Print

[rms2001]

QUOTE (nemt @ Jun 28 2004, 01:53 PM)

You guys know the ten commandments in the bible aren't "the ten commandments" as we know them today, right?

They are the same. But there were really alot more than 10.

[rms2001]

New post on "God's law" - http://forums.xbox-s...T&f=73&t=235198

[miazmaticdotcom]

There are enough people in the world already, abortions only help to prevent overpopulation.

Western families have two or at the most three kids, but families in the East (Asia, India) have more kids. This used to naturally balance out because infant mortality rates were high, but with new meds and crap 100% of an Indian family's 14 children are surviving.

The woman very much has a right to choose. If a little fucker starts growing in her belly, that is her jurisdiction and if she wants him out, her choice. It's like saying I shouldn't kill tapeworms that infest my intestines because they have rights too.

[bluedeath]

QUOTE (miazmaticdotcom @ Jul 2 2004, 11:36 AM)

There are enough people in the world already, abortions only help to prevent overpopulation. Western families have two or at the most three kids, but families in the East (Asia, India) have more kids. This used to naturally balance out because infant mortality rates were high, but with new meds and crap 100% of an Indian family's 14 children are surviving. The woman very much has a right to choose. If a little fucker starts growing in her belly, that is her jurisdiction and if she wants him out, her choice. It's like saying I shouldn't kill tapeworms that infest my intestines because they have rights too.

"I find that in the dispute over "when life begins", people are rarely asking: at what point does an individual physical being come into existence? Rather, the question is usually: At what point does that being become a person which must be accorded rights? The first question can be answered scientifically, and intellectual honesty demands that we incorporate those findings into our positions. The second, however, cannot. Personhood is a philosophical issue, but it need not be a religious one. After all, we can't scientifically prove that anyone is a person, but we secular humanists do manage to advocate for the human rights of women, minorities, and the severely disabled -- all of whom have been considered non-persons at various times in history. If prenatal personhood depended upon the notion of ensoulment at conception or a similar supernatural phenomenon, then it could properly be called a purely religious position. However, this is not the case."

[nemt]

QUOTE (rms2001 @ Jun 28 2004, 11:05 PM)

They are the same. But there were really alot more than 10.

I know, I just like the controversy.

...and there were fifteen, actually, not "alot" more.

[mike96sc2]

Being against abortion then wouldn't one need to also be against embyronic research? I mean it's something that's going on right now, eggs are harvested and artificially inseminated. If life begins at conception then there's millions of little lab dishes full of people who are being killed and experimented on daily.

[BenJeremy]

Abortion, a wonderful political football.

There are many who polarize on this subject, unable to put this into perspective. While I was, at one time, against it, I've decided to let my pragmatic viewpoint take control and logic reign.... but a few points:


1. A fetus is **NOT** just a woman's body part. It's a genetically differentiated being, created by conception, involving TWO human beings.

2. Plenty of evidence indicates this being is a living, thinking, independent "thing" very early on in development. It feels pain, even dreams (though of what, I can't imagine).

3. Abortion is murder. Accept it. There's no point in denying it at all, except in a very LAME attempt to deny anti-abortionists their main argument.


Now, I'm pro-death penalty, and while I find abortion distasteful and would encourage pregnant women to seek alternatives to it, I support abortion - up to limits. I do feel it should be a choice of LAST RESORT, since, after all, you are KILLING AN UNBORN CHILD.

Life is hard. People have to make hard choices, and framed as I have, putting it into PROPER perspective, the "choice" of abortion suddenly entails a lot more moral weight, as it should.

Before I go further, please let me make this clear: People are killed every day, and not out of malicious evil intent, or even criminal negligence.... soldiers may kill an enemy combatant on the battle field.... a cop may kill an armed robber.... a convicted murderer may be executed for their crimes. Each of these involves a moral decision on the part of the "killer", and we, as a society (though not always as individuals) concur with the "justness" of those decisions.

Such as it is, it's much harder for me to argue the moral "justness" of killing an unborn child, but it teeters on the edge, balanced against the realities of the world that child may be born into. In that light, one might struggle, but eventually come to grips with such a decision. "Society" may decide that decision lies with the parents of that child (I said "parents" - not mother).


Now... some things that REALLY piss me off:

1. If you are anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, fine - I respect that. If you are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, fine - If you are pro-abortion and pro-death penalty, fine, but logic dictates that only an insane nutjob could be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty!! That sort of logic places the worth of an unborn child, and all the potential is has, beneath that of a convicted criminal who has proven their unworthiness to breath the same air as you or me.

2. Stop playing semantical games. You are either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Stop refering to it as "choice" (Dammit, "choice" is what I exercise when I decide what treat I want at the local dairyland!!) or "life" (Pro-Life describes a lot more than anti-abortion).

3. Stop playing the idiotic "it's not life until it's born" game. Bullshit. That isn't Momma's body suddenly growing a new organ. It's Momma's body designed to HOST another living creature while it develops into a creature capable of surviving on its own. By that logic, the CAR can decide it doesn't lilke it's passengers and throw them out, or maybe your house can spew you outside naked when it's ten below zero outside.

4. Stem Cell research... many people have laid down their lives in support of medical research, so why the resistance... but let's put this issue in perspective, please; the current "ban" in the US doesn't affect many programs, since it ONLY applies to government funded projects, and it's not a "ban" specifically, as it allows researchers to use an existing stock of cloned stem cells. This subject has been blown out of proportions by those who would use it to sway the opinions of the weak minded.

Grow up and take responsibility for what abortion is, if you support it - it's legalized murder, under justifiable reasons, if society is willing to consider it that. IF society decides NOT to support it, then that's proper as well. Trying to circumvent soceity using an activist court, for example, is chicanery of the highest order - a few deciding what is best for the rest, regardless of whether they are right or wrong - and that's fascism.

[BenJeremy]

QUOTE (Spency234 @ Jul 2 2004, 11:04 PM)

Good post, I only have one thing. Now, I am pro-abortion, in extreme circumstances.  But why does that make me have to accept the death penalty?  It's not the fact that I'm putting the life of a convicted murderer over an unborn childs', but the fact that a man/woman COULD be wrongly convicted and killed for a crime they did not commit.  The Justice System isn't perfect, they will make mistakes, and that is a pretty costly one if you ask me.

There's the bizarre skewing of perspective there.... you fret over the POSSIBILITY that a person could be wrongly convicted (yes, it does happen, but many "wrongly convicted" were no angels themselves, either) - the truth is the system needs reform, because in most cases, the "reasonable doubt" was most certainly there.

The problem isn't the punishment, but the system that dealt the sentence. I could go on more about that.... but suffice it to say I do believe there needs to be sufficient, but practical measures in place to insure those who face the death penalty belong there (and those responsible for shoddy investigation and railroading innocents get PUNISHED).


...but back to the issue... you desire to throw out the death penalty on the CHANCE the person isn't guilty, but you are willing to let our next Einstein or Bach or Martin Luther King **DIE** without ever knowing the truth? You think mistakes will be made in DP cases, but not in abortions? If you accept "Some" abortions, there will be far more of the type you don't like happening... just as some on death row might be innocent.

See, that's where you need to rethink your position. Either your logic for supporting Abortion is wrong (because it flies in the face of your reasoning for keeping murderes alive), or your position against the death penalty is too severe.

It's probably more than a simple exercise in logic, applied to an individual's moral beliefs. You are still weighing a murderer's life against a child's.

[Mozart.mp3]

I have to agree there. Unless you have something growing inside YOUR stomach, you cannot comment on this at all, it isn't up to you to decide that. Unless you would like to go through labor and the hardship for them, then adopt to baby for them, and care for it, don't tell them what they can or cannot do.

[Mozart.mp3]

Well, would you like the ulcer removed or would you like to give birth to it?

[Mozart.mp3]