(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		05-15-24 02:22 AM
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 10Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
Tommathy









Since: 11-17-05
From: Cloud Nine, Turn Left and I'm There~

Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
Skype
Posted on 04-22-06 02:44 AM Link
Arguing the ontology of the soul or of human life is far, *far* removed from the practical realities of birth and motherhood.

The primary concern of any discussion on abortion should be to find the causes which would drive one to require an abortion, and possible remedy for that situation.

One should not take away one option without offering another.

As for my earlier post, I posted not necessarily in response to anything in particular (I hadn't actually read the thread thoroughly yet), but merely wished to pre-empt any potential vitriol further on in the discussion. Hence the reason I could only present it as tangentially relevant, as my grasp of the twists and turns of the thread was tenuous, as best.

Edited for disambiguation.

(edited by Tommathy on 04-22-06 02:24 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6307 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 02:44 AM Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
No, we're arguing opinions.
...which still doesn't inherently involve my personal life in the discussion. Like I've said, I'm supplying my opinion just as you're supplying yours; why are you trying to turn it into something beyond that? You should be attacking the validity of what I say, not trying to distract by calling attention to what I do.

Edit to respond to Tommathy.

Originally posted by Tommathy
Arguing the ontology of the soul or of human life is far, *far* removed from the practical realities of birth and motherhood.
Practical realities take a backseat to the higher authority of Morality. It may not be "practical" for an unwed mother to give birth to a child she'd rather not have, but that's not a valid argument for her to not be morally obliged to do so.

Originally posted by Tommathy
The primary concern of any discussion on abortion should be to find the causes for the *need* of such action, and possible remedy.
You're being a bit ambiguous - specifically, what "action" are you making reference to?

Originally posted by Tommathy
One should not take away one option without offering another.
If you remove the option of abortion, you're left with any number of options concerning what to do with the child once it's been born. It is literally impossible to offer some alternative course of action prior to actual childbirth, but that's a restriction placed by the workings of modern science; if it is someday possible to gestate a child outside the womb, it would certainly be the alternative you're looking for.

(edited by Silvershield on 04-22-06 01:51 AM)
Skydude

Armos Knight








Since: 02-18-06
From: Stanford, CA

Last post: 6568 days
Last view: 6568 days
Posted on 04-22-06 03:01 AM Link
Well, don't be so quick to dismiss what Tommathy has to say. While obviously he doesn't quite share the same opinion as I do and as you seem to, he makes a point that is quite a bit friendlier to those of us who are Pro-Life as opposed to merely anti-abortion. Yes, I do feel that other options are necessary, and it goes to show the hypocrisy of the "Pro-Choice" movement that they would deny the availability of other choices to mothers.

I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, either; I've talked to congressmen who have tried to pass legislation which would help give aid to mothers...the abortion lobby views any attempt at any aid other than support for abortion "clinics" and the industry as a whole...and indeed it is an industry, and an extremely profitable one at that...as an attempt to undermine the system that has been put in place, the status quo of the choices to a woman of killing her child or raising it with no assistance. It doesn't exactly stop there, either, as these places cover up abuse (even going so far as to brag about it) and just shove the women out the door without helping with post-abortion counseling that is so often sorely needed.

The only people who really benefit from this in our society are the abortionists.
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 03:38 AM Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
Originally posted by Dracoon
No, we're arguing opinions.
...which still doesn't inherently involve my personal life in the discussion. Like I've said, I'm supplying my opinion just as you're supplying yours; why are you trying to turn it into something beyond that? You should be attacking the validity of what I say, not trying to distract by calling attention to what I do..


An opinion is formed on how one lives their life and their situation in life. Your setting changes and alters your opinion, many people forget to look at all sides and not have an opinion. I planely, just don't care, I do not believe in morality, because morality is whimsical. I do not base my life around being "Holier than thou." because I know I'm the same organic flesh as everyone else. My life makes little difference to the world and to the grand scheme of things. All I can do is try to make life easier for those around me and myself, everyone deserves forgiveness and understanding.

I might not like what someone does, but I know that if I get caught up in what they do, I'm forgetting who they are. You see the multitude of women having abortions as just that. I think about how every single persons circumstance is different and how passing judgment on whether I think their actions are right or wrong is ignorant.

If you feel your only option is to say abortion is wrong and want to get rid of it, go ahead, but I believe it is "morally" correct that you learn why every single person who wants to have an abortion rather than have that child.

(edited by Dracoon on 04-22-06 02:39 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6307 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 03:46 AM Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
I planely, just don't care, I do not believe in morality, because morality is whimsical. I do not base my life around being "Holier than thou." because I know I'm the same organic flesh as everyone else. My life makes little difference to the world and to the grand scheme of things. All I can do is try to make life easier for those around me and myself, everyone deserves forgiveness and understanding.

I might not like what someone does, but I know that if I get caught up in what they do, I'm forgetting who they are. You see the multitude of women having abortions as just that. I think about how every single persons circumstance is different and how passing judgment on whether I think their actions are right or wrong is ignorant.

If you feel your only option is to say abortion is wrong and want to get rid of it, go ahead, but I believe it is "morally" correct that you learn why every single person wants to have an abortion rather than have that child.
Having a strong sense of morality give me a holier-than-thou attitude? I disagree - never in this thread, nor in any other thread, nor in any situation if real life, have I ever considered myself sinless and perfect. I don't claim the right to argue against abortion because I am personally free from any sort of fault, I claim that right because I see an injustice being done that is being passed off as the "right to choose."

Whatever the source of my opinion, whatever life experiences led me to form it, the point of a discussion is to address a person's words and not take into account anything beyond that.

In any case, how does my disapproval of an act qualify as disapproval of the person who's committed the act? I detest drugs and alcohol, but I do not have a single friend who doesn't smoke, drink, or do both; by your estimation, I shouldn't be associating myself with a single one of those people, because I don't agree with their actions. And that's ludicrous, obviously. I've never expressed any sort of disapproval of people who get abortions, but I have and always will detest the act that they involve themselves in. Don't make it out to be something that it isn't.
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 03:58 AM Link
Holier-than-thou

Exhibiting an attitude of superior virtue; self-righteously pious.


In any case, nice way of missing the point of my post. (Or, did you evade it?)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6307 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 04:06 AM Link
I still don't fit your definition of "holier-than-thou."

Anyhow, why don't you go ahead and restate the point of your last post in more certain terms. To see if I "missed" it.
Skydude

Armos Knight








Since: 02-18-06
From: Stanford, CA

Last post: 6568 days
Last view: 6568 days
Posted on 04-22-06 04:16 AM Link
I think SS does a good job of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" paradigm expressed by most Christian philosophers and holy men. He's saying he has a strong sense of morality...which I think ought to be obvious enough from his posts...he didn't say he thinks he's a better individual than those whose actions he's criticizing. And I feel similarly on the matter to what he seems to be expressing.

You don't hate the women who get the abortions. In many cases, perhaps even most, it's not truly their choice anyway. So many abortions have behind them a man demanding them, largely because he doesn't want to pay child support. Even if it isn't direct coercion like that, there's a certain coercion of a society that doesn't give women the support they need, the reasons for that being stated partially in my last post. You can't really blame a woman so much for that action when she's being told by society that she should, nay, MUST do that.
Arwon

Bazu


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6296 days
Posted on 04-22-06 06:31 AM Link
Originally posted by Tommathy
Tangentially Relevant (from Waiter Rant):

“Did I ever tell you about the time my godfather spoke at an anti abortion rally?” I ask.

“He was a priest wasn’t he?”

“Yeah.”

“What did he say?” Beth asks.

“Well, it was an ecumenical rally and people were really whipped into a fire and brimstone frenzy,” I say, remembering. “You know, these loose women are sinners, they’re going to hell, etcetera.”

“Man,” Beth breathes.

“So it’s my godfather’s turn to speak…………..”

…..and shuffling into the pulpit, resplendent in his Byzantine vestments, my godfather looks over the top of his glasses upon the congregation.

“I have heard many of you talking today about God’s punishment, His wrath. How you’re good Christians because you hate abortion. But, after listening to the people gathered here, I can’t help but notice that some of you harbor a vituperative attitude towards the very women you want to help.”

People start shifting in their seats uncomfortably.

“I know many of you, like me, are here because you want to defend the unborn. Some of you are motivated by the deepest conviction.”

Another pause.

“But some of you are here because you love to hate.”

Shocked silence.

“Are you here because you really want to help the unborn?” my godfather asks. “Have you taken an unwed mother into your home? Fed her? Cared for her baby? Or are you here because this is where your friends are? Are you here to indulge in a comforting sense of moral superiority? Smug in your certitude you’re not going to hell?”

Everyone is listening now.

“Let me tell you something about Hell,” my godfather says, “We know there’s a hell because Jesus said there’s one. But we don’t know if anyone’s actually in it.”

My godfather lets that thought sink in.

“What’s more,” he says, “Jesus never liked hypocrites. He once said, ‘They do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but will they lift a finger to move them? No! Every thing they do is done to attract attention!’”

Now some of the congregants look angry.

“Let me ask you something. Are you relieving these women of their burdens? Or are you adding to them with your self righteousness? Are you helping or hurting? Because if all of your fervor is directed towards feeling good about yourself, if it’s about getting attention, if its about how you’re better than someone else - YOU ARE WASTING GOD’S TIME!”

A couple of people get up to leave. Undaunted my godfather continues.

“The Lord has never been welcome in the house of the righteous and the certain. Instead He walks amidst the damaged and the confused. To Him, the one that is lost is a treasure beyond price. Who are we to judge these women? They are precious treasure. Love, not hatred, is what they need.”

His words reverberate through the church. People are staring at the floor. Some shake their heads in disagreement. Others look thoughtful.

“Remember, the mercy of God is radical and boundless,” my godfather says, “And I thank God everyday that He is more merciful than you or I will ever be.”

My Godfather steps down from the pulpit. I don’t think he was invited back the next year. …..


A-fucking-men.

Originally posted by Skydude
Yes, I do feel that other options are necessary, and it goes to show the hypocrisy of the "Pro-Choice" movement that they would deny the availability of other choices to mothers.


Huh? The whole point of the choice thing is that hey, abortion sucks, but so do other options, and it's up to each individual to make their own choice from amidst the suckiness.
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 11:15 AM Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
I still don't fit your definition of "holier-than-thou."

Anyhow, why don't you go ahead and restate the point of your last post in more certain terms. To see if I "missed" it.


Yeah, you do. You believe you're morally correct and other's aren't, that you're trying to correct an "injustice" as you put it, and you're trying to do it from a moral stand point, that (guess what!?), involves religion.

Originally posted by Dracoon

An opinion is formed on how one lives their life and their situation in life. Your setting changes and alters your opinion, many people forget to look at all sides and not have an opinion. I planely, just don't care, I do not believe in morality, because morality is whimsical. I do not base my life around being "Holier than thou." because I know I'm the same organic flesh as everyone else. My life makes little difference to the world and to the grand scheme of things. All I can do is try to make life easier for those around me and myself, everyone deserves forgiveness and understanding.


Morality is an opinion. If you want to get into it, so is justice. To kill a murderer can be considered justice, but really, is it? What is justice?


Originally posted by Dracoon
I might not like what someone does, but I know that if I get caught up in what they do, I'm forgetting who they are. You see the multitude of women having abortions as just that. I think about how every single persons circumstance is different and how passing judgment on whether I think their actions are right or wrong is ignorant.


This is talking about generlazation, which you're doing when you try to proclaim anything is wrong. You act like all abortion is morally wrong, sometimes it is the best option.

Originally posted by Dracoon

If you feel your only option is to say abortion is wrong and want to get rid of it, go ahead, but I believe it is "morally" correct that you learn why every single person who wants to have an abortion rather than have that child.


This is a snide remark at the idea of morallity as a whole. It is impossible to be morally correct, because you're never right, you just think you're right.


I wrote that so you'd break it up into multiple points while reading that, since I expected you to do that like you did with everything else.
Skydude

Armos Knight








Since: 02-18-06
From: Stanford, CA

Last post: 6568 days
Last view: 6568 days
Posted on 04-22-06 11:51 AM Link
Originally posted by Arwon

Huh? The whole point of the choice thing is that hey, abortion sucks, but so do other options, and it's up to each individual to make their own choice from amidst the suckiness.


The problem with that is that, as I previously stated, at least in the US, they are actively trying to prevent the growth of other choices because, loathe as they are to admit it, the abortion lobby is powerful largely because it makes a lot of money, and wants to make sure it stays that way. Just because you think other choices suck doesn't mean you should try to make sure those other choices aren't available, because, you know, other people might not think they suck so much.
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 01:49 PM Link
And the anti-abortion people are really powerful because of all the church groups lobbying to get abortion criminalized.

See, I can say stuff without evidence too.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6307 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 06:33 PM Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
Yeah, you do. You believe you're morally correct and other's aren't, that you're trying to correct an "injustice" as you put it, and you're trying to do it from a moral stand point, that (guess what!?), involves religion.
By your rationale, nobody anywhere has any right to ever question anything, period. Because, if that person is not entirely sinless himself, he cannot address the sins of others.

I do believe I'm morally correct in this specific instance. You'd be hard pressed to find a single person anywhere who doesn't think that they are right and somebody else is wrong about something. My argument is not, and never was, "I am free of fault so therefore I am entitled to boss other people around." It's always been a matter of witnessing an occurance that I find morally reprehensible - that is, the act of abortion - and arguing against it. Just like you (that's a general "you," not you specifically) might be opposed to America's presence in Iraq, and would be willing to make a case against it.

And, by the way, being pro-life does not necessarily have to be a religious-derived point of view. Whether my own stance on the matter is derived from my religion - and, for the record, I really don't know whether it is or not - is irrelevant. In any case, a person doesn't need to be religious whatsoever to respect the sanctity of life.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Morality is an opinion. If you want to get into it, so is justice. To kill a murderer can be considered justice, but really, is it? What is justice?
I disagree to a large extent. I won't go so far as to say that morality and justice are a purely black-and-white issue but, to use a classic example, if a person came from a culture in which murder was accepted or even somehow encouraged, and that person entered our society and began committing murder, would you hold him blameless just because it's what's right to him? There is definitely a constant set of values, though each person might approach the definition of those values differently.


Originally posted by Dracoon
This is talking about generlazation, which you're doing when you try to proclaim anything is wrong. You act like all abortion is morally wrong, sometimes it is the best option.
The only time abortion is the best option is in the terribly infrequent circumstance of a woman's life being saved by allowing the baby to die. And I've already accounted for that situation far earlier in this thread.

Aside from that case, I am certainly generalizing and "acting like all abortion is morally wrong." Because I firmly believe that it is.

Originally posted by Dracoon
This is a snide remark at the idea of morallity as a whole. It is impossible to be morally correct, because you're never right, you just think you're right.
Again, I disagree. Like I said, morality is far from black-and-white, but to just throw your hands up in the air and proclaim that there is truly no right and wrong in this world is to be out of touch with reality.

Originally posted by Dracoon
I wrote that so you'd break it up into multiple points while reading that, since I expected you to do that like you did with everything else.
Why do you say that like it's a bad thing? It's a hundred times easier for a person to follow what I'm talking about when I separate quotes rather than leaving them in one big block.
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 07:06 PM Link
First part: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

And you need to read the definition of "holier-than-thou", not just look at it, read it, comprehend it. It doesn't imply that you'd think you were without sin, that would just be an extreme case of it.

And it wouldn't be "holier-than-thou" since people who do not have a religion, don't really have anything they believe to be holy.

Second Part: No, I wouldn't hold him blameless, just because it is moral to kill someone where he is from doesn't mean it is acceptable here, moral or not. That just shows that morality is whimsical. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

I don't believe in morality or justice, I don't think they're black or white, I just think they're words people use to feel better about whatever act they're doing. (Although sometimes they don't have to feel good about it, but the pattern is there and it's expected of them.)

Third Part: If I could predict every possible situation that would happen in the world, I would be the richest man alive.

Everyone's life means different things to them, your life might be your wallet, your car, your house, your body, your buisness (in case of a prositute), or your financial secruity. (since people are too lazy to work two jobs to pay for things.) One life for another is a fair trade though, right? Making one person miserable so two people can be miserable is great logic.

Fourth Part: Right and wrong do not exist. Just who you affect and how you affect them. Right and wrong are just words to catagorize an action depending on how it affects people. If the effect is negative, it usually ends up being catagorized as wrong, but it can change easily with time. If a principle is whimsical, why believe in it like it is an absolute?

Fifth Part: No, it wasn't negative, I'm sorry you read it like that. It's just that you seemed to sum up a previous post when it wasn't supposed to be summed up like that, it left a lot of my argument out, and instead of calling you out like you were retarted, I just said I expected something that didn't happen.

(edited by Dracoon on 04-22-06 06:07 PM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6307 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 08:37 PM Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
First part: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I'll say it again: never in this thread have I cast judgement on a person for the actions he or she commits. However, I will very readily question those actions. If a person were not entitled to take issue with something that he sees happening in this world, there would never be any sort of commentary on society and nothing would ever improve. A person should not frivolously criticize a wartime leader because that person is not sinless himself, but he should be encouraged to criticize the war that the leader is waging, or criticize the leader's political policies.

You're confusing my arguments against the act of abortion as an argument against those people who support or commit abortion. The two are not equivalent.

Originally posted by Dracoon
And you need to read the definition of "holier-than-thou", not just look at it, read it, comprehend it. It doesn't imply that you'd think you were without sin, that would just be an extreme case of it.
I don't understand why I'm holier-than-thou if I see a problem in our world and make a case against it. My argument does not involve any aspect of my personal life, nor does it ever refer to my own sinlessless, it simply aims to address the act of abortion. You're continually warping my argument into something that it isn't.

Originally posted by Dracoon
And it wouldn't be "holier-than-thou" since people who do not have a religion, don't really have anything they believe to be holy.
You're the one who brought the phrase "holier-than-thou" into this in the first place.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Second Part: No, I wouldn't hold him blameless, just because it is moral to kill someone where he is from doesn't mean it is acceptable here, moral or not. That just shows that morality is whimsical. Thanks for helping me prove my point.
So, if you were socially obliged to commit murder if you traveled to this hypothetical person's homeland, you would do so? You think that his native morality is just as "correct" as yours is? I fully recognize cultural differences, and think that the contrast between different societies makes ours a rich and diverse world, but I know where to draw the line.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Third Part: If I could predict every possible situation that would happen in the world, I would be the richest man alive.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Originally posted by Dracoon
One life for another is a fair trade though, right? Making one person miserable so two people can be miserable is great logic.
One life for another might be a fair trade if a woman who does not get an abortion dies. She isn't trading her life away when she carries a child to full term, she's trading away her convenience. It's not a case of one life for another, it's a case of one life being saved and the other life, the one that is responsible for the child in the first place, being compromised but hardly taken.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Fourth Part: Right and wrong do not exist. Just who you affect and how you affect them. Right and wrong are just words to catagorize an action depending on how it affects people. If the effect is negative, it usually ends up being catagorized as wrong, but it can change easily with time. If a principle is whimsical, why believe in it like it is an absolute?
You're entering an abstract and very subjective realm. I'll follow in your line of logic and say that, if an action affects others negatively, it is wrong. Murder affects others negatively. Therefore, murder is wrong. That's not an ideal that will change with time - murder will always affect people negatively, and it will therefore always be wrong. So, without extending our discussion any further, we can conclude that the wrongness of murder is an absolute moral value, because its negative effect on people will never change.
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 09:14 PM Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
I'll say it again: never in this thread have I cast judgement on a person for the actions he or she commits. However, I will very readily question those actions. If a person were not entitled to take issue with something that he sees happening in this world, there would never be any sort of commentary on society and nothing would ever improve. A person should not frivolously criticize a wartime leader because that person is not sinless himself, but he should be encouraged to criticize the war that the leader is waging, or criticize the leader's political policies.

You're confusing my arguments against the act of abortion as an argument against those people who support or commit abortion. The two are not equivalent.


You're condemning people to something they don't want to do. Your judgement would be for them not to do it, you're passing judgement on how they should live their lives, that's judgement to me.

Originally posted by Silvershield
I don't understand why I'm holier-than-thou if I see a problem in our world and make a case against it. My argument does not involve any aspect of my personal life, nor does it ever refer to my own sinlessless, it simply aims to address the act of abortion. You're continually warping my argument into something that it isn't.


Because you've been doing it on the standpoint of morality.

Originally posted by Silvershield
You're the one who brought the phrase "holier-than-thou" into this in the first place.


You're religious. That has been shown again and again. I'm religious, but of a much different sort.

Originally posted by Silvershield
So, if you were socially obliged to commit murder if you traveled to this hypothetical person's homeland, you would do so? You think that his native morality is just as "correct" as yours is? I fully recognize cultural differences, and think that the contrast between different societies makes ours a rich and diverse world, but I know where to draw the line.


It depends on how much I liked my society, the punishment, and if I'd been raised to kill someone of different culture. Look at the terrorist in 9/11, they were raised extremist and they took their ideas to the maximum. Now I personally believe it is a bad act because it hurts a lot of people, but I was raised differently.

Originally posted by Silvershield
I'm not sure what you're referring to.


Predicting how things will go for pregnancy and afterwards. Some women have their families abandon them, husband disappearing, a lot of things can happen.

One life for another might be a fair trade if a woman who does not get an abortion dies. She isn't trading her life away when she carries a child to full term, she's trading away her convenience. It's not a case of one life for another, it's a case of one life being saved and the other life, the one that is responsible for the child in the first place, being compromised but hardly taken.


No life for a life is a fair trade, never. No two people have equal value.

You took this out of context with my original post, which was:


Originally posted by Dracoon
Everyone's life means different things to them, your life might be your wallet, your car, your house, your body, your buisness (in case of a prositute), or your financial secruity. (since people are too lazy to work two jobs to pay for things.) One life for another is a fair trade though, right? Making one person miserable so two people can be miserable is great logic.


Yes, some people have materialistic views on life and you could very well be taking their life away by forcing them to have a child.


Originally posted by Silvershield
You're entering an abstract and very subjective realm. I'll follow in your line of logic and say that, if an action affects others negatively, it is wrong. Murder affects others negatively. Therefore, murder is wrong. That's not an ideal that will change with time - murder will always affect people negatively, and it will therefore always be wrong. So, without extending our discussion any further, we can conclude that the wrongness of murder is an absolute moral value, because its negative effect on people will never change.


Murdering someone who is surpressing people has a good effect on thet surpressed. What now?
Jomb

Deddorokku








Since: 12-03-05
From: purgatory

Last post: 6298 days
Last view: 6297 days
Posted on 04-22-06 10:53 PM Link
I dont like to argue about abortion, i was going to stay out of this thread. I've learned a long time ago that the people who are pro-choice tend to be mildly pro-choice, while the people who are pro-life tend to be rabidly and religiously pro-life. I've not yet met someone who was pro-life who did'nt have a strong religious slant to it which they will not back down on or even really listen to other viewpoints on.
While it is true that we have slowed down our birthrate somewhat in the modern world, we are living much longer and will continue to live even longer in the future. The third world is reproducing like rabbits though. We are already beginning to stretch on natural resources, and 10 billion people is an incredibly vast number, one which will take a terrible toll on the planet over time.
Its kinda hard to make a point when i say something like "Maybe there are too many people in the world right now and so not such a bad idea to prevent unwanted children from being born" and it gets interpretted as "I think we should have mass genocides and abortions until there are virtually no people left". I never said abortion should be the #1 birth control method of all women, thats absurd and putting words in my mouth. But in a case where the the woman really does'nt want a child, and the father is unknown, forcing her to have a child is worse than letting her have an abortion. It should be only a last resort, and only for early stages of pregnancy. You may be able to force a woman to have a child, but you cant force her to take care of a child. If the woman truly does not want a child she will view it with resentment and probably abuse the child in some way. Children who grow up in hellish home situations generally end up pretty bad, some end up murderers.
Under-population by humans is not a problem anywhere in earth SilverShield, and the very idea is laughable. Just because there are enough resouces to take care of everyone does'nt mean we are'nt overpopulated, when we take up virtually all the land and displace the other animals to support ourselves thats still over-population.
Silvershield - yes, i could have been aborted up to at least, at the very minimum, a few months prior to my birth and it would not have been the equivalent of a murder. Yes, abortion is disgusting, what's your point? The way many kinds of livestock are killed is also quite disgusting. homosexual sex to a straight man can be quite disgusting. Many things which happen in the world are disgusting, does'nt mean they are equivalent to murder. You and I have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes a life. To you it is the mechanical processes of the body. To me it is sentience. A woman choosing to have an abortion and then hopping and skipping to the clinic with a big smile on her face is extremely rare, its usual a heavy decision which was not easy to make. You characterize it as if it something which is being done on a whim.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6307 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-22-06 11:48 PM Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
You're condemning people to something they don't want to do. Your judgement would be for them not to do it, you're passing judgement on how they should live their lives, that's judgement to me.
You can't judge how someone "should" do something. You can only judge what exists in the present, what is there in front of you. I might having a certain opinion on how a woman should handle her pregnancy, but you still fail (and will continue to fail) to illustrate how I am judging anyone. You can't make a word mean something it doesn't.

Originally posted by Dracoon
[You're holier-than-thou b]ecause you've been doing it on the standpoint of morality.
The reason why I don't approve of abortion is irrelevant. The only information of relevance is that I am not painting myself as a superior, sinless figure - that would be the prerequisite for me to be called "holier-than-thou," I think, not the fact that my argument is based around morality.

Originally posted by Dracoon
You're religious. That has been shown again and again. I'm religious, but of a much different sort.
So, any person who is religious is, as a necessary accompaniment, holier-than-thou?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Look at the terrorist in 9/11, they were raised extremist and they took their ideas to the maximum. Now I personally believe it is a bad act because it hurts a lot of people, but I was raised differently.
They were raised in a society that exalts homocidal fanatics, so they are therefore immune to any judgement of right versus wrong? I'd say that the society they were raised in is as immoral as the individuals are, if it was indeed their societal upbringing that guided their actions. "They're different" does not equal "they're just as right as we are" - were the Nazis of World War II justified in their genocide of six millions Jews and several million others just because they had a different sense of morality?

Originally posted by Dracoon
No life for a life is a fair trade, never. No two people have equal value.
Then you think it's fair, if a choice needs to be made between saving the mother's life or saving her prenatal child's, to choose the child's life? What exactly is your criterion for determining whose life has greater value?

Originally posted by Dracoon
You took this out of context with my original post, which was: [...]
Your original post, as it was written, was difficult to understand and was not tied closely enough to the rest of what you'd said for it to appear as a relevant idea.


Originally posted by Dracoon
Originally posted by Dracoon
Everyone's life means different things to them, your life might be your wallet, your car, your house, your body, your buisness (in case of a prositute), or your financial secruity. (since people are too lazy to work two jobs to pay for things.) One life for another is a fair trade though, right? Making one person miserable so two people can be miserable is great logic.


Yes, some people have materialistic views on life and you could very well be taking their life away by forcing them to have a child.
Let's distinguish "life" in a literal sense from "life" in a figurative sense. To force a mother to have a child might end her figurative life, but it will hardly threaten her literal life. And, I think the latter is far more important.


Originally posted by Dracoon
Murdering someone who is surpressing people has a good effect on thet surpressed. What now?
But it has a bad effect on the person who's been murdered. What now?

Originally posted by Jomb
Under-population by humans is not a problem anywhere in earth SilverShield, and the very idea is laughable. Just because there are enough resouces to take care of everyone does'nt mean we are'nt overpopulated, when we take up virtually all the land and displace the other animals to support ourselves thats still over-population.
Show me numbers to prove that overpopulation is such a dire issue.

Even if it is a pressing matter, trying to justify abortion by arguing that it will control populations is a bit ridiculous to me.

Originally posted by Jomb
Yes, abortion is disgusting, what's your point? The way many kinds of livestock are killed is also quite disgusting. homosexual sex to a straight man can be quite disgusting. Many things which happen in the world are disgusting, does'nt mean they are equivalent to murder.
Livestock are not human. Homosexual sex, as viewed by a straight man, might be "gross" disgusting but is not "morally reprehensible" disgusting - two different senses of the word.

Originally posted by Jomb
You and I have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes a life. To you it is the mechanical processes of the body.
No, because a zygote certainly exhibits no mechanical process. To me, a human soul constitutes a human life, but since I can't really argue on that basis, I've been pointing out that human DNA constitutes a human life.

Originally posted by Jomb
You characterize [abortion] as if it something which is being done on a whim.
I've never done that. Point me to some statement of mine that has even suggested that every woman who's having an abortion is doing it "on a whim."

Originally posted by Jomb
I've not yet met someone who was pro-life who did'nt have a strong religious slant to it which they will not back down on or even really listen to other viewpoints on.
I'm not backing down because my arguments have yet to be sufficiently discredited.

And I am "really listening" to other viewpoints. I don't know how I'd be responding in such depth if I wasn't.
Jomb

Deddorokku








Since: 12-03-05
From: purgatory

Last post: 6298 days
Last view: 6297 days
Posted on 04-23-06 12:35 AM Link
I'm not posting here from my home, so i dont have the luxury of time to go look a bunch of stuff up. A few years ago i did take a college class on the African continent, and a seperate one on Geology, and a third one on The Third World. Each of these classes taught me about the conditions in the under-developed nations of the world, most of the problems of which are caused by over-population. How many animals are going extinct or becoming endangered on a daily basis? How many habitats are being threatened or destroyed? Admittedly some of that would happen naturally, but by and large its being caused by man and his growing resource needs, caused by overpopulation. Are we intended to live like termites? All crowded together? There are over 6 billion humans. Maybe about 1000 Gorillas. Did nature really intend for mankind to over-run the globe to such a ludicrous extent? Abortion is not the answer to over-population, birth-control is. But when we are not at all in need of more people, actually quite the contrary, the loss of a potential human is not such a dire thing.
"Livestock are not human" - to me a tiny mass of dividing cells is not human either, which is the crux of our disagreement. I've known some men who would consider homosexual sex as equal or more reprehensible than abortion. They said God was against it.
A zygote is the epitome of mechanical processes, it is just one long chain of cell-divisions, like clockwork. What could be more mechanical than that? So its about a soul? Thats a religious concept, which is what i thought you were agruing about in the first place. Prove to me that i have a soul or that anyone has a soul. Where is my soul located? How much does it weigh? What does it look like? How does a zygote have one, but not a convicted murderer, a cow, or a gorilla? If i cloned you would your soul split in two? Or would one clone simply not have a soul? If one did'nt have a soul would it be morally ok if i killed him? DNA is not life to me. It is a sequence of amino acids. Theoretically, with enough technology and raw materials it could be manufactured.
you said: "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", which suggests that women are out fucking for jollies then saying "oh, i'm pregnant, but i can just have an abortion, no biggie!"
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 04-23-06 01:24 AM Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
You can't judge how someone "should" do something. You can only judge what exists in the present, what is there in front of you. I might having a certain opinion on how a woman should handle her pregnancy, but you still fail (and will continue to fail) to illustrate how I am judging anyone. You can't make a word mean something it doesn't.


Do you speak english?

Originally posted by Silvershield
The reason why I don't approve of abortion is irrelevant. The only information of relevance is that I am not painting myself as a superior, sinless figure - that would be the prerequisite for me to be called "holier-than-thou," I think, not the fact that my argument is based around morality.[/qupte]

Can you comprehend english?

Originally posted by Silvershield
So, any person who is religious is, as a necessary accompaniment, holier-than-thou?


I'm going to act like this is a serious question.

No, when someone is religious but can't put their feelings behind them to let an action go that doesn't harm them and condemns other people's behavior, since you know, you ARE how you act, then they're being "holier-than-thou".

Originally posted by Silvershield
They were raised in a society that exalts homocidal fanatics, so they are therefore immune to any judgement of right versus wrong? I'd say that the society they were raised in is as immoral as the individuals are, if it was indeed their societal upbringing that guided their actions. "They're different" does not equal "they're just as right as we are" - were the Nazis of World War II justified in their genocide of six millions Jews and several million others just because they had a different sense of morality?


NO, LEARN HOW TO COMPARE THINGS TO OTHER SITUATIONS AND APPLY IT WITH BASIC KNOWLEDGE, DO THE CAPS HELP?

Look, you're justified to yourself, they're justified to themselves. NO ONE ELSE FUCKING MATTERS IN BOTH OF YOUR CASES. What if their ideas were right and you were in the wrong?

Originally posted by Silvershield
Then you think it's fair, if a choice needs to be made between saving the mother's life or saving her prenatal child's, to choose the child's life? What exactly is your criterion for determining whose life has greater value?


On the first part, I don't think you even pay attention to what I'm typing. First) If the baby has no brain, it has no value as a being. Potential doesn't matter or we could all be convicted of potential murder. Second) I would choose the mother's life so she could, guess what, have another baby at a later time. Third) There is no criteria, I can't judge human value.

Originally posted by Silvershield
Your original post, as it was written, was difficult to understand and was not tied closely enough to the rest of what you'd said for it to appear as a relevant idea.


Do you know english, etc.

Originally posted by Silvershield
Let's distinguish "life" in a literal sense from "life" in a figurative sense. To force a mother to have a child might end her figurative life, but it will hardly threaten her literal life. And, I think the latter is far more important.


Let's not, because of so many values that happen in a literal sense of life compared to the figurative sense of life is astronomical. If you're intelligent you can preserve your way of life, however at any point, you may die in a literal sense. Life is Life, no matter what life it is.

Originally posted by Silvershield
But it has a bad effect on the person who's been murdered. What now?


Ok, so you just further proved that justice can't exist, because now murder (your absolute wrong) does both right and wrong.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Add 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


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.099 seconds; used 522.77 kB (max 674.10 kB)