Pookie to answer your question, Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in there mouth, or have parents that do everything right for them. Hell your logic every child that was beaten should have been killed because “Its not the best kind of life” or maybe we should blow up africa because they dont have “the best life”.
Hell if you had anything less of “the best life” please kill yourself if that is your logic.
See not everyone who is against abortions will run away from your questions.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Want them and raise them. People have to take responsibily for thier actions.[/quote]
That would be nice, but it’s not going to happen. If everyone decided to be responsible and smart, we’d also take care of crime, infidelity, abuse, etc.
I don’t think you’re stupid. I’m against killing any life unless necessity warrants it.
But I think your proposal of “want them and raise them” is not realist. People cannot be “forced” to want something they don’t. Raising kids can be the most rewarding thin in the world, but it’s also very trying at times. If someone is not ready for it, forcing it on him/her is not a good plan, especially for the well being of the child.
Life began about 3.5 billion years ago. Conception is simply life continuing into more life. Nature itself gets rid of embryos with wild abandon; I think it’s important to maintain perspective and make a distinction between a clump of cells and a complete human.
But I don’t think we’ll reach an agreement over where that line goes. I am interested in the questions related to abortion or lack of it. Simply banning abortion for various reasons, and it’s easy to list myriads, does not end the problem.
It’s not an abstract question; those “saved” but unwanted kids have a whole life in front of them; I think that if, as a society, we decide that life is “sacred” and of utmost importance, we should make sure our education and economic policies reflect the same outlook.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
It’s about taking a life not ensuring a good life. If we wanted to end misery by taking life we could nuke half of Africa where people live in miseries we could not even imagine.[/quote]
I think education and birth control would do much more good to Africa than nuking it would.
What’s the point in saving an unborn life if it’s only to have the kid starve to death a few years later? Worse, the few resources he required might also mean that some of his brothers and sisters also starved when they might have made it had there been one less mouth to feed.
Again, I don’t understand that obsession with quantity of life instead of quality of life.
It is killing. But there is a difference between killing a full-fledged, conscious, feeling person and a partly developed fetus who has no thoughts or feelings and who isn’t “conscious” of being. It sounds cold, but the question should be evaluated with reason, not with emotions.
Out of curiosity, how many here who are against legal abortion also support the death penalty?
I am now trying to explore this issue from the stance that all life is “precious” since we seem to not beable to agree where life “begins”.
Are all lives of equal value/worth? Where does value come from? If all lives are of equal value why do certain fetuses have a better success rate to be carried to term than others? What happens to the unwanted babies after they are birthed? Is the quantity of lives of greater importance than the quality of said lives?
If quantitiy is more important then does that not mean that the value of the lives is relative and thus not equal? If all life is precious and killing is wrong is it ok to “leagally” kill a convicted person? From what philosphical basis do we justify killing of crimminals but not to abort fetuses?
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
It’s about taking a life not ensuring a good life. If we wanted to end misery by taking life we could nuke half of Africa where people live in miseries we could not even imagine.
I think education and birth control would do much more good to Africa than nuking it would.
What’s the point in saving an unborn life if it’s only to have the kid starve to death a few years later? Worse, the few resources he required might also mean that some of his brothers and sisters also starved when they might have made it had there been one less mouth to feed.
Again, I don’t understand that obsession with quantity of life instead of quality of life.
No, bad qulity of life does not justify abortion, if you think abortion is killing, which I do.
It is killing. But there is a difference between killing a full-fledged, conscious, feeling person and a partly developed fetus who has no thoughts or feelings and who isn’t “conscious” of being. It sounds cold, but the question should be evaluated with reason, not with emotions.
Out of curiosity, how many here who are against legal abortion also support the death penalty?
[/quote]
I am against both. I am not a nincumpoop traditional conservative. You are either for life or stand in judgement of it. I don’t think I have the right in either case, despite hom much I think someone would deserve it.
pookie,
We are not going to be able to put every child in a stable home, nor assure that every child will avoid a sad, miserable, poverty-stricken life. Life ain’t fair. But that in no way means that we should just kill the child rather than do the best we can to give it a fair shot.
I think we could do better than we’re doing now, and we’re trying.
To deny a child even a chance at life because
1.) The parents were irresponsible,
2.) WE have decided that THEIR life will be sad and miserable,
and
3.) We think it will be too inconvenient to raise them and give them as good as a shot at life as we can,
is a judgement that I cannot stomach.
Where will all these children go? Some will be adopted, some will go to orphanages, and some will fall through the cracks.
It is very likely that these children will not have ideal upbringings and will face significant disadvantages. But is that reason enough to kill them before they’re even born?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
derek wrote:
So you need a beating too?
Wow, internet threats…now I’m infamous. Just so you know it doesn’t accomplish anything to make these kinds of threats unless you want people to know what a douche bag you are.
Free speech doesn’t mean anything in your world does it? All the BS about how great the military is for defending our “rights” that pours out of your mouth is just rhetoric which you don’t even believe. You are the worst kind of liar.[/quote]
The “right of free speech” protects you from the government, not individuals who may want to mock you or beat upon you.
You have a constitutional right not to have the government interfere with your free speech. YOu have no right to be taken seriously or not be criticized for your views.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The “right of free speech” protects you from the government, not individuals who may want to mock you or beat upon you.
You have a constitutional right not to have the government interfere with your free speech. YOu have no right to be taken seriously or not be criticized for your views.
[/quote]
No where in the Constitution does it distinguish between the government or individuals other than stating,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
“No law” is taken to mean there is no controlling influence, period.
Being taken seriously is not the point. The right to say what one wants with out the threat of reprisal regardless of content or intended meanng is the main point to the first amendment–it is the only reason it is is valid.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
It is very likely that these children will not have ideal upbringings and will face significant disadvantages. But is that reason enough to kill them before they’re even born?
[/quote]
Yes. One life could interfere with the lives of already established children. A poor mother should be the first person whom abortion is available to if the states is not going to take full responsibility of the child after birth. Not only should abortion be legal but they should be paid for by the tax payer as it will undoubtedly cut down on future costs to the state.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
pookie,
We are not going to be able to put every child in a stable home, nor assure that every child will avoid a sad, miserable, poverty-stricken life. Life ain’t fair. But that in no way means that we should just kill the child rather than do the best we can to give it a fair shot.
I think we could do better than we’re doing now, and we’re trying.
To deny a child even a chance at life because
1.) The parents were irresponsible,
2.) WE have decided that THEIR life will be sad and miserable,
and
3.) We think it will be too inconvenient to raise them and give them as good as a shot at life as we can,
is a judgement that I cannot stomach.
Where will all these children go? Some will be adopted, some will go to orphanages, and some will fall through the cracks.
It is very likely that these children will not have ideal upbringings and will face significant disadvantages. But is that reason enough to kill them before they’re even born?
[/quote]
Even ideal conditions can’t ensure a bright future for every child.
Look at Pookie. She obviously had a very privileged upbringing, and you see how she turned out.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
The “right of free speech” protects you from the government, not individuals who may want to mock you or beat upon you.
You have a constitutional right not to have the government interfere with your free speech. YOu have no right to be taken seriously or not be criticized for your views.
No where in the Constitution does it distinguish between the government or individuals other than stating,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
“No law” is taken to mean there is no controlling influence, period.
Being taken seriously is not the point. The right to say what one wants with out the threat of reprisal regardless of content or intended meanng is the main point to the first amendment–it is the only reason it is is valid.[/quote]
Don’t be ridiculous. Your comment is nonsensical, again. What entity do you think is referenced in the constitution? You do realize we are discussing the US constitution don’t you? Perhaps you are thinking about another one.
The constitution does not mention anywhere that I am required to listen to your drivel. Biotest is not required to provide you a forum. If I choose to listen to you, whether out of amusement or pity, it’s my choice and not required in the constitution. Surely even an elementary reading, free of bias, would reveal that.
Read it then get back to me when you understand it better. Being taken seriously, particular in this case, is exactly the point. Sadly lost on you yet again.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The “right of free speech” protects you from the government, not individuals who may want to mock you or beat upon you.
You have a constitutional right not to have the government interfere with your free speech. YOu have no right to be taken seriously or not be criticized for your views.
[/quote]
There’s a bit of a difference between verbal and associative reprisals on the one hand and physical violence on the other. If the government is enforcing laws prohibiting violence between citizens, then it cannot just ignore violence by one party against another simply because the first party said something unpopular. If the offended party wants to call the offending party a fucktard and cease business dealings or something of the kind then that is of course perfectly fine.
[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
It doesn’t matter if you think the reasons are good enough. It doesn’t matter if you think they’re “cowardly reasons” or that they make the women who get abortions for those reasons cowards.
For that matter, it doesnt matter if you think abortion , murder, slaughter, genocide, or anything else is wrong.
Your personal position does not compromise, in any way, the inherent, intrinsic rights that every human being has to treat other human beings as chattel.
It takes a truly brave woman to have the abortion of her dreams. [/quote]
Actually, despite trying to simply be a jackass, what you misquoted me as saying in the second paragraph there is true.
“For that matter, it doesnt matter if you think abortion , murder, slaughter, genocide, or anything else is wrong.”
It doesn’t matter if you think something is wrong. Laws aren’t written based on what YOU, PERSONALLY thing is right or wrong. Laws are based on rights.
Yes, abortion is a complicated issue becaues its a matter of rights vs rights.
Because YOU think that pornography is wrong does not mean it should be illegal. Because I think smoking cigarettes is wrong does not mean there should be laws against it. Because Billy Joe thinks being gay is wrong doesnt mean it should be illegal.
The question at hand here isnt “Are abortions moral?” but “Should abortion be illegal?”
[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Strawman.
I never said the child does not have a right to life.
I said the childs right to life does not supercede the mothers right to decide if she will get, be, or remain pregnant, a right which she always has.
Is that any clearer?
I don’t want to come across as dense, but no, that’s not particularly clear. Further, I have no interest in creating strawmen just to have something to knock down, because I’m honestly trying to understand a position completely alien to me.
If you could bear with me a while longer, I’d like to break the situation down a bit into a few points upon which we may or may not agree:
While both a sperm cell and an egg cell may be alive, neither one constitues an individual person, or human being.
When a sperm cell and an egg cell are joined (or at least very soon thereafter), something new results from that joining. By ‘new’ I mean that it is neither an egg nor a sperm cell. I’ll call it a ‘thing’ for convienience.
At some time between the point at which this thing comes to be, and the point at which this thing is issued a social security number, it must turn into a person, or a human being. This assumes of course that the thing in question is not rejected by the body or is in some other way caused to cease its development.
People, or human beings have Rights. One of these includes the Right to Life.
Can we agree on that much?
I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this - if you agree that the thing in question (child?) has a right to life, then you should be able to justify taking away that right before saying that someone else’s other right supercedes that right.
Some in this thread have argued that the thing in question does not gain the right in question until it is breathing on it’s own, which means (to me, anyway), that at any time up to and including the mother’s final contractions, any doctor can(with the mother’s consent, of course) open mommy up and turn the thing in question into steak tartar, sew her back up, and everyone can go out for some beers.
Am I mis-stating the argument? Am I missing something important? Is a person’s right to Life dependant upon something other than the fact that that person is alive?[/quote]
i’m not one to argue that the “thing” inside a woman isn’t a human being and doesn’t have the right to life. It does.
However, I also see that every woman has a right to decide if she will get, be, or remain pregnant.
So, untill the baby can live independently of the mother, the baby exercising the right to life is dependant on infringing on the mothers right to govern her own body (should she not want to continue supporting said life).
I can also see that the woman exercising her right to govern her own body as infringing on the childs right to life.
I believe the only fair solution would be to find a way to extract the baby from the mother and incuabate it so it can continue living. However, the pro-lifers dont seem to want to invest in researching this idea, but only to take away the right of the woman.
Till that alternative can be reached, it simply becomes a matter of whos rights supercede whos. And I believe that the womans right to choose (hence the term pro-choice) come before the babys right to life (such as a pro-life person would).
I hope this clarifies my position better.
[quote]etaco wrote:
hedo wrote:
The “right of free speech” protects you from the government, not individuals who may want to mock you or beat upon you.
You have a constitutional right not to have the government interfere with your free speech. YOu have no right to be taken seriously or not be criticized for your views.
There’s a bit of a difference between verbal and associative reprisals on the one hand and physical violence on the other. If the government is enforcing laws prohibiting violence between citizens, then it cannot just ignore violence by one party against another simply because the first party said something unpopular. If the offended party wants to call the offending party a fucktard and cease business dealings or something of the kind then that is of course perfectly fine. [/quote]
Absolutely. The government may pass a law preventing individuals from assaulting each other. It can’t pass a law preventing me from shouting louder then someone else in an argument.
Planned Parenthood to sue premature baby for breach of contract
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this - if you agree that the thing in question (child?) has a right to life, then you should be able to justify taking away that right before saying that someone else’s other right supercedes that right.
Some in this thread have argued that the thing in question does not gain the right in question until it is breathing on it’s own, which means (to me, anyway), that at any time up to and including the mother’s final contractions, any doctor can(with the mother’s consent, of course) open mommy up and turn the thing in question into steak tartar, sew her back up, and everyone can go out for some beers.
Am I mis-stating the argument? Am I missing something important? Is a person’s right to Life dependant upon something other than the fact that that person is alive?
i’m not one to argue that the “thing” inside a woman isn’t a human being and doesn’t have the right to life. It does.
However, I also see that every woman has a right to decide if she will get, be, or remain pregnant.
So, untill the baby can live independently of the mother, the baby exercising the right to life is dependant on infringing on the mothers right to govern her own body (should she not want to continue supporting said life).
I can also see that the woman exercising her right to govern her own body as infringing on the childs right to life.
I believe the only fair solution would be to find a way to extract the baby from the mother and incuabate it so it can continue living. However, the pro-lifers dont seem to want to invest in researching this idea, but only to take away the right of the woman.
Till that alternative can be reached, it simply becomes a matter of whos rights supercede whos. And I believe that the womans right to choose (hence the term pro-choice) come before the babys right to life (such as a pro-life person would).
I hope this clarifies my position better.
[/quote]
You’re pro-choice. That’s not surprising coming from someone who’s so stupid that they can’t distinguish plural from possessive.
http://www.wecosoft.com/School/English/nouns2.htm
http://papundit.wordpress.com/…-gay-abortions/
[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this - if you agree that the thing in question (child?) has a right to life, then you should be able to justify taking away that right before saying that someone else’s other right supercedes that right.
Some in this thread have argued that the thing in question does not gain the right in question until it is breathing on it’s own, which means (to me, anyway), that at any time up to and including the mother’s final contractions, any doctor can(with the mother’s consent, of course) open mommy up and turn the thing in question into steak tartar, sew her back up, and everyone can go out for some beers.
Am I mis-stating the argument? Am I missing something important? Is a person’s right to Life dependant upon something other than the fact that that person is alive?
i’m not one to argue that the “thing” inside a woman isn’t a human being and doesn’t have the right to life. It does.
However, I also see that every woman has a right to decide if she will get, be, or remain pregnant.
So, untill the baby can live independently of the mother, the baby exercising the right to life is dependant on infringing on the mothers right to govern her own body (should she not want to continue supporting said life).
I can also see that the woman exercising her right to govern her own body as infringing on the childs right to life.
I believe the only fair solution would be to find a way to extract the baby from the mother and incuabate it so it can continue living. However, the pro-lifers dont seem to want to invest in researching this idea, but only to take away the right of the woman.
Till that alternative can be reached, it simply becomes a matter of whos rights supercede whos. And I believe that the womans right to choose (hence the term pro-choice) come before the babys right to life (such as a pro-life person would).
I hope this clarifies my position better.
Your pro-choice. That’s not surprising coming from someone who’s so stupid that they can’t distinguish plural from possessive.
http://www.wecosoft.com/School/English/nouns2.htm
http://papundit.wordpress.com/…-gay-abortions/ [/quote]
Would that be as stupid as not being able to distinguish between “your” and “you’re”?
Thanks, Case.
[quote]pookie wrote:
It is killing. But there is a difference between killing a full-fledged, conscious, feeling person and a partly developed fetus who has no thoughts or feelings and who isn’t “conscious” of being. It sounds cold, but the question should be evaluated with reason, not with emotions.[/quote]
Sort of like killing a slave was acceptable to people like you before the Civil War.
Should a fetus count as half a person for the purpose of determining the number of seats in Congress?