31 replies to this topic

[Ion Cannon!]

I wonder how pro life they really are, been toying with this.

* Okay, so you say your pro life, but how against abortion are you really. Here is the situation.

You have a beautiful wife, you are both extremely happy together and plan on having children but theres medical problems at both ends that make conceiving a child more difficult than usual.
Then one day, you recieve a phonecall from her, she can barely control herself, shes in bits. She has just been violently raped. And guess what, it turns out a few weeks later shes pregnant with the rapists spawn as well. Are you really going to force your beautiful wife *who is now visibly and mentally scarred* to have a kid which will just remind her of the incident? Does that not seem well, evil to you?

[Shirou]

You don't even need the ''medical problems in conceiving a child'' for that scenario to work.

Going against the whole anti-abortion craze is useless as well, as it is christianity that is fuelling all of that.

[TheDR]

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 14:41, said:

I wonder how pro life they really are, been toying with this.

* Okay, so you say your pro life, but how against abortion are you really. Here is the situation.

You have a beautiful wife, you are both extremely happy together and plan on having children but theres medical problems at both ends that make conceiving a child more difficult than usual.
Then one day, you recieve a phonecall from her, she can barely control herself, shes in bits. She has just been violently raped. And guess what, it turns out a few weeks later shes pregnant with the rapists spawn as well. Are you really going to force your beautiful wife *who is now visibly and mentally scarred* to have a kid which will just remind her of the incident? Does that not seem well, evil to you?

My guess is they will answer something like:
"My wife would of had a gun and would have been fine".

I don't think you can "win", because, in their eyes, everything that that doesn't agree with how they think is already evil and wrong.

[Alias]

Trivmvirate, on 12 May 2010, 0:01, said:

You don't even need the ''medical problems in conceiving a child'' for that scenario to work.

Going against the whole anti-abortion craze is useless as well, as it is christianity that is fuelling all of that.

Some of us have alternate reasons. I am personally against abortion because I'm a pacifist. However, I also have the sense to see that I can do as much against preventing abortions as I can to stopping barfights.

They will happen regardless.

[Golan]

Why is a forum bashing thread in the PF? But alas, seeing that we're already here...

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 13:41, said:

You have a beautiful wife, you are both extremely happy together and plan on having children but theres medical problems at both ends that make conceiving a child more difficult than usual.
Then one day, you recieve a phonecall from her, she can barely control herself, shes in bits. She has just been violently raped. And guess what, it turns out a few weeks later shes pregnant with the rapists spawn as well. Are you really going to force your beautiful wife *who is now visibly and mentally scarred* to have a kid which will just remind her of the incident?

Why yes, how could you sacrifice a live to safe one that has already been destroyed? How could you victimize a being that hasn't done any wrong only because someone destroyed your utopia which you failed to defend?

Edited by Golan, 11 May 2010 - 14:49.

[Ion Cannon!]

Golan, on 11 May 2010, 15:48, said:

Why is a forum bashing thread in the PF? But alas, seeing that we're already here...

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 13:41, said:

You have a beautiful wife, you are both extremely happy together and plan on having children but theres medical problems at both ends that make conceiving a child more difficult than usual.
Then one day, you recieve a phonecall from her, she can barely control herself, shes in bits. She has just been violently raped. And guess what, it turns out a few weeks later shes pregnant with the rapists spawn as well. Are you really going to force your beautiful wife *who is now visibly and mentally scarred* to have a kid which will just remind her of the incident?

Why yes, how could you sacrifice a live to safe one that has already been destroyed? How could you victimize a being that hasn't done any wrong only because someone destroyed your utopia which you failed to defend?

Failed to defend? What so you would be there at your wife side 24/7? Isn't that a tad unrealistic. I also find your "already destroyed" a bit OTT. People who have been raped are severely negatively effected by it yes, but they aren't dead, they're still alive. Besides, bringing the rapists spawn into the world would cause your wife more pain. Are you seriously telling me you care more about a rapists baby than your own wife?

*Its quite likely your just playing devils advocate, but i'll respond anyway*

[Libains]

Golan, on 11 May 2010, 15:48, said:

Why is a forum bashing thread in the PF? But alas, seeing that we're already here...

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 13:41, said:

You have a beautiful wife, you are both extremely happy together and plan on having children but theres medical problems at both ends that make conceiving a child more difficult than usual.
Then one day, you recieve a phonecall from her, she can barely control herself, shes in bits. She has just been violently raped. And guess what, it turns out a few weeks later shes pregnant with the rapists spawn as well. Are you really going to force your beautiful wife *who is now visibly and mentally scarred* to have a kid which will just remind her of the incident?

Why yes, how could you sacrifice a live to safe one that has already been destroyed? How could you victimize a being that hasn't done any wrong only because someone destroyed your utopia which you failed to defend?

I'll give you another example - Brazil, one year ago.

Girl lives in the slums of Sao Paulo, these are dark and very dangerous places, but once you're there, there is little chance of pulling yourself out. She was 14 years old, coming home from school one day, when she was attacked and violently raped. She was also impregnated by one of the multiple men involved in the rape. She was taken to hospital, who along with finding all kinds of horrific abuse marks, told her that her pregnancy would mostly likely kill her - her hips were not wide enough to give birth. So where do you go from now? Do you terminate a tiny foetus, barely more than a bundle of cells, or do you, as per your argument, let this being kill her? Your discussion of failed defence I find quite abhorrent frankly, it is not your fault if you are victimised, drug-raped, attacked, or any of the other scenarios. This little girl was facing 5-6 full grown men. I'd like to see you defend yourself in the same scenario at age 14. And as Ion rightly points out, as a partner/responsible adult you cannot be around 24/7. This is independence for you.

Oh, and so's you know, this is a true story. This girl had the abortion. She went home. She was killed, as were her family. Christians in the slums were found guilty of it. Brazil is a highly Christian country, and the idea of abortion in the majority of the country is just non-existant. So pro-life Christians can frankly, go to Hell. If their beliefs are true, they probably will, mind you. Rape constitutes one of the worst offences a man can be guilty of (women can't be guilty of rape btw), and there is no possible reason bar primitive, animalistic reasons that should prevent anyone from having an abortion. It is the parents choice, and I frankly don't think killing a small bundle of cells that can't feel pain is such a bad thing, considering the detriment that it could later cause to the parents.

[Golan]

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 14:57, said:

Failed to defend? What so you would be there at your wife side 24/7? Isn't that a tad unrealistic. I also find your "already destroyed" a bit OTT. People who have been raped are severely negatively effected by it yes, but they aren't dead, they're still alive. Besides, bringing the rapists spawn into the world would cause your wife more pain. Are you seriously telling me you care more about a rapists baby than your own wife?

What does it matter if you weren't capable of defending her? It means failure just as well and doesn't justify a murder of an innocent. You could have prepared her! You could have taken responsibility and not turned a blind eye on violence and criminality! There are so many ways to fail that don't mean an unborn child has to take the fall for it.
I'm quite positive I didn't use the word "dead" or anything related to it. It's a traumatic experience that will basically wipe out most of the personality before that incident. Killing a child won't change that.
"The rapists spawn", doesn't that sound just a tiny little bit wrong to you? Killing someone not because of what they've done but what they are, sound familiar to you? It's your wife's child that you would be killing. Avoiding "more pain" in on itself doesn't justify plain out murder!

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 14:57, said:

*Its quite likely your just playing devils advocate, but i'll respond anyway*

'Tis the political forum, is it not? What'd it matter, sir? Feels better to me than seeing how this forum doesn't talk either.

AJ, on 11 May 2010, 15:02, said:

Girl lives in the slums of Sao Paulo, these are dark and very dangerous places, but once you're there, there is little chance of pulling yourself out. She was 14 years old, coming home from school one day, when she was attacked and violently raped. She was also impregnated by one of the multiple men involved in the rape. She was taken to hospital, who along with finding all kinds of horrific abuse marks, told her that her pregnancy would mostly likely kill her - her hips were not wide enough to give birth. So where do you go from now? Do you terminate a tiny foetus, barely more than a bundle of cells, or do you, as per your argument, let this being kill her? Your discussion of failed defence I find quite abhorrent frankly, it is not your fault if you are victimised, drug-raped, attacked, or any of the other scenarios. This little girl was facing 5-6 full grown men. I'd like to see you defend yourself in the same scenario at age 14. And as Ion rightly points out, as a partner/responsible adult you cannot be around 24/7. This is independence for you.

A) Caesarean section
B) Previous post, also quoted by you, clearly states "how could you sacrifice a live to safe one that has already been destroyed", with the unborn child's live in this case (as you pose it, see A)) clearly already having been destroyed by circumstances. Don't see much of a problem there, really. Save as many as you can.
C) Please see a dictionary for the word failure. Thank you.
D) Please explain to me how that'd make the abortion right in the initial example, dear sir.

AJ, on 11 May 2010, 15:02, said:

Oh, and so's you know, this is a true story. This girl had the abortion. She went home. She was killed, as were her family. Christians in the slums were found guilty of it. Brazil is a highly Christian country, and the idea of abortion in the majority of the country is just non-existant. So pro-life Christians can frankly, go to Hell. If their beliefs are true, they probably will, mind you. Rape constitutes one of the worst offences a man can be guilty of (women can't be guilty of rape btw), and there is no possible reason bar primitive, animalistic reasons that should prevent anyone from having an abortion. It is the parents choice, and I frankly don't think killing a small bundle of cells that can't feel pain is such a bad thing, considering the detriment that it could later cause to the parents.

Uhh, please stop with your ultra objective, not at all propagandistic, entirely unbiased argumentation, my inferior morality is already crumbling! Please, have mercy!
Want another true story? Every fifth child being killed by its own parents. Most of which would probably not make it into your tear jerker list of examples.
But if you find it primitive or animalistic to protect an unborn if possible, be my guest. After all, it's just a bundle of cells. Aren't we all, come to think of it?

[Ion Cannon!]

Golan, on 11 May 2010, 16:52, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 14:57, said:

Failed to defend? What so you would be there at your wife side 24/7? Isn't that a tad unrealistic. I also find your "already destroyed" a bit OTT. People who have been raped are severely negatively effected by it yes, but they aren't dead, they're still alive. Besides, bringing the rapists spawn into the world would cause your wife more pain. Are you seriously telling me you care more about a rapists baby than your own wife?

What does it matter if you weren't capable of defending her? It means failure just as well and doesn't justify a murder of an innocent. You could have prepared her! You could have taken responsibility and not turned a blind eye on violence and criminality! There are so many ways to fail that don't mean an unborn child has to take the fall for it.
I'm quite positive I didn't use the word "dead" or anything related to it. It's a traumatic experience that will basically wipe out most of the personality before that incident. Killing a child won't change that.
"The rapists spawn", doesn't that sound just a tiny little bit wrong to you? Killing someone not because of what they've done but what they are, sound familiar to you? It's your wife's child that you would be killing. Avoiding "more pain" in on itself doesn't justify plain out murder!

Yes because you can really prepare someone to be brutally raped in some cases gang raped, short of watching them 24/7 at a distance with a high powered sniper rifle. Seriously, be realistic. Your argument just sounds absurd.

I argued that destroyed was to far because your justification seemed to be " Well your wife is essentially a hollow shell now anyway, why sacrifice a potential life for it " - My point was she isn't just a hollow shell, people who have been raped recover - well some do. I know this for a fact, because I know a rape victim.

The whole point of having a child is out of love, its supposed to be the most amazing moment and experience of your life. This child would not be born out of love, but hate, anger and misery. Thats even assuming the couple wanted a child in the first place - in my example they did.

It basically comes down to this, neither the potential child or mother asked for what happened. So do you care more about a potential life or your partner? In cases such as rape a woman is totally justified to have an abortion if she chooses to, and she should be able to without fear of punishment.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 11 May 2010 - 16:08.

[Libains]

Golan, on 11 May 2010, 16:52, said:

AJ, on 11 May 2010, 15:02, said:

Girl lives in the slums of Sao Paulo, these are dark and very dangerous places, but once you're there, there is little chance of pulling yourself out. She was 14 years old, coming home from school one day, when she was attacked and violently raped. She was also impregnated by one of the multiple men involved in the rape. She was taken to hospital, who along with finding all kinds of horrific abuse marks, told her that her pregnancy would mostly likely kill her - her hips were not wide enough to give birth. So where do you go from now? Do you terminate a tiny foetus, barely more than a bundle of cells, or do you, as per your argument, let this being kill her? Your discussion of failed defence I find quite abhorrent frankly, it is not your fault if you are victimised, drug-raped, attacked, or any of the other scenarios. This little girl was facing 5-6 full grown men. I'd like to see you defend yourself in the same scenario at age 14. And as Ion rightly points out, as a partner/responsible adult you cannot be around 24/7. This is independence for you.

A) Caesarean section
B) Previous post, also quoted by you, clearly states "how could you sacrifice a live to safe one that has already been destroyed", with the unborn child's live in this case (as you pose it, see A)) clearly already having been destroyed by circumstances. Don't see much of a problem there, really. Save as many as you can.
C) Please see a dictionary for the word failure. Thank you.
D) Please explain to me how that'd make the abortion right in the initial example, dear sir.

AJ, on 11 May 2010, 15:02, said:

Oh, and so's you know, this is a true story. This girl had the abortion. She went home. She was killed, as were her family. Christians in the slums were found guilty of it. Brazil is a highly Christian country, and the idea of abortion in the majority of the country is just non-existant. So pro-life Christians can frankly, go to Hell. If their beliefs are true, they probably will, mind you. Rape constitutes one of the worst offences a man can be guilty of (women can't be guilty of rape btw), and there is no possible reason bar primitive, animalistic reasons that should prevent anyone from having an abortion. It is the parents choice, and I frankly don't think killing a small bundle of cells that can't feel pain is such a bad thing, considering the detriment that it could later cause to the parents.

Uhh, please stop with your ultra objective, not at all propagandistic, entirely unbiased argumentation, my inferior morality is already crumbling! Please, have mercy!
Want another true story? Every fifth child being killed by its own parents. Most of which would probably not make it into your tear jerker list of examples.
But if you find it primitive or animalistic to protect an unborn if possible, be my guest. After all, it's just a bundle of cells. Aren't we all, come to think of it?

I'll leave Ion's stuff to Ion.

A) I have no idea why they didn't do this. God only knows. Maybe the girl didn't want to have the child? Maybe the parents didn't want her to? I'm not a mind reader, I'm simply stating the facts of what happened.
B) So you're telling me that there is no chance of the people involved in these scenarios of ever having a decent life again? Well, frankly, were I the Mum/Dad in Ion's example, or mine, I'd want the person who had to deal with this rape to NOT keep the child. Because it would heal the person far faster, than having to give birth to the child of someone that was abusive. You can't honestly state that a woman should give up her own life, and sanity, simply to preserve the life of something she did not want, and only her biology forced upon her. I'd say that she should do the best thing for herself, when she's got several hundred (instead of a several hundred million) cells inside of her. Foetuses in early stages don't have a brain, they're inanimate cells. By your argument, all plants should be left forever - they're just cells.
C) Definition: when someone or something does not succeed, or when you do not do something that you must do or are expected to do... so remind me, how have I, theoretically, as this girl's Dad, failed? I am not expected to look after her 24/7, and success is neither here nor there. You can only say that I have failed if I should be around her 24/7, in which case, in turn, presents a whole other pile of problems. It is simply not feasible.
D) Think the above statements explain it

Oh, and ofc my argument is biased, if I don't have an opinion then it's pointless fighting a corner unless you thrive off argument. And frankly, I do give a shit about the number of children killed by their parents, whether alive, or still in the womb. But it's unavoidable, do you really think you can do anything about it?

And there is a difference between unborn, and a foetus. There is a reason for a deadline after which abortion cannot take place - because the foetuses are then considered alive. Before that, they're not alive. You can't kill something that doesn't live.

[Golan]

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 16:07, said:

Yes because you can really prepare someone to be brutally raped in some cases gang raped, short of watching them 24/7 at a distance with a high powered sniper rifle. Seriously, be realistic. Your argument just sounds absurd.

My argument is that it doesn't matter whether you can or cannot possibly avoid failing in order to experience failure. Which is actually, as you might have noticed earlier, just an afterthought to the issue that even then it wouldn't matter because it says nothing about having or not having the right to kill an unborn.

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 16:07, said:

I argued that destroyed was to far because your justification seemed to be " Well your wife is essentially a hollow shell now anyway, why sacrifice a potential life for it " - My point was she isn't just a hollow shell, people who have been raped recover - well some do. I know this for a fact, because I know a rape victim.

Yes, so again, why waste a life for it? You aren't exactly required to raise the child yourself, y'know.

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 16:07, said:

The whole point of having a child is out of love, its supposed to be the most amazing moment and experience of your life. This child would not be born out of love, but hate, anger and misery. Thats even assuming the couple wanted a child in the first place - in my example they did.

Okay, now that's just romanticizing the situation. You're basically saying that you want to kill the child because it doesn't match your utopian fantasy - again, doesn't this remind you of the very position you are trying to argue against?

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 16:07, said:

It basically comes down to this, neither the potential child or mother asked for what happened. So do you care more about a potential life or your partner? In cases such as rape a woman is totally justified to have an abortion if she chooses to, and she should be able to without fear of punishment.

Why would it matter what I'd think when being in the position of a man in such a situation? There's no situation that could make a man any more biased than this, so how could you deduce any moral from it?

AJ, on 11 May 2010, 16:19, said:

A) I have no idea why they didn't do this. God only knows. Maybe the girl didn't want to have the child? Maybe the parents didn't want her to? I'm not a mind reader, I'm simply stating the facts of what happened.
B) So you're telling me that there is no chance of the people involved in these scenarios of ever having a decent life again? Well, frankly, were I the Mum/Dad in Ion's example, or mine, I'd want the person who had to deal with this rape to NOT keep the child. Because it would heal the person far faster, than having to give birth to the child of someone that was abusive. You can't honestly state that a woman should give up her own life, and sanity, simply to preserve the life of something she did not want, and only her biology forced upon her. I'd say that she should do the best thing for herself, when she's got several hundred (instead of a several hundred million) cells inside of her. Foetuses in early stages don't have a brain, they're inanimate cells. By your argument, all plants should be left forever - they're just cells.
C) Definition: when someone or something does not succeed, or when you do not do something that you must do or are expected to do... so remind me, how have I, theoretically, as this girl's Dad, failed? I am not expected to look after her 24/7, and success is neither here nor there. You can only say that I have failed if I should be around her 24/7, in which case, in turn, presents a whole other pile of problems. It is simply not feasible.
D) Think the above statements explain it

A) Then your example doesn't really fit. It's the most important thing of your argument that the victim doesn't have a choice. If that's not the case or you simply don't know, you can't deduce that there was any need for it.
B) Wait what? I clearly stated that in B) that in your example (without taking A) into account) we both agreed, though for different reasons. This has nothing to do with what you are talking about now. oO
But to answer your question, no. I don't think that it's justified to spare oneself pain by killing another, nor do I agree that killing an unborn is a reliable way to help a woman recover on principle.
Also, flora rarely carries human DNA. Thus, no person in the classic sense can emerge from it or can murder be derived from destroying some.
C) "when someone or something does not succeed". It is not necessary to be able to not fail in order to fail. You are hugely over-interpreting my words if you go on insisting that I said what you imply I did.
Also, I'd like to point you to the answer I gave to Ion, which again repeats that neither would matter for the argumentation this whole language bickering is about.
D) Let's just assume for a moment that I'm a thickheaded foreigner who needs it spelled out a bit more clearly, shall we?

AJ, on 11 May 2010, 16:19, said:

Oh, and ofc my argument is biased, if I don't have an opinion then it's pointless fighting a corner unless you thrive off argument. And frankly, I do give a shit about the number of children killed by their parents, whether alive, or still in the womb. But it's unavoidable, do you really think you can do anything about it?

Fighting for an opinion you don't hold is a good way of reflecting one's own or to ascertain some if you don't hold one. If you don't wish to learn anything from an argument then it's pointless fighting a corner unless you thrive off argument.
But my, what a superior man you are to those religious fundamentalist! Good thing we aren't like them!
I can't do a thing about like almost everything. Does that mean I shouldn't care whether or not it's right? Would you?

AJ, on 11 May 2010, 16:19, said:

And there is a difference between unborn, and a foetus. There is a reason for a deadline after which abortion cannot take place - because the foetuses are then considered alive. Before that, they're not alive. You can't kill something that doesn't live.

Yeah, good thing we made this life/not-life definition ourselves. How convenient.

Edited by Golan, 11 May 2010 - 17:19.

[SquigPie]

AJ, on 11 May 2010, 17:02, said:

Oh, and so's you know, this is a true story. This girl had the abortion. She went home. She was killed, as were her family. Christians in the slums were found guilty of it. Brazil is a highly Christian country, and the idea of abortion in the majority of the country is just non-existant. So pro-life Christians can frankly, go to Hell. If their beliefs are true, they probably will, mind you. Rape constitutes one of the worst offences a man can be guilty of (women can't be guilty of rape btw), and there is no possible reason bar primitive, animalistic reasons that should prevent anyone from having an abortion. It is the parents choice, and I frankly don't think killing a small bundle of cells that can't feel pain is such a bad thing, considering the detriment that it could later cause to the parents.

I'm Pro-life, and Christian, so, you think I should go to hell AJ?

Well, see ya there.

Don't you think I'm disgusted? By these, so called "Pro-life Christians", not so pro-life if you kill people are you? Not so christian either are you?

Also, if a fetus is merely a bunch of cells stuck together, then what about a newborn? What makes us human? looking like it, or our mind? A baby, is well, mindless, it's an animal, it haven't built up a mind yet, it runs on pure instinct, to eat, to sleep, to survive. It doesn't even have any feeling of self, it's a lump of meat. By that logic, is a baby even human?

I believe that from the moment sperm and egg makes contact, We are human.

Edited by SquigPie, 12 May 2010 - 05:56.

[Ion Cannon!]

Golan, on 11 May 2010, 18:11, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 16:07, said:

Yes because you can really prepare someone to be brutally raped in some cases gang raped, short of watching them 24/7 at a distance with a high powered sniper rifle. Seriously, be realistic. Your argument just sounds absurd.

My argument is that it doesn't matter whether you can or cannot possibly avoid failing in order to experience failure. Which is actually, as you might have noticed earlier, just an afterthought to the issue that even then it wouldn't matter because it says nothing about having or not having the right to kill an unborn.

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 16:07, said:

I argued that destroyed was to far because your justification seemed to be " Well your wife is essentially a hollow shell now anyway, why sacrifice a potential life for it " - My point was she isn't just a hollow shell, people who have been raped recover - well some do. I know this for a fact, because I know a rape victim.

Yes, so again, why waste a life for it? You aren't exactly required to raise the child yourself, y'know.

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 16:07, said:

The whole point of having a child is out of love, its supposed to be the most amazing moment and experience of your life. This child would not be born out of love, but hate, anger and misery. Thats even assuming the couple wanted a child in the first place - in my example they did.

Okay, now that's just romanticizing the situation. You're basically saying that you want to kill the child because it doesn't match your utopian fantasy - again, doesn't this remind you of the very position you are trying to argue against?

Ion Cannon!, on 11 May 2010, 16:07, said:

It basically comes down to this, neither the potential child or mother asked for what happened. So do you care more about a potential life or your partner? In cases such as rape a woman is totally justified to have an abortion if she chooses to, and she should be able to without fear of punishment.

Why would it matter what I'd think when being in the position of a man in such a situation? There's no situation that could make a man any more biased than this, so how could you deduce any moral from it?

1. So why bother arguing such a stupid idea in the first place?

2. Well actually, if she was my wife / partner I kind of would have to bring the child up wouldn't I?

3. Thats the entire point, every man in the situation would feel the same, so how can you make a judgement on him?

4. Everyone also talks about the unborn being innocent - But what about the mother? sure the baby didn't ask for this, but neither did the mother, both the mother and the potential child are completely innocent, they did nothing wrong. Ultimately like I said - If the woman doesn't want the kid, thats her choice.

Now if she got pregnant after unprotected sex with a fling or drunken orgy, thats a different kettle of fish. But taking the situation into account, I believe if a woman is raped she has the right to have an abortion. Now please, stop avoiding the question and trying to sound clever, and instead - just answer it. Do you care more about your partner, or the potential child of a rapist?

[Shirou]

It's a bunch of cells. Its a religious delusion to say that you are murdering an innocent when that innocent effectively does not exist yet.

The pigs you eat every day have got a thousand times more consciousness, and innocence, than an unborn child. However, because Christianity fuels all of us with the thought of human superiority over all animals at any cost, people are getting murdered for getting abortion. Why by the way ban condoms as well for nu particular fucking reason, so even more children get born in excruciatingly harsh environments which causes only detriment for Humanity.

We are here with 6.5 billion people so if you are going to care about an unborn foetus partly created by your wife's rapist, go ahead, I think it is heartless and stupid to force someone to keep such an unworthy child because 'it's murder'. It is fucking not a child yet. People amassedly waste their sperm and every month every woman in the world loses an egg, but as soon as the two are combined, terminating it is suddenly a murder. The baby doesn't exist yet and it wasn't meant to be there either.

We all eat pigs and cows amass mainly because we see them as inferior and in many statements: ''they can't think about it anyway''. However when it is about an unborn clump of cells, it suddenly has way more rights than all the animals. That is wrong and stupid. Ecologically speaking, it's less a form of life than the bugs you swat in your house in summer.

Edited by Trivmvirate, 12 May 2010 - 09:46.

[Golan]

Ion Cannon!, on 12 May 2010, 9:23, said:

1. So why bother arguing such a stupid idea in the first place?

Dunno, wasn't me who started it. Just felt it was important to point out that it wasn't important at all, as this is very important for what I said.

Ion Cannon!, on 12 May 2010, 9:23, said:

2. Well actually, if she was my wife / partner I kind of would have to bring the child up wouldn't I?

Uhm, no you don't? Y'know, some countries that aren't third world or the US of A have this thing called adoption.

Ion Cannon!, on 12 May 2010, 9:23, said:

3. Thats the entire point, every man in the situation would feel the same, so how can you make a judgement on him?

Quite easily, actually. Just the same as I would judge people killing for revenge or most other understandable but not exactly morally sound reasons.

Ion Cannon!, on 12 May 2010, 9:23, said:

4. Everyone also talks about the unborn being innocent - But what about the mother? sure the baby didn't ask for this, but neither did the mother, both the mother and the potential child are completely innocent, they did nothing wrong. Ultimately like I said - If the woman doesn't want the kid, thats her choice.

Well, one could argue that the mother isn't innocent at all if she kills the unborn. After all, who is she to judge like this? Only because she didn't deserve to be in this situation either doesn't mean she has the right to be the one to decide to take the easy way out.

Ion Cannon!, on 12 May 2010, 9:23, said:

Now if she got pregnant after unprotected sex with a fling or drunken orgy, thats a different kettle of fish. But taking the situation into account, I believe if a woman is raped she has the right to have an abortion. Now please, stop avoiding the question and trying to sound clever, and instead - just answer it. Do you care more about your partner, or the potential child of a rapist?

My Partner. Does it matter? Can't say I always did or do the right thing.

@Trivmvirate
You realize that your argumentation fails horribly against vegetarians, do you?

Edited by Golan, 12 May 2010 - 09:55.

[Shirou]

Golan, on 12 May 2010, 11:53, said:

@Trivmvirate
You realize that your argumentation fails horribly against vegetarians, do you?

Oh wow you found a hole in my argumentation in relating abortion to the eating of animals. For the record, vegetarians, like me, also swat bugs. Think about it.

My post was mainly aimed at christianity fuelled motivations of banning abortion. Christianity makes animals greatly inferior to any form of human life, and I oppose to it.

Edit: typo

Edited by Trivmvirate, 12 May 2010 - 10:04.

[Ion Cannon!]

Golan, on 12 May 2010, 10:53, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 12 May 2010, 9:23, said:

1. So why bother arguing such a stupid idea in the first place?

Dunno, wasn't me who started it. Just felt it was important to point out that it wasn't important at all, as this is very important for what I said.

Ion Cannon!, on 12 May 2010, 9:23, said:

2. Well actually, if she was my wife / partner I kind of would have to bring the child up wouldn't I?

Uhm, no you don't? Y'know, some countries that aren't third world or the US of A have this thing called adoption.

Ion Cannon!, on 12 May 2010, 9:23, said:

3. Thats the entire point, every man in the situation would feel the same, so how can you make a judgement on him?

Quite easily, actually. Just the same as I would judge people killing for revenge or most other understandable but not exactly morally sound reasons.

Ion Cannon!, on 12 May 2010, 9:23, said:

4. Everyone also talks about the unborn being innocent - But what about the mother? sure the baby didn't ask for this, but neither did the mother, both the mother and the potential child are completely innocent, they did nothing wrong. Ultimately like I said - If the woman doesn't want the kid, thats her choice.

Well, one could argue that the mother isn't innocent at all if she kills the unborn. After all, who is she to judge like this? Only because she didn't deserve to be in this situation either doesn't mean she has the right to be the one to decide to take the easy way out.

Ion Cannon!, on 12 May 2010, 9:23, said:

Now if she got pregnant after unprotected sex with a fling or drunken orgy, thats a different kettle of fish. But taking the situation into account, I believe if a woman is raped she has the right to have an abortion. Now please, stop avoiding the question and trying to sound clever, and instead - just answer it. Do you care more about your partner, or the potential child of a rapist?

My Partner. Does it matter?

Why have a child just to give it away? Adoption isn't even guarenteed, the child could be in social care for a while and here in the UK its pretty atrocious.

So by your logic despite the fact she didn't ask for it, she should just deal with it and have the child anyway? Why? as others have pointed out as long as its an early termination, its not human anyway.

Of course it matters. While its not happening to you, your happy to judge the persons involved, but if it happened to you, you would do the exact same thing. Which is basically my argument to most pro-lifers, who oppose abortion even in the case of rape.

[SquigPie]

When did this thread become an "Abortion: Right or WRONG!" thread anyway? didn't we all just laugh at the stupid rednecks a few minutes ago?

And now its becoming an "Animal Rights" thread.

Trivmvirate, Christians doesn't see animals as "stop to be killed for fun", while christian dogma puts us above animals, it believes that we are their guardians, their protectors, not their tyrants, although, it is what we might end up becoming.

I've always thought that many (not all, of course) vegetarians and animals right groups are wrong, their basic reason not to kill animals are" They are so cuuute", and they have nothing against killing spiders, snakes, or chicken, because they are "stupid and disgusting".

I mean, the PETA tried to rename fish into Sea Kittens! SEA KITTENS!

Edited by SquigPie, 12 May 2010 - 12:08.

[Rich19]

SquigPie, on 12 May 2010, 6:52, said:

Also, if a fetus is merely a bunch of cells stuck together, then what about a newborn? What makes us human? looking like it, or our mind? A baby, is well, mindless, it's an animal, it haven't built up a mind yet, it runs on pure instinct, to eat, to sleep, to survive. It doesn't even have any feeling of self, it's a lump of meat. By that logic, is a baby even human?

A foetus does not have the ability to survive on it's own if taken out of the mother. Technically speaking, it's a parasite. Neither does it have a central nervous system, and as a result does not have the capacity to feel anything. It certainly isn't capable of consciousness. It is as much a human as an organ that has been removed from a human for a transplant. A baby, by contrast, has circulatory and nervous systems which allow it to be able to survive if physically separated from the mother. It also has the capacity for thought, however primitive.

[Alias]

An embryo has a partially developed brain and a nervous system by six weeks, Rich.

[Libains]

Topic split, it's all too sidetracked in it's own right.

[Jok3r]

SquigPie, on 12 May 2010, 8:02, said:

When did this thread become an "Abortion: Right or WRONG!" thread anyway? didn't we all just laugh at the stupid rednecks a few minutes ago?

And now its becoming an "Animal Rights" thread.

Trivmvirate, Christians doesn't see animals as "stop to be killed for fun", while christian dogma puts us above animals, it believes that we are their guardians, their protectors, not their tyrants, although, it is what we might end up becoming.

I've always thought that many (not all, of course) vegetarians and animals right groups are wrong, their basic reason not to kill animals are" They are so cuuute", and they have nothing against killing spiders, snakes, or chicken, because they are "stupid and disgusting".

I mean, the PETA tried to rename fish into Sea Kittens! SEA KITTENS!

Who's making gross generalizations now? You're simplifying the entire animal rights movement into "they're cute". That has nothing to do with the arguments of the majority of serious groups. PETA, may I add, as crazy as some of their ideas are (including the sea kittens bit) has nothing to do with "cute" animals. They've argued for the protection of spiders, snakes, and chickens, just to refute you're specific examples. Their argument is that we are not intrinsically superior to other animals, it has nothing to do with animals being cute. These are not "fair weather activists, they serious believe their stuff, and there's definitely validity to it beyond "they're cute".

Just sayin'

[Shirou]

Being a vegetarian is generally motivated by disgust towards the meat-industry. You know, genetic disasters they call chicken who grow an inch a day, live on 2/3rd of an A4 and suffer from the moment they probe their legs from their egg until said legs collapse in not sustaining the chicks own weight. Has little to do with the cuteness of animals. Also, bugs are wild animals. Whenever I see a terrestrial bug I generally move it outside (except if it is one of those that indicate something is wrong in your hygiene) but if it is not in my way then I'll just let it be. Mosquito's however, can die as all they are doing is living off me as a parasite and that I can defend myself against.

Also what's with the ''killing spiders, snakes and chicken'' thing. Doesn't make sense at all.

Edited by Trivmvirate, 12 May 2010 - 17:35.

[BeefJeRKy]

I skimmed through the viewpoints in this thread and it is my personal belief that what separates us humans from other animals is our rationality and consciousness. Therefore I advocate abortion before the development of consciousness in a fetus. There is no consensus unfortunately when this occurs but a safe bet would be before neural differentiation begins after the first month.

Thing is that abortion shouldn't be something to abuse. I mean if a woman decided to have an abortion once perhaps due to a mishap then that sounds fine to me, but a repeat means there's something careless about her activities so to speak.

[SquigPie]

SquigPie, on 12 May 2010, 14:02, said:

I've always thought that many (not all, of course) vegetarians and animals right groups are wrong, their basic reason not to kill animals are" They are so cuuute", and they have nothing against killing spiders, snakes, or chicken, because they are "stupid and disgusting".

I mean, the PETA tried to rename fish into Sea Kittens! SEA KITTENS!

pl0x notice disclaimer, before saying I generalize.

And about the "cute animals" I know a couple of vegetarians, and every single one of them are vegetarian for these reasons alone.

Ofcourse, the vegetarians I know are all teenage girls, so...

And the parasite thing, seriously, what does pets ever do for us? A cat? It's cute yes, but all it does is eat and shit, Andrew Ryan would be very sad about cats.

Fetuses might not have a consciousness. But they WILL EVENTUALLY, ripping away a being with the possibility of consciousness is just as bad as ripping away a being with consciousness. Atleast in my eyes.

Edited by SquigPie, 13 May 2010 - 00:09.