raven_gaurd0

I'm afraid I'm not much of a psychologist, Mr. Warrior. Oh well. I don't want to argue semantics here. It always makes me frustrated. Since religions is a question of faith and not facts, it's infinitely hard to write out how those two inter-mingle, and I've already done so plural times - to no avail to stemming the inflow of liberal rebuttals and essays. Religious arguments just get everybody steamed up, because the 'non-religious' person attacks on a very personal basis, while the religious person is generally called a 'bigot' if they attack said non-religious person on an equally personal level.

I don't believe it's the same to prosecute somebody under what they DIDN'T do, unless in some very strange cases, instead what we must look at is what they did do. And abstinence is still a 100% effective way to avoid pregnant, it's not abstinences' fault that a bunch of horny teens went and had sex, breaking their vows. They succumbed to their primal nature.

Yes, don't insult my God because it insults me. I'm not insulting you by saying that any attempts to decipher the mind of God would be futile, for, if God truly does exist, then indeed, any attempts to decipher His mind, would, in fact, be futile.

If you don't want children, abstinence is the best way to go. Condoms and such are low risk factors, but they still have risk. Abstinence has the smallest risk percentage, being ridiculously small, only violated in the case of rape, in which case abortion is, I feel, open for legitimate discussion. Other than that, you have nobody to blame but yourself. In life, things can go wrong, and it's your duty to avoid them, not anybody elses, and if you suffer the consequences because you took the risk, then you need to pony up. In the Mafia, they shoot people who don't.

You know what I hate? People who say things about religious people, when they themselves have such a limited understanding of religion as a concept. To me, to us, God is the ultimate authority. When He says so, He says so. I mean, all the laws of society are pretty much based on the commandments, or other religious scripture. I may not have a case against homosexuality, so I won't even build up something, but if people make ignorant statements, I'm going to rebuke. And yes, God does love everyone, and yes, he does love gays and terrorists, because they are His children. But, we do not know His unfathomable mind, and any attempts to logic it will come up miles short. Yes, but "he said so" isn't a valid argument. I could say that "god said" heterosexuality is a sin just as easily as you can say the opposite. That's why I don't make it an argument, luv, but don't hate on those of us who believe it in our hearts to be true. I know it doesn't hold water, and that's why I don't make that argument, but at least have a shred of respect and don't stab me (by insulting my God) when I'm very gracefully letting down my walls. (Not arguing.)

You know what I hate? People who say things about religious people, when they themselves have such a limited understanding of religion as a concept. To me, to us, God is the ultimate authority. When He says so, He says so. I mean, all the laws of society are pretty much based on the commandments, or other religious scripture. I may not have a case against homosexuality, so I won't even build up something, but if people make ignorant statements, I'm going to rebuke. And yes, God does love everyone, and yes, he does love gays and terrorists, because they are His children. But, we do not know His unfathomable mind, and any attempts to logic it will come up miles short.

Killing and murder are not very different at all, one of which merely carries the rule that one party is unable to defend themselves against the other force. At least, that's the connotation I have. Moving on. I nominate Jesus as the Pro-life Speaker of the Minority in the House, and would like to make a motion that we call each other 'Comrades'. So, Comrade Venomai, do you believe that the woman discussed in the analogy above would be more willing to live in a 'bare' room with all windows closed (not necessarily a horrible existence, may I remind you, as many people choose to be celibate, myself included.) than to allow this spore to land and root, if the rooting thereof would mean a potential 18.75 years of 'pain and suffering' in which she would have to tend for this spore? Certainly, then, she would, if there were any doubt that her defenses would fail, if ever so minute. She took the risks, she failed, and now she must pay the price. Do we recompense those in Vegas or Monte Carlo who lose their money, despite the odds being in their favor at the Blackjack table? Certainly not. Why let these 'gamblers', ie, those who have sex underage with no intention of having a child, get off that easily as well? Edit: Post 300! SEND IN THE PERSIANS!

Yes, but I don't seen any inconsistencies regarding 'anti'-abortion clauses. And as for the violinist analogy (metaphor?) the violinist itself has had a chance to live, therefore making his/her life more fulfilled than an aborted fetus, and, you (being analogous to the pregnant mother) being 'kidnapped' implies that you had no choice or say in what happened to you. When you get pregnant, 'lest it be rape, you had a choice about what happened. It was by your fault that you were 'hooked up to the violinist', therefore it is morally justified to force you to stick out the 9 months 'hooked up to the violinist.' Good analogy though, but erroneous in capturing the essence of a fetus and a mother.

I'm saying, related laws like clauses that allow for abortions should be taken under consideration again until the United States government can get consistencies in their laws, or else those laws don't deserve to be treated with respect.

Not all laws invalid, but laws similar to the inconsistent ones should be treated with due suspicion.

Not all churches are christian, I agree its not in there but Im not good versed well enough in scripture to say where that comes from. It's Leviticus. Le sigh. More encouraged flaming against the Church and it's followers. I wish we'd leave them out of this. Edit: We share 50% of our genes with bananas because we're both carbon-based lifeforms. Don't get so impressed by genetic statistics unless you actually know the extreme difference small protein changes in the helix makes.

This is a debate about abortion. Of course lawfulness is the argument here. The general hypocrisy of the American government, on the other hand, is irrelevant to this debate. But the hypocrisy of the government indicates that the government's jurisdiction on what is 'lawful' and what isn't is hardly valid. I mean, in counter to your 'ending life support' example, we have made it illegal to do assisted suicide, but isn't that practically the same thing as ending life support on a terminal patient? Besides, I was hoping that the gist of this debate would circle around FOCA, but I knew abortion would have to be tested directly.

Yes, well, lawfulness is not the argument here. As I pointed out above, society is hardly consistent with it's moral jurisdictions.

"Sin" is a label of 'bad' based on something that has been the moral guideline for pretty much every single human for the past 2500 or so years. Honestly, I don't have much pragmatic force against homosexuality, other than the fact that I think that the whole thing is a counter-culture. I know all the arguments here, and I honestly don't want to waste my time posting any more here. My view is relatively groundless outside of my religion, but that's quite honestly not well respected here, either. Besides, this entire thread is subject to a ridiculous amount of flaming and trolling. Venomai, if you really want to see my response, I think it's around page 45. I'll state it one more time, so I won't get bogged down in the muck of debate. My opinion on homosexuality is that it is wrong, but to judge it and punish gays is wrong on this mortal earth. If you don't believe in an afterlife, a punishment for the sins of your life, then this doesn't matter and you should go on living happily. I think that in the event there is an afterlife, they should know what they're getting into, but as for my 'arbitrary' concept of sin, if you're an atheist, then my argument is null and shouldn't be responded to. -Raven

Seeing as I'm the person who started this thread, I feel we would have been on opposite sides of the spectrum if you really had read my first post. First off, let me say that the heroin analogy is rather poor, as going to rehab does not take the life of another. Therefore, rehab should be encouraged. It does nothing but requires a commitment on the part of the druggie. However, abortion not only taxes the sanity and health of the abortionee, but it also kills the fetus. Next, I feel you may enjoy A Modest Proposal by Mister Jonathon Swift. Here is a link for you. It's a rather short essay by one of my favorite Irish writers. http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html If overpopulation is a concern, then you will find this writing to your liking. Next, I'll have you know I know plenty of depressed people, and I myself have been diagnosed with Chronic Depression, though I believe it's a rubbish conclusion. That doesn't make my point any less valid that those involved should decide to choose for themselves whether they lead that depressed life or not. Admittedly, it may be harder for some, but for others, it's going to be a clear-shot down easy-street. (Hot, rich white girl [bleep]s, anyone?) You have also still failed to point out the difference between being born and not being born. We still have 46 chromosomes that will determine who we are, gametes of 23, none of that changes between me, and when I was 2 weeks old. The difference is the amount of cells. Should the crime for murdering a baby who must be composed of only some hundreds of trillions of cells be less than that of the murder of a big man composed of quadrillions? Also, I believed I worded my phrase badly. I didn't mean to apply that you are, in fact, a snotty jerk, but by saying what you did, you acted akin to one. In your defense, however, I understand that I didn't fully understand the situation, so you may be justified to the ends of the earth in the comment, and I would strongly urge my friend (whoever your post was aimed at in the first place) to fully respond to your arguments. -Raven

Why is it a sin? Because it's a degree of intimacy that should only be shared between a man and a woman. It's a pleasure grab, without necessarily having to go through all the sacrifices and sacraments involved with having sexual intercourse. It's a big issues of beliefs, really. The only societal reasons I can think of is that two men can't be productive to society (can't raise their own family) and that it spreads STDs like wildfire.

I know someone has already previously quoted this bit from you, but I too am somewhat confused as to what you're implying by this. What significance does it have with the overall argument? After all, on the opposite side of the coin, heterosexuality is something that can be ignored. If you're a male who is naturally attracted to women, you can ignore this "primal hungering" of yours and choose to be with another man. I just don't see what relevancy it has. (I know you quoted several people in the post this quote comes from, so perhaps it's just the continuation of a conversation that I missed...) I strongly, strongly disagree with you here. Why would you frown upon the fact that someone is living their life? By your same logic, straight people make the choice to follow the "primal hungering" to be with people of the opposite sex - should this be frowned upon as well? What "implications" are you talking about? Homosexuals going to some sort of hell? Edit: I disagree with you on the last quote, because from how I read it, you're sounding very self-righteous and condecending. To me, it's coming off that you're saying, "For your sake, you'd better realize that your choice to be gay will have some serious consequences..." I'm not going to hide who I am, or pretend to be something I'm not, just so I won't go to some fictional hell that I don't even believe in. I feel I may clear up what I said a bit. Homosexuality as the urge can be ignored, aye, as easily as heterosexuality can be. We call that Celibacy. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women who practice it. However, on the normal society level, heterosexuality is encouraged because, well, it's productive. It replenishes society's ranks. As for the next thing, I also worded it poorly. I meant that, on earth, nobody should be angry or bitter against them. Indeed, are we not all brothers, sisters, humans? We must not hate others for such an idle reason as this. Nor do I believe that homosexuality is necessarily a sin that is punishable by damnation. It may, or may not, be so. The implications of this, that I was hoping them to understand, is that it is, in fact, a sin. The degree of sin is debatable amongst us, but really without a definitive answer. We've already fought long and hard about this, and I fear that should we discuss it further it shall only devolve into a flurry of blows and harsh words.

No, the people engaging in the abortions have to, because that is who it applies to: the parents who are deciding whether their child's life would be a good experience or a bad one. Not me... a non-parent. I don't know the question that was initially in question, but I do have to state that just because the infant's life is in the hands of the parent does not give the parent the right to kill it. I'll answer that, and it's simply because: If you killed people just because they brought 'unnecessary suffering' upon you or themselves, half the world would be dead. There are plenty of men and women I know who cause me aggravation and pain, but to kill them to ease the pain? A disproportionate solution to the problem. You can't guarantee that the child will be as thus; or, indeed, remain as thus for the duration of it's life. The poorest villagers in Africa still have something to cling to, which I believe is their culture, which gives them all hope and love and joy amongst one another. Why should it be any different in America, the land of prosperity and opportunity? Certainly if impoverished people making 20$ a month can be happy, a child born into any American family can be so too. What is the difference between being born and not being born? Tell me, what is so drastically, physically different that these fetus' should not be considered living things? In a professional debate round, being a snotty jerk like that will lose you points. I kindly request that you are polite and sincere in your arguments here. I understand that this is a passionate subject, but we must mind our tempers. I feel I must be complete and say that you should attempt to avoid negative foreseen consequences, especially when caused by yourself, and that you should not take away the opportunities of others in order to compensate for your mistakes. -Raven

Consistencies are rarely common-place in our day in age. America supports abortion, but killing a pregnant woman counts as double homicide. America supports freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but we've spent the past ten years crushing the life out of the Middle East (civilians and terrorists alike) and we only just got out of our Civil Rights era - two hundred or so years after England. America claims that it's benign and accepting, but we've gone to war in multiple countries merely to stop them from creating their own system of government that their people wanted (Communism) and we tried to force our own government (Democracy) down their throats. FYI, America isn't even a Democracy. It's a Republic. Whoopdy-freakin'-doo. So does get all indignant when people make exceptions and tweaks to their arguments. We're all human, and situations tend to alter solutions.

I just found out that my friend had cancer and has already had surgery and gone through physical therapy - without telling me! I'd feel bad if I didn't feel so sorry for her. Anywho, O(n)T time. Abortion itself just seems like...I don't know. My logic on it is this: If murdering a pregnant woman in any pregnancy counts as double homicide, why doesn't killing one member of that 2-member chain result in a single homicide? Infallible! I catch the U.S. government in hypocrisy yet again. CURSE YOU, BARACK OBAMA! *Fist shake*

I don't know too much about homosexuality, but isn't it debated whether homosexuality is choice or genetics? I'm a christian and I've been taught that homosexuality is considered evil. But if people are born that way, isn't that a little bit unfair? The only people who ever debate that it is a choice are those with a vested interest in it being so, i.e. those who believe homosexuality is wrong and use that to justify descrimination. Psychologists are pretty much across the board convinced its not a choice. Whether its something that happens during foetal development, whether its genetics or due to factors whilst growing up is still unknown. But there are very few psychologists who have gone on record as saying it's a choice. And most of those equally have vested interests in that being the case. FREUD! Homosexuality is, at any rate, something that can be ignored. Sociopaths are born with a disposition to ignore society's laws, so is it then just that we 'discriminate' against them by locking them up? Homosexuals made a choice to follow their primal hungering, and I frown upon that. While I certainly do not think any punishment should be bestowed upon them upon this earth, I would hope that they understand that implications of their actions.

But it doesn't mean we should kill them just because they'll have a harsh road in the end. Just my two cents of course. I don't see how. If I were against abortion, it would be for reasons concerning morality - you know, right from wrong. Well then what makes it more right to force them to go through a life of suffering? Now I understand that there are cases where people escape their horrible childhoods and they've become strong people, but that type of judgment should be up to the parents. Are you joking me? Would you honestly put your life in the hands of your parent knowing full well they might decide to kill you as a plausible option? The fetus, destined to be a baby, should decide for itself. Nobody in America is born into a 'bad' family and is destined for a crappy future (unless it's a bunch of crackheads, but the child can even escape that if they so choose - it's called governmental protection). The baby should have a choice in whether they grow up into a great person or a scumbag, but that decision should never be made for them. ...and furthermore, this really isn't a debate about abortion. It's about the FOCA; and the sanctions therein. Please stay a bit more on topic. -.-

Apparantly. No, I'm comparing the ideals that Hitler had against the Jews. The only real difference between me and a fetus is that the fetus isn't fully developed yet. As for Penguingeek, the mother can always 'live' with the baby. This is America, for God's sake. I don't think that any honest person has died of poverty or anything like that in America; our welfare system is far too good, and yes, adoption would definitely be a very liable option for those who cannot carry on with a child. As for the process itself, eh, with C-sections and all that junk, you won't die in childbirth. And you know, with the whole 'karma' thing, I'd say that if you were considering an abortion to get rid of the unwanted baby, that probably means you had some questionable sex, and the process of birth might actually open your eyes the sacredness of the act of sexual intercourse.

Yeah. Sorry, I listen to them a bit but I'm one of those people who isn't very good with the names. But yes, I got the 'In the Court of the Crimson King.' It's where I recognized your avatar from; it's the album cover. It's kind of odd, really. It's pretty mellow most of the time, but 21st century Schizoid man is pretty weird.

Yeah, but you beat me to it. When I hit submit and it was like, 'Read this post, it might change your decision (which I ignored)' I saw the Hitler comparison and I laughed out loud. Great minds think alike?