Abortion Penalty

[divisortheory]

Oh ya I saw someone saying earlier that Safe Sex is safer than Abstinence. Or maybe it was Abstinence doesn't work or something equally wrong.

Always clarify you are referring to education and the results of it because in actuality abstinence will always be safer than "Safe Sex" practices.

Not driving will always be safter than driving, too. The problem is getting people to do it. It will never happen, as such abstinence programs are a waste of time and resources. It's like saying "the best way to mitigate future damage from global warming is to cool down the sun." It's retarded, just take precautions and preventative measures (such as recycling).

[Rocl]

Holy Yin these threads grow fast

ROFL nice edit (yes, I'm spamming f5).

My word, you're good

[Maguspk]

Oh ya I saw someone saying earlier that Safe Sex is safer than Abstinence. Or maybe it was Abstinence doesn't work or something equally wrong.

Always clarify you are referring to education and the results of it because in actuality abstinence will always be safer than "Safe Sex" practices.

Not driving will always be safter than driving, too. The problem is getting people to do it. It will never happen, as such abstinence programs are a waste of time and resources. It's like saying "the best way to mitigate future damage from global warming is to cool down the sun." It's retarded, just take precautions and preventative measures to recycle.

I agree, I just thought it should be clarified even though it's a little wording inconsistency. Teaching people not to have sex before marriage is like teaching a kid not to acknowledge their sexual drive. It will always be there, in fact, most religious zealots even have sex before marriage or they try to assuage the guilt by saying something like "we're going to get married" anyway or "we love each other" or some equal bullshit.

[Xavier]

Great, I come back and read posts and it's turned into a religious debate now.

And no, I'm not trying to argue that there shouldn't be laws. I'm just trying to pull apart a hypocrisy. In my opinion, you can't have a legal system without a moral system, and a group of people wouldn't agree to a specific set of rules unless they shared similar moral ideals.

Why must shared moral ideals be the basis for law?

If I feel that I don't want to die, and you feel that killing is wrong, and we both enter into an agreement not to kill each other, then morality had nothing to do with my acceptance of the law.

The only problem I have is when people act like their moral system IS their legal system, whereas, if they were the same thing, they wouldn't be defined as moral and legal, would they?

Nobody does this. But everybody does look into their moral system when the legal system treads that territory. It's ignorant to say the two are totally separate, just as it's equally ignorant to think they're one in the same.

No, they are separate.

Being American doesn't mean I pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ. Disputes revolving around the law are settled in a court of law, backed up by the law. Its impossible to attach a set system of morality to anything, because morality is not a condition of living in the country. No two people have to believe the exact same thing, while those same two people both have to follow the law, if agreed to.

There are dozens of religions which contradict each other, which both approve and condone different things. At the end of the day, the only thing that truly matters is the law, not your feelings about the law.

And no, I'm not saying the law doesn't have a lot in common with the same issues moral debates tackle, but the law is forced, while morality has always been a choice. Its the freedom to choose what you want to think, so long as you don't break with the laws that everybody does actually follow.

When people talk about abortion, they call it a crime and want it made illegal because its wrong, because it goes against their beliefs. Except, the law says it isn't, and all you're doing is claiming your ideological beliefs are in fact what everyone should be following.

[Maguspk]

Great, I come back and read posts and it's turned into a religious debate now.

And no, I'm not trying to argue that there shouldn't be laws. I'm just trying to pull apart a hypocrisy. In my opinion, you can't have a legal system without a moral system, and a group of people wouldn't agree to a specific set of rules unless they shared similar moral ideals.

Why must shared moral ideals be the basis for law?

If I feel that I don't want to die, and you feel that killing is wrong, and we both enter into an agreement not to kill each other, then morality had nothing to do with my acceptance of the law.

The only problem I have is when people act like their moral system IS their legal system, whereas, if they were the same thing, they wouldn't be defined as moral and legal, would they?

Nobody does this. But everybody does look into their moral system when the legal system treads that territory. It's ignorant to say the two are totally separate, just as it's equally ignorant to think they're one in the same.

No, they are separate.

Being American doesn't mean I pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ. Disputes revolving around the law are settled in a court of law, backed up by the law. Its impossible to attach a set system of morality to anything, because morality is not a condition of living in the country. No two people have to believe the exact same thing, while those same two people both have to follow the law, if agreed to.

There are dozens of religions which contradict each other, which both approve and condone different things. At the end of the day, the only thing that truly matters is the law, not your feelings about the law.

And no, I'm not saying the law doesn't have a lot in common with the same issues moral debates tackle, but the law is forced, while morality has always been a choice. Its the freedom to choose what you want to think, so long as you don't break with the laws that everybody does actually follow.

When people talk about abortion, they call it a crime and want it made illegal because its wrong, because it goes against their beliefs. Except, the law says it isn't, and all you're doing is claiming your ideological beliefs are in fact what everyone should be following.

I think I missed something, when did morals fall under the "religion" category.

Of course incongruencies will/do exist in the morals of one person to another, this is true for everything. But the fact of the matter is our law is devised in such a way that the majority have their morals satisfied in the law's creation, maintenance, and enforcement.

[Gafgarionn]

[quote=aurik]

I think an abortion should require signed consent from the father and if the father could not be located the woman would have to sign an affidavit that he is unavailable and a genetic sample of the child should be stored. If it could be proven later that the father was left in the dark and unaware of the abortion on purpose the woman should face prison. You could even add some sort of proactive way for a man to register his DNA with a service to be tested against any pending abortions to prevent one from happening without his consent.

When men are the ones faced with the task of living for 9 months with a de-facto parasite, they can have veto power over the process.

Are you implying that the only line between life and death for a potential newborn is whether the mother wants to put up with 9 months of inconvenience?

Way to load my words with meaning they didn't have.

Don't be so defensive, I was genuinely asking you if that's what you meant.

Next time read what was written.[/quote:13f79]

Sorry, let me start over. Are you trying to say that, because the woman has to deal with the burden of having the baby in her womb, that she makes the ultimate decision on whether it is aborted or not?

[divisortheory]

When people talk about abortion, they call it a crime and want it made illegal because its wrong, because it goes against their beliefs. Except, the law says it isn't, and all you're doing is claiming your ideological beliefs are in fact what everyone should be following.

That fact that pro-life people seem to overwhelmingly state that the woman should not be imprisoned says to me that at least to some extent they agree that it's simply their own personal moral belief. The protests and claims of illegality are sounding more and more like a PR campaign now, just an indirect attempt to convert people over to their side, and it makes me think that perhaps they don't really mind if it never becomes illegal.

[Devek]

/bg/ forums is kind of a biased sample though to decide what "pro-lifers" think.

FFXI doesn't attract many family people..

[Kuya]

Abortion is simply a murder of convenience, nothing more. You don't want the responsibility of dealing with your actions, so you kill it. Note, I am not referring to health of the mother, or rape here.

One guy says its ok because the has to be a brain or its not human, another it has to have the ability to make a choice. Pro-abortionists all have their own little "reason" that its ok

The simple fact is the only single time in the human development you go from being a potential human to a human, is conception. Before it is nothing but potential. After what ever arbitrary requirements you use to assuage your conscience, is nothing but a matter of time.

Almost all murder is done at convenience, moral rules hold no water when it comes to people killing eachother in a war. But in order to even call it a murder you'd have to prove the creature even conscious. But hey, i have no problem with you calling it murder for convinience. Hey, it's sorta like euthanesia(sp?), regardless of your sensationalist attempts at debunking a side of the argument.

Yet, you feel absolutly safe making arbitrary statements such as: "Life begins at conception". Shouldn't we be making these choices on logical thought, instead of what makes you feel better?

[divisortheory]

/bg/ forums is kind of a biased sample though to decide what "pro-lifers" think.

FFXI doesn't attract many family people..

Yea I was going based off of the video, where not a single person interviewed thought a woman should be imprisoned. That's a pretty good sample right?

[aurik]

Sorry, let me start over. Are you trying to say that, because the woman has to deal with the burden of having the baby in her womb, that she makes the ultimate decision on whether it is aborted or not?

No, I said nothing of the woman. I said that giving men the power of veto simply because their sperm was involved is stupid.

[quannum]

this thread is bananas, b-a-n-a-n-a-s.

Force pro-life people to register as recipients of newly born babies, which would otherwise have been aborted. With no upper limit on how many they need to care for. Because every life is precious.

[Xavier]

Abortion is simply a murder of convenience, nothing more. You don't want the responsibility of dealing with your actions, so you kill it. Note, I am not referring to health of the mother, or rape here.

One guy says its ok because the has to be a brain or its not human, another it has to have the ability to make a choice. Pro-abortionists all have their own little "reason" that its ok

The simple fact is the only single time in the human development you go from being a potential human to a human, is conception. Before it is nothing but potential. After what ever arbitrary requirements you use to assuage your conscience, is nothing but a matter of time.

Did you just justify abortions while condemning abortion?

You can't acknowledge the health of a mother, or rape, and then exclude them from the conversation and wave a finger at people who get abortions as selfish.

..................Yea you can, they are all different events, with different reasons for the act. Your logic is like arguing that self-defense and cold blooded murder are the same thing. Rape and sex are the same thing! Seriously grow up.

I especially like the "seriously grow up" part. And no, the logic is not like self-defense and cold blooded murder are the same thing, nor that rape and sex are the same thing.

You basically call anyone who gets an abortion a murderer, and that their excuses only exist to help them sleep at night. In the same breath you separate rape victims and the mothers health, which I guess means you understand the need for exceptions, or difficult choices. Yet, in both cases, the fetus is being aborted and a "child" is being killed.

So I'm just trying to understand, is the fetus less human when its the result of rape or endangering the mother?

[Xavier]

When people talk about abortion, they call it a crime and want it made illegal because its wrong, because it goes against their beliefs. Except, the law says it isn't, and all you're doing is claiming your ideological beliefs are in fact what everyone should be following.

That fact that pro-life people seem to overwhelmingly state that the woman should not be imprisoned says to me that at least to some extent they agree that it's simply their own personal moral belief. The protests and claims of illegality are sounding more and more like a PR campaign now, just an indirect attempt to convert people over to their side, and it makes me think that perhaps they don't really mind if it never becomes illegal.

Morality is only an issue in the even years.

[aurik]

murder

To be technical, murder is illegal killing of a human being. So far we've disagreed that the fetus is a human being, that it is killing, and whether it should be illegal. So to use the term "murder" to describe the act is presuming the outcome of the argument, more commonly known as begging the question.

[Maguspk]

murder

To be technical, murder is illegal killing of a human being. So far we've disagreed that the fetus is a human being, that it is killing, and whether it should be illegal. So to use the term "murder" to describe the act is presuming the outcome of the argument, more commonly known as begging the question.

lol, so good.

[divisortheory]

Bunch of nonsense

You basically call anyone who gets an abortion a murderer

Who wants to take bets on whether or not he thinks the woman should receive jail time? Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Ryko]

While it is a valid point, it relies on what could be described as the semantic of legality. Granted it's not murder as stated by the law, or even by the dictionary, but one should assume that when the variable presented is legality that someone calling it as murder is using it in a more abstract way to label the killing of something that most would say is defenseless. No one's really going to buy that "it's not murder because it's not illegal".

[Fuuko]

Yet, you feel absolutly safe making arbitrary statements such as: "Life begins at conception". Shouldn't we be making these choices on logical thought, instead of what makes you feel better?

I am. Its not what makes me feel better, its the most logical time to define the start of human life. Name any other phase in human development where you so clearly go from potential to human? I've yet to find a better point logically. Any other other point is simply an arbitrary point in development.

[divisortheory]

Yet, you feel absolutly safe making arbitrary statements such as: "Life begins at conception". Shouldn't we be making these choices on logical thought, instead of what makes you feel better?

I am. Its not what makes me feel better, its the most logical time to define the start of human life. Name any other phase in human development where you so clearly go from potential to human? I've yet to find a better point logically. Any other other point is simply an arbitrary point in development.

I named one that you defined as arbitrary. You named one that I defined as arbitrary. Just to clarify, you feel that it's possible for a human being to not have a brain and be alive?