Abortion!

[SandTrout]

I'm just geting frustrated now. We are not talking about animals here, we are talking about human life! I could care less about any other species, but humans are one species.

The only reason there are politicians that are pro-abortion is so they can twist the words of "pro-choice" to seem like they are protecting freedom, when they are realy just rationalizeing murder to get votes.

Here is my point in the simplest terms: If it has a compleat set of human genes(not counting disfunctions like downs-syndrome), it is alive(a fetus is alive), and it is not threatening the life of another human, then it should be protected.

Given time, these fetuses will develop into sentient human beings with thoughts, emotions, and (posibly) souls. Killing them before they become sentient does not negate the fact that you are still killing them. You want to be pro-choice, then suport an indevidual's choice on weather or not they should live, this is not a choice that should be placed in someone elses hands to decide.

The morals of western civilization are becomeing eroded to the point that there may be no return if we haven't already pasted that point. The idea of abortion makes me ill, you people are as evil as the NAZIs in my eyes. The NAZIs didn't think they were evil, and actualy thought they were helping the world. You should realy look at what you are saying. "Fetuses are not human, they are less valuable than animals. We have laws protection animals from cruel treatment".

If you see human life on the same level as animal life, you are evil in my eyes.

[Tobias]

As long as it is in her body, it should be her choice. Thats my opinion.


As for expermentation on animals: Its Wrong.

Heres a question: Which is crueler, to give birth to a baby which will be seriously deformed, will live less then twenty years if it survives birth at all, and for its entire life be in a world of pain and suffering, or to murder that baby (for it is murder) before it is born?

Is a horrble painful life better then no life at all? I dont think any of us can answer that question.

[SandTrout]

That's why I support suiside if the person has thought it through. It is their choice. They weren't able to choose whos womb they got stuck in. You risk the condom breaking when you have sex, and you should learn to live with the consiquences.

Be resposible for your actions.

My point still remains that it seems like animals are more protected than a fetus is at times, especialy with liberal activists protesting corperate action threatening some random lizard, but who also suport abortion of human life.

please, look at what you are saying objectively, a lot of it doesn't make sense in refernce to this subject Ashune.

This arguement is going nowhere, as I said it would.

[Tobias]

I personaly think that sucide is stupid for anyone one but the terminaly ill. But the people who do it are usally not in their right mind and are depressed, they do not fully understand what they are doing.

[Derfud]

Simple views on abortion, if you can support the child, but you don't really want to have it, then DON'T ABORT but if you cannot support the child, or it will not be in a good living condition then i say have the abortion. Better not to bring it into this world if it will have a miserable life.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by SandTrout
I'm just geting frustrated now. We are not talking about animals here, we are talking about human life! I could care less about any other species, but humans are one species.

You seem to be missing the point of the whole animal v human argument.

Try to answer both of these questions for me:

2)What trait/characteristic/feature does a human posess that give it the right to life that an animal does not posess?

3)At the moment of conception does the fetilized egg posess that trait/characteristic/feature?

Obviously we value human life over animal life; Why? Society feels that there is something that humans posess that animals do not. This is how we justify killing other animals. I don't see a wad of spunk and some menstral leavings possesing that "special" quality.

[SandTrout]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
You seem to be missing the point of the whole animal v human argument.

Try to answer both of these questions for me:

2)What trait/characteristic/feature does a human posess that give it the right to life that an animal does not posess?

3)At the moment of conception does the fetilized egg posess that trait/characteristic/feature?

Obviously we value human life over animal life; Why? Society feels that there is something that humans posess that animals do not. This is how we justify killing other animals. I don't see a wad of spunk and some menstral leavings possesing that "special" quality.

We don't have to have a special quality to be above other species. We can kill them to keep ourselves alive so we do. This hapens in just about every part of nature. We should not be killing our own species for convienence. Necessity, yes, convience, no.

I see the world from a naturalistic point of view. The most basic nature of animals is to ensure the continuation of their genetic make-up. However, most species do not alow this 100% and because of natural mutations, we have natural-selection.

We are the dominant species on earth because we have increased the survival rate of our off-spring to the point that natural selction no longer occurs. You must understand that our genetic make-up is what separates us from the rest of the animals.

Killing fetuses is the same as trying to kill the human race in my eyes, because those organisms are of the same species and have no chance to make their own choices about what they want to do with their life.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by SandTrout
We don't have to have a special quality to be above other species. We can kill them to keep ourselves alive so we do. This hapens in just about every part of nature. We should not be killing our own species for convienence. Necessity, yes, convience, no.

So humans have a right to live just becuase they have the name human attached to them? Why does this give humans rights over other species?

I am white, does that give me the right to murder all non whites becuase they have different genetic make up. Killing all non-whites would help ensure that my genetic make up will survive. If my genetic makeup separates me from animal does my genetic make up separate me between other races? This is essentially what you are arguing. Your line of thinking says that I can justify any kind of murder based on genetic makeup.

What if some humans evolve and there are evolved "mutants" living among us. Can we kill them because they have a different genetic makeup?

Genetic makeup arguments simply fall flat.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by SandTrout
I see the world from a naturalistic point of view. The most basic nature of animals is to ensure the continuation of their genetic make-up. However, most species do not alow this 100% and because of natural mutations, we have natural-selection.

You do know, that in nature, many animals kill their own species. So if you are looking at this from, a following natures example standpoint, there is nothing wrong with killing other humans. Do you really believe that is ok for humans to kill eachother over recources?

[Lexington_Steele]

double post

[diluted]

triple post O.


look, abortion IS a choice. you are killing a fetus, yes, but you kill everything all the time. have you taken biology? when you scratch your skin you're "killing" yourself based on cell laws. look up the cell theorie's laws and then think about how you say killing some stuff is ok but others is not. it is the womans choice to have an abortion, convienent or not. i dont think it is a form of birth control but i do think no matter the circumstances, as long as it is developed in the woman's body then she has the right to destroy it. besides if you even fathom "its ok to do it in certain circumstances" then you ARE pro choice!


side note: hitler's mother was thinking very heavily of aborting him but her doctor talked her out of it.

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
So humans have a right to live just becuase they have the name human attached to them? Why does this give humans rights over other species?

I am white, does that give me the right to murder all non whites becuase they have different genetic make up. Killing all non-whites would help ensure that my genetic make up will survive. If my genetic makeup separates me from animal does my genetic make up separate me between other races? This is essentially what you are arguing. Your line of thinking says that I can justify any kind of murder based on genetic makeup.

What if some humans evolve and there are evolved "mutants" living among us. Can we kill them because they have a different genetic makeup?

Genetic makeup arguments simply fall flat.

For those of us who know alot about human DNA, the DNA of say two white males and a black male, one of the white males and the black male might be more closely related DNA wise then the two white folks.
We Humans are a rather large group of advanced monkeys who can kill anything we want now. And if it suits us (and it usally does) we can eat it too, good digestive system. Other then Bacteria we have no natural pretors, and Bacteria does not count (or so say us Humans, the Bacteria have other ideas MWHAHAHA)

We will most likely wipe ourselves out unless we find out how to colonize other worlds pretty soon, but until then we shall continue to kill anything we want, not because its right, its not, but because we CAN. Should we go and slaughter millions of animals every year for fun? No, but we will.

I personaly think we take to many things to hard.
180,000 humans die evey day.
65,700,000 every year, yet if something like a nuke kills an extra 20,000 in one day, well dear god what a cost to the race. Death is tragic, and that extra 20,000 is 20,000 that should not be dead, but if it happens it does not really hurt now does it.

Back the thread: Is abortion wrong? In my opinion hell yes it is, in most cases that is. But I am pro choice.

[diluted]

define "wrong"

define "right"

define "good"

define "evil"

and justify your definitions. i assure you, it is impossible.

why?
these things do not exist.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Tobias
For those of us who know alot about human DNA, the DNA of say two white males and a black male, one of the white males and the black male might be more closely related DNA wise then the two white folks.

Yes, but you could pinpoint what has power over skin pigmentation skin pigmentation. So you could make life or death decisions based on that. Would it be ok to decide whether someone has the right to live based on that genetic difference.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by diluted
define "wrong"

define "right"

define "good"

define "evil"

and justify your definitions. i assure you, it is impossible.

why?
these things do not exist.

right: Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality.
good: Being positive or desirable in nature
evil: The quality of being morally bad or wrong
Justification: I looked them up in the dictionary

But seriously, right, good and evil do exist. When you hear these word or hear them used to describe something, certain feeling and images are conjured up in your head. Usually these images and feelings are reliant on the context in which they are used. They are usually in reference to some understood point of neutrality. We have each formed our own moral compass and have determined what we believe to be right or wrong. Application of the words right, wrong and evil are often in reference to this moral compass. If these words really had no meaning, then they would not conjure up feeling and images.

If you see someone drop their wallet, you can either tell them they dropped their wallet or keep the wallet for yourself. Is there a "right" thing to do in this situation?

Would you call Hitler "evil"?

Would you say that A Rod is a "good" baseball player.