Pro what?

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!

Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

Pro-life
13
34%
Pro-choice
25
66%
 
Total votes: 38

User avatar
Scott
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:33 am
Location: Omaha, NE, USA
Contact:

Pro what?

Postby Scott » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:00 am

Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?

Just a simple one word answer will do, but further explanations are appreciated.

Me: Pro-choice.
I used to be hardcore pro-life but life has a way of changing viewpoints. I fully understand the Pro-life arguments, I just think Pro-choice is for the greater good of society.
Live every week like it's SHARK WEEK

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:14 am

Choice

I support any decision you make, I just want to let you make it.

User avatar
Slim
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:25 pm
Title: Peacocks can't Lurk
Location: Mutter's Spiral

Postby Slim » Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:31 pm

I am pro-life, but I am not against exceptions such as in cases of rape, or endangerment to the mother's life. But I feel that that decision should be a very personal decision. And not one treated lightly either, as a last resort.

... In speaking of Pro-Choice being good for society, have you read Freakonomics? ... Yeah, that's freaky. For those who haven't, the author gives some good reasoning that Roe vs. Wade was a strong contributor to the decline in crime over the last so many years, since all these criminals are no longer being born.

Unwanted babies ... :cry: ... I believe everyone deserves to be raised by parents who love them. I am pro-adoption.
A signature so short, it's
Slim

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:18 pm

Slim wrote:But I feel that that decision should be a very personal decision.


Does that mean that you support choice? Or do you support a legal ban of abortion?

VelvetElvis
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 am
Title: is real!
First Joined: 0- 9-2004

Postby VelvetElvis » Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:41 pm

Pro-Life. The child cannot help the circumstances surrounding it's conception and birth, and so should not be punished for them.
Yay, I'm a llama again!

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:05 am

HBC, that only follows if you accept that any fetus is life. Do you mind explaining your reasoning on that point?

VelvetElvis
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 am
Title: is real!
First Joined: 0- 9-2004

Postby VelvetElvis » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:15 am

I do accept that any fetus is life.

Except you, of course.
Yay, I'm a llama again!

User avatar
Scott
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:33 am
Location: Omaha, NE, USA
Contact:

Postby Scott » Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:02 pm

helenberrycrunch wrote:I do accept that any fetus is life.


There is no question that any fetus is life, human life even. There are times when we, as adults, are legally given the right to choose one life over another. Abortion is one of those times. Society does not see a fetus as a "person" because we can't see its smile, experience its personality, hold it in our arms.

I believe the act of abortion is arrogant: you are choosing your own life over another. Be it her physical life, her career, or simply a matter of inconvenience for her.

I'm pro-choice because abortion is a form of self defense. If an event or person comes at you that will change your life, you should be able to "defend" yourself.
Live every week like it's SHARK WEEK

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:09 pm

...you lost me. First you rail about how life is important and how life begins at conception, etc. Then you say you are pro-choice so that the mother may defend herself from her child changing her life. Muh...?
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
BonitoDeMadrid
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 780
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:21 am
Title: Bonzo was Framed
Location: The exact center of the earth

Postby BonitoDeMadrid » Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:14 pm

pro-choice.

If a child is unwanted, it could make their life a nightmare. It could also hurt the parents.

User avatar
Slim
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:25 pm
Title: Peacocks can't Lurk
Location: Mutter's Spiral

Postby Slim » Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:57 pm

eriador wrote:
Slim wrote:But I feel that that decision should be a very personal decision.


Does that mean that you support choice? Or do you support a legal ban of abortion?


I guess I'm sort of in between on how government should be concerned with abortion. I don't think there should be a "ban" on abortion. Although I feel abortion is murder, I think there are situations in which abortion is morally justifiable.

On the other hand, though, right now (to me anyway) it seems abortion is a free-for-all. Maybe its just because the media is talking about it so much, but it seems like there is way too much.

But would it be possible to have such a middle ground? We seem to do okay on murders. (ie, it's okay if it was self-defense.) But I never hear anything besides ban/unrestricted. Then what about enforcement? My spidy-sense is tingling ...

So, to summarize and hopefully make sure questions are answered:
Do I support a legal ban on abortion? No, not a total ban.
Do I support choice? No, not if that means people choosing as if it's arbitrary. I'm often an idealist: if people everywhere felt abortion was murder, then I would support choice. (Or, I might say that in this Utopia, pro-life and pro-choice are the same thing.) But as a realist: No. There needs to be some sort of restriction, but I don't know of any governmental plan I can support.

I don't know if that answers the question, but hopefully you see my own ethical dilemma. In my own personal life, it's easy. Government is another story.
A signature so short, it's
Slim

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:26 pm

What he's saying is that he's humble enough to let everybody make their own choice.

I was going to ask HBC how she justifies drawing a line between life and no life, and I realized that it's really, really difficult to do. Anywhere. That's why I feel that we should allow people to choose what's right for them. Now, if somebody brings up the whole "how is it different from killing them after they're born" argument I'm going to have to kill them. I really do. Lemme explain:

The way I see it, you have a continuum, with life on one side, and not-life on the other. Somewhere on that line there is a point where everything to one side is fair game for abortion, and on the other side everything is protected as life. There's a line like this for almost everything, and for many of them, the government has decided on a point on the line that we can agree upon and enforces its laws based on that. With abortion however, people just can't agree, leading to a grey area. Choice advocates want that grey area to remain, and allow each and every person to choose the point that they feel is right. "Pro-lifers" don't think that way, they arrogantly believe that their beliefs are the only valid ones and wish to enforce those beliefs on others who don't agree. This is where the morons out there say "but some people are okay with murder! should we let them kill!" That's just about the stupidest argument ever. In the case of murder, such a small number of people that support it. Lemme illustrate:

Image

This is a graph of # of people who support killing something human vs. It's age. As you can see, there's an area where almost everybody agrees it's not life, and there's an area where almost everybody agrees it is life. In between is the grey area. (and don't bug me about majority rules and such. I made up the numbers for the chart, so don't base any majority arguments on the chart). It is in that grey area that most everybody falls, and because the spread is so huge, it's not really fair to make a hard and fast mark. Capiche?

User avatar
Scott
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:33 am
Location: Omaha, NE, USA
Contact:

Postby Scott » Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:20 pm

Rei wrote:...you lost me. First you rail about how life is important and how life begins at conception, etc. Then you say you are pro-choice so that the mother may defend herself from her child changing her life. Muh...?

I don't see how that is contradictory. I believe life is important but I also believe certain lives are more important than others, to that individual.

My life and my family's life, to me, is more important than a random stranger living in London. I am not going to say a mother's life is more important than her unborn baby's life, but if she feels that way.. I won't disagree with her.

eriador wrote: This is where the morons out there say "but some people are okay with murder! should we let them kill!" That's just about the stupidest argument ever.

You have such an aura of cockiness that even when we agree on something, it makes me question my stance. I don't think you have the ability to take into account another person's point of view because you automatically dismiss them if they disagree with you. You come across as very intelligent but close minded.
Live every week like it's SHARK WEEK

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:28 pm

Actually, what you're seeing is me once I've thought it over. Face-to-face I'm nowhere near as cocky because I don't have time to think and perfectly formulate the argument I want to make. Here, I find myself constantly considering my viewpoint, but most of the time that process of thinking doesn't make it into my posts, just my view of it now that I've come to a decision. I consider every argument I read, and I reject most of them. I do understand where you're coming from though.

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:50 am

Personal responsibility was very important in my upbringing. I'm responsible for my own actions, therefore I need to deal with the consequences. That's all there was to it. So, if the abortion issue were a personal one, I would be against it. I would not take that route.

But, at the same time, I realize that my personal choice is just that: a choice. My personal unwillingness to do it shouldn't be upheld as a reason for nobody to have the option of doing it.

Until about the third trimester, the embryo or fetus is a parasite. After that, it can physically survive outside the womb. So, I have no problem with abortion prior to the third trimester. It may constitute "life," but it's a parasitic life and the host has every reason to end that.

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:17 pm

It's... difficult for me to take, solidly, a side on this issue, because, strangely enough, I find the question of when life begins to be almost fundamentally unanswerable.

There are for me, two driving philosophies in my life, absolute respect for both life and liberty. That may sound rather cliche, but allow me to be very clear - I believe in absolute liberty to the point that so long as you're not interfering with or infringing upon another's life or liberty, you should be allowed to do just about anything you want.

That said, it's become, in my opinon all to common and accepted for the government of the United States to legislate morality to the people, something it was never, ever, ever intended to do, especially not at the federal level. The purpose of government at the state level is, I believe much more ambiguous and purposefully so, but I'll come to that later. As such, I believe the only proper, constitutional legislation on this issue possible at the federal level is pro-choice. Believe me when I say that I understand the double nature of this statement, but morality has no home in the halls of the Senate.

Personally, however, I have to say that I'm pro-life, except in certain situations, mostly when it comes to medical situations. This means, explicitly, that only in my personal experience would I consider abortion immoral, but would never, as an American citizen dare to suggest that my personal morals should be legislated onto another.

I believe the "best", solution, however, and the one intended by the founders of this country, was for a state-by-state decision to be made by government at that level. History has already provided us with a clear example there: the history of slavery in this country. States were allowed to determine for themselves how to approach the issue based on the will of the people. On issues like this, "majority rules" on a national level creates an atmosphere of oppression in areas which disagree with whatever rule of law is established. With the slavery issue, jockying for power in the Senate in order to create national legislation regarding slavery, and the inter-area implications of the slave trade on both our economy and populus, we obviously ended up in a civil war. It is, ironically, only by dividing ourselves along state lines on this issue that we can hope to be united as a nation.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Contact:

Postby Wil » Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:35 am

As far as I see it, the world does not need more little unwanted babies and children. Plenty of those as it is. Thus, pro-choice.. but only up to a point.

This point, as far as I am concerned, is when the fetus is no longer dependent on the mother for continued growth. This cut off point seems to be no earlier than 26 weeks, but this is quite rare and very rarely the baby survives when born this young. 26 weeks, however, should be MORE than enough time to realize you're pregnant and decide if you want to keep it or not.

It's not a matter of life or death as in many cases, as I believe was stated above, a baby born to a person who does not wish to have it could very well be a death sentence in and of itself.

vendor
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: In Dicator

Postby vendor » Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:42 pm

I am pro-lifechoices

If you are wanting a kid then don't use two forms of birth control. If you don't want the kid then use two kinds of birth control. Failing that, take a 'morning after pill'. I think that if you are unintentionally pregnant then it is your penance for being negligent and you should go full term. Take responsibility.

Laws on abortion change. Partial-birth abortions used to be legal. What horror!
...but paranoia is all I have!!

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:33 pm

Janus%TheDoorman wrote:morality has no home in the halls of the Senate.

Hehehe. They're trying their best!

NOTE: I know you mean they shouldn't be legislating morality to the general populus. It's just too funny not to read it out of context.

anonshadow
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm

Postby anonshadow » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:10 pm

vendor wrote:I am pro-lifechoices

If you are wanting a kid then don't use two forms of birth control. If you don't want the kid then use two kinds of birth control. Failing that, take a 'morning after pill'. I think that if you are unintentionally pregnant then it is your penance for being negligent and you should go full term. Take responsibility.

Laws on abortion change. Partial-birth abortions used to be legal. What horror!


Dude, it's really not that easy. For one thing, it's entirely possible to still be pregnant after all of that. It isn't fair to assume that pregnancy is because someone was simply negligent, nor is it fair to assume that everyone who decides to terminate a pregnancy does so because they don't want a child, fullstop. Sometimes complications arise during pregnancy that risk the mother's life or health, and she has to choose to terminate the pregnancy when she would otherwise not do so.

Beyond that, I don't think that having a child should be penance. That's not fair to the child or to the society that needs to support it. Opposing abortion because you believe that every life is sacred is one thing; opposing it because you believe that women should be punished for having sex is another. What if she was raped, huh?



vendor
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: In Dicator

Postby vendor » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:20 am

I apologize for the confusion.

The extenuating circumstances that you brought up (rape, complications, etc) were already brought up in the discussion. Board readers should read my mind before accusing me! oops, I should have quoted those points and said that I agreed with them.

And you're right, there is a VERY SLIM chance that a couple could still be pregnant after all that. For example: Condom=97% effective + Depo shot=88% effective + Morning after pill=98% effective what is the real world likelihood that the couple will be pregnant?? Could somebody smarter than me calculate that?

I certainly didn't mean to imply that women should be punished for having sex. HAVE SEX WOMEN!! or else how can straight guys have it!

I was trying to be facetious when I used the word penance (it was directed to the couple, not for the woman). Obviously it didn't work out.

I should not try and post while distracted. I'll try not to do it in the future.

So, just so everybody understands me.
1. I believe that life is sacred.
2. I believe people should pick and choose their own values.
3. I believe that there are extenuating circumstances to morally allow for abortion.
4. I believe that sexually active couples should be as prepared as possible.
5. I don't believe government should tell us what's right and wrong.
and 6. I know that I don't have all the answers and sometimes I live in my head enough to think that others just understand exactly what is in my head I normally live in my head when I'm looking to escape reality or use excessive run-on sentences and tangents with really bad grammer,..,

EDITED
...but paranoia is all I have!!

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Contact:

Postby Wil » Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:44 am

vendor wrote:1. I believe that life is sacred.

Life is sacred.. but when does life become life? When does this bean shaped growth in the womb of a female become a living being? (As above, I believe this is when it does not require the mother's womb to continue growing.)
vendor wrote:2. I believe people should pick and choose their own values.

I believe people should have their opinions without forcing them on others and then be content when they are out-voted in a democracy. So, thus, I agree.
vendor wrote:3. I believe that there are extenuating circumstances to morally allow for abortion.

Which circumstances are extenuating? If the baby is not wanted due to THOSE extenuating circumstances, then why shouldn't the mother be allowed to have an abortion? If a girl really wanted to not be pregnant she'd find ways that are less safe after all...

On top of that let me add that I believe any woman under the age of 18 should not be allowed an abortion without a parent/guardian signature.
vendor wrote:4. I believe that sexually active couples should be as prepared as possible.

As stated above... short of tying of tubes there is really no absolutely fool proof method. Even then having ones tubes tied isn't completely effective. There is only so much you can do...
vendor wrote:5. I don't believe government should tell us what's right and wrong.

Then who should? Our own morality is far too varied to just trust in the not-so-good nature of humans to do the right thing. In an ideal world the government would run on democratic vote for leader -> leader does what the majority wants -> the majority agree on the law. Sadly, this is not the case...

vendor
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: In Dicator

Postby vendor » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:15 am

ok willy

1. you may believe that the "bean shaped growth" is not life because it requires the mother's womb. Let's just call the "bean shaped growth" a parasite. Parasites are living beings. This kind just happens to have human DNA.

2. we are in agreement. Nobody should force their opinions on others. Ask me no questions and I'll give you no answers.

3. If somebody really wants to do it, suicide is also a choice. I'd prefer if abortions weren't so convenient. Maybe like buying a handgun. Think about it for a few days. I'm not going to bellow to others to believe the way I do. Make a choice, make sure it's YOUR choice.

4. Your right, it's not fool proof. Two forms of birth control give couples reasonable assurance of not getting pregnant.

5. I'm Libertarian. Minimize the power of the State and maximize the power of the individual.
...but paranoia is all I have!!

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:45 am

Wil, you write that people should be content when they're out-voted in a democracy, but isn't this just a dictatorship of the majority? And as democracy spreads, does this not also mean that more and more people must be simply content with living by the rule of the majority? On a large-scale, this is a patently unacceptable approach to government. It denies the minority their fundamental right to chose the manner in which they will live out their lives. You simply cannot reconcile that "people should have their opinions without forcing them on others and then be content when they are out-voted in a democracy." It allows too easily for the minority to be silenced under the majority - giving the majority absolute power leads to the "not-so-good nature of humans" taking hold much too easily.

The only acceptable method of governing a people on large-scale is to have a civilization wide ban on all things that would inhibit another citizen's ability to exercise their liberty as fully as possible - murder, theft, and other heinous crimes obviously.

Beyond that, any percievably moral question must be resolved at a more local level so that there is accountability for those who do break what can be considered moral laws, without those morals being extended beyond limited borders.

Consider it as if the United States encompassed the entirety of humanity. Wouldn't it be best to have the only nationwide laws those absolutely necessary to protect the people and their inherent rights, and all else left to the states to decide to best serve the needs of their people, and allow those who disagree with disagreeable moral stances to move as they will to a state they find agreeable? Our nation was established with this in mind, and as such the only laws that were initially held for all the nation were the Bill of Rights in addition to heinous crimes, and those necessary to provide some accountability for those who broke those laws. Since then, the power of the people as exercised through the states has been gradually subverted to the point where state laws are incidental and congress members forget their place and lay down nation-wide laws in areas that the federal government was never meant to enter.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

London
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:01 pm
Contact:

hm

Postby London » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:53 pm

hate to sound insensetive, but if you make the decision to have sex out of marriage (or within for that matter) And don't want a child, then apparently you made the wrong decision. Sex is existant, not for pleasure, but for procreation.

Show some backbone and live through the consequences. Don't make a poor decision and not expect it to come back and bite you.
Cities do not learn the lesson of building high walls from their friends, but from their enemies.

User avatar
wigginboy
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:38 am
First Joined: 0- 2-2004
Location: Red Deer, Alberta, Canada

Postby wigginboy » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:01 pm

I voted pro-life because that is what I believe. I did not vote for anyone else so I don't expect anyone else to have to believe the same thing. I believe that the child growing right now in my fiancee's womb is a life and has been since conception, since it was just two cells that met and became one. that is my belief and I stick by it regardless of religious affiliation. (I have none.) For those who choose to abort their unwanted children or if they were the victim of rape and don't want that child to remind them of the pain they experienced, I really cannot say anything. I could say something along the lines of "don't do it, its wrong' but i realize that we have all been given freedom of choice to do with what we will. I chose to keep our surprise and so did she. We didnt plan for the baby, we just ended up with it, but thats OK with us and we are committed to making a life for it. I honestly do not think I could submit to aborting this child and knowing Kristin is being hurt inside and knowing that that child never had a chance at life. For all i know my kid might die two days after it's born, but at least it would have got the chance to live. For those who abort, I hold no grudge because ultimately what they choose is what is going to happen. I try to urge people to go the adoption route, its more humane and then the kid gets a shot, but for those who aren't as humane, hey, make your decisions and I'll make mine.

User avatar
Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
Contact:

Re: hm

Postby Eaquae Legit » Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:04 pm

London wrote:hate to sound insensetive, but if you make the decision to have sex out of marriage (or within for that matter) And don't want a child, then apparently you made the wrong decision. Sex is existant, not for pleasure, but for procreation.

Show some backbone and live through the consequences. Don't make a poor decision and not expect it to come back and bite you.


I'm Catholic and even the Catholic Church recognises that sex is for pleasure as much as it's for procreation.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

London
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:01 pm
Contact:

Postby London » Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:31 pm

Ok, true. I agree. It's a way for husbands and wives to show love for each other, and for procreation. I see the pleasure of it to be a blessing that comes along with the main purpose.
Cities do not learn the lesson of building high walls from their friends, but from their enemies.

User avatar
Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
Contact:

Postby Eaquae Legit » Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:51 pm

Note how I said "as much as." The two are equal - one is not subordinate to the other. While admittedly it's a recent "official" teaching, the roots of it go back at least as far as the 12th century. The love and enjoyment of the spouses is a reason in itself for sex.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

London
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:01 pm
Contact:

Postby London » Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:03 pm

Yes, ok, then :P
Cities do not learn the lesson of building high walls from their friends, but from their enemies.

User avatar
DEK
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:40 am
Location: Outside

Postby DEK » Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

Lazy pro-life
I don't think people should get abortions, but I'm not going to stop anyone.

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:19 pm

Seeing this again, I realized my post contained no actual information as to my opinion on this subject.

Politically/Ethically, as an American, I'm Pro-Choice, I think as a matter of law, at least until humanity can come to full agreement on the definition of life, I think the American thing to do is err on the side of freedom, rather than imposing onto such unsure ground.

Morally, I'm Pro-Life, for reasons which I think everyone can understand. Intellectually I can say that when placed on a scale against the principle of freedom of the "assuredly" living, human lives are not of consequence, the humanist in me screams that I have no right to condemn the "possibly" alive in the name of the freedom of the "assuredly" alive without asking the consent of the "possibly" alive.

Honestly, it's a much stickier situation than even I, the months ago I last posted in this topic, would admit.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

starfox
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:43 pm

Postby starfox » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:53 pm

If you follow that argument to its conclusion, saying something is "possibly" alive kind of falls apart. What about right when the egg is fertilized? How about before? An egg cell is alive. Is every girl condemning the "possibly" alive every time they have their period?

User avatar
DEK
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:40 am
Location: Outside

Postby DEK » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:09 am

If I remember correctly, a fertilized egg cell is the only cell in the human body with an independent genetic future. So, we could draw a line in the sand there: killing something that only has your genes (menstruation, haircut, etc.) is OK, but killing something that is not you isn't.
Of course, twins, triplets, and the like, complicate matters somewhat, but I think that different DNA is a good starting point.

starfox
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:43 pm

Postby starfox » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:17 pm

Your hair is already dead when you cut it.

Limiting it to your genetic material only moves the question back one step further. What about cells that have mutations? They can occur naturally during DNA replication. Is that still "your" DNA? What about epigenetics? What if a woman is on the pill? Her partner's DNA is in her, if you just let it die is that tantamount to abortion later on?


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 13 guests