 |
| 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 |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 |
| User | Post | ||
Silvershield   580                     Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 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." |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 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. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| I don't know much about the issue, but my impression of Google has always been one of the common man's success, an independent entrepreneur making it big. For Google to "forget its roots," so to speak, by snatching up profits without attention paid to an ethical obligation, is a little disappointing. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| The unfortunate part is, despite his questionable methods, his arguments have caught on, to some degree, in the mainstream. It reminds me of when D&D so certainly led to devil worship back in the 70s (or 60s? 80s? I dunno...). The details escape me, but some kid who played D&D murdered someone/committed suicide/did something really bad, and his mother went on a crusade against that game.
Just as role-playing games were just emerging and achieving public recognition, so are video games really reaching a new level and a new stage in modern times. Sure, there has been electronic entertainment for decades, but new technology allows for a degree of realism that's absolutely unseen before now. Give it a few years; as society at large becomes more accustomed to it, and as the older demographic becomes more familiar with it - because, of course, in a few years' time the "older demographic" will be a demographic that grew up playing these games, unlike that current segment of the population to whom video games are a foreign concept - the problem will be shifted to some new scapegoat. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 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. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| Come to think of it, both Fallouts did have a distinct goal that was given from the beginning. But I found that, after finding the water control chip or the GECK, I was a bit aimless. More of a personal preference I guess...like I said, I still loved both games. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 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. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 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. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 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. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 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  . |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 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) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| Enlighten me, Ziff, because I don't have ready access to the Canon. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeOuch. Brilliant misreading I've done there. Though, admittedly, your comment could've been phrased a bit less ambiguously. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| You're going to have to be more specific than that, at least to the point of defining "conjugal debt."
Edit, after looking up "conjugal debt": (Just for the record, I understand the term to refer to the Catholic stance that a woman is obligated to provide sex on demand to her husband. [The husband is likewise obligated, but that is currently irrelevant.]) If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant, and we go by the strict Catholic stance pertaining to this "conjugal debt" (that I've never heard of before because, as you point out, it may be a defunct notion post-Vatican II) and also by the similarly Catholic anti-contraception ideal, then her choice is whether or not she wants to get married in the first place. As it is though, it's something of a non-issue. A vast majority of abortions occur out of wedlock. (edited by Silvershield on 04-21-06 02:59 AM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonIt's not a consequence that comes as punishment, it's a consequence that results from the natural order of the world and of biology. You're taking "consequence" to mean punishment, and it's not. Originally posted by TaraleIn the modern West, child support and similar legislation means that a man pays the price just as dearly as a woman does, though it's a material rather than physical price. There is no naturally enforced means of "punishing" - that is, enacting consequences - on the male, but society has created an artificial yet reasonable substitute. Edit because, when I respond just after waking up, I tend to say silly things. (edited by Silvershield on 04-21-06 12:30 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| Without getting too deeply involved in this thread, I will support Vyper and say that, speaking logically, there are only three "options." Granted that an individual is not entirely asexual - that would be a fourth option, I suppose - he or she can be either heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. If the person is attracted to members of the same sex, the person is homosexual. If the person is attracted to members of the opposite sex, the person is heterosexual. If the person is attracted to members of either sex, or if the sex of the person to whom he or she is attracted is irrelevant, the person is bisexual. I'm all for fuzzy logic, but this is a purely 2+2=4 matter. Where is there room for any sort of gray area?
And, for the record, it's eunuch. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DracoonNot for the typical unwed father. Abortion is far more common for a mother who is not married and of lower socio-economic status, and her child's father is similarly disadvantaged. Originally posted by DracoonChild support is a significant sum. Wikipedia goes so far as to suggest that it often goes unpaid in part or full by the father simply because it is beyond his financial means to contribute the amount the court has determined. Originally posted by DracoonA few months of pain + one hellish time of pain ~ 18 years of crippling financial obligations. Well, depending on how highly you value each, I suppose. And, until you find some way to get the father to take physical part in the childbirthing process, you'd best settle for what we have now. Originally posted by DracoonAnd some people fear going absolutely broke or having various licenses revoked after paying the court's sum or being absolutely unable to, respectively. Originally posted by DracoonOf course the mother doesn't want to give birth to her child, and certainly the father doesn't want to be forced to contribute money to it, and, if were as simple as the feelings of those two parties, it would be totally fair to avoid a circumstance in which each is forced to go against his or her will. But, since the life of the unborn child is added to the equation, the convenience of the mother and father need to be forfeited, because a human life always takes precedence over another human's convenience. Originally posted by DracoonWell, I think most people, including myself, would choose life. For obvious reasons. Originally posted by TommathyI'm not exactly financially nor practically capable of taking an unwed mother into my home. I mean, I kinda live in a college dorm. So it's not an option. I'm a bit offended that you seem to imply that my disgust at an act that I classify as murder is somehow equal to my baseless hatred for unwed mothers as a whole. I certainly disdain their act in cases where they opt for abortion instead of carrying a child to term, and that disgust with abortion may be interpreted as hatred for the person, but it's all I can do to compel myself to love the sinner and hate the sin. It's not easy, going against my natural motivations as a human being, but I think I'm fairly good at separating a person from the act he's committed. And, I have the utmost respect for a single mother who is struggling to raise her child or children - it's undoubtedly a difficult, frustrating, seemingly fruitless endeavor, and I can do nothing but sympathize in that case. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign AbominationAlright, now that you've thoroughly asserted your dominance, I'll do what I can to respond to you without resorting to the insulting manner that you always take with me. Although I read and understood the original poster's intent, I still disagree with him. A major point he made was that his eventual sexual partner will be whomever he becomes romantically attached to, and that prior condition will not be a function of the person's sex but of the person's mental or emotional characteristics; therefore, that eventual sexual partner could conceivably be of "any" sex. Well, disregarding the rest of his post for the moment, he is effectively stating that he is open to a sexual relationship from a person who is either male or female. Which, by definition, makes him bisexual. Why is that so open to interpretation? I'm not judging him, nor am I judging anyone who shares his point of view, nor am I saying that he's making up useless rhetoric, I'm simply pointing out that there really is no way for a person to fall outside one of three classifications (homo-, hetero-, or bisexual). That's not my political conservativeness speaking, all in an effort to oppress the gays; it's my rationality speaking, in an effort to illustrate how, with two "main" genders (not accounting for various infrequent combinations of both, or the lack of either [even more infrequently]), a person can only be attracted to one, the other, or both. That person may be far more attracted to one gender than the other, or vice versa, or may be only attracted to one or only attracted to the other, or any other permutation of the limited possibilities. But, in the end, it will be some form of (a) male attraction, (b) female attraction, or (c) attraction to both. But, I'm politically conservative, so I hate homosexuals and my opinion is invalid. Explain to me how I ever even approached the statement that having male friends makes a person, as you so eloquently wrote, a "flaming homo." Originally posted by mattp There is a gray area insomuch as a man can be more attracted to males than some other man is - one person's attraction to a particular sex is stronger than that attraction for another person - but both men would still be homosexual. Maybe one is "more" homosexual than the other, or has stronger urges in any particular direction, but the gray area still amounts for nothing more than varying degrees of hetero-, homo-, or bisexuality. Varying degrees within each category. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DracoonI'm sure many unwed fathers would rather have custody of their children and be the primary caretaker rather than contribute a large sum of money until the children are eighteen, but most courts award custody to the mother. Originally posted by DracoonI'm not sure how this is relevant but, for the record, any such work I've done has been to aid the homeless and starving through food drives and similar events. It's a personal sacrifice and not a matter of some sort of obligation. Are you saying that I had some role in fathering that mother's child and that I have a responsibility to help her raise it? I'd consider myself a fairly good person, and I contribute to charity when I'm able, but I don't see why it's been brought up. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DracoonBecause I take the effort to make it a bit more convenient for people to understand what I'm trying to say. Originally posted by DracoonThat doesn't change anything. You seem to be of the opinion that, since I do not personally devote every spare moment of my time to assisting unwed mothers, I have no right to argue against abortion. That sounds like kind of a stretch to me. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield |
