If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(HelenaIR.com)   Ahhh, a relaxing Hawaiian vacation... laying on a white sand beach, soaking up the sun and gazing at giant pictures of aborted fetuses flying overhead   (helenair.com) divider line 493
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

16782 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Nov 2005 at 4:05 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



493 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-11-23 07:49:52 AM  
You're a Mean Drunk R2D2 said,

Random Reality Check
"Well, I'm going to have to think that somewhere in let's assume military law, it's defined how "to look down the barrel of a rifle, acquire another human being as a target and consciously pull the trigger" is not murder. Otherwise every single American veteran soldier would be on trial right now, right?
I don't know exactly the definition, or where it exists, but I can infer that it exists."


You're saying military law trumps biblical commandments?


neocortex said,

"Dr. Kevorkian, we have a patient."

Exactly!

neocortex later said,

"Biologically, there is no question that life begins at conception. The question is, when does the fetus become human and gain protection under the law. As I said in my previous post, the hang-up that religious people have is their belief that humans have souls"

Really? Would you explain miscarriages as it relates to your theory? Is life created in a petri dish considered life under your definition? What happens when we discover how to create life from base chemicals instead of using artificial fertilization techniques?
 
2005-11-23 07:50:34 AM  
Ever since hippocrate's day, doctors who take the oath are ethically bound not to perform abortions, because it "takes a unique human life." The larger question beyond when life begins is, does every human have the right to life. Debating about when life begins is merely semantics

You've just proven yourself wrong.
When life begins is not mere semantics at all, it's absolutely critical. If life has not begun after X time of pregnancy, then performing an abortion at time X is not a violation of the Hippocratic oath.
 
2005-11-23 07:50:38 AM  
mugen
I'll give you that one, as I am not much of a biology geek. However, my comments were relating to human physiology, and as far as I know, human fetuses do not abort themselves, and morally humans are (supposed to be) a step up from animals
 
2005-11-23 07:52:32 AM  
So what do we have after all this?

Where does life begin?
1. unique dna propogation as embryo- dependent life, not unlike any other cell in the body.
2. birth- individual life
3. sentience- individual life that "matters" more it seems

What endows the right to life?
1. is is potential?
2. is it sentience?
3. is it a soul? (no solid evidence, so not the best defence, gotta be a better one.)
 
2005-11-23 07:53:00 AM  
shrapnil77
I went to a fundie christian school, so I've got lots more where that came from. That being said, I'm more of a deist than anything
 
2005-11-23 07:53:31 AM  
BBQ? Really? I like my fetus well-done.

mugen I think almost any vivipiverous animal will spontaniously abort if conditions get bad enough- while the child usually gets first grab of all of the mother's resources, if the body realizes conditions are bad enough, it'll cut the drain to save what it can. This happens to humans, I know this for a fact- when pregnant women arrive at boot camp (yes, of course, there's rigerous testing, but a few slip through by accident) as far as I know, they universally miscarry within a few days/weeks due to the extreme stress of the environment. Also, certian blood type mismatches will cause the mother's white blood cells to attack and destroy the fetus, seeing it as a foreign invader.

This, however, proves nothing. Just because something occurs in nature does not mean we should advocate, let alone cause, it within ourselves. Animals (and some people) eat their mates/young, yet for some reason the cannibalism lobby is staggeringly underrepresented in Congress. Did you know not a single senator has devoured a human aeorta? Not one! DISCRIMINATION!!!

Sorry. Been up all night. Getting loopy.
 
2005-11-23 07:55:18 AM  
DUDES, this is life: if a cell is propogating individually it is alive.
Viruses need a host, so they are not considered life.
so reality check, yes petri dish bacteria, embryos whatever, are alive. the question you should be asking is does that life have any MORAL WEIGHT.

sorry bout the caps, shrap.
 
2005-11-23 07:56:42 AM  
Bango Skank: In fact, it's one of only 10 commandments....

I was taught that in Jewish theology, the laws of Moses (10Coms) are not THE commandments, just 10 out of 67 or so commandments. No more or less important than the other 57.

Can anyone out there verify this, or am I communicating via the back passsage?
 
2005-11-23 07:57:39 AM  
I'm going to start showing pictures of dead tape worms, to show how horrible and gross it is to cure one's self of them.
 
2005-11-23 07:58:13 AM  
ammendment: life takes in nutrients and self propogates.
 
2005-11-23 07:58:26 AM  
Random Reality Check: Really? Would you explain miscarriages as it relates to your theory? Is life created in a petri dish considered life under your definition? What happens when we discover how to create life from base chemicals instead of using artificial fertilization techniques?

Based on the religious standpoint, life begins whenever the soul enters the body. Miscarried babies go to heaven (according to the bible) and in my opinion, life created in a petri dish is just as alive as if it were created in the womb. However, you powned yourself to some degree when you claimed that we can create life from base chemicals. We can create complex protein structures, but a vital ingredient is missing
 
2005-11-23 07:59:51 AM  
shrapnil77

It wasn't to say that evolution favours abortion, merely that natural selection doesn't necessarily bar abortion as an evolutionary strategy.

neocortex

The fact that abortion exists, and indeed is sufficiently prevalent to become an 'issue', empirically demonstrates that the hippocratic oath has little relevance. Those who are willing to perform abortions have necessarily rejected hippocratic oath, and the debate is only concerned with those doctors.

In any case, it is not the sole standard by which ethical behaviour may be judged. Were that so, you could only be saying that every single doctor who has ever performed an abortion, in any circumstances whatsoever, is an unethical doctor.
 
2005-11-23 08:01:43 AM  
shouldnt have had those two cups of coffee at three a.m. hey it was great talking to ALL of you, but i gotta shower and try and make it to class. yes, friggin Texas A & M has class today, the day b4 turkey day. speaking of turkey day, what gives me or a fetus the right to live but not a turkey? hahaha what if I eat the fetus? OMG seriously you guys very stimulating thread. best thread evar. yall rock and ttyl.
 
2005-11-23 08:01:53 AM  
You're a Mean Drunk R2D2: You've just proven yourself wrong.

I used the wrong word. Forgive me, I've been up for too long. I mean to say that arguments about when life begins are trivial because independent (but not yet self-sustaining) life begins at conception. The question is, when does this life become human
 
2005-11-23 08:02:00 AM  
Here's the main reason that I think that Christianity's rational behind their pro-life stance is so silly:

1. Original Sin: All unbaptized people go to hell (including babies).

2. Roughly 25% of fertilized eggs ever survive to develop into humans, 75% of them die from natural complications while in the womb.

1 + 2 = 75% of all souls in hell were never given the chance to be born.



Conclusion:
Why would your god Damn 75% of all souls to hell without ever giving them a chance to prove their worth? That doesn't sound very loving.
 
2005-11-23 08:04:21 AM  
neocortex: I used the wrong word. Forgive me, I've been up for too long. I mean to say that arguments about when life begins are trivial because independent (but not yet self-sustaining) life begins at conception. The question is, when does this life become human

How is it independant? Because it has unique DNA? Cancer cells have unique DNA too, are they to be considered independant but not self-sustaining?

And if they represent human life, why did God decide to kill 75% of all humans before they're ever allowed to be born or baptized?
 
2005-11-23 08:04:32 AM  
omg ok one more post...
neo i addressed the when does life become human thing earlier. ctl f for human. i think a better question is when does life matter, have moral weight.
 
2005-11-23 08:04:40 AM  
pleasure talking with you, fubu
 
2005-11-23 08:06:42 AM  
cause embryos are human cells. later neo, shrap, reality, mugen, r2d2.
and smarshmallow, thanks for the ammunition. me like pointing out shiat like that.
 
2005-11-23 08:07:35 AM  
Smarshmallow

I have another question. While the bible and other religion prima facie promotes altruistic behaviour, it in fact just scarcely concealed self-interest. Religious individuals do not help 'thy neighbour' out of pure altruism; they do so because they must in order to get into heaven.

I guess they're in a bit of a conundrum there.

Do we write 'help your neighbour or god will fark you up' and turn it into self-interest, or do we merely say 'help your neighbour but you'll go to heaven either way' and watch as no-one bothers to help each other?
 
2005-11-23 08:07:41 AM  
Smarshmallow: Why would your god Damn 75% of all souls to hell without ever giving them a chance to prove their worth? That doesn't sound very loving.

I'm not sure where you learned your theology, but the bible does not damn all unborn children to hell; apparently there is a period of innocence where babies and young children are admitted into heaven. I don't want to go into details, but when david sinned with bathsheba and their child died, david praised god for letting their child into heaven
 
2005-11-23 08:07:53 AM  
Random Reality Check: Hosea 13:16 - Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

OMFG, so GOD is committing abortion?

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's the best pro-choice ammo I have ever seen. I thank you sir.
 
2005-11-23 08:09:03 AM  
mugen I understand your point, although calling the tactic evolutionary is a bit of a strech- it's not evolutionary because it destroys the child, it's evolutionary because it attempts to save the mother. Given that we've largely transcended most evolutionary points, I don't see why we need to hang onto this one either.

All things considered, though, I disagree with your primary philisophical point. "Who's to judge" is a nice, safe, thought, but impractical and ultimatly paralytic. The fact is, that there are many cases where, lacking facts, lacking insight, lacking time, judgements must be made. Combat is a prime example; threats are clearly classified. In a combat zone, if someone points a weapon at you, you kill them. No quibbling, no checking to see if it was loaded, no making sure they weren't just waving it around- bang. Dead. Done.
 
2005-11-23 08:10:49 AM  
mugen.: The fact that abortion exists, and indeed is sufficiently prevalent to become an 'issue', empirically demonstrates that the hippocratic oath has little relevance.

I hardly think that the hippocratic oath has little relevance. Most doctors today still take the oath, and it has been part of the medical culture for a very long time. Also, the ethical questions raised by the oath are different than the societal morals that have to be determined by religion, culture, etc
 
2005-11-23 08:11:47 AM  
PC maybe you should read the thread and check the dictionary.com definition of abortion. why cant i leave this dam thread? i think it goes way to deep for some of us that when there are newcomers i just gotta ignore them cause man, this shiat opened up like my moms legs at the million man march.
 
2005-11-23 08:12:02 AM  
neocortex: I'm not sure where you learned your theology, but the bible does not damn all unborn children to hell; apparently there is a period of innocence where babies and young children are admitted into heaven. I don't want to go into details, but when david sinned with bathsheba and their child died, david praised god for letting their child into heaven

Not in the Catholic Church, and most certainly not in the Bible. I know that Mormon's don't believe in original sin, so it wouldn't apply to them.

Anyway, the fact remains that even if you don't believe in original sin, if you believe that fetuses have souls, then 75% of all souls in heavin never saw life on earth. Why would God do that?
 
2005-11-23 08:12:17 AM  
Looks like it's time to scram before I get flamed by the influx of new farkers. Thanks to all for the interesting discussion
 
2005-11-23 08:12:37 AM  
oops,
 
2005-11-23 08:13:32 AM  
neocortex said,

"Based on the religious standpoint, life begins whenever the soul enters the body. Miscarried babies go to heaven (according to the bible) and in my opinion, life created in a petri dish is just as alive as if it were created in the womb. However, you powned yourself to some degree when you claimed that we can create life from base chemicals. We can create complex protein structures, but a vital ingredient is missing."

I submit that it is only a question of time before this hurdle is overcome. I would ask you (hypothetically, if you wish) to address the question of, is life created through artificial means in a petri dish sacred and deserving of protection.

I believe this is how we need to frame this discussion as a point of reference.

By the way, I do appreciate the respect being shown here by everyone, good job keeping a very flaming subject (not that kind of flaming) under control.
 
2005-11-23 08:14:15 AM  
nevermind PC, sorry bout that, im like seriously delirious, like half the other farkers in here right now. I misunderstood ya. someone kill my internet connection so i can get sleep.
 
2005-11-23 08:15:05 AM  
mugen.: I have another question. While the bible and other religion prima facie promotes altruistic behaviour, it in fact just scarcely concealed self-interest. Religious individuals do not help 'thy neighbour' out of pure altruism; they do so because they must in order to get into heaven.

That's a philosophical/theological question that's a bit outside of the realms of this discussion, but I agree that the way that most religions are laid out are similar to the way most toddlers are given rules: Do good, and I'll reward you, do wrong, and I'll punish you.
 
2005-11-23 08:15:38 AM  
Smarshmallow: Anyway, the fact remains that even if you don't believe in original sin, if you believe that fetuses have souls, then 75% of all souls in heavin never saw life on earth. Why would God do that?

Argh, okay, one more post. The biblical answer is that Adam sinned, and death passed to all men (almost an exact quote from the NT). In a perfect world with no sin, there would be no pain, sickness, and sorrow, but because Adam and Eve spoiled it for the rest of us, we are all going to die.

/stories probably not true, but philosophy is intact
 
2005-11-23 08:16:34 AM  
shrapnil77

I don't see why a judgment need be made in this instance.

Murder is a relatively simple example of a situation requiring a response from the state, and it may be justified on more than moral grounds, even so far as rational self-interest.

Abortion, however, is entirely immaterial to the functioning of society, and is entirely a moral issue pushed by fundamentalists, on the basis of a 2000 year old work of fiction which, if the passages in this thread are the best it has to offer, provides conflicting, if any, guidance on the issue. On abortion there is no need to make judgment as to whether it should become the subject of state intervention. It can be safely ignored and left as an issue of personal morality.
 
2005-11-23 08:17:42 AM  
neocortex: Argh, okay, one more post. The biblical answer is that Adam sinned, and death passed to all men (almost an exact quote from the NT). In a perfect world with no sin, there would be no pain, sickness, and sorrow, but because Adam and Eve spoiled it for the rest of us, we are all going to die.

/stories probably not true, but philosophy is intact


But that doesn't answer my issue. Why would God make life and the physical universe, and then kill 75% of all souls before they ever experience it?
 
2005-11-23 08:18:23 AM  
neocortex

It may have relevance, but evidently not to those doctors willing to perform abortions (or at least not the specific sections prohibiting abortion or euthanasia) for they would not be willing to do so if they were to strictly abide by the oath.
 
2005-11-23 08:19:12 AM  
Theocractic reasoning is not an appropriate vehicle to ascertain the legality of removong an unwanted fetus from the womb.
 
2005-11-23 08:21:56 AM  
Random Reality Check: I submit that it is only a question of time before this hurdle is overcome. I would ask you (hypothetically, if you wish) to address the question of, is life created through artificial means in a petri dish sacred and deserving of protection.

No matter how it is created, human life is sacred (by inserting the word sacred you allow me to use religion). I cannot think of any religious text that claims that the sexual act is necessary in order for life to be created. Jesus himself was supposedly created in an act of artificial insemination. Outside of religion, I see no reason to believe that human life created artificially is any different or inferior to life created "naturally."
 
2005-11-23 08:22:13 AM  
Gah! Religious catfighting like a black hole- I'm trying to keep away, but I'm just drawn towards it!
In Dante's Inferno (not canonical, I know, but what else gives us the play-by-play on eternal damnation?) there is a circle of the virtuous unbaptized who, while not cleansed of original sin, do not suffer as do those who willingly chose sin. Maybe it isn't heaven, but it sure as heck isn't hell in the traditional sense.
Also, if they have only one sin (original) than they could well qualify for a slot in Purgatory (which, I believe, is canonical at least as a general concept).
I'd say that goes into the "better than nothing" pile.
 
2005-11-23 08:24:54 AM  
mugen.: On abortion there is no need to make judgment as to whether it should become the subject of state intervention. It can be safely ignored and left as an issue of personal morality.

Obviously it cannot, as demonstrated by the upcoming court battle that is almost soley based on Alito's abortion views. When a nation is divided 50-50 about an issue as volatile as abortion, the government has to make the choice that is best for society
 
2005-11-23 08:26:15 AM  
This thread hurts my balls, so I know abortion is wrong.

/ok, now im just being plain silly.
//after hours of serious conversation, lets make jokes
 
2005-11-23 08:27:06 AM  
sorry, guys. I REALLY have to get some sleep before I go to work. Thanks again to all for some very interesting thoughts
 
2005-11-23 08:28:13 AM  
What do you call an abortion in Prague? A cancelled cheque ( Czech! )
/hahaha
//not mine
 
2005-11-23 08:29:23 AM  
Abortion is a decision ultimateley decided by the woman. It will remain this way regardless of any legislation passed to say otherwise.
The only thing that will change in this regard is wether or not the environment for such a decision becomes deadly. Still history shows, even under the most dire of circumstances, the woman will make the final decision and act on it in safety or in peril.
 
2005-11-23 08:29:46 AM  
Consider abortion in the following four situations?

1. There's a preacher and wife who are very, very, poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she's pregnant with her 15th. They're living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. They have 4 children. The 1st is blind, the 2nd is dead, the 3rd is deaf and the 4th has TB. She finds she's pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13 year old black girl and she got pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She's not married. Here fiancee is not the father of the baby, and he's very upset. Would you consider recommending abortion?

_____________________ANSWERS____________________

If you have answered "yes" in any of these situations:

In the first case, you have just killed John Wesley. One of the great evangelists of the 19th century.

In the second case, you have just killed Beethoven.

In the third case, you have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer.

If you said yes to the fourth case,

YOU HAVE JUST DECLARED THE MURDER OF JESUS CHRIST.

/also not mine
//leaving NOW
 
2005-11-23 08:30:29 AM  
If I flew over Hawaii with a giant picture of a turd floating in a toilet, would it:
(a) Gross you out, or
(b) Make you stop pooping

If I flew over Hawaii with a giant picture of open heart surgery, would it:
(a) Gross you out, or
(b) Make you prefer death to a live-saving heart operation
 
2005-11-23 08:32:36 AM  
This goddamn abortion debate is never going to end, is it? Both sides are not going to budge from their extreme view points. The far left thinks abortion should be legal ad readily available to anyone seeking it (even late-term abortions). Women have got used to using abortion as a contraceptive. The far right thinks abortion should be completely illegal under any circumstances.

If the right to an abortion had been provided through the legislative branch of the government, we wouldn't be in such a mess as we are right now, atleast not this much.

Most of the time, our political discussion is highjacked by the abortion debate as if we have nothing more important to talk about.
 
2005-11-23 08:34:46 AM  
And assuming these same people would be offended if I followed their plane over the beaches of Hawaii with a giant picture of hardcore porn:

What's more obscene:
(a) Sexual intercourse between consenting adults, or
(b) Abortion

(If you answered "b", you should probably work to overturn obscenity laws before you start flying your fetus planes.)
 
2005-11-23 08:38:47 AM  
neocortex

No matter how it is created, human life is sacred (by inserting the word sacred you allow me to use religion). I cannot think of any religious text that claims that the sexual act is necessary in order for life to be created. Jesus himself was supposedly created in an act of artificial insemination. Outside of religion, I see no reason to believe that human life created artificially is any different or inferior to life created "naturally."

Then I would submit that we need to define life.

smeegle said,

"Theocractic reasoning is not an appropriate vehicle to ascertain the legality of removong an unwanted fetus from the womb."

Good morning smeegle and welcome to the fray. As you can see from the above post(s) I am pretty much in agreement with you. Of course, loving a good discussion as I do, I would ask you to define how we should set the limits on society if religion isn't used as a guideline.
 
2005-11-23 08:39:54 AM  
neocortex: Consider abortion in the following four situations?

1. There's a preacher and wife who are very, very, poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she's pregnant with her 15th. They're living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?


If that's what she wants, yes.


2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. They have 4 children. The 1st is blind, the 2nd is dead, the 3rd is deaf and the 4th has TB. She finds she's pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?


If that's what she wants, yes.


3. A white man raped a 13 year old black girl and she got pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?


If that's what she wants, yes.


4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She's not married. Here fiancee is not the father of the baby, and he's very upset. Would you consider recommending abortion?

If that's what she wants, yes.


_____________________ANSWERS____________________

If you have answered "yes" in any of these situations:

In the first case, you have just killed John Wesley. One of the great evangelists of the 19th century.
In the second case, you have just killed Beethoven.
In the third case, you have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer.


And how many greats did God kill by dooming 75% of all souls to hell before they were even given the chance to be born?

Anyway, that's a silly argument. Look how much good could have come from the abortion of Hitler or Stalin? Is abortion a good think if you kill bad people?


If you said yes to the fourth case,

YOU HAVE JUST DECLARED THE MURDER OF JESUS CHRIST.


According to a book who's sources are shakey at best. Anyway, my above point applies here as well.
 
2005-11-23 08:40:50 AM  
whack_dudeMost of the time, our political discussion is highjacked by the abortion debate as if we have nothing more important to talk about.

But but,, the article is actually about advertising in the sky against abortion.

Your unwanted fetus wants a parachute.
 
Displayed 50 of 493 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report