RicOlie_2

TV’s Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Why should the helpless fetus/embryo have even its chance to have a life taken from it?

Because it’s just a potential person at the beginning. And it doesn’t know any better, it won’t miss out on anything, etc.

It’s easy to say “what if I was aborted!” but it’s a false argument.

Fair enough, though I disagree on it being just a potential person. I don’t see how it’s significantly different than euthanizing a baby because a situation has changed and one can no longer support the child. Granted, the cases in which this would happen are rare, but that’s illegal, while abortions at 40 weeks are not (where I live anyway). I know you don’t support late-term abortions, but my question is, I guess, why a baby is more than just a potential person.

Lord Haseo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

yhwx said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Lord Haseo said:

With adoption a person can be put in a toxic environment in which they can be abused. Furthermore they can have feelings of inadequacy and abandonment.

Life’s a bitch.

Huh. So you got sexually harassed at work today. Welp, can’t do anything about that. Life’s a bitch.

Using “they might have it rough” as an excuse for abortion isn’t legitimate to me. Essentially, it is saying that there isn’t anything you can do. Just terminate it.

I’m sure there are a lot of people who would prefer death over living life with the cards they have been dealt. Further more in my point of view non existence is preferable to a meager one. But that’s pretty much a completely separate topic.

Is it fair to make that decision for them? I know a lot of people who have lived through serious difficulties and are happy to be alive. Some people have lived miserable lives for the first 20 years of their lives, but decent and even good lives after that.

moviefreakedmind said:

Let’s say we make an exception for that. What about abortions that are for the sake of not wanting a child?

Again, my answer depends on the circumstances. Circumstances such as a condom ripping, the birth control is inept and a guy either forcibly or secretly nutting inside of a girl warrants an abortion if that is the woman’s desire.

This site references a survey that reports 17% of women who had abortions as having stated it was because contraception failed (I’m not sure exactly how reliable the survey was, but I’ve heard similar numbers before):

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

If that is indeed the case, and even if it’s just something like 6% of women aborting their pregnancy for that reason, does it not seem safer just to abstain from sex if one absolutely cannot have a child?

TV’s Frink said:

That’s funny you think I used a non-credible source, because the Salon article links directly to the same jama paper you linked to. First sentence in the “Conclusion” section:

Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.

My bad, then. When I saw what site I was on, I only skimmed the article.

I’m sure you’ll consider NPR a biased source as well, but you might want to read up a little on “partial-birth abortions” (politically charged term btw) to see how often they’re done. (granted this is 10 years old but I’d be surprised if the percentages have changed much)

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation’s abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal “viability.” Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

2,200 partial-birth abortions per year and 15,000 late-term abortions is still a lot. I didn’t mean to imply that I thought they were common, though I did think the numbers were a bit higher for third trimester and partial birth abortions (I thought it was something closer to 5% for the former and just a bit less for the latter).

By the way, look how fewer abortions are occurring. This is great news…no one want abortions. I just want the option available.

I wouldn’t say no one–I’ve encountered people who advocate them as a form of population control–but it is indeed great news. One thing we need to do more of is fix the underlying problems that lead to abortions, and hopefully the decreased numbers are a sign that progress is being made in those areas.

Lord Haseo said:

RicOlie_2 said:
What does fully developed mean? The frontal lobe does not fully develop until one’s late twenties. Are people not people before then?

Yeah, I probably used the term “fully developed” wrong. What I mean is human that is fully (or close to it) developed in the womb and is ready (or close to it) to life

What do you mean by “life”? A fetus is objectively alive.

Who decides why a line should be drawn between various trimesters, and not, say, at conception, when a unique genetic code is created?

Because there are a great many developments that happen post conception that actually makes the fetus more than just semi living genetic code. So to speak.

If development is continuous, where can a line be drawn? And who decides what developments make the embryo/fetus/baby more than a “semi-living genetic code”?

Why should the helpless fetus/embryo have even its chance to have a life taken from it? Adoption is also a possibility, though I admit that it is not that simple.

With adoption a person can be put in a toxic environment in which they can be abused. Furthermore they can have feelings of inadequacy and abandonment.

I don’t think that argument holds much water. This sort of thing doesn’t just happen in adoption, and all the people I have met who were adopted were given as much love as care as if they were being raised by their own parents (assuming they wanted the child). It’s a much better deal than being killed in the womb, in my limited experience.

And again why should a woman lose more control over her body? It’s as if she’s being punished for being raped. How I see it it’s pretty much telling her “I know you’ve been through a traumatic event and all but deal with it for the sake of the unborn baby you did not ask for”

This argument isn’t a bad one when the pregnancy is terminated early on. Whether the woman likes it or not, however, the embryo/fetus is a separate human being from herself, and I don’t believe it should be her choice to end its life. My argument is founded largely on the concept that every human life has equal value, regardless of what stage or condition it is in, and that only God can make the decision to end a life. If you don’t agree on that point, we have to agree to disagree.

Regardless, less than 1% of abortions are due to rape, so it is a relatively minor issue compared to “convenience” abortions, or those which occur due to the mother’s unreadiness, or lack of desire to have a child.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Jeebus said:

Went to bed at 3 in the afternoon yesterday, woke up now at 9 in the morning. Never felt so disoriented in my life. I hate being sick.

And I went to bed at 4 in the morning and woke up at 3:45… I’ve never slept in so long before, even when I’ve gone to bed at 5 and didn’t set my alarm clock. 😛

It certainly isn’t easy being celibate and virgin, but it is possible. Hopefully people will feel more comfortable being open about their sexuality, now that it is becoming less stigmatized, and avoid feeling they have to sign up for the religious life to escape the pressure to marry.

LOL

That’s one way of developing a phobia of dolls.

moviefreakedmind said:

You missed an uncomfortable discussion about the legitimacy of Roman Catholicism in the Politics thread.

Alas… We could revive it if you want. 😉

Tyrphanax said:

Hey, it’s Ric2!

I’ve been lurking a bit for the past few weeks, but I finally have time to post regularly. June was a bit of a whirlwind, but things have begun to wind down. It’s good to be back. 😃

Becoming a priest, nun, or monk is a choice. Celibacy is not imposed on anyone, but those who choose it seem to get by just fine. Black people, on the other hand, do not choose to be black.

Lord Haseo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Lord Haseo said:

Well at least to me a fetus is not really a person yet. Also let’s not forget that some abortions are for women impregnated by their rapist so in that case I think it’s definitely justified to get an abortion.

What makes a person a person?

To me a person is a human who is fully developed or at least close to it and birthed into the world.

What does fully developed mean? The frontal lobe does not fully develop until one’s late twenties. Are people not people before then?

Who decides what falls under that definition?

I’m pretty sure the people who have knowledge of trimesters and other things of the like.

Who decides why a line should be drawn between various trimesters, and not, say, at conception, when a unique genetic code is created?

In the case of rape, why is it justifiable to end a third party’s life (that of a not fully developed human being who is completely dependent on his mother, but that also describes a one-year old) because they are a product of violence done to you?

Because the woman didn’t choose to partake in sexual intercourse and the woman didn’t choose to bear a child. I don’t think a raped woman should have to take on such a huge responsibility because of mere misfortune. I mean wouldn’t these woman had enough control taken away from them?

Why should the helpless fetus/embryo have even its chance to have a life taken from it? Adoption is also a possibility, though I admit that it is not that simple.

TV’s Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Lord Haseo said:

Well at least to me a fetus is not really a person yet. Also let’s not forget that some abortions are for women impregnated by their rapist so in that case I think it’s definitely justified to get an abortion.

What makes a person a person? Who decides what falls under that definition? Is it justifiable to subject a fetus to the kind of pain that they experience during an abortion? Would not the same done to another non-person, such as a puppy, be considered horrific cruelty?

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/07/fetal_pain_is_a_lie_how_phony_science_took_over_the_abortion_debate/

Interesting, though you may want to get in the habit of finding more credible sources, not tabloids, to substantiate your claims, like:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429&resultclick=1

(The first Google result when I searched “fetal pain”).

Partial-birth abortions are still pretty horrific. I also suspect that people would think it cruel to perform saline injections on fish, or to cut them to pieces while they are still living, despite their inability to feel pain in the way we do.

In the case of rape, why is it justifiable to end a third party’s life (that of a not fully developed human being who is completely dependent on his mother, but that also describes a one-year old) because they are a product of violence done to you?

Do you eat meat? Those animals feel more pain that most of the aborted fetuses, which are done at 20 weeks or earlier. How can you justify ending those animal’s lives simply for your pleasure?

I think their lives should be ended as painlessly as possible. Note that without human protection, these animals would have to deal with the far more painful diseases and carnivorous animals, such as wolves, that nature has to offer.

Neglify said:

That dream would have put me to sleep while I was sleeping.

No doubt. She probably didn’t come back because I fell asleep at the wheel and got us killed.

Thank goodness my real friends are more interesting.

I agree, and suspect that he is in fact quite arrogant, but only because it’s his way of dealing with being excluded. I had that problem when I was a smaller person…

A few nights ago, I had a dream that my dad brought me home a girlfriend. We weren’t particularly interested in each other, and just sat awkwardly around in different places until my dad finally suggested I go and talk to her.

The next night, I had a follow-up dream, in which she came over again. While she was out of the room, I had to ask my dad what her name was, as he had evidently forgotten to introduce her the first time (it was Crystal). I still wasn’t really interested in her, but instead of sitting around awkwardly, I decided to take her to Arby’s this time. The dream ended just as we got there.

Thankfully, she didn’t come back the next night. The date must not have gone well. 😄

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

So it’s only valid in cases where someone has a choice?

I’m not sure I would say it that way, but I’m not really sure how I would say it.

By that logic, I can’t “hate the sin” of an individual attracted to the same sex, but I can “hate the sin” of someone having homosexual sex, right? Bear in mind that you probably don’t know my views on homosexuality (and others who’ve known me longer and think they do likely not either) so don’t bring me personally into this. It’s merely a question. Homosexual sex is in fact a choice.

Sexual relief is a requirement for humans, and if you’re gay then the only way to get that is through gay sex. It may technically be a choice, but it’s a choice in the sense that your only other option is to be unhappy/sexually frustrated.

A requirement? That’s nonsense. Most of the very celibate priests and nuns I know lead very fulfilling and happy lives. Our parish priest is one of the happiest people I know, and he’s a virgin. Also, I’m young yet, but I feel that I could live quite contentedly without ever having sex. It’s not a pressing desire at the moment (not to say that it isn’t a desire).

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

Oooooh…I get it. It’s the atheist version of that “Hate the sin, love the sinner” thing. Caughtcha! How progressive!

The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.

“Your sexuality is inherently sinful and wrong, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”

vs

“I hate Christianity, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”

I’m curious to know just how many people think homosexual attraction is a sin, because I sure don’t. It can’t be, as it’s not a choice. I do believe that sex outside of sacramental marriage is, and is very much a choice (with the obvious exception of rape).

Lord Haseo said:

Well at least to me a fetus is not really a person yet. Also let’s not forget that some abortions are for women impregnated by their rapist so in that case I think it’s definitely justified to get an abortion.

What makes a person a person? Who decides what falls under that definition? Is it justifiable to subject a fetus to the kind of pain that they experience during an abortion? Would not the same done to another non-person, such as a puppy, be considered horrific cruelty?

In the case of rape, why is it justifiable to end a third party’s life (that of a not fully developed human being who is completely dependent on his mother, but that also describes a one-year old) because they are a product of violence done to you?

yhwx said:

I think he’s the more insulting.

You’re still part of the problem, I’m afraid. Just ignore the guy. Stop feeding the trolls.

The snow part is weird, but June is one of the main months we get hail up here…

Mark’s Down On Your Syntax said:

I live in England, where we seem to be stuck in this frustrating mix of metric and imperial measurement.

We use miles almost exclusively for long distances (no road signs have kilometres) but feet and meters interchangeably for anything shorter. Depending on who you’re speaking to, and it really doesn’t seem to an age or class thing (at least where I live), you have to adjust which you use because people tend to get a bit funny with you if you use the “wrong” one.

For example, when people buy tobacco the vast majority ask for it in imperial weight - even though the packaging is 100% metric. It’s a very odd combination of ways of measuring and must be even more confusing for the young’uns.

Don’t even get me started on what happens when you go from Northern Ireland to Southern Ireland - daftness.

It doesn’t really matter which you use but I wish they’d just pick one and run with it.

It’s like this in Canada as well, though to a lesser degree. That’s mostly the fault of our stubborn neighbours to the south, however, who keep sending us stuff with non-metric measurements on it…(well, maybe not mostly–imperial units for measuring height and weight just seem to have stuck).

You’ve been making great progress! Keep it up and I’m sure you will be able to enjoy your next birthday far more, and the next one far more than that. The important thing is to not let yourself give up no matter how many times you slip up!

I hope you enjoy(ed) your birthday as much as possible! My thoughts (and prayers) are with you.

Haha, I think they listen to most of their books, or read using text-to-speech. There was a blind guy in my math class who was big into “readng” and that’s what he did most of the time.

That must be a real pain in the neck. Have you ever seen how big a book in braille is? Unless you just read those signs that have a braille transcription on them.
😉

^Sounds like my life a couple weeks ago. 😄