I might have the wrong person, but was it you who said they aren't living because if taken out of the womb they wouldn't survive? If so, what about a 30 women who's hooked up to machines in a hospital, and can't survive without them? Maybe I'm being dense for asking that but I can't get it off my mind.
You mean a 30 year old woman? She would still count as her "own life" because her life could not be attributed to anyone else, unlike an unborn child who could reasonably be said to be part of her mother. Technically, if you were in a coma, a family member could choose to "abort" you even as an adult if there was no hope, so maybe there is no difference between the two.
Except people have a real hard time 'pulling the plug'. Many refuse (Terry Schaivo case, as an example). So, what's worse? An abortion or a person kept alive by artficial means?
What about a quadriplegic? Or a mentally retarded person? They can't live without help. Let's kill 'em!! I don't want to take care of them.
Your arguements don't make sense, why can't you just admit that an unborn baby is alive and it's 'wrong' or imprudent to interrupt that? You can still be OK with abortion but you don't need to make all kinds of excuses to bolster your position.
I think the divide between pros and cons is just that the silly arguements they both make. Why argue about when life starts? There's no answer to that (yet), so WHY bother? Can't you just be in favor of choice but still think it's not really right instead of having to try to justify it with 'facts' that aren't even 'facts'?
How can you be in favour of something without being able to justify it or have reasons to have opinions? It doesn't make sense to me that you could hold opinions WITHOUT bolstering them.
If you don't give reasons, THAT is when arguements STOP making sense.
I've already explained why I think an adult is different from an unborn child. I'm not explaining again.
How? Because you don't always HAVE to be 'right', it's not always a trial where you need to present evidence. Sometimes, yes, but not always. Sometimes you can just FEEL that something is wrong or right, not for you, not your 'bag', or something you like.... or whatever. There's not always a factual answer or any evidence, and to try to make 'evidence' out of things that can't even be proven in the least is stupid. STUPID. Why bother? All it does is end all productive discussion and make both parties angry, and no one gets anywhere, and the opposing side usually gets even more mad than before which only makes things WORSE for your side.
Take God....there's no tangible proof of or against. But people are religious....MANY, MANY peipole are. Does that get through to you? And imagine how it angers religious people when you spout off that 'there's no proof of God'....So, why bother? Why divide? Why make an arguement when being more peaceful and cooperative about it would benefit everyone instead of inciting anger?
I could not disagree more with your entire first paragraph. Firstly, just having a gut feeling is not grounds to believe anything. It goes against critical thinking. I don't think you can make a worthwhile arguement unless you can apply evidence to it, otherwise you are simply giving uninformed opinion. Uniformed opinion is worthless.
Secondly, basing an arguement on uninformed opinion is what is stupid, and counter-productive to discussion. How can a discussion be productive if neither side can submit evidence? They would simply be spouting rhetoric, and that isn't productive at all. To say that bringing order and evidence to such proceedings in fact makes a discussion LESS PRODUCTIVE is frankly ridiculous.
Then there's the second paragraph... I try not to get involved in religious discussion any more because it has few, if any, real world implications. I DO get involved in discussions about morality because I believe inciting anger is a fair sacrifice if that is what it takes to getting to an answer which could have some real world benefit. THAT is why I bother.
I believe it is wrong to make friends at the expense of finding truth.
But what about when there's no evidence? Are you saying it's pointless to question the possibilities without evidence?
Also, I don't understand the difference between a baby not being able to survive on it's own and a 30 year old women:S I don't think the fact that the baby is dependant on a human as opposed to machines is a distinction worth making...am I missing something?
Also, is the baby still not alive? Even if it's life isn't as complex as a fully grown baby, it still lives! So why isn't a murder?
And why do you think women have such a hard time aborting their baby?
:)
You're not even gettting the point. The point is, sometimes there is NO evidnce. Like with abortion or God. There's NO evidence or conclusion as to when life begins, so why bother trying to use it as an arguement? That only flys when you're preaching to the choir. You have to understand how your 'enemy' thinks and get at them in a productive way.
There was no 'religious discussion' going on, it was a fucking example. Get it? Many people believe in God, and many don't. There's no proof for either. So why try to argue with made up 'facts'.....or by insulting people by calling them stupid for believing in 'some crazy book'. You have a lot to learn.
You're assuming I'm applying this to everyting, and I'm not. Of course, much of the time there IS proof, and it should be used to educate, persuade, etc. But times when there isn't, and especially when it's a sensitive subject, why try to be 'right' when there is no FUCKING right answer?? And by trying to be 'right' just pises off the very people you need to convince.
Do You Think Abortion Is ok?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I might have the wrong person, but was it you who said they aren't living because if taken out of the womb they wouldn't survive? If so, what about a 30 women who's hooked up to machines in a hospital, and can't survive without them? Maybe I'm being dense for asking that but I can't get it off my mind.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, it was me who said that.
You mean a 30 year old woman? She would still count as her "own life" because her life could not be attributed to anyone else, unlike an unborn child who could reasonably be said to be part of her mother. Technically, if you were in a coma, a family member could choose to "abort" you even as an adult if there was no hope, so maybe there is no difference between the two.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Except people have a real hard time 'pulling the plug'. Many refuse (Terry Schaivo case, as an example). So, what's worse? An abortion or a person kept alive by artficial means?
What about a quadriplegic? Or a mentally retarded person? They can't live without help. Let's kill 'em!! I don't want to take care of them.
Your arguements don't make sense, why can't you just admit that an unborn baby is alive and it's 'wrong' or imprudent to interrupt that? You can still be OK with abortion but you don't need to make all kinds of excuses to bolster your position.
I think the divide between pros and cons is just that the silly arguements they both make. Why argue about when life starts? There's no answer to that (yet), so WHY bother? Can't you just be in favor of choice but still think it's not really right instead of having to try to justify it with 'facts' that aren't even 'facts'?
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How can you be in favour of something without being able to justify it or have reasons to have opinions? It doesn't make sense to me that you could hold opinions WITHOUT bolstering them.
If you don't give reasons, THAT is when arguements STOP making sense.
I've already explained why I think an adult is different from an unborn child. I'm not explaining again.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How? Because you don't always HAVE to be 'right', it's not always a trial where you need to present evidence. Sometimes, yes, but not always. Sometimes you can just FEEL that something is wrong or right, not for you, not your 'bag', or something you like.... or whatever. There's not always a factual answer or any evidence, and to try to make 'evidence' out of things that can't even be proven in the least is stupid. STUPID. Why bother? All it does is end all productive discussion and make both parties angry, and no one gets anywhere, and the opposing side usually gets even more mad than before which only makes things WORSE for your side.
Take God....there's no tangible proof of or against. But people are religious....MANY, MANY peipole are. Does that get through to you? And imagine how it angers religious people when you spout off that 'there's no proof of God'....So, why bother? Why divide? Why make an arguement when being more peaceful and cooperative about it would benefit everyone instead of inciting anger?
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I could not disagree more with your entire first paragraph. Firstly, just having a gut feeling is not grounds to believe anything. It goes against critical thinking. I don't think you can make a worthwhile arguement unless you can apply evidence to it, otherwise you are simply giving uninformed opinion. Uniformed opinion is worthless.
Secondly, basing an arguement on uninformed opinion is what is stupid, and counter-productive to discussion. How can a discussion be productive if neither side can submit evidence? They would simply be spouting rhetoric, and that isn't productive at all. To say that bringing order and evidence to such proceedings in fact makes a discussion LESS PRODUCTIVE is frankly ridiculous.
Then there's the second paragraph... I try not to get involved in religious discussion any more because it has few, if any, real world implications. I DO get involved in discussions about morality because I believe inciting anger is a fair sacrifice if that is what it takes to getting to an answer which could have some real world benefit. THAT is why I bother.
I believe it is wrong to make friends at the expense of finding truth.
--
bananaface
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
See More Comments =>
But what about when there's no evidence? Are you saying it's pointless to question the possibilities without evidence?
Also, I don't understand the difference between a baby not being able to survive on it's own and a 30 year old women:S I don't think the fact that the baby is dependant on a human as opposed to machines is a distinction worth making...am I missing something?
Also, is the baby still not alive? Even if it's life isn't as complex as a fully grown baby, it still lives! So why isn't a murder?
And why do you think women have such a hard time aborting their baby?
:)
And that's why you're an immature idiot, and don't get it. Nuff said.
You're not even gettting the point. The point is, sometimes there is NO evidnce. Like with abortion or God. There's NO evidence or conclusion as to when life begins, so why bother trying to use it as an arguement? That only flys when you're preaching to the choir. You have to understand how your 'enemy' thinks and get at them in a productive way.
There was no 'religious discussion' going on, it was a fucking example. Get it? Many people believe in God, and many don't. There's no proof for either. So why try to argue with made up 'facts'.....or by insulting people by calling them stupid for believing in 'some crazy book'. You have a lot to learn.
You're assuming I'm applying this to everyting, and I'm not. Of course, much of the time there IS proof, and it should be used to educate, persuade, etc. But times when there isn't, and especially when it's a sensitive subject, why try to be 'right' when there is no FUCKING right answer?? And by trying to be 'right' just pises off the very people you need to convince.