Abortion

[WhiteTiger2999]

Then gaze at the kid after he throws up all over the back of the car and screams bloody murder the whole way home. Then take a gander at the medical bill for the "wellness check" and worry about how much it'd cost if the child actually wasn't well. Then take a wander down aisle 7 at the grocery store and prepare to be shocked at the cost of diapers, wipes, formula, bottles, clothing, powder, soaps, food... Then think about what it'll be like going to sleep tonight at 9, then waking up at 12, 2, and 5 for feedings. Then picture yourself writing a check for daycare so you can work to afford to put the kid in daycare. Then imagine doing all of that on an income that can't support you, much less you and another person.

Gazing into the eyes of a child is the "Disney movie" answer, but it has nothing to do with real life. Gazing into the eyes of a child doesn't make it easier to put food on the table or care for him or her.

yeah thats reality for you but on another note if you arent ready to bare that pain and suffering of taking care of a baby.. then you shouldnt be spreading your legs and having sex If your not ready for that kind of a responsibility then dont take the chances!! simple as that. And for your info. I once was for abortion, but the more i look at children and how innocent they are, and how beautfiul the meaning of life really is, the more i change my mind about abortion. And my life isnt peaches and cream. But i look on the brighter side of things. And if i were to have a child at this moment, well screw me then i deserve it for opening my legs so freely without consequences. Of course id rather wait till marriage for such a beautiful thing as child baring. But to each his own.

 

[]RiSeN[]

I am not biologically dependant on the world to survive. I will grow, function, and live regardless of what my mother is doing. If my mother were to die tomorrow, I wouldn't die with her. However, if my mother was pregnant and she died, I wouldn't have continued to develop. Unless she had reached the point of viability in the pregnancy, I wouldn't have continued to function biologically.

i'm sure you know this, but there's a big difference between being dependant on the world to give you a place to go grocery shopping, and dependant on a specific person to keep your heart beating, blood flowing, and otherwise functional.

Notice how your argument disintegrates in your first sentence.

 

[]RiSeN[]

No, I don't notice. I also suspect you don't either, since your only counter was "you're wrong."

My reply pointed out the flaw in your argument.

"I am not biologically dependant on the world to survive" is a fallacy.

 

[Archivist]

My proof is simply this, how many children were murdered in public schools before 1963. How many were murdered while in school after 1963? The proof is in the numbers. You only want to apply numbers where it suits your philosophy. The removal of GOD's logic can NEVER be a good thing. You have the truth. ONLY the TRUTH will set you free. Remove the TRUTH and you end freedom. Where is the freedom in public education today? Another proof it would seem.... So I have provided you with 2-----not that it matters.

You have provided no proof, just opinion. Where are your facts and figures?

Is the question "how many children were murdered in public schools before 1963" or is the question really "how many school murders were reported in the national news prior to the rise of modern television?" If you don't think that children weren't murdered in public schools before 1963, please read about some of the violence that occurred in the south after the 1954 decison in Brown v. Board of Education which ordered that schools be desegregated.

I suggest that you start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion since you are getting rather far off the topic.

 

[]RiSeN[]

"You're wrong because I say so."

It only appears that way to you because it seems you need to have everything spelled out for you.

Please refer to post #96 for the context and meaning of the posters wording "world".
"I am not biologically dependant on the world to survive." Really? So that what do you have lungs for?

 

[Archivist]

It only appears that way to you because it seems you need to have everything spelled out for you.

Please refer to post #96 for the context and meaning of the posters wording "world".
"I am not biologically dependant on the world to survive." Really? So that what do you have lungs for?

Jump ball! This is getting personal. I would prefer to not see this thread closed. This is the biggest problem with this topic--it is difficult to discuss without getting emotional.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Jump ball! This is getting personal. I would prefer to not see this thread closed. This is the biggest problem with this topic--it is difficult to discuss without getting emotional.

Im not emotional. Its an observation based on written data, the analysing of the reasoning and logic in her posts.

 

[truth_restorer]

I am not biologically dependant on society to survive. I will grow, function, and live regardless of what my mother is doing. If my mother were to die tomorrow, I wouldn't die with her. However, if my mother was pregnant and she died, I wouldn't have continued to develop. Unless she had reached the point of viability in the pregnancy, I wouldn't have continued to function biologically.

i'm sure you know this, but there's a big difference between being dependant on society to give you a place to go grocery shopping, and dependant on a specific person to keep your heart beating, blood flowing, and otherwise functional.

You are again drawing immaterial distictions that do not go to the heart of the issue. You are biologically dependaent on Mother Earth, she nurtures you and she doesn't turn you away. To refuse to nurture another human and cause it's death, when you can do it, when you get the nurturing you need from Mother Earth is somewhat hypocritical.

 

[Cheli]

You are biologically dependaent on Mother Earth, she nurtures you and she doesn't turn you away. To refuse to nurture another human and cause it's death, when you can do it, when you get the nurturing you need from Mother Earth is somewhat hypocritical.

If 'Mother Earth' decided to not nuture you, woiuld that be murder? I don't see how. 'Mother Earth' did not choose for you to be a parasite on her just like women with unwanted pregnancies did not choose for the embryo to be a parasite on her. If you argue that the women shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want to get pregnant, then you should also argue that 'Mother Earth' should've had different laws of nature.

So the analogy is useless because there are so many difference between 'Mothe Earth' and human beings. All analogies fall at some point, there is no perfect analogy, which is why, I believe, your argument is pointless.

 

[truth_restorer]

If 'Mother Earth' decided to not nuture you, woiuld that be murder? I don't see how. 'Mother Earth' did not choose for you to be a parasite on her just like women with unwanted pregnancies did not choose for the embryo to be a parasite on her. .

I do not see any material difference. You use up her resources and deplete her, do you not?

 

[truth_restorer]

All analogies fall at some point, there is no perfect analogy, which is why, I believe, your argument is pointless.

That's why they are called "analogies". The question is whether the factual differences are material or not material to the issue. Herein, they are not. You would easily fall into your own definition of a "parasite" vis-a-vis Mother Earth.

 

[Monica02]

So it's ok for animals to have sex, regarded as a sin, just because they're animals?

Why couldn't god have made it so that people only acquired sexual desires AFTER marriage if that was his plan?

Animals cannot sin, so mating is not a sin for them.

You will have to ask God why He gave us sexual desires before marriage.

 

[Archivist]

I do not see any material difference. You use up her resources and deplete her, do you not?

Not entirely true.

We exhile carbon dioxide which is then ued by plants. Our droppings and decaying bodies enrich the soil. Our relationshipis not one way as you have stated. The relationship between the fetus and the mother is, on the other hand, one way.

 

[truth_restorer]

Not entirely true.

We exhile carbon dioxide which is then ued by plants. Our droppings and decaying bodies enrich the soil. Our relationshipis not one way as you have stated. The relationship between the fetus and the mother is, on the other hand, one way.

It's not one way? Huh? Well, tell me then how we are better toward the earth we are destroying daily than an unborn child is to her mom. The child now, not it's circumstances.

Ya! We are really helping the earth a lot. C'mon!!!

 

[Seeking...]

You are again drawing immaterial distictions that do not go to the heart of the issue. You are biologically dependaent on Mother Earth, she nurtures you and she doesn't turn you away. To refuse to nurture another human and cause it's death, when you can do it, when you get the nurturing you need from Mother Earth is somewhat hypocritical.

I don't understand the point of this argument. Human beings are dependent on Mother Earth, but that dependency isn't analagous to a mother and child. Mother Earth is not a sentient being as far as I know. Were Mother Earth to be sentient and not want the various lifeforms on and within her to survive - she would be within her rights to remove each and every lifeform. But you can't even prove that the Earth has consciousness and "feels" anything in response to life on Earth. You can't discern Mother Earth's will at all. Explain to me exactly how Mother Earth has desires that might be thwarted by our presence and I'll reconsider your idea...

 

[truth_restorer]

I don't understand the point of this argument. Human beings are dependent on Mother Earth, but that dependency isn't analagous to a mother and child. Mother Earth is not a sentient being as far as I know. Were Mother Earth to be sentient and not want the various lifeforms on and within her to survive - she would be within her rights to remove each and every lifeform. But you can't even prove that the Earth has consciousness and "feels" anything in response to life on Earth. You can't discern Mother Earth's will at all. Explain to me exactly how Mother Earth has desires that might be thwarted by our presence and I'll reconsider your idea...

Those differences are immaterial because the argument is made to counter the contention that adults are not as dependent as an unborn child is, whereas, they most certainly are as dependent, if not moreso and to a worse and a more harmful degree.

While Mother Earth herself may not be sentient, all the rest of who live on her are sentient. And if you take from her, then you take from the commons, and hence, you take from us. Yet, we do not kill you for the deprivation we suffer on your account. Do we?

 

[Seeking...]

Those differences are immaterial because the argument is made to counter the contention that adults are not as dependent as an unborn child is, whereas, they most certainly are as dependent, if not moreso and to a worse and a more harmful degree.

While Mother Earth herself may not be sentient, all the rest of who live on her are sentient. And if you take from her, then you take from the commons, and hence, you take from us. Yet, we do not kill you for the deprivation we suffer on your account. Do we?

You are really wrangling this thing all out of proportion. But I'll play.

Accepted: Adults are as dependent on their environment and a fetus is on its environment.

Despite this - all adults take from their environment and all adults damage their environment. You cannot suggest that they are taking from a "common", because no adult has a right to that environment (just as the fetus doesn't). There is no "common", you get what you can manage to scrape up - and what Mother Earth allows you to have. Mother Earth actually seems to weed out some areas periodically with famine, drought and pestilense (sp?). As to your last point - despite that fact that none of us have a right to anything - men have killed each other throughout all of time based on the fact of their deprivation and another's resources...

 

[truth_restorer]

You cannot suggest that they are taking from a "common", because no adult has a right to that environment (just as the fetus doesn't). There is no "common", you get what you can manage to scrape up - and what Mother Earth allows you to have. Mother Earth actually seems to weed out some areas periodically with famine, drought and pestilense (sp?). As to your last point - despite that fact that none of us have a right to anything - men have killed each other throughout all of time based on the fact of their deprivation and another's resources...

That depends on where you think the "commons" came from. If the "commons" is Divinely ordained, the divine ordination might (if fact, most likely would) have equitable stipulations attached its use;the terms of allocation among those sharing it, possibly, but not exclusively, decreed along some utilitarian line of thought.

 

[Seeking...]

That depends on where you think the "commons" came from. If the "commons" is Divinely ordained, the divine ordination might (if fact, most likely would) have equitable stipulations attached its use;the terms of allocation among those sharing it, possibly, but not exclusively, decreed along some utilitarian line of thought.

There is no commons. Resources have not been equitably allocated to human beings based on some divine ordination - it is an interesting idea that has no basis in anything that can be backed up, proved in any way.

 

[truth_restorer]

There is no commons. Resources have not been equitably allocated to human beings based on some divine ordination - it is an interesting idea that has no basis in anything that can be backed up, proved in any way.

That resources have not "actually been allocated" in accordance with divine precepts is certain; that there are no Divine precepts for such allocation, is a matter of speculation.

Of course there's a "commons", what do you think is a basis for every environmental law decision ever made?