 |
| 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 | ||
Vyper Kodondo Raging Venom                   Since: 11-18-05 From: Final Fantasy Fire Last post: 6312 days Last view: 6312 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombBy the time this planet runs out of resources, we won't be here anymore. |
|||
Skydude Armos Knight   Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| I think it should also be noted that we're hardly reproducing like rabbits. Countries in the Western world (that is, Europe and North America) at least, not sure about South America or Africa, actually have birth rates approximately at or below the "replacement" rate...which is in fact one of the reasons why social security is in huge trouble. | |||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Birth rates are trending downwards virtually everywhere actually. No-one's really sure why, but even in the third world they're dropping. I think that the Middle East was an exception, can't remember any others. Anyways, many reliable population predictions have us levelling out at around 10 billion people.
Of course, the population problem goes so far beyond actual numbers. There's the demography issue Skydude raises, but that's mainly a first-world issue. There's also the question of standard of living of those 10 billion people... with China and India industrialising and increasing their standard of living and resource consumption, even if population growth stopped now the demand on the planet would still continue increasing. Even if population growth stopped or reversed we'd still have a finite planet of finite resources that we were using in a wasteful manner. (edited by Arwon on 04-21-06 01:08 AM) |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombAbortion is no more a form of birth control than the execution of a postnatal infant is. A comdom constitutes birth control. The Pill constitutes birth control. Abortion does not, no matter how you slice it. Originally posted by JombI wouldn't say "many times." I don't have actual numbers - numbers like that could probably be found easily enough, though - but implying that the current population is such a huge multiple of the world's population in the 1940s is misleading. In any case, overpopulation is a heavily publicized case of "the sky is falling." Naturally, populations are rising, but Skydude points out that many countries have a birth-to-death ratio of less than one. Italy is one country that I know for certain, but I'm sure there are many others. In those cases, underpopulation is the problem. In places where a population has gotten out of hand and cannot be supported by the region's native resources - a good part of Africa, for example - the answer is birth control, not abortion. Originally posted by JombEarly childhood, maybe, but do you remember your moment of birth? Let's say that that moment, the moment of your birth, is your earliest memory: could you have been killed without any moral qualms at some point prior to that event? I mean, after all, you don't remember it so therefore you weren't a viable human being worth protecting. Look into partial-birth abortion, and tell me it's not disgusting. Originally posted by JombThere's plenty of food in the world for everyone, the problem is with governments and other bodies that refuse to or do not have the resources to distribute it to places that have greater need of it. But that's a whole different argument. Originally posted by JombGood luck with turning a single sperm or unfertilized egg into a person. Originally posted by JombNot if, through infanticide, we make it so that there is no "future generation." |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION!?!? TEN-YARD THREAD PENALTY!!!
That's a term coined by the anti-abortion lobby a decade ago and is only used in political discourse. The correct medical term is "intact dilation and extraction", or IDX but I guess that didn't make a suitable buzz-word. Moreover the term is used to blur together this particular procedure with less "gross" procedures under the political blanket term designed to make them all seem worse than they are. IDX constitutes about .2% of all abortions and are mostly used as an alternative to C-sections or childbirth in cases where the fetus is dead, deformed or unlikely to survive birth, or in cases of maternal danger. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| It wasn't intended as a general argument, but as a rebuttal to Jomb's supposition that to kill anything that isn't fully self-aware is totally morally acceptable. I didn't intend to imply that partial birth abortion - my term of choice for the procedure, because I was never aware of any other - is an incredibly widespread practice. My only aim was to point out how ludicrous it is to sanction the murder of an infant based on its current residence - that is, a fetus that is identical to a postnatal child in all ways except for its living in the womb can be killed without recourse, but that same child is protected ten minutes later after its birth. | |||
|
C:/xkas bio.asm Compiled ASM code  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield do you at least know your stuff? like I already say , It is technicaly possible to 'breed' any life form from a fetus, the fetus is, in some way, only the material used to make the life form, so removing it just like removing the sperm or the egg saying this is murder is like saying that destroying a chunk of metal is like destroying a robot, even if the robot is made from metal(this is just a comparaison) (edited by Bio on 04-21-06 12:06 AM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by BioAnd, like I already said, the only lifeform that will be "bred" from a fetus (or from even a human stem cell, for that matter) is a human being. You'll not turn a human fetus into a rabbit, no matter how hard you try. Originally posted by BioLike I've said at least twice, there is a distinct and vital difference between a sperm or an egg cell, and a zygote or any higher form of it. A sperm or an egg has no intrinsic value on its own, as neither is a human. A zygote is not only a human, but it is a human that is unique from the mother and father from which it derives its DNA. Originally posted by BioThat analogy is completely and totally invalid. |
|||
|
C:/xkas bio.asm Compiled ASM code Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
please, look for information about what stem cell is exactly |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I know what a stem cell is. You don't seem to grasp that a stem cell belongs to a specific species; a human stem cell is not a rabbit stem cell, which is not a wheat stem cell, which is not a velociraptor (hehe) stem cell. | |||
|
C:/xkas bio.asm Compiled ASM code Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| If someone change the actual base DNA(impossible yet) before the stem cell devlop, it could be possible to make it be anything you want, and I only say it was technicaly possible
also,link, scientifist worry a LOT more about more about than what you supposed (edited by Bio on 04-21-06 12:40 AM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I don't mean to be rude, but you are really not understanding the science of the process. I'm not a science-minded person myself, but I have at least a layman's knowledge of the current technology surrounding stem cells. As I said above, a human stem cell is just that - the cell of a human. It cannot be manipulated into any other species' cell. We can talk about changing a cell's DNA all we want, but I would think that science will sooner develop cures for the various diseases that stem cell research is aimed at than it will discover a way to change a cell's species through altering its genetic code. So, the hypothetical situation you present is irrelevant. | |||
|
C:/xkas bio.asm Compiled ASM code Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
that why I say technicaly possible, its like cloning, its technicaly possible but it will never be done because its totally useless to do it |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| No, it's not like cloning. With our current level of scientific aptitude, cloning is a plausible (if not flawless) endeavor. However, altering a cell or organism's genetics to turn that cell or organism into a different species is not only technically impossible, it is literally impossible. Like, we can't do it. And what I said was, if we ever do reach that level of technology, we will likely have already developed treatments or cures for the diseases that stem cell research is meant to remedy, so using stem cells for that purpose would no longer be necessary. | |||
|
C:/xkas bio.asm Compiled ASM code Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I'm not saying it can be done, I'm saying it could be done, but most likely never will (edited by Bio on 04-21-06 01:01 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield So? If the cut-off is fertilisation, the human womb murders far more babies than doctors ever could. "Life begins at conception" is absolute bunk. Life "begins" at some ill-defined grey-area between the second and third trimester, and even then it's tenuous. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonThe human womb is no more guilty for the murder of a fertilized egg than a lion is for the murder of an antelope. A consequence of natural events, events that are beyond human control, does not constitute murder. Originally posted by ArwonLife most certainly begins at conception. Whether human life begins at conception is what is so heavily contested. Which, I'm sure, was just a matter of mixed terminology on your part  . |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| It's a certain level of potential life, but I strongly object to the idea that four cells in a petrie dish or stuck to a womb wall is morally equivalent to either a late-term foetus or a baby. This fetishisation of raw genetic material that acts as a parasite in its host is extremely objectionable. Also objectionable is the extent to which these fetishists will go to protect these clumps of matter to the detriment of actual, walking talking breathing human beings, crusading on with no regard for how complicated and difficult this issue is. They spit on womens' rights, they spit on moral autonomy, they flee from the complicated nature of life and retreat into quirky definitional games and simple black-and-white ideas, which they try to impose on everyone else with no regard for the consequences.
Honestly, think what you want, but leave the rest of us the fuck alone and let us make our own damn decisions. Pah. Anyone who puts a zygote above the life of an actual woman is someone whose worldview I simply cannot fathom. (edited by Arwon on 04-21-06 01:30 AM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonThen you must also object to the idea that a little six pound newborn is morally equivalent to an adult human. Of course not, but is it not a similar principle? The cluster of cells does not physically resemble the late-term fetus or the baby, just as that fetus or baby does not physically resemble a grown adult; why should we discriminate based on appearances? Originally posted by ArwonI hate when the pro-life side is defined as regressive and anti-women's rights. Carrying an unborn child, the very essence of life, within oneself, is the epitome of the natural female role, and is as much a privilege as it is a responsibility. It disgusts me that so many women have been brainwashed into thinking that to sustain the life of another inside one's own body, to give birth to a new member of our race, is such a revolting idea. I'm all for women's rights in the sense that to kill an unborn child is to encroach upon the domain of motherhood, a role that is central to femininity and to life as a whole. It is a woman's undeniable right to abstain from sexual intercourse. It is not her right to have her cake and eat it too, so to speak: she's involved herself in the act willingly, and must bear the consequences that she was so fully aware of beforehand. Moral autonomy exists when the repurcussions of an act affect oneself and nobody else. Killing an infant is not an act that affects only the mother. Originally posted by ArwonOk, I'll leave the rest of you alone to make your decisions. Since that unborn child can't speak for himself, I'll make the logical and reasonable assumption that he'd rather be alive than dead. There, he's made his own decision, now stop imposing your set of beliefs on him. Any reasonable pro-lifer will concede that, in the (statistically irrelevant) case of a child having to be sacrificed to save the life of its mother, the exchange is reluctantly but rationally made. It's not a case of favoring the life of a zygote over the life of a woman, it's a case of favoring the life of a zygote over the convenience of a woman. Which I think is an easily defended position. Edit for clarity. (edited by Silvershield on 04-21-06 01:49 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| "It is a woman's undeniable right to abstain from sexual intercourse. It is not her right to have her cake and eat it too, so to speak: she's involved herself in the act willingly, and must bear the consequences that she was so fully aware of beforehand."
Oh, really? Catholic Canon law says otherwise  |
| 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 |
