http://www.azcentral.com/news/electi...s0222abrk.html
I'm not sure I understand why
Printable View
http://www.azcentral.com/news/electi...s0222abrk.html
I'm not sure I understand why
Anything that we can do to recognize the human rights of the unborn is something I'll entertain. I'm sure it's activism.
It works this way on both sides.
I wasn't under the impression that gender selection abortions were an issue in the USA. Can we also pass a resolution against foot binding and curried dog?
When will these politicians learn that there is only one 100% effective form of birth control? That's right, I'm talking about sodomy, the safe choice. If more teens were rogering one anothers' behinds, we wouldn't see any unwanted pregnancies. (And what with the thread title about "Backdoor" I thought we'd be discussing the Forbidden Love eventually.)
Telling. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
thru da ass? no way d00d!
"I do not believe in punishing the doctor for the patient's choice,"
what ^that^ person said.
Related news:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Safe sex video slammed for 'up the bum' message
A safe sex video has attracted criticism for suggesting anal sex as a form of birth control.
The risqué video advises: “one up the bum and you won't be a mum”.
Abortion charity Marie Stopes International teamed up with comedy music band The Midnight Beast to create the video for an online safe sex campaign.
In the safe sex video, the band members are brandishing blow-up dolls and condoms.
While the song’s lyrics encourage using condoms, it also includes the line: “One up the bum and it’s no harm done, one up the bum and you won’t be a mum.”
I have complete faith that my fellow humans will make the right choice for them when they find themselves in a position whe they consider abortion.
I see absolutely no reason why I should meddle with that.
Quote:
and a Planned Parenthood study that he said concluded that 42 percent of Black babies are aborted
Wow. That doesn't seem right.
also a stupid statistic. black people dont abort their babies because they are black. first, the number seems false, second black people abort their babies not because of their race...... but because of socio economic factors at play.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Why do you think that abortion is so encouraged by certain groups and encouraged especially amongst certain groups? Abortion is simply a way to control unwanted population, and who it targets is whoever is unwanted at the time. Who wants a bunch of poor black kids anyway? Abortion is just another eugenic technique like those used by Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Goodwin in 10.
A new record?
Maybe instead of deliberately trying to detract from what I said, you could actually tell us why you agree/disagree with it? You know, something productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nah, we've achieved Godwin in three. However, I think Godwin in 10 for an abortion thread may be a record.
No, I did Godwin in OP once.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Vuk has a point though - unregulated abortion has the potential to remove the undesirable, all you have to do is enact economic sanctions against your chosen group and they will abort themselves to oblivion or at least insignificance.
No need for you to lift a finger.
You honestly consider the "abortion is holocaust"-argument to be productive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I would consider it to be a stupid argument, which is why I did not make it. I said that abortion is a tool for eugenics, just like forced sterelization, etc. It belongs to a group of tools that are thouroughly vile, as thier purpose is to reduce human population (usually targetted portions of it).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Abortion is homicide. Clear as crystal.
The action is deplorable and to recognize that the brutal, mass killing of previously living humans is evil is what we need to do. Even if you don't believe in outlawing the procedure due to womens rights issues my hope is that people recognize the inhumanity of the practice and eradicate it in their hearts and minds as an option.
It is a Holocaust of innocent human beings. Any attempt to make a dent in the numbers is a welcome move.
I think that to say that abortion is the Holocaust is of course untrue, as the Holocaust was a seperate historical event. Abortion is though, a mass killing of innocent human lives, and it is my belief that generations from now our children (the ones we don't murder) will look back in disgust at what we are allowing (just as modern Americans look back at the US's forced sterelization policies) and wonder how we ever could have justified such murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
He said "a", not "the". It was correct usage of the word, although the capitalization is off.
There was a huge kerfluffle a few years ago when a NY Times editorial writer wrote about aborting the male half of the pair of fraternal twins she was carrying (the other was a female). The reasons she cited was she had only wanted one baby, two would be tougher to get a sitter for, and that would cramp her style.
I don't see eugenics as the result of gender or other physical characteristic selectivity, at least not in the direct sense. But callous, shallow people use the procedure to get Barbie or Ken to come out just right. I'm not sure we can be legislate about being a :daisy: though.
Why should the actions of random loonies have any impact on me?
Is the thread about the new category on the Bristol Stool chart?
The institution of abortion (ei, legal and often government funded abortion) has eugenic origins, and is in its nature eugenic. By giving government funding for abortions you are giving a financial easy way out to those for whom raising a kid would present financial difficulties (ie, inner city blacks, etc). It is a way to stop the breeding of such undesirables as poor minorities, and has been disguised as an issue of women's rights. Guys support it because it will save them money and makes their lives easier. Mass murder is justified because of economic ease.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Propaganda.jpg
Let me ask you HoreTore, would you agree with a policy of legal and government funded lethal injections for unwanted children? All the undesirable black people in society could have their children executed and you would stop the breeding problem for those deemed to create problems in society! Sounds awful, huh? What is the difference between that and abortion? Answer: nothing.
How can anyone fail to see the barbaric cruelty and utter disrespect for human life that is inherent in abortion? And the most disgusting thing of all is that (as with Nazi Germany) it is all being justified on the basis of economics and the right of the living.
Don't be so hard on him up to 1976 women without Nordic features were still sterilised in Scandinavia.
I'm not sure that you want that answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I have to admit, I am disappointed with how this is turning out.
As I have said a million times before and you already know(why I bother replying at all is a mystery):Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I don't consider a fetus to be a human being.
hmm... nerve system? check! heart system? check! brain? check! skletal? check!... blah2... blah... the same just miniature and not properly working... yetQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
soul?
(depends on you)
Funny you should say that, because I was just reading that one of the big Nazi justifications for Euthanasia of the mentally retarded was that they did not have the developed faculties of a human being, and therefore were not considered humans by Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Let me ask you this, if a fetus is 2 minutes from birth, do you believe that it is not a human being until it comes out of the womb? You know, I hate to say it Horetore, but the reason it is generally considered so evil to kill a baby is BECAUSE they have underdeveloped brains, and are therefore completely innocent. Having an underdeveloped brain is not the same as having no personality or no feelings. A baby is actual capable of feeling joy, anger, and sorrow when it is in the womb. A human does not fully develop until sometime in its 20s. Therefore, is it ok to kill a 14 year old, because her mental faculties have not developed fully?
Vuk, did you know the Nazi's breathed air?
Vuk you have to get over this fascination of comparing everything with the national socialist movement from mid-20th Century Germany. Just because the Nazis did bad things doesn't mean everything they did was bad, there's got to be one of those latin terms for such a fallacy...
You are forgetting that a foetus is just a lump of cells. We, of course, are far more than that, because we magically gained a soul when we popped out a vagina.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Really, who is more superstitious when it comes to abortion, doesn't look like the pro-lifers to me...
The US currently believes that the death penalty is acceptable even when it risks executing innocents, and war is acceptable even though non-combatants are guaranteed to die during the fighting. The latter in particular is a view that is accepted by nearly every nation on the planet, even those that oppose the death penalty. So, it is clear that homicide itself is acceptable under certain circumstances, generally those where it is felt that the loss of life is an acceptable cost for something that otherwise benefits society as a whole. The issue is whether abortion is acceptable homicide, not whether it is homicide. The question of whether it is or is not homicide is a strawman, like debating about whether waterboarding is torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
In my opinion, the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.
We call it a 'reductio ad hitlerum'
So, does this mean that people born through Ceserean section aren't human beings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
If I find out that somebody I really don't like was born through C-section, can I shoot them in the face without care for legal ramifications? Yay! Why was I fighing all this really cool post-modernist nihilist stuff anyways? Just spin it my way, and voila!
I think popping out of a stomach (area, however it works) also magically transmitts a soul to you. Which is just as well, otherwise you could come and kill me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
You are a bad, bad man. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
You are right, not everything that Nazis did were bad, but surely we can agree that Hitler's eugenic policies were wrong? Isn't that one of the main reasons that he is hated and used as a paragon of evil in modern culture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The institution of abortion IS a eugenic policy, and one employed by Hitler. Also, the same justifications were used for it as all the other eugenic policies; doesn't that make the comparison important? Seriously, how can you hate one form of eugenics/genocide and love another?
You see what I mean Rhyfelwyr? Many supporters of abortion (as with TinCow here) admit that it is intentional homicide, but that it is justified for economic reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Surely then it is fitting to point out that Nazis used the exact same argument to do the exact same thing?
You see, people in support of abortion think that it is ok to murder innocent lives so that they can go on more vacations. It is genocide and mass murder, and one of these days people will look back on America with absolute revulsion for what we did, as we now look back at Nazi Germany for what they did.Quote:
60000 RM
This is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime!
Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too!
How is it right Tin Cow to bring an innocent person into the world (and innocent person who had no say in the matter of you conceiving her), and then after you have made that choice, murder them so that your life will be easier. I ask again, why not apply the same thing to older dependents? Why can't I take my shaving razor to my 14 year old's throat so that I can afford a new snowmobile?
Also, let us not forget who it is that is meant to suffer the most consequences of abortions: the poor (and mostly minorities). But as TinCow himself said, who needs a bunch more black kids on welfare?
Vuk, all your parallels to Hitler are completely misplaced because he used forced abortion. That is a totally different thing from voluntary abortion for reasons I really shouldn't have to explain.
No actually, it is not entirely misplaced. Abortion is meant to target a certain segement of the population based on race and economic status. In America it is carried out through economic incentive, and in Nazi Germany through government force. The same reasoning, the same result, just slightly different means. The only reason that it is not mandatory for some people right now is because America has a much more conservative/Christian culture that places an enormous value on human life, but that is being eroded. The goal is still the exact same as Hitler's: eugenics and genocide. There is nothing that justifies that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
To give you an example of how stupid that point of view is, consider this. The US gov wants to get rid of all of those pesky Native Americans so that they can use the reserves for their own purpose, but there would be public outcry if they simply sent in troops. Instead, they make it legal for a private citizen to kill an Indian, and even supply people with ammo and guns. Lot's of people who would benefit financially from it go and kill start shooting Native Americans on their reservations. Would that be right? It is the same thing as abortion. The government cannot come straight out and mandate it, so instead the aid those who stand to benefit from it, and become accesories to murder. Neither the baby nor the Native Americans have a say in it, and murder is forced on both of them for the economic good of others. If you do not want to participate in the murder you do not have, just do not try to oppose the rights of those who wish to murder thier child/an Indian. After all, they don't pay taxes, so what rights do they have?
This
= FAILQuote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Simply because abortion is used by one segment of the population more than another does not mean it is targeted at that segment of the population. That's a logical fallacy. A higher percentage of black males are currently incarcerated in the US than any other segment of the population, but that does not mean criminal laws are targeted against black males.
I was not talking about who it affects, but who it was MEANT to affect by the people who first pushed to legalize it in America. (the same people BTW who DID try to mandate it, and the same people who oversaw the argument turn into a discussion of womens' rights when eugenics was made unpopular after WWII. A new tactic, but the same end goal.) It is a barbaric practice that DOES disproportionally affect one segement of the population more than another, and that is why people first fought to legalize and mandate it. It is cold-blooded, calculated genocide and does not belong in a civilized society. How can a civilization be called civilized when its members murder their own children?Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Civilized and uncivilized have been practicing abortion for 0000s of years
There is nothing new here except sterilized tools
How is the intent of a fringe minority many, many years ago relevant to the current usage of abortion in modern society?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
As for genocide, you really need to stop throwing around words like that, as it undermines your arguments. Words have definitions for a reason. An ethnic group cannot voluntarily commit genocide against itself. The very aspect of it being voluntary inherently means it is not genocide. Definitions are your friend.
at what point is a collection of cells a human being.................. who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
the law says x number of weeks, good enough for me. if new science revises the law to x weeks plus or minus a few then so be it.
we must neither reach the stage where women have no control over their own bodies, nor too to the point where chinese authorities inject lethal 'stuff' into the crowning heads of babies as they are born.
somewhere twixt the two lies sanity.
I find this hard to believe, any sources? In the UK, ethnic minorites eg Mohametans would be less likely to have abortions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Are you using this as an argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I do not see anything sane about drawing arbitrary lines on something as important as human life. The issue of women's rights is a diversion if people concede the foetus has the right to life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Merley pointing out facts
Abortion is not some new age libreal ploy to control the masses
Sure at times it has been used by a crazy people as a means to an end but what hasn't
Suffocation in a huge pile of bunnies (both regular and Playboy).Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Bunnies are known for there indivduialism, you could never get them to work in a large group like thatQuote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
The timeless quote from Erasmus Montanus demonstrates time and again how much nazi comparisons are worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erasmus Montanus
If it looks like a duck, smells like and duck and floats like a duck - it's probably a duck.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I recall two of Murthy's Laws of Combat here.
- The important things are always simple.
- The simple things are always hard.
The key issue is whether we believe that State-sanctioned homocide is justifiable and under what condition, abortion falls under this catagory as does execution and euthenasia.
I take the view that the State should NEVER sanction homocide, and the only time you have a right to kill someone is when it is the only way to stop them killing you or another human being.
For TinCow, that is the case, but HoreTore has said he does not consider a foetus as a human with the right to life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And although Rhyfelwyr thinks it ridiculous, many of us think there is a salient difference between a newly fertilized zygote and a 9-month fetus. Not all perspectives on abortion are founded on the same premises.
Ajax
It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.
I've always taken your commentary in this area in the Robert Swift spirit that I believe it's intended (or maybe the Irish really should eat their children.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Sure you can. Ahuman being is not binary, 1=alive, 0=death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
a) What if you severe my head but keep my body functioning, using the latest medical equipment? Is my body alive? A human?
b) What if a baby is braindead, but is on a breathing apparatus? (Not hypothetical -see the other thread right on the Backroom frontpage) Pretty much similar to 'a'.
c) What if my Siamese twin brother consists of nothing more than a few limbs attached to me, mostly internally? Can I abort these remnants, consisting of, say, a baby leg from below the knee which is nestled in my stomach? Is that a human being?
And of course, what of a lump of cells inside a woman's womb, which might grow into an independent lifeform? Abortion is not about absolutes. It is not about black or white. It is very much about grey areas.
It is very much (post)Christian to think of life as being gifted. One moment there is nothing, and then the next moment *poof* there is life, gifted by the hand of God. Life is absolute in this manner. Either endowed with a soul or not.
https://img34.imageshack.us/img34/39...instpeterr.jpg
Whatever one may think of that, I predict that modern medicine and biotechnology this century will pose some moral questions that are so far beyond the Christian dichotomy of life/not life as to, imo, render it obsolete.
Why until they do? Relying on other people seems like a bad idea :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I really cannot remember what the date for the various bits are. But can't you agree, certainly before one month it is not right to life?
Birth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
As I have said several times.
Brrr.....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Hypothetical cases for you.
1) Baby Horatio is a late birth. Two weeks late. The doctors want to artificially stimulate labour, and have set the date for Tuesday. However, on monday the parents have regrets so decide to have the baby aborted instead. Is this fine with you?
2) At 7:15 Louis is born. He looks like a chimp, hairy and otherwise takes after ugly aunt Pierre. The parents panic. They never want another baby again. The mother is still in labour so...they order the midwive to abort the twin brother, Strike, still in mommy's tummy. This fine with you?
I was under the impression that the usual measure was viability - the ability for the foetus to survive outside the mother without significant medical intervention. Whilst that still has a substantial grey area, it seem to be the starting point for legal definitions in Europe. The United States, of course, has the bigger problem - from the positions derived via Roe vs Wade, the debate there is reduced to absolutes - conception or birth, and nothing allowed in between.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
And that position is as pointlessly wrong as that of the moment of conception.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Classical argumentum ad consequentiam. More specifically Argument from Benefit. A useful tool for all conspirators. As is the several Inductive Generalizations being proposed in this thread. The abortion laws are more or less the same world-over. If you want to look for conspiracies, you need to look broader. Maybe the Nazis really took over the world, worming covertly into every government after WWII?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. All I know is that we eat chicken eggs and nobody seems to think that the egg is a full grown chicken.
And before someone decries my comment keep in mind Chickens are basically good people; they don't do drugs, they aren't in the habit of committing drive-by shootings, and you never hear about a Rooster coming home from work and beating the :daisy: out of the Hen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
That's a clear position and your honesty has to be admired. At least you don't go for hypocrite nonsense like "it's only human when it's born, so it's not murder". At least, you don't look for excuses to avoid having to call a spade a spade.
So, you say that abortion is homicide, but it is justifiable. In your opinion, it's ok if parents murder their unborn child. Homicide is homicide; killing an unborn human is homicide, as is, of course, killing a human that has been born. Going further on your line of thought, one could argue that parents killing their disabled (let's say Dawns' Syndrome) child is beneficial to society. Indeed, if the child is removed out of the parents' lives, the parents will no longer have to stay home to take care of their disabled child and can both go to work again. There will also be no more expensive treatment, so the risk of falling into poverty, will drasticially decrease. With both working, they'll pay more taxes. The child will also be no burden to society after the parents pass away. What I'm saying is that, if you take the position that abortion = homicide but that it's justifiable, because the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life, then it becomes very easy to take it a step further and to say that allowing parents to kill their disabled child should be allowed, because the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from killing the disabled children are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.
The position you take is, imo, impossible. If you consider abortion to be the equivalent of homicide, then you can't defend it, because it would open the door to practices that no longer belong in our present day society.
That said, I used to be in the camp that allows abortion up to the 12th week for no reason. After seeing on an echo how my own child was already, well, a mini human being at the 12th week of pregnancy, I'm no longer sure about that treshold (yes yes, you'll have some cynics here who'll explain that it hasn't conscience and yadda yadda, but believe me, it looks very human and the idea of that "unborn lump of cells" dying is unbearable) and more leaning to the position to allow abortion up to the 12th week, but only if a) the life of the mother is threatened; or b) the child would be severely disabled and would only come to this world to suffer a short life in pain (in that case, I'd even allow abortion up to the 20th week).
:shrug:
Quote:
Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. All I know is that we eat chicken eggs and nobody seems to think that the egg is a full grown chicken.
And before someone decries my comment keep in mind Chickens are basically good people; they don't do drugs, they aren't in the habit of committing drive-by shootings, and you never hear about a Rooster coming home from work and beating the :daisy: out of the Hen.
Oh hey, George, how's death treatin' ya?
He say's "Better than Life."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Arab
Hypotethical cases clouds reality, because such examples are never what late-term abortion is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
It's best for the mothers health that the abortion takes place as soon as possible. As people don't want unneccesary pain and suffering, they will take the abortion as early as possible. If someone has an abortion late, there will be a bloody good reason. And this is where I believe that the best judge of what to do is the mother. I refuse to take life and death decisions for other people.
LET ME LIVEQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If you were a fetus with next-to-no chance to live independently and your birth is a danger to your mothers health(a typical late-term abortion); no, I'd rather ensure that your mother lives than killing her to give you three days in a breathing tube before you expired as well, leaving your daddy all alone in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
oQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What if my daddy planned to make me the greatest Norwegian footballer ever?
I would still prefer your mothers life over the 72 hours of misery almost-stillborn Strike would endure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Call me a barbarian.
Jesus you're an idoitQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If you read the thread you know you are NAZI whom is a fore runner to modern day progressives who hope to use abortion as a social control to gain the advantage over the masses
There was a meeting and everything
Suitably ironic smiley to be inserted here thus demonstrating to those unfamiliar with SFTS' brand of humour that this is not an abusive post guaranteed to draw just under 5,000 infraction points. :beam:
There is another element to the equation which you do not discuss here: consciousness. Human beings prior to birth are not self-aware. Sure, they're human. Sure, they think and act and masturbate and whatnot, but they have no memory and no concept of their own existence. No one on this forum remembers being in utero. If any of you had been aborted before birth, you would never have known it. In my opinion, that is a major factor in making the homicide acceptable. I see it as being similar to euthanasia. A human being can be kept alive indefinitely with modern technology, despite lacking any higher brain functions or conscious thought. The person is technically alive, but they do not have the essential element that makes a person (IMHO) human: thought and self-awareness. So, for me killing an unborn child is like euthanizing a brain-dead adult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
As for the timeline of when it's acceptable and when it's not, it's impossible to give a clear cut-off line. There's simply no point where on Day X it is not a human but on Day X+1 it is a human. The fetus doesn't change rapidly enough to make such a line possible. I agree with many others that it's not human on Day 1, it's just a bunch of cells. I also agree that it is human the day before birth. For my 'acceptable homicide' analysis, it then becomes a sliding scale. Due to the non-humanness of the organism on Day 1, it's very very easy to justify the 'homicide' (if it can even be called that at that point). On Day 250, it becomes much harder, but can still be done depending on the circumstances. It seems pointless to me to try and make rules about what happens in between those days, so I call it a sliding scale and weigh each case on its individual merits.
It's actually kind of odd because I personally don't think a child really even qualifies as human on the thought basis until several months after birth, but society has sufficiently drilled home to me that it is bad to kill a child that has been born that my analysis ends there, regardless of the lack of logic in it.
Eh? I looked up Robert Swift and all I gather is he is a basketaball player...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Such ideas undermine pretty much all our values on human rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
a) I'll go with saying 'you' is composed of your head and whatever other parts of your body are attached to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
b) Stopping treatment is a whole different matter from taking action to end a life.
c) No it is not a human, and yes you can abort it, for the same reason I gave to answer a
But surely the difference is they only euthanise brain-dead adults when they have no hope of recovery... a foetus has its whole life ahead of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I don't see why that matters. Right now, there are about 5 billion potential lives in my pants. Their potential to be the next Eistein or Larry the Cable Guy doesn't mean that their rights override my own. And that's the key, because it's a balancing act of conflicting rights. Namely, the rights of the mother (and, to a lesser extent, the father) versus the rights of the unborn child. An unborn child only has potential, while the mother and father already exist and are an ongoing concern in the world. For me, the ongoing concern is far more important than simple potential (they also have the potential to be Hitler 2, you know).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I suspect DC meant Jonathan Swift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Ajax
...another backroom abortion thread, I suppose the horse has already been stomped into bloody giblets, so why not stomp some more?
*googles* So... what did DC mean by comparing me to Swift?Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Did you look into his famous satirical "A Modest Proposal"? You'd have to ask DC himself if you want to be sure of his meaning, but I suspect he thinks your posts on abortion are somewhat tongue-in-cheek . . . or maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Ajax
Well I like to present my case in the most blunt, tactless and outrageous manner possible, but what I have said is definitely a strain of thought going through my head on the matter. Yes there is a massive difference between a day old and a six-month old foetus, but the progression is constant and one of degrees, so I think people are too comfortable just saying "right first trimester you can abort".
Anyway I thought DC was against abortion?
And doing it your way undermines one of the most fundamental pillars of Christian faith... :oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
If dead or alive is 0 and 1, then it won't matter how long it's been between dying and returning to life. :juggle2:
Or maybe it's Schrödinger's cat all over again, you're dead until you're brought back to life. In that case, you were never really dead to begin with. So you are both dead and alive.
In case a and more importantly c, when did the human then die? :smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Saying it's okay to abort the fetus ready to be born because even though it's a human it hasn't yet gone through the birth canal is obviously problematic, as is saying you can't abort the day old embryo that's not yet a human because we don't know exactly when it will become one. One way or another, we need a way to deal with fuzzy boundaries, because we face them all the time. When does a child become an adult, with implications for self-determination, financial independence, parental responsiblity, rape law, etc.? When does a person qualify as poor, with implications for taxation, welfare, etc.? When does a person qualify as mentally retarded? When does evidence add up to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? In my field, when do different dialects become different languages, or when does an <s> sound become an <sh> sound? The world isn't black and white, and acting like an issue is all black or all white because you can't find a clear boundary in the midst of the gray is not a valid solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Ajax