posted
They pay Christ lip service--Jesus this, Jesus that. Oh, like, we need guns to shoot goddamn criminals even though Jesus says to give 'em the other cheek, but it's okay, cuz we'll just beg forgiveness at the pearly gates. Like that's not a lifestyle choice that can be overcome. Certain immature beings need rules they can hold on to, I suppose they've all congregated into fundamentalism.
------------------ "Solipsism, like other absurdities of the professional philosopher, is a product of too much time wasted in library stacks between the covers of a book, in smoke-filled coffeehouses (bad for the brains) and conversation-clogged seminars. To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he's a liar." --Edward Abbey
On a side note, re: your comment I think all life is precious-No matter what genetics say. That life whether gay, handicapped, etc, like any other, has every right to live
Would this include convicted murderers?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
posted
You're attempting to force me into a contradiction, but it won't work.
The unborn child is innocent of anything. It knows not what it does. The rapist and murderer, on the other hand, do. Their life is indeed precious, but when they take the life of another, they forfeit their life.
Jordan-I know this is a sensitive issue for you, but you must understand-This flameboard is for flaming issues, not people. Please be wise to use understanding with other people's beliefs.
And this thread is about abortion, people-Not the issue of homosexuality. If you want to discuss THAT can of worms, start a new thread. Thank you.
------------------ "I'm not like George Bush. If he wins or loses, life goes on. I will do anything to win." - Al Gore, Newsweek, 1999
[This message has been edited by Jeff Raven (edited December 12, 2000).]
posted
Y'know, it's funny. One shouldn't judge by just what you see here, but I'd guess it's not an unfair assumption that a) most of you are in college, and b) none of you are exactly doing the wild thing on a regular basis.
Now, you just try being at university and getting your girlfriend pregnant. You try facing whatever hopes and dreams you may have career-wise (or indeed otherwise), for both of you, called into question if not totally compromised. I knew there was no choice, and was all for a termination. She agreed - and also made it clear that if my opinion had been otherwise, it wouldn't have affected her decision one iota. Having a baby was completely out of the question.
So. Been there, done that. And fuck anyone who tries to tell me it was wrong.
------------------ "I do prefer the arse, but you can't dismiss the leg. They're joined at the hip, so to speak."
posted
So you believe that your hopes, dreams, and aspirations are more important than the LIFE of your own child? A child who you created through your own irresponsibility? I'd say that if you'd ended up destroying what you'd wanted through your own mistakes, you deserve it.
Actions have consequences. You have sex, girl get's pregnant, you have kid. Can you honestly say that it's worth ending an innocent human life, just to avoid the consequences of your own actions?
Now, back to the actual subject.
My reasoning:
1) The end of an innocent human life is wrong, except to serve some greater necessity. 2) Abortion is the end of an innocent human life. Conclusion) Abortion is wrong, unless it somehow serves an equal or greater necessity.
Assumptions:
1) An unborn child is innocent.
I doubt anyone will argue with this.
2) An unborn child is alive.
Death is defined as the absence of a detectable brainwave. Therefore, life would be defined as the presence of same. As a brainwave is detectable in an unborn child at six weeks, it would follow that an unborn child is alive.
3) An unborn child is human.
Someone care to supply the scientific definition of Homo sapiens? Without that, this argument can not be made either way. Of course, no one need supply the definition if no one disagrees.
Anyone find a hole in my reasoning?
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
posted
By your own admission Omega, brain activity doesn't show up till week 6, give or take as little in life is on a set schedule. So, removing the growth by then does not mean you are killing anything that is alive.
So, if a woman has an abortion before brain waves start, then it is not wrong.
Unless you are not going to stand by your words, death is the adsence of brain activity, then life must have brain activity. If there is no brain, then there is no life.
------------------ Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
posted
Clinically, yes, for medicine and law to remain consistant, it would nesecarily follow that children, before six weeks, are not, in fact, alive. Barring redefinition, that is, which has happened in the past. It used to be that a pulse and respiration were considered the signs of life. It is always possible that life will be redefinied further in the future.
The argument could also be made that something is alive because it has the potential to be so, if not interfered with. However, I don't think I'll get into that.
This is, of course, a clinical and legal standpoint. My moral beliefs are something different altogether.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
I have thanfully never been in the position Vorgon has been. Neither have you. You're religious, right?
Judge not
Learn it.
Also, by your above definition, if the abortion happened in that first six weeks, how do you decry it? By your own definition, let me stress that, your own, there is no life.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 12, 2000).]
posted
Because what right have we to punish people who do wrong, if there is no wrong to begin with? What's the point of having morals at all, if they only apply selectively? If there is no right and wrong, then what's the point of government and law?
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
