Elkidmino Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Should we bump them off too when they become inconvenient? Yes. At least that's what my mom wants us to do with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marso Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 It's the woman's choice. I believe the burden of guilt lies with the person who has one. If there IS one of the god's the different religions believe in let the decision of punishment lie with them. The government should stay out of it. This will be a topic that will spark controversy forever. Stay the F out of other peoples lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted July 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 SLOWQUEST Choosing to kill one child so I won't be burdened by said child, is( murder) here's where you take a leap of faith. at what point is it a "child"??? because really, and i mean REALLY, early stage embryos are not "children". they have no brain. they have no nervous system. they don't even have a place for the 'mind' or 'soul' to even exist in, if you believe in such things. they are literally lumps of cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted July 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 slowquest However, in an abortion situation, where the mother is not in danger, your not choosing one life over the other, your simply choosing your selfish needs over the life of another again, you're calling it 'the life of another' when really, at that point, life hasn't even been established. an embryo has no life. hell a fetus doesn't even have a life until well into pregnancy, and even at that point it's hardly 'a life'. and finally, what every seems to be doing is saying that life is 'sacred' and 'valuable' when really, there's billions of people and has been billions before and you're born and you die. thats it. there really is nothing sacred about life, unfortunately. it's nothing special. no of us are special or blessed no matter how you might convince yourself and no matter how much you actually might THINK that you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazarin Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 here's where you take a leap of faith. at what point is it a "child"??? because really, and i mean REALLY, early stage embryos are not "children". they have no brain. they have no nervous system. they don't even have a place for the 'mind' or 'soul' to even exist in, if you believe in such things. they are literally lumps of cells. Heres the fundamental problem with this argument: I, and several others who aren't crazy lunatic Christians believe life begins when the sperm breaks thru the wall of the egg, whereas for you, and several others believe that there's no "human" until a nervous system is formed. There's no debating these points, as these aren't provable issues - they're only beliefs. One believes that the soul comes to existence @ conception(which can't be proven) and another believes that no soul is present and therefore no "life" exists until the fetus can feel/develops a nervous system(which also cannot be proven) I believe interpretive dance sucks. I can't prove to you that is does, and you can't prove to me that it doesn't. All we can do is find the common ground all involved have and question those items. So I will agree that on a fundamental level, since no one can prove life does or does not exist, that it is not murder. That doesn't mean I don't still think it's wrong, and I chose to err on the side of caution. What I'm sure the MAJORITY of people can agree on is that abortions should not be allowed after the 1st trimester(If we wanna go hardcore, no later than 2 months, as that's when the central nervous system is formed) and in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Cases of rape and incest, IMHO, do not get exemption from the 1st trimester rule, as the fetus is "alive" and has its nervous system. Terrible things happen in life, but taking another human being's life does not change what has happened or make the memory of the event go away. Well? Am I on the right track? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowquest Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Heres the fundamental problem with this argument: I, and several others who aren't crazy lunatic Christians believe life begins when the sperm breaks thru the wall of the egg, whereas for you, and several others believe that there's no "human" until a nervous system is formed. There's no debating these points, as these aren't provable issues - they're only beliefs. One believes that the soul comes to existence @ conception(which can't be proven) and another believes that no soul is present and therefore no "life" exists until the fetus can feel/develops a nervous system(which also cannot be proven) I believe interpretive dance sucks. I can't prove to you that is does, and you can't prove to me that it doesn't. All we can do is find the common ground all involved have and question those items. So I will agree that on a fundamental level, since no one can prove life does or does not exist, that it is not murder. That doesn't mean I don't still think it's wrong, and I chose to err on the side of caution. What I'm sure the MAJORITY of people can agree on is that abortions should not be allowed after the 1st trimester(If we wanna go hardcore, no later than 2 months, as that's when the central nervous system is formed) and in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Cases of rape and incest, IMHO, do not get exemption from the 1st trimester rule, as the fetus is "alive" and has its nervous system. Terrible things happen in life, but taking another human being's life does not change what has happened or make the memory of the event go away. Well? Am I on the right track? AMEN brother....... :biggrinumbrella1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowquest Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) SLOWQUEST here's where you take a leap of faith. at what point is it a "child"??? because really, and i mean REALLY, early stage embryos are not "children". they have no brain. they have no nervous system. they don't even have a place for the 'mind' or 'soul' to even exist in, if you believe in such things. they are literally lumps of cells. you, I, and even someone over 100 years old are all still just literally, lumps of cells. Doesn't mean we don't have a right to live. As far as mind or soul goes, I'm still debating the issue as alluded to earlier in one of my posts to Chip. I WANT to believe in an "afterlife" but am sure that a vast majority of my wanting to do so is purely selfish selfpreservation. But even without such mind or soul, I firmly believe that each "person" is due the right to live and make that decision for themselves. I agree with Mazarin that the "life" begins at conception. and finally, what every seems to be doing is saying that life is 'sacred' and 'valuable' when really, there's billions of people and has been billions before and you're born and you die. thats it. there really is nothing sacred about life, unfortunately. it's nothing special. no of us are special or blessed no matter how you might convince yourself and no matter how much you actually might THINK that you are. What I gather from your statement here is that NO life is sacred. So are you saying that if I came and killed one of your family members, it would not effect you anymore than me stepping onto your lawn and killing your grass? I don't believe for a moment you feel that way. Edited July 24, 2009 by slowquest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted July 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 MARIZAN i really like the whole thing you posted up there, and i agree with most of it, but i want to just point out a small difference. There's no debating these points, as these aren't provable issues - they're only beliefs. One believes that the soul comes to existence @ conception(which can't be proven) and another believes that no soul is present and therefore no "life" exists until the fetus can feel/develops a nervous system(which also cannot be proven) the thing is, you point requires belief to be valid. my issue requires no belief, as it does not require the existence of a soul or otherworldly spirit gas filling up the body. my point is an observable truth. no nervous system, therefore, does not have the qualities which we use to call something human. if a body was born with no brain and nervous system, it wouldn't be alive and it wouldn't be human. no one in their right mind would consider it a 'person'. it would look like a person on the outside but thats as far as it would go. SLOWQUEST What I gather from your statement here is that NO life is sacred. So are you saying that if I came and killed one of your family members, it would not effect you anymore than me stepping onto your lawn and killing your grass? I don't believe for a moment you feel that way just because i say it's not sacred or inherently valueless doesn't mean it doesn't have value to me. so in that sense, TO ME, it would be different than killing my lawn, only because i've chosen to place more value in the people i love as opposed to value in my lawn. but you seem to not understand the point. the point is that you can't logically deduce that life is valuable or sacred. those are just qualities that you are applying to it. so then it comes down to essentially a matter of opinion on the value of life. but, then you use that opinion to make a judgment of when life starts, and it's importance. all your reasoning isn't truly thought out, but moreso based on feelings and opinions. all of our lives our inherently valueless, as, like you said, we are all just lumps of cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 MARIZAN i really like the whole thing you posted up there, and i agree with most of it, but i want to just point out a small difference. Yeah, I really liked that post of his as well, and I consider it a moderation from his original stance. That's progress. I appreciate the views of ANY person willing to discuss why they hold them. It's honestly been a great thread overall so far and a testament to the growing maturity of this community. I appreciate the mods allowing the last few "taboo" discussions to proceed, even if it was cautiously. An 18 page thread on religion? First time ever, but this stuff has to be discussed, and too often the stigma surrounding certain topics prevents us from even broaching them with one another. An actual unwritten "rule" has even crept into our thinking; that you don't discuss politics or religion. As a society, I'd rather we discuss ONLY politics and religion, until those two issues are fully hashed out to everyone's liking. Ideas should have to WIN out over competing ideas BEFORE they are fully embraced by anyone. We do it the other way around. Our discomfort with difficult topics allows ideas, good and bad, to live and sometimes fester in seclusion. It seems the more important the topic, the less we want to hear what other people think about it. That is just plain backwards, and turning it around starts simply, like when sqc mods allow a difficult topic to be discussed even though it has the potential to damage the cohesion of the community a bit. I'm all for a tight nit club here, but I can't prioritize that higher than I prioritize my love of the human mind, and my endless battle against its abuse. Anyway, thanks again. Back to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob T Conquest Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Life and death is up to God! We should preserve it in any form and leave it to God's will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDX87Starion Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 For believers... does life at conception include animals too? Are you eating dead chickens when you have scrambled eggs for breakfast? It doesn't taste like chicken but IS IT a chicken? Is dropping a dozen eggs on the floor the moral equivalent to beating to death 12 chickens? And why isn't there the same amount of "outrage" against invitro fertilization where many eggs are fertilised then frozen or thrown away, yet using the ones that were being thrown out for research is "immoral" or something. ?? What I'm sure the MAJORITY of people can agree on is that abortions should not be allowed after the 1st trimester(If we wanna go hardcore, no later than 2 months, as that's when the central nervous system is formed) and in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Cases of rape and incest, IMHO, do not get exemption from the 1st trimester rule, as the fetus is "alive" and has its nervous system. Terrible things happen in life, but taking another human being's life does not change what has happened or make the memory of the event go away. Well? Am I on the right track?Yes. Problem is both sides think if they give a little the other side will take it down the slippery slope, so we are stuck with all or nothing mentalities. Hard core Pro-lifers believe any and all legitimate exceptions will be exploited. And pro-choicers believe once the government sets a time frame it could easily be changed along with a bunch of hoops or barriers that will infringe on their privacy. At this point what is best is to do what works to keep unwanted or teen pregnancies as low as possible. That means easily available contraceptives and education. Because we all know that "just don't do it" until your wedding night does not work, and neither does learning about ones body and reproduction from friends, partners, or not at all. Sure...abstinence works great to a certain point, then it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I just wanted to thank everyone who participated in this. It's actually made me consider aspects of this issue that i haven't before, and for that im grateful. also At this point what is best is to do what works to keep unwanted or teen pregnancies as low as possible. That means easily available contraceptives and education i agree, now if we could only undo the damage certain religions are doing (ahem, roman catholics) we might be on the road to lowering the population AND lowering the number of abortions. win win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowquest Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'll 100% agree that this has been a very good debate. I've also considered aspects I hadn't before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie88TSi Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Yeah, we rock for not hitting the delete button. A lot of this has to do with getting rid of some of the trouble makers recently. The problems for the most part isn't the topic at hand, it usually boils down to some twit who can't have an intelligent discussion without it coming down to stomping their feet and name calling. We don't go and delete a thread just because of the topic at hand... although admittedly we watch closely and take a more proactive stance on some topics because they've caused so many issues in the past. Yeah, I really liked that post of his as well, and I consider it a moderation from his original stance. That's progress. I appreciate the views of ANY person willing to discuss why they hold them. It's honestly been a great thread overall so far and a testament to the growing maturity of this community. I appreciate the mods allowing the last few "taboo" discussions to proceed, even if it was cautiously. An 18 page thread on religion? First time ever, but this stuff has to be discussed, and too often the stigma surrounding certain topics prevents us from even broaching them with one another. An actual unwritten "rule" has even crept into our thinking; that you don't discuss politics or religion. As a society, I'd rather we discuss ONLY politics and religion, until those two issues are fully hashed out to everyone's liking. Ideas should have to WIN out over competing ideas BEFORE they are fully embraced by anyone. We do it the other way around. Our discomfort with difficult topics allows ideas, good and bad, to live and sometimes fester in seclusion. It seems the more important the topic, the less we want to hear what other people think about it. That is just plain backwards, and turning it around starts simply, like when sqc mods allow a difficult topic to be discussed even though it has the potential to damage the cohesion of the community a bit. I'm all for a tight nit club here, but I can't prioritize that higher than I prioritize my love of the human mind, and my endless battle against its abuse. Anyway, thanks again. Back to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts