we already live together. but the relationship is not institutionalized in the way that a marriage is. in fact we have not dated for that long, maybe about a year. however, if something unexpected were to happen, i have enough confidence in my and her ability to make the right decision about it that i would do so without any regrets whatsoever.
How is it not? If children are not wanted, and no contraceptive is 100% safe, then pregnancy is possible, and with it, abortion required, in said situation. It is not a wrong assumption, I only thought things through. If children are not wanted, and no contraceptive is 100% safe, then pregnancy is possible, and with it, abortion required, in said situation. It is as simple as that. So the possible negative consequences of sex ... have nothing to do with it? I have not forgotten about what men could do. But most of them don't do anything, and consider it an infringement on their freedom and body. Not everyone. I don't portray them that way. I am saying what the preferred kind of woman seems to be, esp. in the West. What man wants a strong woman? What man wants a woman who also says no sometimes? What is your point? Her husband just didn't care. I don't know if abortions cause cancer; but I know she was very miserable, and her becoming so ill was probably largely psychosomatic. And you'd say that to a 17-year old, for example? So quickly lost and gone are people for you. Of course. And society should deride her for being alone!! How? By saying things like If you were the one on the losing side, you'd soon see that the moral standards most religions espouse are those to help the oppressed. You'd also see that those standards are nothing strange or foreign. So? Does this mean it should be encouraged that people don't know their intentions,a nd should not investigate them? Not true. People are free only once they realize they are free. No sooner. I don't think anyone by default thinks they are free.
How is it not? If children are not wanted, and no contraceptive is 100% safe, then pregnancy is possible, and with it, abortion required, in said situation. just because something doesnt work 100% of the time doesnt make it useless. condoms are actually somewhere between 95 and 99% effective, thats not bad. and im pretty sure that other forms of birth control are used WAY more often than abortion. thus making abortion not the preferred method of birth control. effectiveness doesnt have anything to do with it. people dont say to themselves, well the only way to be 100% sure we dont have a child is to get an abortion if you get pregnant so i dont think ill bother using other forms of birth control. thats pretty unrealistic. not to mention that abstinence is also 100% effective and people still use other forms of birth control more than that. It is not a wrong assumption, I only thought things through. If children are not wanted, and no contraceptive is 100% safe, then pregnancy is possible, and with it, abortion required, in said situation. It is as simple as that. you definitely didnt think it through and its not as simple as that. in fact what you said is a radical oversimplification of the issue. So the possible negative consequences of sex ... have nothing to do with it? of course they do, insofar as they inform a persons decision about whether to have sex or not. I have not forgotten about what men could do. But most of them don't do anything, and consider it an infringement on their freedom and body. you know, its funny, because i am a man and i dont think that way, in fact i think that you have no idea what the majority of men perceive at all, and furthermore, i think it would be impossible to prove that anyway. thats another assumption of peoples attitudes with no supporting evidence. a stereotype or generalization does not pass as proof of the correctness of an argument. Not everyone. yes everyone in some way or another. candy for example is a fleeting pleasure, as is driving really fast in your car, and enjoying a relaxing day at the beach. its all fleeting. its just not all sex. I don't portray them that way. I am saying what the preferred kind of woman seems to be, esp. in the West. What man wants a strong woman? What man wants a woman who also says no sometimes? where do you have any kind of proof of that? offer me the evidence that that is the prevailing social paradigm and i'll accept it. i dont think you can find any eveidence though. Strong men want strong women, and deep down, nobody, man or woman really wants someone who says no to anything that they desire, but the crux of any relationship between two people is compromise. What is your point? my point was that you were trying to say that people who are religious basically just dont bother to follow the rules of their religion when its inconvenient for them. i dont know that that is true, because if it is then whats the point of people even saying they are religious? it might be true for catholics, but i dont think all christians are that way. Her husband just didn't care. so how does that affect anything that i said? I don't know if abortions cause cancer; but I know she was very miserable, and her becoming so ill was probably largely psychosomatic. those are the unique circumstances of one persons life, i hope youre not trying to use them as proof that things play out the same way for all women who get abortions, because that would be ridiculous. And you'd say that to a 17-year old, for example? So quickly lost and gone are people for you. i would say that to a 17 year old. i said that if youve decided to live your life that way you are lost. i didnt say people couldnt change or realize thay had made a mistake and learn from it, thats to be expected. but you have to come to terms with reality at some point. you either go for what you want or you settle for what you have. its not rocket science. Of course. And society should deride her for being alone!! where are you getting that from? older single women arent derided or ostracisized for being unmarried or alone nowadays, maybe in the 18th century they were, but not now. in fact, in todays world, where divorce rates are around 62%, single women have more opportunities to find a mate than ever, and there are more of them than ever. your assumptions about society and how it views people are really getting more preposterous with time. How? By saying things like yeah, by making people recognize their role in controlling their own lives and being responsible for their own actions you can eradicate the helpless feelings of victimization that are brought on by misconceptions like "this is fate" or "this is just how everything is" or "the meek shall inherit the earth" its not always nice to hear, and its not always nice to say, but there it is. If you were the one on the losing side, you'd soon see that the moral standards most religions espouse are those to help the oppressed. You'd also see that those standards are nothing strange or foreign. first of all, the specific moral standards that each religion espouses vary widely from one belief system to another so that first statement is invalid. and i didnt take issue with religion as a whole, i took issue with christianity and the negative and destructive view it takes of sexuality, especially female sexuality. So? Does this mean it should be encouraged that people don't know their intentions,a nd should not investigate them? no. what it means is that you know your own intentions and you dont know the intentions of others, except for a sad few people that happen to cross your path in life. so dont bother speculating on what you cant know. just stick to what you know are your own motivations and dont attempt to project evil ones onto large groups of people without any type of evidence. Not true. People are free only once they realize they are free. No sooner. I don't think anyone by default thinks they are free. dont be ridiculous, people are naturally free. think back to a time before there was ever a civilization or a society on earth, when humans were born into loosely knit groups of nomadic hunter gatherers. those people roamed the earth freely, they went with the pack or against it according to their assertion of the consequences of those actions. they followed instincts and made judgements that informed their actions, but there were no rules or laws to bind them together, no structure to keep them in one place or social station. people invented and agreed to live by societal rules for their mutual good, thus placing restrictions on their own freedom in order to protect themselves from abuses of power. you didnt have to walk up to a cro-magnon man and tell him he was free, it was completely self evident.
Incorrect. A zygote (when refering to a human zygote which we are) is a human being in its first stage of develoment, nothing at all like an amoeba or follicle of hair. Is the following description that of a zygote or an ameba? A single-cell lifeform that converts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy causing its cells to divide, multiply and grow, which also contains a full set of its own DNA. That is a description of both. Murder can only be committed betwixt humans and other humans. That is part of the definition. A zygote is a potential human, as it is in the same state as an ameba. Yes, but just pointing out that it is impossible to determine what that person shall aspire to, be it good or ill. Exactly, but do we allow massive suffering to both children and adults simply because one of them might achieve something? If I could see into the future as a zygote and realize that I'd be born with down syndrome, or into abject poverty soon to die of starvation, it would be a no-brainer, pull the plug now.
Back and forth, back and forth, pro and con, blah blah blah... Nobody likes abortion. Everybody wishes that no one had to have one. But nobody is going to take the next step in the debate. Postulate a perfect implant for males and females both that would make conception impossible - install it at age twelve or whatever. Make it totally free for everybody. You want a child? Have it removed when you're ready. Otherwise nobody has to worry about unwanted pregnancy any more. Nice idea. Gonna happen? You bet your ass it won't. Those opposed to abortion today would step up to the plate against this solution with the same venom. Because it's not about the babies, folks. I submit for your consideration the undeniable fact that those who scream bloody murder about killing babies do not give a shit about the baby after it's born, and they care even less about dying brown babies in other countries. It's not about babies; it's about self-determination. There's a significant number of people in the U.S. (can't speak for other nations) who are adamantly opposed to self-determination for women. Keep them pregnant, scared to death of gettting pregnant, perpetuate the theme of women as property, and all the rest of the nineteenth century baggage. Before I get off on a tangent, let me also submit for your consideration what would happen if abortion was re-criminalized. Imagine rich girls jetting off to Paris for the weekend to have things taken care of. Imagine poor girls in the back-alley getting butchered up or maybe just snuffing themselves - and don't think for one second it wouldn't happen. Some of these folks are made uncomfortable by abortion - and who wouldn't? - but the zealots are in it for the worst possible reason - to score some brownie points with God. That's all. Are they going to adopt their fair share? Hell, no. Are they going to ask for a tax increase to help raise these kids? Not likely. So what if little Susie goes to the back alley and gets an infection or bleeds to death - she had it coming to her! So what if Jenna or Barbara head out to the Cayman Islands for an abortion and a week on the beach? At least us God-fearing citizens are not permitting the crime on our soil, and so we are absolved of the sin of making the awful choice necessary in the first place. Back to self-determination for women. Not only is this what abortion is all about, it's also what homosexuality and especially gay marriage is all about. Think about this - if two men or two women can be married, then by definition it is an absolutely equal arrangement - got to be, right? If that is possible, then why not an absolutely equal relationship between a man and a woman? We'd have to demand it! And we can't be having that - no siree - women are too uppity as it is and they got to be put back in their place and other comments. So when you hear people nattering on about the twin evils of abortion and gay marriage, just subsititute "self-determination for women" and see how your perception starts to shift. You watch - once abortion gets re-criminalized they'll be after contraception next and then pre-marital sex and so on until the whole christian sharia is in place. Never mind 1984, welcome to 1800, folks.
(Q): Actually, a zygote is not a "single-cell lifeform", as it does not persist as a single cell forever, whilst a amoeba, on the other hand, never becomes a multi-cellular creature. Moreover, you seem not to take into consideration the taxodermic classification of either an amoeba or a human being, which clearly demonstrates that they are massively different. From Wikipedia: A zygote (Greek: ζυγωτόν) is a cell that is the result of fertilization. That is, two haploid cells—usually (but not always) a sperm cell from a male and an ovum from a female—merge into a single diploid cell called the zygote (or zygocyte). Animal zygotes undergo mitotic cell divisions to become an embryo. Other organisms may undergo meiotic cell division at this time (for more information refer to biological life cycles). Amoeba: Amoeba is a genus of protozoa that moves by means of temporary projections called pseudopods, and is well-known as a representative unicellular organism. The word amoeba is variously used to refer to it and its close relatives, now grouped as the Amoebozoa, or to all protozoa that move using pseudopods, otherwise termed amoeboids. They are found in sluggish waters all over the world, both fresh and salt, as well as in soils and as parasites. Amoeba itself is found in freshwater, typically on decaying vegetation from streams, but is not especially common in nature. However, because of the ease with which they may be obtained and kept in the lab, they are common objects of study, both as representative protozoa and to demonstrate cell structure and function. The cells have several lobose pseudopods, with one large tubular pseudopod at the anterior and several secondary ones branching to the sides. The most famous species, A. proteus, is 700-800 μm in length, but many others are much smaller. Each has a single nucleus, and a simple contractile vacuole which maintains its osmotic pressure, as its most recognizable features. Early naturalists referred to Amoeba as the Proteus animalcule, after a Greek god who could change his shape. The name "amibe" was given to it by Bery St. Vincent, from the Greek amoibe, meaning change. (Q), I find it hard to imagine that someone such as you, who professes science as the ultimate end of human knowledge, can hold such a semi-religious view of humanity. A zygote is no more a potential human than an infant is a potential human, scientifically it is a human being, genetically verified as such and in all ways fullfilling what makes a human, a human, scientifically. Please, don't interject belief here. We're dealing with science. "Massive suffering" can only be determined by the individual who suffers. Let's deal with this from game theory: Assuming meaningful experience only outside the womb: Abortion - Positive results: 0. Negative results: 0 Life - Positive results: Potentially infinite. Negative results: Potentially infinite. So you have potential infinities of either positive or negatives, with a likelyhood of mixture of both extremely high, whilst one can basically not play the game at all with abortion. Since life also has the option to be ended at virtually any time by the self, you're not only depriving him of the chance for infinite gain, but of being able to decide if the negative truly outweighs the positive. Your decision is utterly viable for yourself, but you cannot presume that this would be the same for all others.
I find it hard to imagine that someone such as you, who professes science as the ultimate end of human knowledge, can hold such a semi-religious view of humanity. Really? I was about to say the same about you as you seem very pro-life, much like theists. A zygote is no more a potential human than an infant is a potential human, scientifically it is a human being, genetically verified as such and in all ways fullfilling what makes a human, a human, scientifically. Please, don't interject belief here. We're dealing with science. Then, scientifically speaking, and by your own words, do zygotes only grow to be humans? Is that your belief? "Massive suffering" can only be determined by the individual who suffers. Nonsense. Anyone can determine massive suffering is taking place in the southern states where Katrina tore through. Abortion - Positive results: 0. Negative results: 0 Life - Positive results: Potentially infinite. Negative results: Potentially infinite. Yeah, right. Skewed and biased results. Nice game theory. Since life also has the option to be ended at virtually any time by the self, you're not only depriving him of the chance for infinite gain, but of being able to decide if the negative truly outweighs the positive. We've already been down this road, the same could be said about someone developing a device that could kill millions. Please don't use that tired argument. Your decision is utterly viable for yourself, but you cannot presume that this would be the same for all others. Is that the pot calling the kettle black that I hear?
If some business invents such a contraption the government, after proving it to be safe, will handle it has a contraceptive. Well, nature made most woman capable of having children. Those who attempt to prevent natural fact risk having something bad occur. Hopefully the law will extend to other countries. If a woman murders a US citizen(the fetus) in another country, she ought to be arrested and charged. Well, going to a back alley to have an abortion is zealotry. I'm not following you here. Men neither can have abortions nor give birth. Clearly the relationship remains unequal even if abortion is allowed. Irrelevant to abortion.
Quote Lori: "The more we realize that we're in no position to judge each other, the more we're able to help each other to do the right thing." * Thats why I dig you Lori. I know you mean this.
this is the kind of opinion that makes me ashamed of our country and the ridiculous illusion that it could ever have been founded on the concept of freedom of choice and some sembelence of equality. by the way, you may want to check the law, but youre not a citizen until you are actually born.
(Q): It's the one thing which I find the majority of American Theists seem to think right. But yes, it seems we're both finding eachother a bit odd. No. There are zygotes of other creatures. I was, however, refering to human zygotes alone, as was evidenced by my argument and the context of which 'zygote' was used. If therein lies your confusion, a thousand apologies. Because the people are saying they are suffering. Imagine, however, that everyone in New Orleans were very stoic and exceedingly indifferent to hardship, would "suffering" exist there? Moreover, is it not up to the individual to determine how much suffering matters to them? There are many who are extremely impaired and who live with their suffering. From the point of the fetus, I should have noted. Might you explain how the two are the same? Nay. You personally think suffering would be terrible. This is your value. You have no rational foundation for imposing it upon all others. I, on the other hand, am arguing simply from what scientifically a human is and why abortion ought not to be legal, considering what murder is defined as. Stretched: We could make it a crime to have an abortion in another country, thereby dealing with your "rich girl" argument, just as Okinrus said. Also, what about "self-determination" for children? Or really, what sort of "self-determination" is there here? The child is not the mother, and thus to have an abortion is not "self-determination" but inflicting that "self-determination" on another. charles cure: The potentiality of life makes this not so, specifically as quality of life cannot be guaged presciently, nor can it be guaged by anyone but the individual.
i dont think so. remember the cold war. there was a pretty famous zero sum game going on there between the US and Soviet Union called Nuclear Arms Proliferation. There was a concept known as mutually assured destruction, which was a scenario that played out with an attack by one of the superpowers on the other, and the resulting response from the nation that had been attacked resulting in basically worldwide catastrophe. what youre describing is the same thing. any number of unknown quantities are in play here. say that Russia attacked the US during the cold war. they could potentially have caused mass destruction to their enemy, and perhaps not have suffered the consequences of a retaliatory attack for any of the following reasons - equipment malfunction, human error, the destruction of key pieces of infrastructure that make a retaliatory attack possible, of just a radical (although unlikely) change of heart by the US president. however, Russia also saw the potential for things to work out for them in a negative way, and, in theory this pre-empted any nuclear attack from them. the point is that nuclear proliferation was a zero sum game despite the fact that there was unlimited potential for each side to cause massive destruction to their enemies, and in doing so, acheiving a desirable end (from their point of view). the key preventive factor keeping Mutually Assured Destruction from actually happening was the superpowers abilities to assess risks and to do a cost-benefit analysis of any particular course of action. this is the same thing i was talking about in the beginning of this debate, although the potential for an unborn child to be something amazing is unlimited, humanity at some point will have to assess the risks of overpopulation, homogeneity in populatiuons, distribution of finite resources...etc. and decide whether the cause of humans that already exist is furthered in some tangible way by bringing every unborn child into the world just because they have potential. think of it as human proliferation instead of arms proliferation. different subject, same zero sum game.
But if overpopulation is an issue why not just cull old folk - that have at least had the chance to live a full long life, or those on welfare, drug pushers, paedophiles, rapists etc? It seems mighty bizarre to me that instead of that you would call for a slaughter of the completely innocent.
Unwanted pregnancies cause crime. Abortion drove crime rates down in all the major cities since poor girls didn't have to raise children they didn't want.
If the child is unwanted, there are alternatives to killing that child. Fostering and adoption for example. I can guarantee you there are couples out there screaming to have children, but unfortunately can't. Instead of killing the child you don't want, why not let those that do be given the chance to give that human a life of being loved? Btw, do you have a link to abortion/crime rate statistics?
