Zierro

Well, he's talking theoretically and it's definitely debatable but I do agree. There should be a harsh consequence to crossing the line. I feel that this would prevent the line from being crossed as much. Yes, there will be some people who will commit atrocities no matter what the current punishments are, but there are probably also a lot of people who are desensitized to jail and the risk of getting put back there is worth committing another crime in their eyes. What should that harsh consequence be? If you cross someone else's line then your line should be crossed over too. If you feel that an innocent human being deserves no empathy and you brutally murder them, then what on earth makes you think you should be any different? If you think there is nothing wrong with murdering someone, fine, but that means it wouldn't be wrong for someone to kill you.

Exactly, that's my point. But why shouldn't there be a considerable difference between a wasted sperm and an aborted fetus though? Yes but the sperm is farther away from that point than a fetus by time and an extra specific action. A fetus is much closer to us than a sperm is, which is why I think it's fair to make a distinction between the two.

Well I disagree with that. We call a corpse a dead person, so why can't we just call Terry a vegative person? These really are murky waters though. :lol: I don't know exactly how I'd define a person either.

What would the difference be?

if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold Religious punishment is definitely something I find a problem with. I don't know what exactly Leviticus says because there's a debacle about it, but let's say for argument sake that homosexuality needs to be punished with death. I wouldn't call that an eye for an eye - more like a leg for a hair.

Yeah, because Nick and I are arguing off the basis of religion. -.-

I've heard that some people are pretty much forced into gangs for protection. Not that I'd condone it, but if that is true then I can definitely see where they're coming from. But then again, a ton of people join just to be cool and have a reputation, which is pretty pathetic if you ask me. As for dealing with them, I'm torn. I do think some groups should be arrested. For example, in that South Park where they formed a committee of old men raping little boys. It's pretty obvious what they do and police should prevent it before it even happens. On the other hand, if a gang is just having a party together or something, what crime are they committing? You can't be sure what crime they would have committed in order to give a reasonable punishment, and you can't even be sure that they would have committed a crime at all.

I love it when people condemn the old eye for an eye. I have a legit question. If someone broke into your house, killed your whole family, but left you alive and walked away, what would you do? Would you say, "Oh what a poor misguided soul! I hope they get the help they need!" Really, think deep about that question. I am for forgiveness and everything, but there's just a point where forgiveness doesn't accomplish anything but encourage this kind of horrible behavior. Bullies don't pick on bullies, they pick on the helpless. Anyone know why? Because bullies are fine with giving it but they don't want to take it. If you make society into a helpless little child that gives massages to serial killers, doesn't that make us an easier target?

I'm not being idealistic. You're the one who thinks safe sex is safer than no sex. Whether there are a large number of followers or not is completely irrelevant. You can compare safe sex with unprotected sex and say the same thing. Abstinence is simply choosing not to have sex. It's not what I want to live my life by, but face it, it's the best way to avoid pregnancy. I don't know how you could argue against that. On the technical level you're speaking about, where wearing a condom is the same exact thing as abortion, not having sex is also preventing a potential life. It obviously does matter how far along things go - whether the life is a sperm, a fetus, or a born baby. They're all different things and should be treated as such. Like I asked, if you are just going to ignore the difference that easily then what's stopping you from equating murder to masturbating? And the correct answer isn't being born. Personhood isn't that black and white - it's a gradual process. Same result, different measures. Leaving a baby at a dumpster is also the same result to getting rid of an unwanted child, yet I have the feeling you'd consider that to be way worse than an abortion - yet you find no difference in wearing a condom and killing a fetus. Am I supposed to think anything of how you used the word "claim" or are you really being serious? If you are being serious then you can ignore this paragraph. If not, I am pro-choice. When dealing with abortion, I do think the only person with the right to say what should or should not happen to her own body should be the mother. That's what it all comes down to. However, when people make abortion out to be something it's not, that's when I have a problem. If you gave that fetus 20 years to develop, they'd be just like you and me. Sperm is quite different because you have to give them even more time to develop, there is an enormous chance that one specific sperm isn't even going to be used, and finally you have to undergo an extra process for that chance to even occur. They are different things. If it isn't a human, then what species of animal does it fall under?

7317

How is having sex "doing everything you can" to not have a child? That would be abstinence you're thinking about. I do think abortion should be legal! Seriously folks, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Just because I say that a logical argument isn't good doesn't mean I'm against them having an abortion. Well, the reason that argument doesn't work is because, on this technical level you're speaking about, not having sex every second of your life is 'preventing' a child. If there are no lines to be drawn then what's stopping you from comparing washing your hands to genocide? There's a difference between wasting a sperm (millions of which are being wasted already) and killing a fetus inside a womb. What you're doing is counterproductive to your whole point. When you are dishonest about abortion, that's exactly what turns people off. When you compare wearing a condom to having an abortion, you're just making abortion out to be something it's not. Believe it or not, you can say you want abortion to be legal without trying to come up with all the horrible reasoning to try to justify it. Like I said, it's counterproductive. Jesus, I'm pro-choice and I found them to be bad. What makes you think you're gonna convince someone that's pro-life? Before it gets lost in this thread, this is what I was initially arguing against: Now, let me try to straighten this out. I agree with Howl that abortion should be legal, just not with the same basis Howl is using. It's not really an accident if it's consenting sex. You're still responsible for causing the conception of the baby, condom or not. The faultiness of a birth control should be acknowledged with people participating in sex, so it shouldn't really come as a major shock to you if it didn't work. You knew sex causes babies and you knew birth control isn't perfect. Knowing this, you still had sex. You caused the pregnancy. It is fair to call that getting knocked up. That was my point.

There will be global events taking place in 2012, just like every other year. Conspirators will claim to have predicted said events, even though they will probably be nothing out of the ordinary. The specific date is December 21st I believe. I can't claim to be sure that nothing big will happen in 2012, but to me it just sounds like another Y2K or the Hadron Collider. When we all wake up on the 22nd I say we celebrate - "The Day After the Apocalypse". :mrgreen:

7330

What did I say that sounded [developmentally delayed]ed?

It already appears to be that way though. Some think it is a fence-sit between atheism and theism but some think it merely means your assertion concerning a god isn't absolute. Personally, I think it is the first one because the second should already be obvious when talking about metaphysics. But all we can do is debate about it I suppose.

What...? 1.) If I think abortion should be legal then that means I think it should be legal. I don't know how else to put that. If someone has a child and doesn't want to give birth to them, I think they should have the right to have an abortion. That isn't to say I think it's morally right though, just that it should be legal. There is a big difference between legality and morality. I think being greedy is immoral but I don't think there should be a law against buying all the turkey at a store. 2.) If you're saying I am only against abortions that involved protected sex, then what does that leave? Are you saying I think it's okay to have an abortion if you didn't use a condom, but if you did then you must have the baby? That doesn't make sense. Like I said, it's the argument I don't like. Just because I think the argument is stupid doesn't automatically mean I'm saying they must have the baby. They don't have to have it, but they also don't have to think of pathetic excuses like pretending like they aren't responsible for causing the conception. No I'm not. Firstly, getting the garbage off of you isn't the same as killing a fetus. Secondly, I'm not saying you can't get the garbage off and I'm not saying you shouldn't have an abortion. All I am saying is that you are responsible for the birth, condom or not. If you walked under a falling garbage truck that you saw in the sky and it lands on you, then you are responsible for that happening. I never said you deserved to suffer or anything like that - merely that you caused it.

How many times do I have to say I am for abortion being legal? 10? "That's like saying it's okay to destroy the world!" Seriously, where are you going with this? If you do an action and you have complete knowledge of the outcome, then that means you are responsible for it. There is always a chance you can be raped (even in your own bed) so I don't know why you would use that analogy. You're pretty much saying if you're not fully armed and awake 24/7 and you get raped, then it's your fault. I wasn't saying that at all. I was just saying if you have sex, even protected sex, and you get someone pregnant then you caused a baby to get born. The only possible way you can say you didn't cause the baby is if you were raped.

When we define things like evil, it ranges to anything from A to Z. My definition of evil is probably different than yours. When it comes to agnosticism, the only way to really find out what it means would be to either confront the person who created the word or to analyze the meanings of the prefixes and stuff like that.

Do you really think a mortal can stop me? Yes, I think they should be allowed to have an abortion. I just think that flinging the blame on a broken condom or a faulty pill is just utterly ridiculous though. It's like wearing a helmet at a construction site and having a building fall on your head. Who's to blame here? The person for thinking the helmet makes him invincible or the helmet for not making him invincible? It's the blame game. If you have consenting sex, with the knowledge that sex (even protected sex) can lead to babies, then you are responsible for having that child if it does happen. PS: By responsible I don't mean you need to take care of it. I mean you were the one who caused it. You said I was fixated on abstinence. What else could that mean when you're implying I would never be born if my ancestors felt the same way as me?

Nice assumption. I've had sex. Now I'm gonna get bombarded with, "Stop trying to look cool nerd!" Oh well. Anything to prove someone wrong. \ Apparently you're not reading my posts: I am for legalization, but I still think that's a bad argument.

I'm aware of that. But what he is saying is that if you take birth control then you're excused to have an abortion. I am for legalization, but I still think that's a bad argument. Because birth control isn't 100% effective. Abstinence is. Just because you put in a little effort doesn't serve as an excuse for you. Real effort for not getting pregnant unfortunately only lies in abstinence. It's like you're bartering with fate or something. "Well, at least I tried. I should be excused to do whatever I want to this baby since it should have never even been born. I used protection!" Obviously your "effort" isn't good enough if you got pregnant. Jeez, by that logic you can use pulling-out as a justification.

7337

But if you have consenting sex then you should be aware that protection isn't always 100% effective. There will always be a risk of getting pregnant. Protection only minimizes those risks, it doesn't completely eliminate them.

I find weed to be more addicting than cigarettes oddly enough.

Yeah, that's why I thought it was worth mentioning. :lol: It's right-in-your-face obvious but I never thought about it until I read a story about an angel statue on the creepy thread.