 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Skydude Armos Knight                    Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| I think one of the issues is that the responsibility is seen as a punishment by those who want actions without consequences. The child is certainly not a punishment, and few sane people would actually suggest that a woman be "punished" for having sex...if anything, American society places the blame on the man (which is more often correct, if there is blame to be assigned) through forcing men to pay child support. Which I feel is perfectly justified.
What it comes down to is that by ridding oneself of the consequences of one's actions, in this case, you are taking the life of another. Now, you may not consider the developing child to be a separate human life, despite being such in a scientific sense, but even so, others do. So then you may ask, why should you have to bear this responsibility for the sake of others? Well, you chose the actions leading up to it, after all, knowing full well what might occur. It's not about punishment, it's about not putting your convenience over the life of another. After all, I don't run down pedestrians who get in my way when I'm in a hurry. |
|||
Sin Dogan   860  Uoodo Original Blend Armored Trooper Votoms Canned Coffee!  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6299 days |
| ||
| I'm not talking about Christianity in particular here or abortion, but rather STDS, specifically AIDS. I think that considering that so many people have so many different ideas, we can all agree on the preservation of life. As such, I think that distributing contraceptives in places like India, China, and Africa would be morally fine, even though I'm all about abstinence, I'm not going to judge others based on my standards. The effort would be simply to lessen casualties around the world. Then, hopefully, people could be less sexually active. That would be optimal. | |||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Yeah, abstinence as a reliable method of birth control has not, and probably never will, catch on very strongly. Understanding sexual activity as a given, and also understanding that large scale absintence is not practical, the distribution of birth control becomes viable. It would reduce abortions, STDs (in the case of some methods of birth control), and the frequency of children who are unable to be cared for by their destitute parents. It's not an ideal solution - as I said, abstinence is ideal - but its positive effects would be overwhelming to the point of negating the negative. | |||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| As such, the ideal sexual education would not be abstinence-only, but would emphasize it a lot more than some of the non-abstinence-only programs, like the one I had, do. Basically, they said "sex is fun, there are risks, but wear a condom and you'll be fine"...
I think it's rather important to make the note that the only 100% safe method to avoid pregnancy, if that's your aim, or STDs, is abstinence. Can't JUST rely on that, but...needs to be emphasized a bit more. |
|||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon  Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6316 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| When my health teacher taught abstinance in my 11th grade health class.. the class kind of just laughed and shrugged it off. People are always going to have sex. Always.
So Eve's punishment was childbirth and having to suffer through it. And you're going to tell me that this is the word of god? I think it's more of a give/take situation. You can't have a positive without a negative... you can't create life.. (positive for the slow ones).. and not give up something in return.. in this case physical pain. That's just the way I see it. Now, the bible was written by men. HIS-tory. I don't mean to get all uberfeminist on you... but I doubt that our creator would intentionally punish women and order that they be subserviant to men. It sounds like there was some not-so-devine intervention there. What's really strange though.. is how religion reflects the beliefs of people. People way back in the day didn't understand nature... so they believed it was devine.. and they made it so. Then people began to tame nature, and decided that there was maybe a creator of nature and the earth and the universe itself.. and it became god. Then when he communicated with the prophets... somehow it reflected the beliefs of the time period. It just seems that religion seems to follow the beliefs of humanity.. and faith and believing is what makes it real.. as opposed to what's actually the truth. That's my kind of sort of rant on religion. But, in the bible the beliefs of like ancient people, and people of like 2,000 years ago are reflected. So of course women were depicted as subserviant.. and to some degree evil. People are now just taking old beliefs and applying it to the issues now... which is abortion and contraception. Contraception allows women to be kind of dominant... they can control their sexuality and not have to fear. It kind of questions the model that women should be sub-par to men. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| The funny thing is, countries with the frankest and most explicit and non-moralistic sex-education tend to have the lowest rates of teen pregnancy and STIs and whathave you (Sweden, the Netherlands). So I think Skydude is absolutely wrong that they need to stress abstinence. If that's all they said to you, they needed to address the psychosocial issues... ownership of one's body, respect for other people, and not succumbing to pressure to do things you're not comfortable with.
But fuck abstinence as a major point... it's unrealistic and probably even counterproductive. (edited by Arwon on 04-19-06 11:34 PM) (edited by Arwon on 04-19-06 11:38 PM) |
|||
Squash Monster Bouncy Since: 11-18-05 From: Right next to myself. Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| We can't treat a freshly-fertilized egg as a human being. Sure, it's a unique and irreplacable creation. So is every thing that has ever existed and ever will exist. There is no chair exactly like the one you are sitting on. There is no tree exactly like the one that was chopped down to make your desk. ...And do you ever eat meat?
You have to draw the line for what you're going to protect somewhere, and there are only three places distinct enough to warrant consideration: --Everything --Everything living --Everything thinking I suggest you don't pick anything less specific than "everything thinking", because otherwise you're going to be having an aweful hard time finding something to eat. The human embryo doesn't begin developing a brain until the fifth week. I think four weeks is enough to realize that you're pregnant and decide to abort. Why not have abortions during that period? On a completely different note: I'm all in favor of abstinence-first sexual education with a strong backing of methods we can actually convince people to do. And while I think abstinience is obviously the best method, every time a Christian claims it is a 100% effective method of birth control, I fall over laughing. Think about it... (Hint: I only laugh when a Christian says it.) |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon I think you missed my point. Not stress it as the main focus, because I agree, you should deal with those other issues, since you can't really control what people do. My point was merely that since abstinence is the only way to avoid the issues people are so eager to get around, that much should be said. You don't do it from a moral standpoint, as you seem to think I'm saying. You do it from a practical standpoint. You make it very clear that these other issues, and these other "solutions" to these issues, are imperfect. I've said before that it's an element of risk, and I think it's important to communicate that, so people are making a rational, informed decision. And you also tell them the one "risk-free" solution and make it clear that it is. You don't tell them this from a moral standpoint; there are better places to learn morality than in school. You tell them this from a purely pragmatic standpoint. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Squash Monster--Everything human |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| And then we get into the question of: "What is human?" | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Human is any being with the genetic code unique to the species Homo sapiens, strictly speaking. A two-second-old zygote has that DNA, just as an 87-year-old man does. Both are to be protected as human beings.
Edit because, apparently, all humans can be classified as "Home sapiens." Silly me. (edited by Silvershield on 04-20-06 02:43 AM) |
|||
Tarale 2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I do agree at least with the idea of there being "punishment for sex" when it comes to females.
Not so much in a religious or childbirth sense, (although that may factor into it) but rather in the way that women who have sex are still percieved. There is still a double-standard when it comes to lovemaking. Men who have sex often are usually praised for it. It's considered a good thing if I guy gets to have sex often, and a lot of people still consider it a good thing if a guy gets to have sex with many women. They get called a "stud", and more or less cheered on. However, when a woman has sex, they are often frowned upon. Sometimes they may be called a slut (particularly if they have sex with a number of partners). When they get pregnant, many assume it's the Woman's fault (as if there were no male counterpart there doing the dirty with her), and believe that she deserves to have her life ruined (if she's unable to take care of a baby) because of it. However, those same people seem to believe it unthinkable that the male counterpart should be expected to suffer for his pleasure.... If a man gives a woman an STD, she's a dirty slut. If a woman gives a man an STD, it's still because she's a dirty slut.  Regardless of what lovely disease he's carrying, it's still somehow her fault. 
I don't know if this sexism / double standard is because of religious reasons, or what, but personally I find it appalling. And yes, I know it's not everyone, but I'm still alarmed at the prevalance of this kind of thinking in a time when there is supposedly "equality". It's pretty disappointing, and hurtful when you're a girl just trying to make their way through the world. Hell, even if a woman is RAPED, it's still because she's apparently a "dirty slut". And no, I'm not over-reacting when I say that. I've been raped before, and I've had law enforcement "professionals" (read: police) point their fingers at me and call me one, straight up. It was my fault, cause I'm the slutty dirty woman, and nothing I said to the contrary really mattered.... it's almost like they had to protect the man from the evil, dirty filthy slutty woman. (edited by Tarale on 04-20-06 02:58 AM) |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| People are oppose to abortion, because they feel that a fetus, even at the point of only a few hundred cells, constitutes life. Therefor, destroying it is murder. It's really as simple as that. I don't think that the millions of prolifers are all hiding some secret agenda.
Ever try to argue against the war in Iraq, and the person you're arguing with starts telling you why you're really against it, even though you just told them why? They say you're just still upset about the 2000 election, or you want the terrorists to win, or you just hate America. Infuriating isn't it? Besides, what difference does it make whether they think a few hundreds cells count as life, or they feel a woman should be punished by child birth, if they're wrong either way? |
|||
|
C:/xkas bio.asm Compiled ASM code  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield then, according to what you said, we will just have to change the DNA before doing the abortion, so I won't going to kill any human. or I could change your DNA and then kill you, and I won't have killed any human to be a human, you need a human brain, a human heart... a feotus don't have that, a feotus is made from stem cell, wich I consider the 'material' to build life, because technicaly, we could build rabbit from stem cell that come from a human feotus |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
I'm looking forward to the day when we develop a 100% effective birth control method which does not detract from the experience (like condoms do), and we wipe out all STDs. Those will be the days! 
Our planet is already grossly over-populated with people. We need less people, not more. Humans have been too successful. So maybe aborting unwanted potential-humans is not such a bad thing. I find it much less offensive than aborting adults or actual children. I was'nt sentient when i was a fetus, i have no memories of that. If I had been aborted i would'nt have felt any pain. Making out the destruction of a fetus as the same as a murder is the equivalent of charging someone who had their appendix removed for the murder of the appendix. I'd rather see people getting murder charges for killing gorillas or chimpanzees, becuase they are sentient, and very endangered. They need all the help they can get, humans do not. (edited by Jomb on 04-20-06 06:37 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeOuch. Brilliant argument you've posed there. Originally posted by BioSorry, but that's a bit ridiculous. Granted, the idea of changing an organism's DNA is so far in the future - or even outright impossible, period - as to be an entirely ludicrous notion right now, but even if it were somehow realized, you really think changing a person's genetic code would change his species, too? Defining humanity by its DNA is convenient and accurate right now, which is why I used that particular criterion. There's no need to bring up an outlandish hypothetical to try to thwart it. Originally posted by BioIs a person who uses a synthetic heart - something that you'll see in real life, unlike a creature's DNA being altered to the point of changing its species - not human? How about a person who has the human brain, but it's not functioning? Sure, that opens the whole issue of the rights of a patient who's in a vegetative state, but few would argue that that person is no longer a human being. Originally posted by BioNo, no we can't. Unless you know how to build a rabbit from a cell that has human DNA. Because a stem cell contains the genetic code of the person you've taken it from. Originally posted by JombSo, the Holocaust was a good method of population control, too. Originally posted by JombYou weren't sentient as a months- or years-old infant, either, and you certainly don't remember much of that part of your life. Should you have been "aborted" then, if your parents were in financial straits or simply didn't want you? Originally posted by JombNot at all, because a fetus is an entire, fully functioning (or at least someday within the next few months, fully functioning) and unique person. That appendix is no more human than the nails I bite off my fingers every day. Edit because I forgot to address what Jomb wrote. (edited by Silvershield on 04-20-06 10:17 PM) |
|||
Vyper Kodondo Raging Venom  Since: 11-18-05 From: Final Fantasy Fire Last post: 6313 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| I mostly agree with you, Silvershield, but DNA can be modified today.
I'll have to search, and edit when I find it, but I've read articles on and even seen (on Discovery channel) DNA modification. Scientists took the DNA from a flourescent jellyfish and added it to the DNA of mice embryos. The result? Glow-in-the-dark mice. Albeit, it's not even remotely close to changing a SPECIES, but you get the idea. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Yeah, so sue me for being an English major and not being up-to-date on the latest scientific innovations .
But, as you pointed out, splicing DNA or just plain fiddling with it doesn't really approximate changing something's species. |
|||
|
Vyper Kodondo Raging Venom Since: 11-18-05 From: Final Fantasy Fire Last post: 6313 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0111_020111genmice.html
Anyway, there's the link. I'm too lazy to edit |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| No, the holocaust was not, because they were actual people, but if you replaced "mass murder" with "mass birth control", then it would be. But another point is that that happened in the 40's, there are many times more people now, and if we keep reproducing so rapidly there will be hundreds of times as many people 60 years from now as there were back in the 40's.
Actually i do have a few vague memories from my early childhood. In the past when times were REALLY hard, children were killed when there was'nt enough food for everyone. I dont want to see the human race head towards a Soilent Green like future where we are living on top of each other and barely have enough food for everyone. No, an embryo is not a fully functioning human being, and is not sentient. It has the potential to become one, but so does every sperm and egg cell. Do you cry and have a funeral everytime a guy jacks off or a woman has a period? I just think we'll be better off as a people if we are'nt grossly overpopulated and struggling to survive. It'll be better for future generations if there are over-abundant resources and everyone can live a good life. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex |
| Thread closed |
