|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 5, 2004 19:09:57 GMT -5
To Ender312:
Tell me whats the difference between killing a child (or for those who will argue: a living thing) and killing a 30 year old man. Really.
A healthy thirty year old man? Or a man who can not support himself and has no meaningful chance of recovery?
If we're talking a healthy thirty year old man, who can support himself, killing him is different than killing an unwanted, unborn baby for the following reasons:
1. His mother wanted to bear and rear him
2. He will be missed by his family, both emotionally, and
possibly economically
3. His continued existence does not impose severe burdens on those around him
4. He would rather not be dead
If abortion is supported, are the supporters willing to die? Who knows, you could have been that child that a family couldn't support. Would you rather have been killed before you were born, or put up for adoption so you could live the life you have today?
Abortion was legal when my mother was pregnant with me. If she had aborted, I would not exist. Boo-hoo. I have zero qualms contemplating my non-existence. The problem with your logic is that AS A GROWN ADULT you have a problem contemplating your non-existence, but fail to realize that this is the case PURELY because you have experienced life (grown up, developed memories, made friendships and perhaps started a family), NONE OF WHICH would be the case if you were killed before you were born. That's right: an unborn child does not value its life AT ALL. It simply lives, much like a cow- which we routinely kill. The value of life before birth is nothing except what the expectant parents grant it.
To Ian:
I don't know whether remedios has kids, but I'm sure remedios and others like her wouldn't appreciate when they have strokes and are staring at the wall in a nursing home "taking up space" if her kids figured they didn't have the resources and she was a burden and blew her brains out. But they don't like talking about when the shoe is on the other foot.
If I have kids, they will know that in the event that I have a debilitating stroke, they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT waste their valuable resources keeping me alive, even for an extra day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ender312 on Mar 5, 2004 23:33:07 GMT -5
A healthy thirty year old man? Or a man who can not support himself and has no meaningful chance of recovery? A man who cannot support himself. True a child cannot support itself, this is why we have adoption facilities. This is also why we have social security and welfare for the men and women who cannot support themselves. Meaningful chance of recovery? I can only assume this means a recovery without any serious reprecussions such as brain damage. If children had no meaningful chance of recovery, then there wouldn't be too many healthy thirty year old men around. If we're talking a healthy thirty year old man, who can support himself, killing him is different than killing an unwanted, unborn baby for the following reasons: 1. His mother wanted to bear and rear him 2. He will be missed by his family, both emotionally, and possibly economically 3. His continued existence does not impose severe burdens on those around him 4. He would rather not be dead Number four is the only one of these that matters, and are you sure that an unborn child does not want to live? Unwanted or not shouldn't matter. If no one wanted me and everyone in the world wished I were dead, screw the world cause I'd rather live out my life. The problem with your logic is that AS A GROWN ADULT you have a problem contemplating your non-existence, but fail to realize that this is the case PURELY because you have experienced life (grown up, developed memories, made friendships and perhaps started a family), NONE OF WHICH would be the case if you were killed before you were born. That's right: an unborn child does not value its life AT ALL. It simply lives, much like a cow- which we routinely kill. The value of life before birth is nothing except what the expectant parents grant it. Ahhhh non-existence. The old argument that if you don't exist there is no possibility of desire to exist. The flaw in this argument is that at the moment of conception life exists. The natural tendency of life is to continue its existence no matter what. This is what drives animals and humans alike to reproduce. This is why a fox will chew off its own leg if caught in a trap. This is why animals continue to eat and breathe. We don't kill animals because they don't wish to exist, we kill animals because we wish to exist, and wish to eat. What makes you think that simply because life is unborn that it does not have the tendencies of life, and does not wish to exist? If your mother had an abortion true you would not exist, you would have no say in the matter. But there would undoubtedly be a point in your existence in which you yourself wanted to continue your existence. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 5, 2004 23:45:31 GMT -5
I know if I were burdened with having remedios as my mother I wouldn't waste one cent on keeping her alive, and I hope that when she actually does have a stroke she has the wherewithall to understand that her kids are pulling the plug on her. I have a feeling when the tables are turned, and it's not her who's actually doing the killing, her opinion on this issue will differ slightly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Mar 6, 2004 16:15:05 GMT -5
matchmaker.com (lol):
remedios and Dr. Kevorkian.
Ahh, how sweet. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 6, 2004 16:49:30 GMT -5
LOL. But then she would have to leave the memory of her late hubby Heinrich Himmler behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Mar 7, 2004 15:55:18 GMT -5
Too bad. Life sucks (lol).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 7, 2004 15:57:16 GMT -5
It is a pain, but atleast you can take comfort in remedios' ability to end it for you.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ender312 on Mar 7, 2004 20:55:39 GMT -5
If I have kids, they will know that in the event that I have a debilitating stroke, they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT waste their valuable resources keeping me alive, even for an extra day. As much as I may regret this because it may be used against my own argument, I agree with you. When it is my time to die its my time to die. I don't want any machine keeping me alive simply to keep me alive. However, on the same grounds, when its a childs time to live, its a childs time to live. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 7, 2004 20:59:31 GMT -5
There is a difference between my arguement of a stroke victim and a brain dead patiant who is being kept alive by machines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ender312 on Mar 8, 2004 15:58:37 GMT -5
Yes, but many of the same principles apply in both cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 8, 2004 16:11:56 GMT -5
Perhaps, but we're speaking of true life and artificial life. In my mind there is a distinct difference
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 8, 2004 19:14:30 GMT -5
I know if I were burdened with having remedios as my mother I wouldn't waste one cent on keeping her alive, and I hope that when she actually does have a stroke she has the wherewithall to understand that her kids are pulling the plug on her. I have a feeling when the tables are turned, and it's not her who's actually doing the killing, her opinion on this issue will differ slightly.
And if I knew I was going to give birth to a child such as yourself, I would DEFINITELY abort.
Are you really so stupid that you simply forgot about the no insults policy?
Or MO, do the insults have to be monosyllabic before you notice them and put your foot down?
Fine. Ian, you're a retard.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 8, 2004 20:52:48 GMT -5
Offering adoption as a "better" alternative presupposes that there is something wrong with abortion. This is true for you, but it is DEFINITELY not true for me. In my mind, it is a far superior option to prevent the existence of the child as soon as the failure of birth control becomes known than to go through 9 months of pregnancy and then give the kid away.
You misunderstood. My argument is that unborn, unwanted children have equal standing with adults who have suffered permanent, irreperable brain damage. It's not about potential. If it were, it's obvious there's a difference between a brain-damaged adult and an unborn, healthy, but unwanted child. My argument is that human life is only ever more valuable than that of a vegetable or a cow because there are people who value it and are willing to nourish it. The fact that there are pro-lifers and would-be adoptees out there who might have an emotional attachment to my unborn, unwanted child is INSUFFICIENT standing for them to step in and force me to have it.
Nice try, if you could only swing it. Please explain why #4 is the only one that 'matters.' Note though, that whether 1-3 'matter' is arguable, i.e. they do not cease to 'matter' simply because you say so.
Yes, I can say with as much scientific certainty as anyone can muster about anything that an unborn child does not value its life, i.e. it does not "want to live" anymore than a cow or a bacteria "wants to live." If you're going to argue special protection for the fetus, you must necessarily argue the same for the cow or bacteria, or give me a rational explanation for why the fact that it's human life should make a difference.
That's nice. Too bad that's not, in fact, what I was arguing. I argued that the existence of your memories are what make you uncomfortable contemplating your non-existence, which science dictates would vary from the existence of a first trimester fetus only in that the fetus experiences sensation. The fetus has no memories of the kind that make you value life. Unfortunately for those among us with a bit more sense, you've projected your attachment to your memory of life onto a being which has no cognizance of such of thing, let alone the thing itself. You might as well argue that washing one's hands is murder because of all the bacteria you kill which certainly "want to live."
And women abort children because of the same impulses: to better secure their resources and the resources of the children they DO end up having.
Oh we agree: an unborn baby "wishes to exist," on the same plane that a cow does. Doesn't stop people from killing them, does it? Nor should it. Death is part of life. Do you finally understand?
At the time of the abortion? About as much as a cow does, I agree. Later on? Irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 9, 2004 10:16:03 GMT -5
Natural death is a part of life, but if someone ends a human life it is murder.
You say abortion is better for you than adoption. It certainly is not better for the child you kill. Sad when people only think of me me me. A woman who would kill her own unborn child is no better than Susan Smith.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 9, 2004 11:05:08 GMT -5
Why isn't it "murder" when we kill cows or bacteria? Or, for that matter, when we intentionally engage in activities that we KNOW will result in the death of innocent civilians?
Because we don't value every LIFE as much as a human one, and sometimes we say that the ends justify the means even when the means involves depriving fully conscious, independent human adults of their innocent lives.
You have NO argument. Period. We kill ALL THE TIME, and sometimes (gasp!) when it's most convenient for us, we even kill innocent human beings.
When I hear that you've become a Buddhist, then maybe I'll listen to you. Everyone else on the planet will stop listening though.
|
|
