Lori, YOU think having a child is a blessing. That's your opinion, not a fact. Stop shoving it up my ass and everyone else's, please. I want a child like I want a seizure disorder. I shouldn't have to justify that to avoid being called selfish. It's my life and my choice. That goes for all women.
Abortion
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
- Status
or alternatively, nous in a bit of responsibility
I plan to get surgically sterilized. Responsible enough for you?
Its your body
mordea:
Like many pro-lifers, you seem to be hung up on the religious notion that being human makes you ultra-special, and therefore anything that has a set of human genes is sacrosanct (another religious notion).
It is true that a 2 week old fetus is a human being in terms of its genes, which do not change when it becomes an 80 year old human being later on.
But being human is not the important factor in considering the ethics of abortion. Rather, most moral philosophers consider the important factor to be [enc]person[/enc]hood. Thus, they do not ask the question: "Is the fetus human?" That's a no-brainer. They instead ask: "Is the fetus a [enc]person[/enc]?"
There is no glaring inconsistency. Our laws give rights to [enc]person[/enc]s, not human beings per se.
Moreover, there is a scale of rights that ranges from virtually none at conception to full adult rights at age 18 (say). A fetus at conception does not have the right to vote. "Why not? It's a human being!" you argue. Answer: it is not sufficiently developed to have the necessary characteristics considered to be required to gain the right to vote. Similarly, it is not considered to have a right to life sufficient to override the right of its mother to terminate it at this time.
This is a disingenuously silly argument. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for wasting everybody's time. Clearly the term "pro-choice" is used in the specific context of abortion to label one side of the argument. People who label themselves as "pro-choice" on the issue of abortion are not typically "pro-choice" about allowing people to commit crimes. The fact I have to point this out to you just makes you look pretty small.
What about "pro-life" then? Well, you can argue that when people say they are "pro-life" about abortion, it is quite legitimate to ask if they are only "pro-life" on that issue, or "pro-life" in general. So, would you agree, mordea, that many "pro-lifers" are only pro-life when it comes to unborn children, and not generally "pro-life"? If you do, then we may well wonder why these pro-lifers give as their rationale for banning abortion that all life is sacred, when they don't really believe that. Why don't they say what they mean, which is that they consider only unborn human life sacred, and nothing else? That is where the hypocrisy comes in.
Three-year olds are below the age of consent. See above, and stop this silly argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Oh, and by the way, the right to be able to consent to sex is another one of those things that doesn't kick in until a certain age. As you can see, there are many rights that do no accrue at the moment of conception.
Absolutely. The mother, being a [enc]person[/enc], has the choice of what to do with her own body, and that of her unborn fetus that has not yet attained [enc]person[/enc]hood.
Like many pro-lifers, you seem to be hung up on the religious notion that being human makes you ultra-special, and therefore anything that has a set of human genes is sacrosanct (another religious notion).
It is true that a 2 week old fetus is a human being in terms of its genes, which do not change when it becomes an 80 year old human being later on.
But being human is not the important factor in considering the ethics of abortion. Rather, most moral philosophers consider the important factor to be [enc]person[/enc]hood. Thus, they do not ask the question: "Is the fetus human?" That's a no-brainer. They instead ask: "Is the fetus a [enc]person[/enc]?"
mordea said:
There is no glaring inconsistency. Our laws give rights to [enc]person[/enc]s, not human beings per se.
Moreover, there is a scale of rights that ranges from virtually none at conception to full adult rights at age 18 (say). A fetus at conception does not have the right to vote. "Why not? It's a human being!" you argue. Answer: it is not sufficiently developed to have the necessary characteristics considered to be required to gain the right to vote. Similarly, it is not considered to have a right to life sufficient to override the right of its mother to terminate it at this time.
mordea said:
This is a disingenuously silly argument. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for wasting everybody's time. Clearly the term "pro-choice" is used in the specific context of abortion to label one side of the argument. People who label themselves as "pro-choice" on the issue of abortion are not typically "pro-choice" about allowing people to commit crimes. The fact I have to point this out to you just makes you look pretty small.
What about "pro-life" then? Well, you can argue that when people say they are "pro-life" about abortion, it is quite legitimate to ask if they are only "pro-life" on that issue, or "pro-life" in general. So, would you agree, mordea, that many "pro-lifers" are only pro-life when it comes to unborn children, and not generally "pro-life"? If you do, then we may well wonder why these pro-lifers give as their rationale for banning abortion that all life is sacred, when they don't really believe that. Why don't they say what they mean, which is that they consider only unborn human life sacred, and nothing else? That is where the hypocrisy comes in.
mordea said:
Three-year olds are below the age of consent. See above, and stop this silly argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Oh, and by the way, the right to be able to consent to sex is another one of those things that doesn't kick in until a certain age. As you can see, there are many rights that do no accrue at the moment of conception.
mordea said:
Absolutely. The mother, being a [enc]person[/enc], has the choice of what to do with her own body, and that of her unborn fetus that has not yet attained [enc]person[/enc]hood.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Don't do that it will lead to early menopause.
i'm arguing this from an idealist perspective. personally, i would want to live in a world where having a child is always a blessing. where people who weren't willing to mate didn't have sex, and a society and culture that supported that. i think it would be good for everyone. but, that would be very far from our current society and culture wouldn't that?
i think the fact that we have to resort to latex shields on our genitals, and devices, and pills, and surgeries to be able to cope with procreation indicates that there is something very wrong with us.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Doesn't sound ideal to me. I like the fact that there are so many different ways of dealing with procreation, what's even more exciting is that science and technology will come up with better and more efficient ways in the future.
Geez.
iow, "humans are greater than god. we have a better way."
do you not recognize this shit from every religious text ever written? hello...
can you honestly say that we live an "ideal" way of life?
i'm arguing this in the "utopia" thread. do you like and/or promote any of these things...greed, lust, vanity, sloth, envy, pride, wrath? can you not see that if those attributes were ridden from human dna that we would be living in a much better place? you know, the kind of place where children might be a blessing?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Who is 'we'? What do you consider 'ideal'? I think for example that my life in south east asia right now as 'ideal', it wouldn't be for others.
Lust is good.
Not everyone is greedy, nor slothful, nor envious, nor vain, prideful or wrathful. I would not want to see all those qualities washed away as there would be nothing to write about, no great novels, never mind films. Could you imagine the dearth in a Shakespeare play without all those attributes? Life without conflict frankly would be a bore. Children are a blessing for those who want them.
God didn't create us wearing clothes, either. Do you think we should all go naked so that we won't be greater than God?
I mean, if God is concerned about somebody wearing a condom, then he must be concerned about wearing, say, jeans and a t-shirt and shoes.
not if it means that we have to reconstruct our natural biological functioning to do so
generally jeans and t-shirts don't require us disregard the purpose that parts of our body clearly entail
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
You do realize that not everyone believes in god or even your god. What triumph would there be in life without struggle, obstacle and conflict? Where would lie the glory?
lightgigantic:
I didn't realise that you and Lori are one and the same.
Better not use a handkerchief, because that disregards the purpose that a runny nose clearly entails.
Better not use your fingers to type on a computer, because God didn't create computers for us. Clearly he didn't intend for us to subvert the natural purposes of our fingers for such evil.
Never get a haircut, because that would disregard the purpose that growing hair clearly entails. God makes our hair grow, so to cut it would be sacrilegious.
Never wear shoes, because that would disregard the purpose of our toes, which are useless in shoes.
I didn't realise that you and Lori are one and the same.
Better not use a handkerchief, because that disregards the purpose that a runny nose clearly entails.
Better not use your fingers to type on a computer, because God didn't create computers for us. Clearly he didn't intend for us to subvert the natural purposes of our fingers for such evil.
Never get a haircut, because that would disregard the purpose that growing hair clearly entails. God makes our hair grow, so to cut it would be sacrilegious.
Never wear shoes, because that would disregard the purpose of our toes, which are useless in shoes.
Moderator note:
From this point in the thread, discussion has been merged with discussion from the following thread (to avoid splitting the same discussion across two threads):
[thread=100650]Pro-lifers explain your perspective for me please[/thread]
From this point in the thread, discussion has been merged with discussion from the following thread (to avoid splitting the same discussion across two threads):
[thread=100650]Pro-lifers explain your perspective for me please[/thread]
I didn't realize you had a personal policy of never posting responses out of turn
the purpose of a runny nose being?
actually the ethics of action in religion deal more with utility - or for what purposes one is using something - more than anything else.
So if one insists on using a computer along the same lines as using a condom, then yeah, they're probably better off not using a computer
utility is the principle, as opposed to sitting on one's laurels waiting for god to serve us with a silver platter
hair has many purposes, as do finger nails (thats why some people have them long and others short I guess ... ) ... now compare this to what purposes one can assign to one's genitals.
Hmmm.
Extra storage space?
Coat hook perhaps?
what on earth do you use your toes for that makes wearing a pair of shoes dysfunctional?
(while its perfectly clear what one is trying to render as dysfunctional while wearing a condom)
lightgigantic:
I don't know. God must have wanted us to suffer colds, I guess. Oh, that reminds me. Better not use any drugs to fight off the symptoms, either.
The main uses I can think of for a condom are to prevent sexually communicated infections and to prevent procreation. So, using a condom for such purposes seems to be in line with its intended purposes.
But creating a method to prevent disease and procreation is a no no, apparently. Some inventions are off limits it seems, but thankfully we can all wear shoes, which you've told me are ok. Phew!
Genitals are useful for urination, for procreation, for masturbation. I've even heard of them being used in a puppet show. Does God approve of puppets, or would he frown on such uses of the genitals?
Ah yes. Thanks for reminding me. They can also be used in drug trafficking. Oh, and they are used in women as an outlet for monthly menstruation. And coat hooks, yes.
Well, if they didn't have any purpose, God wouldn't have put them there, would he? Or does he give us useless body parts? Wait! What's the appendix for? Why did God give us one of those, lightgigantic? I need to know so I don't accidentally subvert the intended purpose of my appendix.
Wearing a condom doesn't make one's penis dysfunctional. It still works just fine.
I don't know. God must have wanted us to suffer colds, I guess. Oh, that reminds me. Better not use any drugs to fight off the symptoms, either.
The main uses I can think of for a condom are to prevent sexually communicated infections and to prevent procreation. So, using a condom for such purposes seems to be in line with its intended purposes.
But creating a method to prevent disease and procreation is a no no, apparently. Some inventions are off limits it seems, but thankfully we can all wear shoes, which you've told me are ok. Phew!
Genitals are useful for urination, for procreation, for masturbation. I've even heard of them being used in a puppet show. Does God approve of puppets, or would he frown on such uses of the genitals?
Ah yes. Thanks for reminding me. They can also be used in drug trafficking. Oh, and they are used in women as an outlet for monthly menstruation. And coat hooks, yes.
Well, if they didn't have any purpose, God wouldn't have put them there, would he? Or does he give us useless body parts? Wait! What's the appendix for? Why did God give us one of those, lightgigantic? I need to know so I don't accidentally subvert the intended purpose of my appendix.
Wearing a condom doesn't make one's penis dysfunctional. It still works just fine.
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
oK... concernin the fareness of punishment an reward... is everbody influenced equaly... does everbody have an equal opportunity to make good choises.???
What is this origional state in which everone is equal.???
When does this occur... befor we are a fertalized egge.???
“ Does one have total control of how the ball gets rollin.??? ”
“ Besides ourselfs... whats anuther factor that influences how the ball gets rollin.??? ”
So what causes us to desire to imitate God... to the pont of desidin who shall live or dye... such as killin an unborned baby.???
Do you agree that God intentionaly created humans so defective that many of 'em abuse children???.... ant it also true that people do thangs such as choosin aborton because of the way God created us.???
oK... concernin the fareness of punishment an reward... is everbody influenced equaly... does everbody have an equal opportunity to make good choises.???
What is this origional state in which everone is equal.???
When does this occur... befor we are a fertalized egge.???
“ Does one have total control of how the ball gets rollin.??? ”
“ Besides ourselfs... whats anuther factor that influences how the ball gets rollin.??? ”
So what causes us to desire to imitate God... to the pont of desidin who shall live or dye... such as killin an unborned baby.???
Do you agree that God intentionaly created humans so defective that many of 'em abuse children???.... ant it also true that people do thangs such as choosin aborton because of the way God created us.???
once again, if one's purpose in getting rid of the symptoms are on par with the symptoms one is tring to get rid of by utilizing a condom, then yes, they're probably better off not taking medical treatment of any description
Then I guess that leaves you to explain why one can't achieve practically the same results by a lot simpler method - namely controlling one's self
correction
creating an artificial method (namely killing life) to prevent procreation is a no no
what will happen to your genitals if you don't masturbate?
try doing a puppet show like that at your local primary school and get back to us with your findings
so in short, they fulfill some very essential roles (and a host of unimportant trivial ones ... )
actually it was more about what purpose you are assigning your toes that makes wearing shoes abominable.
As far as the human anatomy goes, I think its probably better to look at those things which have a very clear purpose or function (since there is much about the human anatomy that is guess work or unknown)
(For instance the appendix bears a function in chinese medicine and also there seems to be a few suggestions elsewhere)
It does disable a very clear function it however ... and I am not talking about puppet shows, coat hooks or even masturbation
something like that
think of the original state of the characters in the matrix
the desire to imitate is actually more about having a universal perspective that places one's self in the center (so it goes a lot deeper than merely deciding who will live or die).
As to what causes one to make that decision in the first place, if we are engineered with free will, I think it should be obvious
I don't consider free will a defect.
Do you?
- Status