| |
| Author |
Message |
| elf lvr |
 Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:50 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 3065
Location: Rivendell
|
bunnydaman wrote: cant we just forget about it? obviously no one in convincing anyone of anything. its pointless other than getting people mad at eachother!
lol, my point exactly. Well, maybe not exactly, but close enough. |
Happy Hunting! Elf Lvr
Winner of Best Personality in the FPCA. Thanks!
Archduke Elf Lvr - Archidoux of the Chosen Ones
AMV Maker In-Training! Check out my newest production, Katsu!- A Diedara Tribute!
And behold, EL declared it good. And there was morning, and there was evening, the first (new) day. ~ DainIronfoot |
|
| Back to top |
|
| bunnydaman |
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:50 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 338
Location: 'hillbilliesville'
|
well. its getting annoying. soon enough if we all keep fighting, people will get very angry and maybe stop logging in, and people might become less active if they find that CC isnt fun anymore. then CC will come to an end.
do you want that?
forums are for enjoyment and entirtainment, so arguments! |
-"He’s like a spamming assasin." ~lem0nhead about SoP
"Yes, I'm a girl. And no, not like elf lvr."
[idea from FM] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| macheteman |
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:55 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 1200
Location: The Jungle
|
bunnydaman wrote: I am so sorry i started this, i did not mean to make it go this far, all i said was that i liked obama, and then the whole abortion thing started. cant we just forget about it? obviously no one in convincing anyone of anything. its pointless other than getting people mad at eachother! we dont want that. lets talk about someting happy, like, cake, or someting.
i really don’t think you started this. and you certainly aren’t responsible for the fact that me and some others continued it. perhaps people will get mad at each other, i hope not, but as long as it stays calm, i think it is good for some people to hear different points of views on the issue.
bunnydaman wrote:
btw, FM,  for being non-religious. finally someone like me...
interesting. gp to you for making me think. |
Check out my best article The Utterly Corrupt Corruption,
If at first you don't succeed...Sky-diving isn't for you.
"Combat is dangerous. It tends to interupt your breathing process."
ROLF!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| CarpeGuitarrem |
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:20 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 3361
Location: Franciscan University of Steubenville
|
Felipe Musco wrote: Why so? Where is it written that humans are "better" than other species, and we have the right to decimate them? Back in the 1600s slaves, then indians were "considered as having no soul", so was it alright to kill them back then? Can you sincerely say that? You can’t, right? SO it’s not "soul" that matters...
That was based on a mistaken view of the Native Americans and slaves. I see a similar case with the unborn, who are also considered as being not human, as not having a soul. So ironically enough, that rhetoric you cite is the rhetoric of the pro-aborts.
Misconceptions of an idea are not valid criticisms of the idea.
And as for humans having more rights than other earthly beings, that is a fundamental principle of every political philosophy that I have seen. That could be because we’ve constantly observed that humans seem to be continually ending up on top of a hierarchy of earthly things, that we have a rational will (as opposed to animals who do not), that we have intellect, the power of abstraction, etc. This is a basic tenet of human philosophy. |
| "ok, change of plans. the Cobracards christmas party is coming to my house, and we’re gunna teach FM how to hunt." (mm) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Merrick_Hale |
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:08 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 445
Location: Austin, Texas
|
bunnydaman wrote: I am so sorry i started this, i did not mean to make it go this far, all i said was that i liked obama, and then the whole abortion thing started. cant we just forget about it? obviously no one in convincing anyone of anything. its pointless other than getting people mad at eachother! we dont want that. lets talk about someting happy, like, cake, or someting.
Regards, |
Aaron Rhinehart
Rider of Rohan (retired)
DAgent #417 (retired)
This Incognito is a smooth operator - Lem0nhead |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NBarden |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:18 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 5468
Location: I don't know...
|
I’ve been off the boards for about a week and a controversy started without me creating it or affecting it in any way?!?!?! 
Well...since I’m never to be left out of a debate, especially one I believe strongly in, let’s go over my stance on abortion.
A human is a human, whether in the womb or out. The point made about destroying the egg of a rare bird is a good one. Do we value a bird more than a human? That is the crazy society in which we live in.
However, back on topic. At conception, all the traits of the baby (you may call it fetus if you wish), have been programmed. It is now a life. Yes, a living being.
Abortion kills a living being. A human. Now, this issue has been covered already, so let’s see what abortion does to the baby.
First of all, in the womb, the baby CAN feel pain. Abortion techniques include injecting poison into the womb which reacts to the baby’s skin and literally burns them to death. This is extremely painful for the child. Take also partial birth abortion, in which the child is birthed partially, and then the brains are sucked out of his skull via basically a high-powered vacuum cleaner. This is also incredibly painful. Although these are the two most painful abortion procedures, nearly all of the others are almost as painful.
And then there are cases of harm to the mother. Abortions ALWAYS harm the mother, either physically or psychologically. At our abortion clinic here in Wichita, perhaps the largest in the country, there are MANY cases in which an abortion is botched, and in many cases, the mother is killed. Other complications are common as well, and in the chance that the mother is not harmed physically, there is psychological problems. Assuming that it is okay to kill an unborn child, is it okay to endanger the mother in the way that abortion does?
bunnydaman, you stated that in cases of rape it is okay for abortion, because the mother didn’t want the baby to begin with. Is the rape the baby’s fault? No. So you’re punishing the baby for the sins of the father. Is this ethical? Also, there are other alternatives to the inconvenient child phenomenon, namely, adoption. So if the mother doesn’t want the baby, adoption is always an option.
As a matter of fact, abortion is practically always because of an unwanted child. However, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. There is ALWAYS someone looking to adopt. The difference between abortion and adoption is the procedure of dealing with an "unwanted child." Abortion kills the child and denies someone who would want to adopt that child the ability to. Adoption preserves the child’s life and makes sure that the child is taken care of by someone who WANTS to.
I know I posted a lot about the negative effects of abortion, but all those aside, which is the better alternative? Abortion, or adoption?
The only time abortion would seem better is when the life of the mother is endangered, but this almost NEVER happens. VERY seldom, and in that case, it comes down to a moral argument, or ethical argument if you choose, in which abortion is STILL wrong.
Okay, sorry for posting such a long argument, I tried to be clear, but not sure its working.  |
 -Trade With Me
 Add the popcorn smiley to your sig, help it achieve world domination.
What if the hokey pokey really IS what its all about?
As I lay in bed staring at the stars last night, I thought to myself, "where the heck is the ceiling?"
 Spotlight on....Sense of Obligation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Felipe Musco |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:27 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 2434
Location: Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
|
I don’t know about that "no one not convincing no one" part. I, for one, saw some really good arguments here (and some really bad ones). For instance, I KNOW my argument about worms is stretchy, and I could give a far more puzzling one for you to think about, but... why should I? After all, the ridiculousness of it shows exactly my point:
- Worms ARE alive (sorry, elf lvr, scientifically proved, if you can kill it, it’s alive  );
- They are (mostly) an unwanted presence inside of you, feeding on your very own existance, and presenting a threat to your health and welfare;
- You do not feel conforatble with the situation, so you want to be rid of it.
- Pregnancy, and an unborn baby, fall under the SAME categories (yep, sorry, I’m from a whole family of doctors and have even been in ORs sometimes watching, and no matter HOW well pregnancy goes, it STILL represents a life risk to the mother, ALWAYS, because some things can go wrong from out of the blue);
- So, if a mother-to-be doesn’t want to be so, why should she? Is it in our power to FORCE them to? Says who? You know, being a mother is a state of spirit and mind, not only of biological changes, so we shouldn’t force women into that state. Think about this situations:
- Being the head of a family is a tough position. Life can impose that burden on you sometimes, but otherwise, you get to choose, right? And even when life DOES force you into such a situation, you can STILL choose to simply run away, can’t you? Of course, some don’t, like some women DO choose to keep their unplanned babies;
- Being gay is a state of mind and spirit, and even though it CAN be somehow linked to genetic alterations (hasn’t been fully proven yet), you can’t FORCE a gay into being straight, nor the other way around, it’s a matter of choice;
- When someone is on life support and the family is presented with the choice to pull the plug, for instance, it’s ALSO a matter of choice. The person COULD keep on living an unnatural life, so why shouldn’t we force them to tend that person until whenever he or she finally dies in every aspect, but present them with a choice?
One last thing: abortion, laws, heck, Christianity itself, actually, any form of religion of philosophy have been historically developed by men, due to the sexist beliefs mankind (this word being an example, for isntance) has had. But as elf lvr has beautifully put, we, men, can’t POSSIBLY understand what the whole process means, so why do WE get to make the choice? In all of the examples above, the choice is personal, ain’t it? Why should this case be any different? Because there’s a life involved? Then we get back to the hideous worm example, which sorry for the "God created us special, at his own image" believers, but are as much alive as we are, and so should be treated equally. That’s why I advocate in favor of abortion. It’s different from "shotting your neighbour", because even if the neighbour IS feeding on your existance (or at least on your electricity and cable ), YOU are not responsible for him in any way, so you can "get rid" of him in various OTHER ways, like going to the pollice, sueing him, or simply moving, while a child WILL be your responsability. You can leave it at a foster home, sure, but even to do that, you (the woman) first have undergone a SEVERE trauma of an unwanted pregnancy (not even going into the merits of how it happened), then 9 months of changes, eventual health problems (and believe me, some SEVERE ones can happen, I’ve seen/heard my share along the years) AND the always-present, even though not always big, risk of death on conception. Worse, imagine going through this whole thing, and not being able to raise your child, due to perhaps a bad monetary condition, even though you’d WANT to? Then finally "crawling out of the hole" after so many years, and knowing you had to give away your child? How traumatic can this be to a woman for trying to have another one?
I’ll use a personal example: my mother-in-law has never been able to have a child with my father, even though they tried it. She got pregnant, and the doctors declared it a risky pregnancy. Eventually, she had a miscarriage, a natural abortion, and was then sterile for the rest of her life. If she had had a voluntary abortion earlier, she might have been able to have one after all.
This is not the motivation behind my arguments, I’ve found this out only recently (for those of you who do not know, I don’t like my father very much, he’s a fantastic doctor, a great musician - keyboard player - and a really funny person, but he’s a major jerk, he’s kind of my role model - never be like that), but I think it adds further to the discussion at hand. Wished I had this story back when I presented my paper (and lecture) on the subject, though.
You see, I do not argue on this subject with the clear intention of convincing anyone to join my cause. I’ve learned from experience that you DO NOT convince people right out of the blue, specially when they ALREADY have their own opinions. But you go on, ever on, arguing, and eventually SOME stuff get into people’s minds, from BOTH sides. I do not try to convince someone, I try to make them more tolerant. You see, tomorrow, for instance, NBarden could be a Supreme Court Judge, with an abortion case in his hands, with the mother’s neck hanging on his decision. When that happens, I want him to think on the subject not only with matters concerning the Supreme Court’s previous judgements, or his beliefs, but I want him to understand the OTHER side of the situation. Onyl this way, he’ll be able to fulfill the judge’s role, which is being TOTALLY IMPARTIAL. And tthat doesn’t work just for him, we’re all judges of various situations throughout life, and it’s up to us to do the best we can into being neutral, to make the decision as fair as possible. So, I don’t think we should just "drop" the subject when no one changes sides right away, this discussion is beingheld at a very nice level, and I endorse it to continue as long as someone has something to say.
Piece of advice to our CC Professional Debaters, though: contradicting loose sentences is a fairly easy way to argument, specially when it’s written, and you have time to think on it.  I know you’re all capable of doing better, I’ve seen great discussions, so I expect to see further delving, not just people trying to refute an argument I already said is hideous, but illustratory to the situation. 
PS: About the "destroying the rare bird egg" thing, it falls under the same category of the neighbour, it’s doing nothing to you. And, remember, if you depend on frying such egg for sustenance or be forced to face death, you ARE allowed to do so, by law, morals, whatever standards, much like those people in the plane crash in the Andes years ago, who had to eat their deceased companions in order to survive (how far can the will to live go, right? I can’t really picture me doing such a thing, but then again, probably neither could them, until they had to). |
| I don't like YOU. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| CarpeGuitarrem |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:34 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 3361
Location: Franciscan University of Steubenville
|
Having once been an embryo myself, I’m glad that I wasn’t forced to be killed because of any choice of my parents.
What abortion is doing is placing a specific value on human life. That’s not the way I roll. The value of a human life is intangible, and far greater than any possible benefits you could possibly hope for. Now, there is one "exception" which I will put out here right now. But it’s a very sticky issue. I believe that, if there is a medical procedure performed to save the life of the mother that at the same time unintentionally endangers the life of the child, that is a valid choice that may be made. But again, a lot of careful consideration has to be taken into account, and I’m not the expert on this subject. |
| "ok, change of plans. the Cobracards christmas party is coming to my house, and we’re gunna teach FM how to hunt." (mm) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Felipe Musco |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 2434
Location: Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
|
| Again, I ask: why is human life intangible, and the life of other beings not? |
| I don't like YOU. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| AgentDrake |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:45 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 667
Location: Halfway between eccentric and insane...
|
A. Animal life is tangible. It just isn’t sentient. That’s why they’re animals and we’re people.
B. Because humans are sentient: ie, self-aware, capable of higher reasoning, etc. I forget all the criteria, but you get the picture.
AKA, they have souls.
So:
You could say that animals have souls as well, in which case we get a whole new argument, (A, do they or not, and B: if so, is it wrong to kill the tapeworm?)
You could say that the soul doesn’t exist, in which case it really doesn’t matter whether it’s right or wrong since we’re nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions creating an illusion of awareness, and therefore Free Will doesn’t exist, (nothing there to be the Will) so we don’t have a choice whether or not we kill the kid
Or you could say that the soul exists in humans, and therefore human life is "more tangible" than the animal life
BTW,
Quote: due to the sexist beliefs mankind (this word being an example, for isntance) has had.
"Mann" is Old English for Human. There’s a different word for male humans. The older word just faded away, as words are wont to do. So actually, historical perspective indicates the exact opposite: Men are neutered, if you will, while women retain their identification. If anything, men get the short end. |
| Never kid about politicians. The more bizarre the joke, the more likely it is to come true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are UTC - 4
|
|
Forum index » General Discussion » Members' Lounge