Abortion

Talk about anything in here from the price of tea to the state of the economy!

Is abortion acceptable under certain circumstances?

Yes
39
89%
No
5
11%
 
Total votes: 44

User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11476
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Post by mosespa »

kjnpf wrote:That's a very significant post and a thought inspiring one to say the least. :)


Thanks:)
User avatar
Stiggs
Knife
Knife
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:39 am
Location: Hamburg, NY

My four cents...I'm giving 2 now, already gave 2 before

Post by Stiggs »

What is the definition of life? Well...I don't know. But what do life forms do? They feed off each other. Nothing is really self sufficient. If we were, we wouldn't need each other, we wouldn't have to eat, or anything. We could just sit naked on a chair all day, all night, not doing anything, and we would live for how long we want to/can.
With that point, let me say this. When a baby is conceived, it is life. Can it support itself? No. Even though it's only 1 cell, it can't support itself. The mother supports the fetus. So what is it, a life form or an annoyance that drains the mother's nutrients? It's a life form. Simple, but life. One celled creatures that float around in ponds are life. Monkeys are life forms. So is the union of the sperm and the egg. It's a simple life form that has the ability to grow, to learn, and to develop, just like any other LIVING human being.
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11476
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Re: My four cents...I'm giving 2 now, already gave 2 before

Post by mosespa »

Stiggs wrote:What is the definition of life?


"Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; it's chemical elements remain remain, but it's life goes out of existence."

--Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged
(Reprinted without permission.)
User avatar
Real Pink in the Inside
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:31 pm
Location: The Dark Side of Neptune

Re: My four cents...I'm giving 2 now, already gave 2 before

Post by Real Pink in the Inside »

Stiggs wrote:What is the definition of life?
More often than not people have little difficulty distinguishing living things from non-living things. For example, we can easily see that a dog, a pig and a sheep are alive but a stone, a house (White House :lol:), and a CD are not. People call a thing living if it capable of certain activities, such as growth and reproduction.

Biologists, on the other hand, have a difficult time defining life, though they have an enormous amount of information on living things. They have trouble locating the dividing line between living and non-living things. For instance, a virus is a lifeless particle by itself, but it becomes active and multiplies rapidly when inside a living cell. Instead of trying to define life precisely, biologists focus on deepening their understanding of life by studying living things.
User avatar
Furious
Knife
Knife
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 12:38 pm
Location: Aide of Adel.

Re: My four cents...I'm giving 2 now, already gave 2 before

Post by Furious »

mosespa wrote:--Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged
(Reprinted without permission.)
hahah :)
User avatar
David Smith
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7074
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year

Post by David Smith »

I took a look back over the thread and i ntoiced a reference towards the start about the death penalty (i can't remember who made it, but they fully agreed with it.)

Now i was thinking, if a person claims to be guilty or there's A LOT of evidence to support them being guilty and it's an offence worthy of death then i feel the person who commited the crime should be locked in a room with a gun holding one bullet, it's then up to them if they want to do a BLOODY LONG jail sentance or shoot themselves (any religious types can ask someone else t shoot them.) This would put an element of choice in to the proceedings and it means the death would not be witnessed by lots of people -like the electric chair is- and people can't argue about rehibilitation being better because the criminal is offered the choice of reibilitation.

This method would please all the socialist pro choice people because the criminal is GIVEN THE CHOICE and it should please those already in favour of the death penalty because aslong as the jail sentance is pretty long (we're talking atleast 30 years for killing someone) then i would think a lot of people would choose death over a chance at being rehibilitated.

On a slightly different note, i beleive the person said paedophiles should be killed and i have to say i agree. the reason i say this is because a lot of people i know are claiming they shouldn't because "it's an illness and you shouldn't kill people for having cancer."

I say this to them, "I have asthma so i don't do drugs."

In other words we all have choice over our actions, be ill or not. I have bad asthma so i don't use drugs -which is a real shame cause it's looks quite fun- so if someone has paedophile mental illness then they shouldn't do stuff to kids - which FOR THEM is missing out on something i'm sure.- Does anyone here actually beleive people have no control over their actions?

No i don't fully agree with the death penalty, i think people should be given the choice, a solution that would satisfy everyone.
User avatar
ummugumma
Embryo
Embryo
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 10:18 pm
Location: Colchester Essex

Post by ummugumma »

The only person who has the right to decide is the female, its her body and noone else has the right to decide what is right or wrong when it comes to an individuals body, no person and certainly not a hypocritical religion.
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11476
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Post by mosespa »

David Smith wrote:
This method would please all the socialist pro choice people because the criminal is GIVEN THE CHOICE


Please explain how upholding INDIVIDUAL rights is a "socialist" principle.
User avatar
David Smith
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7074
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year

Post by David Smith »

Beacuse it's pro choice so the people are being given the choice wether or not to die rather than having it decided for them by an all powerful government.
User avatar
David Smith
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7074
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year

Post by David Smith »

A socialist outlook on abortion would be that women can decide wether or not they get an abortion so surely a socialist outlook on the death penalty would be that criminals should be able to choose wether they die or go in for rehibilitation.
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11476
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Post by mosespa »

I've given a more precise definition of what socialism actually is in another post, so I won't do it here, but I will say that you are mistaken.

The socialist view would be that no one may have an abortion unless permission is granted by society. After all, each person is owned by the society, so no one can do anything without the consent of society.

The individualist view is that if a woman wants to have an abortion, it's her body to do with as she chooses and no one has the right to stop her.

Giving a prisoner a gun and the option to kill himself is respecting his individual right to choose death over a life imprisoned.

By it's very nature, the word "SOCIALism" denies the importance of the individual in favor of the importance of SOCIety.
User avatar
David Smith
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7074
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year

Post by David Smith »

Ok, but still, my point is much the same, anyone who disagrees with the death penalty would be pleased (because of an element of choice) and those that agree with it would be to.
User avatar
mosespa
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11476
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...

Post by mosespa »

I don't know about that...you see, the faction who feels that suicide is morally wrong and that the prisoner is being forced to choose between mortal imprisonment and eternal punishment would still have to be appeased.

You can't please everyone.
User avatar
David Smith
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7074
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year

Post by David Smith »

As i siad, religious people would just be killed traditionally. What they cpould do with them is bring in all the people he's had an effect on and let them vote if he dies or not giving power to the people (true democracy.)

That would be introducing choice and democracy in to the death penalty.
User avatar
Ailbhe
Axe
Axe
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:09 pm
Location: somewhere, anywhere....

Post by Ailbhe »

I wonder how many people here discussing whether abortion should be allowed are women. :?: I really do.I think that this is going the way things always have gone. Men have always decided what women should do and what they shouldn't.I am woman.I think that if I ever end up with a child I don't want to have I should be free to abort it without other men telling me that it is murder and morally incorrect.After all it is my child---its always the woman's fault, isn't it? No one ever blames the father even if they know who he is.