(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 		04-23-23 10:14 PM
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: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-05-06 04:28 AM, in Changing the color scheme Link
(Note the ...I'm hardly up in arms about this thing, just playfully pointing out a bit of an annoyance.)
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-05-06 03:49 PM, in Ok, this really p!sses me off!!! Link
Originally posted by Anya
[...] especially if he had sex with her while she was drunk, a real man wouldn't do that (unless he was drunk too and couldn't control himself, but still...)
A real man wouldn't put himself in a situation where he could lose control of himself and possibly compromise a girl's safety or dignity, period.

But, otherwise, you're pretty spot on. I was surprised at how young the original poster is, and it bothers me that this is an issue at that age. But your advice sounds solid.
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-05-06 04:29 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
We've had the abortion debate a million times before, and I'm not trying to start that whole thing again. Instead, my question is specifically this:

Should men be entitled to take an anti-abortion stance?

Very often, I see women discounting the opinions of men because "men cannot be pregnant." But, is that grounds for invalidating what could be an enormously helpful fraction - and by fraction, I mean half - of the population? You all know how I feel about this, but I'd like to hear how the other side reasons it.
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-05-06 05:25 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Your point is exactly the one I've always used and gone to, yet a major argument of the pro-choice movement seems to be that no man should have any say whatsoever in the debate.

I actually thought of this topic because a pro-choice Facebook group provides a number of pictures and slogans to illustrate its cause, including:

1. "Representing and protecting the rights of American women" accompanying stick-figure depictions of the Senate, Supreme Court, and Senate Judiciary Committee that show that each of the three groups is overwhelmingly male
2. "77% of anti-abortion leaders are men; 100% of them will never be pregnant"
3. "The attack on women's reproductive rights has nothing to do with life and everything to do with trying to put women back in their 'place.'"
4. "Abortion: never an easy choice, sometimes the best choice, always a woman's choice."

Honestly, some of them (or all of them, really) make me sick. Whether you agree with abortion or not, it is absolutely juvenile and absolutely ridiculous to argue that I have no say in the matter just because I can never experience the situation firsthand.

Since I believe that abortion is the killing of an entity separate from the mother, it's equivalent to saying that I have no right to step in to prevent a mugging in an alley somewhere just because I am not the person doing the mugging. Your own analogy might vary, but that's the one I use .

Edit because using the same word three times in close proximity is bad form...

(edited by Silvershield on 11-05-06 04:28 PM)
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-06-06 09:37 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Snow Tomato
I believe men should have a say in the abortion argument. Women cannot conceive a child alone. However, it is often the women's choice moreso than the males choice.
Though this is a legitimate point of view, my aim is not necessarily to address which parent should control the fetus' fate but instead to discuss whether any man has a right to maintain a pro-life stance. We could argue all day about why the father has no control over the fate of a child that is just as much his as it is the mother's, but the major question I posed is about the greater abortion debate.

Originally posted by Snow Tomato
I support a system that would encourage young mothers, or grown women looking to have abortions to consider adoption. Someone should tell these women that they are not going to disgrace their family. They are not whores. There is nothing wrong with them for having this happen to them. They can go on with their lives after they put their child up for adoption. No one talks to these women.
The way to end abortion is not to outlaw it. While I would fully advocate the eventual illegalization of abortion, I would not expect such a measure to occur until after legitimate steps have been made towards making adoption and other options into true, viable alternatives.

Originally posted by Snow Tomato
The option of abortion should exist, simply for the health risks that would suffice if it became illegalized... but I think the abortion rate would drop significantly if someone just talked to these women. There is more at stake than their pride.
The option of abortion "should" exist, but only in a sort of ceremonial sense. That is, it should eventually become the least desirable option, one that would be so rare as to be essentially a non-option, whether legal or not. But I don't advocate outlawing it because I want to punish women who are pregnant; instead, it should be illegal because I want to preserve unborn children. The two are not mutually exclusive, though, and ideally you can help the child without "punishing" (although I detest that term in this context) the mother.
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-07-06 12:57 AM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Though I normally would not protest when a thread organically and naturally flows to a new topic of discussion, I would like to keep this one on a very specific track, only because the general abortion debate has been done to death here and I don't want to have it start all over again.

That said, I would like to re-emphasize the very specific question I am trying to pose. Whether the father of an unborn child should be allowed some influence regarding whether a fetus can be aborted or not is a legitimate topic, but it is not this topic. My question is, should any man, regardless of who he is, have the right to express any opinion (but, specifically, a pro-life opinion) about abortion? Not just should male politicians be allowed to establish legislation or use anti-abortion rhetoric, but should Joe Schmo be taken at all seriously when he offers his stance on the issue? The traditional reason for "no" is that, since he could never be involved directly in the experience, he has no right to have an opinion about it; but, that logic does not apply to virtually any other debate, does it?
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-07-06 03:03 AM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Yes Arwon those are some nice counter examples. However, none of them involve the contentious issue of directly terminating a life. It seems to me that it doesn't require a woman's perspective to decide whether it's wrong to take the life of an embryo. In addition, infertile women would be left out of the conversation as well, since they will never conceive.

This kind of logic is not very productive. Taken to absurdity, it would mean that you cannot have any say over what I personally do, b/c you will never be me and know what it's like to be me. That's moral relativism at the extreme and if you want that, then fine. But rebellion by saying "let's go get abortions" isn't the noblest way to stick it to the male establishment.
Thank you for verbalizing an argument that I was myself having trouble putting into words.

The crux of the argument, I guess, is the idea that you don't need to be personally involved in a situation to know that what is going on in that situation is wrong. That's not to say that abortion is wrong - you all know that I am pro-life, but for the sake of this argument I am not assuming either stance - but that, if it is wrong, I shouldn't have to be capable of personally receiving an abortion in order to take a stand.

My go-to scenario, as I hinted at earlier, is this: imagine you walk into an alley and see a person getting mugged. Now, of course, I know in my head that mugging is wrong, even though I have never experienced it myself. I should feel justified in taking action to stop the crime, even though I am not a participant in it and have no personal interest or involvement in it, just in the interest of preventing a misdeed. I don't need to have ever been mugged myself to know that it is not right.

Now, I know you'll take offense at that analogy, innocent as it's intended, but do you not at least understand that point of view? Most of these pro-life males, though they can never become pregnant themselves, see abortion as an evil act; they don't presume to know all the intricacies of the female body and the female experience, they simply witness a problem and wish to take action to prevent it. I don't understand why that specific notion has to involve gender in any way. As MathOnNapkins said, why should a sterile woman be "allowed" to have an opinion, when a man who is very familiar with the female experience - an obstetrician, perhaps, or a social worker who deals with this sort of issue - should not?
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-07-06 03:46 AM, in Acmlm's first "official" costume competition!! Link
Originally posted by drjayphd
[pictures et al]
Hahaha...they seriously sell those?
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-07-06 04:50 AM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
I'll respond more broadly later but, for now, let me point out why abortion is such a primary issue for many Americans, myself included.

Poverty, hunger, warfare, and every other problem out there that kills people daily is absolutely worth addressing and absolutely worth fixing. A great majority of the people that die from such disadvantages are absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing, so I would not argue for a second that they "earned it" or they "deserve it." However, many of those people are grown adults. Even if they have virtually no recourse through which to improve their own conditions, they still possess the basic human faculties that would allow them to improve and take advantage of better conditions, should those conditions present themselves. However, every aborted child is a child that has absolutely no recourse, no defense, no way whatsoever to save himself. Those starving people, or poor people, or people in war-torn countries, may be "effectively" helpless, but a fetus is literally helpless.

Add to that the fact that while poverty, starvation, etc are caused by passivity - that is, because nobody is doing anything to solve the problem - abortion is an absolutely active event, and you see why it is not identical or directly comparable to many of those other issues.
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-09-06 01:15 PM, in Acmlm's first "official" costume competition!! Link
Originally posted by drjayphd
The arms? Yeah, I was surprised. Iparty had 'em. Jersey was from a thrift store (yay Cingular/NCAA Final Four cross-promotion), a couple of remnants, iron-on letters, the woiks.
Oh, well, I assumed the whole thing was bought as-is. Not really surprised they sell arms like that, but the costume idea itself is ingenious .
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-09-06 01:51 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by NintendoFB
I agree that the men have some say in it. Both the pregnant woman and her mate must have to agree on what will be done, however, it's ultimately the woman's choice because it is her body.
Have you not read a word of this thread?

Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination
SS, not to rip or anything. But in the terms of it wouldn't it be fair to state that the passivity that causes these problems could be solved by motivating the groups that actively campaign against abortion to move onto something that affects far more people?
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.

Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination
But then, to say it is not identical would be correct. Because abortion is an issue that is easily addressed by humans talking to humans.
Not sure I understand your point here.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
You try to justify things ultimately... Like "mugging is wrong". For some reason or another, I don't see the point in arguing then... I can say "mugging is right". Now we have a problem.
No, there's no problem. Mugging is wrong. Certainly any number of external circumstances could qualify the criminal's motivation for performing the act but, invariably, that act is wrong.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
Almost every decision is case based. You can't condemn everybody who mugs others just because "mugging is wrong". The mugger might need something, be poor, whatever. Have three children at home waiting to get a new rolex err... warm meal. You don't know.
I'm not condemning the person committing the crime, I'm condemning the crime itself. As I said above, the attacker could have a justifiable reason for doing the deed, but that will never make it the right thing to do. If you need money to support your starving family, there are plenty of non-violent, non-criminal ways to get it.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
Legislation usually just tries to prevent the worst case scenario for the majority of people being mugged.
If mugging someone for the sake of feeding your starving family were legally or morally acceptable, you can bet that legislation would not treat such an instance as identical to any other instance of the same crime. That's not to say that it is at the same level as committing such an act out of sheer malice, but it is hardly innocent.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
Same thing goes for abortion. On one hand "abortion should always be legal if it's performed on a rape victim". On the other hand, killing "fetus'" is just wrong, too.
Well, no, it should never be legal, because it invariably punishes an innocent human life. But we digress from the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
As I see it, there are certain spheres where people do have a say and when people don't. I believe parents ultimately should have the last say. Yes, parents, or rather soon-to-be parents. Not the mother, not the father alone. If there are health risks or other risks involved, then why not abort now and receive later at a convenient point in time?
First, no pro-lifer will fault a mother for aborting her child if it threatens her own life. However, as above, I must insist that we're veering off the topic.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
Who has the right to tell other people what's best for them and especially something that cannot live on it's own? I know of people who are pro-war and contra-abortion. These people don't give a damn farting shit about people getting ripped apart by bombs, which is a direct issue in my opinion. However, when some Ohioan woman wants to get rid of something they don't want, they couldn't care a single bit less!
You're oversimplifying the issue in a misleading way. Certainly people being ripped apart in war is a tragedy, but isn't a defenseless fetus being ripped apart within the womb a tragedy as well? As per the statistics I provided above, ~1.5 million unborn children are killed every year, compared to roughly 3000 American soldiers who have been killed in our three year campaign in the Middle East. I am personally anti-war (except in cases of a just war, which I don't necessarily think Iraq could be called), but I recognize the difference between a grown man who has volunteered for the military being killed as opposed to a tiny infant who never asked for that fate.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
The link above is not even about abortion, but about Plan B and how it is denied to a person wanting it. In my opinion that is a felony just like stabbing a person is a physical inviolability. You don't go around impeding other people's rights. That's what they were made for! So people don't go boss other people around to their likings. I mean, c'mon. I think your appendage is a living thing too. Do I force you then to keep it and let you die from it? Another example of this can be found in Michael Moore's books. For some reason he is calling up an official and fakes that he thinks male sperm, being a credential to make life, is something sacred, too, and all people who kill sperm, e.g. by using a condom or "clubbing it" in the rest rooms should face charges. It was surprising he was not the first one to even raise that thought, but there was a somewhat active community of men actually trying to get other people to sign their "referendum", too.
Plan B is a bit of a controversial issue because there is not irrefutable proof that it acts to prevent conception rather than expelling an already fertilized egg. If the case is the former, then I can have no objection to it, but as long as it possibly acts to kill a zygote, I would naturally oppose it. However, I don't know if I can support a person who refuses to provide it, only because it is presently a legal drug and, practically speaking, there are plenty of other places to get it anyway.

Of course, the idea that a sperm cell is a distinct human life is absurd.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
I mean, it's all just the same, really... Some people might not want to abort a baby. And for the sake of luminosity they don't need to take advantage of the medical procedures in place already, however taking that right, the right to use said medical procedures to abort a foetus, is a dire violation of they personal rights and even their body, too.
And using that right to kill another human is a dire violation of morality. It makes me want to scream whenever someone says that, if I don't want an abortion, I don't need to get one; of course, these same people are often anti-war, but if that war does not affect them directly then how can they justify opposing it?

Originally posted by Tauwasser
It shouldn't be as much about whether or not men should have a say in it as rather if other people can impede somebody else's right to do what they want with their body.
I agree: no woman should be able to impede the fetus' right to live and exist as the distinct human life that it is.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
I for my part, don't see why people should have any say in my personal affairs as far as nobody else is concerned at all. Therefore, only people involved should be allowed to have a say.
Fine, only people directly involved get to have a say. The woman says that the child dies, while certainly the child can be assumed to want the opposite. So, how can the woman's desire overrule the child's desire to live?

Originally posted by Tauwasser
There seems to be a complication for abortion because it only happens in the body of the female. However, most people are aware how the other part feels about it, before they actually have sex! I for one, told my gf that I didn't want to have a child and that therefore all possible matters must be taken to never let it happen. However, I expect her to talk to me as soon as it happens and that we'll find a solution that will satisfy us both. I'd hate to be surprised like "Oh, by the way, I'm pregnant, you're gonna pay for it the rest of its life until it's eighteen, I'm not gonna change my mind." That'd just suck and not be fair. However, I think I would have a say in that matter because I inadvertently would have helped to produce it.
Not to beat that old dead horse but, honestly, you had your say when you engaged in the act that you know causes pregnancy. It's not as if it blindsided you if you willfully and knowingly had sex.

But, in any case, we are totally leaving the original topic of discussion. Like I said, the general abortion debate has been done to death, and this thread is for a more specific topic.
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-10-06 01:19 PM, in Are you ready for some College Football?!? (Bowl Picks) Link
Rutgers, baby. That's my team. Nobody believed in them!

Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-11-06 12:31 AM, in Acmlm's first "official" costume competition!! Link
Shu'cho mouth! Hochuli is all natural, baby!!
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-11-06 02:00 AM, in Are you ready for some College Football?!? (Bowl Picks) Link
I'll be the first to admit that I'm a relatively recent Rutgers convert - the past five-ish years, at most - but my dad has been a fan for decades and has had season tickets for eight years now. So, he got into the game last night without a problem, even as tickets were going for hundreds of dollars on eBay and so forth. He actually has three tickets to each game and, if I didn't have classes today, I would've gone home to go to the game with him. Dammit. Of course, my two best friends got into the game as well, because they're students there.

In any case, I was definitely terrified when things started going downhill in the first half. But the defense came back and did an absolutely stunning job after halftime. That #60 defensive lineman, Meekins, actually went to high school one town over from where I live, and his team was my team's rival in wrestling. He was the heavyweight, of course, and my friend got to wrestle him twice, and suffice to say he is a beast. I was only JV at the time, because I wasn't a varsity wrestler until the year after he graduated, but I followed him pretty closely, especially when I found out he was going to Rutgers and that he would wrestle there and walk on to the football team. Just a little background there, I guess .
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-11-06 04:10 AM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Tauwasser
It's not like the foetus has any feelings or thoughts at all :| It just has no desires at all. Even newborns don't show that much desire to live right away. They need to get fed, get whatever they need in daily life and funnily enough somewhen the process of thinking just starts. It's not like a foetus has experience with anything.
I personally don't think foetuses are human yet. They are officially called human once they're out of the womb and would not die on their own in some hours. And in any case. The desire to live of an already "raised" human seems to be of higher importance than the one of a mere foetus who is not yet ready to think, actively feel etc.
So, if you want to use that bulletproof logic, you approve of infanticide.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
Oh yeah, and the figures for Iraq range from 46,000 up to an estimated 942,636 that already died or will die following this war :-/ Only using American Army figures doesn't count So yeah, that would totally be out of interest there.
I 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 Tauwasser
Anyways, people involved should have a say. And as the whole earth is in fact involved imo there's nothing wrong being pro-war or anti-war here. Germany for instance pays too for things the stoopid Americans destroyed, so don't bother arguing that point.
Not sure I see what you're saying here.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
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.
So, 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 Tauwasser
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).
And 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 drjayphd
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.
You'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
If you think that abortion should be illegal, you need to have your head examined. Rape happens everyday.
...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 Clockworkz
Teen pregnancies are commonplace now.
So I guess that justifies them.

Originally posted by Clockworkz
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).
Disregarding 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 Clockworkz
Many men aged 18 - 25 have sex. Quite a bit.
As 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 Clockworkz
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 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 Clockworkz
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.
Clockworkz, 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)
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-11-06 03:25 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Tauwasser
Originally posted by Silvershiled
you should at least be aware of the truth of the matter.


I do, see my response to Vyper.
That remark was not directed at you.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
"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?
The 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 Tauwasser
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.
And 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 Tauwasser
I despise abortion for convenience's sake for myself, however, there are also legitimate reasons for abortion.
Rape being one of them.
As 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 Tauwasser
Teen pregnancy another.
So, 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
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.
"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 Tauwasser
Fucking around and being at the doctors for abortion every week doesn't justify abortion at all, I agree.
And few people will argue that, thankfully.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
On a side note, premarital sex is not believed wrong in many cultures and countries, so maybe don't be too conservative with that :-/
Did 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)
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-11-06 04:52 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
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 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. Prinny
What's the difference between billions of years and nine months? Your perspective? Because you won't see that billion years?
It'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. Prinny
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.
How is this a justifiable argument?

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
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.
It 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. Prinny
How someone lives their life makes them special, not the fact that they are humans.
So, 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. Prinny
If dogs started talking and thinking, would you not care because they aren't human? Wouldn't they be special?
Show me a dog that talks and thinks, and I will answer your question.

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
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.
As I said, it's not about potential. It's about actuality.
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-11-06 05:53 PM, in Do you smoke up? Link
Originally posted by Rom Manic
Why would anyone be afraid of drugs? Are you worried you might become an addict? You probably take drugs every now and then anyway, you hypocrites. If the doctor told you to smoke medicinal weed, but knew in your mind that drugs lead to substance abuse, would you still smoke it? How come this doesn't affect people who take a fucking tylenol every now and then when they have a headache?

Maybe it makes sense that every drug has a purpose, but society has transformed the word drug into party time?
I'm staying out of this thread, except to point out that there is a fairly obvious difference between simple medicinal drugs - Advil, Tylenol, Motrin, and the like - and actual substances that are taken with the intent of producing a physical effect. I take a Tylenol when I get a headache, for example, but I hardly intend to get high off of it. Which is a good thing, because no drug of that sort will ever produce that result, unless you consider curing a headache to be "getting high."
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-11-06 07:35 PM, in Do you smoke up? Link
Originally posted by Rom Manic
I think you misunderstand what a drug is.
No, I think I understand quite clearly what a drug is. I never argued that Tylenol doesn't have some sort of effect on the body. Obviously, if that were the case, it wouldn't do much to cure headaches, eh?

Originally posted by Rom Manic
A drug ALWAYS fucks up your body in one form or the other, regardless if it's MDMA, weed, or Tylenol.
No, I don't think Tylenol "fucks up" my body. I've never noticed any sort of "high" or other effect beyond the fact that it remedies miscellaneous aches and pains. It is in no way comparable to weed or MDMA or anything else, unless of course it is taken in excessive amounts, which is clearly not its intended use (nor is it safe).

Originally posted by Rom Manic
How do you think your headache goes away, by magic? It's the Codine in tylenol that relaxes your muscles, hence less muscle tension and (Obviously) no headache. This is also why people normally don't take a tylenol before a workout, or a good run.
I don't think I ever implied that Tylenol cures headaches "by magic," just that there is no additional "high" associated with the suggested dosage. That is, if you use the substance as it's intended, it has no recreational capabilities.

The fact of the matter is, you say that anyone who is anti-drug abuse and uses Tylenol or Advil or any other OTC pain medication is a hypocrite. And that is pure nonsense.
Silvershield

580








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

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 11-12-06 01:16 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Tauwasser
Originally posted by Rom Manic
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.


They...don...'t :-| They simply don't have a say.
Rom 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 Tauwasser
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
So, 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 Tauwasser
Other animals are alive. I share that too, so why should I only extend my empathetic regard to humans?
You 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 Tauwasser
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.
If 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 Tauwasser
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.
Of 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 Tauwasser
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 :|
Let'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 Tauwasser
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 :-/
Appearance 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 Tauwasser
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.
So, 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.
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


ABII

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

Page rendered in 0.316 seconds; used 523.91 kB (max 686.45 kB)