Abortion

Dragonheart91 wrote:

Lol, this whole topic is moot because life is meaningless in your view Jay. We should just kill everyone or blow up the world or something and be done with it. Without sentience or anything to give the lives of humans value there's no point. Go kill someone and eat them. It's a source of food, nutrition, and well being.

Suicide is a sin, otherwise all the REAL Christians would already be all dead, and I doubt the religion would exist today.

Also, murder is a sin.

Making suicide a sin guarantees that the little folk keep donating. I bet that $50,000 gold cross in every church across America takes alot of tax free donations you know.

So, no one's lives have any value but for some reason you still feel the need to follow commandments?


Edit: Rhys, for once I'm going to agree with you. Normally our religious views would conflict, but not in this case. I belong to a VERY liberal denomination. Jay and Bartimaeus' claims just don't hold with my beliefs.

Also, this topic is officially derailed because we cannot define sentience and sentience is 1/2 of the abortion argument.

Belial wrote:

Humans are self aware a fetus is not. It has no clue it's alive or human or anything. Only humans have self awareness (As far as i know, not sure if aliens exist.).

That's not the point. It will be sentient at one point. You're getting rid of "a soon to be" sentient being because you did something well knowing that it would produce life. The primary purpose of sex is reproduction. Plain and simple. You engage in the act, and you bear the consequences. You don't exhume wrath upon an innocent child because YOU fucked up.

Belial wrote:

Also i didn't watch the video well not past 1 minute, i didn't like that dude he was creepy.

Just watch it. It's not even long.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

Lol, this whole topic is moot because life is meaningless in your view Jay.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Poisoning the well. Good tactic in persuasion, fallacy in logic though.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

Without sentience or anything to give the lives of humans value there's no point. Go kill someone and eat them. It's a source of food, nutrition, and well being.

Indeed, because morality is out the window. Because millions of years of evolutionary saying to help your own species hasn't kicked in.



Edit:

Dragonheart91 wrote:

Also, this topic is officially derailed because we cannot define sentience and sentience is 1/2 of the abortion argument.

What? I defined it for you. I gave you a source and a damn credible one. You have given me nothing but putting words in my mouth.

Sentience to me is self awareness which to me is roughly between the age of 3-6 years old. You can figure out exactly for each unique human being by simply asking how far back do you remember, what is the first thing you remember in your lifetime. Personally I remember being 4 years old so i achieved sentience at 4.

That obviously is not an good reason to kill me before the age of 4 because who would kill a baby or child? And that brings me to the point of implied value on life, PEOPLE GIVE VALUE TO THE THINGS AROUND THEM BE IT MONEY, POSSESSIONS OR OTHER HUMANS. If the things we put value into actually held value to it then it would be a universal Value that is understandable by all living things, like air or water or trees or dirt. I wouldn't condone aborting a baby beyond a specific point because I put value in that fetus beyond a specific point in its time line, and that is the issue here in that everyone has there own point of value they do not cross, be it instant conception or 3 months or the age of awareness or never. In all honesty though Human lives have no more value then the Cow's life and you could argue that a Cow feeds another species in the chain which makes the cow more valuable then us because we feed nothing except random predatory animals nabbing us every now and then.

Hahaha I was just reading Rhys' quote.

It's not believing in "anything" that makes you not narrow minded.

It is believing in that one thing which has no logical explanation so fully that you're not open to anything new that makes you narrow minded. (Yes the "you" being addressed is Bart.)

To be honest, I have to agree that people *should not* ever get an abortion. I think that adoption really is the "ideal" way to go... but then I have to stop and really think.

Bart... you never struck me as an optimist before so I find your character now to be like a dime store novel's... it makes me think that I'm missing a huge part of the plot.

Living is the ideal. But I'm not stupid enough to think that a sunny disposition will make the storm clouds cease or make the tsunami dissipate and break. I.e. a good attitude won't fix the world, try as we might. I'll agree that living has its upsides. Really, it does. But there's more to life than surviving it as you seem to think there is. I don't want to breed a child, put it up for adoption and have it become the next wave in the slave trade of commerce and mercantilism that pervades America. You really think a life of starving, poverty, and death is worth living? You really think that a joyless, loveless, endless cycle of sadness, despair of disparity and change is better than never knowing grief?

That's getting even too idealistic for me... I can't condone that kind of sunny attitude. I can barely fathom it. I want my clouds back... at least then I can look for a silver lining...

Quote :

Living is the ideal. But I'm not stupid enough to think that a sunny disposition will make the storm clouds cease or make the tsunami dissipate and break. I.e. a good attitude won't fix the world, try as we might. I'll agree that living has its upsides. Really, it does. But there's more to life than surviving it as you seem to think there is. I don't want to breed a child, put it up for adoption and have it become the next wave in the slave trade of commerce and mercantilism that pervades America. You really think a life of starving, poverty, and death is worth living? You really think that a joyless, loveless, endless cycle of sadness, despair of disparity and change is better than never knowing grief?

fairly accurate reason on why i never plan on having children. hit the nail on the head.

The point isn't about when a baby becomes sentient.
The point isn't about if a good life will come or not when the baby is born.

The point is when we're living in countries such as Canada and America, where people have an education - and understand that the primary reason for sex is to reproduce, and that they have good measures to prevent it i.e pills, condoms, surgeries etc. that you should not just be having sex, and ignoring it's purpose and consequences. Feeling good is a bi-product of sex. Not it's primary function. Full well knowing this, going out and having sex, and then killing an innocent fetus because you didn't want it is fully immoral and selfish.

Kids under 18 having sex is, sure whatever - just realize that you should be having a) safe sex and b) you can still get pregnant even if you are. And if you do - you should be aware of the consequences. Why are people for giving kids the right to have sex, and then kill a child because they weren't ready for the consequences. If abortions weren't legal - then they might or might not think twice about having sex. It really doesn't matter - the option shouldn't be given to them to just exhume wrath upon a child that is innocent and has done nothing wrong because they messed up.

Rapes are the exception IMO. However, I believe rapes are a very very small portion of abortions. Under 3%. Why cater to the masses of willful ignorance?

It's not pro-choice. Because the baby has no choice, whether it has the ability to express it or not. It's giving the mother the choice to kill her child because she was an idiot for getting pregnant in the first place full well knowing that she can get pregnant. It's pro-abortion. Pro-choice just makes it seem benign.

Liberalism as defined by Merriam Webster: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

Where's the progress in giving the right to kill children because it wasn't planned? Where's the essential goodness of the human race in willful killing for no gain, because of a prior mistake? Why is the autonomy of the child forsaken for the mothers? Why are the civil liberties and protection of the child being thrown away because the mother made a mistake?

So now your onto the "It has the potential to be a life at some point so we shouldn't kill it" argument. Do you know how stupid that sounds? The sperm stored in my balls has the potential to be a life, and the hot girl next door has eggs that have the potential to be a life. So, I'm killing children by not having sex with the girl next door.

No that's not it at all. Because you know that you've made life. You know that's the purpose of sex, and you've already engaged in it. When it's still sperm you haven't done the procedure to do it yet.

So now it's just a matter of punishing people and controlling sex? Yeah, that's been the standard goal of the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years. Learn to think for yourself please.

O jeeze.

Punishing people? Qualify your statements please. How does it punish them? They messed up and should, as such have some sort of consequences. Again, you can easily prevent "mistakes" with condoms, pills, surgeries, abstinence etc. You can STILL have sex and not get pregnant....but if you do - you should live with it.

Controlling sex? Not really. It doesn't matter if people have more or less sex as a consequence of it. It's so people don't have sex without thinking about.

Learn to think for myself? You're the one who just admitted huge liberal bias, and pretty much said you can't think the other way because your community is entirely liberal. I'm the one who's not even a conservative and HAVE thought of it. I'm a freaking commie, as left as you can get. I'm the one who's pretty moderate in that I don't always lean towards a single way of thinking - and realize that neither side is 100% correct, because people are born with dispositions towards conservatism and liberalism so they won't see the other side well unless taught to do so.

#1 My entire community is CONSERVATIVE. If I even mentioned abortion I would probably be stoned to death. (Only half kidding.)

#2 You may be in the middle on some things, but your completely conservative on this topic.

#3 How are "Consequences" different from "punishment"? Your denying someone an activity because of their actions. That's practically the definition of a punishment.

#4 I agree that idiots need to think about it more, but even you have admitted that protection isn't always perfect. I heard a statistic the other day that 20% of relations where they use condoms there is still a pregnancy.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

I belong to a VERYliberal denomination.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

#1 My entire community is CONSERVATIVE. If I even mentioned abortion I would probably be stoned to death. (Only half kidding.)

Stick to one story please. Especially when it's in print. I fail to believe it's a typo....

Dragonheart91 wrote:

#2 You may be in the middle on some things, but your completely conservative on this topic.

You should by now know, that I play devils advocate. I haven't seen a single good argument from the liberal side. I'm not saying the liberal side is right or wrong on this issue, but the reasons that you at least have put up aren't even reasons. You say that the definition of sentience is half the argument, yet when I define it from a credible definition you just say "Well that's not my definition of it, and I believe otherwise." That's not how it works...You can't come to an agreement unless there is some commonly shared beliefs between the two parties. You're being unreasonable in this situation.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

#3 How are "Consequences" different from "punishment"? Your denying someone an activity because of their actions. That's practically the definition of a punishment.

Consequences aren't good or bad. Punishments are. You know what sex does, and when the outcome of it happens you cry. (Not you but people who have "mistakes" and more the global you). Grow up. If you're going to bitch about having a baby, you're not mature enough to have sex. If you're not mature enough to have sex you shouldn't be having it. If you are having it be prepared for the damn responcibilites it bears. Giving them a way out does nothing but encourage it. Sure it doesn't fuck up their lives now, but that's because you gave them a way out now, and I think they SHOULDN'T have a way out. At least not when you're killing a damn innocent life for their mistake. Why do you think they should NOT be punished?

Dragonheart91 wrote:

#4 I agree that idiots need to think about it more, but even you have admitted that protection isn't always perfect. I heard a statistic the other day that 20% of relations where they use condoms there is still a pregnancy.

And? That's the point of sex. Deal with it. If you're not mature enough to have a kid, you're not mature enough to be having sex. If you want the "benefits" of sex (feeling good) then be prepared for the damn consequences (having a baby). By allowing abortion you create a society where it's okay to fuck up, and not on little things....but huge issues. And you allow them to fuck up at the cost of a life. And it's not in anyway the same thing as killing a cow, because you're getting a benefit from the cow - not to cover up a mistake, but for a real benefit. Killing a person to cover up a mess up is not exactly what I call just.

I mix up liberal and conservative constantly. My community is whichever one hates abortion, hates gay people, and is generally afraid of anything different from themselves. I think that's conservative.


And btw Jay, your right. We can't reconcile this because we can't even come to an agreement on the definition of words. Your definition of sentience offends my morals. I don't care if it's from the dictionary.

The most credible dictionary of the English language . That's called being stubborn. "I don't care if you have a credible source, that's not what I believe." Guess your community is rubbing off on you . Arguably ignorant.

That definition of sentience places no value on the human existence and relegates us to the status of animals.


I've been looking at various things relating to sentience, and really I think we may be using the wrong word. That's the problem with getting a definition of it. Of course it's highly debated and everything seems to lead in a continuous cycle through other terms such as sapience, consciousness, and self-awareness. The point I'm trying to get at is that there is something in humans which animals lack. Call it by whatever word you want, but there is something separating humans from every other form of life we have come across so far. I do not believe that quality is born into us, but rather something that develops over time. Therefore, I place no value on anyone or anything until it achieves that quality. (Regardless of it's potential to achieve that quality in the future.)

Yeah...I looked at my previous posts...look at my signature...I think I was fighting too hard. =/

Do you mean perception, Dragonheart?

I like how you brought it back to sentience, when a few posts ago I say that's not the point. The point is that sex is about reproduction. The good feeling is a biproduct. If you're going to have sex, you should realize that. If you get a baby, you should realize that was the purpose of having sex. You should realize that it doesn't matter if it's a mistake, and YOUR sole intent wasn't making a baby. Just because it was a mistake, doesn't mean you should make a bigger one by devaluing life because of your mistake.

The liberal ideal is of giving the greatest benefit to the most people. It doesn't even do that in this case. It gives a benefit to the mother, and a short term one.

I think I'm done with this topic. Happy Birthday

I finally watched the video of "that black guy". He sounds like he's just another rambler. He's upset and stupid so he made a youtube video. Seriously Jay, he sounded like an idiot and it just makes me disagree with him even more.

Jay, I wish you had selected a more controversial topic, and one that hasn't been settled by a supreme court.

Feel free to start another topic on something you think is more controversial...

Jay.J wrote:

Feel free to start another topic on something you think is more controversial...

I don't know, that's why I said I wish you had.

We can make a new topic on whatever. Animal rights? Cloning? Political? Pornography and censorship? Whatever....

Back on topic: As my closing argument...

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence)



Conception: the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both

Do you believe what your Declaration of Independence has to say? All men are created equal. That means the moment you are created, or what’s another word….conceived maybe? You have equal rights. That means as a fetus you have equal rights as your mother. Your life is just as valuable as your mothers, at least in the terms of rights. One of those rights is…Life.

So here’s a deductive argument thrown your way.

1. I believe in the Declaration of Independence.
2. When a baby is conceived, he is created.
3. The declaration says that all men are created equal, and they have the right to life.
____________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion: A baby when conceived has the right to life.

You have 3 options:
Deny the declaration of independence.
Deny that a baby is created when he is conceived.
Deny that all men are created equal and have the right to life.

Your move.

Since when are a few cells "men". Conception is =/= to sentience. (Or whatever word you use.) Until sentience is achieved it's not a human regardless of any future potential.

Also, I figured out the problem. Your just extremely sexist. Your whole argument is that when a woman has sex of any kind ever she should face all of the most extreme consequences. However, you never say ANYTHING about any of the men involved. They get off scott-free. (Only half joking. Although this may not be the reason for Jay's arguments, it's hard to deny how extremely sexist they are.)