Yes, yes there is in the logic I'm using to justify it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Not in the logic you're using to justify it.MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
There is a world of difference between genocide and an abortion, I hope you know that.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Does murder affect anyone outside the family? Genocide?
Genocide is obviously everyone's business. Abortion is obviously the parents business.
And if you live in a massively religious state like Saudi Arabia. The state's business.
And if you live in a massively religious state like Saudi Arabia. The state's business.
Last edited by jord (2008-09-20 10:39:05)
So does anyone want to explain the difference in the link between other people and genocide or murder and other people and abortion?
There is obviously a difference to ridding yourself of a 2 week old foetus and a 19 year old, sober of thought adult. That can feel, think and values their life. And is actually aware that they are alive.
Otherwise it wouldn't be a debate as everyone would be against it. Is anyone here for the murder of innocent adults?
Nope, because it's different.
Otherwise it wouldn't be a debate as everyone would be against it. Is anyone here for the murder of innocent adults?
Nope, because it's different.
Last edited by jord (2008-09-20 10:51:34)
Actually, the only reason abortion is not the state's business is because we (Americans) grant a progressive menu of rights, based upon age.jord wrote:
Genocide is obviously everyone's business. Abortion is obviously the parents business.
In America:
You get a right to health care at conception, all your mom has to do is go to a community hospital.
You get a conditional right to life in the second trimester.
You get an absolute right to life at birth.
You get the right to drive usually at 16.
You get the right to vote at 18
You get the right to non-guardian control of life at 18, unless you sue for the right earlier.
You get the right to drink at 21.
You get the right to potentially be President at 35.
You get the right to universal health care at age 65 (medicare)
You get the right to SS benefits at age 66 (or partial benefits at 62).
Yep I know most of them You'll find in most free thinking, modern countries it's the same. Bar socialist health care and small differences in drinking laws, etc.OrangeHound wrote:
Actually, the only reason abortion is not the state's business is because we (Americans) grant a progressive menu of rights, based upon age.jord wrote:
Genocide is obviously everyone's business. Abortion is obviously the parents business.
In America:
You get a right to health care at conception, all your mom has to do is go to a community hospital.
You get a conditional right to life in the second trimester.
You get an absolute right to life at birth.
You get the right to drive usually at 16.
You get the right to vote at 18
You get the right to non-guardian control of life at 18, unless you sue for the right earlier.
You get the right to drink at 21.
You get the right to potentially be President at 35.
You get the right to universal health care at age 65 (medicare)
You get the right to SS benefits at age 66 (or partial benefits at 62).
Pretty much the same in most countries then?OrangeHound wrote:
Actually, the only reason abortion is not the state's business is because we (Americans) grant a progressive menu of rights, based upon age.jord wrote:
Genocide is obviously everyone's business. Abortion is obviously the parents business.
In America:
You get a right to health care at conception, all your mom has to do is go to a community hospital.
You get a conditional right to life in the second trimester.
You get an absolute right to life at birth.
You get the right to drive usually at 16.
You get the right to vote at 18
You get the right to non-guardian control of life at 18, unless you sue for the right earlier.
You get the right to drink at 21.
You get the right to potentially be President at 35.
You get the right to universal health care at age 65 (medicare)
You get the right to SS benefits at age 66 (or partial benefits at 62).
It's different because you arbitrarily choose for it to be different, as the state does as Orangehound has said. Protecting life, no matter how it is defined, is the job of the government, and that makes each individual case the business of everyone else. If you want to alter the definitions of life or sentience in the law fine, but that does not change the fact that a society governed by anything but anarchy has an obligation to protect human life.jord wrote:
There is obviously a difference to ridding yourself of a 2 week old foetus and a 19 year old, sober of thought adult. That can feel, think and values their life. And is actually aware that they are alive.
Otherwise it wouldn't be a debate as everyone would be against it. Is anyone here for the murder of innocent adults?
Nope, because it's different.
Children and adults who have Down Syndrome are the most loving people I have ever met. The "right to choose" has always been about an easier life ... for the parents. Judging someone's quality of life before they're born is ridiculous imo. Countless people who have disabilities or difficult childhood have risen from it to impact their communities in a positive manner. No, we are not doing these kids a favor and yes, we are playing God.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2008-09-20 12:53:19)
@Stingray: Please adopt a disabled kid. Otherwise stfu.
Nobody is saying, that a Down Syndrome means a bad life. I even know someone with a down syndrome who is in the middle of every party, because he is a lovely person. But still it is the right of every mother to chose, whether she spends her whole life, taking care of a disabled child or not. You can not force someone to sacrifice his life for another.
And in fact it is ridiculous to call it life, when it isn´t even really able to live. We are talking about few week old fetus, not a child. If you want to give it the status of a living human being, where do you draw the line? is a sperm already "life", or does it begin, when the sperm entered the ovule? Why is this "life" and the sperm not?
There are two options:
1. let the mother/parents decide, what children she/they may give birth to and for which they want to be responsible for.
2. take all those pro-life fanatics to the orphanage and let them adopt the disabled kids, until not a single one is left behind. You say Bullshit? Why? You try to tell other people how they have to act and that they have to carry out every birth - why don´t the pro-lifes take care of them? Is it about having an easy life? Is it about not wanting the responsibility?
Nobody is saying, that a Down Syndrome means a bad life. I even know someone with a down syndrome who is in the middle of every party, because he is a lovely person. But still it is the right of every mother to chose, whether she spends her whole life, taking care of a disabled child or not. You can not force someone to sacrifice his life for another.
And in fact it is ridiculous to call it life, when it isn´t even really able to live. We are talking about few week old fetus, not a child. If you want to give it the status of a living human being, where do you draw the line? is a sperm already "life", or does it begin, when the sperm entered the ovule? Why is this "life" and the sperm not?
There are two options:
1. let the mother/parents decide, what children she/they may give birth to and for which they want to be responsible for.
2. take all those pro-life fanatics to the orphanage and let them adopt the disabled kids, until not a single one is left behind. You say Bullshit? Why? You try to tell other people how they have to act and that they have to carry out every birth - why don´t the pro-lifes take care of them? Is it about having an easy life? Is it about not wanting the responsibility?
Try to express your opinion without being an ass, it's unnecessary.
Having just attended a Barbecue I have a small idea of how difficult it is to be around, let one look after, a disabled child/adult. Fuck, that was nearly as hard as the holiday with him. And his Mother was saying the holiday was hard on her too...Stingray24 wrote:
Try to express your opinion without being an ass, it's unnecessary.
We are not doing the kids a favor, we are not doing the parents and society a favor either or ? ... yes indeed people with downs and other disabilities are humans just like any other but that is not the discussion is it ... when is it human, where do we draw the line at what is lost with an abortion ?Stingray24 wrote:
Children and adults who have Down Syndrome are the most loving people I have ever met. The "right to choose" has always been about an easier life ... for the parents. Judging someone's quality of life before they're born is ridiculous imo. Countless people who have disabilities or difficult childhood have risen from it to impact their communities in a positive manner. No, we are not doing these kids a favor and yes, we are playing God.
You as Americans hold your right to govern your own life in such a degree i find it odd that you interfeer with what other people do when it comes to abortion ... while you are at it you may call curing a desease against the will of God, airbags saving your life in an accident must surely be against Gods will ... i call it progress, choose not to have a disabled child long before it's even close to being called life ...
If you could test your sperm to determine if you could have a perfect child would you do that ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Potentially damaging two lives permanently for the sake of one, and if they aren't brought up in a decent environment the kid will likely waste his life too. Responsibility? Stupidity.[pt] KEIOS wrote:
@Stingray: Please adopt a disabled kid. Otherwise stfu.
Nobody is saying, that a Down Syndrome means a bad life. I even know someone with a down syndrome who is in the middle of every party, because he is a lovely person. But still it is the right of every mother to chose, whether she spends her whole life, taking care of a disabled child or not. You can not force someone to sacrifice his life for another.
And in fact it is ridiculous to call it life, when it isn´t even really able to live. We are talking about few week old fetus, not a child. If you want to give it the status of a living human being, where do you draw the line? is a sperm already "life", or does it begin, when the sperm entered the ovule? Why is this "life" and the sperm not?
There are two options:
1. let the mother/parents decide, what children she/they may give birth to and for which they want to be responsible for.
2. take all those pro-life fanatics to the orphanage and let them adopt the disabled kids, until not a single one is left behind. You say Bullshit? Why? You try to tell other people how they have to act and that they have to carry out every birth - why don´t the pro-lifes take care of them? Is it about having an easy life? Is it about not wanting the responsibility?
Plenty of people on this forum have argued the point of quality of life when advocating the abortion of disabled babies. Where to draw the line? Conception is the only logical choice, otherwise subjective criteria are set to dehumanize the developing baby in utero until a later point. Notice that people who want to be pregnant don't wait until the 3rd trimester to consider their child "alive".[pt] KEIOS wrote:
@Stingray: Please adopt a disabled kid. Otherwise stfu.
Nobody is saying, that a Down Syndrome means a bad life. I even know someone with a down syndrome who is in the middle of every party, because he is a lovely person. But still it is the right of every mother to chose, whether she spends her whole life, taking care of a disabled child or not. You can not force someone to sacrifice his life for another.
And in fact it is ridiculous to call it life, when it isn´t even really able to live. We are talking about few week old fetus, not a child. If you want to give it the status of a living human being, where do you draw the line? is a sperm already "life", or does it begin, when the sperm entered the ovule? Why is this "life" and the sperm not?
There are two options:
1. let the mother/parents decide, what children she/they may give birth to and for which they want to be responsible for.
2. take all those pro-life fanatics to the orphanage and let them adopt the disabled kids, until not a single one is left behind. You say Bullshit? Why? You try to tell other people how they have to act and that they have to carry out every birth - why don´t the pro-lifes take care of them? Is it about having an easy life? Is it about not wanting the responsibility?
There is a third option that you failed to consider ... adoption by countless couple who who cannot conceive children of their own. The red tape and cost that holds up many adoptions needs to be eliminated so loving couples can adopt these children.
That's up to each individual parent to decide. Aint Black and White.Stingray24 wrote:
Plenty of people on this forum have argued the point of quality of life when advocating the abortion of disabled babies. Where to draw the line?
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|7141
After the Bomb Tests by Jane Cooper
The atom bellies like a cauliflower,
Expands, expands, shoots up again, expands
Into ecclesiastical curves and towers
We pray to with our cupped and empty hands.
This is the old Hebraic-featured fear
We nursed before humility began,
Our crown-on-crown or phallic parody
Begat by man on the original sea
The sea’s delivered. Galvanized and smooth
She kills a tired ship left in her lap
–Transfiguration–with a half-breath
Settling like an animal in sleep.
So godhead takes the difficult form of love.
Where is the little myth we used to have?
–Jane Cooper
God is dead. It's human kind's turn to play god.
The atom bellies like a cauliflower,
Expands, expands, shoots up again, expands
Into ecclesiastical curves and towers
We pray to with our cupped and empty hands.
This is the old Hebraic-featured fear
We nursed before humility began,
Our crown-on-crown or phallic parody
Begat by man on the original sea
The sea’s delivered. Galvanized and smooth
She kills a tired ship left in her lap
–Transfiguration–with a half-breath
Settling like an animal in sleep.
So godhead takes the difficult form of love.
Where is the little myth we used to have?
–Jane Cooper
God is dead. It's human kind's turn to play god.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2008-09-20 15:07:40)
Good ? Marine.
I think that overall those babies become a burden on society. If the parents have the wherewithal to pay for all the extra associated costs then fine.
- think there could be a case for not giving low income women the choice.
I think that overall those babies become a burden on society. If the parents have the wherewithal to pay for all the extra associated costs then fine.
- think there could be a case for not giving low income women the choice.
I don't know what it is about decasyllabic poems; it just makes them sound so much more powerful.
A segregation act ... nice suggestion ...ATG wrote:
Good ? Marine.
I think that overall those babies become a burden on society. If the parents have the wherewithal to pay for all the extra associated costs then fine.
- think there could be a case for not giving low income women the choice.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I would have to disagree with you on this point, we have the right to life but in the US but its not absolute. If it were absolute then the death penalty can't exist.OrangeHound wrote wrote:
In America:
You get an absolute right to life at birth.
As for abortion, its not anyones business, its not "societies" business, its not the government business, and its not the church's business.
Its the individual that makes the decision on abortion and they can listen to a whole host of others for guidance in making that decision, or they can choose not to permit anyone to influence them. The idea that a group of religious nuts should be permitted to use the law of the state to interfere with the decisions of the individual smack of the worst type of socialism.
I don't know what it would be like to have to decide whether a downs syndrome child should be aborted. I really don't agree with the burden to society argument because its not their business. Its the individual that would have to weigh the impact on their life because a downs kid would be 24/7 care for about 25-30 years (they die early). Whether an abortion is a selfish act is something for the individual to decide for them self.
I do think that medical expenses would also be a factor for the special needs of the kid.
So whether its choosing who lives or dies, at least in some part in the US that decision might be the result of a lack of universal health care.
SO if you are pro life you should be pro universal health care, unless genocide against the poor coincides with your pro life stance.
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2008-09-20 16:33:25)
What about women who aren't financially prepared to give a perfectly normal child even a half decent shot at a functional life? Is terminating the baby worse than raising a child to the point it is more than aware it is starving to death a year or two later?
The child would be sober in thought and could always have a shot at success.
How many millionaires are there that came from a dirt poor family and made something of themselves?
How many millionaires are there with a serious mental condition?
How many millionaires are there that came from a dirt poor family and made something of themselves?
How many millionaires are there with a serious mental condition?
Fist ? YourselfATG wrote:
Good ? Marine.
Sober in thought, says who? What about malnutrition? Can a toddler even be sober in thought?jord wrote:
The child would be sober in thought and could always have a shot at success.
Not very many compared to the ones who died from hunger or gang violence. From a utilitarianism perspective you are better preventing the birth of all of them.jord wrote:
How many millionaires are there that came from a dirt poor family and made something of themselves?
There's a chance isn't there? Are you going to take that chance away from them?jord wrote:
How many millionaires are there with a serious mental condition?