 | Entrance | Mainstreet | Wiki | Register |
|
# of watchers: 12
|
Fans: 0
| D20: 11 |
| Wiki-page rating |  Stumble! |
| Informative: | 0 |
| Artistic: | 0 |
| Funny-rating: | 0 |
| Friendly: | 0 |
2006-08-02 [Jewl]: censorship on my page was there for the protection and safety of each side. Your comments were deleted for the same reason anyone's comment on your page would be.
2006-08-02 [Dil*]: THEN WHY WAS THE ARGUEMENT REGARDING THE ORGAN DONATION EXAMPLE DELETED? such an arguement would definately not be deleted on my wiki, and also the link to this page on your page was deleted. What are you afraid of? Has it become apparent to you, even, that your page is slanted and that all the pro-choicers will eventually leave in disgust?
2006-08-02 [Dil*]: I cleared up the confusion about the phrase open-minded and provided an excellent example of what is open-minded and what is not. Furthermore, you did not ban the other person who wrote flamey comments.
2006-08-03 [Cliché]: Hey, Dil. Introducing Pro-choicer to extreme. But both your pages have a problem. To be honest. Her's is owned by a pro-lifer, yours is owned by a pro-choicer. The bias will be there.
2006-08-03 [Fizban]: lol, looking at the people on this wiki so far it will definetly. The first pro-lifer here, believes Roe vs Wade was very important to people everywhere in the country, and although greatly wishes most people to choose to be smart and safe, rather then dumb and stupid about sex,...underst
2006-08-03 [M_Sinner]: Pro-life, here. Not much to say this instant, but I'll likely be popping my head in here. I'm not very appreciative of censorship, short of deleting a message full of racist, sexist jokes linked to porn sites.
2006-08-03 [Cliché]: [This is taking from the last wiki, we're moving over here- I'm pro-choice, and I have a bit of a different way of looking at this whole thing. You've all heard the "oh, it's not human yet" or the "Woman's right, etc" All good points, but I got another. There are roughly 6 billion people in the world. A very small percentage lives in peaceful and/or non-poverty ridden lives. Now, do we really need more people in the world? No. And as much as I would love people to stop fucking for a little while and thin us out, we won't. Instead, how about all those kids that are going to live shitty lives. "Sorry honey, mommy wanted to get rid of you but the state
2006-08-03 [Cliché]: [Then - Sine 'Mac'tia Semper: That's an old one, too. I think that we've got enough population control going on right now, what with war and disease. And, at the very least I can say that disease is a "Natural" population control. War and Abortion certainly don't quialify for that
2006-08-03 [Cliché]: [And- Enough? Of course we don't have enough. There are waaayyy too many of us. It's insane really. And I don't think you use the word natural to much effect on humans. We are such unnatural creatures. There's nothing much left of us that is natural any more. And what makes war unnatural anyways? It's one of the few things left in us that is. Humans fight, naturally. It's what we do.
2006-08-03 [Fizban]: Hey sine...who would have thought you of all people would be pro-life ;)
2006-08-03 [M_Sinner]: I'd like you to name one thing about humans that's unnatural.
2006-08-03 [Fizban]: She isnt talking about our actual phisology, I do believe she is speaking of our lifestyles...
2006-08-03 [tuff ghost]: HA! Yes, but even in our bodies. Metal rods to set bones, pacemakers. None of that is naturally occuring, no? Then the fact that we drive cars, watch movies, are ashamed of our natural bodies, and eat microwave popcorn.
2006-08-03 [M_Sinner]: Nor are termite mounds, nor are beaver dams, nor are even the sticks that apes use to get the termites OUT of their mounds. The only difference I see is that we've got a larger brain capacity, and have taken the idea of tools to a much further level. If you're going to argue that human tools are unnatural, then please concede that most of nature is unnatural.
2006-08-03 [Fizban]: LOL!! those are all so unrelated...it
2006-08-03 [tuff ghost]: Oh, yes, of course. Especially the kind from target. But I do think that the natural arguement has nothing to do with anything. I don't even know why I started to argue that one. Apologies.
2006-08-03 [Dil*]: Define 'natural'.
2006-08-03 [M_Sinner]: Lol. No problem. I guess that the connection that it has is the idea of abortion being "unnatural." Now, looking back, I realize that I defeat my own argument in this respect (I.E. if human tools are natural, which is what I'm arguing for, then so are wars and abortion). So it's kind of a moot point. Slap on the wrist for Sine for having a broken brain. ^_^
2006-08-03 [Cliché]: My main reason for saying unnatural is this. We do not live in harmony with the earth. We are seperate, and we fight natural things. Like death.
2006-08-03 [tuff ghost]: ... -smiles smugly- Point well made, my friend.
2006-08-03 [Dil*]: I'm just glad people are showing, the other page has been going for years, it's quite firmly established..b
2006-08-03 [Fizban]: well...the way you say it [Cliché] makes me think that animals dont fight death,....to the death as well. Animals never give up and instinctually do everything they can to survive. How is is that humans do the same, any different or unnatural to you? The unnatural thing is suicide as far as animal and human nature is concerned.
2006-08-03 [Dil*]: animals don't have contact lenses or computers, things are not sinful because they are 'unnatural'.
2006-08-03 [M_Sinner]: I still argue that contact lenses and computers are as natural as a beaver dam or termite mount of bee's nest. We just took the idea of suiting our environment to our needs further. But it's kind of a moot point to the discussion of abortion now. And the idea of humans killing each other being unnatural was quite well handled by [Fizban].
2006-08-03 [tuff ghost]: Animals kill each other....
2006-08-03 [Fizban]: yeah, I was refuting that...or really, that and the humans dieing in general.
2006-08-03 [Dil*]: "Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl" In what way are contact lenses natural? Do they grow on trees or something? If you're argueing that contact lenses are natural, because they come from man, and man came from nature, then you could apply that same arguement to abortion, people have abortion, humans are people, humans come from nature.
2006-08-03 [M_Sinner]: Dil, Annakin-- Look at my comments. I've been conceding that for a while now. I'm not saying that abortions aren't natural. I said explicitly that I realized I had defeated my own argument.
2006-08-03 [Fizban]: Overkill !!! lol.
2006-08-03 [Dil*]: Sorry.
2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: ... I don't know where I'd put my name under. I'm both... I'm pro choice in the sense that it shoudl be legal, and it's ultimately the woman's choice. But... I'm pro life in the sense that I think the unborn should have a chance at life and what not. So... I'm both. O.o
2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: ... Meh... It's not that I'm undecided... I just hope thta women choose life. But they should still have a choice. Does that make me pro-choice then?
2006-08-03 [Dil*]: yeah.
2006-08-03 [M_Sinner]: Well, by that logic, I'm Pro-choice. Lol. Don't move me, though. I like my spot by the illustrious Fizban. 
2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: Geh... Well, then you are pro choice. Everyone says it like it's a totally liberal baby killing thing and it's not. Geh...
2006-08-03 [M_Sinner]: Lol. Well, that depends on what your personal opinions of it are, as far as the "Baby Killing" part of it. ;) Regardless, that's the first time that I've heard that term applied to anyone outside of the military. Lol.
2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: ... Sorry, that just really gets my goat. Geh... What I meant was people assume that when you're pro choice you advocate aborting the unborn, and that's not true. It just mean that I think it's the woman's choice.
2006-08-04 [M_Sinner]: Which is why I don't see either side as scum-sucking murderers/bigo
2006-08-04 [ceridwen]: Yes... And I'm on both sides... But I'm not undecided... Geh. Not sure if that makes much sense, though.
2006-08-04 [Dil*]: In the rights contest, I'd have to say the woman wins over a fetus.
2006-08-04 [ceridwen]: Yeah... Well, that's why I guess I'm pro choice. It's ultimately the woman's choice. It's her body, even the fetus. It's still part of her, thus she has final say over it.
2006-08-04 [Fizban]: I disagree. I don't believe the fetus is truly part of her. An extension of her, to which relies on her. Since the fetus is a lump of living tissues, and the woman carrying it, is also a lump of living tissues, the state of development to which the lump is in, shouldn't dictate the rights of the said, lump. I dont know what trimester or whatever of the pregnancy it is that the fetus is not allowed to be aborted at...the deadline for its destruction. But is there really a difference for that lump, a couple days before and after that deadline? Has that lump gained something that gives it an immense number of extra rights? OR because the mom to be gets scared out of her wits looking at
2006-08-04 [Fizban]: the calender, she rushes to the abortion clinic, states the progression of the baby, and the legal deadline, and has it aborted, the next day, lucky her theres an opening. Because that lump wasnt a day or two older, the lump is now allowed to be killed. Ofcourse in reality, whats the difference from that lump, a day after the sperm combines with the egg...and a day before the lump emerges from the mother?? Other then mass and cell differentiatio
2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: That's somewhat similar to my line of logic, if not in the other direction. Though I'll probably get a lot of criticism for this one, it is my belief that doctors, with parent's consent, should be able to put a newborn down humanely. In extreme cases where child is destined to live life as a vegetable, with no self awareness or thoughts, it is just a drain on the economy and other people. Niether the parents nor an adoption agency, or even a home for the mentally disabled should have to put up with it.
2006-08-04 [Fizban]: is there a real difference from a lump a week before it emerges from the mother? Or a week after? However, the mother-lump would be incarcerated if she were to discared the baby-lump. Because of those few days of psuedo-experie
2006-08-04 [Fizban]: I see...LOL...th
2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: But you see what the repurcussions of this will be, right? When an unborn fetus is deemed human, and therefore mmm.... unkillable, things will be nuts. Every pregnancy will probably have to be reported, right after conception, no? Won't that be a human to register? Then every miscarriage would have to be investigated. Manslaughter, perhaps?
2006-08-04 [Fizban]: exactly...a couple of days, and a few events and a average everyday clinical abortion procedure can be turned into a murderer on trial...a few days means nothing to either lump. However rights change so much. How is it that, for the lump...they should?
2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: Mmm... what? Care to rephrase?.... Slowly and enunciated.
2006-08-04 [Fizban]: LOL...by way of a day, or even, a few hours...a woman having an abortion, that lump/baby, could have been consiered a human, because it wasnt in the mother or some crap...thus it could be a murder. I mean if you have an abortion in NY after the legal time period, will that be considered murder now, cause you were a day late or someting? I dont even know the laws really...
2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: Hm. I'm willing to bet that clinics just won't do the abortions after the 'time limit' is up. I also think that there will be no prosecution if the mother goes about removing the fetus by her own means after that.
2006-08-04 [Fizban]: a woman in florida not too long ago, stabbed herself in the stomach with a butcher knife because they wouldtn let her get an abortion...
2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: Which is why outlawing legal, safe abortions would be counterproduct
2006-08-04 [Fizban]: Yup. Which is why I agree with Roe v Wade...
2006-08-04 [ceridwen]: Yes, exactly. That is my whole reasoning for keeping abortion legal. I'm not in any way saying that women should have the fetus aborted, but there should be the option. Women will get an abortion one way or another, but if it's outlawed, it won't be as safe. I may not be able to save the fetus, but at least with legal, safe abortions the mother will survive.
2006-08-04 [ceridwen]: As for the whole lump and deadline issue, I don't know when that lump would become a human. So it's a lump that relies on the mother? It's still the mother's choice. Whether aborting it is immoral or not, I can't say. And I can't tell you when that lump becomes a human. But even if you consider that lump a human, it has no control over itself. The mother has ultimate rights. For example, if say a six year old had serious brain damage and went into a coma, they have no control of themselves. The kid being a minor, as well as rendered senseless, whether or not to cut off the life support is the legal gaurdian's choice. That fetus has no control, and is definately a minor. The mother is still -
2006-08-04 [ceridwen]: has final say. If she thinks the lump shouldn't be able to become a member of our world, that's her prerogative.
2006-08-04 [Fizban]: what right does she have to decide such things? Who says her will is correct, intelligent, rational, or feasible. I would want an entire phychological examination of the mother to determine if having that childs life within her decision to terminate it, is allowable.
Ofcourse...I believe life to be sacred, soooo...
Because its in her body, she gets to decide? I suppose that makes sense. But I dont believe its her body to decide with. We all know that if the lump was to pick something, it would pick life over death. It would pick birth over desctruction at a possibly scared and insane hormonal preganant soon to be, but not wanting to be mother.
2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: But really, what makes this child any more than the unjoined sperm or egg? Really, it's got as much self-awareness
2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: Hey, did the comment boxes change for everybody? Or am I just mental?
2006-08-05 [Dil*]: She has rights over her body, that includes the right to give birth or not, a woman isn't a damned incubater.
2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: If pro-lifers really want to save these babies, they should be providing their own incubators. That would actually do a lot more than illegalizing safe, legal abortion.
2006-08-05 [Dil*]: I don't see why we care so much about a lump, it's a damned lump! A rights of a lump with unique DNA supercedes that of a woman? Ludicrous at best. Insidious at worse.
2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: I totally agree, but I think that there are more productive ways that prolifers can go about 'saving babies.' If they're really so for it, they'll go down a path that won't negatively interfere with the woman or the lump. But they'd have to save every unwanted child, find homes for said children, and explain their existence.... take responsibility for them. That's what it would take. Really, there are no sensible alternatives to abortion.
2006-08-05 [Fizban]: Nope, abortion is necessary. Also, the woman would still need to have a Cecarian (sp) section or give birth for incubators to be the least bit useful.
And, yes, a woman is in a sense an incubater. She was designed for that, among many other purposes. If she performs the required act to turn herself into one...then thats what will happen.
She is just a lump of tissue as well. Just a bigger one then the baby. The fact that she is bigger and capable of current decision, gives her the right to, by default, kill the baby. They are the same...Only, she is farther on the path then the lump inside her. A bigger, older, lump. If our laws protect big lumps, little lumps....but not tiny lumps?
Also, the lump has just as much awareness 2 days after its born, as it does, 2 days before its born. Yet one can be abortion, and the other is murder.
Is that lump now suddenly just becomeing a human because it exits the mother?
2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: Oh! I get it now! We can have multiple lines now... yes... I like this new text block very much... Makes for smoother reading. Well, given that the typist isn't some brain-dead moron... (like that weird sine guy over there... pshtt).
Anyway, I'm going to (obviously) have to take the side of Fizzy on this one. I've read about tribes that considered a person to not be human until they had a coming-of-age ceremony in which they were circumcised (at the age of 13... quite, QUITE painful, if you don't know. One is generally unable to walk for three days after such a circumcision.).
After all the "sophisticatio
Just moving that line back...
My point is: there is a definite definition for the time that death occurs (the cessation of brainwaves from a human). Shouldn't the beginning of life begin with the same perameters (the begining of brainwaves... which opens up a while new can of worms).
2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: Oh, this new comment structure could get very ugly very quickly... very, very ugly.
2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: Back to fizban's comment.... DESIGNED?!
2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: I missed something... damn my not reading everything that's been posted!
2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: "...yes, a woman is in a sense an incubater. She was designed for that..."
2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: Whether by evolution or by a Creator, "design" is a fair word to use there.
2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: Oh, come on. Not at all. It's just unfortunate that the female carries the child. It's just.
Ok. Yes. You are right, literally speaking. But.
My arguements are making sense inside my head. It's just when I type them...
2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: Ummm... quick idea here... if the MALE had to carry the baby, what the fuck kind of difference would that make? Unless an egg were to be laid (which isn't possible with current human physiology), then SOMEONE has to be DESIGNED to carry the baby.
If it were the male sex, then it wouldn't change this abortion situation at all. It would mean that all occurances of the word "female" and "woman" would be replaced with "male" and "man" respectively.
It's not "literally speaking" at all, from where I stand.
2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: Oh, hush.
The egg thing brings up an interesting point. Many
vegetarians eat eggs. That was my point. Extrapolate.
2006-08-05 [Fizban]: eggs, that were never fertalized, thus never had any potential to become anything without some male roosters around. No baby, no baby death.
Either way, in male seahorses they are the ones that have the sperm...yet carry the babies as well. They in a large sense, were definetly designed to be incubators. Especially since they are fish, with literal eggs.
2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: "Oh, hush..." I'll have to remember that debating technique in college...
When you get to the point of eggs I think that it would be just the same as eating any other animal, with all the implications. Most eggs that are eaten by the general populace, though (including vegetarians, I would think) are unfertalized. As such, I don't think that they're living.
2006-08-05 [Fizban]: they aren't or else, you wouldnt have an egg and a yolk come out...you would have a fetus, or a deformed egg yolk, thats bloody lol.
Vegatarians, dont just eat vegatables, they just dont eat meat. Eating eggs is fine, unless you are...*cant remember the name*--then they eat nothing of anything that comes from animals, no milk, no eggs, no nothing.
2006-08-05 [Fizban]: oh lord, sine, you are right. This can get ugly...the messages, have no limit to word amount. This make RP'ing in the messages much better...but oppourtunities for others, much worse.
2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: I think that those are Vegans, but I've heard another word that means kind of the same thing, and that might be the word you're looking for... we would probably be able to remember if it wasn't one in the morning (at least where I am)
2006-08-05 [ceridwen]: ... So what does eating eggs have to with abortions? xP Sorry... I'm trying to catch up, but I got lost.
2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: Yeah... it wasn't exactly a smoothe transition. Ask Annakin why we're talking about eggs. He's the only one in the world that would know why he brought us to this subject.
2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: She* Seems we're gender confused. I thought you were a girl for the longest time.
And I was tired too.
Think.... 3-4ish in the morning.
2006-08-06 [Dil*]: I can't believe you described a woman as a lump of tissue, damn, I find that insulting. NO! okay! A woman is not comparable to a damned zygote, a damned zygote can't even appreciate it's rights being taken away.
What trimester are you argueing for? Some idiots want to ban the day after pill.
2006-08-06 [M_Sinner]: Oh... that's right. It can't understand what's being taken away. Well, for that matter, neither can a newborn kid. True memories don't really start until around the age of three. So, for that matter, they can't technically understand anything until that point. So, I guess that a woman should be able to take a baby for a test run, and as long as she decides whether she wants it or not before 3 years old, it can be killed.
Or what about retarded people?! It could be argued taht they don't fully understand their rights, either? Time for some euthenasia! Take that burden off the state!
We're all lumps of tissue, Dil. You, me, fiz, all of us. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but when you're speaking biologically, that's just the truth.
As far as what trimester I'm arguing for, I'm not exactly positive. Like I said, I perfer that it doesn't happen at all. I think that most times when an abortion occurse (with a few obvious exceptions) it stems from someone's selfishness. For me, if I must draw a cuttoff point, it would be when measurable brain waves begin from the unborn child. But that's a point of debate, with both sides vieing for more time in their direction (pro-lifers claiming that it starts within 6 weeks and pro-choicers saying that it doesn't being until the third trimester, depending on where you read).
2006-08-07 [ceridwen]: ... Wow. I think I'm the only female here that isn't getting offended.
Geh... So... You want want women to have abortions because itself? Then we should make shopping too much illegal as well, because that's selfish. We should make mothers working too late just to get a bigger office illegal as well... That's damn sure selfish. We can't ban something just because it's selfish... It doesn't make sense.
2006-08-07 [tuff ghost]: Children under the age of 3 certainly have self awareness. As do the cognatively disabled. I mean, what a low shot to take.
2006-08-07 [Fizban]: I dont think working for something is selfish lol. I think working for a bigger office shows initiative and work ethic.
Also, being selfish with how much money you spend and being selfish with someones life is to me, a completely different and un-comprable situation.
Also, he is saying its the selfish ones that are intolerable...
if they were raped, or forced, or tricked, or going to die if they didnt have the abortion, some estranged situation, then it wouldnt be so bad.
however its the killing for your own selfish purposes...to me and sine thats selfishly inexcuseable, and the times with abortion is intolerable to us.
I beleive I covered you correctly on that sine...
2006-08-07 [tuff ghost]: Hm. Not just selfish. An unwanted child drains many things.
A.) Mother's health and ability to earn money at her job (for a while)
B.) Possibly mother's life
C.) Insurance companies to pay for hospital stay (mother and child) or an uninsured family would have to pay those ridiculous rates itself...
D.) Staffing at hospital
E.) space in foster care
F.) adoptive home that could have gone to another child
G.) drain on economy and natural resources
H.) overpopulation
and I.) I don't know if this is true, or not, but it makes sense that children put up for adoption and/or foster care would have a higher crime rate, with all the moving around and such. don't bash me for this one, because it's just a thought.
2006-08-07 [Fizban]: overpopulation is the reason I am fine with it...abortion in general, our society needs it.
mother shouldnt have screwed around unsafely if they didnt want to face the consequences..
consequences shouldnt be a dead baby either....oys.
Thats what I mean by selfish.
2006-08-07 [ceridwen]: Ah... But it's not always because the mother screwed around. That's just the assumption one makes. The mother could have only been with her husband, but she's divorced now, or her husbands dead and she doesn't think she can handle having a child. It's not always for some terrible reason. We shouldn't let some suffer because of the stupidity of others.
Geh... See, the problem with only allowing special cases, such as rape victims, is the proof. A woman would have to prove that she was in fact raped. I don't think we should make that woman go through that. It's like going to trial for it, only she just doesn't want the baby. She doesn't want to be a witness against some creep, she just doesn't want his child in her. She shouldn't have to prove anything to us.
And that's my problem with North Dakota. They banned all abortions, even those special cases. Which is insnae. They'd rather put a mentally retarded woman through pregnancy and birth, who probably can't handle it physically along with mentally, then get rid of that little lump of tissue. Geh... It really gets my goat.
2006-08-07 [M_Sinner]: Okay, I haven't read everything on here yet, but this is what I read first: "Geh... So... You want want women to have abortions because itself? Then we should make shopping too much illegal as well, because that's selfish. We should make mothers working too late just to get a bigger office illegal as well... That's damn sure selfish. We can't ban something just because it's selfish... It doesn't make sense."-- ceridwen.
Except in the other cases, there isn't the harm of another involved. But that's what this ALL comes down to, I suppose, "Is the Fetus a living thing." I believe it is, and that's why I think that the DEATH OF ANOTHER because of selfishness is atrocious. If it's just a lump of tissue, then selfishness in destroying it is certainly normal. Not to be mean, but try to see things from beyond your own point of view.
"Children under the age of 3 certainly have self awareness. As do the cognatively disabled. I mean, what a low shot to take. "-- Annakin. Depends on who you're talking to. From what I read, we weren't arguing that they don't have cognitive awareness. We were arguing that they don't even understand teh rights that are being denied them. How much did YOU understand as a one-year old?
Fizban-- Indeed, you did cover my beliefs quite well. Thank you. ^_^
Annakin, points C, D, G, and H can also be applied to the retired. Make your own conclusion from that information. =P Points E, F, and I assume that the child is going to be put up for adoption.
"The mother could have only been with her husband, but she's divorced now, or her husbands dead and she doesn't think she can handle having a child."-- Ceridwen. If it's a divorce, then child support is still being paid. If it's the death of a husband, then why cause more death? Certianly, it will be ard to raise the child, but that's just another risk that is taken when you decide to have sex. Pleanty of horrible shit happens every day. The "Choice" was made, and I don't see why someone should be protected from the consequences. That would be remotely akin to investing in a buisiness, and then thinking that you should be re-imbursed when the buisinesss goes under.
Yes. They made that law thinking "Haha! Kill two birds with one stone! Get rid of those damned retards while bringing more babies into the world!!! HAHAHAHA!" When policy is made, the gov't doesn't often take into account the exceptions. Moronic, yes. But time would be better spent trying to get that repealed instead of typing away angrilly about it in a chatroom that 5 out of 300 Million people see.
2006-08-07 [Dil*]: Sine, I don't deny that abortions can be 'immoral' or 'selfish', -but- we just believe in the right to have one, if you're not argueing against banning abortions or forcing women to give birth, then you're not really argueing pro-life that much.
there can be a dispute about when abortions should be illegal, I personally think it's 3rd trimester because that's when brain waves begin, and it is pointless to have an abortion at that time because it's just as harmful physically anyways. Unless of course it is rape or a possible threat to the well-being of the mother (possiblility of dying giving birth).
2006-08-08 [ceridwen]: So... women shouldn't be able to have sex if they don't want to raise a child? That is an outdated point of view... Women may haven been designed to give birth, but we don't have to. That's the beauty of our society. Saying that we should only have sex if we want kids is a huge step backwards.
Geh... Child support; it isn't always paid, and it's sometimes hard to get from an unwilling father. And... that's not what I meant when I said the mother doesn't think she can raise the child. I meant she may not be emotionally stable enough to go through with the pregnancy. And more death? That all depends on when you think life begins.
Abortion is not about protecting anyone form the consequences. A mother could have used birth control, have been completely faithful to one man, and still gotten pregnant. But for some reason, she isn't emotionally or physically stable enough to go trough with everything. Also, having an abortion is no easy thing. It takes it's toll on the mother. But if she feels that she can go though with it, and that it's the better of the two options, then that's her choice. It's not for the government to decide.
(I hope I'm making sense. I can get a bit... scattered in my thinking some time. So... if you're confused, just ask me and I'll try to explain it again.)
2006-08-08 [Fizban]: And sine and I agree with you on that point. That it is the mothers choice, and because there are definetly times where abortions shouldnt be denied (like we were saying, when there may be damage to the baby or the mother that could be horribly detrimental or causing of death,...or if the woman was raped, I personally would say keep the baby, but I would fully understnad if you didn't want to have a child you couldnt love becuase thinking about them, only made you think of the horrible person who inflicted the child upon you)
Neither Sine or I are arguing that abortions should be made illegal, for we both understand that there needs to be a choice and others morals shouldn't be dictating the actions of those people without those morals.
However...we are both trying to arguing the immorality of abortion, and expression our mutual sentiment...
that when its not some mother who can't bear to have a child, or a mother that cant handle it...
when its a mother that simply had sex without being prepared that she could become pregnant...
ran the risk of pregnancy, and doesnt want to face the fact that now she created..CREAT
She terminates the life becuase she doesn't want to deal with it. Because it's too much of a bother. Because she would let it ruin her life...because she is selfish and careless, and doesn't want to take responsibility
It's the same as a guy walking away from his pregnant girlfriend...I
Yet no one would ever argue that the guy is right...no one would ever argue that he shouldn't be forced to stay and watch after his child and his girlfriend at least a little.
he is walking away from the baby...
she is walking away from the baby...
everyone would call the guy a horrible person because he was dicking around and wasnt ready to face the consequences of if he got some girl pregnant...
Killing the baby, or abandoning the baby, they are both irresponsible and horrible in my eyes...I am not longer speaking for sine here, if you noticed he hadn't said any of this stuff.
However, I digress back to the original point I was making.
Both of us understand the need,...but are still going to argue the morality...
like the point on when they get there rights...every
2006-08-08 [tuff ghost]: I think that the arguement about taking the chance for pregnancy when you have sex is rather biased. Really, it only promotes male promiscuity.
2006-08-08 [Dil*]: Then there is no arguement, I don't see the point in argueing over personal values or morality. If you are for the choice, then in my eyes, you are pro-choice.
2006-08-09 [ceridwen]: ... Geh... we're all just too moderate about this. >.> <.< I don't think I've ever had to say that before.
2006-08-09 [Fizban]: lol, see we arent arguing the final descision here dil, I am arguing the details in general. lol
2006-08-09 [Dil*]: I just can't summon the willpower to care...sorry.
2006-08-09 [Fizban]: LOL!!! hahaha, you don't have the willpower to care about the little lump of tissue huh?
Well, I don't have the willpower to force myself not to care about little lumps of tissue...or big, or medium sized ones.
2006-08-10 [Dil*]: I only have qualms about forced morality in this sense.
2006-08-10 [Fizban]: ooh...well, then I suppose I, and so far neither will Sine be arguing with you on the matter.
Forced morality, is indeed wrong.
2006-08-10 [Dil*]: Watch it, if you say all forced morality is wrong, you can't condemn a murderer.
You are forcing him to own up to what he did. He obviously thought it was okay of him to murder in the first place.
2006-08-10 [Fizban]: ofcourse, I am well aware and have debated the same topic to myself many times.
However, forced morality comes in degrees...
its the reason why gay marriage isnt allowed...
if you can consensus and agreement that the majority doesnt agree with killing you can create the law forcing a moral judgement on all citizens and thus, enforce it.
If the majority of people dont beleive upon another moral subject,...bec
But there is a large difference between gay marriage and murder...
however that too is an opinoun.
2006-08-10 [Dil*]: if you agree that morality is mere opinion, then you have no qualms about christians burning atheists back in the middle ages.
2006-08-10 [Fizban]: no...
I did not say that.
However the belief that Atheists should die, is a moral issue that some may hold...and an opinoun in general.
If there are enough people to agree on that, and legally make it okay to burn atheists thats how this country works.
Did I say that there was never any a problem with that?
Obviously not, or I wouldn't be pro-gay marriage, because that indicates that I am not okay with the current laws banning it. However I am okay for this country to create them.
I don't have qualms with the system, only those within it.
2006-08-11 [ceridwen]: ...geh.. Dil, you have bit of a flaw on your forced morality thing. Not every murder things what he did wasn't wrong. You can do something if you think it isn't morally correct. That's why people have this feeling called guilt.
Yeah... Just thought I'd point that out.
2006-08-11 [Dil*]: That's not quite a flaw. My example involved a murderer thinking it was okay to kill someone, and we would be punishing him because we think it's wrong to murder someone for any reason.
When a whole set of people share the same moral opinion, it doesn't make it correct either. But we see things like male superiority and shit like that. They "Think" it's morally correct, but is it?
Or is morality just a mere opinion as you put it previously.
2006-08-11 [Fizban]: everything is an opinion.
Morality being an opinoun is an opinion.
and opinoun being mere is an opinion.
my opinion that everything is an opinion is an opinion. Ect...
2006-08-12 [ceridwen]: Geh... Nothing is absolute. And I hate that. Or maybe there really is an absolute truth out there; we just haven't found it yet.
Heh... Morality is completely relative. I contradict myself when I say that, but I'm Ok with that. For example, I think child molestation is horrible and that any sort of pedophile bastard should die a painful death. But relative morality says that to that sick bastard what he's doing could be just dandy. 'Who am I to tell him he's wrong?' ... But I reject that because it sickens me. So... I'm a contradiction. And I'm all right with that. (I hope that made sense. xP)
2006-08-12 [tuff ghost]: An opinoun? <.<
2006-08-12 [Fizban]: "An opinoun? <.<" <_<
2006-08-12 [Dil*]: No, I'll explain it in strong atheism. Moral relativism is flawed.
2006-08-13 [Jewl]: Opinion? or Opinoun?
2006-08-13 [Dil*]: he means opinion, that much should be apparent.
2006-08-13 [Fizban]: HAHAHAHA lols...I was staring at him, staring at my inatentive spelling...lol
2006-08-26 [Franc28]: "if you can consensus and agreement that the majority doesnt agree with killing you can create the law forcing a moral judgement on all citizens and thus, enforce it."
In a democratic system, sure. But that is a question of policy, not of actual moral knowledge. If you equate the laws with morality, then you end up with all sorts of thorny paradoxes, such as the fact that civil disobedience suddently becomes the ultimate evil, something which basically NO ONE agrees with (and in fact we usually consider people like Gandhi or Schindler to be very moral people, not ultimate evil).
Another major problem with this moral framework is this: if the laws determine morality, then how do we figure out which laws are good and which laws are bad? How do we figure out which laws to pass in the first place? You end up with a circularity: the laws are good simply by virtue of being laws. This is a wholly arbitrary standard.
2006-12-24 [sophomoric]: [ceridwen]: Nothing being absolute is an absolute =P
2006-12-25 [Dil*]: haha, I love telling people that :) Soph beat me to it.
2006-12-25 [Jewl]: but... wouldn't that mean that there WAS something absolute, thus saying that nothing is absolute wouldn't BE absolute?
2006-12-25 [Dil*]: He just said that. It's a self-contradic
"There are no absolutes, therefore this sentence must not be absolute." - negating itself.
2006-12-25 [ceridwen]: Heh... well I aso said there probably is an absolute thruth, we're just not aware of it.
And... scratch relative morality. It's subjective. relative is too vague, and produces anarchy and nihilism. Subjective is much more fitting.
2006-12-25 [Dil*]: I totally disagree with cultural relativism, and 'moral relativism' (which is the same thing).
I'm a subjectivist, and I discard the 'collectivist' morality of CR.
2006-12-25 [ceridwen]: Cultural relativism is all right to a certian extent. In fact, I think subjective morality takes a bit of CR... culture helps shape ones idea, which then affects morals.
2006-12-26 [Dil*]: If you take it as a general description of the 'majority' morality, then it's fine, but people can't use that to justify their own morality, again, it describes what 'is', at best, but not what 'ought to be'.
2006-12-26 [Fizban]: Cultural relativism can kiss my ass :). I think it's one of the worst, so much crap is guilded onto morals by culture.
2006-12-27 [Dil*]: yes, I may make a page bent on destroying CR for good because it pisses me off so badly. I can only make pages on rage energy. Is this bad?
2006-12-27 [Fizban]: LOL@!!
well, its good for the idea that rage and anger, although negative emotions, can be used in creation :)...
although, good or bad creations are all dependent on what that motivation brings forth.
2006-12-28 [Dil*]: it's true. It's terrible...
write atheology when I'm pissed, write poetry when I'm depressed, draw when I'm happy, read when I'm neutral.
2006-12-28 [Fizban]: loyls...so funny. You have emotions and activities applied to all of them.
Does that mean they have ties to one another?
Such as your being angry has something to do with, non-atheists? :O
2006-12-28 [Dil*]: yes, theists piss me off.
2008-08-19 [Silverline's Escape]: i believe that it is a womans right to get an bortion if she wants one, but i would never get an abortion myself because my grandmother very strongly wanted my mother to get an abortion when she was pregnant with me.
2008-12-13 [Fizban]: Your pro-choice who personally chooses Life. Works for me.
| Show these comments on your site |
|
Elftown - Wiki, forums, community and friendship.
|