Who needs science and thought when you religion tells you it is wrong? It MUST be wrong then... right? Oh... wait... slavery, women, flat earth, crusades, shirts above the ankle, music, dancing, jewish people, astronomy I guess every organization has a few bad guesses.
What does the biological mother have to do with anything? The new born baby will need someone to leech off of? Besides, any definition of a human being depending on an other human being is inadequate because you would not be able to define who first human being was.
so when it can leave its original host then? okinrus, as i understand it, we are defining a person as opposed to a part of the mother's body. that is, when it becomes its own separate entity.
What does it matter? Why are you arguing about a baby's needs, when you have already stated that a cell is important. Lets not confuse this, okinrus. When, is a human a human? Please tell us. Or, could it be a matter of viability? I could get pregnant a hundred times, offer you the fetus in the first trimester each and every time and not only would you not be able to do anything about it survival, but you wouldn't be able to make it viable once it has attached itself to another host. So, the bottom line is that you feel it's right to make people suffer for their mistakes, and possibly die for a potential life that only has a 1 in 3 chance of making it to second trimester anyway. Don't you think you are selfish? Tell me another thing, would you adopt a child if given the chance? Don't get me wrong, I think that we have failed in the way we handle abortions. I think that at every abortion clinic there MUST be a adoption counsellor to explain to women all of their options. I think that we must better educate the women of today on their responsibility and not just let them waltz into any clinic and terminate their pregnancy as a form of birth control. I think that we need a registry of women (somehow encoded to protect these women from the zealots and fanatics who could hurt them) that records the number of pregnancies a woman aborts, and somehow punishes the ones who DO use it as a form of birth control. But I also believe that there should be DNA testing of the aborted fetus also in a registry to nail irresponsible fathers. And I am not talking light punishment. I am talking jail time, or the option of voluntary sterilization. A hard line, I know but one that is absolutely needed when I see cases of 24 year old women who've had 6-12 abortions in their life time, and men who have fathered 20-30 children by different women and demand that they get abortions. Encroaching on civil rights? Yes. But if you irresponsibly harm others and continue repeating the offense then you indeed need to have some responsibility for your actions. As I've said, I am pro-choice but I am pro-choice with responsilibity.
Some adoption counselors will have a bias. Some who jail others for transgressions will have bias. Under negative eforcement, from a spanking or a slap to jail time (and often strange undisclosed forms of torture) or execution, people don't learn. Are we only to act after the fact? NO. We need to sponsor some real research and education and make it easily accessible and highly recommended as trustworthy. We need to demonstrate and share positive reinforcing experience. So far, the information conflagration includes much of propaganda where human concerns are given low priority. Institutions, beliefs, and philosophical doctrines actively pursue disseminating misinformation with a violent agenda. I think we need a new social paradigm not based on destructive competition. That is what a call for education can only entail if it is not for just more propaganda. The way we organize is infantile. From the priesthoods we find actual organization and efforts to thwart human compassion. Our so-called governments usually serve those who conspire against various factions of the population. Sexism, racism, capitalism, communism, all of the religions to varying degrees, promulgate the idea that there is something of greater importance than the individual. This is wrong. It is a common root to much controversial violence in the world. Abortion, pro and con, to any extreme, is only just another example of the failure of our current social experiments. The ongoing conflict is evidence that the information system known as society is not carrying the message of how to best deal with most situations to the population as a whole in a way that brings truth to bear. There must be a place where force and power are kept to compassionate and reasonable ends, where they do not corrupt but aid us in our common needs. If we find that place, we will probably go far. If not, we will continue to suffer to greater extent until we expire. Does intelligent life survive its own information explosion? We'll need to learn how to filter out the spam, big and small, and formulate valid policies, pretty soon too.
Oh sure. But the reality of what is now still has to be dealt with. I have always stated that we need to educate and change our society before we can every really solve any of the main issues that we have. Only with bettering ourselves can the sense of doing wrong, and being wronged start to fade. Today's society is quick to blame, and not quick enough to teach. Religion, quite honestly exasperates the current problem by forcing unreal standards and morals on its followers. Religion is too archaic to see that we need to evolve and shed the prejudices and superstitions of the past to begin to move towards a world where society is wholly responsible for itself. By teaching young children that it is not okay to use birth control, it doesn't tell them to not have sex, but that they should never try to prevent pregnancy. By preaching from a pulpit that children at cherished and welcomed into the world, we can also promote over-population. We need to see youth as what they are. Imaginative, passionate people with a thought process all their own, and moral codes that are immature and under developed. We need to reinforce consequences and responsibility for individuals’ actions and not just condemn all things as a whole. Every person has a different experience with life, but we can still teach people to be socially responsible to all people and not just to themselves. The balance will not come in my generation, nor the generation of my children. But we need to know that it begins with me. It begins with you. It begins when you start leading by example, and not just being a mindless follower. It begins when we take responsibility for each other, and our world as a whole. It begins when we understand that each and every word that is spoken and heard is a ripple of power that can spread like wildfire both in good and bad ways. Removing bias, however, because of human nature is not possible. There are factors of the human brain that instinctually like or dislike specific outside stimuli. For instance, there are certain sounds and smells that your body rejects as repugnant or irritating, it can be said that you are biased against these things because your mind tells you that it doesn't like them. It is also that way with faces, and people. It's unavoidable, but can be somewhat alleviated by tolerance training. But to say that we need a world without bias is an unattainable goal, and not at all realistic. Back to the subject at hand; abortion. We need to change our approach, in that we need to understand that humans are fallible and teach compassion and understanding. We need to educate at young ages, but we also need to get people to understand responsibility. That you can't continuously be irresponsible, or you will be held responsible by society as a whole (laws). In my opinion, religion also needs to be held accountable for it's misdirection and crimes against humanity. All these religious zealots and fanatics that camp outside clinics and shoot doctors and nurses should be condemned and not exalted by their churches and organizations. Tolerance is the only things we can arm our youth with that will give them the tools for a better society. Start today.
Are you even reading what I say? I said that even a cell shows signs of wanting it's survival? True, it's not conciously aware of what dying means but neither is one-year-old baby. My opinion on whether the fetus is human is not important. This whole host-leech theory is entirely meaningless because it cannot be used as an universal theory. It cannot tell us whether it's ethical to keep someone on life support or even medical care. Your being two-sided. What makes you certain the pregnacy was a mistake? You were the one who brought the God will argument, so you must also accept the consequences. It was God's will that some women becomes pregnant. Like I said before, your 1 in 3 chance is invaild. You aren't even beginning Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Right now I would not be able to create a suitable home for the child but there are plenty of parents who are willing to adopt children. Well, this will be a difficult, I think. There have been some pro-lifers who want to destroy abortion gradually, step by step since depending upon what we are able to do. I think there's some wisdom in that, but In most cases the counsellor called for is a psychologist. Since the required counsellor will undermind the women's "right" to cheap abortions, it's unlikely the pro-choicers will support it. This is unlikely to be supported by pro-lifers because it involves spending of tax money to go towards abortions, though I do think it can be done. Anyway, isn't abortion either wrong or right? I don't think you can support that it's partially wrong without undermining your position.
Then I guess that is what it boils down to, isn't it. Consciousness. It is unavoidably important, since it is you that is condeming abortion for being wrong. And yet somehow, other than God you can not coherantly explain why. Totally different. And also a strawman like the majority of your argument. It was you who brought God into this. I am an atheist, but I am questioning your beliefs and your God because they are illogical and based on superstition and not fact. I have given you facts, and you blatently ignore them and say they are invalid. See next quote: Explain to me, how the scientific fact that only one in three fertilized eggs actually becomes a viable human is invalid in any way. It points to the fact that you value potential life greater than you value existing life. This is quite possibly the second most stupid comment you have contributed to this thread. So, it's more important to stop abortion than to give women an alternative. Do you understand how illogical and irrational that is to your arguement or is that banner still blinding you? Abortion rights, the right to choose and follow through on that choice is right. That's what I've been saying all along. And whether or not I personally agree or disagree is not logical to add to this arguement, it's purely emotional... and everyone who knows how to debate knows that leaving most emotion out of a debate lends to a much better arguement. You can't seem to make any points, and your view is based on emotion and superstition. Your close-mindedness and immaturity in debating makes argueing with you that much more frustrating.
I wouldn't say that. I remember the first time I became sick. I suppose that's the earliest memory of my childhood, and I suppose this memory is quite early. Most kids don't understand what death is until they are at least four years old. It was you who brought God into this. It was you who first gave us the "God will" argument. If you need to remember, I'm quoting a passage that you said a few passages above. Your obviously using God who you do not believe in to insult. The character of which you said "God is the only judge" would be taken you believe in some type of God. <i><b>But who ultimately pays the price when reckoning day comes? You, or the person who made the choice. You can choose to force your will and morals on others, but that just proves how weak you really are to God. You are not a judge. He is the only judge in the end, and it is not your right to choose the paths of others. Or maybe you are so self-righteous that you believe that you are above the will and judgement of God, hmm? Don't you think that if he wanted to stop it, he could intervene? Or do you not think your God that powerful? Think about these things before you condemn people for your personal values and beliefs. You are not "saving" anyone or anything with your speechs and diatribes, you are only looking like a lost fool that does not know or understand the will of your God.</i></b> You're worst than self-righteous. You use a God you do not believe in to hurt, something I've never done. I've never given or heard anyone say such repulsive things to God while at the same time not believing in God. Am I to suppose you were trying to make me upset, or did God truly tell you abortion is right? You attempt to use God when it suits you because God to you is only a symbol, something to use in argument. For me, God is much more important; God has saved my life many times. Your're not listening. Any definition of life that undermines our healthcare system is wrong. I've already stated that I do not consider the fetus potential life but life.
How is challenging your beliefs hurting you? You can't be serious. Tell you what. When you can be logical, and can argue without emotion and "life experiences" that no one can prove you wrong on, be sure to return and have a good solid debate with us. When you can come back with logical points on why you think abortion is "wrong", you let us know because as far as I am concerned many people have made great points in this thread, and you have made none. Until then, it is you that are not listening. It is you that does not see, and can not make a point and stick to it. Let us know when you can open your mind to all possibilities, and not just the ones you believe in your "heart".
I did not say they hurt me but they were clearly intended to hurt. I don't really give arguments against abortion based upon the Bible because most pro-choicers do not believe in enough of the Bible. Now if you actually had read this thread, you would have realized that the religion is mentioned by the OP to say that some religious do not believe abortion is wrong. Then, I may have mentioned how odd this was, but I don't think I've given any religious arguments whatsoever. I responded to a few allegations by Chip with God but this was only to give a frank answer to his questions. I will continue to argue with emotion because abortion is not an entirely logical issue. I don't think I came to the conclusion that abortion was wrong through religion or logic but through the pictures of the crime. Treating it with only logic would be disingenuous. I also don't feel this forum is place to formally debate a subject but for people to voice what they believe about a subject and state why. Of course, you might disagree but this is my conclusion from the posts made here.
No. This isn't a place for people to simply voice their opinion. That's why people can reply to posts, so they can discuss and debate with others. No one really cares about everyone elses opinion, but we care about the thoughts behind them and want to search for the truth about it all. If it was as you say it is, then it would be called "Diatribes" or "Preaching" and not an open forum. If you want to make people believe your opinion on things, you have come to the wrong place. If you want to challenge yourself, and become a better thinker then you indeed understand the world of internet forums. Despite all the petty bullshit that goes on around here, there are a lot of people who do want to be open-minded freethinkers and not just listen to people talk.
This is not what I meant. I don't believe this is the place for formal debates that require the most precise presentation of evidence. Sure, it's a requirement that people putforth what they believe to be true, but I don't expect people to write a research paper on these forums. Emotions are not in the realm of opinions. I think you've severly underestimated emtions. Is murder wrong to people because it is logically wrong to them? Or is it because people fear their own death? The emotional loss of love ones? If people did not fear death, would killing be wrong to you?
Did you suddenly forget the topic? An abortion is stopping those cells from leaching off it's BIOLOGICAL mother. Any alternative is impractical. A new born can leech off just about anyone who cares to help... and doesn't NEED the biological mother.
Everyone, I'm just going to warn you guys a little bit. If you cannot respect someone on a forum, then your certainly not going to respect an unborn, or any other life. If someone, such as me, says something you consider "stupid" just shrug it off as a moment of stupidity. If it really deserves a comment, then there are ways of doing it nicely. Anyway, we are dependent on a host of other human beings, some by fate, some chosen. A newborn cannot choose who will help. If the parents do not find someone suitable for helping the newborn, then they can be charged with neglect. If the parents find that they are not capable of taking care of the child, they can be charged with neglect. This is plainly written down as a matter of law. If someone has a car accident, someone is severely injured, and that someone does not call for help, then that someone can be charged with murder. This has happended before, and I believe the case was ruled in favor of the prosecution.
well, these are unfit parents then, no? a couple alternatives i can see are putting the kid up for adoption or just not conceiving. good samaritan law? personally not a fan. but i cannot see how this relates to the topic, enlighten me please.
Abortion is legal. It is NOT murder. At least not in Canada or the United States. ( I don't know about other countries) And, if someone witnesses an accident or crime and does not contact the police, the best they can be charged with is depraved indifference. The best anyone has gotten is involuntary manslaughter in any case, and even that was eventually overturned by a state supreme court. If you are going to argue the law, you should make sure you know the law. And parents get children taken away all the time for neglect, and they never get a penalty other than losing their children... and they just have more. A mother with a newborn is not a host-parasite as they are two seperate beings living seperately. It is not the same, and you can't use that arguement once the child is born. Being dependant is not the same as being a parasite, which also makes your whole arguement about life support completely invalid as well. It is not the same thing.
The specific case I'm speaking of is more of a hit and run. As I heard on TV the guy was overrun by the lady's car and she freaked out and never went to the police, thereby letting the man bleed to death. This obviously goes a little bit further than neglect but is it really? I don't think so. The driver is not always at fault in a hit and run. In fact, in this case I don't think the driver would be charged with anything had she reported it earlier.
This <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_misc.htm">site</a> says that only 1/3 of pregnacies on average end in miscarriage.
I don't understand the distinction you all are making about parasites. Many parasite that I can think of choose their host. Fleas, for example, jumps quite far to switch hosts. I think, however, this parasite model is more consitent with reality than all that stuff about the fetus being part of the women's body and how the womn gets to choose what to do with her own body.
