Originally posted by belgianfreak
Loathed as I am to start another 'religion' thread, have any of you guys heard of this group in the UK? They were the ones who bombarded the BBC with complaints after screening "Jerry Springer the Opera", and bouncing off that succ ...[text shortened]... andfull of people here ot throw in their support for these guys 🙁
Belgianfreak, are you still a moderator on this site ?
Originally posted by DarfiusBut do you you agree with harrassing and picketing a cancer charity because they accepted a £3000 donation?
I don't condone murder of abortion doctors, but of course they deserve to be harrassed. Thier places of business deserve to be picketed and women who go to murder their children deserve to know the truth. Have you ever seen an ultrasound ...[text shortened]... rder their babies and they're called brave.
It's pro-death.
Originally posted by wib
We're not talking about shaving here bro. I'm talking about defining whether or not a woman is taking a human life when she has an abortion. And if she is taking a human life, then WHEN did it become a life?
That argument is commonly referred to as the bearded man argument. Simply put, there is no particular number of hairs a person requires on their jaw to have a beard. If you take a person with a beard and you remove 1 hair, does that person lose his /her (🙂 ) beard ?
You are asking a question based on human development for which there is no answer. At no point after conception can you claim a fetus is or isn't a human. Sure you may attribute features that you consider makes up a human being, but that is simply your perspective. Whilst I don't particularly care to debate this at this point, what you must come to realise is that an abortion kills life, life which has just as much right as you, me, or a single cell amoeba to exist on Earth. Should you remove that life, you are essentially purposefully preventing the existance of future human being. My daughter is currently crying in the backgroud 🙂 I know a year ago she was in the making and that all things going as planned, she would be here today. Yet I could have ended her existance so easily without any pro-abortionists being able to blink an eyelid. For me, I would have been a killer. I would have been purposefully ignorant.
That's what I'm trying to get at. Because that's the difference between murder, and a private medical procedure that's no one else's business.
If the difference between murder and something that's no-one else's business is only a few months, well thats just wrong 🙂 You are actually killing a human organism, a potentially fully fledge child. There is no sugar-coating that.
Originally posted by Redmike
But do you you agree with harrassing and picketing a cancer charity because they accepted a £3000 donation?
Hypothetical. If money originated from a bad cause, it is still right to accept it ? Forinstance, should money have been obtained by slaughtering millions of Jews, should we accept that money as a gift from a kind hearted beneficiary, or reject it based on its origin ?
Originally posted by pcaspianReally? We're talking about a children's cancer charity here.
Originally posted by Redmike
[b]But do you you agree with harrassing and picketing a cancer charity because they accepted a £3000 donation?
Hypothetical. If money originated from a bad cause, it is still right to accept it ? Forinstance, should money have been obtained by slaughtering millions of Jews, should we accept that money as a gift from a kind hearted beneficiary, or reject it based on its origin ?[/b]
If some evil regime decides, for whatever warped reasons, to donate money, without conditions, to a childrens cancer charity, why shouldn't they accept it and put it to good use?
In your hypothetical example, the slaughtering of millions of hypothetical Jews would happen whether they accepted it or not.
Of course, in practise, such a situation is very unlikely. The evil regime making the donation is going to have some conditions, as a minimum some publicity. In these cases the donation should be rejected.
Originally posted by DarfiusHi Darfius and wib,
Oh, I didn't exactly understand the question. Yes, when the baby is conceived, 1 minute after, it's alive. I mean, if you left it alone, it would pop out of her and start screaming, right?
Darfius, if I read you correctly (but perhaps you are being ironic), you believe that abortion constitutes murder immediately after conception.
Is this correct? If so, I have an interesting rejoinder to that view.
wib, is there really any debate over whether a fertilized egg is alive (or, for that matter, a human)? Surely, once the process of self-organization is underway, and the cells constitutes a coherent system, one can meaningfully point to a discrete entity that is alive?
I think this point is crucial because the morality of abortion may not depend at all on whether the developing cell-cluster, embryo, fetus, or baby, is alive (or is human). Rather, it may depend upon whether or not it qualifies as a person.
Bests,
Aiden
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole.... and then, as if by magic, the moral acceptance of performing abortion depends on what definition you are willing to use to describe the term "person" ...
Hi Darfius and wib,
Darfius, if I read you correctly (but perhaps you are being ironic), you believe that abortion constitutes murder immediately after conception.
Is this correct? If so, I have an interesting rejoinder to that vie ...[text shortened]... hether or not it qualifies as a person.
Bests,
Aiden
Originally posted by ivanhoeMore or less, yes.
.... and then, as if by magic, the moral acceptance of performing abortion depends on what definition you are willing to use to describe the term "person" ...
However, there are obviously external considerations that have a moral bearing on the matter, such as the wishes of the mother, and the context of the conception.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholei think darifuses argument is actually that abortion shouldn't really be an issue. when i talk about sex, i often refer to it as "making babies", as that is, fundamentally, what it is. we're just lucky(?) in that we get a good time out of it. sex isn;t for enjoyment - that's a by product of it. sex is for making babies. period. i fou want to do it, you should be big enough to face up to the consequences. for instance, AIDS, lots of other things i can't spell, and a child.
More or less, yes.
However, there are obviously external considerations that have a moral bearing on the matter, such as the wishes of the mother, and the context of the conception.
God invented safe sex. he called it marriage. 🙂
I'm sorry I will never agree with this point of view. Sex is a reproductive procedure yes, but the idea that it cannot be for pleasure is just ridiculous. It's like saying that cooking should only be done to ensure the exact necessary nutritional requirements for the human body are met. And to say that safe sex is called marriage is nonsense. Safe sex is a responsibility of everyone, in and out of marriage, religious or not. It is in part because religion has championed the use of such things as the calendar method over proper contraception, that both STIs and overpopulation (and all the problems associated with it, poverty, poor healthcare etc.) are such issues nowadays.
Originally posted by geniusGenius: "God invented safe sex. he called it marriage."
i think darifuses argument is actually that abortion shouldn't really be an issue. when i talk about sex, i often refer to it as "making babies", as that is, fundamentally, what it is. we're just lucky(?) in that we get a good time out of it. sex isn;t for enjoyment - that's a by product of it. sex is for making babies. period. i fou want to do it, you s ...[text shortened]... of other things i can't spell, and a child.
God invented safe sex. he called it marriage. 🙂
😀
Originally posted by Starrmanbut would you eat if you didn't have to? if you never felt hungry, would you feel the need to eat? if you were never thirsty, woudl you drink? (if there were other ways of consuming alcohol, that is...).
I'm sorry I will never agree with this point of view. Sex is a reproductive procedure yes, but the idea that it cannot be for pleasure is just ridiculous. It's like saying that cooking should only be done to ensure the exact necessary nutritional requirements for the human body are met. And to say that safe sex is called marriage is nonsense. Safe sex ...[text shortened]... all the problems associated with it, poverty, poor healthcare etc.) are such issues nowadays.
and sex marriage is safe. condoms are not. condoms break. but with marriage, it's up to you. it's not some unreliable device. and don't get me wrong, i beleive that if you're going to have sex, you should use a condom. i'm not completly nieve. but marraige is 100% safe. condoms are meerly 99.9% safe. 99.9%, and the number of times they are being used? that's actually quite significant...and are you saying that because the church is against sex before marraige that there is such a spread of STI's? the rc church is against condoms, but that doesn't mean all churches are. heck, it doesn't mean all rc's are...😛