Political Crossfire Forums

Omega1 · Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Posts: 456

Quote: You do not understand the meaning of system in this conext. A system in this conext is an individual organism.
A cell is just a cell, but a system of cells represents a body or being.

It just represents many stem cells that differentiate into specific cells. Nothing special.

Omega1 · Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Posts: 456

Face it, you value stem cells, but I do not.

whatchawant? · Joined: 26 May 2006 Posts: 18 Location: Okinawa

Get that kid out of there before it causes more problems to an obviously already stressful life.

Revenant · Joined: 16 Apr 2006 Posts: 17927 Location: Bliss

What if prevention fails?

Abortion, nuff said :lol:

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

yes yes kill the friggin baby!

Politics Mstr · Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 48 Location: California

name wrote: Please consider the scenario: a man and woman have protected sex with a condom, which breaks. The woman is also on birth control, but the pill doesn't work despite her 100% correct use of it. The woman becomes pregnant, but the pregnancy would be an enormous burden to her life.
If the woman tried but was unable to obtain emergency contraception due to circumstances beyond her control, would you support her decision to have an abortion as soon as possible?
This woman intended to prevent this and was screwed (no pun intended) by a slim chance. But honestly, this early on in pregancy, the issue is who has more rights: a living woman with a life to pursue, or a lump of cells with no sentience. Do we deny the woman the right to end the pregnancy just because she missed out on emergency contraception?
Please no 'keep ya legs closed' arguments.

Her poor decision-making leads me to believe that she will be no more prosperous than the child. The child's life can be something great. Quoting AllAmericanMan, "Saving lives is more important than guessing what the quality of that life may or may not be."

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

. Quote: Please no 'keep ya legs closed' arguments. honest ly that is the ansewr. she decided to be irresponsible and must now take care of the child Quote: The woman becomes pregnant, but the pregnancy would be an enormous burden to her life.
yes but the abortion would kill the baby so the moral balance say that the child must live.

Politics Mstr · Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 48 Location: California

By not wanting "keep your legs closed arguments" is like arguing over whether terrorists have the right away to kill people and saying "no good vs. evil arguments." I feel that your avoidance of "keep your legs closed arguments" reveals a weak spot within your debate and cause. Indeed, this argument is the platform of opposition in the case of failed prevention.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Renevant wrote: What if prevention fails?

Abortion, nuff said :lol:

If prevention fails a new life is created. Offspring has been created, making them parents and pregnant. Whatever they want to do at this point is irrelevant. They have already created a new life that is an extremely immature member of our species.

Every pregnancy is unique, bringing about unique individuals. When one is ended prematurely, it effectively kills that innocent human life. It is innocent because it had no say in being created. It was forced into this world by the actions of 2 people. Now this unique growing product of its parents actions, will simply do as nature dictates it to. Try to live, and in the process develop into a new born baby. If the growing life is killed that unique product will never re-occur or get the chance to experience life. Effectively, a person has been robbed of their entire existence.

Is that emotional hyperbole? No its the truth.

Is a zygote a potential human life? No it is a human life.

The parents should be held accountable for their actions, not the life they created.

JustDucky · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 40

Plodder wrote: . Quote: Please no 'keep ya legs closed' arguments. honest ly that is the ansewr. she decided to be irresponsible and must now take care of the child Perhaps he decided to be irresponsible. Your "women should keep their legs closed" argument is obnoxiously misogynistic and one-sided. If some man had keep his fly zipped, some woman wouldn't have become pregnant to begin with. :wink:

Plodder wrote: Quote: The woman becomes pregnant, but the pregnancy would be an enormous burden to her life.
yes but the abortion would kill the baby so the moral balance say that the child must live. There is no "baby" or "child." Only a blob of cells (a fetus) that has the potential to be a baby if the woman decides to continue with the pregnancy. Our bodies, our choice.....not yours.

JustDucky · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 40

Plodder wrote: yes yes kill the friggin baby! Nobody's "killing babies," Plodder. Once a child is born it is illegal to kill it.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

JustDucky wrote: Plodder wrote: yes yes kill the friggin baby! Nobody's "killing babies," Plodder. Once a child is born it is illegal to kill it. What does the stage of development matter? Its the same life all along. Your arbitrary assigning of value doesn't change it any.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: Only a blob of cells Wrong. A human life. An organized system of cells actively engaged in human development. A member of our species. A self defining individual growing with its own destinct will.
You can not dehumanize the fetus no matter how hard you try.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: Perhaps he decided to be irresponsible. Your "women should keep their legs closed" argument is obnoxiously misogynistic and one-sided. If some man had keep his fly zipped, some woman wouldn't have become pregnant to begin with.
the woman has the choice not to hav sex if she is so worried. Quote: There is no "baby" or "child." Only a blob of cells (a fetus) that has the potential to be a baby if the woman decides to continue with the pregnancy. Our bodies, our choice.....not yours. can you provide conclusive scientific evidne that that blob of cells is NOT an individual human LIFE. Can you give evidence that supports your theorey that an embryo is POTENTIAL LIFE?

JustDucky · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 40

Plodder wrote: Quote: Perhaps he decided to be irresponsible. Your "women should keep their legs closed" argument is obnoxiously misogynistic and one-sided. If some man had keep his fly zipped, some woman wouldn't have become pregnant to begin with.
the woman has the choice not to hav sex if she is so worried. So does the man. He's 50% responsible. You put the entire onus on the woman. That reeks of misogyny.

Plodder wrote: Quote: There is no "baby" or "child." Only a blob of cells (a fetus) that has the potential to be a baby if the woman decides to continue with the pregnancy. Our bodies, our choice.....not yours. can you provide conclusive scientific evidne that that blob of cells is NOT an individual human LIFE. Can you give evidence that supports your theorey that an embryo is POTENTIAL LIFE? I can give proof that a fetus is not a legal human being and has no legal rights. I certainly have no desire to get into a morality battle with you. Morality is relative; everyone's idea of right and wrong is slightly different.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5268 Location: Boston, MA

JustDucky wrote: Plodder wrote: Quote: Perhaps he decided to be irresponsible. Your "women should keep their legs closed" argument is obnoxiously misogynistic and one-sided. If some man had keep his fly zipped, some woman wouldn't have become pregnant to begin with.
the woman has the choice not to hav sex if she is so worried. So does the man. He's 50% responsible. You put the entire onus on the woman. That reeks of misogyny.

Plodder wrote: Quote: There is no "baby" or "child." Only a blob of cells (a fetus) that has the potential to be a baby if the woman decides to continue with the pregnancy. Our bodies, our choice.....not yours. can you provide conclusive scientific evidne that that blob of cells is NOT an individual human LIFE. Can you give evidence that supports your theorey that an embryo is POTENTIAL LIFE? I can give proof that a fetus is not a legal human being and has no legal rights. I certainly have no desire to get into a morality battle with you. Morality is relative; everyone's idea of right and wrong is slightly different.

Morality is only relative when it is inconvenient.

Or do you think that it would morally relative to terminate all 5 year olds who do not reach a certain level of development? Of course not the thought is absurd. Are you saying that someone else would be correct and morally right for them if they held such a belief?

The question returns over and over again to the objective, not religious or philisophical definition of human life. Once that definition is observed then the entire discussion becomes one of morality.

Is it moral to terminate a healthy human life for the sake of personal lifestyle which is reason given in vast majority of abortions done in the USA.

Right and wrong, moral and immoral supercede legality as is evident in both the civil rights movement and women's sufferage. Unless you agree with the moral relativity of the past?

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: So does the man. He's 50% responsible. You put the entire onus on the woman. That reeks of misogyny.
ok then if he is 50% responsible he should have 50% of the rights to the child. You can call me a mysoginist all day, but at then end of the day, the woman had the choice. If she did not, then we call it rape. and that occurs .5% of the time. Quote:

Plodder wrote:
Quote:
There is no "baby" or "child." Only a blob of cells (a fetus) that has the potential to be a baby if the woman decides to continue with the pregnancy. Our bodies, our choice.....not yours.

can you provide conclusive scientific evidne that that blob of cells is NOT an individual human LIFE. Can you give evidence that supports your theorey that an embryo is POTENTIAL LIFE?

I can give proof that a fetus is not a legal human being and has no legal rights. I certainly have no desire to get into a morality battle with you. Morality is relative; everyone's idea of right and wrong is slightly different. I sdaid scietific. And so I guess that is a No? Morality is not relative. Do you say that Hitler has every right to murder Jews since his view of morality said that he could mass butcher the jews? Does this mean that we can keep slaves just because we saw blacks as inferior? I dont think so. Moral relativivsts are hypocyites because thats not how they live. Its just an excuse when presented with a difficult situation.

greeneye · Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: What if prevention fails?

name wrote: Do we deny the woman the right to end the pregnancy just because she missed out on emergency contraception?

Well, my two cents is that there are no accidents....

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9393

Plodder wrote: Quote: So does the man. He's 50% responsible. You put the entire onus on the woman. That reeks of misogyny.
ok then if he is 50% responsible he should have 50% of the rights to the child. You can call me a mysoginist all day, but at then end of the day, the woman had the choice. If she did not, then we call it rape. and that occurs .5% of the time. Quote:

Plodder wrote:
Quote:
There is no "baby" or "child." Only a blob of cells (a fetus) that has the potential to be a baby if the woman decides to continue with the pregnancy. Our bodies, our choice.....not yours.

can you provide conclusive scientific evidne that that blob of cells is NOT an individual human LIFE. Can you give evidence that supports your theorey that an embryo is POTENTIAL LIFE?

I can give proof that a fetus is not a legal human being and has no legal rights. I certainly have no desire to get into a morality battle with you. Morality is relative; everyone's idea of right and wrong is slightly different. I sdaid scietific. And so I guess that is a No? Morality is not relative. Do you say that Hitler has every right to murder Jews since his view of morality said that he could mass butcher the jews? Does this mean that we can keep slaves just because we saw blacks as inferior? I dont think so. Moral relativivsts are hypocyites because thats not how they live. Its just an excuse when presented with a difficult situation.
While I understand your stance on abortion (even though we disagree), how can you say that morality is not subjective? Moral relativism and situational ethicality are precepts based on the notion that what is moral or ethical is determined by the people, culture, and specifics of a given situation.

I don't consider it to be immoral for two people of the same sex to be sexually involved with one another. Other people do consider that to be immoral. Now, is it more likely that one of us is just flat out wrong on what IS or IS NOT moral, or that our individual moral codes define morality in seperate ways?

Now, your Hitler example is flawed. While Hitler may not consider what he did to be immoral, by the view of the rest of the world he was an immoral man who committed immoral acts. The reasons are that he was infringing upon the rights of others. Morality may be subjective, but moral relativism is never an excuse for an act that infringes upon the rights of others.

Finally, how do you find moral relativists (such as myself) to be hypocrites? What do you mean "that's not how they live?"

The bottom line is that morality is subjective. What is moral is defined by each person, culture, and situation. What you consider immoral, I may not.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: While I understand your stance on abortion (even though we disagree), how can you say that morality is not subjective? Moral relativism and situational ethicality are precepts based on the notion that what is moral or ethical is determined by the people, culture, and specifics of a given situation.

I don't consider it to be immoral for two people of the same sex to be sexually involved with one another. Other people do consider that to be immoral. Now, is it more likely that one of us is just flat out wrong on what IS or IS NOT moral, or that our individual moral codes define morality in seperate ways?

Now, your Hitler example is flawed. While Hitler may not consider what he did to be immoral, by the view of the rest of the world he was an immoral man who committed immoral acts. The reasons are that he was infringing upon the rights of others. Morality may be subjective, but moral relativism is never an excuse for an act that infringes upon the rights of others.

Finally, how do you find moral relativists (such as myself) to be hypocrites? What do you mean "that's not how they live?"

The bottom line is that morality is subjective. What is moral is defined by each person, culture, and situation. What you consider immoral, I may not. No morality is inflenced but not canged by situations ect. If I kill a man in self defense. it is still killing but my responsibility changes. Quote: Now, is it more likely that one of us is just flat out wrong on what IS or IS NOT moral, or that our individual moral codes define morality in seperate ways? the former. Quote: Now, your Hitler example is flawed. While Hitler may not consider what he did to be immoral, by the view of the rest of the world he was an immoral man who committed immoral acts. The reasons are that he was infringing upon the rights of others. Morality may be subjective, but moral relativism is never an excuse for an act that infringes upon the rights of others. just as the abortion industry is infringinng on the rights of inborn babies.And even if tyhe rest of the world belived otherwise, accroding to hmself he was doing an the right thing, what right do you have to oppose him. Mayebe because morality is not relative. Maybe killing Jews for no reason or the reasons presented by hitler were wrong! Quote: Finally, how do you find moral relativists (such as myself) to be hypocrites? What do you mean "that's not how they live?" then tell me where you live so I can steal your car keys and take your car since morality is subjective.