|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 28, 2008 04:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This proves that you don't even know what abortion IS.
Abortion = taking the fetus OUT of the mother's belly.
Now I see why you don't understand
Nonono, not abortion, but birth. You see it goes like this. You consider the birth an accident. Bang, it is the analogy with the drunk guy. Then, you decide you want to abort because it was an accident, even though you knew it was a chance.
Now, with that 'accident' you put him in YOUR body -- not with abortion. I don't know what you understood but I was talking about the basement analogy -- bringing them to your basement = getting pregnant. Not abortion.
The action is not positive just because it is an action -- it depends for what reason you have done that action. The world is complex, unfair, etc.. not just calculated with some 'positive' or 'negative' points.
Quote:
Answer this: Do you consider getting pregnant (and giving life to a fetus) a negative action?
The problem is that you look at the world too simple, like it's black and white. There is no such thing as a positive action. In fact, it's only an action.
I know what you mean with positive action -- but a positive action is not decided by giving birth, it's decided what you do THEREAFTER.
For example, suppose someone creates human clones. Is that a positive action? Yes, well it gives life. But for what purpose does he create the clones. That is the question. If he creates them for torturing them (for example), then that is not positive at all, even though the action was.
Again, the world is not so simple. It doesn't work like: "i did a positive action, I receive +1 positive points" or something. It depends on everything that follows like a giant chain.
The action is only called positive if you do it for a good purpose, not for torturing/getting rid of him.
I hope I've made myself clear this time.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 05:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How many times do I have to tell you that is only your society model
You keep complaining about my society model, but you are yet to point out anything that is actually wrong with it.
Quote:
Or more precisely, is it an abrupt change where the fetus suddenly becomes 'alive' or not?
You bet it is. Being able to survive without being hooked up to anything and not being able to survive - that's quite a difference.
Quote:
And might I dare ask again, is what you say better than a religion in any way?
Why ask if you know what I'm going to say? Because it's socially useful!
Quote:
At least, if you are asking "proof" for the soul -- might I dare ask you, where is the human right, where's the evidence?
Wait. So you're asking me do give you evidence of human rights. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'll try. Look around you. You don't see everyone murdering all the time, do you? Human rights are a societal thing.
Quote:
Surely, biologically they are. Are fetuses alive? You bet, they are much more advanced than bacteria.
"Advanced" and "alive" are two different things.
Quote:
I take analogies from normal 'born' humans, that the difference between a 2 year old and a 6 year old is similar to the difference between a fetus and a 2 year old -> both are in a stage of 'growing'.
Except that the difference is much greater. Both the 2-year-old and the 6-year-old can survive without being hooked up to anything.
Quote:
That is why, with a fetus, you also have to pay your extra 'debts' to it (apart from giving it life).
So I gave a fetus life, and now I also owe it something? No.
Quote:
If you give life to someone but then let it freeze to death, or die starving, you are torturing him -- if he obviously can't do it by himself.
It's only torture if there is pain. And without a developed nervous system, there can be no pain.
Quote:
Who are you to judge what's delusional and what's not? Besides, I thought you let people whatever they wanted to do as long as they do not impose it on others without their consent.
Believing in something without evidence is delusional. But I will let people practice their religions. I'm not going to impose anything upon them, as long as they don't impose anything upon me. I'm just saying that I'd rather not delude myself, even if it gave me an emotional benefit.
Quote:
please do not try to reply with a lot of quote wars taking every argument into a quote -- I'm getting tired of that already and frankly I don't think why I am repeating myself so many times
Sorry, too late for that .
Quote:
You consider the birth an accident. Bang, it is the analogy with the drunk guy.
lol
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 05:19 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:21, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Ok I'll go over the main posts if you insist 
Quote:
You keep complaining about my society model, but you are yet to point out anything that is actually wrong with it.
Actually I questioned your ability to decide if a fetus or not has human rights (see below). That is the 'flaw' in your model. In fact, it's no more a big deal than any organized religion. In fact, that way, if we consider the fetus has a soul, then it's implicitly it has 'rights', so if we have a model like that, the fetus will have rights
Quote:
You bet it is. Being able to survive without being hooked up to anything and not being able to survive - that's quite a difference.
But a baby needs to be 'hooked' up even then, to energy from the sun (which the fetus gets from 'the mother'), the food (gets from the mother), etc..
Quote:
Why ask if you know what I'm going to say? Because it's socially useful!
And who said religions aren't from certain people's perspectives, that is.
Quote:
Wait. So you're asking me do give you evidence of human rights. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'll try. Look around you. You don't see everyone murdering all the time, do you? Human rights are a societal thing.
I did not ask that, I asked where's the evidence that fetuses don't have human rights. Where did you get the idea that they don't? For me, it's like saying "Fetuses have souls too you know!" but only the opposite.
Quote:
"Advanced" and "alive" are two different things.
Ok, what's the difference? (remember that children are also 'evolving' like fetuses, for example, they don't have reproduction organs).
Quote:
Except that the difference is much greater. Both the 2-year-old and the 6-year-old can survive without being hooked up to anything.
And this is precisely why the mother needs to take care of the fetus much more than a kid. Oh, and 'the difference is much greater' is just discriminatory -- you either take all difference into account (when you imply equality) or none at all
Quote:
It's only torture if there is pain. And without a developed nervous system, there can be no pain.
Did you read Corribus' post? That point is arbitrary and you can't know for sure (not that all fetuses would follow the same pattern either).
But there is also the other factor. 'Disturbance' is not necessarily related to the physical pain imposed. You can not have any pain but still be disturbed -- which is also an open question.
Quote:
Believing in something without evidence is delusional. But I will let people practice their religions. I'm not going to impose anything upon them, as long as they don't impose anything upon me. I'm just saying that I'd rather not delude myself, even if it gave me an emotional benefit.
So human rights are delusional -- there isn't any evidence.. well of course you don't see people murdering (i.e follow that religion), but you also see priests (that follow that religion) too, are those evidence?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 05:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But a baby needs to be 'hooked' up even then, to energy from the sun (which the fetus gets from 'the mother'), the food (gets from the mother), etc...
But it's not going to die if the mother leaves it alone for an hour.
Quote:
And who said religions aren't from certain people's perspectives, that is.
I don't deny that religion can be socially useful. It sometimes is. It often isn't.
Quote:
I asked where's the evidence that fetuses don't have human rights.
]Where's the evidence that anyone has human rights? It is because they are treated that way in society. Fetuses aren't even in societyy.
Quote:
Ok, what's the difference?
The fact that a dead human is more complex than a living virus.
Quote:
Oh, and 'the difference is much greater' is just discriminatory -- you either take all difference into account (when you imply equality) or none at all
Some differences matter. Others don't.
Quote:
That point is arbitrary and you can't know for sure (not that all fetuses would follow the same pattern either).
Yes, but I wouldn't say that one neuron counts as a "developed nervous system".
Quote:
So human rights are delusional -- there isn't any evidence.. well of course you don't see people murdering (i.e follow that religion), but you also see priests (that follow that religion) too, are those evidence?
Priests are evidence that religion exists, of course. Whether what they follow is true, though, is a different matter.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 05:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But it's not going to die if the mother leaves it alone for an hour.
But it still needs food, etc.. that the mother buys and gives him (supposedly).
Quote:
Where's the evidence that anyone has human rights? It is because they are treated that way in society. Fetuses aren't even in societyy.
That is the problem -- I am not asking you to provide evidence for that because there isn't. Where I'm trying to get to is to show you that these are no less subjective than things like 'soul'. You can use them in arguments, but you should also have something else to put up, otherwise we'll get to:
Person #A: "Fetuses have souls, you murderer!"
Person #B: "They don't have human rights, period"
The point I was trying to make, again, is that your model of society is similar. I'm not saying that ALL of it is bad, but some parts of it, and are 'subjective' in a way.
Quote:
The fact that a dead human is more complex than a living virus.
Where's the complexometer?
Now seriously, humans are not defined by complexity, because that way our children would not have rights. Or people with disabilities, etc..
Quote:
Some differences matter. Others don't.
But which matter and which don't? That is your decision, see. In fact, people used in the past the same argument: "Some differences matter, like skin color, you know.. others don't". Of course you can say those are less differences but again, the statement is the same -- and it is no better.
Quote:
Yes, but I wouldn't say that one neuron counts as a "developed nervous system".
But you don't even know do you? That is the problem.
Quote:
Priests are evidence that religion exists, of course. Whether what they follow is true, though, is a different matter.
Of course, much as a society model 'exists' but has no reason to be true. For example, if society says fetuses are not alive, and everyone follows it, does that mean it's true? Nope
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 05:56 PM |
|
|
@Death:
Quote:
I know what you mean with positive action -- but a positive action is not decided by giving birth, it's decided what you do THEREAFTER.
I disagree and that's an obvious point why we (you and I) can't discuss this any longer (it's pointless)
Quote:
For example, suppose someone creates human clones. Is that a positive action? Yes, well it gives life. But for what purpose does he create the clones. That is the question. If he creates them for torturing them (for example), then that is not positive at all, even though the action was.
The action of creation WAS A POSITIVE action. Doesn't matter the purpose, it's always a positive action. The fact that the guy tortures the clones makes a lot of NEGATIVE actions AFTER. If the guy would ignore the clones (NO ACTION) - like I would do when I get the fetus out of my body - then he would remain with "+1 positive points ". If on the other hand, the guy feeds the clones and helps them, then he would gain a lot more "positive points".
So you see? You CAN classify an action as positive/negative. If you make a negative action after a positive one (and they are linked) it doesn't mean the positive one was negative
Also, in the tortured clones example, the fact that he created the clones (+1 positive points) only for torture makes the negative actions (the torturing) much more "negative" (-5 negative points for example). The creation is still positive, but is overwhelmed by the negative points that come from the torture.
Anyway, I need to chill out otherwise I would end up an "OSM addict" like you and mvass
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 06:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The action of creation WAS A POSITIVE action. Doesn't matter the purpose, it's always a positive action. The fact that the guy tortures the clones makes a lot of NEGATIVE actions AFTER. If the guy would ignore the clones (NO ACTION) - like I would do when I get the fetus out of my body - then he would remain with "+1 positive points". If on the other hand, the guy feeds the clones and helps them, then he would gain a lot more "positive points".
So you see? You CAN classify an action as positive/negative. If you make a negative action after a positive one (and they are linked) it doesn't mean the positive one was negative
Also, in the tortured clones example, the fact that he created the clones (+1 positive points) only for torture makes the negative actions (the torturing) much more "negative" (-5 negative points for example). The creation is still positive, but is overwhelmed by the negative points that come from the torture.
For me, every action has a purpose and a reason to be done. There is no such thing as a positive action -- it's only a positive purpose that led to such action. Every action has a reason, whether it is 'positive' or 'negative'. The reason itself is the one that matters.
This is because actions usually don't show the nature of their purpose -- someone that manipulates, for example, is seen as a 'positive' action because he does his best so people look at him like that (for whatever reasons). They manipulate through their actions, but I would not call the action positive because the purpose behind it is e.g: selfish.
Quote:
Anyway, I need to chill out otherwise I would end up an "OSM addict" like you and mvass
Hehe thanks for reminding me, I think I got too involved in this thread anyway 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 06:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But it still needs food, etc.. that the mother buys and gives him (supposedly).
Yes, but everybody needs food, but no one would say that they can't survive independently.
Quote:
Where I'm trying to get to is to show you that these are no less subjective than things like 'soul'.
First you're complaining about me saying that human rights are subjective, and now you're trying to show that they're subjective? O_o
Quote:
The point I was trying to make, again, is that your model of society is similar.
You have yet to point out one (1) problem with my model of society.
Quote:
humans are not defined by complexity
There are two definitions of "human" - a biological one and a societal one. The biological one is that any living thing with human genes is a human. The societal one is that anyone that is in society (and interacting with it) is a human.
Quote:
But which matter and which don't?
Those that make a difference. If we said that it would be all right to kill black people, that would obviously have a negative impact.
Quote:
But you don't even know do you?
For humans, a unicellular nervous system definitely doesn't qualify as being "developed".
Quote:
For example, if society says fetuses are not alive, and everyone follows it, does that mean it's true?
Yes, at least socially, because society defines things socially.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 06:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but everybody needs food, but no one would say that they can't survive independently.
As far as I know, they can't buy food as they have no income, so they can't survive independently, or what do you mean?
Quote:
First you're complaining about me saying that human rights are subjective, and now you're trying to show that they're subjective? O_o
Oh boy, the reason I started this subject is because the discussion, more or less, went like this:
I pointed this article to you. You then started to bash ALL of it because it discussed somewhere about "soul". Fine.
Next, you use arguments such as "fetuses don't have human rights". The thing is, don't you realize that is as 'subjective' as the soul stuff, you kept bashing? That's the whole thing.
Quote:
You have yet to point out one (1) problem with my model of society.
How about the fact that fetuses don't have human rights? (which I already stated previously, but you somehow seem to skip that).
Quote:
There are two definitions of "human" - a biological one and a societal one. The biological one is that any living thing with human genes is a human. The societal one is that anyone that is in society (and interacting with it) is a human.
Ok, here's one problem in your social model: The definition of what is 'societal' because it does not include fetuses
Of course just like babies aren't really productive to the society, but they will be much like a fetus, see?
Quote:
Those that make a difference. If we said that it would be all right to kill black people, that would obviously have a negative impact.
Oh, and I suppose that the fetus is not so "obvious"?
Quote:
For humans, a unicellular nervous system definitely doesn't qualify as being "developed".
"It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so"
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 06:42 PM |
|
|
Two teens have sex.
The condom gets ripped,the female is inpregented after amounth she realises she is late and the tests is postive.
she wants not to give birth,and the state wont invistiagte,becouse of policy of patient doctor privlige making it confidinetiol,ie its not a murder by law. just like if some one expemllend in a car acident where awoman is NOT dead,but the fetus is,the offender is NOT charged with murder but reckless driving,and etc.
The Law proves otherwise then you,also abort could happen before belly happend.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 06:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As far as I know, they can't buy food as they have no income, so they can't survive independently, or what do you mean?
I mean that they don't constantly need to be attached to someone.
Quote:
The thing is, don't you realize that is as 'subjective' as the soul stuff, you kept bashing?
Except that this is actually societally useful .
Quote:
How about the fact that fetuses don't have human rights?
And this is a problem because...
Who's supposed to have human rights? Those who are humans (socially).
Quote:
Ok, here's one problem in your social model: The definition of what is 'societal' because it does not include fetuses
But fetuses are clearly not part of society.
Quote:
Oh, and I suppose that the fetus is not so "obvious"?
Having legalized abortion has a positive impact upon society.
Quote:
"It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so"
OK, let's remove your whole nervous system except for one neuron, and let's see how well you do.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 06:49 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:50, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Two teens have sex.
They shouldn't. If you illegalize abortion (at least when the intercourse done with their consent), they will be more responsible. They are not the victims of the outcome, the fetus is caught in between.
Oh and I never said abortion is punishable by death/murder or whatever, but it has to be punished, for them to think TWICE before being irresponsible.
@mvassilev:Quote:
I mean that they don't constantly need to be attached to someone.
But they are attached independently -- of course it also depends on the stage, but basically you can say, they NEED someone to give them food.
Quote:
Except that this is actually societally useful .
In your opinion
Quote:
And this is a problem because...
Who's supposed to have human rights? Those who are humans (socially).
See? That's the problem with your model. Fetuses are humans, socially. They may not be useful ATM, but we all start from there
Quote:
Having legalized abortion has a positive impact upon society.
So basically, if murdering Joe Smith has a positive impact upon society (for whatever reasons), it's ok to kill him? Do you have any sense of morals, compassion or sympathy, or again it's all about 'being useful' or 'being beneficial' or 'positive for the society'.
Quote:
OK, let's remove your whole nervous system except for one neuron, and let's see how well you do.
I won't do much, because I am developing (the fetus). For that, you need to remove all neurons except one, like you said, add pain, and then give me back my other neurons -- then I'll be able to communicate to you if I felt anything
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 07:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
they will be more responsible
HAHAHAHAHA! Shows what you know.
Quote:
But they are attached independently
Which is an oxymoron.
Quote:
Fetuses are humans, socially.
No, they aren't. I must say that I've never talked to a fetus. Nor have I ever seen one in regular life, outside of ultrasounds.
Quote:
So basically, if murdering Joe Smith has a positive impact upon society (for whatever reasons), it's ok to kill him?
If said Joe Smith is a murderer or a rapist, then yes. But I can't think of a situation in which it would be societally beneficial to kill someone who is not a criminal.
Quote:
For that, you need to remove all neurons except one, like you said, add pain, and then give me back my other neurons -- then I'll be able to communicate to you if I felt anything
Want to volunteer? That aside, what if their brain isn't developed enough to feel pain?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 07:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
HAHAHAHAHA! Shows what you know.
There was such a time you know
Quote:
But they are attached independently
Which is an oxymoron.
Ok bad choice of words. What I meant was that they 'need' someone (their mother for example) to live, they can't live by themselves.
Quote:
Quote:
Fetuses are humans, socially.
No, they aren't. I must say that I've never talked to a fetus. Nor have I ever seen one in regular life, outside of ultrasounds.
So seeing one with light waves is different? Who cares if you see it, it's still there. You can as well close your eyes if you want. You can't talk to babies either and expect a response. Are they not sociable either?
Quote:
If said Joe Smith is a murderer or a rapist, then yes. But I can't think of a situation in which it would be societally beneficial to kill someone who is not a criminal.
Uhm, sometimes corporations are nasty and some people fight them -- for society, the corporation is the one that matters. For 'normal' insignificant people they are 'evil' shall I say. But then, they can't kill him directly, they have to try to frame him and sue him.
Quote:
Want to volunteer? That aside, what if their brain isn't developed enough to feel pain?
I can't volunteer because you won't be able to give my neurons back so I can't communicate with you if I felt anything.
I think I read somewhere a very long time ago regarding this subject, that you can 'feel' pain without being conscious or having a brain. Even if it's not the classical way of felling pain by the way!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 07:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There was such a time you know
Unfortunately, many of my classmates do get pregnant. And some of them get abortions.
Quote:
What I meant was that they 'need' someone (their mother for example) to live, they can't live by themselves.
But they don't need to be constantly attached to her.
Quote:
Who cares if you see it, it's still there.
There in the womb, but not there in society.
Quote:
You can't talk to babies either and expect a response. Are they not sociable either?
They're not very sociable, but they are in society. And you can actually talk to babies in a way you can't talk to fetuses.
Quote:
sometimes corporations are nasty and some people fight them -- for society, the corporation is the one that matters
If a corporation is using methods that harm society, then those people are fighting for society. So for society, the people would matter over the corporation. But if a corporation isn't doing anything wrong, then the people shouldn't be fighting it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 07:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
There was such a time you know
Unfortunately, many of my classmates do get pregnant. And some of them get abortions.
You know it goes like this: Classmate A gets pregnant. She is forced to keep the baby. It will show as an example to others. I'm not saying things will immediately get on their way, but with time. Classmate B: Hey look what happened to my friend.. maybe I shouldn't be so irresponsible.
Quote:
There in the womb, but not there in society.
The womb is not part of the society?
Quote:
They're not very sociable, but they are in society. And you can actually talk to babies in a way you can't talk to fetuses.
I'm having a hard time understanding what is to be "in" a society. As far as I know, when you have a box, and put it in another box, then it's still considered part of the same 'room' as the other box -- both are in the same room.
So if you put a fetus in the womb (a box that is in society, the mother is, right?), then it is also in that room (society).
Quote:
If a corporation is using methods that harm society, then those people are fighting for society. So for society, the people would matter over the corporation. But if a corporation isn't doing anything wrong, then the people shouldn't be fighting it.
The corporation does not harm society -- it harms moral instinct. On the whole, it is 'profitable' for society. But some people, you know, don't like wars, etc.. even though some are profitable for a society (screw the others, right?). From a moral standpoint (and don't mistake the morals with society!)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 07:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Classmate A gets pregnant. She is forced to keep the baby. It will show as an example to others. I'm not saying things will immediately get on their way, but with time. Classmate B: Hey look what happened to my friend.. maybe I shouldn't be so irresponsible.
What you're saying here makes sense, but for some reason it just doesn't work that way. Girls get pregnant, and are forced to keep the baby (by their parents). But other girls still keep getting pregnant. And then, once in a while, stuff like this happens.
Quote:
So if you put a fetus in the womb (a box that is in society, the mother is, right?), then it is also in that room (society).
By that logic, then cancer would be a part of society too (not in the sense that it is now). By the way, that's an interesting analogy to pursue. There are certain things that make cancer more likely, like certain foods, etc. So people eat these foods, and then their likelihood of cancer increases. And if they end up getting cancer in the future, are you going to tell them, "Sorry, you knew the risks when you were eating. You gave life to the cancer, you can't take it away."
Quote:
But some people, you know, don't like wars, etc.. even though some are profitable for a society (screw the others, right?).
Name one war that was caused by corporations and is also profitable for society.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 07:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What you're saying here makes sense, but for some reason it just doesn't work that way. Girls get pregnant, and are forced to keep the baby (by their parents). But other girls still keep getting pregnant. And then, once in a while, stuff like this happens.
I read that article. To me it seems like they are getting pregnant and WANT that -- so I can't see what that has to do with abortion
Quote:
By that logic, then cancer would be a part of society too (not in the sense that it is now). By the way, that's an interesting analogy to pursue. There are certain things that make cancer more likely, like certain foods, etc. So people eat these foods, and then their likelihood of cancer increases. And if they end up getting cancer in the future, are you going to tell them, "Sorry, you knew the risks when you were eating. You gave life to the cancer, you can't take it away."
The cancer does not develop into a human, they are just some cells that won't develop in any way. In fact, they are pretty much stopping others from 'developing'.
Quote:
Name one war that was caused by corporations and is also profitable for society.
Well of course I wasn't talking about corporations right now, but if you see the government as a corporation then fine. Who said everyone agrees with war? Then why do we have it? For the good of the society? Certainly it seems, since most people DON'T WANT IT.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 08:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't see what that has to do with abortion
I'm demonstrating the fact that a large amount of teenagers are simply idiots, and that making abortion illegal would hardly do anything.
Quote:
The cancer does not develop into a human, they are just some cells that won't develop in any way.
But, to use your argument, it's life. Shouldn't we respect all life equally?
Quote:
if you see the government as a corporation then fine
I certainly don't.
Quote:
Who said everyone agrees with war? Then why do we have it?
Wars are often caused by nationalism and/or fearmongering. Neither is good.
Quote:
For the good of the society? Certainly it seems, since most people DON'T WANT IT.
The Iraq war had wide support when it first started.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 08:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There was such a time you know
Unfortunately, many of my classmates do get pregnant. And some of them get abortions.
You know it goes like this: Classmate A gets pregnant. She is forced to keep the baby. It will show as an example to others. I'm not saying things will immediately get on their way, but with time. Classmate B: Hey look what happened to my friend.. maybe I shouldn't be so irresponsible.
Define accident.
A would likely get abortion in a illegal way then, and maybe die in the attempt(it has happen infinetive amount of times, the pregnant who attempted often bleeds to death or suffer fatal damage permanently for life).
So you are saying if i drive and one of the wheels on my car pops and the car goes out of controll and i kill alot of people, i WILL be charged for murder(it is defined: killing on purpose, i think)?
You know, if 2 girls are trying to create a store chain from basic.
Quote:
It's true that rich people have more to lose, and also that they can afford it more, but they also tend to be better educated, and that demographic certainly has less abortions.
They are a minorety, it will thus have less on the track for getting pregnant in accidental ways. They usually got ALOT more responsibility/stuff that needs to be done so it is after logical definitions less likely to happen because of that.
Quote:
There is no such thing as non-physical torture. Torture is only physical.
In my book, emotions are not physical (without going into any religious soul).
Last time i checked(i fail in english BTW) there is this word: "Tormenting"
Someting that cannot feal pain cannot be tortured either, simply because the purpose of torture is to causing physical damage on purpose.
Quote:
Quote:
This proves that you don't even know what abortion IS.
Abortion = taking the fetus OUT of the mother's belly.
Now I see why you don't understand
Nonono, not abortion, but birth. You see it goes like this. You consider the birth an accident. Bang, it is the analogy with the drunk guy.
Tecnicaly, birth is irreversable. So the drunk and damageing is equal to giving birth to a baby.
However if you stop the fists and weapons before damamging, it is equal to abortion because YOU stopped it from happening.
Quote:
It is only my opinion that will discourage getting pregnant in the first place. People will think twice before being irresponsible, because they know they will not be able to get abortion legally (and it's dangerous otherwise, no one wants to die like that).
HAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! You seriusly got no idea what you are talking about.......... People will do try to save A if it is vital by doing B even if it got a risk. Do not underestimate the general population, the will and randomness is bigger than most minds can image.
If A is your social life and job that provides income, then alot(many) will do B(illegal dangourus abortion) to keep A.
Quote:
Because they have a brain, they can THINK.
So it's ok to kill something that does not think? Some people can't 'think' when in sleep and don't feel pain, it's ok to kill them because 'tomorrow' they are going to be 'alive'? (just as the baby 'tomorrow' is going to be alive, not exactly tomorrow but you get the idea)
By that analogy, we are all dead allready.
If somebody is asleep, they are alive and thinking. However it is resting its body because of the fatiuge walking around and being awake causes.
Somebody in a coma is a more fitting subject, they cannot think for themself. We can pull out the food supply after some time deciding, and what does justify each side of the cause? It would be better to be dead than in a eternal slumber is one, the other is the fact it MIGTH wake up one day.
Ok then lets enter some of society, some places in the US you are not allowed to get the "day-after pill" if your raped. This is pure stupidity. All agree?
Then lets move on, Thedeath is a female that is having safe sex using pills and condoms. And suddenly it goes wrong(the condom bursts). "thedeath" discoveres the pregnancy before 5 weeks has passed. The pregnancy will in the end result in massive problems in all manners for "thedeath"
Then the question is: Can "thedeath" take a abortion to ensure life for itself is saved? It did have safe sex is, and this is what regularly leads to abortion.
Tell me
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
