FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Right to Lifers' Problem





Vofman
Ok, the Right to Life people have got me so pissed off that I can’t contain myself. What the hell is wrong with you people, trying to impose YOUR morals on someone else. Maybe little Susie doesn’t want to have a baby when she’s eighteen, she might like to have a choice in the matter. So she goes and gets an abortion. Life = not ruined.



“Vofman, the unborn have a right to live! We shouldn’t be killing them before they are born!”



Excellent point! You know what’s funny though? A male’s sperm is small, and it has to fly around and penetrate an egg without being killed, so it’s much smarter than an ordinary computer chip, and very much alive. So, lets allow the unborn their right to live, and ban masturbation.



Hahahaha, not so with me now, are you? It was ok when it was other people who had to live with it, but now guys, imagine going through the rest of your left unable to masturbate?! No way are you going to agree to that! But, you are killing the unborn however, so I hope you just sleep at night when you’re alone, you Right to Lifers, we don’t want to be hypocritical now, do we?
ocalhoun
I'll just throw a random statistic at you...
About 95% of women who have had an abortion would say that they regret doing so within one year.
S3nd K3ys
I'll just add that, IMNSHO, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. Little Susie should have thought about that before she got knocked up.
SunburnedCactus
Now where's my chastity belt?
Jayfarer
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I'll just add that, IMNSHO, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. Little Susie should have thought about that before she got knocked up.


That's why there should be moderation. No one is saying they shoudl get an abortion at every sign of pregnancy. But it can a necessary tool in a modern world for unprepared parents who are simply incapable of providing a good childhood.

We wouldn't even have to worry about abortion as much if everyone was just okay with contraceptives and the morning after pill.

Quote:
About 95% of women who have had an abortion would say that they regret doing so within one year.

Of course, it's a very serious matter, which is exactly why no one is going to be using at as a form of "birth control." But there's still that 5% (though I am a little tiny bit skeptical of the exact statistics your using here) that's worth keeping this avenue open with.

Abortion should be legal and rare. It should be available until we can wittle the number of abortions down to zero through education, not through outright banning so the desperate end up getting it in a shady back alley instead.
ocalhoun
Perhaps, then, it would only be attainable by court order...
SunburnedCactus
ocalhoun wrote:
Perhaps, then, it would only be attainable by court order...


Which would put those involved under considerable scrutiny over a very personal and private matter?
S3nd K3ys
Jayfarer wrote:


That's why there should be moderation. No one is saying they shoudl get an abortion at every sign of pregnancy. But it can a necessary tool in a modern world for unprepared parents who are simply incapable of providing a good childhood.

We wouldn't even have to worry about abortion as much if everyone was just okay with contraceptives and the morning after pill.

Quote:
About 95% of women who have had an abortion would say that they regret doing so within one year.

Of course, it's a very serious matter, which is exactly why no one is going to be using at as a form of "birth control." But there's still that 5% (though I am a little tiny bit skeptical of the exact statistics your using here) that's worth keeping this avenue open with.

Abortion should be legal and rare. It should be available until we can wittle the number of abortions down to zero through education, not through outright banning so the desperate end up getting it in a shady back alley instead.


So who's to decide what constitutes "rare"? And who's to tell Susie it's ok for her to get an abortion as a form of birth control and not Becky?

Education will not work. (To an extent, yes, but not completely. Ever)
mike4652
Quote:
Ok, the Right to Life people have got me so (censored) xxxxxx off that I can’t contain myself.

Why is it right for one person to express how they are in favor of abortion. and wrong for another to express how wrong it is?
People amaze me all the time, it is ok for them to talk but don't let someone that has oppsit views to express how they feel.
No matter how you slice the pie, killing is killing, stealing is stealing, wrong is wrong. Just because something seems like a good soultion to a problem does not make it right.
Soulfire
Vofman wrote:
Ok, the Right to Life people have got me so pissed off that I can’t contain myself. What the hell is wrong with you people, trying to impose YOUR morals on someone else. Maybe little Susie doesn’t want to have a baby when she’s eighteen, she might like to have a choice in the matter. So she goes and gets an abortion. Life = not ruined.

We are stating our opinion, and in no way opposing it on you. I'm sorry you feel that way, and more importantly, sorry that you get pissed off so easily. Maybe little Susie should know the risks of sex, and stay away. But murder is murder, if someone has the right to kill a baby, I should have the right to kill my next door neighbor (and be punish free, of course). It wouldn't ruin her life if she put the baby up for adoption if she didn't want it, and if she can't afford it there are plenty of ways to get assistance without it.

The bottom line is that abortion isn't birth control, and it's sad that so many people think it is okay to kill babies.

Vofman wrote:
“Vofman, the unborn have a right to live! We shouldn’t be killing them before they are born!”

Excellent point! You know what’s funny though? A male’s sperm is small, and it has to fly around and penetrate an egg without being killed, so it’s much smarter than an ordinary computer chip, and very much alive. So, lets allow the unborn their right to live, and ban masturbation.

Sperm is not alive. Just because it is moving doesn't mean it is alive. Fire moves, but it isn't living. The characteristics of life are (and it must have ALL of them to be considered living):

Motion - Does it move under it's own power? Does it move with discernable purpose. Okay, so sperm seems to do this.

Reproduce - Does the sperm actually reproduce itself? No, the testicles make the sperm. Sperm cannot create other sperm by itself. So therefore I have just proved you wrong that sperm is not alive.

Consumption - Does it eat or drink? Does it take in nutrients to survive and grow? Sperm doesn't really do this.

Growth - does the organism develop over time, increase in
complexity, until it reaches a mature stage? Nope, sperm really doesn't have that.

Stimulus Response - does the organism respond to external
stimuli, i.e. has a nervous system of some sort to detect
external conditions? Nope, sperm can't really do that either.

So, sperm has 1 of those. It needs to have ALL of them to be considered alive. It's not alive, it's just used for making life.

Vofman wrote:
Hahahaha, not so with me now, are you? It was ok when it was other people who had to live with it, but now guys, imagine going through the rest of your left unable to masturbate?! No way are you going to agree to that! But, you are killing the unborn however, so I hope you just sleep at night when you’re alone, you Right to Lifers, we don’t want to be hypocritical now, do we?

There really isn't much to be said here, only that you're being foolish. Trust me, we are not hypocritical in allowing a human to live. We all have a right to life, a right to life that should not be taken away.

Who are we to play God? We aren't.
Jeslyn
if you don't want to particpate in having an abortion, then you don't have one.
Jeslyn
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Jayfarer wrote:


That's why there should be moderation. No one is saying they shoudl get an abortion at every sign of pregnancy. But it can a necessary tool in a modern world for unprepared parents who are simply incapable of providing a good childhood.

We wouldn't even have to worry about abortion as much if everyone was just okay with contraceptives and the morning after pill.

Quote:
About 95% of women who have had an abortion would say that they regret doing so within one year.

Of course, it's a very serious matter, which is exactly why no one is going to be using at as a form of "birth control." But there's still that 5% (though I am a little tiny bit skeptical of the exact statistics your using here) that's worth keeping this avenue open with.

Abortion should be legal and rare. It should be available until we can wittle the number of abortions down to zero through education, not through outright banning so the desperate end up getting it in a shady back alley instead.


So who's to decide what constitutes "rare"? And who's to tell Susie it's ok for her to get an abortion as a form of birth control and not Becky?

Education will not work. (To an extent, yes, but not completely. Ever)


That's bull, noone ever said abortion was a form of birth control. I doubt many people would use it as a form of birth control due to its price. News flash: modern forms of birth control is not 100% - shit happens. Just because little Susie got pregnant, does not mean she wasnt using birthcontrol.

Some people can't afford raising a child, some people are not mentally preopared to raise a child, some people just don't want children. Does this mean they should be forced to abstain from sex for the rest of their lives?

Yes birthcontrol is available, but as I said its not 100%, if someone is not prepared for a child, why force them to go through with the pregnancy?

My mother knows someone who had an abortion because she physically cannot have children correctly, her anatomy is disproportioned, making giving birth extremely difficult, which may cause permanent harm to her and the child. Should she have to go through the difficulties having a child, and risking her life, just because birthcontrol failed?

There are a million unknown situations of why people have abortions, such as the above: as the ignorant commonly like to, they focus on that "slutty women use it as a form of birth control" - which is usually not the case.

Rolling Eyes
madsencarl
12 year old girl gets raped and held captive by some guy for a week or so. She gets free, but is now pregnant. No abortion? She's f***ed now, isn't she.

If you want an abortion, go get one. If you don't then you don't have to. There's nobody forcing you to have an abortion (except maybe your boyfriend, but I can understand why).
susanna mayfair
Quote:
Of course, it's a very serious matter, which is exactly why no one is going to be using at as a form of "birth control."

I have a close friend who worked at Planned Parenthood for a number of years and there were many, many girls that she saw more than once having abortions, some as many as 5 or 6 times. Maybe those girls are the exception to the rule but I know there are more people who have more than one abortion than is commonly believed.

The fact is, abortion is one more way to let people out of taking responsibility for their actions. Maybe if abortion was not legal, people would think much longer and harder about having sex, knowing that there is not that "easy" way out and if they get knocked up, they are actually going to have to face up to their choices.

I was not ready to become a parent when I got pregnant with my first child but I knew that was a chance I was taking every time that I had sex with her father. I now have a beautiful daughter who is almost 7 years old and is now my reason for living and the motivation behind everything positive that I have done for myself since. If you're grown up enough to roll in the hay, you're grown up enough to take some responsibility for that action. Period.
iridios
Jeslyn wrote:

That's bull, noone ever said abortion was a form of birth control. I doubt many people would use it as a form of birth control due to its price. News flash: modern forms of birth control is not 100% - **** happens. Just because little Susie got pregnant, does not mean she wasnt using birthcontrol.


I have know people who used abortion exactly as birth control.

And there is one birth control method that is 100% effective. Abstinence.

If little Susie had used that form she wouldn't have gotten pregnant.
Sappho
iridios wrote:
And there is one birth control method that is 100% effective. Abstinence.

If little Susie had used that form she wouldn't have gotten pregnant.


Ok i always try to be calm and polite but WTF are u really that stupid or just try to pretend to be? But let me tell u something if u r only pretending then its hell of a good job there.
odinstag
Vofman wrote:
Ok, the Right to Life people have got me so pissed off that I can’t contain myself. What the hell is wrong with you people, trying to impose YOUR morals on someone else. Maybe little Susie doesn’t want to have a baby when she’s eighteen, she might like to have a choice in the matter. So she goes and gets an abortion. Life = not ruined.



“Vofman, the unborn have a right to live! We shouldn’t be killing them before they are born!”



Excellent point! You know what’s funny though? A male’s sperm is small, and it has to fly around and penetrate an egg without being killed, so it’s much smarter than an ordinary computer chip, and very much alive. So, lets allow the unborn their right to live, and ban masturbation.



Hahahaha, not so with me now, are you? It was ok when it was other people who had to live with it, but now guys, imagine going through the rest of your left unable to masturbate?! No way are you going to agree to that! But, you are killing the unborn however, so I hope you just sleep at night when you’re alone, you Right to Lifers, we don’t want to be hypocritical now, do we?


I don't know where you got your logic and reasoning from. But we don't just kill people for no good reason in America. At least we are not supposed to do it.

Little Suzie did have a choice and her choice was to have sex theat led to a pregnancy. Suzie should not have the right to commit murder becuase she made a bad choice.

There are other more humane means to get rid of a baby you don't want. Such as adoption. No reason to kill what-so-ever. It really shouldn't be about morals at all. It should be about not letting people kill the unborn.

Most Right to Choicers I know are heavily against the death penalty for brutal murdering criminals yet they have no problem putting an innocent life to an end out of mere inconvinience(sp?) that a baby might cause them.

There is a better way than to kill unborn children, Abortion as a form of contraceptive is disgraceful and primative.

It's not the sperm or the egg that gets killed, it's a baby.
S3nd K3ys
Jeslyn wrote:

That's bull, noone ever said abortion was a form of birth control.


You're joking right? I mean, NOBODY can be that ignorant...



Can they? Rolling Eyes

I know PERSONALLY three women (one was only 19) who recently, when they found out they were pregnant, got an abortion because they didn't want to be 'tied down' with a baby.

Jeslyn, you've said some pretty ignorant things before, but this takes the cake.
Scaramanga
Wow, a lot of absolute BS being tossed off (pun intended) here.

ocalhoun wrote:
I'll just throw a statistic I MADE UP at you...
About 95% of women who have had an abortion would say that they regret doing so within one year.

I'll just throw a statistic at you... 99% of people on the internet lie.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
I'll just add that, IMNSHO, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

This gets brought up a lot. Individual morals and religious values aside, why exactly not?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Jayfarer wrote:

Abortion should be legal and rare. It should be available until we can wittle the number of abortions down to zero through education, not through outright banning so the desperate end up getting it in a shady back alley instead.

So who's to decide what constitutes "rare"? And who's to tell Susie it's ok for her to get an abortion as a form of birth control and not Becky?

Education will not work. (To an extent, yes, but not completely. Ever)

No one but Susie should be deciding ANYTHING having to do with her own wellbeing. And I don't want to hear about ANY of that absolute BS about "What about the wellbeing of her unborn child." You see that word there, UNBORN?!

mike4652 wrote:
...wrong is wrong. Just because something seems like a good soultion to a problem does not make it right.

Uhhh, "wrong" is pretty subjective. What you might find wrong I might not. Also, governments kill people all the time, they effectively "steal", and probably a dozen other things that you consider "wrong". It's all pretty subjective, and speaking in absolutes like that makes no sense whatsoever.

Soulfire wrote:
Reproduce - Does the sperm actually reproduce itself? No, the testicles make the sperm. Sperm cannot create other sperm by itself. So therefore I have just proved you wrong that sperm is not alive.

So mule's aren't alive either??
And just FYI, sperm DO reproduce, but they don't start off as sperm (just as ALL of the cells in our body do) but rather are developed through meiosis.

Soulfire wrote:

Consumption - Does it eat or drink? Does it take in nutrients to survive and grow? Sperm doesn't really do this.

Again, like most LIVING cells, they use mitochondria. So yes they do.

Soulfire wrote:

Trust me, we are not hypocritical in allowing a human to live. We all have a right to life, a right to life that should not be taken away.

Who are we to play god? We aren't.

We aren't what?
Religious debates aside, I would assume if we have the ability to kill something we are perfectly well within our means to do so. Are you saying that when an animal kills another animal it's playing god?? This is some bizarre logic.

iridios wrote:

I have know people who used abortion exactly as birth control.

And there is one birth control method that is 100% effective. Abstinence.

If little Susie had used that form she wouldn't have gotten pregnant.

Well you know, except for that Mary chick. Apparently that abstinence thing wouldn't have worked for HER.

odinstag wrote:
There are other more humane means to get rid of a baby you don't want. Such as adoption. No reason to kill what-so-ever. It really shouldn't be about morals at all. It should be about not letting people kill the unborn.

Yeah adoption. You know, why don't you talk to the thousands of kids who end up with deep psychological problems because they were given up for adoption. Also there's that word again: unborn. How exactly does one kill the unborn?!?

odinstag wrote:
Most Right to Choicers I know are heavily against the death penalty for brutal murdering criminals yet they have no problem putting an innocent life to an end out of mere inconvinience(sp?) that a baby might cause them.

I don't. I believe everyone has an equal right to die.

Quote:
There is a better way than to kill unborn children, Abortion as a form of contraceptive is disgraceful and primative.

How is it primitive? I don't recall any aboriginal tribes that introduced abortion to the world.

Quote:
It's not the sperm or the egg that gets killed, it's a baby.

No, actually it's an UNBORN baby.
Soulfire
By definition no, mules aren't alive... just in case. And whether or not the sperm produce their energy, they still do not possess all of the traits. Those traits are what most scientists agree on, I didn't make them up.

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. But it's okay, go to hell... I've tried time and time again, but when you people are burning in hell know you've had the chance, you just chose not to accept it.
S3nd K3ys
Scaramanga wrote:

S3nd K3ys wrote:
I'll just add that, IMNSHO, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

This gets brought up a lot. Individual morals and religious values aside, why exactly not?


Because it's immoral. Don't try to dismiss that fact to promote your own misguided interpretation of morality.

Quote:


S3nd K3ys wrote:
Jayfarer wrote:

Abortion should be legal and rare. It should be available until we can wittle the number of abortions down to zero through education, not through outright banning so the desperate end up getting it in a shady back alley instead.

So who's to decide what constitutes "rare"? And who's to tell Susie it's ok for her to get an abortion as a form of birth control and not Becky?

Education will not work. (To an extent, yes, but not completely. Ever)

No one but Susie should be deciding ANYTHING having to do with her own wellbeing. And I don't want to hear about ANY of that absolute BS about "What about the wellbeing of her unborn child." You see that word there, UNBORN?!


Yeah, unborn. you see that OTHER word there? CHILD? No, I didn't think you saw it.
Sappho
Soulfire wrote:
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. But it's okay, go to hell... I've tried time and time again, but when you people are burning in hell know you've had the chance, you just chose not to accept it.


I am actually looking forward to it, hell seems like a lot of fun all the interesting ppl that i know will prolly end there according to ur logic. All that Christians did so far was nothing else than judging me and hating me and all i did was ignoring em. Do me a favor, dont judge us, just ignore us we will do the same. And especially dont send us to hell, we will see when it comes. Smile

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Because it's immoral. Don't try to dismiss that fact to promote your own misguided interpretation of morality.


And since when is morality objective? As far as i know it varies from society to society and religion to religion.
Scaramanga
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Scaramanga wrote:

No one but Susie should be deciding ANYTHING having to do with her own wellbeing. And I don't want to hear about ANY of that absolute BS about "What about the wellbeing of her unborn child." You see that word there, UNBORN?!

Yeah, unborn. you see that OTHER word there? CHILD? No, I didn't think you saw it.

Uhhh how can you call something unborn ANYTHING. Until it pops out of a woman's womb, what is it really?? It's a mass of cells, that's what. That's like saying I was UNthinking about something (something I think you neocons do quite frequently.) Very Happy

EDIT: Oh yeah, and what Sappho said. Morality AIN'T fact bub. Couch it in whatever religious mumbo-jumbo you want, that doesn't make YOUR morals MY morals.
S3nd K3ys
Scaramanga wrote:

Uhhh how can you call something unborn ANYTHING. Until it pops out of a woman's womb, what is it really?? It's a mass of cells, that's what. That's like saying I was UNthinking about something (something I think you neocons do quite frequently.) Very Happy


Forgive your ignorance, but have you ever seen a sonogram? Ever seen a premi?

Yeah, just a mass of cells. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Quote:

EDIT: Oh yeah, and what Sappho said. Morality AIN'T fact bub. Couch it in whatever religious mumbo-jumbo you want, that doesn't make YOUR morals MY morals.


Just becuase you have no morals is not my problem. If you're ok with killing unborn babies for the sake of birth control, that's cool. You go for it bub. But it will not make your morals (or lack of them) mine.
Scaramanga
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Scaramanga wrote:

Uhhh how can you call something unborn ANYTHING. Until it pops out of a woman's womb, what is it really?? It's a mass of cells, that's what. That's like saying I was UNthinking about something (something I think you neocons do quite frequently.) Very Happy

Forgive your ignorance, but have you ever seen a sonogram? Ever seen a premi?

Yeah, what's your point?? That still doesn't make it a child, it makes it UNBORN. What does it take to make you people understand. Until I write words down on a page, it's NOT a novel.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Scaramanga wrote:

EDIT: Oh yeah, and what Sappho said. Morality AIN'T fact bub. Couch it in whatever religious mumbo-jumbo you want, that doesn't make YOUR morals MY morals.

Just becuase you have no morals is not my problem. If you're ok with killing unborn babies for the sake of birth control, that's cool. You go for it bub. But it will not make your morals (or lack of them) mine.

I never said my lack/difference of morals is a problem. I never said my morals should be yours, or really anyone elses. BUT, don't go applying your morals across the board to everybody. The problem is you're acting like your morals are fact. They aren't.

Oh and I'd like to thank S3nd K3ys and all you other guys for really letting me rack up those frih$. Very Happy
Jeslyn
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Jeslyn wrote:

That's bull, noone ever said abortion was a form of birth control.


You're joking right? I mean, NOBODY can be that ignorant...



Can they? Rolling Eyes

I know PERSONALLY three women (one was only 19) who recently, when they found out they were pregnant, got an abortion because they didn't want to be 'tied down' with a baby.

Jeslyn, you've said some pretty ignorant things before, but this takes the cake.


Yes someone can be that ignorant, and you're a prime example. All I've ever seen you post is radical government obsessed bullcrap, and you're coming at me? Really now, do try a little harder, you're boring me.

Three women out of the couple billion in the world doesn't mean crap. Ten women, fifty women, three hundred and seven women do not count for the population of women on the earth who have or could have an abortion.

And I'll pretend to humor your silly little theory, lets say, in theory: that 98% of women use abortion as a form of birth control - there's still two percent who don't, just because the majority acts one way, in noway should the others be penalized or not recognized.


Come back when you have some actual evidence, just because you surround yourself with dirty little promiscuous people doesn't mean everyone else who's had an abortion: i.e. the woman I mentioned earlier, is the same. Perhaps you just need new friends.

And in defense of your friends, would you rather them have children they don't necessarily want and aren't pyschologically ready for? Who's to say they didn't use birthcontrol and it failed?



Edited for the sake of my own censoring - want to see the original, view the quote below
anything bold has been changed for semi-personal reasons. Wink
Soulfire
Jeslyn wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Jeslyn wrote:

That's bull, noone ever said abortion was a form of birth control.


You're joking right? I mean, NOBODY can be that ignorant...



Can they? Rolling Eyes

I know PERSONALLY three women (one was only 19) who recently, when they found out they were pregnant, got an abortion because they didn't want to be 'tied down' with a baby.

Jeslyn, you've said some pretty ignorant things before, but this takes the cake.


Yes someone can be that ignorant, and you're a prime example. All I've ever seen you post is radical government obsessed bullshit, and you're coming at me? Really now, do try a little harder, you're boring me.

Three women out of the couple billion in the world doesn't mean shit. Ten women, fifty women, three hundred and seven women do not count for the population of women on the earth who have or could have an abortion.

And I'll pretend to humor your silly little theory, lets say, in theory: that 98% of women use abortion as a form of birth control - there's still two percent who don't, just because the majority acts one way, in noway should the others be penalized or not recognized.


Come back when you have some actual evidence, just because you surround yourself with dirty little whores doesn't mean everyone else who's had an abortion: i.e. the woman I mentioned earlier, is the same. Perhaps you just need new friend.


Have you been watching Dr. Phil again? You can keep watching if you must, but be informed that Mr. Phil has not found a cure for the oral diarrhea that you continue to spew. So please, quit talking nonsensical shit. Thank you.

Your flaming doesn't make you look any better.
horseatingweeds
Vofman wrote:
Ok, the Right to Life people have got me so pissed off that I can’t contain myself. What the hell is wrong with you people, trying to impose YOUR morals on someone else.


You see, that is how governed societies work. A group of people get together and decide what is right and wrong. It is important that this is done. Many individuals, like your self, who feel something is moral, such as killing an individual, would effectively be removing freedoms from the entire group.

There have been many people killed and tortured for perfectly justified reasons according to their murderer. That fact that you believe it is moral to kill a child having no moved that precious six or so inches out of his or her mother’s body, for reasons of the mother, does not mean that it is not the responsibility of the rest of your group to prevent you from doing so, or punishing you for doing so. Similarly, if you or the mother steals food, kill a rival, or accidentally kill someone while drunk driving.

It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.
Jeslyn
It's the internet, I really couldn't give a flying damn how I look. Don't attack someone else unless you're prepared to get hit back.


Edited:
Quote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.


It doesn't matter how much you push your "morals" on anyone, unless they agree with you, no amount of pushing, shoving, or spitting is going to change them. But you are welcomed to spew insults at them Wink
Sappho
horseatingweeds wrote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.


OMG i hate ppl like u, who said ur morals are the right one? Just couse u think so everybody must agree and accept? :/
Soulfire
Sappho wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.


OMG i hate ppl like u, who said ur morals are the right one? Just couse u think so everybody must agree and accept? :/

Well, it's very sad if you think murder is a good moral. That's just my 2 cents.
Jeslyn
You're assuming she believes its murder.
Soulfire
Jeslyn wrote:
You're assuming she believes its murder.
It is murder, no matter how you slice it. You either kill someone or you don't. Aborting a baby isn't any less than me killing my neighbor, because they're both people.
Jeslyn
It's murder to you.
She may go hit a deer with her car one day, kill it, and see nothing wrong with it - continuing about her day. Unless she percieves it as murder, then her idea of moral is not affected - and thats only if she believes murder is wrong. In other societies, murder may be okay - it's an arbitrary argument based on societal standings.

Take slavery as an example: people had slaves. Some said, "slavery is wrong, don't do it". But the people who had slaves didn't believe it was wrong, thus their morale wasn't affected.
Ultima1080
Well, heres my two cents...hope it helps...or starts another big rant...whichever works.

In the eyes of the law of the United States of America, a fetus is not a person and therefore does not have rights, because it is not technically a person. Therefore by killing a fetus it is not murder. Murder, in fact, is a legal term. So, legally and lawfully no fetus is ever murdered during an abortion. Now, a fetus is killed, but it isn't murdered...sooo...you can't say abortion is murder...legally. Now, if it's wrong or not of course depends on morals. But, sometimes an argument for/against it can seem right...soo...nobody is right...so stop arguing. Its legal for now...lets all just deal with it and get along eh?
horseatingweeds
Sappho wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.


OMG i hate ppl like u, who said ur morals are the right one? Just couse u think so everybody must agree and accept? :/


I'm sorry that your heart is burdened with hate. Especially since you have missed my point so entirely. My point is that a society has an obligation to protect it's people's right. Some times these rights have to rely on "morals" and these morals have to be determined by individuals not emotionally and or otherwise involved so as to make a rational decision.

Jeslyn wrote:

It's murder to you.
She may go hit a deer with her car one day, kill it, and see nothing wrong with it - continuing about her day. Unless she percieves it as murder, then her idea of moral is not affected - and thats only if she believes murder is wrong. In other societies, murder may be okay - it's an arbitrary argument based on societal standings.


I would oblige you to point out a society that has regarded "murder" or that of taking a fellow society member's life, as not immoral.

I don't think the question is whether or note murder is bad, but what defines murder. Pro-abortion/choic wnatever, often claim that the child is not an equivalant to a human being, or social mamber.

Jeslyn wrote:

Take slavery as an example: people had slaves. Some said, "slavery is wrong, don't do it". But the people who had slaves didn't believe it was wrong, thus their morale wasn't affected.


Excelent point.
Jeslyn
Quote:
murder may be okay


I'm going to assume you understand the meaning of "may", as in not ultimate, as in conditioned, perhaps, not always?

If you're hung up on proving a society allows murder, then you look. I'm not going to do work for you.
horseatingweeds
Jeslyn wrote:
Quote:
murder may be okay


I'm going to assume you understand the meaning of "may", as in not ultimate, as in conditioned, perhaps, not always?

If you're hung up on proving a society allows murder, then you look. I'm not going to do work for you.


Yes indeed, may.

May meaning she may or may not believe it is murder. Her society is to deside. i.e. her government, as it's job is to govern such things.

Otherwise we have anarchy.
Ultima1080
But the killing of a fetus is NOT murder. Murder is a legal term for when a human beings right to live is violated (i.e they're killed). However, the law does not go as far as to give rights to an unborn child. So legally, abortion isn't murder, no matter how you cut it. The child, whether you like it or not, does not have the rights of a human being. Therefore the killing of a fetus/unborn child cannot be classified as murder. Now, if you say abortion is killing, then that would be the truth...it is. However...people realize this...the baby doesn't just magically disappear. Last time I checked anyway...but I've never witnessed an abortion...so maybe they do magically go away...or something.
tidruG
Quote:
And who's to tell Susie it's ok for her to get an abortion as a form of birth control and not Becky?

It's neither right for Susie nor Becky to get abortion as a birth control method.

Quote:
The bottom line is that abortion isn't birth control, and it's sad that so many people think it is okay to kill babies.

Propagandists say "killing babies"... scientists and doctors say "killing zygotes". There is a difference between killing a person and killing a zygote. A zygote is still a part of its mother. When a mother decides to remove support to a part of her body, it's her choice. You wouldn't get arrested if you chopped off your own hand, would you?

Quote:
Sperm is not alive.

It definitely is. Sperm is the male sex cell. It is as much alive as any living cell of your body. It has mitochondria, which means it is capable of respiring and producing energy. Fire is not.

Quote:
Sperm cannot create other sperm by itself. So therefore I have just proved you wrong that sperm is not alive.

A human being cannot reproduce by itself. Humans are not alive?

Quote:
the ignorant commonly like to, they focus on that "slutty women use it as a form of birth control"

I agree. But at the same time, it would be unfair to say that no women use it as a form or birth control.
Quote:
I have a close friend who worked at Planned Parenthood for a number of years and there were many, many girls that she saw more than once having abortions, some as many as 5 or 6 times.
TA-DA!!

Quote:
Abortion as a form of contraceptive is disgraceful and primative.

I agree, but I am yet to see someone anti-abortion say anything about cases where abortion is required for the life of the mother or due to any other complications.

Quote:
Individual morals and religious values aside, why exactly not?
If you toss individual morals aside, what's left?

Quote:
But it's okay, go to hell

Ah yes, the age old concept. Believe in my religion or go to hell. That's nice. Unfortunately, more than one religions preach that... so I'll be seeing you in hell?

At this point, the thread got very flamy. I'm definitely locking this.

Jeslyn, please try to control your anger.

Quote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.

Irrespective of what mine or your morals are, if anyone tried to shove his morals or ideals on me, I'd probably ask him/her to shove it. People are better off putting their morals and ideals out there, and letting other people choose whether or not they want to share those morals or ideals... (at least with me they are)

Quote:
Well, it's very sad if you think murder is a good moral.

Quote:
You're assuming she believes its murder.
Exactly what I was going to write... read what I wrote abover about "killing babies"

Quote:
Aborting a baby isn't any less than me killing my neighbor, because they're both people.

Not really... I have posted about this above.

Quote:
Some times these rights have to rely on "morals" and these morals have to be determined by individuals not emotionally and or otherwise involved so as to make a rational decision.
No one around me has had an abortion, and as I am a male, and very likely to abstain till I marry, I don't see anyone close to me undergoing abortion either. Rationally, I still think abortion is not about killing a baby as much as it is about killing a zygote or a foetus. It doesn't appear to me to be murder. On the other hand, the Bible is anti-abortion, as far as I know... so maybe you are getting affected by that?

I am going to keep this thread open... but a single flame message from anyone else, and I will definitely lock it (any other Moderator will lock it if he/she notices it first)
Scaramanga
horseatingweeds wrote:
My point is that a society has an obligation to protect it's people's right. Some times these rights have to rely on "morals" and these morals have to be determined by individuals not emotionally and or otherwise involved so as to make a rational decision.

Uhhh what societies are we talking about here? There have been PLENTY that have had little to no regard for the welfare of its people. Also, if you're talking about a democratic society, you are completely wrong. One of the standing tenets of a true/real democratic society is that every law must consider the interests of all people equally and ignore no person. This protects against mob rule, special interest, politics, coalition building, and tyranical rule (the latter is what you're suggesting.)

horseatingweeds wrote:
Jeslyn wrote:

It's murder to you.
She may go hit a deer with her car one day, kill it, and see nothing wrong with it - continuing about her day. Unless she percieves it as murder, then her idea of moral is not affected - and thats only if she believes murder is wrong. In other societies, murder may be okay - it's an arbitrary argument based on societal standings.

I would oblige you to point out a society that has regarded "murder" or that of taking a fellow society member's life, as not immoral.

Uhhh in the US the government "murders" people all the time. I don't see them talking about how it's immoral.

Also, from an earlier comment:
horseatingweeds wrote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.

Ahh I'll bet you'll change your tune when the people in "power" don't agree with your morals.
paul_indo
Quote:
And since when is morality objective? As far as i know it varies from society to society and religion to religion.


If you think about this I think you will find that morality is generaly objective.
Name a religion that condones stealing?
What about murder?
Name anyone who actualy condones these things.
A thief does not like his one property to be stolen.
A murderer does not want to be murdered.

Quote:
In other societies, murder may be okay


Only if it's somebody else getting murdered. Do you really believe that anyone would think murder is okay if their own life was taken?

The finer points are harder to decern the reality but I believe that their still is a firm reality on all moral issues.
That is not to say that compassion and consideration do not have a place.

Why does everyone seem to take things so personally when someone disagrees with their views?

Heaps of ranting and raving in this thread but little logic.

Is an "Unborn Child" a complete human being?

I think so, but I can't know that for sure or prove it.
You people who think it isn't can not prove that either so I think you should remember your are only argueing for your beliefs.

You may be wrong and so may I be wrong. but one of us must be right so we need to keep a much more open mind than I have seen expressed in many of these posts.

Argue with your brain, not your emotions.
this goes for those on both sides of the issue.
Bondings
A person is considered dead if his brain stops working, even if the heart is still functioning. Now a zygote doesn't have a brain at all. And murder is killing a person, right?

Let me give you two examples I made to think about. I know it's hard, but please try. Wink

Example 1
Take a living person. Remove his/her brain. Connect the body with an artificial heart and do everything else in order for the body to keep functioning completely normal so that the body keeps living. If the body is female, you can even make it pregnant and let it produce a living child.

Now, is the person dead or alive? If you disconnect the machines, do you commit murder?

Now let's suppose that with advanced cloning techniques you can produce different body parts including a brain from cells of the body. (A similar thing happens during pregnancy, it's just automatic.) Now after making that brain, you put it in the body and connect it to the nervous system. Or you can just let the brain grow in the head - it doesn't matter.

Now what happened? Did you resurrect that person? Did you create a new person?


Example 2
Now take the example of identical twins, each others clones. What happens (in some cases) is that the zygote for some reason splits in two parts creating 2 embryos and resulting in two identical (dna) twins. Twins are two different persons and if they grow up in two different locations/circumstances they can become completely different persons with even an opposite character/personality.

Now if the zygote is a person, then how can it split in two and form 2 persons?

Or let's do it ourselves. Take a 128-cell morula or however it's called. Divide it in 128 pieces. And then leave them where they are. Now we actually changed that one creature into 128 creatures.

Now if the zygote is a person, then how can we split it into hundreds of persons, each the same? And which one is the original?

Now take the example of conjointed twins. The organism was split quite late and the split wasn't complete. Case 1, there is one brain, but two bodies, it is 4 legs or something similar. Case 2, they have the same body, but they have 2 heads including each a developed brain.

Now how many persons are there in case 1 and in case 2? One brain --> one person, two brains --> two persons and thus zero brains --> zero persons?
horseatingweeds
[quote="Scaramanga"]
horseatingweeds wrote:

horseatingweeds wrote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.

Ahh I'll bet you'll change your tune when the people in "power" don't agree with your morals.



As it is, the people in power do not hold all of my morals and hold others that I do not. Because I may not agree with all of the people in power's (ie my society or whatever governing body) morals, it does not mean that I disagree with their obligation to govern (ie, push their morals onto me). It is better to have a strict set of moral, or laws, that we must all follow that to not.

Scaramanga wrote:

horseatingweeds wrote:
My point is that a society has an obligation to protect it's people's right. Some times these rights have to rely on "morals" and these morals have to be determined by individuals not emotionally and or otherwise involved so as to make a rational decision.

Uhhh what societies are we talking about here? There have been PLENTY that have had little to no regard for the welfare of its people. Also, if you're talking about a democratic society, you are completely wrong. One of the standing tenets of a true/real democratic society is that every law must consider the interests of all people equally and ignore no person. This protects against mob rule, special interest, politics, coalition building, and tyranical rule (the latter is what you're suggesting.)


I'm not talking about any specifice society. If I where I would have named it. My point is simply that a society must get together, and as you said consider the interests of all people equally and ignore no person, and determin what it's morals are. This may end up as a dictatorship or worse but that is a separate and more complicated discusion.

Scaramanga wrote:
Uhhh in the US the government "murders" people all the time. I don't see them talking about how it's immoral.


We can discuse this in the "Death to America" topic.

My point, in an attempt to clear it up I guess, is not that my morals are best for you. I is that a society has an obligation to govern its self. This means at times pushing morals onto people that don't want them.

Maybe you don't hold driving 90 mph down a residental street imoral, but your society does and they will push their morals on you by giving you a ticket.
Jeslyn
"Pushing morals" means nothing unless you recognize and respect the higher authority that governs them.

You can drive 90mph if you want, and you can choose not to pay the ticket, and you can choose not arrive to court when you get summoned, and you can choose to be hell when they physically have to drag you to jail because you won't walk. Though as time goes on, your choices will become more and more limited, you always have a choice - and some people choose not recognize what society and/or the government deems immoral. Unless you hold respect for a higher power, there word means little, if anything at all.

So, they/you/whoever can keep "pushing" their morals as much as they want to - but unless it's equally recognized, approved, and respected by the third party... i
horseatingweeds
Jeslyn wrote:
"Pushing morals" means nothing unless you recognize and respect the higher authority that governs them.

You can drive 90mph if you want, and you can choose not to pay the ticket, and you can choose not arrive to court when you get summoned, and you can choose to be hell when they physically have to drag you to jail because you won't walk. Though as time goes on, your choices will become more and more limited, you always have a choice - and some people choose not recognize what society and/or the government deems immoral. Unless you hold respect for a higher power, there word means little, if anything at all.

So, they/you/whoever can keep "pushing" their morals as much as they want to - but unless it's equally recognized, approved, and respected by the third party... i


Actually, respect for your own freedom is mechanism with which the society "pushes" its morals or enforces its laws. It doesn't matter if you respect the society or authority or not. There are plenty of people that don't respect these things or anything for that matter. These people are particularly why the 'pushing' or enforcing is needed.

All you need is respect for your freedom to spend your money on other stuff besides a ticker. And if you don't have that then all you need is respect for your right to not be locked in prison, where you can no longer speed, and infringe on the morals of your society.

I think we may be suffering for a case of miss communication. In morals, I am not only referring to how a person feels or believes. I am assuming more so behavior, as this is what is evident.

Bondings wrote:
......


Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
riv_
I don't want to get sucked way into this debate. But I'd like to throw my perspective into the mix and leave it at that.
First, I'd like to state that I do not think abortion should be illegal. Wew live in a messed up world where sh** happens and little girls get raped by their daddies and brothers and uncles etc. Nobody would say that it's right for those babies to be brought into the world. And as a Christian, I'm certain they're better off in heaven than being raised in the sort of environment that created that sort of situation.
I think abortion is unpleasant but necessary.
That said...
My son was born a year ago at 25 weeks gestation. The doctors didn't want to try to save him because he was too young. They wanted to call it a miscarriage, and he was, after all, only a fetus. He wasn't old enough to be a baby.
And yet, he had a personality already. And he breathed on his own the first day. And today, he is a beautiful, normal, healthy boy.
A miracle, yes. But a miracle that never would have happened if we had allowed ourselves to believe that babies are not babies until they have been in the womb for 40 weeks.
I've recently seen a photo of surgeons doing surgery on a baby in the womb at 23 weeks gestation. THis is an unborn "fetus. The doctors were stunned when the baby reached out through the incision and held the doctors hand.
I wouldn't have believed it, in spite of what I saw. Except that "fetus was only a week and a half younger than my son. Who knew my voice and held my hand.
You can dismiss this as emotional drivel if you like. You can do whatever you want with it. But it is the truth. It is real life.
I am not trying to sway anyone, or convince anyone to change any laws. I believe that abortion is necessary sometimes.
But please lets not call MY BABY a fetus.
horseatingweeds
Well said riv_, you are a father and a gentleman.
althalus
Sappho wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.


OMG i hate ppl like u, who said ur morals are the right one? Just couse u think so everybody must agree and accept? :/
Amen.

Jeslyn, I agree wholeheartedly (sp? Confused ) with what you've written. You go, girl.. Very Happy
horseatingweeds
althalus wrote:
Sappho wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.


OMG i hate ppl like u, who said ur morals are the right one? Just couse u think so everybody must agree and accept? :/
Amen.

Jeslyn, I agree wholeheartedly (sp? Confused ) with what you've written. You go, girl.. Very Happy


Maybe you should read the posts before posting.... Rolling Eyes
Jeslyn
Now someone's opinions are 'wrong' in your eyes too?

Thank you althalus Wink
alkady
What can you expect. People just cant keep there comments for themselves. Does everyone want to know what you think? hell no. If someone wants an abortion leave them. Maybe you wont believe its right. But does it look like that person who give a ---- about what you think? No. Just making abortions illegal will just encourage people to go to another country to get it done. It every country bans abortion. Organized crime and untrained people will take over. It just plain dumb.
Soulfire
alkady wrote:
What can you expect. People just cant keep there comments for themselves. Does everyone want to know what you think? hell no. If someone wants an abortion leave them. Maybe you wont believe its right. But does it look like that person who give a ---- about what you think? No. Just making abortions illegal will just encourage people to go to another country to get it done. It every country bans abortion. Organized crime and untrained people will take over. It just plain dumb.

If you don't want comments, don't post.
althalus
horseatingweeds wrote:
althalus wrote:
Sappho wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.


OMG i hate ppl like u, who said ur morals are the right one? Just couse u think so everybody must agree and accept? :/
Amen.

Jeslyn, I agree wholeheartedly (sp? Confused ) with what you've written. You go, girl.. Very Happy


Maybe you should read the posts before posting.... Rolling Eyes
Yeah, so I missed the second page before posting.. Big deal, I stand by my word. (And yes, I have read the second page now.. Razz)
horseatingweeds
althalus wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
althalus wrote:
Sappho wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.


OMG i hate ppl like u, who said ur morals are the right one? Just couse u think so everybody must agree and accept? :/
Amen.

Jeslyn, I agree wholeheartedly (sp? Confused ) with what you've written. You go, girl.. Very Happy


Maybe you should read the posts before posting.... Rolling Eyes
Yeah, so I missed the second page before posting.. Big deal, I stand by my word. (And yes, I have read the second page now.. Razz)


So, either your comprehension skills are lacing or "a fools mind will never change"?

My point, so it is once again cleared for you and Jeslyn...

I'm not saying everyone needs to believe in the same morals as me.

I am saying that it is a fact that a society must have a set of morals that all its members follow.

Ex: Currently our society is deciding whether or not it should allow people to abort pregnancy. Once this is determined everyone does not have to BELIEVE and smile about it, but everyone does have to follow it.

The reason I ATTEMPTED to make this point, which I seem to have done poorly at, was I response to the notion that we can all have our own little moral code and still be a productive free society. Maybe we will decide that abortion is something we can all have or own opinion about and allow it to continue hand over fist, but maybe we won’t. If we decide that it is wrong and should only occur to protect the mothers physical health than certainly you are allowed to disagree, but you are not allowed to abort pregnancies. If you do then you will face the consequences of your society “pushing” your societies moral upon you.

To bad I don’t have any crayons……
althalus
Crayons would be nice, as I'm not the brightest bulb.. Razz Wink

Seriously, I didn't mean to throw anything directly at you (if i came of as doing so), but rather agree upon that people that believe their ideas and ways of doing things are the only right ones are rather narrowminded... And I tend to disagree with these people for just that reason (not always).

Sure we need morals to live by - but who decides which morals are the right ones..?
Sappho
althalus wrote:
Sappho wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
It is our responsibility to push our morals on others, especially people like you.


OMG i hate ppl like u, who said ur morals are the right one? Just couse u think so everybody must agree and accept? :/
Amen.

Jeslyn, I agree wholeheartedly (sp? Confused ) with what you've written. You go, girl.. Very Happy


U r quoting and saying Amen to my post and yet agree with Jeslyn Smile Good that she has the same opinion as me Wink Anyway i am finding this discussion pointless to continue any further, seems that we all got stuck in continous loop of the same arguments and none of us is goin to change opinion.

See ya in next topic. Wink
horseatingweeds
Sappho
althalus

Actually, I think it has been a loss of communication....

THis post became side tracked and I blame myself. I forget that people often skim our forum looking for a little tid-bit to flame. Evil or Very Mad

It is important that we all determine our moral base. A lack of moral base is often the problem which is often a symptom of simple complacency. The question as to whether a solid more base needs to be set in each society is an emphatic YES. Who decides this moral base? Hopefully the majority with minority rights, but better a dictator than a anarchy.
Sappho
horseatingweeds wrote:
Sappho
althalus

Actually, I think it has been a loss of communication....

THis post became side tracked and I blame myself. I forget that people often skim our forum looking for a little tid-bit to flame. Evil or Very Mad

It is important that we all determine our moral base. A lack of moral base is often the problem which is often a symptom of simple complacency. The question as to whether a solid more base needs to be set in each society is an emphatic YES. Who decides this moral base? Hopefully the majority with minority rights, but better a dictator than a anarchy.


So if someone disagree with u she is automaticaly a flamer. Confused

Of course society can determine some of our morals but NOT ALL, some of the moral values must be a private matter, as for abortion its one of em. Rolling Eyes
Jeslyn
Sappho wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Sappho
althalus

Actually, I think it has been a loss of communication....

THis post became side tracked and I blame myself. I forget that people often skim our forum looking for a little tid-bit to flame. Evil or Very Mad

It is important that we all determine our moral base. A lack of moral base is often the problem which is often a symptom of simple complacency. The question as to whether a solid more base needs to be set in each society is an emphatic YES. Who decides this moral base? Hopefully the majority with minority rights, but better a dictator than a anarchy.


So if someone disagree with u she is automaticaly a flamer. Confused

Of course society can determine some of our morals but NOT ALL, some of the moral values must be a private matter, as for abortion its one of em. Rolling Eyes


Hmm, I agree. I've reviewed everything that's been said on this thread, and nobody has flamed horseeating... I suppose anytime someone disagrees with him, he assumes it must be flaming. Rolling Eyes
horseatingweeds
Jeslyn wrote:
Sappho wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Sappho
althalus

Actually, I think it has been a loss of communication....

THis post became side tracked and I blame myself. I forget that people often skim our forum looking for a little tid-bit to flame. Evil or Very Mad

It is important that we all determine our moral base. A lack of moral base is often the problem which is often a symptom of simple complacency. The question as to whether a solid more base needs to be set in each society is an emphatic YES. Who decides this moral base? Hopefully the majority with minority rights, but better a dictator than a anarchy.


So if someone disagree with u she is automaticaly a flamer. Confused

Of course society can determine some of our morals but NOT ALL, some of the moral values must be a private matter, as for abortion its one of em. Rolling Eyes


Hmm, I agree. I've reviewed everything that's been said on this thread, and nobody has flamed horseeating... I suppose anytime someone disagrees with him, he assumes it must be flaming. Rolling Eyes


Yeh, stop hurting my fealings everyone. Rolling Eyes

I give up though. You can keep repeating it. Morals are personal we should hide them in our harts.

I'm sorry, we we can't. Certain ones we can, but for abortion, to many people disagree with it so we have to make a determination that everyone has to fallow.

With regard to the "flaming", if you would READ the forum, I was refering to the apparent missunderstanding of what I said, ie "a society has an obligation to push it's morals on each other".

Is it just too complicated of a subject?
Jeslyn
I grow wary of your silly foolishness. Be gone with you.
horseatingweeds
Jeslyn wrote:
I grow wary of your silly foolishness. Be gone with you.


I knew it wouldn't last forever. I'm sort of glad its over though. We've had our ups and downs; and I'm sure we can both be friends. I can't say I have any regrets.

Except for the crayon thing, that was out of line.
psycosquirrel
Vofman, you post another sensitive topic that I fully disagree with you on. Just to set you straight, I am going to type another (almost) essay to show exactly why I disagree with your opinion. I did not bother to read the other posts in this topic, because they would not affect my opinion.

Fortunately, I had a debate on this issue a few months ago.

Your points are fully invalid. First off, you said:
Quote:

What the hell is wrong with you people, trying to impose YOUR morals on someone else.


Now aren't you being hypocritical here? You are trying to impose your morals on me.

Here is another quote:
Quote:
Maybe little Susie doesn’t want to have a baby when she’s eighteen, she might like to have a choice in the matter. So she goes and gets an abortion. Life = not ruined.


Yet, LIFE IS RUINED. "little Susie" just killed an innocent person; the most innocent of all. A baby whom is fully inable to harm anyone, and also fully inable to defend him or herself.

Quote:

“Vofman, the unborn have a right to live! We shouldn’t be killing them before they are born!”

Excellent point!

It is an excellent point, thank you for the compliment.

Quote:

You know what’s funny though? A male’s sperm is small, and it has to fly around and penetrate an egg without being killed, so it’s much smarter than an ordinary computer chip, and very much alive. So, lets allow the unborn their right to live, and ban masturbation.


Apparently you do not know anything about anatomy and physiology. While a sperm cell is an intelligent cell, it is still a cell. It is not an individual, with life of it's own and thoughts of it's own. It acts as an animal; with one purpose: to survive. In order for the sperm to survive, it must combine with the egg to form a new being. Once this combination occurs, the new life will grow and eventually become one of us someday. Isn't it amazing how life works?


Quote:
Hahahaha, not so with me now, are you? It was ok when it was other people who had to live with it, but now guys, imagine going through the rest of your left unable to masturbate?! No way are you going to agree to that! But, you are killing the unborn however, so I hope you just sleep at night when you’re alone, you Right to Lifers, we don’t want to be hypocritical now, do we?

Well, over 40,000 skin cells are lost every minute. Sperm cells are also cells, the most basic building block of life. If I should feel guilty when I masturbate, then damn, I am committing genocide by living and letting myself desquamate my skin as part of my natural life cycle! CRAP, I AM A MURDER!!

Now hopefully you see how every single point you made is fully invalid. If you are going to throw some crap at pro-life believers, then at least make good points. The bottom line here is everyone is entitled to their opinions, and even if you are pro-choice, you are pro-choice for all the wrong reasons. You should research the topic a little more before even saying anything about it.
psycosquirrel
Now for my side of the issue. I feel abortion is wrong on all moral levels. I will not even touch the religious aspects below.

Those who are pro-choice and competent will use the argument of rape-related pregnancies as their main argument for abortion. If I remember the statistics correctly, in the United States, approximately 200 pregnancies are rape-related per year. Yet, OVER 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. yearly. So let's do some math... UNDER 0.014% of abortions come from rape-pregnancies, ASSUMING ALL rape victims have an abortion.

People will also argue that they cannot support a baby, or some excuse of this type. IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX, USE A CONDOM. Sex is an activity that we were given for reproductive purposes; it should not be performed if those participating are unwilling to risk having a baby.


Here are some stastics to show the horrors of abortion:

First off, there have been 47,282,293 abortions in the United States alone since Roe Vs Wade in 1973. Many abortions from states such as Alaska, California, New Hampshire and Oklahoma are not even included in this statistic.

In the year 2000 alone, more children died from abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary
War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf wars COMBINED. That is a lot of people.

At current rates of abortion, an estimated 43 percent of American women will have at least one abortion by the age of 45.

Worldwide, the lifetime average is about 1 abortion per woman. Think about how many people are dead from this holocaust.


Abortion is a holocaust on a scale never seen before in human history. It is so terrible that the thought of the masses that have died from it give me chills. And it is not as though those whom are being murdered in masses have done anything wrong; they are the most innocent of all innocent, unable to defend themselves, yet alone harm others. Abortion is the worst of all murder, and should be put to an end immediately.
Sappho
Just some quick reactions.

psycosquirrel wrote:
Your points are fully invalid. First off, you said:
Quote:

What the hell is wrong with you people, trying to impose YOUR morals on someone else.


Now aren't you being hypocritical here? You are trying to impose your morals on me.


Where the hell does he impose his morals on u? Pro-abortionists doesnt care about anti-abortionists, do i go around and suggest u should get an abortion? Nope, all i want is to be able to make a choice without ur "rattling" how immoral it is, its my choice and u r imposing ur morals on me, i dont give a %$#@ about u.

Sorry for harsh words but i am getting tired of this.

psycosquirrel wrote:

Here is another quote:

Quote:

[qYou know what’s funny though? A male’s sperm is small, and it has to fly around and penetrate an egg without being killed, so it’s much smarter than an ordinary computer chip, and very much alive. So, lets allow the unborn their right to live, and ban masturbation.


Apparently you do not know anything about anatomy and physiology. While a sperm cell is an intelligent cell, it is still a cell. It is not an individual, with life of it's own and thoughts of it's own. It acts as an animal; with one purpose: to survive. In order for the sperm to survive, it must combine with the egg to form a new being. Once this combination occurs, the new life will grow and eventually become one of us someday. Isn't it amazing how life works?


Just so u know Zygote isnt life of its own either as u defined it, not to mention it does not have neural system either so saying something about feelings or even THOUGHTS is rather funny and weak point of urs.

psycosquirrel wrote:

People will also argue that they cannot support a baby, or some excuse of this type. IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX, USE A CONDOM. Sex is an activity that we were given for reproductive purposes; it should not be performed if those participating are unwilling to risk having a baby


NEWSFLASH EVEN WITH CONDOMS U CANT BE 100% SURE THAT U WILL NOT GET PREGNANT.

As for the other things u said i am sure that more ppl already explained it but yet u somehow manage to overlook it and still go with ur arguments.
psycosquirrel
You are taking this way too seriously, calm down.

By making his initial post, he is trying to impose his morals upon us by trying to convince conservatives of his opinion. He is entitled to his opinion, and even though I disagree with his opinion, I still respect it. I care about pro-choice people, even though you say I do not. If you do not give a "%$#@" about me, then don't respond to me. I do appreciate the apology for your reactions, though. I would not have taken ou seriously if it weren't for it. A Zygote is a life of its own, not because what it is now, but what it will become. Think about the future, before you take action on the present. I know with condoms a woman can still become impregnated, but the chance is very low. Also, it is like I said before; if you are not willing to have a baby, you should not have sex in the first place. I do not look over you and other's arguments. I just disagree with them.
horseatingweeds
psycosquirrel wrote:
if you are not willing to have a baby, you should not have sex in the first place. I do not look over you and other's arguments. I just disagree with them.


Well said!

And thanks for soaking up some of the retardation. It dosn't matter what you say, there is a group in this poast that will say how much they hate you for trying to make them believe what you believe. Even if you repeat yourself.
psycosquirrel
There will always be people like that. Unfortunately, abortion is a very controversial issue and probably one that is too serious and heated to discuss in a forum. Actually, if I were an admin, I would close this topic so flaming does not start again. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but needs to respect others for theirs also. Unfortunately, people are often unable to do this. If anyone else posts in this topic, please make it meaningful, and not flaming...
Valleyman
I'd like to try to bring a new argument to this debate. You have all said a lot about morals and how important they are and how murder is or isn't immomral, but none of you have looked at where morals come from. Morals, generally, grow out of our instincts, evolutionary imperatives if you will. This post is going to rely on the statement, so allow me to argue it for a moment.

Look at the morals of the world, how they are often generally the same from place to place, culture to culture. This indicates that they are all based in the same things, the only thing universal to every human: our instincts. It is bad to murder, for to murder is to hurt the species, and to incite action against oneself. Do not steal, for stealing weakens the pack (the society). All these can be traced back to our instincts. To the will to survive, the will to pass on our genes.

Now, look at abortion from this standpoint, the purely objective one of the survival of the species. When you look at what abortion does, kills a potential human, you may say that this is detrimental to the species, however it is often just the opposite. Say a 15 year old is pregnant, tell me how her child will aide the species. It will live in adverse conditions, have a low probability of success and seriously harm the mothers chances of success, both in the world and in having more healthy and advantaged children. Now, looking at abortion through this lense we see that, though it may be detrimental in some cases, overall it is to the advantage of the species that it be legal.
horseatingweeds
Valleyman wrote:
I'd like to try to bring a new argument to this debate. You have all said a lot about morals and how important they are and how murder is or isn't immomral, but none of you have looked at where morals come from. Morals, generally, grow out of our instincts, evolutionary imperatives if you will. This post is going to rely on the statement, so allow me to argue it for a moment.

Look at the morals of the world, how they are often generally the same from place to place, culture to culture. This indicates that they are all based in the same things, the only thing universal to every human: our instincts. It is bad to murder, for to murder is to hurt the species, and to incite action against oneself. Do not steal, for stealing weakens the pack (the society). All these can be traced back to our instincts. To the will to survive, the will to pass on our genes.

Now, look at abortion from this standpoint, the purely objective one of the survival of the species. When you look at what abortion does, kills a potential human, you may say that this is detrimental to the species, however it is often just the opposite. Say a 15 year old is pregnant, tell me how her child will aide the species. It will live in adverse conditions, have a low probability of success and seriously harm the mothers chances of success, both in the world and in having more healthy and advantaged children. Now, looking at abortion through this lense we see that, though it may be detrimental in some cases, overall it is to the advantage of the species that it be legal.


hmmm, promising indeed.

Carfull on this post Valleyman!?!?

But welcome!

Thinks a little he does.
Sappho
psycosquirrel wrote:
You are taking this way too seriously, calm down.

By making his initial post, he is trying to impose his morals upon us by trying to convince conservatives of his opinion. He is entitled to his opinion, and even though I disagree with his opinion, I still respect it. I care about pro-choice people, even though you say I do not. If you do not give a "%$#@" about me, then don't respond to me. I do appreciate the apology for your reactions, though. I would not have taken ou seriously if it weren't for it. A Zygote is a life of its own, not because what it is now, but what it will become. Think about the future, before you take action on the present. I know with condoms a woman can still become impregnated, but the chance is very low. Also, it is like I said before; if you are not willing to have a baby, you should not have sex in the first place. I do not look over you and other's arguments. I just disagree with them.


Once more time i dont really see how i can impose my morals on u when i dont want anything from u at all. I mean if i will go to abortion someday (more like never) then i will be happy not hear all this crap from anti-abortionist saying its immoral and all. Where in this scenario am i imposing my morals on those ppl? Confused Only thing i want from em is not imposing their morals on me as i see it. Sad
tidruG
horseatingweeds wrote:
I'm sorry, we we can't. Certain ones we can, but for abortion, to many people disagree with it so we have to make a determination that everyone has to fallow.

There are also a lot of people who think abortion should remain a matter of personal choice. So, the determination to be made is to simply let the individual decide whether she wants an abortion or not.

Jeslyn wrote:
I grow wary of your silly foolishness. Be gone with you.

While it's easy to see you have major disagreements with horse's points of view, I'd appreciate a little subtlety.

horseatingweeds wrote:
I knew it wouldn't last forever. I'm sort of glad its over though. We've had our ups and downs; and I'm sure we can both be friends. I can't say I have any regrets.

Except for the crayon thing, that was out of line.

It's good to note that though we have all expressed our opinions, we have all also realized that we are not likely to change the points of view of any other reader.

As an example, I'll quote a part of another member's post.
that other member wrote:
I did not bother to read the other posts in this topic, because they would not affect my opinion.

Wink

psycosquirrel wrote:
Now aren't you being hypocritical here? You are trying to impose your morals on me.

The freedom of right to choice is not a moral, in my opinion... it's simply just that... it's a choice.

Quote:
It is not an individual, with life of it's own and thoughts of it's own.

Babies don't start thinking while still in their mothers' wombs.

Quote:
A Zygote is a life of its own, not because what it is now, but what it will become.

Technically, a sperm combines with the egg to form a zygote, which is the potential human being... so, the sperm also deserves not to "die".

Quote:
abortion is a very controversial issue and probably one that is too serious and heated to discuss in a forum.

Actually, abortion is a big issue... one for which we have very strong opinions, and if anything, we're not likely to be able to change anyone's opinions through our posts...

And I think it's enough with this "you're pushing your morals on me" crap. Like I said, we are unlikely to affect anyone's opinions in any way by our posts. We might as well just discuss our opinions as nothing but opinions and leave it at that.
odinstag
Scaramanga wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Scaramanga wrote:

Uhhh how can you call something unborn ANYTHING. Until it pops out of a woman's womb, what is it really?? It's a mass of cells, that's what. That's like saying I was UNthinking about something (something I think you neocons do quite frequently.) Very Happy

Forgive your ignorance, but have you ever seen a sonogram? Ever seen a premi?

Yeah, what's your point?? That still doesn't make it a child, it makes it UNBORN. What does it take to make you people understand. Until I write words down on a page, it's NOT a novel.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Scaramanga wrote:

EDIT: Oh yeah, and what Sappho said. Morality AIN'T fact bub. Couch it in whatever religious mumbo-jumbo you want, that doesn't make YOUR morals MY morals.

Just becuase you have no morals is not my problem. If you're ok with killing unborn babies for the sake of birth control, that's cool. You go for it bub. But it will not make your morals (or lack of them) mine.

I never said my lack/difference of morals is a problem. I never said my morals should be yours, or really anyone elses. BUT, don't go applying your morals across the board to everybody. The problem is you're acting like your morals are fact. They aren't.

Oh and I'd like to thank S3nd K3ys and all you other guys for really letting me rack up those frih$. Very Happy


The types of analogies people will use for murder never stops amazing me.

A baby is not a work of fiction.

The woman made her choice when she had the sex that produced the child. Born or unborn is not the question. It's a life and you would kill it.

It wasn't OK for the Nazi's to kill Jews because they didn't want them around. It's not okay to kill the unborn just because you don't want them.

There are better solutions than abortion.

Like no sex, protected sex and adoption. Why resort to murder and use such flimsy justification?

Nice tactic with the gloating over the Frih$. Sure is better than having a solid arguement.
Arnie
This is in response to the first post only. I'm pretty sure it's also automatically a response to all or nearly all other posts here. Vofman, you're accusing others of imposing their morals, but look what you're doing. This topic is nothing less than forcing your morals upon us, considering the flamy tone. But it's always that way. First you accuse people of forcing their opinion on others, and then you do that very thing yourself, but you justified that by first accusing the opposition.

Anyway. You're so right. I wouldn't want to force my morals upon anyone. If I happen to find somebody robbing or killing somebody else, thanks to your great liberating post I can now walk away without a hurting conscience. After all that person's morals apparently don't have problems with robbery or murder, and who am I to say he's wrong?
Ultima1080
So, does an unborn child have the right to life? Sure as hell not legally...maybe morally, if thats what you believe. But in all honesty, lets just pretend that abortion is banned, and every child created is either born or is naturally miscarried.

Think about this for a minute. One doctor in my college town estimated that he has terminated upwards of 20,000 pregnancies. Because of one man, 20,000 people will not be here to compete for resourses. Hell, we already have enough damned people on this earth as is. Many of them wallow in poverty too...so is it that cruel to not let someone be born into shitty conditions? Besides, as cruel as it may sound, at this rate, our planet is gonna be so rediculously over populated that people are going to have to be eventually killed due to just population control. You might as well allow some people to choose if they want a kid or not.

Plus, if they don't want a kid and they're gonna be abusive to it and like beat it and be generally inhumane to it...whats the point of it being born in the first place?
horseatingweeds
odinstag wrote:
A baby is not a work of fiction.

The woman made her choice when she had the sex that produced the child. Born or unborn is not the question. It's a life and you would kill it.

It wasn't OK for the Nazi's to kill Jews because they didn't want them around. It's not okay to kill the unborn just because you don't want them.

There are better solutions than abortion.

Like no sex, protected sex and adoption. Why resort to murder and use such flimsy justification?

Nice tactic with the gloating over the Frih$. Sure is better than having a solid arguement.


Arnie wrote:
Anyway. You're so right. I wouldn't want to force my morals upon anyone. If I happen to find somebody robbing or killing somebody else, thanks to your great liberating post I can now walk away without a hurting conscience. After all that person's morals apparently don't have problems with robbery or murder, and who am I to say he's wrong?


Very Happy Were have you guy's been? I wish I was bright enough to put thouse same point so simply when I made them about 900 posts ago. Very Happy

Ultima1080 wrote:
Think about this for a minute. One doctor in my college town estimated that he has terminated upwards of 20,000 pregnancies. Because of one man, 20,000 people will not be here to compete for resourses. Hell, we already have enough damned people on this earth as is. Many of them wallow in poverty too...so is it that cruel to not let someone be born into shitty conditions? Besides, as cruel as it may sound, at this rate, our planet is gonna be so rediculously over populated that people are going to have to be eventually killed due to just population control. You might as well allow some people to choose if they want a kid or not.


That is an excelent point Ultimate1080! But your forgeting about all of the children that ARE born into uncertain environments. I think they deserve to be put out of there missory too.

And we really need to do something about population too. Mostly becasue more people means less stuff right? Its not like the US could literaly feed the entire world by farming only one of its "states". I have always liked the idea of mandatory and systematic sterilization. Current medical technology would easily enable us to surgicaly remove any chance of every childs posibility of pregnancy, then once the person is of age and becomes certified to reproduce, they could be reversed.
tidruG
odinstag wrote:
A baby is not a work of fiction.

Neither is a living sperm Razz... but that's not my justification for supporting a person's right to decide whether or not she wants an abortion.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Arnie wrote:
Anyway. You're so right. I wouldn't want to force my morals upon anyone. If I happen to find somebody robbing or killing somebody else, thanks to your great liberating post I can now walk away without a hurting conscience. After all that person's morals apparently don't have problems with robbery or murder, and who am I to say he's wrong?
Very Happy Were have you guy's been? I wish I was bright enough to put thouse same point so simply when I made them about 900 posts ago. Very Happy

Robbery and murder are immoral and wrong and accepted as immoral and wrong by a very large majority of pretty much any society. However, abortion is not considered as morally wrong by a major part of the society... at least not so wrong that we need to illegalize it. Many people (if not most) believe that abortion should not be illegalized and is not wrong (unless used solely as a method of birth control). I don't support abortion outright, but I can think of many chases where the sole choice should be left to the mother, and to the mother alone.

Quote:
Current medical technology would easily enable us to surgicaly remove any chance of every childs posibility of pregnancy, then once the person is of age and becomes certified to reproduce, they could be reversed.

I'd like to read about this, please... if you could give me some links...
earthchild
Usually I try to stay off this topic but I guess I've had enough-

I think men should stay out of this one... this is the sort of thing that should be left up to us women.

Would you tell us what to do with our breastfeeding babies? With our menstrual runoff?

Exactly!!! (and it probably seems weird and incongrous and almost vulgar for me bring up menstrual whatever... as it should be because it is the domain of females.)

whether or not I would choose to have an abortion is not a public matter.

(My thanks go out to the males who respect and appreciate this)
horseatingweeds
earthchild wrote:
Usually I try to stay off this topic but I guess I've had enough-

I think men should stay out of this one... this is the sort of thing that should be left up to us women.

Would you tell us what to do with our breastfeeding babies? With our menstrual runoff?

Exactly!!!

whether or not I would choose to have an abortion is not a public matter.


This depends on whether you consider the child a member of the public. If we do then men have a say because men start out the same way.

And by left up do you mean the sex part? Because that is a good idea if the woman is unwilling or able to care for or have a child. If you are talking about having the sex, with our without contraception or a rabbits foot, then the responsibility is of both of the baby making halves.
earthchild
obviously you've never been pregnant.
horseatingweeds
earthchild wrote:
obviously you've never been pregnant


I don't understand your point.
earthchild
horseatingweeds wrote:


This depends on whether you consider the child a member of the public. If we do then men have a say because men start out the same way.

And by left up do you mean the sex part? Because that is a good idea if the woman is unwilling or able to care for or have a child. If you are talking about having the sex, with our without contraception or a rabbits foot, then the responsibility is of both of the baby making halves.


My husband brought up this point... but when I put forward to him the scenario where the man wants a baby and the woman doesn't...

He couldn't come up with a solution for the female not wanting to go through nine months of pregnancy, plus breast feeding (because if you don't breastfeed after having a baby you are doing them more of a disservice than not having them at all.)

In the end he conceded that you can't force a woman to go through pregnancy.
horseatingweeds
earthchild wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:


This depends on whether you consider the child a member of the public. If we do then men have a say because men start out the same way.

And by left up do you mean the sex part? Because that is a good idea if the woman is unwilling or able to care for or have a child. If you are talking about having the sex, with our without contraception or a rabbits foot, then the responsibility is of both of the baby making halves.


My husband brought up this point... but when I put forward to him the scenario where the man wants a baby and the woman doesn't...

He couldn't come up with a solution for the female not wanting to go through nine months of pregnancy, plus breast feeding (because if you don't breastfeed after having a baby you are doing them more of a disservice than not having them at all.)

In the end he conceded that you can't force a woman to go through pregnancy.


Heavens to Betsy!!! I would never advocate FORCING a woman to be pregnant. That is rape…I think.

I am simple advocating accountability. I also believe that a procedure such as an abortion, which effectively is an act of preventing an entity, through force of destruction, from maturing into human being, should be regulated by laws.

I don’t see a law regulating abortion as a law that would force a woman to carry a child any more than I would see a law regulating drunk driving as a law forcing someone to drink.
tidruG
earthchild wrote:
I think men should stay out of this one... this is the sort of thing that should be left up to us women.

Would you tell us what to do with our breastfeeding babies? With our menstrual runoff?

If it was agreed that abortion is the right and choice of the woman and the woman only, then men could be asked to keep out of this debate... however, what's being debated is whether women should be given the choice to have an abortion or should it be made illegal to have an abortion.

Also, since it could me my wife someday, who may need to have an abortion for health reasons or whatever... so I should have a say, I think... Smile

Anyway, imagine a scenario where a condom was ineffective, and the woman got impregnated anyway... while I still say that she should keep the child, let's also imagine she is not financially or emotionally ready to have a child... what then? Or for that matter, a rape victim becomes pregnant... we know that rape is generally violent and will leave a scar on her mind... and most likely, whenever she sees her child, she will be reminded of that horrible incident... what about her?

If we had a world where rape was ablished, and where condoms were 100% effective (or any other perfectly safe, non-permanent, contraceptive method, for that matter), then I would support any law that regulates abortion, because then it becomes a matter of choice for the woman to use a contraceptive and not get pregnant in any way... it would mean that a woman would only be able to get pregnant if she chooses to.
Arnie
Where I've been? I'm usually not interested in sticking around in topics like this too much, because argumentation isn't able to convince people that are (imho of course) immoral. There has to be a personal event in their life that will change it. Even if they would be convinced at all by discussion, the majority would not want to "lose face by losing a discussion". Because especially online discussions like this are also a matter of getting status, showing yourself to be good in discussion. To their disgrace, most partakers in such topics (on both sides) are willing to twist truth, insult others, abuse powers, and you name it, just to "win the debate". Often I prefer not to really partake in a discussion but to just counter those dirty tricks. But when I do partake in a discussion I don't have a problem with just leaving it when I'm finished with it. Let the others feel victorious - I never came to win anything. They may have, that's their problem. Disclaimer: this is only directed to horseatingweeds and is not part of the discussion.

Anyway. The fact that robbery and murder are considered wrong by the majority does not "happen to be so". It's not by chance, there's a reason for it. Tidrug is talking about common morals - people that all have the same. That does not apply to my post, considering I described 2 persons with totally different morals. I'm talking about how when somebody has different morals than you that doesn't mean you can just walk away. So in the situation that somebody doesn't have a problem with stealing you can't let him go ahead.
Lennon
Lennon wrote:
The questions you raise are:

1: is the fetus/embryo considered human life, and at what point does life begin.
2: Can Abortion provide medicinal and psychological advantages.
3: Is Pro-Choice, Pro-abortion or Pro-Life the right belief.

1: I believe that a single zygote (sperm + egg = active development) is human life in its simplest form. Fetus and embryo are all more developed human life to me.
2: Abortion and Embryonic Stem Cell Research destroy the development of the human and have other benefits to mother or recipient which is not as valuable as the Stem cell's survival. The advantages are not significant enough.
3: Since I believe in (1), I can only say any loss of human life is not worthwhile to science or to anybody else. One exception, one death instead of a mass death is an unfair but ethical solution. This is only the case for abortion if the mother is at risk of death. I think a new generation is better than keeping alive an older generation, if we were forced to make the choice. Pro-Choice think it's ok to consider the survival of the one instead of the mass, and abortionists consider the mothers right. As Pro-life that I am, I ask to consider the human child development and the potential of a newer generation versus the older generation.

Lennon wrote:
Ethically, which is better, to let one person die so that a crowd is saved, or let the crowd die to save the one you love.

It's a difficult choice, but outside the realm of emotion, you have to consider the ethics, and I think you'd have to save the crowd. Note the pressure and force to make the decision.

When the titanic was going down, women and children were saved first.
Personally, I don't have a wife, and I don't know how I'd react. Maybe think of Luke and Leia Skywalker, born and the mother died in childbirth. Birth of a legend, a new generation. But tragic death is not friendly.


Now, ethics are a type morals. If you don't think you need morals then you'd be messed up when it comes to difficult choices like this. We all must know what is the right thing to do.
Sappho
Lennon wrote:
Now, ethics are a type morals. If you don't think you need morals then you'd be messed up when it comes to difficult choices like this. We all must know what is the right thing to do.


Personally i would rather save someone that i love than a group of unknown ppl, and u call me immoral for that? I dont think thats right but suit urself.
Related topics
What is your operating system?
eregi_replace problem
forum
css
C++ int to char and char to int
Phpbb and PhpNuke Help
Fall in Love with a Best Friend
Favourite Game Show Of ALL TIME
Selling a domain
Energy....
Money, and who should have it.
Hex code Editor.
Things only a Republican could believe
Political elementary school kids...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.