jegs2 wrote:I dont' support abortion unless the mom's life is at risk. My wife and I have been trying to adopt for about six months but are constantly running into roadblocks. I'd not be adverse to adopting the child of a woman who was seriously considering abortion -- including paying her for hospital visits not covered by her insurance and other costs that might be incurred...
I think that's wonderful; my objection is to Moriarty's position that a woman must be forced to undergo this (my wife bore two children; I've seen how difficult it can be). Moriarty's bullshit aside, it is traumatic. It is a life-changing experience, and the only justification for forcing it upon someone against their will is if the baby is already thinking, feeling, etc.
PS. I suppose I shouldn't pry, but I assume that means you can't have kids naturally. A lot of people I know adopted little girls from China, where unwanted baby girls are discarded, abused, or left to rot in state facilities. There was also some asshole who left a baby girl naked in a stairwell in downtown Toronto (in -20 degree C weather). The baby was found and saved, and the city was immediately swamped by adoption offers
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:position that a woman must be forced to undergo this (my wife bore two children; I've seen how difficult it can be). Moriarty's bullshit aside, it is traumatic. It is a life-changing experience, and the only justification for forcing it upon someone against their will is if the baby is already thinking, feeling, etc.
Was she forced to have sex? What is wrong with people being forced to live with their actions?
BTW, DocMoriarty, you decided not to defend the first 3 assumptions by stating that they are basically self-evident. You decided to defend the 4th assumption by simply restating it in different terms ("taking a life" instead of "murder"), rather than addressing the question of when a human life is regarded to begin.
In other words, you refuse to defend any of your assumptions. Concession accepted, dumb-fuck.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:BTW, DocMoriarty, you decided not to defend the first 3 assumptions by stating that they are basically self-evident. You decided to defend the 4th assumption by simply restating it in different terms ("taking a life" instead of "murder"), rather than addressing the question of when a human life is regarded to begin.
In other words, you refuse to defend any of your assumptions. Concession accepted, dumb-fuck.
Yep, again with the insults and the assumptions. At least you are consistent Mr Wong.
1-3 are irrelevent purely because pregnancy is caused by a CHOICE made by the woman. End of statement as simple as that.
4 merely follows along the same logical path. You chose the path then you should owe up to it.
Don't worry though, the laws currently say in the end we are not responsible for our own actions. Obviously the average person is not moral enough to be given that responsibility.
Why don't you stop with the insults and answer my question
What is wrong with people being forced to live with their actions?
Last edited by DocMoriartty on 2003-01-30 01:53pm, edited 1 time in total.
Do you know why they refer to some pregnancies as "accidental"? Life isn't perfect, and neither are contraception methods. No one who doesn't want to have a baby CHOOSES to have a baby.
As for the insults, you deserve them. You refuse to defend your assumptions, asshole. And your arguments are 100% rhetoric, 0% substance.
Last edited by Darth Wong on 2003-01-30 01:53pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Just because a woman gets pregnant when she didnt want to do not make it an accident. She still made the concious choice to have sex. End of story. People can dress it up all they want with stuff like "accidental pregnancy" but accidents happen because the events are beyond someones control. You cannot call it an accident when that someone had complete control over having sex.
Darth Wong wrote:Do you know why they refer to some pregnancies as "accidental"? Life isn't perfect, and neither are contraception methods. No one who doesn't want to have a baby CHOOSES to have a baby.
As for the insults, you deserve them. You refuse to defend your assumptions, asshole. And your arguments are 100% rhetoric, 0% substance.
DocMoriartty wrote:I think to a large degree what drives most men nuts is the double standard.
Fine. Grow a womb and carry your own fucking baby, asshole. Until then, this is an unequal situation thanks to the dictates of Mother Nature, and you do not DESERVE equal standing.
Bullshit.
I see nothing wrong with outlawing abortion and requiring a woman to carry a baby to term if the father has stated in a court of law that he will raise the child with no obligation on the mother.
But I guess MURDER for convenience sake is more enlightened isnt it Mr Wong.
For a significant part of a mother's pregnancy, the baby can not even feel or think, I hardly see how terminating an unfeeling, unthinking organism is immoral. Do you think contraception is immoral because it is killing the sperm cell that could have fertilized the female's egg? Even if a couple doesn't use contraception and a mother gets pregnant, there are still millions upon millions of sperm cells that are wasted and die shortly after.
Notice how he turned "imperfect contraception" into "choosing to have sex". Does he actually think these ridiculously transparent strawman distortions won't be obvious to even the most casual viewer?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
DocMoriartty wrote:Just because a woman gets pregnant when she didnt want to do not make it an accident. She still made the concious choice to have sex. End of story. People can dress it up all they want with stuff like "accidental pregnancy" but accidents happen because the events are beyond someones control. You cannot call it an accident when that someone had complete control over having sex.
Using Doc's logic, just because a women gets into a car wreck when she didn't want to does not make it an accident. She still made the conscious choice to drive. End of story. People can dress it up all they want with stuff like "accidental collision" but accidents happen because the events are beyond someones control. You cannot call it an accident when that someone had complete control over wether or not to drive.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
DocMoriartty wrote:So people accidentally have sex?
That is a new one on me.
Just because a woman gets pregnant when she didnt want to do not make it an accident. She still made the concious choice to have sex. End of story. People can dress it up all they want with stuff like "accidental pregnancy" but accidents happen because the events are beyond someones control. You cannot call it an accident when that someone had complete control over having sex.
Darth Wong wrote:Do you know why they refer to some pregnancies as "accidental"? Life isn't perfect, and neither are contraception methods. No one who doesn't want to have a baby CHOOSES to have a baby.
As for the insults, you deserve them. You refuse to defend your assumptions, asshole. And your arguments are 100% rhetoric, 0% substance.
Even the best contraception can fail, the condom has around 90% effectiveness, that's still 10% that can make or break a relationship and possibly destroy a girl's life.
observer_20000 wrote:
For a significant part of a mother's pregnancy, the baby can not even feel or think, I hardly see how terminating an unfeeling, unthinking organism is immoral. Do you think contraception is immoral because it is killing the sperm cell that could have fertilized the female's egg? Even if a couple doesn't use contraception and a mother gets pregnant, there are still millions upon millions of sperm cells that are wasted and die shortly after.
Maybe you will answer the question then. Should people who are in life-long comas be terminated? How about those rendered brain-dead in accidents termed "vegetables" as it were (I am not a doctor so common terms is the best you will get from me.)
Where do you stop then? What level of intelligence or self awareness is required to be considered alive?
What is your earliest memory of anything? You were probably several years old at least. Should you be considered alive during that time even though you were not self-aware enough to be able to remember any of it?
DocMoriartty wrote:So people accidentally have sex?
That is a new one on me.
Just because a woman gets pregnant when she didnt want to do not make it an accident. She still made the concious choice to have sex. End of story. People can dress it up all they want with stuff like "accidental pregnancy" but accidents happen because the events are beyond someones control. You cannot call it an accident when that someone had complete control over having sex.
Darth Wong wrote:Do you know why they refer to some pregnancies as "accidental"? Life isn't perfect, and neither are contraception methods. No one who doesn't want to have a baby CHOOSES to have a baby.
As for the insults, you deserve them. You refuse to defend your assumptions, asshole. And your arguments are 100% rhetoric, 0% substance.
Even the best contraception can fail, the condom has around 90% effectiveness, that's still 10% that can make or break a relationship and possibly destroy a girl's life.
If it is make or break then sex shouldnt be on the persons menu now should it?
DocMoriartty wrote:Maybe you will answer the question then. Should people who are in life-long comas be terminated?
People in a coma do have brain activity. And just what is your definition of a "life-long coma"? I've never heard of them before.
How about those rendered brain-dead in accidents termed "vegetables" as it were (I am not a doctor so common terms is the best you will get from me.)
Braindead people are already dead.
Where do you stop then? What level of intelligence or self awareness is required to be considered alive?
What is your earliest memory of anything? You were probably several years old at least. Should you be considered alive during that time even though you were not self-aware enough to be able to remember any of it?
Ever heard of the slipery slope fallacy, you fuckwit?
I'm thinking that Doc has earned himself the VI "custom" title.
DocMoriartty wrote:So people accidentally have sex?
That is a new one on me.
Just because a woman gets pregnant when she didnt want to do not make it an accident. She still made the concious choice to have sex. End of story. People can dress it up all they want with stuff like "accidental pregnancy" but accidents happen because the events are beyond someones control. You cannot call it an accident when that someone had complete control over having sex.
Even the best contraception can fail, the condom has around 90% effectiveness, that's still 10% that can make or break a relationship and possibly destroy a girl's life.
If it is make or break then sex shouldnt be on the persons menu now should it?
Why should they have to give up something like that which is a natural occurance? Besides, it is love as well as sex, sex may just be about procreation to Nature, but to a couple it is a showing of affection.
observer_20000 wrote:
For a significant part of a mother's pregnancy, the baby can not even feel or think, I hardly see how terminating an unfeeling, unthinking organism is immoral. Do you think contraception is immoral because it is killing the sperm cell that could have fertilized the female's egg? Even if a couple doesn't use contraception and a mother gets pregnant, there are still millions upon millions of sperm cells that are wasted and die shortly after.
Maybe you will answer the question then. Should people who are in life-long comas be terminated? How about those rendered brain-dead in accidents termed "vegetables" as it were (I am not a doctor so common terms is the best you will get from me.)
They can still feel pain, and in some cases still think.
Where do you stop then? What level of intelligence or self awareness is required to be considered alive?
When the ability to feel pain is developed. A clump of cells in a womb can not experience pain. In the later stages of pregnancy, the fetus can experience pain, but I never said I supported abortion that late. Notice how I clearly said "an unfeeling, unthinking organism". In the later stages of pregnancy, the fetus can at least experience pain.
What is your earliest memory of anything? You were probably several years old at least. Should you be considered alive during that time even though you were not self-aware enough to be able to remember any of it?
I don't care about the titles, I want some decent arguments for his side to show unless this is simply a bot that has been programmed to give out certain exclamations against abortion.
