...

I could, quite literally, get married to someone (but only of the opposite sex) in a ceremony that contains no religious references or bias tomorrow if I wanted (assuming I had a marriage licence, natch, which again is not a religious document). To the state the act of marriage is simply a legal union- only the church recognises it (and then only if it's conducted in a specific manner) as a religious ceremony.

The government doesn't tell consenting adults (there's that phrase again) whom they can and can't sleep with/love (again assuming it's another consenting adult), so why should they be able to tell them who they can legally marry?



A "marriage" is NOT a religious ceremony. It CAN be, but two athetists of the opposite sex can be married by a registrar in virtually any place they like. There is NOTHING religious about that whatsoever.


And for those who claim you can call it a civil union and forget about it miss the point: Equality. If two people of the opposite sex can be married in the eyes of the law, then two people the same sex must be able to as well. Heterosexual couples who choose not to have a religious wedding aren't "civally unified" (what is the adjective/transitive verb for civil union anyway?) so in the interests of equality (as this is what the argument is really about) neither should homosexual couples.

[This message has been edited by CookedHaggis (edited March 31, 2004).]

Roe vs. Wade.

[1,000th post]
On abortion:
a)Life is defined as when the cells of an organism are performing their function. The human(46 chromosomes) cell that is formed at conception instantly begins to do this and to divide.

b)You are considered legally dead when your brain waves can no longer be picked up. In a human embryo this starts at something like 40 days, I think.

c)The embryo is dependent on the mother, it is not part of the mother. And even if it was, we have laws against suicide, correct? Apparently society has a vested interest in the life that belongs to you, enough to illegalize any attempt you make to take it. Lovely of you to decide for the child.

Rape is a horrible thing. It causes more than just physical trauma, but deep psychological too. Getting pregnant from, and having to carry and give birth to the child of your rapist is more than just rough. The woman has been forced into a situation she didn't ask for, she may not be able to deal with, but can you tell me that an abortion will make all this go away?

Will it ever make what happened unhappen?

There is much research that claims that abortions cause psychological trauma, guilt, depression, etc. Not to mention all the things that can go wrong. Like infertility, the inability to carry to term, and death from hemmorage or infection.

Then there is the human that is torn apart, or burned alive, or crushed, or whatever else. There is proof that the human being inside the womb often attempts to avoid the tools used during the abortion (sonogram video). And then there is evidence that the child can feel pain within weeks of conception.
My sister got pregnant, though she properly used contraception. Real safe. Check out the failure rate on condoms...somewhere around 25%, I think. And considering that the AIDS virus is much smaller than a sperm, I wonder how affective they really are against that.

Both the sperm and the ovum have 23 chromosomes. They are alive, but it is 23 short of human.

killing a sperm is nothing but killing a sperm. Killing a human is far different. Last I check you couldn't get 25-life for killing a rabbit. Society values human life more than all other kind of life on the planet. Yet our laws on abortion do not reflect that.

An human embryo can be terminated because it is "inconvenient." It doesn't say a word. Some care, some care enough not to do it themself, but would never stop another, by word or act, from doing it. In the Netherlands, the elderly and infirmed can be killed or denied medical care. They are "inconvenient." Few care, fewer say a word.

What happens when society decides you are an inconvenience?

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

Seperate is not equal.


------------------
You're entering a world of pain.

According to the World Health Organization, the failure rate for condoms when used correctly is around 3%.

------------------
"I am downright amazed at what I can destroy with just a hammer."
-Atom and His Package

I say...


Buddhist.

------------------
MadQuack on Military school: Pro's: I get to shoot a gun. Con's: Everything else.
"I'm going to beat you until the laws of physics are violated!!" ! Maeve's Warcry

RIP -MaDaVentor-. You will be missed.

A child is not a mere inconvenience. Calling an undesired child an inconvenience would be like calling a trip to the moon 'going to walk the dog'... It simply isn't that way. Parenting a child requires one to put oneself aside, and give their life for their new son or daughter.

It amazes me how so many people here can talk definitively about a woman's body, when average person here is a 13-16 year old male. It is not for you to decide. Don't let people parading with posters of dead fetuses make up your mind for you. Realize the stress of parenting a child which you DO want is enough to make you go crazy. My neighbors daughter, who is just now celibrating her second birthday, has been sick pretty much since her birth with various colds, and they've probably gotten as much sleep in the past year as most of us do in a month.

You all don't realize that having a child isn't like buying a pair of shoes, where you have your shoes, and there you go, transactions over... You are OBLIGATED TO RAISE A HUMAN BEING, JUST LIKE YOURSELF.

If you were a 16 year old girl, would you be ready for that obligation?

------------------
To myself I surrender to the one I'll never please.
But I still try to run on.
You know I still try to run on. But it's all or none.

Eddie Vedder

But that legalized abortion. Abortion is different than murder.



Precisely. Sperm and egg cells fit this definition nicely.



Not that I'm aware of. If there are, they should be abolished. What is illegal, however, is to assist in someone's suicide.



The victim will not have to bring into the world a child who was borne from an act she did not consent to (to say nothing of the fact that the child's father is still around somewhere).



*shrug* Condoms fail, just as anything fails. One other thing to consider is using more than one form of contraception.



That is a lie. Regardless, some protection is better than none.



Nice slippery slope. Eversor put it best.


-Fox

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited March 31, 2004).]

I think the implication was "creating human life." How is that an appeal to tradition? Marriage has religious origins. Eventually, it developed into a legal thing. They shouldn't. That's why I keep saying we should instead distinguish civil unions from marriage (or "legal marriage" from "religious marriage").
Then I also suggest men & women stop using separate bathrooms.
All religious buildings should be built the same.
All schools should be built the same.
All hospitals should be built the same.
All houses should be built the same.
etc.

This has nothing to do with separate & equal crap. It's little more than an argument of semantics.
Like a man who wants to be called a cat. The word "cat" has a certain definition, as does the word "man."
By defining marriage as between man and woman, we are doing just that - defining a word. Same goes for the term "civil union." We'd be defining it as a union of two people, regardless of sex. Yet strangely enough, we can decide the life of an unborn human. What a load of crap. Ever hear of "adoption?"
(Sorry. I said that kind of harshly.) So when someone's about to kill themselves, and authorities are informed, their response is "Sorry. We can't do anything."
No.

------------------
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
- Proverbs 27:17

Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

No, I just think the possessiveness over the word "marriage" is silly

------------------
Beware of music. It brings out the animosity in everyone.

Then why not cause a big fuss about atheists marrying?




How, in anyway way at all, is equality of marriage comparable to those things? Equality of marriage is about reducing discrimination, your "examples" have nothing to do with the subject matter.

Then you should be more specific. Still, there's no new "life", in a literal sense.



Wrong. Marriage was a result of humans requiring close, bonding relationships with mates to ensure survival of the species. Other animals exhibit similar behavior.



Or we should do away with the "marriage" legal language altogether, and leave it at "civil union" for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.



You should read the original Board v. BOE decision, then. If you are going to bestow special rights for married heterosexual couples, the same should be done for unionized homosexual couples.



Perhaps if the adoption system weren't the trainwreck that it currently is. Despite that, it is still the mother's right whether or not to have a child born from rape, or any other reason.



Then what punishment should there be for attempting suicide? Certainly you can't punish someone who succeeds?


-Fox

"Not that I'm aware of. If there are, they should be abolished. What is illegal, however, is to assist in someone's suicide."

Actually, it is illegal to commit suicide. It's punishable by death, too.

(I'm not kidding.)

------------------
MadQuack on Military school: Pro's: I get to shoot a gun. Con's: Everything else.
"I'm going to beat you until the laws of physics are violated!!" ! Maeve's Warcry

RIP -MaDaVentor-. You will be missed.

This is news to me. Where at?


-Fox

Wouldn't this be interviening(sp?), not assisting?

------------------
Frogblast the Vent Core!

--End of Line--

Point taken. Now that I think about it, 97% is the number I recall. Inconvenience is putting it far too lightly. Raising the child is incredibly difficult, especially for those who aren't ready.

There is adoption. As Fox pointed out, it isn't perfect, and the process may be pretty difficult on it's own. Even still, If it was near insurmountable, that still doesn't balance it out with the value our society places on human life. We spend millions on a single prisoner instead of executing him. I love that arguement. I don't know what it's like, so I don't have the right to weigh in on the value of a human life.

I never said it was easy, but, again, does any amount of difficulty outweigh a human life? I said the entire institution makes a child out to little more than an inconvenience. I believe it does. It lowers the child to nothing so that removing a potential source of great difficulty seems justified. No, but empathizing with why someone made a choice doesn't make that choice right. I didn't. Basically if you attempt suicide, and obviously fail, you can be detained against your will for however long it is deemed sufficient to be fairly sure you won't try again as soon as you get out.
The laws reflect society's care for human life. So why should they be abolished?

On a side-note, the hypocratic oath states that the doctor can "do no harm" with the knowlege he has. A series of human cells, genetically separate from the mother, were alive before the procedure, and not after. No harm done?

Why is assisted suicide illegal? They are suffering, correct?
Could it be that our laws are reflecting a certain view of society regarding the worth of a human life? I can't say enough how much I sympathize with the victims, but:
The value of human life > the difficulty of having to bring a child into the world, consenting or not.

Our laws reflect this principle, yet this one and a couple of others don't. Whether the value be true or not, consistency is necessary.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

Cough. I'd say 1a sums up pretty nicely that the product of an egg binding with a sperm is indeed a new life. Not a complex life, but a life.

Now then, I could really care less about abortion, I just dislike people who deny the existance of life.

------------------
Roach - I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.--Frank Lloyd Wright

0 of 14.

My general stance is everyone needs to stop spawning for a generation or so and just adopt or whatever all the unwanted broodlings that exist already instead of making even more they don't know what to do with..

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

What value is that? Murder is still prosecuted as a heinous crime, no?



More like, "You don't know what hell that child and mother will go through, and what burden that mother will have to bear for the rest of her life".



How about when you're given six months to live, and you are in insurmountable pain? Do you deny a person his or her right to die with dignity?



More likely those laws are based on archaic assumptions (such as "only God chooses when people die). Keep in mind there are still laws against liquor sales on Sunday in most states, and until last year, a good number of states outlawed sodomy (some even between heterosexual couples).

It's not a "sanctity of life" issue. It's an issue of personal rights, from a woman's right to choose whether or not to keep a pregnancy, to a person's right to decide when he or she should die. Enough of this "value of human life" semantic nonsense.


-Fox

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited April 01, 2004).]

If a woman is seriously consider abortion as an option, then she clearly does not want the child. Note that there is a clear difference between unwanted and unplanned; lots of pregnancies are unplanned, but lots of those mothers and fathers end up pleasantly surprised and go on to raise the child. However, if the child is genuinely unwanted (as would be the case for most teenage pregnancies, I'd imagine, but certainly not exclusively), what will become of that child?
I'm sure someone has mentioned inability to finance a child, children are heavy economic burdens, but there is also a heavy emotional burden. A child should not be a punishment.
If a family does not want the child at all, yet have it (or are forced to have it), will they love the child? Will they read to the child, teach the child to count or learn the alphabet, or make sure the child goes to school every day? Possibly, but I think it is less likely. So what will become of that child? A drop-out, unemployed, in poverty, and there are well-documented links between poverty and crime.
Of course, it is a bit of a stretch and there'd have to be some sort of case study to back this up (which would be hard, because you can't really tell whether a child is unwanted or not). But it is a logical line of thought; keeping the unwanted child could be detrimental to society. Letting the mother abort would avoid all that.

Putting the child up for adoption would be a viable option too, but would it be any better? I imagine there would be case studies studying how children raised in orphanages fare in later life, and I can't imagine that it would be good.

I'd say a few post-natal abortions would help our society as well. I say we extend the definition of "fetus" to include anyone under the age of 33. That way, parents have plenty of time to consider abortion as an option.

------------------
Roach - I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.--Frank Lloyd Wright

0 of 14.

Based on the idea that a human fetus is not yet human, or entitled to the same rights that any other would be.

Tell me, what gives anyone the authority to assume this? I suppose we can formulate a complicated doctrine stating that this series of cells, which has unigue and human DNA, suddenly begins to be human only when it first breathes air, or when it forms a brain, or when it is capable of surviving outside the womb, or whatever else.

Does logic allow us to make such complicated, unfounded assumptions? The most simple assumption, that a living, unique human embryo becomes human upon it's formation and function, is just incorrect because we say so, right? Yet you do know. Enough to say that a child would not want to live, that that mother would feel no regret, and that everything in her life will just go back to normal.
Could she, herself, even make that statement with certainty? We don't have pain-killers? Or is that less dignified than a lethal injection? "Issue of personal rights." No, it's an issue of the desire of a person we can see and hear versus those of a being we assume to have no feelings of any kind on the matter. It's an issue of a person deciding for someone else whether they wish to live or to die. What principle in ethics allows a person to assume that it isn't a human being, when a life is involved?

We do allow parents to make decisions for their children concerning risks to life(mainly regarding surgery, and medical procedures), but the purpose of those procedures is not to end the child's life.

As for assisted suicide, again you have the "do no harm" dilemma(much more "in-your-face" this time), but you also have numerous other problems. Such as the inability of a person that ill to make such decisions, as is often the case. Or someone else making the decision. Then it's also the same problem you have with some "living wills." How can you decide, now, what you would want six months from now, in a situation you are not presently in? If you asked Christopher Reed(sp?) when he was Superman if he would want to live paralyzed from the neck down, would he have said, "certainly?" Would you? Yet he desires to live now.

Rather than kill them we could attempt to allay the fear they have, with the assurance of true dignity, and proper medical care. Yet your implied definition of justice states that we allow them decide what they think is just, as they are afflicted with who knows how much fear, which does cloud judgement, and does prevent people from acting and thinking according to their will.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

Okay, so ilegalizing abortion will protect the lives of unborn children, and the guilt of teenage mothers?

It is impossible for a mothers life to 'return to normal', and it sickens me you think that such a thing is possible. You totally fail to see that parenting is not something you do in your spare time when you get home from work. It becomes the reason why you go to work.

You also fail to realize that nobody here is pro-abortion; we are pro-choice. Rather than restrict the rights of women, let them decide for themselves whether it is the choice they want to make. Don't use some statistic that says many women suffer from guilt after abortion, because I can promise that is not a universal truth.



FANTASTIC IDEA! "Oh, you're in pain, are you? Here! Have some drugs! That will cure everything!"



Right, and they can get that medical care for free thanks to America's excellent medcare system! Yay capitalism!

Fear is not a drug which makes you think your seeing things. Its a human condition, as is depression. To say that it alters how one reacts to their surroundings would not be a lie, but to say that it distracts them from their true will, as if it is an alternative reality? Fear, depression -- anything that causes suicide -- are all just as valid an emotion as happiness. Does this mean that happiness distracts us from 'our will', as well?

------------------
To myself I surrender to the one I'll never please.
But I still try to run on.
You know I still try to run on. But it's all or none.

Eddie Vedder

My Ethics professor brought up an interesting point last semestre.. short of physically tying a woman up and restraining her for the months until she has a child or whatever, there isn't really any final say that men have in the issue. [Thuogh to be fair there have been instances of exactly that, there was one in Britain last year if i recall].

So i find it rather ironic that people are claiming to be so knowledgeable [ie guaranteeing that whatever guilt isn't universal] when really it is a realm almost entirely beyond the comprehension and control of the majority of the population here.

Not to say that necessarily it should be an entirely female impetus as to whether or not to create future generations, i think it's totally important for a couple to come to that conclusion on their own, and i think that a lot of the issues where abortion comes up would be far better resolved by some degree of responsibility or self-control before the fact and all that.
But i still figured it would be a good point to bring up.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Suicide laws: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html

Ok, I finally caught up with the thread.

To expound on my opening questions, I think it would be a big mistake for the US gov't to become Christianized. I think all of my fellow evangelicals who think that way aren't thinking too far enough into the future. Their thinking stops when the Christian official that they voted for takes his office and begins to serve. My thinking goes beyond that. If theirs continues, too, then I have a feeling they have a naive idea of what will happen. They will assume that because God's man is in office, everything will be swell. I can't say I'd agree because the non-Christians opposed to Senator Joe Christian would raise hell and the country would be a mess. So I say Christian politics shouldn't try to compete with liberal politics; it should just turn the other cheek. If gay marriages are legalized, let them be legalized. I'm not saying Christians should just sit on their hands and like it, but as far as politics are concerned, Christians don't really have much of a front to fight on.

Withdrawing from politics doesn't necessitate that Christians just let the country go to the dogs, either, letting homos and fetus-killers run loose all over. Our job is to show them the light so they can be free from condemnation through Christ. Making laws that restrict their sinfulness is about as pointless as you can get. We had laws against it WAY before the Constitutional Convention ever met. Those laws are so old that in their day, they were called commandments. They convicted people and showed them wrong from right. Christ came and offered them a way to do right after they had always done wrong all their lives. This is a page right out of Romans. My question, now, is: if people aren't convicted to be heterosexual and not have abortions by the Bible, then what point is there in making laws that force them not to do it? God gives them a choice to do those things, and that's the right way to do it. We'd be taking it a step too far by forcing them not to do things that we don't like. To reiterate, our job is not to force them not to do those things, but to show them why we don't like them, in hopes that they will relate and maybe change their minds. Friendly persuasion.


Now about the big issues that sprung from the questions I posed: abortion and gay marriage. I suppose they are kinda interlinked in the way I think, because they both relate to family life and sitting here on the brink of starting a family, it's on my mind a lot these days. Marriage is the backbone of a typical family. It's a very special, intimate thing. The relationships are what give it its flavor, not the sex or the gushy moments when the kids do something cute or the wife cooks you your favorite meal. It's about love. And you serve out of that love. It's not enough that you be served by your wife and kids, somehow, but you also have to serve them. On the contrary, you can't just be a serve-aholic because you've got needs too and you're going to need them to be there for you too. In the good times and the bad, on the special days and the mundane days, sitting comfortably at home or sitting anxiously in an ominous waiting room at a hospital, it all weaves together into a wonderful tapestry and gift from God. It's a complex machine that takes a lot of expertise and know-how to run, but love is the pure oil that keeps the engine running smoothly, without ruining the machine.

Abortion is a menace to the tapestry. It's usually the fruit of irresponsibility, impatience, and bad judgment. In the case of mutual sex which resulted in the unwanted pregnancy, both partners were irresponsible. In the case of rape, it was the rapist who was irresponsible. To permit abortion is to let people keep up with their bad habits of not thinking things through, not waiting for them, and trying to weasel out of tough consequences.

I don't know why sex should be demystified and coarsened to the point where its consequences--regardless of how substantial--can be sustained. It's quite obvious nature intended for sex to be a bit more than satisfying the senses, since it results in the birth of a child of needs. When we eat our favorite ice cream and we enjoy it, we taste it, swallow it, digest it, and that's it. It's not quite the same as having a kid. Maybe it puts a few pounds on, but you can handle that. I'm not a parent, but I could maybe see how a lot of parents would be insecure about how well they raise their kids, even if the kids are the most submissive, well-behaved kids the world's ever known. There's quite a difference between handling the consequences of ice cream and sex. Yet, there are idiots running around who are so naive that convince others that sex and ice cream are in the same league--both sensual pleasures that need to be satisfied with nominal consequences. I'll be eating my ice cream more carefully from now on, thank you. More like not until I'm married.

Gay marriage. It messes with the tapestry too. It's just a radical perversion of it. Not being gay, I have a hard time knowing just what it's like to love another man romantically. I could imagine the same convictions to serve and sacrifice would be there, since they're present in nearly every relationship we have with anybody who needs it. But I'd have a hard time perceiving what it would be like to love in a relationship I knew God would not approve of and had not created me for. I'm inclined to believe that the relationship wouldn't be the same as it would if I were in line with God, because knowing of His approval would enhance the flavor of things.

So there are my answers to my own questions, along with my stances on abortion and gay marriage. They are my beliefs, and I hope you will give them as much consideration as I have yours.

I'll assume that, given your religious background, you will say only the Christian god has authority on this matter. That said, your statement's pretty interesting, given that Catholics supposedly believe that the soul enters the body upon its first breath.



Wow. Have you even *talked* to a woman who has had an abortion? Or had a miscarriage (what I like to call "God's abortions")? There is pain and regret. To deny it is absurd. The point is that the woman has the right whether or not to continue her pregnancy, not whether or not she will suffer emotionally from having an abortion.



To add to what Eversor said, painkillers do not take away the emotional pain that results from being an invalid and, therefore, a burden on society. Painkillers can't return a person's dignity. I'll ask you: present an argument why suicide, or assisted suicide, should not be allowed, that does not rely on a religious context.



Once again you're confusing embryo/fetus with children. Killing children is illegal and wrong. Abortion is not.



How about a case when the mother is going to DIE if she does not have an abortion? What if the fetus is dead in utero, or is going to die soon after birth (the only reasons "late-term" abortions are used)?



What's also interesting is that if a woman does not want to finish a pregnancy, she will do anything in her power to end it. That's one of the reasons abortion exists even in countries that have outlawed it (including this one, before Roe v. Wade).



In other words, forcing your beliefs down their throats? Nice insults regarding homosexuals and abortion providers, by the way.

Thanks for the link, CookedHaggis. I didn't realize there were states that actually outlawed suicide, but it's nice to know they don't enforce such laws.


-Fox

Actually, my other words--which you conveniently ignored--did not imply force at all. In fact, I clearly railed against it at the end of the same paragraph.





I actually wasn't speaking from my perspective, but from the perspective of a militant, anti-gay, anti-abortion, evangelical Christian who might be affiliated more or less with Pat Robertson. You took me out of context.


[This message has been edited by TheSandlot (edited April 02, 2004).]

Thanks for the clarification.


-Fox

This thread is about religion.

This thread has more arguing and flaming than any other thread at present.

Non-religous threads are peaceful and jolly.

BAN RELIGION!!!

I win.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

I'm getting divorced soon. Divorced from a girl.

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.
HTP
babble, babble, b!tch, b!tch, rebel, rebel, party, party.

that isn't true, civil unions don't give the same legal benefits as marriage. they give some legal rights, but not all of the rights of marriage

------------------
*landfish 'splodes*
7 of 14

There was a brilliant article in reuters i think it was about some Oregon country that because of all the debate just up and banned all marriages..

But my friend and i, i believe have come up with an idea. Make /all/ 'marriages' civil unions granting all the wossnames of a 'marriage'. Totally government/secular thing there. Then if they really want the religious recognition or vows or the whole sacred union in the eyes of god or whatever they may believe about it, you could go ahead and get a religious ceremony as well.. and you can call that a marriage or a harem or hand-fasting or whatever else you may care to.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Beforehand (this is ridiculously long), I'd like to say that our entire arguement seems to focus on whether or not a fetus is human or not, so I'll focus on that first.

Human/Not:
We would not even be discussing the hardship of the mother(more later) as a valid counterpoint if you recognized a fetus as human.

You obviously don't. I ask you, why do you get to decide this, when a life may be involved if you are wrong? And, Fox: The source of the "authority" I mentioned, was not refering to "God," but to principles of logic.

What allows you to say this, with no proof, and then push it as fact? What supports this idea other than appearances? What allows you to say it is reasonable to, arbitrarily, assume it is just not human? It is living, it has 46 chromosomes, so it's homo sapien. You say "an acorn is not an oak tree."
a)I'm no biologist, but I think the life processes of a plant an an animal differ enough to invalidate your little attempt at inductive reasoning.
b)Are an acorn's cells respirating before germination?

What process of reason allows you to come to the conclusion that something is not human unless it breathes?[side-note] As a side-note, no. The Catholic Church believes a human to be human from the moment of conception. Humans are believed to be co-creators with God, allowed to form the body while the souls is created at the moment of conception. Abortion was condemned from the earliest church documents w/ regard to the practice in Rome, and the reasoning thereof was explained at length. The document is called Didache, and I can quote the doctrine, and possibly the document itself, if you want.[/side-note]

In law, your individual freedom ends where others' rights begin. The mother's right to a far less complicated life(again, more later) is superceded by another being's right to live. No one can choose for you when you die, so why is it an issue here?

In conclusion to that, why is it not human? Why is your view at all reasonable?

That should cover:
"Okay, so ilegalizing abortion will protect the lives of unborn children, and the guilt of teenage mothers?," "The point is that the woman has the right whether or not to continue her pregnancy, not whether or not she will suffer emotionally from having an abortion.," and "Once again you're confusing embryo/fetus with children. Killing children is illegal and wrong. Abortion is not."

I do know a woman who has had an abortion. I know one who's had a miscarraiges(I know another, but never was directly aquainted with her).

As for "God's abortions," whether a higher power exists or not, it happens naturally, and not by the hand of a human, so guilt is not a question, making it entirely different. Heart attack vs. a knife to the chest.

The miscarraige itself was crushing enough that she, the one with whom I'm more directly aquainted, needed weeks off of work to recover emotionally, as you said is almost always the case. No one I've ever heard of has opposed the removal of a dead fetus. The procedure you describe isn't killing the fetus, it's already dead. If it will die soon after birth, what allows you to do it now? You aren't legally allowed to kill the terminally ill(more later). Allowing death is fine, so long as ordinary medical care is given, but actually causing the death is another matter entirely.

And even if it was alive, and would kill the mother, either at birth or in pregnancy, such as when the fertilized egg is attached on the fallopean tube, the procedure, ethically, is fine so long as the intention is not to kill the child.

It is called the principle of double effect. The intention of saving the mother's life is good, the procedure(whose end is not to do harm, but to save the mother's life) could be a surgury to remove the egg or fetus from the fallopean wall, and is neutral(the means simply being surgury).

The desired effect is good, the bad effect was the death of the child. The means were neutral, not intending to kill, but to save life.

It is almost like why self-defense is just. A person is a danger to you, you respond with the least force possible to achieve your end of self-preservation. The intention is not to kill the assailant, but to defend the self. If the assailant dies, he dies as an accidental bad effect of your neutral, minimal, force, whose end was self preservation.

Clarification:
You are misunderstanding, and you are not listening. I never said parenting was easy. I never said that the mother's life would ever go "back to normal." I suggested quite the opposite, that that is what many believe an abortion, as opposed to carrying to term will do: Something that will not happen either way.

8 in 10 young girls who decide to keep the child as a single parent will live below the poverty line, most for the rest of their lives, 9 in 10 will never attend or graduate college. With a child, a social life is pretty much done.

But, again, even with all this hardship, the only reason this is even a question is the idea that the fetus is not human.

The girl could give it up for adoption, despite people's pleas that the system doesn't work. There is no shortage of people willing to adopt (in the last 6 years alone, infertility has risen 500%), the problem is solely red-tape, if even that. Is it tough, taxing, difficult? I would imagine none of those words even begins to describe it, carrying some 30lbs for 9 months complete with sickness, etc., having to give it away, and if she decided to keep it, infinitely more. But for a human life that isn't worth it? There are charities available for those with no financial capabilities. I know for a fact that in NYC, it would be covered entirely by at least one organization I know of.

It may be rough, but there is this thing called personal responsibility that factors in. It sickens me that you think that any procedure could be a substitute for that, even if it didn't end a life. That may not be any comfort to those who never thought about it until it was to late, but our society still does value life over hardship.

I'm an 18 year old male. In the situation, people tell me I could/would walk away, and so my opinion is considered invalid. People tell me I have no idea what a 16 year old girl would be going through. But I never said the girl was evil, I said the institution was.

Rape pregnancies are different in that the girl had no choice in the matter but as I said, will the procedure bring any good? It is certainly infinitely more understandable why the mother might choose abortion, but a life ends. That doesn't make it right. What allows you to decide what worth a rape-child has? "The sins of the Father...?"

Tell the child of a rape his or her life is worthless.

Assisted Suicide/Euthenasia:
Don't warp it, I'm not talking about mind-numbing drugs, I'm talking about the fact that what you are seeking to justify is the direct killing of another human being. Not letting them die with ordinary but not extra-ordinary care, but actually causing their death.

They are not in a stupor, and shouldn't be. What causes that indignity? as you said "being an invalid." They are not.

It is society's wrong to make them feel that way(in part or in whole), and that should be rectified, not taking the simple route and ending their indignity by ending them.

Rather then let them continue in this disordered desire to die, the humane thing to do would be to treat them with dignity. To let them know that no one is invalid, in our principle that all life is of value: objective value, not that which any person, even one's self places in it.

By allowing suicide, assisted or not, we are affirming that there is such a thing as being "invalid;" enough that we can not recognize any value in your life, and the society does not care if you end it. A proper society can't function on a basic lack of care for the other members of society. Again, society's wrong. We can allow people to kill themselves, instead of even attempting to find room in our trillion dollar budget to provide for the basic medical care of those who can't afford it.

It sure stops their pain. But along with comes the truth that society just said that the person truly was "invalid." Fear of pain, or of being "invalid," could keep a person from wanting to live. Does this not completely remove any thought from their mind that there is any happiness to come. It allows them to assume that from then on, it is all going to be bad.

Happiness could be inordinate, but happiness is a response, fear is an aversion. Happiness comes after while fear comes before. An intense liking of something could concievably cause someone to do something they know to be bad for them. An example would be a love of speed, that can go far enough to make someone in a car forget the dangers they pose to others and themself on the road.

I think that's everything.

[edit: changed some spelling/grammatical errors]
------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

[This message has been edited by Bounty Hunter 4 hire (edited April 02, 2004).]

ok ok, I'm sure everything you just wrote was very clever and well written and well argued!!

But that must of taken you about 2 hours!!
Good GOD man get out the house for a bit!?!?!
Too much massassi'age.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

I'm pretty sure I did say "human life". Legally... sure. Heterosexuals could still get married religiously (no "legal" marriage), and aquire a separate civil union license also. So your suggestion is better than mine.

An interesting thought occured to me last night, which causes me to concur or the issue of homosexual marriage. (Maybe from God, but I don't know certainly enough to say for sure.) But the idea is this:
If God doesn't like homosexuality, why would he recognize a homosexual marriage? Most likely, he wouldn't, and thus sanctity of what God perceives as a holy marriage remains preserved. Thus, I no longer care about homosexual marriage, since it's most likely not recognized by God.

(So that's like the fourth time I've changed my mind on this issue. I'm staying with it this time.) So the conceived but unborn don't have rights? When a person makes a decision that infringies the rights of another, isn't that considered unconstitutional? Attempt: Same as any other attempted murder.
Success: They evidently got the death sentence. So this justifies murdering the unborn? Curious... what makes a fetus or embryo different from a born child? Riiiiight... that's why he's against illegalizing homosexual marriage. The point of his post was... [insert drumroll] ...choice.

Um... yes. That was my point. Aren't all attempts to stop murder considered intervening?
So you think a mother should have the right to kill her child, eh? Last I checked, you couldn't be deinied medical care based on inability to pay. Then you can cite some examples.
Or better, learn the difference between debate and simple discussion.
Sorry. What I wanted to say was that civil unions should give the same legal rights as marriage.

------------------
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
- Proverbs 27:17

Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

So it's a marriage with a different name... why not just call it a marriage?

------------------
WARNING: THIS POST MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUT!!!
----@%

To distinguish between the two?

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it

civil unions are not the same as marriage. they are similar but not the same.

------------------
*landfish 'splodes*
7 of 14

Don't put words into my mouth. I *never* said it wasn't human. As for the mother's hardship, try being one sometime.



If by "logic" you mean "religion", I suppose that counts. As for your attempt to attack my acorn analogy, I guess you also oppose emergency contraceptives which prevent the implantation of the zygote (such as Ru-486, IUDs, etc.)



Really?



Yet the developing embryo/fetus doesn't have legal status (it's still a *potential* human; refer back to my acorn comment).



Yet the person who is suffering is the one who feels that way. Society has made great inroads in making disabled and dying people feel more comfortable, but that does not change the way they feel themselves.

Why are you opposed to allowing a person to decide when they are ready to die on their own?



I'm pretty sure I said "creating new life".



I imagine there are a lot of Christians who would disagree with you, but that's for another discussion.



Yep, it doesn't have rights, because it is not yet born (again, I refer to my earlier analogy: would you call an acorn an oak tree?)



Apples and oranges. Suicide is when a person chooses to die. Murder is when someone kills another who does not wish to die.



More inflammatory language. Again, I've already said it's not murder; it's abortion.



Semantics. You'd be surprised by how a woman will refer to a developing fetus depending on whether or not she wants to have it.

Again, you can make abortion illegal, and scream until you're blue in the face about how evil the act of terminating a pregnancy is, but that will not stop a woman who is determined to end her pregnancy.


-Fox