<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyway, so are we all agreed that sperm etc isn't a human, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->at some point ranging between conception and birth a foetus counts as human <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->At conception
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and that we can still kill them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>NO!</b> <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> You live with killing millions of babies.
Dilatation & Evacuation - An abortive procedure where an abortionist inserts a pliers-like instrument into the uterus. The abortionist then grabs whatever part of the baby it comes in contact with. Then, by twisting and pulling, the baby is dismembered, killed, and pulled from the womb.
Partial Birth Abortion - An abortive method where all the baby is delivered except the head. With its body outside of the vaginal canal, the doctor then uses a sharp instrument to pierce the back of the skull of the baby and scramble the brains, killing it. Then the baby is fully delivered.
Pregnancy Reduction - An abortive method of reducing the number of babies in the womb (twins, triplets, etc.) by injecting a poison into the heart of one or more of the babies while still in the womb.
Saline Amniocentesis - An abortive method where a highly concentrated salt solution is injected into the placenta. The baby takes the salt into the lungs as well as swallowing it. After more than an hour, the baby dies and the mother delivers the body a day or two later.
These are barbaric procedures. Even criminals or animals being put down die with more dignity. The poor baby, the only thing it ever did was to be conceived. I cant stand the passive apathy of some people, just coz it doesnt really affect them directly "Lets nuke it, L00L" <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 25 2005, 02:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 25 2005, 02:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b> I'm not sure if I was a female that I'd trust any guy who said he'd taken it. "Are you sure you don't just want to get laid?" "Yeah honestly, I took it this morning!".
Besides which, most guys are far scattier and less able to keep to routines than women and they screw it up all the time. </b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Needs to be bolded for truth, and of course quoted.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anyway, so are we all agreed that sperm etc isn't a human, that at birth a fetus counts as human and that we can still kill them? (Woman's choice, her body) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fixed spelling and correct phrasing, and quoted for truth as well.
You didn't 'fix' the spelling. You americanised it. I left it at 'between conception and birth' so that we could all (except Steel Troll of course) agree <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Steel Troll: I really wouldn't care that much if the doctor decided to send ferrets 'up there' to eat the foetus/human/non-human/baby/thing as long as the mother wasn't hurt at the time. Even if doctors did abortions by getting a group of English in red coats to ride around on horses blowing horns while the hounds bayed for fresh f<b>o</b>etus I wouldn't care. The way you worded it is just trying to make us say "No! The poor baby!". We don't and can't think of it like that and as I said before, guilt trips aren't considered good discussion techniques.
Anyway, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree as its 'humanity' is more important than every other social, practical and ethical reason for abortions existence. Nice discussing it with you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Just because you think you can spell fetus correctly doesn't mean it is correct. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(Yes I know that foetus is a british way of spelling, much like the s instead of a z on words like americanized.) I still lub you though Easty <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast Posted on Apr 25 2005+ 04:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast Posted on Apr 25 2005 @ 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I really wouldn't care that much if the doctor decided to send ferrets 'up there' to eat the foetus/human/non-human/baby/thing as long as the mother wasn't hurt at the time. Even if doctors did abortions by getting a group of English in red coats to ride around on horses blowing horns while the hounds bayed for fresh foetus I wouldn't care. The way you worded it is just trying to make us say "No! The poor baby!". We don't and can't think of it like that and as I said before, guilt trips aren't considered good discussion techniques. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for emphasis, agree to disagree. As neither of the two sides are going to back down. I state it is the woman's choice. (As I have throughout this discussion)
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 25 2005, 03:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 25 2005, 03:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not sure if I was a female that I'd trust any guy who said he'd taken it. "Are you sure you don't just want to get laid?" "Yeah honestly, I took it this morning!".
Besides which, most guys are far scattier and less able to keep to routines than women and they screw it up all the time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course, there's always a school of thought that says that you shouldn't sleep with someone you don't trust.
@Steel Troll Is there anything special about conception that makes abortion at that point wrong? Is it not ok to kill a collection of 32 cells? How about 64? 16? What makes conception the moment at which it is immoral to kill a fetus, rather than the moment it develops sentience, starts to feel pain, or is viable outside the womb?
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 25 2005, 05:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 25 2005, 05:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Steel Troll: I really wouldn't care that much if the doctor decided to send ferrets 'up there' to eat the foetus/human/non-human/baby/thing as long as the mother wasn't hurt at the time. Even if doctors did abortions by getting a group of English in red coats to ride around on horses blowing horns while the hounds bayed for fresh f<b>o</b>etus I wouldn't care. The way you worded it is just trying to make us say "No! The poor baby!". We don't and can't think of it like that and as I said before, guilt trips aren't considered good discussion techniques. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You made me laugh in a discussion about abortions. WTH. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lets take an evolutionist view at this - if your old enough to have sex - your old enough to care for your offspring. I'm currenly not aware of any other gestating animal that kills its own unborn.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are many examples of this in the animal kingdom, where animals like the Hyena, if things get far too tough, they can actually induce destruction of the growing embryos (Reabsorb them) and wait until the next breeding season.
I think what most enrages me about abortion is that the baby/fetus/whatever hasn't done anything wrong. It is innocent. Either the mother was sleeping around or some sicko raped her but either way, these are outside causes. This baby/fetus/whatever hasn't done anything to deserve death. That makes me very sad. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
DarkAti, i was begining to think i was the only one who saw it in your light.. im glad im not alone and there are (not to make a stab at anyone) more compassionate people on these boards.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Clam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Clam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there anything special about conception that makes abortion at that point wrong? Is it not ok to kill a collection of 32 cells? How about 64? 16? What makes conception the moment at which it is immoral to kill a fetus, rather than the moment it develops sentience, starts to feel pain, or is viable outside the womb?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. It is the single defining moment which makes us human. Without conception they would be no you or me. The Zygote is you. You at your simplest form in life.
As with agreeing to dissagree, sure fine we can say that, although i beleive it to be somewhat of a copout... But can we really change the law? I have made my view clear, i hope the facts help, so lets agree to dissagree... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
On that note i found a good quote on agreeing to dissagree.
"Somebody might say that, and it would indeed be what I call a copout, if the person knows he or she is wrong and is trying to save face. A more honest response would be "You're right." But sometimes "Let's agree to disagree" is a nice way of dealing with somebody you're sure is wrong. (It's nicer than "That's stupid.") A problem here: People don't always agree on what constitutes proof. The evidence might convince A but not B, so after hearing all the evidence B decides that agreeing to disagree is the best choice. An observer, C, might side with A and think B is copping out, when B is really right and the evidence isn't truly convincing."
A, B or C...I know what i am .. .do you? <span style='font-size:2pt;line-height:100%'>(rhetorical)</span>
ooh! ooh! I know the answer!!! you're D: "someone who uses small text" :D
Just for the sake of it I'll point out I go with CMEast's view; I'd much rather kill a life that hasn't entered our world than bring it into a full blown life of "sorry, you were an accident, we didn't want you" or "your real parents didn't want you so now you're a second-hand kid" :p
Jerry Springer and Trisha already have enough people for their shows; I don't see the point in adding more to society.
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 26 2005, 10:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 26 2005, 10:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> DarkAti, i was begining to think i was the only one who saw it in your light.. im glad im not alone and there are (not to make a stab at anyone) more compassionate people on these boards.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Clam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Clam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there anything special about conception that makes abortion at that point wrong? Is it not ok to kill a collection of 32 cells? How about 64? 16? What makes conception the moment at which it is immoral to kill a fetus, rather than the moment it develops sentience, starts to feel pain, or is viable outside the womb?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. It is the single defining moment which makes us human. Without conception they would be no you or me. The Zygote is you. You at your simplest form in life.
As with agreeing to dissagree, sure fine we can say that, although i beleive it to be somewhat of a copout... But can we really change the law? I have made my view clear, i hope the facts help, so lets agree to dissagree... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
On that note i found a good quote on agreeing to dissagree.
"Somebody might say that, and it would indeed be what I call a copout, if the person knows he or she is wrong and is trying to save face. A more honest response would be "You're right." But sometimes "Let's agree to disagree" is a nice way of dealing with somebody you're sure is wrong. (It's nicer than "That's stupid.") A problem here: People don't always agree on what constitutes proof. The evidence might convince A but not B, so after hearing all the evidence B decides that agreeing to disagree is the best choice. An observer, C, might side with A and think B is copping out, when B is really right and the evidence isn't truly convincing."
A, B or C...I know what i am .. .do you? <span style='font-size:2pt;line-height:100%'>(rhetorical)</span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree Troll, I believe you can agree to disagree, as I did in the Legalized Drug Use thread. If two people are stuck at a stalemate then there is no point in continuing a discussion on any level and that is when two people agree to disagree and drop it.
~ DarkATi
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just for the sake of it I'll point out I go with CMEast's view; I'd much rather kill a life that hasn't entered our world than bring it into a full blown life of "sorry, you were an accident, we didn't want you" or "your real parents didn't want you so now you're a second-hand kid" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree with this.
It is my opinion that we, as americans especially, (collectively as humans) tend to try and "patch" our problems instead of fixing them.
The fix for abortion is to better educate our young people about sex - not that sex is bad or evil or anything "Christian Extremeist" like that: sex is good, God made it. But sex is something to be shared between two people who are committed, and who can afford to have a child if the woman gets pregnant. Sex is the physical act of love, (hence, making love) - for this to really work, we need to better educate our teenagers about true love, and show them with our marriages.
Then, we would have mostly just cases where a girl gets raped and gets pregnant and the child could be taken care of because of the adequate family system that was executed just one paragraph above.
To be honest, I feel all of what I just described is a long shot at best. Really, I don't think this will ever happen. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Abortions are just a "patch" a quick-fix or an easy escape route for our irresponsibilities.
As, I feel, are legalized drug use centers. We say, well, we've lost the war on drugs, let's endorse it... here, get your fix - at least it'll be a bit safer... maybe.
Well, we've lost the war on murder too, folks. People get murdered every day. Should we have legalized murder centers? No! We should not. We should stand up and fight and say, murder is wrong and murderers are to be prosecuted!
The same goes for drugs! I will stand up and say, "Drugs ruin lives, and produce nothing but evil. I will never endorse such a thing; and I will fight to my bloody grave for it!"
We need to get real and stop hot-fixing society like Windows XP Home.
I never said abortion was a good thing, just that it was a necessary thing. I'd love to live in a world where abortions weren't needed, where every pregnancy was wanted.
Unfortunately that is a long way off <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. Until then I will always value the mothers rights over the childs.
I think agreeing to disagree is simply the only solution, we have come up with many varied attempts to defend abortion and you have repeatedly used the same point against us (variations of but still the same) "But it's human!".
It has finally come down to one side saying you can't kill it because it's human and the other side saying yes you can (and in some cases no it isn't as well). We have to agree to disagree because I can't (nor do I want to) change your morals no matter how misguided I believe them to be. I'm glad this thread was made, it's the reason for the discussion forum to exist and I think the vast majority of people that posted were useful contributors instead of flames etc.
Oh and I'm glad I amused you Sky <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 26 2005, 11:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 26 2005, 11:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The same goes for drugs! I will stand up and say, "Drugs ruin lives, and produce nothing but evil. I will never endorse such a thing; and I will fight to my bloody grave for it!"
We need to get real and stop hot-fixing society like Windows XP Home.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And I will be there to say that drugs aren't evil, they can have a lot of good associated with responsible use and that either way I should be allowed to pollute my body and mind anyway I wish. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But thats not really the point I'm here to make. Idealism is a good place to develop morals and values, but a really bad place to base political decisions. Reality is that drug use will always be here, as will abortions. If you think they are wrong, thats fine, don't participate in either. Work to responsibly minimize them in your community.
To pass legislation based completely off ideals, however, is a really bad way to go. To pass a law that does not take into account that there will be people who do not follow your morals, to leave them in the lurch, as we are currently doing for drugs, thankfully not abortion, is going to hurt society.
Taking into account the realities of the world in our laws is not an attempt to "hot fix" society, but rather to deal with it in an appropriate and realistic manner.
Passing laws based on idealistic morals, on the other hand, is an attempt, in my eyes, to hot fix society. Its saying, "well there this problem in society now, by making a law saying its completely wrong, and harshly punishing offenders, we can fix it" It would be nice if things like this could happen, but short of totalitarian government with a better surveillance system than Big Brother, it can never work (not to mention the massive civil rights problems of such a state). If you think these things are a problem (which in the two mentioned cases, I personaly don't) the best way to stop them is to open your eyes to what is really going on, and find a way to slowly change them over time, by dealing with these realities of them, not just to stand up on a soap box and scream to the world that "THIS IS WRONG!"
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 26 2005, 02:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 26 2005, 02:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think agreeing to disagree is simply the only solution, we have come up with many varied attempts to defend abortion and you have repeatedly used the same point against us (variations of but still the same) "But it's human!".
It has finally come down to one side saying you can't kill it because it's human and the other side saying yes you can (and in some cases no it isn't as well). We have to agree to disagree because I can't (nor do I want to) change your morals no matter how misguided I believe them to be. I'm glad this thread was made, it's the reason for the discussion forum to exist and I think the vast majority of people that posted were useful contributors instead of flames etc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, well, that's all fine and dandy, but what are our legislators going to say? They can't exactly agree to disagree; there has to be a compromise there somewhere.
Of course, <u>I</u> would say "Do what you think is right," but that is just unacceptable for most anti-abortionists.
Oh, and <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh and I'm glad I amused you Sky <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Foetus coloured armour <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> WTH?
DarkATI, I think we'd all rather have a world where abortions were never, ever needed but making abortions illegal doesn't fix anything; it just leaves a world of broken families and mentally wounded.
The problem is the world in general isn't a mass of intellect; quite the opposite. Most people are silly. Instead of wondering at things such as morality, philosophy or anything that requires grey matter they much prefer to bury their head in their self-destructive vices like drink, drugs and random sex.
If there was a way to somehow guarantee that every pregnancy was a happy one concieved by a happy couple I'd love to see it put in place. While education might hopefully lower the numbers it will never 100% stop it... that would require a shift in the way society works more than anything that can be handled by teaching unfortunately. At least in my view anyways :/
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 26 2005, 07:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 26 2005, 07:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, and <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh and I'm glad I amused you Sky <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Foetus coloured armour <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> WTH? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Heh, the last line is some more english spelling for Cyndane. They started off as random words that we spell differently but I found that a sentence made of them appealed to my surreal sense of humour <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Corrected them and I always spell armour as armour.. because that is how it is spelled. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 26 2005, 04:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 26 2005, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think what most enrages me about abortion is that the baby/fetus/whatever hasn't done anything wrong. It is innocent. Either the mother was sleeping around or some sicko raped her but either way, these are outside causes. This baby/fetus/whatever hasn't done anything to deserve death. That makes me very sad. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> After reading through this DarkATI your view interests me the most. You label "baby/fetus/whatever..." as innocent, however even with my strong view against abortion it is arguable that labeling the "whatever" innocent and thinking of an unborn child as a "whatever" means it is not an animate object which can have real feelings and emotions cast on to. So how can you feel emotion if you do not consider an unborn child to be soley a life or not?
PS: Hope that makes sense, it's quite hard to get the point across on the way you word it and how you may feel, calling an unborn child a "whatever" at the end of it may not be your opinion and you may be trying to generalise for those who believe that an unborn child is not a life. If I mix up your opinion with a generalisation, apologies and flame me to hell if you like. Oh but only do it by PM so you don't get given restricted access <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think he meant whatever as in, whatever name you want to use rather than trying to turn it into an object as afaik he is anti-abortion/anti-choice/pro-life/pro-baby/whatever/
Oh and I agree, but I thought most americans spelt armour without the U? Seems to suggest that when you search online anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I will be there to say that drugs aren't evil, they can have a lot of good associated with responsible use and that either way I should be allowed to pollute my body and mind anyway I wish. tounge.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, this doesn't really belong here but the comment was made in this thread so I will reply quickly and then get back on-topic...
I simply cannot disagree more. There is NOTHING "good" associated with drugs, it may make you "feel good" but being good and feeling good are two separate things in my book. Drugs are destructive by nature. They are also addictive, by nature.
Please name me something "good" that comes from drug use.
Now, back on-topic...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> After reading through this DarkATI your view interests me the most. You label "baby/fetus/whatever..." as innocent, however even with my strong view against abortion it is arguable that labeling the "whatever" innocent and thinking of an unborn child as a "whatever" means it is not an animate object which can have real feelings and emotions cast on to. So how can you feel emotion if you do not consider an unborn child to be soley a life or not?
PS: Hope that makes sense, it's quite hard to get the point across on the way you word it and how you may feel, calling an unborn child a "whatever" at the end of it may not be your opinion and you may be trying to generalise for those who believe that an unborn child is not a life. If I mix up your opinion with a generalisation, apologies and flame me to hell if you like. Oh but only do it by PM so you don't get given restricted access wink-fix.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are correct, I generalized so those who do not view the fetus as a life could insert there view/name/"whatever" there.
I, personally, view it as a life... OR a soon-to-be life. Even if it doesn't have life at the moment of abortion it was "going-to" have life, later on. So I still view it as murder and wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DarkATI, I think we'd all rather have a world where abortions were never, ever needed but making abortions illegal doesn't fix anything; it just leaves a world of broken families and mentally wounded.
The problem is the world in general isn't a mass of intellect; quite the opposite. Most people are silly. Instead of wondering at things such as morality, philosophy or anything that requires grey matter they much prefer to bury their head in their self-destructive vices like drink, drugs and random sex.
If there was a way to somehow guarantee that every pregnancy was a happy one concieved by a happy couple I'd love to see it put in place. While education might hopefully lower the numbers it will never 100% stop it... that would require a shift in the way society works more than anything that can be handled by teaching unfortunately. At least in my view anyways :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, I don't think this sort of thing will ever happen. Now of course you can never get rid of anything 100% in society, society is too varied BUT you could really cut down the numbers, I think.
To be honest, and I'm not trying to bring everyone down, but, Biblically and personally, I see that society is going to get worse, not better. I would love to see things get better but I don't believe they will... which is one of the reasons I am a Christian. Christians have hope and quite honestly, if I don't have hope, then I don't have anything. Nor does the world.
I think things are going to collapse and rebuild themselves in a way that's hopefully less intrinsically silly and flawed buuuut that's a whole different thread entirely ^~
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 26 2005, 01:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 26 2005, 01:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The fix for abortion is to better educate our young people about sex - not that sex is bad or evil or anything "Christian Extremeist" like that: sex is good, God made it. But sex is something to be shared between two people who are committed, and who can afford to have a child if the woman gets pregnant. Sex is the physical act of love, (hence, making love) - for this to really work, we need to better educate our teenagers about true love, and show them with our marriages. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not going to happen. I don't know when you graduated from High School, but I'm still in and I can simply state as a fact that this is not going to happen, at least not in my lifetime. If nature (and that hot girl I met at the concert) want to f***, well, teaching that sex with commitment is good becuase God made it might stop about 1/500 kids.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 26 2005, 03:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 26 2005, 03:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I simply cannot disagree more. There is NOTHING "good" associated with drugs, it may make you "feel good" but being good and feeling good are two separate things in my book. Drugs are destructive by nature. They are also addictive, by nature.
Please name me something "good" that comes from drug use.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> yeah...this is rather off topic, and I kinda wish I had just skipped it to the second part of my post, which was the actual point I was trying to get at.
I'm going to answer this question with my opinion, then lets this stay on topic from here on out. If you disagree with me, thats fine, if someone wants to discuss more, they should probably start a new topic.
First, not all drugs are addictive, and some of the most addictive ones, such as alcohol, nicotine, and to a degree caffeine, are legal. All of those are far more physically addictive than weed, acid, most other hallucinogens. In my opinion the addictiveness of a particular substance is a poor excuse. Many things are addictive, and a large part of addiction is mental. people are addicted in a fairly real sense to computer games, tv, porn, even bad food. we can't ban everything.
Secondly, its not just about feeling good. True thats a large part, but its not all. To many drugs there is a large social aspect. I got closer in one night of doing drugs with now one of my best friends, than I had in the three weeks we had known each other. We were able to abandon the inhibitions that would normally keep a distance between us. This closeness extended beyond using drugs as well (which we don't do often at all, hard to get for reasonable prices out here), so I don't see how this could possibly be a bad thing. Further more, while I don't like the term "mind expansion" that gets kicked around, there is something to the idea Using a drug can be a religious experience, as evidenced by the many religions that have and do incorporate ritual drug use into their ceremonies. To these people, its not about feeling good, its about getting in touch with the spiritual world. When i started using, it was just to feel good, but thats not really the case anymore. Its changed the way I look at the world, probably for the better. I feel more in touch with my soul now than I did before (hell I didn't even really believe in one). If you can get that with out drugs great. If you get through drugs, thats cool. Defiantly couldn't recommend using them with the express intent to do it though, mainly because I think it won't work. Its just something that naturally happens.
At any rate I would further challenge the idea that feeling good and being good are so separate. The placebo effect, for example, shows what positive feelings can do. I also don't feel that the length of life has anything to do with its value. I don't want to live a particularly long time. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to feel good while I'm here, even if it might shorten my time here.
well...that got a bit longer than I intended....sorry for being so off topic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, back on-topic...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, better put in something to justify this post
I agree with Vercetti. Completely. Furthermore, not everybody believes that true love or marriage has anything to do with sex. I know I don't, and until everyone is converted to this view (which won't ever happen given its religious nature, and I hope I never live in a theocracy that would try to enforce its beliefs on me..anymore than I already do). Sex can be a really beautiful meaningful thing. Restricting it to marriage, however I feel weakens the whole thing. If you and your partner wait until marriage to have sex, rather than going through a couple partners each before hand, your going to have boring sex. Your not going to really know what your doing.
And what does that have to do with abortion? Simply this. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way to some degree. The more taboo we make sex, the harder its going to be for people who fall outside of what is acceptable, say teenagers, to get the needed information about contraception, and the contraceptives, to avoid unwanted pregnancies, which in turn will end up in more abortions, legal or not. In Minnesota there was a trail in abstinence only education (I bring it up because they used the terms of teaching love and marriage, if I recall properly). During this period, the number of unwanted pregnancies and STDs increased at a higher rate than in the public schools that were using a broad, realistic approach to sex education in the same time period. Just another example of idealism not translating to successful political realities.
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 22 2005, 04:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 22 2005, 04:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats what the pro-life people want right? more babies?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No we want the stopping of killing of innocent babies, not more babies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which = more babies... You want them to be saved right? pro-life people want to save them so bad they totally forget about them when they are saved, and focus on some other baby to save when the person they SAVED now has a horrible life thanks to those who were thinking about the POTENTIAL child.
You see... in a society such as this, a baby that is born has a high chance of reaching adulthood and beyond. Babies are a economic liability, and thus people have less of them (opposed to earlier times when more kids = more help for the farm). We have the means to create less people. Some people don't want to make children, but s*@t happens...
Now here is where the important thinking powers should be put to use.
Pro-life people want to restrict some of the newest ways we have to create less people. Even against the will of those who are the source of the child. This = more people. Which need food, water, clothing, shelter, a family and all that other emotional crap. These people need those things, and it is my opinion that those responsible for their births (pro-life people) are to provide for those people.
"trev, pro-life people didn't get to have teh sexxxors!"
Well their version of sex involves FORCING (notice the force used against other's will?) others to have children. Yes... how lame... but thats THEIR choice isn't it? they chose to force others to have kids... so then they get said kids as their own. Or would the pro-life people rather shove these kids out of sight in orphanages so they can feel all happywarmfuzzy inside because they "saved" lives? No... I'm sure the pro-life people would love to force children upon unwilling couples so they can pretend the child's life is going to be entirely normal and happy. out of sight out of mind.
Trev, that's a little unfair. They don't like killing what they view as humans; they'd much rather just have people be more responsible with condom and other contraceptive use. Voila, no babies, no need to kill them.
Unless of course you're a <i>really</i> devout Catholic, in which case you'll think contraceptives are also murder or something....but I hope at least that's the minority opinion.
Thank you sky, and yes trev, what sky said was posted bymoi earlier in the thread. I refuse to go dig it up. I am liking the rouning up of this thread... Its not an all out war which degenerates to flames like in other threads. Lets keep it that way so we dont get this locked for future necromancy if need be (OMG Hang Steel Troll!!! He said Necromancy!! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<span style='font-size:1pt;line-height:100%'>Im guessing no one watched the video, why am i not shocked?</span>
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well firstly the avge children is 2.5 children in a family nowerdays. Restriction is not important and not necessary. We dont live in the ages of a family with 14 kids anymore So the increase in birth rate would not be disasterous.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Environmental science? Environmental sustainability? Economic equity? I do not agree that a random string of denials constitutes an argument. I disagree with the above on the basis it is nonsense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.thefostering.net/ foster care is not as innefective as it was a few years ago (10 or 20 years back) Psychologist work in Developmental Psychology has helped so much in aiding foster carers in looking after the children with minimal ill effects. All a child really needs to be is loved. Sure it might (in later life ) have issues about why they were adopted or fostered, but the work of so many dedicated individuals out there has helped to make the foster care system a better, more cohesive and child-centered tool.
In addition to this, more money could be syphoned to work by child psychologists and foster care working to make great scheams even better.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point was that adopted children tend to end up as socially malformed or abused individuals and that money could be better used on education that will generally reduce the number of abortions (which is what I surmise your goal is here). All you've done is argue my point for me. Erm, thanks.
My point was that we currently lack the capacity to educate people to the standards of a 12 year old. Adding extra members to that society without providing adequately for them is a recipe for disaster.
I've been reading reviews of a book called Freakonomics, which just came out. One review mentioned that the book talked about abortion. Specifically, it linked the Roe v Wade decision with falling crime rates. Specifically, it said that the babies that are most likely to turn to crime are the ones that are more likely to be aborted, which makes sense. So, that would mean that there are fewer criminals in America because abortion is legal.
I've got the book, but I haven't read it yet, so I can't speak about the specifics of this claim, but I think it's an interesting idea to add to the discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->it said that the babies that are most likely to turn to crime are the ones that are more likely to be aborted, which makes sense. So, that would mean that there are fewer criminals in America because abortion is legal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're probably going to become a criminal, so why don't I go ahead and shoot you now?
It reminds me of "Minority Report". Being prosecuted for a crime you are "going to" commit just doesn't seem right. With that view you have just run all over "innocent until proven guilty".
ATi, you're acting as if he had suggested aborting babies because they will become criminals. He meant that babies born into families (or without families) that are more likely to have an abortion are more likely to become criminals because of the socioeconomic situation that would have increased the likelihood of an abortion in the first place. In other words, being born into a world with little or no money and one or nobody who cares about you would make you more likely to become a criminal. It does't mean you automatically become one because of said conditions.
Comments
Yes
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->at some point ranging between conception and birth a foetus counts as human
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->At conception
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and that we can still kill them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>NO!</b> <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> You live with killing millions of babies.
Dilatation & Evacuation - An abortive procedure where an abortionist inserts a pliers-like instrument into the uterus. The abortionist then grabs whatever part of the baby it comes in contact with. Then, by twisting and pulling, the baby is dismembered, killed, and pulled from the womb.
Partial Birth Abortion - An abortive method where all the baby is delivered except the head. With its body outside of the vaginal canal, the doctor then uses a sharp instrument to pierce the back of the skull of the baby and scramble the brains, killing it. Then the baby is fully delivered.
Pregnancy Reduction - An abortive method of reducing the number of babies in the womb (twins, triplets, etc.) by injecting a poison into the heart of one or more of the babies while still in the womb.
Saline Amniocentesis - An abortive method where a highly concentrated salt solution is injected into the placenta. The baby takes the salt into the lungs as well as swallowing it. After more than an hour, the baby dies and the mother delivers the body a day or two later.
These are barbaric procedures. Even criminals or animals being put down die with more dignity. The poor baby, the only thing it ever did was to be conceived. I cant stand the passive apathy of some people, just coz it doesnt really affect them directly "Lets nuke it, L00L" <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Besides which, most guys are far scattier and less able to keep to routines than women and they screw it up all the time. </b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Needs to be bolded for truth, and of course quoted.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Anyway, so are we all agreed that sperm etc isn't a human, that at birth a fetus counts as human and that we can still kill them? (Woman's choice, her body)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fixed spelling and correct phrasing, and quoted for truth as well.
You didn't 'fix' the spelling. You americanised it. I left it at 'between conception and birth' so that we could all (except Steel Troll of course) agree <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Steel Troll: I really wouldn't care that much if the doctor decided to send ferrets 'up there' to eat the foetus/human/non-human/baby/thing as long as the mother wasn't hurt at the time. Even if doctors did abortions by getting a group of English in red coats to ride around on horses blowing horns while the hounds bayed for fresh f<b>o</b>etus I wouldn't care. The way you worded it is just trying to make us say "No! The poor baby!". We don't and can't think of it like that and as I said before, guilt trips aren't considered good discussion techniques.
Anyway, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree as its 'humanity' is more important than every other social, practical and ethical reason for abortions existence. Nice discussing it with you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
(Yes I know that foetus is a british way of spelling, much like the s instead of a z on words like americanized.) I still lub you though Easty <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast Posted on Apr 25 2005+ 04:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast Posted on Apr 25 2005 @ 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I really wouldn't care that much if the doctor decided to send ferrets 'up there' to eat the foetus/human/non-human/baby/thing as long as the mother wasn't hurt at the time. Even if doctors did abortions by getting a group of English in red coats to ride around on horses blowing horns while the hounds bayed for fresh foetus I wouldn't care. The way you worded it is just trying to make us say "No! The poor baby!". We don't and can't think of it like that and as I said before, guilt trips aren't considered good discussion techniques.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for emphasis, agree to disagree. As neither of the two sides are going to back down. I state it is the woman's choice. (As I have throughout this discussion)
Besides which, most guys are far scattier and less able to keep to routines than women and they screw it up all the time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, there's always a school of thought that says that you shouldn't sleep with someone you don't trust.
@Steel Troll
Is there anything special about conception that makes abortion at that point wrong? Is it not ok to kill a collection of 32 cells? How about 64? 16? What makes conception the moment at which it is immoral to kill a fetus, rather than the moment it develops sentience, starts to feel pain, or is viable outside the womb?
You made me laugh in a discussion about abortions. WTH. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There are many examples of this in the animal kingdom, where animals like the Hyena, if things get far too tough, they can actually induce destruction of the growing embryos (Reabsorb them) and wait until the next breeding season.
Now you're aware.
~ DarkATi
<!--QuoteBegin-The Clam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Clam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there anything special about conception that makes abortion at that point wrong? Is it not ok to kill a collection of 32 cells? How about 64? 16? What makes conception the moment at which it is immoral to kill a fetus, rather than the moment it develops sentience, starts to feel pain, or is viable outside the womb?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. It is the single defining moment which makes us human. Without conception they would be no you or me. The Zygote is you. You at your simplest form in life.
As with agreeing to dissagree, sure fine we can say that, although i beleive it to be somewhat of a copout... But can we really change the law? I have made my view clear, i hope the facts help, so lets agree to dissagree... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
On that note i found a good quote on agreeing to dissagree.
"Somebody might say that, and it would indeed be what I call a copout, if the person knows he or she is wrong and is trying to save face. A more honest response would be "You're right." But sometimes "Let's agree to disagree" is a nice way of dealing with somebody you're sure is wrong. (It's nicer than "That's stupid.") A problem here: People don't always agree on what constitutes proof. The evidence might convince A but not B, so after hearing all the evidence B decides that agreeing to disagree is the best choice. An observer, C, might side with A and think B is copping out, when B is really right and the evidence isn't truly convincing."
A, B or C...I know what i am .. .do you?
<span style='font-size:2pt;line-height:100%'>(rhetorical)</span>
Just for the sake of it I'll point out I go with CMEast's view; I'd much rather kill a life that hasn't entered our world than bring it into a full blown life of "sorry, you were an accident, we didn't want you" or "your real parents didn't want you so now you're a second-hand kid" :p
Jerry Springer and Trisha already have enough people for their shows; I don't see the point in adding more to society.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Clam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Clam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there anything special about conception that makes abortion at that point wrong? Is it not ok to kill a collection of 32 cells? How about 64? 16? What makes conception the moment at which it is immoral to kill a fetus, rather than the moment it develops sentience, starts to feel pain, or is viable outside the womb?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. It is the single defining moment which makes us human. Without conception they would be no you or me. The Zygote is you. You at your simplest form in life.
As with agreeing to dissagree, sure fine we can say that, although i beleive it to be somewhat of a copout... But can we really change the law? I have made my view clear, i hope the facts help, so lets agree to dissagree... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
On that note i found a good quote on agreeing to dissagree.
"Somebody might say that, and it would indeed be what I call a copout, if the person knows he or she is wrong and is trying to save face. A more honest response would be "You're right." But sometimes "Let's agree to disagree" is a nice way of dealing with somebody you're sure is wrong. (It's nicer than "That's stupid.") A problem here: People don't always agree on what constitutes proof. The evidence might convince A but not B, so after hearing all the evidence B decides that agreeing to disagree is the best choice. An observer, C, might side with A and think B is copping out, when B is really right and the evidence isn't truly convincing."
A, B or C...I know what i am .. .do you?
<span style='font-size:2pt;line-height:100%'>(rhetorical)</span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree Troll, I believe you can agree to disagree, as I did in the Legalized Drug Use thread. If two people are stuck at a stalemate then there is no point in continuing a discussion on any level and that is when two people agree to disagree and drop it.
~ DarkATi
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just for the sake of it I'll point out I go with CMEast's view; I'd much rather kill a life that hasn't entered our world than bring it into a full blown life of "sorry, you were an accident, we didn't want you" or "your real parents didn't want you so now you're a second-hand kid" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree with this.
It is my opinion that we, as americans especially, (collectively as humans) tend to try and "patch" our problems instead of fixing them.
The fix for abortion is to better educate our young people about sex - not that sex is bad or evil or anything "Christian Extremeist" like that: sex is good, God made it. But sex is something to be shared between two people who are committed, and who can afford to have a child if the woman gets pregnant. Sex is the physical act of love, (hence, making love) - for this to really work, we need to better educate our teenagers about true love, and show them with our marriages.
Then, we would have mostly just cases where a girl gets raped and gets pregnant and the child could be taken care of because of the adequate family system that was executed just one paragraph above.
To be honest, I feel all of what I just described is a long shot at best. Really, I don't think this will ever happen. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Abortions are just a "patch" a quick-fix or an easy escape route for our irresponsibilities.
As, I feel, are legalized drug use centers. We say, well, we've lost the war on drugs, let's endorse it... here, get your fix - at least it'll be a bit safer... maybe.
Well, we've lost the war on murder too, folks. People get murdered every day. Should we have legalized murder centers? No! We should not. We should stand up and fight and say, murder is wrong and murderers are to be prosecuted!
The same goes for drugs! I will stand up and say, "Drugs ruin lives, and produce nothing but evil. I will never endorse such a thing; and I will fight to my bloody grave for it!"
We need to get real and stop hot-fixing society like Windows XP Home.
~ DarkATi
Unfortunately that is a long way off <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. Until then I will always value the mothers rights over the childs.
I think agreeing to disagree is simply the only solution, we have come up with many varied attempts to defend abortion and you have repeatedly used the same point against us (variations of but still the same) "But it's human!".
It has finally come down to one side saying you can't kill it because it's human and the other side saying yes you can (and in some cases no it isn't as well). We have to agree to disagree because I can't (nor do I want to) change your morals no matter how misguided I believe them to be. I'm glad this thread was made, it's the reason for the discussion forum to exist and I think the vast majority of people that posted were useful contributors instead of flames etc.
Oh and I'm glad I amused you Sky <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Foetus coloured armour <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
We need to get real and stop hot-fixing society like Windows XP Home.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I will be there to say that drugs aren't evil, they can have a lot of good associated with responsible use and that either way I should be allowed to pollute my body and mind anyway I wish. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But thats not really the point I'm here to make. Idealism is a good place to develop morals and values, but a really bad place to base political decisions. Reality is that drug use will always be here, as will abortions. If you think they are wrong, thats fine, don't participate in either. Work to responsibly minimize them in your community.
To pass legislation based completely off ideals, however, is a really bad way to go. To pass a law that does not take into account that there will be people who do not follow your morals, to leave them in the lurch, as we are currently doing for drugs, thankfully not abortion, is going to hurt society.
Taking into account the realities of the world in our laws is not an attempt to "hot fix" society, but rather to deal with it in an appropriate and realistic manner.
Passing laws based on idealistic morals, on the other hand, is an attempt, in my eyes, to hot fix society. Its saying, "well there this problem in society now, by making a law saying its completely wrong, and harshly punishing offenders, we can fix it" It would be nice if things like this could happen, but short of totalitarian government with a better surveillance system than Big Brother, it can never work (not to mention the massive civil rights problems of such a state). If you think these things are a problem (which in the two mentioned cases, I personaly don't) the best way to stop them is to open your eyes to what is really going on, and find a way to slowly change them over time, by dealing with these realities of them, not just to stand up on a soap box and scream to the world that "THIS IS WRONG!"
It has finally come down to one side saying you can't kill it because it's human and the other side saying yes you can (and in some cases no it isn't as well). We have to agree to disagree because I can't (nor do I want to) change your morals no matter how misguided I believe them to be. I'm glad this thread was made, it's the reason for the discussion forum to exist and I think the vast majority of people that posted were useful contributors instead of flames etc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, well, that's all fine and dandy, but what are our legislators going to say? They can't exactly agree to disagree; there has to be a compromise there somewhere.
Of course, <u>I</u> would say "Do what you think is right," but that is just unacceptable for most anti-abortionists.
Oh, and
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh and I'm glad I amused you Sky <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Foetus coloured armour <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WTH?
The problem is the world in general isn't a mass of intellect; quite the opposite. Most people are silly. Instead of wondering at things such as morality, philosophy or anything that requires grey matter they much prefer to bury their head in their self-destructive vices like drink, drugs and random sex.
If there was a way to somehow guarantee that every pregnancy was a happy one concieved by a happy couple I'd love to see it put in place. While education might hopefully lower the numbers it will never 100% stop it... that would require a shift in the way society works more than anything that can be handled by teaching unfortunately.
At least in my view anyways :/
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh and I'm glad I amused you Sky <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Foetus coloured armour <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WTH? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, the last line is some more english spelling for Cyndane. They started off as random words that we spell differently but I found that a sentence made of them appealed to my surreal sense of humour <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Fetus colored armour <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Corrected them and I always spell armour as armour.. because that is how it is spelled. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
After reading through this DarkATI your view interests me the most. You label "baby/fetus/whatever..." as innocent, however even with my strong view against abortion it is arguable that labeling the "whatever" innocent and thinking of an unborn child as a "whatever" means it is not an animate object which can have real feelings and emotions cast on to. So how can you feel emotion if you do not consider an unborn child to be soley a life or not?
PS: Hope that makes sense, it's quite hard to get the point across on the way you word it and how you may feel, calling an unborn child a "whatever" at the end of it may not be your opinion and you may be trying to generalise for those who believe that an unborn child is not a life. If I mix up your opinion with a generalisation, apologies and flame me to hell if you like. Oh but only do it by PM so you don't get given restricted access <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh and I agree, but I thought most americans spelt armour without the U? Seems to suggest that when you search online anyway.
OK, this doesn't really belong here but the comment was made in this thread so I will reply quickly and then get back on-topic...
I simply cannot disagree more. There is NOTHING "good" associated with drugs, it may make you "feel good" but being good and feeling good are two separate things in my book. Drugs are destructive by nature. They are also addictive, by nature.
Please name me something "good" that comes from drug use.
Now, back on-topic...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> After reading through this DarkATI your view interests me the most. You label "baby/fetus/whatever..." as innocent, however even with my strong view against abortion it is arguable that labeling the "whatever" innocent and thinking of an unborn child as a "whatever" means it is not an animate object which can have real feelings and emotions cast on to. So how can you feel emotion if you do not consider an unborn child to be soley a life or not?
PS: Hope that makes sense, it's quite hard to get the point across on the way you word it and how you may feel, calling an unborn child a "whatever" at the end of it may not be your opinion and you may be trying to generalise for those who believe that an unborn child is not a life. If I mix up your opinion with a generalisation, apologies and flame me to hell if you like. Oh but only do it by PM so you don't get given restricted access wink-fix.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are correct, I generalized so those who do not view the fetus as a life could insert there view/name/"whatever" there.
I, personally, view it as a life... OR a soon-to-be life. Even if it doesn't have life at the moment of abortion it was "going-to" have life, later on. So I still view it as murder and wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DarkATI, I think we'd all rather have a world where abortions were never, ever needed but making abortions illegal doesn't fix anything; it just leaves a world of broken families and mentally wounded.
The problem is the world in general isn't a mass of intellect; quite the opposite. Most people are silly. Instead of wondering at things such as morality, philosophy or anything that requires grey matter they much prefer to bury their head in their self-destructive vices like drink, drugs and random sex.
If there was a way to somehow guarantee that every pregnancy was a happy one concieved by a happy couple I'd love to see it put in place. While education might hopefully lower the numbers it will never 100% stop it... that would require a shift in the way society works more than anything that can be handled by teaching unfortunately.
At least in my view anyways :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, I don't think this sort of thing will ever happen. Now of course you can never get rid of anything 100% in society, society is too varied BUT you could really cut down the numbers, I think.
To be honest, and I'm not trying to bring everyone down, but, Biblically and personally, I see that society is going to get worse, not better. I would love to see things get better but I don't believe they will... which is one of the reasons I am a Christian. Christians have hope and quite honestly, if I don't have hope, then I don't have anything. Nor does the world.
~ DarkATi
Not going to happen. I don't know when you graduated from High School, but I'm still in and I can simply state as a fact that this is not going to happen, at least not in my lifetime. If nature (and that hot girl I met at the concert) want to f***, well, teaching that sex with commitment is good becuase God made it might stop about 1/500 kids.
Please name me something "good" that comes from drug use.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah...this is rather off topic, and I kinda wish I had just skipped it to the second part of my post, which was the actual point I was trying to get at.
I'm going to answer this question with my opinion, then lets this stay on topic from here on out. If you disagree with me, thats fine, if someone wants to discuss more, they should probably start a new topic.
First, not all drugs are addictive, and some of the most addictive ones, such as alcohol, nicotine, and to a degree caffeine, are legal. All of those are far more physically addictive than weed, acid, most other hallucinogens. In my opinion the addictiveness of a particular substance is a poor excuse. Many things are addictive, and a large part of addiction is mental. people are addicted in a fairly real sense to computer games, tv, porn, even bad food. we can't ban everything.
Secondly, its not just about feeling good. True thats a large part, but its not all. To many drugs there is a large social aspect. I got closer in one night of doing drugs with now one of my best friends, than I had in the three weeks we had known each other. We were able to abandon the inhibitions that would normally keep a distance between us. This closeness extended beyond using drugs as well (which we don't do often at all, hard to get for reasonable prices out here), so I don't see how this could possibly be a bad thing. Further more, while I don't like the term "mind expansion" that gets kicked around, there is something to the idea Using a drug can be a religious experience, as evidenced by the many religions that have and do incorporate ritual drug use into their ceremonies. To these people, its not about feeling good, its about getting in touch with the spiritual world. When i started using, it was just to feel good, but thats not really the case anymore. Its changed the way I look at the world, probably for the better. I feel more in touch with my soul now than I did before (hell I didn't even really believe in one). If you can get that with out drugs great. If you get through drugs, thats cool. Defiantly couldn't recommend using them with the express intent to do it though, mainly because I think it won't work. Its just something that naturally happens.
At any rate I would further challenge the idea that feeling good and being good are so separate. The placebo effect, for example, shows what positive feelings can do. I also don't feel that the length of life has anything to do with its value. I don't want to live a particularly long time. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to feel good while I'm here, even if it might shorten my time here.
well...that got a bit longer than I intended....sorry for being so off topic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, back on-topic...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, better put in something to justify this post
I agree with Vercetti. Completely. Furthermore, not everybody believes that true love or marriage has anything to do with sex. I know I don't, and until everyone is converted to this view (which won't ever happen given its religious nature, and I hope I never live in a theocracy that would try to enforce its beliefs on me..anymore than I already do). Sex can be a really beautiful meaningful thing. Restricting it to marriage, however I feel weakens the whole thing. If you and your partner wait until marriage to have sex, rather than going through a couple partners each before hand, your going to have boring sex. Your not going to really know what your doing.
And what does that have to do with abortion? Simply this. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way to some degree. The more taboo we make sex, the harder its going to be for people who fall outside of what is acceptable, say teenagers, to get the needed information about contraception, and the contraceptives, to avoid unwanted pregnancies, which in turn will end up in more abortions, legal or not. In Minnesota there was a trail in abstinence only education (I bring it up because they used the terms of teaching love and marriage, if I recall properly). During this period, the number of unwanted pregnancies and STDs increased at a higher rate than in the public schools that were using a broad, realistic approach to sex education in the same time period. Just another example of idealism not translating to successful political realities.
No we want the stopping of killing of innocent babies, not more babies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which = more babies... You want them to be saved right? pro-life people want to save them so bad they totally forget about them when they are saved, and focus on some other baby to save when the person they SAVED now has a horrible life thanks to those who were thinking about the POTENTIAL child.
You see... in a society such as this, a baby that is born has a high chance of reaching adulthood and beyond. Babies are a economic liability, and thus people have less of them (opposed to earlier times when more kids = more help for the farm). We have the means to create less people. Some people don't want to make children, but s*@t happens...
Now here is where the important thinking powers should be put to use.
Pro-life people want to restrict some of the newest ways we have to create less people. Even against the will of those who are the source of the child. This = more people. Which need food, water, clothing, shelter, a family and all that other emotional crap. These people need those things, and it is my opinion that those responsible for their births (pro-life people) are to provide for those people.
"trev, pro-life people didn't get to have teh sexxxors!"
Well their version of sex involves FORCING (notice the force used against other's will?) others to have children. Yes... how lame... but thats THEIR choice isn't it? they chose to force others to have kids... so then they get said kids as their own. Or would the pro-life people rather shove these kids out of sight in orphanages so they can feel all happywarmfuzzy inside because they "saved" lives? No... I'm sure the pro-life people would love to force children upon unwilling couples so they can pretend the child's life is going to be entirely normal and happy. out of sight out of mind.
Unless of course you're a <i>really</i> devout Catholic, in which case you'll think contraceptives are also murder or something....but I hope at least that's the minority opinion.
<span style='font-size:1pt;line-height:100%'>Im guessing no one watched the video, why am i not shocked?</span>
Environmental science? Environmental sustainability? Economic equity? I do not agree that a random string of denials constitutes an argument. I disagree with the above on the basis it is nonsense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.thefostering.net/ foster care is not as innefective as it was a few years ago (10 or 20 years back) Psychologist work in Developmental Psychology has helped so much in aiding foster carers in looking after the children with minimal ill effects. All a child really needs to be is loved. Sure it might (in later life ) have issues about why they were adopted or fostered, but the work of so many dedicated individuals out there has helped to make the foster care system a better, more cohesive and child-centered tool.
In addition to this, more money could be syphoned to work by child psychologists and foster care working to make great scheams even better.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point was that adopted children tend to end up as socially malformed or abused individuals and that money could be better used on education that will generally reduce the number of abortions (which is what I surmise your goal is here). All you've done is argue my point for me. Erm, thanks.
My point was that we currently lack the capacity to educate people to the standards of a 12 year old. Adding extra members to that society without providing adequately for them is a recipe for disaster.
I've got the book, but I haven't read it yet, so I can't speak about the specifics of this claim, but I think it's an interesting idea to add to the discussion.
You're probably going to become a criminal, so why don't I go ahead and shoot you now?
It reminds me of "Minority Report". Being prosecuted for a crime you are "going to" commit just doesn't seem right. With that view you have just run all over "innocent until proven guilty".
~ DarkATi