Page 5 of 13 [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next

monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,170

19 May 2009, 4:58 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Let me ask you a question -- what should the punishment be for attempted suicide? Should the person making the attempt be punished? Helped?


That is a crime so heinous it deserves the death penalty.



MattShizzle
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

19 May 2009, 5:13 pm

I keep thinking of the Eric Schwartz video itt.



Chibi_Neko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,884
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

19 May 2009, 5:56 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Your question never did make sense. The situations you were comparing were not similar.


It made perfect sense. The fact that you never answered the question tells me that you want these women to do what you don't. You are the one that wants the babies so badly, so you should take them. All pro-lifers that try to force women to have unwanted babies should be obligated to take the kids in after they are born.

Ancalagon wrote:
I notice that you didn't suggest killing off all of the excess unwanted kids in the adoption system. That's a good thing, but doesn't that kind of undermine the argument for abortion on the grounds that it keeps the number of unwanted kids down?


It's common sense not to kill off the kids because they are under the category living-breathing people, 2 month-old fetuses are not.

Ancalagon wrote:
You know what gets on my nerves? People who tell religious people to shut up, merely because they are religious.


Religion doesn't have a place in the abortion debate for numerous reasons.

1. Church and state are separate

2. Different branches of christanity have different view on the subject. One would be the United Church of Canada, to them abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor, but encourages abortion prevention methods like education and contraceptives. (If you really want to take the bible literally, it says that babies don't have any value until they have reached 1 month of age, this is why I am glad that the bible is a work of fiction)

3. Not everyone has a religion, a christian waving a virgin mary sign in front of a atheist going to a abortion clinic makes no sense and is a waste of time.

4. We live in a world of reality. People who are against abortion for religious reasons should only practice what the preach for themselves ONLY. If some religious person tries to tell me what to do and what I am worth, I am going to speak up about it, if they don't interfere with my life, I won't say a word to them. In fact it is the religious people that kick up all the fuss, not the other way around.

You can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. My cousin is one of those people. She thinks abortion is wrong and would not do it herself, but also thinks its wrong to impose her view on to anyone else and that people need to make up their own minds on what is best for 'them' not herself.


_________________
Humans are intelligent, but that doesn't make them smart.


claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,191

19 May 2009, 5:58 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, the issue is probably just one of social positioning there with the children vs adults thing. I mean, people who kill nuns are likely considered worse than people who kill inner city blacks, but both are equally human.(well, except if you are an extreme Protestant, but even then it is possible as most of those are found in the south)
I would have to agree with the children vs. adults example, but what of the other? Women who commit infanticide are given more slack than those who kill their developed children.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

19 May 2009, 6:08 pm

Chibi_Neko wrote:
It made perfect sense. The fact that you never answered the question tells me that you want these women to do what you don't. You are the one that wants the babies so badly, so you should take them. All pro-lifers that try to force women to have unwanted babies should be obligated to take the kids in after they are born.

No, Ancalgon is right, your suggestion makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote:
It's common sense not to kill off the kids because they are under the category living-breathing people, 2 month-old fetuses are not.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The point of the pro-life position is the belief that 2-month-old fetuses are human beings with rights.

Quote:
4. We live in a world of reality. People who are against abortion for religious reasons should only practice what the preach for themselves ONLY. If some religious person tries to tell me what to do and what I am worth, I am going to speak up about it, if they don't interfere with my life, I won't say a word to them. In fact it is the religious people that kick up all the fuss, not the other way around.

We live in a world of reality. People who are against murder for religious reasons should only practice what they preach for themselves ONLY.

Quote:
You can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. My cousin is one of those people. She thinks abortion is wrong and would not do it herself, but also thinks its wrong to impose her view on to anyone else and that people need to make up their own minds on what is best for 'them' not herself.

If you believe abortion is wrong and that it is literally murder, then it makes all the sense in the world to prevent other people from doing it. You can't say "Oh, I think murder is wrong, so I would never kill anyone, but it's also wrong to impose my view on anyone else and people need to make up their own minds on whether or not they should murder."

It looks to me like the pro-lifers and pro-choicers just keep talking past each other. Is it that freaking hard to figure out what the other side's opinion is? Each side has solid reasoning, but begins from different premises. Argue about the premises rather than the end conclusion, because you aren't getting anywhere by skipping to the end.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Chibi_Neko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,884
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

19 May 2009, 6:34 pm

Orwell wrote:
No, Ancalgon is right, your suggestion makes no sense whatsoever.


Makes sense to me at least. I really don't want kids, and I am on contraceptives, but if I where to get pregnant against my will, and where to get a abortion, Ancalgon would be hell-bent on stopping me. Now if I where to turn around and say "ok, I'll have the baby, but I plan on giving it to you". So far his posts suggest that he expects me to do it, but not himself.

My basic point is pro-life needs to be more then just making sure that the baby get born. :D


_________________
Humans are intelligent, but that doesn't make them smart.


cognito
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

19 May 2009, 6:48 pm

oh, so that is why when I call a pro life person pro goverment they get pissed! well, they want the gov in someone's uterus!


_________________
I am a freak, want to hold my leash?


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,525

19 May 2009, 7:37 pm

Chibi_Neko wrote:
Religion doesn't have a place in the abortion debate for numerous reasons.

1. Church and state are separate

"Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension." --John F. Kennedy

Quote:
2. Different branches of christanity have different view on the subject.

Yes. So? What does that have to do with allowing religious people into the debate?

Quote:
3. Not everyone has a religion, a christian waving a virgin mary sign in front of a atheist going to a abortion clinic makes no sense and is a waste of time.

Since I'm a protestant, virgin mary signs would be at least as ineffective on me.

Quote:
People who are against abortion for religious reasons should only practice what the preach for themselves ONLY.

This is what I'm objecting to. You're trying to tell me that it's all fine if I'm religious, just as long as I keep it a deep dark secret, and never let it influence the way I live my life.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,525

19 May 2009, 7:56 pm

Chibi_Neko wrote:
Makes sense to me at least. I really don't want kids, and I am on contraceptives, but if I where to get pregnant against my will, and where to get a abortion, Ancalgon would be hell-bent on stopping me. Now if I where to turn around and say "ok, I'll have the baby, but I plan on giving it to you". So far his posts suggest that he expects me to do it, but not himself.

This actually makes some sense. As a guy, I can't get pregnant. If I got a girl pregnant, however, I would take care of it. If she dropped it in my lap and left, I'd still take care of it.

I don't particularly want kids either, and it would be an extremely inconvenient time for me at the moment. I wouldn't have any other moral choice, though.

Quote:
My basic point is pro-life needs to be more then just making sure that the baby get born. :D

This I agree with.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

19 May 2009, 8:02 pm

claire333 wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, the issue is probably just one of social positioning there with the children vs adults thing. I mean, people who kill nuns are likely considered worse than people who kill inner city blacks, but both are equally human.(well, except if you are an extreme Protestant, but even then it is possible as most of those are found in the south)
I would have to agree with the children vs. adults example, but what of the other? Women who commit infanticide are given more slack than those who kill their developed children.

Well, I am not sure that problem is technically different. I would not generalize that far though, as I don't know the real intuitions, and I do not know how much of these intuitions are matters of cultural influence. I mean, it could just be that babies are not able to talk and annoying. I mean, you've had small children, so certainly you've had times where you just wanted it to shut up and stop waking you up late at night. So, it just might be something that people understand, and thank the existence of a maternal instinct for preventing. (purely speculative)

In any case, I've always heard that people considered babies incredibly cute, so I didn't know that killing a 10 year old was worse, as I would have thought it would be the opposite.



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,191

19 May 2009, 8:25 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
In any case, I've always heard that people considered babies incredibly cute, so I didn't know that killing a 10 year old was worse, as I would have thought it would be the opposite.
I am not saying it is worse, but it is viewed as worse by some...or maybe just portrayed as worse in the media. One group are the monsters fed to the public, while infanticide kept pretty hush hush and treated with pity and allowed excuses. Maybe it is because a ten year old is viewed as more of a sentient being than an infant, like comparing an infant and fetus. Or maybe it is the shock of it all that causes some to react in a different way.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

19 May 2009, 8:28 pm

Chibi_Neko wrote:
Orwell wrote:
No, Ancalgon is right, your suggestion makes no sense whatsoever.


Makes sense to me at least. I really don't want kids, and I am on contraceptives, but if I where to get pregnant against my will, and where to get a abortion, Ancalgon would be hell-bent on stopping me. Now if I where to turn around and say "ok, I'll have the baby, but I plan on giving it to you". So far his posts suggest that he expects me to do it, but not himself.

In the end, it is still your actions that bring the child into being (disregarding rape babies, which are rare enough to discount for now). If Ancalgon got a girl pregnant, then it would be his legal and moral responsibility to care for the resulting child. But something he had nothing to do with? Why should he have obligations towards it?

Quote:
My basic point is pro-life needs to be more then just making sure that the baby get born. :D

True. But from the pro-life perspective, you gotta get them out of the womb safely before worrying about anything else.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


cognito
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

19 May 2009, 9:07 pm

most pro lifers are also against welfare programs, so how are you helping the kids OUT of the womb? IF someone is poor and they have a child, you want them to raise it in a neglected home because of what? a misgudied sense of self rightousness? if you make it illegal, the only difference is women will die doing it with a coat hanger.


_________________
I am a freak, want to hold my leash?


MattShizzle
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

19 May 2009, 9:14 pm

Most religious conservatives are only concerned with "life" when it's a fetus or a brain-dead person. My theory is they only care about those with similar intelligence to themselves.



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,191

19 May 2009, 9:16 pm

cognito wrote:
most pro lifers are also against welfare programs...
Really?