If you could use words to define the unborn, maybe you could then tell me why you say you know better than anyone else. You have not done this, so your argument fails. Again.
[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So Columbo, define the unborn using science which is universally accepted.
[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
What I find most interesting in this is the lack of a single word of condemnation from anyone outside of the usual opponent of abortion.
If one of the posters from “my side” were saying anything even remotely resembling some of the arguments that have been put forth by Oleena here, you guys would tear us apart like starving feral pigs.
Instead, the silence has been deafening. Telling, that. [/quote]
Well I am pro choice and I think its pathetic that people beleve they have the right to tell a woman what she has the right to do and not to do. Could you tell a loved one who had been raped that she no longer had the right to decide if she wants to be pregnant or not? If you could…well I feel sorry for your loved ones.[/quote]
[/quote]
In what way, shape or form does the definition of unborn have to do with me thinking that anyone who believes the above is a pathetic person? I am assuming that sense that is the response you quoted then thats what your question is in relation to. If not then I used unborn in the idea that if you have not been born, ill go one step further and say conceived, then you do not exist, unborn, not living, dead. That clear things up?[/quote]
I am so glad you believe we can NOT disagree with the government. Are she-people like yourself taught to think in a box? Can I ever be as gifted as you?
Travel down to Chile with olee and you two can then tell me the problems they have down there. Abortion is outlawed there in case you could not figure out what I was talking about.
[quote]joutmez wrote:
This debate is 12 pages too long. I only got like four pages in before I gave up. Anyways Roe vs. Wade ruled in favor of a womens right to privacy and thus protecting and allowing her to make her own decesion regarding her pregnacy. That was almost forty years ago and overturning such a ruling would create such a new precedent allowing for other cases to be reexamined and new rulings to be made. Rest assured the Supreme Court and the rest of the Gov does not want that. So I feel it safe to say abortion is here to stay. I guess were going to have to agree to disagree and learn to cope with each others opposing viewpoints. Really though the problem lies in our culture. Rates of unwanted pregancy and abortion are startingly lower in Europe and else where were sex is openly discussed and viewed as a normal part of life unlike here in the states where it is a taboo subject. Minimize occurance of unwanted pregnancy and you get rid of abortion. [/quote]
So I have a question for all you anti-abortion fellas. How would you all define “playing god” in a general sense? Interfering with the nature process of life perhaps?
Yup, argue for the whole population because that percent of a number is SO large, it doesn’t even total a single whole numerical value.
[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
choosing not to bring a child into the world.
[/quote]
I’ll stop you right here, there is a very easy and very non-lethal way to do this. If we’re going to act like gods, should we not have the responsibility of gods then?
If you wish not to bring a child into the world, then you should abstain from sex as we know sex leads to making babies. You can throw road blocks in the way, but the road ultimately leads to the same destination with or without road blocks: making babies. If you wish not to reach that destination, then don’t make that turn. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]
Excellent post, Chris.
/thread
[/quote]
Yeah, fuck all those woman who get raped and should no longer have a choice. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]
“playing God” is when you exterminate any life when you deem necessary or in the way. Creating life should be given the same reverence.
Now please define the unborn for me.
[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
So I have a question for all you anti-abortion fellas. How would you all define “playing god” in a general sense? Interfering with the nature process of life perhaps?[/quote]
[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
You keep saying that you dont have alot of money but I would wager that you have a roof over your head, a matress to sleep on and good food in your fridge. People in the countries I have seen would probably give an arm and a leg for that.[/quote]
Haha, I guess that’s the difference between me and other people. I don’t “have” a roof, it’s not mine. I’m not paying for it, and if you read again, I pointed out my lack of money because prior to that I said I give to the poor, but not like some people say as in they give to the poor and the cut their 1% to the poor. I wasn’t pointing out my lack of money as to show that I’m part of the third world, I’m not.
[quote]joutmez wrote:
This debate is 12 pages too long. I only got like four pages in before I gave up. Anyways Roe vs. Wade ruled in favor of a womens right to privacy and thus protecting and allowing her to make her own decesion regarding her pregnacy. That was almost forty years ago and overturning such a ruling would create such a new precedent allowing for other cases to be reexamined and new rulings to be made. Rest assured the Supreme Court and the rest of the Gov does not want that. So I feel it safe to say abortion is here to stay. I guess were going to have to agree to disagree and learn to cope with each others opposing viewpoints. Really though the problem lies in our culture. Rates of unwanted pregancy and abortion are startingly lower in Europe and else where were sex is openly discussed and viewed as a normal part of life unlike here in the states where it is a taboo subject. Minimize occurance of unwanted pregnancy and you get rid of abortion. [/quote]
Don’t want unwanted pregnancies, don’t have sex. And, this is the same logic as well, if we over turn slavery then it’ll create new precedent to allowing other cases to be reexamined.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
choosing not to bring a child into the world.
[/quote]
I’ll stop you right here, there is a very easy and very non-lethal way to do this. If we’re going to act like gods, should we not have the responsibility of gods then?
If you wish not to bring a child into the world, then you should abstain from sex as we know sex leads to making babies. You can throw road blocks in the way, but the road ultimately leads to the same destination with or without road blocks: making babies. If you wish not to reach that destination, then don’t make that turn. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]
Excellent post, Chris.
/thread
[/quote]
Yeah, fuck all those woman who get raped and should no longer have a choice. Obvious solution is obvious.[/quote]
Um…Oleena was talking about willingly creating a child. Your logic, sir, fails (as Dustin says). And, thanks for the emotional and fallacious arguments, but they are not needed (we’ve already seen them and answered them). As much as I can sympathize with those who have been raped, murdering an innocent child is not going to reverse rape.
And, because you brought the subject up, if you are willing to say that an unborn child should be allowed to be killed because their father is a rapist, then I am sure you’re fine with killing toddlers who has a rapist for a father.
[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
So I have a question for all you anti-abortion fellas. How would you all define “playing god” in a general sense? Interfering with the nature process of life perhaps?[/quote]
If you notice, we never claimed we were playing god, Oleena did. We pointed out it was a false premise, but we ran with it anyway for the sheer reason of argument.
You cannot argue for abortion from a ‘moral’ point of view unless the woman is a victim of incest or rape. You can only argue for it from a ‘realist’ point of view. Abortions have always taken place, whether in clinics or backstreet (there was anexcellent film a few years out ago called ‘Vera Drake’ in the UK which explored this) and so perhaps it is better not to risk a woman’s life and have them legalised.
Now there IS the argument that this can lead to complacency and abortion being used as another contraceptive, and I would support ‘checks and balances’ to make sure that is not the case.
Bear in mind I’m not arguing Oleena’s godawful idea that we’re ‘playing God’
Cortes, if the state can forbid people to act on the consequences of sex, surely it is the state’s role to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the form of sexual health clinics and classes and the distribution of contraceptives. Some parents may not wish to talk about it to their children but it is vital lesson for people to learn
[quote]Bambi wrote:
You cannot argue for abortion from a ‘moral’ point of view unless the woman is a victim of incest or rape. You can only argue for it from a ‘realist’ point of view. Abortions have always taken place, whether in clinics or backstreet (there was anexcellent film a few years out ago called ‘Vera Drake’ in the UK which explored this) and so perhaps it is better not to risk a woman’s life and have them legalised.
Now there IS the argument that this can lead to complacency and abortion being used as another contraceptive, and I would support ‘checks and balances’ to make sure that is not the case.
Bear in mind I’m not arguing Oleena’s godawful idea that we’re ‘playing God’
Cortes, if the state can forbid people to act on the consequences of sex, surely it is the state’s role to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the form of sexual health clinics and classes and the distribution of contraceptives. Some parents may not wish to talk about it to their children but it is vital lesson for people to learn[/quote]
Two different animals.
The state is not forbidding people to act on the consequences of sex, they are preventing murder. Big difference and one of the instances where I would say that the state has a clear interest in intervening in the lives of its citizens. Also, we can all agree: Murder equals bad. You may not agree with me that abortion equals murder, but that is a different facet of this argument. For the present, my interest in the state intervening to stop abortions has nothing to do with education. It is to protect the most helpless and innocent of her citizenry.
When it comes to education, I, personally, would prefer that the state was out of the whole lot, and my business field is education, and I work with state run schools as well as operate my own education based business every day. I have all sorts of interests tied up in education and I would like nothing more than to see the entire system privatized and, if nothing else, our tax dollars converted to a voucher system so that people had more of a choice and there was much less homogeneous ejumacatin’ going on.
Having seen first-hand what a bungled job the state does with standard history and civics (not to mention, well, every other subject except perhaps their athletics programs), there is no way on earth I could ever bring myself to trust them with the moral education of my kids. No. Nononononononoooooooooooo…
[quote]Bambi wrote:
You cannot argue for abortion from a ‘moral’ point of view unless the woman is a victim of incest or rape. You can only argue for it from a ‘realist’ point of view. Abortions have always taken place, whether in clinics or backstreet (there was anexcellent film a few years out ago called ‘Vera Drake’ in the UK which explored this) and so perhaps it is better not to risk a woman’s life and have them legalised.
Now there IS the argument that this can lead to complacency and abortion being used as another contraceptive, and I would support ‘checks and balances’ to make sure that is not the case.
Bear in mind I’m not arguing Oleena’s godawful idea that we’re ‘playing God’
Cortes, if the state can forbid people to act on the consequences of sex, surely it is the state’s role to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the form of sexual health clinics and classes and the distribution of contraceptives. Some parents may not wish to talk about it to their children but it is vital lesson for people to learn[/quote]
Two different animals.
The state is not forbidding people to act on the consequences of sex, they are preventing murder. Big difference and one of the instances where I would say that the state has a clear interest in intervening in the lives of its citizens. Also, we can all agree: Murder equals bad. You may not agree with me that abortion equals murder, but that is a different facet of this argument. For the present, my interest in the state intervening to stop abortions has nothing to do with education. It is to protect the most helpless and innocent of her citizenry.
When it comes to education, I, personally, would prefer that the state was out of the whole lot, and my business field is education, and I work with state run schools as well as operate my own education based business every day. I have all sorts of interests tied up in education and I would like nothing more than to see the entire system privatized and, if nothing else, our tax dollars converted to a voucher system so that people had more of a choice and there was much less homogeneous ejumacatin’ going on.
Having seen first-hand what a bungled job the state does with standard history and civics (not to mention, well, every other subject except perhaps their athletics programs), there is no way on earth I could ever bring myself to trust them with the moral education of my kids. No. Nononononononoooooooooooo…
[/quote]
OK that is a view espoused by pro-life, that the state is preventing murder. Fair enough, though you’re right I do not agree with you. But would you agree that abortions will take place regardless of the ban, only now they will be backstreet and far more dangerous?
And obviously education in schools must work in tandem with parental education; but I would like to see a ‘bedrock’ of knowledge established by schools (I remmeber at mine a lot of people thinking at 16 you couldn’t get pregnant if you had sex standing up!) . Andas for the privatisation of education, another argument and one that I’m in opposition to you but your voucher system is intriguing.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
You cannot argue for abortion from a ‘moral’ point of view unless the woman is a victim of incest or rape. You can only argue for it from a ‘realist’ point of view. Abortions have always taken place, whether in clinics or backstreet (there was anexcellent film a few years out ago called ‘Vera Drake’ in the UK which explored this) and so perhaps it is better not to risk a woman’s life and have them legalised.
Now there IS the argument that this can lead to complacency and abortion being used as another contraceptive, and I would support ‘checks and balances’ to make sure that is not the case.
Bear in mind I’m not arguing Oleena’s godawful idea that we’re ‘playing God’
Cortes, if the state can forbid people to act on the consequences of sex, surely it is the state’s role to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the form of sexual health clinics and classes and the distribution of contraceptives. Some parents may not wish to talk about it to their children but it is vital lesson for people to learn[/quote]
Two different animals.
The state is not forbidding people to act on the consequences of sex, they are preventing murder. Big difference and one of the instances where I would say that the state has a clear interest in intervening in the lives of its citizens. Also, we can all agree: Murder equals bad. You may not agree with me that abortion equals murder, but that is a different facet of this argument. For the present, my interest in the state intervening to stop abortions has nothing to do with education. It is to protect the most helpless and innocent of her citizenry.
When it comes to education, I, personally, would prefer that the state was out of the whole lot, and my business field is education, and I work with state run schools as well as operate my own education based business every day. I have all sorts of interests tied up in education and I would like nothing more than to see the entire system privatized and, if nothing else, our tax dollars converted to a voucher system so that people had more of a choice and there was much less homogeneous ejumacatin’ going on.
Having seen first-hand what a bungled job the state does with standard history and civics (not to mention, well, every other subject except perhaps their athletics programs), there is no way on earth I could ever bring myself to trust them with the moral education of my kids. No. Nononononononoooooooooooo…
[/quote]
OK that is a view espoused by pro-life, that the state is preventing murder. Fair enough, though you’re right I do not agree with you. But would you agree that abortions will take place regardless of the ban, only now they will be backstreet and far more dangerous?
[/quote]
Of course. However, their number will be greatly reduced, and people thinking of or deciding to have sex will be far more cautious than they otherwise are now, as abortion has become a method of birth control. I want this. It’s good. And as far as the “backstreet and far more dangerous” abortions: too bad. We should not be murdering children. If the act of murdering a child has become dangerous for the murderer, forgive me if I do not exactly empathize.
These arguments have all been hashed out here over and over again, but another point; Rape still occurs despite a ban on rape. Should we therefore lift the ban and make it less dangerous for the parties involved? Not a fair comparison? Not equivalent? Really? Think about it before you answer.
About schools, I will repeat again, the kids who do good in school are the ones with parents who assure they will do so. The one’s who cause all the problems, 99% of the time, have parents (or don’t have parents!) who don’t give a shit. In many cases, all the schools do is to either muck up the hard work of one group or push the other further down a road they shouldn’t be on. Reasonable people can disagree on this, but I feel that nowadays the single education that is available in most areas does more harm than good. People should have a choice in this matter, but for the most part they do not.
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.
Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.
Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.
Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]
Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board!
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.
Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.
Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]
Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]
Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.
My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.
I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.
Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.
Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]
That’s a great question to ask the right, however I do not have an answer for you.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.
Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.
Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]
Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]
Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.
My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.
I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]
So, it’s only murder if the baby can survive without it’s mother (I’m guessing survive without dependence on others as well)?
So, if you were at a pool and you saw a 8 month old kid by the pool and he fell into the pool and he couldn’t swim, couldn’t help himself out, &c. it is okay for you to let that child drown because it’s only murder if the kid can survive without you?
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I don’t understand why the right doesn’t support abortion. Less kids = less kids to educate. We all know they love to cut education funding, so that should be a big pro.
Less uneducated kids = less people ending up on welfare/food stamps/social security/medicaid/medicare. The right hates entitlement programs, so again, win.
Seems like a perfect match to me.[/quote]
Yeah, there’s just those little problems of eugenics and child murder.If not for those pesky little corners, it’d be round pegs into round holes across the board![/quote]
Yes, I guess the right is also very religious, so it’s not a perfect match. Just something I thought of.
My personal, irrelevant opinion is that if the baby would survive without the mother at the time of abortion, then it’s murder. Please note that I do not know when this is, but I think it is near the end of the second trimester or beginning of the third. Late-term abortions are awful and inexplicable. I dated a girl that had one at 7 months (it wasn’t mine). Pretty disgusting upon reflection.
I would prefer that the woman choose to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption instead of aborting, but I’m not a woman and it’s not my choice.[/quote]
The contention that abortion is murder does not require a religious argument to support it.
Your unexplored expression of right and wrong above touches upon the most fundamental and, so far as I have seen, heretofore unshakable pillar of the secular pro-life argument.