First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Skewered on a Wire Hanger
350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F
Offline
Posted 3/19/12

xT4dz6 wrote:

oh by the way, didn't also watch the videos,
-i've watched enough videos like this one to know about how the procedure is done

i think people who wrote on this topic doesn't know:
THEY GRIND THE BABIES INSIDE OF THE UTERUS IN ORDER FOR IT TO COME OUT---OF COURSE IN PIECES
and did you guys know? the babies actually try to evade those things that they insert inside the womb, the babies who are shaped having full head, mouth, nouse, eyes and ears actually try to cry out--as if crying to his mommy as if asking for it to stop


No, they don't. The thing doesn't even have nerves. It's just a blob. There are different ways that it's done, though. Some use a vacuum device, others use a scraper.
They fetus doesn't develop nerves until much later.
3601 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / philippinEs...
Offline
Posted 4/9/12

Marionetta wrote:


xT4dz6 wrote:

oh by the way, didn't also watch the videos,
-i've watched enough videos like this one to know about how the procedure is done

i think people who wrote on this topic doesn't know:
THEY GRIND THE BABIES INSIDE OF THE UTERUS IN ORDER FOR IT TO COME OUT---OF COURSE IN PIECES
and did you guys know? the babies actually try to evade those things that they insert inside the womb, the babies who are shaped having full head, mouth, nouse, eyes and ears actually try to cry out--as if crying to his mommy as if asking for it to stop


No, they don't. The thing doesn't even have nerves. It's just a blob. There are different ways that it's done, though. Some use a vacuum device, others use a scraper.
They fetus doesn't develop nerves until much later.


*sigh*
oh well, and that gives a person a reason to just scrape the blob off the uterus?

agh, whatever.
we're all different people and we see things differently

[no hard feelings.if i sounded arrogant or snob then i apologize but i was just trying to make a point here]
12497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/14/12 , edited 5/14/12
Condoms break, plans fail, people drink, rapes happen. You NEED a fallback option if the consequences are as potentially severe as they are.

The potential for life =/= life.

If it did, then men would be killing countless 'babies' each time they ejaculate. Even if he gets a women pregnant, he has still 'killed' millions and saved only one life.

This is not to say, however, that the potential for life has no intrinsic value. One does not simply abort monthly as though she is getting a haircut. Just as how one should not pop babies simply for the sake of creating more lives, one should not abort repeatedly due to not giving a **** about getting pregnant. That being said, I only believe that LATE abortions are wrong. If the baby could have survived outside the womb at the time it was getting aborted, that is murder.

If you don't believe that some abortions are okay, that is fine (albeit stupid because you should know by now that things are not all black-and-white). But your moral code should not take away the freedoms of other people. People have a right to their own bodies. How can you tell them that they are not allowed to get an abortion because of your belief that it is wrong, despite the fact that their quality of life may decrease considerably? Their choices certainly aren't affecting your life. Why should your beliefs be allowed to worsen theirs? By denying them abortions, you are potentially interfering with their ability to soundly exist. If desperate enough, they can simply neglect a birthed baby by killing it or abandoning it (worse than abortion). Significantly more unsafe (and illegal) abortion options will be available, too. Save more mothers by regulating the practice? You think too highly of yourself and your beliefs if you think you are entitled to the power to prevent other people from making choices more significant in their lives than in yours.

Also, sex is a basic need. Telling people to abstain from it (especially if they are people who never want kids, or people who change their minds about kids late on in life), is like telling a guy to never eat if he doesn't want his **** to stink up the bathroom. It makes no sense. Reproduction is distinctly different from sex. It is not a basic need. Sex =/= reproduction. Reproduction is NOT the only purpose of sex. Intercourse is also intended to help the couple bond. Pleasure, as much as some seem to hate to admit, is also a purpose of sex.
27058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 5/16/12

Morbidhanson wrote:

Condoms break, plans fail, people drink, rapes happen. You NEED a fallback option if the consequences are as potentially severe as they are.

The potential for life =/= life.

If it did, then men would be killing countless 'babies' each time they ejaculate. Even if he gets a women pregnant, he has still 'killed' millions and saved only one life.

This is not to say, however, that the potential for life has no intrinsic value. One does not simply abort monthly as though she is getting a haircut. Just as how one should not pop babies simply for the sake of creating more lives, one should not abort repeatedly due to not giving a **** about getting pregnant. That being said, I only believe that LATE abortions are wrong. If the baby could have survived outside the womb at the time it was getting aborted, that is murder.

If you don't believe that some abortions are okay, that is fine (albeit stupid because you should know by now that things are not all black-and-white). But your moral code should not take away the freedoms of other people. People have a right to their own bodies. How can you tell them that they are not allowed to get an abortion because of your belief that it is wrong, despite the fact that their quality of life may decrease considerably? Their choices certainly aren't affecting your life. Why should your beliefs be allowed to worsen theirs? By denying them abortions, you are potentially interfering with their ability to soundly exist. If desperate enough, they can simply neglect a birthed baby by killing it or abandoning it (worse than abortion). Significantly more unsafe (and illegal) abortion options will be available, too. Save more mothers by regulating the practice? You think too highly of yourself and your beliefs if you think you are entitled to the power to prevent other people from making choices more significant in their lives than in yours.

Also, sex is a basic need. Telling people to abstain from it (especially if they are people who never want kids, or people who change their minds about kids late on in life), is like telling a guy to never eat if he doesn't want his **** to stink up the bathroom. It makes no sense. Reproduction is distinctly different from sex. It is not a basic need. Sex =/= reproduction. Reproduction is NOT the only purpose of sex. Intercourse is also intended to help the couple bond. Pleasure, as much as some seem to hate to admit, is also a purpose of sex.


Couple of responses I could make to your post.

I agree that it is logical that any contraceptive plan must include abortion, if the intention in contraception is to prevent pregnancy.

I agree that it would make no sense to suggest that a man is killing countless babies every time they ejaculate.
I also agree that it is not correct to suggest that a potential for creation of life does not equate to having actually brought about said life. This is because the potential is applying to the act of creation.

I disagree that this potentiality applies to the fetus in the same way. What you actually have there is a human being, it is passed the potential of coming into being stage. It is scientifically the case that a living organism is present in the womb. It is a human life, and human life does equal in being to a human being.

What is a fetus? It is obviously a life form, it lives and grows and matures. The fact that it lives and grows and matures means that it contains potentiality, but that potentiality is no more unusual to human life than it is present in the person typing to you.

The existence of potentialities in a given life does not per se entail the non-reality of the existence of that life.


Another divergent point to make applies to what we can do and cannot do. I mean, as it applies to freedom. We prevent people from making choices that are harmful all of the time. This does limit their freedom in one sense. So what? It is obvious that no one is free to commit rape, even though it does happen. We pass laws against rape, because it is immoral, and harmful to those who are raped.

Similarly, murder is also a wrong. Callousness towards human life in favor of a standard of living is not an argument in favor of abortion, it actually equates to a subtle hypocrisy. What about the standard of living of the unborn child?

Can one be callous towards human lives? There are labels for those who are. Avocation of homicide in this manner can be an avocation to manslaughter. Should people be released from prison for these crimes? They also committed homicide in order to increase their standard of living.

12497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/16/12 , edited 5/16/12

Holofernes wrote:

I disagree that this potentiality applies to the fetus in the same way. What you actually have there is a human being, it is passed the potential of coming into being stage. It is scientifically the case that a living organism is present in the womb. It is a human life, and human life does equal in being to a human being.

What is a fetus? It is obviously a life form, it lives and grows and matures. The fact that it lives and grows and matures means that it contains potentiality, but that potentiality is no more unusual to human life than it is present in the person typing to you.

The existence of potentialities in a given life does not per se entail the non-reality of the existence of that life.


Another divergent point to make applies to what we can do and cannot do. I mean, as it applies to freedom. We prevent people from making choices that are harmful all of the time. This does limit their freedom in one sense. So what? It is obvious that no one is free to commit rape, even though it does happen. We pass laws against rape, because it is immoral, and harmful to those who are raped.

Similarly, murder is also a wrong. Callousness towards human life in favor of a standard of living is not an argument in favor of abortion, it actually equates to a subtle hypocrisy. What about the standard of living of the unborn child?

Can one be callous towards human lives? There are labels for those who are. Avocation of homicide in this manner can be an avocation to manslaughter. Should people be released from prison for these crimes? They also committed homicide in order to increase their standard of living.



If a fetus should be given the status of a complete, functioning human or not is debatable. It's hard to be sure because the amount of time each fetus takes to gain sentience varies. It does not grow by itself, it takes nutrients from the carrier. Even if one believes a fetus to be a life, not a potential for life, I think carrying a baby is more akin to helping someone out than to sparing someone from death. Not helping someone who is about to die is letting the person die, not murder. Also, it is not always unacceptable to snuff out other lives.

There are, obviously, cases in which you ought to help out. Just because someone ought to do something does not mean they must be forced to do that thing. It is sometimes permissible for you to not help. Still, it's the carrier's choice whether or not she wants to help. You should be able to deny helping someone. Ultimately, the task should not be forced upon you. If a friend promised to meet you for dinner (or even to go to something as important as your wedding), for instance, and isn't there by the designated time, you don't have the right to barge into his/her house and yank that person out of bed by his/her hair.

I'm not advocating unlimited freedom. That's senseless. I believe people do not have the freedom to interfere with others' ability to exist. As long as you're not harming anyone, you should be able to do as you choose.
27058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 5/16/12

Morbidhanson wrote:


Holofernes wrote:

I disagree that this potentiality applies to the fetus in the same way. What you actually have there is a human being, it is passed the potential of coming into being stage. It is scientifically the case that a living organism is present in the womb. It is a human life, and human life does equal in being to a human being.

What is a fetus? It is obviously a life form, it lives and grows and matures. The fact that it lives and grows and matures means that it contains potentiality, but that potentiality is no more unusual to human life than it is present in the person typing to you.

The existence of potentialities in a given life does not per se entail the non-reality of the existence of that life.


Another divergent point to make applies to what we can do and cannot do. I mean, as it applies to freedom. We prevent people from making choices that are harmful all of the time. This does limit their freedom in one sense. So what? It is obvious that no one is free to commit rape, even though it does happen. We pass laws against rape, because it is immoral, and harmful to those who are raped.

Similarly, murder is also a wrong. Callousness towards human life in favor of a standard of living is not an argument in favor of abortion, it actually equates to a subtle hypocrisy. What about the standard of living of the unborn child?

Can one be callous towards human lives? There are labels for those who are. Avocation of homicide in this manner can be an avocation to manslaughter. Should people be released from prison for these crimes? They also committed homicide in order to increase their standard of living.



If a fetus should be given the status of a complete, functioning human or not is debatable. It's hard to be sure because the amount of time each fetus takes to gain sentience varies. It does not grow by itself, it takes nutrients from the carrier. Even if one believes a fetus to be a life, not a potential for life, I think carrying a baby is more akin to helping someone out than to sparing someone from death. Not helping someone who is about to die is letting the person die, not murder. Also, it is not always unacceptable to snuff out other lives.

There are, obviously, cases in which you ought to help out. Just because someone ought to do something does not mean they must be forced to do that thing. It is sometimes permissible for you to not help. Still, it's the carrier's choice whether or not she wants to help. You should be able to deny helping someone. Ultimately, the task should not be forced upon you. If a friend promised to meet you for dinner (or even to go to something as important as your wedding), for instance, and isn't there by the designated time, you don't have the right to barge into his/her house and yank that person out of bed by his/her hair.

I'm not advocating unlimited freedom. That's senseless. I believe people do not have the freedom to interfere with others' ability to exist. As long as you're not harming anyone, you should be able to do as you choose.


I think your position about the identity of a fetus is wrong.

A fetus is living. It grows and matures as it receives or ingests nutrients. The reception of nutrients from a carrier does not entail the non-definition of a fetus as a living being.

The fact that one organism depends upon another organism for sustenance is not an argument for the non-living of that organism. There are so many examples of this in biology I wont bother to cite them. The fetus is a living human life. It therefore is a human being because human life and human being are the same.

If a person ought to do something, and the matter is of life and death significance, is there anything more grave?

You see, that is what we are talking about in the case of abortion. We're not talking about whether a person ought to stop their car and help little Tiffany get her little kitten out of the sycamore tree. We're talking about whether little Tiffany's mother gets to decide if she should live or die. That means that we are talking about a serious matter, one literally a matter of life and death. In such cases can we emphasize freedom so cavalierly?
12497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/17/12 , edited 5/17/12

Holofernes wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


Holofernes wrote:

I disagree that this potentiality applies to the fetus in the same way. What you actually have there is a human being, it is passed the potential of coming into being stage. It is scientifically the case that a living organism is present in the womb. It is a human life, and human life does equal in being to a human being.

What is a fetus? It is obviously a life form, it lives and grows and matures. The fact that it lives and grows and matures means that it contains potentiality, but that potentiality is no more unusual to human life than it is present in the person typing to you.

The existence of potentialities in a given life does not per se entail the non-reality of the existence of that life.


Another divergent point to make applies to what we can do and cannot do. I mean, as it applies to freedom. We prevent people from making choices that are harmful all of the time. This does limit their freedom in one sense. So what? It is obvious that no one is free to commit rape, even though it does happen. We pass laws against rape, because it is immoral, and harmful to those who are raped.

Similarly, murder is also a wrong. Callousness towards human life in favor of a standard of living is not an argument in favor of abortion, it actually equates to a subtle hypocrisy. What about the standard of living of the unborn child?

Can one be callous towards human lives? There are labels for those who are. Avocation of homicide in this manner can be an avocation to manslaughter. Should people be released from prison for these crimes? They also committed homicide in order to increase their standard of living.



If a fetus should be given the status of a complete, functioning human or not is debatable. It's hard to be sure because the amount of time each fetus takes to gain sentience varies. It does not grow by itself, it takes nutrients from the carrier. Even if one believes a fetus to be a life, not a potential for life, I think carrying a baby is more akin to helping someone out than to sparing someone from death. Not helping someone who is about to die is letting the person die, not murder. Also, it is not always unacceptable to snuff out other lives.

There are, obviously, cases in which you ought to help out. Just because someone ought to do something does not mean they must be forced to do that thing. It is sometimes permissible for you to not help. Still, it's the carrier's choice whether or not she wants to help. You should be able to deny helping someone. Ultimately, the task should not be forced upon you. If a friend promised to meet you for dinner (or even to go to something as important as your wedding), for instance, and isn't there by the designated time, you don't have the right to barge into his/her house and yank that person out of bed by his/her hair.

I'm not advocating unlimited freedom. That's senseless. I believe people do not have the freedom to interfere with others' ability to exist. As long as you're not harming anyone, you should be able to do as you choose.


I think your position about the identity of a fetus is wrong.

A fetus is living. It grows and matures as it receives or ingests nutrients. The reception of nutrients from a carrier does not entail the non-definition of a fetus as a living being.

The fact that one organism depends upon another organism for sustenance is not an argument for the non-living of that organism. There are so many examples of this in biology I wont bother to cite them. The fetus is a living human life. It therefore is a human being because human life and human being are the same.

If a person ought to do something, and the matter is of life and death significance, is there anything more grave?

You see, that is what we are talking about in the case of abortion. We're not talking about whether a person ought to stop their car and help little Tiffany get her little kitten out of the sycamore tree. We're talking about whether little Tiffany's mother gets to decide if she should live or die. That means that we are talking about a serious matter, one literally a matter of life and death. In such cases can we emphasize freedom so cavalierly?


My position is my opinion. I certainly do not think it is wrong.

Well, obviously, anything that grows and uses nutrients can be said to be living. Then, again, germs are living. Plants are living. Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable killings? Where does one organism end and another begin? Is a cancerous tumor a part of the host or is it a life all its own? A potential human life and a human being are not the same, Would you say that a germinating oak seed has the same qualities as an old oak tree? Is it more okay to dig up the seed or is it more acceptable to chop down the ancient tree? For some reason, it doesn't seem okay to say that cracking open a seed is the same as chopping down a tree.

I believe a person is morally obligated to do something if it doesn't cost them much, stakes are very high for the other party, and the person has personal ties to the other party. Carrying a baby to term is very taxing on the mother, so it will cost her a lot to carry the baby to term, regardless of whether or not her life situation favors her having a baby. Then, it will cost even more to raise the baby to adulthood. I believe the stakes are not high for the embryo or young fetus. It has nothing to really lose because I don't believe it to be a separate life. Again, moral oughts are not moral musts. People who ought to help should not be forced to help, especially if they have good reasons for not helping. 'Little Tiffany' is the germinating seed. 'She' is not yet the tree. 'She' has no personality, no life of 'her' own (it is her mother's), no meaningful experiences, and is unable to function as a separate human being. 'She' is essentially a part of the mother's body until 'she' develops enough to absorb information and to function outside the womb, something like a rapidly-growing, human-shaped tumor that will one day become a human being.

Take this famous example, for instance, if you believe a fetus is a full person: You awaken one day and find that you are hooked up to a machine that cycles your blood into an unconscious person. You don't recognize that person. People tell you that the other person is a great musician with many fans. You and he share an extremely rare blood type, and you are the only person who could be found, so they hooked you up to him. For the next 9 months, you must remain in that room, attached to that machine or else the musician will die. If you choose to unhook yourself from the machine, he will die. If you stay for 9 months, he will wake up and be okay again. Would it be wrong for you to unhook yourself from the machine? You're not hurting the person by walking away. He's not worse off for having met you because of his previous condition.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.