February 1, 200917 yr http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazi ... _abortion/ This is why intact dilation and extraction ("partial birth abortion") needs to be legal, and why the FOCA needs to be passed.
February 1, 200917 yr http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/ This is why intact dilation and extraction ("partial birth abortion") needs to be legal, and why the FOCA needs to be passed. No, thats why they need to maintain or create medical exeptions for severe medical problems. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
February 1, 200917 yr http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/ This is why intact dilation and extraction ("partial birth abortion") needs to be legal, and why the FOCA needs to be passed. No, thats why they need to maintain or create medical exeptions for severe medical problems. Yeah, and the partial birth abortion bans don't do that, but the FOCA does. They don't take into account the health of the mother. Even John McCain ridicules women's health like it doesn't matter:
February 1, 200917 yr You do realize that in the process of chasing your own proverbial tail, you never got around to answering the question, right? Because a direct answer is not needed. I'm not considering abortion because I am actually still a virgin. The question doesn't apply to me, it applies to people who have had sex, got pregnant, and consider aborting before the child is born. I fit 0 out of 3 of those requirements. When I'm considering abortion then you can ask me. ;) All you've done is say that you should have that choice, which we've already established you believe you should have, but have never tried bothering to explain who are you to decide whether or not someone else's life is worth living. The parents* should have the right to decide whether their child's life is worth living or not, based off of their own life experiences and judgments. Your question is actually quite ridiculous. You might as well ask me, "What gives the right to parents to control factor's in a child's life such as health, morality, social, and educational choices?" The parents are the best people for the job. Ever hear of the saying parents know best? *Not me, because I am not a parent. (If that fetus later decides it's life is not worth living, then it can choose to terminate it's own life). What kind of life experience does a fetus have compared to the parent? None. Also, you condone suicide but not abortion? That brings up a new question. Who are you to decide whether your life is worth living or not? Since she actively makes the decision to participate in sex, then she actively granted that fetus the right to live-- A right, which cannot be rescinded unless not doing so would result in the woman's death. No she's not granting him the right to live until she actually gives birth to it. You're saying if a consequence is expected while the action is taking place, then it's wrong to avoid it. By that logic, a junkie who fully knows that he can get addicted to heroin and die from it should not go to rehab if he does get addicted to it after usage - he should have to suffer the consequence since it was a possibility in his mind while doing the actions. Also, what if condoms are used and she is not willing to have a baby? You can't base everything off the act of having sex.
February 1, 200917 yr [hide=]http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/ This is why intact dilation and extraction ("partial birth abortion") needs to be legal, and why the FOCA needs to be passed. No, thats why they need to maintain or create medical exeptions for severe medical problems. Yeah, and the partial birth abortion bans don't do that, but the FOCA does. They don't take into account the health of the mother. Even John McCain ridicules women's health like it doesn't matter: [/hide] I agree there should be medical exeptions, that doesnt mean I agree with a bill that removes every restriction just because one of them is a good idea. edit-- What kind of life experience does a fetus have compared to the parent? None. Also, you condone suicide but not abortion? That brings up a new question. Who are you to decide whether your life is worth living or not? The logic here is that only person a has the right to decide person a's fate, its perfectly logical reasoning but since we are all too used to people arguing against abortion on religious grounds it seems very odd. Being allowed to kill yourself doesnt contradict with saying your parents cant decide you shouldnt live because it is a seperate moral question. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
February 1, 200917 yr http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/ This is why intact dilation and extraction ("partial birth abortion") needs to be legal, and why the FOCA needs to be passed. No, thats why they need to maintain or create medical exeptions for severe medical problems. Yeah, and the partial birth abortion bans don't do that, but the FOCA does. They don't take into account the health of the mother. Even John McCain ridicules women's health like it doesn't matter: First of all, like 2% of all abortions are partial birth abortions (Or something like that), so ignoring the other 98% is rather disingenuous. Oh, and I said this earlier, but virtually no one is stating a woman gives birth if it's going to kill her or if she was raped. So, therefore, FOCA is useless in that regard.
February 1, 200917 yr The logic here is that only person a has the right to decide person a's fate, its perfectly logical reasoning but since we are all too used to people arguing against abortion on religious grounds it seems very odd. Being allowed to kill yourself doesnt contradict with saying your parents cant decide you shouldnt live because it is a seperate moral question. One that still requires an explanation nonetheless. And somehow I see that explanation colliding with the explanations Sly disagrees with...
February 1, 200917 yr The logic here is that only person a has the right to decide person a's fate, its perfectly logical reasoning but since we are all too used to people arguing against abortion on religious grounds it seems very odd. Being allowed to kill yourself doesnt contradict with saying your parents cant decide you shouldnt live because it is a seperate moral question. One that still requires an explanation nonetheless. And somehow I see that explanation colliding with the explanations Sly disagrees with... With that set of morals, one is implying that all choices of someones value of life should be made by them and only them. He is saying you shouldnt be able to decide someone else doesnt need/want to live, but you have the right to decide if you want to live. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
February 1, 200917 yr Because a direct answer is not needed. I'm not considering abortion because I am actually still a virgin. The question doesn't apply to me, it applies to people who have had sex, got pregnant, and consider aborting before the child is born. I fit 0 out of 3 of those requirements. When I'm considering abortion then you can ask me. ;) No, but you support abortions, which means you have to answer the question. The parents* should have the right to decide whether their child's life is worth living or not, based off of their own life experiences and judgments. Your question is actually quite ridiculous. You might as well ask me, "What gives the right to parents to control factor's in a child's life such as health, morality, social, and educational choices?" The parents are the best people for the job. Ever hear of the saying parents know best? Parents know best in the context of raising their children. Abortion negates that entire saying, though, as it prevents the child from being born. There is nothing ridiculous about my question. It asks how you know whether or not someone else would want to live their life without giving them the chance to decide for themselves? What kind of life experience does a fetus have compared to the parent? None. Also, you condone suicide but not abortion? That brings up a new question. Who are you to decide whether your life is worth living or not? So, you're discriminating against a fetus based on age? Does that mean a sixty year old has the right to decide the fate of a three year old on the basis that the sixty year old has twenty times the life experiences of the three year old? Sure, that question is a bit facetious, but it gets the point across. Suicide involves the termination of your own life. Abortion involves the termination of the life of another. Surely, you can see the difference? No she's not granting him the right to live until she actually gives birth to it. You're saying if a consequence is expected while the action is taking place, then it's wrong to avoid it. By that logic, a junkie who fully knows that he can get addicted to heroin and die from it should not go to rehab if he does get addicted to it after usage - he should have to suffer the consequence since it was a possibility in his mind while doing the actions. Life doesn't begin after birth and your example doesn't make any sense in the context of abortion. Also, what if condoms are used and she is not willing to have a baby? You can't base everything off the act of having sex. Condoms have a warning on them which state that they're not 100% effective. She should have read the warnings. Only abstinence in 100% effective at preventing pregnancy (Well, so is anal lol). If you don't want to do either of those two things, then you should accept the fact that there is a risk of pregnancy.
February 1, 200917 yr With that set of morals, one is implying that all choices of someones value of life should be made by them and only them. He is saying you shouldnt be able to decide someone else doesnt need/want to live, but you have the right to decide if you want to live. Then by that same logic, there's nothing wrong with abortion. If decisions should only be based on the person being effected - in the case of suicide, the person committing it - then might I remind you that abortion effects the parents too. Why would it be wrong for the parent to make the decision that they don't want to go through pregnancy and ultimately child raising, but yet it's right for a *suicidal person to make the decision that they do want to go through death? *I'd also like to point out that the majority of suicidals are also usually depressed, misguided, and lack good judgment. Not the best of decision makers.
February 1, 200917 yr http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/ This is why intact dilation and extraction ("partial birth abortion") needs to be legal, and why the FOCA needs to be passed. No, thats why they need to maintain or create medical exeptions for severe medical problems. Yeah, and the partial birth abortion bans don't do that, but the FOCA does. They don't take into account the health of the mother. Even John McCain ridicules women's health like it doesn't matter: First of all, like 2% of all abortions are partial birth abortions (Or something like that), so ignoring the other 98% is rather disingenuous. Oh, and I said this earlier, but virtually no one is stating a woman gives birth if it's going to kill her or if she was raped. So, therefore, FOCA is useless in that regard. The other 98% take place before it can be argued it "is a baby". What difference does it make if she was raped? Be consistent, Sly. "life is life", put up or shut up.
February 1, 200917 yr The other 98% take place before it can be argued it "is a baby". What difference does it make if she was raped? Be consistent, Sly. "life is life", put up or shut up. I could argue "its a baby" at almost any stage of pregnancy, so unless you can prove an empirical time where it becomes a baby that has no merit. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
February 1, 200917 yr No, but you support abortions, which means you have to answer the question. 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. Your stance on the issue is pro-life, so I could say that means you have to answer the question: Why would you want someone (parents + baby) to go through unnecessary suffering? Parents know best in the context of raising their children. Abortion negates that entire saying, though, as it prevents the child from being born. There is nothing ridiculous about my question. It asks how you know whether or not someone else would want to live their life without giving them the chance to decide for themselves? And giving them that chance will force them through suffering, which I don't think should be forced on any living organism. Why in your right mind would you want someone to be forced through suffering just so they know if they will like it or not, when they obviously won't? Unnecessary suffering is a stupid idea, dontcha think? Question: Do you know anyone who enjoys suffering? So, you're discriminating against a fetus based on age? Does that mean a sixty year old has the right to decide the fate of a three year old on the basis that the sixty year old has twenty times the life experiences of the three year old? Sure, that question is a bit facetious, but it gets the point across. I'm not discriminating based on age. I'm discriminating based on the difference between being born and not being born. Life doesn't begin after birth and your example doesn't make any sense in the context of abortion. I love how you ignore everything that contradicts your arguments. It's so convenient. Condoms have a warning on them which state that they're not 100% effective. She should have read the warnings. Only abstinence in 100% effective at preventing pregnancy (Well, so is anal lol). If you don't want to do either of those two things, then you should accept the fact that there is a risk of pregnancy. See my analogy of heroin use and actually reply to it this time. Just because you can foresee a consequence doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to avoid it.
February 1, 200917 yr The other 98% take place before it can be argued it "is a baby". What difference does it make if she was raped? Be consistent, Sly. "life is life", put up or shut up. I could argue "its a baby" at almost any stage of pregnancy, so unless you can prove an empirical time where it becomes a baby that has no merit. No one can prove at any empirical time when it becomes a baby until it is born, that's what my point is.
February 2, 200917 yr The other 98% take place before it can be argued it "is a baby". What difference does it make if she was raped? Be consistent, Sly. "life is life", put up or shut up. I could argue "its a baby" at almost any stage of pregnancy, so unless you can prove an empirical time where it becomes a baby that has no merit. No one can prove at any empirical time when it becomes a baby until it is born, that's what my point is. So there is no way to determine when it is physically a baby, yet 98% of abortions occur before it is? How does that statistic work exactly, I can just as easily claim 98% occur after it is a baby and without an empirical time both are equally accurate. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
February 2, 200917 yr Author 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.
February 2, 200917 yr If it were my daughter, I would want to know about it, and personally, I would make her go through the pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption. If my daughter couldn't come and speak with me then there are more problems than the eye can see anyway. And they would start with me and why I'm so unapproachable to begin with. I wouldn't force my daughter to do anything either, as psychologically speaking she would rebel against me and we would have more problems than just teenage pregnancy. If you want to know about it, be approachable and have a good relationship with your kids. The blame wouldn't begin with the government, that's just passing blame away. They would begin with you and some incredible soul searching. No one can prove at any empirical time when it becomes a baby until it is born, that's what my point is. Well actually, cognitively speaking a 32 week old baby in the womb is identical to a new born baby. The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours.
February 2, 200917 yr Author No, but you support abortions, which means you have to answer the question. 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. Your stance on the issue is pro-life, so I could say that means you have to answer the question: Why would you want someone (parents + baby) to go through unnecessary suffering? 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. Parents know best in the context of raising their children. Abortion negates that entire saying, though, as it prevents the child from being born. There is nothing ridiculous about my question. It asks how you know whether or not someone else would want to live their life without giving them the chance to decide for themselves? And giving them that chance will force them through suffering, which I don't think should be forced on any living organism. Why in your right mind would you want someone to be forced through suffering just so they know if they will like it or not, when they obviously won't? Unnecessary suffering is a stupid idea, dontcha think? Question: Do you know anyone who enjoys suffering? 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. So, you're discriminating against a fetus based on age? Does that mean a sixty year old has the right to decide the fate of a three year old on the basis that the sixty year old has twenty times the life experiences of the three year old? Sure, that question is a bit facetious, but it gets the point across. I'm not discriminating based on age. I'm discriminating based on the difference between being born and not being born. 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? Life doesn't begin after birth and your example doesn't make any sense in the context of abortion. I love how you ignore everything that contradicts your arguments. It's so convenient. 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. Condoms have a warning on them which state that they're not 100% effective. She should have read the warnings. Only abstinence in 100% effective at preventing pregnancy (Well, so is anal lol). If you don't want to do either of those two things, then you should accept the fact that there is a risk of pregnancy. See my analogy of heroin use and actually reply to it this time. Just because you can foresee a consequence doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to avoid it. 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
February 2, 200917 yr 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. That's fine, but I don't think it should be the government's right to prevent 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. I would agree with you except we're dealing with overpopulation nowadays. If you ask me, abortion is very beneficial to society: 1. Parents don't have to spend their time and money on an unwanted baby. 2. Baby doesn't have to suffer. 3. Like I said, we're dealing with overpopulation so a smaller birthrate would help. So yeah I do think it's a disproportionate solution to the problem - disproportionate as in it is beneficial for nearly everyone. 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. You've never met a depressed person have you? There are plenty of people who are unhappy with life. Most of them are the ones who come from crappy backgrounds - broken homes, poverty, abuse, etc. I don't see any reason to put somebody through that in the first place. Yes, I'm not denying the overcoming of it, but I don't think it's ever right to make someone suffer at all. You know what else you can't guarantee? You can't guarantee someone is guilty in the courtroom. The most you can do is get the jury to debate and come to the conclusion of if someone is or not, but it's never guaranteed. That's because the law system aims to be fair - not perfect. That's impossible. They do it for the good of the people (the majority), and just because a few people might slide through the cracks it doesn't make it ineffective and that goes for abortion 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? I said they weren't living things? When? :lol: No, I just said there is a difference between being born and not being born. Just like the difference between spoons and forks. 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. Hypocrisy loses you points too, pal. Calling someone a snotty jerk makes you seem like one now too. And did you even read his post? How am I supposed to reply to, "Your example is not good enough for me so I'll ignore it."? There's nothing wrong with my post. He is ignoring a point a brought up about morality and consequences. Pretty convenient if you ask me. Oh and good job starting things off with a flame, then ending it on a disguised "kind note". We didn't even have a problem with each other until you butted in to defend someone for avoiding to give a real response. Nice, now we're on each other's bad lists cause of that! 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. Yes, you should stay away from heroin but if you don't, that doesn't mean you shouldn't go to rehab. It goes for abortion too.
February 2, 200917 yr Author 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
February 2, 200917 yr Personhood is not defined solely by cells and chromosomes. This is why we allow caregivers to lawfully end the life of somebody on life-support. Although this may be a form of "homicide," we (generally) do not consider it "murder." In both cases we eliminate a potential life by removing the support it depends on.
February 2, 200917 yr Author Yes, well, lawfulness is not the argument here. As I pointed out above, society is hardly consistent with it's moral jurisdictions.
February 2, 200917 yr Yes, well, lawfulness is not the argument here. 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.
February 2, 200917 yr Author Yes, well, lawfulness is not the argument here. 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.
February 2, 200917 yr Just because you can find some inconsistencies in written law does not mean that all laws are invalid, or that the legality of abortion isn't worth discussing. This is, after all, a discussion about FOCA, a legal bill. but isn't that practically the same thing as ending life support on a terminal patient? Active and passive euthanasia are two different acts. Perhaps a better example would have been ending life support via active euthanasia.
Create an account or sign in to comment