Abortion

Are you sure that post doesn't belong in the Nuclear Missles topic?

The difference between abortion and killing innocents in other countries is that we aren't their mothers.

I was done with this topic till Aqua posted again...

Now, I might be missing something but what made you think I was for killing innocent civilians?

I said that once you kill someone you give up your right to life. You're right that the DoI says unalienable rights to life. In that case, the ideal thing would be to only capture and make people prisoners of war, and not kill anyone. However, we both know that's not feasible. I guess my first statement that, once you kill someone - you give up your right to life is contradictory to "unalienable rights, that amongst these are life..."

However I in no way condone killing of innocent civilians. Only combatants of war should be attacked, as they're the ones who do any killing and as such are under every understanding that they can be killed too. That they give up their right to live once they are willing to kill as well. Every soldier knows that they can die. That's why only combatants should be ever attacked.

I have no idea why you think I'm "for" killing civilians in anyway, shape or form - no matter where they're from. (Even if it's not directed completely at me)

Aqua, you and I agree at the end point. That in the end, abortions should be as minimal as possible. What we do disagree on is, the method of getting there. You think we should educate people first and minimize on the way. I think we should abolish it, and then educate people.

Jay, you ARE for killing innocents. Whatever % of women die in childbirth every year.

Stem Cell Research, not hard to guess my stance.

I don't believe a fetus in the first and second trimester feels pain. Anything towards later half of pregnancy and then it starts becoming an issue.

I am pro Stem Cell research.

If something has no memories, no connections and feels no pain. It may not be morally correct to take it's life, but in no way is it cruel or inhumane.

No stance for me... but I (and 90% of other people) don't remember anything from two years old and earlier, and people around age 3... its still a bit fuzzy. I remember trying to remember certain memories, but whenever I tried to remember that memory, I remembered less and less. (PS: the remaining 10% is those with photographic memory. But I doubt that ANYONE has memories from before birth...)

Yeah, I may have said or seemed to say that you are "for" killing innocents and I don't remember your post and don't feel like looking it up to check and see because it's beyond the point of going back and restating or re-arguing because these topics are impossible to ever completely resolve. The logical conclusion of what you said which I think was once a "country" goes to war... then it has given up its right to life. Which is what led me to think that you meant everyone within the country no matter his or her stance on war etc. Of course, my logic is fallacious, but it needed to be in order to make a point.

I've been thinking about this whole thing though and I realized that I can understand the points of view which say that outlawing abortions forces people to take consequences and that aborting a fetus is a much larger mistake than having it in the first place. I can't argue that. It's true.

But then there is the idea that we shouldn't "punish" (force consequences) onto a person especially if that "punishment" is a child. There is no analogy which encapsulates this issue at all or at least none of which I can think. Also there's the idea that life is not always sacred. Sometimes it is pretty damn hellish and I find it odd that people are against taxes because that would "force our children to pay for our mistakes" but isn't forcing life on a child who would have a horrible life also "forcing a child to pay for our mistakes" even if that "mistake" is the child's life itself?

I guess my point is that I see both points. Both are equally as sharp and painful and really make razor edge distinctions but there is no such thing as absolutely right or absolutely wrong anymore. That concept went out the door shortly after Queen Victoria's death and also after existentialism's birth. It's not simple, but the end goal ought to remain the same: stop (or perhaps abort?) abortions; yet abortions are just a symptom of a greater disease. Maybe one day we can work our way to rainbows and unicorns but that day won't come anytime soon I imagine. Maybe after humanity's hate has burned itself out but I digress and regret to wax poetic so now I'll wane and sign off. Nights.

[quote=AquaAscension]Yeah, I may have said or seemed to say that you are "for" killing innocents and I don't remember your post and don't feel like looking it up to check and see because it's beyond the point of going back and restating or re-arguing because these topics are impossible to ever completely resolve. The logical conclusion of what you said which I think was once a "country" goes to war... then it has given up its right to life. Which is what led me to think that you meant everyone within the country no matter his or her stance on war etc. Of course, my logic is fallacious, but it needed to be in order to make a point.[/quote]

This was a long time ago, and I don't recall saying anything about countries, at least not prior to you bringing them up - but also like you, don't really want to look up 6 pages worth of stuff to find out. I do recall saying "Once a PERSON kills another person, that PERSON gives up their right to life." I think you may have taken it to the point of countries. I was more referring to just murder in general (Not in relation to Abortions, but like I shot you in the face murder).

AquaAscension wrote:

But then there is the idea that we shouldn't "punish" (force consequences) onto a person especially if that "punishment" is a child. There is no analogy which encapsulates this issue at all or at least none of which I can think. Also there's the idea that life is not always sacred. Sometimes it is pretty damn hellish and I find it odd that people are against taxes because that would "force our children to pay for our mistakes" but isn't forcing life on a child who would have a horrible life also "forcing a child to pay for our mistakes" even if that "mistake" is the child's life itself?

The way I think of it is making a mistake to fix a prior mistake. A really bad analogy is ditching your friends for your girlfriend, and to fix the problem with your friends you ditch your girlfriend. It's not a good analogy in the least but - but it does draw (weak) parallels. You made a mistake in the first place. (Having a child unready versus ditching your friends). You then resolve the first mistake by what is potentially another mistake (Aborting the child versus ditching your girlfriend.) The basic layout is "Two wrongs don't make a right". Just because you "had" a mistake, doesn't mean you need to make another one to "fix" it.

As for the taxes, there's a key difference. The kid doesn't have to have a hellish life. I think it's an assumption that a lot of people make. Just because the couple didn't want the child or weren't ready for it does not mean 100% they will have a bad life. They're just at a higher risk of having a bad childhood and possibly home life. Even then - they could very well have a GOOD life. Even if they do have a shitty child life, they can use that to become better, stronger people. They aren't necessarily deprived of anything. It takes a village to raise a child.

AquaAsension wrote:

I guess my point is that I see both points. Both are equally as sharp and painful and really make razor edge distinctions but there is no such thing as absolutely right or absolutely wrong anymore

Agreed. However, I don't think that people who hold certain beliefs actually have thought about it fully. There are idiots on both sides of the debate. Have you ever took a side in an argument that you really never cared about before, and then find yourself defending it to the death? I think that's what happens to too many people. They just choose a side, and stick with it no matter what the other side presents. People are stubborn and once they commit to a side are afraid to go back. Sales people use this to a large degree. It's a slippery slope. They just have to get you to agree to agree to one small request, and from there ask a bit higher request than last time and since you agreed to the last thing, it's barely one up. Once they get their foot in the door, they've already sold you something.

AquaAscension wrote:

Maybe one day we can work our way to rainbows and unicorns but that day won't come anytime soon I imagine. Maybe after humanity's hate has burned itself out but I digress and regret to wax poetic so now I'll wane and sign off. Nights.

It goes with what I was saying before. One step at a time. By laying out small requests at a time, people can go along with change much more easily. Unicorns can be dealt with through genetics IMO. Rainbows is basic physics. Good night though, dream the big dream.