|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 28, 2008 08:21 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:50, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
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).
If someone finds out it is dangerous, they will be discouraged. If for example, a woman finds her friend tried abortion illegally and died, she will be discouraged to do so, and thus more responsible. It is a lengthy process, not one that will be fixed immediately.
Quote:
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)?
The accident is NOT the abortion. How many times do I have to repeat myself? The accident is the birth. Yes you will be charged for murder if you hit someone with the car (give birth), injure him, then KILL HIM (probably because he would sue you otherwise and you don't want to take care of him (like you don't want to care of the fetus)).
Plain and simple. You make an accident. You need to take care of the victim in question (that is the fetus), otherwise you WILL be charged (not necessarily for murder).
Quote:
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.
How do you know he does not 'feel' pain? (please read my posts about about 'non-classical' pain)
Quote:
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.
That's more like: "I hit a guy, he wants to sue me if I don't give him 5000$, so I kill him". Analogously, the 5000$ is taking care of the baby. The easy solution is to kill him (because some laws allow you to do that  , I mean the fetus). You see, the fetus is the victim, you have to treat him.
Quote:
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.
But by being discouraged they won't get pregnant in the first place. I don't quite understand what you mean by randomness, but certainly you don't think all people are stupid just because you saw someones. By that logic, a lot are criminals, so should we look at those when we talk about the "general population"?
Quote:
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.
Exactly, for me it is no right to put him out of coma because he "gets in your way" like the fetus
And how do you know that the fetus is not 'asleep'? 
Quote:
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"
If I am not ready for a baby (ready is not the same as 'want' please note!), I don't have sex. Period.
Quote:
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.
You know, there's always the easy way at the expense of others (the fetus in this example). Sure I get away, but at the expense of someone else.
EDIT: Ok so to reply to mvass, I'll comment on this:
Quote:
But, to use your argument, it's life. Shouldn't we respect all life equally?
Depends what life. Bacteria and viruses are life too. I am not against viruses because they are non-human, but because they attack us (although to be frank, humans are somewhat 'viruses' metaphorically too, but I can't do much about it ).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 08:50 PM |
|
|
Way to ignore my post. 
Also,Quote:
you will be charged for murder if you hit someone with the car (give birth), injure him, then KILL HIM
Infanticide and abortion are two different things.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 08:52 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:53, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Sorry man, I skipped that post, I added an 'EDIT' above.
As for the war stuff -- I'm not talking about the war in Iraq, but the government (aka the society leader) thinks war is useful, else they wouldn't put so much money in it. What's good for society is not necessarily what people want -- and the latter is usually the more important part.
Besides, when you think about it, if you kill Joe Smith when he'll already die anyway in 5 minutes (due to a catastrophe or something when a lot of people die too), then said killing is not 'bad' because it hasn't harmed society?
Morally of course it's bad
____________
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 08:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But, to use your argument, it's life. Shouldn't we respect all life equally?
Depends what life. Bacteria and viruses are life too. I am not against viruses because they are non-human, but because they attack us (although to be frank, humans are somewhat 'viruses' metaphorically too, but I can't do much about it ).
That's what white supremacisists say about black people, "I'm not against black people because they're black, I'm against them because they have a higher crime rate! Kill them!" See, I can play that game too.
As for war, several things to say here. First, any given government rules over a certain part of society, not all society. If it did, its interests might well be different. Second, governments don't always do what's best for their part of society, but act in favor of interest groups. Third, the society leader =/= the whole society.
Quote:
if you kill Joe Smith when he'll already die anyway in 5 minutes
I'm not advising killing fetuses 5 minutes before they're born.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 09:03 PM |
|
|
That's what you understood from my virus analogy? I meant that, if a black people attacks you, you have a reason to defend yourself -- it's not because he's black, see? It's because he attacked you
Quote:
Quote:
if you kill Joe Smith when he'll already die anyway in 5 minutes
I'm not advising killing fetuses 5 minutes before they're born.
That was an off-topic post on my part, in fact not really off topic, but wasn't about abortion, it was about 'the good of society' =/= morality see?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 09:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's what you understood from my virus analogy? I meant that, if a black people attacks you, you have a reason to defend yourself -- it's not because he's black, see?
But you dislike viruses in general - not just the ones that attack you.
Quote:
That was an off-topic post on my part, in fact not really off topic, but wasn't about abortion, it was about 'the good of society' =/= morality see?
Society creates a general morality. And it's bad for society if people start killing. That is, such a situation as you described is too specific for society as a whole to address through such a complicated thing as morality.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 09:11 PM |
|
|
I think you 2 should continue the discussions about morality/society in this thread
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 09:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But you dislike viruses in general - not just the ones that attack you.
Sometimes I like computer viruses when they are productive and not 'harmful'. As for biological viruses, I've never encountered a virus except when it was already in my body and 'damaging' me
Quote:
Society creates a general morality. And it's bad for society if people start killing. That is, such a situation as you described is too specific for society as a whole to address through such a complicated thing as morality.
I never said that the specific case with Joe Smith is to be put in a law, but merely pointing out that sometimes the 'good of the society' can ignore things like killing somebody if that somebody does not affect society's wealth, so to speak.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 10:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If for example, a woman finds her friend tried abortion illegally and died, she will be discouraged to do so, and thus more responsible.
i think that you said is defined: "Controll trough fear".
It does not make the one who saw her friend get killed by it more responsible, it is just a stack of fear that will hunt her that will likely prevert herself from getting abortion.
Quote:
Plain and simple. You make an accident. You need to take care of the victim in question (that is the fetus), otherwise you WILL be charged (not necessarily for murder).
Nope, the born one is the one you speak of. The accidents time is 9 months in this scenario, the aftermatch(helping the victims, etc) is not before after the baby is born.
However i agree on not aborting away not yet borns that has began devolopining a brain so simple.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
How do you know he does not 'feel' pain? (please read my posts about about 'non-classical' pain)
*cough* the fetus is "IT", not he or she. *cough*
I cannot se how someting that do not have someting to receive pain with can feel it.
Quote:
"I hit a guy, he wants to sue me if I don't give him 5000$, so I kill him"
Oh heck no. This is equal to killing the baby with force afterwards.
If you stop your attack before it causes anything any harm, it is equal to an abortion.
Quote:
By that logic, a lot are criminals, so should we look at those when we talk about the "general population"?
In what way? Real criminals or the people stupid enogh to do it once in a mild manner?
And by random i meant: Every single person can easly figur out its own solutions and manner of thinking. The difference of A and B and C is the randomness.
Quote:
And how do you know that the fetus is not 'asleep'?
It simply is not awake. Per definition sleep is the exact opposite of being awake. Coma is a different thing. Not to reach the mind also.
Quote:
Quote:
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"
If I am not ready for a baby (ready is not the same as 'want' please note!), I don't have sex. Period.
Sorry, but why do you not awser this hypotetical question??? Are you afraid of losing you argument?
If that was me, i would SO have done abortion.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
You know, there's always the easy way at the expense of others (the fetus in this example). Sure I get away, but at the expense of someone else.
Ok, i cannot se the logic of this argment. Please explain it a bit better(i am dam stupid ya know )
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 12:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As for biological viruses, I've never encountered a virus except when it was already in my body and 'damaging' me
How unfortunate you are! You've never met the nice viruses. Some of them even help you. I guess that's why they call them "AIDS".
Quote:
I never said that the specific case with Joe Smith is to be put in a law
Neither have I. And morality itself and laws are two different, albeit loosely related, things.
Quote:
the 'good of the society' can ignore things like killing somebody if that somebody does not affect society's wealth, so to speak
But it would be dangerous for society to make such an exception.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The accident is NOT the abortion. How many times do I have to repeat myself? The accident is the birth.
Accident is conception, not birth.
Quote:
How do you know he does not 'feel' pain? (please read my posts about about 'non-classical' pain)
You are asking question on topics you donīt know answer yourself. Maybe fetus feels some non - classical pain. Is it relevant argument?
Quote:
But by being discouraged they won't get pregnant in the first place.
They donīt get pregnant due to prevention. What are you talking is discouraging them from having sex, not just for getting pregnant.
Sex has more then one purpose, you know? If you donīt want to see irresponsible people getting pregnant, than make better prevention, not law.
Quote:
And how do you know that the fetus is not 'asleep'?
Again, asking question for which you donīt know answer yourself.
Quote:
If I am not ready for a baby (ready is not the same as 'want' please note!), I don't have sex. Period.
Either you have "above-human" complex or you are tremendously narrow-minded. Sorry, but I canīt think about another possibility of having this type of attitude. If you are living with this philosophy, than is everything in best order, you can live as you like - but I just hate attempts to make others live in your way.
____________
Result matters
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 01:44 PM |
|
|
@Death:
You should understand that your analogies with "accidents" are simply wrong in the case of an abortion. An analogy with abortion would go something like this: "You see a baby that can't breathe. You manage to resurrect him and save his life. Afterwards, are you obligated to give him food?"
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
|
@mvassilev:How unfortunate you are! You've never met the nice viruses. Some of them even help you. I guess that's why they call them "AIDS".
Ok I got the joke 
But so-called AIDS actually destroys your immunity system
Quote:
But it would be dangerous for society to make such an exception.
Regardless of it being dangerous or not, it's still wrong, plain wrong, from a moral perspective, not simply 'dangerous'.
@del_diablo:Quote:
i think that you said is defined: "Controll trough fear".
It does not make the one who saw her friend get killed by it more responsible, it is just a stack of fear that will hunt her that will likely prevert herself from getting abortion.
Sometimes you have to keep crime under control, be it with fear or whatever else, you know 
Quote:
Nope, the born one is the one you speak of. The accidents time is 9 months in this scenario, the aftermatch(helping the victims, etc) is not before after the baby is born.
You are just drawing a special line when someone is 'born' (meaning I presume getting out of the mother's womb), which is completely arbitrary and has no justifiable fact nor biological one, it is only a society model not based on anything except opinion and convenience. It is no better than a religion
Quote:
*cough* the fetus is "IT", not he or she. *cough*
"It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so"
Seriously now, biologically the DNA is still there. Just because we can't observe it does not mean it does not have a gender. Logically, since it GROWS without any additional intervention of DNA into either a BOY or a GIRL, then IT HAS A GENDER.
And I also don't see the significance of that either.
Quote:
I cannot se how someting that do not have someting to receive pain with can feel it.
It's so easy to talk like that when you don't even know whether it feels pain or not.
Quote:
Oh heck no. This is equal to killing the baby with force afterwards.
If you stop your attack before it causes anything any harm, it is equal to an abortion.
Who said abortion does not cause any harm?
Quote:
It simply is not awake. Per definition sleep is the exact opposite of being awake. Coma is a different thing. Not to reach the mind also.
Don't you get all that was posted? First of all, it's not a "different thing" actually, unless we're talking about how the society in SOME countries perceive it. Then again, if you use social arguments (subjective opinion-based) I can use religious arguments too, like soul, etc.
The biological fact is that it is completely arbitrary -- oh, and just because you can't see something in the baby that develops pain does NOT mean that it isn't there. See above with gender.
Quote:
Sorry, but why do you not awser this hypotetical question??? Are you afraid of losing you argument?
If that was me, i would SO have done abortion.
I can't answer the question because I am not like that -- would you put me up in a situation in which I'm a criminal too?
As for the question, no I will not have abortion. It is my fault, so it is fair to lose my job because of it, not blame that on someone else (the fetus) and then let others suffer because of my mistakes.
Even though, I repeat, the question is completely redundant since I am not that way.
Quote:
Ok, i cannot se the logic of this argment. Please explain it a bit better(i am dam stupid ya know )
You make a mistake. You make a mistake, not someone else. You have to choices:
1) blame it on someone else and make him suffer because of it (abortion)
2) accept the mistake like an adult and take all the suffering of it
We are not kids to pass the things we are to be blamed for to our parents. We don't need our parents to soak our mistakes. We need to take care of them ourselves and accept our mistakes, not push them on someone else (the fetus).
@Anakrom:Quote:
Accident is conception, not birth.
Yeah whatever, that's what i meant anyway
Quote:
You are asking question on topics you donīt know answer yourself. Maybe fetus feels some non - classical pain. Is it relevant argument?
Of course it is. We need to draw analogies from ourselves (and what those people said about that non-classical pain or whatever).
If you're not sure on what you're doing (and don't intend to study it, because I think those with non-classical pain have studied it), it's better not to do it, because you might be wrong. Logically, it goes like this:
Case A: Baby feels pain
You: make him suffer
Me: leave him be
Case B: Baby doesn't feel pain (unlikely from those researcher's POV, and most religious people too)
You: don't make him suffer
Me: leave him be
The outcome? I never make him suffer, you on the other hand have a chance in case you are wrong.
Quote:
They donīt get pregnant due to prevention. What are you talking is discouraging them from having sex, not just for getting pregnant.
Sex has more then one purpose, you know? If you donīt want to see irresponsible people getting pregnant, than make better prevention, not law.
By nature it has no other purpose. And of course I don't mean you have to 'want' a child -- but be READY in that case!
Quote:
Again, asking question for which you donīt know answer yourself.
Exactly, but I AM NOT THE ONE who is making assumptions because I just say: "You don't know what's happening -> you stay out of it!"
Quote:
Either you have "above-human" complex or you are tremendously narrow-minded. Sorry, but I canīt think about another possibility of having this type of attitude. If you are living with this philosophy, than is everything in best order, you can live as you like - but I just hate attempts to make others live in your way.
Let's see. You pick an apple. What is it's purpose? Nature says it's used for eating... of course you can twist that definition to whatever you need. I don't know what's wrong with my attitude if i do not twist most of what is the original purpose of.
But of course you can blame me as well for not drinking alcohol even if YOU KNOW it's a damn flaw -- because it makes you do accidents even if it 'feels good'. But then again drugs feel good too. Point is, I am not the one making accidents. And in fact it wouldn't even be an accident if you wouldn't twist nature's purpose of it.
Am I narrow-minded? I don't think so. But I am completely annoyed when I tell other people that (for example) drinking alcohol is going to make them accidents -- that wouldn't be bad if they were responsible. You know what some do? They blame that to someone else. Nothing is more disgusting than seeing an irresponsible adult making a mistake, pushing the blame on someone else (so they get away, but the poor innocent victim does not; what has it done to deserve it?), and then claiming that I am the one who is flawed and strange.
By your logic, am I not allowed to 'impose' the fact on criminals that they don't need to kill? What happens if I see someone make an accident? I 'impose' the fact that he needs to repair what he has caused.
First of all, the value that pro-life people want to "impose" is not a value at all. It's a law that would forbid crimes and "imposing values by pro-choice people on innocent babies and harming them" in their eyes. Here's a quote from page 2:
Quote:
Take the murder thing for example. There could be people that are in favor of killing and those who are not. Does that mean that pro-killer shouldn't be imposed with laws that would limit their murder "values"? Of course not.
I would not impose what you can do as long as you do not involve someone else in your accident or blame the innocent for it (i.e the fetus is trespassing the woman's body, as if it it's fault, not the mother that has done the 'accident').
@Asheera:Quote:
You should understand that your analogies with "accidents" are simply wrong in the case of an abortion. An analogy with abortion would go something like this: "You see a baby that can't breathe. You manage to resurrect him and save his life. Afterwards, are you obligated to give him food?"
The problem is, again, that you do not 'save' the baby from death -- because it is not even alive! You can't have someone die when it is not even alive in the first place. So it's more like: you see a baby in COMA, you save and resurrect his life. Yes in that case I think you are obligated to give him food BECAUSE he would suffer and starve, which is worse than being in coma, regardless of the fact that you did something 'good' to him (resurrected him), the outcome is worse!
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 03:15 PM |
|
|
@Death:
These analogies are hypothetical, moreover, analogy =/= reality. When you are using analogies, you are creating situation close to subject - but never similar. Giving behavior of criminals or drunks into analogy to creation of life is just move to throw some bad light onto subject. I donīt say that analogies are wrong, but they are not reliable (same as anything else) and are only reflecting attitude of person rather then reality. I like discussion based on facts, but since you can say that scientific facts are not always true (they arenīt), it always ends up as discussion about matters of preferences of the subjective view. If I draw analogy out of myself, I donīt see anything disregarding about abortions. If you use your analogy, it will be using another subjective principle, which isnīt similar to mine. I agree that if you are not sure about an action, its better to wait or let it be (Iīm bit conservative) - but I took my time and thought about abortions for few hours, and I say can say, that Iīm sure that abortions are for good. Again, my opinion. If you are defining sex for natures view, that I should live my life just for my own profit and profit of my family, and make as many descendant as possible - life from natures view. Since you canīt base human life purely on nature, so you canīt any of his actions. From my point of view sex has more then one purpose. If you share same point with nature, its alright, but if you say that sex has only one purpose that should be used by all being, I will protest, because I simply donīt share same view. Every person is considering herself if she is ready to have a baby. You see, if Iīm not sure about fact, I can let it be unless I see positives - really I see more positives about abortions then negatives - one negative would be enough for me to be against - but I will not be against until I will clearly able to see it - till then, I remain conservative and satisfied with momentary situation. No offence with that attitude, Iīm not claiming that mine is the best one, I just feel absolutely different and canīt understand yours not matter how hard I try. But ofc I will stand my ground. I donīt blame you for your opinion and for any other (you see, if you donīt like alcohol, donīt drink it, Iīll be fine with it, but why to force me if I like it). Iīm in no way defending irresponsible adults blaming other, I find it disgusting same as you, but I have some empathy that doesnīt allow me to punish everyone just because of few idiots. You know, these people will make mistakes every day, and you just canīt stop it by commandments. You are defending fetus, but what about rest? Everyone isnīt idiot, same people are just victims of their fate - try to share that empathy with me and than we will have maybe same point of view. Till then I canīt understand, I just see merciless angel of retribution, making people paying for their mistakes, without grace.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 03:32 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:33, 29 Jun 2008.
|
I understand what you're saying, let me clear some things.
1) When I said that is nature's definition, obviously I did not say that we have to necessarily follow it -- for that reason we don't have 'as many' descendants as nature wants. Nature wants babies, I don't. Don't make mistake, just because I'm anti-abortion does not mean that I want more babies that way. Obviously we are not 100% by nature and it's ok -- my point was that we can often twist the interpretations. This is not bad, I repeat. It's only saying that is different.
2) As for the analogies, I agree they are not exactly 1 to 1 based, but pretty close. What I found interesting is that you maybe misinterpreted my 'alcohol' analogy. I am not trying to impose that alcohol should be banned, on the other hand I even find some drugs if people want to have them. The alcohol is similar to the sex idea. I am not claiming it should be banned.
What I was talking about, however, is when people make accidents because of it. True, accidents happen, so I do not punish them for the accident -- the accident is not abortion through this analogy. The accident is when the fetus is conceived. Thus I am not banning alcohol, as long as people that make the accidents accept the consequences. Why?
It's easy. When I say to someone that smoking can damage his health, he may or may not take my word into account -- and I do not ban that, he can do whatever he wants to his body. When I say to someone that alcohol can add accidents on his behalf, he, again, may or may not take my word into account. I do not impose anything at this stage.
The time when I impose something on them, however, is after they have made the accident -- because most probably it involved someone else (the fetus in the analogy). For example, if said guy above punched someone because he was drunk, I would need to impose something on him: "Treat the guy you punched" -- why is this an obligation? Because it was his fault that the accident happened. I know accidents can happen, but if you think you are unfortunate, what about the real innocent victim?
In short, I said to him that alcohol can make him aggressive. I am not imposing anything at this stage. Then he became aggressive and made an accident. Here is the stage at which I am 'imposing' something on him -- he needs to realize what he has done and treat the other guy (he punched, etc) because it was his mistake even though he knew that he can become aggressive (I told him that).
Going back to the fetus example. If you are prepared for an accident and soak it's consequences, then it would be fine -- but abortion is not like "treating the other guy", it's more like "getting rid of that other guy" because he would be annoying, even though you were the responsible for the action, not him, he is completely innocent in this regard. As long as people accept their accidents and expect the consequences without blaming that to someone else (i.e the fetus), then it's ok.
What I meant above is that you need to be READY in case of an accident. For example, I say that alcohol can make you aggressive. You know that too well. So, you go ahead and drink some alcohol. At this point, it's your responsibility if you make an accident or not -- and when you made the choice to drink that bottle, you made a 'contract' with yourself that you are READY in case something bad happens; that means taking full responsibility if it's only your fault, even if that means losing your job.
But abortion, for me, is like passing the fault on someone innocent (the fetus in this case) for your mistakes. That is, you drink alcohol, you make an accident, then pass the fault to some innocent so you can still have your life back. However I should note that for me it's pretty fair that you lose your job or whatever else bad happens, because after all it was your fault, you deserve the penalty, especially when you've done it knowing you had a chance. I'm blaming people that pass the responsibility much more than those that make the said accidents and accept full consequences that come with it.
There's a difference when you know you have a certain chance of getting an accident and when you don't -- and much more when you do it for 'pleasure' (like alcohol, sex, etc) and when you do it for duty (e.g: going with the car to job).
(also again this is different in case of rape, because there you are not the one responsible for the 'accident' and rapes are considered crimes, the police investigates it anyway).
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 05:56 PM |
|
|
IMO, the less restrictions we have from the law, the better
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 06:04 PM |
|
|
Yeah but if we don't involve others just for our mistakes. I mean, crime is one example, or are you saying that even in crime the law shouldn't have a word? (but there are other examples too)
Don't get me wrong, I agree the law sucks most times, but sometimes it's 'necessary' for the offensors (whatever).
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 06:06 PM |
|
|
We wouldn't need so many laws if people could be trusted to act reasonable adults. Since they cannot, I'll always have employment.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 06:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Regardless of it being dangerous or not, it's still wrong, plain wrong, from a moral perspective, not simply 'dangerous'.
That's exactly why it's wrong from a moral perspective. It's wrong because it would be dangerous for society to permit it, thus society discourages it and says that it's immoral.
Quote:
By nature it has no other purpose.
By nature, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Quote:
You pick an apple. What is it's purpose? Nature says it's used for eating...
What? Trees don't grow apples so humans can eat them! Trees grow apples so they can reproduce. It's just that humans use apples for food. That is the purpose that humans gave apples. But we don't have to use it for food. We could use it as biomass.
Quote:
Going back to the fetus example. If you are prepared for an accident and soak it's consequences, then it would be fine -- but abortion is not like "treating the other guy", it's more like "getting rid of that other guy" because he would be annoying, even though you were the responsible for the action, not him, he is completely innocent in this regard.
There are a couple of differences between beating up a guy while you're drunk and conceiving a fetus. One is that the guy existed before you beat him up. The other is that until the fetus is viable, it does not exist independently, so it can be considered part of you, so the fetus's problem is quite literally your own.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 06:53 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:54, 29 Jun 2008.
|
Ok so I'll play your quote-war game
Quote:
That's exactly why it's wrong from a moral perspective. It's wrong because it would be dangerous for society to permit it, thus society discourages it and says that it's immoral.
So if it weren't dangerous you would say it would be ok.. Interesting
Quote:
By nature, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Read my second post above
Quote:
What? Trees don't grow apples so humans can eat them! Trees grow apples so they can reproduce. It's just that humans use apples for food. That is the purpose that humans gave apples. But we don't have to use it for food. We could use it as biomass.
Nature has a very delicate balance and cycle -- food is part of it
Quote:
There are a couple of differences between beating up a guy while you're drunk and conceiving a fetus. One is that the guy existed before you beat him up.
It's not a 1 to 1 analogy, but that's not the point. The point is that both are 'innocent' in that respect.
Quote:
The other is that until the fetus is viable, it does not exist independently, so it can be considered part of you, so the fetus's problem is quite literally your own.
Exactly it is a part of you, depending on you, because of you so it's precisely the reason you need to take care of him (because he can't 'get out' and you dragged him in, so to speak).
But can you just reply without a quote war? 1 or 2 quotes are acceptable for a normal conversation, but I think the main reason this thread has so many pages is because of this
EDIT: crap, Firefox again ate some text.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
