First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Court Forces Abortion
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

kkpodesky wrote:


wow that was really mean...

sorry about that.... but its just how i see things.... it wont bother me a bit if you dont like it...
75664 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

o0James0o wrote:


kkpodesky wrote:


wow that was really mean...

sorry about that.... but its just how i see things.... it wont bother me a bit if you dont like it...


its fine to have your own opinion. all i was saying is if you make an argument maybe you should know what your talking about first... other wise you just look stupid.
its fine that you didnt know who mother teresa was ...... it was wrong of them not to tell you out right but why take it out on her?
if you know who she was and what she did and you still feel the same way after you understand then you are more then entitled to your opinion.
i dont care either way!

P.S. if you were really sorry you wouldnt have said it in the first place.... if you truly believe in what your saying then there is no reason for apologies!

13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

kkpodesky wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


kkpodesky wrote:


wow that was really mean...

sorry about that.... but its just how i see things.... it wont bother me a bit if you dont like it...


its fine to have your own opinion. all i was saying is if you make an argument maybe you should know what your talking about first... other wise you just look stupid.
its fine that you didnt know who mother teresa was ...... it was wrong of them not to tell you out right but why take it out on her?
if you know who she was and what she did and you still feel the same way after you understand then you are more then entitled to your opinion.
i dont care either way!

P.S. if you were really sorry you wouldnt have said it in the first place.... if you truly believe in what your saying then there is no reason for apologies!


heh, ive googled her... seems like shes some old lady who goes around helping people?... well, either way... i do not know her in real life, hence, she is of no reverence to my life...

i am just speaking the must humane truth, why care of someone you dont know?

that is how rumors affects the human mind.

i apologized to make you feel better, why else would i apologize?
75664 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

o0James0o wrote:


kkpodesky wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


kkpodesky wrote:


wow that was really mean...

sorry about that.... but its just how i see things.... it wont bother me a bit if you dont like it...


its fine to have your own opinion. all i was saying is if you make an argument maybe you should know what your talking about first... other wise you just look stupid.
its fine that you didnt know who mother teresa was ...... it was wrong of them not to tell you out right but why take it out on her?
if you know who she was and what she did and you still feel the same way after you understand then you are more then entitled to your opinion.
i dont care either way!

P.S. if you were really sorry you wouldnt have said it in the first place.... if you truly believe in what your saying then there is no reason for apologies!


heh, ive googled her... seems like shes some old lady who goes around helping people?... well, either way... i do not know her in real life, hence, she is of no reverence to my life...

i am just speaking the must humane truth, why care of someone you dont know?

that is how rumors affects the human mind.

i apologized to make you feel better, why else would i apologize?


i wasnt hurt at all
and now that you know who she is you have every right to feel that way!
thank you for taking what i had to say into consideration.
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

kkpodesky wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


kkpodesky wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


kkpodesky wrote:


wow that was really mean...

sorry about that.... but its just how i see things.... it wont bother me a bit if you dont like it...


its fine to have your own opinion. all i was saying is if you make an argument maybe you should know what your talking about first... other wise you just look stupid.
its fine that you didnt know who mother teresa was ...... it was wrong of them not to tell you out right but why take it out on her?
if you know who she was and what she did and you still feel the same way after you understand then you are more then entitled to your opinion.
i dont care either way!

P.S. if you were really sorry you wouldnt have said it in the first place.... if you truly believe in what your saying then there is no reason for apologies!


heh, ive googled her... seems like shes some old lady who goes around helping people?... well, either way... i do not know her in real life, hence, she is of no reverence to my life...

i am just speaking the must humane truth, why care of someone you dont know?

that is how rumors affects the human mind.

i apologized to make you feel better, why else would i apologize?


i wasnt hurt at all
and now that you know who she is you have every right to feel that way!
thank you for taking what i had to say into consideration.


im glad, your welcome and have fun
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

1. You no more deserve to take up space on earth than the fetus in question. So what makes it okay for you to hypothetically sentence the fetus to death for doing the same thing you're doing?

2. That's an interesting choice of words: "become more human". It's ironic because you said that the fetus is not human, and that phrase indicates that the fetus was human to begin with.


1. are you telling me that you would rather have the fetus be born and then survive in a living hell?.. rather cruel, arent you?

2. what i mean is that a fetus at first is but egg and sperm, and over time, it turns more and more into a human and eventually would come out as a baby.


1. Would you consider your life to be a living hell? In your opinion, could the average human life be considered a living hell?

2. If it becomes more human, then it was human to begin with. If, conversely, it became human, then it was not human to begin with.


1. it is not average for your info

2. it is sperm and egg, period.


1. I assume by this you mean that life in general is not all that great. However, it is unfair to assume that the person in question would feel that way about his or her life. After all, some people love every minute of their lives, while others feel quite the opposite. There is no way to know which category this person would fall into. I would rather give this person a chance at life, and if it doesn't go well, there's always suicide as a backup plan. And just out of curiosity, what has made you dissatisfied with your life?

2. I realize the message you intended to convey. I was merely questioning your choice of words. The words "more human" imply that it was human to begin with.

1. it is easier to kill a fetus than to kill a live human

ps. we wont feel as bad to kill a fetus...

2. dont make me repeat myself please


It may very well be easier to kill a fetus, and it may not make you feel as bad, but neither of those is sufficient reason or moral justification for killing a fetus.

And if you don't consider it to be human at the beginning, at what point does it become fully human?
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

1. You no more deserve to take up space on earth than the fetus in question. So what makes it okay for you to hypothetically sentence the fetus to death for doing the same thing you're doing?

2. That's an interesting choice of words: "become more human". It's ironic because you said that the fetus is not human, and that phrase indicates that the fetus was human to begin with.


1. are you telling me that you would rather have the fetus be born and then survive in a living hell?.. rather cruel, arent you?

2. what i mean is that a fetus at first is but egg and sperm, and over time, it turns more and more into a human and eventually would come out as a baby.


1. Would you consider your life to be a living hell? In your opinion, could the average human life be considered a living hell?

2. If it becomes more human, then it was human to begin with. If, conversely, it became human, then it was not human to begin with.


1. it is not average for your info

2. it is sperm and egg, period.


1. I assume by this you mean that life in general is not all that great. However, it is unfair to assume that the person in question would feel that way about his or her life. After all, some people love every minute of their lives, while others feel quite the opposite. There is no way to know which category this person would fall into. I would rather give this person a chance at life, and if it doesn't go well, there's always suicide as a backup plan. And just out of curiosity, what has made you dissatisfied with your life?

2. I realize the message you intended to convey. I was merely questioning your choice of words. The words "more human" imply that it was human to begin with.

1. it is easier to kill a fetus than to kill a live human

ps. we wont feel as bad to kill a fetus...

2. dont make me repeat myself please


It may very well be easier to kill a fetus, and it may not make you feel as bad, but neither of those is sufficient reason or moral justification for killing a fetus.

And if you don't consider it to be human at the beginning, at what point does it become fully human?

morals are but lies that we lived in. the only moral i believe in is the survival of the fittest and the might is right. yet, being the humane person i am, im telling you to kill the fetus while its still a fetus!

once it is born

571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

1. You no more deserve to take up space on earth than the fetus in question. So what makes it okay for you to hypothetically sentence the fetus to death for doing the same thing you're doing?

2. That's an interesting choice of words: "become more human". It's ironic because you said that the fetus is not human, and that phrase indicates that the fetus was human to begin with.


1. are you telling me that you would rather have the fetus be born and then survive in a living hell?.. rather cruel, arent you?

2. what i mean is that a fetus at first is but egg and sperm, and over time, it turns more and more into a human and eventually would come out as a baby.


1. Would you consider your life to be a living hell? In your opinion, could the average human life be considered a living hell?

2. If it becomes more human, then it was human to begin with. If, conversely, it became human, then it was not human to begin with.


1. it is not average for your info

2. it is sperm and egg, period.


1. I assume by this you mean that life in general is not all that great. However, it is unfair to assume that the person in question would feel that way about his or her life. After all, some people love every minute of their lives, while others feel quite the opposite. There is no way to know which category this person would fall into. I would rather give this person a chance at life, and if it doesn't go well, there's always suicide as a backup plan. And just out of curiosity, what has made you dissatisfied with your life?

2. I realize the message you intended to convey. I was merely questioning your choice of words. The words "more human" imply that it was human to begin with.

1. it is easier to kill a fetus than to kill a live human

ps. we wont feel as bad to kill a fetus...

2. dont make me repeat myself please


It may very well be easier to kill a fetus, and it may not make you feel as bad, but neither of those is sufficient reason or moral justification for killing a fetus.

And if you don't consider it to be human at the beginning, at what point does it become fully human?

morals are but lies that we lived in. the only moral i believe in is the survival of the fittest and the might is right. yet, being the humane person i am, im telling you to kill the fetus while its still a fetus!

once it is born



Morals, in the most simplified definition, are distinctions between right and wrong. You are saying that survival of the fittest is right, and that killing the fetus while it is still a fetus is right. If there is no right and wrong, how can those things be right?

Does an infant born at 7 months have the right to live? An infant born at 9 months? A 9-month-old fetus? In each case, why?
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

1. You no more deserve to take up space on earth than the fetus in question. So what makes it okay for you to hypothetically sentence the fetus to death for doing the same thing you're doing?

2. That's an interesting choice of words: "become more human". It's ironic because you said that the fetus is not human, and that phrase indicates that the fetus was human to begin with.


1. are you telling me that you would rather have the fetus be born and then survive in a living hell?.. rather cruel, arent you?

2. what i mean is that a fetus at first is but egg and sperm, and over time, it turns more and more into a human and eventually would come out as a baby.


1. Would you consider your life to be a living hell? In your opinion, could the average human life be considered a living hell?

2. If it becomes more human, then it was human to begin with. If, conversely, it became human, then it was not human to begin with.


1. it is not average for your info

2. it is sperm and egg, period.


1. I assume by this you mean that life in general is not all that great. However, it is unfair to assume that the person in question would feel that way about his or her life. After all, some people love every minute of their lives, while others feel quite the opposite. There is no way to know which category this person would fall into. I would rather give this person a chance at life, and if it doesn't go well, there's always suicide as a backup plan. And just out of curiosity, what has made you dissatisfied with your life?

2. I realize the message you intended to convey. I was merely questioning your choice of words. The words "more human" imply that it was human to begin with.

1. it is easier to kill a fetus than to kill a live human

ps. we wont feel as bad to kill a fetus...

2. dont make me repeat myself please


It may very well be easier to kill a fetus, and it may not make you feel as bad, but neither of those is sufficient reason or moral justification for killing a fetus.

And if you don't consider it to be human at the beginning, at what point does it become fully human?

morals are but lies that we lived in. the only moral i believe in is the survival of the fittest and the might is right. yet, being the humane person i am, im telling you to kill the fetus while its still a fetus!

once it is born



Morals, in the most simplified definition, are distinctions between right and wrong. You are saying that survival of the fittest is right, and that killing the fetus while it is still a fetus is right. If there is no right and wrong, how can those things be right?

Does an infant born at 7 months have the right to live? An infant born at 9 months? A 9-month-old fetus? In each case, why?



"Evil exists to glorify the good. Evil is negative good. It is a relative term. Evil can be transmuted into good. What is evil to one at one time, becomes good at another time to somebody else. " - Mencius

the only difference between a born infant and a fetus still in the body is that once we see the infant, it is harder for us to kill it. we will sympathize with it and therefore, it would most likely survive. this is the same for a fetus of many months old in which can be shown on the mother's belly already. it is harder for us, especially the mother, to kill a fetus when you can feel and see it. on the other hand, if it is barely showing, we can just ignore it and kill it like nothing happened. it is not rather they had the right to live, it is rather we are "cold hearted" enough to kill them.
61516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / Sore wa himitsu d...
Offline
Posted 2/24/09
So...(correct me if I get this wrong)...according to 1q2s3 (see page 2 of this thread), what we should do is outlaw abortion and get rid of the Suicide Hot line. Somewhat similar to what's done in Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Welcome to the Monkey House", can anyone say "Ethical Suicide Parlor"?

But "I" don't believe that's correct. While some of you don't agree with abortion, that's just fine, just don't get one. And if you support abortion and want one (assuming it isn't made illegal), that's fine too. Because that's your beliefs and not mine.
Personally, I'd rather not get an abortion (I don't like surgeries; simple as that) and that's why I'd rather hurt (or even kill) a rapist rather than let him impregnate me in the first place. Still, I do believe it should remain legal for those who 'are' OK with it.

Back on topic, I really don't agree with the courts decision here (see above section on peoples choices about the issue). I think she should be allowed to have the kid but the raped father shouldn't have to pay support for a child that was forced upon him because of an unwanted sex act.
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 2/26/09

o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

Morals, in the most simplified definition, are distinctions between right and wrong. You are saying that survival of the fittest is right, and that killing the fetus while it is still a fetus is right. If there is no right and wrong, how can those things be right?

Does an infant born at 7 months have the right to live? An infant born at 9 months? A 9-month-old fetus? In each case, why?



"Evil exists to glorify the good. Evil is negative good. It is a relative term. Evil can be transmuted into good. What is evil to one at one time, becomes good at another time to somebody else. " - Mencius

the only difference between a born infant and a fetus still in the body is that once we see the infant, it is harder for us to kill it. we will sympathize with it and therefore, it would most likely survive. this is the same for a fetus of many months old in which can be shown on the mother's belly already. it is harder for us, especially the mother, to kill a fetus when you can feel and see it. on the other hand, if it is barely showing, we can just ignore it and kill it like nothing happened. it is not rather they had the right to live, it is rather we are "cold hearted" enough to kill them.


To the best of my knowledge, killing someone without good reason is always considered wrong, even though what is considered "good reason" may vary tremendously among times and societies.

Does anyone have the right to live? Is it intrinsic, earned, or simply an illusion?
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/26/09

madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

Morals, in the most simplified definition, are distinctions between right and wrong. You are saying that survival of the fittest is right, and that killing the fetus while it is still a fetus is right. If there is no right and wrong, how can those things be right?

Does an infant born at 7 months have the right to live? An infant born at 9 months? A 9-month-old fetus? In each case, why?



"Evil exists to glorify the good. Evil is negative good. It is a relative term. Evil can be transmuted into good. What is evil to one at one time, becomes good at another time to somebody else. " - Mencius

the only difference between a born infant and a fetus still in the body is that once we see the infant, it is harder for us to kill it. we will sympathize with it and therefore, it would most likely survive. this is the same for a fetus of many months old in which can be shown on the mother's belly already. it is harder for us, especially the mother, to kill a fetus when you can feel and see it. on the other hand, if it is barely showing, we can just ignore it and kill it like nothing happened. it is not rather they had the right to live, it is rather we are "cold hearted" enough to kill them.


To the best of my knowledge, killing someone without good reason is always considered wrong, even though what is considered "good reason" may vary tremendously among times and societies.

Does anyone have the right to live? Is it intrinsic, earned, or simply an illusion?


good or not, it does not change the fact that we kill. we are all murderers, direct or indirect. it is our nature.

to live requires no right. it is just that if you have power, youre stronger. and if you lacked the power, your death is in the hands of others. so fetus, which lacks power, can be easily exterminated. yet, like i said, due to our sympathy, we prefer not to kill them.
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 2/28/09

o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

Morals, in the most simplified definition, are distinctions between right and wrong. You are saying that survival of the fittest is right, and that killing the fetus while it is still a fetus is right. If there is no right and wrong, how can those things be right?

Does an infant born at 7 months have the right to live? An infant born at 9 months? A 9-month-old fetus? In each case, why?



"Evil exists to glorify the good. Evil is negative good. It is a relative term. Evil can be transmuted into good. What is evil to one at one time, becomes good at another time to somebody else. " - Mencius

the only difference between a born infant and a fetus still in the body is that once we see the infant, it is harder for us to kill it. we will sympathize with it and therefore, it would most likely survive. this is the same for a fetus of many months old in which can be shown on the mother's belly already. it is harder for us, especially the mother, to kill a fetus when you can feel and see it. on the other hand, if it is barely showing, we can just ignore it and kill it like nothing happened. it is not rather they had the right to live, it is rather we are "cold hearted" enough to kill them.


To the best of my knowledge, killing someone without good reason is always considered wrong, even though what is considered "good reason" may vary tremendously among times and societies.

Does anyone have the right to live? Is it intrinsic, earned, or simply an illusion?


good or not, it does not change the fact that we kill. we are all murderers, direct or indirect. it is our nature.

to live requires no right. it is just that if you have power, youre stronger. and if you lacked the power, your death is in the hands of others. so fetus, which lacks power, can be easily exterminated. yet, like i said, due to our sympathy, we prefer not to kill them.


People do not always do what is right. That is a fact of life. It does not change the fact that some things are always considered wrong.

Rights can be violated. My question is whether those rights existed in the first place.
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/28/09

madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

Morals, in the most simplified definition, are distinctions between right and wrong. You are saying that survival of the fittest is right, and that killing the fetus while it is still a fetus is right. If there is no right and wrong, how can those things be right?

Does an infant born at 7 months have the right to live? An infant born at 9 months? A 9-month-old fetus? In each case, why?



"Evil exists to glorify the good. Evil is negative good. It is a relative term. Evil can be transmuted into good. What is evil to one at one time, becomes good at another time to somebody else. " - Mencius

the only difference between a born infant and a fetus still in the body is that once we see the infant, it is harder for us to kill it. we will sympathize with it and therefore, it would most likely survive. this is the same for a fetus of many months old in which can be shown on the mother's belly already. it is harder for us, especially the mother, to kill a fetus when you can feel and see it. on the other hand, if it is barely showing, we can just ignore it and kill it like nothing happened. it is not rather they had the right to live, it is rather we are "cold hearted" enough to kill them.


To the best of my knowledge, killing someone without good reason is always considered wrong, even though what is considered "good reason" may vary tremendously among times and societies.

Does anyone have the right to live? Is it intrinsic, earned, or simply an illusion?


good or not, it does not change the fact that we kill. we are all murderers, direct or indirect. it is our nature.

to live requires no right. it is just that if you have power, youre stronger. and if you lacked the power, your death is in the hands of others. so fetus, which lacks power, can be easily exterminated. yet, like i said, due to our sympathy, we prefer not to kill them.


People do not always do what is right. That is a fact of life. It does not change the fact that some things are always considered wrong.

Rights can be violated. My question is whether those rights existed in the first place.


like i said, there is no such thing as rights. it is created by us, humans, and it changes with time. the most basic of our, and all animals', desire is to survive and reproduce. hence, rights and wrongs are created to hypnotize a certain group into a certain belief to help the survival of certain, or majority, of the people.

"all humans are created equal, but their surroundings determine their nature."
if a person were raised in a very religious society, it is likely to say that person would be religious too. hence, since most of us are raised in a society of rights and wrongs, it is safe to say, we will follow the way of the society and judge people according to it's will. yet, there are always people like myself who sees the world not in black or white, but in gray and red.

please dont make me repeat myself... it would save me a lot of time if you read it over until you get it.
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 2/28/09

o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

Morals, in the most simplified definition, are distinctions between right and wrong. You are saying that survival of the fittest is right, and that killing the fetus while it is still a fetus is right. If there is no right and wrong, how can those things be right?

Does an infant born at 7 months have the right to live? An infant born at 9 months? A 9-month-old fetus? In each case, why?



"Evil exists to glorify the good. Evil is negative good. It is a relative term. Evil can be transmuted into good. What is evil to one at one time, becomes good at another time to somebody else. " - Mencius

the only difference between a born infant and a fetus still in the body is that once we see the infant, it is harder for us to kill it. we will sympathize with it and therefore, it would most likely survive. this is the same for a fetus of many months old in which can be shown on the mother's belly already. it is harder for us, especially the mother, to kill a fetus when you can feel and see it. on the other hand, if it is barely showing, we can just ignore it and kill it like nothing happened. it is not rather they had the right to live, it is rather we are "cold hearted" enough to kill them.


To the best of my knowledge, killing someone without good reason is always considered wrong, even though what is considered "good reason" may vary tremendously among times and societies.

Does anyone have the right to live? Is it intrinsic, earned, or simply an illusion?


good or not, it does not change the fact that we kill. we are all murderers, direct or indirect. it is our nature.

to live requires no right. it is just that if you have power, youre stronger. and if you lacked the power, your death is in the hands of others. so fetus, which lacks power, can be easily exterminated. yet, like i said, due to our sympathy, we prefer not to kill them.


People do not always do what is right. That is a fact of life. It does not change the fact that some things are always considered wrong.

Rights can be violated. My question is whether those rights existed in the first place.


like i said, there is no such thing as rights. it is created by us, humans, and it changes with time. the most basic of our, and all animals', desire is to survive and reproduce. hence, rights and wrongs are created to hypnotize a certain group into a certain belief to help the survival of certain, or majority, of the people.

"all humans are created equal, but their surroundings determine their nature."
if a person were raised in a very religious society, it is likely to say that person would be religious too. hence, since most of us are raised in a society of rights and wrongs, it is safe to say, we will follow the way of the society and judge people according to it's will. yet, there are always people like myself who sees the world not in black or white, but in gray and red.

please dont make me repeat myself... it would save me a lot of time if you read it over until you get it.


I understand exactly what you are saying. Apparently my responses do not make that as clear as I thought. I will try to be clearer about that.

You did not say that there is no such thing as rights. You said that rights are not necessary to live. I asked for a more specific answer, which you just provided. We are now on the same page there.

All humans are not created equal. Aside from obvious physical and mental disabilities, people have different brain chemistries. Some are smarter, happier, or more gullible than others because of these differences, which will in turn change how they react to their surroundings.

Having said that, I can move on to the main point of your argument. Black and white do exist, as do gray and red and a whole host of other metaphorical colors that most people fail to consider. Good and evil and right and wrong do in fact exist, though perhaps not in very simple absolute terms. If doing something will have more of a negative impact than a positive impact, then doing that would be bad. The opposite is also true. If you want to live to see tomorrow, driving very fast with your eyes closed is a bad idea.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.