Religion Discussion

[Vaelahr]

I'd like to put this back on the table:

Let's take a peek at history for a moment: In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott Decision. By a 7-2 vote it ruled that black people were not "legal persons," that they were the property of the slave owner, who was granted the basic constitutional right to own a slave. Abolitionists protested, to be met with this answer: "We understand you oppose slavery and find it morally offensive. That is your privilege. You don’t have to own a slave if you don’t want to. But, don’t impose your morality on the slave owner. He has the constitutionally protected right to choose to own a slave."

Today the conflict is abortion, and the very same argument is used. In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 7-2 decision, ruled that unborn humans were not "legal persons," that they were the property of the owner (the mother) who was given the basic constitutional right to choose to kill her unborn offspring. Pro-lifers have protested, to be met with the same answer: "We understand that you oppose abortion and find it morally offensive. That is your privilege. You don’t have to have an abortion if you don’t want to. But don’t impose your morality on the owner, the mother, for she has the constitutional right to choose to kill, if she wishes."

"No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong." - President Abraham Lincoln

[Lusipher]

Guys are just as wrong and stupid for not using protection, too. It takes two to make a baby and im not letting guys off the hook. Women want control to make decisions for their own bodies so they should also be taking the precautions. Again, if they get pregnant there are others who would gladly take their baby once its born. A lot of women would rather abort the baby, though, than go full term and deliver it.

[Lusipher]

Right, women are sluts for getting pregnant and those men who get these women pregnant, then opt to 'walk away,' are studs.

Amazing the hypocrisy of a guy who's never had intimacy with anything other than his hand.

At least he's practicing safe sex, eh?

You can stop being a dumbass. Do you have any children of your own? I have a daughter who I love very much. At the time she was born my wife and I werent married. We chose to have our child because we loved her and wanted her. We married afterwards, but we werent selfish and thinking only about our future. We wanted to give our daughter a chance at life. Shes the best thing thats ever happened to me. I cant even imagine making a decision that would have taken her life. Even if we had not wanted to be parents we would have given her up for adoption, because we know people who would have loved to have children who couldnt.

So, stop your stupid comments when you dont have a clue what its like to have to really decide.

[Mulu]

Strangely the only thing we seem to have covered is abortion, so lets end that one. Please go back to OP (original post) !

There's a lot more to discuss in this thread, just keep on topic and don't be assholes pls!

Good luck with that.

[Mayhem]

Oh ffs Dan, drop the "you'd feel differently if you had kids bulls#1+."

Having kids doesn't give you some special epiphany or magically rewrite the ethical/moral centers of your brain.

[Lusipher]

It gives you a new perspective. One you wont realize till you become a parent.

[NickD]

It gives you a new perspective. One you wont realize till you become a parent.

You just made the same mistake White Warlock made!

Lusipher and White Warlock up a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G!

[Lusipher]

um wut?

[NickD]

um wut?

White Warlock assumed incorrectly you had no kids (or were a virgin or something), and you assumed incorrectly that Mayhem has no kids.

[Lusipher]

No, I said you get a new perspective being a parent. I have no idea if he has children or not. If he does have children then he obviously should understand that adoption a better way than actually killing a baby. They will at least goto a home/family who will love and raise them as one of their own. They will at least have a chance to live. Its a lot easier to understand as a parent than one whos never been one before. You feel the attachment and know what it would be like if that child wasnt in your life.

[Veilan]

I find the debate awkward to say the least. Obviously, I'm not a woman so I cannot easily say take away their right of chosing what to do with what may at that time still be a part of their body, but on the other hand, I'm very, very reluctant to say terminating a would-be life is okay, even, or especially, if we don't know for sure. I mean... pushing a button that may or may not kill a human is still not moral just because we don't know, but have reason to suspect, it just might.

So... to be honest, jury's out with me.

[Vaelahr]

I find the debate awkward to say the least. Obviously, I'm not a woman so I cannot easily say take away their right of chosing what to do with what may at that time still be a part of their body...

With history in mind;

Obviously I'm not a slave owner, so I cannot easily say, "take away their right of choosing what to do with their property...."

...but on the other hand, I'm very, very reluctant to say terminating a would-be life is okay, even, or especially, if we don't know for sure.

As I've posted earlier, if one is sincerely unsure about when human life begins, why not give life the benefit of the doubt? The examples; frantically working to rescue entombed miners, not burying the comatosed, searching the sea for a lost swimmer, etc.,

I feel like I know every angle of this issue. I know the adoption angle; I know what it's like to be fifteen and be in a situation and have to make a decision. Terminating pregnancy is not an easy thing.

To be later countered by:

The vast majority of people who support abortion take that position with the firm conviction that life does not begin at conception.

That being said...

If one personally felt "terminating pregnancy is not an easy thing" but was the right of the individual to make that "decision"...

Is the life within the mother's womb a human person?

If the answer is "no, it is not a human person", why would one feel it "is not an easy thing" to do?

If the answer is "yes, it is a human person", why would one advocate "terminating" it?

If the answer is "I don't know if it is or isn't a human person", how many more "decision(s)" would one make in an uncertain "situation"?

If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary.

However...

If the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

Nearly all arguments for abortion are based on the faulty premise that the unborn are not fully human.

When is a woman not a woman?

Therein lies the only clear refutation of a woman’s rights.
A woman’s rights —
seems a mere tautology, a redundant catch phrase.
Are not rights self evident?
Intrinsic assumptions of the inalienable?
So, when is a woman not a woman,
a right not a right?

When she doesn’t exist.

Another very well written defense below:

When does a woman become a woman?

Is it when
her first ballot has been cast?
Or when
she graduates from her class?

Is it when
she makes a wish on her sweet sixteenth?
Would I be amiss if it were her first kiss?

Is it when
she’s diagnosed by the boy next door?
Or as ambiguous as the cutting of the cord?

Is it the time
it takes to travel the distance through the canal?
Or when
she’s kicking and becomes viable?

Is it when
her sex is discovered by a sonogram?
Or after eight weeks when
the changes in her body will be mainly in dimension?

Is it when
her brain waves are detected after 40 days?
Or is it around three weeks when
her primitive heart beats?

Can there be only one true line of demarcation?
One finite measurable point in time that differentiates
life from non-life?
Womanhood from non-womanhood?
Rights from no right?

Is it the moment of conception —
that point when all of the above is set in motion?
That precise moment when
"a separate human individual, with her own genetic code,
needing only food, water, and oxygen, comes into existence"?

Indeed,
It is at that point,
"like the infant, the child, the adolescent,
that the conceptus is a being who is becoming,
not a becoming striving toward being.

She is not a potential life,
she is a life with great potential".
She is not the mother,
she is an other —
a somebody other than the mother.

A woman,
however beautiful, however complex when fully grown,
begins life as a single cell, a zygote —
that stage in human development through which we all pass.
She fulfills "the four criteria necessary to all life —
metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
Her genetic makeup is established at conception,
determining to a great extent
her own individual, physical characteristics":
her eyes, her hair, her skin color, bone structure, her gender.

So let us not be confused,
"she did not come from a zygote — she once was a zygote.
She did not come from an embryo, she once was an embryo.
She did not come from a fetus, she once was a fetus".
She did not come from a little girl — she once was a little girl.

When is a woman not a woman?
The answer is absolute, non-negotiable.
To argue against would be to ignore the innate,
the fact of the matter.
The answer can never be a matter of opinion or choice.
This is not a metaphysical contention.
This is biology 101.
The answer is scientifically self-evident —
as inherent as the inalienable.

Therefore,
the ability to pursue happiness
is contingent upon liberty —
her liberty,
and her freedom is solely dependent upon
the mother of all human rights...

the right of life.

[White Warlock]

Just to clarify NickD, I didn't assume incorrectly. I knew Dan has a child. My comment was, and still is, a joke. Humor is sometimes fun to add to the mix of an otherwise ridiculous discussion, especially when I get to jab someone in the same delivery (of joke).

Right, women are sluts for getting pregnant and those men who get these women pregnant, then opt to 'walk away,' are studs.

Amazing the hypocrisy of a guy who's never had intimacy with anything other than his hand.

At least he's practicing safe sex, eh?

See? Joke... humor, ark ark.

So, stop your stupid comments when you dont have a clue what its like to have to really decide.

Now... this is an example of incorrectly assuming. To be quite frank with you bud, two of my children were aborted, for medical reasons. I had one child, who was murdered at 11 months by the stepfather. As far as I know, I have no living offspring.

Bringing a child into the world is not so cut and dry. Sometimes you need to consider just where that child is going to end up. This grossly ignorant assumption of yours that people are lining up to adopt... is just that, ignorant. Maybe you might want to spend a little time visiting some of the foster homes or County juvenile habitation centers. Maybe you might want to visit some of the orphanages out there, or maybe visit some of the more deprecating neighborhoods and get a clue as to just what happens to both the child and the parent when abortion is not chosen.

Maybe, as well, you might want to consider that when a woman carries a child to full term, there is a chemical process that occurs within her, making it virtually impossible for her to release the child to adoption. A bonding occurs, but if the mother is not fit for raising the child, or circumstances exist that would make it a gross hardship for both mother and child, then the choice to abort... before the chemical influence hits, is the far better route to take.

And remember Dan, you may "think" you're not letting the man off the hook, but it just so happens... that's his choice, and in the vast majority of cases, the man zips up his pants and says, "suffer bitch, i'm off to screw another slut." So, really dude... stfu and let's go to another topic. One where i'm not inclined to stick my finger in your eye and say, "hey, is there anything in there?"

Last note, in case your little mind is looking for some opening, i have always practiced safe sex and so have many of my partners. The incidents of pregnancy ... happened. Things... happen. The only true safe sex is abstinence. I'm sure you realize how virtually impossible that is, and therefore how ridiculous a notion it is to try and push upon the populace.

[Veilan]

...but on the other hand, I'm very, very reluctant to say terminating a would-be life is okay, even, or especially, if we don't know for sure.

As I've posted earlier, if one is sincerely unsure about when human life begins, why not give life the benefit of the doubt?

Erm... that's what I did, didn't I?

[Vaelahr]

...but on the other hand, I'm very, very reluctant to say terminating a would-be life is okay, even, or especially, if we don't know for sure.

As I've posted earlier, if one is sincerely unsure about when human life begins, why not give life the benefit of the doubt?

Erm... that's what I did, didn't I?

I'm sorry Veilan, my wording could have been better. I attempted to use your post to reiterate something earlier posted. I didn't mean for that to sound combative or something.