426 replies to this topic

[way2lazy2care]

Did you read my post at all? Have you ever read The Scarlett Letter? Promiscuity has been around for a long time, but it's flagged around by everyone these days. It was a shame then, now its publicity. Look at all the whores (Brit Spears, Jess Simpson, etc.) that are basically only noticed now because they fuck everyone.

I was writing mine when you posted yours, that's why I quoted the first guy... I still don't understand how your reply holds any merit as to why being irresponsibly promiscuous is an ok reason to get an abortion.

And the absurdity of "the kid could cure cancer" is just as bad. Cancer has been around for a while, and the chances of the one kid out of 6 billion going on to cure cancer, happens to be in the position to be aborted for whatever reason, are extremely slim.

I understand it's absurd, but I see more posts on you arguing that the child could become hitler than posts that say the kid could cure cancer... still, regardless, I don't understand how that would justify killing an unborn child.

First off, read the post I was responding to. The person said "if the 11 year old girl was raped I wouldn't care" RAPED. Also, it'd kill the 11 year old girl. Saying, "that'll teach her", is just horrible. Shame on you

I was kidding as far as the that'll teach her goes, but I still believe that if an 11 year old girl has sex willingly and gets pregnant she should still have the child.

A unique life form, maybe. But it still hasn't experienced life. A unique life form could be anything. Do you eat plants? They're unique life forms. How about meat? They were unique life forms at one point in time. Nothing in nature is exactly the same. Junk DNA is always the differentiator between even simmilar codes. You can stop eating now, because you're killing unique life forms when you do so.

I forgot, obviously you happen to remember when you were born as it was the moment your conciousness suddenly exploded into action. My point is, you can do all the science you want, but that doesn't make it morally right because none of us knows spiritually when our existence begins

[Pawnator]

Who cares if you're killing human cells? I scratch my ass and kill human cells. Can you show me when a human fetus becomes concious? Hint: it needs a brain first.

[way2lazy2care]

Yeah-to think that promiscuity has risen and is only high in recently years is incredibly wrong. I'd like to see where you got that information.

number of children that have had sex in/before high school is huge compared to even 50 years ago. and even more than that, in the past there was a bigger sense of having sex as a physical expression of an emmotional connection (what it should be) whereas lately more and more people are using it just as a way to get off.

[Pawnator]

number of children that have had sex in/before high school is huge compared to even 50 years ago. and even more than that, in the past there was a bigger sense of having sex as a physical expression of an emmotional connection (what it should be) whereas lately more and more people are using it just as a way to get off.

To say that it is more socially acceptable and that it is happening more often is true. To say that it didn't happen often in the past 1900 years is just ignorant.

[way2lazy2care]

Who cares if you're killing human cells? I scratch my ass and kill human cells. Can you show me when a human fetus becomes concious? Hint: it needs a brain first.

I will be happy to answer all of your questions when you can show me when a human child is given a soul...

[Contrallion]

I understand it's absurd, but I see more posts on you arguing that the child could become hitler than posts that say the kid could cure cancer... still, regardless, I don't understand how that would justify killing an unborn child.

Well I was arguing that there's a significant chance of the kid having a horrible life, not becoming the next Hitler. It's the extreme examples that piss me off, on both sides as well.

I forgot, obviously you happen to remember when you were born as it was the moment your conciousness suddenly exploded into action. My point is, you can do all the science you want, but that doesn't make it morally right because none of us knows spiritually when our existence begins

Since when does morality have to coincide with spirituality? Spirituality isn't the issue here.

edit:

number of children that have had sex in/before high school is huge compared to even 50 years ago. and even more than that, in the past there was a bigger sense of having sex as a physical expression of an emmotional connection (what it should be) whereas lately more and more people are using it just as a way to get off.

Again, you fail to give any backup for what you said. Until you can back it up, nobody's going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[Sikotik]

I was writing mine when you posted yours, that's why I quoted the first guy... I still don't understand how your reply holds any merit as to why being irresponsibly promiscuous is an ok reason to get an abortion.

I never said it was. I hate sluts. Just because some use it for bad intent, doesn't mean its all bad.

I understand it's absurd, but I see more posts on you arguing that the child could become hitler than posts that say the kid could cure cancer... still, regardless, I don't understand how that would justify killing an unborn child.

Or an unborn sack of cells. As far as I'm concerned, a child is not a child until it is born. Do you celebrate your birthday? Or do you celebrate 9 months earlier when you were concieved? When did you start spending your time on earth?

I was kidding as far as the that'll teach her goes, but I still believe that if an 11 year old girl has sex willingly and gets pregnant she should still have the child.

It'd kill her. Would you rather kill something that hasn't experienced life, or something that has, for 11 years?

I forgot, obviously you happen to remember when you were born as it was the moment your conciousness suddenly exploded into action. My point is, you can do all the science you want, but that doesn't make it morally right because none of us knows spiritually when our existence begins

It doesn't make it morally wrong, for the same reason. Until you can scientifically figure out when existence begins, you can't use this point to prove your own.

[Druggie]

Even when a 11 year old girl gets raped and gets pregnant there is no excuse to do that. IMO that is.

-IE

I CAN NOT believe this statement. I don't understand how anyone who is pro-life can honestly say they would rather make an 11 year old victim of rape go through all the pains of death than kill an unfeeling, unconscious clump of cells....

what's that? 2 examples so far over 1900 compared to the 100+ million in america TODAY that are sexually promiscuous? you really can't argue that just because 5% of the population over the last 1900 years makes it right that 70% of today's population is so promiscuous...

Are you kidding? That's not true at all. There's evidence of people (men AND women) sleeping around in ancient times. Particularly in Greek and Egyptian culture. To say that promiscuity only became a big thing recently is so completely and utterly un-true. The only difference is that people were better at hiding their sex lives, and now people brag about the men/women they've fucked.

[Pawnator]

I will be happy to answer all of your questions when you can show me when a human child is given a soul...

In that case, since souls are eternal, who cares if you kill them? Depriving them of trials and tribulations? Just move on to the next empty vessle. Why is it that people are factual about the cost of prisons when we're debating the death penalty, yet have to be all spiritual when we talk about abortion? One kills sentients and one kills sentients in question, yet they aren't handled on similar terms because of our warped viewpoints.

[Sikotik]

In that case, since souls are eternal, who cares if you kill them? Depriving them of trials and tribulations? Just move on to the next empty vessle. Why is it that people are factual about the cost of prisons when we're debating the death penalty, yet have to be all spiritual when we talk about abortion? One kills sentients and one kills sentients in question, yet they aren't handled on similar terms because of our warped viewpoints.

I actually have opposing points between abortion and the death penalty. I don't like the death penalty at all, but for completely different reasons. I posted about it in that thread, so I'll just leave the rest for there, if someone wants to look it up and read it.

[Druggie]

I agree, I hate the death penalty.
Some things are worse than death.
Which could apply to abortion, too...

[Sikotik]

I agree, I hate the death penalty.
Some things are worse than death.
Which could apply to abortion, too...

Like emo music, and Mrs. Fanning's math classes. <3

[way2lazy2care]

Since when does morality have to coincide with spirituality? Spirituality isn't the issue here.

edit: forgot about this quote... You honestly cannot be serious. I garentee you that sprituality has to do with almost any religious person's morality. Aside from some atheists (note even some atheists still have a very spiritual sense of morallity) almost anybody will have a very spiritually involved moral compass.

while I'm here... the difference between abortion and the death penalty. The death penalty is given to people that have already abused their life, and made a choice that made their death imminent. Last time I checked a fetus hasn't done anything wrong to justify its murder...

Again, you fail to give any backup for what you said. Until you can back it up, nobody's going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Statistics: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, 36.9 percent of 14-year-olds have had sex - more than one out of three. Among 12th graders, 66.4 percent have had sex.

Thus, more than twice as many females ages 14, 15, and 16 are sexually active now, compared with young women of the same ages just 15 years ago.

Full Article

Interesting article 2

interesting article 3

Interesting article 4

The Kinsey Report site (around 1950's, but reached back to early 1900's) In which he found that sexual activity in females had increased dramatically, as well as the age of first intercourse moving up dramatically.

I'd reply to the rest, but I have to go to sleep...

[Sikotik]

Since when does morality have to coincide with spirituality? Spirituality isn't the issue here.

But you brought it up. Don't bring it up if you don't want it used against you

sexual activity in females had increased dramatically, as well as the age of first intercourse moving up dramatically.

Sexual activity may have increased, but so has world population & the amount of developed countries. Also, social and economic factors calculate into it. If people are more prosperous and happy, they're going to have sex more. It's just one of those things.
You need to look at the big picture.

while I'm here... the difference between abortion and the death penalty. The death penalty is given to people that have already abused their life, and made a choice that made their death imminent. Last time I checked a fetus hasn't done anything wrong to justify its murder...

But a fetus also hasn't experienced life, nor is it aware enough to know death. The brain is not developed enough to understand the concepts of pain, fear, or happiness. It is also not able to form or retain memories until after birth.

We had a discussion about what defines life, in a group of diverse students, and eventually came to the conclusion that in order to be considered truly "alive" is to be able to recieve and/or communicate ideas to the world. A fetus cannot do either.

[Contrallion]

edit: forgot about this quote... You honestly cannot be serious. I garentee you that sprituality has to do with almost any religious person's morality. Aside from some atheists (note even some atheists still have a very spiritual sense of morallity) almost anybody will have a very spiritually involved moral compass.

Take a minute and read what I said.

Since when does morality have to coincide with spirituality? Spirituality isn't the issue here.

You act as if the only way to have good morals is to be spiritual. Typical, but as far from the truth as you can get. It's not just "some atheists" that are the only non-religious people with morals, and these people (that you've generalized simply as atheists) don't need anything spiritual to be moral. Morality and spirituality are not inseparable - you can be a moral person with no spirituality. No, almost anybody will not have a spiritually involved moral compass- spirituality doesn't have to have anything to do with it. You don't need religion to have morals. Obviously.

[Sikotik]

You don't need religion to have morals. Obviously.

You also don't have to have morals to be religious -cough-childmolestingpriests-cough-

EDIT - anyway, I'm goin to sleep. 'night guys. I'll be on tomorrow after work (11 PM EST)

[The_Zooloo_Master]

Take a minute and read what I said.

Since when does morality have to coincide with spirituality? Spirituality isn't the issue here.

You act as if the only way to have good morals is to be spiritual. Typical, but as far from the truth as you can get. It's not just "some atheists" that are the only non-religious people with morals, and these people (that you've generalized simply as atheists) don't need anything spiritual to be moral. Morality and spirituality are not inseparable - you can be a moral person with no spirituality. No, almost anybody will not have a spiritually involved moral compass- spirituality doesn't have to have anything to do with it. You don't need religion to have morals. Obviously.

What he said was not as far from the truth as you can get, but I agree that it is not entirely true. I believe that religion did play an extremely important role in embuing cultures with morals which, if not originating from the religion, were passed onto children and other cultures through the religion. I don't think it matters what you believe in; whether you are Christian, Muslim or Hebrew, or belong to an obscure sect, or are atheist; what matters is how you were brought up, and how you were influenced as a child. Beyond that, philosophical study has tried to corner the subject of morality and ethics, but it is still extremely abstract, and I think there will never be a true definition for good or for bad.
Someone, probably Kierkegaard or Kant, said that good will is the only really righteous thing in the world. The problem is that we can see that people with good will still end up contradicting others: I believe that Muslim extremists act out of good will, but I think that you can all see, without me explaining, that their actions are "wrong", as opposed to the Oxidental world.
As for the declaration of human rights they were strongly influenced, in my opinion, by christianity, and therefore actually only expose a subjective opinion on what is right and wrong.

[Master C]

Did you read my first post?
At least read a whole page before you post. Preferably the whole thread

That was deliberate, It was just a little barb at yourself. The whole argument is rediculous besides, theres no point making predictions about what the kids gonna be so as to justify your pro-life or pro-dea... i mean pro choice (dont you love how they prettied it up?). Im reading everything, dont worry.

I still just see a born baby as a phoetus in its later stages. For most Christians I knew, the development of the soul was at conception. Which is why they have a good reason (based on their beliefs) to be pro-life. I dont think I've read a decent counter argument, that clearly defines the differences between a unborn foetus and human baby, a difference that justifies the phoetus's death.

Im a little bit confused by:

We had a discussion about what defines life, in a group of diverse students, and eventually came to the conclusion that in order to be considered truly "alive" is to be able to recieve and/or communicate ideas to the world. A fetus cannot do either.

Er, its undeniably life. Even the most basic cell is considered life, never mind a unborn phoetus. Most scientists agree that life is defined to consist of 7 properties:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth

Is the wiki.

However ofc, this doesnt justify either side of the argument that is abortion. We kill life all the time. Human life is what we are supposed to preserve.

[ya_ba]

ok thats it, i can't take it anymore.

ABORTION IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF CONTRACEPTION.

thats all i'm saying....

now i'm gonna go back to biting my tounce on this one because i don't have a vagina.

Well, I do - and I still feel like it's wrong to judge either side, since I haven't been pregnant yet, and I certainly don't know how that would feel.
So either side could be a possible choice, but I'm not gonna be critisizing anyone for doing one.

[Sikotik]

I still just see a born baby as a phoetus in its later stages. For most Christians I knew, the development of the soul was at conception. Which is why they have a good reason (based on their beliefs) to be pro-life. I dont think I've read a decent counter argument, that clearly defines the differences between a unborn foetus and human baby, a difference that justifies the phoetus's death.

Most doctors at abortion clinics will not carry out an abortion after the third trimester is nearing it's end, because the fetus is then developed enough to survive life on it's own were it to be taken out at that time. Clearly you haven't read enough into the topic to say that you say you haven't read something that defines the difference. After about 36/40 weeks, the baby can survive on it's own. This is when abortion is cutoff, unless the mother's life is in danger. In which, they sacrifice the child for the mother.

Im a little bit confused by:

Er, its undeniably life. Even the most basic cell is considered life, never mind a unborn phoetus. Most scientists agree that life is defined to consist of 7 properties:

First off, you missed the idea entirely. The idea of when life starts and stops, not what life is by the textbook. The idea started from Euthanasia, but can be directly correlated to abortion by when the human is "alive" and should not be killed.