious person would want, say, the polyamory lobby draft a law FORCING them to fornicate, would they?

How's about everyone craft their own consciences (which Tolstoy correctly identified as "the voice of God"), their own relationship with the world and their own relationship with God? How's about not letting an organization that meets every Sunday to compare clothing dictate what I, you, or anyone else can do with our own bodies? How's about living the Word to the best of your own ability and offering your witness testimony when it's asked for as opposed to beating folks over the head with it? How's about adopting a crack baby?

Nope.

That might be something Christ would do.

This argument is best summed up thusly: :headbang:

Y'all enjoy yourselves...I'm gonna go buy stock in Band-Aids and Tylenol.

Cheers!

Bravo, Grave n Idle

It's all about Puritanism. Y'know, that deep, motivating fear that somewhere, somehow, someone is having a good time.

Naw, skip that. It's all about control.

Or is it all about just being right? Or is it righteous?

Nope.

I GOT IT!

It's all about doing unto others, just like the Bible says. No religious person would want, say, the polyamory lobby draft a law FORCING them to fornicate, would they?

How's about everyone craft their own consciences (which Tolstoy correctly identified as "the voice of God"), their own relationship with the world and their own relationship with God? How's about not letting an organization that meets every Sunday to compare clothing dictate what I, you, or anyone else can do with our own bodies? How's about living the Word to the best of your own ability and offering your witness testimony when it's asked for as opposed to beating folks over the head with it? How's about adopting a crack baby?

Nope.

That might be something Christ would do.

This argument is best summed up thusly: :headbang:

Y'all enjoy yourselves...I'm gonna go buy stock in Band-Aids and Tylenol.

Cheers!

:) (Thank you).

As it usually does... I think this 'debate' hinges around the difference between Christian and 'christian'.... where a Christian is someone who actually lives a Christ-like life, or follow the model that Christ set.

And... the 'christian' pursues their version, their extrapolation... and attempts to impose their own will on others, but tries to 'support' their prejudice with scripture.

Of course, I'm a Godless Heathen... maybe that's just the way I see it.... but I don't see much 'influence-of-Christ' in most of those who call themselves 'christian'.

Sometimes I wonder if so many men would hold this anti-abortion mindset if they 1) had vaginas; 2) loved someone with a penis; 3) got that feeling for some sexual healing. To diminish the act of sexual intercourse to soleley serve the purpose of begetting snotlings is a severely reductionist approach to what it means to be human. What can we extrapolate from that? That love and higher-order emotions are a myth? That half the population are just meatsacks for lugging around prodginy? Having a vagina myself, I find those possibilities highly disturbing. :eek:

1. that shouldn't be legal.
Err, that's a pretty broad ideal. Does it cover fwapping? :p

2) No form of contraception is 100% reliable? What about abstinence? That's a form of contraception - but, that's the point you were trying to make, right?
but that's a ridiculous point for Neo, of all people, to try to make. Neo claims to be a Christian, after all...his entire religion is founded upon the premise that abstaining from sex does not prevent pregnancy :).

Yes but sex is ultimately for procreation and no contreception is 100% effective. If you cant deel with those consequences then dont have sex.


Thats only assuming that abiogenesis is accurate and that a sentient being will evolve from snot bactira
1 No, sex isn't ultimately for procreation. It's done for various reasons including recreation. No one form of contraception is 100% but many come close, and in the event of a pregnancy one can use RU486. The combination is 100% effective.

2 I wasn't refering to snot. I was refering to semen.

So if she wants to kill herself why dont we make it legal?
I agree. Suicide is almost always a terrible option and a tragedy, but there is no reason for it to be illegal.

(note: i am not christian, so don't take this to mean that; cause i'm actually anti-christian)
We all know why you Stalinists want abortion to be illegal; it's so you can have lots of cannon fodder in your wars 20 years down the line!

No. Only reason to have sex should be to have a child. If they want sex for another reason there are ways to make it 100% effective to not be pregnant including several operations.
Who are you to tell people how and why to have sex?

As for population control, the Earth can fit billions of more humans. Most of the earth is uninhabited.
Possibly true, but is it practical to live in the wastes of Northern Siberia, Greenland, or Nunavut (Canada)?

As you have moved the discussion:

1. Sex may mean the possibility of pregnancy that is not the same as saying "sex is essentially the creation of life."

2. Nor does that mean that consent to sex is equal to consent to pregnancy.

3. Even if it meant consent to pregnancy, that is not the same as consent to carry to birth.Scientifically speaking, sex does not always result in pregnancy; the sperm may not fertilize the egg. Even if it does, the egg might not develop into a fetus. And many people have sex for reasons other than pregnancy, for example pleasure. Otherwise Neo Cannen's argument holds as a pro-life perspective.

This is inspired by a post that I made in the "Pro life perspectives" thread. I wanted to see what everyone thinks of it though.

NC = Me, Neo Cannen

PCP = Pro Choice person

NC: If a women has sex and concieves, she has an obligation to keep the child until birth

PCP: Why?

NC: Because she had sex

PCP: Why does that make her bound to have the child?

NC: Because sex is essentially the creation of a life. If the woman was unwilling to create life she shouldnt have sex.

PCP: What about contreception, if the woman wanted sex for pleasure only surely she should not have to have a child

NC: Contreception is not 100% effective. By having sex, a women is esstially creating life. She decreses the chance of that life being created by using contreception but she does not eliminate it.

PCP: Are you saying that sex for any reason other than procreation is wrong

NC: No, I am not saying that. However I am saying that sex's ultimate purpose is to create a life. If a couple have sex they are essentially concenting to the possibilty of them creating a life. They can lower that posibility through contreception but that does not eliminate it. Sex can be for pleasure only for a coulpe, but that does not mean that pleasure only will be the result.

PCP: Why does sex being the creation of a life mean that she should carry the child?

NC: Because in the creation of a life you should afford that life the same protection you would wish yourself. You would not wish to be killed so you should defend the life of that child.

PCP: Ah but the fetus is not alive for X, Y and Z science reasons!

NC: Irrelevent. If a couple have had sex they are essentially concenting to the creation of a life. If you create life, you should therefore accomadte it the same protections you yourself have. The fetus may not be alive but it is in the process of becoming one. Stopping it is akin to killing it, in the same way that you would be killing someone if you locked someone in an airlock in space and began decompressing it, when you had full ability to recompress it.

If anyone has any questions I am happy to attempt to answer.

:raises his hand:

If having an abortion is akin to killing a life because it is stopping it, and you say the ultimate purpose of sex is to create life - would that mean that whenever you could choose to have sex (thus creating life) but don't (thus akin to killing it) you're actually MURDERING?

NOT HAVING SEX IS MURDER!

Works for me. Thanks.

The only real purpose sex serves is not 'creation of life' - we're self-creating continually, every time a dead cell is replaced by a new cell - but perpetuation of genes. THAT is the purpose of sex. If you have sex, and create a baby, and that winds up being more than you can handle and neither you nor your baby live up to their full genetic potential of passing on the genes to the next generation, then that is failure. You can't just look at a newborn baby as a success - the newborn baby being able to grow up to a healthy adult is key.

As I read this debate, the following thought keeps going through my mind....

In a society where we are preached at day after day how this human race "evolved" and is living in a system historically known for survival of the fittest, the purpose of sex in this system is to procreate, to extend the extent of the species. I'm constantly being told if not outright, by implication, that human's are no different than animals, yet animals have sex for one purpose, and that is to procreate. In the animal kingdom there is no such thing as pro-choice...so why do we all of the sudden create this standard that sex is for anything else, if historically and scientifically it's for procreation.

*note...this is not my position, but it does seem to come close to a double standard in some peoples thinking.

Human beings (or any life-forms) do not create life, they simply share what life they have. A "new life" growing within its mother is not a creation, something new brought into existence that was not there before. Its body is formed from the mother's flesh, its person (including mind, heart and soul) does not even begin to form until after it is born. It's not a "new life" except in a metaphorical sense.

Sex is the act that allows us to share our life with our mates and with the child within. It's different types of sharing, the act of sex and the act of birthing, but equally important and equally sacred.

1) Sex is basically creating life? So - is eating basically creating excrement? Hard though it seems to be for you to grasp - we have sex, and we eat... even sleep, for other reasons than babies, toilet material and to recover from exhaustion.

You are confusing one of the possible outcomes, with the 'purpose of the act'.

Take a girl to dinner... are you doing it to generate bodily waste? No? To gain energy? No? To feed your starving bodies? No? Three outcomes (all true) - but none of them matches the 'purpose' of the meal - which is a social event.


You are making the same mistake as many people have here (In this respect I may have not explained myself properly but I will attempt to do so now). What I am saying is that while sex does not have to be for procreation, people who have sex for other reasons must accept that procreation is a possible outcome of sex. The reason for this being that there is no 100% effective contriception. Therefore if a women is impregnated as a result of sex "I dont want a child" is not a defence. If you have sex you must accept the possibility of having a child. The only change to this situation is where the women did not give concent, in which case she should still have the baby but I dont believe she is obligied to care for it. Putting it up for adoption is the better option there. As for your point about eating, we eat to gain nourishment for energy primaryly. We also get pleasure from the taste, but if you eat too much for pleasure it can be detrimental.


2) No form of contraception is 100% reliable? What about abstinence? That's a form of contraception - but, that's the point you were trying to make, right?

Okay - what about anal sex? I have yet to hear of a girl getting pregnant from it...

How about gay sex? I haven't heard of many lesbians or homosexual males impregnated during the course of 'regular' same-sex encounters.

Im not sure what relevence this has to a pro life arguement. Could you elaborate


3) Why pick on the act of intercourse? A third of all 'fertilised' eggs drop straight through without implanting - and that is assuming a 'normal' uterus shape. How about arguing that the meal was the reason for the sex? Then - by your logic - any girl that allows a man to buy her dinner, is asking for a baby, right?

In fact - since the girl had to leave the house to meet the man, to be asked out for dinner, which eventually lead to the sex... by your logic - the girl leaving the house is the reason for the pregnancy, right?

The thing I don't get... Christian hardliners that think like this, and yet see some distance between their 'philosophy' and the Taliban.

Your streaching my logic a little too far there (IE OUT OF CONTEXT) and what is even more stupid is that you know it. The logic is that sex can create a baby. Going for a meal cant. It can LEAD to the event of sex later possibly which can then lead to a child but streching logic that far is like saying that the Mayflower pilgrims are responsable for September 11th. Because without them, America wouldnt have developed and because without America developing along those lines (etc, etc...)


4) So - a girl doesn't want to be pregnant - but she had sex, and fell pregnant 'accidentally'. You are arguing she should have the child anyway? So - you would 'punish' the mother, by the 'gift of life'?

How is that a mature way of dealing with the situation? And why should the girl be 'punished' for her action? And, what gives you the right to regulate whether she is punished or not?

Because if you have sex, you must be prepared for the consequences. If a women does not want a child she can use contreception but that does not excuse her. If you role a six sided dice, you should not be angry when 3 comes up. Also I am not saying "I should impose this" I am saying the government should impose this. I am allowed to hold my views.


What about the 'child' you are insisting should be carried to term? Why would you wish a life of 'being a mistake' on a child?

Well I think living as a mistake is better than death.


5) What about the effects of pregnancy on the female body? And no - I'm actually not talking about psychological, or weight-gain... even though both are real issues. I'm talking about the fact that a girl is potentially damaging her body, JUST by carrying a baby. If she is too poor, too embarrassed, to pressured (or whatever) to have a decent diet, and all the necessary supplements - she is drastically increasing risks to her body... osteoporosis, for example... or pregnancy diabetes.

Why should your so-called 'moral code' take precedence over the physical health of another person?

I agree that only if the life of the mother is seriously threatened should abortion be considered. Even then however it is preety extreme and should only rearly be considered if both the mother and the child are at risk (Save one life as opposed to allowing them both to die).

:raises his hand:

If having an abortion is akin to killing a life because it is stopping it, and you say the ultimate purpose of sex is to create life - would that mean that whenever you could choose to have sex (thus creating life) but don't (thus akin to killing it) you're actually MURDERING?

NOT HAVING SEX IS MURDER!

Again you misunderstand. I am not saying "The only thing sex is good for is the creation of life" or that "all sex is for procreation only". What I am saying is that if a women has sex (for whatever reason) she should accpet a posibility of getting pregnant as an outcome. You cant dodge the responsablitys of sex creating a life, thats what it does.

but that's a ridiculous point for Neo, of all people, to try to make. Neo claims to be a Christian, after all...his entire religion is founded upon the premise that abstaining from sex does not prevent pregnancy :).

Indeed - curious, really, when you think about it.

According to the bible, NOT having sex isn't enough to stop a really determined 'god' from allowing a woman to get pregnant.

I wonder why Christians, therefore, worry so much about trivialites like 'contaception' or 'abortion'... surely the same 'god' can 'get round' those obstacles, too?

Again you misunderstand. I am not saying "The only thing sex is good for is the creation of life" or that "all sex is for procreation only". What I am saying is that if a women has sex (for whatever reason) she should accpet a posibility of getting pregnant as an outcome. You cant dodge the responsablitys of sex creating a life, thats what it does.

But you insist that the PURPOSE of sex is creating a life. You also insist that not following up on that life-creation process is basically akin to killing. Therefore my question to you still stands - is not having sex murder? Since I'm effectively aborting even before conception, when my sperm COULD be growing up to become a baby. Just as a baby COULD be growing up to live a "life." (It is certain in neither case, by the way - and how many women die while giving birth? They might have a different perspective, meh?)

As I read this debate, the following thought keeps going through my mind....

In a society where we are preached at day after day how this human race "evolved" and is living in a system historically known for survival of the fittest, the purpose of sex in this system is to procreate, to extend the extent of the species. I'm constantly being told if not outright, by implication, that human's are no different than animals, yet animals have sex for one purpose, and that is to procreate. In the animal kingdom there is no such thing as pro-choice...so why do we all of the sudden create this standard that sex is for anything else, if historically and scientifically it's for procreation.

*note...this is not my position, but it does seem to come close to a double standard in some peoples thinking.

Absolute rubbish, I'm afraid.

First - there is no way to prove that ANY animal (other than human) has EVER had sex to procreate. They do it because their bodies tell them... it is unlikely many have ANY concept that procreation follows.

Second - look up "Bonobos".

The body is merely a physical shell. Until the brain of said shell has developed enough that it can hold long term memory and support the evolution of a mind, it has little worth beyond any harvestable materiels it may contain. Applying rights to people that have yet to exist would go against the laws of temporal relativity and so is not applicable as an arguement unless our understanding of physics is drastically altered at some point.

But you insist that the PURPOSE of sex is creating a life. You also insist that not following up on that life-creation process is basically akin to killing. Therefore my question to you still stands - is not having sex murder? Since I'm effectively aborting even before conception, when my sperm COULD be growing up to become a baby. Just as a baby COULD be growing up to live a "life." (It is certain in neither case, by the way - and how many women die while giving birth? They might have a different perspective, meh?)

Let me answer your question with a question.

Does me not going to America, and not buying a semi automatic weapon there and not killing a massive amount of Americans in a shopping centre make me an increadably restrained and compasionate individual.

If that is too abstract for you I will again attempt to explain. No not having sex is not murder because you are not creating and then destroying anything. When you have sex, you must accept the posibility of a pregnancy occuring because sex does create life. Now its debatable as to whether or not sex to create life is the ultimate purpose of sex but it is not debatable that sex does create life. It can do that, sex can create new life. As a result if a couple have sex then they must be prepared to deal with the posssibility of a pregnanacy because there is no 100% effective contriception therefore life can come about from sex.

Absolute rubbish, I'm afraid.

First - there is no way to prove that ANY animal (other than human) has EVER had sex to procreate. They do it because their bodies tell them... it is unlikely many have ANY concept that procreation follows.


And to think, that somehow, by sheer accident, the predecessors of the human race stopped having sex because their bodies told them too, and started having it for fun, or because they realized they could over populate the earth and thus have control over all lesser forms of animal. I guess that it evolved with along the same time that "self-awareness" evolved.

bonobos - pygmy chimpanzee....not sure the relevance...though I haven't had a chance to ask my father-in-law who breeds monkeys.

Let me answer your question with a question.

*snip*

Let me answer your question with a question.

When are you going to respond to the many flaws in your theory pointed out earlier rather than simply repeat the same arguments that have been discredited?

I agree that only if the life of the mother is seriously threatened should abortion be considered. Even then however it is preety extreme and should only rearly be considered if both the mother and the child are at risk (Save one life as opposed to allowing them both to die).

Then EVERY pregnancy should be terminated, because ALL pregnancies carry harm to the mother, and risk of death.

Red my damn posts, Neo.

Don't just put your answers near a part that looks like it might lead-in to what you want to preach.

Did you even think to look up information about osteoporosis?

And you need to get off that platform "saving life". The point at which abortions are legal, is BEFORE the foetus can legitimately be termed 'a lifeform'.

Up until that point, an abortion is much the same as a bowel movement... it removes unwanted human cells, in the form of waste.

And to think, that somehow, by sheer accident, the predecessors of the human race stopped having sex because their bodies told them too, and started having it for fun, or because they realized they could over populate the earth and thus have control over all lesser forms of animal. I guess that it evolved with along the same time that "self-awareness" evolved.

bonobos - pygmy chimpanzee....not sure the relevance...though I haven't had a chance to ask my father-in-law who breeds monkeys.

Animals have sex for reasons other than procreation.

That bears repeating: animals have sex for reasons other than procreation.

So, the premise of your argument is wrong.

god is omnipresent, but has given us free will. from then on he obviously cannot see into the future, otherwise we'd never have freewill.

god chooses who lives and who dies. yet murder is a sin, so obviously he doesn't control when people will die because they have got shot. its like forcing his hand, this is expected by him though because he did give us freewill, so not everyone is going to go along with his master plan.

everyone has a unique soul, one soul per body. when someone is born god must provide a soul for it. wether he actually provides one, or one just comes along is anyones guess, but you have a soul waiting.

what happens to that soul when you have an abortion? it's shell is gone and it can never be born, never be judged. it can never proove itself to god. how does it get it's place in heaven? surely preventing a soul from having it's life *is* murder.

non-religious people can simply shrug this off and i expect them to. i dont believe in souls either. i'd like to hear a reply from someone who is truely religious.

And to think, that somehow, by sheer accident, the predecessors of the human race stopped having sex because their bodies told them too, and started having it for fun, or because they realized they could over populate the earth and thus have control over all lesser forms of animal. I guess that it evolved with along the same time that "self-awareness" evolved.

bonobos - pygmy chimpanzee....not sure the relevance...though I haven't had a chance to ask my father-in-law who breeds monkeys.

Do you think before you type?

We STILL have sex because our bodies tell us... we just enjoy it... and our bodies LIKE enjoyment, so we do it again.

Whether you believe in evolution or creationism, it is hard to overlook the fact that the clitoris serves no function OTHER than sexual pleasure... thus, be it by evolution or design, sex is fun... just because of how we are built.

Humans didn't have to 'stop having sex because their bodies told them' in order to 'start having sex for fun'. Sex IS fun, it's not an either/or situation.

Regarding Bonobos... your ignorance is not my problem. You asserted that all animals ONLY have sex to reproduce... and yet you haven't even done the bookwork that would immediately prove that untrue.

I suggest you research Bonobos before you make any more such errors.

Also - you might want to research Dolphins, who have been witnessed having sex as a form of violence... or did you not know that Dolphins 'gang-rape', either?

The body is merely a physical shell. Until the brain of said shell has developed enough that it can hold long term memory and support the evolution of a mind, it has little worth beyond any harvestable materiels it may contain. Applying rights to people that have yet to exist would go against the laws of temporal relativity and so is not applicable as an arguement unless our understanding of physics is drastically altered at some point.

But a lot of pro-lifers (if they admit that embyroes/feti aren't living) would argue that the embryo/fetus, if unincumbered, will develop (with as much certainty as any other biological process) into that sentient being, and that destruction of that being before it fully develops is equivelant to be the destruction of that future life (because the embryo/fetus will develop into future life). A main argument for pro-life is that once fertilization occurs (or another early-on event), the embry/fetus is in a sequence of events which will incur intelligent life, and, thus, is protectable as an intelligent life.

It could be argued that the act of sex is the act of consent to the possibility of an embyo-fetus, which is said to mean that the thus-consenting parents would have no right to terminate the development of a human life--they've already agreed to the possibility of it by having sex.

Then EVERY pregnancy should be terminated, because ALL pregnancies carry harm to the mother, and risk of death.

Red my damn posts, Neo.

Don't just put your answers near a part that looks like it might lead-in to what you want to preach.

Did you even think to look up information about osteoporosis?


They carry a risk, but in most cases is negliagble. If there is an actuall seriously high chance that the mother could die, not just "Well there is a posibilty, but its very slim". I know about 3 pregnant women at the moment, none of them are in danger of their lives by having a baby. What exactly are you talking about.


And you need to get off that platform "saving life". The point at which abortions are legal, is BEFORE the foetus can legitimately be termed 'a lifeform'.

Up until that point, an abortion is much the same as a bowel movement... it removes unwanted human cells, in the form of waste.

Are phecies developing into a lifeform, I think not

But a lot of pro-lifers (if they admit that embyroes/feti aren't living) would argue that the embryo/fetus, if unincumbered, will develop (with as much certainty as any other biological process) into that sentient being, and that destruction of that being before it fully develops is equivelant to be the destruction of that future life (because the embryo/fetus will develop into future life). A main argument for pro-life is that once fertilization occurs (or another early-on event), the embry/fetus is in a sequence of events which will incur intelligent life, and, thus, is protectable as an intelligent life.

It could be argued that the act of sex is the act of consent to the possibility of an embyo-fetus, which is said to mean that the thus-consenting parents would have no right to terminate the development of a human life--they've already agreed to the possibility of it by having sex.

You put this more logically than it has been put before, but it still faces the same problems.

Why is potential human life entitled to rights?

Why does the right of potential human life supercede the rights of the mother?

How does consenting to the possibility of an embryo-fetus equate to accepting the obligation of carrying the embryo-fetus to birth?

I can tell kids it is OK to play in the dirt pile in my yard. It is possible they will build a fort. I may even expressly consent to that possibility. I have not agreed that the fort can stay there.

Do you think before you type?

We STILL have sex because our bodies tell us... we just enjoy it... and our bodies LIKE enjoyment, so we do it again.

Whether you believe in evolution or creationism, it is hard to overlook the fact that the clitoris serves no function OTHER than sexual pleasure... thus, be it by evolution or design, sex is fun... just because of how we are built.

Humans didn't have to 'stop having sex because their bodies told them' in order to 'start having sex for fun'. Sex IS fun, it's not an either/or situation.

Regarding Bonobos... your ignorance is not my problem. You asserted that all animals ONLY have sex to reproduce... and yet you haven't even done the bookwork that would immediately prove that untrue.

I suggest you research Bonobos before you make any more such errors.

Also - you might want to research Dolphins, who have been witnessed having sex as a form of violence... or did you not know that Dolphins 'gang-rape', either?

Most of what you said I agree with...remember, I never said what I believe, just posted a couple questions that always come to mind. As for the "think before you type" comment....well....I'll assume you're having a bad day.

They carry a risk, but in most cases is negliagble. If there is an actuall seriously high chance that the mother could die, not just "Well there is a posibilty, but its very slim". I know about 3 pregnant women at the moment, none of them are in danger of their lives by having a baby. What exactly are you talking about.



Your ignorance is not my concern, Neo.

EVERY pregnancy involves risk.

I told you what I was talking about - I even gave you a couple of pointers. It is hardly my fault if you approached a battle of wits unarmed, now is it?

Does "osteoporosis" sound familiar... I MIGHT have mentioned it, already...

What about Pregnancy Diabetes?


Are phecies developing into a lifeform, I think not

Irrelevent.

An egg is not a human life.

A sperm is not a human life.

A zygote is not a human life.

A foetus is not a human life.... until it becomes legitimately human... so, in the case of neural developement... about 20+ weeks. Which is also LONG after most legal abortions will have been carried out.

Most of what you said I agree with...remember, I never said what I believe, just posted a couple questions that always come to mind. As for the "think before you type" comment....well....I'll assume you're having a bad day.

Maybe... but the comment was specifically inspired by two parts of your post...:

by sheer accident, the predecessors of the human race stopped having sex because their bodies told them too, and started having it for fun..

and...


bonobos - pygmy chimpanzee....not sure the relevance...though I haven't had a chance to ask my father-in-law who breeds monkeys.

The first comment was just flippant, and easily refuted with a little thought... the second comment... well. You made an assertion that no animals have sex for non-reproductive reasons... and Bonobos are clear evidence to the contrary... but you hadn't done the research.

Thus - I concluded that you hadn't really thought it out before you made your statement.

Perhaps I was too harsh. For which, I apologise.

Why is potential human life entitled to rights?

Why does the right of potential human life supercede the rights of the mother?


I think the rationale behind responses to the first question is the pro-lifer's definition of an embryo/fetus's chances of eventually developing into life as more than just "potential". I mean (and it sort of makes sense to me according to my limited understanding of electrical and physical/Newtonian potential), they'd say that the egg and the sperm separately carry the “potential” for human life, but that when they are enjoined and fertilized it becomes much more of an "inevitability" (or a similar term) of human life.

Perhaps an example of this is a child atop a slide. At the top of the slide, before any catalytic action has taken place, there is "potential". Once the child begins to move, however, and the coefficient of friction is overcome by the force of gravity, potential it transformed into a chain of "inevitable" events--a sort of acceleration.

They'd argue that potential of human life and the setting in motion of a chain of events that will lead to human life are two separate things. Back to the example, they'd say that if the child generates some sort of movement at the top of the slide (perhaps attempting to go down, perhaps not) they thereby consent to the possibility of passing over that threshold of gravitational and friction forces, which, if passed over, will eventually lead them down the slide. They'd say that parents are just as devoid of the right to stop the biological processes they've set in motion--which will lead to a human life--as the child is devoid of the right to stop him or herself from being acted upon by the force of gravity once beginning down the slide.

How does consenting to the possibility of an embryo-fetus equate to accepting the obligation of carrying the embryo-fetus to birth?

I can tell kids it is OK to play in the dirt pile in my yard. It is possible they will build a fort. I may even expressly consent to that possibility. I have not agreed that the fort can stay there.

But it could be argued that if, in the act of building a fort in your yard, the kids had set in motion a chain of events which would inevitably lead to human life, that you or the kids would have no right to stop that process once you'd both decided to start it. I think Pro-lifer's would bring it all back to the inevitability of an embryo/fetus becoming human life, and that this inevitability requires the pre-human life to be protected as human life.

I think the rationale behind responses to the first question is the pro-lifer's definition of an embryo/fetus's chances of eventually developing into life as more than just "potential". I mean (and it sort of makes sense to me according to my limited understanding of electrical and physical/Newtonian potential), they'd say that the egg and the sperm separately carry the “potential” for human life, but that when they are enjoined and fertilized it becomes much more of an "inevitability" (or a similar term) of human life.

Perhaps an example of this is a child atop a slide. At the top of the slide, before any catalytic action has taken place, there is "potential". Once the child begins to move, however, and the coefficient of friction is overcome by the force of gravity, potential it transformed into a chain of "inevitable" events--a sort of acceleration.

They'd argue that potential of human life and the setting in motion of a chain of events that will lead to human life are two separate things. Back to the example, they'd say that if the child generates some sort of movement at the top of the slide (perhaps attempting to go down, perhaps not) they thereby consent to the possibility of passing over that threshold of gravitational and friction forces, which, if passed over, will eventually lead them down the slide. They'd say that parents are just as devoid of the right to stop the biological processes they've set in motion--which will lead to a human life--as the child is devoid of the right to stop him or herself from being acted upon by the force of gravity once beginning down the slide.

Is this "they" you?

Regardless, there is nothing inevitable about it. Even without abortion, sex does not equal conception and conception does not inevitably lead to birth.

Moroever, it begs the question of why something "which will lead to human life" -- and is admittedly not yet a person -- should be treated as if it were a person.

[But it could be argued that if, in the act of building a fort in your yard, the kids had set in motion a chain of events which would inevitably lead to human life, that you or the kids would have no right to stop that process once you'd both decided to start it. I think Pro-lifer's would bring it all back to the inevitability of an embryo/fetus becoming human life, and that this inevitability requires the pre-human life to be protected as human life.

Of course, this point abandons the "consent" argument altogether.

Now it deserves protection as human life because it is "pre-human life," not because of any consent to carry it to birth.

Which brings us back to the fact that (a) it is not an inevitability and (b) why does something that is not a person deserve more rights than a person?

Is this "they" you?

No. "I" am removed from this discussion entirely. For one, because I pretty much share my feelings on the subjects such as abortion only with those that know me. For another thing, because I'm investigating with what pro-choice arguments would respond to a different phrasing of pro-life arguments (which seems to me to be more clear). Criticism of arguments needs to take place removed from personal attachment and bias. So, in order for me to take any sort of meaningful knowledge away from this I need to have no vested interest in the arguments.

For an example of the need for objectivity, Nixon's "Vietnamization" speech was incredibly effective. However, it kept the country in the war, and made appeals which seemed to alienate protestors against he war. If one were to take away lessons from Nixon's effectiveness in the speech, one couldn't be hung up on whether it were "moral" or "immoral".

Regardless, there is nothing inevitable about it. Even without abortion, sex does not equal conception and conception does not inevitably lead to birth.

Moroever, it begs the question of why something "which will lead to human life" -- and is admittedly not yet a person -- should be treated as if it were a person.

No, sex does not equal conception, but that's kind of irrelevant. What's claimed by the argument is that sex contains the possibility of conception and is a choice. If a couple makes the choice to have sex they know that pregnancy can result and thus, they consent. So is the claim.

The claim of inevitability comes from the fact that there is no pro-active thing the mother or father need do for the little zygote to become a fully developed baby. Development occurs unless interfered with. That's why it's claimed to be inevitable.

Now it deserves protection as human life because it is "pre-human life," not because of any consent to carry it to birth.


The argument is that at a very early point in the pregnancy (I'm not an expert on the various stages of uterus based development, I can't say exactly) the embryo/fetus is on a course which will lead to a human life if intervention does not take place. If one accepts that as true then it's pretty easy to extend that intervention is thus eliminating a human life in the future.

Likewise, if one were to accept the child's "in-uterus" development as a chain of events which are inevitable (minus intervention) once fertilization occurs (or some such early event), then consent that a pregnancy may occur is consent to carry to term (as "intervention" would then be considered the elimination of a human life).

Isn't this enough threads on abortion already?

It starts out as a sensible debate, but then degenerates into anarchy:

Pro-Lifers: You're wrong, I'm right.
Pro-Choicers: No, you're wrong. I'm right.
Pro-Lifers: No,you're wrong, I'm right.
Pro-Choicers: No, you're wrong. I'm right.
Pro-Lifers: No,you're wrong, I'm right, because of X, Y and Z.
Pro-Choicers: No, you're wrong. I'm right, because of A, B and C.
Pro-Lifers: See, here's a link that proves I'm right!
Pro-Choicers: That link is bulls***! I'm right! And this link proves it!

And on and on and on. Won't you give it up?

One thing I dont get about liberals, why are they proabortion but were against having schiavo starved to death. Not so much difference there is there now?
psst... we were FOR having the feeding tube removed thus honoring her request. it was the pro-life conservative christian etc. who wanted the feeding tube in

I've allready explained this. There is no 100% effective contreception so by having sex, a women must accept the possibility of becoming pregnant



What your saying is "It has no will or sentience, kill it before it does". It is not a person yet no, but it is becoming one. Unlike bactira and mosquitos it will become a person if you leave it be. Let me put it another way, you have been dating a girl for a while now, but she is a little insecure and thinks you like other women more than her, which is not true. Youve been together for a few years and you decide to pop the question. However Jim who knows about her insecurities lies to her, telling her you slept with Carol who is better than her in bed and has bigger boobs. Your girlfriend believes him and leaves you. If Jim hadnt said that your relationship would have developed into a marriage and you would have lived happly ever after. Ergo he killed the possibilty of your marriage. In the same way you kill a life by killing something growing into a life. If you kill me aged 17 you also kill me aged 24.
at 17 you had a brain, when you were a blob of cells called an embryo you had no brain, no consciousness. you were not a living human being, like you said, you had the potential for life, not life. no human life means no murder (cells divide means life, not human life)

As you have moved the discussion:

1. Sex may mean the possibility of pregnancy that is not the same as saying "sex is essentially the creation of life."

2. Nor does that mean that consent to sex is equal to consent to pregnancy.

3. Even if it meant consent to pregnancy, that is not the same as consent to carry to birth.



Here is the part where you really fail to provide any reasoning. You are beggin the question of why the life must be protected.

Any life deserves the same treatment as you would wish for yourself?

"That child" has no wishes and never will if aborted.



Consent to sex != consent to carry pregnancy to birth. Major leap.

"In the process of becoming" a person != person.

Yes, abortion is "killing" something. So is swatting mosquitos and pulling up dandelions, so?

Adult, functioning human being in airlock != embryo.

We've been going around this and you have yet to justify a moral obligation to carry conceived life to term.

And, btw, "life" is irrelevant. Personhood is relevant.

Again


Just to give an example, that "pro-life" point of view pretty much says for example if you plant the tree you can't cut it down.

I don’t mean to but in here but it seems that the pro-life side (or anti-choice if you will) is not catching one thing about some of the pro-choice’s argument. Supposing, just supposing, that it is immoral to abort a child by the tenants of your religion, and suppose that you religion is right. (Rolls eyes). It is not compatible with the system of personal freedom that the western world has laid out.

I think that we can all agree that sharing is a virtue, and that selfishness is a vice. After all NC part of your argument is that the mother should give of herself for those nine months. This said, would you be willing to pay some of your income to raise this child? Better yet, why don’t we equalize all the incomes and create communes where the children can receive the best child rearing and development the country has to offer. What if you never had kids and your career based lifestyle nets you almost a million annually? What if to pay for these children’s education, after all they didn’t ask to be disadvantaged by poor starting circumstances in life, your disposable income was reduced to a mere $25k per annum?

Ah but I can hear the objections now. You did not participate in this life why should you have to sacrifice anything to raise it? After all you’re abstaining until marriage where you can adequately raise your child in a responsible manner. This is very true, but you’re espousing personal accountability and responsibility and part of that is letting people clean up their own messes. What it comes down to is this; if this woman is expected to be accountable she needs to be given a free hand in her own personal affairs. I.E. if she chooses not to let the fetus use her womb for nine months then she is given the option of evicting the tenant. In much the same way a land owner can eject a young mother for not paying rent, caring not whether she or her infant child will survive, the mother can have the fetus removed and care not whether it survives without the womb.

If this immorality offends you and you believe that this person should be forced to bring the child to term you cannot endorse the system of ‘rise or fall on your own merits’ that exists today. Should legislation be enacted due to the moral ramifications of abortion then income should be redistributed, forcibly, due to the moral ramifications of child poverty and hunger.

Food for thought is all.

Well, I'm on the fence between pro-life and pro-choice? There's an in-between, why yes, yes their is!

Well, killing unborn babies is wrong. They are human by the law of abiogenesis, not a "thing". They have been known to react and respond to stimuli. Though they look barely human, you cannot change the fact of their identity as a human being. You can argue that they're an inconvenience, can't you? Well, let's assume I play football as a line-backer. Right now I'm kinda shrimpy. I need mass - I won't be fat, I'll be pure muscle... but I need to eat a lot more... spending a lot of money on food. Well, as all this money is going down my throat, I clearly am incovenicencing my parents. Do my parents have the right to end my life for being an inconvenience? No. Biologically, there are only like two places where you can draw the line of what consititues a human being. THe moment of conception. The moment of birth.. yet a month before birth they look almost exactly like a baby. Any point between conception and birth is completely ARBITRARY!

Now, if I have these views, how can I be on the fence? Well, friends and neighbors, what about illegal abortion!? State-sanctioned killing is better than what is happening in a back alley with a coat hanger!

Comments?
anyone can buy you food. ever heard of adoption? you cant adopt someone elses embryo and put it in your body, thus your analogy is flawed.

I read through the initial post and did not see a single logical statement in it. You can call it "logic" all you want, but until you provide some iota of logical deduction it is still just moral opinion.

So if she wants to kill herself why dont we make it legal?
because then a human life would be ended. an embryo is a blob of cells with no brain, not a human life

psst... we were FOR having the feeding tube removed thus honoring her request. it was the pro-life conservative christian etc. who wanted the feeding tube in


Good point. (And good catch.)

And we were for it for similar reasons. We respected Ms. Schiavo's right to decide what happened to her own body.

Im against abortion, but for killing babies

Let me answer your question with a question.

Does me not going to America, and not buying a semi automatic weapon there and not killing a massive amount of Americans in a shopping centre make me an increadably restrained and compasionate individual.

Why, no it doesn't.

If that is too abstract for you I will again attempt to explain. No not having sex is not murder because you are not creating and then destroying anything. When you have sex, you must accept the posibility of a pregnancy occuring because sex does create life.

True, and when a woman is raped she should also accept that possibility.

Speaking of accepting possibilities, there's the possibility that people do not make the wisest decisions regardless of anything. Regardless of even God. So do we let them live with their mistakes - or die because of them, or merely add more suffering people to the world than the System can support - because creating and destroying some cells is immoral (in your viewpoint?)

Now its debatable as to whether or not sex to create life is the ultimate purpose of sex but it is not debatable that sex does create life. It can do that, sex can create new life. As a result if a couple have sex then they must be prepared to deal with the posssibility of a pregnanacy because there is no 100% effective contriception therefore life can come about from sex.

Sex can lead to pregnancy. But aside from stating the obvious, what's your point? Sex can also lead to disease and death! Pregnancy can lead to death! Ok, I'm digressing here, but it's always a gamble. It's always a loss of energy and time and the payoff may or may not be worth it. Life is not 100% certain from sex either. As you say, contraceptives decrease that certainty even more. And abortion even more.

It seems to me that you guys/gals dont understand all of the variables in stuations such as these. What if the woman was raped? What if it was a child of incest? What if she was a 12 year old and was going to die if the baby, which could have been a result of rape, was born? What if the father runs, because according to some of you that is the only human that can take care of a child? What if the baby was horrifically mentally retarded or deformed? The list goes on and on. You also must take into concideration that as soon as you take something away, it is human nature to try to attain it again unless it was inconvenient to them in the first place. And much like what Bashan had said, would you rather have a proffesional doctor do it where only the fetus is "murdered", or some guy in an alley wanting a quick buck wind up killing both the mother and fetus? And many of your arguments would be shit in court because it is based all on religion, and congress can not and will not make a law promoting or "dissing" (for lack of a better word) a religious group.
this debate is about elective abortion in the regular sense being legal. this means that we disregard all these variables out of common sense. the pro-life argument is that the average woman shouldnt be able to have an abortion out of her desire alone. so we start there even though some pro-lifers take it further.

this debate is about elective abortion in the regular sense being legal. this means that we disregard all these variables out of common sense. the pro-life argument is that the average woman shouldnt be able to have an abortion out of her desire alone. so we start there even though some pro-lifers take it further.

I partially disagree.

One of the reasons abortion must remain up to the woman is that she can decide if it is appropriate in any of those circumstances. Protecting the right to choose protects against all of those horrors.

Once you take away a woman's right to control her own body "except in X or Y or Z," you have essentially taken away the right altogether.

Women can be as trusted to make a choice as they can to have a child. That choice is protected, in part, because we know such circumstances more than justify abortion.

because then a human life would be ended. an embryo is a blob of cells with no brain, not a human life

What determines what is human? Besides according to the statement I responded to it said something along the lines of it is her body let her do what she wants with it. What is the big difference between human life and other life?
If you think human life is more valuable then you are specist.

What determines what is human? Besides according to the statement I responded to it said something along the lines of it is her body let her do what she wants with it. What is the big difference between human life and other life?
If you think human life is more valuable then you are specist.

Gee, the pot calls the kettle ...

How about this, if people in the midieval ages had abortions, would most of us be here?
That you better answer no.

Now if people in the neolithic age somehow had abortions would most people be alive now?
No, that is unless Neanderthals genocided the Cromagnums in that war instead of the other way around.

Now if people here have abortions would most of the future be there(or is it then?)?
No.

Gee, the pot calls the kettle ...

Pots cant talk :p

Why are so many people going on the basis that human life is sacred? It isn't. We have enough people already. Let a few kids die. We don't need them.

Seriously. You only think humans are important because you ARE human. Humans are just larger versions of ants. You tell yourself you are somehow special so you can sleep at night.

Wake up, people.

Or don't.

It really doesn't matter.

Have a great day.

Why are so many people going on the basis that human life is sacred? It isn't. We have enough people already. Let a few kids die. We don't need them.

Seriously. You only think humans are important because you ARE human. Humans are just larger versions of ants. You tell yourself you are somehow special so you can sleep at night.

Wake up, people.

Or don't.

It really doesn't matter.

Have a great day.

I know but it is illegal to kill people which according to your logic let us kill people of any age.

an embryo is a blob of cells with no brain, not a human life
is it not a life tho? why because its cells, does that mean it can just be killed, what right do you, do i, have at taking any life? i have mixed views on abortion, however, i feel it is wrong, that people say, "oh its just cells" or "oh, its only a foetus, doesnt matter if we kill it" but the fact is, 5 months in, they are calling it a foetus, yet does it not reasmble a baby, and thats a later example, how about at 4 months? 3 months, still looks like a baby to me. so it dont matter what you call it mate, its still a being. even if it doesnt reasemble one.

How about this, if people in the midieval ages had abortions, would most of us be here?
That you better answer no.

Now if people in the neolithic age somehow had abortions would most people be alive now?
No, that is unless Neanderthals genocided the Cromagnums in that war instead of the other way around.

Now if people here have abortions would most of the future be there(or is it then?)?
No.
I have news for you. People in the medieval age had abortions. And yet here we are.

First of all, criple for 9 months, not life. Second of all, if them being a cripple for 9 months allows someone else to live a full life for 70 years, then yes, they should be a criple for 9 months.
under that logic we should force all women to constantly have sex unless they're pregneant. after all we'd be allowing someone else to live a full life for 70 years wouldnt we?
after having read your arguments i think that you beleive that although an embryo without a brain isnt a human life, it only has the potential to be a human life. it therefore shouldn't be aborted because you cant stop the potential for life. the potential for life is stopped every second that a woman doesnt have sex when not pregneant.

Why are so many people going on the basis that human life is sacred? It isn't. We have enough people already. Let a few kids die. We don't need them.

Seriously. You only think humans are important because you ARE human. Humans are just larger versions of ants. You tell yourself you are somehow special so you can sleep at night.

Wake up, people.

Or don't.

It really doesn't matter.

Have a great day.

I agree with your statements, but I don't agree with the sentiment of them. Yes, human life isn't "sacred", however, the human consciousness is. Humans are much more than larger versions of ants.

Here is where you go wrong, because I dispute the fact that the end to which sex progresses is sex. The purpose of sex is to solidify and cement a meaningful and loving relationship between people.
again, im pro-choice but can still smell BS. your assessment is subjective and thus can have no effect on law. biologically (objectively, scientifically, objectively, etc.) speaking sex is done for the purpose of pro-creation.

There can be no "proof" to those for abortion rights. There is ALWAYS going to be another excuse that somebody is going to come up with to justify murder. I am not for abortion, I will never condone it, and I just hope you can live with yourself and further face God with it one day.

God save the children who cannot save themselves.
enlighten me oh holy one. how is a brainless ball of cells, bilogically equivalent to a brain dead human have the right to the flesh of a living breathing human woman?

1. After conception, life has been created (or will be, which is just as important)
2. Destroying life is evil

then, that will always lead to
3. Abortion is evil
your logic
1. if someone has sex and becomes pregneant and does nothing about it LIFE WILL BE CREATED
2. the above stated is just as important as life
3. destroying life is evil
4. not having sex and becoming pregneant is evil.............???????

- The tube tying was a joke. I am well read in dystopian novels (please recommend me some to read) and am quite aware of the problems of government intervention.
I'm quite the libertarian (when I'm not bickering with the authoritarian enlightened despot, with educated appointed advisors, within me), if that clears up any more misconceptions...

- Please tell me what the difference is. You seem more learned and educated than me. I truly hope that my views aren't too different from yours. [/not sarcasm]
sorry not a dystopia but still more than worth reading: Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky

Brain cells don't die when people think. There HAVE to be better ways to call me stupid.
in fact, they are created

This is inspired by a post that I made in the "Pro life perspectives" thread. I wanted to see what everyone thinks of it though.


Snipped for brevity.

You know, I totally respect a person who can put their beliefs down in a logical, rational way, even though I'm adamantly pro-choice, but I just have one question for all you pro-life people: Why is it that the pro life rhetoric never seems to include or make mention of these people?:

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/

Are they not also deserving of a pain free life? Look at those pictures, tell yourself that you're pro-life, then ask yourself who you voted for in the last election and remember who's war this is.

Snipped for brevity.

You know, I totally respect a person who can put their beliefs down in a logical, rational way, even though I'm adamantly pro-choice, but I just have one question for all you pro-life people: Why is it that the pro life rhetoric never seems to include or make mention of these people?:

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/

Are they not also deserving of a pain free life? Look at those pictures, tell yourself that you're pro-life, then ask yourself who you voted for in the last election and remember who's war this is.
wow you could not have digressed any further from the original topic. if you want to start a new thread then do so. if you want to discuss the morals of the iraq war then dont do it on an abortion thread (consult rules of forums which are stickied up at the top of the forum).

Snipped for brevity.

You know, I totally respect a person who can put their beliefs down in a logical, rational way, even though I'm adamantly pro-choice, but I just have one question for all you pro-life people: Why is it that the pro life rhetoric never seems to include or make mention of these people?:

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/

Are they not also deserving of a pain free life? Look at those pictures, tell yourself that you're pro-life, then ask yourself who you voted for in the last election and remember who's war this is.

How the hell does that have anything to do with whats being debated here?

Dont get me wrong, I'm pro choice too, but that link seems rather pointless in this debate.

is it not a life tho? why because its cells, does that mean it can just be killed, what right do you, do i, have at taking any life? i have mixed views on abortion, however, i feel it is wrong, that people say, "oh its just cells" or "oh, its only a foetus, doesnt matter if we kill it" but the fact is, 5 months in, they are calling it a foetus, yet does it not reasmble a baby, and thats a later example, how about at 4 months? 3 months, still looks like a baby to me. so it dont matter what you call it mate, its still a being. even if it doesnt reasemble one.
are you going to stop eating animals and vegetables? they are life. they are not HUMAN LIFE. as i have said i am talking about a brainless ball of cells called an EMBRYO. it is biologically equivalent to a brain dead human.
P.S. a recently brain dead human looks alot like a human to me...

wow you could not have digressed any further from the original topic. if you want to start a new thread then do so. if you want to discuss the morals of the iraq war then dont do it on an abortion thread (consult rules of forums which are stickied up at the top of the forum).

Sigh, once again, no one gets my point. Quite simply, the point being, it's all good and well to talk and fuss about "life", in utero or otherwise, but I wonder why so many so called pro lifers voluntarily omit the fact that little children and pregnant women are dying everyday in a war that was started by a guy that they most likely voted for.

There's the tie in. Do try to put 1 and 1 together dears, it's not all that hard.

Sigh, once again, no one gets my point. Quite simply, the point being, it's all good and well to talk and fuss about "life", in utero or otherwise, but I wonder why so many so called pro lifers voluntarily omit the fact that little children and pregnant women are dying everyday in a war that was started by a guy that they most likely voted for.

There's the tie in. Do try to put 1 and 1 together dears, it's not all that hard.

Thats rather a different argument though. This thread is concerned with the ethics of abortion. There are probably quite a few pro-lifers who opposed the iraq war, you cant stereotype everyone. Best not do get debates mixed up really, otherwise we'll have absolutely no chance of resolveing it (not that we have much chance anyway).

Sigh, once again, no one gets my point. Quite simply, the point being, it's all good and well to talk and fuss about "life", in utero or otherwise, but I wonder why so many so called pro lifers voluntarily omit the fact that little children and pregnant women are dying everyday in a war that was started by a guy that they most likely voted for.

There's the tie in. Do try to put 1 and 1 together dears, it's not all that hard.
then make this post in a seperate thread. the morality of the iraq war, which i am against for reasons i WONT DISCUSS ON THIS THREAD, is obviously debatable. debate it on another thread. i "get your point" and in this argument it is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion. please dont argue with me about this, just start another thread.

He should look after her as much as is possible. If the women is impregnated without concent then I think he should have look after the child without her help.

You think we should give a rapist a baby to look after?

The foetus is not an individual until it is born, or at least has a working brain. Until then it is a part of the woman's body. Her body is her property to do with as she will, plain and simple.
WRONG, WRONG , WRONG.The child is alive, if you don't believe me,let me show you some footage of a late stage abortion :gundge: Let me ask you a question ,if a woman had to perform her own abortion i guarantee she would be a lot more careful with whom she slept with. That's my view

then make this post in a seperate thread. the morality of the iraq war, which i am against for reasons i WONT DISCUSS ON THIS THREAD, is obviously debatable. debate it on another thread. i "get your point" and in this argument it is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion. please dont argue with me about this, just start another thread.

I think I'll do just that :)

(And please don't argue with me on my other thread either. You're not as interesting as you think you are)

But a lot of pro-lifers (if they admit that embyroes/feti aren't living) would argue that the embryo/fetus, if unincumbered, will develop (with as much certainty as any other biological process) into that sentient being, and that destruction of that being before it fully develops is equivelant to be the destruction of that future life (because the embryo/fetus will develop into future life). A main argument for pro-life is that once fertilization occurs (or another early-on event), the embry/fetus is in a sequence of events which will incur intelligent life, and, thus, is protectable as an intelligent life.

Actually, it is rather unlikely that the product of fertilization will ever become intelligent life. Best estimates are that about 80% of all fertilzed eggs do not develop to that point.

Meanwhile, we do not protect potential - we protect actual. We do not allow children to drive because they will one day be 16. We do not draft 5 year-olds because they will one day be 18.

WRONG, WRONG , WRONG.The child is alive, if you don't believe me,let me show you some footage of a late stage abortion :gundge: Let me ask you a question ,if a woman had to perform her own abortion i guarantee she would be a lot more careful with whom she slept with. That's my view

We aren't talking about late stage abortion - a procedure which can only take place (at least in most countries) for *medical* reasons.

Would you rather both die?

As my title suggests, I am of two selves on this issue; my political self and my, well, "self". Politically, I am pro-choice; I have no reason or right interfere with anothers rights. It is better that fetus is aborted in a sanitary medical facility than a back-alley As a person, I am strongly against abortion; I see it as killing life. I define life as "human" reletively loosely; if it carries genetic information for a human and is within a human womb, it is in my eyes human. Loose, isn't it? While science is correct in it's studies it, in my mind, does NOT convince me to change my ethics. I find many of the methods of abortion (mainly very late in development) to be horrendously distasteful. I, as myself, am glad America nationally banned partial birth abortion, as is my political self (the method kinda pushes it). But, overall, politically, I'm pro-choice. But, your moral reasoning (Neo-Connen) is my personal self's rationalization. And, no, I do not multiple personalities.

WRONG, WRONG , WRONG.The child is alive, if you don't believe me,let me show you some footage of a late stage abortion. Let me ask you a question ,if a woman had to perform her own abortion i guarantee she would be a lot more careful with whom she slept with. That's my view

1. Embryos, zygotes, and fetuses are alive. Agreed. So?

So are chimps and pigs. We use one for experiments and eat the other.

2. Are you aware realize that late-stage abortions are mostly illegal and exceedingly rare in the United States?

Under good old Roe v. Wade third-trimester abortions may be -- and generally are -- banned except when necessary for the life or health of the mother.

3. Who you sleep with has little to do with whether your get pregnant.

4. If men had to perform their own vasectomies if they got a woman pregnant, they would be more careful about having sex as well. That you advocate torture as a punishment for unwanted pregnancies brings any moral argument you may make into question.

*snip*

It's not as strange as you think. I am personally pro-life, in that I am personally opposed to abortion in all but the most extreme of cases. On the other hand, I am politically pro-choice because my personal moral decisions are just that - my personal moral decisions - ones that I will not attempt to force upon others.

It's not as strange as you think. I am personally pro-life, in that I am personally opposed to abortion in all but the most extreme of cases. On the other hand, I am politically pro-choice because my personal moral decisions are just that - my personal moral decisions - ones that I will not attempt to force upon others.
I've never understood that posistion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it but i dont understand it. To me its like saying:murder, i personally beleive its wrong apart from in self defence but i'll allow it because i dont want to force my views on others.

I've never understood that posistion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it but i dont understand it. To me its like saying:murder, i personally beleive its wrong apart from in self defence but i'll allow it because i dont want to force my views on others.
flaw in logic: as we have said, abortion is not murder.

I've never understood that posistion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it but i dont understand it. To me its like saying:murder, i personally beleive its wrong apart from in self defence but i'll allow it because i dont want to force my views on others.

(a) I didn't say I believe it is *murder*. That would be quite a misnomer.

(b) I don't believe that I can force any religious/moral/philosophical/subjective beliefs upon others. I know that I may be wrong because I have no *objective* evidence of my position. In fact, all the *objective* evidence points the other way. As such, I have no right to legislate my position.

(c) The fact that I will not *force* my opinion upon others does nothing to keep me from trying to convince others of my position.

I've never understood that posistion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it but i dont understand it. To me its like saying:murder, i personally beleive its wrong apart from in self defence but i'll allow it because i dont want to force my views on others.

As she explained, it is her religious belief or somesuch that abortion is wrong, but she lives in a secular society and is decent enough to respect and understand that.

god is omnipresent, but has given us free will. from then on he obviously cannot see into the future, otherwise we'd never have freewill.

god chooses who lives and who dies. yet murder is a sin, so obviously he doesn't control when people will die because they have got shot. its like forcing his hand, this is expected by him though because he did give us freewill, so not everyone is going to go along with his master plan.

everyone has a unique soul, one soul per body. when someone is born god must provide a soul for it. wether he actually provides one, or one just comes along is anyones guess, but you have a soul waiting.

what happens to that soul when you have an abortion? it's shell is gone and it can never be born, never be judged. it can never proove itself to god. how does it get it's place in heaven? surely preventing a soul from having it's life *is* murder.

non-religious people can simply shrug this off and i expect them to. i dont believe in souls either. i'd like to hear a reply from someone who is truely religious.

1. Why are you asking these questions here? It is likely you went get a decent answer. Try http://fcnforums.christianity.com or www.christianforums.com or http://commonthread.invisionplus.net/ cos I'm assuming by religious you mean Christian. If not go find a forum of the faith
you were thinking of.

2. If you really need an NS'r, then Aluminima (sp?) looks like a good person to go to talk to, I could tell you some answers but I am really incoherent at times...

3. You are going off-topic, there's rules about that somewhere.

As she explained, it is her religious belief or somesuch that abortion is wrong, but she lives in a secular society and is decent enough to respect and understand that. As do I, since I was the one who sparked the reply.

As she explained, it is her religious belief or somesuch that abortion is wrong, but she lives in a secular society and is decent enough to respect and understand that.

I would go even farther and say that a secular society is absolutely necessary to the free practice of religion. I will practice my beliefs by not having an abortion unless my own life is in danger. Anyone else may practice their beliefs by saying that it is fine for them. We both have the freedom to disagree on that.

flaw in logic: as we have said, abortion is not murder.

Flaw in logic: That is a matter of opinion, some of (me included) believe it is.

Flaw in logic: That is a matter of opinion, some of (me included) believe it is.

If it is a matter of pure opinion (and it is), then you have no right to force it upon others. All you can do is attempt to convince them of your viewpoint.

(b) I don't believe that I can force any religious/moral/philosophical/subjective beliefs upon others.


I think this maybe the only thing that everyone can agree with, no one has the right to tell others how to live their lives (except in some exceptional circumstances, like someone is about to step out in front of a bus [and at this point normally people don't want to be killed] and you shout at them to stop {Just cos I know what you are like }) you can only say what are your morals, and how you live your life. You unfortunatly have to leave them to muddle it up by their selves.

Flaw in logic: That is a matter of opinion, some of (me included) believe it is.
flaw in logic: its not a matter of opinion if you beleive in biology.

problem is, pro-lifers say its murder (which its not), and murder we can all agree should be illegal no matter what religion.

If it is a matter of pure opinion (and it is), then you have no right to force it upon others. All you can do is attempt to convince them of your viewpoint.

Yes, I agree, but

1) That applies to everyone else
2) Does not stop me form saying how I would handle the situation, What I believe, what I believe should be done, why I think it is wrong etc. I'm just not going to ask you to enforce what I believe on yourself however much I would like you too.
3) Going off topic here, is any convincing really done around here, I always see battles between extremes of those who know where they stand?

To me abortion is a non-issue. It is entirely possible to be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

Simply put, pro-choice people don't care what the pro-life camp thinks because it's not their decision.

As Howard Dean put it, "Well, there's nobody who's pro-abortion, not Democratic or Republican. What we want to debate is who gets to choose: (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay and the federal politicians? Or does a woman get to make up her own mind?"

flaw in logic: its not a matter of opinion if you beleive in biology.

You are enforcing your opinion on me and I don't wish to have it thank you. It's a matter of opinion, (or at least that's better than me starting this into saying that absolute truth is absolute truth no matter if no one believes in it or/and that it is absolute truth and then we get into a discussion about does god exist, does his rules count, is this one of them, etc, etc.) Anyway I don't understand how you can trust in something so absolutly that is always in flux. There is a whole load of theories that if I could come up with a better explanation would be changed (and if I was that good I would, but I 'm not so I'll just cope with it for now). Abortion to some IS murder, to others just a convenient way of shifting cells, problems and blame.

Oh and just so you know, I am studying biology at the moment, don't claim to know everything about it, but then who does? Plan to take it on further.
(UHH, I hate having to do backing up statements *le sigh*)

problem is, pro-lifers say its murder (which its not), and murder we can all agree should be illegal no matter what religion.

Let's try this a differnt way, who are you to say it is/isn't? Huh? huh? Are you completly, utterly unbiased without ulterior motivations? I think that the answer to that is no, because if it isn't you are lying purely and simply. Give me a reason why you should make the end decision on these sort of things? *raises eyebrow* At least I'm trying to be civil and comprimise.

And now before I get too sarcastic, and lose my rag I'm going to bed, I think that is safer for all concerned.

Has cannan explained the 'logic behind' his statement that sex implies consent to carry a pregnancy to term yet?