Abortion

Started by Alpha Centauri787 pages
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
And Im afraid that my 'self-invented' tyrannical future is not really self-invented. Im conservative, and I follow many conservative ideas, one of which being that the degredation of morality and self-control and responsibility in society (caused in fraction by abortion but majorly by other things and people's raising in general) is a bad thing. The fact that abortion is one contributor is reason enough to get rid of it, along with the rest, which I would also be against. That is something many people would agree on. Its not some lunatic prediction, its happening now.

It is actually self-invented isn't it? Because it doesn't exist. I don't mean YOURSELF, I mean someone decided "Ok, this is how the future will be if this, this and this carries on.". Based on what? Negatively projecting the results of things you dislike.

Anybody could do the opposite and be as accurate.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
ERRRR... You are completely biased as well, following a very liberal agenda that seems to revolve around the basis that everybody has unlimited rights. Everyone does not have the ability to do whatever they want to themselves if it does not at first affect anyone else, because eventually it could, and many times does lead people to problems later. Post-Partum Syndrome effects the mother, leading to depression sometimes and even suicide. On the subject of suicide, you could argue that suicide only affects the one person physically, but it also affects everyone around the person who killed themselves.

I'm not completely biased to any one side. I'm just for the right to choose. I don't love, like, dislike or hate abortion. It just needs to be an option, as does adoption.

Nobody has unlimited rights, they stop when others are being infringed upon. When you place yourself in the way so you're imposed upon anyway, it doesn't count, as you are doing. That's like me walking into a bar where everyone's already smoking and saying "This is disgusting, I'm gonna sit here and moan.".

Post-partum isn't definite, it's a possibility, just like it's possible she'll go on to live a better life because of the abortion. Your suicide analogy is bs, if I killed myself it wouldn't matter to anyone here, likewise to you, or at least it shouldn't.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
People with abortions are much more likely to be irresponsible in the future as well, and child abuse rates have increased proportionally alongsides abortions over the past 30 years, sprouting not alone from abortion, but all of the other uncaring actions that go alongside it as well. You can look up abuse rates yourself if you want.

How do you know they're much more likely to be irresponsible? Now we're tying child abuse to abortion? Are you kidding me? What an idiot.

We're not discussing child abuse, we're discussing abortion, and abortion isn't any more to blame for child abuse than it is to blame for the ozone layer's hole.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
And throughout your debate Ive heard a lot about "rights" and stuff like that, as I said earlier and you know for yourself. I would be interested to know where in the world you live. I could make a guess and say the U.S., but that would just be a guess based off of the level of arrogance and rights activism I see from your attitude. Democracy never implies ulimate freedom. Not by a longshot, there are limits to everything, and reasons they are made.

I'm from England. Who's discussing ultimate freedom? I'm saying women have the right to decide what they do with their foetus, and nothing you can say will prove any definitive impact on you or your life.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Fine according to who, you? The world didnt explode but does that mean things are fine? There are other people in the world, not just those who preach the right to do nothing about our problems. Abortion is a problem. If the major gut instinct of everyone, and you yourself admitted you do not like the abuse of abortion, is that something is not right -then somethign is not right. Just because it doesnt effect me, doesnt mean I should ignore it. I heard this same lameass arguement about the Iraq war. "If it doesnt hurt America then who cares what happens to the rest of the world".

Abortion is a problem according to who? Why are our views subjective and somehow abortion is an objective problem based on an imaginary future? Odd view. You're twisting it; the abuse of abortion is a problem with people, like the abuse of anything. The procedure is not forcing people to abuse it, it exists and so people are. That sucks, but it's a sacrifice that has to be made to ensure the freedom of many who use it responsibly. You say there is no responsible use of abortion based on the fact that you feel everyone should deal with it, and your kind are dying out.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
No, it is not wrong at all. Every action effects other actions, and effects others. Sometimes in ways you could never guess. Newtons laws work socially too. For everything you do, there are consequences, there are repercussions. Maybe I have idealistic views, but I have all the right in the world to try and BETTER the world. Apparently things arent the way you want it either -Ive seen you arguing about drugs in another topic.

Do you realise that "better" is subjective? That your ideal world may be a hellhole to many?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Thats always a reason to steer clear isnt it? What about those people in the Lebanese refugee camp? They could all die and if not for the media we would never know about it. Is it then right to sit on our asses and watch? I would guess yes, in your case.

Yes, it is. Who the f*ck are they to me? It doesn't affect me in any way possible. I couldn't give a shit about anyone but myself, my loved ones and those I care about, regardless of who they are.

Where was it written that I have to give my concern to nobodies? You have a warped view of the world.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Yes, I do hope you will see the light too. Just like me for you though, I doubt it. Every child should get its place. Just becuase they cant voice their own opinions, doesnt mean we can just get rid of them like animals in a slaughterhouse. Like "Here's the runt-off with his head!"

Yeah, it does actually mean we can get rid of them.

"Don't give me that shit about 'It's a living thing!'. A genital wart is a living thing, but if it's gonna irritate you for life you burn it off."

-Doug Stanhope.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
And I think its people like you who are dangerous. The very fact you think the way you do only goes to prove to me things arent "alright" as you put it.

To who? You? You need to realise your view of the world as it "should" be is not the default here.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
I dont want to live in a world where everyone is selfish and self-centered with their scientific power and being able to legally stop babies from being born because they dont want them at a whim of bad choice. That just leads to the next thing, and someday, something worse. Thats the beginning of the end. Theres no apocolaypse greater than what we can do to uncivilize ourselves.

YOU are being self-centred. You don't give a shit about other people, you only care about your views being forced and you are using foetuses as a tool to do so. How do I know this? I know this because I know the key flaw in your debate and the debate of others like you:

Everyone you are against were foetuses too, and you're oppressing them, the very right you'd fight to protect, you'd remove once they reach a certain age. You'll fight for them as foetuses, you fight for them to have lives, then you seem to act as if they only have those rights when they are a foetus. You value those higher than people here. It's a self-defeating argument.

So why do you want the foetus to live? I'll propose why; because you want to fill its head full of your own opinions in the hopes it'll grow up to be like you. You don't want it to have a chance at life, you want to use it.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
By the way, I would call pro-choice very apethetic. 'We build it and patent it, so its ours for the keeping....'

Precisely, and maybe it is apathy. Why should I care what a woman does? But if I'm going to take action, it's pro-choice.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
By the way. Still waiting for that essay. 😉

I've said everything in this post that was in the essay, even copy and pasted parts of it.

If you genuinely want me to paste the insults, despite previously requesting otherwise, there may be less to you than I thought.

-AC

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Implied in friendship- or any relationship, is trust. That goes along with being able to offer suggestions and helping them make a choice that could be greater than they can see themselves. There are times when opting to stay out of the way is more dangerous to a person's mental state.
You speak to me, yet you ignored me before.

Are you a Dr... How do you know whats good for that persons 'mental state' .... Giving birth to a baby that they didnt want or couldnt afford can be more damaging and have lasting effects on their 'mental state'.

Originally posted by Schecter
i agree. i also think it takes a real friend to be able to put religion/personal beliefs aside and support the people close to them. one might suggest, as in "you may very much regret it, etc" but to point some high power and pious finger and preach/damn would be the act of...well not a friend at all imho
I agree.. I couldnt have said it better.

[QUOTE=]Originally posted by FeceMan

Actually, the only paradox is saying that there is no set of rules that applies to everyone, except the rule that there is no set of rules.

You know my beliefs on that.

The very idea of moral absolutes is far from flawed. How is this one: premeditated murder is wrong. Gee, that seems like a good standard to apply to everyone. [/QUOTE]

No one says that there aren't rules that apply to people. The laws of nature are there for fact for one. Just how could moral absolute laws exist? I mean you say "You can't kill that guy" I say "I can" and then I do....how is there a moral absolute anywhere there?

No I don't, so please answer "how would they come about, where are they, what are they, who made them, why were they allowed to make them, why are the absolute, why aren't mine absolute, does the person that made them have to accept them, can they change them, where do we find them, are they certainly against abortion? Why? Why does everyone have different opinions on them? Etc" point by point so I can show you how it is flawed.

Actually the very idea is flawed. I happen to agree with you that we as a society should outlaw premeditated murder...but it isn't wrong on a grand moral scale. It isn't set. A person might very well kill if they want to, they might get away with it and they might never feel the slightest bit of regret. How can it be absolute?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I happen to agree with you that we as a society should outlaw premeditated murder

So then you agree with Feceman? Why are you even debating him?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then you agree with Feceman? Why are you even debating him?

Cause I don't agree that it is an absolute moral standard...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cause I don't agree that it is an absolute moral standard...

You typed two paragraphs arguing him, and then you said 'Oh, by the way, I agree with you' which basically derails what you said in those 2 prior paragraphs.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You typed two paragraphs arguing him, and then you said 'Oh, by the way, I agree with you' which basically derails what you said in those 2 prior paragraphs.

No, I didn't.

I typed two paragraphs arguing one point then saying I agree with you on that other minor point you brought up. Seemed reasonable to me at the time. Still does actually.

Because people are shitty, and morality can be altered, much like a fear of snakes can be instilled.

You are saying our human conscience keeps us from committing immoral actions, yet you say the human conscience is easily altered to match the morality of what we perceive to be moral an immoral. So my question is, how is morality then not subjective?

Originally posted by backdoorman
You are saying our human conscience keeps us from committing immoral actions, yet you say the human conscience is easily altered to match the morality of what we perceive to be moral an immoral. So my question is, how is morality then not subjective?

Altered by humans.

The more one does something that one thinks is wrong, the less guilty one feels because of it. Eventually, one doesn't feel guilty for doing it. Because one doesn't feel guilty, such an action is obviously not wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No one says that there aren't rules that apply to people. The laws of nature are there for fact for one. Just how could moral absolute laws exist? I mean you say "You can't kill that guy" I say "I can" and then I do....how is there a moral absolute anywhere there?

I can't tell if you're making a joke. The laws of nature are physical laws. The laws of morality aren't physical. They don't say "you can't," they say "you shouldn't."
No I don't, so please answer "how would they come about, where are they, what are they, who made them, why were they allowed to make them, why are the absolute, why aren't mine absolute, does the person that made them have to accept them, can they change them, where do we find them, are they certainly against abortion? Why? Why does everyone have different opinions on them? Etc" point by point so I can show you how it is flawed.

Oh, come on, you know the answer to this one. 'Sides, I'm not going to derail this thread further with a religion discussion.
Actually the very idea is flawed. I happen to agree with you that we as a society should outlaw premeditated murder...but it isn't wrong on a grand moral scale. It isn't set. A person might very well kill if they want to, they might get away with it and they might never feel the slightest bit of regret. How can it be absolute?

Simply because one doesn't feel regret does not make it wrong. If I take an infant from its mother and throw it in a meat grinder, my action was wrong. I might not feel guitly about it, but there is no question as to the morality of what I have done. I might even feel pleased with myself for turning a baby into dogfood--but that doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Altered by humans.

The more one does something that one thinks is wrong, the less guilty one feels because of it. Eventually, one doesn't feel guilty for doing it. Because one doesn't feel guilty, such an action is obviously not wrong.

Even so, people still believe in different things being wrong. Some women might not feel bad about having an abortion even if it is their first. I fail to see how any of this helps your claim.

Simply because one doesn't feel regret does not make it wrong. If I take an infant from its mother and throw it in a meat grinder, my action was wrong. I might not feel guitly about it, but there is no question as to the morality of what I have done. I might even feel pleased with myself for turning a baby into dogfood--but that doesn't make it right.

Why is there no question as to the morality of what the person who did that did? Because you and most people believe it to be morally wrong? General consensus of certain moral standards do not equal to an objective moral scale.

You can go own believing in Christ if it helps you comfort your moral theories but don't expect us to buy into your bullshit. Morality is subjective until proven to be otherwise.

In less you had an abortion how would you know how they feel after killing a baby?That is putting words in people's mouth saying that they think it is fine.
I know some people who had abortions and how terrible they stil feel about it.It does not make promblems go away it makes them alot worst.jm

It's not a baby that's being killed though, it's cells.

How is it cells?It is a baby.jm

Originally posted by FeceMan
Because people are shitty, and morality can be altered, much like a fear of snakes can be instilled.

It's far from impossible. It is, in fact, wholly possible. I wouldn't say "basic rights of sentient human beings," but rather "anything with a will."

Define "a will." Of course that definition will be subjective mind you.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Simply because it does not appear objective does not make it subjective.
I.e. my subjective definition of "wrong" supersedes your subjective definition of "wrong." Ergo the "objective morality ascribes abortion as wrong?"
Originally posted by FeceMan
However, the question that one must ask oneself is: why isn't a fetus a human? Is it size? The stage of development? Its viability? The lack of sentience?
Viability, sentience and size (the latest being trivial) are all sub-characteristics of developmental stage. Developmental stage defines what it is to be given the rights of a human individual, a person, a human being, people.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I can't tell if you're making a joke. The laws of nature are physical laws. The laws of morality aren't physical. They don't say "you can't," they say "you shouldn't."

Oh, come on, you know the answer to this one. 'Sides, I'm not going to derail this thread further with a religion discussion.

God did it? Let's not be coy, your subjective morals derive from religion. You want to label them the objective default. That's your prerogative. But don't expect everyone, having their own subjective views to buy into it.
Originally posted by FeceMan
The very idea of moral absolutes is far from flawed. How is this one: premeditated murder is wrong. Gee, that seems like a good standard to apply to everyone.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Simply because one doesn't feel regret does not make it wrong. If I take an infant from its mother and throw it in a meat grinder, my action was wrong. I might not feel guitly about it, but there is no question as to the morality of what I have done. I might even feel pleased with myself for turning a baby into dogfood--but that doesn't make it right.
To you. To me. To the legal profession and judiciary. To Bardock even. To everyone, everywhere, ever? No, ergo, subjective. I'm pretty sure that's all Bardock is saying.

How do we know that not believing in God is BS?We have different reasons to believe in him.Even people who don't know that they are commiting a sin and feel guity.
That is God sayiing yu just sin!(Alittle joke there)Anyway we know he is there we just choose to block the little voice in our head telling us that he is with us!jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
How do we know that not believing in God is BS?We have different reasons to believe in him.Even people who don't know that they are commiting a sin and feel guity.
That is God sayiing yu just sin!(Alittle joke there)Anyway we know he is there we just choose to block the little voice in our head telling us that he is with us!jm
Keep posting. You're the best argument for pro-choice there is.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
In less you had an abortion how would you know how they feel after killing a baby?That is putting words in people's mouth saying that they think it is fine.
I know some people who had abortions and how terrible they stil feel about it.It does not make promblems go away it makes them alot worst.jm
In less? Alot worst?

I am pro-life!Never Pro-abortion.Got to go anyway to work.See you all later!jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I am pro-life!Never Pro-abortion.Got to go anyway to work.See you all later!jm
talk about a nobrainer.