|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted July 18, 2009 05:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Again, you are free to hold reasonable, thought out, social and moral views that deny this.
Fixed it for you, my love.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 18, 2009 05:57 AM |
|
|
|
Sorry, killing babies is neither reasonable nor moral.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 18, 2009 06:05 AM |
|
|
Depends on your moral standards and your definition of human. I could call you unreasonable as well, but that won't get us far 
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 05:02 AM |
|
|
How about Richard Nixon?
Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family"...
"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, "Or a rape."
Good old Nixon.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 05:46 AM |
|
|
Sweden ruled it is ok to kill unborn babies for the sole reason of their gender. That is no worse than saying it is ok to kill a baby becuse of his race.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 06:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, "Or a rape."
Good old Nixon.
You'd be surprised how common that view was back then, with both blacks and whites. Mixed marriages were almost unheard of.
____________
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 03:41 PM |
|
|
Uhm why wouldnt it be okey? In the future we will design our children at a much lower price then today anyway. And then that wont be a problem.
And if you find out the gender and want a girl instead of a boy, then killing "the baby" is perfectly fine to me. To me a (f)(a)e(tas)u(s) isnt a 100% human yet and it doesnt matter if kill it or not. For me, it isnt developed enough to be considered a 100% human.
I wouldnt do that myself, but people should be free to do what they feel like (in some cases).
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 05:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For me, it isnt developed enough to be considered a 100% human.
Right, "for you". You're talking as if it's only YOU who gets affected by this.
"For me" a nuke dropped in New York isn't a big deal. 
But that's just me.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 07:04 PM |
|
|
If embryos are really humans as elodin and death argue then Heaven is filled with souls of the embryos.
Between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed. If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 07:28 PM |
|
|
You really can't base humanity on how many people die at any particular age. The life expectency in Swaiziland is 32.23 years (2008 estimate.)
Again, if a fetus/embryo is not human why does it have human DNA, why is it the product of human conception, and what is it? The fetus is a human life in the initial stages of the human life cycle. That seems to be pretty clearly established science to me.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 07:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If embryos are really humans as elodin and death argue then Heaven is filled with souls of the embryos.
Between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed. If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions
I lost track of how many times people, ironically not religious, bring religion into this discussion. I don't argue with that, I don't explain that. If I were to do that, they would call me off topic, have no points, preaching and who knows what else. So I'm sorry if I won't go into that.
I mean how am I supposed to reply to these in a manner that will not drift off topic and later be considered "OMG TheDeath has done it again, he's derailing the topic!!1one!!one  "
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 06:14 AM |
|
|
Since fat cells can now be turned into stem cells should embryonic stem cell research be banned?
So are free liposuctions in the future now? Will you be able to make a living selling your fat?
"So what do you do for a living?"
"I sit around drinking beer and eating pizza--I get fat. All for science..."
Clicky
Quote:
The method that uses fat cells can be as much as six weeks faster, Wu said, because the cells retrieved through liposuction are so plentiful, they can start reprogramming right away and have iPS cells in about two weeks.
"We've been focused -- Dr. Wu's Lab and my lab -- on fat because there's just so much of it," said study co-author Dr. Michael Longaker, a plastic surgeon and stem cell biologist at Stanford. "Unfortunately, it's a great resource in America."
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2009 06:32 AM |
|
|
Yes, since embryonic stem cells are no longer needed, they shouldn't be used.
I jokingly said I really approved of abortion in a previous thread just to see the reactions of some people. Only one person reacted at all.
The catholic church also holds that sperm is human life and must not be obstructed by condoms. *shrug*
Personally I think the whole abortion debate though should be between women because a man has no say over our bodies one way or another. We're not property =D
Abortion is a very hot button topic though, and a lot of people don't even know where they really stand. (I for one, only really approve in the case of rape, incest, etc. Or if the baby endangers the mother's life.) But that's my personal opinion. Some people strongly believe they should have more and that the government shouldn't interfere with them. Others are inclined to let people do what they want even if they see that person as condemning themselves to a terrible afterlife as part of the stigma of free will.
It's really not a pleasant topic to discuss at all.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 15, 2009 08:28 PM |
|
|
*bump*
I don't even know what to think of this crazy new story.
Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:
Angry Utah legislators are moving to close a legal loophole that bars prosecuting a teenager who allegedly hired a man to beat her to induce a late-term miscarriage.
The legislative move stems from outrage that the teenage girl, whose identity is being withheld because of her age, was released from jail. She was seven months pregnant at the time of the attack.
The furor erupted after Judge Larry Steele ruled that while the teen's actions were "shocking and crude," they fit the state's definition for an abortion and, therefore, she "cannot be held criminally liable for her actions."
The Utah abortion statute says it is a crime to perform an abortion on a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, but ensures that there would be no criminal penalties for a woman seeking an abortion.
The statute also defines an abortion as "any and all procedures" taken to kill a "live unborn child," and doesn't specify that it has to be done by a medical professional to qualify as an abortion under the law.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2009 10:26 PM |
|
|
What I want to know is why she didn't just get an abortion earlier.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 15, 2009 11:45 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:47, 15 Oct 2009.
|
Quote:
Some conservative state representatives argue that Steele misread the statute and that any woman who tries to perform an abortion without the help of a medical professional, much like this teen allegedly did, should be eligible for murder charges.
"The law says a woman can't be prosecuted for having an abortion, but I wouldn't declare this an attempted abortion. She tried to kill the unborn baby and to me, that is outright attempted murder," said State Rep. Paul Ray.
If course I don't believe in any abortion not done to save the life of the mother but this sounds very vile and like murder to me. The baby was beaten to death. I don't see how the judge calls this an abortioin. I think the judge must be "pro-abortion" and just wants to let the woman off.
Anyways, it is good that the legislature is trying to make sure some judge can't decide that such things don't qualify as a crime in the future.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 01, 2010 11:51 PM |
|
|
*bump* again.
The Five-Morning-After Pill: Abortion or Contraception? YOU DECIDE.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 02:57 AM |
|
|
|
It kills a fertilized egg and thus it kills a human life. Abortion. Murder.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 01:47 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:50, 16 Mar 2010.
|
Continued from the human stupidity thread:
Quote:
That's not even true, if I recall correctly, abut 60% of the cells in the human body is not even your own cells. It's bacterias and other kinds of cells. That means that at LEAST 60% of your cells have a different DNA than you. How ever, you do raise valid points, and indeed do make sense. I still disagree though. As long as the baby is inside the mother, it is part of her, and it's up to her what to do with it.
EDIT: This is an age old question. We all agree murder is wrong, and murder is when you kill a living human being. So the question is: "When does "life" begin?" Ancient it is! Saying that all living cells is "alive" would mean that killing a tree is murder. Saying that all animalistic cells are "alive" would mean killing a rabit, or even killing bacteria would be murder. Saying that all human, or human to be cells are "alive" would mean that every man propably kills thousands every night, and women become murderers every month or so.
I guess we can all agree on that at least, right?
I doubt your stats for 60$ of the cells in the human body not even being human, but that is beside the point. The fetus has human DNA and so is human. The DNA is also unique, different from that of the mother, and so the fetus is a UNIQUE human, and in no way can be considered part of the body of the mother.
The question of when life begins is pretty simple. Immediately when conception occurs changes on the surface of the fertilized egg. In fact it should no longer be refered to as an egg becuase it not has the combined chromosomes of the egg and the sperm and is an individual huma life.
An egg or a sperm is a specific cell made by a human body. Neither is a human being. But when the two combine now you a new human life. From that time on it should be protected by the law.
Oh, murder is the killing of an innocent human, not the killing of a carrot or animal.
Quote:
A dead baby will have a different DNA than the mother, inside the mother as well.
Yes, but the cells of a dead baby are dead. They are not multiplying. The cells of a fetus are multiplying which means the fetus is alive.
Quote:
Yes it is an unfortunate birth works, I'd much rather have that the baby could survive independent of the mother, but that's first true after birth with the current technology. We've to respect that the mother is master of her body and she uniquely decides the future of whether that baby will get to alife or not. No one else, as it is her body and she is the one to decide who she supports.
But the fetus has a body as well. She has no right to destroy that body.
Quote:
It's a bit like one of these cases when someone needs a transplant, but there is only one person that can give it. As far as I know in these cases there is no law forcing that one person to give wwhat the other needs.
There is a law forcing parents to provide food, clothing, and shelter to their children and to not otherwise harm their children. The same law should protect the preborn child.
There is absolutely no differnce in aborting a child and smothering it to death in the crib or taking a brick and bashing its skull in. Or in the case of partial birth abortion cutting it up in the crib.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 05:16 AM |
|
|
To be fair, the baby will just reincarnate, and as it won't likely realize what's going on it won't be traumatized or anything, and its soul will be fine.
[/religious opinion]
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
