JamesR,
When I say I value life, I mean it. Human life and animal life are both important issues to me, although I naturally consider one of the two to be of far greater value. As you reluctantly admitted with the ant/child scenario, an animal’s life does, in fact, get the short end of the stick when a human's life is in direct or indirect danger. Does this, in turn, mean that you don’t value the lives of animals? Of course not! It simply means that animals mean less to you than humans, which is perfectly normal, considering the type of species you, in specific, belong to. I value the life of a human more than I value the life of an animal for a variety of reasons; however, the single greatest reason as to why I feel this way is an innate characteristic within all living organisms capable of thought. Because I am a human, a fellow human’s life is far more important to me than any other species of animal; similarly, an animal will always prefer another animal of the same species to a human on any given day. Such is the quality of nature, James - you are going to naturally support your own kind before any other. Also, when I say humans are “better” than animals, I truly mean it. In terms of strength? Not so much, considering magnificent powerhouses such as bears, lions, etc., still roam the Earth today. However, in terms of intelligence, we are light years ahead of any other type of animal on the planet. Because animals are wholly under our control, this fact is simply a given. If you want to express the mindset that you are no better than, or equal in value to, a common fruit fly, then by all means, go ahead and think that way. I’m only asking you not to expect the same type of lowly attitude from the rest of us.
First of all, my argument against abortion based on the sanctity of human life is not full of holes. Attempting to say such is the case by the use of animals is a fool’s errand, as I have outlined above. Animals are second-class to humans, and they are irrelevant to this debate. While I egregiously disharmonize with those who torture animals or kill animals for sport/in excess, I certainly cannot comprehend the expressed equivalence between the termination of a child and the use of an animal as a food source. I won’t go into more detail here, because I have already detailed my position on animals versus humans satisfactorily above. Next: the difference between a sperm cell and a “one cell embryo”, you ask? First of all, the question is skewed because abortion never takes place when the baby is a single cell - to deny this is dishonest and counterproductive toward our argument. Secondly, a sperm cell has no potential and eventually dies within the body anyway, whether a man ejaculates or not. The “one cell embryo”, however, is full of potential. Given enough time, that “one cell embryo” will develop and age to a point where it can sit across me in a room one day and debate the very issue of abortion. That, James, is the difference.
You’re missing the point, James; whether you’re doing it deliberately or by accident, I will never know. Yes, perhaps the “one cell embryo” and the “six week old embryo” are not babies by our vocabular standards, but you must realize that it’s irrelevant and immaterial altogether. The only thing that matters is the potential of that “one cell embryo”, and that is, ultimately, a fully functioning human being, in the relatively short period of nine months. Killing that “one cell embryo” is enough to completely destroy what could have been a highly eventful, memorable life. It is nobody’s decision to terminate that life, regardless of whether or not the very mother of that baby doesn't want it.
Yes, James, I certainly am. But what are their “own decisions”, when you truly think about it? Does their decision ultimately effect only them? Of course it doesn’t! Their decision ends the determined and developing life of an innocent child, whose only wrongdoing is its very existence, created by, in all likelihood, an irresponsible mother. Abortion is not a decision which merely effects the mother, which is an ostensible concept you surprisingly have yet to grasp.
Oh, so now you care to speak of my personal experiences, and my level of education? Such blind speculation on your part surely won’t get you far in a debate. Of course, your opinions of me are of negligible importance, in all honestly. I don’t ask you to agree with my sentiments, or to even give my opinions the respect they deserve. All I humbly ask is that you fully read my posts, and refrain from asking me questions to which I have already provided answers for. Such courses of action on your part prove ultimately to be counterproductive and angering. I will not post in detail the way I view you and your standpoints, because I feel as if I’m too “good” for that.
I am not the one who is “completely and conveniently overlooking” the man’s role in abortion - you are, James. You’re the one who consistently resorts to the “it’s the woman’s body!” excuse - not me. I outlined my opinions as to what the man’s punishment and responsibility should be concerning the child in question. If I have failed to voice this side of the story adequately, then the blame is to be placed squarely on your shoulders for preoccupying my debating time with trivial matters such as vegetarianism and the eating of animals. At the end of the day, though, people must realize - reluctantly or willingly - the blatantly obvious fact that women have more responsibilities in the case of pregnancy than men. Women physically carry the baby for nine months and endure all of the effects, up to and including the eventual birth of the child. Because women have more responsibilities during pregnancy (due to innate biological reasons), it’s only fitting that they should be extra cautious when indulging in sex. That’s the way it is, James, whether you like it or not.
Kadark the Phantom
When I say I value life, I mean it. Human life and animal life are both important issues to me, although I naturally consider one of the two to be of far greater value. As you reluctantly admitted with the ant/child scenario, an animal’s life does, in fact, get the short end of the stick when a human's life is in direct or indirect danger. Does this, in turn, mean that you don’t value the lives of animals? Of course not! It simply means that animals mean less to you than humans, which is perfectly normal, considering the type of species you, in specific, belong to. I value the life of a human more than I value the life of an animal for a variety of reasons; however, the single greatest reason as to why I feel this way is an innate characteristic within all living organisms capable of thought. Because I am a human, a fellow human’s life is far more important to me than any other species of animal; similarly, an animal will always prefer another animal of the same species to a human on any given day. Such is the quality of nature, James - you are going to naturally support your own kind before any other. Also, when I say humans are “better” than animals, I truly mean it. In terms of strength? Not so much, considering magnificent powerhouses such as bears, lions, etc., still roam the Earth today. However, in terms of intelligence, we are light years ahead of any other type of animal on the planet. Because animals are wholly under our control, this fact is simply a given. If you want to express the mindset that you are no better than, or equal in value to, a common fruit fly, then by all means, go ahead and think that way. I’m only asking you not to expect the same type of lowly attitude from the rest of us.
First of all, my argument against abortion based on the sanctity of human life is not full of holes. Attempting to say such is the case by the use of animals is a fool’s errand, as I have outlined above. Animals are second-class to humans, and they are irrelevant to this debate. While I egregiously disharmonize with those who torture animals or kill animals for sport/in excess, I certainly cannot comprehend the expressed equivalence between the termination of a child and the use of an animal as a food source. I won’t go into more detail here, because I have already detailed my position on animals versus humans satisfactorily above. Next: the difference between a sperm cell and a “one cell embryo”, you ask? First of all, the question is skewed because abortion never takes place when the baby is a single cell - to deny this is dishonest and counterproductive toward our argument. Secondly, a sperm cell has no potential and eventually dies within the body anyway, whether a man ejaculates or not. The “one cell embryo”, however, is full of potential. Given enough time, that “one cell embryo” will develop and age to a point where it can sit across me in a room one day and debate the very issue of abortion. That, James, is the difference.
You’re missing the point, James; whether you’re doing it deliberately or by accident, I will never know. Yes, perhaps the “one cell embryo” and the “six week old embryo” are not babies by our vocabular standards, but you must realize that it’s irrelevant and immaterial altogether. The only thing that matters is the potential of that “one cell embryo”, and that is, ultimately, a fully functioning human being, in the relatively short period of nine months. Killing that “one cell embryo” is enough to completely destroy what could have been a highly eventful, memorable life. It is nobody’s decision to terminate that life, regardless of whether or not the very mother of that baby doesn't want it.
Yes, James, I certainly am. But what are their “own decisions”, when you truly think about it? Does their decision ultimately effect only them? Of course it doesn’t! Their decision ends the determined and developing life of an innocent child, whose only wrongdoing is its very existence, created by, in all likelihood, an irresponsible mother. Abortion is not a decision which merely effects the mother, which is an ostensible concept you surprisingly have yet to grasp.
Oh, so now you care to speak of my personal experiences, and my level of education? Such blind speculation on your part surely won’t get you far in a debate. Of course, your opinions of me are of negligible importance, in all honestly. I don’t ask you to agree with my sentiments, or to even give my opinions the respect they deserve. All I humbly ask is that you fully read my posts, and refrain from asking me questions to which I have already provided answers for. Such courses of action on your part prove ultimately to be counterproductive and angering. I will not post in detail the way I view you and your standpoints, because I feel as if I’m too “good” for that.
I am not the one who is “completely and conveniently overlooking” the man’s role in abortion - you are, James. You’re the one who consistently resorts to the “it’s the woman’s body!” excuse - not me. I outlined my opinions as to what the man’s punishment and responsibility should be concerning the child in question. If I have failed to voice this side of the story adequately, then the blame is to be placed squarely on your shoulders for preoccupying my debating time with trivial matters such as vegetarianism and the eating of animals. At the end of the day, though, people must realize - reluctantly or willingly - the blatantly obvious fact that women have more responsibilities in the case of pregnancy than men. Women physically carry the baby for nine months and endure all of the effects, up to and including the eventual birth of the child. Because women have more responsibilities during pregnancy (due to innate biological reasons), it’s only fitting that they should be extra cautious when indulging in sex. That’s the way it is, James, whether you like it or not.
Kadark the Phantom
Last edited:
