|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted February 14, 2005 04:52 PM |
|
|
Consis said in his opening statement:
Quote:
 I don't support abortion but my position is a very clouded one. I think of myself as having a man's opinion.
The way I consider this statement is that you are fitting the mold of thoughts of a certain group. - Which is not always a good thing, but I know you've given this more thought then some.
Quote:
I consider women to be the ultimate authority on the matter and have been told so by many women on many occasions.
No. I absolutely don't agree. You are not the first to bring this up. It takes 2 to create life. So the 2 sides are just as important when it comes to authority on the matter. The fact that the women is carrying the child is not a valid argument. If men took their responsibilities, the choice should be as much his than her's. The future baby will affect the man's life as much as the woman's. The nine month pregnancy is not what is important here: it's the impact of a baby on the father and the mother. A mother cannot take the dicision to force a man to have a kid. Nor Vice-versa. It is not up to one partner to decide. - It is up to both.
Quote:
I have an extensive background in many surgical techniques, medicine, and other such patient prehospital care providing. I think my background gives me a unique perspective on what I think is right.
As do I.
Quote:
I believe that a fertilized egg is alive.
That I think is the basis of the whole argument. you put the finger right on it.  The question is this:
Is it alive? "yes" - are you allowed to kill it as it's parents? or "no" - so it does not really matter.
The problem is that people take a stance here once they are convinced of one side. This question is often not the starting point, it's the finishing point. They take a stance on this to reflect their previous arguments.
And the question about having the right to kill an unborn - yet alive - child is not so simple as to say: "No, it's alive, I won't kill it!". Actually, as Aculias said, think of rape. In the States, capital punishment is allowed... and this fetus carries the raper's genes. It's just a personal choice. And as I said earlier, why is it up to a mother to make this choice? This goes far beyond carrying the child. I, for one, would not want to have my wife's (and some wacko's) kid because she got raped last night. I think we, as parents, have the right to decide to kill an fertilized egg that is alive.
Quote:
I have heard a plethora of arguments from many women to support abortion. I have never truly agreed with it but I am usually left to ask myself how important I am in the bearing of a woman's child.
Again, it's not the woman's child. It's the parents' child. It's as much the father's as the mother's.
Quote:
Personally, it is to a woman that I give my greatest respect for our human reproductive cycles. They carry the child from inception to birth. They endure all that comes along with such an experience and its responsibility. Is this to say all women are responsible with their carrying of the child? No. Many are not and act very irresponsible. I know this. For the sake of argument I shall focus on those that fulfill their motherly role as universal matron.
You can't do this. It makes your arguments stand on only a non representative percentage of the population. By stating this, you leave out a big argument of abortion: What if a women acts irresponsible during her pregnancy? Drugs, work, risks? Is it still her choice then? If we give all the authority to women concerning this, these instances will become even worse and we simply cannot ignore them.
Quote:
I have no religious preference therefore I am not affected by what any religion says concerning this issue. I do attend a presbyterian church regularly with my wife but this holds no weight in my decision-making process. I consider them to be an uplifting group of people that like to sing and pray.
I am not religious in any way, and I refuse to be because of it's stance on issues like this one and others combined with the fact that only men can become priests. (back to your earlier comment about thinking like a man on this subject - it's no wonder religion is against abortion with an "only men" philosophy)
Quote:
I am left with an unarguable stance when confronted by a woman declaring her rights as the child's mother. I consider the role of a mother to be vital to child raising. I consider the role of a father to be very important but not vital. To sum it up, I believe the fathers are less important than women in this matter.
I do not consider the role of a mother to be vital to child raising. I firmly beleive, now that I am a dad, that I could of done it alone. Don't get me wrong - the role of the mother is of utmost importance to a child, but not more so than a father. I beleive you need both. Fathers, for me, are not less important.
I beleive we made women to be more important than men. Our laws reflect what I am trying to say.
I say it's time for men to take responsibility of their actions, and get involved in pregnancy. Men can and do get away with it by leaving the pregnant lady. The system is made this way and this reinforces our beleifs that women should decide. It should not be this way. It is this way because for a long time politicians where men and they did not want to take responsibility for their actions as fathers. Parenting is as much a men's thing as it is a women's.
Finally, as you may have noticed, i am very much for abortion as there are too many instances where it just can't be ignored. To be a man and to be against shows that you cannot put yourself in a women's position. You can't imagine getting raped and carrying your aggresor's child.
Consis, I am not attacking you. Please don't take is this way. In fact, I wanted to thank you for starting such an interesting argument. I have so much to say about abortion that I just can't comment on the other issues, but my thought are inline with yours on the other 2 subjects.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 07:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes I'm sure the ancient hebrews were very much aware of a human embryo. They must have been highly knowledgable through the use of their advanced technology such as highly developed clay pots and water extracting devices(or perhaps their mules simply explained the process of egg and spermatazoan inutero fertilization). The mind wonders how such advanced technology existed back then!
Um...those new bible translations might be a tiny bit off-key; just a thought. I betcha bort would have a field day with this one.
Well Consis i was speaking as one who belives the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
From this perspective ancient Hebrew technology is irrelevent as the designer of reproduction holds all the information that we ever need to know about the whole proccess.
Humans have to look outside their own understanding to answer these kind of issues otherwise we just go round in circles, never really finding answers and just being content to believe that their is no right or wrong; only opinion.
We complain about the demise of of morality in our time, but then fuel it by our own system of thinking. If God not be the final authority on the issue of abortion then who?
If the bible not be the authority on Gods word reguarding what is right or wrong, then what?
The human race is just left guessing, and prone to circular argumentation until there is agreement on who has the authority to answer these questions.
I am well aware that this post is going to be offensive to a lot of people even as i write it, but what i am trying to address here is what do you all hope to achieve by contributing to this thread ?
To those who want to have the question over abortion resolved once and for all i direct you to the bible
for the answers.
For those of you who do not want the answer and just want an endless debate with nothing that can be agreed upon, then this post is not for you, so just ignore it.
My final offering in this discussion. If anyone wants to talk about the accuracy of modern translation then open another thread.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 15, 2005 09:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well Consis i was speaking as one who belives the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
From this perspective ancient Hebrew technology is irrelevent as the designer of reproduction holds all the information that we ever need to know about the whole proccess.
Humans have to look outside their own understanding to answer these kind of issues otherwise we just go round in circles, never really finding answers and just being content to believe that their is no right or wrong; only opinion.
We complain about the demise of of morality in our time, but then fuel it by our own system of thinking. If God not be the final authority on the issue of abortion then who?
If the bible not be the authority on Gods word reguarding what is right or wrong, then what?
The human race is just left guessing, and prone to circular argumentation until there is agreement on who has the authority to answer these questions.
I am well aware that this post is going to be offensive to a lot of people even as i write it, but what i am trying to address here is what do you all hope to achieve by contributing to this thread ?
To those who want to have the question over abortion resolved once and for all i direct you to the bible
for the answers.
For those of you who do not want the answer and just want an endless debate with nothing that can be agreed upon, then this post is not for you, so just ignore it.
My final offering in this discussion. If anyone wants to talk about the accuracy of modern translation then open another thread.
Well at one point you claim that all moral discussions is circular if you dont bring God (Or a god) into the picture. And in the next you claim that the Bible is the final answer to any moral question, eventhough you agree that there may be problems with both translations and interpretations.
For the sake of argument, I will initially give you that God is the author of the Bible, and that he offcourse knew about embryos, but since the people he passed the bible down too, didnt know about embryos, he couldnt give specific instructions. Such as, when the spermatoza reaches the egg and fertilize it, it is considered a human being. It is wrong to kill. Ergo arbotion is morally wrong.
But this just opens up a can of worms.
Because know it is a question of interpretation of the bible. No matter if you like it or not. The New testament was written down sometimes in the 2. century AD. I will go along and say that it was written precisely as God intended it, because the human authors was possesed by the hand of God. But up untill the 15. century AD the Bible had to be reproduced manually (Untill Guthenberg invented the printing press) So to avoid human errors in copying the Bible, we need to assume that every copy was inspired by the hand of God.
Well, unfortunately we have copies that have discrepancies, so how do we know which copy is the real one?
And this is even before we talk about the problem of translations. In my version of the Bible (The official dansish version) there is no mention of "foster" which is the equivalent of the english word "fetus". So basically I could interpret the Bible completely different than you , and still hold to the scripture.
Offcourse this explains the multitude of different Christian sects that exist in this day and age.
A second rather large problem with moral=religion. Is the fact that what if I hold the Qu`ran to be the final authority, or The Baghavad Gita.
It is possible to discuss moral problems without having to resort to divine judgment as a foundation. Kants Kategorical Imperative is a good example as well as Mills utilitarianism.
My point merely being that to boil down such a large issue as abortion to a matter of reading the Bible, is not very productive, considering that there is alot of people that are not Christians, and I have talked to Christians who doesnt oppose abortions. One of their reasons being that the Bible didnt ban it, it was a Papal decree from 1462 (Dont hang me about the year, it might be my memory that tricks me into remembering it as that) that did just that.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2005 04:45 PM |
|
|
Will anyone not comment on my post??? Consis? Bort?
I thought I wrote something that has always been against other beleifs in the subject. I've never met someone that thinks like this so I *think* some are just not interested in this thread....  That's too bad because I thought it was a great thread, Consis 
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 09, 2005 04:40 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 8 Mar 2005
|
Ok Conan I'm Ready
Quote:
You are not the first to bring this up. It takes 2 to create life. So the 2 sides are just as important when it comes to authority on the matter. The fact that the women is carrying the child is not a valid argument. If men took their responsibilities, the choice should be as much his than her's. The future baby will affect the man's life as much as the woman's. The nine month pregnancy is not what is important here: it's the impact of a baby on the father and the mother. A mother cannot take the dicision to force a man to have a kid. Nor Vice-versa. It is not up to one partner to decide. - It is up to both.
Perhaps this is one of the things wrong with my country. Legally speaking, most men are forced take an active role in the responsibility you speak of. It is a fact that most children in my country are brought up by a single mother.
Quote:
The question about having the right to kill an unborn - yet alive - child is not so simple as to say: "No, it's alive, I won't kill it!". Actually, as Aculias said, think of rape. In the States, capital punishment is allowed... and this fetus carries the raper's genes. It's just a personal choice.
I have seen no definitive evidence that proves the act of rape is genetic in origin.
Quote:
It's not the woman's child. It's the parents' child. It's as much the father's as the mother's.
I completely agree. But consider the fact that single mothers are raising most of the children in my country. As a whole, this is extremely influencial in the mind of many American citizens. It is still a common belief that women are the ones who should raise the children.
Quote:
What if a women acts irresponsible during her pregnancy? Drugs, work, risks? Is it still her choice then? If we give all the authority to women concerning this, these instances will become even worse and we simply cannot ignore them.
Again I agree completely but this is not the general consensus of my country. More women are thought of responsible for being able to do all the work of a mother and the work of holding a job. To be a single mother seems an immense undertaking of great responsibility to me.
Quote:
I do not consider the role of a mother to be vital to child raising.
Roughly 90% of my country would not only disagree but get angry at hearing you say this. This is a very strong sentiment everywhere I've been in America.
Quote:
I firmly believe, now that I am a dad, that I could of done it alone. Don't get me wrong - the role of the mother is of utmost importance to a child, but not more so than a father. I beleive you need both. Fathers, for me, are not less important.
Very true. I simply don't know how to implement such a philosophy with so many single mothers in reality.
Quote:
I say it's time for men to take responsibility of their actions, and get involved in pregnancy. Men can and do get away with it by leaving the pregnant lady. The system is made this way and this reinforces our beliefs that women should decide. It should not be this way. It is this way because for a long time politicians were men and they did not want to take responsibility for their actions as fathers. Parenting is as much a men's thing as it is a women's.
If I ever meet you in real life I will buy you a handful of your favorite beers. Drinks are on me for one night.
Quote:
I am very much for abortion as there are too many instances where it just can't be ignored. To be a man and to be against shows that you cannot put yourself in a woman's position. You can't imagine getting raped and carrying your aggresor's child.
I can't even begin to try. If this was the case I would support whatever decision she chose to make.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 14, 2006 04:50 AM |
|
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 14, 2006 04:54 AM |
|
|
Step in line Violent Flower.
I want a piece of COnsis before you can get your hands on him 
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2006 09:13 PM |
|
|
Disclaimer: What follows is my opinion.
I support abortion, contraception, etc. I even support choice when the fetus is in the third trimester, or if the mother is not a victim of rape. If the mother wants to have an abortion for any reason, she should be able to do so. Why?
1. The fetus is part of her body. She can do anything with her body that she likes. If she can't support a child, she can abort it. If she doesn't want to go through labor pains (medication would avoid it, but, if she does...), she can abort it. If she doesn't want a child for any reason, she can abort it.
2. Even if the fetus was not considered part of her body, the fetus is far from being a person. I define a person as one who can reason logically. I realize that my definition alienates many humans who are already born, but I don't care. For me, not all humans are "persons". The mentally ill are not "persons".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 01, 2007 01:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The mentally ill are not "persons".
And what makes you say they are not Persons?
They are just like us, but they have a little problem with them, that is all, but they are still person's.
I can't believe you would even say something like that, that is totally wrong imo.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 01, 2007 02:56 PM |
|
|
They are not people by definition. They are insane. I consider that, for someone to be a person, they have to be able to reason. Thus, the insane are ruled out.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 01, 2007 06:32 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 02:59, 02 Jan 2007.
|
Hmm . . .
I have heard this opinion before somewhere, Mvassilev. I don't recall exactly from who at the moment. I'm not sure if your argument is entirely void of logic . . . but neither am I convinced that it carries any discernible degree of mercy and compassion with it.
I argue that what ever opinion you may have of the less fortunate, why not add a small bit of sympathy? Aren't there times when a person (as described by your definition) finds his or her self has unwittingly fallen prey to some debilitating ailment or condition? For example: a high feverish illness--altering mental capability . . . or . . . something like Lou Gehrig's disease(amyotrophic lateral sclerosis)?
You see Mvassilev, the question of what defines a human being as a "person" is much more complex than some of us might think it to be. It is not so easily generalized. Indeed I would say this question is at the heart of all civilization's evolution. If a someone is not defined as a "person" then many of their rights become automatically forefeit. You are not American and so I don't know the history of Australian law progression. But one example of this lays in the American's most sacred and highest document for the law of our land: the Constitution. In it, our founding fathers all signed their names to an historical document describing those human beings of dark skin color as "3/5-ths of a person". And that is only in the field of law study. In medicine and diagnosing patients you may find a plethora of unending documented illnesses which do not simply take away all that defines a human being's "person" over night. In fact some of these diseases affect a person in a very insidious way, slowly eroding their lives away like a stream of water over hardened rock. Eventually the water of the stream may very well cut the rock in twain or erode it entirely away. So too might an illness gradually cut asunder that which has brought definition to our lives or perhaps remove it in its entirety.
I argue that compassion, mercy, and an educated ability to sympathize are all part of what paints the human of all beings with the most brilliant color of all: Greatness
EDIT: CORRECTED TO WHOM I WAS RESPONDING. I WAS ADDRESSING MVASSILEV AND NOT TROGDOR. PLEASE EXCUSE ME FOR MY MISTAKE.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 01, 2007 07:16 PM |
|
|
"Trogdor"? I think you made a mistake, Consis. I'm Mvass.
If people are striken with a dehabilitating disease that makes them unable to reason, then they cease to be "persons".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 02, 2007 02:55 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 02:58, 02 Jan 2007.
|
I'm So Sorry Mvassilev,
I must be getting very old and forgetful. You're right. I was addressing you and not Trogdor. This is very embarassing for me. Please forgive me.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 02, 2007 03:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"Trogdor"? I think you made a mistake, Consis. I'm Mvass.
If people are striken with a dehabilitating disease that makes them unable to reason, then they cease to be "persons".
Everyone can reason some are just not being able to do it, there is a difference between not reasoning and not being able, if you get what I am saying.
I classify humans as people, regardless if they cannot reason or have some disease, it does not make them not a person now does it?
I disagree with your eway of thinking here.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted January 02, 2007 02:05 PM |
|
|
I'm not big on this topic, which is strange because I tend to argue to the death on most big topics
But basically, I think contraception is taken for granted nowadays (with exceptions).
On abortion, I think that it's better to use contraception than to have an abortion obviously, and that abortions are too common atm, but I'm in no way against them. It can be needed, in certain circumstances, like rape, or when the girl is so young that childbirth could kill her, or if the woman can't support a child. But in most cases, abortion should be the ABSOLUTE LAST option because it's a bit extreme killing an unborn child, especially if you're just some stupid woman who had a few too many drinks and got knocked up.
But then it's a new age it's becoming more acceptable.
As for stem cell research, we're going to have to do it. It'll give us so many advances in medicine and other science that it should prove invaluable.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted January 02, 2007 03:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I define a person as one who can reason logically. I realize that my definition alienates many humans who are already born, but I don't care. For me, not all humans are "persons". The mentally ill are not "persons".
I realize this is straying off topic, but I cannot let this pass.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others... Well well
Following your logic, a computer with an artificial intelligence advanced enough to reason logically would be considered a person, but that would not count for someone of old age, suffering from beginning dementia, or a drunk fellow.
Does that mean you can abort them too? Just a thought...
By the way, most scientists agree that the core traits that set us humans apart from most animals, are our ability to abstrahize, and state of mind. Those two translate loosely into logic reasoning and compassion.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 02, 2007 05:51 PM |
|
|
Nidhgrin,
I do not know this word, "abstrahize" . . . ??? . . .I looked in my dictionary and could not find it.
There is plenty of talk about logic, reason, and intelligence. And what about a human being's soul? Doesn't that count for anything? Do we not have more than the sum of our parts?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 02, 2007 05:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is plenty of talk about logic, reason, and intelligence. And what about a human being's soul? Doesn't that count for anything? Do we not have more than the sum of our parts?
The Soul is probably what makes the person, without a Soul then what is a person?
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted January 02, 2007 06:01 PM |
|
|
Hmm . . .
I 'googled' the word "abstrahize" and found only 24 hits. By those links that I read, it seems that the word means: To Stylize Or To Share Sensations.
I wonder if the root word is "Abstract". I wonder if this is a new way in which people are describing how to ~make personal abstractions~ of some kind.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted January 02, 2007 07:08 PM |
|
|
Mvass to say anyone is no longer a "person" because they don't fit your picture of a perfect healthy human being is one of the most offensive things I've seen written here.
My brother is a special needs child - does that mean his life no longer has value? No - he functions at the same capacity as a 7-8 year old (he is 16 now) so yes, he has a mental disability, but he does have some ability. Does that mean that his level of functioning (that of a 7 year old) is not acceptable to achieve "person" status? If so, does that mean that children under the age of 8 are no longer "persons"?
It makes me terribly sad to see someone who has such disregard for life and humanity. My brother (and everyone like him) deserves to be treated with dignity, they deserve to have the best quality of life that they possibly can. Maybe they aren't able to "reason" in a way that satisfies you, and thats why people need to advocate for them and defend them against people like you.
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
