Conquer Club

suggs wrote:

jiminski wrote:

mandyb wrote:

jiminski wrote:here's a quandary for our anti abortionist minority: if abortion is murder and all contraception is sin.... is it our moral duty to have sex up the pooper?

Don't they frown on homosexuality too?

well yes sugar-plumb, but i meant a man and woman ... as man on man action rarely results in pregnancy.

Lets retain our dignified silence on that bleak September evening, Jim.

a beautiful expression of our love and i shall cherish it always!

mandyb wrote:A man and a woman?? I never heard of such a thing

Whats up?

mandyb wrote:

jiminski wrote:

mandyb wrote:

jiminski wrote:here's a quandary for our anti abortionist minority: if abortion is murder and all contraception is sin.... is it our moral duty to have sex up the pooper?

Don't they frown on homosexuality too?

well yes sugar-plumb, but i meant a man and woman ... as man on man action rarely results in pregnancy.

A man and a woman?? I never heard of such a thing

break out the muffins petal, i am am jumping on an easyjet... we have wonderous knowledge to share!

jiminski wrote:
break out the muffins petal, i am am jumping on an easyjet... we have wonderous knowledge to share!

hold your horses Jimbo, I haven't waxed my legs for 2 weeks

mandyb wrote:

jiminski wrote:
break out the muffins petal, i am am jumping on an easyjet... we have wonderous knowledge to share!

hold your horses Jimbo, I haven't waxed my legs for 2 weeks

i can nibble that off easy ^^

jiminski wrote:

mandyb wrote:

jiminski wrote:
break out the muffins petal, i am am jumping on an easyjet... we have wonderous knowledge to share!

hold your horses Jimbo, I haven't waxed my legs for 2 weeks

i can nibble that off easy ^^

funny, no ones ever said that to me before..

Do you think Naps is gonna be upset that we're trolling this thread?

mandyb wrote:

jiminski wrote:

mandyb wrote:

jiminski wrote:
break out the muffins petal, i am am jumping on an easyjet... we have wonderous knowledge to share!

hold your horses Jimbo, I haven't waxed my legs for 2 weeks

i can nibble that off easy ^^

funny, no ones ever said that to me before..

Do you think Naps is gonna be upset that we're trolling this thread?

hehe .. one can but hope.

mandyb wrote:I think all you men should think....I mean REALLY think about what it would be like to pregnant with an unwanted baby, whatever the circumstances.

I don't think I can speak for all men but I would demand a C section. There are a lot of things in life that are unexpected and frankly suck, My Father was drafted in WWII, sent to France, was caputred, spent time in a POW camp only to be shot by a comrade just shortly after he was released. He then spent several years recovering from his wound to his arm while working at his father's ice and fuel plant.

Then what about the people who recently lost their homes to the mortage crisis, or to a flood, fire or hurricane?

I do think about it, really think about it. Even a wanted baby requires a huge network and a huge commitment on the entire part of the community because of the needs of that one person.

Seriously, you think about abortion? Barring this thread, and the occasional ethics essay, I never think about it.
I find it odd that a man would.

jiminski wrote:here's a quandary for our anti abortionist minority: if abortion is murder and all contraception is sin.... is it our moral duty to have sex up the pooper?

Point 1: Abortion isn't murder at the present moment ... murder is a legal term.

Point 2: Contraception is a "sin" (at least in the eyes of the Catholic Church) because all sexual relations between a married man and a woman should be "open" to the posibility of life. Bear in mind that there is a vast difference between the sin against life and the sin of chasity (for even married people are called to chasity, which is not celebacy).

You've neatly summed up why I will never marry.

tzor wrote:

jiminski wrote:here's a quandary for our anti abortionist minority: if abortion is murder and all contraception is sin.... is it our moral duty to have sex up the pooper?

Point 1: Abortion isn't murder at the present moment ... murder is a legal term.

Point 2: Contraception is a "sin" (at least in the eyes of the Catholic Church) because all sexual relations between a married man and a woman should be "open" to the posibility of life. Bear in mind that there is a vast difference between the sin against life and the sin of chasity (for even married people are called to chasity, which is not celebacy).

so you advocate anal sex as an alternative to unwanted pregnancy.. hypothetically speaking.

Lets never speak hypothetically.

mandyb wrote:I think all you men should think....I mean REALLY think about what it would be like to pregnant with an unwanted baby, whatever the circumstances.
Sure abortion is horrible, but there's no getting away from the fact that mistakes happen, unwanted sex happens, rape happens.
Yes, there should be strict guidelines and time limits, and it shouldn't ever be an easy choice to make, but it should always be an option.

But your arbitrary (if strict) time limit, cannot represent some metaphysically significant point at which it can be said that the "option", as you describe it, is ethically differentiable from killing any other human.

That is, ask yourself Mandy, if a child was born and was a few weeks old, would it be ethically alright to take a vacuum pump and tear the poor young soul limb from limb within his incubator? Of course not, no matter whether the mother was raped or unable to care for it.

Rose Kennedy once said;
“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”
Truer words were never spoken.

Maybe, but that doesn't make it any less wrong, does it?

I mentioned this before but will try again,if there is an absolute ethical case against the taking of human life then by the same token capital punishment and warfare must also always be ethically wrong.One cannot reasonably argue the case of ' greater good ' in these instances and yet refuse to except the same criteria when it comes to abortion.

I don't know that you can draw a conclusion that would iiken abortion to capital punishment. The rights and wrongs of capital punishment are a whole diffrent discussion, but I don't think you can honestly compare killing someone who has purposely taken another human life, or several human lifes, and a baby who has done nothing wrong other than the fact that their mother and/or father have made a made choice. That is not a can of worms that I would think I would want to try to open, they are VASTLY diffrent.

War is bit of a diffrent discussion, it would be a much better arguement for your sake. I would lead in with that one, and not capital punishment if I were you. I think the diffrence between war, is that in ideal, members of both armies are there of their own consisent. Killing of a civilian is just that, and I would consider that murder, just as I think anyone would. If members of two groups are WILLING to go and fight each other to death durring a war, and both understand the measure of what they are consenting to do, I still find that vastly diffrent than abortion.

I am not saying that I am a fan of war, or want war, or want anyone to die, I really don't. But, there is a very big jump from the idea of killing a defenseless child vs. two waring nations. I think that WE as humans, have an obligation to protect life as best we can. We are not going to be able to stop people killing each other, or raping each other, or whatever. We can take the high road as a society though, and say that we value human life, and will do what we can to protect it. That means, that we try not to go war unless defend ourselfs or defending the people in that nation from human rights violations. We punish people who take another life, and keep them from taking more lifes. We aid nations in times of hardship, to help protect the lifes of the people there, we help people during natural disasters so that they can survive. We do a lot of things as a society that are meant to protect life, I think that this is the same step. If you wanted to compare this to the two arguments you put forth. Capital punishment is protecting inocent life from being taken by someone who has PROVEN that they have the capacity to willfuly kill another person. The same ideal would be for war, you are attacking another army who is an extension of, or protector of a government who has PROVEN that they are willing to commit crimes against the people of their own country or another. (I don't want this to turn into a war thread, yes I know that this is idealistic, and many wars are over stupid stuff, and not about protection of human life) I think that is the line where many of who would consider themselves reasonable yet opposed to abortion, would fall.

It gets much more slippery when it comes down to choosing between two lifes in which neither is guilty of anything. The case of abortion to save a mothers life, etc. This is a VERY hard moral question, and one which I don't know that there is a high ground on. Both lifes are worth saving, there is no protecting of other life by either one of them dying. This is a lose/lose situation. My only take on this is this... Go ask you Mother if she would be willing to die to save your life. Go ask your Father this question. Those of you who have kids, would you be willing to die for children? For the most part, we as people are programed to choose the life of our loved ones, ahead of our own. I really think that the number of mothers who honestly want to kill their child to save their own lifes, is pretty small, at least when you get to the delivery of the child. But it does beg a very good question of who's descision is this to make, and who's descision is it if the mother is unable to make her own descision.

(sorry, that ended up much longer than I expected.)

joecoolfrog wrote:I mentioned this before but will try again,if there is an absolute ethical case against the taking of human life then by the same token capital punishment and warfare must also always be ethically wrong.One cannot reasonably argue the case of ' greater good ' in these instances and yet refuse to except the same criteria when it comes to abortion.

Not unless there's ethical double effect, no.

Napoleon Ier wrote:
But your arbitrary (if strict) time limit, cannot represent some metaphysically significant point at which it can be said that the "option", as you describe it, is ethically differentiable from killing any other human.

That is, ask yourself Mandy, if a child was born and was a few weeks old, would it be ethically alright to take a vacuum pump and tear the poor young soul limb from limb within his incubator? Of course not, no matter whether the mother was raped or unable to care for it.

That's what this debate really comes down to isn't it? Just when does a fetus have the moral status of human being?

If death is defined as a situation where there is no brain activity, then it could be argued that an embryo is also 'not alive' , in that it is not aware of it's surroundings, cannot feel pain etc. So yes, I do believe it is ethically differentiable from killing a human being. Biologically it has the potential for human personhood, but so do eggs and sperm - denying potential life to either of them wouldn't be considered murder would it?

Viability and primitive brain activity both begin around the 22nd week of pregnancy .
Barring life endangerment however, this is far too late to abort and many countries have their limit set much earlier.

Since the body would naturally reject a defective fetus before the 15th week of pregnancy, then adopting nature's 'time limit' would seem a sensible choice.

Ok girls, dewey asked you a question in his post. Go ahead and answer it. No need to embarass ones parents because of an internet discussion.

If you were pregnant and the pregnancy posed a serious danger to your life, would you prefer an abortion to dying in childbirth where the child just might live to reach adulthood and eventually old age?

MeDeFe wrote:Ok girls, dewey asked you a question in his post. Go ahead and answer it. No need to embarass ones parents because of an internet discussion.

If you were pregnant and the pregnancy posed a serious danger to your life, would you prefer an abortion to dying in childbirth where the child just might live to reach adulthood and eventually old age?

I'll just say that that's the only exception to my otherwise unflinching opposition to abortion, just so people don't think I'm blindly dogmatic.

mandyb wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
But your arbitrary (if strict) time limit, cannot represent some metaphysically significant point at which it can be said that the "option", as you describe it, is ethically differentiable from killing any other human.

That is, ask yourself Mandy, if a child was born and was a few weeks old, would it be ethically alright to take a vacuum pump and tear the poor young soul limb from limb within his incubator? Of course not, no matter whether the mother was raped or unable to care for it.

That's what this debate really comes down to isn't it? Just when does a fetus have the moral status of human being?

If death is defined as a situation where there is no brain activity, then it could be argued that an embryo is also 'not alive' , in that it is not aware of it's surroundings, cannot feel pain etc. So yes, I do believe it is ethically differentiable from killing a human being. Biologically it has the potential for human personhood, but so do eggs and sperm - denying potential life to either of them wouldn't be considered murder would it?

Viability and primitive brain activity both begin around the 22nd week of pregnancy .
Barring life endangerment however, this is far too late to abort and many countries have their limit set much earlier.

Since the body would naturally reject a defective fetus before the 15th week of pregnancy, then adopting nature's 'time limit' would seem a sensible choice.

Nap has elsewhere described using a condom as "aborting sperm".

dewey316 wrote: War is bit of a diffrent discussion, it would be a much better arguement for your sake. I would lead in with that one, and not capital punishment if I were you. I think the diffrence between war, is that in ideal, members of both armies are there of their own consisent. Killing of a civilian is just that, and I would consider that murder, just as I think anyone would.

Every war features the death of innocent civilians.

jonesthecurl wrote:

mandyb wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
But your arbitrary (if strict) time limit, cannot represent some metaphysically significant point at which it can be said that the "option", as you describe it, is ethically differentiable from killing any other human.

That is, ask yourself Mandy, if a child was born and was a few weeks old, would it be ethically alright to take a vacuum pump and tear the poor young soul limb from limb within his incubator? Of course not, no matter whether the mother was raped or unable to care for it.

That's what this debate really comes down to isn't it? Just when does a fetus have the moral status of human being?

If death is defined as a situation where there is no brain activity, then it could be argued that an embryo is also 'not alive' , in that it is not aware of it's surroundings, cannot feel pain etc. So yes, I do believe it is ethically differentiable from killing a human being. Biologically it has the potential for human personhood, but so do eggs and sperm - denying potential life to either of them wouldn't be considered murder would it?

Viability and primitive brain activity both begin around the 22nd week of pregnancy .
Barring life endangerment however, this is far too late to abort and many countries have their limit set much earlier.

Since the body would naturally reject a defective fetus before the 15th week of pregnancy, then adopting nature's 'time limit' would seem a sensible choice.

Nap has elsewhere described using a condom as "aborting sperm".

Semantics. I certainly don't consider sperm human.

Snorri1234 wrote:

dewey316 wrote: War is bit of a diffrent discussion, it would be a much better arguement for your sake. I would lead in with that one, and not capital punishment if I were you. I think the diffrence between war, is that in ideal, members of both armies are there of their own consisent. Killing of a civilian is just that, and I would consider that murder, just as I think anyone would.

Every war features the death of innocent civilians.

Even the ones on "your side".
D-Day killed thousands of French civilians, the invasion of Iraq killed thousands of Iraqis.

Snorri1234 wrote:

dewey316 wrote: War is bit of a diffrent discussion, it would be a much better arguement for your sake. I would lead in with that one, and not capital punishment if I were you. I think the diffrence between war, is that in ideal, members of both armies are there of their own consisent. Killing of a civilian is just that, and I would consider that murder, just as I think anyone would.

Every war features the death of innocent civilians.

Not every, but that's an irrelevancy. It's still murder, or if unintentional, manslaughter.