Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 5 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 129
  1. #101
    Supreme Veteran
    Ixion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New York
    PSN ID
    MagicManGSC
    Age
    24
    Posts
    19,929
    Rep Power
    160
    Points
    70,027 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?
    I'm expressing my annoyance with people who think Pro-Choicers are 'perfectly fine' with abortion.

  2. Likes holly likes this post
  3. #102
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,552
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,060 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ixion View Post
    I'm expressing my annoyance with people who think Pro-Choicers are 'perfectly fine' with abortion.
    If you see, I asked him a very specific question with a criteria he already feels fine with. Sometimes we have to think about if it happened to us before having an opinion about it.

    So many people form opinions based on double standards. They would never stand it if it happened to them.
    Last edited by Omar; 04-11-2013 at 16:33.

  4. #103
    Super Moderator
    Admartian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    PSN ID
    admartian
    Age
    27
    Posts
    13,026
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    40,486 (0 Banked)
    Items ArsenalVitaUser name styleSteamPS3 Slim
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ixion View Post
    I'm expressing my annoyance with people who think Pro-Choicers are 'perfectly fine' with abortion.
    Agreed. I believe people who do want or need to go through should be allowed to.

    If I were a woman, I wouldn't myself. But that's not a double standard. I can separate what I want/need to do with what others do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    If you see, I asked him a very specific question with a criteria he already feels fine with. Sometimes we have to think about if it happened to us before having an opinion about it.

    So many people form opinions based on double standards. They would never stand it if it happened to them.
    It's not double standards - there's such things as hybridity and complexity of an issue.

    #IndieStation4 and proud of it.

  5. #104
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,552
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,060 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by admartian View Post
    Agreed. I believe people who do want or need to go through should be allowed to.

    If I were a woman, I wouldn't myself. But that's not a double standard. I can separate what I want/need to do with what others do.


    It's not double standards - there's such things as hybridity and complexity of an issue.
    No wait, I’m the same in that respect. I think we’re not aligned here. i.e. if someone wants to abort a baby at a few weeks in, I’d disagree doing that if I were a woman but I can understand.
    However, I’m trying to ask everyone to see from the perspective of the unborn child. That’s where I’m saying that while you may think, “Well, it’s her choice, let her choose.” But would you still let her choose if she were your wife? (again, if there’s no danger and it’s just because she doesn’t want to) If you think differently now then you should rethink your stance.

  6. #105
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,708
    Rep Power
    126
    Points
    60,482 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!

  7. #106
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,709
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,416 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    What is your reasoning behind why an older child would have more “valueable” than an infant?
    You're just trying to shift the subject at hand here, but I'll give you an answer. The difference between the two is that the child has greater cognitive abilities and is able to think, feel, and experience life to a greater extent than the infant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Well that wasn’t your opinion, was it? Unless your opinion is the same as the scientists.
    So you think it’s ok to kill a unborn child around 5.5 months? Terrifying.
    Generally, following the reasoning of those further educated than I am is pretty sane and logical, I find. They tend to know what they're talking about. If they say the brain isn't really active before 24 weeks into pregnancy, then that's something worth considering as part of my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Except it’s not her body, is it? It’s also a child’s.
    Well, the child that isn't born yet. Sorry, but I'd much rather put the rights of the living first. I could not go up to a woman and tell her she must have the baby. In doing so, I have eliminated the rights to her own body, and I'm not that terrible of a person to do such a thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    You’re also going to have to come up with a better term than “living” as both the mother and the fetus are living…so that wouldn’t work. I think you mean to say the rights of anyone outside the womb or over 5.5 months in the womb, above the potential rights of a fetus.
    The fetus is alive in the sense that it's a biological organism that's still functioning properly and replicating its cells, but it's not alive nor is it living. It hasn't been born yet, and it hasn't experienced life itself. That's what I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    So because you weren’t capable of thinking about it, means that you’re not entitled to have full rights to be potentially alive?
    Uh, yes. What makes us who we our is purely our cognition. That's what's important. Without that you're not a human being. You're just tissues with human DNA. That doesn't give you rights or a soul or any of those other valuable things we assign to a living, breathing person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    How would this be any different from a person who can't think for themselves because they're mentally challenged? It's possible that a person may not be able to pass any of the criteria you've laid out.
    Then they may as well be brain dead. They have no thoughts or character, no introspection, experience, or emotion or anything else that defines the human mind. I can't even call that a pointless and meaningless existence because it's really not existing at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    It all just seems too much dependent on what your opinion is and not thinking about other perspectives or real world situations. That’s not fitting the argument to me, that’s looking at a situation from different shoes.
    It's actually the exact opposite. I recognize the studies and facts that we've established as a society, and I judge my opinion from that. I am thinking about others' perspectives, which is why I support the woman's right to her body. How can you ever argue otherwise? You can't. I'm making a judgement based on how my fellow human beings feel, and I'm treating them equally. It's the most moral and good choice I can make based on the circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    So you’re telling me that if you wanted a child, and your wife suddenly says at 5.5 months that she doesn’t want it. You’d be perfectly fine with it?
    If I was a woman who didn't want the baby, but my husband, family, and half of society demanded that I do, how do you think I would feel? How would you feel, Sufi? Have you actually looked at the whole picture?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ixion View Post
    This is something that annoys me. Those who are Pro-Choice are not Pro-Abortion. Abortion is a difficult issue and a grey area. Those who are Pro-Choice just feel that decision should be left up to the woman instead of the government. When in doubt, give the power to the people.
    It annoys me as well. It's a presumption that the whole situation isn't at all uncomfortable to me (or other pro-choice people), or that I don't wish there were better alternatives to the whole thing. As if a fetus being ripped from its mother's womb doesn't skeeve me out on some level. No, it's just me taking a different prioritization on the issue. Yet I'm called a supporter of murder, and I'm dealt the emotion and guilt card instead of rational counter-points. It's extremely misconstrued and tiring, and as fair as me calling pro-lifers sexists and then ignoring their reasoning completely.


    Personally, I value human life a lot. Because of this, I search for the choices that save, protect, and improves lives. This is why I am pro-choice. The solution is extremely clear and simple to me, but I guess too many people think with their hearts and not their heads. I was once pro-life too, when I was younger, and my mentality was, "Oh, the poor baby!" But then I grew up, learned about biology, came to realize what makes humans important as living creatures, came to understand the value of equality and human rights, and observed the many rational augments presented by pro-choices. Even if you absolutely despise the idea of abortion, if you truly value human life you'd still support it in the end.
    Last edited by Nerevar; 04-11-2013 at 22:02.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  8. #107
    Forum Guru
    holly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Age
    23
    Posts
    3,727
    Rep Power
    73
    Points
    60,393 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    How would this be any different from a person who can't think for themselves because they're mentally challenged? It's possible that a person may not be able to pass any of the criteria you've laid out.
    That's a wild similarity you're making there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    No wait, Iím the same in that respect. I think weíre not aligned here. i.e. if someone wants to abort a baby at a few weeks in, Iíd disagree doing that if I were a woman but I can understand.
    However, Iím trying to ask everyone to see from the perspective of the unborn child. Thatís where Iím saying that while you may think, ďWell, itís her choice, let her choose.Ē But would you still let her choose if she were your wife? (again, if thereís no danger and itís just because she doesnít want to) If you think differently now then you should rethink your stance.
    I don't think you can ask people to see it from the perspective of the unborn child. How can an unborn child have a perspective? And I mean that in a technical, scientific way. I DO NOT mean that they are not entitled to one.

    Anyways, I do wonder if The Black Wolf is any the wiser regarding her original question.


    PSU Ghost Syndicate Corporation | Merc: Dorada Aquila | DUST PSN: smurf1191
    My first PSU article!

  9. #108
    Super Elite
    robvandam111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Miami, Fl
    PSN ID
    robvandam111
    Age
    24
    Posts
    2,401
    Rep Power
    44
    Points
    22,076 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by Updator View Post
    Not all vasectomies work. In the UK about 1 in every 2000 vasectomies fails.
    That's some mighty testosterone you have over there.

    3DS: 4613-6960-4293


  10. #109
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,552
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,060 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rapture View Post
    You're just trying to shift the subject at hand here, but I'll give you an answer. The difference between the two is that the child has greater cognitive abilities and is able to think, feel, and experience life to a greater extent than the infant.
    I'm not asking for the difference. I was asking why you feel an older child has more value than the younger one.

    You had specifically mentioned "valueable".


    Generally, following the reasoning of those further educated than I am is pretty sane and logical, I find. They tend to know what they're talking about. If they say the brain isn't really active before 24 weeks into pregnancy, then that's something worth considering as part of my opinion.
    I wouldn't agree with the first sentence necessarily but I can understand that you can use it in your reasoning.

    I don't see how brain activity should be the deciding factor but duly noted.

    Well, the child that isn't born yet. Sorry, but I'd much rather put the rights of the living first. I could not go up to a woman and tell her she must have the baby. In doing so, I have eliminated the rights to her own body, and I'm not that terrible of a person to do such a thing.
    But there should be some bounds to that. While it's a living person's right, it's the unborn child's life. While you're giving rights to one person, assuming it's not a threat to the mother, you're denying rights to another being based on what your opinion is about their value.

    The fetus is alive in the sense that it's a biological organism that's still functioning properly and replicating its cells, but it's not alive nor is it living. It hasn't been born yet, and it hasn't experienced life itself. That's what I mean.
    Are you serious? It is alive. I'd suggest you check the meaning of alive and living. It has nothing to do with having been born yet or not or have experienced life. That's a completely different thing.

    Uh, yes. What makes us who we our is purely our cognition. That's what's important. Without that you're not a human being. You're just tissues with human DNA. That doesn't give you rights or a soul or any of those other valuable things we assign to a living, breathing person.
    From one view they're not human beings but it doesn't mean that you should deny them the same rights as anyone else. It can be seen as a human superiority complex. Anything you don't classify as a human should automatically not have the same rights.

    Also, again you're overlapping some things here, a fetus is a living and breathing being.

    Then they may as well be brain dead. They have no thoughts or character, no introspection, experience, or emotion or anything else that defines the human mind. I can't even call that a pointless and meaningless existence because it's really not existing at all.
    Why? Just because you have no reasoning, doesn't even nearly mean that you're brain dead. You're talking about thoughts, not the nervous system.

    What's sad is that we form our opinions based on what we know so far...that's honestly not good enough. i.e. The baby's nervous system properly functions at week 9. Generally the nervous system is responsible for feeling pain and such tasks. Just because we don't have hard evidence if it can or cannot feel pain doesn't mean that we should go ahead and assume that it doesn't.

    I love science but I also understand that science is not infallible. The scientists aren't infallible. We can make our own decisions and not just everything based on what we hear. It's not logical for me to assume that because we don't know for sure, let's go ahead and do it. To me, it seems that if your nervous system is properly functioning, why don't we wait to find out if it can or cannot (which to me doesn't matter, I don't agree either way but for those that care for that) feel pain.

    It's actually the exact opposite. I recognize the studies and facts that we've established as a society, and I judge my opinion from that. I am thinking about others' perspectives, which is why I support the woman's right to her body. How can you ever argue otherwise? You can't. I'm making a judgement based on how my fellow human beings feel, and I'm treating them equally. It's the most moral and good choice I can make based on the circumstances.
    Except you're ignoring the perspective of one thing that you don't consider equal to you or anyone else outside the womb.

    If I was a woman who didn't want the baby, but my husband, family, and half of society demanded that I do, how do you think I would feel? How would you feel, Sufi? Have you actually looked at the whole picture?
    It depends on the reasons and how far you are. Of course I have.

    It annoys me as well. It's a presumption that the whole situation isn't at all uncomfortable to me (or other pro-choice people), or that I don't wish there were better alternatives to the whole thing. As if a fetus being ripped from its mother's womb doesn't skeeve me out on some level. No, it's just me taking a different prioritization on the issue. Yet I'm called a supporter of murder, and I'm dealt the emotion and guilt card instead of rational counter-points. It's extremely misconstrued and tiring, and as fair as me calling pro-lifers sexists and then ignoring their reasoning completely.
    I don't remember calling you a supporter of murder, neither did I try to give you guild or emotion. It's the reason why you support it is what terrifies me. The fact that you don't consider that it has the same value as anyone else based on something as simple as cognition.

    I'm not going to stop anyone either but I certainly believe it should be something that can't be ignored, after a certain point in a pregnancy.

    Personally, I value human life a lot. Because of this, I search for the choices that save, protect, and improves lives.
    But that's where you're wrong because there are many cases where it's not about saving or protecting the mother...as for improvement...sure, for someone who simply doesn't want to be pregnant, yes it does improve that but it's also pure murder.

    This is why I am pro-choice. The solution is extremely clear and simple to me, but I guess too many people think with their hearts and not their heads. I was once pro-life too, when I was younger, and my mentality was, "Oh, the poor baby!" But then I grew up, learned about biology, came to realize what makes humans important as living creatures,
    But we don't know anything...we don't know enough biology about the unborn to make any decisions.

    ...came to understand the value of equality and human rights, and observed the many rational augments presented by pro-choices. Even if you absolutely despise the idea of abortion, if you truly value human life you'd still support it in the end.
    I'm sorry, value of equality? I thought I just heard you say that they're not equal to people who are outside the womb...in fact, not even during infancy stages. Not until they fully form cognition, self-reflection, consciousness etc.

    Human rights? Unborn children aren't human then? You said yourself they don't deserve the same rights.

    I do value human life, which is why my opinion is that if it saves a life then so be it. Whereas your argument is not at all that way, you feel that it's ok as long as they're not fully developed mentally, so your opinion is that it's ok as long as the fetus is less than 5.5 months. That's not about saving a life...because you're giving a full pass to abortion before that...unless you said something else that I missed?

    Quote Originally Posted by holly View Post
    That's a wild similarity you're making there.

    I don't think you can ask people to see it from the perspective of the unborn child. How can an unborn child have a perspective? And I mean that in a technical, scientific way. I DO NOT mean that they are not entitled to one.
    Your perspective, now, about yourself in the womb, would be that of the child's. Of course it's not possible but we "know" that the child "will" likely grow up to be a normal human being and possibly thank whoever/whatever that he/she is alive today.

    So it's rational to say that if it were up to the child, the child would probably opt for living. Virtually all people would opt for having lived than aborted, is what I'm trying to get at.

    Many disabled people want to live as well, we don't get to decide who lives, who doesn't, again unless of course if the mother had no choice, which is understandable, that's life but where I disagree is when it becomes a convenience factor.
    Last edited by Omar; 04-12-2013 at 01:00.

  11. #110
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,709
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,416 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I'm going to cut down on the quotes, Sufi, because these 'quote wars' are just redundant and space-consuming. Let's try to cut down on them (my post was nearly twice as long as it is now). Also, I wasn't making implications to you (me being called a supporter for murder). I was just speaking in general.

    You're also just being obtuse about the whole 'living' thing. You know exactly what I mean. I even stated what I meant above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    But there should be some bounds to that. While it's a living person's right, it's the unborn child's life. While you're giving rights to one person, assuming it's not a threat to the mother, you're denying rights to another being based on what your opinion is about their value.
    Rights are not an intrinsic trait in the universe. A fetus does not understand anything at all, and it doesn't demand or strive or feel inclined to any right. It's not capable of such a thing. You're just randomly slapping rights on something that can't even utilize them. Even if I did agree that it had some rights, I can't see myself putting it above the mother's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I love science but I also understand that science is not infallible. The scientists aren't infallible. We can make our own decisions and not just everything based on what we hear. It's not logical for me to assume that because we don't know for sure, let's go ahead and do it. To me, it seems that if your nervous system is properly functioning, why don't we wait to find out if it can or cannot (which to me doesn't matter, I don't agree either way but for those that care for that) feel pain.
    I don't think you really understand what pain is. It's just a sensory reaction -- it doesn't mean anything unless you apply it in a meaningful way. The fetus doesn't feel or think "Hey, this hurts!" If fact, it really doesn't think or feel at all. It won't laugh and giggle, feeling pleasant butterflies in its stomach, if you tickle it either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    It's the reason why you support it is what terrifies me. The fact that you don't consider that it has the same value as anyone else based on something as simple as cognition.
    I don't see how that's terrifying. Can you explain why you think so? My appreciation for human life stems from what makes us the people we are: the brain. If a baby is born without a head or brain (and this does happen, yes) is it really a person? Sure, it's a living thing with human DNA, but is it really an entity of character or human soul? No, it's not. It just isn't. It cannot think, it cannot love, and it cannot comprehend. Who we are, as conscious beings, is solely due to our brain and its level of cognition. Without this level of awareness, you're not anything. You have no sense of time or space or life. You're simply not a human being, and this applies to fetuses in a lot of ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I'm not going to stop anyone either but I certainly believe it should be something that can't be ignored, after a certain point in a pregnancy.
    I want to agree with this, because as I started it does get sketchy as the development approaches the end of the 9 months. There's a big difference between a fetus 4 months in and, say, 6+ months. I, too, don't want to throw caution to the wind in this regard. However, I have seen the studies and statics on women getting these 'alley-way' abortions, and if they're going to do regardless of its legality then we may as well provide a safer environment for them to do it. I say this purely because I want to improve people's lives and keep them safe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    But that's where you're wrong because there are many cases where it's not about saving or protecting the mother...as for improvement...sure, for someone who simply doesn't want to be pregnant, yes it does improve that but it's also pure murder.
    Alright, so you think it's murder. What do you propose the punishment is, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I'm sorry, value of equality? I thought I just heard you say that they're not equal to people who are outside the womb
    Yes, equality. I won't tell a woman she can't do what she wants with her body because I wouldn't want to have my rights restricted by another person like that. That seems pretty fair and equal to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I do value human life, which is why my opinion is that if it saves a life then so be it. Whereas your argument is not at all that way, you feel that it's ok as long as they're not fully developed mentally, so your opinion is that it's ok as long as the fetus is less than 5.5 months. That's not about saving a life...because you're giving a full pass to abortion before that...unless you said something else that I missed?
    Can you, in a clear and simple statement, explain, specifically, why you think a fetus deserves (equal) human rights? I just want to make absolutely sure I understand your reasoning here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Your perspective, now, about yourself in the womb, would be that of the child's. Of course it's not possible but we "know" that the child "will" likely grow up to be a normal human being and possibly thank whoever/whatever that he/she is alive today.

    So it's rational to say that if it were up to the child, the child would probably opt for living. Virtually all people would opt for having lived than aborted, is what I'm trying to get at.
    Sufi, that's not how it works. That's a totally baseless argument for this. For those that have been aborted, they wouldn't have even existed to contemplate it. For those that haven't been aborted, they haven't. You're mixing two totally different time periods, again, to suit your argument. But that's not how reality works. We live in the 'now', and we make choices now. If a woman gets an abortion today, you wouldn't approach her and say, "Now imagine how sad your future child is about being aborted." No, of course you wouldn't, because it's purely hypothetical, pointless, and above all else ridiculous. Her child didn't exist. There's no one to defend or argue a point for. You're making it more complicated than what it actually is.
    Last edited by Nerevar; 04-12-2013 at 02:07.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  12. #111
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,552
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,060 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rapture View Post
    Rights are not an intrinsic trait in the universe. A fetus does not understand anything at all, and it doesn't demand or strive or feel inclined to any right. It's not capable of such a thing. You're just randomly slapping rights on something that can't even utilize them. Even if I did agree that it had some rights, I can't see myself putting it above the mother's.
    This makes no sense to me at all, every living thing has the right to be alive in this universe. How can you say it's not intrinsic? Who decided? You? Unless it's a survival act, I don't see any living thing not having the right to live.

    It doesn't matter if they can't demand or feel inclined to it...i.e. other creatures/species can be lumped into that category.

    I never once said to to put it above the mother's because I clearly stated that if the woman is in trouble, I don't see a problem with it.

    I don't think you really understand what pain is. It's just a sensory reaction -- it doesn't mean anything unless you apply it in a meaningful way. The fetus doesn't feel or think "Hey, this hurts!" If fact, it really doesn't think or feel at all. It won't laugh and giggle, feeling pleasant butterflies in its stomach, if you tickle it either.
    There have been studies where evidence showed that they can feel pain according to their brain scans...but of course it's in debate as we need more ways to prove it thoroughly.

    All I'm saying is that if there's doubt there, I don't think we should think of it as a definite thing as we don't know much. Now if there was no evidence at all and the fetus didn't have a heart beating, blood pumping, organs developing, I'd totally have a different opinion but that's not the truth. Fetuses start developing those things very early.

    I don't see how that's terrifying. Can you explain why you think so? My appreciation for human life stems from what makes us the people we are: the brain. If a baby is born without a head or brain (and this does happen, yes) is it really a person? Sure, it's a living thing with human DNA, but is it really an entity of character or human soul? No, it's not. It just isn't. It cannot think, it cannot love, and it cannot comprehend. Who we are, as conscious beings, is solely due to our brain and its level of cognition. Without this level of awareness, you're not anything. You have no sense of time or space or life. You're simply not a human being, and this applies to fetuses in a lot of ways.
    Except fetuses do have a head and a brain. I understand that it's not thinking yet but I don't see how that matters at all. Of course it's not a person yet but it is still a living being that has the potential to be a person. Now I would completely agree with you if it didn't have the potential to be a person or stay alive on its own.

    I want to agree with this, because as I started it does get sketchy as the development approaches the end of the 9 months. There's a big difference between a fetus 4 months in and, say, 6+ months. I, too, don't want to throw caution to the wind in this regard. However, I have seen the studies and statics on women getting these 'alley-way' abortions, and if they're going to do regardless of its legality then we may as well provide a safer environment for them to do it. I say this purely because I want to improve people's lives and keep them safe.
    What are the statistics on 'alley-way' abortions? Because I've seen some crazy statistics of children being born and killed right away.

    Alright, so you think it's murder. What do you propose the punishment is, then?
    I'm not good with punishments but I will say that after a certain time, if the baby is not a danger to a mother, it should be taken as a life being taken away.

    Yes, equality. I won't tell a woman she can't do what she wants with her body because I wouldn't want to have my rights restricted by another person like that. That seems pretty fair and equal to me.
    Sure, I agree with that but you're basically completely liberal on this part...at this point I have a feeling that you would think it's ok to abort at any point in pregnancy...or at least that what it seems like.

    It doesn't seem fair or equal to me as I consider the fetus a living being, especially once it starts to form organs and a nervous system.

    Can you, in a clear and simple statement, explain, specifically, why you think a fetus deserves (equal) human rights? I just want to make absolutely sure I understand your reasoning here.
    I will have to reiterate what I said earlier in this post. The reason I feel a fetus deserves equal rights is because it has the potential to be a person. Now, it's different when it's just a blood clot but it starts to get more controversial as it starts to form.

    Sufi, that's not how it works. That's a totally baseless argument for this. For those that have been aborted, they wouldn't have even existed to contemplate it. For those that haven't been aborted, they haven't. You're mixing two totally different time periods, again, to suit your argument. But that's not how reality works. We live in the 'now', and we make choices now. If a woman gets an abortion today, you wouldn't approach her and say, "Now imagine how sad your future child is about being aborted." No, of course you wouldn't, because it's purely hypothetical, pointless, and above all else ridiculous. Her child didn't exist. There's no one to defend or argue a point for. You're making it more complicated than what it actually is.
    It's not complicated at all. You have to understand that unless the baby was naturally going to die, it had the likelihood to live on and become a human being just like the rest of us.

    The point isn't that the child won't be there to contemplate it, the point is about our morality. It's about how we should value living things and not be selfish for the sake of convenience. This goes for all living things, not just fetuses.

    You have to understand that we were not meant to alter someone else's fate, something about that just doesn't feel right to me.

    No matter how small this 'thing' was, it had a fate that we altered.

  13. #112
    Master Sage
    Jaeger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Age
    26
    Posts
    14,380
    Rep Power
    103
    Points
    2,083 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    No matter how small this 'thing' was, it had a fate that we altered.
    Goddamn, that's an excellent way of putting it.

    Rapture, while I can understand why you consider a walking, breathing child to be more valuable than a fetus, you have to try and understand that the fetus, too, is a human, albeit not walking or breathing - yet. In time, that fetus WILL grow and a beautiful child will be born into this world where it can live, breathe, walk, play and develop as a human being. A life is a life and aborting a baby is, in my eyes, still no different to murdering a child in cold blood. As I have explained, there are exceptions where abortion is, unfortunately, necessary but my stance on pro-life remains.

    Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.


  14. #113
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,709
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,416 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    This makes no sense to me at all, every living thing has the right to be alive in this universe. How can you say it's not intrinsic? Who decided? You? Unless it's a survival act, I don't see any living thing not having the right to live.
    And who decided they have the right to live? You? These things are human constructs. The universe doesn't will life to exist, it just does. It's a pattern of successful chemical and electrical reactions which propagates under specific conditions. There is no innate force demanding that life deserves intrinsic rights. It's purely a concept that we have created.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    There have been studies where evidence showed that they can feel pain according to their brain scans...but of course it's in debate as we need more ways to prove it thoroughly.
    Again, pain is just a reaction. It doesn't mean anything. Jellyfish also feel and react to pain, but they don't have an understanding of it. What matters is the conscious response to pain, as this is where you can see suffering take place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Of course it's not a person yet but it is still a living being that has the potential to be a person. Now I would completely agree with you if it didn't have the potential to be a person or stay alive on its own.
    How does the potential argument work? Every sperm and egg has the potential to become a human being. But potential doesn't matter because it hasn't happened. It's not a human being yet. You can't attribute something with the traits that it doesn't have but one day might, that doesn't no sense. There's not a conscious to defend and protect here because that person doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    What are the statistics on 'alley-way' abortions?
    It happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I'm not good with punishments but I will say that after a certain time, if the baby is not a danger to a mother, it should be taken as a life being taken away.
    And how will imprisoning or perhaps putting the mother on trial for death solve anything? How is socially and legally condemning her good? How does this make the world better? It doesn't. All you're doing is increasing suffering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Sure, I agree with that but you're basically completely liberal on this part...at this point I have a feeling that you would think it's ok to abort at any point in pregnancy...or at least that what it seems like.
    Even though I've clearly stated otherwise? Realistically, most abortions happen before the 20th week anyways. How many, do you hear, come later in the pregnancy? It's definitely not many. Perhaps if society were more encouraging of earlier abortions we can avoid the hot pan altogether, and some women won't sit around trying to make up their mind and end their internal conflict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    The point isn't that the child won't be there to contemplate it, the point is about our morality. It's about how we should value living things and not be selfish for the sake of convenience. This goes for all living things, not just fetuses.
    Bacteria is alive too. So is cancer. As well as is the food and plants we eat and destroy every second. Those don't seem to matter too much overall. Hell, most life doesn't know its own self even exists. Simply being alive doesn't make you special, it's what comes from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    You have to understand that we were not meant to alter someone else's fate, something about that just doesn't feel right to me.
    But fate isn't real. And if it is, it doesn't seem all that powerful and compelling if it can be altered so easily. Besides, what if it was that fetus's fate to be aborted, and this somehow led the mother down a different and better path later in life? Are pro-lifers intervening in fate too? I mean really, the fate argument just doesn't work. It's totally arbitrary and pointless when you place it under scrutiny.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  15. Likes Valefor likes this post
  16. #114
    Super Elite
    robvandam111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Miami, Fl
    PSN ID
    robvandam111
    Age
    24
    Posts
    2,401
    Rep Power
    44
    Points
    22,076 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Why is it a bad thing to be naked?
    Last edited by robvandam111; 04-13-2013 at 19:14.

    3DS: 4613-6960-4293


  17. #115
    Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    PSN ID
    Chickenooble
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    13
    Points
    1,785 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Wolf View Post
    Then we need more education. High schools need to make sex ed mandatory to graduate.
    It's not the State's responsibility to teach sexual education. That's a parent's responsibility. The problem is less with the school, but more with the individual and their family situation.

    Fact
    - Infertility is batting 1000 with the "Pull out" method
    fixt.

  18. #116
    Miqo'te Bard
    Yuuichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    8,047
    Rep Power
    75
    Points
    15,639 (0 Banked)
    Items New User TitleProtect yourselfFull Metal AlchemistFangDark Souls CoverDemons Souls CoverBattlefield 3Title StyleUser name style
    It became the states when parents wanted the schools to teach thier kids everything so they didnt have to. Not all parenta but a majority.
    I have twitter to https://twitter.com/GamerYuichi , Also started youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMu7yRGCz8QrTyxaNVR3Tqw I don't always twitch, but when I can you can find my noobness http://www.twitch.tv/yuichimccry,




  19. #117
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,552
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,060 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rapture View Post
    And who decided they have the right to live? You? These things are human constructs. The universe doesn't will life to exist, it just does. It's a pattern of successful chemical and electrical reactions which propagates under specific conditions. There is no innate force demanding that life deserves intrinsic rights. It's purely a concept that we have created.
    I agree that it's our concept or my concept that every living things has the right to live but the rest of what you said is BS. If we weren't meant to survive, we wouldn't evolve, we wouldn't have the perfect combination of elements, at least on earth, that are so specifically designed to help survive that if one small things changed (i.e. amount of gases in the air that are the perfect amount for us, if we had any more oxygen, we would die) it would mess up the entire system.

    It's not all random, the balances are very delicate and are there for us and other living things to survive.

    Again, pain is just a reaction. It doesn't mean anything. Jellyfish also feel and react to pain, but they don't have an understanding of it. What matters is the conscious response to pain, as this is where you can see suffering take place.
    Right but we don't know if they are feeling pain or not, that's the issue, we don't know anything much about the fetus. You can't tell us that a fetus can't feel pain, at a certain point, because it's not factual yet and neither the other way around.

    How does the potential argument work? Every sperm and egg has the potential to become a human being. But potential doesn't matter because it hasn't happened. It's not a human being yet. You can't attribute something with the traits that it doesn't have but one day might, that doesn't no sense. There's not a conscious to defend and protect here because that person doesn't exist.
    I agree here but I'm specifically talking about when the combination has developed into a fetus.

    Otherwise people wouldn't develop feelings towards an unborn child...once it's at a certain stage, it is considered alive by many people and thus it can be argued that its fate is valuable.

    It
    Yea it does happen, thanks but you have to look at the problem from a proportional point-of-view. While it does happen, it's negligible in NA as you can see.

    Wheras this and this are not.

    And how will imprisoning or perhaps putting the mother on trial for death solve anything? How is socially and legally condemning her good? How does this make the world better? It doesn't. All you're doing is increasing suffering.
    I'm not going to argue about punishment because this is a very varied issue. I don't care for punishment either. But you're making it seem like it's suffering in all cases, and again ignoring the unborn child's suffering. Do you realize how many abortions are actually done where the baby is alive and breathing? Meaning, it could've been saved. You should read about the horror stories that are on the internet (articles).

    You're looking at this issue from mostly one side, not the other. I'm sure we can come up with a logical solution where if it's necessary, it should be allowed before a certain point. After that, it's really the irresponsibility of the mother to not be proactive with the situation and the unborn child should not suffer or not given importance, due to that.

    Even though I've clearly stated otherwise? Realistically, most abortions happen before the 20th week anyways. How many, do you hear, come later in the pregnancy? It's definitely not many. Perhaps if society were more encouraging of earlier abortions we can avoid the hot pan altogether, and some women won't sit around trying to make up their mind and end their internal conflict.
    Are you implying that it's the society that is not letting them have an abortion earlier? And that that's the reason why they are sitting around not making up their mind? Anecdotal at best.

    I can understand some pressure but honestly if everyone had an abortion much earlier, people wouldn't care much. Just as not many care about birth pills.

    As for "definitely not many"? Here's a little something I searched on the net, "1) According to Planned Parenthood itself (which has been known to play hard-and-fast with statistics and the law), 18.6% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks. When we’re talking about 1.4-2.3 million abortions a year, that is hardly “relatively few”. Is 260,400 to 427,800 in one year “relatively few”?!"

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fir...-of-pregnancy/

    If I had more time, I'd research more into this but I have seen articles before that talk about how horrible the situation it really is.

    Bacteria is alive too. So is cancer. As well as is the food and plants we eat and destroy every second. Those don't seem to matter too much overall. Hell, most life doesn't know its own self even exists. Simply being alive doesn't make you special, it's what comes from it.
    Hah, yea I know exactly what you mean but that's not my argument, is it? Yes I know we likely kill microbial germs as we even move an inch but I specifically mentioned earlier that if it has nothing to do with "survival", I see it as wrong.

    I mean, the ideology you've created where one is only worth depending on the cognitive development...imagine if everyone thought that way, boy we'd be one violent bunch. (not saying we aren't already but majority aren't)

    But fate isn't real. And if it is, it doesn't seem all that powerful and compelling if it can be altered so easily. Besides, what if it was that fetus's fate to be aborted, and this somehow led the mother down a different and better path later in life? Are pro-lifers intervening in fate too? I mean really, the fate argument just doesn't work. It's totally arbitrary and pointless when you place it under scrutiny.
    Ok but going back into the argument that we are meant to live, otherwise we wouldn't have the specific abilities to survive, at least can be argued that you weren't meant to die.

    But yea in a way I do agree that it's a man-made concept. However, when I said fate, what I meant was that this is what is supposed to happen...this is why we flourish (living beings, not just humans) and become more. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have these abilities to multiply or having instincts to survive...these are things that are somewhat not in our control, it's programmed into us and "all" living beings. You can't deny that.
    Last edited by Omar; 04-13-2013 at 17:34.

  20. #118
    Elite Guru
    *goo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,273
    Rep Power
    75
    Points
    31,834 (0 Banked)
    For those talking about fate. If you believe in such a thing, then arguably the abortion of a fetus was the natural progression of things and the only conclusion as pre-determined by the 'supernatural power'.

  21. Likes Ixion likes this post
  22. #119
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,552
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,060 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by *goo View Post
    For those talking about fate. If you believe in such a thing, then arguably the abortion of a fetus was the natural progression of things and the only conclusion as pre-determined by the 'supernatural power'.
    hehe yea that's another topic we're opening here. I didn't necessarily mean it from a religious point-of-view. I'm trying to convey that our purpose is to live on, thus our environment and our bodies are generally designed to do just that.

  23. #120
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,709
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,416 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    If we weren't meant to survive, we wouldn't evolve, we wouldn't have the perfect combination of elements, at least on earth, that are so specifically designed to help survive that if one small things changed (i.e. amount of gases in the air that are the perfect amount for us, if we had any more oxygen, we would die) it would mess up the entire system.
    This is very much the 'water pond' argument. It's the idea that the ground was shaped specifically for that pond, either because of some mechanism of fate or by the hand of some deity. When, actually, the more honest and simpler truth is that the water conformed to the hole. Not the other way around.

    For starters, the Earth is not bent towards our needs. It's quite the opposite. We've adapted to the nature and reality of things. Life tunes itself to its conditions to that it can best survive. Of course we exist today, because any failure wouldn't have propagated its genes. If life had simply collapsed altogether at some point, or even taken a miniscule route of difference, then neither of us would be here now to note its change or failure. The notion that things worked strictly to create this moment is spurious thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Yea it does happen, thanks but you have to look at the problem from a proportional point-of-view. While it does happen, it's negligible in NA as you can see.

    Wheras this and this are not.
    Did you mislink? Because this is exactly my point. It's legal in the United States, so we deliver a safer environment for the abortion to take place. As well, notice the statistics on pregnancies women didn't plan or want. Many times women don't want their baby simply because their situation hinders it, such as financial stability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I'm not going to argue about punishment because this is a very varied issue. I don't care for punishment either. But you're making it seem like it's suffering in all cases, and again ignoring the unborn child's suffering.
    I've not ignored any potential suffering on the fetus's behalf. Really, your inclination of, "You're looking at this issue from mostly one side, not the other," is totally untrue. I've examined it from both sides fairly, and in fact I was once very pro-life. I examine the same material that you do, only coming to a different conclusion about it.

    What I don't believe in is placing the fetus's potential rights above the mother's established rights. I don't believe a mother should be punished just because of her biology. I don't believe a mother should be legally or socially condemned for feeling that she owns her body. I don't believe we should force a woman to go through a painful experience or procedure. I don't believe a pregnant woman should be unaided in her situation. I don't understand why we should bring an unwanted child into this world, especially when the foster system and orphanages are already too full.

    I don't say any of this to convince you, but instead to explain why I make the conclusion that I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Are you implying that it's the society that is not letting them have an abortion earlier? And that that's the reason why they are sitting around not making up their mind? Anecdotal at best.
    Misinterpretation at best. My point was obvious, but I feel you're purposely twisting it here. In many cases, if not usually, a part of a woman taking so long to make their choice is a result of external social pressure. And really, you agreed with me right after:

    I can understand some pressure but honestly if everyone had an abortion much earlier, people wouldn't care much. Just as not many care about birth pills.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    As for "definitely not many"? Here's a little something I searched on the net,
    Thank you for that. If anything, this makes things all the more imperative that we at least encourage earlier abortions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I mean, the ideology you've created where one is only worth depending on the cognitive development...imagine if everyone thought that way, boy we'd be one violent bunch. (not saying we aren't already but majority aren't)
    I don't see why it'd be that different. I've concluded a similar-enough result, only from different measurements. It's not as if what I've said is inaccurate, is it? No, that's not the case. If everyone did accept what I've said, things would largely be the same. Hardly making us more violent anyways. How on earth did you reach such a conclusion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    hehe yea that's another topic we're opening here. I didn't necessarily mean it from a religious point-of-view. I'm trying to convey that our purpose is to live on, thus our environment and our bodies are generally designed to do just that.
    This is a much fairer and more logical way to perceive things. True, we are instinctively driven to survive and spread our species. But that's all that is means. We can consciously choose and decide differently, and indeed we do with many various tings in our daily lives. I suppose I understand why you may hold to this, but I can't personally find this convincing at all. I just don't see the point in holding to it, especially in the face of opposing reasoning.
    Last edited by Nerevar; 04-14-2013 at 01:38.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  24. #121
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,552
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,060 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rapture View Post
    This is very much the 'water pond' argument. It's the idea that the ground was shaped specifically for that pond, either because of some mechanism of fate or by the hand of some deity. When, actually, the more honest and simpler truth is that the water conformed to the hole. Not the other way around.

    For starters, the Earth is not bent towards our needs. It's quite the opposite. We've adapted to the nature and reality of things. Life tunes itself to its conditions to that it can best survive. Of course we exist today, because any failure wouldn't have propagated its genes. If life had simply collapsed altogether at some point, or even taken a miniscule route of difference, then neither of us would be here now to note its change or failure. The notion that things worked strictly to create this moment is spurious thinking.
    Yes I know exactly what you're saying and I don't see how it counters my argument.

    I specifically said we wouldn't evolve if we weren't meant to survive. Evolution takes care of the fact that we are changing to survive, or having a neutral stance, it's specifically designed so that you do not die off.

    Did you mislink? Because this is exactly my point. It's legal in the United States, so we deliver a safer environment for the abortion to take place. As well, notice the statistics on pregnancies women didn't plan or want. Many times women don't want their baby simply because their situation hinders it, such as financial stability.
    I see what you mean. Good point. It is better for them to get an abortion in a safer environment, I wouldn't ever disagree with that.

    However, while you might be right that financial issues can also hinder the situation, I think it's illogical to think so, especially in countries where births are much cheaper than in the western countries. They can always give their kids up for adoption but I believe the government services just aren't there for that and it's not a normal practice to give away your baby.

    Which confuses me as to why they'd attempt that in the first place, abortion is looked at as wrong by women as well in the eastern cultures.

    I've not ignored any potential suffering on the fetus's behalf. Really, your inclination of, "You're looking at this issue from mostly one side, not the other," is totally untrue. I've examined it from both sides fairly, and in fact I was once very pro-life. I examine the same material that you do, only coming to a different conclusion about it.

    What I don't believe in is placing the fetus's potential rights above the mother's established rights. I don't believe a mother should be punished just because of her biology. I don't believe a mother should be legally or socially condemned for feeling that she owns her body. I don't believe we should force a woman to go through a painful experience or procedure. I don't believe a pregnant woman should be unaided in her situation. I don't understand why we should bring an unwanted child into this world, especially when the foster system and orphanages are already too full.

    I don't say any of this to convince you, but instead to explain why I make the conclusion that I do.
    That's incorrect, it's not the "potential" rights of the fetus...rights are there from the beginning and imo get more and more prominent as the fetus grows. I don't think the fetus should have the exact worth that a woman does, in that respect I do agree with you but I'm a little more sensitive to how far along the fetus is.

    You can say that a mother shouldn't be punished because of her biology but that only makes sense when whatever happened, happened naturally (of course I wouldn't agree that if something happened due to smoking and drinking natural but you know what I mean). I think mothers should be more reactive to their pregnancy and decide earlier what to do, that's all I'm saying. Just be more responsible.

    No one is forcing a mother to go through the painful experience but like my point has been, it's really more about the convenience of the mother if she doesn't decide early enough and now later doesn't feel like going through with it. Again, that is a child in there.

    I never said that a mother should be unaided. As for the child being unwanted because the orphanages are full? I don't think we have the right to decide that for the child.

    Misinterpretation at best. My point was obvious, but I feel you're purposely twisting it here. In many cases, if not usually, a part of a woman taking so long to make their choice is a result of external social pressure. And really, you agreed with me right after:
    I do agree with you but like I was saying, they're there for a reason. Of course we should look at each abortion case by case. What I'm saying is that if a woman can't decide up until the baby is formed quite well, it better be a damn good reason as to why she now doesn't want it.

    Giving birth is a very important act. It should be taken more seriously than it is at the moment.

    Thank you for that. If anything, this makes things all the more imperative that we at least encourage earlier abortions.
    I never said otherwise. I did say that I don't agree with it after the combination has occurred, especially into a clot but I can understand that a mother may not want to go through with it at that point.

    I don't see why it'd be that different. I've concluded a similar-enough result, only from different measurements. It's not as if what I've said is inaccurate, is it? No, that's not the case. If everyone did accept what I've said, things would largely be the same. Hardly making us more violent anyways. How on earth did you reach such a conclusion?
    We may have similar conclusions but the way you think about it is different. It's not just that we're slightly different on the scale, your scale is slightly different than mine.

    On one hand, you're saying that you do feel bad that it happens, on the other hand, you say that it's not even human or alive, just human flesh with DNA...that's a little harsh imo as you're taking away its worth much more than I would.

    Then you can argue that if a doctor accidentally kills someone's unborn baby, that it shouldn't be much of a deal as it wasn't really alive or as much valuable to begin with.

    By being more violent, I'm saying that we can look at that ideology and say that everything that isn't human shouldn't have the same rights as us...when it comes to the decision of valuing one's life.

    So while I see that we eat animals and that may seem like we don't care, it falls into the category of survivability as animals do that too, so does everything else in the world and likely the universe. I think otherwise we should definitely care to give animals the same importance and value of being alive that we do for human beings.

    I guess insects would fall into the same category as a fetus that hasn't been formed yet and thus its importance isn't as much.

    This is a much fairer and more logical way to perceive things. True, we are instinctively driven to survive and spread our species. But that's all that is means. We can consciously choose and decide differently, and indeed we do with many various tings in our daily lives. I suppose I understand why you may hold to this, but I can't personally find this convincing at all. I just don't see the point in holding to it, especially in the face of opposing reasoning.
    We can choose to decide different for sure but it shouldn't infringe upon someone else's livelihood or rights if you want to call it.

    However, I do think there should always be a way to decide if the mother should have the child (and hopefully we can find government help to resolve any issues that the mother should have) or that it's understandable to go with the abortion.

    I don't know if we're doing that right now but as things are out there and how loosely laws are followed, I highly doubt each case is looked at correctly. From the stories I've heard, it seems to me it's a business for the doctors.

    Things might be bad in Africa but I think they just don't have the facilities there and while one could think that the society thinks differently of it in other parts of the world, I think it's quite different and probably less of a pressure than it is here but more like there is more support in those countries as most of eastern cultures are built that way.

    So the social pressures shouldn't be an issue and dating being less prevalent there and marriage being more prominent, a woman usually doesn't end up with something she will regret later.

    However, in a case where a woman might end up with something she never wanted or never knew she would have, it should become even more important that she should be educated (also should be testing herself regularly) about whether to keep it going or stop early.

  25. #122
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,709
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,416 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I'm cutting these down further as I really want us to come to a conclusion on this soon. So far we're mostly just repeating our opinions and information we already understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Yes I know exactly what you're saying and I don't see how it counters my argument.
    It counters the representation of your previous argument. You were, after all, going on about fate earlier. You were giving the impression that you did think there was some sort of metaphysical system running the show in some way. While I know that's not what you meant now, at the time all I did was respond to the language you elected to use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    However, while you might be right that financial issues can also hinder the situation, I think it's illogical to think so, especially in countries where births are much cheaper than in the western countries.
    Children continue to be expensive past the birth. They take a lot of time and effort to raise. I shouldn't have to preach this to you. It's a massive responsibility that people may not want or be ready for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    That's incorrect, it's not the "potential" rights of the fetus...
    By potential, I purely meant the possibility that specific rights would come from certain confirmations of the conscious and mental state of a fetus. Which is surely something you must agree with me on, as earlier you stated we don't know this material completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    By being more violent, I'm saying that we can look at that ideology and say that everything that isn't human shouldn't have the same rights as us...when it comes to the decision of valuing one's life.
    Except this is a poor understanding of everything I've said. Animals are very much alive and they can consciously suffer. Mammals especially are similar to us in how they feel and react to things. There's a reason you will feel nothing when uprooting or picking a plant to eat, yet you'll realize and empathize the pain of an animal when its slaughtered for food. Both are living organisms, yet there's a key difference between the two: The brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I guess insects would fall into the same category as a fetus that hasn't been formed yet and thus its importance isn't as much.
    Most insects are well within the capacity to feel pain, yet everyone kills bugs they don't like all the time. Really, once you examine the entire picture, including our perspective of the world and our actions as species, you realize life itself isn't as initially important as you may have thought. The whole thing is entirely subjective, and it always fits out needs in the end.
    Last edited by Nerevar; 04-14-2013 at 06:16.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  26. Likes Omar likes this post
  27. #123
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,552
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,060 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rapture View Post
    I'm cutting these down further as I really want us to come to a conclusion on this soon. So far we're mostly just repeating our opinions and information we already understand.
    I think we're pretty much done here, we're somewhat around the same conclusion, just vastly different approaches imo.

    Children continue to be expensive past the birth. They take a lot of time and effort to raise. I shouldn't have to preach this to you. It's a massive responsibility that people may not want or be ready for.
    This would be true in a lot of the eastern cultures where poverty is rampant. I really don't think this would be a huge issue when the govt. is already giving money to some people that may or may not deserve it. I've known people that didn't deserve the govt. money, these unwanted kids do. I'm sure we could figure out a way.

    By potential, I purely meant the possibility that specific rights would come from certain confirmations of the conscious and mental state of a fetus. Which is surely something you must agree with me on, as earlier you stated we don't know this material completely.
    But once you're at that stage, those rights are there, is all I was trying to confirm here. I wasn't sure if you meant after birth or as you go further into the pregnancy.

    Except this is a poor understand of everything I've said. Animals are very much alive and they can consciously suffer. Mammals especially are similar to us in how they feel and react to things. There's a reason you will feel nothing when uprooting or picking a plant to eat, yet you'll realize and empathize the pain of an animal when its slaughtered for food. Both are living organisms, yet there's a key difference between the two: The brain.
    That's true but I was speaking from the perspective of animals not able to demand rights.

    Most insects are well within the capacity to feel pain, yet everyone kills bugs they don't like all the time. Really, once you examine the entire picture, including our perspective of the world and our actions as species, you realize life itself isn't as initially important as you may have thought. The whole thing is entirely subjective, and it always fits out needs in the end.
    Yea that's been on my mind for a long time now. I'm sure I'm more desensitized that I was growing up. I didn't know that bugs could feel pain as well. Good info +1

    I try to be very careful...even if it's a $#@!roach, I try to get it trapped and throw it outside but I have recently raged against some house flies, which is bad but somehow it doesn't feel as bad as other things...double standards or not.

  28. Likes Nerevar likes this post
  29. #124
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,709
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,416 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Yeah, I'm gonna end my part here. If it's any consolation, I do appreciate you helping keep this discussion mature. Usually people get unnecessarily upset and sore over this subject. It was a fair debate overall.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  30. #125
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,552
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,060 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Well I look at it this way, after realizing how many screwed up things go on around the world, abortion really seems like a golden ticket out of this filthy world.

    In the end, I don't see any of the horrible things happening in front of me and so it's in our human nature to ignore it even if we deeply care about it. We selfishly just care about our own lives and I do too somewhat but it still does affect me. Abortion really isn't at the top of everything that goes on out there so you know, whatever, go on and join in with the destruction of everything like we always do.

    I consider ourselves a cancer to this earth anyway. By having such cynical point-of-view, it helps me go on with my life because otherwise I would not have been having a civil conversation with you. So to be civil, one must either be ignorant to everything or stop caring about others...how sad lol.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.