OT: The most poetic argument against abortion I've ever heard.

[NoirAbattoir]

Mongoloid he was a mongoloid Happier than you and me Mongoloid he was a mongoloid And it determined what he could see Mongoloid he was a mongoloid One chromosome too many Mongoloid he was a mongoloid And it determined what he could see And he wore a hat And he had a job And he brought home the bacon So that no one knew Mongoloid he was a mongoloid His friends were unaware Mongoloid he was a mongoloid Nobody even cared

 

 

 

I tend to agree with this sentiment. Who am I to judge whether or not a down syndrome person should live or die? They may be perfectly happy with their existence. It's not my decision.

[starsailor803]

I plugged my Monsterpiece into my girlfriend's Big Muff and now she's pregnant. What should I do?

Get a Crybaby.

[NoirAbattoir]

I plugged my Monsterpiece into my girlfriend's Big Muff and now she's pregnant. What should I do?

 

 

Sounds like you need a Super Chili Picoso, the old version with the condom on the chili.

[dap99]

I plugged my Monsterpiece into my girlfriend's Big Muff and now she's pregnant. What should I do?

 

 

Put it in the Spam Thread

[Brian Marshall]

Hey, I totally get you on the indoctrination thing. I'm a "convenient" Catholic. I simply don't agree with a much of the belief system. That aside, I've never, ever had any priest or anyone coach me about abortion. My mom did raise me to view wrong and right, however. It's just never seemed to be "right" to me. I mean, everything about it seems completely "wrong." It just seems to be grossly irresponsible to use your genitals, create a fetus, and wash it all away because it's not convenient. I think we can all agree that most abortions are a matter of convenience, not life or death.

If i'm reading you correctly, you are calling children inconvenient... is that right?

Anyways man, I am going to step out of this conversation for tonight... I got work to do... you know, real stuff to worry about... my own problems... enogh of them that I really shouldnt waste my time telling other people what to think... but i will say this... basically my real opinion, instead of lame arguments about the details.

I have no problems with abortions in the first trimester whatsoever. Women have been performing them on them selves for thousands of years, and I think there is a human evolution element to that... much like the dog pushing the runt off it's nipple. Granted there are better methods available now, which were not available thousands of years ago, but when it comes down to an abortion, and that is what is chosen, id prefer that it would be done in a safe setting rather than the back of a van with a coat hanger.

I have no problems with 2nd trimester abortions, provided that the decision was reached because of some change in the womans, or couples life... perhaps someone lost their job, or a spouse died, or the fetus appears to have defects, or her husband left her... of course at the same time, i really don't want the government getting involved in whether or not those reasons are valid, because that would just be a giant mess.

Late term abortions I can really only get behind if the womans life is at risk, or the baby isn't looking healthy, or is defected in some way, or in some cases, if the girl was held against her will by her parents or something so that she could not abort.

[SpectralJulian]

Some good points here, but still a little tricky. First off, is science really founded in logic? I mean, logic does not imply truth. Science is about the ability to test a hypothesis and come up with a consistent result. Logic tends to be a little more theoretical: "If I do X, Y will happen..." Until we test that, scientifically, we don't know if it's true. So if I say "If you masturbate, you will go blind". Well, logically, you would go blind based on that "logic". But we know it's not true. As for terminating a pregnancy is infringing on someone else's rights, one could argue then, that when you have a 2 year old who wants to have a 4th bowl of ice cream, you have to give it to her or you'd be infringing on her rights.

 

 

If you say "masturbating will make you go blind" logically it won't make me go blind because that statement isn't true in the first place.

 

You're oversimplifying and twisting what I mean by a belief in logic. Science is based on logical observation. We believe in the laws of physics because. Without logic, math and science are nothing.

 

As to your second point, that is not infringing of the child's rights. That's a ludicrous comparison. Infringing the child's rights would be to put a sock in his mouth and duct tape over it and then tying him up so that he can not pursue that 4th bowl of ice cream in any way.

[TJSmitty]

I would just like to make a couple brief comments:

 

Regarding science, it is certainly not "founded" on logic; a vast majority of it is theoretical. Logic is about consistency, not truth.

 

The Christian perspective on abortion is interestingly unclear, most specifically the Catholic church's view. It should be noted to the Protestant and Evangelical Bible literalists that there are no clear passages regarding the morality of abortion within the Bible, thus God's word is not the "source" of this moral judgment. The Catholic's have an even greater difficulty defending their stance; due to shoddy scientific speculation, the Catholic Church originally believed a homunculus was formed at conception, and, being a miniature "human", it must have a soul. Doctrine also states only complete human forms carry souls. In the 19th century when science revealed a homunculus was not formed, but rather a zygot, the Catholic Church never amended their previous doctrine to align with this discovery. The staunch anti-abortion stance the church exudes rests upon an outdated, unsupported scientific view.

[SpectralJulian]

I plugged my Monsterpiece into my girlfriend's Big Muff and now she's pregnant. What should I do?

 

 

Buy some literature on parenting, or some literature on adoption.

[triplover64]

Regarding science, it is certainly not "founded" on logic; a vast majority of it is theoretical. Logic is about consistency, not truth.

 

 

Well... it's founded on observation followed by conclusions based on logical reasoning. It can't really exist without logic. Now there is certainly such a thing as flawed logic and thats where the truth comes in and we use logic to correct that.

 

"Magical Thinking" which most superstitions - and, if we're honest with ourselves, much of the components of all religions - is based on, has a very sound, but mostly flawed internal logic.

[triplover64]

Get a Crybaby.

Yeah, I was trying to work that one in.

[SpectralJulian]

I would just like to make a couple brief comments: Regarding science, it is certainly not "founded" on logic; a vast majority of it is theoretical. Logic is about consistency, not truth. The Christian perspective on abortion is interestingly unclear, most specifically the Catholic church's view. It should be noted to the Protestant and Evangelical Bible literalists that there are no clear passages regarding the morality of abortion within the Bible, thus God's word is not the "source" of this moral judgment. The Catholic's have an even greater difficulty defending their stance; due to shoddy scientific speculation, the Catholic Church originally believed a homunculus was formed at conception, and, being a miniature "human", it must have a soul. Doctrine also states only complete human forms carry souls. In the 19th century when science revealed a homunculus was not formed, but rather a zygot, the Catholic Church never amended their previous doctrine to align with this discovery. The staunch anti-abortion stance the church exudes rests upon an outdated, unsupported scientific view.

 

 

It says it is wrong to kill in the Bible, and I believe in the Koran, and in most other religious texts.

 

That raises into question, what is a complete human form? I'm not Catholic and I don't know much of their doctrines, but I'm pretty sure that's just to let you know that amputation isn't a sin.

 

To argue that a zygote is not a complete human form and therefor has no soul, you could argue that an infant isn't a complete human form because their bones are not completely formed yet, nor is their brain.

 

Is someone missing all of his arms and legs an incomplete human form?

 

To me this means that if you want to truly kill someone, you've gotta kill all of them, whatever there is of them, not an indication that someone that is not completely developed or missing some human body part is inhuman and soulless. A zygote is the complete form.

 

Biblical doctrine doesn't say anything specifically about Abortion, but it does indicate that Mary carried the holy spirit in her womb. If a human doesn't have a soul until it is born, why didn't Gabriel say "Fear not David, for this child is a child of God's, not any man, and therefor he will be filled with the holy spirit when born, and you shall call him Joshua."?

 

That's a pretty strong indication to me that biblically, fetuses have souls.

 

 

But this isn't a religious argument we're having.

 

I base my views on the subject on what I believe to be 3 commonly revered things:

1. Life and the wrongness of murder

2. Modern biology

3. logic

[Electric Catfish]

So you're pro-death.

I've not read the rest of the thread, so sorry if somebody already pointed this out...but, at least he's on the side that's winning.

Not to make light of the issue, and I don't mean to offend any abortion victims that might be in the thread.

[SpectralJulian]

Well... it's founded on observation followed by conclusions based on logical reasoning. It can't really exist without logic. Now there is certainly such a thing as flawed logic and thats where the truth comes in and we use logic to correct that. "Magical Thinking" which most superstitions - and, if we're honest with ourselves, much of the components of all religions - is based on, has a very sound, but mostly flawed internal logic.

 

 

What do you mean by flawed internal logic? The paradoxes of omnipotence or something else?

[SpectralJulian]

I've not read the rest of the thread, so sorry if somebody already pointed this out...but, at least he's on the side that's winning. Not to make light of the issue, and I don't mean to offend any abortion victims that might be in the thread.

You know you don't have to be aborted to be a victim of abortion.

[SpectralJulian]

 

Sex is for reproducing and using it as something you do because you feel the want is just rediculous.

 

 

ARE YOU {censored}ING KIDDING ME?

 

If sex was only for reproducing, legs would only spread when women are ovulating. Or sperm would live longer or women would ovulate more frequently.

[MathiasWilliam]

ARE YOU {censored}ING KIDDING ME? If sex was only for reproducing, legs would only spread when women are ovulating.

 

 

wait,

 

 

I'm talking about teens.

[SpectralJulian]

Maybe teenagers wouldn't get so pregnant if there were instructional classes on the pleasures of oral sex. Although herpes of the mouth might become more prevalent.

 

Oh here's something by the way:

 

I've heard that oral herpes and genital herpes are caused by different viruses, and that you can get oral herpes by performing oral sex to someone with genital herpes, but you can't get genital herpes from oral herpes.

 

Not that I'd let a girl with a big cold sore on her lip suck me off, but I'm just curious if I heard the truth or not.

[MathiasWilliam]

Maybe teenagers wouldn't get so pregnant if there were instructional classes on the pleasures of oral sex. Although herpes of the mouth might spread.

 

 

hahaha, you got a good point.

[Collapse]

Ooh, I love to beg the question!

[Collapse]

I've heard that oral herpes and genital herpes are caused by different viruses, and that you can get oral herpes by performing oral sex to someone with genital herpes, but you can't get genital herpes from oral herpes. Not that I'd let a girl with a big cold sore on her lip suck me off, but I'm just curious if I heard the truth or not.

 

 

That's true.

 

Ben Folds still sucks.

[Collapse]

See the problem with arguing about abortion is that both sides aren't really arguing the same thing.

 

Nobody (well, mostly) thinks it's a great idea to kill people, but anti-abortion people like to paint it that way. Both sides of the debate are guilty of question-begging.

[SpectralJulian]

That's true. Ben Folds still sucks.

 

 

Ben Folds + William Shatner is pretty rocking. I never really liked Ben Folds music though.

 

That's true that you can't get genital herpes from oral herpes but you can get oral herpes from genital herpes? Or is it true that teenagers suck at oral sex?

[Collapse]

Ben Folds + William Shatner is pretty rocking. I never really liked Ben Folds music though. That's true that you can't get genital herpes from oral herpes but you can get oral herpes from genital herpes? Or is it true that teenagers suck at oral sex?

 

 

You aren't going to get cold sores on your dick.

 

You can definitely get "genital warts" on your face.

[Collapse]

I checked and I appear to be wrong:

 

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00358.html

 

 

Certain strains of the herpes virus cause cold sores. Herpes simplex virus type 1 usually causes cold sores. Herpes simplex virus type 2 is usually responsible for genital herpes. However, either type of the virus can cause sores in the facial area or on the genitals. You get cold sores from another person who has an active lesion. Shared eating utensils, razors and towels may spread this infection.

 

[SpectralJulian]

See the problem with arguing about abortion is that both sides aren't really arguing the same thing. Nobody (well, mostly) thinks it's a great idea to kill people, but anti-abortion people like to paint it that way. Both sides of the debate are guilty of question-begging.

 

 

I agree to a certain extent. The pro-life side claims to be arguing the morality of it, while the pro-choice side claims to be arguing whether the government should have a say or not.

 

Although a lot of pro-choicers also argue that it is a perfectly moral act, a good argument for which I've never personally seen.

 

The best pro-choice sentiment and the one that I don't mind is that if you illegalize abortion that women will get dangerous illegal abortions or just go to a country where it is legal, which isn't that bad of an argument.

 

I find the argument that morality is personal and the choice should be left to the mother is a pretty anarchist one. Which is fine by me, but I think it is hypocritical if you're not an anarchist.

 

IMO, It all depends on your view of what principles the government should govern on in the end.

 

Should murder be illegal because it disrupts societal order or because it is wrong?

 

If the government is to outlaw things that are wrong, what are the things that are the most universally wrong? OR (and this is slightly different) what are the principles that the most universal morals are based on?

 

Policy wise US government isn't really clear on that, although the constitution and other early US documents assert certain Inalienable Rights.