Abortion

[masamuneehs]

Ok Gotwoot.
I figure this is one of the more controversial topics out there. And, as I love controversy, I've created this thread as a place for people to discuss this issue.

I've also added two polls, just to measure people's reactions. I know the polls are a little harsh and don't embrace all of the viable options in the debate, but by making them extreme I hope to get some good discussion going.

Let's just try to keep this thing civil. It's obvious that not everyone is going to agree. Lots of points and theories that are valid to one person won't mean anything to another. I honeslty think this is a subject that does not have a right answer. So don't get your panties in a twist if people don't accept your opinion.

I guess I'll start off with my opinion:

I'm Anti-Life (thats what the Pro-Life people could call it). That is, I believe that a mother/couple has the right to end the life their unborn child. Part of the reason is because children (and unborns) are property, yes it irks me to say it, but they are the property of the parent. Under property rights the parents are entitled to do as they wish with their unborn 'property'.

However, unborn children are also humans. Children have the right to all human rights, and the same should usually be granted to unborns. One basic right is the right to life. At the same time, parents are given a great swathe of freedom to choose "what is best" for their own children. Laws have been passed numerous times that assert that parents/guardians must provide basic standards of living for children.

So it would seem that property rights and human rights are at odds. Laws requiring parents to provide certain standards for children are at odds with laws giving parents the authority to raise their child.

Honestly I can only say that I'm Pro-Choice because I KNOW it is not my right to say whether or not some mother, some couple, MAY BE FORCED BY LAW to keep a child. I honestly don't think I have a legal right to force such an incredible requirement on others. I may make moral and ethical arguments for/against those people, but are those enough to give me the right to try to create law based on my morals?

[KoKo37]

Well, I would say "Pro-Choice", I believe in most cases abortion is probally for the best, like you stated it's sadly the parents property, and if the child's not going to have a good home and not a good life, then aborition would probally be the best option. But it is sad to know that babys are being put to death without violating any sins or have done anything wrong. But what makes me mad about most of the cases, is that why the hell do these people not use birth controll or condom's if they cant have a child?

[Ero-Fan]

Pro-Choice, mostly because a woman has a right to chose what happens to her body, but I still think the father of the child should have a say in this as well, since it would be his child. I think one state has a law that requires the father to be notified before an abortion is allowed. The only cases the father shouldn't be included are if he is dead or the baby was conceived through rape. Otherwise, I'm all for abortion. (Surprise, surprise coming from the pro-death penalty guy, eh? i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif )
Edit: Hey, Pro-Life people! Where ya at? You voted but didn't post yet....
Edit2: Just for clarification, I put Pro-Choice and when the child is born for my answers. Hazzah!

[Honoko]

Originally posted by: Ero-Fan
Hey, Pro-Life people! Where ya at? You voted but didn't post yet....
life is precious. what can i say?

and if i think about it, i don't know a single pro-life individual out there who isn't the slightest bit religious. makes me curious to know if there are any pro-lifers out there who don't believe in God. i kno many who do believe in God but are still pro-choice, for many of the reasons stated above. but the former, i don't think they exist. someone prove me wrong! i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

(love to stay and chat but i got classes until 9 tonite =P happy talking!)

[Kraco]

Pro-choice. Though it's already technically a human after the moment of succesful fertilization, I think it's the mother's choice. The embryo/fetus/baby isn't viable on its own for a long time. It's like an obligatory parasite for most of the pregnancy time. It's up to the mother whether to keep supporting a parasite. And as far as I'm concerned, this also means the father has no vote in the issue.

[The Heretic Azazel]

Originally posted by: Kraco
The embryo/fetus/baby isn't viable on its own for a long time. It's like an obligatory parasite for most of the pregnancy time..

And usually for the following 18+years afterward.

[Turkish-S]

Pro-Life, except when mothers' life is in danger

at the moment of fertilization.

[Terracosmo]

Pro-choice, always. What's the point of having an unwanted child? None! Fucking silly "morals".

As for when life begins, does it really matter? Do you remember when you were in the womb? Didn't think so.
I picked "when born", regardless.

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: Terracosmo
Pro-choice, always. What's the point of having an unwanted child? None! Fucking silly "morals".

As for when life begins, does it really matter? Do you remember when you were in the womb? Didn't think so.

Hell, I can't even remember 2 months ago, let alone when I was a little kid.

[Terracosmo]

Exactly. I've always found the "abortion is murder!" argument to be null. It's not like the unborn baby even gets affected by it...

People go on and on, endlessly, with the "it's murder, it's not fair, blah blah" stuff, but as I posted above... what's the point of having a baby if it's not even wanted?
If someone wants to have an abortion, it's either because;

a) it was a mistake, therefore the baby wasn't meant to exist to begin with
b) parents can't keep it for other reasons, such as economical ones

If abortion was to be forbidden, the result would be a myriad of kids who nobody wants. I can't even begin to see the logic behind that.
Then again, anti-abortion is often combined with religion (or so it seems), and being non-religious in all aspects I just can't find any reason to be against abortion at all.

Bottomline,
People have too much free time to think about things like this, and shouldn't fucking care if someone wants to get rid of a baby. It's their decision, not anyone else's.

[Ero-Fan]

I just thought of something we can do with unwanted children. A Modest Proposal just came to mind... ahh, that man was a visionary. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

[Xollence]

I'm for prolife, unless the baby's going to die anyway and it's dangering the mother. I don't think the burden or rape excuse should allow abortion. If you really don't want the child give it up for adoption.

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: Xollence
I'm for prolife, unless the baby's going to die anyway and it's dangering the mother. I don't think the burden or rape excuse should allow abortion. If you really don't want the child give it up for adoption.

So, a woman who was raped has to have 9 more months of being constantly reminded of that rape? How nice...

[Xollence]

I doubt she would ever forget the rape or not be constantly reminded of it. It's unfortunate for her but that's life, shit happens. I'm pretty sure having the baby aborted would cause her even more emotional pain in the long run.

[FrogKing]

----------> 10 ft. pole!

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: FrogKing
----------> 10 ft. pole!

Aww, c'mon FrogKing. Its all fun. Just tell us which you are for and why.
Edit @ Below: Wahoo, another one on our side!

[Assertn]

Don't need more children in the world.

[RedX1z]

it's not fair for anyone, not the mom and definately not the kid..

[el_boss]

Generally I'm not against abortion, but the reasons some people do abortions for sometimes honestly make me just feel bad. Like when someone does an abortion just because they didn't feel like using a condom or some lame shit like that. People that aren't smart enough to use contraceptives when they don't want a child should be sterilized, for the good of mankind.

[FrogKing]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
Don't need more children in the world.

Haha, nice! Anyhow, with Deez Nuts I don't really have a say in the matter (IMO). Needless to say, I agree with Assertn that there are too may children/peeps in the world. Looking around I see alot of people with kids that treat them like crap and they grow up to be leaches on society, so in the end it is some poor, young couple that struggles with a difficult decision when I wish some 'other' people should have made the decision to abort.
Bah! <dragged into the fray> I guess I would say Pro-choice because I feel that it is a women's body and she can govern her body any way she feels. I just wish more people would use birth control (which doesn't always work btw) and stop having sooooo many damn kids.

---------> 10ft. pole back out!

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: Xollence
I'm for prolife, unless the baby's going to die anyway and it's dangering the mother. I don't think the burden or rape excuse should allow abortion. If you really don't want the child give it up for adoption.

I disagree. I chose pro- abortion w/ exceptions. If the idiot forgot to use a condom then its her fault. Its her burden as a result of her stupidity. But if the woman was raped, why should she give have to go through the pain of being pregnant for 9 months and then actually going through the pain of birth? Its not her fault, it wasnt her choice to be raped. And if teh child is given to an orphanage or up for adoption, then it might mentally scar the child forever knowing that his or her mom had to give him or her up.

[Mr Squiggles]

^ If they were too stupid to use contraceptive they're probably too stupid to raise a child properly.

Its not fair to the child either If your going to bring into a world that doesnt want him. And imo, I dont think its murder. At this point the "child" is just a bunch of cells, It's not concsious or anything. As well arrest someone for murder after "enjoying himself" because he's flushing all those innocent sperm down the toilet.

just my 2 cents

[The Heretic Azazel]

You jerk off in the toilet?

Pro choice in cases of rape, I think the baby might have feeling sometime while still in the womb though. Regardless of rape, accidental birth, etc, I don't think many people have a problem with a morning-72 hour after pill, abortion should be as quick and painless as possible and done as close to conception as it can. There's no reason to hold out till the third trimester and get the damn thing chopped up and sucked out from a tube.

[Mr Squiggles]

^ No, but it makes for easy disposal

But anyways, yeah the 72-hour after pill is definetly the best option, and its easier on everyone.


Originally posted by: God#2
If the idiot forgot to use a condom then its her fault. Its her burden as a result of her stupidity. But if the woman was raped, why should she give have to go through the pain of being pregnant for 9 months and then actually going through the pain of birth? Its not her fault, it wasnt her choice to be raped. And if teh child is given to an orphanage or up for adoption, then it might mentally scar the child forever knowing that his or her mom had to give him or her up.

So, abortion is fine if it is a result of rape because the mother is not ready for him and adoption might tromatize him, but its not okay if he is an accident because punishing the mother for her stupidity has priority over the fact that the mother is not ready for him and adoption might tromatize him?

[ChaosK]

pro choice, and when the babies born.

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: Mr Squiggles
^ No, but it makes for easy disposal

But anyways, yeah the 72-hour after pill is definetly the best option, and its easier on everyone.


Originally posted by: God#2
If the idiot forgot to use a condom then its her fault. Its her burden as a result of her stupidity. But if the woman was raped, why should she give have to go through the pain of being pregnant for 9 months and then actually going through the pain of birth? Its not her fault, it wasnt her choice to be raped. And if teh child is given to an orphanage or up for adoption, then it might mentally scar the child forever knowing that his or her mom had to give him or her up.

So, abortion is fine if it is a result of rape because the mother is not ready for him and adoption might tromatize him, but its not okay if he is an accident because punishing the mother for her stupidity has priority over the fact that the mother is not ready for him and adoption might tromatize him?

Meh, you got like %30 to %40 of it right. Abortion is fine because it isnt the mothers fault that she is pregnant if she is raped.

"and adoption might tromatize him, but its not okay if he is an accident because punishing the mother for her stupidity has priority over the fact that the mother is not ready for him "

that part was correct.

And "and adoption might tromatize him?"

its the mom's fault! If I were the baby I'd plot to kill the my parentsi/expressions/devil.gif

[Xollence]

Does it matter who's fault it is? How does the baby's life differ in the two situations? The baby's value isn't any less because the mother got raped.

[Kovash]

I'm pro-choice, because I believe in some respect, the mother (and father, assuming he's even in the picture) have the right to decide if they can or cannot raise a child. Having said that, however, if I was ever in a situation to decide for myself [or influence someone else's decision], I would choose 'life' every time.

Also, though I accidently chose 'from birth' for the second poll, I meant to say 'from conception'.


And, for anyone who cares, I'm not religious, though I am spiritual in a sense.


EDIT: Added sentence.

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: Xollence
Does it matter who's fault it is? How does the baby's life differ in the two situations? The baby's value isn't any less because the mother got raped.

Ok, I guess I didnt take enough consideration of the baby. But then that creates the problem where people can just go around having sex withou a worry because they can just abort the baby.

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: Xollence
Does it matter who's fault it is? How does the baby's life differ in the two situations? The baby's value isn't any less because the mother got raped.

Ok, I guess I didnt take enough consideration of the baby. But then that creates the problem where people can just go around having sex withou a worry because they can just abort the baby.

I would think disease is a good enough reason to wrap your tool.
Edit: Besides pregnancy, of course.

[LobsterMagnet]

Babies are fricking nothing more then little pets that eat sleep vomit and shit. I'd really say that a person isn't a person until they've grown to the point where they can express sentient concious thought. A fetus is not a fricking person. Damn stupid abortioners, I really think that it's something that should not be as big of deal as it is. Something used by politicians to manipulate stupid people and diverte their attention from real more pressing problems and issues.

[anphorus]

Well in this I'm going to have to go for my general philosophy on life in general "People should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others". So I'm going to have to go pro-choice on this one. Until the baby is born, even though I believe it is a human being it is still technically part of the mother, and therefore it should be her choice whether or not to have an abortion. I do agree that the father should have a say though, but no woman should be forced into aborting a child if she doesn't want to.

Now as to me: Personally, I could never support the abortion of any potential Anphorus-juniors which may some day exist, unless there was some kind of serious health risk, to either the mother or the baby. To me it would be the same as if I had strangled the kid myself and I just couldn't do that.

[Uchiha Barles]

Well, I am a religious person, and as far as I know, abortion is illegal based on the religion I follow (christianity). But l am unable to make a stand on this point. Because my argument for pro-life arises purely from religion, I'll just mention my problems with the pro-life argument. Like many of you have said or hinted, in a lot of cases an unwanted child is usually less likely to have a decent life then a wanted child. This child can grow up to become a burden on society, even to the point of being a criminal. I see it all the time around where I live. Children who don't have the resources or the guardianship necessary to mature in a productive manner, turning to drugs and violence. You can look in some of their eyes and see pain they've experienced as clearly as you read these words. Either because of what they do, or because of their inability to cope with their situation, sometimes I find myself thinking that these people are better off dead. I guess I'd have to say that I'm pro-choice. Not that I have no problems with abortion, but in the end, without a religious argument, I don't see any reason why abortion should be avoided if a couple does not want a child. I'm not one to force anything arising directly from religion on anyone unless it affects me somehow. What a couple chooses to do with their child has no bearing on me. Later on it life it may, but I can't predict that.



Originally posted by: masamuneehs
I honestly don't think I have a legal right to force such an incredible requirement on others. I may make moral and ethical arguments for/against those people, but are those enough to give me the right to try to create law based on my morals?

Just for the record, the answer to that question is a gigantic YES. Why? That's how this democracy works. You vote according to self-interest. Be it on the issue of abortion, taxes, foreign policy, whatever. People vote according to what is important to them, and you should to. What does this have to do with you pushing for the creation of laws that may force people do things according to your values? I'm sure you know this, but for most people, the way to push for laws is to elect legislators that promise to promote the viewpoints they hold dear. This probably includes you. Every law you have to obey, whether you like the law or not, is in place because someone pushed for that law based on their values. Consequently, you do have a right, a constitutional one at that, to force your values on others in this manner.

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: anphorus
Well in this I'm going to have to go for my general philosophy on life in general "People should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others".

You know I have that same exact philosophy?

[Paulyboy]

Man, its kinda wrong though, I would only allow abortions for rape causes or if she is going to die. Its mostly peoples faults for not using protection. For some reason its a spiritual thing to me, and I haven't even gone to church in like a year.

[ChiaCheese]

Originally posted by: anphorus
Well in this I'm going to have to go for my general philosophy on life in general "People should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others". So I'm going to have to go pro-choice on this one. doesn't it hurt the fetus?



Originally posted by: anphorus
Until the baby is born, even though I believe it is a human being it is still technically part of the mother, and therefore it should be her choice whether or not to have an abortion.
not neccessarily. the fetus isn't a cancer or an organ or even made up of the mother's tissues. the fetus has his or her own unique DNA that is differant than the mother's. Just because the fetus depends on the mother to survive, does not mean that the fetus is a part of the mother. nor is the fetus a piece of property. my belief is that life starts at the moment the egg is fertilized and at that point it becomes human. It may not be as developed as a full adult but the unborn child should have the same human rights as any man woman or child, including the right to life and no one should have the choice to take that right away. so that being said, i believe abortion should be illegal. and if it was illegal, my hope would be that most of those that may one day have an unwanted pregnancy would finally take birth control seriously or see adoption as a viable option.

[Ero-Fan]

They tried making abortions illegal, it resulted in a lot of back-alley abortions that were dangerous to the woman since they weren't very clean or safe. Even if I were not pro-choice, its just logically not practical to completely ban all abortions.

[Kraco]

Originally posted by: ChiaCheese
It may not be as developed as a full adult but the unborn child should have the same human rights as any man woman or child, including the right to life and no one should have the choice to take that right away. so that being said, i believe abortion should be illegal. and if it was illegal, my hope would be that most of those that may one day have an unwanted pregnancy would finally take birth control seriously or see adoption as a viable option.

Human rights is not some holy verdict. It only exists to make it easier and safer for people to live during normal times. It's like a part of good manners and conduct. A means to ensure the strong don't oppress the weak.

However, human rights are not basically meant to make life harder. If abortion was made illegal based on human rights, it'd on most occasions make life harder for those who would personally suffer the consequences of such a law. A fetus or embryo, which has not yet reached consciousness is mentally unaware of its existence and thus unaware of its death as well.

Personally I don't think the flesh of a human is as important as what's inside his/her mind. The personal identity, mind, experiences and opinions of an individual are what make a human being. The fetus/embryo lacks all of them. It's nothing but a lump of flesh.

[DB_Hunter]

I guess I'm wading into the waters a bit late but I will give my view anyway.

You could classify me as a religious person. There are a few people on the forum with whom I have discussed these issues already so they would already know that. To be more specific I am a Muslim.

As far as I understand Islam's position on abortion, it is the following. If a woman is to have an abortion or not depends on the circumstances. We all know that once an egg is fertilized it wil start to grow into a human. Since killing a human, no matter how old simply for existing is not allowed, the question is when exactly can we term this lump of cells to be alive? The time at which they zygote is said to have life is said to be either 40 or 42 days after fertilization (the number difference lies in the process of deriving Islamic laws, and you have to pick one number based upon what you think is the strongest derivation process). After this point, you cannot carry out an abortion. I am not sure but I think exceptions do exist, such as if the health (be it mental or physical) of the mother is seriously under threat (not one of those oh no I'm pregnant now what scenarios). There may be other exceptions but I am not sure. As for parents wanting to end the life of the unborn child due to fears of poverty, this is not allowed because there is a concept in Islam which states that your worldy provision or rizq in arabic is provided by Allah and that you would not die until you have received all of your rizq.

Before the 40 or 42 day period abortions are allowed in Islam and are considered to actually be a form of contraception, since you are not killing a live being.

[Aramis]

Yes to all aborts...babies have less intelligence than creatures we kill for food, they won't mind being killed. and you can always get a new one whenever you want.

[el_boss]

What bitter irony it must be for those women who become unable to have children again after an abortion.

One of the worst things I have seen in my life was when I worked in a hospital for a month during my military service. I was in the post operation ward and almost everyday there would come in women who had gone trough what is called a hysterectomy, even the word gives me the chills. Hysterectomy is the name of the procedure where the uterus is removed, because of cancer or some other illness. Without fault all these women were crying and depressed. I think this experience effected me alot regarding my view on abortion.

I think it's obvious that a woman should be allowed to govern over her own body, I mean it's better to get it done in a hospital than try to get the fetus out with a coathanger. But still, the tought of what actually happens in an abortion leaves me with an unpleasant feeling.

[Kraco]

That's a good point. However, what comes to abortion, it needs to be remembered that even if the law allows it, it's still up to the particular woman in question whether to do it or not. Not nearly all of them would do it in any case. Some might or might not depending on what the doctor has to say. I have no idea how the system actually works but I suppose the women do change a few words with somebody before the abortion is performed (or prescription written). A few would do it no matter what; fly to some foreign country to have it done, or buy the service from some dark dealer of death.

When the choice is there, it certainly attracts many people who wouldn't do it otherwise. But this is how Western societies generally work. Information is made available, and people must make their own decisions. The greater the freedom, the greater the personal responsibility. Only when the freedom is being used to hurt especially others and the society, it's taken away, like happened with narcotics in the 20th Century.

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: Xollence
Does it matter who's fault it is? How does the baby's life differ in the two situations? The baby's value isn't any less because the mother got raped.

Ok, I guess I didnt take enough consideration of the baby. But then that creates the problem where people can just go around having sex withou a worry because they can just abort the baby.

You like to bring up this concept that people going around having sex is a bad thing. You've done this in another thread, yet I'm still not sure why.

[The Heretic Azazel]

ARE YOU A FILTHY FUCKING CHRISTIAN, GOD #2??

[complich8]

As far as I'm concerned, conception is cheap. 15% of recognized pregnancies (by the stats of a cursory web search) are miscarried before the second trimester. And who knows how many are miscarried in the first month, before they're recognized? Not to mention later miscarriages, stillbirths, etc. For most people, it's pretty damned easy to concieve a child. So I have trouble seeing conception as some sort of precious gift.

On the other hand, actually giving birth is a different story. By the time you're dropping the kid out, a lot of investment has gone into it, both physically and emotionally. A human life is like a snowball. It starts tiny, and as time passes it rolls up more and more value.

I think that "life" per se starts at conception, but I wouldn't call a 16-celled embryo human life yet. It's not at that threshold where it has what I value as humanity. It only has potential. Humanity starts later, at some fuzzy threshold between the time they have discernable parts and the time they're old enough to crawl.

I'm pro-choice. I think that people who don't want to raise children, or aren't at a point where they're ready to, shouldn't. An unwanted child remains an unwanted child, that sentiment doesn't always go away. Kids who're raised with the family undercurrent "you're an accident, we didn't want you" lead much less happy lives.

I think that abortion is in the best interest of society, and I'm not alone in that belief. There's a contraversial study that suggests a link between Roe v. Wade and the dropoff of serious violent crime (backing: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm ). For those who don't know, Roe Vs. Wade was decided in 1973, effectively legalizing abortion nationwide. Beginning in 1993, serious violent crime nationwide began decreasing steadily. This is a 20 year lag behind Roe vs Wade, which would be about how long it would take for a generation of children to be born and grow old enough to be violent criminals. Of course, there are other confounds, society is never a simple machine, but the correlation is quite suggestive.

There's one form of abortion that I'm against: partial-birth abortion. I think that that's the sort of atrocity that should never have been dreamed up in the first place, and should never be allowed to happen. It can't save lives, it can't help parents, and it gains nothing over putting the child up for adoption. I think the closer to conception it is, the more justifiable abortion become.

I also don't think fathers need to consent or be informed. That's just some bullshit right there. For a woman, pregnancy is 9 months of discomfort followed by 18+ years of struggle. For a man, a woman's pregnancy can be 9 months of lying and stringing her along and then leaving her. With so little paternal obligation, there's no reason that guys should be able to dictate that.

Lastly, despite all of that, I still think abortion is a terrible thing. In a perfect world, we could have "indescretions" and not worry about conception happening, and we'd have full control of our bodies and nobody would get diseases and so on and so forth. But it's not a perfect world, and so this terrible thing has to continue existing.

[masamuneehs]

Heretic, just because someone brings in their religious/moral ideals to this argument does not make their points any less valid than you agnostic/heretical views.

Complich8, thank god for well thought out posts. I simply want to say that I posted my polls and opinions in the starkest of extreme opinions simply for the sake of invoking argument and creating a place where people would HAVE to defend their opinions. I also believe that many abortions are uneccesary and tragic. However, I value the possibility of humanity as much as I value recognized, mature, humanity. For there is still potential even in a 100 year old man like there is in a 1 month old embryo. Regardless, not all life is sacred, and those without power or voice shall be muted and oppressed.

What I personally oppose is the feeling in this thread that a father has NO say in the right whether a child should be born or aborted. He, if he is truly a complete human being, has just as much say as the woman. Man and woman are equal counterparts in the venture that is creating a new life. Rapists, dead-beats and the like do not count, for they do are not a true part of humanity if they take human life for granted in any way.

It is because such that I believe a father should have an equal say along with the mother in such difficult decisions.

Abortion is terrible, but it is as necessary as forgiveness in a world with humans. For to err is to be human. And such are those that populate this planet.

[The Heretic Azazel]

Originally posted by: masamuneehs
Heretic, just because someone brings in their religious/moral ideals to this argument does not make their points any less valid than you agnostic/heretical views.

There are different views than mine? What?

Who says I'm an agnostic or a heretic anyway...I was just having fun with the lad!

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure


Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: Xollence
Does it matter who's fault it is? How does the baby's life differ in the two situations? The baby's value isn't any less because the mother got raped.

Ok, I guess I didnt take enough consideration of the baby. But then that creates the problem where people can just go around having sex withou a worry because they can just abort the baby.

You like to bring up this concept that people going around having sex is a bad thing. You've done this in another thread, yet I'm still not sure why.

Really? Which thread? Well, its not so much sex, but more the fact tat she could just abort a child everytime the lady gets pregnant which doesnt just seem right (Im gonna have to think up a good reason later). And Im not against sex. I go in the Onepiece/Bleach Babes thread.i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

Oh, and also,

1.) Im not christian ( Though I know Heretic was just kidding of course)
2.) Im not religious, infact, Im sort of against how much influence religions have on people. It very often leads many people to commit many stupid acts. Infact, many wars are fought and have been fought because of relgion. Change that, most wars. Dont get, me wrong, I have my own beliefs, and I believe in god. But People should come up with some of their own ideas and follow what makes sense, instead of blindly following the faith they were born into.

[Mae]

Since I'm bored, I'll put in my two cents. I'm with the people that say that an unborn child is not a part of the mother's body. Sure, it's dependent on it's mother's body, but it's got it's own unique DNA and potential. I'm actually kinda torn on the whole issue of abortion though.

Now, most people believe that a newborn child is the moral equivalent of any other human being. Killing one is considered immoral. But what's the difference between a child two days before it's born compared to two days later? Nothing really, just where it's located. Essentually the same creature. How about two weeks? Again, a child born two weeks early does just fine. The same with a month early, no problems. Two months early? They don't do as well, but can survive with support and grow up normally. As technology progresses younger children will be able to survive independently of their mothers. So where do we draw the line? When the brain develops? When the heart starts beating? It seems to me like any distinction we make woud be arbitrary, and I don't like guessing about something like this. So although I see that calling a ball of cells equivalent to a human being doesn't make a lot of sense, well, they don't stay balls of cells for long, and really the whole idea of abortion leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Edit: And it's cool that we can have some kind of decent conversation about this without being at each other's throats.

[Uchiha Barles]

Yeah. I'm actually quite impressed that three pages of this included mostly intelligent posts and not a single instance of real flaming. Is the gotwoot community maturing?

edit: This will be the only post of this sort I promise.

[Kraco]

Here's actually an interesting Map of abortion laws (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png).

Mae, aren't abortions to babies old enough to live outside of the mother quite rare indeed? I don't think such operations are performed regularly. In fact, I wonder if they are even legit. In that sense your point loses some relevance points and gains some hypothesis points...

[milfhunter]

Originally posted by: Uchiha Barles
I'm actually quite impressed that three pages of this included mostly intelligent posts and not a single instance of real flaming.Yeah, it's awesome. There's a lot of that going on in the NY Transit Strike thread too. You'd love the maturity in there.

First off, I don't support abortion (for the contribution). However, I think it would've been better for the world if Chaoskiddo's parents had aborted him, or straight up miscarried him during their frenzied opium smoking marathons. It's too bad that they couldn't resist participating in any kind of sexual intercourse in the first place. I mean, they could've just done oral and then Chaoskiddo would be nothing more than a bad after taste in his mother's opium smoking mouth. Do you have any other explanation aside from the consumption of drugs as to why Chaoskiddo looks like a 10 year old? Scientists need to start cracking on an incubator made for people who look half their age. Better yet, maybe his opium smoking father should've just fucked his mother's opium smoking ass and then he could've just been shat out like the little shit that he is. Oh well, at least he's alive to provide fodder for thought.

[masamuneehs]

^^^damnit milfhunter. just after people started noticing that this subject has been handled well and that nobody has flamed anyone else, you come along.

i was quite sure that blatant flaming was a violation of forum rules. too bad i'm not a mod...

let's hold the tongue in cheek for the rest of this argument shall we?

@ Kraco. Thanks for the overview of abortion laws in different nations. I've been looking for a good, indepth time line of abortion policy, but all of them are country specific... I guess I'll just start posting timelines and actual text of laws if people would find it helpful.

And in reponse to an earlier question:

While democracy does allow for each individual to vote and act according to their self interest, I still don't think that any one group's moral/religious ideals should be imposed on law over anyone else's. Why? Because then the group that is forced to abide by those moral/religious ideals have then been robbed of their ability to vote and act according to their personal ideals and interests. I can say what I think. I can argue with others. Heck, I can even go out there and try to change lots of people's minds through commercials, billboards or whatever. I can even work towards getting the law changed to favor my interests. However, the law should not be bent to accomadate the majority. Even if 51% of Americans came voted on a referrendum and voted for abortion to be outlawed, it would still go against democratic values. If 51% voted that only Christians could vote in elections, or that criminals could do religious prayer in place of community service, it would be the same infringement.

I already know people won't agree with me.

[milfhunter]

Originally posted by: masamuneehs
Even if 51% of Americans came voted on a referrendum and voted for abortion to be outlawed, it would still go against democratic values.Yeah, um, I don't know what public school you went to in NYC, but democracy is the rule of the majority. Read the Constitution, ok? USA is a republic, not a democracy.

If this country was a democracy, then we'd all be caucasian orthodox methodists and at the mercy of southerners with below average IQs. Read some books.

EDIT: If the United States of America was a democracy, then we'd all be at the mercy of illiterate southerners with severely below average IQs.

[masamuneehs]

Originally posted by: milfhunter


Originally posted by: masamuneehs
Even if 51% of Americans came voted on a referrendum and voted for abortion to be outlawed, it would still go against democratic values.Yeah, um, I don't know what public school you went to in NYC, but democracy is the rule of the majority. Read the Constitution, ok? USA is a republic, not a democracy.

If this country was a democracy, then we'd all be caucasian orthodox methodists and at the mercy of southerners with below average IQs. Read some books.

EDIT: If the United States of America was a democracy, then we'd all be at the mercy of illiterate southerners with severely below average IQs.

Article III.
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

However
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment V
No person shall...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You need not remind me what the Constitution and Amendments say. And, if you read them you will find that nowhere does a majority of the people directly create or alter laws. Their elected officials, elected by a majority (sometimes not even a majority), can make laws. The Judiciary can repeal, reinstate or void laws.

When I was speaking of 'democratic values', i could see how people might reject that statement. My idea of what values our government stands for are not the same as anyone elses. A value, among other things, is worth in importance to the possessor of that value. It can also be a principle, standard, or quality that one considers desirable. I don't believe 'democratic values' under those definitions are STRICTLY declared in any law or document. Otherwise it would be against the law for me to disagree with you i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

[el_boss]

Originally posted by: milfhunter
If the United States of America was a democracy, then we'd all be at the mercy of illiterate southerners with severely below average IQs.
Isn't this how it is now? I mean the fact that it's the state elections that count and not the total votes of the entire population. I agree that America isn't really a democracy. Since there is basically only two parties to vote for and the "losing" side doesn't get represented.

[Kraco]

I don't think democracy works in such a pure way anywhere, not even in the clockwork Switzerland. Everywhere people elect representatives who actually wield the power. And they are assumed to, and usually also do, know what they are doing. If every law was based on public referendum hardly anything would be done. That's why 51% of the eligible voters can't make stupid laws pass. They can vote for stupid candidates, but often those candidates in office aren't suddenly so stupid anymore, or at least they don't do so much damage even if they remain stupid.

[milfhunter]

Originally posted by: el_boss
Isn't this how it is now? I mean the fact that it's the state elections that count and not the total votes of the entire population.Yep, I'm glad someone finally caught the irony in it all. Even more ironic is that someone from Sweden caught it. The best I can do is lead a camel to the water; I can't make the camel drink. So yeah, I'm glad you caught on. I said we would be at the mercy of an illiterate southerner with severely below average IQ, and lo and behold, George W. Bush is President of the United States. That should redefine "tongue in cheek" for masamuneehs.

Originally posted by: el_boss
I agree that America isn't really a democracy. Since there is basically only two parties to vote for and the "losing" side doesn't get represented.I think that this is where we get a little bit confused though. If the losing side doesn't get represented, then it is a democracy (rule of the majority). What contributes to the confusion is that the popular vote is a "democratic value". Other than the abolishment of slavery, this confusion is what probably led to the Civil War the most. It's why we had the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers before we had the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, George W. Bush has been making us regret the Union ever since 2000. New York State would be a lot better off if it didn't have to pay the most in tax dollars of any of the states for the development of New Mexico, Arizona, and now the re-development of Louisiana ... states that would just as well secede and become rivals of New York. This is why Abraham Lincoln is the most overhyped President ever.

But there isn't only two parties to vote for. Even though Encyclopedia Britannica says that the government here is a two-party system, they're full of shit and should lose all publishing rights. You don't even need to be associated with the two largest political parties to become an elected representative, much less the President of the United States. Take a look at Ross Perot. He ran for President against the Democrats and Republicans. But it's extremely hard to do what Ross Perot did without the campaign funding of a major political party, which is why Ross Perot's being a billionaire helped him out a lot. Take a look at the state of Vermont, also. That state has two elected officials who don't belong to any political party whatsoever. One is a Representative and one is a Senator. Interestingly enough, Vermont is a northern state. I hate southerners. It's just too bad that Texas has all the hot sluts and California has all the hot rich sluts.

Originally posted by: masamuneehs
It can also be a principle, standard, or quality that one considers desirable.Do you desire to be a caucasian orthodox methodist Christian?

Originally posted by: Kraco
I don't think democracy works in such a pure way anywhereI don't think so either. I'd go further by stating the obvious that a pure Republic never existed in USA.

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: el_boss


Originally posted by: milfhunter
If the United States of America was a democracy, then we'd all be at the mercy of illiterate southerners with severely below average IQs.
Isn't this how it is now?

Dam, You beat me to it. Oh well. Anyway, democracy is never good nowadays because everybody is just so dumb. And Republics dont work either, I mean look at our country! (U.S.A)

[el_boss]

Originally posted by: milfhunter


Originally posted by: el_boss
I agree that America isn't really a democracy. Since there is basically only two parties to vote for and the "losing" side doesn't get represented.
I think that this is where we get a little bit confused though. If the losing side doesn't get represented, then it is a democracy (rule of the majority).
Yes basically that is democracy, what I meant though was that a huge part of the population will have wasted their vote since the losing party gets no influence. In sweden there is a quite different system. Here every vote actually counts, and the results are based on the entire nations votes. If a party gets at least 4% support from the votes, they will get represented in the government and they will have some influence.


Originally posted by: milfhunterBut there isn't only two parties to vote for. Even though Encyclopedia Britannica says that the government here is a two-party system, they're full of shit and should lose all publishing rights.
I think everyone knows that there are more parties than reblicans and democrats in america. But the fact remains that these two parties get like 99% of the votes or something like that. There will probably be a long time before a third party will enter the scene, and compete equally with the republicans and the democrats.

[mage]

Aborting all the black babies in the country would lower crime rates. Bill Bennet (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/) said so.

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: milfhunter
Yeah, um, I don't know what public school you went to in NYC, but democracy is the rule of the majority. Read the Constitution, ok? USA is a republic, not a democracy.



Originally posted by: God#2
Dam, You beat me to it. Oh well. Anyway, democracy is never good nowadays because everybody is just so dumb. And Republics dont work either, I mean look at our country! (U.S.A)

Well, at least some people recognized we're not a democracy, but a republic. And that any system where you elect representatives is a republic, since a true democracy (where everyone votes on every issue) is just about impossible in today's world.
Anyway, it doesn't matter too much if the supreme court decides to overturn roe vs. wade. If they do, and you read the law, then each individual state sets their own abortion laws. Even though that seems stupid, it could happen. It would mean that the woman would have to go across state lines to get an abortion. Pain in the ass, but it could be worse. Luckily, the federal government has no right to ban abortion. Roe vs Wade, from what I recall, only prevents states from banning first trimester abortions. So even if overturned, it just would allow states to ban if they want. Not that I want that to happen.

Edit : Two good articles I found about Roe vs Wade being overturned- Click Here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-26-forum-roe_x.htm) and Here (http://womensissues.about.com/od/abortionlaw/f/faqroevwade.htm)

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: mage
Aborting all the black babies in the country would lower crime rates. Bill Bennet (https://<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href=)">http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITI...0/bennett.comments/[/S</a> said so.

1.) The link doesnt work
2.) I know who your talking about anyway, and let me tell you that guy is one fucked up shithead to say that on public tv.

[KoKo37]

erm, if any kinds of people aborted that much, there would probally be lower crime rates because lower amounts of people.

[Uchiha Barles]

Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: mage
Aborting all the black babies in the country would lower crime rates. https://Bill Bennet (http://]http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/) said so.

1.) The link doesnt work
2.) I know who your talking about anyway, and let me tell you that guy is one fucked up shithead to say that on public tv.

He's not a fucked up shithead, he's just a shithead. There's a good level of truth to what he said, but he never should've said it.

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: KoKo37
erm, if any kinds of people aborted that much, there would probally be lower crime rates because lower amounts of people.

Well duh. But you cant just blatantly specifically say aborted Black pplz would ower crime rates. That just super racist.

[mage]

Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: mage
Aborting all the black babies in the country would lower crime rates. https://Bill Bennet (http://]http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/) said so.

1.) The link doesnt work
2.) I know who your talking about anyway, and let me tell you that guy is one fucked up shithead to say that on public tv.
works now.

I think it's good that atleast someone had the balls to say what he said. sadly though, some people just can't accept the truth.

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: mage


Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: mage
Aborting all the black babies in the country would lower crime rates. https://Bill Bennet (http://]http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/) said so.

1.) The link doesnt work
2.) I know who your talking about anyway, and let me tell you that guy is one fucked up shithead to say that on public tv.
works now.

I think it's good that atleast someone had the balls to say what he said. sadly though, some people just can't accept the truth.

Zomg, as Koko said, if any kind of peoples were aborted at a large rate, crime rates would drop. We know the truth. But Bill Bennet said it with a joking tone of voice. WHat an asshole. Guess why black are in poverty and have to resort to crime, um i dont know, how about WHITE PPLZ?????

[mage]

Aborting all the black babies would reduce crime, not because the population would be less, but because blacks are responsible for the large majority of crime in the USA.



Originally posted by: God#2
Guess why black are in poverty and have to resort to crime, um i dont know, how about WHITE PPLZ?????
There is no such thing as racism. They are in poverty and have to steal to survive because they are inferior.



Originally posted by: God#2
Zomg, as Koko said, if any kind of peoples were aborted at a large rate, crime rates would drop.
This is not true. Crime rate refers to the crime/population ratio. If millions of babies were randomly aborted, the ratio of blacks/whites/etc would stay the same. If all other things were to stay the same, then the crime rates would stay the same. However, eliminating the major factor in crime, blacks, would lower the crime rate substantially.

[Uchiha Barles]

Guy's, I'm not sure if this thread is the proper place to argue this, but lets take it easy here on each other if this discussion is going to take place. Remember, we only get one shot at this type of discussion according to what the mods said when they first allow it. At the first sign of flaming, we're back to getting threads containing discussions like this locked. I'm only mentioning this because I don't want that to happen, and I see smoke...

[The Heretic Azazel]

You're not seriously making white people responsible because a very high number of black people are on welfare are you?

Why are these blacks impoverished? i don't know, how about... getting off their lazy asses and forgoing welfare for a real job. That way they don't have to sell drugs, rob businesses and join gangs. And then, you know, their life spans might go up when they're not killing each other. And whites. And latinos.

[Terracosmo]

People, get back to the topic at hand and don't derail it into a discussion about races and whatnot.

Otherwise it will get T3H CLO5ED!

[ChaosK]

Originally posted by: Terracosmo
People, get back to the topic at hand and don't derail it into a discussion about races and whatnot.

Otherwise it will get T3H CLO5ED!


extremely threatening terra i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

the topic has nothing to do with blacks or whites or jobs!

[mage]

Originally posted by: Chaoskiddo

the topic has nothing to do with blacks
it does if we talk about aborting all of them

[masamuneehs]

i think it goes without saying that basing any argument for/against abortion on racist or cultural grounds is a pretty poor argument.

And besides, do you all really want to get into a petty squabble over shit like that? mage had his little fun, posting offensive stuff like always. it would be good to get back onto the subject. i was pretty proud of how mature everyone was handling themselves in this discussion. This isn't an easy thing to discuss and voice your views on, but everyone was doing pretty well. Now the thread is threatened to be locked.

Racism has no place in this argument, and it's against the rules. Nuff said.

[darkmetal505]

I dont like the idea of abortion at any stage (it had potential to prosper), but I think its ok to have it.

[DB_Hunter]

Well, the black abortion argument is a non-starter. Reducing behaviour, particularly the concepts of individuals is incorrect and does not take into account the picture of society as a bigger whole. Whether it be a thug who is black or a politican who is white, the concept carried by both individuals is corrupt if they are both commiting a crime. Only the nature of the crime differs. You might as well say the whole world should pass a policy to have all american babies aborted in order to get rid of american imperialism.

The fact of the matter is that people live their lives in the according to the concepts they carry about life. A guy who has determined in his mind to commit a crime will do it, and his or her circumstances would determine the nature of the crime. What needs to be looked at is why the individual is turning to crime. Is it because the society at large is creating an atmosphere where people should do a crime if they think can get away with it? Is it because the needs of the individual are not being fulfilled? Does the system fail them? Why is it that alot of people from a certain strata of society live the way they do? What caused them to develop that way?

I think this is a big discussion in itself and perhaps another thread should be started to discuss the issue.

[Carnage]

Lets all heed Terra's/Choas'/Masamuneehs' words and just back away from the whole race thing. Lets get back on topic pplz!

[Terracosmo]

Originally posted by: Chaoskiddo


Originally posted by: Terracosmo
People, get back to the topic at hand and don't derail it into a discussion about races and whatnot.

Otherwise it will get T3H CLO5ED!


extremely threatening terra

Surely you guys aren't so stupid that you can't heed my words just because I decide to for once not be all loud and scary about it?

[Carnage]

No, No, we're stupid enoughi/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

[ImitationSanen]

This is very non controversial and relates to the topic!
As far as abortion, other than in cases of incest and danger to the mother, I believe it is a license to have unprotected sex, since kids believe there is little or no permanent damage done (I can just get an abortion). That was fine until 1979 when the AIDs virus came into play. Sex is a dangerous thing anymore. I can't say how i feel either way, accept messing with the natural order of things never seems to work right for us.

The truth is, in the United States you are what you make yourself. If you choose to be a moron by joining a gang or doing drugs you do so on your own merit as a human being. On the same token, if you bust your ass in school, dont smoke crack, and go to work everyday you will be successful. All this independant of your race.

The true reason race is such an issue in the United States is, the democratic party and in turn the news media, relies on it as a sabre to rattle at any other party everytime they begin to gain a majority. If they are supposedly for the equal treatment of everyone, why do they further programs which make a point of throwing our cultural differences in each others faces? Its the whole lets leave the past behind us and realize that we all live in the same country and are one people.

I can honestly tell you, when I look at a person, I dont see their race, their sex, or religion. I see their merits, what you do is who you are, race is irrelevant.

. I think we should once and for all just celebrate the unity of one people under one flag instead of constantly trying to throw our differences in each others faces. On the same token our race, gender or religion should never be used as an excuse as to why we fail, its an insult to everyone of that race or religion that did the right thing to succeed.

Don't worry, once Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are shown for the racial hatemongers they are for stirring the pot and trying to make every issue a race issue, and on the same token all of the people who populate the KKK will also die out. Leaving the world free of the generalizations of the past, to decide its own future. I believe the most of the percieved racial discrimination will disappear in favor of being a united people. I am a white male raised with southern values, no one should be generalized by what color they are or where they are from. At least thats what I hope my children will know when they grow up

[complich8]

I'm going to reply to a lot of this thread, partly as a commentary to the things said, partly as a direct response. This may take a while ... but bear with me here. This'll probably take the crown "longest legitimate post on gotwoot, ever" i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif



Originally posted by: milfhunter
If this country was a democracy, then we'd all be caucasian orthodox methodists and at the mercy of southerners with below average IQs. Read some books.
EDIT: If the United States of America was a democracy, then we'd all be at the mercy of illiterate southerners with severely below average IQs.

What's ok with this? Well, the central point makes sense, but Ben Franklin said it much better: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

What's wrong with this?
(1) How would we all be caucasian? Would this imply that the honkeys rose up en masse to expel the people who made them breakfast every day, and farmed their fields? Not so much -- the prevalent opinion of white people in the last 150 or so years is pretty much the prevalent opinion of everyone else as well: civil rights are good, diversity isn't the devil, and if I can get someone else to clean my house for a nominal fee, why not? You're suggesting that nearly every white person is the "white devil" parading around in a KKK outfit and lynching everyone who isn't white. This is quite not the case.
(2) We're a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. Representative democracies force their representatives to bear in mind the principles on which the country was founded, and think about the repercussions of their decisions in ways that direct democracies don't require. This is an attempt to harness the less transient essence of the people, rather than the more transient opinion of the people. Again, this is what good old Bennie was saying back in 1753.
(3) By definition of "average", in a normal distribution (as intelligence follows), no more than half of the people in the country should be there. If they are, then either the metric is mis-tuned and needs to be adjusted, or the testing is flawed, or the distribution is abnormal and needs to be rethought. In the case of IQ, intelligence very closely follows a normal distribution, thus there's no possibility of tyrrany exclusively by people on one side of it or the other. Indeed, you'd need confluence of opinions between both sides of the mean line in order to rule -- which is what we have, thanks in no small part to the presence of a century of marketing research yielding a very ... let's call it Machiavellian understanding of popular opinion.
(4) Orthodox Methodists. Let's stop for a minute to appreciate the stunning beauty of this incredible oxymoron. Let it sink in. Yes, you've just managed to create a link between Methodism (a practice that claims to have come into existence less than 200 years ago, and has its roots in the reformation started by Martin Luther in the 1500's) and the practice of Orthodoxy (meaning traditionalist practices in religion). Orthodoxy can NOT be applied to methodists, I'm sorry.
(5). Illiteracy isn't just for southerners anymore. In fact, 3/4 of college students (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/21/1914209) lack functional literacy. When was the last time you got off your ass and read a work of great classic fiction, or an essay on something with more depth than the latest news?



Originally posted by Masamuneehs
When I was speaking of 'democratic values', i could see how people might reject that statement. My idea of what values our government stands for are not the same as anyone elses. A value, among other things, is worth in importance to the possessor of that value. It can also be a principle, standard, or quality that one considers desirable. I don't believe 'democratic values' under those definitions are STRICTLY declared in any law or document. Otherwise it would be against the law for me to disagree with you

What's right?
(1) well, we've got ground rules for what "values" are, and a general hand-wavey approach to what you mean by "democratic values".
What's wrong?
(1) You're not talking about democratic values. You mean to say "liberty" and "those who value liberty". Democracy is tyranny, as Ben said (quoted above).



Originally posted by el_boss
Isn't this how it is now? I mean the fact that it's the state elections that count and not the total votes of the entire population. I agree that America isn't really a democracy. Since there is basically only two parties to vote for and the "losing" side doesn't get represented.

No, no, that's the very ESSENCE of democracy. We've managed to avoid it for a long time, because popular opinion has been overwhelmingly popular opinion, in most cases (while it could be argued that in fact Bush's 2000 election was anti-democratic because he lost the popular vote, but the electoral college is set up as an attempt to balance representation based on population with the voice of the minority). But I digress ... the US was never meant to be a democracy, it was meant to be a federalist republic. We've lost the meaning of both that federalism and that idea of a republic of late, though -- federalism because our national government has gained too much power and exerts too much influence over what should ultimately remain state affairs, and the republic because of the raw perversion of what "republican" has come to mean.



Originally posted by: milfhunter
I don't think so either. I'd go further by stating the obvious that a pure Republic never existed in USA.

In fact, the US is an exercise in hybridity. We're a democratic republic, practising socialistic capitalism (ie: capitalism with a welfare system), and US public opinion has historically been socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And none of this is in conflict, per se. The conflicts between the "left" and the "right" are largely artificial, created as tools to manipulate public opinion for one side's interests or another.



Originally posted by: God#2
Dam, You beat me to it. Oh well. Anyway, democracy is never good nowadays because everybody is just so dumb. And Republics dont work either, I mean look at our country! (U.S.A)
What? People now are as smart as they've ever been. Smarter, even. Less self-reliant, lazier, and more easily manipulated. But still smarter, in a certain sense. And the US is either both or neither democratic and/nor republican.



Originally posted by el_boss
I think everyone knows that there are more parties than reblicans and democrats in america. But the fact remains that these two parties get like 99% of the votes or something like that.
This is a direct result of cognitive laziness. You find a party you like. You check their box. Simple.



Originally posted by mage
Aborting all the black babies in the country would lower crime rates. Bill Bennet said so.
There's always someone to demonize. Kill all the blacks off, and next thing you know, it'll be those damned hispanics. Kill them off, and it'll be the asians. Kill them off, it'll be the irish. Kill them, italians. Then germans. Then ... whatever.



Originally posted by Ero-fan
And that any system where you elect representatives is a republic, since a true democracy (where everyone votes on every issue) is just about impossible in today's world.
Actually, with the advent of ubiquitous connecting technology, a direct democracy is more of a realistic possibility than it's ever been (and the results of it are predictable. See also: TRL). But what we have isn't necessarily a "republic" per se, it's a hybrid between a republic and a representative democracy. A republic doesn't necessarily have to follow the whims of popular opinion, so long as it recognizes that power ultimately comes from the people.



Anyway, it doesn't matter too much if the supreme court decides to overturn roe vs. wade. If they do, and you read the law, then each individual state sets their own abortion laws. Even though that seems stupid, it could happen.
In the case of state law, that's true. Theres no constitutional basis for a sane federal government to be concerning itself with reproductive issues, except to explicitly guarantee or deny them to the people as a whole. What's a but more worrisome is if congress decides that abortion should be illegal, and aims for a constitutional amendment to the effect. Not that that'd ever get ratified (one can hope).

Of course, even in the case of a national ban on abortion, there's an abortion-friendly neighbor to our north. Are they going to give every woman a pregnancy test at the border before letting her enter Canada? I doubt it.



Originally posted by KoKo37erm, if any kinds of people aborted that much, there would probably be lower crime rates because lower amounts of people.
Let's think of this for a second. The population is growing. Abortion is legal. Crime rates are dropping. While it follows that if the population were being aborted at a rate that would actually impact net population growth, there would be less crime, it would only reduce the actual number of crimes, not the per-capita crime rate necessarily.




Originally posted by God#2
Guess why black are in poverty and have to resort to crime, um i dont know, how about WHITE PPLZ?????
If you'd care to make a cogent argument in this direction, I'd suggest reading the book "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria" by Beverly Daniel Tatum. It puts forth a quite excellent operant definition of racism (as systematic advantage, as opposed to prejudice). Ultimately, however, blame for the prevalence of any race overrepresented in poverty can't be heaped exclusively on one group -- many black people have "made it" without the help of whites, and a big chunk of what dooms so many blacks to the same poverty-ridden lives their parents led is in fact indigenous to black adolescent culture (for instance, the rejection of education as a "white" value).


Originally posted by mage
There is no such thing as racism. They are in poverty and have to steal to survive because they are inferior.
You should also read that book I recommended to God#2 above.



Originally posted by The Heretic Azazel
Why are these blacks impoverished? i don't know, how about... getting off their lazy asses and forgoing welfare for a real job.
With no marketable skills and a self-defeating value system? I think &amp; not so much. Recommendation number three for the book above.



Originally posted by ChaosKiddo
the topic has nothing to do with blacks or whites or jobs!
Directly, no. Tangentially, yes. But ...



Originally posted by masamuneehsi think it goes without saying that basing any argument for/against abortion on racist or cultural grounds is a pretty poor argument.
Right on.

Getting back on topic, ImitationSanen says some interesting things:


Originally posted by ImitationSanenThe truth is, in the United States you are what you make yourself. If you choose to be a moron by joining a gang or doing drugs you do so on your own merit as a human being. On the same token, if you bust your ass in school, dont smoke crack, and go to work everyday you will be successful. All this independant of your race.

Yet another recommendation for Tatum's book. But to summarize the important part ... as someone living in a racist (and sexist, and ageist, and about a dozen other -ists) society, you get advantages for the things you conform to the socially accepted image of "good" in. A light skinned black woman has an easier time finding a nice apartment than a dark-skinned one, an attractive, able-bodied person has more luck finding a good job than an ugly, sickly one. Even if such factors have no logical bearing on the person's capacity to perform the job.

It's not a question of whether success is possible. It's a question of to what degree success is possible.



If they are supposedly for the equal treatment of everyone, why do they further programs which make a point of throwing our cultural differences in each others faces? and

I can honestly tell you, when I look at a person, I dont see their race, their sex, or religion. I see their merits, what you do is who you are, race is irrelevant.
In fact, this ties back to something I said about the top of this post, which is that popular opinion is socially liberal and fiscally conservative: Democrats dont see how to be fiscally conservative, Republicans dont see how to be socially liberal (and Bush doesnt see how to be either). Beyond that, Id say that those programs are essential. Being colorblind in a racist (in Tatums definition) society means in fact exploiting the fact that youre in the advantaged class. If you werent, you couldnt afford the luxury of pretending that everyone is on a level playing field.



I think we should once and for all just celebrate the unity of one people under one flag instead of constantly trying to throw our differences in each others faces. On the same token our race, gender or religion should never be used as an excuse as to why we fail, its an insult to everyone of that race or religion that did the right thing to succeed.

I partially agree. We need to celebrate our unity as a people, as Americans, as Humans. At the same time, we must fight to preserve the cultural distinctness that makes us all different. Americas great strength isnt uniformity, its heterogeneity. The fact that I am different than you, and you are different than my Latino neighbors or my Black friends or my Middle-eastern coworkers is a wonderful thing. If we were all the same, we wouldnt have this rich cultural diversity to explore. As I said before, America is an exercise in hybridity. And, in fact, even this community is an exercise in the same: everyone here is here because of our explorations of the entertainment of a different culture. Would anime be appealing if it were all Love Hina?



I am a white male raised with southern values, no one should be generalized by what color they are or where they are from. sweet vindication. You are, in fact, the majority. You can afford colorblindness. Ask your Black friends (you _do_ have a couple, right?) about it sometime, about what they think of the race situation in this country. I agree that prejudice needs to be done away with, but pretending that it isnt there isnt going to make it happen. Then, neither is prying at it like Farrakhan and his ilk, or in fact anyone pushing hate on either side. Understanding and awareness are the keys.

But what did that have to do with the topic? Oh, this:

As far as abortion, other than in cases of incest and danger to the mother, I believe it is a license to have unprotected sex, since kids believe there is little or no permanent damage done (I can just get an abortion). That was fine until 1979 when the AIDs virus came into play. Sex is a dangerous thing anymore. I can't say how i feel either way, accept messing with the natural order of things never seems to work right for us.

Indeed. That's the danger of abortion, and the big objectionable side: that people will use abortion as a contraceptive. I think that's a terrible thing. Regardless of HIV or other STDs, people need to learn personal responsibility. But how can you mandate that in a political climate like this, where the most corrupt, horrible people manage to both get and retain political office, mocking the very term "personal responsibility"?

In fact, in as marketing-laden a world as we live in, there are researchers questioning the impact of such things on our very capacity for free will and rational thought. Is personal responsibility a contradiction in an age where "God is in the TV"?

Such questions lie at the core of the abortion debate. Can we modulate our own behavior in the face of what amounts to brainwashing, equating every product with sexuality and ordering us to seek both? If not, then all hope for restricting the use of abortion as a birth control agent is just misguided.

[ImitationSanen]

"Ask your Black friends (you _do_ have a couple, right?) "

Just when I thought you could bring an intelligent opinion based on your interpretation of the facts of society, you throw in that bullshit comment.

Personal responsibility goes back to the last discussion. Its your responsbility not to make ignorant comments that are based not on fact (unless you happen to know me personally, which unless your floating out in the Persian Gulf at the moment I doubt you do). As a matter of fact most of the men in my unit are from miami and are cuban and hispanic, we also have a black fitness instructor that goes with our unit. Each of these men worked their way here, the beauty of the military is it is blind to color, and the system works well. We all know we are here because we earned it, not because of some oddball social program thats supposed to equal the playing field by discriminating against certain minorities and the majority.As soon as people stop making race and class inequality an excuse and start working through it, equality can be achieved. You ask any black, asian, arabic, european man on this ship or any of the ships next to it, they all got here because of their choices and actions. Its your responsibility to stop that stereotyping of southerners as racists, as it is my duty to not be racist despite the stereotype that all southerns are racist anyway so I might aswell be.

The beauty of a republic is we can have differences of opinion, I respect that, I fight for it, and I watch men die for it. Before you make a comment like the one above, carefully consider how much of an insult it could be to the person your directing it to.

Edit: This came to me a few minutes later
Oh and southerners are not the majority in the country, the population centers are in the North and the west. Secondly, almost half of the southern states are comprised of African Americans, most with the same values as I. I went to school with about an even mix of white and black kids, and you know? They were all just as color blind as I was. There was no "oh dont play with the black kids" crap. We were just kids and adults, picnicing, going to the movies. Thats not the exception either, thats more or less how it is in the south. Because of the events in the past, and the suffering on both sides. The blacks in slavery (Although the true blame lies in the Africans who sold the slaves to the whites when they sailed into Africa,) The whites in the 40 years of starvation after the north abolished slavery in the south, ruining their economy, with the major cities in ruins,but kept the slaves in the north. Lets debate again, just don't throw insults at people you don't know. That would be like me saying "I owned your granddad, then I hung him from a tree cause he smelled bad" If you were black and had family that were slaves 150 years ago that would enrage you correct? How do you think I feel when despite how i've lived my whole life I have to deal with people that automatically assume I am a racist genocidal maniac because I am from a certain portion of the map, without taking into account me as the individual?

[masamuneehs]

Imitation. You have some good points, and you also have some back-up for those points that very few of us have: experience.
Just keep in mind, there are lots of different experiences, lots of exceptions to the rules/beliefs one's experiences has taught.

However, once again this is turning into an argument about race. I understand that Complich8 sorta called you out with that comment, but its a topic for a whole different day, an entirely different place. And, I am not that much of a troublemaker as to make any thread with the word "Race/Racism" in it. I simply doubt the forum's ability to handle itself in such an arena.



Originally posted by: ImitationSanen
As far as abortion, other than in cases of incest and danger to the mother, I believe it is a license to have unprotected sex, since kids believe there is little or no permanent damage done (I can just get an abortion). That was fine until 1979 when the AIDs virus came into play. Sex is a dangerous thing anymore. I can't say how i feel either way, accept messing with the natural order of things never seems to work right for us.

Freedoms are not licenses to abuse freedoms. Some people will abuse them, others will not. However, you do have a point; If people realize there is a safety net below them, they will tend to play on the roof-tops more often. People who have sex irresponsibly, without protection, are probably stupid/reckless enough to do it in a world without abortion. And, as knowing someone who had an abortion at quite a young age, it really isn't just "I can always get an abortion." That girl damn near had that baby when she was 15. She won't ever forget it, and I doubt she'll ever take unprotected sex for granted again.

I would like to believe that even in a world without STDs, where abortion was allowed, people would not just go around recklessly fucking with no rubber. There have been several studies that show that there is damning psychological damage done to a majority of women who have an abortion. And while some men might shrug it off, "it didn't effect me", then they are those who abuse such freedoms and rights. When I'm about to have sex, even if i think, even if i know the girl is clean of STDs, I wear a condom because there is no way I would ever trade MY unborn child's life for a few extra minutes of raw-dog sex. Anyone who would make that trade is an abomination in my eyes.

[KitKat]

Well now, I come back after being away for a bit and there is all sorts of interesting discussion happening. I suppose I'll say a bit on this issue.



Originally posted by: Honoko
and if i think about it, i don't know a single pro-life individual out there who isn't the slightest bit religious.
Well, and rightly so. Although we've been discussing many of the peripheral issues, the core of this debate depends directly on the definition of what it means to be human. If you are of the opinion that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals, what difference is one more or one less? People in this debate have referred to children as pets and as parasites. This makes sense when one uses intelligence as the defining characteristic of what it means to be human. Coming from this view, there is no compelling reason to disallow abortion.

However, some people hold to a different worldview. Most religions list the defining characteristic of humanity not as our ability to use tools or create artwork or engage in philosophical discussion, but as a spiritual quality. In this view, people are unique and valued because they are not just physical creatures but spiritual creatures. Personally, I fall on this side of the fence. I believe that each person, no matter how they were conceived, is designed by God and becomes a human at the moment of conception, and therefore has unmeasurable value.

As long as these opposing worldviews exist, there will never be a resolution of the abortion debate. We live in a society where morals and ethics are ruled by popular opinion. Things which were viewed as unacceptable a few hundred years ago are now embraced and valued. Because we live in a democracy (or partial democracy as has been pointed out) issues like this will always be measured on a sliding scale which is dependant upon who can rally the most support for their side and shout with the loudest voice. Governments aren't so much concerned with 'what is right' as with 'what do our people want' or 'what is in our best self-interest so that we can keep governing'. Right and wrong become merely social constructs and are continually subject to change. But I digress. This is inching over into tangent land. I suspect that my post will be torn apart soon enough, so perhaps I shall leave it here.

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: complich8


Originally posted by Ero-fan
And that any system where you elect representatives is a republic, since a true democracy (where everyone votes on every issue) is just about impossible in today's world.
Actually, with the advent of ubiquitous connecting technology, a direct democracy is more of a realistic possibility than it's ever been (and the results of it are predictable. See also: TRL). But what we have isn't necessarily a "republic" per se, it's a hybrid between a republic and a representative democracy. A republic doesn't necessarily have to follow the whims of popular opinion, so long as it recognizes that power ultimately comes from the people.


Definitions of a republic:

form of government based on a constitution, in which decisions are made by elected or appointed officials in a democratic manner.
also
A form of government where ultimate political power is theoretically vested in the people but in which popular control is exercised only intermittently and indirectly through the popular election of government officials or delegates to a legislative assembly instead of directly through the people.

Which is exactly what we have. A representative democracy is a republic, just a fun way of saying it. And we would never be able to vote every single day on every single decision that congress ever makes. Unless you can make sure everyone would have a chance to vote, which you couldn't. Would you vote every day on town, county, state, and federal issues? It'd be a logistical nightmare.

Anyways, back on topic: It seems that justice that is being drilled to see if he will be appointed to the supreme court (I forget his name) is really being drilled to find out his stance on abortion. Anyone have any thoughts on what will happen to roe v wade if he gets appointed?
Edit: Alito was his name, damnit!

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: God#2
Really? Which thread? Well, its not so much sex, but more the fact tat she could just abort a child everytime the lady gets pregnant which doesnt just seem right (Im gonna have to think up a good reason later).
Terra's one-night-stand thread.



And Im not against sex. I go in the Onepiece/Bleach Babes thread.i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif
Yiiiiiikes i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif

[complich8]

Originally posted by: ImitationSanen
Just when I thought you could bring an intelligent opinion based on your interpretation of the facts of society, you throw in that bullshit comment.
Point conceded, that was probably a bit far.



Its your responsbility not to make ignorant comments that are based not on fact (unless you happen to know me personally, which unless your floating out in the Persian Gulf at the moment I doubt you do).
Nah, it's not. It's just my responsibility to own up to it when I do. We all ultimately act within the realm of our own ignorance, sometimes it's a matter of boldly marching through like an asshole or allowing fears of being perceived as one paralyze us. I'm not a fan of paralysis.



As a matter of fact most of the men in my unit are from miami and are cuban and hispanic, we also have a black fitness instructor that goes with our unit. Each of these men worked their way here, the beauty of the military is it is blind to color, and the system works well. We all know we are here because we earned it, not because of some oddball social program thats supposed to equal the playing field by discriminating against certain minorities and the majority.As soon as people stop making race and class inequality an excuse and start working through it, equality can be achieved. You ask any black, asian, arabic, european man on this ship or any of the ships next to it, they all got here because of their choices and actions.
The military is an excellent example of people overcoming racism, finding common ground in other things (like military culture and shared experiences). You're right, there. Within military culture, you're inside of a microcosm in which race isn't permitted to exist. Not so on the outside.

I'll still hold you to the challenge to ask your shipmates about their opinions on race. I doubt, given the ability to be completely candid (which they probably don't have within the scope of military service), that they honestly feel that "colorblindness" outside of the welcoming arms of the armed forces.


Its your responsibility to stop that stereotyping of southerners as racists, as it is my duty to not be racist despite the stereotype that all southerns are racist anyway so I might aswell be.
This is something of a flex in the meaning of the term "racism" as I'm using it. Once again I'm falling back to Tatum's definition: racism is a system of advantage. What you're terming racism is more likely prejudice, and you're right, it's also something we need to be aware of and fight.




I went to school with about an even mix of white and black kids, and you know? They were all just as color blind as I was. There was no "oh dont play with the black kids" crap. We were just kids and adults, picnicing, going to the movies.
Exposure tends to make those differences dissolve. As does shared culture. Again, both the military and your experiences reflect that. But at the same time, consider the case of Atlanta. While poorer people share schools and neighborhoods and lives with no regard for race, the upper class segregates sharply, with wealthy blacks and wealthy whites living in their own, segregated neighborhoods.



The blacks in slavery (Although the true blame lies in the Africans who sold the slaves to the whites when they sailed into Africa,) The whites in the 40 years of starvation after the north abolished slavery in the south, ruining their economy, with the major cities in ruins,but kept the slaves in the north.
Yikes. What's wrong with this?
(1) I seem to remember it being the Dutch to introduce slavery to the new world. And coining the term "niggers" as well.
(2) Africa wasn't, and isn't, some homogeneous place. It's a continent, not a country. It wasn't "black people selling other black people into slavery". It was "Zulu selling Mandingos" or "Hutu selling Tutsi".
(3) The north didn't seem to have a whole lot of slavery at the end of the civil war, according to any account I've heard. Got a source on your assertion?
(4) it's not like all the black people just suddenly dried up when slavery was abolished. Many of them still needed jobs and food. And it's not like there was a shortage of arable land, nor was there a shortage of labor to till it. But yeah, in a war people die. Property is destroyed. Things are overturned. Don't forget who seceeded from whom before you start blaming the north for the 150-year-old problems of the south. More to the point, do you think it would have been better to leave the status quo? If you think that the outcome was ultimately negative, I'd suggest you consider it from the point of view of the ~3.5 million people who, at the time, were not legally people at all. Otherwise, maybe this is a case where the past should be left comfortably in the past.



Originally posted by: Ero-fan
Which is exactly what we have. A representative democracy is a republic, just a fun way of saying it. And we would never be able to vote every single day on every single decision that congress ever makes. Unless you can make sure everyone would have a chance to vote, which you couldn't. Would you vote every day on town, county, state, and federal issues? It'd be a logistical nightmare.

I'll concede the point about the republic, I was somewhat operating on a false dichotomy. They have more in common than not, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're interchangeable necessarily... that is, not all republics are democratic, and not all democracies need be republics.

As for direct democracies... As it is, many people don't vote (2004 saw 55% voter turnout, the highest it'd been since 1968). If everyone were given cell phones and the ability to text-message their vote to a handy number, say with voting issues texted out to everyone whenever they come up, with say a 48 hour window to get your vote in, automatic tabulation, etc ... it'd certainly be attainable. I don't think direct democracy is out of reach, given some sane planning and deployment (not that that's something the government is known for). But at the same time I think that such a direct democracy is generally a bad idea, because popular opinion are too easily manipulated.



Anyways, back on topic: It seems that justice that is being drilled to see if he will be appointed to the supreme court (I forget his name) is really being drilled to find out his stance on abortion. Anyone have any thoughts on what will happen to roe v wade if he gets appointed?
I don't think the balance will shift that far. Alito won't be the "middle seat" justice that O'Connor was. But I think his record is that of a judicial conservative, and I think that another of the justices will probably slide over on the spectrum. It seems to me like the supreme court values balance, and someone will subtly shift their opinion to maintain it, given a perceived shift in the center of gravity. I don't think that the court will be so far swayed that it'll enable it to "legislate from the bench" as they say.

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: complich8
As for direct democracies... As it is, many people don't vote (2004 saw 55% voter turnout, the highest it'd been since 1968). If everyone were given cell phones and the ability to text-message their vote to a handy number, say with voting issues texted out to everyone whenever they come up, with say a 48 hour window to get your vote in, automatic tabulation, etc ... it'd certainly be attainable. I don't think direct democracy is out of reach, given some sane planning and deployment (not that that's something the government is known for). But at the same time I think that such a direct democracy is generally a bad idea, because popular opinion are too easily manipulated.


I still say it would be a pain in the ass. 48 hours would be too long for town, county, and state decisions. I mean, if you look at all the decsions a state makes in 48 hours (contracts, zoning/land rights, tax laws, fundings, budgets, etc.) you'd have a text message that would take days to read. Just getting rid of the position of mayor of a small town would be almost impossible, considering that the decisions/bills/contracts they sign for the town would have to be voted on. Christ, in high school I was in charge of logistics one year for rotc, and that was a nightmare; I can't imagine what it would be like if all of my classmates (a couple of hundred) had to vote on each and every agreement I made to spend or make us money. Besides, would you want uninformed people voting on things like whether to allow this or that piece of land to be zoned for residential, or commercial property? God, even thinking about what the mayor and town council in my little area do would be more than people can handle.
Well, hopefully he doesn't swing it enough to overturn roe v wade, but if he does, like I said before, it'll be left to the states. God help the women in the south.

[darkmetal505]

its amazing how this thread is proving David Brin's hypothesis from "The Dogma of Otherness".

Everyone does, says, eats, etc. what they want. To bad its not a perfect world.

[ImitationSanen]

Originally posted by: complich8
[quote]
Originally posted by: ImitationSanen
Just when I thought you could bring an intelligent opinion based on your interpretation of the facts of society, you throw in that bullshit comment.
Originally posted by: complich8 -Point conceded, that was probably a bit far.

Thanks,
Many a conflict could have been resolved if one side could understand the others feelings.

Im done talking about all of this since it is off topic and I apologize for the deviation. I guess I felt the same way Complich8 talks about here..

"Nah, it's not. It's just my responsibility to own up to it when I do. We all ultimately act within the realm of our own ignorance, sometimes it's a matter of boldly marching through like an asshole or allowing fears of being perceived as one paralyze us. I'm not a fan of paralysis"'

I guess thats how I felt when I saw the past posts, and thought damn the rules I have something I have to say.

You know as far as the rest, your right, the military is an interesting microcosm, and is not an absolute comparative to the real world, Its more like an indication that its possible that humanity will eventually be able to look past racism, defined as discrimination and as a social advantage.


As far as my comment of the African Slave traders, I will do proper research and if a post that has this sort of topic arrises I will be glad to offer my interpretation of the evidence.

"I don't think that the court will be so far swayed that it'll enable it to "legislate from the bench" as they say. "

Even though the current crop of judges would be in favor of my beliefs if they were able to, I hope at no point will the supreme court be allowed to legislate from the bench. Thats why we pay Legislators so much damn money

[el_boss]

I was discussing abortion with my sisters fiancé, who is a doctor. He brought up an interesting point that is very obvious, but I at least have never thought of it. Have you though about how the people doing the abortion feel? I bet not so good. I mean their job is to kill featuses. The same goes for euthanasia. It seems that people forget alot of the time, that there is actually a person that will have to do the deed.

This is not an argument for or agains abortion. I just though it was an intersteng view on the subject.

[Zinobi]

So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........

[Terracosmo]

Originally posted by: el_boss
I was discussing abortion with my sisters fiancé, who is a doctor. He brought up an interesting point that is very obvious, but I at least have never thought of it. Have you though about how the people doing the abortion feel? I bet not so good. I mean their job is to kill featuses. The same goes for euthanasia. It seems that people forget alot of the time, that there is actually a person that will have to do the deed.

This is not an argument for or agains abortion. I just though it was an intersteng view on the subject.

I think that the people who work with it rather works for the people and not for the things they have to do. I.e, euthanasia might seems like a horrible act to perform, but if the person in question really wants to die - then it's a good thing. Same with abortion. Not a beautiful act, but it's for a greater good.

At least that's how I would see it.

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........



KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.

[darkmetal505]

Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........



KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.

common sense and intelligence are two different things

[Zinobi]

Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........



KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.


i would but she's just too good of a friend i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: darkmetal505


Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........



KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.

common sense and intelligence are two different things


Yes, but if you are intelligent, you wont be manipulated.

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: darkmetal505


Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........



KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.

common sense and intelligence are two different things


Yes, but if you are intelligent, you wont be manipulated.

Ha! The most gullable people I ever met were the "good students" at school. All book smarts, no common sense, you could lead them around by the nose. You need both in order to not be manipulated.

[Carnage]

hhhmmmmmm......your right. But then in conclusion, the general population is not very smart, because you can also manipulate the the pplz who arent bookworms, but are even dumber. They may have common sense, but no intelligence.

[Carnage]

hhhmmmmmm......your right. But then in conclusion, the general population is not very smart, because you can also manipulate the the pplz who arent bookworms, but are even dumber. They may have common sense, but no intelligence.

Edit: WTF? double post, how did that happen? Oh well, srry pplz.

[Uchiha Barles]

Originally posted by: darkmetal505


Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........



KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.

common sense and intelligence are two different things

Nah, part of the reason that as a whole people are more easily manipulated nowadays is that information travels faster through the media we use, like television and the internet. The media is important because it is the primary vehicle used to carry messages used to inform/misinform, and manipulate. I think. There was a time when people had to had to send messengers on horsebacks to deliver letters and pamphlets. Another reason that people are more easily swayed and gullible nowadays is that, at least in this country, we are able to live comfortable lives without knowing very much of the wide range of issues on which those who govern us base their decisions. Consequently, people choose to remain willfully ignorant of those issues and just go about their lives, trying to put food on their tables, amassing a fortune, or whatever. If you were to consider the US as a whole, I think that, at best, people are adequately informed only on those issues which they care about the most, which for most people is a very narrow spectrum of issues. So when it comes time for them to make a decision on most things, they cannot make informed decisions on most issues without hours of research. Think they'll do the research? Furthurmore, this ignorance of the issues allows whoever is knowledgeable to create seemingly credible "half-truths" and all out lies that most people would be hardpressed to identify as such. I think that about covers it, in a nutshell.

Edit: By the way, its already been mentioned, but I think this topic, not being part of the abortion discussion, but worthy of conversation nonetheless, should get its own topic. If possible, could a mod maybe start a new thread for it and move the relevant posts to the new thread? Some posts contain large amounts of discussion on both abortion and racism and goverment. Those posts should remain in this thread, but also be present in the new one. It should take about 10 minutes of efforts, but I think its worth it. These posts have been unsually insightful and the topic is important. That way, if I want to continue a discussion on racism in the future, I don't have counterintuitively search for the keyword "abortion" to find the proper thread to do so.

It's a good thought. Unfortunately, mods don't have the ability to move individual posts. The best you could do is start a new topic and copy and paste the posts you wanted transferred.

GotWoot Moderator

Edit: *Nods* I'll definately do it when I'm not so tired and don't have such a hectic day ahead of me, so...later tonight in all likelihood I'll have it done.

[masamuneehs]

i offer no responsibilities or changes for the ruckus that has become this forum.

on topic:

Alito's confirmation is drawing ever closer in the Senate
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182725,00.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/...060125-0935-alito.html (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060125-0935-alito.html)
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2032.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5/AR2006012501165.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012501165.html)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4648014.stm

[The1LittleMchale]

I'm mostly only against abortions for two reasons. The first being that they would not be necessary if people would learn to use contraceptives better, for example if guys always used condoms and girls always use the patch or some other method of contraception. The second reason is that most abortion techniques are fucked up, causing physical harm to the woman and literally tearing an unborn baby apart is just fucked up. If we had a safer way to abort babies I wouldn't have quite as much of a problem with it. If these views make me pro-life or pro-choice, then so be it. This is just my take on the subject.

Edit: I chose Pro-life when the mother's life is in danger... because I guess thats the closest to my viewpoint
And I meant to choose that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, because at that point the fertilized egg has it's own set of DNA that is undeniably human... unfortunately I had a wierd day today and my vision is blurred so I accidentally clicked when the child is born... my bad

[Aramis]

it's not like people will use aborts as a means of contraception. it's literally a pain in the ass to do and also expensive.
people have their reasons, but it's not like they'll fuck around freely even if they can rely on getting an abortion.

a set of DNA is a human being? hmm.
my own opinion that i'm unable to back up with scientific facts if that a human lifes begin when they start doing things other than those they are programmed to do in order to survive their period of sub-consciousness.
you can always make new babies that cry, sleep and suck on boobs but grown-ups are unique.

[dantheman62]

i'm new to this thread. But let me just say that people should know what they're going into. However the government, nor the slightest hand short of god can tell a woman what to do with her body, and that much i know for sure.

[Assassin]

Originally posted by: Aramis
you can always make new babies that cry, sleep and suck on boobs but grown-ups are unique.

tahts an intresting statement. However i think its the other way around. Think about the life of an adult compared to the life of a baby. the traits u mentioned are all biological necessities and all adults need to sleep, eat, relieve themselves, etc. But consider ther rest of an adults life: wake up, go to work, come home. admittedly there are more things in the middle, but thats the basic outline of an adult life.

A childs life is quite different. They have 24 hours of that free time in which us adults define ourselves. between wakign up and going to sleep, there is absolutely no order in a childs life.

[Carnage]

I hate everyone.

[masamuneehs]

Originally posted by: God#2
I hate everyone.

somehow i doubt you're one of Gotwoot's favorites either.... and, don't muck up this thread with your useless one-line bitching. Hell, we have an entire thread made just for that purpose.

on topic:
Appeals court upholds finding that Partial-birth Abortion Ban is Unconstitutional (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--abortionlawsuits0131jan31,0,1068346.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork)

other coverage on same story:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060131-1327-wst-abortionlawsuits.html
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/01/31/ap2489659.html

ABC says that two appeals courts say that the ban is unconstitutional
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1562196

[Carnage]

Well, I wasn't really serious, sooooooooooo............I should have added a smiley!i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

Anyway, I guess its going to be illegal for a while. I actually value a child's life more. Children often seem more innocent (except for those few annoying bitches who you just want to #@(#*#$&ampi/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif(#@*(&amp;%Y*)@!). Adults on the other hand can be very scawy.i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif

[ImitationSanen]

Unconstitutional or not, if they start killing half born babies again, people are going to start bombing abortion clinics again, and I'm not sure i'm going to help stop them this time....


Edit: *sigh* of course Ill stop them, its my job. The thought that people are irresponsible enough to need abortions at the rate we have them in this country is sad enough. They should start making sterilization mandatory with the 2nd needless (As in not product of rape,incest, or danger to mothers life). That way we can solve this abortion problem right now.

Because god forbid we take away americas right to murder children. I mean come on, for 3000 years this would have been considered barbaric to people who eat raw flesh, yet now we feel all nice about it because we have enough arrogance to justify our right to decide who lives or dies. There needs to be some kind of mandatory birth control pill given to all men and women and the antidote will only be given to them when they have the financial and mental means to take care of kids. I am so tired of supporting half the ghetto with my tax dollars while they pop out 15 children to get more welfare checks, while I pay to feed the children to. That isnt fair to me, I could be a lazy ass and collect welfare too, but I dont.. everyone has a choice. (Except the poor mentally and physically disabled, and I feel for them and wish the money going to the drug dealers and crack whores would go to those who actually deserve it). I am so tired of having to buy ground beef while the guy with the foodstamp card buys big cuts of meat and drives an escalade, while my taxes feed his worthless drug dealing ass.

[Honoko]

Throwing in a smoldering coal here. You guys can argue against it if you wish. These are statements based on what the Catholic Catechism teaches.

3 Basic Arguments Against Abortion:
1. The fundamental purpose of law is to protect human rights; the first and foundational right is the right to life.
2. All human beings have the right to life.
3. Already-conceived but not-yet-born children of human beings are human beings.

So basically, any pro-choice person would disagree with one or more of the premises above in some way. Consequently, if you agree with all three premises above, you are most likely pro-life.

Extending this idea-- then there are basically 3 types of pro-choicer's. Some of you might be hating on these "generalizations" already but from what I've been reading in this thread, most of the pro-choicers here really do fall in one or more of these categories.

1. Some people will admit that all persons have a right to life and that unborn kids are persons BUT deny that this right should be protected by law. The Catholic Church argues that this is a serious legal error and it undermines the idea of equality by denying certain individuals the right to life. This right should be guaranteed to everyone, including the unborn.

2. Other people might admit the law should protect the right to life and that unborn kids are humans BUT claim that not all human beings deserve the right to life. Personally, this is a tad appalling to me because now you have "people like us" determining who should live and who should die. Should we be really killing off those whom society today deems "useless"? Once we start accepting this idea, I feel like we begin to lose our humanity. And by "humanity" I mean our conscience, our compassion, etc.

3. And finally, there are people who might admit that the law should protect the right to life and that all humans have this right BUT deny that unborn children are human beings. Did you know that before Roe v. Wade all science textbooks taught the biological concept that life of any individual of any species begins at conception when sperm and ovum unite to create a new being with its own complete and unique DNA code? So all growth and development thereafter was just an unfolding of what was already "there". This concept stopped being taught not b/c of any new science proving otherwise but b/c of politics. How's that for general public manipulation?

Besides the fact that I am pro-life, I felt like there were very few pro-life arguments for it here in the thread and just offered some (hopefully) solid views for once. I think I did a pretty good job avoiding most of the theological grounds (granted, these arguments are what the Catholic Church adheres to) but other than that, pick it apart and/or respond if you wish. I'll try to respond when I can. School and anime have been taking up most of my time lately i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: Honoko
School and anime have been taking up most of my time lately

And thats the way it should be!

I think of a person as someone who actually has an intellect. I don't think embrios and unborn children really have minds of their own really, that can think like a born child can. But who am I to say, you never know.

[darkmetal505]

Originally posted by: dantheman62
i'm new to this thread. But let me just say that people should know what they're going into. However the government, nor the slightest hand short of god can tell a woman what to do with her body, and that much i know for sure.

well to them, its about saving the baby, not about the woman.

[KitKat]

Originally posted by: ImitationSanen
Edit: *sigh* of course Ill stop them, its my job. The thought that people are irresponsible enough to need abortions at the rate we have them in this country is sad enough. They should start making sterilization mandatory with the 2nd needless (As in not product of rape,incest, or danger to mothers life). That way we can solve this abortion problem right now.
It's always bothered me that you have to go through testing and demonstrate competence to obtain a drivers license, but all you have to do is have unprotected sex to bring another human being into the world. It's frightening. Raising a child is a huge responsibility, and conceiving a child should be something that is given serious consideration. I think part of this can be attributed to the attitude of our society. It's the attitude that says, "I should be able to do whatever I want" which leads people to conveniently forget about the consequences of their actions, and people use it as an excuse for irresponsibility and ignorance.

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: ImitationSanen
There needs to be some kind of mandatory birth control pill given to all men and women and the antidote will only be given to them when they have the financial and mental means to take care of kids. I am so tired of supporting half the ghetto with my tax dollars while they pop out 15 children to get more welfare checks, while I pay to feed the children to. That isnt fair to me, I could be a lazy ass and collect welfare too, but I dont.. everyone has a choice. (Except the poor mentally and physically disabled, and I feel for them and wish the money going to the drug dealers and crack whores would go to those who actually deserve it). I am so tired of having to buy ground beef while the guy with the foodstamp card buys big cuts of meat and drives an escalade, while my taxes feed his worthless drug dealing ass.
Oh my God I'd agree completely with all of that if not for one thing. Who then decides who's "right" it is to have children? I'd be in favor of a system such as that if it were not so selective. Perhaps secretly administering these sterility pills to low-income families who already have about 2 or 3 children, or to anyone who is not a legal adult (that'd stop a lot of dumbass teens).

Of course I'm not totally serious about that, but I am in favor of some way of stopping all these unwanted births without actually killing the fetus. I'm ideally pro-life, but I realize that some situations might call for it to not be illegal to have an abortion.

[KitKat]

This is sounding like Brave New World. i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: KitKat


Originally posted by: ImitationSanen
Edit: *sigh* of course Ill stop them, its my job. The thought that people are irresponsible enough to need abortions at the rate we have them in this country is sad enough. They should start making sterilization mandatory with the 2nd needless (As in not product of rape,incest, or danger to mothers life). That way we can solve this abortion problem right now.
It's always bothered me that you have to go through testing and demonstrate competence to obtain a drivers license, but all you have to do is have unprotected sex to bring another human being into the world. It's frightening. Raising a child is a huge responsibility, and conceiving a child should be something that is given serious consideration. I think part of this can be attributed to the attitude of our society. It's the attitude that says, "I should be able to do whatever I want" which leads people to conveniently forget about the consequences of their actions, and people use it as an excuse for irresponsibility and ignorance.

I completly agree with you. Raising a child is the biggest responsibility in the world. If you brought the person into this world, you should whatever necessary to make sure that child ends up with a happy life instead of a poor(I literally mean "poor"), miserable life. If you cant afford to have a child, then just have protected sex. Dont risk the chance of becoming pregnant.

[Darknodin]

Originally posted by: The1LittleMchale
because at that point the fertilized egg has it's own set of DNA that is undeniably human... unfortunately I had a wierd day today and my vision is blurred so I accidentally clicked when the child is born... my bad

Man... You know that each cell that you have (with a few exceptions) have a full set of DNA. are they all human? is cutting your finger murder then?
Also, people with Down syndrome have MORE than a full set of chromosomes. and there are people with less than a full set (missing one or two). are they not human?

personally, i don't think it is necessary to define human to think about abortion. why? because its so blurred, its ridiculous. a spermatozoid and egg combo can potentially give rise to a human (actually, they might be able to do so each on their own...). a blastocyst has several cells and if cared for, will give rise to a human. so, getting rid of any of those, you are getting rid of a potential human.
Saying this, I am Pro-choice since I believe that the women must be able to choose whether or not they want the child since they will have to care for it. this is important, as an uncared child has more chances of being a boulder for society.
therefore, my bottom line is, humans exist as a society, and to not have this society father people in misery, abortion is necessary. for now.

[complich8]

Originally posted by: Honoko
Throwing in a smoldering coal here. You guys can argue against it if you wish. These are statements based on what the Catholic Catechism teaches.

3 Basic Arguments Against Abortion:
technically, this is one argument consisting of three premises and a conclusion. But that's just hair-splitting, and there's better things to object to, and I'm in a "devil's advocate" mood again today. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif



1. The fundamental purpose of law is to protect human rights; the first and foundational right is the right to life.

I disagree. The fundamental purpose of law is to protect human social structures. Human rights are an afterthought. There are not many laws that permit things, but a LOT of laws that restrict them.

Think about it ... there are about 30 laws involved in the concept of driving that restrict what you can do. You can't drive at all until you have a license. Even with a license (that is, explicit permission from the state to do something you otherwise couldn't do) , you can't drive in an impaired state, you can't drive faster than the posted speed limit, you can't disrupt traffic flow (ie: driving below posted minimum speeds on the highway), you can't drive without insurance, you can't drive at night with nonfunctioning lights, you can't pass other cars under certain conditions ... it goes on and on. None of these things defines something you explicitly CAN do. This defines a set of allowed behaviors by taking a default-open set and masking off the parts of it that are forbidden.

Speed limit laws are the best example of my point though. Just because a street is "rated" for 30, or 35, or 55, doesn't mean that street's not perfectly safe for everyone involved at 55, or 60, or 80. Why preserve these artificial and often meaningless restrictions?

Moreover, human laws have ALWAYS restricted freedoms. Even biblical laws, dating back as far as Eden, are formulated this way. "Do not eat the fruit of that tree". You can do anything else, but there's this one freedom which you don't have. Similarly, the Ten Commandments are all "Do Not" (or "Thou shalt not" or whatever, depending on your translation -- even the fifth, the only affirmative commandment, is easy to restate as a prohibition to dishonor rather than a prescription to honor). Were I a Jew in 2000 BC, I wouldn't have the "right" to worship idols (another word for picking a different religion), because such a thing is denied to me by the law. As an agnostic in 2006 AD, I don't have the "right" to drive an appropriate speed on the interstate at 3 in the morning, because such a thing is denied to me.

Affirmative laws are very few and far between, and are usually the result of overturning restrictions deemed unjust by modern society. Such, in fact, is the legal precedent determined by Roe vs. Wade -- overturning a law that society's advocates found to be unjust. The bill of rights is another such example -- the people violently rising up against one oppressor's perceived injustices felt it necessary to affirm a basic set of rights as fundamental -- something the Magna Carta was also supposed to do, to some extent. However, these tentpoles of affirmation only guarantee a bare minimum set of liberties, which nearly every other law serves to restrict.



2. All human beings have the right to life.

Legally, this isn't the case. Many, many people support the death penalty. If the right to life is fundamental, how can the state selectively deny it based on an arbitrary set of conditions? How can even imprisonment (which is fundamentally a denial of the right to life for a set period of time) be justified without discarding this?



3. Already-conceived but not-yet-born children of human beings are human beings.
If I take some human DNA, and use it to clone an ear, it's pretty obvious that the ear isn't a human being, it's an ear. If I take some DNA from two sources and artificially combine it in such a way as to accomplish this (for instance, inserting a gene from one person into cells from another, and growing a culture from the result), this is also not a human being.

A human being (qua "person") is more than a couple dozen strands of tightly coiled DNA. And as far as I know, catholics still support dualism (that is, the idea that human beings are made up of both a body and a soul, and that the soul is an entity independent of the body, via Descartes and others). The test is, when does a soul get "created" or just "bound" to a set of DNA? There's a whole large set of implications to consider, that depend on when you believe that that clump of DNA gets a soul.



1. Some people will admit that all persons have a right to life and that unborn kids are persons BUT deny that this right should be protected by law. The Catholic Church argues that this is a serious legal error and it undermines the idea of equality by denying certain individuals the right to life. This right should be guaranteed to everyone, including the unborn.

Again, if you accept the universal right to life, then any criminal corrections systems are inherently unjust. This premise HAS to be discarded (or at least severely damaged) to rationalize the mere existence of such formal norm enforcement mechanisms.



2. Other people might admit the law should protect the right to life and that unborn kids are humans BUT claim that not all human beings deserve the right to life. Personally, this is a tad appalling to me because now you have "people like us" determining who should live and who should die. Should we be really killing off those whom society today deems "useless"? Once we start accepting this idea, I feel like we begin to lose our humanity. And by "humanity" I mean our conscience, our compassion, etc.

Harping more on the correctional system, I'd be interested to know what you think about that subject. Again, criminal justice is inherently inhumane, unconscionable, and utterly devoid of compassion. It has to be, to do the things it does.

It seems that a lot of pro-life people also support capital punishment. There's a certain element of hypocrisy to that... make SURE they come INTO the world, so that we can choose when to take them back out of it.



3. And finally, there are people who might admit that the law should protect the right to life and that all humans have this right BUT deny that unborn children are human beings. Did you know that before Roe v. Wade all science textbooks taught the biological concept that life of any individual of any species begins at conception when sperm and ovum unite to create a new being with its own complete and unique DNA code? So all growth and development thereafter was just an unfolding of what was already "there". This concept stopped being taught not b/c of any new science proving otherwise but b/c of politics. How's that for general public manipulation?

This depends entirely on your definition of "human being". For example, there was a person born a few years ago with a cyst that had developed on the end of her brain stem, which prevented the development of any brain function beyond an autonomic nerve system. I don't know that I would consider such a person human, as they are incapable of what I consider to be the fundamental essences of humanity (thought, emotion, and will). While doubtless they belonged to the species human, such a person fundamentally lacks humanity. I don't think that I could defend such a creature's fundamental right to life. Further, if such a person attains a soul at conception, the duration of their existence isn't going to affect, nor be affected by the presence of such a soul. Why, then, should such a person continue to exist?



Besides the fact that I am pro-life, I felt like there were very few pro-life arguments for it here in the thread and just offered some (hopefully) solid views for once. I think I did a pretty good job avoiding most of the theological grounds (granted, these arguments are what the Catholic Church adheres to) but other than that, pick it apart and/or respond if you wish. I'll try to respond when I can. School and anime have been taking up most of my time lately

So, I can find objections to all three premises, and various combinations of them i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif. I look forward to your responses.

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: complich8
I disagree. The fundamental purpose of law is to protect human social structures. Human rights are an afterthought. There are not many laws that permit things, but a LOT of laws that restrict them.

I was under the impression that people had certain things restricted in order to protect the rights of others. In that sense, the purpose of law is to protect human rights, as the restrictive laws are in place only to prevent infringement on the rights of other citizens.


Again, if you accept the universal right to life, then any criminal corrections systems are inherently unjust. This premise HAS to be discarded (or at least severely damaged) to rationalize the mere existence of such formal norm enforcement mechanisms.
How is it that any form of a criminal correction system violates the right to life? Perhaps I misunderstood, but I assume this is what you were saying. Aren't many systems that deal with criminal correction there to preserve the individual's right to life, and at the same time, to keep other citizens safe or to "reform" the criminal so that he or she can become a better member of society? I realize that this might not always be the case, but the ideal (for those not supporting the death penalty, at least) is to protect the rights of everyone - including the criminal.

[complich8]

You make a good point ... from the perspective of society itself. "Protecting the rights of the criminal" sounds nice, doesn't it? But in fact, you're still denying him the right to both the core belief that he differed from society on enough to get thrown in jail (maybe he doesn't agree with the idea of private property, and so believes that stealing is not wrong), and the right to free will (because prisoners pretty much don't have that, they're subject exclusively to the will of the people in charge of them).

I'll argue that will is the essence of humanity. Without it, a man is nothing but an animal. Further, imposing social norms is a denial of that will. Patrick Henry said pretty dramatically, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!". The founding premises of this country basically put freedom as a higher value than life itself.

So, if you view society's impositions as the denial of liberty, and imprisonment as the chains of slavery to society's values, then can you not find that for a criminal convicted of holding ideals incongruent with society's, being forced into the choice of either dying in prison or being bound to society's will is fundamentally a denial of the essence of life?

This is all a matter of perspective. From soceity's view, it's humane to try to drag people kicking and screaming back into the arms of society, for their own good. From the perspective of the person being dragged, it's a horrible thing, maybe even a fate worse than death, being forced to conform, forced to serve values you don't believe in.

[Darknodin]

Originally posted by: complich8


I'll argue that will is the essence of humanity. Without it, a man is nothing but an animal.

what do you mean by "will"? if you mean the ability to decide for yourself what you want. Many animals have that. defining humans against animals objectively is impossible for us. Personally, I go with "everything that looks sufficiently like X person is a human" (this is completely subjective but it works).

now back to the will thing. if you think that the apparition of will defines the person, well even after birth, then the baby would be in a grey zone. What I mean by that is that whereas the baby can decide and communicate that it wants food or wants quiet or whatever, this is completelely impulse driven. Whereas an adult can decide not to eat something even if he is hungry (like fasting or skipping a meal because you are studying or are thinking of eating something better at a later point in time) a baby can't do that. also, a baby will not joke. it can lie, but it will do so for a reason, to get something, not for a joke.

this is why I think the debate of whether fertilized eggs are human or not is futile in a way.

[complich8]

The problem with the "everything that looks sufficiently like" idea is twofold: first, people can fall outside the bounds of "sufficiently like". People with deformities, or people who have hereditary traits that fall outside the bounds (such as the family in mexico that has a body hair condition that basically covers them all with thicker hair than any other humans have). Further, an embryo doesn't look much like a human, does it?

Will isn't just saying "I want". Will is essentially the ability to implement physical things using conscious mental processes. A good example of this would be if I decide to build a shed. I consciously decide this, I deliberately plan it (where it's going to be, how big it's going to be), and I use my deliberate, conscious plan to somehow bring about a physical object corresponding to it (in other words, I build a shed).

This conscious process of implementing ideas in the physical world is will, and is something that things that aren't human don't possess as far as we know (ie: animals can build things, but don't consciously plan them -- that is, mere instinct is not will).

You're correct though, in that will may not be a very good criterion for evaluating humanity in the context of abortion, because of another question: Do infants have will? Or is it something that's developed over time?

[Darknodin]

Originally posted by: complich8
The problem with the "everything that looks sufficiently like" idea is twofold: first, people can fall outside the bounds of "sufficiently like". People with deformities, or people who have hereditary traits that fall outside the bounds (such as the family in mexico that has a body hair condition that basically covers them all with thicker hair than any other humans have). Further, an embryo doesn't look much like a human, does it?


Looking suffiently like is completely subjective. If I see something and I feel it is human, then it is... this is my criterion.




Will isn't just saying "I want". Will is essentially the ability to implement physical things using conscious mental processes. A good example of this would be if I decide to build a shed. I consciously decide this, I deliberately plan it (where it's going to be, how big it's going to be), and I use my deliberate, conscious plan to somehow bring about a physical object corresponding to it (in other words, I build a shed).

This conscious process of implementing ideas in the physical world is will, and is something that things that aren't human don't possess as far as we know (ie: animals can build things, but don't consciously plan them -- that is, mere instinct is not will).


not true...animals can plan. Chimps do build tools, and there is this one gorilla that was chatting on the internet (which requires to think of something, and then find the way to express it, and go through that)




You're correct though, in that will may not be a very good criterion for evaluating humanity in the context of abortion, because of another question: Do infants have will? Or is it something that's developed over time?

Yea, and I am certain that everyone here believes that a 2 months old (born) baby IS human

[KitKat]

Originally posted by: Darknodin
not true...animals can plan. Chimps do build tools, and there is this one gorilla that was chatting on the internet (which requires to think of something, and then find the way to express it, and go through that)

Can you provide a reference for this please? I'd like to see the study.

[Darknodin]

Doing a VERY quick search on google

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/apes/chimp/
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/constr.html

and this is the gorilla : http://www.koko.org/

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: Darknodin
and this is the gorilla : http://www.koko.org/
I'm glad you referenced that. Now I can make fun of her "chat" without making a topic for it...

Here is part of the transcript from the attempted chat. Koko uses sign language and Penny is her trainer:


PENNY: Hey, Cutie.
Penny swivels Koko's chair around so they face each other.
PENNY: Let me explain what we're doing.
KOKO: Fine.
PENNY: We're going to be on the phone with a lot of people who are going to ask us questions...
KOKO: Nipple. (Koko sometimes uses 'nipple' as a 'sounds like' for 'people.')
PENNY: ...about you and about me. . . Lots of people.
KOKO: That red pink. (Indicating Penny's shirt.)
PENNY: That red pink. Yes, right!
PENNY: OK. That's the kind of things they are going to ask.
KOKO: Good.
PENNY: Questions about colors or how you're feeling. OK?
KOKO: That red. (Indicating her own hair.)
PENNY: Honey, this is black.
KOKO: XXX XXX. (XXX looks like 'sun'.)

The entire transcript is as laughable as that segment. It becomes pretty obvious that Koko isn't capable of expressing anything other than instinctive desires. Either that, or something completely random, like "Koko-love eat ... sip." Any remotely complex ideas that Koko seems to communicate seem to be just inferred on the part of her trainer.
Edit: The whole transcript of the chat can be found here (http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html). It has nothing to do with this topic, but read it anyway. It's comedy gold.

[KitKat]

Academic papers or well-known institutions with publications are generally best to use when referencing something. Don't trust the information you find on the internet unless it comes from a reliable source.

As for the transcript and the information about Koko, I'm sure that's quite reliable. Thanks for the reference! However, I agree with Xan that Koko doesn't display any traits of what I would characterize as human language. It seems that her human trainer is doing quite a bit of interpreting of ambiguous replies. Don't get me wrong, animals communicate (in fact, I talk to my cats all the time, and they talk to me and I pretend I know what they're saying) but human communication has a number of unique characteristics. I'm gonna do this off the top of my head, so I apologize if this post is rough.

First, our language is infinite. New words enter our lexicon on a daily basis. We are constantly naming new things and processes, and changing the meanings of our words. Theoretically, we also have the ability to create an infinite sentence. Something like "The cat that belonged to my brother who was sitting in the living room that was decorated with a white carpet that we bought in Hawaii where ...." Basically, because there are infinite possibilities for the sentences you could make, you could speak for your whole life and never say the same sentence twice. Secondly, human language displays an internal structure, what we refer to as grammar. If any of you have read any of Chomsky's writings, he's done quite a bit of research on this and he has a theory of 'Universal Grammar' as something that is hardwired into our brains. Even languages of so-called 'primitive' people are among the most structurally complex on this planet. Many aboriginal languages encode data such as animacy, shape, colour, and size of objects directly into their grammar systems. Thirdly, our communication isn't limited to basic needs an emotions. We can talk about art, economics, philosophy, etc. I could go on and on. But I won't. Because I have to get back to my homework. But yeah. I love talking about language i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

[Darknodin]

Yea... I know I didn't post from very reliable sources since i simply took the first links from Google. What I was saying though I remember it from a serious source (i think it was a documentary called "decouvertes" in montreal).

at any rate, our language sets us appart from all land mammals for different reasons which you stated. however as much as it is impossible to prove a negative, cetacean language seems pretty advanced itself.

also, I guess you could say something like : a human is a land mammal that can speak; but that leaves some people out no? even replacing speak by communicate, you still have some people which are obviously human, which are left out.

[hiddenpookie]

I belive in abortion if the baby is going to be born unwanted.

[masamuneehs]

It looks like the new, Bush stacked, Supreme Court might get the chance to address the abortion issue sooner than we thought.

South Dakota, land of... What the fuck do they have in South Dakota? Well, apparently a lot of Christian conservatives The state legislature in South Dakota officially approved a bill that is essentially a challenge against the Roe v. Wade ruling. The bill passed 23- 12 (with tons refraining from voting...) And an amendment to that bill was approved 50-18 (I find the fact that the people who didnt vote on the bill in the first place still voted to tailor it later is fucking bullshit)

Enter Mike Rounds.
Governor Rounds. He vetoed an anti-abortion bill two years ago. This time though, he says he will approve the bill if it can save lives. Uh-oh. I wonder what he voted would have voted in the poll in this thread?

I have yet to find an exact wording of the proposed bill, but I find this quote about it interesting:
The bill would make it illegal to perform/get an abortion in the state of South Dakota unless it was to save the pregnant mothers life. Rape, incest, too bad.

The bill would ban almost all abortions in South Dakota and would be the most stringent anti-abortion measure adopted by a state. It would be unconstitutional under current U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

This means that if the bill is signed it will HAVE to be challenged in a court. And then well see where the new Supreme Court sits on this matter.

Source: http://www.argusleader.com/app...25/NEWS/602250333/1001 (http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060225/NEWS/602250333/1001)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11542260/

[Honoko]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11569379/site/newsweek/

Also check out that link. It's saying that the timing isn't good for the pro-lifers in this one. Supreme Court, despite Bush's influence, will most likely still have a 5 to 4 majority in favor of Roe-- especially since affirmation of this case happened as recently as 1992.