Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
darkdelphine said: I’ll be glad to be able to chat as long as the old MMOT gang is still around. Don’t see drunkdaddy around, and SilverFx and Indescane have quit.
Damn, I missed a lot. Again. How long ago was this?
Really, which direction are they in? That’s how far I live from Baltimore xD
It’s true…the crowds at anime/manga conventions grow in idiocy each year. But think of all the things you’ll be missing if you let them get in your way! D:
The gamers room…the rave…the live concerts (I still remember the L’Arc en Ciel concert from ’04…and The Indigo…and MarBell, and The Underneath *-*)…24-hour screenings of anime…and my personal favorite, the dealers room
Besides, Otakon is so huge that there’s no way you can feel singled out or embarrased.
In that sense of “right to life”, as it is defined by the law, then yes, I think that it should apply to unborn children who have developed the nervous system, unless there are circumstances discovered at that point which threaten the life of the mother, or of the fetus and mother simultaneously.
Chameleon said: But what about before the embryo develops a nervous system? Is it then alright to have an abortion done at that early stage, because by our assumed definition of a “human being”, that stage of development would not be included?In my definition, yes, it is fine to abort a fetus prior to a functioning, developed nervous system.
As for that “gray area”, we’ve pretty much agreed that there is no way to -exactly- know when a fetus becomes a human being, so we’ve mostly just been debating based on a hypothetical situation (my definition of when a fetus becomes a “person” becoming the law).
Oki. Let me try this again.
tarheel91 said: This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).”No matter where we begin the sentence, and no matter how well you try to explain it, I can’t help but read the bolded/underlined and perceive it as an opinion. I keep picking that up no matter how many times I read it and no matter how many angles I read it from, even all these months later after I have come back to the thread with a fresh view. I think that what really makes it that way is the “sorry” at the end. Perhaps the issue isn’t so much my misinterpretation as it is poor choice of wording.
tarheel91 said: This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (which would trump right to choose).”This wording is something I would have percieved as objective.
I’m glad you recognize that defining when a fetus becomes a human being is very difficult, and not black and white, but I hope you don’t honestly think the government not recognizing anyone/thing unborn as a human is significant in this discussion. You pointed out various issues with recognizing them. However, that makes it clear that that recognition is based on convenience, and has nothing to do with what really constitutes a human being.Well, I do think that the opinion of the government is pretty significant. Even though sometimes I really don’t like them, it is their job to look at the issues of the country objectively and come to a decision that best fits with our laws, our constitution and rights. I agree with the decision made in Roe Vs. Wade and Justice Blackmun’s statement: “The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies”.
but don’t try to pretend it’s not taking the life of another human being.Well, since my opinion is that a fetus is not a human being until it has developed the nervous system, no, I don’t consider anything before that to be the taking of the life of another human being.
But my opinion aside, making abortion against the law does not solve the root of the problem, at all. There will always be women pregnant who do not want to be pregnant, and there will always be people willing to provide those women with abortions, whether they be back-door or in a safe clinic, if it’s for the right price. If both sides of the abortion debate would focus on the root of the problem (unwanted pregnancy) instead of the solution (abortion), this issue might have been solved by now. Both sides of the abortion debate can agree on one point: less abortions = good. So how to we lower the rate of abortion? There are many answers to that. I posted links to two articles in my previous post that explain some of those answers.
I know of no circumstances outside of another person trying to kill you that justify killing that person, and I certainly don’t think it’s a necessary evil. It’s an evil that’s not to be tolerated.Well, I think that desperate, fear-driven women seeking out unsafe, unclean back-door abortions performed often times by unproffesional surgeons is also an evil that’s not to be tolerated
Wolfboy183 said: The debate of abortion is just a big giant ugly-ass quagmire full of moral crusaders who don’t even know anyone or what their life is like and go spouting their rants, etc. (moral crusaders should be shot. they just make things alot worse)]]Pretty much. And this applies to both sides of the debate, too.
I’ve recently taken a different stance on the issue, though. If I had to choose between pro-life and pro-choice, I would choose pro-choice. But there IS another option that people don’t usually see when they are debating this topic. Which is pro-development-of-contraceptive-technology-that-actually-works-all-the-time.
This article and this one make some noce points on the topic.
