Are you being facetious?

I'm being completely facetious. ;)

However I do see the merit in calling it a theory. It's just highly UNLIKELY it is not a factual process.

Like I said somewhere before, the word "theory" allows science a valid excuse if God is fucking with our eyes.

But it is a pretty nil argument, seeing as to how the "what if" thought process will never lead to a solid conclusion. The only interpretation of reality I can think of that allows the firmest basis for discussion is the collective group of theories which science has produced to be taken as fact.

to get back on subject....

kill the babies!! and by babies i mean unborn clumps of cells.

The only way to vote pro-abortion is to look at the unborn babies in a scientific way. But for all people that have a religions standpoint, they scream that abortion is wrong. I personally believe that abortion is wrong, because even if the baby is undeveloped, it still has the potential to become something big, and by big, I mean literally and morally.

Wouldn't you be killing the potential every time you masturbate as well?

and every time i get my period

For the record, I wasn't implying I was against the notion of the Big Bang theory, but rather, it is basically just as miraculous an event as anything that religions propose.

Also, when I speak of religion, I don't necessarily mean BIBLICAL religion alone. There's a whole lot more to religion than the bible. If you have some personal beef with the bible, that's a different topic :)

So far as abortion goes, no, masturbation wouldn't be the same, and no, a period wouldn't be the same, as an abortion. Furthermore, while I may state simply that I am "against abortion", there's a lot of details that I haven't elaborated on. A clearer way of expressing my feelings towards it would be that I am against CASUAL abortion, such as, abortion as a means of birth control. If you eliminated the casual, birth-control abortions, that would leave the life-threating, rape, etc. scenarios to be discussed, which makes things more complex.

In general, I just think that self-control is important and that there should be more of a focus on it in all areas of life. Having an abortion is usually (USUALLY, not ALWAYS) just the lazy and irresponsible way out of a difficult situation that poor choices have led to.

It's only miraculous now because we don't understand it yet. Once we manage to do that, it will be no more miraculous than lightning.

Why?

Why is abortion an unacceptable means of birth-control?

Self control in what way? The only absolutely sure way to not get pregnant is abstinence. Are you advocating abstaining from sex altogether?

Irresponsible in what way? The only way I can see someone arguing that is from a purely religious perspective.

[QUOTE=talentedhamster]and every time i get my period[/QUOTE'

Masturbation doesn't affect the potential of an egg becoming fertilized, one always has more sperm (awkward). And a period is because an egg wasn't fertilized, it doesn't cause that... So I don't know where that came from

[QUOTE=Why]One could always produce another fetus.

Exactly right. You're a baby killer. And every time you swallow that semen, you're a cannibal. I HOPE YOU CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT!

wahh im a horrible person!!!!! =[

From a personal viewpoint, in my mind, it's just more logical to prevent an issue or problem from happening in the first place than to have to deal with cleaning up the mes afterwards.

There are cures for some diseases, and there are also immunizations from them. Does it make sense to get immunized? Yes. Abortion isn't a disease, but if you don't look at the comparison obtusely, then you can see what I mean.

Carry a gun into a danger zone, or simply avoid the danger zone? Get shit-faced drunk and have to find someone to get you home, or limit yourself and get yourself home?

And where the heck did abstinence come from? There are plenty of ways to have sex without worrying so much about pregnancy, bountiful options when it comes to choosing a birth control, and all of them cheaper than abortions.

About your other responses:

Masturbation and periods are natural. Fetuses are natural. An abortion is not. Duh :) There are also the biological difference too... a person receiving an organ transplant, for example. That person, without the organ, will not be alive (unless artificially assisted, of course). That person with the organ is alive. Sperm and eggs, apart from one another, are just the parts that combine to make a whole.

So, for the Big Bang to be true, we just have to allow for time to understand it? But this is not an option with regards to religion? Do you not accept that there may very well be MANY things in reality that we do not understand? Or that we misunderstand?

I do not argue from a purely religious perspective, I just insist that the same lines of logic that are used to support and detract from each issue be assigned to both parties. Such as, the issue of faith. How many of the researchers and scientists that have discovered the many facets of science do you personally know? How many have you seen? Can you even identify and name all of them, and their contributions? Are they not also human, just as prone to deceit, ignorance, pride, etc. as the rest of us? How is it that we can trust science more than anything else? I don't ask this to suggest that one throw away what humanity has learned, I don't propose the crazy notion that all of science is some sort of grand scheme or hoax. But does it not appear as if faith is an element? Don't we all have faith in what we are taught and told and hear and see?

I don't think the problem is the pregnancy itself. Bringing a baby into the arms of parents who are incapable or unwilling to raise it is. In this case, abortion acts as a preventative method rather than a clean-up method.

But the analogy is specious. For the analogy to convey your perspective, abotrion must be looked at as the disease. I propose shifting that viewpoint and looking at abortion as the immunization rather than the disease itself.

The only way to prevent pregnancy a 100% of the time is abstinence -- and as WW pointed out in another thread, that's not a full 100%. I think your gun analogy would be more apt if rephrased. Lets say you need to get home. The only way to get home is through a danger zone. Do you avoid the danger zone and not go home, or carry a gun?

Sex is a natural, and essential part of the human condition. Enjoy it.

None of them quite as effective as abstinence. What would you propose to a girl who is on birth-control pills, who used a physical contraceptive, and took the morning-after pill, yet still got pregnant? These cases are rare, but they happen.


I would argue that abortions are more natural than physical or chemical contraceptives. Spontaneous abortions happen all the time.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance.

A whole what? A zygote? If killing that is murder, than why is it not murder in the case of rape, or other more complicated cases. Further, why is it not murder when you kill a roach? A roach is far more complex than a zygote.

No, what happened is true whether or not we understand it. Now, we understand the conception of the universe to a good bit of detail already. Our view may be honed and perfected, but the overall picture is not going to change.

The difference between science and religion is evidence.

Wholly. However, I am about as certain as I am of anything else in the world that a magic man in the sky did not create our world in 7 days starting on October 22, 4042 B.C.

I wouldn't call accepting material from a textbook faith.

Perhaps you would enjoy this thread: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042

How's about we just leave it up to the mother and father of the child and shut the fuck up about it? :)

That's entirely what I think. But that's not the question. The question is whether or not it is unethical, and based on that, whether or not it should be illegal. Ethics is not a question for science, but ethical decisions should certainly be informed and based on scientific facts.

Well you're preaching to the choir as well on that note. I mean, personally I am against abortion, I honestly don't think that anybody should do it unless their life is threatened, I feel that you shouldn't be able to just abort the baby because you fucked up, I feel more-so you shouldn't be allowed on a basis that you need to learn your lesson.

Your first sentence, and the rest of your paragraph contradict each other.

No, i'm saying I am against abortion, but yet the parents of this particular offspring should decide what happens to it, not me.

Right, but this thread isn't really about telling people what to do. It started out as a dissection of some propaganda, but transformed into whether or not abortion is ethical. On that topic, it certainly does not seem that I am "preaching to the choir."

Poor infertile couples, they don't get to decide if they want to kill babies by abortion or not.

Parents being incapable or unwilling to raise a child is a completely different matter. There are plenty of people (perhaps most of the Earth's population?) who are WILLING and CAPABLE, but still do a shit job of it :)

The analogy isn't specious. For off-the-cuff attempts, it was clear enough, and you get the idea, you simply disagree with it. This isn't a debate as to which analogy is best. So far as your alternate gun analogy goes, how about walk through a danger zone with a gun every day, or just find a new home? If the issue is practicality, then finding a new home may not be an easily attainable option, but if your life and safety is the primary concern, I'm sure one could find a way.

"Sex is a natural, and essential part of the human condition. Enjoy it."
There are many things in life that are as natural and essential as sex, but all of them benefit from responsible moderation as well. Another fun analogy, heheh: Let's say peanut butter is your most favorite food of all, but you're dangerously allergic to it. Are you going to continue to eat it like a fool, spending a week in the hospital each time, or might you limit yourself, perhaps take some sort of allergy medicine, and get to enjoy good health AND good food?
Plain and simple, sex results in babies, so unless you are willing to take the risk, maybe you shouldn't be having it. I enjoy sex as much as most people, but abstinence isn't the worst thing in the world either. Many of us were unwillingly abstinent at some point in our lives anyhow, I'm sure :) And we survived! Life offers much more than the simple animal pleasures of sex, anyways. I don't understand how "no sex" is all that offending a thought.

Since you asked, yes, I would not kill a roach either. As it happens, I am a vegetarian, and while I'm aware that my very existence and living is at the cost of some sort of life or another, I feel it a good deed to try and, at the least, limit how may lives I willingly take. One of humanities greatest strengths is the power of our will.

Accepting textbook material isn't faith, but bible text is? Textbooks have little more standing in my eyes than works of fiction inspired by a person's observations. THAT is why I don't wholly accept what science offers me (for the record, I don't wholly accept for main-stream religion offers me, either). Science is based on measured and recorded observations, but observations are relative. Observations depend on one's perception, and perception is relative. For many things, every man and woman on Earth may share the same perception on an issue, but that STILL does not PROVE that observation.
The universe is large enough to essentially be considered infinite (without getting in to a discussion about the physical/observable universe and that of the void in which it resides). Anything that is infinite, or even so much greater in scale than we, can not be entirely observed by us. Sure, we can observe minute pieces of it, make some recordings and measurements, extrapolate some predictions, and compare these predictions to what happens later on, but that nonetheless does not prove anything, to me. All that we can conclude is that something APPEARS to work a certain way. We can not, and perhaps will never be able to, summarily define what IS the universe and reality, because due to our natural limitations, we can not perceive it all. For me, that is enough doubt for me to be skeptical about anything and everything. Sure, on the surface, I make it through each day assuming things are a certain way, but I never let myself make the presumption that I know or understand much of anything to be immutable and permanent and fact. Everything is and always will be a mystery to me, no matter how much any of us know about it all.

Your linked article was interesting, although I still disagree with you on an almost fundamental level, lol. Not that I think you're not smart and without valid points, and you do indeed seem very eloquent and good with grammar, especially. If anything, I would say that you seem to have closed your mind to the inherent mystery of existence, possibly even become somewhat self-affirming in your beliefs. Anyhow, I enjoy the discussion!

Omg, I believe the gametes are potential humans, and therefore murdering them or letting them naturally be recycled by your body is murder. Therefore, you should masturbate daily and be sure to catch every single little bugger in a tube. Then, they must be either cryogenically frozen or implanted in tens of millions of women. This is the only way to stop the massacre on such an epic scale.

killin babies?