Sir EvilFreeSmeg
Banned
Since nobody wants to make up their mind over who is to take the job, I give it to FreezerBurn.
Now I expect you to be a worthy opponent.
Now I expect you to be a worthy opponent.
Choose the new leading liberal!
- Thread starter jmervyn
- Start date
FreezerBurn
Banned
I never said every attack on abortion is religion based. You assumed that I assumed that this was your opinion. I was speaking only in general terms.SaroDarksbane said:
drunk pothead hit on one scientific criteria, adaptation. life begins for humans once we're able to survive in our environment. another criteria for human life is consciousness. until the brain forms and begins functioning, a fetus is not a living human.
anecdotally, everyone knows this on some level or another. there's a reason why miscarriages are considered medical waste. and why we don't have funerals for them and bury them in tiny little coffins.
FreezerBurn
Banned
smeg, as much as i enjoy beating retarded children, i would never think of them as opponents.
besides, my forum time is probably about to decrease significantly. i was just offered a lot of money to move to vegas and i think i'm going to take it. if i do, i'll be too busy to post on here more than once in a blue moon.
besides, my forum time is probably about to decrease significantly. i was just offered a lot of money to move to vegas and i think i'm going to take it. if i do, i'll be too busy to post on here more than once in a blue moon.
Saro - I know you argue your point of view from rights rather than from religion, but I also get the impression you are quite religious...SaroDarksbane said:
Just to clarify - do you have a religious leaning that would also object to abortion on religous grounds regardless of your objection based on rights?
Ash Housewares
Diabloii.Net Member
I didn't get the job?
Bush is dumb
COME ON GIVE ME A CHANCE!!!
Bush is dumb
COME ON GIVE ME A CHANCE!!!
SaroDarksbane
Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Both of which are before the actual birth of the child, yes?FreezerBurn said:
There are several places which one could logically (or philosophically) choose as the point at which it becomes a human life:
Fertilization - This one suffers from the problem that you can fertilize an egg in a petri dish. It's not going to get very big or live very long in such surroundings, but I hardly think the death of a fertilized egg in a petri dish constitutes murder.
Uterus Implantation - The presumption at this point is that the child, if left alone, could be born successfully, where this is not the case for simply being fertilized.
Brain Development - Once you are capable of experiencing thought and feeling, however limited, you become a human.
Viability - If it could live outside the womb, it's a human. This is self-explanatory.
Actual Birth - Suffers from the problem of distinction. What makes point X in time any different than point X - 1 in terms of what the baby is or isn't? If he was a human when fully born, surely he was a human while being born, and even at least just a little before being physically born, since there was no real growth or change in his structure or state other than his physical location. This is the weakest of the positions in my mind (only slightly behind the first).
The middle three all have some compelling logic. Unfortunately, the first and last (the weakest) are the ones that people most frequently adhere to.
Big words from a man who gets his butt handed to him in every conversation he appears in. If we're all "retarded children" what does it say about you that you lose to us so quickly?FreezerBurn said:
Let's break this into a few questions:
Were you raised in a religious household? Yes, I was raised as a Baptist.
Do you currently practice Christianity? I would say no. I don't attend church (mainly because I think most Christians don't have a clue as to what the Bible actually says.)
Do you believe in the Christian God? Yes, although I have a slightly different view of him than mainstream Christianity. I think it could best be summed up in the quote:
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
I think that God is a reasonable being. I think the laws and rules he establishes are meant to be studied and understood, not blindly obeyed. If God was here telling us exactly what he wanted, maybe, but when all you have is a written book to go on, and interpretation of the same passage can differ a hundred different ways, maybe some actual thought is in order? He isn't giving us rules to live by because he's mean and wants to stifle our fun any more than a parent who tries to stop their kid from smoking is doing it out of a sense of cruelty or mean-spiritedness. It's incumbent upon us to determine why the rules are in place. Doing so ensures we never lose a sense of context, which unfortunately I believe mainstream Christianity has indeed lost.
So yeah, that's a shortened rant on the subject.
What does the Bible say about abortion? Nothing. Well, nothing substantial, and what little there is could honestly go either way.
Bortaz
Banned
BAH, I'm beginning to hate this forum. Give us at least as good a forum as you have for WoW.
What I said (and was double posted, then not double posted) was that no fetus can live outside the womb without some form of intervention. If a baby goes full term, and is born, and receives no intervention, it's going to starve to death in short order. Why is human intervention allowed in the description of being human, and medical machinery not?
What I said (and was double posted, then not double posted) was that no fetus can live outside the womb without some form of intervention. If a baby goes full term, and is born, and receives no intervention, it's going to starve to death in short order. Why is human intervention allowed in the description of being human, and medical machinery not?
KillerAim
Diabloii.Net Member
Bortaz:
Here's another one. Why have an exception for rape or incest? If you are against abortion except for in cases where the fetus is the result of a rape or incest, then aren't you saying that the way a fetus is created has some bearing on its humanity? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Carry this a little further: the case of a fetus with an obvious birth defect. Again, if you are against abortion except for fetuses that have severe birth defects then, to be logically consistent, shouldn't you be for the euthanasia of children and adults with the same birth defects? Why is a healthy fetus any more human than one with a birth defect?
Some cut-off level of maturity makes sense to me. The physical health of the mother being at risk makes sense to me. I can't think of any other factor that should make a difference.
That's a question that has always bothered me.
Here's another one. Why have an exception for rape or incest? If you are against abortion except for in cases where the fetus is the result of a rape or incest, then aren't you saying that the way a fetus is created has some bearing on its humanity? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Carry this a little further: the case of a fetus with an obvious birth defect. Again, if you are against abortion except for fetuses that have severe birth defects then, to be logically consistent, shouldn't you be for the euthanasia of children and adults with the same birth defects? Why is a healthy fetus any more human than one with a birth defect?
Some cut-off level of maturity makes sense to me. The physical health of the mother being at risk makes sense to me. I can't think of any other factor that should make a difference.
FreezerBurn
Banned
Those are two criteria for life within the scientific definition. So the only logical answer to when life begins from a scientific standpoint would be the point at which the fetus meets every criteria. The last being the ability to adapt to its environment (survive). A child that born full-term has the ability to adapt to its environment. When a breast is put in front of it, it eats. If a baby is born premature, it most likely will not be sufficiently developed to do this. This is why we view miscarriages as failed attempts at life. And not dead babies.SaroDarksbane said:
Nice to see you're developing a sense of humor.
FreezerBurn
Banned
You're confusing adaptability, the ability to adapt to one's environment, with the ability to manipulate one's environment. As I said to dark, a baby carried to full term has the ability to adapt to its natural environment. It just doesn't have the ability to significantly manipulate its environment.Bortaz said:
DrunkPotHead
Diabloii.Net Member
Every human needs to eat, but not every human needs machinery to survive.Bortaz said:
I'm playing the devil's advocate, I actually go with another view that I linked to in detail in another thread.
Is the standard abortion arguement an admittance test to see who has the ability to argue like Ilad12?
DurfBarian
Diabloii.Net Member
What about androids who learn to love?
If "assault weapons" doesn't have a liberal ring to it, I don't know what does. I assume you're referring to the recently deceased assault weapons ban. Here's a nice link for everyone.FreezerBurn said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon
In other words, "assault weapon" refers to anything that looks scary or has a scary name. Sorry Freezer, but that sounds pretty far out to the left. When you start banning weapons on looks instead of functionality, I think that should be obvious.Wiki said:
Furthermore, cop killers refers to hollowpoints more than AP rounds, simply because most police officers don't wear kevlar on a day to day basis. If you don't know anything about guns, the last thing you should be doing is trying to ban them. If you're going to ban assault weapons, it should, at the very least, be an assault weapon in the first place- not something that has a scary name.
Ok, I lost you. How did you get from
To supporting absolute ban on abortions?Me said:
This is an American forum. I may as well make the excuse of "I'm really a liberal by South African standards." We're using American standards here, unless otherwise stated, and that should be obvious. Don't bother trying to defend yourself by saying, "well, in a Canadian forum..." This is an American forum highly centered around American politics. We're not using Canadian political scales bud.
Of course, that raises the issue of, is someone dead when they can't live without a machine? If the answer is yes, what if the person will recover (say he's on life support after an accident), but can't live without a machine for, say, two months? Is he dead? Would it then be wrong to raise him "back to life"?Drunk said:
FreezerBurn
Banned
when in doubt, try the dictionary. you might learn something.Module88 said:
assault rifle
n : any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use [syn: assault gun]
I believe the definition is a rifle designed for military use. But feel free to make up whatever BS you like.
The term "cop killer" is often used in reference to armor piercing bullets. Unless, of course, governments are passing laws against figments of my imagination.Furthermore, cop killers refers to hollowpoints more than AP rounds, simply because most police officers don't wear kevlar on a day to day basis. If you don't know anything about guns, the last thing you should be doing is trying to ban them. If you're going to ban assault weapons, it should, at the very least, be an assault weapon in the first place- not something that has a scary name.
http://www.afscme.org/about/resolute/1996/r32-032.htm
The point isn't a geographic one. It's a matter of the OTF being heavily weighted with homophobic, racist, fat white guys. My opinions contrast with many on the left. I support racial profiling to some degree in regards to airport security. If I have to choose between screening an 85-year-old great grandmother and a 21-year-old muslim male, I'm going to use common sense. Not everyone would.
I think a reason some feel an exception for rape is acceptable is that some would view it cruel and damaging to the womans mental health to be compelled by law to reward her attacker.KillerAim said:
Boratz - post above - the attidude of several posters towards muslims in reference to terrorism, comments about black people (specifically in regards to New orleans a little while ago) and attitudes towards gay marriages and rights of homosexuals do portray some on here as being pretty rascist and homophobic.
As for Fat, Ugly and White - well there is not a great deal to go on.