Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 95

Thread: abortion

  1. #61
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    446
    "You might not think that it should be but in my book it's a given fact that it is."

    lets break that down...

    1) "my book" would refer to your own personal collection of opinions

    2) "given fact" would refer to something that isn't an opinion, that isn't debatable.

    hmmm... i am beginning to think that you approve of your own opinions with an illogically high regard.

    i would recommend opening up your mind, not to what you refuse to believe, but to the chance that what you believe might not be fact, but just belief, in which case you have no grounds to argue, as beliefs are a personal matter. you can try as hard as you want to make other people assume the beliefs that you do, but unless it is a "fact" outside of your "book", don't get your hopes up.

    keep in mind that i don't have a disagreement with what you say, i'm just informing you of a flaw in your thinking. take it or leave it.

  2. #62
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    446
    "Not really. It's still just cells. My sperm is on the same level of cellular growth. If your talking 'souls' no one can claim to know that."

    1) there's no such thing as souls.

    2) cells are just as much a life-form as any other life-form. the real argument here is whether or not you choose to lie to yourself and omit the b.s. that most advocates of open abortion love to, and state that those cells aren't human until the lungs breathe in air outside of the womb.

    fyi, those cells are human the instant that they form together. it is a stem cell with 23 chromosome pairs, with all the dioxyribonucleic acid that it takes to make up all the living parts of a fully grown unique human being. kill it, and you kill the human being that it was, however underdeveloped it appeared to be. it is just as much a human as you all are.

  3. #63
    Post Demon Ishandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,591
    I am pro abortion but I can openly admit that it is murder. Embryos are human, they are alive.

    But murder can be and IS justified in many scenarios already throughout the world.

    Wether this is on of those scenarios is the only thing that should really be discussed.

  4. #64
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    576
    Metallica, I apologize for my bad English, I'm afraid it is not my first language. I can see now that my use of the word fact was quite inappropriate. Would you care to have this debate in a language that I feel more comfortable with so that we can eliminate the risk that little nuances in the meanings of words distract you from taking in the posts I make?

    cells are just as much a life-form as any other life-form.
    Just like bacteria and whatnot.

  5. #65
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,496
    Quote Originally Posted by AFKain View Post
    Magn you're sort of ignoring my main point there though, sure democracy isn't perfect but I have a hard time believing that there are democratic countries which allow abortion where the public is against abortion.
    Well, I think one can safely agree that in the case of abortion, the law concur with the will of the majority, but such is not always the case.

    However, just because the majority is pro abortion doesn't make it the better choice (at least, not without a proper battery of arguments to back it up).

    It has occured quite often in the past that the majority was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by AFKain View Post
    Sure great thinkers have had a big impact on people's values, but if nobody agrees with the great thinker how can he/she be an authority? There's no right and wrong when it comes to ethics... IMO great thinkers represent the possibility of changing the opinion of the masses while the law represents the current will of the masses
    There is right and wrong in ethics... given a context.

    Some basic values (for example, the value of life) is hard to argue in terms of right or wrong.

    However, once you agree on a set of basic values, it is possible to show that one direction is better than another to enforce these values.

    Most often, people don't even realize what their own core values are (and frankly, there are many ways to classify them so bagging them all in a small set of names is not always very satisfactory), but with proper insightful argumentation, some of their aspects can be brought to light.

    As for the law, I think the masses are woefully ignorant of what they are exactly so its hard for the masses to agree or disagree with them.

    Heck, I won't pretend I'm remotely familiar with a lot of the laws where I live, though I will admit I am often shocked when I learn about some laws.

    Actually, I consider the law to be mostly the product of an elite group who sometimes make the law unecessarily complicated to justify their existence. I don't consider our laws to be that democratic (well, they are democratic to the extent that people will go along with some of the more obvious laws as long as they are not outrageous).

    Why do you think everybody needs a lawyer to represent them in court and also often to advise them on how to proceed so that they don't break the law?

  6. #66
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    576
    It has occured quite often in the past that the majority was wrong.
    Despite that democracy is preferable. And I do think the abortion issue has been subjected to a fair bit of proper arguments.

    However, once you agree on a set of basic values, it is possible to show that one direction is better than another to enforce these values.
    The whole discussion is about the fact that people have different values, establishing some basic values would mean that one group has to give up their values before you can show the right and wrong direction.

    As for the law, I think the masses are woefully ignorant of what they are exactly so its hard for the masses to agree or disagree with them.
    I'd agree with you there, I'm sure the masses don't know exactly how the laws work.

    I do think they have a general idea of what the law says though. For example people might not be able to differentiate between different legal definitions of killings but they know that it is not allowed to kill people. If we could make laws that say "killing is wrong" that'd be great because everyone would understand exactly, but since the law needs to be extremely exact that isn't possible, the language gets complicated, case law is established etc. I don't feel I have to know the specifics about what the law says in every single case though, it is enough that I know the general purpose of the law.

    People need lawyers in the same way that they need other experts, doctors for example. I know the basic function of my lungs but if I'm having trouble breathing I'm not going to cut up my chest and have a look.

  7. #67
    Forum Addict RAKIdaRHINO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,337
    Swirvin Birds
    Not really. It's still just cells. My sperm is on the same level of cellular growth. If your talking 'souls' no one can claim to know that.
    yes really, and you cant compare a fertilzed egg with sperm. by that logic you arent worth more than your sperm either because its just cellular growth. when the egg is fertilized a new life begins that is separate from its origin (egg+sperm). Two halves become one whole and life begins. The fertiized egg isnt its mom and it isnt its dad. Its its own being.

  8. #68
    Postaholic
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    934
    actually i would argue differently

    when egg meats sperm, it starts replicating, but only into the SAME type of cell. if u take it out at that time, its really just a ball of cell. then somewhere a long the line, it suddenly gets a signal, and those cells start replicating into different cells, some becomes lets say heart or arm or eye and etc. if theres any question about where life begins, i would say THAT MOMENT is when life begins, and whatever that signal is, thats like injecting "life" into something

    of course we have very limited understanding of this and much much more research is needed.

  9. #69
    Post Demon Ishandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,591
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryogenesis

    I would say as soon as the embryo (blastocyst at this stage) implants into the uterus is it a human life.

    You can tell it is alive because it produces and releases hormones to tell the mother she is pregnant and to stop ovulating, in order to protect itself. The fact it is making an effort to survive surely is the clearest sign it is alive.

    So while the morning after pill, technically, wouldnt be abortion/murder (its contraception), abortion at any stage after that is killing a human life. Effectively euthanasia in some cases, murder in others.




    If you believe its right to kill something or someone then you should argue why that is the case, not try to argue that your not actually killing.

  10. #70
    Postaholic
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    934
    i dont think there will be an argument on "whether u think its right to kill"

    the real argument to this issue is whether or not teens should be GIVEN A CHOICE for abortion, or should they be forced to have the baby (resulting in some of the teens ruining their life, and some of the baby will grow up with poverty/abuse)

    questions like "when life begin" is as pointless as "whats the meaning of life". theres no real hardcore scientific evidence to support it (my post above just merely stats IF we are to "define" when life starts, it makes more sense to define that moment rather than egg meets sperm), and we arbitrarily define it ourselves. of course ppl's definitions are different, therefore ppl will argue forever and ever with no results

    unfortunately some pro-abortion ppl gets tricked into continuing this "when life begins" argument rather than focusing on the main point

  11. #71
    Post Demon Ishandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,591
    Im not getting into the arguement as I am already pro-choice and nothing here would change it, I just wanted to make both sides think. Hence my previous post (on the previous page).

    If the arguement really is wether teens should be given the choice, how about remembering they are given the choice to join the army or police force to later carry weapons of deadly force?

    They always have the option of suicide (however illegal) and most people are capable of killing an unborn baby themselves through drugs and alcohol. I'd rather they did it safely in a clinic than endanger their own life and possibly give birth to a 'deformed' baby.





    I agree waheed pro-choice people, here at least, are wasting time and energy trying to argue that its OK because it isnt alive yet or life has not begun, rather than being grown up and admitting...

    Yes its alive.

    Yes we're killing it.

    BUT We have good reason too and it is for the best for both the parent(s) and child.

  12. #72
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    446
    "Just like bacteria and whatnot."

    ya, exactly.

    if you want to think of yourself as a giant protozoan or amoeba

  13. #73
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    576
    That would be a bit misleading since I have evolved a bit since back then and I don't really think I would fit the characteristics of those right now.

  14. #74
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    446
    "That would be a bit misleading since I have evolved a bit since back then and I don't really think I would fit the characteristics of those right now."

    your DNA hasn't changed any, hopefully lol

  15. #75
    Forum Addict RAKIdaRHINO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,337
    waheed.
    the new life is still from the moment of inception a unique being with a unique set of dna (ok, twins etc..) totally separate from everything else. Life. Once the egg is fertilized the cell has "everything" it needs to last you your entire life. You are that very cell and that very cell is all you are really.

    ishandra
    . The fact it is making an effort to survive surely is the clearest sign it is alive.
    not really. not unless its a conscious effort instead of just an evolutionary benefit. the action itself to me isnt more life signaling than the mere existance of a cell with its own set of DNA.
    heres no real hardcore scientific evidence to support it
    yes, there is hardcore scientific evidence that life begins at inception. something new is created thats separate and unique. that something does something and something thats dead doesnt really do much does it?

    if it hadnt been for some pro-abortion people lacking ability to support abortion while still acknowledging that you remove a human life well, then we wouldnt need to have this discussion imo.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •