|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 24, 2008 04:59 PM |
|
|
Death is irreversible. Pregnancy isn't.
Quote:
I only said, if your actions (which are based on negligence) will bring some 'potential' life, and then you don't want that, and destroy it.
The only way not to bring about "potential" life is to sterilize yourself.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 24, 2008 05:08 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:19, 24 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Death is irreversible. Pregnancy isn't.
Nope, but the "death" of the future baby is irreversible, and you automatically do this if you abort your pregnancy.
The point is, there would be no future baby if you didn't get pregnant. Since you must have got pregnant for a reason, then I see no problem in keeping the baby. Problem is, you can make that irresponsible mistake, too bad it influences others (or what would-be others). You know, when you decide to abort, you make an irreversible act. If it was about your body ONLY, then it would be fine.. too bad it influences a future-person as well. 
Quote:
The only way not to bring about "potential" life is to sterilize yourself.
Huh? I said that if you "don't want" potential life currently, then why get pregnant?
And you did not get my zoo-analogy. You free all the animals there (hence you give them 'freedom').. Then you decide suddenly that you made a mistake and you kill them (take away their freedom). This sounds much like "I gave them freedom, I can take it back", but that means they are your slaves.
Now replace 'freedom' with 'a future life' (of the baby).
EDIT: Again, the problem is that you 'gave life' to the fetus. From that point onward it's quite wrong (IMO) to take it. I don't want more babies. If you don't want a baby (and I can perfectly understand that, trust me) then don't start the process (of the life). This is what I encourage 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2008 06:09 PM |
|
|
But there are many eggs that are never fertilized, and many sperm that never fertilize anything. They, too, are potential life.
You didn't understand my response to the zoo analogy. You made a mistake (let the animals out). Then you reversed your mistake (locked them back up).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 24, 2008 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You didn't understand my response to the zoo analogy. You made a mistake (let the animals out). Then you reversed your mistake (locked them back up).
Like I said, you gave them freedom "by mistake", and then you think you have the 'right' to take it back as well? It sounds too much like slaves, "I gave you life by mistake, I can take it back as well if I want", you see?
You can't just make mistakes that will affect them (give them freedom) and then suddenly decide you made a mistake. At least you can't do so without hurting/affecting them.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2008 07:42 PM |
|
|
But you have to remember that they aren't people.
And if you let a criminal out of jail, wouldn't you want to put him back in?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 24, 2008 08:47 PM |
|
|
What, so now fetuses are like criminals? I think the analogies in this thread have gotten a wee bit out of hand...
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2008 08:53 PM |
|
|
What we're having here is an analogy applied to an analogy; not a good idea.
However, as soon as the mother stops consenting the to fetus being inside of her, the fetus becomes a trespasser (ie. the foetus has initiated aggression, violating the mother's right to self-ownership and thus control of her body).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 24, 2008 11:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But if they don't want, then why do they get pregnant? Irresponsible accident?? this is the thing I want to prevent (so to speak) 
Why do hundreds of people die in car crashes everyday? Irresponsible accident? No, just misfortune and human factor. Why do they drive if they know that they can die? Because they need it, their life would be somewhat emptier without it. It is absolutely same with sex - you can have it, and even if you are older (not counting that 15-18 age, when you can make mistake very easily), mistakes are happening. Condoms and pills are not 100% reliable, and in 1 from 100 examples failes. Should you pay for your misfortune, or just for your need to have sex? With your attitude, sex would be only tool of making children. Example : "Lets do it!" - "No, I love you, but I donīt want child yet, and you know, mistakes are happening and it canīt be taken back...". It would spread fear of one of the most basic human needs and spoil life of currently living at cost of "potential life".
____________
Result matters
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted May 25, 2008 10:24 AM |
|
|
While I find it hard to feel remorse for snows who think it's awesome to snow around with every man they see (mind you, player men are snows too), I agree with you Anakrom.
I had a fun solution: How about all Pro-Life people ADOPT the babies they FORCE to be born that the mother would have had aborted? Seems a bit too easy to me to say someone must have a kid, as long as you yourself are not burdened with it....
Simply put: If pro-life people proclaim Abortion should be illegal, there should be a centre where unwanting mothers can give their Children to, who can then be housed with pro-life people Who in that sense will be FORCED to adopt them; since they FORCE would-be-mothers to give births to children they wouldn't want. Seems fair to me
To be quite frank, I think the stance towards abortion should depend on the state of the society. If people were living in small quantities in small regions, I would agree you can't exactly afford to waste life. However, with 6 billion people already overpopulating the planet, and a massive lack of food and space right at the door.... I'd say we would be better off if populations actually went downhill for a while. It sounds crude, but that might be my main reason to be anti-pro-life. Unfair? Of course. But at least I'm not deluded in thinking the cultural, economical and political principle of "growth" can continue forever in a finite world.
____________
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 26, 2008 01:17 AM |
|
Edited by executor at 01:25, 26 May 2008.
|
Quote:
But at least I'm not deluded in thinking the cultural, economical and political principle of "growth" can continue forever in a finite world.
Off-topic:
Cultural (and technological) growth can go on forever in a finite environment, that is quite obvious.
As to demographic growth, as it is your point, I doubt if we have already met the capacity of our planet to support human population. With proper technologies applied, efficient resource management and responsible planning this planet can possibly support more people than we can now imagine. Bear in mind that current resource distribution is highly inefficient and idiotic wastes are common. With up-to-date techonlogy Earth could support 9-10 bln people at ease, without more space used for farming than now (possibly even less), and with keeping polution levels minimal. Not using modern technologies that could ease our environment in most countries (poor countries are too poor to afford them, most of others too greedy to implement) also does much harm.
And, returning to topic, there seem to be far more morally clear means of depopulation than abortion, most obvious being sterilization.
As to your idea with pro-lifers forced to adopt saved babies, I find that not an ideal solution, yet still better than slaughter of fetuses (as I believe them to be human beings).
I do not want to force women to bring up children when they not want to, my concern is to prevent people from being reasonlessly killed. As to my perception, these babies may end up as orphants, still better than dead, if you ask me.
But why I did not discredit your idea is that I find it possible, should I have children and family of my own in the future, to adopt additional children so that they can have a family.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2008 02:24 AM |
|
|
There is also an economic argument in favor of abortion. Unwanted children are more likely to be neglected, so they would be poorly adjusted to society and be more likely to become criminals.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 10:24 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 10:25, 27 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Cultural (and technological) growth can go on forever in a finite environment, that is quite obvious.
That's obvious? I'm sorry but the sheer logic in that completely deludes me, and I wonder how you can think like that...
Let me spell it out for very simply: The world is a 10x10 squared area, out of which 20 squares are occupied by human population.
No matter HOW you look at it, GROWTH can NOT go on forever in a finite environment!
Sure you can argue people can build skyscrapers and use technology and whatever, but RECOURCES are FINITE as well.
Sorry for the off topic.
As for the idea of having pro-life people adopt the children, that wasn't a real suggestion actually. That was just to point out the hypocrisy that pro-life people want the childs to be born, but further want to have nothing to do with it.
Mvass: I am strongly getting the feeling you would be the kind of person that could have 3000 people killed just to make yourself some money. Yes, such kind of people exist.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 12:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why do hundreds of people die in car crashes everyday? Irresponsible accident? No, just misfortune and human factor. Why do they drive if they know that they can die? Because they need it, their life would be somewhat emptier without it.
You don't drive a car because of 'fun', you drive because you need to get a certain job done.
And besides, that's not a good analogy.. driving while DRUNK would be more in-place. Because you don't give a ****, you only want pleasures (while you are drunk, that's how you think), and you most certainly know you will get an accident.. yet you still drive the car, despite what others say or what you think.
Of course, if you want to get some job done (drive a car not drunk), you probably want babies (i.e get the job done, so to speak, not just 'have fun and then regret it').
Quote:
With your attitude, sex would be only tool of making children.
What's wrong with that? that's actually nature's definition
Quote:
"Lets do it!" - "No, I love you, but I donīt want child yet, and you know, mistakes are happening and it canīt be taken back..."
Or perhaps "Lets do it!" - "No, I love you, but I donīt want child yet, and you know, mistakes are happening and I don't want to be selfish to purse my own pleasures while the would-be child might suffer (metaphorically, since you gave him the chance to life, but then took it back)."
Quote:
And if you let a criminal out of jail, wouldn't you want to put him back in?
NOTE: yes you would want that, but HE SUFFERS because of this. He suffers because you gave him freedom, so he had hope, etc.. BUT THEN YOU TAKE IT BACK, so you destroy his hope.
So conclusion: the criminal suffers mentally, because YOU made a mistake. In the end, he'll still end up in prison (where he belongs), but that moment in which he was free and then caught, that moment he suffered. (of course I don't know whether he deserves it or not, it's not a good analogy, but most certainly the fetus does not deserve it ).
NOTE: if you did not give him freedom in the first place (i.e no mistake), he would not have any reason to blame you for, and no hope at all.. it's kind of hard to understand, but I hope you get my point
BTW I'm not pro-life in the general sense, because I don't want babies to be born without the mother loving them. What I want, is people to be more responsible when it involves others. You give the fetus a hope to life, so he suffers (metaphorically, not physically) when you decide you don't want that. Note, he would suffer somewhat (maybe less) if he was given life without love too... the solution is to stop being pregnant in the first place, that's what I am pro-with.
I have a reason to go into the affairs of others because this involves someone else (fetus), not just your private body. You don't want babies, you don't get pregnant. Other solutions are most certainly not good.
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 01:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why do hundreds of people die in car crashes everyday? Irresponsible accident? No, just misfortune and human factor. Why do they drive if they know that they can die? Because they need it, their life would be somewhat emptier without it.
You don't drive a car because of 'fun', you drive because you need to get a certain job done.
When I drive to my friends to have a chat or take a ride to the mountains for a trip, I hardly call it "certain job", its just way of "fun and freedom" - if I wasnīt able to reach my friends or such places, my life would be emptier. That is why Iīm glad we have a cars.
Quote:
And besides, that's not a good analogy.. driving while DRUNK would be more in-place. Because you don't give a ****, you only want pleasures (while you are drunk, that's how you think), and you most certainly know you will get an accident.. yet you still drive the car, despite what others say or what you think.
Of course, if you want to get some job done (drive a car not drunk), you probably want babies (i.e get the job done, so to speak, not just 'have fun and then regret it').
Again, you are making example of absolutely irresponible people, who act like "drunk". But look at this analogy - I donīt want babies. I have sex. I know that my GF can get pregnant, so Iīm doing all the necassary things to lower the risk. But still, there is a certain chance of failure, caused by protecting products. -> I donīt want to die. I drive a car. I know there is a chance to get killed during the crash, so I try to lower the risks by driving safely and not drunk. Still there is a chance, that somebody crash into me (same as with pills, I relied that pills/other driver will "work" as they should). = What is your advice? Donīt have sex? It is same as "Donīt drive car and sit in your little mountain valley till the of of time". It just spoils life. Do you consider my behavior from the example as irresponsible? You want to punish certain group of people for their irresponsibility and I should pay with them?
Quote:
Quote:
With your attitude, sex would be only tool of making children.
What's wrong with that? that's actually nature's definition
Ok, that is your position, but attitude "I donīt have sex so others shouldnīt too" is bit selfish. Reminds me bit of one of the first sentences of that man in video posted somewhere above. Try to see it through eyes of other people, everyone is not having sex just to provoke a chance of being pregnant and than victoriously shout "I donīt want it! I can give it away!"
Quote:
Quote:
"Lets do it!" - "No, I love you, but I donīt want child yet, and you know, mistakes are happening and it canīt be taken back..."
Or perhaps "Lets do it!" - "No, I love you, but I donīt want child yet, and you know, mistakes are happening and I don't want to be selfish to purse my own pleasures while the would-be child might suffer (metaphorically, since you gave him the chance to life, but then took it back)."
Even if you say it this way, result reminds the same.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 01:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When I drive to my friends to have a chat or take a ride to the mountains for a trip, I hardly call it "certain job", its just way of "fun and freedom" - if I wasnīt able to reach my friends or such places, my life would be emptier. That is why Iīm glad we have a cars.
The difference is, here you most probably won't be the one who is 'drunk' but rather the one who crashes on you. In sex, you are the one who is 'drunk' and you are the one who makes the mistake.
If you simply go with 200 mph in a city (extreme example) just to have some 'fun' you are plainly too selfish. You most certainly know others will probably get hurt (like in sex), but you still do it. If, however, someone else goes with 200mph, then it's not your fault at all
Quote:
Ok, that is your position, but attitude "I donīt have sex so others shouldnīt too" is bit selfish.
Well some criminals have 'pleasures' when they kill others too. Does that mean that we are selfish to lock them up, to not allow them to pursue their pleasure.
(as a note, please DO NOT take the above example as a 100% ANALOGY, it is NOT THE SAME THING, a criminal is obviously a much different subject. What I am saying though, is that with these 'pleasures' you have, others could be involved, that's why it's selfish. In the car example, if you ARE the one who makes the crash because of your pleasures, then I honestly think you are selfish, but I doubt you make the crush yourself, so it's not your fault).
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 01:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
With your attitude, sex would be only tool of making children.
What's wrong with that? that's actually nature's definition
Natures definition? Sounds more like a Catholic definition to me
----
Lets start from a purely biological perspective. There is a parallel between the sexual heath and the overall heath in men. Low sexuality leads to low testosterone levels which in turn causes a variety of symptoms from abnominal obesidity to reduced affinity to prostate cancer. Other things are preventing the veins from becoming blocked by fat (high cholesterole) and there is even affinity to stay sharp (men with high testosterone level did better at intelligence tests) Regular ejaculations reduce the affinity for prostate cancer etc. This suggest that sex should be had more than 2 times in a lifetime (even by Gaia)
As for psychological level I know atleast one vast survey that involved 29 countries that showed that people describing themselves as being content with their lives and generally happy, were also the ones having a good (healthy) sexual life. (NOTE: only one study and a new field of study, causality can't be confirmed between the two)
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 02:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lets start from a purely biological perspective. There is a parallel between the sexual heath and the overall heath in men. Low sexuality leads to low testosterone levels which in turn causes a variety of symptoms from abnominal obesidity to reduced affinity to prostate cancer. Other things are preventing the veins from becoming blocked by fat (high cholesterole) and there is even affinity to stay sharp (men with high testosterone level did better at intelligence tests) Regular ejaculations reduce the affinity for prostate cancer etc. This suggest that sex should be had more than 2 times in a lifetime (even by Gaia)
What I meant was, I doubt abortions are 'nature's way', and if you don't want babies (and want to do it naturally) then you don't have sex
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 02:20 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 14:21, 27 May 2008.
|
Quote:
What I meant was, I doubt abortions are 'nature's way', and if you don't want babies (and want to do it naturally) then you don't have sex
You are quite selective about which 'nature's ways' we should follow, you earlier said that how can we evolve if we sujugate to our insticts (which are nature at it's purest)
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 02:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are quite selective about which 'nature's ways' we should follow, you earlier said that how can we evolve if we sujugate to our insticts
Of course, because nature wants children, and we don't. But somehow we want sex.. that's what's not 'nature' way if you get what I mean
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 02:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You are quite selective about which 'nature's ways' we should follow, you earlier said that how can we evolve if we sujugate to our insticts
Of course, because nature wants children, and we don't. But somehow we want sex.. that's what's not 'nature' way if you get what I mean
Hehe, I do, but if you are selective about the nature's ways then you can't use that as an argument. Then you need to use something else as an argument as why you think that part of being in line with nature is what we should do.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
