 |
| 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 - Abortion: whose choice is it? |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | 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: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| So I've barely read the thread at all. I don't care, I still have input.
For those of you that support abortion, why don't you go google the methods used to kill and extract a fetus then come back here and tell me abortion is humane. I dare you. |
|||
Tauwasser Red Goomba  Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6371 days Last view: 6291 days |
| ||
| I already know about how it works. I've seen photographies of it. Heck, my friend's mom is used to doing it even. I still think it doesn't need to be humane at all. Somehow people are always thinking about being humane. You should treat dogs, cats, fish, whatever squirrely animal in a humane way. However, they are in fact not human.
On the other hand, I didn't say it was humane, so maybe that criticism wasn't directed at me, who knows... There's really nothing human about freaking foetuses during the time frame when abortion is legal. For instance, there is a picture floating around that shows different premature (?) foetuses from different animals as well as the human. You cannot visually distinguish between them. A dog foetus looks exactly the same as a human foetus. That's about it :| And that's what I got taught in school (the book happened to have that picture in it). EDIT: Found something like it. http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/embryo-compare.jpg I'm sorry that there are no further explanations as to what the numbers mean in weeks :-/ cYa, Tauwasser (edited by Tauwasser on 11-09-06 03:21 PM) (edited by Tauwasser on 11-09-06 03:24 PM) |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Vyper BREAKING NEWS: SURGERY IS GROSS FILM AT ELEVEN!!! |
|||
|
Vyper Kodondo Raging Venom Since: 11-18-05 From: Final Fantasy Fire Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| So ripping partially-developed fetuses apart into multiple pieces or breaking a hole in the skull and vacuuming the brain out then ripping the fetus into pieces is worth making fun of?
I pity you. |
|||
drjayphd Torosu OW! BURNY!  Since: 11-18-05 From: CT Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Vyper Ooh, sorry, we're looking for examples that are actually COMMON. D&X and D&E, not so much. The CDC sez that as of 2002, just under 1.5% of all abortions are late-term. The number has never topped 1.7%, and that was in 1973, when there were only just over 600,000 abortions performed. For the states where they have the data, less than 10,000 abortions performed in 2002 were after 21 weeks. Also, 2002 was the first year the number of abortions hadn't gone down since 1996. Mind you, the data doesn't mention why the abortions were performed, so you can't say they were people that just didn't feel like having a kid after four months. (It should be noted you also can't say the fetus was going to kill and eat their entire lineage, either.) Essentially, don't bring two rarely-used procedures to a gunfight. |
|||
Clockworkz Birdon Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I barely read the thread either, except for a choice few parts. I still have input, too.
If you think that abortion should be illegal, you need to have your head examined. Rape happens everyday. Teen pregnancies are commonplace now. If you wanna force a 15 year old rape victim to have a child and not be able to care for it, or having to adopt it away; if you want an unexpected teen pregnancy to happen with the girl's parents finding out and disgusting and disgracing the family as her life gets shot to hell even more; you need to start respecting women more (as well as men to certain point). Therefore, I feel as though men should be able to have say in this. Many men aged 18 - 25 have sex. Quite a bit. And most of them also aren't ready for a father. So just in case a condom breaks or you don't pull out in time, they need a back up plan. And yes, I also feel as though abortion is effective population control, with the American population being so gigantic as it is. Call it sick; I call it conservation. |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by TauwasserSo, if you want to use that bulletproof logic, you approve of infanticide. Originally posted by TauwasserI was using only American figures for abortion, and so was appropriately using only American figures for deaths in Iraq. If you want to inflate the Iraq numbers that much, look for the global numbers on abortion, as well. (I'll give you a hint: it's in the range of 45 million, on the conservative side of the estimate.) Originally posted by TauwasserNot sure I see what you're saying here. Originally posted by TauwasserSo, how does the fact that you "should" treat animals in a certain way have any influence on the way we should treat our own species? It would seem logical that we should give greater care to our own, rather than less. Originally posted by TauwasserAnd if a human infant looked different, or a human child looked different, or a full-grown human looked different, you'd be in favor of killing them? The point is, the outward physical appearance of an entity is not at all correlated with its value, nor should it be. Originally posted by drjayphdYou're absolutely right, but you fail to notice that even early-term abortions are hardly palatable procedures. They don't gently knock on the door and plead for the fetus to emerge of its own volition, they insert instruments to tear it apart, and then vacuum it out. Not that I support the idea of this emotional argument necessarily having a place in the greater debate, but if it's the kind of argument you would normally consider then you should at least be aware of the truth of the matter. Originally posted by Clockworkz...and they account for fewer than 3% of all abortions (and closer to <1%, depending on your source). The point is, while rape is a terrible thing, even if an abortion "should" be allowed in such a circumstance, it would only encompass a very small portion of all such procedures. But, whatever the reason for the abortion, it is still killing an entity that had no role in its own creation, an entity that is absolutely innocent by any definition of the word. Originally posted by ClockworkzSo I guess that justifies them. Originally posted by ClockworkzDisregarding the rape circumstance, because I addressed it above, your argument sounds absolutely absurd to me. You justify the murder of a legitimate lifeform just so that a girl's parents don't find out that their child has been "misbehaving?" There are plenty of fairly cogent points for abortion (though, of course, I disagree with them), but I sincerely doubt that is one of them. If you're all for unmarried teenagers having sex, and you think that their biggest problem is that their parents would get mad at them for becoming pregnant, then I think your issue is with those parents rather than with anti-abortion apologists. Because apparently the parents are the ones who need an attitude adjustment, at least according to what you're saying. Originally posted by ClockworkzAs above, just because it's happening on a large scale it is automatically justified? I am hardly against unmarried 18- to 25-year-old men having sex (though I personally abstain), but I don't think the right defense for it is "everyone is doing it." Originally posted by ClockworkzAnd the best backup plan for your own lack of self-control, poor planning, or simple bad luck is to punish an innocent child! Originally posted by ClockworkzClockworkz, I am in no way turning this into a personal insult, but you need to look into some of the more easily defensible pro-abortion arguments. You can't defend murder or killing of any sort by calling it population control. Whether the entity in question is a full-fledged human being or not. Edit: Oh, and, so much for keeping this thread away from the generic abortion debate  .(edited by Silvershield on 11-11-06 03:11 AM) |
|||
|
Tauwasser Red Goomba Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6371 days Last view: 6291 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershiled I do, see my response to Vyper. Originally posted by Silvershield "Looking different" and "being indistinguishable" from e.g. a dog are totally different things. I so far have never seen a baby that was not that, a baby. If a human baby would look like a dog, nobody would say it was a human child in the first place and be treated that way. On another hand, you always see "children" in them. They are not. They may be offspring, but they are not children in the literal sense. Almost all embryos (as far as vertebraes are concerned) look alike. There is no point in arguing that. So why do you insist that they are special? Because a human is at some point going to emerge from them? In my opinion these lives don't qualify as human at all. It's when they reach a certain age that they can be recognized as humans. Usually due dates for last possible abortion are well before that as far as I remember. However, labor pains can also be induced earlier. Then the little thing will be living, breathing, crying that is, for a few hours and finally die. There will be virtually no record kept of it ever being alive. That's how it goes. I despise abortion for convenience's sake for myself, however, there are also legitimate reasons for abortion. Rape being one of them. Teen pregnancy another. Or when it just won't fit in. You can't be pregnant for nine month and hope that after that nothing will have changed and you can still go on with career/school/life in general. That's not how it works. Usually you loose connections, get out of touch etc. Fucking around and being at the doctors for abortion every week doesn't justify abortion at all, I agree. On a side note, premarital sex is not believed wrong in many cultures and countries, so maybe don't be too conservative with that :-/ cYa, Tauwasser |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by TauwasserThat remark was not directed at you.Originally posted by Silvershiled Originally posted by TauwasserThe concept you are using to justify abortion can be extended to allow the murder of any being that looks "different." There are innumerable diseases that alter the physical appearance of a full-grown human so drastically that, frankly, you could hardly tell that the person is human (see leprosy, elephantiasis, and others), but that is hardly grounds to allow for their murder. Regarding a fetus, why does it matter what other creature it resembles? Surely that is evidence for a common evolutionary ancestor at some point in the distant past, but does it simultaneously act as evidence that, what, dogs and chickens and elephants and every other vertebrate are now human? The human fetus is worth preserving not because it looks like a human - because, as you've illustrated, it hardly looks distinctly human until later in development - but because it is human. Genetically, biologically, developmentally, philosophically, that embryo is a human being. You can't twist a chicken or a dog or an elephant embryo into human form. Originally posted by TauwasserAnd that little child that emerged, fully alive, from the womb, and that completely resembles a human infant in every possible way, is not human? Why, because it cannot survive on its own external to the womb? Well, neither can any human being before the age of maybe three, but that hardly justifies their deaths. Originally posted by TauwasserAs I said previously, the "rape" argument is thrown around so much that you would think it accounts for a great majority of all such procedures. But any source you find, whether obviously pro-life or obviously pro-choice, will illustrate otherwise. Originally posted by TauwasserSo, a teenage couple screws up, and they are morally inculpable just because of their age? While, conversely, an adult couple would not be entitled to an abortion because...why? Originally posted by Tauwasser"Sorry, Junior, but your mother and I have decided that you are an inconvenience to us. Ever since you were born, we've had trouble maintaining our friendships with other people, we've had a lot less free time, and we've been spending a lot of money to take care of you. The only choice is that we're going to have to kill you." Originally posted by TauwasserAnd few people will argue that, thankfully. Originally posted by TauwasserDid you not read a word I wrote? I explicitly said that, while I abstain from premarital sex myself, I hardly condemn it for other people who have made the opposite choice. However, just because the act itself is "alright" does not mean that, when its inevitable consequence (that is, pregnancy) arises, abortion is automatically justified by association. Two people who have sex with one another - whether within marriage or outside of it - are completely aware of what naturally occurs as a result of that act, and they are completely aware that contraception prevents 99+% of pregnancies, but they are also completely aware that 99+% does not equal 100%. That is, they know a possible outcome, and must be willing to accept that outcome if the dice happen to fall that way. And "accept" doesn't mean "preserve your own convenient lifestyle and refuse to take responsibility for your actions by destroying the pure, innocent life that you are responsible for creating." Edit because I took one of Tauwasser's quotes to refer to something that it wasn't supposed to refer to. Edit again because chickens are not mammals... (edited by Silvershield on 11-11-06 02:55 PM) |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| The entire thing comes down to when is a fetus human? You like to say at conception, but scientifically speaking, it's nothing until way later in the pregnancy. To keep believing that it is a human at conception becomes an opinion, an unfounded opinion that only deals with what may happen. Our sun is not a black hole, it may become a black hole, but it isn't one. (Actually our sun won't become a black hole, but I'm just using an example.)
What's the difference between billions of years and nine months? Your perspective? Because you won't see that billion years? You also won't see nine months down the line either. You have no idea if it will survive or not. There is a high probability that it will survive, but it isn't definite. With your opinion, you're "killing" a "potential human". You believe that it is special as soon as it is made, but others will disagree. How someone lives their life makes them special, not the fact that they are humans. If dogs started talking and thinking, would you not care because they aren't human? Wouldn't they be special? Animals have the potential to one day think and learn and be just like humans, you have to give them the same respect that you give humans if you want to say humans are special. Though, it is all your opinion, so it doesn't really matter if it makes sense to us... |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyWhat science are we talking about? Because there is "science" that supports either side of the argument. I mean, that single-cell organism is genetically identical to any adult human being, after all... Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyIt's not about what the fetus has the potential to become, it's about what the fetus is. Any prenatal human is a human, and is simply in an early stage of development. Just like an infant is a human, but is still developing. Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyHow is this a justifiable argument? Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyIt is not "potential." It contains all of the irremovable, impossible-to-imitate attributes of a human being - that is, it is genetically identical to any other example of its species. Who cares what it looks like, or where it resides, or what stage of development it's in? Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnySo, if somebody is a total waste and just sits around on the couch all day, every day, watching TV, we would be justified in killing him? Because he has hardly taken any actions in his life that would indicate he is a valuable person, whether to society or to human progress or even to himself. He contributes nothing, accomplishes nothing. People are not special because of what they accomplish, they are special because they belong to the same species as you and I and, as such, are afforded a special kind of empathetic regard. That privilege is only sacrificed through their own fault - that is, by injuring or murdering another human being - though, being personally anti-capital punishment, I would argue that even that does not justify ending a person's life. Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyShow me a dog that talks and thinks, and I will answer your question. Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyAs I said, it's not about potential. It's about actuality. |
|||
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| By the same logic that a fetus has no feelings or desires, every cell in your body is useless and should have no say when it comes down to it being killed.
Picture a single cell organism. It has a purpose, but if you killed it, it would be unable to fulfill it's purpose and therefore whatever it was doing would never get finished. This single cell organism's only desire is to complete its objective and split into 2 brand new cells, or simply die. That is the course of life. The only desire a fetus has is to grow and evolve into a human baby, whether it consciously knows it or not. What right does ANYONE have to take that away? |
|||
|
Tauwasser Red Goomba Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6371 days Last view: 6291 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Rom Manic They...don...'t :-| They simply don't have a say. Originally posted by Silvershield What I'm actually trying to say is, that either all beings should be treated equally or none. It's that simple when it comes down to. I mean. You already go there Originally posted by Silvershield Other animals are alive. I share that too, so why should I only extend my empathetic regard to humans? Personally, I don't care about humans nor animals alike. It's just that. I care about people I like. My family, my friends, such people. I could care less about other people, really. Same goes for animals. This empathetic feeling obviously doesn't occur to you at all when it's about taking animals' lives. Animals don't care about taking lives either, don't worry. And that's exactly my point. That little bugger is in none of my regards a human. It's a creature soon to be human if you will. Nevertheless, it's not like I care about it much. It's all about the definition of being human. For you a fertilized egg is human, too. You could go on indefinitely with that argumentation. Every cell of your body is human too. It shares parts of the exact same DNA as all the other human beings. So the dna of a cell defines if it's human or not. By that logic you're killing "potential human beings" every second by losing some of your skin :| Originally posted by Silvershield And that's where people will disagree. A human is a human. A fetus isn't necessarily. It becomes clear it is a human when it looks and acts like a human. However, in early stages of development, it's just something living with the potential to be a human or to be screwed up totally, too :-/ And the "different" argument isn't working out, I think. You state that there are diseases that will make a human not look like a human. However, I doubt that. All the diseases you named have a great impact on how that human looks, however, it clearly stays a human being :-| Unlike you said, it is still distinguishable from a ... fox e.g. cYa, Tauwasser |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by TauwasserRom Manic, I know you seem to be on my side in this case, but I have to lean more towards Tauwasser's feelings. That is, no individual cell has inherent value, but their sum does.Originally posted by Rom Manic Originally posted by TauwasserSo, I should be in jail, right alongside mass murderers and psychopaths, because I killed a fly that was buzzing around my desk last night? No animal deserves the same consideration as humans do. That's not to say that we should indiscriminately slaughter and abuse higher lifeforms, but that such acts are not morally equivalent to when they are committed on humans. Originally posted by TauwasserYou share the characteristic of "living," and therefore these animals are your equals? Well, a piece of Velcro and I share the characteristic of being hairy, so that makes us equals. Atrocious analogy, I know, but a single, superficial, incredibly broad commonality does not denote equivalence. Originally posted by TauwasserIf the laws presently on the books were formed around the same principles that form your morality, then any sort of crime would be acceptable as long as the victim is not someone you like. That's very righteous of you. Originally posted by TauwasserOf course that empathetic feeling does not occur when considering animals because, as they are a totally different, lower species than I am, I find myself totally incapable of personally understanding their perception. As I stated before, that is not grounds for me to brutally abuse any creature that has even borderline intelligence, but it is hardly an immoral act on par with injuring a member of our own, sentient, highly intelligent species. Originally posted by TauwasserLet's approach this from two angles. First, death that occurs through natural means cannot be considered murder. A lion that kills an antelope is not murder, an embryo that is miscarried through natural, non-human-induced means is not murder, and the natural loss of body cells is not murder. Second, as I pointed out above, the sum of your cells is what makes you human, not each individual cell. Every cell, working on its own, cannot create or maintain anything, while the combination of them all yields a viable person. Originally posted by TauwasserAppearance and behavior are not necessarily good criteria with which to determine a creature's species. Like I said before, what about a person with a terrible, disfiguring disease? Or a person who has a developmental disability or a mental illness? Are they not people because they don't look and act like people? Not to mention that fact that any person, at any point in development - whether prenatal or postnatal - has the potential to be "screwed up totally." If you treat that small child like garbage, he'll be "totally screwed up" as he grows and ages. If you treat that grown woman like garbage, she'll become "totally screwed up" as her mind learns and accepts that mistreatment. Originally posted by TauwasserSo, when does a person stop looking like a human? Does he have to lose his limbs and have his face erased? Does all his skin need to fall off? Last night, I was watching a show on TV about a man who was in an accident and he underwent a great deal of plastic surgery to fix his injuries; immediately after the accident, when he literally had a hole in his face and his head looked like a mass of raw meat, was he human? Because he certainly didn't look it. |
|||
|
DarkSlaya 930 Gamma Ray  Since: 11-17-05 From: Montreal, Canada Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| This entire debate is ridiculous from the start. Well, the whole "am I killing a life or not thing".
But before I even talk about that (I mean, weren't we supposed to not go that way with the topic?). I strongly agree with whoever said that the choice is to the parents, and only the parents. The best way is to reach an agreement between the parents. Now, the other matter. It's ridiculous. It all comes down to your own morals. In reality, nothing is "wrong" or "right". Depending on our views, something becomes wrong, or right. Now, let's say that abortion was taking a life. Lives are taken everyday. Now, the thing is, those against abortion don't always mind wars (which, mind you, takes a big number of innocent lives, not just "scary" terrorists or stuff like that), or death sentence. Also, what if keeping the child would ruin your life? You'd take it and say "oh well, at least I saved a life"? Chances are that if you ruin your life, the child won't be any better. Now, if said child takes damage while being conscious of it, it's way worse. Oh, and even if he doesn't, I wouldn't ruin my life for another. A lot of people preach doing it (doing such things for other people), but rarely do I see them do anything. While I don't think the whole "you never experienced it, so you can't have a say" is great, I still think it has a point. You can't really say what you'd do if you had to make the choice. Standing by your beliefs when something never happened to you and probably never will is easy. I probably just lost my train of thought, so I'll stop there. But in the end, nobody can be right or wrong, because our beliefs are always just an opinion, and we have nothing that makes it true (well, some people will say that Divine Being X from their religion is right and stuff). I mean, even laws can't say what's right or wrong. That's why laws are different from country to country, they're made up by humans that try to come up to an agreement while stating their beliefs. Probably more than a few holes in my way of thinking, but I don't mind. In the end, at least to me (and that's the only thing that matters, really), I'm neither right nor wrong. |
|||
|
Tauwasser Red Goomba Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6371 days Last view: 6291 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DarkSlaya Nono--noooo. That's all garbage. We tried that line of arguing a page ago. That won't work... nooo >< Originally posted by Silvershield That's very righteous of you to say. Dolphins for example are a very intelligent and sentient species as studies have shown. Originally posted by Silvershield I never said equivalence anywhere. Don't twist my words. Feeling somewhat empathetic for something or -one isn't the same as feeling of equivalence. Originally posted by Silvershield So you're saying you can perceive how a foetus would feel inside its mother womb getting slaughtered? Aside from the fact, that it is unable to feel because nervous strains aren't built up when abortions commonly take place, how so? And you do know, when abortion didn't exist, people would go back and do shove a hanger in there until everything is smooched enough to be put in a smoothie, don't you? Originally posted by Silvershield Why? Where is the difference? Goddammit, a dog has feelings of pain, too. Why is it different from abusing a human when you abuse a dog? I don't see the difference in there. I just see how the world works and go "Well, I don't necessarily need to care." Else, I couldn't stand living in this place. cYa, Tauwasser |
|||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon  Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
| @ SS
"What problem affects "far more people," at least on American soil? Surely the problems with starvation and war and disease are enormously widespread on a global scale but, speaking only for the United States, abortion kills a million and a half human beings every year. Even if deaths due to other issues are "far greater" - which I am skeptical about - it's not as if that ~1.5 million figure is small enough to be ignored. That's a huge amount of human life." I don't like this arguement. Particularly the "only for the United States" part. Borders mean nothing. Aren't we all god's children? So, issues like poverty, starvation, disease and warfare... which affects a far greater number of people on earth... are less important that abortion? Abortions are the most pressing issue here? I don't know about that. |
|||
Lakithunder Darknut  Since: 09-18-06 From: The Wind Fish's Dream Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I didn't read it either, but my input is that abortion is immorally wrong EXCEPT in some very rare situations. The only I could think of is that the baby would most likely die and the mother would most likely die as well. That's about it really..... | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DarkSlayaThat was definitely my original intent, but I've since given up that idea  .
Originally posted by DarkSlayaEven so, this was never the original discussion in the first place  . Maybe my thread title is misleading, but the initial topic was not about who should be able to make the decision regarding a specific abortion case but, instead, whether men should be allowed a say in the greater abortion debate.
Originally posted by DarkSlayaYour entire argument rests on the notion of moral relativity. That is, that no such thing as "right and wrong" or "good and evil" exist, period. While I would agree with you to a small extent - the idea of right versus wrong is often tied to underlying cultural influences - I cannot and will not bring myself to accept that there is no concrete definition of a "wrong" act. The analogy I tend to use is, if you were to travel to live with a primitive culture in the middle of nowhere, and one of their cultural traditions called for you to murder another human being without any reason whatsoever, would you do it? You say that, since there is no universal morality, that primitive group is just as "right" as we are, no? Originally posted by TauwasserYou're taking my quote out of context. I explicitly placed that remark adjacent to the idea that, while injuring or killing a human is not morally equivalent to injuring or killing an animal, it is hardly "alright" to brutally, maliciously harm any non-human being that has even minimal intelligence. Insects and such might be a different matter, but I doubt many people would flip out at you for swatting a mosquito. Originally posted by Tauwasser"Equivalence" is the word I used, but it's the concept you used. "What I'm actually trying to say is, that either all beings should be treated equally or none. It's that simple when it comes down to. I mean. You already go there" Originally posted by TauwasserNo, of course not. I don't have to have been tortured to feel empathy for a torture victim, I don't have to have had cancer to feel empathy for a cancer patient, and I don't need to have been aborted to feel empathy for a fetus that is being aborted. Maybe "sympathy" would be the better word to use, but I think "empathy" fits my meaning better. In any case, what difference does it make whether the fetus suffers or not? Should I be allowed to kill someone so long as I sedate them first? Is murder really wrong just because the victim feels physical pain in the process, or is it something more than that? Originally posted by TauwasserWhat's your point? Originally posted by TauwasserTell me, honestly, do you not understand the fundamental difference between harming a human and harming an animal, or are you being facetious? Originally posted by Snow TomatoI only cited American statistics because (a) they are far easier to obtain, and typically far more accurate, than worldwide numbers, (b) because I was comparing them only to war casualties of American troops, and so a comparison of any other scale would be inappropriate, and (c) because you and I really have no say regarding how they rest of the world administers laws. Surely I would love to wipe out abortion on a global scale, and certainly I think that would be a righteous goal, but it's not realistic and, frankly, it's beyond my scope at this point in time. Anyway, like I've said before, even though poverty, starvation, disease, and warfare are widespread problems that need to be addressed, they don't overtake abortion so immensely that the latter is a non-issue. Every aborted child was an absolutely innocent life that could have done nothing to deserve its fate, while victims of poverty, starvation, disease, and warfare, while largely innocent as well, cannot blindly take precedence. Tell me, why do you think abortion is a less important issue than the others? |
|||
|
Tauwasser Red Goomba Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6371 days Last view: 6291 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield My point being, that in the end, I for one would prefer the clinical way to abort a foetus rather than having women staggering with hangers to kill it. That's all. Originally posted by Silvershield I do understand what you're saying. It just doesn't make any sense. You say that no animal deserves the same consideration as a human because they are "lower species". That won't fit with your stance on abortion, because it can be seen pretty much as the same thing. It's not a human yet, so it certainly according to you must be lower. Then why would anyone have to consider it with like rights as humans'? Originally posted by Silvershield And hopefully it stays that way and conservative people like you don't take over the world. I would definitely hate to see a good solution to this problem (in the clinical sense at least) get wiped out because some jerks with only Jesus and how he loves all his children on their minds have the rights to say what'll happen. You see such prats every day in the American Congress (though that should've hopefully changed now). Oh, and the stuff about absolutes ("right"/"wrong") can't be left at that, no matter what. I mean, how dare you judge other culture's understanding of what's right and wrong? You simply shouldn't! You argue that people who got raised with a special mindset wouldn't kill another human. However, your approach should be a human who doesn't know right from wrong. He would certainly do it. This can be seen in little kids nowadays. When their parents don't teach them something well, e.g. that stealing is labeled "bad", then kids will definitely at some point think it's their right to steal stuff. It really is all about the upbringing how you think in such situations. Nothing more, nothing less. The little kids in that tribe are never going to get to know (=accept) your morals or mindset and vice versa. cYa, Tauwasser (edited by Tauwasser on 11-12-06 06:04 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Abortion: whose choice is it? |
| Thread closed |
So yeah, that would totally be out of interest there.