First Annual Draw Muhammed Day

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Jason : There is no reason that they couldn't express themselves without having to force legally mandated ruling or to have a display/symbol that favours their religion over others.

But why should we have to?

Quote:

Also, you do not get to end a discussion on abortion, especially not when you do not own a uterus.

Uterus or no, it takes two people to make a child. Don't sell me that nonsense, Valerie. If my wife wanted to have an abortion I would do everything in my power to save the life of my child.

Quote:

The issue on this isn't cut and dry, and to end the discussion at "it's a human life" would be intellectually lazy and it ignores the fact that the woman's life is also a life.

No it's not intellectually lazy it's a fact. Cut and dried. Explain to me the physiological differences of a matured fetus and a baby. Explain to me why you would call bacteria life but hush up the term living when referring to a fetus. It's a growing human child. That's the end of that particular discussion.

Quote:

Are you so willing to let a womans life be possibly destroyed in order to possibly preserve the life of a fetus who would most likely, given the circumstances, be shoved into a cold harsh and unloving world devoid of nurture? Can you not see the possible psychological problems this kid could be facing when growing up?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Excuse me, but weren't you just railing into me about strawman arguments and red herrings? There is adoption, or the parents could actually take some responsibility for their damn kid. I know the system isn't perfect but anything is preferable to death. Especially by your standards as you don't believe in an afterlife. Why destroy this babies only shot at a life?

[Manibrandr System]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Uterus or no, it takes two people to make a child. Don't sell me that nonsense, Valerie. If my wife wanted to have an abortion I would do everything in my power to save the life of my child.

How far are you willing to go? How much weight and respect would you place on your wife's wishes?

Quote:

No it's not intellectually lazy it's a fact. Cut and dried. Explain to me the physiological differences of a matured fetus and a baby. Explain to me why you would call bacteria life but hush up the term living when referring to a fetus. It's a growing human child. That's the end of that particular discussion.

A bacteria cell is an autonomous living organism with its own sustainable metabolic system, first and second trimester fetuses aren't generally viable outside the uterus, and they rely on nutrition from their host, ergo they aren't truely alive.

Quote:

Excuse me, but weren't you just railing into me about strawman arguments and red herrings? There is adoption, or the parents could actually take some responsibility for their damn kid. I know the system isn't perfect but anything is preferable to death. Especially by your standards as you don't believe in an afterlife. Why destroy this babies only shot at a life?

The system is faaar from perfect, very very far removed from perfect, there aren't enough checks and balances to make sure that the people working in the adoption centers do not abuse the children in horrible ways. Also, you are placing the kids there where nurture is almost nonexistent at a time when they need it the most. Even if you make the parents take responsibility for the child, it is a grudging kind of responsibility and could be potentially be very harmful emotionally for the kid.

I place value in quality of life just as much as I do to life itself, besides if you would pull back from this myopic microcosm of morality and look at the bigger picture, you will find that if a woman's quality of life and life is preserved in the act of an abortion, she could potentially be able to do more good for the society than if she were forced to carry the baby, this especially applies to women who work full time and is single.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: Uterus or no, it takes two people to make a child. Don't sell me that nonsense, Valerie. If my wife wanted to have an abortion I would do everything in my power to save the life of my child. How far are you willing to go? How much weight and respect would you place on your wife's wishes?

Pretty much everything short of that nutjob who actually tied his wife down and forced her to concieve. Even I think that's waaaaaay too much. But I would definitely pressure her to have the child.

Though that's a bit of a loaded question isn't it? Should my wife not care for or respect me and our unborn child?

Quote:

Quote: No it's not intellectually lazy it's a fact. Cut and dried. Explain to me the physiological differences of a matured fetus and a baby. Explain to me why you would call bacteria life but hush up the term living when referring to a fetus. It's a growing human child. That's the end of that particular discussion. A bacteria cell is an autonomous living organism with its own sustainable metabolic system, first and second trimester fetuses aren't generally viable outside the uterus, and they rely on nutrition from their host, ergo they aren't truely alive.

Right, so because they can't survive without support means they aren't alive. Well that means anybody who is on life support should be removed because they aren't really alive, they're dead.

No, that's jargon and bullshit Valerie. I rarely speak in absolutes, but you are absolutely wrong about that one.

Quote:

Quote: Excuse me, but weren't you just railing into me about strawman arguments and red herrings? There is adoption, or the parents could actually take some responsibility for their damn kid. I know the system isn't perfect but anything is preferable to death. Especially by your standards as you don't believe in an afterlife. Why destroy this babies only shot at a life? The system is faaar from perfect, very very far removed from perfect, there aren't enough checks and balances to make sure that the people working in the adoption centers do not abuse the children in horrible ways. Also, you are placing the kids there where nurture is almost nonexistent at a time when they need it the most. Even if you make the parents take responsibility for the child, it is a grudging kind of responsibility and could be potentially be very harmful emotionally for the kid. I place value in quality of life just as much as I do to life itself, besides if you would pull back from this myopic microcosm of morality and look at the bigger picture, you will find that if a woman's quality of life and life is preserved in the act of an abortion, she could potentially be able to do more good for the society than if she were forced to carry the baby, this especially applies to women who work full time and is single.

So you would DEFINITELY end a child's life because of the POSSIBILITY that the woman might be better off without? That's the same logic that says if we exterminate everybody who isn't white there will probably be less prejudice and crime (although I admit that this is taking the example to the extreme).

[SoulBlazerFan]

Jason Tandro wrote:

So you would DEFINITELY end a child's life because of the POSSIBILITY that the woman might be better off without? That's the same logic that says if we exterminate everybody who isn't white there will probably be less prejudice and crime (although I admit that this is taking the example to the extreme).

At the moment of conception a life is formed. This isn't a belief. It's a fact.

Is not a fetus a living being? Is it not alive? Does it not need nurishment to survive? Does it not grow, and evolve into a human baby? I've always found it ignorant that people would say a fetus, no matter how long, is not alive until it is a born. That it isn't a life. It's a double standard so that people can feel better about themselves when they either pay for or perform an abortion.

I believe in free choice, of course. But do you think if that "Fetus" had a choice it would choose to die? Have the back of it's head cracked open and it's brain removed with a medical vaccum? (I have looked into this- that's really what they do during a "Partial-birth" abortion) Even you Valerie can see that it's inhumane.

I don't intend to change anyone's opinions on it. People will do what they must. But I agree with Jason- it takes two people to create a child. They should take responsibility for it- and not destroy it.

Val, you're also not taking into account the wonderful people who do take in adopted children. Sure, there are some assholes out there who do it for money, but one of the brightest and most intelligent girls in my school had wonderful adoptive parents. Would she have been better off being aborted and dumped in medical waste? What about me? I was nearly an abortion myself. Fuck, there is at least one sibling (And multiple cousins) that I don't have, and never will know, because they were aborted. Do they deserve to be dead any more than I do?

[Jason Tandro]

A thought occurs. This isn't an Abortion thread.

Back to the topic at hand folks...

[Manibrandr System]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Pretty much everything short of that nutjob who actually tied his wife down and forced her to concieve. Even I think that's waaaaaay too much. But I would definitely pressure her to have the child. Though that's a bit of a loaded question isn't it? Should my wife not care for or respect me and our unborn child?

Yes, but to a point. She should never have sacrifice her dignity, nor should she ever put herself through more physical hardship than what she feels to be reasonable in order to satisfy you. Push too hard and she is well within her rights to leave you.

Quote:

Right, so because they can't survive without support means they aren't alive. Well that means anybody who is on life support should be removed because they aren't really alive, they're dead. No, that's jargon and bullshit Valerie. I rarely speak in absolutes, but you are absolutely wrong about that one.

You too easily forget what else I have said, fetuses do not think, they do not feel, they do not have hopes nor do they have dreams. The people living on life support however, still have their thoughts, their feelings, their sensations, their memories, their friends and family which they had an emotional connection to. However, like in the Terry Shiavo case, when the condition goes on for too long with a very bleak outlook on recovery, it can become a problem to keep them alive and thus better to pull the plug, so that other patients with better hope of recovery will be saves.

Quote:

So you would DEFINITELY end a child's life because of the POSSIBILITY that the woman might be better off without? That's the same logic that says if we exterminate everybody who isn't white there will probably be less prejudice and crime (although I admit that this is taking the example to the extreme).

No, if I was in the position to do so, I would definitely abort a fetus if I know for a fact that complications that will result in problems will occur, or if it's a rape fetus and the woman cannot stand to carry the baby to full term.

To scientifically put to rest this argument, I have decided to check Wikipedia on Neonatal Perception and this is what I found:

"Electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in premature infants probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks; this study asserted that withdrawal reflexes and changes in heart rates and hormone levels in response to invasive procedures are reflexes that do not indicate fetal pain.(Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA (2005). "Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence". JAMA 294 (: 947–54. doi:10.1001/jama.294.8.947. PMID 16118385.)"

In other words, fetuses aren't even neurologically developed enough to perceive pain until at least after 7 months of pregnancy. Coincidentally, that is also around the time which I said that the baby is viable outside of the uterus and therefore alive.

SBiF : By the same token, a cancer cell is just as alive. You have to be very careful when stating opinions as fact. Also, you have to realize that these are exceptions, not the rule, and while it is a very happy exception which I am glad happened, well, you know the drill.

You could easily say that it takes two to make a child, but who is the one carrying, who is the one whose hormones are flowing through and causing extra stress on the body?

Besides, how do you reconcile this with the number of miscarriages that happen each day? If your god is omnipotent and omniscient, then it must mean that those miscarriages are mandated by god, therefore, miscarriages is god performing abortions.

[SoulBlazerFan]

Could also be your science talking. Miscarriages happen for a number of reasons. I feel in most cases, it's the mother's body rejecting the fetus, because there was something wrong with it. And couldn't we all call God the "Great Abortionist?" Afterall, he mandated that we all must die anyway.

But, if you remember your religious background, our belief is death isn't the end but only the beginning of a greater journey. If that's the case, then these babies are merely meeting their maker sooner rather than later, and achieving ever-lasting life that much sooner.

A cancer cell is, what, a retroactive DNA stand that mutated into something damaging and dangerous? A cancer is a part of the host's body- it's the same as if gangreen set in a part of your body- either get rid of it or let it kill you. In most cases, a fetus wouldn't do that to a woman. I know it does happen. And Joan, I may be miscontruing your argument here, or maybe I'm a confused iijut or something, but you'd call cancer more alive than a fetus?

I digress. Women have the same choice not to have sex that men do. If a woman gets pregnant, I'm not going to say she should suffer the consequences, but how often do they say they regret the decision to have sex in the first place? It's like sinning- we all regret doing it (Those of faith) but we do it anyway, beyond any rational or reasonable judgment. We suffer the consequences of our decisions. I still believe every life is worth living, reguardless. Any idea how many women actually end up regretting getting an abortion afterwards?

[Manibrandr System]

SoulBlazerFan wrote:

Could also be your science talking. Miscarriages happen for a number of reasons. I feel in most cases, it's the mother's body rejecting the fetus, because there was something wrong with it. And couldn't we all call God the "Great Abortionist?" Afterall, he mandated that we all must die anyway. But, if you remember your religious background, our belief is death isn't the end but only the beginning of a greater journey. If that's the case, then these babies are merely meeting their maker sooner rather than later, and achieving ever-lasting life that much sooner.

There are many ways of looking at it. The ultimate point I am trying to make here is that it is more important to protect what is already there than it is to protect what might be.

Quote:

A cancer cell is, what, a retroactive DNA stand that mutated into something damaging and dangerous? A cancer is a part of the host's body- it's the same as if gangreen set in a part of your body- either get rid of it or let it kill you. In most cases, a fetus wouldn't do that to a woman. I know it does happen. And Joan, I may be miscontruing your argument here, or maybe I'm a confused iijut or something, but you'd call cancer more alive than a fetus?

Well, if you know how pregnancy works, you'd realize that carrying the baby to full term is very very demanding and taxing on the body. Before the medical advancements that happened after the renaissance, women dying while giving birth were very common, and so were bastard children who would likely grow up to become scoundrels depending on the family line. There's the trauma of childbirth too. To put into perspective as to what it might feel like, imagine trying to pass a kidney stone the size of a potato out your dick.

I would consider a cancer cell to be just as alive as a freshly conceived egg, because functionally, they are almost the same. They divide and grow rapidly, and they consume nourishment from the body like a voracious monster, and they make the host connect to them on a vascular level. The only difference is that the growth and development of cancer is very random, while that of the fetus is more ordered.

Quote:

I digress. Women have the same choice not to have sex that men do. If a woman gets pregnant, I'm not going to say she should suffer the consequences, but how often do they say they regret the decision to have sex in the first place? It's like sinning- we all regret doing it (Those of faith) but we do it anyway, beyond any rational or reasonable judgment. We suffer the consequences of our decisions. I still believe every life is worth living, reguardless. Any idea how many women actually end up regretting getting an abortion afterwards?

Abstinence education does not work, people will fuck even when told not to. it's better to inform them how sex and reproduction works, so they would be aware of what could happen. Like I said a long time ago, I would rather the woman avoid having to do it when possible, but if she wants to, there is nothing we can do to stop her. Are you surprised? Yeah, I really really dislike abortions, you would remember me calling it ugly and horrible, but I dislike even more seeing women suffer from an unwanted, or a badly initiated pregnancy.

[SoulBlazerFan]

That's where I agree with you Valerie. I can talk all I want about how horrible abortions are, but in the end, it's not our choice, it's the choice of the mother what happens to that child, to live or to die. I would try to reason with a person, but in the end, a person will do what they must.

[Jason Tandro]

Okay seriously guys I'd love to continue this debate, but let's move it to the Abortion thread.