Moderator: Community Team
mrswdk wrote:I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.
In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.
MagnusGreeol wrote:mrswdk wrote:I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.
In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.
????????
mrswdk wrote:I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.
In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.
It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.
MagnusGreeol wrote:mrswdk wrote:I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.
In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.
It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.
- Also, I'm curious, do you have family and or friends that think the same as you do? And or are you in some cult that people are yet aware of? These are serious questions.
~¥~\MGM/~¥~
MagnusGreeol wrote:- I have read your beliefs about "It being ok for adults to have sex with children"? And then I stumble upon this? Crimes against reason and humanity is what you stand for, which leads me to believe you might need a little help, I won't badger you, but your outlook and beliefs are considered disturbing to the very large majority. You need to re compute or reboot, and maybe think of keeping your thoughts to yourself, and not in public forum.
-\MGM/-
mrswdk wrote:I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.
In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.
It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.
jgordon1111 wrote:Ok Tzor, under what (conditions) would (you) say abortion would be ok? Rape ,incest, knowing the child was severly deformed, brain damaged, unable to live a quality of life that by today's standards be considered normal, do tell.
Metsfanmax wrote:I'm happy to rephrase it any way you want that is sufficient to get you to answer the question. Perhaps the simplest way is: can I call this an action an abortion?
jimboston wrote:You are just a complete ass.
jimboston wrote:general emotional ranting
By your logic people on welfare become "gov't property", because the gov't pays for their maintenance and upkeep. So the gov't should be able to dictate the lives of those "on the dole". This would then make their offspring gov't property. You could even (use your logic) to argue that the gov't should be able to determine if/when those "on the dole" could even conceive.
... and by the term "welfare" I would have to include any form of public assistance, where the "net" benefit is to the individual. i.e. the net of gov't services you receive <less> taxes you pay. Under this calculation the vast majority of the population of all countries would be netting a benefit, and therefore subject to gov't ownership.
tzor wrote:jimboston wrote:You are just a complete ass.
No just an example of towing the party line. Welcome to the REAL CHINA.
Symmetry wrote:DaGip wrote:Murder is wrong...therefor, abortion is wrong. But I don't have a vagina or a uterus, therefor...my opinion is obsolete.
Now that would require a belief that abortion is murder. Now, I hopefully believe that you don't consider the many women who suffer miscarriages to be murderers, but then aagain people who equate abortion with murder rarely know what they're talking about. Feel free to take your time figuring out why you're mistaken.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:DaGip wrote:Murder is wrong...therefor, abortion is wrong. But I don't have a vagina or a uterus, therefor...my opinion is obsolete.
Now that would require a belief that abortion is murder. Now, I hopefully believe that you don't consider the many women who suffer miscarriages to be murderers, but then aagain people who equate abortion with murder rarely know what they're talking about. Feel free to take your time figuring out why you're mistaken.
At the risk of getting myself involved in a discussion that I don't want to get involved with, just a point of clarification. Unless I'm mistaken as to how murder is defined and how miscarriage is defined, murder involves intent and a miscarriage does not. Whereas abortion does involve intent (again, unless I'm mistaken as to how abortion is defined).
For Christians, the ultimate question is "what does God intend". That, to me, not a scientific point, is the real question. This is easy enough to say when we do not have the technology to keep virtually all not born children alive. We already can preserve fertilized eggs and the age at which we can keep them alive keeps moving back, so it is no longer an esoteric question. Saying life begins, which it does in some sense, at conception is very, very different from saying that every human being so conceived, is intended by God to live. Again, for a Christian THAT is the real question. I would argue that this idea that "all life" must be preserved is really human arrogance and not God at all, based on both the biologic and biblical facts.tzor wrote:
The first question is “when does life begin?” The answer, from a strictly logical and scientific standpoint is that a being of the species Homo sapiens begins when the egg from a female Homo Sapiens unites with a sperm from a male Homo sapiens (yes I know it may be possible one day to create sperm from female stem cells) creating a unique combination of DNA which differs from both parents.
The second question is “so what?” The age of enlightenment thinking as exemplified in the writings of Jefferson indicated that men (that is Homo sapiens in general) were “created” equal and endowed with rights (which could not be taken away) by their “creator.” People did tend to talk in religious terms back then. So it means that from the moment of fertilization, Homo sapiens have rights that simply are. They are not earned and they cannot be taken away.
Actually, let me take your own argument back. See, someone in need of a heart transplant to live is in no way, shape or form required to get that transplant! Nor is the medical establishment required, in truth, to treat that person in the same way they would a healthy person. There are many examples. On the one had, that person might be given more aggressive treatment for say, some illnesses, and the like, because they are more fragile than a person not in need of a new heart. However, in other cases the doctors might abstain, might say that, given all considered, this person basically just is not going to live. The irony here is that medicine is actually very, very, VERY reluctant to make that pronouncement, but I would not say that is a good thing, it is a documented horrible thing. The real truth is that people do die. God INTENDS for people to die. God does not want us to die prematurely, but there is really as much room to argue that a heart failing means God intends that person to die as there is to argue that us having the technology gives us permission or even the requirement that we use it to preserve life. That last bit.. I would argue that is the point that the church needs to address more fully.tzor wrote:
Now the first red herring is the strange word “viability.” I call this a red herring because it should be institutively obvious to a casual observer (as the rights cannot be taken away and exist as a preexisting condition) that it is not acceptable to just kill a person because he is in need of a heart transplant and in the long term without that new heart he is not “viable” (capable of surviving or living successfully).
Huh?tzor wrote:
The growing “Homo sapiens” is not, as many would like to think otherwise, merely a “blob of cells.” Cell differentiation happens quickly and some of those cells are nerve cells. Whether the fetus has the awareness and the sentience of an adult is a moot question. If you are more concerned about the pain of an animal and less concerned about the pain of the pre-born human, you are clearly suffering from cognitive dissonance. Pain is pain.
tzor wrote: One who is alive but incapable of feeling pain is another example where the black and white argument breaks down into an odd shade of gray.
Maybe. The other argument, particularly with the very young, is that the unborn who die go to God and those who live have potential to go away from God. In fact, in many religions/cultures, saving someone's life bears more responsibility than letting someone die. This is important because we are a nation of many beliefs. If you will talk about rights, the most fundamental is to allow open and free religious freedom, matters of conscience. Claiming that because you believe abortion is always murder (and not saying that is your personal belief, saying that this is the idea of many anti-abortionists), that gives you the right to decide that for others who hold very different true and honest beliefs, is to deny that most fundamental right. And note.. the main reason we have such freedoms is to preserve the rights of the most religious, not the least religious.tzor wrote:Lines in the real world are a lot harder to draw than the simple lines of science. If one were to err, it would be best to err on the side of life, because at present we cannot raise the dead back to life.
tzor wrote:Thus I would be in favor of reasonable restrictions on procedures that end the life of anyone not yet born. These restrictions would be based in part on both the conditions of the woman and the not yet born child. (This also includes the circumstance of continuing a pregnancy that cannot complete to term; for example a fallopian tube pregnancy which seriously impacts the life of the woman, or an already dead fetus – including brain dead – within the womb.) It is not and can never be a simple black or white solution.
tzor wrote: Abortion is not, however, a non invasive procedure, and given the fact that she has already suffered enough physical trauma the notion of having a doctor do even more in order to open the cervix doesn't seem like a good idea for the woman.
mrswdk wrote:
No idea. I've never spoken to my family or friends about abortion. It's really not a big deal in either the UK or China.
NO, and I hope against hope you are not truly serious!Metsfanmax wrote:Symmetry wrote:DaGip wrote:Murder is wrong...therefor, abortion is wrong. But I don't have a vagina or a uterus, therefor...my opinion is obsolete.
Now that would require a belief that abortion is murder. Now, I hopefully believe that you don't consider the many women who suffer miscarriages to be murderers, but then aagain people who equate abortion with murder rarely know what they're talking about.
More like manslaughter, amirite?
Symmetry wrote:Who knows with a group of people who think that roughly 1 in 5 US women are murderers
PLAYER57832 wrote:mrswdk wrote:
No idea. I've never spoken to my family or friends about abortion. It's really not a big deal in either the UK or China.
You would be mistaken about that. Just because something is not talked about doesn't mean its not a big deal. In fact, I would argue its often the opposite. Things that are very big deals indeed are often not discussed, precisely because they are too emotional. In China, there is an absolute suppression of free expression of ideas as well as a cultural reluctance to discuss anything that might offend. In the UK, there is a cultural aversion to discussing many emotional things.
mrswdk wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:mrswdk wrote:
No idea. I've never spoken to my family or friends about abortion. It's really not a big deal in either the UK or China.
You would be mistaken about that. Just because something is not talked about doesn't mean its not a big deal. In fact, I would argue its often the opposite. Things that are very big deals indeed are often not discussed, precisely because they are too emotional. In China, there is an absolute suppression of free expression of ideas as well as a cultural reluctance to discuss anything that might offend. In the UK, there is a cultural aversion to discussing many emotional things.
You - an American who as far as I am aware has never lived in either China or the UK
Me - a citizen of the world who has spent the majority of their life living in either China or the UK
I would suggest that I am much more likely than you to have a clear idea of whether or not abortion is a big issue in either China or the UK.
jgordon1111 wrote:Wow player that was the most well put together debate I have witnessed here point by point . IT just isn't done to many here think gifs are a appropriate response for a debate,which shows their capacity for rational thought and response. Lol never thought I would praise you, shows what can be done with learned thought, not just taught thought.
mrswdk wrote:I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.
In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.
It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Thank you for your post.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I am going to begin with a couple of your more gruesome arguments first. The key error in most of your stories is "perfectly healthy". Your scissor example seems to be referring to a partial birth abortion. Set aside that this procedure is already illegal in most places, it was not something performed on "perfectly healthy children". I realize that this accusation is thrown about, but it is just not true.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Folks who want to talk about high rates of early term abortions, in particular, tend be either misunderstanding or outright lying about the data. Anything labeled as an "abortion" in that stage is going to include miscarriages, because, as I stated above, there just is no legal distinction. There is no "box" on the medical form saying "this child was alive" or "this child was dead" prior to removal. And yes, Tzor.. I DO know of what I speak on this!
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee