We need a new topical topic...Owzabowt abortion.

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  We need a new topical topic...Owzabowt abortion.

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   We need a new topical topic...Owzabowt abortion.

Provost Harrison posted 06-16-99 03:34 PM ET
I'm in favour. An unproliferated bunch of cells, or a very early foetus cannot be considered any more sentient than a snail, and probably less so. It would have a similar mental capacity.
So now I have cast the first stone, follow up on it!
4Horses posted 06-16-99 03:38 PM ET
freedom of choice
Hugo Rune posted 06-16-99 03:45 PM ET
been there, done that.
Trappist posted 06-16-99 03:49 PM ET
Really? Where did you insert the coathanger?
Pro-choice. When people lose control over their fertility they lose control over their life.
Natural angle. When a pregnant dog experiences sudden famine, the unborn foetuses can be reabsorbed into the mother's body. I think Mother Nature may be trying to tell us something there.
Rex Little posted 06-16-99 03:56 PM ET
If this topic doesn't draw much controversy here, you might want to take it over to Apolyton. A lot of Bible-thumpers seem to hang out there.
DanS posted 06-16-99 04:03 PM ET
For the record, I am pro-life. But this topic has been discussed too much. Burn out.
walruskkkch posted 06-16-99 04:08 PM ET
I believe in post-natal abortions for people who really, really, really deserve it, like communists.
Q Cubed posted 06-16-99 04:14 PM ET
Pro-choice until the last trimester - then it's just cruel.
Valtyr posted 06-16-99 04:19 PM ET
walruskkkch: You are beginning to bore me. Do you have to bring communists up in every post?
walruskkkch posted 06-16-99 04:23 PM ET
Always like to zing something to get some reply, but you are right I shall from now on be more diverse in those who I wish to tweek.
"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' till you can find a rock."
Wynn Catlin
Thue posted 06-16-99 05:25 PM ET

quote:
a very early foetus cannot be considered any more sentient than a snail
If a newborn baby then has the same level of sentience as, say, a dog is it then ok to kill it too?
Just asking...
Eccles posted 06-16-99 05:31 PM ET
I thing women should have handles (like toilets) then whenever their pregnant... flush!
Provost Harrison posted 06-16-99 05:42 PM ET
It's all a thing of definition where you draw the line. But these lines have to be drawn, lets be honest, you would kill a fly but not a dog or human. Morals are not fixed by rigid constraints, they are a little more flexible than that. And speaking of pro-life, what about the life of the poor mother. Should she be deprived of her life for the unborn, which would be unwanted. Is it fair on anyone? And what about those who don't want to bring a defective child into the world, for their and the childs own good? Who does it serve by banning abortion?
Walruskkkkkch, or however many 'k's that is, just grow up, OK? And I insist you give me a definition of what YOU think communism is about. You seem to be very sure that us commies must eat babies and torture rabbits or something!
DanS posted 06-16-99 05:51 PM ET
"Morals are not fixed by rigid constraints, they are a little more flexible than that."
Quite so. But there are other interests involved here that the state is obligated to protect. Again, I'll concede it's a little gray in there.
"And speaking of pro-life, what about the life of the poor mother. Should she be deprived of her life for the unborn, which would be unwanted."
This is a red herring. She chose doing it, so why should she be exempted from the consequences? Further, having a child is far from being deprived of life, liberty, or even the pursuit of happiness defined in a very broad sense. Why is having children such a bad thing?
Do we really have to argue this? I don't want to. I almost feel compelled to post to counter oposing arguments, but this topic has been hashed, rehashed, then packaged as hot dogs.
Provost Harrison posted 06-16-99 05:54 PM ET
Eccles, you're a sad beast . But seriously, what about the mother of a child who has Down's Syndrome, for example. Was that her choice? And why is it right to allow the woman to suffer an unwanted child (also consider the unwanted child). It is her body, her do with it as she wishes!
jig posted 06-16-99 06:09 PM ET
A long, long time ago there was a poster called Thomas A. Stobie and he started a thread based on the Pope's call for all believers to be 'Unconditionally Pro-life'. The thread however turned into a full on debate about abortion and we all agreed to disagree at the end.
I personally am both pro-choice and pro-life depending on where that line is drawn. For me that line is drawn somewhere around two weeks from conception.
And speaking of pro-life, what about the life of the poor mother. Should she be deprived of her life for the unborn, which would be unwanted.
No human should be deprived of their life, including the unborn. And you can't compare abortion to swatting a fly or killing a dog or even pulling the plug on a eighty year old vegetable because you are not taking into account their potentials. The way I see it, the fly or the dog aren't human so I don't take them into account and the eighty year old vegetable has not much left to live for but the unborn child has everthing.
And what about those who don't want to bring a defective child into the world, for their and the childs own good?
I would say that abortion is justified only if the defects of the unborn child are so bad that if the child was born s/he would have to endure a physically painful life or pose a life threatening danger to the mother.
If the mother wanted abortion because of financial reasons then wouldn't it be a better solution to give up the child for adoption instead?
Who does it serve by banning abortion?
Illegal abortion clinics. Banning abortion is out of the question.
Philip McCauley posted 06-16-99 08:48 PM ET
The fetus is essentially a parasite. Why should a woman be forced to let her body be used by something else? And unwanted pregnancies sometimes CANNOT be avoided. Every birth control device but abstainance has a failure rate. And if the possible potential of the child enters in to it, then even using the rhythm method of birth control is wrong. For that matter, abstainance would be wrong.
I think that abortions should be allowed in the first trimester. That's your one chance. Afterward, you've screwed up, you've had your chances, you have to take responsibility for your 'mistake'. Unless the life of the mother is in danger, the baby stays put.
President Korian posted 06-16-99 10:05 PM ET
I say pro-choice. That's what it is, a choice. Instead of denying a woman's right to choose, the pro-lifers should instead try to convince the women to make the "right" choice.
Koshko posted 06-16-99 10:34 PM ET
I personally think abortion is wrong. Live begins at conseption because the cells are Independantly dividing. The only Human life I'd even consider ending would be the life of someone who remorselessly ending the life of another Human. Good old-fashioned Catholic-induced Guilt would overcome me.
This is just My personal opinion though. I'm not going to personally stop someone else from Aborting their unborn child. Regardless of your beliefs, it really is their choise (thier life) and not yours.
walruskkkch posted 06-18-99 12:26 AM ET
Grow up? Well so much for the apology touched with some humour. As far as defining communism there isn't enough time or space here to adequetly do so. Before we start I will state that I must deal with how the philosophy manifests itself historically rather try to deal with the pure ideology since the pure form of any ideology does not exist for us to draw examples from.
Basically communism deals with the distribution of wealth and the control of the means of producing it. It deposits this control in the hands of state(this is where divergence from form starts and becomes it's downfall). Since the masses don't have the sense to see that they should contribute for the good of all, regardless of what comes back to them in return, they must be coerced into working. The state decides what work has value and decides who should perform the tasks it deems necessary for the health of the country. It redistributes wealth according to it's own whims as to who shall receive and who shall not. The individual in the state is meaningless, he or she serves only the state. This results in what we saw in the old Soviet Union, a dysfunctional system that promised everything but delivered nothing. A very important part of human motivation is the desire to improve ones lot in life, or at least the chances for their children, and communism tried to replace this with notions of "the greater good of the state" which never can truly connect or motivate the individual(we certain cases excepted). The system was doomed to fail since while theoretically you may be able to create an individual who was willing to give according to his ability and receive according to his need it never could, never will work in practice.
Well, it's getting late and we've only scratched the surface. Suffice to say I hope and trust that you don't take any future comments on communists personally, I don't mean them that way although when you're "conversing" in a forum it's difficult to get that across sometimes. I mean it in the same vein as "I'll crush you and eat your bones" type of comments, they are humourous and are not to be taken too seriously.
I remain, as always
Your faithful and obedient servant
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: We need a new topical topic...Owzabowt abortion.
Provost Harrison	posted 06-16-99 03:34 PM ET I'm in favour. An unproliferated bunch of cells, or a very early foetus cannot be considered any more sentient than a snail, and probably less so. It would have a similar mental capacity. So now I have cast the first stone, follow up on it!
4Horses	posted 06-16-99 03:38 PM ET freedom of choice
Hugo Rune	posted 06-16-99 03:45 PM ET been there, done that.
Trappist	posted 06-16-99 03:49 PM ET Really? Where did you insert the coathanger? Pro-choice. When people lose control over their fertility they lose control over their life. Natural angle. When a pregnant dog experiences sudden famine, the unborn foetuses can be reabsorbed into the mother's body. I think Mother Nature may be trying to tell us something there.
Rex Little	posted 06-16-99 03:56 PM ET If this topic doesn't draw much controversy here, you might want to take it over to Apolyton. A lot of Bible-thumpers seem to hang out there.
DanS	posted 06-16-99 04:03 PM ET For the record, I am pro-life. But this topic has been discussed too much. Burn out.
walruskkkch	posted 06-16-99 04:08 PM ET I believe in post-natal abortions for people who really, really, really deserve it, like communists.
Q Cubed	posted 06-16-99 04:14 PM ET Pro-choice until the last trimester - then it's just cruel.
Valtyr	posted 06-16-99 04:19 PM ET walruskkkch: You are beginning to bore me. Do you have to bring communists up in every post?
walruskkkch	posted 06-16-99 04:23 PM ET Always like to zing something to get some reply, but you are right I shall from now on be more diverse in those who I wish to tweek. "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' till you can find a rock." Wynn Catlin
Thue	posted 06-16-99 05:25 PM ET quote: a very early foetus cannot be considered any more sentient than a snail If a newborn baby then has the same level of sentience as, say, a dog is it then ok to kill it too? Just asking...
Eccles	posted 06-16-99 05:31 PM ET I thing women should have handles (like toilets) then whenever their pregnant... flush!
Provost Harrison	posted 06-16-99 05:42 PM ET It's all a thing of definition where you draw the line. But these lines have to be drawn, lets be honest, you would kill a fly but not a dog or human. Morals are not fixed by rigid constraints, they are a little more flexible than that. And speaking of pro-life, what about the life of the poor mother. Should she be deprived of her life for the unborn, which would be unwanted. Is it fair on anyone? And what about those who don't want to bring a defective child into the world, for their and the childs own good? Who does it serve by banning abortion? Walruskkkkkch, or however many 'k's that is, just grow up, OK? And I insist you give me a definition of what YOU think communism is about. You seem to be very sure that us commies must eat babies and torture rabbits or something!
DanS	posted 06-16-99 05:51 PM ET "Morals are not fixed by rigid constraints, they are a little more flexible than that." Quite so. But there are other interests involved here that the state is obligated to protect. Again, I'll concede it's a little gray in there. "And speaking of pro-life, what about the life of the poor mother. Should she be deprived of her life for the unborn, which would be unwanted." This is a red herring. She chose doing it, so why should she be exempted from the consequences? Further, having a child is far from being deprived of life, liberty, or even the pursuit of happiness defined in a very broad sense. Why is having children such a bad thing? Do we really have to argue this? I don't want to. I almost feel compelled to post to counter oposing arguments, but this topic has been hashed, rehashed, then packaged as hot dogs.
Provost Harrison	posted 06-16-99 05:54 PM ET Eccles, you're a sad beast . But seriously, what about the mother of a child who has Down's Syndrome, for example. Was that her choice? And why is it right to allow the woman to suffer an unwanted child (also consider the unwanted child). It is her body, her do with it as she wishes!
jig	posted 06-16-99 06:09 PM ET A long, long time ago there was a poster called Thomas A. Stobie and he started a thread based on the Pope's call for all believers to be 'Unconditionally Pro-life'. The thread however turned into a full on debate about abortion and we all agreed to disagree at the end. I personally am both pro-choice and pro-life depending on where that line is drawn. For me that line is drawn somewhere around two weeks from conception. And speaking of pro-life, what about the life of the poor mother. Should she be deprived of her life for the unborn, which would be unwanted. No human should be deprived of their life, including the unborn. And you can't compare abortion to swatting a fly or killing a dog or even pulling the plug on a eighty year old vegetable because you are not taking into account their potentials. The way I see it, the fly or the dog aren't human so I don't take them into account and the eighty year old vegetable has not much left to live for but the unborn child has everthing. And what about those who don't want to bring a defective child into the world, for their and the childs own good? I would say that abortion is justified only if the defects of the unborn child are so bad that if the child was born s/he would have to endure a physically painful life or pose a life threatening danger to the mother. If the mother wanted abortion because of financial reasons then wouldn't it be a better solution to give up the child for adoption instead? Who does it serve by banning abortion? Illegal abortion clinics. Banning abortion is out of the question.
Philip McCauley	posted 06-16-99 08:48 PM ET The fetus is essentially a parasite. Why should a woman be forced to let her body be used by something else? And unwanted pregnancies sometimes CANNOT be avoided. Every birth control device but abstainance has a failure rate. And if the possible potential of the child enters in to it, then even using the rhythm method of birth control is wrong. For that matter, abstainance would be wrong. I think that abortions should be allowed in the first trimester. That's your one chance. Afterward, you've screwed up, you've had your chances, you have to take responsibility for your 'mistake'. Unless the life of the mother is in danger, the baby stays put.
President Korian	posted 06-16-99 10:05 PM ET I say pro-choice. That's what it is, a choice. Instead of denying a woman's right to choose, the pro-lifers should instead try to convince the women to make the "right" choice.
Koshko	posted 06-16-99 10:34 PM ET I personally think abortion is wrong. Live begins at conseption because the cells are Independantly dividing. The only Human life I'd even consider ending would be the life of someone who remorselessly ending the life of another Human. Good old-fashioned Catholic-induced Guilt would overcome me. This is just My personal opinion though. I'm not going to personally stop someone else from Aborting their unborn child. Regardless of your beliefs, it really is their choise (thier life) and not yours.
walruskkkch	posted 06-18-99 12:26 AM ET Grow up? Well so much for the apology touched with some humour. As far as defining communism there isn't enough time or space here to adequetly do so. Before we start I will state that I must deal with how the philosophy manifests itself historically rather try to deal with the pure ideology since the pure form of any ideology does not exist for us to draw examples from. Basically communism deals with the distribution of wealth and the control of the means of producing it. It deposits this control in the hands of state(this is where divergence from form starts and becomes it's downfall). Since the masses don't have the sense to see that they should contribute for the good of all, regardless of what comes back to them in return, they must be coerced into working. The state decides what work has value and decides who should perform the tasks it deems necessary for the health of the country. It redistributes wealth according to it's own whims as to who shall receive and who shall not. The individual in the state is meaningless, he or she serves only the state. This results in what we saw in the old Soviet Union, a dysfunctional system that promised everything but delivered nothing. A very important part of human motivation is the desire to improve ones lot in life, or at least the chances for their children, and communism tried to replace this with notions of "the greater good of the state" which never can truly connect or motivate the individual(we certain cases excepted). The system was doomed to fail since while theoretically you may be able to create an individual who was willing to give according to his ability and receive according to his need it never could, never will work in practice. Well, it's getting late and we've only scratched the surface. Suffice to say I hope and trust that you don't take any future comments on communists personally, I don't mean them that way although when you're "conversing" in a forum it's difficult to get that across sometimes. I mean it in the same vein as "I'll crush you and eat your bones" type of comments, they are humourous and are not to be taken too seriously. I remain, as always Your faithful and obedient servant