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?
:)
Why question possibilities without evidence? Without evidence we cannot reach an answer with any meaning, so why debate issues with no evidence.
I don't think there is a difference, that is my point. I don't think the distinction is worth making. That is why I also don't think switching off a life support machine is murder. That is why the law is consistent between the two.
I don't believe an unborn child BEFORE the time it could survive outside the mother's body is a life, because it couldn't survive if it was born.
Women who abort often feeling depressed about it has nothing to do with it being murder or not. Maybe they believe it is murder, and they believe they have done something wrong, I don't know. But just because they might believe it is murder doesn't mean I do. If I believed abortion was murder, I'd be against it.
How the fuck do you know that 'often' women who abort don't feel as if it's murder? How many abortions have you had, or provided? How many women have you counseled pre- or post-abortion?
Have you ever even viewed pre-abortion paperwork and questionaires? Didn't think so.
Have you hung out in abortion clinic waiting rooms, and talked to anyone there? Didn't think so.
Why are you so thick that you can't feel that it's 'wrong' to at least some extent.....yet not prohibit others from making the choice? Your attitude about it sucks and it's so uninformed. I guarantee you if you were ever in the spot where your girlfriend wanted to abort your baby (if you ever manage to land one), that you'd be so carefree about it.
Unless you're some kind of serious psychopath, basically everyone thinks it's wrong, yet can still accept that it's a choice. You may not think so untill you're there in that spot, but trust me, when you ARE, you think differently about it, you feel 'wrong' about it. Or unsure, at the very least.
So actually, I'm not uninformed. I know exactly how many women have regrets about abortion. Once again, for the umpteenth time, you underestimate me. Maybe it is time you raise your expectations a little.
Hanging out in a waiting room would give me no idea as to the facts, neither would reading an uncompleted questionnaire. What would is looking up some stats, which I have done, and even provided the source for.
So now I'm "thick" for not having the same opinion as you? Ouch, who's looking uninformed now? It doesn't make me at all uneasy because, as I've previously explained to you, I can rationalise my emotions and keep them in check. I see no benefit in letting them run away with me and potentially cloud me from making an informed decision.
If you insist on making personal digs, I'll just ignore you in future. But, as my personal life seems to interest you so much, I very very nearly have a girlfriend right now. I'm not going to divulge the details to you, but if you insist on making underhand, personal comments about me, it might be a good idea to check if you are even right first. Not that it would make a shred of difference either way.
Maybe I will, if I ever am in that scenario, feel uneasy. But if I do, I will rationalise it, and then I won't feel uneasy anymore. I've done it countless times.
It's nice to look at statistics to rationalise your thoughts, but surely you understand how many problems there are with statistics?
Also, do you genuinely believe that looking at statistics is the best way to look at abortion, I find it to be quite insensitive:/ There's so much statistics can't do, and if you think they are the only way to look at something like this, but I'm sorry but I agree with Wigsplitz:/
You are, for once, right. I don't get it. I don't get it because you refuse to explain in any way involving either fact or interpretation of fact. You seem to think that unevidenced opinion is as valuable as the logical interpretation of evidenced fact, which I cannot agree with.
I also don't get why you think calling me an "immature idiot" without an explanation would lead any reasonable person to think that it is anyone other than you who is the "immature idiot" in this discussion.
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.
I know there was no religious discussion going on, and I wasn't trying to instigate one or take part in one. But if you mention a "fucking example", I'm allowed to comment on it, criticise it and extrapolate aren't I? In order to support my point? So I did.
But there IS evidence. You just have to interpret it with logic. All research requires interpretation to apply it to the real world. We have to try and make the most logical interpretations possible. I never insulted anyone for believing in "some crazy book". If I ever did, it was a long time ago, when maybe I was less mature. Everyone was once less mature.
If you accept that there is evidence (which I do), it just needs interpretation, then there IS a right answer, or at least a "more correct" answer, because nothing is ever "proven right" in science.
I don't care if it pisses them off. I care about what I believe to be the most correct answer being heard, even if it isn't listened to. Sensitivity of the issue doesn't phase me; I don't think it is important. If people are too scared to listen to an alternative viewpoint, then they risk losing out.
I have to disagree that there's any evidence or concensus on when life begins. If anything, to me, it seems more logical that it begins at conception for the reasons I stated.
It does matter how you approach certain subjects, it's not that people won't listen because you've pissed them off, it's because you have to know how to get inside their head. It's psychology, you can make anyone do anything if you approach it right. And even make them think it was their idea to begin with if you're real good.
In as British a voice as possible, that is a jolly interesting way of looking at it, even if I don't necessarily agree.
I don't think there is consensus at all, but in the scientific and law-making communities it is generally thought of to be by my definition... you are free do disagree so long as you are also logical about it (which you are).
I don't want to sacrifice my right to an opinion to try to get more people to understand a watered-down version. That is my only qualm with the last paragraph. I think it is more important to be right, at least in my opinion right, than it is to be inside someone's head.
I hardly think the law has reached a consensus, it's brought up frequently, and the laws differ from state to state in the US. I don't thnk there will ever be a consensus on when life actually begins.
Well you HAVE to be inside their head, if it comes to a legal issue. If abortion was to come up to be made illegal, you can't piss people off...you have to use real reasons. Life beginning ids not a real reason, and it's a bone of contention, a major one....so why not focus on the more real things such as being somewhat sympathetic at least, and lobbying for safe medical procedure instead of back-alley butcherings. There's absolute proof in those things....and the added sympathy or admitted 'uneasyness' about ending a pregnancy will get you a lot further.
Think of it the opposite way.....I don't know if you've ever been to NYC but if you have you'd have seen the extremists out there protesting abortion, showing very disturbing photos of more extreme late-term abortions...using scare tactics, and otherwise trumped up reasoning....all it does is preach to the choir and turn off any possible person they may sway by using more reasonable means.
OK, well, then....let me give you MY opinion on when life begins. At conception. Why? It's the most logical to me. Once the sperm and egg join, YOU are created. Everything about you is there.
If conception was random and you became a distinct individual at a later time in the womb, then my opinion would be different. But since YOU are YOU, and everyting about you is determined at conception, I believe the only logical answer is that your life began then. If not then, then when? When did you become 'more' you? Never. Your DNA never changed, your eye color, and skin color and every other damn genetic thing about you was determined at conception.
It's completely illogical to me to think that just because a fetus can't survive outside the womb that it isn't 'alive' or doesn't count. How is that logical? If left alone, it would be fine and grow into a being that would live outside the womb. Disturbing that growth is 'wrong'. Not wrong in teh sense that you shouldn't be able to make that choice, but wrong in the sense that you're purposely terminating a living thing that would've thrived if left alone.
Thank you for being logical and explaining your point of view in a logical way.
The reason why I disagree, why I believe life starts when it does, is that I make a distinction between potential for life and life itself. I would argue that until the baby could survive outside the womb, it merely has POTENTIAL for life. I do not see it as in any way "wrong" to interrupt that process.
I argue that I am not me, but the merely the POTENTIAL to become me, until I can survive outside the womb.
This is something that I found interesting about your arguement though. Consider:
- If you believe that abortion is ending human life, then you believe it is murder.
- If abortion is murder, surely the "right to abortion" is no different to the "right to murder"?
- How can you protect the right of a woman to choose to murder her baby without protecting the right of any other murderer to kill his victims? If an unborn baby is a "life", how can you justify its murder without justifying all other murder in addition to abortion?
Additionally:
- If you believe it is murder, and you have had 3 abortions, surely you believe that you are no different from any other multiple murderer? Ought you not be in jail for three counts of murder?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or aggressive, I just genuinely don't understand how you believe abortion is murder yet you can still support it. Would you mind explaining for me how this is so, because a lot of people seem to be saying just that, but it doesn't make sense to my mind.
Yes, I think it's a form of murder....not necessarily the same as killing a person. I think this because I don't believe there is any pain involved to the fetus, and I don't believe it is aware of anything, it's own life or pain, or anything. It's the interruption that I take most issue with.
Anyway, all that aside, I support abortion completely because it should be a choice, and a choice that can be performed safely in a clean medical facility. If I think it's wrong (which I do and don't....) doesn't mean I think I have the right to choose for others whether they can do it or not. I don't feel the need, as you do, to try to prove that it's OK in order for me to support it. I don't have to do heroin to want drugs legalized!!
And to be perfectly honest with you, I don't have too much of a problem with murder, as long as it involves people who deserve it for whatever reason.
Do You Think Abortion Is ok?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
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?
:)
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Why question possibilities without evidence? Without evidence we cannot reach an answer with any meaning, so why debate issues with no evidence.
I don't think there is a difference, that is my point. I don't think the distinction is worth making. That is why I also don't think switching off a life support machine is murder. That is why the law is consistent between the two.
I don't believe an unborn child BEFORE the time it could survive outside the mother's body is a life, because it couldn't survive if it was born.
Women who abort often feeling depressed about it has nothing to do with it being murder or not. Maybe they believe it is murder, and they believe they have done something wrong, I don't know. But just because they might believe it is murder doesn't mean I do. If I believed abortion was murder, I'd be against it.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
How the fuck do you know that 'often' women who abort don't feel as if it's murder? How many abortions have you had, or provided? How many women have you counseled pre- or post-abortion?
Have you ever even viewed pre-abortion paperwork and questionaires? Didn't think so.
Have you hung out in abortion clinic waiting rooms, and talked to anyone there? Didn't think so.
Why are you so thick that you can't feel that it's 'wrong' to at least some extent.....yet not prohibit others from making the choice? Your attitude about it sucks and it's so uninformed. I guarantee you if you were ever in the spot where your girlfriend wanted to abort your baby (if you ever manage to land one), that you'd be so carefree about it.
Unless you're some kind of serious psychopath, basically everyone thinks it's wrong, yet can still accept that it's a choice. You may not think so untill you're there in that spot, but trust me, when you ARE, you think differently about it, you feel 'wrong' about it. Or unsure, at the very least.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Believe it or not, I'm not so stupid as to make a point without looking it up. You see, I value facts. Read on:
'50 percent expressed negative feelings, and up to 10 percent were classified as having developed "serious psychiatric complications"'
Source: <a href="http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-complications/" rel="nofollow">http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-complica...</a>
So actually, I'm not uninformed. I know exactly how many women have regrets about abortion. Once again, for the umpteenth time, you underestimate me. Maybe it is time you raise your expectations a little.
Hanging out in a waiting room would give me no idea as to the facts, neither would reading an uncompleted questionnaire. What would is looking up some stats, which I have done, and even provided the source for.
So now I'm "thick" for not having the same opinion as you? Ouch, who's looking uninformed now? It doesn't make me at all uneasy because, as I've previously explained to you, I can rationalise my emotions and keep them in check. I see no benefit in letting them run away with me and potentially cloud me from making an informed decision.
If you insist on making personal digs, I'll just ignore you in future. But, as my personal life seems to interest you so much, I very very nearly have a girlfriend right now. I'm not going to divulge the details to you, but if you insist on making underhand, personal comments about me, it might be a good idea to check if you are even right first. Not that it would make a shred of difference either way.
Maybe I will, if I ever am in that scenario, feel uneasy. But if I do, I will rationalise it, and then I won't feel uneasy anymore. I've done it countless times.
--
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
It's nice to look at statistics to rationalise your thoughts, but surely you understand how many problems there are with statistics?
Also, do you genuinely believe that looking at statistics is the best way to look at abortion, I find it to be quite insensitive:/ There's so much statistics can't do, and if you think they are the only way to look at something like this, but I'm sorry but I agree with Wigsplitz:/
Sorry, but you ARE uninformed. I never said that women were permanantly mentally damaged, or anything like that.
And I don't care about your personal life, and apparently I WAS right, because you don't have a girlfriend. So....?
And that's why you're an immature idiot, and don't get it. Nuff said.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You are, for once, right. I don't get it. I don't get it because you refuse to explain in any way involving either fact or interpretation of fact. You seem to think that unevidenced opinion is as valuable as the logical interpretation of evidenced fact, which I cannot agree with.
I also don't get why you think calling me an "immature idiot" without an explanation would lead any reasonable person to think that it is anyone other than you who is the "immature idiot" in this discussion.
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.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I know there was no religious discussion going on, and I wasn't trying to instigate one or take part in one. But if you mention a "fucking example", I'm allowed to comment on it, criticise it and extrapolate aren't I? In order to support my point? So I did.
But there IS evidence. You just have to interpret it with logic. All research requires interpretation to apply it to the real world. We have to try and make the most logical interpretations possible. I never insulted anyone for believing in "some crazy book". If I ever did, it was a long time ago, when maybe I was less mature. Everyone was once less mature.
If you accept that there is evidence (which I do), it just needs interpretation, then there IS a right answer, or at least a "more correct" answer, because nothing is ever "proven right" in science.
I don't care if it pisses them off. I care about what I believe to be the most correct answer being heard, even if it isn't listened to. Sensitivity of the issue doesn't phase me; I don't think it is important. If people are too scared to listen to an alternative viewpoint, then they risk losing out.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I have to disagree that there's any evidence or concensus on when life begins. If anything, to me, it seems more logical that it begins at conception for the reasons I stated.
It does matter how you approach certain subjects, it's not that people won't listen because you've pissed them off, it's because you have to know how to get inside their head. It's psychology, you can make anyone do anything if you approach it right. And even make them think it was their idea to begin with if you're real good.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
In as British a voice as possible, that is a jolly interesting way of looking at it, even if I don't necessarily agree.
I don't think there is consensus at all, but in the scientific and law-making communities it is generally thought of to be by my definition... you are free do disagree so long as you are also logical about it (which you are).
I don't want to sacrifice my right to an opinion to try to get more people to understand a watered-down version. That is my only qualm with the last paragraph. I think it is more important to be right, at least in my opinion right, than it is to be inside someone's head.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I hardly think the law has reached a consensus, it's brought up frequently, and the laws differ from state to state in the US. I don't thnk there will ever be a consensus on when life actually begins.
Well you HAVE to be inside their head, if it comes to a legal issue. If abortion was to come up to be made illegal, you can't piss people off...you have to use real reasons. Life beginning ids not a real reason, and it's a bone of contention, a major one....so why not focus on the more real things such as being somewhat sympathetic at least, and lobbying for safe medical procedure instead of back-alley butcherings. There's absolute proof in those things....and the added sympathy or admitted 'uneasyness' about ending a pregnancy will get you a lot further.
Think of it the opposite way.....I don't know if you've ever been to NYC but if you have you'd have seen the extremists out there protesting abortion, showing very disturbing photos of more extreme late-term abortions...using scare tactics, and otherwise trumped up reasoning....all it does is preach to the choir and turn off any possible person they may sway by using more reasonable means.
OK, well, then....let me give you MY opinion on when life begins. At conception. Why? It's the most logical to me. Once the sperm and egg join, YOU are created. Everything about you is there.
If conception was random and you became a distinct individual at a later time in the womb, then my opinion would be different. But since YOU are YOU, and everyting about you is determined at conception, I believe the only logical answer is that your life began then. If not then, then when? When did you become 'more' you? Never. Your DNA never changed, your eye color, and skin color and every other damn genetic thing about you was determined at conception.
It's completely illogical to me to think that just because a fetus can't survive outside the womb that it isn't 'alive' or doesn't count. How is that logical? If left alone, it would be fine and grow into a being that would live outside the womb. Disturbing that growth is 'wrong'. Not wrong in teh sense that you shouldn't be able to make that choice, but wrong in the sense that you're purposely terminating a living thing that would've thrived if left alone.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thank you for being logical and explaining your point of view in a logical way.
The reason why I disagree, why I believe life starts when it does, is that I make a distinction between potential for life and life itself. I would argue that until the baby could survive outside the womb, it merely has POTENTIAL for life. I do not see it as in any way "wrong" to interrupt that process.
I argue that I am not me, but the merely the POTENTIAL to become me, until I can survive outside the womb.
This is something that I found interesting about your arguement though. Consider:
- If you believe that abortion is ending human life, then you believe it is murder.
- If abortion is murder, surely the "right to abortion" is no different to the "right to murder"?
- How can you protect the right of a woman to choose to murder her baby without protecting the right of any other murderer to kill his victims? If an unborn baby is a "life", how can you justify its murder without justifying all other murder in addition to abortion?
Additionally:
- If you believe it is murder, and you have had 3 abortions, surely you believe that you are no different from any other multiple murderer? Ought you not be in jail for three counts of murder?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or aggressive, I just genuinely don't understand how you believe abortion is murder yet you can still support it. Would you mind explaining for me how this is so, because a lot of people seem to be saying just that, but it doesn't make sense to my mind.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, I think it's a form of murder....not necessarily the same as killing a person. I think this because I don't believe there is any pain involved to the fetus, and I don't believe it is aware of anything, it's own life or pain, or anything. It's the interruption that I take most issue with.
Anyway, all that aside, I support abortion completely because it should be a choice, and a choice that can be performed safely in a clean medical facility. If I think it's wrong (which I do and don't....) doesn't mean I think I have the right to choose for others whether they can do it or not. I don't feel the need, as you do, to try to prove that it's OK in order for me to support it. I don't have to do heroin to want drugs legalized!!
And to be perfectly honest with you, I don't have too much of a problem with murder, as long as it involves people who deserve it for whatever reason.