Oppinions on abortion?

[Wiztopia]

He was being sarcastic.

No, I wasn't.

Christians believe that either God is God or that Jesus is God.

No, they don't.

Yes they do.

[Bluth Corporation]

No, I wasn't.


No, they don't.

Yes they do.

They don't. Those who believe such things cannot properly be termed "Christians," as I explain in the post I linked to a bit earlier in this thread.

[Ceannairceach]

No, I wasn't.


No, they don't.

Yes they do.

Bluth's opinion is that Jesus wasn't really the son of any god, but simply a teacher who happened to be credited with starting a religion.

[Wiztopia]

Yes they do.

They don't. Those who believe such things cannot properly be termed "Christians," as I explain in the post I linked to a bit earlier in this thread.

Actually yes they can. "The bible is the word of God" "Oh you're actually atheist"

[Grave_n_idle]

Do I really need to explain the difference between an organ and an organism?

No, you really need to understand tha a 20 week foetus is not a person.

Well, that's an unprovable and irrelevant statement.

I don't know that it's irrelevant. I think hypocrisy is a strong argument against a platform.

As for being 'unprovable'... how can "I honestly do not think the pro-life platform would be nearly as vociferous if men could get pregnant" be provable or otherwise? It's what I think, no?

Something doesn't become right or wrong based on who believes it;

I don't recall saying it did?

...that would be an ad hominem argument.

I'm not sure that's true.

Holy crap, people under emotional stress don't always make decisions based on their moral compasses. Stop the presses!

Something doesn't become morally acceptable just because some people who are opposed to it still do it.

I think the point was about hypocrisy.

Eating an acorn is different from eating a full-grown tree, and eating a sapling is different from eating a full-grown tree, but all are the same organism and the same species. When I was 1 month old, 9 months old, and 10 years old, I was the same person, and I was just as human as I am now.

However, when you were a 6 week foetus, you were just a foetus... which is what matters.

[Bluth Corporation]

They don't. Those who believe such things cannot properly be termed "Christians," as I explain in the post I linked to a bit earlier in this thread.

Actually yes they can. "The bible is the word of God"

Someone who would believe such a statement is not a Christian, regardless of whether or not they've (quite incorrectly and wrongly) arrogated that term for themselves.

[Norstal]

Holy crap, people under emotional stress don't always make decisions based on their moral compasses. Stop the presses!

Something doesn't become morally acceptable just because some people who are opposed to it still do it.

I think the point was about hypocrisy.

Talking to yourself again, eh?

[Grave_n_idle]

I think the point was about hypocrisy.

Talking to yourself again, eh?

I don't know... did he leave again?

*confused*

EDIT: Ah, got it. Fixed.

[Dyakovo]

Pro-choice or pro-life? I personally am pro-choice because it is hard to call abortion murder when the baby isn't developed enough to think or feel.

Opinions?

Dammit, why do people make new threads after I killed the last abortion thread.

Its a challenge.
*nods*



I'm pro-choice btw...

[Wiztopia]

Actually yes they can. "The bible is the word of God"

Someone who would believe such a statement is not a Christian, regardless of whether or not they've (quite incorrectly and wrongly) arrogated that term for themselves.

Maybe in your fantasy world that isn't a Christian.

[Bluth Corporation]

Someone who would believe such a statement is not a Christian, regardless of whether or not they've (quite incorrectly and wrongly) arrogated that term for themselves.

Maybe in your fantasy world that isn't a Christian.

Did you read the post I linked? Despite the centuries of cultural momentum, the cult of Jesus and Jehovah cannot properly be termed "Christian" because what they follow is in fact not the Christ. They think it is, yes, but they're wrong. Therefore, they're not Christians.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

1. I fail to see how woman's rights could be used to justify killing outside of abortion. A born child isn't taking resources and nutrients directly from the mother. ANd if the parents do not feel capable of raising the child they can give it up for adoption. Unlike in pregnancy, were no alternatives exist beyond abortion. I'm not arguing the ethics, I'm arguing what I think the role of the government should be in determining the fate of someones body; namely none. I have no interest in who's morally correct.
2. Indeed.
4. It doesn't. My point is that fetal cells are less human than born people because they lack the full development of humans, even those who are mentally handicapped and what not.
7. The child being there unwanted is a violation of the woman's rights. So....the question who's rights are more important? I say the woman's, because she's more of a human than her fetus. AND FOR THE LAST GODDAM TIME; the whole what the law says thing is not an argument. Just forget about;as I said it's unnecessary anyway.

1. If you hold that a woman has a right to kill her child, that right could CERTAINLY be used to defend killing her child. I am arguing what the government's role should be in protecting the lives of people under its jurisdiction.
2. Then you take back your claim that the idea that life begins in conception is "subjective" and "not based in fact"?
4. I never claimed "fetal cells" were people. Together, they make up a person, but they are not people. Is an infant less human than an adult because he is not aware of his existence?
7. Being unwanted is NOT a violation of anyone's rights. Being killed, on the other hand, is.

1. Well, THAT"S WHY FETUSES CAN'T LEGALLY BE PEOPLE! You see where I was getting at now? If a fetus is legally human, then that could be used as a defense against for killing any child. BUt since they aren't, we can abort as many future babies as we want without fear of legal complications. Since it's more important to protect the rights of fully devoloped humans than non-humans.
2. That life begins at conception is objective. That ending life at conception is wrong is subjective. That is what I meant. That is my answer, and nothing else.
4. No, together they make a bunch of fetal cells. Still not a person. And whether or not infants are less human is irrelevant; alternatives exist to dealing with born children (adoption) that do not exist for fetuses. Therefore the problem can be solved without destroying anything.
7. ??? Rape is unwanted. You could claim that an unwanted fetus violates the rights of a woman by forcibly stealing resources from her body and posing serious health risks. This is especially true if proper contraception was being used. Hell, if I could I would go so far as to crimnally prosecute the fetus, just to make the point. That "not guilty by reason of infancy" thing is going bite me in the ass, but you get the point.

[Apollonesia]

I didn't say pro-life women didn't exist. But the majority who are pro-life are men.

Proof or no.

You'd think so, but you're disregarding the amount of religious women (myself, for example). I'm thinking that there is no true majority, but rather the numbers are quite close.

[Wiztopia]

I didn't say pro-life women didn't exist. But the majority who are pro-life are men.

Proof or no.

You'd think so, but you're disregarding the amount of religious women (myself, for example). I'm thinking that there is no true majority, but rather the numbers are quite close.

You're pro-life?

[-St George]

I didn't say pro-life women didn't exist. But the majority who are pro-life are men.

Proof or no.

You'd think so, but you're disregarding the amount of religious women (myself, for example). I'm thinking that there is no true majority, but rather the numbers are quite close.

Is your religion the reason you're pro-life?

[Nulono]

Correct, Non-Aggression Principle.

The idea is that it is the government's main (and/or sole) duty to step in in cases of aggression, correct?

Ah, well here you make a fundamental mistake with your presumption. You conflate gov't with the State. The two are not the same. Gov't is present in many ways. The family is the most basic form of gov't. AnCap thought presents arbitration firms, judicators, insurance agencies, and social and cultural norms as forms of gov't that intercede in cases of aggression or infringements of liberties.

Moreover, that is not the non-aggression axiom.

"It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another."

- Walter Block, economist and contemporary Anarcho-Capitalist.

That is the non-aggression axiom.

And abortion is not the initiation of violence?

It's not that we "need" anyone, but those fetuses have a right not to be killed like anyone else, and that right should be respected.

Your assumption, that regrettably no one has challenged yet, is that a fetus is a human being. It's not. It certainly has the potential to become one at some point within the next several months, but it's not yet an actual human being any more than the collection of metal parts on my table drying after I cleaned them this morning is an actual trombone, even though they have the potential to become one if I reassemble them in a few hours.

A fetus is NOT at all the same as a bunch of spare parts. A fetus is as much an organism of the subspecies H. sapiens sapiens as you or I.

WHEN ARE YOU GONNA COME HOME?
WHEN ARE YOU GONNA LAND?
I SHOULD HAVE STAYED BACK ON THE FARM
I SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO MY OLD MAN
YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T KEEP ME FOREVER
I DIDN'T SIGN UP WITH YOU
I'M NOT A PRESENT FOR YOUR FRIENDS TO OPEN
THIS BOY'S TOO YOUNG TO BE SINGING
THE BLUES

What?

I don't think I could ever get an abortion but I believe it's wrong to remove the option from those that want to get one.

Why couldn't you get one yourself?

Why stop at birth, then? Why not kill infants or teenagers in third-world countries, so save them from the same fate?

Are you daft? I just went over this a few weeks ago. If you seriously think that allowing abortion to happen is a greenlight to kill everyone, then you need to check your "morals".

It isn't necessarily, but that wasn't my argument. My argument was that the arguments used to justify abortion could just as well apply after birth. Why is it acceptable to kill someone before birth to spare them an unhappy future, but not to kill them after birth to spare them the exact same future?

I'm pretty sure killing someone isn't leaving them alone.

None of your fucking business because it does not affect you whatsoever.

Uh, no. There are plenty of atrocities that don't affect me at all, but I can still speak out against them.

I don't think Jesus would've been cool with murder, even if he wouldn't judge the woman. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that jazz. And I'm pretty sure he'd work against a law he believed to be unjust.

How he'd feel about abortion is anyone's guess, what with his first-century understanding of embryology and such.

Jesus don't decide what murder is. The government, or whatever anarchist equivalent Distruzio has, decides it.

Jesus would decide as much as any other citizen, and he would likely act to get the law changed.

That varies based on available medical technology? Why should someone's rights depend on their time period and/or location?

No it doesn't. Whether in Afrika or in America, a child cannot survive when it's ripped out of the womb before it has working lungs.
Unless it has medical technology to help it along its way, but that makes it dependant of that piece of technology.

It has nothing to do with time/location. I don't even get why you brought that up.

I feel that abortion should only be debatable once the unborn child meets that requirement. Around week 25-30.

Um, it does have to do with time and location. Some premature babies can only survive with the help of an incubator. Before those were invented, that child would not have been viable.

Why should only her opinion matter? Should only her opinion matter on a very late-term abortion? On infanticide? On child abuse?

Anything beyond legal constraints is irrelevant to my statement. Any actions that are illegal will, or should, result in punishment accordingly. Keep in mind that you are allowed to have your opinion, and could even rally like-minded people to go out and try to change the laws regarding abortion. Then your opinion might matter.

However, as long as you're simply sitting in a chair in front of your computer discussing opinions on abortion in a forum, it doesn't really matter at all. Unless you are pregnant and have to weigh the options.

So what you are arguing is that my opinion doesn't legally matter. I'm not disputing that. Abortion is currently legal, and I think everyone agrees on that point. Whether it should be is what this discussion is about.

I don't mind you calling yourself a Christian, but try not to redefine the term for everyone else.

If someone is using the word "Christian" incorrectly, why shouldn't I correct him? I'm not "redefining" anything; in fact, I'm merely trying to ensure others do not redefine "Christ" from what the word actually means (as the theistic acolytes of the Cult of Jesus and Jehovah have been doing for centuries).

Jesus said very directly, "I am the Son of God."

No, he didn't. Every claim that he did is based either on a falsification introduced into the story of his life by those who failed to recognize the truth of the divinity of his teachings and so felt compelled to invent and propagate the myth of the divinity of his person, or is based on a misinterpretation.

Let's take this debate into another thread, mkay?

Do I really need to explain the difference between an organ and an organism?

No, you really need to understand tha a 20 week foetus is not a person.

Argue that the fetus isn't a person if you want, but if you want to claim that "A foetus is no more a human life than your tongue is", you will just end up looking stupid.

Well, that's an unprovable and irrelevant statement.

I don't know that it's irrelevant. I think hypocrisy is a strong argument against a platform.

No, it's an ad hominem attack. What hypocrisy are you talking about?

As for being 'unprovable'... how can "I honestly do not think the pro-life platform would be nearly as vociferous if men could get pregnant" be provable or otherwise? It's what I think, no?

It's what you think, and completely detached from reality.

Something doesn't become right or wrong based on who believes it;

I don't recall saying it did?

I was responding to the statement about male pro-life leaders.

...that would be an ad hominem argument.

I'm not sure that's true.

It is. To attack the person instead of the argument is the very definition of an ad hominem attack.

Holy crap, people under emotional stress don't always make decisions based on their moral compasses. Stop the presses!

Something doesn't become morally acceptable just because some people who are opposed to it still do it.

I think the point was about hypocrisy.

...which is an ad hominem tu quoque attack.

Eating an acorn is different from eating a full-grown tree, and eating a sapling is different from eating a full-grown tree, but all are the same organism and the same species. When I was 1 month old, 9 months old, and 10 years old, I was the same person, and I was just as human as I am now.

However, when you were a 6 week foetus, you were just a foetus... which is what matters.

When I was a 6 week fetus I was just a fetus, and when I was a 14-year teenager I was just a teenager. I was me, and I was human nonetheless.

I don't know... did he leave again?

Yep, then I came back after this lovely thing called "sleep".

Dammit, why do people make new threads after I killed the last abortion thread.

Its a challenge.
*nods*

The last thread isn't even dead yet!

I'm pro-choice btw...

I think we know that. You also tried to say that a fetus wasn't a child, and then cited a definition that explicitly included a fetus.

1. If you hold that a woman has a right to kill her child, that right could CERTAINLY be used to defend killing her child. I am arguing what the government's role should be in protecting the lives of people under its jurisdiction.
2. Then you take back your claim that the idea that life begins in conception is "subjective" and "not based in fact"?
4. I never claimed "fetal cells" were people. Together, they make up a person, but they are not people. Is an infant less human than an adult because he is not aware of his existence?
7. Being unwanted is NOT a violation of anyone's rights. Being killed, on the other hand, is.

1. Well, THAT"S WHY FETUSES CAN'T LEGALLY BE PEOPLE! You see where I was getting at now? If a fetus is legally human, then that could be used as a defense against for killing any child. BUt since they aren't, we can abort as many future babies as we want without fear of legal complications. Since it's more important to protect the rights of fully devoloped humans than non-humans.
2. That life begins at conception is objective. That ending life at conception is wrong is subjective. That is what I meant. That is my answer, and nothing else.
4. No, together they make a bunch of fetal cells. Still not a person. And whether or not infants are less human is irrelevant; alternatives exist to dealing with born children (adoption) that do not exist for fetuses. Therefore the problem can be solved without destroying anything.
7. ??? Rape is unwanted. You could claim that an unwanted fetus violates the rights of a woman by forcibly stealing resources from her body and posing serious health risks. This is especially true if proper contraception was being used. Hell, if I could I would go so far as to crimnally prosecute the fetus, just to make the point. That "not guilty by reason of infancy" thing is going bite me in the ass, but you get the point.

1. Holy crap, REALLY? The fetus isn't a person because abortion is legal, and abortion is legal because the fetus isn't a person?
2. Then that's what you should've said.
4. Together they make up a fetus. And infants being less human is certainly relevant. Alternatives exist, yes, but something doesn't become wrong because there are alternatives. Is it less wrong to kill an infant than to kill a toddler?
7. There's also automatism. Next you're gonna claim a kidnapping victim is guilty of trespass.

I didn't say pro-life women didn't exist. But the majority who are pro-life are men.

Proof or no.

You'd think so, but you're disregarding the amount of religious women (myself, for example). I'm thinking that there is no true majority, but rather the numbers are quite close.

Men and women are pretty much neck and neck when it comes to views on the abortion. Their relative views appear to fluctuate, but stay within the margin of error. Of course, this is only an interesting bit of trivia, and has no relevance to the actual morality of abortion.

[Robert Magoo]

Jesus don't decide what murder is. The government, or whatever anarchist equivalent Distruzio has, decides it.

Ahh...so according to you, the definition of murder is totally arbitrary. Basically, government is the final authority in life. I wonder, following this logic, why are you not a nationalist state lover?

[Nulono]

Jesus don't decide what murder is. The government, or whatever anarchist equivalent Distruzio has, decides it.

Ahh...so according to you, the definition of murder is totally arbitrary. Basically, government is the final authority in life. I wonder, following this logic, why are you not a nationalist state lover?

Technically, Norstal is right. "Murder" is a legal term, and only refers to a specific class of illegal homicide.

[Norstal]

Jesus don't decide what murder is. The government, or whatever anarchist equivalent Distruzio has, decides it.

Ahh...so according to you, the definition of murder is totally arbitrary. Basically, government is the final authority in life. I wonder, following this logic, why are you not a nationalist state lover?

So you don't inadvertently kill people who invade your homes? Wars? Stalkers? Robbers?

Please, don't think you have moral high ground. If anyone tries to kill you at night, you'd probably kill them too.

[Nulono]

Ahh...so according to you, the definition of murder is totally arbitrary. Basically, government is the final authority in life. I wonder, following this logic, why are you not a nationalist state lover?

So you don't inadvertently kill people who invade your homes? Wars? Stalkers? Robbers?

Please, don't think you have moral high ground. If anyone tries to kill you at night, you'd probably kill them too.

Where did that come from?

[Robert Magoo]

Ahh...so according to you, the definition of murder is totally arbitrary. Basically, government is the final authority in life. I wonder, following this logic, why are you not a nationalist state lover?

Technically, Norstal is right. "Murder" is a legal term, and only refers to a specific class of illegal homicide.

It is a legal term, but I don't think it's just a legal term. It's legally defined the way it is because it has meaning beyond the meaning law has given it.

[Robert Magoo]

Ahh...so according to you, the definition of murder is totally arbitrary. Basically, government is the final authority in life. I wonder, following this logic, why are you not a nationalist state lover?

So you don't inadvertently kill people who invade your homes? Wars? Stalkers? Robbers?

Please, don't think you have moral high ground. If anyone tries to kill you at night, you'd probably kill them too.

If you want to use that analogy, let's revisit an old argument. You invite somebody into your home. You then proceed to kill them. Have you committed murder, or were you merely defending your property?

[Dukopolious]

It's the mothers body and her choice, wouldn't you rather have no child than a 16-and pregnante mistake that wont grow up to do anythign but ruin his/her mothers life? I mean you could always have a child later on in live.. (Till a certain age..)

[The Grand Network]

Isn't castrating a bit extreme?
I think men who accidentally get women pregnant should have to pay child support and rapists should get long jail sentences. Physical punishment (death penalty, castration, corporal punishment) is wrong for any offense if you ask me.

I'm advocating vasectomy not castration, still.. if you can't use it responsibly you can't have it.

So with this thinking, overweight people should have their mouths sewn together, as they obviousely can't responsibly keep their weight under control.

[Robert Magoo]

I am all for banning abortion given it's balanced by men requiring the snip should they ever get someone pregnant by accident.

Give people that choice and I'm sure we'll all be easy with legal abortions.

Isn't castrating a bit extreme?
I think men who accidentally get women pregnant should have to pay child support and rapists should get long jail sentences. Physical punishment (death penalty, castration, corporal punishment) is wrong for any offense if you ask me.

I'm not sure I'd say it's always wrong, but it should certainly fit the crime. Generally, accidents are not viewed the same as intentional "crimes." There's no way an accidental impregnation should be treated the same as a rape.