EPT10/26 Rasmussen - McCain +5
10/24 Project NewWest - McCain +4
10/19 Zimmerman - McCain +2
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 54
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
10/26 Rasmussen - McCain +5 10/24 Project NewWest - McCain +4 10/19 Zimmerman - McCain +2 | ||
|
ProTech_MediC
United States498 Posts
On October 28 2008 04:02 mahnini wrote: Once you get into the debate of "at what point does a human being develop a soul making it immoral to destroy" is when my eyes glaze over. This subject is under tons of religious and scientific scrutiny and still seems to be, for the most part, a matter of opinion.whether you believe it or not, being anti-abortion does not mean you have an illogical stance. while i believe the benefits of legalizing abortion outweigh the costs, if we are looking purely at the facts, there is no denying that abortion is the killing of an organism that will soon become a human being and i would believe that's what most logical people have issue over. I'm not going to argue over opinions. The part that we can rationally discuss is the cause and effect of making abortions illegal. Would our country be a better place if abortions were illegal? The answer is a definite no. - Substantial increase in the human population in an already overpopulated world - Poverty would escalate - Crime and drug-use would escalate - Increase in social service costs - Increased child neglect, increased child abuse, and increased child abandonment - Pregnant women would risk their health with botched, illegal abortions We've been there before. History has shown that the quality of life suffers when pregnancies are regulated by the government. Removing a woman's right to choose is the opposite of progress. Approximately 25% of the world population lives in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, mostly in Latin America, Africa and Asia. These are lesser developed countries where religious beliefs are often put ahead of science. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png Edit: mahini, I know you said that the benefits outweigh the costs. Some of this rant is aimed at those who haven't given the "what if" scenario much thought. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On October 28 2008 04:31 Phoned wrote: Once you get into the debate of "at what point does a human being develop a soul making it immoral to destroy" is when my eyes glaze over. This subject is under tons of religious and scientific scrutiny and still seems to be, for the most part, a matter of opinion. I'm not going to argue over opinions. The part that we can rationally discuss is the cause and effect of making abortions illegal. Would our country be a better place if abortions were illegal? The answer is a definite no. - Substantial increase in the human population in an already overpopulated world - Poverty would escalate - Crime and drug-use would escalate - Increase in social service costs - Increased child neglect, increased child abuse, and increased child abandonment - Pregnant women would risk their health with botched, illegal abortions We've been there before. History has shown that the quality of life suffers when pregnancies are regulated by the government. Removing a woman's right to choose is the opposite of progress. Approximately 25% of the world population lives in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, mostly in Latin America, Africa and Asia. These are lesser developed countries where religious beliefs are often put ahead of science. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png Edit: mahini, I know you said that the benefits outweigh the costs. Some of this rant is aimed at those who haven't given the "what if" scenario much thought. it seems it's too late to stop your eyes from glazing over since it is blatantly obvious you haven't even read my post. you just go around posting typical arguments that no one brings up and fap to your idealistic vision of yourself being progressive and everyone else is just wrong. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
| ||
|
ProTech_MediC
United States498 Posts
you just go around posting typical arguments that no one brings up and fap to your idealistic vision of yourself being progressive and everyone else is just wrong. They are.Sorry. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On October 28 2008 03:35 Savio wrote: Actually, what I was saying is that society has not agreed on when you can consider the fetus alive. Most people do have their opinions about abortion in general, but I don't know of any consensus regarding when life begins. So in my opinion, if we (as a society) are unsure, it is better to err on the side the preserves the potential life. sigh... savio i know you mean well but you are grossly oversimplifying a massive problem which i can only guess bleeds back into some religious ideology. there is no simple starting point and ending point for life. there can be a lump of cells that's still 8 months away from being a babies 1st day of birth and there can be a braindead 104 year old male who's body is still kept functioning via machines. do we have the right to terminate either of these people?... well i think the situation is rather complicated but there are probably times that termination of either may be for the greater good. if you think the starting and ending points of life are so binary that we're eventually going to stumble upon them and thus all agree on them... well you have a very juvenile view of how human beings should cope with the world. when you aren't coloring the world in black and white you can really begin to appreciate the shades of gray that make picture stand out better. to be frank, this is more disappointing than your post where you talked about how great the US education system was and how every American could easily have the best education if they just wanted it enough. you're approaching things far too one dimensionally. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
I dont see why the very instant they join its somehow something that should be protected | ||
|
yoshtodd
United States418 Posts
On October 28 2008 03:55 Jibba wrote: http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010118.ram There's the actual interview if anyone on earth actually still has Realplayer installed. I think it's hilarious that bloggers are fired up over what he said, given that 99% of them haven't taken a law class past highschool Civics and have zero comprehension on what the discussion was over. It was essentially a historical law discussion between three eminent professors and if anyone had said something controversial in that context, they would've been called out on it. Even more to the point is that it seems as a law professor, Obama was extremely skillful in keeping his views hidden from his students. Reading this, and understanding that he was made a senior lecturer at Chicago after only very little time seems to indicate that he was a FUCKING AMAZING professor. Wow really cool link Jibba. Obama comes across as very intelligent when he speaks but here's a good example that it's not all just charisma and fluff. I can't stand how the other side tries to go all folksy and actually make intelligence and academia out to be something contemptible. Mccain should be ashamed that he was near the bottom of his class, not bragging about it like he's an example of the american dream. I don't blame or despise the ignorant, but I do when they try to seize power and influence over everyone. Edit: The comments left by people at the bottom are really thoughtful and interesting too. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On October 28 2008 02:43 Savio wrote: I was actually talking about the fact that as a SOCIETY we have decided that when in doubt, (about whether the baby is alive), we should ALLOW abortion. Society has not declared its opinion (I have my own) about when life begins, so somehow, society decided to err on the side that might end life than the side to preserve it. I just think it is weird that since we, as a society are unsure, we have decided to err on the side of "danger" rather than "safety". End the life we are unsure about rather than allow it to live. "SOCIETY" didn't decide anything - the COURTS decided that making abortion illegal is unconstitutional. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Thus, society did decide. The issue for the most part is done. People are tired of talking about it, and do not wish to discuss it further for that reason. The issue to them, is done with. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On October 28 2008 04:31 Phoned wrote: - Substantial increase in the human population in an already overpopulated world - Poverty would escalate - Crime and drug-use would escalate - Increase in social service costs - Increased child neglect, increased child abuse, and increased child abandonment - Pregnant women would risk their health with botched, illegal abortions And your proof for any of the above is...? And even granting that it is all true, it is totally irrelevant to those who consider abortion to be morally abhorrent. Removing a woman's right to choose is the opposite of progress. Progress is code word for creeping leftism. Just because something is non-leftist or anti-leftist doesn't mean it is a bad thing. In fact, quite the contrary. Approximately 25% of the world population lives in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, mostly in Latin America, Africa and Asia. These are lesser developed countries where religious beliefs are often put ahead of science. Proving what, exactly? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 27 2008 12:55 HeadBangaa wrote: Life begins at conception, abortion is murder. So you agree that identical twins have to share a single soul? | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On October 28 2008 05:28 MYM.Testie wrote: I would argue that the people who accept abortion are a majority. Thus, society did decide. The issue for the most part is done. People are tired of talking about it, and do not wish to discuss it further for that reason. The issue to them, is done with. If you are confident that that's the case, then let's overturn Roe so can actually vote on it. It is YOUR side that is preventing people from *really* deciding, and your insistence that it is a settled matter is laughable. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
| ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
This is one of those situations, where you have the choice of either a) allowing one side of the argument to get what they want, in restricting the rights of the people on the other side of the argument, in a split issue with ongoing debate as to [i]which party is correct[i], and b) allowing the other side of the argument to get what they want, while telling the other side of the argument to stop being such self-righteous controlling deuchbags (and worry more about what they can have for themselves which is unchanged and less about someone else's choice to believe and act differently). America favours the latter. As do many other countries, it just seems easier to examplify america. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the act of rights giving or rights recognition is not in itself controlling, although in practice it has coercive effects. all humans are bundles of tissues, there is however a magical essence of personality or species identity attached, and from this stems rights and values. the assignment or construction of the "human" is rather accidental a process, and when new information comes to light, the logic of the old constructions become frayed. the best solution in abortion should be the one that is the least controversial, the most stable, and productive toward general welfare and development. | ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
Who could possibly think abortion is okay. No mind was ever asked for consent before being brought into being, life is thrust into existence. How is anyone entitled to determine the value of anyone else's life? This is a decision so absurd it must be left only for the mind of the life itself. With the luxury and power we possess we must allow everyone the chance to engage with their life, face the absurdity around it, and let them determine the value of their own life. Even if we thought it was a life not worth a chance. At the very least, in our time and wealth, we must have the minimum decency of never letting pain come to a helpless person waiting to be. No one asks to be born; no one deserves our will to be their pain. + Show Spoiler + Why does it matter if a fetus can feel pain. Why must we feel obligated to the creation of wretched, and painful, existences. The fetus itself does not have the construction of a mind in it. The constituent parts are not yet together. Since when do we still believe in the formal cause. There is nothing in matter without a mind that could ever be argued to fall into the class of being that we all belong. There is simply no mind, there is no person, and what doctrine argues that we are responsible for bringing life into existence. Not asking for a chance does not mean you are entitled to it. + Show Spoiler + All attempts to find value fail. There is no value to be found in life, minds or the congruency of a class. If we attempt to relate through the phenomenon of pain do we not have to place all pain experiencing beings in our class; rodents and fetuses alike. But along with this, nothing prevents us from accessing the value of life to our emotional well being. The complete meaningless and absurdity of being allows us any reality that creates satisfaction. Having a child because destroying even the potential of a son or daughter breaks your heart could be a painful step to satisfaction. Aborting this potential because you foresee inability of preventing emotional destruction for one or both parties may be just as important. + Show Spoiler + perhaps this is better for the high thread | ||
| ||
