Alliedassault
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Alliedassault (alliedassault.us/index.php)
-   Offtopic (alliedassault.us/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   ABORTION POEM. . . (alliedassault.us/showthread.php?t=38508)

Short Hand 07-18-2004 04:20 PM
[quote="Kraut Killer":fc01b]Unwed pregnant teens should be looked down on. If they knew how to read the directions, they wouldn't be in this mess.[/quote:fc01b]

Your the reason they get an abortion. ffs man. Give them help, and maybe they won't take abortion as an option in the first place.

SoLiDUS 07-18-2004 04:22 PM
Just another quick note: there's nothing wrong with easing the transition
between life and death for a person already dying with no possibility of a
cure or better standard of living. In fact, if the individual understands his
conditions and has decided to end his suffering, the choice is a valid one.
If you are no longer in a state or condition to pursue and acquire values,
there is no shame or wrong in ending your pain and suffering. I would be
glad to lend a helping hand if I could...

Edit:

http://religion.aynrand.org/suicide.html

READ

Kraut Killer 07-18-2004 04:23 PM
I'm not the reason for teenage abortion... but I AM the reason for a number of unwed pregnant teenagers commiting suicide, or at least got a mention in their suicide notes.

imported_Fluffy_Bunny 07-18-2004 04:27 PM
if only there was a magic pill girls could take to stop them getting pregnant, it could even have a simple to say name like "The pill". To help stop them getting confused over other medication with more technical names. They wouldn't even have to struggly pronouncing it if it had such a simple name. & what if they were able to swallow this pill & it would stop them getting pregnant just like that.


OooOo if only it were possible

Short Hand 07-18-2004 04:53 PM
[quote="Kraut Killer":864f6]I'm not the reason for teenage abortion... but I AM the reason for a number of unwed pregnant teenagers commiting suicide, or at least got a mention in their suicide notes.[/quote:864f6]

ohh krauft lol.


^ i actually had one chick ask me back in grade 9 if she could get pregnant if she swallowed. We all laughed. good times.

Johnj 07-18-2004 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

"Just as there are no rights of collections of individuals, so there are no
rights of parts of individuals no rights of arms or of tumors or of any piece
of tissue growing within a woman, even if it has the capacity to become in
time a human being. A potentiality is not an actuality, and a fertilized
ovum, an embryo, or a fetus is not a human being. Rights belong only to
man and men are entities, organisms that are biologically formed and
physically separate from one another. That which lives within the body of
another can claim no prerogatives against its host.

Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child's proper
nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an
unspeakable violation of her rights: her right to liberty (to the functions of
her body), her right to the pursuit of happiness, and, sometimes, her right
to life itself, even as a serf. Such a sentence represents the sacrifice of the
actual to the potential, of a real human being to a piece of protoplasm,
which has no life in the human sense of the term."

If I were to harm a pregnat woman, and harm also came to the unborn child, I would be charged with harming both the woman and the child. Look at Scott Peterson. He is charged with two counts of murder. (as he should be) So you are saying that a woman can conspire with a number of people, including a doctor, and KILL her unborn child. But if the father did the same thing, he would be charged with murder. All the people including the doctor would be charged with at least conspericy. That sounds fair and consistent.

SoLiDUS 07-18-2004 06:37 PM
The LAW is far from being what it should be. It's based on faulty philosophy,
that is to say on flawed metaphysics, epistemology and ethics/politics. If you
feel good about contradictory positions, so be it.

Johnj 07-19-2004 03:30 AM
My position on this matter is not contradictory, I'm saying both men and women need to follow the same laws. If it is against the law for a man to termanate his childs life, than it should also be against the law for a women to do so.

SoLiDUS 07-19-2004 04:52 AM
Based on what you've written, it seems that the law gives rights to the
foetus, correct ? How can a potential being possess rights ? If it does,
we have a serious problem: if it doesn't, there's a double-standard in
place... and that is even worse. What I tried to communicate is that we
need to correct these problems. The man killing his pregnant wife has
not killed two beings: only one.

Short Hand 07-19-2004 05:29 AM
deep soli. very deep.

Kraut Killer 07-19-2004 07:11 AM
That is true Solidus, but when does this potential being pass the threshold to become a being? Is it when it becomes self-aware? Then you could argue it's still only a potential being for a couple months after birth. Is it when it achieves concious thought? Then you could argue that some of the members on this board are still potential beings. Or is it just when the kid plops out of the vaj, and is alive... although you could always argue it's been alive for some time. The whole argument is about when life starts, whether it be in the womb, that really should be spelled woom, or the moment it passes through the birth canal. Now, since this is an argument against Solidus' opinion, I know you're probably going to come back with some shit about existentialism or some shit, which I'm too dumb to comprehend... so I'll end it at that, and add that I have no real opinion about abortion, it isn't happening to me, so I couldn't give two fucks.

SoLiDUS 07-19-2004 07:30 AM
My opinion is as follows:

It becomes an individual when it no longer resides in the womb. When the
child is born and separate from the mother, it possesses rights. Don't make
me go existential on your ass :-)

j/k bro... interesting discussion we have going!

Johnj 07-19-2004 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoLiDUS
Based on what you've written, it seems that the law gives rights to the foetus, correct ?
In one case yes, in another, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoLiDUS
How can a potential being possess rights ?
This depends on your definition of "potential being". It's a "potential being" while your talking in a bar. It's a "potential being" while your making out at the park. I think it is a "potential being" right up untill the sperm joins the egg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoLiDUS
If it does, we have a serious problem: if it doesn't, there's a double-standard in place... and that is even worse.
I don't see where giving a fetus a reasonal right to life is a problem, and you have to know that there is a double-standard in place..
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoLiDUS
What I tried to communicate is that we need to correct these problems. The man killing his pregnant wife has not killed two beings: only one.
But he would be charged with two counts of murder.

SoLiDUS 07-19-2004 03:59 PM
OK, you didn't understand so I won't try a third time. Let's agree to disagree...

Johnj 07-19-2004 05:51 PM
No problem and have a great day!

bukdez 07-19-2004 08:33 PM
pro-choice... a womans body is hers to do with as she pleases...

Kraut Killer 07-19-2004 09:00 PM
NO! Her body belongs to me! She must ask my permission to do anything to her body.

Maplegyver 07-19-2004 10:14 PM
fuck that shit, if your bitch baging whore ass gets pregnat delver it then send it to an orphanage.

Old Reliable 07-19-2004 10:16 PM
i personally don't care

Coleman 07-19-2004 10:32 PM
I think we all can agree that the problem lays in the interpretation of WHEN the sperm/egg (whichever stage it's in) is alive.

Conscript 07-19-2004 10:40 PM
[quote="Garry Coleman":4c8e3]I think we all can agree that the problem lays in the interpretation of WHEN the sperm/egg (whichever stage it's in) is alive.[/quote:4c8e3]But then we need a definition of alive that all the lawmakers can agree on...which will never happen annoy:

Coleman 07-19-2004 10:42 PM
[quote=Conscript]
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Garry Coleman":f6ea5
I think we all can agree that the problem lays in the interpretation of WHEN the sperm/egg (whichever stage it's in) is alive.
But then we need a definition of alive that all the lawmakers can agree on...which will never happen annoy:[/quote:f6ea5]that's basically what i said...defining when it's alive and in order to do that you have to know what alive means in the political/medicinal fields.

bukdez 07-20-2004 10:19 AM
-Citizen Kotos (as Dole): "Abortions for all"
-Crowd: "Booooo!""
-Citizen Kotos: "No abortions for anyone."
-Crowd: "Boooo!"
-Citizen Kotos: "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others."
-Crowd: "Yayyyyy!"
...

imported_Fluffy_Bunny 07-20-2004 10:54 AM
[quote="Garry Coleman":d09dd][quote=Conscript]
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Garry Coleman":d09dd
I think we all can agree that the problem lays in the interpretation of WHEN the sperm/egg (whichever stage it's in) is alive.
But then we need a definition of alive that all the lawmakers can agree on...which will never happen annoy:[/quote:d09dd]that's basically what i said...defining when it's alive and in order to do that you have to know what alive means in the political/medicinal fields.[/quote:d09dd]

I might have a fry-up


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:37 PM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.