|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:18 am
And I yours. You seem to have dropped off the debate somewhere around page 6. Allow me to repost my last argument, at which point your train of thought derailed. No braincells survived. divineseraph lordstar divineseraph -xXGodslayer_RaiXx- lordstar Bingo! We have a winner! And our economic strength as Americans is in our educated workforce wouldn't it be wonderful to build a world we could be proud of its like my grandparents told me they wanted a better life then they had and in that they have succeeded but they also felt the need to apologize for the state the world is in I don't want that message to continue change will happen when we make it happen it is our time to get involved and fight for our future In order for that change to happen we need to take care of the kids that are here who are living breathing free-thinking individuals. We need to help those who are mentally ill, diseased, abused, raped, molested etc. Because they ARE our future. The future of humanity rests on their shoulders. Their decisions can undoubtedly change the way the way the world is today and make sure the future doesn't look so bleak. (I'm not talking about feti, I'm talking about children, teenagers, toddlers, babies, the ones who society has long forgotten. The ones who society is willing to give up to make life better for something that isn't even close to be human.) Again, another Red Herring. Oh, yes, let's help the ones alive now. But let's also protect the unborn as well. They are also alive. Oh, and human by the way. You may want to refresh your biological understanding or crack open a dictionary. The point is, our argument is not about mentally disabled, abused or raped children, but about unborn ones. To drag that in to this discussion is unrelated in any way to the argument at hand and serves only to distract from the real argument. So yes, I agree. Let us help those who need it. And who else needs it more than feti, killed by the millions every single year? Let's work together to liberate them and give them a chance to grow up as adults and move this country and world into peace and harmony and equality. if your learning bio from a dictionary we have a problem m8 how about taking a class and or reading a bio textbook "The point is, our argument is not about mentally disabled, abused or raped children, but about unborn ones. To drag that in to this discussion is unrelated in any way to the argument at hand and serves only to distract from the real argument." The addition is very relevant I have said many times that if we do not help those who are disabled, abused, neglected, poor, cold, hungry...the cycle will continue The unborn are alive but not human I say there is more to being human then just being alive and a set of DNA A fetus has no investment in it's own life and thus is not human see I have given a reason why I think the way I do where all you do is say yuh huh dez is too human (sorry about the dramatization) It is a red herring becuase it does not have to do with abortion. However, amongstending abortion, I agree, we should help everyone. Born and unborn. ******** money, it causes more harm than anything. ******** war, it has never helped any but the rich. But this is not a debate about the adoption system nor the economy nor war. Though they tie in losely, they may only do that. They may not be used as an argumnt for or against, only to support an argument. For example, were we arguing about War, I could not say "Well, I think we need to improve the schooling system. End of discussion". Although education relates to war, it is not the argument at hand. L2logic. Well, I say that humans have to be white and christian. Welcome to the 1800's America.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:50 pm
divineseraph And I yours. You seem to have dropped off the debate somewhere around page 6. Allow me to repost my last argument, at which point your train of thought derailed. No braincells survived. divineseraph lordstar divineseraph -xXGodslayer_RaiXx- lordstar Bingo! We have a winner! And our economic strength as Americans is in our educated workforce wouldn't it be wonderful to build a world we could be proud of its like my grandparents told me they wanted a better life then they had and in that they have succeeded but they also felt the need to apologize for the state the world is in I don't want that message to continue change will happen when we make it happen it is our time to get involved and fight for our future In order for that change to happen we need to take care of the kids that are here who are living breathing free-thinking individuals. We need to help those who are mentally ill, diseased, abused, raped, molested etc. Because they ARE our future. The future of humanity rests on their shoulders. Their decisions can undoubtedly change the way the way the world is today and make sure the future doesn't look so bleak. (I'm not talking about feti, I'm talking about children, teenagers, toddlers, babies, the ones who society has long forgotten. The ones who society is willing to give up to make life better for something that isn't even close to be human.) Again, another Red Herring. Oh, yes, let's help the ones alive now. But let's also protect the unborn as well. They are also alive. Oh, and human by the way. You may want to refresh your biological understanding or crack open a dictionary. The point is, our argument is not about mentally disabled, abused or raped children, but about unborn ones. To drag that in to this discussion is unrelated in any way to the argument at hand and serves only to distract from the real argument. So yes, I agree. Let us help those who need it. And who else needs it more than feti, killed by the millions every single year? Let's work together to liberate them and give them a chance to grow up as adults and move this country and world into peace and harmony and equality. if your learning bio from a dictionary we have a problem m8 how about taking a class and or reading a bio textbook "The point is, our argument is not about mentally disabled, abused or raped children, but about unborn ones. To drag that in to this discussion is unrelated in any way to the argument at hand and serves only to distract from the real argument." The addition is very relevant I have said many times that if we do not help those who are disabled, abused, neglected, poor, cold, hungry...the cycle will continue The unborn are alive but not human I say there is more to being human then just being alive and a set of DNA A fetus has no investment in it's own life and thus is not human see I have given a reason why I think the way I do where all you do is say yuh huh dez is too human (sorry about the dramatization) It is a red herring becuase it does not have to do with abortion. However, amongstending abortion, I agree, we should help everyone. Born and unborn. ******** money, it causes more harm than anything. ******** war, it has never helped any but the rich. But this is not a debate about the adoption system nor the economy nor war. Though they tie in losely, they may only do that. They may not be used as an argumnt for or against, only to support an argument. For example, were we arguing about War, I could not say "Well, I think we need to improve the schooling system. End of discussion". Although education relates to war, it is not the argument at hand. L2logic. Well, I say that humans have to be white and christian. Welcome to the 1800's America. Would it be too much to explore some of the circumstances that surround the issue at hand so we can better understand the issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:40 pm
I thing abortion is wrong after the baby is able to live if taken from the womb before that it is a parasite b deffinition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:38 pm
Isaac742 I thing abortion is wrong after the baby is able to live if taken from the womb before that it is a parasite b deffinition. So, at what point does a life obtain value? What arbitrary number will you throw on it? Why not birth? Or, why not conception?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:04 pm
divineseraph Isaac742 I thing abortion is wrong after the baby is able to live if taken from the womb before that it is a parasite b deffinition. So, at what point does a life obtain value? What arbitrary number will you throw on it? Why not birth? Or, why not conception? do you want an arbitrary number? Isaac742 has made it clear that the day we are looking at is the day a "baby is able to live if taken from the womb" I do not know what day that is we can make a good guess but that’s about it everyone grows at a different rate (standard deviations and such ya know)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:03 pm
divineseraph -xXGodslayer_RaiXx- divineseraph -xXGodslayer_RaiXx- Laws come from mores (pronouced moor-ehs) which are apart of social norms. They are the morals. And some of them are apart of law. To put it simply laws sinply make sure that society is tame. With laws or social order society would fall apart. Even with these laws society is still falling apart (though for some its hard to see) because people in our society adhere to the folkways or informal social norms. The same person I was talking about brought up another good point. Quote: To put it quite plainly: I think both sides need to shut up about "promoting" their views. Decisions are to be made by consensus in a democracy... not by campaigning. We should have popular votes with no fanfare... the outcomes should be based completely on personal beliefs should regulate legal matters surrounding the issue. They should be revisited in court when questioned, overturned when found in conflict with other pre-existing laws and those laws changed legitimately if a majority are in agreement. But it's a very private and potentially traumatic matter that's being made into an ideological circus by those who have never experienced any part of the matter firsthand. Why do so many people care about this enough to fight over it... even hate people over it, when it's never once personally affected them? We need to regain some perspective. It isn't our duty to police or make judgements about the morals of others. It's our duty to enforce morality in ourselves and do what we think is right. ie. if you're pro-choice: you vote that way, you make decisions about your own life and family accordingly. if you're pro-life: you vote that way, you make decisions about your own life and family accordingly. Beyond that, it's none of your ***** business. But again, thosel aws are based on moral values. If we are to pass laws so that NO morality is compromised, then there are no laws. What about those who are pure anarchists? We have to take them into account, too. And abortion has never personally affected me? Well, the holocaust never personally affected you. Who are you to point fingers at hitler? Abortion affects lifers the same way the holocaust affects any non-nazi. We see the slaughter of millions, over nothing but convenience and money, and we are disgusted. Actually it did affect me. My grandfather fled from Germany with his brother and mum during that time. If he didn't flee German he would hav been put in the death camps and the chances of him escaping would have been slim. If he didn't flee then I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you. Therefore because of my German heritage and because my grandfather escaped Hitler's nasty little clutches I do have the right to say that Hitler was a horrid horrid man and that he was a disgrace to all of the fatherland. And in all honesty I am curious as to what an anarchy would look like. Everyone has said it's horrid with no order. But life with order is horrid. We live in a free country where we kill those who kill others. I mean what's up with that? So why is it considered bad if no one has been in one? "Don't knock it till you try it" Well, ironically, had hitler never existed, your grandfather would have never left and you may very well NOT be here. Perhaps you should be thankful that Hitler pushed history in favor of you existing. Not to say that hitler was a good person, just noting the time paradoxes. Anyway, more on the subject... Say I lost a brother or sister to abortion. Does this give me the right to fight against it? Or how about those who survive late-term abortions and end up disfigured? Can they fight against abortion now that they are human beings? Just how hurt do you have to be by a genocide before you can protest it? Wrong I would still be me. I would still exist. I would still be part German. And my grandfather would come here for a better opprutunity to work. ^__^.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:36 pm
etchedspirit Ok, so in my point of veiw abortion is murder. Even though the baby is not fully formed, and it has not been born yet, it's still taking away a life. If this still does not convince you, then why is it that when someone kills a pregnant lady they charge the person who did it with a double homicide? Why would they say that it was 2 murders and not just one....the baby is not born yet.... Now, say a girl were to get raped, then later finds out she was pregnant. I would then be in favor of the abortion if she so chooses because she didn't have sex at will, she was raped. I mean, if you think about it, how difficult would it be on the child, when he/she grows up then his/her mother having to tell him/her that they are the result of rape, that they are the child of her rapist. That's really hard on them, and could possibly scar him/her emotionally forever. If a girl goes and has sex then gets pregnant, that's her fault. She screwed up, made a mistake, whatever you want to call it, it was willful and she has to face the consequenses of her actions. Those are my thoughts, what are yours? Its called completly immoral and she could`ve put the child up for adoption...think about it may be hard for the child to be grown with the young mother but, wouldnt it be better for the child to be alive?...But still very hard subject of debate.... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 am
i think if you cant handle having a child don't reproduce
its wrong because what if you were that baby ???
then you have no chance
anything that has life has a purpose
and that baby has life weather you think so or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:13 am
lordstar divineseraph Isaac742 I thing abortion is wrong after the baby is able to live if taken from the womb before that it is a parasite b deffinition. So, at what point does a life obtain value? What arbitrary number will you throw on it? Why not birth? Or, why not conception? do you want an arbitrary number? Isaac742 has made it clear that the day we are looking at is the day a "baby is able to live if taken from the womb" I do not know what day that is we can make a good guess but that’s about it everyone grows at a different rate (standard deviations and such ya know) its defined when the major organs dependant on life mature. Usually at around 7 months give or take 2 weeks. A fetis is not able to support its self and is not sentient i.e. aware of its surondings. No human is sentient until it can speak,see,hear, and rationalize. If you are so mad at killing fetis's why do you allow killing of other non sentient anmals such as cows? We
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:24 pm
Isaac742 lordstar divineseraph Isaac742 I thing abortion is wrong after the baby is able to live if taken from the womb before that it is a parasite b deffinition. So, at what point does a life obtain value? What arbitrary number will you throw on it? Why not birth? Or, why not conception? do you want an arbitrary number? Isaac742 has made it clear that the day we are looking at is the day a "baby is able to live if taken from the womb" I do not know what day that is we can make a good guess but that’s about it everyone grows at a different rate (standard deviations and such ya know) its defined when the major organs dependant on life mature. Usually at around 7 months give or take 2 weeks. A fetis is not able to support its self and is not sentient i.e. aware of its surondings. No human is sentient until it can speak,see,hear, and rationalize. If you are so mad at killing fetis's why do you allow killing of other non sentient anmals such as cows? We Say the fetus is BARELY able to live outside the womb, by a minute or so. Say we find the exact time on a given fetus- What makes it special now? Sustinance =/= Birth Control. Everyone needs food. Nobody needs random unprotected anonymous sex. Sentience is irrelevant. Their lack of sentience is temporary. If a temporary lack of sentience means a lack of personhood, what protects sleeping people? How about those in comas? How about the mentally handicapped?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:22 pm
People in a coma are actually considered sentient. Why you may ask? Because our brain can still be awakened by certain events. People sometime awake form a coma after recieving a large amount of b vitamans. Mentally handicapped can still interact with others, even hellen keller who had no sight hearing or voice was considered sentient. She could atill interact. A fetis wouldnt be able to tell if you were running at it with a frieken steyr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:23 pm
Isaac742 People in a coma are actually considered sentient. Why you may ask? Because our brain can still be awakened by certain events. People sometime awake form a coma after recieving a large amount of b vitamans. Mentally handicapped can still interact with others, even hellen keller who had no sight hearing or voice was considered sentient. She could atill interact. A fetis wouldnt be able to tell if you were running at it with a frieken steyr. also sleeping people are sentient. Ever poored water on a sleeping person? There sense of taste, hearing, comunication are still in active mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:10 am
Isaac742 People in a coma are actually considered sentient. Why you may ask? Because our brain can still be awakened by certain events. People sometime awake form a coma after recieving a large amount of b vitamans. Mentally handicapped can still interact with others, even hellen keller who had no sight hearing or voice was considered sentient. She could atill interact. A fetis wouldnt be able to tell if you were running at it with a frieken steyr. Feti are sometimes awakened by waiting oh, say, four months. No vitamins or expensive, life supporting equipment neccesary, either. And feti DO have awareness, just not incredible intellectual, logical awareness, since (being in a womb) they have not yet experienced a logic class, nor learned a language to put thoughts into words. Feti will react to stimuli- Hence, you can feel them kick in the later trimesters. Even before, they are able to move and hear sounds. And a person in a coma could tell if you were attacking it? They would just pop right up and say "Oh, well now that you threaten me, I guess my coma's over!" ? And as for sleeping people- If you wait, yes, a sleeping person will end up being concious. Then as well, if you wait, a fetus will be concious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:31 pm
A feti actuallt does not have awarness. Its eyes do not move when other beings are moving. There brains only have basic functions. Heart beat is the main one. And if you let something that dosnt even weigh a pond float in a large pool of water its gonna colide with the side of the womb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:48 pm
Isaac742 A feti actuallt does not have awarness. Its eyes do not move when other beings are moving. There brains only have basic functions. Heart beat is the main one. And if you let something that dosnt even weigh a pond float in a large pool of water its gonna colide with the side of the womb. I have no idea wha you are talking about for the last half of your argument. However, for the first half, this is untrue. Feti can very well be aware, to an extent. And just because they are not aware to the SAME extent as an 18 year old, why does that justify their killing? Children do not have "Awareness" like ours for years- as late as three years of age. Can we kill infants and toddlers, because they are not sentient like we are? Can we kill the mentally handicapped because they do not have the same exact sense of awareness we do? Can we kill the elderly when they develop alzheimers to the extent that they cannot remember anymore, and are thus at the end of awareness as we know it? Awareness is irrelevent, unless you allow it to justify the killing of these groups as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
