FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » *sigh* It's your average abortion thread. :) (Page 5)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: *sigh* It's your average abortion thread. :)
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
All true, Matt. But how do we decide what is something that should be left to the masses to decide vs. what should instead be ruled upon by judges? And how does that jibe with the torturous interpretation of the so-called "right-to-privacy" that is nowhere mentioned in the constitution but is somehow inferred, and then applied to something like thr right to privately abort your baby?

So do we leave it up to the judges who obviously in this case had their decision in mind and were going to interpret the law however necessary in order to justify their decision? Or do we let the people decide?

And sure, a just God will send those innocent souls to heaven. But does he judge the rest of us too? And will he judge me for standing idly by while millions of innocents are killed? I'd hate to find out the hard way. So to be on the safe side, I'm gonna protest the thing that appears to me to be murder. And I'll be accused of all kinds of nasty things along the way. For instance, a "right-wing conservative." *shudder*

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hookt_Un_Fonix
Member
Member # 10094

 - posted      Profile for Hookt_Un_Fonix   Email Hookt_Un_Fonix         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with the protesting, and moral obligation to do it, but in what matter will you protest it? Are you willing to hold up a 5x5 poster depicting the corpse of the unfortunate child?
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
No. I just do my best to argue my position effectively. And I vote for pro-life candidates only. That is one of the only things that will outright disqualify you from receiving my vote, is having a pro-choice stance. I view that as being a marker of either deficient morality or deficient intelligence.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Allow me to qualify that statement; simply being pro-life does not preclude one from being morally or mentally deficient. As some might point out, I myself am proof of that.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And how does that jibe with the torturous interpretation of the so-called "right-to-privacy" that is nowhere mentioned in the constitution but is somehow inferred
The constitution was not meant to be an exhaustive list of rights. In fact, there was some controversy about it specifically because of a fear that people would come to believe that there were no rights other than those enumerated in the constitution. Alexander Hamilton anticipated this:
quote:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
The "right to privacy" was not invented in Roe v. Wade - it had already been established through a number of previous supreme court rulings. The application to Roe v. Wade was not about being able to abort the fetus in privacy, but that a woman had domain over her body and could choose to terminate her pregnancy if she wished. Privacy is broader concept than just an accounting of how many people know what you're doing.

quote:
So do we leave it up to the judges who obviously in this case had their decision in mind and were going to interpret the law however necessary in order to justify their decision? Or do we let the people decide?
If we let the people decide by popular vote then the mood of the day can dramatically and negatively the affect the lives of those in the minority. I do not trust the population at large to make good decisions about complicated legal matters, properly weighing constitutional and precidential factors.

quote:
But does he judge the rest of us too?
If there's someone up their judging us, then I expect that we'll be judged according to our knowledge. I'm sure very few people that have abortions believe they are committing murder and I don't think that they will be treated harshly for what they do in ignorance. If you are sure that there are murders happening then I suppose you might be accountable for keeping quiet. I would question how you can be so sure, though.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
No. I just do my best to argue my position effectively. And I vote for pro-life candidates only. That is one of the only things that will outright disqualify you from receiving my vote, is having a pro-choice stance. I view that as being a marker of either deficient morality or deficient intelligence.

It seems like conservative candidates have gotten a lot of play out of espousing a pro-life position, but they rarely seem to act on that position. Given several years with a pro-life president, pro-life congress, pro-life senate, and pro-life supreme court, I'm rather amazed at how little action there was on abortion. Is it worth voting only for pro-life candidates, regardless of their position on other issues, if their pro-lifeness is just a campaign gimmick?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not so sure. I'm just playing it safe. In fact, I sometimes entertain the notion that one is only convicted of crimes that they know are crimes, and so someone who has an abortion, performs an abortion, or supports an abortion with complete confidence that an abortion is no crime will perhaps not be judge guilty of murder even if that is in fact what abortion is. But then, I also have a feeling that everyone knows deep down inside how wrong an abortion is.

[edit] I say "judged" and "convicted" in the sense of a higher power doing the judging and convicting, by the way. [/edit]

True, about the constitution not being an exhaustive list of rights. However, it is not for the judges to decide what rights the constitution left out. They are to determine what is allows and prohibits. This is not what they have done, and this does not end with the "right" to abortion.

Besides, whatever right to privacy those judges discovered, applying it to abortion is the definition of tortuous logic that fully demonstrates their original intention of legalizing it regardless of what the constitution says. Has no one yet pointed out in this thread that the thing being aborted is NOT a part of the woman, but is instead a separate human being?

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
It seems like conservative candidates have gotten a lot of play out of espousing a pro-life position, but they rarely seem to act on that position. Given several years with a pro-life president, pro-life congress, pro-life senate, and pro-life supreme court, I'm rather amazed at how little action there was on abortion. Is it worth voting only for pro-life candidates, regardless of their position on other issues, if their pro-lifeness is just a campaign gimmick?

Yeah, it sucks. Don't think for a moment that I'm happy with any of our politicians. It seems like by simple virtue of being eminently qualified to be president pretty much rules out the possibility of your ever becoming president. Pat Buchanan comes to mind.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Has no one yet pointed out in this thread that the thing being aborted is NOT a part of the woman, but is instead a separate human being?
I don't think that's a settled matter. Even if it is a separate human being, it's a peculiar one with requirements that differ from other human beings. It completely relies on the mother for it's continued existence but an abortion ban would mean that she cannot choose to cut off that support. If a human being will die absent a marrow donation from another person, can we compel that other person to provide their marrow? What about a blood transfusion? Can that be compelled to save a life? Should people that refuse be tried as murderers?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
That fact that there are these questions are what makes me wonder why we let abortion go on unabated. Is it possible that abortion is not wrong? Sure. But it is still only a possibility, and what remains is the possibility that millions of innocent human beings are being killed every year in this country.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
That fact that there are these questions are what makes me wonder why we let abortion go on unabated. Is it possible that abortion is not wrong? Sure. But it is still only a possibility, and what remains is the possibility that millions of innocent human beings are being killed every year in this country.

It's the lack of certainty which makes me think it should be up to the woman, rather than the government or society at large. If God wants her to know that it is wrong, I expect him to make that clear to her.

Personally, I think abortions are terrible (morning-after pill, not so much) and I wish that no one would ever feel that it was the correct choice, but I do believe that I'm not in a position to tell them what the correct choice is. I think the solution to the problem is to decrease the number of situations in which people feel that abortion is warranted by increasing the availability of contraceptives and the education on their use.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It completely relies on the mother for it's continued existence but an abortion ban would mean that she cannot choose to cut off that support.
It's been said but it bears repeating. How is this baby different from a newborn? A murder ban means that the mother cannot stop supporting the baby by refusing it nourishment, she can only try and find someone else to take the job. Since there's no provision for finding another source of support for an unborn fetus, she can't pass that job off to someone else until it's born. Unfairly, we've chosen to remedy this problem by offering the woman the choice to kill the child, rather than wait. Not even let the child die, by ignoring it, but willful and intentional killing.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's been said but it bears repeating. How is this baby different from a newborn?
The baby isn't uniquely dependent on her at that point, as you've pointed out in the remainder of your post.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The baby isn't uniquely dependent on her at that point, as you've pointed out in the remainder of your post.
But is it wrong to make it so that the child at least has a chance of having its dependency shift to someone who'll gladly accept it, rather than kill it instead? As far as I can see, except in cases of health problems of the mother, all the mother will suffer long-term are a few unsightly stretch marks. Is it unfair to ask the woman to pay that price for the life of a child that she was half responsible for creating? Just so that it can have a chance? (A chance, by the way, that a terminal patient on life support does not have, and therein lies the distinction.)
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
It boils down to who gets to decide this....the mother, or someone else.


I think the mother should.


Others think otherwise.


I don't think the fetuses possible rights trump the mothers definite ones, at least not until birth.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It boils down to who gets to decide this....the mother, or someone else.

If you put all the arguments from both sides together, I guess that is what it boils down to. But not when you're talking to one person whose opinions might not be there's no God, babies aren't people, and potential doesn't matter.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholar
Member
Member # 9232

 - posted      Profile for scholar   Email scholar         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
As far as I can see, except in cases of health problems of the mother, all the mother will suffer long-term are a few unsightly stretch marks.

Spoken like someone who has never been pregnant.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
babies aren't people
I think there's some argument about what constitutes a "baby" or a "person" but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that babies aren't people.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholar:
quote:
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
As far as I can see, except in cases of health problems of the mother, all the mother will suffer long-term are a few unsightly stretch marks.

Spoken like someone who has never been pregnant.
Heck, I've never been pregnant, but I know there's a lot more to it than that. "Health problems of the mother" can cover a broad range of problems during the pregnancy, delivery, and long after. Even in my relatively small circle of acquaintances, I knew one woman who died from a postpartum blood clot and another who died from a staph infection acquired in the hospital recovering from her delivery.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't believe there is any non-religious argument that an early-stage fetus is any more a distinct human being with a right to live than the brain dead adults who's death via discontinuation of life support we seem to more universally accept.
This argument has been made many times, by many people, including atheists.

You might be accurate if you added "that is convincing to me" after the word "argument." But your belief as described is simply wrong. There is such an argument.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Is it possible that abortion is not wrong? Sure. But it is still only a possibility, and what remains is the possibility that millions of innocent human beings are being killed every year in this country.

This is just a variant of Pascal's wager, and subject to the same weakness. You have zero knowledge of what an objective morality might be; therefore it is possible that it includes an injunction to abort fetuses whenever possible, as a positive duty. Indeed, for all you know, you are required to kill people who try to prevent you from aborting fetuses, including the mother. If you do not do this, you will be punsihed in hell for all eternity, and so forth. Since this scenario is exactly as probable as the one you outline, your argument fails.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's the thing. You have people who say that abortion is wrong, but that it shouldn't be outlawed because, presumably, the alternative is more wrong. Then you've got people who think there is nothing wrong with abortion. And then you've got people who think that abortion is wrong and it should be outlawed. What you don't have is an excuse for making people live with the knowledge that abortion is legal and this was a decision that was made regardless of any populous decision and telling them that they have no right to determine whether this should even be allowed in the first place, because of theoretical threats to "minority rights."

The mother should not be allowed to make this decision. Because when you do that, sometimes she elects to kill the baby. This is not a "women's issue." We don't allow unwarranted killing in other situations. I don't care if you don't believe it's killing. Because you are exhibiting your own willful refusal to see it for what it really is. This is one of the major reasons for objecting to graphic photos of abortions. If it wasn't really something horrible, it wouldn't be considered graphic.

Ahh, I lost my train of thought.

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Is it possible that abortion is not wrong? Sure. But it is still only a possibility, and what remains is the possibility that millions of innocent human beings are being killed every year in this country.

This is just a variant of Pascal's wager, and subject to the same weakness. You have zero knowledge of what an objective morality might be; therefore it is possible that it includes an injunction to abort fetuses whenever possible, as a positive duty. Indeed, for all you know, you are required to kill people who try to prevent you from aborting fetuses, including the mother. If you do not do this, you will be punsihed in hell for all eternity, and so forth. Since this scenario is exactly as probable as the one you outline, your argument fails.
Because you say so? I don't think so. My argument is that we, being members of a so-called democracy who get to make the rules as we see fit, get to make decisions about what is legal or illegal. I submit that because it is possible that abortion is murder, it must be considered when determining it's legality. But this option has been usurped by a branch of the government that is acting outside of its jurisdiction.

Besides, what's so wrong with Pascal's wager, anyway? If God really does exist, and avoidance of hell entails belief in that God, then what does it matter the reason why one chooses to believe in him, if the belief is sincere?

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Because you are exhibiting your own willful refusal to see it for what it really is.

You're exhibiting your own willful refusal to accept that other people might be able to make a logical and coherent argument which is not consistent with your personal belief system. [Razz]
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I submit that because it is possible that abortion is murder, it must be considered when determining it's legality.
And I submit that because it is possible that abortion is desirable, that must likewise be considered when determining its legality.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eaquae Legit
Member
Member # 3063

 - posted      Profile for Eaquae Legit   Email Eaquae Legit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Besides, what's so wrong with Pascal's wager, anyway? If God really does exist, and avoidance of hell entails belief in that God, then what does it matter the reason why one chooses to believe in him, if the belief is sincere?

It's a crappy reason, that's why. I prefer to believe things because I honestly think them to be truth, not because I feel I need to cover my bases.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Moreover, you are not responding to the criticism of the Wager that I actually made, but to a completely different one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Besides, what's so wrong with Pascal's wager, anyway?
Because it presumes the choice is between the Christian god and no god when there are many other choices. In some belief systems, choosing the wrong god may be worse than choosing none.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
... having a pro-choice stance. I view that as being a marker of either deficient morality or deficient intelligence.
Oh man when I saw that the thread title was changed, I knew you had to be behind it.

quote:
This is one of the major reasons for objecting to graphic photos of abortions. If it wasn't really something horrible, it wouldn't be considered graphic.
Butchering a cow is considered graphic. Hot, hot, hot sex is considered graphic.

I guess if meat and sex weren't really terrible things that should be abolished, they wouldn't be considered graphic OH WAIT, RESHPECTOBIGGLE LOGIC

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
"I prefer to believe things because I honestly think them to be truth, not because I feel I need to cover my bases."

Interesting. Wouldn't a middle ground be smarter, though?

I direct that not at Eaquae so much specifically, but in general.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
"I prefer to believe things because I honestly think them to be truth, not because I feel I need to cover my bases."

Interesting. Wouldn't a middle ground be smarter, though?

I direct that not at Eaquae so much specifically, but in general.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

But how many people can just decide to believe? I know I can't. And even if it would be smarter, it would be dishonest for me to agree to something just to avoid a potential punishment.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Besides, what's so wrong with Pascal's wager, anyway? If God really does exist, and avoidance of hell entails belief in that God, then what does it matter the reason why one chooses to believe in him, if the belief is sincere?

I'm sure someone must have said this, but I'll reiterate it.

It's wrong because it isn't a 50/50 option. If there was only one religion, then the wager would at least make sense. But that's not how the world really is.

Say I accept Pascal's Wager. I'm an atheist, but I figure I want to cover my bets, so I 'decide' to believe in the god of Christianity. But then I die and I end up standing in front of Allah. Sucks to be me, doesn't it?

All that Pascal's wager really tells us is to find the religion with the worst hell and believe in that one.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
I hold that attempting to engage Resh in any sort of actual discussion is ignorant and futile, at least in serious matters. He will, without fail, announce why he is smarter and better equipped to determine the "right" answer than anyone else in the thread, and announce his moral superiority to one and all.


I hold the past years worth of threads to be evidence.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom never posted a link, but he mentioned a study sometime last year that suggested that intuition is only trustworty to the degree that you have experience/knowledge/ability in the subject area.

I have definitely seen the average quality of my own intuition vary tremendously depending on the subject area.

I guess what I'm saying is, I see no reason to trust another person's intuition more than my own on spiritual matters.

I think it's fine to make small guesses in the area of God/spirit/the Unseen. Without testing guesses, we don't increase knowledge. However....to my mind, many of the guesses that people make even today in this society are sometimes disastrously wrong.

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah....a lot of times intuition is merely your own unconscious perceptions and knowledge reacting to your present situations and environment.


It would be cool to see a link to any studies regarding that, though. (hintHint)

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
I don't believe there is any non-religious argument that an early-stage fetus is any more a distinct human being with a right to live than the brain dead adults who's death via discontinuation of life support we seem to more universally accept.
This argument has been made many times, by many people, including atheists.

You might be accurate if you added "that is convincing to me" after the word "argument." But your belief as described is simply wrong. There is such an argument.

I'd like to hear it.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You might be accurate if you added "that is convincing to me"
I think prefacing the statement with "I don't believe" made my post as accurate as it could be.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eaquae Legit
Member
Member # 3063

 - posted      Profile for Eaquae Legit   Email Eaquae Legit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
"I prefer to believe things because I honestly think them to be truth, not because I feel I need to cover my bases."

Interesting. Wouldn't a middle ground be smarter, though?

I direct that not at Eaquae so much specifically, but in general.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

Well, no. If I honestly believe something is truth, a "middle ground" would be just as dishonest as someone who doesn't really believe God is a truth accepting Pascal's Wager. It's "choosing" to believe a certain way just to cover all the bases.

Now, if I'm uncertain as to the truth of a thing or matter, I am quite content to remain agnostic about it.

Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
I hold that attempting to engage Resh in any sort of actual discussion is ignorant and futile, at least in serious matters. He will, without fail, announce why he is smarter and better equipped to determine the "right" answer than anyone else in the thread, and announce his moral superiority to one and all.


I hold the past years worth of threads to be evidence.

Has it really been years?


My real point here is that I don't see why it can't be left up for democracy to decide. To deny the people that option out of some assertion that it would open the door for despotism is to simply assert your own belief that you are the one who is right.

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
I meant it to be possessive. Darn typos.... [Wink]


Although you have been around since 2005....so it depends on if we are noting the sign up year or actual months spent. [Wink]

I understand the point, as do most people here. The main reason, at least for me, is that I don't trust you with my freedoms, particularly those that involve my body (in general.....it's not like I can have a child myself). Not just you specifically, but in general.

The majority has been wrong many, many times. Just because 51 out of 100 people think something is true doesn't make it so.


People have a right to decide for themselves where the line is on important issues like these. Just because a majority disagrees with them doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to decide for themselves.


We have checks and balances for this very reason.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
But we get to vote on some things, right? Who decides what gets a vote and what gets dictated to us? What are the determining criteria there?

ah.. YEAR'S, not years. Makes much more sense.

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Flaming Toad on a Stick
Member
Member # 9302

 - posted      Profile for Flaming Toad on a Stick   Email Flaming Toad on a Stick         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
Say I accept Pascal's Wager. I'm an atheist, but I figure I want to cover my bets, so I 'decide' to believe in the god of Christianity. But then I die and I end up standing in front of Allah. Sucks to be me, doesn't it?

[quibble] Not really. It's the same God. [/quibble]
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Flaming Toad on a Stick
Member
Member # 9302

 - posted      Profile for Flaming Toad on a Stick   Email Flaming Toad on a Stick         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
If we cannot answer the question of whether abortion is murder, then we must err on the side of caution.
And this is where we get stuck, I think, on religion. I don't believe there is any non-religious argument that an early-stage fetus is any more a distinct human being with a right to live than the brain dead adults who's death via discontinuation of life support we seem to more universally accept.


1. RE: non-religious arguments: It's not a religious argument. I believe the right to life is the most important human right, and that it begins when the egg is ferilized and begins to divide. It has its own genetic coding, it's own physical being. Later on during the pregnancy, it begins to acquire all of its human physical traits. In its last months, it is responsive and thinking. In short, I believe human life begins when a living creature with unique human DNA is created in the womb fom its parent cells. That's not a religious argument.

2. RE: Brain-dead adult analogy: It doesn't work. The brain-dead man will never think again, or move, or live very long for that matter. The fetus will gain sentince, develop, and possibly live 70, 80 or even 100 years as a healthy human being.

Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I believe the right to life is the most important human right, and that it begins when the egg is ferilized and begins to divide.
Why then?

quote:
The brain-dead man will never think again, or move, or live very long for that matter. The fetus will gain sentince
If potential is so important, why not act to protect the loss of eggs and sperm? Why is the moment of fertilization so important? What about all the fertilized eggs that don't implant? Are those all tragedies to be mourned?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
Say I accept Pascal's Wager. I'm an atheist, but I figure I want to cover my bets, so I 'decide' to believe in the god of Christianity. But then I die and I end up standing in front of Allah. Sucks to be me, doesn't it?

[quibble] Not really. It's the same God. [/quibble]
Sez you. The god in question might disagree.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 8624

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte         Edit/Delete Post 
Allah shmallah. What about Krishna? Or maybe Zeus? Thor? Ra? Haruhi?

What about all of them, is a better question.

Further, who says that being Christian doesn't cause negative things? For Pascal's Wager to be right, you'd have to be sure being Christian doesn't.

Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
[quibble] Not really. It's the same God. [/quibble]

I thought the quote went something like, "Thou shall have no other God before me."

Did they change it to, "Thou shall have no other God before me, except for Allah of course, since that's me too. Was the two different religions thing messing you guys up? I guess I should have edited my post sooner. My bad."

[Wink]

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Flaming Toad on a Stick
Member
Member # 9302

 - posted      Profile for Flaming Toad on a Stick   Email Flaming Toad on a Stick         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
Say I accept Pascal's Wager. I'm an atheist, but I figure I want to cover my bets, so I 'decide' to believe in the god of Christianity. But then I die and I end up standing in front of Allah. Sucks to be me, doesn't it?

[quibble] Not really. It's the same God. [/quibble]
Sez you. The god in question might disagree.
Allah is simply how you say "God" in Arabic. I pray to Allah, and I'm Catholic. Furthermore, the vast majority of pertinent scripture points to hem both being the same God, and this thought is backed up by most Christian and Muslim scholars.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Flaming Toad on a Stick
Member
Member # 9302

 - posted      Profile for Flaming Toad on a Stick   Email Flaming Toad on a Stick         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I believe the right to life is the most important human right, and that it begins when the egg is ferilized and begins to divide.
Why then?

quote:
The brain-dead man will never think again, or move, or live very long for that matter. The fetus will gain sentince
If potential is so important, why not act to protect the loss of eggs and sperm? Why is the moment of fertilization so important? What about all the fertilized eggs that don't implant? Are those all tragedies to be mourned?

1. I already went through that in my post. It's a living creature with it's own seperate human DNA, developing into a full human body. I believe the right to human life begins when human life begins. How is that a religious argument?

2. Why should they be? They are not seperate human beigns, they do not multiply or develop into anything else etc... Sentience is not important. I simply used it to show you why I believe your analogy doesn't work. The potential to develop into a full-blown human being is an important point for me in the case against abortion, but it's not the reason I believe life begins at conception.

Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If potential is so important, why not act to protect the loss of eggs and sperm? Why is the moment of fertilization so important? What about all the fertilized eggs that don't implant? Are those all tragedies to be mourned?
Because no matter what care you give a sperm, or an egg, no matter how you nourish it and provide it with an optimal environment in which to grow, it will never be a human being.

A fertilized, implanted egg, on the other hand, will. As for how I counter the argument that fertilized eggs often don't implant and should we try to "find" them somehow and preserve them - I don't see a problem with not interfering in natural death. As in, for instance, DNR orders for the terminally ill. If they want to request no one intervene and allow them to die naturally I have no problem with it.

If a fertiled egg never implants and is shed by the woman's body naturally, that is a natural death. So is miscarriage. I see abortion as a direct interference in the natural process, to take away, by force, the opportunity for that human being to develop. To return to my DNR analogy it's the difference between not doing CPR and allowing someone to die anyway, and willfully killing them before they would have died. There is a difference.

So, that is why I see abortion as killing a human being, and birth control that destroys sperm or egg is not.

Disclaimer: This is only my view and I'm not trying to speak for anyone else.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2