I don't care how many friends I lose over this (Abortion propaganda)

[Demosthenes]

I read this on myspace, and decided to post:

Month one

Mommy
I am only 4 inches long
but I have all my organs.
I love the sound of your voice.
The sound of your heart beat
is my favorite lullaby.



Month Two

Mommy
today I learned how to suck my thumb.
If you could see me
you could definitely tell that I am a baby.
I'm not big enough to survive outside my home though.
It is so nice and warm in here.





Month Three

You know what Mommy
I'm a boy!!
I hope that makes you happy.
I always want you to be happy.
I don't like it when you cry.
You sound so sad.
It makes me sad too
and I cry with you even though
you can't hear me.




Month Four

Mommy
my hair is starting to grow.
It is very short and fine
but I will have a lot of it.
I spend a lot of my time exercising.
I can turn my head and curl my fingers and toes
and stretch my arms and legs.
I am becoming quite good at it too.




Month Five

You went to the doctor today.
Mommy, he lied to you.
He said that I'm not a baby.
I am a baby Mommy, your baby.
I think and feel.
Mommy, what's abortion?




Month Six


I can hear that doctor again.
I don't like him.
He seems cold and heartless.
Something is intruding my home.
The doctor called it a needle.
Mommy what is it? It burns!
Please make him stop!
I can't get away from it!
Mommy! HELP me!



Month Seven


Mommy
I am okay.
I am in God's arms.
He is holding me.
He told me about abortion.
Why didn't you want me Mommy?

Every Abortion Is Just . . .



One more heart that was stopped.
Two more eyes that will never see.
Two more hands that will never touch.
Two more legs that will never run.
One more mouth that will never speak..........


If you're against abortion, post this as...
I Dont Care How Many Friends I Lose Over This

[Demosthenes]

I also decided to reply:

The article I posted before this is almost COMPLETELY loaded with crap. Almost everything it says is a figment of someone's imagination.

The one month old embryo isn't even considered a fetus. It is not four inches long, in fact, when I looked at a spontaneously aborted embryo 4 weeks old preserved by plasticination I could not see it. It does not have most of its organs. It begins developing a brain at around this time. The heart does not begin to beat until around the fifth week. The lungs do not form until around the seventh week. It takes many, many more months before these organs finish developing.

At 8 weeks the embryo is hardly visible. It can't suck its thumbs -- in fact its fingers and toes are still webbed. And of course it's not capable of surviving outside of the womb. It's not even a fetus at this stage; much less a human baby. The 8-week old embryo looked more like hardened semen than a human baby.

At least this load of crap propaganda gets something right. The genitals are developed generally by the end of the third month. However, take note -- the original article claimed that the embryo if four inches long at the end of the first month. At the end of the 3rd month the fetus (yes, now it can properly be called that) still has not hit a length of 4 inches. The notion that the fetus is capable of human emotions is ludicrous.

Yes, it is true that the fetus grows hair on the fourth month. However, this is not the same hair you will see when you deliver. The hair that the article refers to is called Lanugo. It grows to insulate the skin because at this point the fetus does not have enough fat. Lanugo does not only grow on the head, it covers the entire fetal body. Lanugo is shed before birth.

The piece of propaganda claims that the fetus can think and feel by the fifth month. What a load of crap. The fetal brain is not even well enough developed to control basic bodily functions until the sixth month.

Women, please, please, don't buy into this religious propaganda. If you want a baby, great. However, get an abortion if need be. Don't ruin your life over fallacious propaganda.

[D3V]

Check and mate.



*Oh, and I've seen that on Myspace as well.

[talentedhamster]

i was always for abortion and always will be.

[D3V]

Meh, I don't really care either way I think it should be up to the parent, and personally think it should really be a life saving situation.. because if you are irresponsible enough to get pregnant you need to be forced into responsibility for your actions.

[KagomJack]

I've seen that in school. Yay Catholic School.

[!King_Amazon!]

I was always against abortion until about a year ago, probably. Most of my views changed about then. I'm not an idiot, so much, anymore.

I think abortion is fine, as long as it isn't abused. If someone is having multiple abortions within a couple of years, then something needs to be done. If someone accidently gets knocked up and doesn't feel like they are ready for a child, I think they should first have to take a class on ALTERNATIVES to abortion, before they can actually have an abortion. I think that adoption is probably the better choice.

I don't think the "abortion is alright because the world is overpopulated" argument is a good one, even if it might be true. There are better ways to go about fixing overpopulation problems.

[Demosthenes]

D3V, out of curiosity, why would you consider sex irresponsible?

[Demosthenes]

I was always against abortion until about a year ago, probably. Most of my views changed about then. I'm not an idiot, so much, anymore.

I think abortion is fine, as long as it isn't abused. If someone is having multiple abortions within a couple of years, then something needs to be done. If someone accidently gets knocked up and doesn't feel like they are ready for a child, I think they should first have to take a class on ALTERNATIVES to abortion, before they can actually have an abortion. I think that adoption is probably the better choice.

I used to feel the same way, but the more I learn about biology the more I am against that particular view.

[!King_Amazon!]

I used to feel the same way, but the more I learn about biology the more I am against that particular view.
How do you mean? What does biology have to do with my POV?

[-Spector-]

YOUR A MONKEY MJ!


l

[Demosthenes]

How do you mean? What does biology have to do with my POV?

Well, I felt that the fetal life is about equivalent to a human life. I may be incorrect in my assumption, but perhaps you did as well? You seemed to agree with my point of view last year, which is the basis of my assumption.

[Asamin]

I used to be against abortion. Then in 7th grade I was given an assignment to argue for abortion. After studying the reasons, I am now for abortion.

[Willkillforfood]

Most women have had billions of gamets(sp?) meet their demise in their gullets. What's an extra zygote thrown in the mix? Imo.

[!King_Amazon!]

Well, I felt that the fetal life is about equivalent to a human life. I may be incorrect in my assumption, but perhaps you did as well? You seemed to agree with my point of view last year, which is the basis of my assumption.
I'm not really of that opinion so much. I don't believe what I believe for moral reasons. There are lots of people who would love to have a child but can't. Also, I believe abortion is ending a potential for human life. I'm still pro choice, but I think adoption should be encouraged rather than abortion, mainly because someone else might want the baby.

If the issue is that having a baby is not desireable for the parent, abortion and adoption are equally applicable for the parent. Adoption could help someone else, as well.

[Demosthenes]

Also, I believe abortion is ending a potential for human life.

This is what I was talking about. Biology has helped me better understand this idea.

[Willkillforfood]

I'm not really of that opinion so much. I don't believe what I believe for moral reasons. There are lots of people who would love to have a child but can't. Also, I believe abortion is ending a potential for human life. I'm still pro choice, but I think adoption should be encouraged rather than abortion, mainly because someone else might want the baby.

If the issue is that having a baby is not desireable for the parent, abortion and adoption are equally applicable for the parent. Adoption could help someone else, as well.

We're overpopulated as it is. The earth is over stressed and if people don't want to have kids they really just shouldn't. That's my .02 dollars.

[Atnas]

I'm not really of that opinion so much. I don't believe what I believe for moral reasons. There are lots of people who would love to have a child but can't. Also, I believe abortion is ending a potential for human life. I'm still pro choice, but I think adoption should be encouraged rather than abortion, mainly because someone else might want the baby.

If the issue is that having a baby is not desireable for the parent, abortion and adoption are equally applicable for the parent. Adoption could help someone else, as well.

/signed

My views completely. In the end the woman has the choice, but it really shouldn't be encouraged, the baby is just as human as you or I.

If you're irrisponsible and the baby is a mistake, adoption should be your path, it was your stupid blunder you should take responsibility for. Like how you shouldn't cheat in school because the purpose is not to get good grades, but to educate you on the consequences of your actions, ie learning the material, time management, course selection.

And condoms are not the same as abortion, because it prevents the whole process from ever happening, not the further development of the embryo/fetus.

[Willkillforfood]

Condoms can break or if not the proper size/used improperly slide off and cause unwanted pregnancy. Early unwanted pregnancies can signifigantly affect quality of life for the young family.

[Demosthenes]

the baby is just as human as you or I.

I contest this statement. (Note: Fetus is the appropriate term)

[!King_Amazon!]

I contest this statement. (Note: Fetus is the appropriate term)
Ditto.

I don't believe an unborn child is the same as a living human. Like I said before, I believe it to be potential for life.

[talentedhamster]

exactly. its not alive til it's out

[Adrenachrome]

Ditto.

I don't believe an unborn child is the same as a living human. Like I said before, I believe it to be potential for life.

Uh... It is totally life or it would not grow.


Condoms can break or if not the proper size/used improperly slide off and cause unwanted pregnancy. Early unwanted pregnancies can signifigantly affect quality of life for the young family.

sorry bud, condoms do not "cause" pregnancy, they dramaticly raise the probobility of a pregnancy however.




I think abortion should be fine so long as it is within the first trimester, after it has most of its organs and eyes, heartbeat ect.. It is too late after that for me. regardless what i think of it, i know that the federal government should not even consider having a say in the matter, if anything it is a state issue.

I also do not think it should be used lightly, any given female should only be able to have mutiple abortions if it is a rape baby or severly deformed.. life death, and some other reasons I am sure.

Also it shouldn't ever be funded by tax dollars.

[D3V]

Also it shouldn't ever be funded by tax dollars.

You are just hell bent on tax dollars aren't you? How much are you making a year if I may ask..?

You don't have a problem with the Economy being fucked with $110 Million a day being spent on the Iraq war, but if somebody wants to raise taxes $15 at tax time you throw a shit fit, I don't understand the logic when you're going to be paying more for gas,food,milk,eggs, etc in a whole that will end up costing you 4-500x more than the $15 in a total raise in tax to make our economy/nation better.

[Willkillforfood]

sorry bud, condoms do not "cause" pregnancy, they dramaticly raise the probobility of a pregnancy however.


No, condoms don't cause pregnancy. I never said they did. I just said defective ones or improper use could cause an unwanted pregnancy. I wasn't saying a woman sticking a new condom in her could knock her up. I don't really think you assumed that either x_X. I hope not at least :p.

[Dar_Win]

The world is wayyy over populated.

I welcome all abortions.

[Dar_Win]

You are just hell bent on tax dollars aren't you? How much are you making a year if I may ask..?

You don't have a problem with the Economy being fucked with $110 Million a day being spent on the Iraq war, but if somebody wants to raise taxes $15 at tax time you throw a shit fit, I don't understand the logic when you're going to be paying more for gas,food,milk,eggs, etc in a whole that will end up costing you 4-500x more than the $15 in a total raise in tax to make our economy/nation better.

Yay for socialism! :p

[Atnas]

Well then maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

A fetus has the potential for life and should be treated as life. Once the sperm reaches the egg, then it's a potential baby in my book.

-------------------

After saying that just now I had an epiphany. Given my theory of consciousness, the baby is not special, nor is a fully grown human. At least, the life is special, but so is every life. The death of an adult, a baby, a plant, or a cat does not matter, because every life is as special as the next. No one should get wrapped up in semantics about when the fetus becomes a human. It does not matter - and anyone you argue with who believes the fetus is special because it has a "soul" won't be convinced no matter what you say. I believe a glass of water has just about as much "soul" as a fetus, if not more.

Let people do as they please, then. I'd rather see an adoption, though, because fundamentally I think that to stop the possibility of a beautiful creature such as a human is a small crime in itself.

[talentedhamster]

Well then maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

A fetus has the potential for life and should be treated as life. Once the sperm reaches the egg, then it's a potential baby in my book.



Well then getting your period is wrong too. that egg ad the possibility of being fertilized, and that fetus had the possibility of life. So about once a month, i kill a baby.

[Adrenachrome]

You are just hell bent on tax dollars aren't you? How much are you making a year if I may ask..?

You don't have a problem with the Economy being fucked with $110 Million a day being spent on the Iraq war, but if somebody wants to raise taxes $15 at tax time you throw a shit fit, I don't understand the logic when you're going to be paying more for gas,food,milk,eggs, etc in a whole that will end up costing you 4-500x more than the $15 in a total raise in tax to make our economy/nation better.


Well that stuff aside, Most of the people who are staunchly against abortion are against it because of their religion, they believe the embryo or fetus has a soul and that god protects that soul. I do not believe in a spirit or soul, but regardless, these people should not be forced to pay for something they feel violates their religious values.

[Atnas]

Sperm enters the vagina during a period without intercourse? And I denounced that statement btw.

[kyeruu]

abortion is taking away a life, how EVER aborting before it's even begun production like mj mentioned at the beggining is completely fine with me :P
if something doesn't HAVE a life, you can't take it away right?

[Demosthenes]

abortion is taking away a life

Only on the same level that taking antibiotics is taking away a life.

[kyeruu]

yes but that would be suiciding, but its' like homicide for the one prescribing the antibiotics.

[Draco2003]

Well, I also got this on myspace, although it quite bugged me. Why would the woman be having an abortion after 7 months? I thought, or so I was taught in school, that it only takes 9 months for a sperm to become a "mini-me". Also, I was under the impression that after the first 3 months, no clinic or hospital would perform the abortion, something about basically commiting murder or something. Maybe it was a point of view thing or something....

But yeah, I just thought that after 7 months, she might as well just push the puppy out.

I am pro-choice, one reason being that if a woman was raped, that would suck that she has to have that child and forever look into the face of her attacker. That's how I see it at least...

[hotdog]

Now how many people here who used "it's a life or potential life" arguement voted to go to war? How many voted on measures to clear out forests and build on land thus killing a ton of life? Be honest now. If you did. Then you show arrogance and have commited the same sin Satan did. You viewed yourself (human life) as more important than other forms of life.

By the end of the day humans who value life, are on a cosmic scale, hippocrites. To gain energy and surrvive a human must consume/absorb something to gain that energy. However you cannot eat a non living thing such as a rock and get energy. To gain energy a human must eat something that also absorbs energy. The only things that can do that are living creatures. Therefore you are a hippocrite. You say you value life? Then stop eating. Or can you not stop eating other living creatures (which makes them dead and makes you a killer) because you value yourself above all else? Granted many people do not actually kill their own source of energy they still eat it and it was still a living creature. It's still the same thing. You don't value it's life or respect it since you did nothing to stop it or protest against it. That is life. It is unescapable. In fact for those who so value the fetus did you know when you eat fruits you are eating the fetus of the plant? You are no different than a creature who would rip the fetus out of a pregnant woman and eat it to survive.

As to this crap about morality. No one wants to help anyone else when it costs them time or resources. What do they get in return for it? This again is humanity take it or leave it. Instincts say to always gain from all of your dealings so that you can survive. So why should someone have a baby to give it away? Yes it's nice but they gain nothing from it. This in itself is primitive behavior. It's part of us.

The most arrogant and insulting thing I have heard thus far though in my life is that we were made. Created by some unknown man in the sky. To be in his image. This is not only arrogant but it shows a fear of being able to accept your own individuality. Are you so scared of being a natural product just like a peach or apple? Are you so scared of having to think and act for yourself that you need an anchor? This is behavior I find insulting and arrogant. Who thinks they are so much more important that they get a place to go after death. Who is so arrogant that they think someone is actually watching over them? Who is so arrogant to think they are actually that important?

Humans I agree are interesting creatures. But they are far from beautiful as stated earlier. I could go on but all in all humans are just able to use tools to an advanced skill level because of this they label themselves "intelligent". That is the only difference between humans and other lifeforms. The ability to make use of tools to a better degree.

[krisvek]

No matter how you state your opinion, it is still simply an opinion. Perception is reality, and hotdog's perception of reality is rather pessimistic, if I do say so :)

Not that I try to fancy things up any more than they are. Humanity IS interesting, and very well may be a simple by-product of a very complex chain of events that we can only hope to grasp at an understanding of. But, we don't know everything, we can only pretend to know everything, and that doesn't help anyone. Considering all that we DO know, we are not able to definitively make a judgment as to whether or not some things are true or not. Even the relatively few things we DO believe we know to be fact, are only relatively so. Scientific understanding has grown greatly in the last one hundred years alone, but do you know what that also means? Many, many things that humanity "knew" a hundred years ago was wrong. One can only presume that many, many things we "know" now will also be found to be wrong.
How are we supposed to rely on science, the foundation of our modern world, when it has and continues to change it's very nature? People of the past weren't stupid, they just hadn't collaborated and combined as much knowledge as we have by today. So, if people who were not stupid believed in things that were wrong back then, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that people today who are not stupid may believe in things that will be discovered to be incorrect in the future. How can we state with any confidence that what is "fact" now will continue to be so?

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think that science is wrong. I just don't think that having faith in it is much more logical than having faith in anything else. The principle thing I appreciate about science is the notion of cause and effect, and science is yet to determine an appropriate explanation for where everything came from.

For fun....one of humanities most enduring beliefs is that of the religious realm. Religion, so far as I can tell (judging by what I know of historical discoveries, like ancient hieroglyphics) predates math, writing, and all of the other foundations of science. At the least, one can say that religion, in the base form (everything we know of must have come from some source, whatever it be), is much more stable and consistent than science has been. What we know of atoms, one of the fundamental building blocks of ALL MATTER, has changed drastically in the last 100 years, and don't get me started on the big bang theory.... :-P

[hotdog]

Oh no I completely agree with you. I find them interesting. I was just stating how the human mind is raised to think for the majority. It kind of makes me sad.

Of course religion will be more stable than science. The point of science is to explore new realms of possibility and try *new* things. Religion is quite the opposite in terms of that from what I have seen. Thus it would remain quite stable. How can something change when it is not allowed to be explored further or when people won't allow it to change? The bible says something and that's that. You are not open to debate against it. Well you are but most people won't accept it.

And don't get me started on the Big Bang Theory either. :) I almost said Big Bag Theory. Stupid N key is all messed up.

[Demosthenes]

and don't get me started on the big bang theory.... :-P

Oh God...

Not another one of those. Next I suppose he'll say evolution is just a theory.

[Atnas]

But isn't it?

[Demosthenes]

But isn't it?

Are you being facetious?

[Atnas]

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.

[talentedhamster]

to get back on subject....

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

[Wallow]

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.

[Demosthenes]

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?

[talentedhamster]

and every time i get my period

[krisvek]

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.

[Demosthenes]

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.

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.

So far as abortion goes, no, masturbation wouldn't be the same, and no, a period wouldn't be the same, as an abortion.

Why?

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.

Why is abortion an unacceptable means of birth-control?

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.

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

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.

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

[Wallow]

[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

[Demosthenes]

[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).

One could always produce another fetus.

[Willkillforfood]

and every time i get my period

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!

[talentedhamster]

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

[krisvek]

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?

[Demosthenes]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.


Masturbation and periods are natural. Fetuses are natural. An abortion is not. Duh :)

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

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.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance.

Sperm and eggs, apart from one another, are just the parts that combine to make a whole.

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.

So, for the Big Bang to be true, we just have to allow for time to understand it?

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.

But this is not an option with regards to religion?

The difference between science and religion is evidence.

Do you not accept that there may very well be MANY things in reality that we do not understand? Or that we misunderstand?

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 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 wouldn't call accepting material from a textbook faith.

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

[D3V]

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

[Demosthenes]

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.

[D3V]

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.

[Demosthenes]

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.

[D3V]

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

[Demosthenes]

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."

[Wallow]

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

[krisvek]

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!

[Willkillforfood]

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.

[talentedhamster]

killin babies?