Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Pro-choice, but anti-murder... Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]whoisabs[/m] at 6:10 pm on April 2, 2007[quote]Quote: from eiwets at 6:03 pm on April 2, 2007[quote] religious beliefs that such things have a soul should be left out of government. if you think this fetus is truly alive with a soul fine dont get an abortion.[/quote] Funny that you are the one talking about souls, as not me or Rastafarian. Maybe you should take your religious bigotry and stfu.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post whoisabs Posted at 5:38 pm on April 2, 2007 I am a strong supporter of the concept of choice, and thus consider myself to be pro-choice. I support the choice to have sex. That sex is a concious act that individuals take part in, and in doing so make a voluntary choice to do so, with the exception of rape. I also have enough knowledge of science to understand that upon making the choice to have sex, that I am also making the choice to run the risk of having my sperm mix with a woman's eggs to produce a separate and unique individual. Rape is when your right to choice has been violated, thus any obligation to future consequence is null and void. I also support the choice to live or not. That if an individual wants to kill themselves for whatever reason, then they should be allowed to do as such. Thus if someone is so poor, or so unloved that their quality of life is to a point where their life is not worth living, then they should have the right to make the choice to continue living or not. In support of the choice to live or not also follows that other individuals should not be allowed to force either of those conditions upon another individual, unless said individual has done something to forefit their rights. That a person who has made grievous crimes has forefitted their right to make their own choice about life or death, thus the state is allowed to make the choice for them. That an individual who has attempted to attack another and as such is attempting to take away that person's right to choice is in effect forefitting their own right to choice and as such the person being attacked has every right to choose to kill the attacker or not in the defense of their own personal right to choose. When abortions take place there is no regard for choice, with exception to medical emergancies and sometimes rape. The child's right to decide if it lives or not is being violated, and the violators of said rights should be punished. Anyone who would do such a thing simply is proving that they oppose the very concept of choice, and are in effect anti-choice.

Replies SerendipityDarling Posted at 5:35 pm on June 29, 2008 When you are first pregnant - you are not carrying a child. A bundle of cells is not a human being. And it isn't a citizen. But when you have sex, millions of sperm are released. These are "potential children" as any one of them could get to an egg. Wearing a condom is mass murder then, no? Steinbeck Posted at 11:36 pm on April 9, 2007 My main problem with suicide and capital punishment is that in both instances we are putting the burden of deciding who can live or die on mere humans who can be subjected to influences and bias. Someone who is under the influence of depression or stress may not be the best arbiter of whether he should live or die. Ceasar makes many decisions with a moral impact such as deciding whether someone should live or die. Those decisions in both cases should err as much as possible on the side of preserving life and let God take care of the final outcome. whoisabs Posted at 11:28 pm on April 9, 2007 While suicide is the ultimate sin, I do not believe that Ceasar should be allowed to legislate on the issue. I am all for the punishments put forth by Moses, esp stoning.  Only God can determine if you belong in Heaven or not, but the legislature can determine if you belong on Earth or not for severe violations of the commandments. especially with respect to murder and rape. Steinbeck Posted at 11:21 pm on April 9, 2007 Quote: from Glow Worm at 5:45 pm on April 2, 2007 That's nice and all, but I believe that only people get rights. What is the definition of "people"? Do they have to have passed through a womne's vagina in order to be considered "people"? Steinbeck Posted at 11:16 pm on April 9, 2007 Quote: from whoisabs at 5:38 pm on April 2, 2007 I also support the choice to live or not. That if an individual wants to kill themselves for whatever reason, then they should be allowed to do as such. In support of the choice to live or not also follows that other individuals should not be allowed to force either of those conditions upon another individual, unless said individual has done something to forefit their rights. In both these instances your position on life is at odds with that of the Catholic Church. Just to let you know. When abortions take place there is no regard for choice, with exception to medical emergancies and sometimes rape. The child's right to decide if it lives or not is being violated, and the violators of said rights should be punished. Anyone who would do such a thing simply is proving that they oppose the very concept of choice, and are in effect anti-choice. Very good points. An excellent statement overall. I disagree on the issue of suicide and death penalty but then again I hold different opinions on these points. ChemicEmotions Posted at 4:33 pm on April 4, 2007 Quote: from whoisabs at 6:31 pm on April 4, 2007 Good job at not reading the OP. Maybe because I did. whoisabs Posted at 4:31 pm on April 4, 2007 Good job at not reading the OP. ChemicEmotions Posted at 4:25 pm on April 4, 2007 Woman's body. Besides, it's a potential being. mountain hare Posted at 3:13 pm on April 4, 2007 SpM: If my definition was unacceptable, could you please clarify what you mean by "sapient"? Been there, done that. I suggest you re-read my previous post in its entirety before posting your inane responses. I am quite aware of the meanings of both words. Apparently you are not, since you quoted an overly simplistic definition from an online dictionary. I responded with an article on Wikipedia which clarifies the difference between sentience and sapience. You said that babies were sapient not sentient. You are confused, not I: 1. I never said for certain that babies were sapient. I said that they were possibly (likely?) sapient. 2. The article on Wikipedia I posted was highly relevant, because it clarified the difference between sapience and sentience, a concept which I've noticed quite a few people on this forum have difficulty grasping. Why is intelligence a necessary criteria for rights? It's not, which is why I raised the issue of whether a fetus was sentient. But sapience is a necessary criteria for human rights. What's interesting here is that you're questioning whether sapience is required for the granting of rights. Yet many anti-abortionists are callous meat eaters. Go figure. I have no idea, as I have very little education. It doesn't really matter though, as this is a hypothetical example. Of course it matters. If a hypothetical is highly unlikely to occur in real life, I fail to see why I should address it. You might as well ask "Is it ethical to smash a brick, if that brick would have developed sentience one hour later?" You think that a human being who currently has no brain function but is certain to wake up (without brain damage) in an hour should get no rights? That it would be fine to kill such a person? Demonstrate to me that human beings with no brain function can just 'wake up'. That might be a bit difficult to do, since someone who has no brain function is considered medically dead. Oh, and Lazarus doesn't count. Tru7h004 Posted at 12:23 pm on April 4, 2007 I am against abortion but for killing babies. Apotheosis Posted at 12:16 pm on April 4, 2007 If thorough analysis cannot determine who owned what, then no one cuts anything, period. SpM Posted at 11:48 am on April 4, 2007 Quote: from Apotheosis at 7:42 pm on April 4, 2007 Of course not--which is why if co-owned, you can't cut the other guy off arbitrarily. Ownership is difficult to determine, but it could essentially be said to be whether or not the organ originated from one of the fetuses alone. What if the conjoined twins were identical? You would not be able to determine the origin of the organ(s). Apotheosis Posted at 11:42 am on April 4, 2007 Quote: from SpM at 2:37 pm on April 4, 2007 If you don't define the term how can you decide which organs are owned by who? And would someone have the right to destroy an organ they co-owned with someone if doing so would kill the other person? Of course not--which is why if co-owned, you can't cut the other guy off arbitrarily. Ownership is difficult to determine, but it could essentially be said to be whether or not the organ originated from one of the fetuses alone. SpM Posted at 11:37 am on April 4, 2007 If you don't define the term how can you decide which organs are owned by who? And would someone have the right to destroy an organ they co-owned with someone if doing so would kill the other person? Apotheosis Posted at 11:29 am on April 4, 2007 Tricky; most definitions would be arbitrary or ambiguous. Which is why I would mostly stay on the safe side. Most recent 15 of 87 previous replies displayed.