Which is most evil: Circumcision, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Americans, filosofers

[Asher]

Abort more babies.

Especially Christian ones.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You can intervene in nature and that's natural? Explain? Sure most people disagree with murder. Are you saying that forcing people not to murder is a natural thing? How so and why?

No, I mean that intervening with nature is something that needs laws. If you leave nature alone, there's no reason to make a law.
If you don't touch life, there's no need to make a law. But if someone is about to do something with life, then it's good that there's a legal system that says what you can and can't do.

[lord of the mark]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5882441821485228489&q=shalom&hl=en

Whitefish

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by CyberShy


I wonder how many animals kill without a good reason on command.

Animals are not civilised, and are compelled by survival instinct.

'merely weeks after conception' is arbitral as well.

So is 'merely hours before'...does that make spermicidal gel or IUD evil as well? The same precursors to 'life' are there.

The morning after pill is a great solution. I think that one works for 2-4 days.

Indeed it is, no disagreements there. But isn't 2-4 days after conception a very arbitrary timescale?

No, sperm or ovum need another action to become human life. They need conception.
For a foetus there's no need for other actions, it just needs to start to grow.
If you leave a foetus alone (don't do anything with it, just let it be where it is) it grows into a human in most of the cases.
If you leave a sperm or an ovum alone, nothing will happen to it in 100% of the cases.

If you took a zygote out of a mother and put it on a benchtop, nothing would happen either - it cannot survive on its own. Both the gametes prior to fertilisation and the zygote need assistance and the right circumstances to progress.

It's irrelevant to the subject of abortion.
It is relevant to the subject of humans aren't incapable to self reflection, or better, reflection to their own civilization.

It is not at all. We are dealing with the oppression of man who is capable of making a conscious choice. With abortion, we are dealing with the precursor to life which has no capacity whatsoever to make such a choice.

no difference with a born baby.
I'd even say from experience that an unborn baby causes less 'troubles' to it's parents (mother) then a born baby.

That is the whole principle of abortion, so the embryo never reaches that stage. A baby is very much aware and conscious, ergo, it is not the same at all.

It's an invalid argument because the parasite is there despite actions of the host. A foetus is there because of actions of the host.
The host 'invited' the foetus more or less to come.
not to mention that a parasite is from a different kind of species. A foetus is from the same kind of species.
It's one of the key properties of human life that it can only develop in a womb, at least till 22 weeks. Every human on this planet has developped in a womb. We all 'parasited' on the womb of our mother.
It's at least hypocrite to have grown in the womb of your own mother but denie your child to grow in your own mother, claiming that it's a parasite.

No, they are parallel. People have sex all the time without wanting to procreate. If the child is not wanted, it can effectively be regarded as parasitic. However this is not usually the case, in which case it is wanted and is thus not parasitic. It all depends on the choice of the mother (or both parties involved in the pregnancy if the mother so wishes it). Simple as that.

It is emotional, but it's not nonsense.
We're talking about human life, about our existence. the lack of a neurologic system is not a reason to destroy it, mostly because destroying is the reason that the system will never be developped.

No, we are talking about the precursor to human life as I have stated on numerous occasions, where there is no level of self awareness due to a very rudimentary level of neurological development, if any at all. You could apply the same arguments to masturbation, where the precursors to hundreds of millions of lives, potentially, have been destroyed! Selective sentimentalism has no place in this debate.

Amnesty International had a radio add a few months ago, overhere in The Netherlands.
It said something like: "Because it can become a doctor, or an advocate, or a teacher..." etc.
The conclusion was that every child at least deserved a change for what it can become.
In all situations we agree that every child needs changes. Changes to be educated, to grow. We believe in potention. We invest in potention. Potention is so important, if we talk about (born) babies.

But if the baby is unborn (but yet conceived, and carying a conceived being like a mammal does is just one of the many ways life develops from start on) we suddenly say that we can kill it because it didn't realise any of it's potentials yet.

*sigh* We're not talking about a child...again...you're being overly sentimental.

That's hypocrite.
"Your lottery ticket has the potention to become a million, but I'm going to steal it from you and you can't mourn because it didn't realise it's potential yet".
or even better: "If you visit school you have the potential to become smart and educated and make a living of yourself, but now you're dumb and useless, and therefor I can abort your eduction".

Again, you are focussing on 'what ifs' - I'd have thought at your age you'd have learnt there are a lot of 'what ifs' in life for everyone. What if I studied chemistry instead of biochemistry? What if I bought a lottery ticket last Saturday? What if I had asked that girl out I really fancied when I was 16? They're all hypothetical, and it is a dangerous line of thought. As wonderfully as they could have potentially turned out, I could have dropped out of university and amounted to nothing because I hated it, I could have been hit by a bus on the way to the newsagents and I could have committed suicide because I got so seriously screwed up by her whereas I could have been Oxford's youngest professor and been happy in academia, I could have been a multimillionaire and I could have been happily married with eight kids. You just cannot speculate like that.

[Elok]

Ngh. Please abort this thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok
Ngh. Please abort this thread.

Or at least snip it.

[Provost Harrison]

I destroy a pro-lifer, so the pro-lifers want the thread closed. Now there's a surprise

[MrFun]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Nobody is forcing women to be 9 months pregnant.
We all know very well how to avoid pregnancy.
A woman only becomes pregnant if she performs several actions. Without those actions, no pregnancy.

If you don't want to get wet, don't jump into the water.
If you buy a house and rent money for it, you have to pay interest every month. That's a result of the action you have performed. If one has sexual intercourse, one may become pregnant. And one should face the results of the actions they do. Doing whatever you want without taking your responsibility to the results is not very civilized.

I'm happy that we live in a day that we can use protection, we can calculate the worst time for intercourse if we don't want a baby. We can use double protection. We can use the morning after pill.
if you fail to do all those things, then the results are certainly not something out of the blue.

I'm obviously not against women who were forced and had no choise. I'm totally pro choise, you know.

What do you say to women who became pregnant as result of rape?

[Kuciwalker]

It's their fault, dufus.

[MrFun]

Of course!!

[Blaupanzer]

The question of force is quite open here. For any number of reasons, many members of our society do force others to have sex, thru guilt all the way to outright rape. So the origin of the zygote could be a valid question.

However, the reason not to outlaw abortion is the inability to enforce such laws. (You would have to examine every woman every month to determine if she was pregnant, then somehow mark the pregnant ones to prevent them from going to another country or a back alley butcher.) Add to this the resulting disaster for desperate potential mothers who went outside the law when abortion was illegal. Besides the person defending the outlawing has already said the morning after pill is okay. This kills the early zygote just as dead as flushing will a little later or the old chop and snip will much later. Sheesh!

Self-righteous assertion that your philosophical position is superior because "we all know it" is never a good argument. Obviously, we are debating on when death laws apply and when they don't, so we don't all know that killing is bad beyond all circumstance. In fact, in this case we don't think the word killing applies.

Miscarraige material is not usually buried in a graveyard, so churches don't think a "baby" has died in this case. Why is an induced miscarraige any different than that?

[Robert]

Originally posted by MrFun



What do you say to women who became pregnant as result of rape?

They had no choise, so I don't think they should take responsibility. I'm not against abortion in such a case because it's a choise between two evils.

@PH: I'll respond to your post later, no time right now.
I can briefly say already that you don't got my examples right, I didn't try to compare 'slaves' or whatever with unborn babies, I wanted to compare the way of thinking.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer

Miscarraige material is not usually buried in a graveyard, so churches don't think a "baby" has died in this case. Why is an induced miscarraige any different than that?

That's a good example.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by CyberShy


They had no choise, so I don't think they should take responsibility. I'm not against abortion in such a case because it's a choise between two evils.

They had no choice, and then you turn around and said that this situation was a choice between two evils.


Which one is it?

[b etor]

Originally posted by MrFun



What do you say to women who became pregnant as result of rape?

she should take some self-defense classes.