[Scientist]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
In a sense, life is an ongoing process for which nobody has an exact idea of it's beginning. Human life is just a phase of this process that started with the Big Bang (if there was such a thing!) and end up in an evaporation with the ongoing dilation of the universe.

Defining life, is to discard the whole process for the benefit of an incomplete and fixed snapshot in time.

A picture is a picture: it is static. Life is not static; it is dynamic, and therefore, merged in all other physical and chemical processes at the basis of this universe. There is a limit to Descartes dichotomic categorization.

So the question regarding when life begins is totally useless and irrelevant if you are looking for an ultimate, absolute answer.

The real question is: "when does one decide that a life is meaningful?"

And that becomes a very personal question, for which nobody else can answer but the questioner.

Yea, this is what I was trying to say.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
In a sense, life is an ongoing process for which nobody has an exact idea of it's beginning. Human life is just a phase of this process that started with the Big Bang (if there was such a thing!) and end up in an evaporation with the ongoing dilation of the universe.

Defining life, is to discard the whole process for the benefit of an incomplete and fixed snapshot in time.

A picture is a picture: it is static. Life is not static; it is dynamic, and therefore, merged in all other physical and chemical processes at the basis of this universe. There is a limit to Descartes dichotomic categorization.

So the question regarding when life begins is totally useless and irrelevant if you are looking for an ultimate, absolute answer.

The real question is: "when does one decide that a life is meaningful?"

And that becomes a very personal question, for which nobody else can answer but the questioner.

All right, GET OUT! We'll have none of your thoughtful and insightful posts around here in the bickerfest 04�.

Something to consider - do you have the right to refuse to give food to the starving? Medications to those who cannot afford their price? Help to someone who is drowning? The answer to all of these questions, from a legal standpoint is yes, AFAIK (and when it comes to the law there isn't a whole lot I do know, so I would appreciate if the resident lawyers could clear this up). In other words, "property rights" seem to trump people's needs (as the economists gasp in shock that I would use a term such as 'need'). This may not be true of all of them, but it seems to me that the strongest proponents of absolute property rights are the same ones who would deny a woman the right to refuse nutrients and shelter to a fertilized ovum, zygote, or fetus.

The dichotomy could be views as odd looking at the other side this way, too.

BlackGriffen

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
All right, GET OUT! We'll have none of your thoughtful and insightful posts around here in the bickerfest 04�.

Something to consider - do you have the right to refuse to give food to the starving? Medications to those who cannot afford their price? Help to someone who is drowning? The answer to all of these questions, from a legal standpoint is yes, AFAIK (and when it comes to the law there isn't a whole lot I do know, so I would appreciate if the resident lawyers could clear this up). In other words, "property rights" seem to trump people's needs (as the economists gasp in shock that I would use a term such as 'need'). This may not be true of all of them, but it seems to me that the strongest proponents of absolute property rights are the same ones who would deny a woman the right to refuse nutrients and shelter to a fertilized ovum, zygote, or fetus.

The dichotomy could be views as odd looking at the other side this way, too.

BlackGriffen

Good point. I guess this is what I meant to say when one is questioning the meaningfulness of "life". At some point, as individuals, we delegate some decisions (answers to these questions) to others for whatever reason. Because we delegate, we refuse our personal responsability in the matter, and open the whole thing to considerations that vary ethically, and suppose our submission to others.

By the way, I am not an expert in those matters, but Scientists post was very inspirational.

[CreepingDeth]

Damn, I thought we were talking about abortion!

[Monique]

The men who are against abortions cannot be bothered with a woman's opinions or needs and do not care for their well being just theirs and the women who are against abortions have been brainwashed by these men who tell her what she should think and what she should do.

[CreepingDeth]

Would you abort a child if one days you said "Woops"?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Monique:
The men who are against abortions cannot be bothered with a woman's opinions or needs and do not care for their well being just theirs and the women who are against abortions have been brainwashed by these men who tell her what she should think and what she should do.

You do not get a cigar. You do not pass go.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Monique:
The men who are for abortions cannot be bothered with a baby's right to live and do not care for their well being just theirs and the women who are for abortions have been brainwashed by these men who tell her what she should think and what she should do.

Fixed.

[Zimphire]

CP your inbox is full.

[CreepingDeth]

Fixed.

[itai195]

Yet Another Abortion Thread (YAAT)

My new contribution has to do with a couple of folks I'm only loosely (thank God) related to. They got married pretty young (19 and 21) and now the wife is pregnant because she stopped taking birth control without telling her husband. They're by no means financially prepared or mature enough to raise a child. What would Zimphire do (WWZD)? The curious thing is, I must admit, that this family is by and large very liberal and pro-choice, but nobody has even suggested the idea of getting an abortion. Seems to be a common opinion -- that they don't think the procedure should be outlawed, but view it as an absolute last resort. At the same time, I haven't heard any serious suggestions for putting the kid up for adoption either (which is what they really ought to do, they have no business raising a child).

[CreepingDeth]

Have the kid and put it up for adoption. Don't murder it.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Don't murder it.

*my italics*

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
*my italics*

[CreepingDeth]

Don't murder he or she. Is that better?

[MindFad]

So you only like communism when it's vaginal?

[CreepingDeth]

[soul searching]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
*my italics*

Maybe Freud was right.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by MindFad:
So you only like communism when it's vaginal?

ROFL

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by soul searching:
Maybe Freud was right.

Sounds like id...

LOL

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by MindFad:
So you only like communism when it's vaginal?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MindFad:
So you only like communism when it's vaginal?

Is that what your parents called you when you were born?

rimshot

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm still wondering how a worthless loser of a man is any worse than a woman who would abort his child.

Is there some significant difference in the character between the two? Because i ain't seeing it.

Sounds like a marriage made in Heaven, actually. They truly deserve one another.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by itai195:
...now the wife is pregnant because she stopped taking birth control without telling her husband.

why in the hell did she do that?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'm still wondering how a worthless loser of a man is any worse than a woman who would abort his child.

How do you know the child is from that man?

[ebuddy]

Monique;The men who are against abortions cannot be bothered with a woman's opinions or needs and do not care for their well being just theirs and the women who are against abortions have been brainwashed by these men who tell her what she should think and what she should do.

Keep trying Monique, this gets easier each time.

How do you know the child is from that man?

This is an excellent question angaq0k! Monique, any sweeping generalizations for this one? It seems to me to be quite possible since what we're talking about here is (generalization comin') irresponsible sex overall.

[DeathToWindows]

Pro-Choice. Ideally the procedure should be used only if the woman's life is in danger from giving birth - not just because she doesn't want a kid. But I'll leave it up to the women - their womb, their choice.

[itai195]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:


why in the hell did she do that?

Rumor is they were headed towards a divorce (that may be wishful thinking) and she did it so that she could tie him down with a baby. What's suspicious is she already knows she's pregnant and she's less than a month into the pregnancy.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
Rumor is they were headed towards a divorce (that may be wishful thinking) and she did it so that she could tie him down with a baby. What's suspicious is she already knows she's pregnant and she's less than a month into the pregnancy.

Yes, my friends ex did that to him. He caught her cheating on him and he was about to break it up.. then she suddenly "got" pregnant. He waited to find out if it was his etc..

Well it was. The doc asked her WHY she went off BC. Something my friend didn't know about. She tried to deny it but the doctor had "proof"

He ended up breaking it off with her shortly after because she couldn't and wouldn't stop cheating on him. She used the kid to try to support herself through the gov socialist system and was trying to take most of his check too.

Well 3 years down the road now, She has lost ALL Custody of the kid to my friend because of her partying and carrying on. He even gave her ANOTHER chance, and she kidnapped the kid. They found her the next day. Now she has no chance of custody again. She gets supervised visitation 2 weekends on month.

She never shows up for them. I guess now the kid isn't a meal ticket for her, she doesn't want anything to do with it.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by itai195:
Rumor is they were headed towards a divorce (that may be wishful thinking) and she did it so that she could tie him down with a baby.

heh. i've heard that one before and it's exactly what happened to a friend of mine, except she was 15 and he 18. needless to say they weren't married at the time...

she had her kid...the daughter is now 9 years old. the dad gets to see her once in a blue moon. the mom's kind of a...b*atch...to say the least.

[Mr. Bob]

I believe once a woman gets pregnant, the man should be forced by law to care for the child and mother. That child is equally part of the father�s family too.

Woman should not get the final choice, as it is not just their child. Your womb your choice is not the right answer. If I pick up a child, its not �my arms my choice� Lets not forget, this woman voluntary had sex.

Also.
phoenixboy70:

illegal:

masturbation - no
early term abortion - no
late term abortion - yes
murder - yes

I agree, for me early term is 8 weeks and less. After 8 weeks starts late term. Although I am �pro life� all the way, I believe the government should restrict abortion to the early term (8 weeks) only. Cant have your way completely, and I believe early term only makes sense.

Also for more info, please see�

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...45#post2123745

Also, poll should have atleast 3 options.

Pro abortion
Pro life
Pro Restricted abortion (early term only)

As I do believe if a child has some vicious ailment making the child live a life of intense pain, that a late term abortion may be better.

Although, if I did abort my child for any reason (aliment, save wife�s life), I would have a funeral and such.

[chalk_outline]

This seems to be a right vs. left thing.

Would the right be willing to have a slight increase in spending to inform people about the effects of unprotected sex? Or even have the government put buckets of condoms out on street corners and hand them out in high school. The pill for all for free? Or we could have the government force the makers of Mickeys to glue a condom to the bottom of every 22.

The kids are going to have sex. ****, I knew kids that used Saran Wrap since they didn't have a condom available.

If you don't like the result try to fix the problem.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by chalk_outline:
This seems to be a right vs. left thing.

Would the right be willing to have a slight increase in spending to inform people about the effects of unprotected sex? Or even have the government put buckets of condoms out on street corners and hand them out in high school. The pill for all for free? Or we could have the government force the makers of Mickeys to glue a condom to the bottom of every 22.

The kids are going to have sex. ****, I knew kids that used Saran Wrap since they didn't have a condom available.

If you don't like the result try to fix the problem.

Eh, there are kids with FULL access to condoms and yet don't use them because "They aren't cool"

[xenu]

Mr. Bob, when you become pregnant, you can decide to have the baby.

Until you control the will of all people, pro-choice will remain an option.

[Dr.HermanG.]

It's funny how it's not a woman's choice when she can be prosecuted for drinking, using drugs, etc. while pregnant but if she gets a money order payable to the local abortion clinic then she can walk it and have it sucked out with a tube or removed in a more violent fashion.

Too many double standards.

If a woman can force a man to become a father against his will then a man has the right to force a woman to become a mother.

[xenu]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
It's funny how it's not a woman's choice when she can be prosecuted for drinking, using drugs, etc. while pregnant but if she gets a money order payable to the local abortion clinic then she can walk it and have it sucked out with a tube or removed in a more violent fashion.

Too many double standards.

If a woman can force a man to become a father against his will then a man has the right to force a woman to become a mother.

That'll work, and lead to a happy family with lovely sunsets at the end of each day.

I believe you wanted to say that you personally want the power to make pregnant women do what they are told.

Abortions are legal, deal with it.

[Dr.HermanG.]

It's clearly a double standard there. Do away with all the double standards and the debate vanishes.

[xenu]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
It's clearly a double standard there. Do away with all the double standards and the debate vanishes.

I suggest you ask yourself who passed those double standard laws, and why.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
It's clearly a double standard there. Do away with all the double standards and the debate vanishes.

the double standard is that it seems to be okay to remove some micro-organisms from a human body, but when those organisms happen to be a fetuses it's supposed to be illegal.

btw, this isn't about saving lives, - it's about controlling people's sexual behavior. a battle that the religious right has long since lost, and now is trying to reintroduce through the back door of this silly "abortion issue".

if people were truly "pro life", they'd be vegetarians, anti-death penalty and anti-war as well. but again, the typical ****servative double standards won't allow for that.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by xenu:
I suggest you ask yourself who passed those double standard laws, and why.

Well, it was men after all who granted the "right" to an abortion. What man giveth man can taketh away.

Try to reconcile the double standards. Why isn't it murder to have an abortion but murder to cause a miscarriage or otherwise terminate a pregnancy against a mother's wishes? Why is it that if you have two pregnant women in two rooms next to each other that in one case a doctor could simply remove the "irritation" with great speed and in the next room the doctor could be taking all steps necessary to protect the unborn against potential harm? Why is it that it's not murder when the baby is inside the womb but becomes murder once that same child takes its first breath? Why is it that a woman can force a man to have a child but a man cannot force a woman to keep the child?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
the double standard is that it seems to be okay to remove some micro-organisms from a human body, but when those organisms happen to be a fetuses it's supposed to be illegal.

Because in all other cases those organisms are harmful to the host. Parasites. Fetuses simply do not fit in this category no matter how much you'd like to dehumanize them.

btw, this isn't about saving lives, - it's about controlling people's sexual behavior. a battle that the religious right has long since lost, and now is trying to reintroduce through the back door of this silly "abortion issue".

Argue that with someone else because I'm not of the religious right. Not even a Christian and I don't believe in a supreme being.

if people were truly "pro life", they'd be vegetarians,

Being a vegetarian results in the death of plants....

anti-death penalty

Supporting the DP is about punishing someone who used free will to kill another human...

and anti-war as well.

So you would simply sit around and let others threaten you and kill you without defending yourself? Hook, line, and sinker.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Well, it was men after all who granted the "right" to an abortion. What man giveth man can taketh away.

bullsh!t. all it takes is the scientific knowledge to do so. abortion is no "right" it's a "skill".

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Because in all other cases those organisms are harmful to the host. Parasites. Fetuses simply do not fit in this category no matter how much you'd like to dehumanize them.

not true. there are organisms which could be completely "harmless" and just "inconveniencing". no matter how much you like to split hairs to make you the winner of this argument, abortion is NOT murder (at least not in the early stages).

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Being a vegetarian results in the death of plants....

...which (on the level of BEING A HUMANBEING) is the same as arguing the death of a early term fetus. - pwned #1

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Supporting the DP is about punishing someone who used free will to kill another human...

there is no 100% sure way to prove that a person is guilty. the death penalty is irreversable. so it's 100% unworthy of a modern society. - pwned #2

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
So you would simply sit around and let others threaten you and kill you without defending yourself?

so you claim that only people who are direct threat to your life die in a war? think again! - pwned #3

you're out. thanx and bye!

[ebuddy]

Phoenixboy;If people were truly "pro life", they'd be vegetarians, anti-death penalty and anti-war as well. but again, the typical ****servative double standards won't allow for that.

What is with the sweeping generalizations? Bottom line; 98% of abortions are the result of irresponsible sex. You can hand out condoms all you want, but the typical kid who can't keep his organ in his pants isn't going to use a condom let alone use it properly. Not a solution.

I don't see how it is politically incorrect for someone who is pro-life to eat meat. I really don't get the comparison here. If you are elevating the animal to the human plane (or, bringing the human down to the animal plane), this may at least explain your position on the unborn human and I might say the teachings of evolution have tainted your view of humankind a smidgen. I eat meat. I am pro-life. At least this makes more sense to me than the vegetarian wearing leather sandals.

I am against the death penalty. It does not deter crime, it does not cost the taxpayer less, and there are no redeeming aspects of it IMO. I think it'd be more effective if the murderer was simply never seen again and rumors of breaking rocks and sleeping in dark, damp holes could be heard wafting throughout the prison community.

Anti-war is pro-life because of possible collateral damage? Hmm. You make a good argument. Wouldn't it be a much more peaceful world if we allow only murderous dictators to kill? There is no greater good in some people's minds. No absolutes. No boundaries.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Bottom line; 98% of abortions are the result of irresponsible sex.

yup. like i said. it's not about protecting the unborn, it's about controlling people's sexuality.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Wouldn't it be a much more peaceful world if we allow only murderous dictators to kill?

what?????

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Why is it that a woman can force a man to have a child but a man cannot force a woman to keep the child?

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. You want to talk double standards? Why is it that for a man to have a baby he just has to stick his dick in a woman, and for a woman to have a baby she has to endure 9 months of pain, nausea,, vomiting, urinary frequency, constipation, 20-pound weight gain, all ending with the most excruciating 5 hours of her life?

When men start doing all those things, and push babies through their urethrae (without epidural would be nice!!!), you can talk about "forcing" women to do their previously unique job. Biggest double standard in the history of biology, if you ask me. Ask women, too.

[ebuddy]

yup. like i said. it's not about protecting the unborn, it's about controlling people's sexuality.

Funny how an attempt to control sexuality would be centered on abortion and not pre-marital sex. Nice try. Irresponsible sex is deadly. It's deadly to the woman. It's deadly to the man. It's deadly to the woman in an unsterile abortion clinic. It's deadly to the child killed by the procedure. Keep wearing that seatbelt, it saves lives!

PhoenixBoy70; you really don't know what I was referring to by your supposition that pro-lifers should somehow also be opposed to war out of fear of hypocracy? I don't blame your disengenuous appearance of ignorance though as there really wasn't anything else you could've said anyway.

When men start doing all those things, and push babies through their urethrae (without epidural would be nice!!!), you can talk about "forcing" women to do their previously unique job. Biggest double standard in the history of biology, if you ask me. Ask women, too.

Should I start by asking the women who have been through the above yet still disagree with you? There seem to be many. Hmm. I dare say most?

Washington Times

You should ask a few women about thier experiences at the abortion clinic also. You know, in fairness of debate and all.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Funny how an attempt to control sexuality would be centered on abortion and not pre-marital sex. Nice try.

oh, and of course the fact that most cases of abortion happen outside of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with it.

yeah, nice try! btw, isn't the abolition of "premarital sex" also on the right wing "pro-life" agenda...hmmm

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I don't blame your disingenuous appearance of ignorance though as there really wasn't anything else you could've said anyway.

no, your answer was formulated in such a retarded way that it was absolutely unintelligible to decipher what the point was (if you even had one).

in wars many people get killed. NOT JUST TEH BAD GUYS. pro-lifers seem to have no problem with collateral damage, yet, when it comes to removing an embryo (which you can hardly compare to a grown or infant human being) from a woman's body, they cry bloody murder.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Should I start by asking the women who have been through the above yet still disagree with you? There seem to be many. Hmm. I dare say most?

Washington Times

You should ask a few women about thier experiences at the abortion clinic also. You know, in fairness of debate and all.

Wow. You produced a link that suggests that most women who have given birth to a child find it a worthwhile experience. Incredible.

You are also taking me to task for a point I wasn't even arguing. Go find someone else who wants to debate how many women think abortion should be made illegal. I was debating the "right" to force a woman to give birth...not by law, but by the wishes of the father of the child.

As an aside, yes, I have talked to hundreds of women about their experience with abortion, as well as talking to thousands of women about their thoughts on having given birth. Have you?

[djohnson]

My opinion: If you can try a man for murder on 2 counts when he kills his pregnant wife, then you should be able to try that same woman for murder when she aborts her baby.