Shady Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Why would the heartbeat be meaningful? Do you wish to argue that the heartbeat is the beginning of life or something? -k Wouldn't a heartbeat, among the several other things constitute human life? Here's what I don't get about the anti-life side. Is it that it's your choice, or that it's not human life? Because science tells us that it's human life. That science is settled. Only a small number of deniers still deny that fact. If it's about choice, then I can at least understand that argument. Even though it's severly flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 So what? A new born baby can't survive on it's own without intervention either. It can't? Really? It's body functions will shut down without a direct link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Because science tells us that it's human life. That science is settled. Show where it says that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Wouldn't a heartbeat, among the several other things constitute human life? Here's what I don't get about the anti-life side. Is it that it's your choice, or that it's not human life? Because science tells us that it's human life. That science is settled. Only a small number of deniers still deny that fact. If it's about choice, then I can at least understand that argument. Even though it's severly flawed. I've never disputed that a fetus is human life. I'm just trying to figure out why you think a heartbeat is proof of anything. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 An animal isn't a human. No, it is not. But a heartbeat alone is proof of nothing. Because science tells us that it's human life. That science is settled. At what stage a "human life" becomes a "person" with the rights reserved for persons is a matter of arbitrary definition. An infant? A fetus? An embryo? A sperm? Personhood is a social/legal definition and has nothing to do with science. The morality of abortion is not a scientific matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Wouldn't a heartbeat, among the several other things constitute human life? Here's what I don't get about the anti-life side. Is it that it's your choice, or that it's not human life? Because science tells us that it's human life. That science is settled. Only a small number of deniers still deny that fact. If it's about choice, then I can at least understand that argument. Even though it's severly flawed. This isnt about whether its human life or not. Its not a scientific question at all. Its about at what point society should assign that life legal human rights and protections, and theres no clear answer there and it will probably vary between different cultures. Hell, some people think jacking off or wearing a condom is murder! Edited February 6, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Oops. Basically repeated Bonams point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) That's exactly how abortion is going as well. Soon we'll all look back and won't believe how barbaric our society was. That seems to be the trend. Abortion, abortion, abortion! How's the weather today? It would be great if we could stop all of those women from having abortions! Who's going to win the Superbowl? Dunno, but legal abortion means that a child did not have the chance to grow up and become a football player and have a chance to be on that winning team! Is there any issue that cannot be spun into going after women who choose to have an abortion? I'll add that most people don't consider any fetus to qualify for talk about unborn babies until it is actually at that late stage that it looks like a baby, and has enough brain development to have even be capable of feeling pain. Until then, the person who has to lug it around for 9 months should have the default authority of what to do with it. There are already too many people on this Earth today, and the population needs to come down to arrive at sustainable levels. We don't need surplus babies brought into this world, so the most dangerous cranks around today are the conservatives who are trying to bring back the old patriarchy. The attack on legal abortion is also a general attack on birth control, by using the label "abortifacient" to classify most contraception as early abortions. Let's not be fooled by who is behind these organizations that are so full of concern for human life....until it comes out of the birth canal. Wherever women have control over if and when to have children, birth rates fall dramatically. Where religious patriarchy bans abortion and birth control, no surprise that they are the places that are now facing food shortages and food riots. Edited February 6, 2011 by WIP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Most don't understand that those that are the very high archy of society such as Barbara Bush - endorses EVERYTHING - that can debase - weaken and create more slaves for societies powerful...I am sure that Barbara is fine with same sex marriage - and other non- traditional experimentations...BUT not in HER family...traditional arrangements are still the base of power....These elite would endorse the eating of shit - it they thought that would assist on maintaining the status quo in their favour for ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I've never disputed that a fetus is human life. I'm just trying to figure out why you think a heartbeat is proof of anything. -k An entity can only be one of two things. It is either alive or dead...a heartbeat is the most basic way of making that distinction....what I don't get about abortion and the such is - why do people have sex if they are not going to be responsible for the ultimate outcome and purpose of the act? I mean our male and female parts are designed for the specific purpose of reproducing our own species...That's why it feels so good - cos' it's as close to being a creative god as you can get..and I don't like the term fetus anymore than infirmed senior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Barbara Bush Endorses Gay-Marriage I believe that gays should have the exact same "rights" as straights. But I am opposed to state-endorsed gay-marriage. As well, I am opposed to straight marriage that is endorsed by the government. I don't believe that the State should be involved in any manner how 2 people spend their lives together, make babies, etc, etc. The State should get out of the marriage business and leave it to the religions and religious folks who hold such a thing sacred. Some churches will perform gay marriage ceremonies, some won't. Someone can start a new religion that does and issue the happy couple a piece of paper stating that their bond is now sanctioned by Zeus or Aphrodite or whomever. The State need not be involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I believe that gays should have the exact same "rights" as straights. But I am opposed to state-endorsed gay-marriage. As well, I am opposed to straight marriage that is endorsed by the government. I don't believe that the State should be involved in any manner how 2 people spend their lives together, make babies, etc, etc. The State should get out of the marriage business and leave it to the religions and religious folks who hold such a thing sacred. Some churches will perform gay marriage ceremonies, some won't. Someone can start a new religion that does and issue the happy couple a piece of paper stating that their bond is now sanctioned by Zeus or Aphrodite or whomever. The State need not be involved. In theory I agree with you but in reality this is not done because of practical issues regarding family law and estates (inehritance) law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) In theory I agree with you but in reality this is not done because of practical issues regarding family law and estates (inehritance) law. There are "common law" marriages now. In efffect, people are considered married if they co-habitate for a certain length of time. If this can be done for a portion of the population, it can be done for the remainder of people who are "officially" married. Edited February 8, 2011 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 There are "common law" marriages now. In efffect, people are considered married if they co-habitate for a certain length of time. If this can be done for a portion of the population, it can be done for the remainder of people who are "officially" married. NOT according to the law as it was. Ergo why it was needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) A pregnancy is sometimes an unfortunate risk of sex for pleasure, but sex is intended to be pleasurable, so surely you're not suggesting that people only engage in sex for pro-creation purposes? I never suggested such. What i said pretty clear, which is that if a man and a woman choose to engage in vaginal sex, they should be weary of the consequences/responsibilities and be willing to accept them. I guess what i'm saying is: Having sex for pleasure is fine, but if someone gets pregnant then "cowboy up" and take responsibility. ie: don't kill the baby. If you can't handle the risk of a having baby (whether raising it or giving it up for adoption), then don't fuck. Or have one of the partners sterilized. As an aside: The original biological purpose of sex was to produce babies. Evolution/natural selection made so that sex is very pleasurable for both sexes in order to ensure the creation of many offspring among humans so that the species will survive/thrive. For most of human existence, sex often meant getting pregnant. Humans in western society socially adapted to this fact by establishing the social norm of "not having sex before marriage" in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, modern forms of contraception have been introduced, which has meant that people can have sex simply for pleasure without much worry about getting pregnant. Also thanks to modern technology, safer abortions can now be performed. At some point in the last half-century, people have gotten used to having pleasurable sex without pregnancy, to the point where pre-marital sex is the new social norm. Now many people feel such is their right to have sex simply for pleasure, and that if there is an "accident" they are morally justified in killing the offspring early in the pregnancy. We all have different opinions on the issue, and mine is that killing a fetus/embryo is morally wrong, except where there is risk to the mother and possibly in cases of rape and incest. Furthermore, while pregnancy can be viewed as an "unfortunate" result, a child should never be viewed that way. Except when the woman doesn't want the child and she chooses to kill it before it is born? Honestly, this sounds like a mindset from the Dark Ages. If women only had sex when they wanted a baby, there's be a helluva lot of frustrated men (and women) running around. Or there wouldn't be enough prostitutes to go around, and I don't think most women would be ok with their guy having sex with a stranger. But at least the men could be having sex! Women, on the other hand, could only have it when they want a baby. No sex for pleasure, just for procreation. No, more like sex for pleasure, but with small risk of procreation. If one chooses to have sex purely for pleasure and is unprepared/unable to bring a child into the world, then sometimes the choice not to bring the child into the world is being responsible for having sex. I disagree. Except in cases of rape/incest/risk of mother's health, the choice to abort is usually a cop-out. It is the most convenient choice for the mother/parents, and the most inconvenient choice for the child. If a woman doesn't ever want a child, you're in effect saying she should go through life a virgin. Absolutely ludicrous. If she wants a 100% guarantee of not having a baby, yes. Either that, or get sterilized or have her partner sterilized. I think "easier" isn't the issue here. What's "right" for the person involved, and that very much affects the child that would be brought into the world, is what's at issue. It's about doing what's right for that individual, not about doing what's easiest. What about the child? What is right for the human life created? Getting pregnant when you don't want to sucks big-time, that's for sure. What sucks more is being killed. But it is, as you say, just your opinion, and that's why I don't feel as if you have the right to take away the choice from others who do not share your opinion -- and that's the crux of the issue. I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, just expressing it. I'm not taking away any choices from anyone. We both live in a democracy, 1 person 1 vote. I have 1 vote, so does anybody else. Edited February 9, 2011 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I believe that gays should have the exact same "rights" as straights. But I am opposed to state-endorsed gay-marriage. As well, I am opposed to straight marriage that is endorsed by the government. I don't believe that the State should be involved in any manner how 2 people spend their lives together, make babies, etc, etc. The State should get out of the marriage business and leave it to the religions and religious folks who hold such a thing sacred. I don't understand this. Marriage is a legal contract. Doesn't the state need to be involved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I don't understand this. Marriage is a legal contract. Doesn't the state need to be involved? If marriage is simply a legal contract with someone, why does the State need to sanction it? They don't in most other contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Marriage is when two people get together and have sex and the out come is an offspring - all else is simply an arrangement...as for Bush endorsing liberalism...well the rich are all conservative and the slaves are all liberals..The high status quo don't want other families to form so they discourage any intergenerational competition...kind of a nip it in the bud attitude...and same sex marriage and the encouragement of young people in flux and personal development to take the gay route only keeps the rich and powerful - RICH AND POWERFUL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Marriage is when two people get together and have sex and the out come is an offspring - all else is simply an arrangement... So...married childless couples, incapable of conceiving, are not married even though they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Don't push your morality on me. Don't get gay married, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Nobody "forces" women to do that. That is their choice. It is also their choice, except in cases of rape, to allow a man to insert his penis inside her vagina, and without proper protection on both sides. The whole "pro-choice" thing is contradictory to me, because it seems women have the power to make several choices that decides whether a baby being conceived or not. Women just do not want to accept the responsibility of their choices. Getting an abortion is taking responsibility for one's choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Getting an abortion is taking responsibility for one's choices. I've said the same thing, more than once. There's more than one way to be responsible for one's actions. On the other hand, giving birth and then living off the taxpayers isn't being responsible. Merely giving birth doesn't mean one is taking responsiblity. Edited February 9, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Now many people feel such is their right to have sex simply for pleasure They feel this because they're right to feel this. We all have different opinions on the issue, and mine is that killing a fetus/embryo is morally wrong, except where there is risk to the mother and possibly in cases of rape and incest. I disagree completely; but if I were to agree with your basic premise: If it's a human life, and deserves the same legal protection as post-birth lives, then how can you justify killing it in the case of rape? Edited February 10, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 I disagree completely; but if I were to agree with your basic premise: If it's a human life, and deserves the same legal protection as post-birth lives, then how can you justify killing it in the case of rape? That's the kicker, innit? Either human life is sacred or it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) That's the kicker, innit? Either human life is sacred or it isn't. Yeah. As much as I stare in disbelief at those who oppose abortion even in cases of rape, they are actually the only anti-abortionists whose stance is consistent with the moral logic of opposition to abortion. An abortion is justified if the woman is raped? Why? (Yes, yes, I know why, and in fact I agree. But why would an anti-abortionist feel this way?) Edited February 10, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.