Abortion

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nuclear war and abortion are two different ball games and you're pathetic for trying to compare the two. A guy murdering another guy however, like abortion, has nothing to do with you unless it's someone you love.

You do go out of your way though, that's the irony of your argument.

Not about me, you're not.

-AC

different games, but the difference in the context we're speaking is scale. "illustrating the absurd with absurdity" is basically what I was doing.

Yes, I'm calling you're little argument absurd. Pathetic would be being so closed-minded that you can't understand a little poetic license/Ilustrative wording. 😛

Originally posted by docb77
different games, but the difference in the context we're speaking is scale. "illustrating the absurd with absurdity" is basically what I was doing.

Yes, I'm calling you're little argument absurd. Pathetic would be being so closed-minded that you can't understand a little poetic license/Ilustrative wording. 😛

I perfectly understood what you was trying to do, it was just pathetic in execution. If a nuclear war kicked off, we'd all be in trouble because our governments would most definitely get involved or be involved anyway.

Abortion affects the one female and you are laying claim that it affects you, the fact is that it doesn't. To which you agreed.

Therefore, you have no place trying to stop a female doing something that doesn't affect you anyway.

Get it? Good.

-AC

WTH is a rent-a-baby!? What a concept! Can I get like a free popcorn thrown in with the deal??

Saying you aren't here to judge a woman who has an abortion is like saying no one should ever be punished for murdering someone... Something is dieing either way. With that said I don't know my opinion either way. I'm of the school that thinks you have to walk in their shoes. Till I get a girl pregnant and have to deal with it my self I just dunno. I don't like the idea of something helpless dieing, but till im in that situation I just dunno.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I perfectly understood what you was trying to do, it was just pathetic in execution. If a nuclear war kicked off, we'd all be in trouble because our governments would most definitely get involved or be involved anyway.

Abortion affects the one female and you are laying claim that it affects you, the fact is that it doesn't. To which you agreed.

Therefore, you have no place trying to stop a female doing something that doesn't affect you anyway.

Get it? Good.

-AC

Hey, that first bomb that fell on tehran sure wouldn't affect me. After that? eh...

That aborted child sure won't hurt me either, but it won't discover any cures for my illness or invent any new conviences either.

As far as whether abortion affects me in a similar way... well, Thoreau would say yes, several other philosophers also argue that what causes damage to one damages all.

Unrelated unprovable argument: Many people believe in an afterlife, it wouldn't be much of a stretch from there to believe in a pre-life. If such a thing existed, abortion would basically deny someone their ticket down to this lovefest (spoken sarcastically). If on the other hand there is no such thing the arguments I've made previously stand well on their own anyway.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
"However, I feel the government oversteps its boundaries when it actually places limitations on the right itself. The government has abused its power before but corrected it, like when it legalized sodomy. I feel this is another one of those times the courts need to reevaulate existing laws and the constitutionality of said laws."

---Possibly, but there are limits to rights as well as limits to government. Its up to us to decide how far over the limits we are going. I believe abortion is just another break of the limits on our part. Not to mention overstepping the limits of nature.

The limits of nature are not applicable.

Originally posted by docb77
Hey, that first bomb that fell on tehran sure wouldn't affect me. After that? eh...

That aborted child sure won't hurt me either, but it won't discover any cures for my illness or invent any new conviences either.

As far as whether abortion affects me in a similar way... well, Thoreau would say yes, several other philosophers also argue that what causes damage to one damages all.

Unrelated unprovable argument: Many people believe in an afterlife, it wouldn't be much of a stretch from there to believe in a pre-life. If such a thing existed, abortion would basically deny someone their ticket down to this lovefest (spoken sarcastically). If on the other hand there is no such thing the arguments I've made previously stand well on their own anyway.

Philosophy can be debated forever.

Your other arguments do not stand well on their own at all actually.

Originally posted by docb77
Hey, that first bomb that fell on tehran sure wouldn't affect me. After that? eh...

That aborted child sure won't hurt me either, but it won't discover any cures for my illness or invent any new conviences either.

Worst possible anti-abortion debate in the book, and you've invalidated yourself further by using it. Laughable.

It's immediately countered by "The child could become evil." Pointless also, but does the job.

Originally posted by docb77
As far as whether abortion affects me in a similar way... well, Thoreau would say yes, several other philosophers also argue that what causes damage to one damages all.

Philosophising aside, it doesn't affect you though. It doesn't. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by docb77
Unrelated unprovable argument: Many people believe in an afterlife, it wouldn't be much of a stretch from there to believe in a pre-life. If such a thing existed, abortion would basically deny someone their ticket down to this lovefest (spoken sarcastically). If on the other hand there is no such thing the arguments I've made previously stand well on their own anyway.

You're right. Unrelated, unprovable, irrelevant and- as is the standard with you- comedic.

No argument you have made has stood well.

-AC

of course they do. Especially if you, like me, are an idealist.

However if you just think that the world is everyone looking out for themselves and no one else. Social Darwinism and all that mumbo jumbo, then your right, there is no good argument.

But even taking a middle route, there is definitely value in taking a closer look and restricting the procedure.

Personal responsibility = good argument, extent of life lost for child vs for mother = good argument

Potential is used all the time in arguments. If I make 50,000 a year and someone injures me so that I can't work anymore, the courts generally grant me a good portion of that if I sue the guy. (sometimes substantially more)

I hope you don't have a driving licence because if your ability on the road is anything reflective of your ability to stay on topic, the scrap yard must love you.

-AC

Zing-a-ling-a-ding!

Originally posted by soleran30
You do realize He-man wouldn't be such a dick, not on KMC or Eternia.

Perhaps you should "get your facts straight" before you start making "bullshit statements."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Adam does get pretty friggin ridiculous at times..

Other memorable quotes from the wise words of Adam Poe..😉

Adam Poe on Religion....

A society's evolution(syn: advancement)...

On procreation....

a simple response..

Final words, after having his argument completely ridiculed..

And now we have one more to add to the quote archive...

😆 😆

The quotes you posted are either paraphrased, deliberate misrepresentations of actual statements I have made, or statements falsely attributed to me, none of which are even relevant to the discussion at hand.

Moreover, it is the assertion of sithsaber408 that changes in society have made it difficult for one to attain the means necessary to sustain a multiple child family. A fact that both you and soleran30 were oblivious to in your respective quests to ridicule someone. If you find the notion to be so ridiculous, then you need to address sithsaber408, or better yet, address the statement and not the person making it.

Once again, you have demonstrated that you have nothing to contribute to a thread aside from ignorant trolling.

Originally posted by docb77
Potential is used all the time in arguments. If I make 50,000 a year and someone injures me so that I can't work anymore, the courts generally grant me a good portion of that if I sue the guy. (sometimes substantially more)

Using the same poteniality you used for a fetus possibly being a great person would be the same as you believing you were entitled to a Shaquille Oneil's paycheck just because you COULD HAVE been a pro basketball player.

Originally posted by Julie
Gee, I'm just full of these tonight.

Are you pro-life, pro-choice, or pro-abortion?

"Give it up for adoption" is a nice thought, but do you realize what it takes to adopt a child? Alot of money for one. There are a great many children who never even get adopted and stay in orphanages without ever having a parent.

I'm pro-choice, I don't feel as the gov should be allowed to have a final say on a woman's choice. At the same time, I don't like women who just don't take care of themselves and end up getting pregnant wanting an abortion. You ****ed up, so therefore take responsibility, if you can't take care of the child yourself, put it up for adoption. Same goes for young teenage girls, if you're to young to have a baby, then you were to young to be having sex. Nothing really to do w/ religious reasons why I thnk this (im atheist), but I just thnk you should take responsibility for your actions.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I hope you don't have a driving licence because if your ability on the road is anything reflective of your ability to stay on topic, the scrap yard must love you.

-AC

Back at you big guy. You don't even do any debating, you just ridicule an argument without even trying to counter it.

Originally posted by StyleTime
First of all, I said potentiality does not apply to THIS debate. Secondly, the case is not involved in some random outcomes that have been guessed. If you already had a job, it is reasonable to assume you will continue working in that job.

Using the same poteniality you used for a fetus possibly being a great person would be the same as you believing you were entitled to a Shaquille Oneil's paycheck just because you COULD HAVE been a pro basketball player.

Hey, I'm not arguing that every aborted fetus should get millions of dollars. I think it's a pretty sure thing that if left alone that fetus would at least get a life. That's the potential. That's at least as sure as someone continuing to get their regular paycheck. The shaq thing is just ridiculous. After conception life isn't a "maybe" it's a sure thing provided nothing bad happens - akin to that 50,000.

PS, there's no way I could have played like shaq, or even one of the NBA benchwarmers, not with the genes I got. Doesn't mean I'm not glad to be alive though

Originally posted by docb77
An attempt at a logical statement the Pro-life position:

Religious - Assuming the existence of a god, regardless of whether deity is the one professed by christians, muslims, or that of the hindus; The greatest gift endowed upon us by said creator is life. The world of science has been unable to demonstrate when human life starts. It is therefore preferable to err on the side of caution when dealing with this unknown. A human fetus should be considered alive until and unless proven otherwise. (Disclaimer: As with the taking of human lives I believe that there are instances comparable to self defense, etc. underwhich this would not be immoral, ie rape, life of the mother, etc.)

Legal - According to the 9th ammendment (yes the same one the courts have interpreted to bestow the "right of privacy"😉 All powers not granted the federal govt in the body of the constitution are granted to the states or the individual citizens. It should therefore be given to the states to decide whether abortion should be legal in each respective state. The constitution apparently grants the states said powers and then the citiizens. Most would agree that the taking of human life is wrong. The legal word would be homicide. Some homicides are legal, most aren't. Most also abhor infanticide, even though this practice was common in some cultures (and is even practice to some extent in China today). The difference of opinion is only when taking said life is wrong. The blastula that forms within hours of conception is definitely made of human cells, but is also definitely not viable outside the mother. The question then becomes: whose cells are they? The mother's? Or an as yet unformed human being? A common practice in today's civil law is to award to injured parties potential lost income. Drawing a parallel - the unformed child has greater claim to those cells, and the mother has the same sort of responsibility (although at a biological level) that parents have for children that have already been born (said children not being able to survive without outside help, it is illegal to kill them even though they are not "viable" in the outside world.)

Rational - (I've already kind of given this one) A person should be responsible for their actions. The Legal system in this country is founded on that idea. If I commit theft or murder, I am required to bear a consequence in my life - prison, capital punishment, etc. There are natural consequences and manmade consequences. If I am foolish enough to fall off a ladder, I could get hurt - natural consequence. If I rob a store, I could go to prison - manmade consequence. An abortion is a way of averting a natural consequence, but carries with it it's own consequences. The question of should this consequence be avoided can only be answered based on morality, either that of the would-be mother, or of society at large. Our Society places a large value on life. It should therefore come as no shock to see polls indicating that about 3/4 of the nation favor at least a partial ban on abortions. Until uncertainty about when "life" starts can be cleared up, abortion should be restricted to special cases. To quote a common saying, You break it, you buy it.

Off topic, it might surprise you that although I favor restricting abortions, I favor fetal stem cell research.

Originally posted by docb77
Based on what?!?!

You're reading some other bias into the argument. The only bias present is that life is worth something, even if it's potential life.

-edit-

PS while I do think they should be responsible enough to go 9 months nourishing the fetus, baby, whatever; I don't suggest saddling them with the child for life. Adoption is certainly a viable alternative when there are many couples who for whatever reason can't have kids.

Originally posted by docb77
You're right, I'd be in blissful ignorance. Unfortunately, the proverbial genie can't be put back in the bottle. As far as which life should take precedence, I think that a possible 76 years (avg human life expectancy) should take precedence over an approximate 9 months of discomfort.

I'm not fond of theft either, should I just ignore someone I see trying to steal a car?

-edit-

come to think of it, the first few months aren't even that uncomfortable as far as I've seen. Life goes on pretty much as normal until fairly close to the end.

👆 😄

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Unless you're a cop, stopping crimes isn't your responsibility. If you wanna take that chance and possibly end up stabbed and killed for something that had nothing to do with you, fine. That's irrelevant however.

Secondly, abortion...(I'll say it slow)...does not affect you in ANY way besides morally. Ergo, it's tough shit that you just "Don't like it". There are a lot of things in this world I don't like, people like you and Black Ghost for one, so I make the effort not to associate myself with such people, not have them removed from the world.

As for adoption, the woman simply may not want to go with that choice. Ever think of that? "OH THAT'S SELFISH! THAT'S..." yeah, shut up. Heard it before, doesn't change the fact that it's up to her.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How does it feel to know you are factually incorrect?

What I believe about myself is slightly more accurate than what you, a guy on a messageboard, believes of me.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nuclear war and abortion are two different ball games and you're pathetic for trying to compare the two. A guy murdering another guy however, like abortion, has nothing to do with you unless it's someone you love.

You do go out of your way though, that's the irony of your argument.

Not about me, you're not.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I perfectly understood what you was trying to do, it was just pathetic in execution. If a nuclear war kicked off, we'd all be in trouble because our governments would most definitely get involved or be involved anyway.

Abortion affects the one female and you are laying claim that it affects you, the fact is that it doesn't. To which you agreed.

Therefore, you have no place trying to stop a female doing something that doesn't affect you anyway.

Get it? Good.

-AC

👆 😄

Awww...look at it! It looks just like it's father. I can almost hear it praying. I bet it'll have the most beautiful eyes when they actually develop.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Moreover, it is the assertion of sithsaber408 that changes in society have made it difficult for one to attain the means necessary to sustain a multiple child family. A fact that both you and soleran30 were oblivious to in your respective quests to ridicule someone. If you find the notion to be so ridiculous, then you need to address sithsaber408, or better yet, address the statement and not the person making it.

I was explaining why a Christian conservative, having sex in marriage, would use a condom during sex, which while not equal to abortion (sperm has to ferilize an egg to form a human), is still technically against God's will.

Thus, we (speaking for the Christian conservative married POV) have caved to society's standards of living, and use condoms to prevent having multiple children before we are ready.

Your statement saying the same thing, except that societal pressures for the standard of living could necessetate an abortion is completly different, and way off base.

Whob and Soleran were right.

Abortion is the ending of a formed human life, contraception is not.

And besides, in the original post, I stated that if the contraception fails, the Christian conservative couple would either keep the baby or put it up for adoption, not kill it.

You are complaining becuase you thought your statement and mine are equal, and they are not.