Political Crossfire Forums

[Lowro8d6]

I have never made a firm stance on abortion because i like to play devils advocate and argue both ways. But do you think if a person is pro-life than that person should not masterbate because whenever a person gets a playboy and a tissue he is in fact killing life?

Ive heard this argument once and just want to know what you people think...

I think its mass genocide! lol :shock: jk

[alclarkey]

Lowro8d6 wrote: I have never made a firm stance on abortion because i like to play devils advocate and argue both ways. But do you think if a person is pro-life than that person should not masterbate because whenever a person gets a playboy and a tissue he is in fact killing life?

Ive heard this argument once and just want to know what you people think...

I think its mass genocide! lol :shock: jk

If you believe killing sperm is murder than no matter what you do you are destined to be a murderer. By masturbating into a tissue you are killing millions of sperm cells. By ejaculating into a woman you are killing sperm cells. And finally by doing nothing at all you are killing sperm cells, because eventually if they spend enough time in your testes they will die.

But since you don't actually believe that, heres where it does become murder:

Finally after millions and millions and millions of your sperm brethren get sent to the big ovary in the sky, you, the exceptional one finally get to bond with that egg, only to find that the people who created you don't want you anymore. That is murder.

[Demonic Spoon]

So...how exactly does bonding with an egg make it "murder" to kill it?

[alclarkey]

Demonic Spoon wrote: So...how exactly does bonding with an egg make it "murder" to kill it? It is now a full human being. Besides in each ejaculation there are roughly 400 million sperm. If one of those does happen to be strong enough or "man" enough to make it to the egg than it must deserve to live. Fits Darwin's theory of natural selection.

[LostSoul3412]

While I am personally pro-life, I would not support a law following my belief. The way I see it, I have no right to impose my morals on my fellow citizen, and in that respect I am pro-choice. It's their body and their child, who am I to tell them what to do?

But that's besides the point...

Regardless of what a life actually is, murder is not the issue at hand. I do not see masturbation as murder anymore than I would see an abortion as murder. It's an individual's choice to do what they want with their own body, and even if it is murder, it's still their choice.

[LostSoul3412]

alclarkey wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: So...how exactly does bonding with an egg make it "murder" to kill it? It is now a full human being. Besides in each ejaculation there are roughly 400 million sperm. If one of those does happen to be strong enough or "man" enough to make it to the egg than it must deserve to live. Fits Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Darwin's theory of natural selection no longer applies to humans because of modern medical technology. In the "natural world", creatures with weaker aspects die out when competing with mutated animals than have adapted their genetic makeup to their current environment. Humans, at this point, are either unapplicable to natural selection, or the human race is slowly devolving because of the continuation of "flawed genes". Medicine advances allow those genes to survive in the gene pool, and spread to the next generation of humans. So if you're going to say that a sperm that fertilizes an egg follows natural selection, then I would say that we're either above natural selection, or we're all genetically doomed.

[alclarkey]

LostSoul3412 wrote: While I am personally pro-life, I would not support a law following my belief. The way I see it, I have no right to impose my morals on my fellow citizen, and in that respect I am pro-choice. It's their body and their child, who am I to tell them what to do?

Oh really? Does that apply to other things we consider crimes as well, just as long as its done to ones own child? Whats inside of a mothers womb is another person. She has no right to take that person's life. In fact she is ethically bound to protect it. Yes I do believe abortion should be illegal.

LostSoul3412 wrote: But that's besides the point...

Regardless of what a life actually is, murder is not the issue at hand. I do not see masturbation as murder anymore than I would see an abortion as murder. It's an individual's choice to do what they want with their own body, and even if it is murder, it's still their choice.

No it is not beside the point. Pro-abortionists would make the point that if you believe a zygote or recently conceived child is actually a child and killing it would be murder, than so must masturbation, trying to show an inconsistancy in the pro-life position which doesn't exist.

[LostSoul3412]

First off, yes, that does apply to any "law" or "rule" or "crime" that the collective society subjugates itself to. The government, or anyone else, has any right to tell anyone what they can and cannot do. Abortion is a parent's choice as to whether or not they choose to have a child. While you say that the mother has no right to take her unborn child's life, I would say that you have no right to tell her she can't. Individual choice, individual liberty. I understand that you are trying to protect the life of another human being, but that drive to save another life is not your right. So, I stand by my claim, a parent can choose whether or not they have a child. While it would be ideal that all unwanted children are put up for adoption and placed with loving families, we are in no position to force everyone do conform to our ideals.

Second, I think you're arguing against something I did not say. What was besides the point was my personal view on the matter, since we are speaking in a general societal context. I also did not try to prove any inconsistencies with the pro-life platform, I was merely saying that it is a parent's choice to have a child, and no one else can make that choice for them. Not you, not me, not the government, not the adoption agencies, no one. Individual choice, individual liberty.

[Mightier Than The Sword]

alclarkey wrote: Lowro8d6 wrote: I have never made a firm stance on abortion because i like to play devils advocate and argue both ways. But do you think if a person is pro-life than that person should not masterbate because whenever a person gets a playboy and a tissue he is in fact killing life?

Ive heard this argument once and just want to know what you people think...

I think its mass genocide! lol :shock: jk

If you believe killing sperm is murder than no matter what you do you are destined to be a murderer. By masturbating into a tissue you are killing millions of sperm cells. By ejaculating into a woman you are killing sperm cells. And finally by doing nothing at all you are killing sperm cells, because eventually if they spend enough time in your testes they will die.

But since you don't actually believe that, heres where it does become murder:

Finally after millions and millions and millions of your sperm brethren get sent to the big ovary in the sky, you, the exceptional one finally get to bond with that egg, only to find that the people who created you don't want you anymore. That is murder.

The same could be said for women who don't conceive- that egg is going to die anyway, unless the two get together and do something about it.

It's another issue where arbitrary lines are drawn, and you've arbitrarily drawn the line at conception.

[alclarkey]

Mightier Than The Sword wrote: alclarkey wrote: Lowro8d6 wrote: I have never made a firm stance on abortion because i like to play devils advocate and argue both ways. But do you think if a person is pro-life than that person should not masterbate because whenever a person gets a playboy and a tissue he is in fact killing life?

Ive heard this argument once and just want to know what you people think...

I think its mass genocide! lol :shock: jk

If you believe killing sperm is murder than no matter what you do you are destined to be a murderer. By masturbating into a tissue you are killing millions of sperm cells. By ejaculating into a woman you are killing sperm cells. And finally by doing nothing at all you are killing sperm cells, because eventually if they spend enough time in your testes they will die.

But since you don't actually believe that, heres where it does become murder:

Finally after millions and millions and millions of your sperm brethren get sent to the big ovary in the sky, you, the exceptional one finally get to bond with that egg, only to find that the people who created you don't want you anymore. That is murder.

The same could be said for women who don't conceive- that egg is going to die anyway, unless the two get together and do something about it.

It's another issue where arbitrary lines are drawn, and you've arbitrarily drawn the line at conception.

No actually I haven't. Before conception both the eggs and the sperm will die if they don't bond. Not every ejaculation inside a woman results in pregnancy, so you can see the insurmountable odds each sperm suffers. One finally does make it, meaning "he" beat out 399,999,999 other sperm. That one aparantly is special, aparantley he was destined to go on, at least until someone blithley and through an unnatural means kills it.

And besides neither a sperm nor an egg by themselves are a complete human, once they bond though they do create a complete human, and I have a problem with killing it.

[Mightier Than The Sword]

What makes you think that this whole "destiny" thing you purport through natural selection is somehow outside of human technology?

[alclarkey]

Mightier Than The Sword wrote: What makes you think that this whole "destiny" thing you purport through natural selection is somehow outside of human technology? It is my belief that every single human on the planet has a purpose, whether or not they fullfill that purpose is up to them, not another person. Besides after conception what is there is no longer just a bunch of cells, it is now a living being, and we have no right to cut that off prematurely, unless it is to save the life of the mother.

[Mightier Than The Sword]

alclarkey wrote: Mightier Than The Sword wrote: What makes you think that this whole "destiny" thing you purport through natural selection is somehow outside of human technology? It is my belief that every single human on the planet has a purpose, whether or not they fullfill that purpose is up to them, not another person. Besides after conception what is there is no longer just a bunch of cells, it is now a living being, and we have no right to cut that off prematurely, unless it is to save the life of the mother.

I think the fact that that "human" existed at all in the first place was up to two humans, actually.

[alclarkey]

Mightier Than The Sword wrote: alclarkey wrote: Mightier Than The Sword wrote: What makes you think that this whole "destiny" thing you purport through natural selection is somehow outside of human technology? It is my belief that every single human on the planet has a purpose, whether or not they fullfill that purpose is up to them, not another person. Besides after conception what is there is no longer just a bunch of cells, it is now a living being, and we have no right to cut that off prematurely, unless it is to save the life of the mother.

I think the fact that that "human" existed at all in the first place was up to two humans, actually.

And this means what, exactly?

[Mightier Than The Sword]

alclarkey wrote: Mightier Than The Sword wrote: alclarkey wrote: Mightier Than The Sword wrote: What makes you think that this whole "destiny" thing you purport through natural selection is somehow outside of human technology? It is my belief that every single human on the planet has a purpose, whether or not they fullfill that purpose is up to them, not another person. Besides after conception what is there is no longer just a bunch of cells, it is now a living being, and we have no right to cut that off prematurely, unless it is to save the life of the mother.

I think the fact that that "human" existed at all in the first place was up to two humans, actually.

And this means what, exactly?

Like if those two humans hadn't decided to bump the buoys that living being wouldn't be around anyway.

[LostSoul3412]

Human beings have only two natural instincts: self-actualization, and the drive to reproduce. While the first has nothing to do with this debate, the second most certainly does.

The drive to reproduce is something that every animal is born with. From a virus to a human, the greatest instinct we have (besides the survival instinct) is to produce offspring. So while people are out following their instincts to pleasure, sometimes accidents happen, and an unexpected pregnancy occurs.

While I agree that every creature has a purpose in life, you have no right to impose that view on another person. While I will agree that people should be held responsible for their mistakes, my span of ideals stretches only to myself and my life. No one has any right to force someone else to follow their morals. If a mother wants an abortion, it is her right to have an abortion. And as much as it may kill you inside to think of an unborn child dying, it would kill me more to know that morals become laws, and the entire nation is forced to adhere to a set of moral principles that they may not even follow. So while I agree with your arguments, alclarkey, I would also say that it is the individual's right to control their own body by their own morals, not by someone else's.

[Æ]

Lowro8d6 wrote: I have never made a firm stance on abortion because i like to play devils advocate and argue both ways. But do you think if a person is pro-life than that person should not masterbate because whenever a person gets a playboy and a tissue he is in fact killing life?

Ive heard this argument once and just want to know what you people think...

I think its mass genocide! lol :shock: jk
Your logic is just as amazing as your use of grammar. :roll:

Ah, I love that "you people" s**t. Shall we see how far we can go by grouping individuals you disagree with into some stereotypical collective that exists only in your mind?

Now, can we return to why we are discussing the topic of abortion in the first place? It is not simply 'life' that makes abortion an issue, but human life; more specifically, the potential of human beings to become persons and the use of coercion by others to prevent that from happening.

[alclarkey]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Human beings have only two natural instincts: self-actualization, and the drive to reproduce. While the first has nothing to do with this debate, the second most certainly does.

The drive to reproduce is something that every animal is born with. From a virus to a human, the greatest instinct we have (besides the survival instinct) is to produce offspring. So while people are out following their instincts to pleasure, sometimes accidents happen, and an unexpected pregnancy occurs.

While I agree that every creature has a purpose in life, you have no right to impose that view on another person. While I will agree that people should be held responsible for their mistakes, my span of ideals stretches only to myself and my life. No one has any right to force someone else to follow their morals. If a mother wants an abortion, it is her right to have an abortion. And as much as it may kill you inside to think of an unborn child dying, it would kill me more to know that morals become laws, and the entire nation is forced to adhere to a set of moral principles that they may not even follow. So while I agree with your arguments, alclarkey, I would also say that it is the individual's right to control their own body by their own morals, not by someone else's.

But they are not controling only their own body, they are controlling the body of a child as well, a child they created. This thing about people shouldn't force their morals on other people is really grating. Liberals run around trying to make rich people support poor people, or try to keep us uneducated hicks from having evil guns, but that wouldn't be forcing morals on anyone would it? Anyways almost every law in existence is based on some sort of morality. It is immoral for a person to kill another person, and after birth we call that murder and make it illegal, and then there is rape, incest, theft, slander, assault, etc. I believe an unborn child is a person, and noone has a right to take that persons life. Tell me, at what point does it become unnacceptable to abort? 5 months? 6 months? 15 minutes before it comes out of the mothers body? Is it somehow less human then? Abortion should be illegal.

[LostSoul3412]

alclarkey wrote: But they are not controling only their own body, they are controlling the body of a child as well, a child they created. This thing about people shouldn't force their morals on other people is really grating. Liberals run around trying to make rich people support poor people, or try to keep us uneducated hicks from having evil guns, but that wouldn't be forcing morals on anyone would it?

That's going to happen with any laws, which is part of the reason I consider myself an Anarchist. So I agree with you, but the argument has no value against me.

The rest of your argument is all valid, and as I said before, you are trying to save a human life. But it's not your life to save. I understand you obligation to protect another living person, but it's not your choice to make. People should be responsible for their own lives, their own families, and no one else's. If the pregnant mother of my child, and myself, choose to have an abortion done, then that is our choice and our right to do so. I understand your arguments and I agree with most of them, but you cannot expect other people to follow your same code of conduct.

[alclarkey]

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: But they are not controling only their own body, they are controlling the body of a child as well, a child they created. This thing about people shouldn't force their morals on other people is really grating. Liberals run around trying to make rich people support poor people, or try to keep us uneducated hicks from having evil guns, but that wouldn't be forcing morals on anyone would it?

That's going to happen with any laws, which is part of the reason I consider myself an Anarchist. So I agree with you, but the argument has no value against me.

The rest of your argument is all valid, and as I said before, you are trying to save a human life. But it's not your life to save. I understand you obligation to protect another living person, but it's not your choice to make. People should be responsible for their own lives, their own families, and no one else's. If the pregnant mother of my child, and myself, choose to have an abortion done, then that is our choice and our right to do so. I understand your arguments and I agree with most of them, but you cannot expect other people to follow your same code of conduct.

Well I certainly don't believe in anarchy, and given that, I feel a moral obligation to protect innocent life, even if it is not my own child.