abortion after rape

[raja]

also

Your quote:"Ah, yeah. I know. And, by the way, you still haven't given a cohesive answer about why abortion is ethically wrong."

--Ethics by definition is a dicipline dealing with good and evil and moral duty. 2: moral principles or practice.
Since i've already chainlinked natural morality with humans in the principles of natural law and this belief system,(backed by many studies), and chainlinked morality with murder and killing of humans(under gov't law and natural morale) as well as unborn humans (that are many times, as was previously stated, already developed beings), THAT should pretty much cover why aborting a child (and lets face it, the whole process is most definately inhumane and violent) is a moral as well as ethical issue and from my argumentative state, an unjustifiably wrong action.

[raja]

Quote by me ". . . but philosophy and psychology are different . . .



Your responce: "Not when they come from the mind of MOST Christians.
You have yet to explain how you're different."

--philosophy is not a Christian based study and psychology is FAR FAR from it as well...so when i back up my statement by either of these too, i do simply that...back them up by the facts and quotes and studies of philosophy and psychology. I don't view them any different than a nonchristian because my mind is highly absorbant and highly open to sciences and philosophical studies, not pertaining or influenced by religion. Since your statement of MOST christians may be true to those in the "Most" group, i would have to say that i am not part of that group and therefore must disregard your once again assumed statement. If you are not christian who the hell are you to say how most of them view things...and since i have my own view on things SEPERATE from religion, i have apathy for that steriotypical statement.

[remedios]

"Natural law theory’ is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality. We will be concerned only with natural law theories of ethics: while such views arguably have some interesting implications for law, politics, and religious morality.""When we focus on the recipient of the natural law, that is, us human beings, the thesis of Aquinas's natural law theory that comes to the fore is that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The notion that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality implies, for Aquinas, both that the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4) and that the precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4; 94, 6). ""For while on the Hobbesian view what is good is what is desired, Hobbes thinks that humans are similarly constructed so that for each human (when he or she is properly biologically functioning) HIS OR HER CENTRAL AIM IS THE AVOIDANCE OF VIOLENT DEATH. Thus Hobbes is able to build his entire natural law theory around a single good, THE GOOD OF SELF-PRESERVATION, which is so important to human life that exceptionlessly binding precepts can be formulated with reference to its achievement."--these are a few takes on natural law. But the creation of many governmental laws are derived from the basis of this law of ethics. It is backed by many well known and accounted philosophers such and Thomas Aquianos, Descarte, who is a well known mathematician as well, and Plato, etc...There is also the FACT that the human brain carries a membrane that controls the conscience of a human and his or her ability to decide right from wrong, naturally, without religious influence. There are plenty of atheists that are perfectly nice, ethical, morally granted people.

I'm waiting for you to give a coherent argument. Cutting and pasting quotes from different sources does not constitute a coherent argument, and in this case, does not even define "natural law," properly, let alone convey a reason why "natural law" supports making abortion illegal. Capitalizing things for the sake of emphasis does not relieve your post from its central defect: it is a mishmash of quotes taken out of context and does not directly address the question at hand.

Please. Say. It. Succinctly. If you can't, I'm going to assume you really don't know what you're talking about.

And also, ONCE AGAIN...since you seem to be thickly oblivous to this fact that i DO NOT preach christianity, never quote the bible or use religion to back ANY of my comments up, let alone the fact that i have NEVER even read the bible.

That's nice. Were your parents athiests too? Christianity affects even my philosophy, and I'm about as athiestic as you can get.

You have a destinct milead view that when mentioning morals of an issue, that automatically means religious morals, well now you can clearly see that there is much more backing natural morals of a human being than religion.

I haven't misunderstood your argument to be religious based, YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE.

Once you do something to indicate that you actually comprehend what you cut and pasted above, maybe I'll muse that you're not really influenced by Christianity, you're just a sicko who thinks s(he) should be able to force women to have any baby any man sees fit to force on her.

...Animals, on the other hand, cannot be called weak willed or incontinent since such a conflict of principles is not possible with them. " and also"...This faculty is both rational and irrational. It is irrational since even animals experience desires. However, it is also rational since humans have the distinct ability to control these desires with the help of reason.

That's what you and Mo and Ian would desperately like to think, but the bottom line is that human beings are no less slaves to irrational impulse than cows are. Humans can try to be more rational, but the primordial ooze is never too far behind, and is the source of every thought we ever have.

If you've got yourself convinced otherwise, you're even farther behind than you should be. Deciding that humans are less irrational than animals does not make it so.

But as i've said before those issues should be dealt with seperately and abortion is the murdering of a human organism who's aim is to maintain survival, justifying this is impossible.

Actually, Hobbes argued that it is the aim of each individual to seek its survival. Hobbes would recognize that it is the case that a mother's struggle to survive is OFTEN at odds with that of the fetus. Women, like other animals, terminate pregnancies when they have insufficient resources, when they are unable psychologically to continue the pregnancy to term, or when their health is at risk, ALL OF WHICH are legitimate attempts to preserve not only the survival of the mother, but of any children she may already have.

yes was mused, but still ignorant for the sole reason that you STATED, twice actually, this naive comment that was, once again unresearched and of poor judgment.

You don't like false assumptions about yourself . . .

You can make all the false assumptions that you want. I'll simply refute them one by one.

. . . and what you say and are defensive of your thoughts as am I so maybe you should be the one not to get your panties in a knot over your contadictions.

Are you aware that the above sentence (??) makes no sense?

In an attempt to be polite and not assume, I have to ask you what the last level of education was that you completed.

Ethics by definition is a dicipline dealing with good and evil and moral duty. 2: moral principles or practice.Since i've already chainlinked natural morality with humans in the principles of natural law and this belief system . . .

NOT!!!!!! And by the way, this is another example of your atrocious writing. You're going to have to make more effort if you expect me to follow you.

. . . and from my argumentative state, an unjustifiably wrong action.

You mean, "in your opinion," or "from your perspective?"

What do you do with someone who thinks your perspective is idiotic? Make abortion after rape illegal and force nine months of counseling on her until you're done using her body to protect an individual who's mother will do nothing but hate it? What kind of idiocy is that?

I don't view them any different than a nonchristian because my mind is highly absorbant and highly open to sciences and philosophical studies, not pertaining or influenced by religion.

With all due respect, you've demonstrated that your mind is of the lowest quality by being completely unable to actually process the things you've read to form a coherent argument. All you can do is cut and paste what you've found. You apparently have zero reading comprehension.

[raja]

I believe it is you that should be asked what grade you last completed for the sole reason that you haven't even the slightest idea what natural law is. It is covered in highschool english, college philosophy, english, and psychology. Or maybe you're school just didn't cover that or you avoided all those college classes, maybe even college period. Also there is the distinct impression that you have quite a hard time following complicated concepts. Let me try to break it down for you again.

Natural law is a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, discovered by rational intelligence of man, would conform to his nature, meaning his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. It is a concept about a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, and promptings of their true nature. A few natural morals under this system are ones such as the natural maternal instinct of a woman to her child, which is existant in the animal kingdom as well. Also the instinct of man to survive and not commit violent actions towards their kin or their kind, which is also illistrated in with animals. Since humans are naturally inclined to perform that which is for their own good, law and morality are intertwined. Murder is a violation of natural law because it is something a human is not inherently inclinded to perform and is therefore, an immoral act.

I guess a simple illustration(to add emphasis to my argument) of the relationship between morality and natural law is this: It is in the nature of humans as well as other animals that they attempt to avoid terror and discomfort. Our terror and discomfort arise from the fact that we are living creatures with the capasity to feel. Morality is based on the aspects of our existence such as our right to avoid these things. This morality stems from the natural aspects of humans or in other words their "biological make-up."

If a person is stabbed, the pain they feel is not created by them but is something created by a human's "biological make-up." Morality also exists in the "nature of things."

--This is the best that i can summarize a system that has a very wide capasity of principles and studies and if you still can't follow than i am sorry. I have childproofed this concept for you as much as i can, but it's quite a challenge to simplify a complex thing. You attempt to condesend my statements and belittle my argument when it is you that can't seem to weed through paragraphs of facts and explanations to see the whole picture. They must have not covered analyzing and summarizing in your school either, that is, if you even completed school.


"I haven't misunderstood your argument to be religious based, YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE."

---Ummm, yes i have by giving you statements based on philosophy, science and psychology...not religion. I guess you can't uncrease your forhead and follow this fact at all, and instead falsely accuse me of preaching christianity and all that BS you try to attempt shoving down my throat each post.

"Actually, Hobbes argued that it is the aim of each individual to seek its survival. Hobbes would recognize that it is the case that a mother's struggle to survive is OFTEN at odds with that of the fetus. Women, like other animals, terminate pregnancies when they have insufficient resources, when they are unable psychologically to continue the pregnancy to term, or when their health is at risk, ALL OF WHICH are legitimate attempts to preserve not only the survival of the mother, but of any children she may already have."

--um..you seem to have forgotten the human organism living within the mother. Trying to justify the survival of a mother but not the fetus (which you love to refer to it as, when in many cases is beyond that in the developmental stages) is the most selfish, irrational statement you could make. That organism, instinctively wants to continue to live, and many times has already developed sensory as well as pain receptors allowing it to feel and sense its environment, so...murdering this human organism that is very much alive is unjust and should be ensured its survival as well.

--oh and your little cry me a river faces magically proved your immaturity when handling that you've been mistaken, and also adds even more to your image on this board. (it sure created an amused smirk on my face.)

Quote:. . . and what you say and are defensive of your thoughts as am I so maybe you should be the one not to get your panties in a knot over your contadictions.



"Are you aware that the above sentence (??) makes no sense?"


oh, i'm sorry, was it the little typo of a missing letter in "contradictions" that confused you so much? Or maybe it was the sentence structure that you couldn't comprehend. I guess i don't have the strength to break this one down for you so you"ll have to figure out this run on sentence all on your own.


And Yet another victim of my oh so atrocious writing. I'll try to put in words that you follow. Ethics by definition is a dicipline dealing with good and evil and moral duty. 2: moral principles or practice.
All i meant here was that since i've shown that there are natural morals built into human beings instinctively, one of them being avoidance of murder, shows that murdering one's own unborn child does contain a moral issue within itself. And since ethics are moral principles or practices, it is an ethical issue as well.


"What do you do with someone who thinks your perspective is idiotic? Make abortion after rape illegal and force nine months of counseling on her until you're done using her body to protect an individual who's mother will do nothing but hate it? What kind of idiocy is that?"

What kind of idiocy is it when a person makes statements such as "...using her body to protect an individual who's mother will do nothing but hate it" when THAT is not a proven fact and is on the contrary a FALSE statement because it has been PROVEN that many mother's of rape children do indeed love them, hence the instinct of mother nature (which is also in the animals you oh so love to compare humans too). What kind of idiotic, as well as ignorant statement is that?


"With all due respect, you've demonstrated that your mind is of the lowest quality by being completely unable to actually process the things you've read to form a coherent argument. All you can do is cut and paste what you've found. You apparently have zero reading comprehension."

--with all do respect, you're demonstrated that your mind is of the lowest quality by being completely unable to actually process the things I've posted to form a coherent thought, or explanation. All you can do is repeatedly request a simplier sequence of words. YOU apparently have zero reading comprehension.

(by the way, the cut and paste was meant to show the key factors of a LONG explained concept)

[raja]

Quote:. . . and from my argumentative state, an unjustifiably wrong action.




'You mean, "in your opinion," or "from your perspective?"

--yes that's what i mean...what's wrong, the words "argumentative state" to much for you?

[remedios]

I believe it is you that should be asked what grade you last completed for the sole reason that you haven't even the slightest idea what natural law is.

One of my purposes for asking you what "natural law" is was to ascertain what your understanding of it is. As you have failed miserably to explain it, my inquiry was quite successful in its other purpose: to demonstrate that you speak of things of which you know nothing.

Also there is the distinct impression that you have quite a hard time following complicated concepts.

Only when the presentation of them consists of bits and pieces from several sources cut and pasted incoherently
together.

Let me try to break it down for you again.

Finally. That's all I asked for.

Natural law is a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, discovered by rational intelligence of man, would conform to his nature, meaning his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. It is a concept about a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, and promptings of their true nature.

If the true nature of man is any indication, abortion should TOTALLY be legal, as man frequently kills innocent sentient beings for nonsurvival purposes.

Still haven't given me a reason to criminalize abortion.

A few natural morals under this system are ones such as the natural maternal instinct of a woman to her child, which is existant in the animal kingdom as well.

As is the mother's instinct to preserve her health and well-being by terminating a pregnancy, such that she may bear offspring at a future time that will have a greater chance of survival due to increased resources.

Still haven't given me a reason to criminalize abortion.

Also the instinct of man to survive and not commit violent actions towards their kin or their kind, which is also illistrated in with animals.

This sentence is PATENTLY false. If you do not recognize it as such, no amount of reason (natural or otherwise, tee hee) will suffice to convince you.

Since humans are naturally inclined to perform that which is for their own good . . .

Oh gawd! It gets even better. This sentence is also PATENTLY false. Human beings DO NOT do what's best for them, even MOST of the time, let alone have a "natural inclination" towards it. Even if, for the sake of argument, I accepted this "natural inclination" as fact, what makes you think that killing an unwanted, unborn child is not in the best interests of the mother who wants to do it? And even if you really, really belief that it's not, who are you to dictate what her best interests are? Besides, that is, a patronizing person.

It is in the nature of humans as well as other animals that they attempt to avoid terror and discomfort. Our terror and discomfort arise from the fact that we are living creatures with the capasity to feel. Morality is based on the aspects of our existence such as our right to avoid these things. This morality stems from the natural aspects of humans or in other words their "biological make-up."

You meant "c-a-p-a-c-i-t-y," right?

Nevermind.

Anyway, what is this supposed to be an example of? I could argue that, for some women, an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy will cause terror and discomfort. According to this stupid example, the woman therefore has a "right" to avoid the pregnancy. Your argument actually was??

I have childproofed this concept for you as much as i can, but it's quite a challenge to simplify a complex thing.

Not if you actually comprehend it, it isn't.

You attempt to condesend my statements and belittle my argument when it is you that can't seem to weed through paragraphs of facts and explanations to see the whole picture. They must have not covered analyzing and summarizing in your school either, that is, if you even completed school.

You meant "c-o-n-d-e-s-c-e-n-d," right?

Ummm, yes i have by giving you statements based on philosophy, science and psychology...

You meant incomprehensible statements, right?

I guess you can't uncrease your forhead and follow this fact at all . . .

You meant "forehead," right?

um..you seem to have forgotten the human organism living within the mother.

No, I have not. Hobbes would argue that when a woman is pregnant with an unwanted child, she and her unborn child are in competition with each other for their continued survival. Unfortunately for the fetus, it is bound to lose.

. . .fetus (which you love to refer to it as, when in many cases is beyond that in the developmental stages) . . .

Note: I also refer to it as child, baby, etc.

. . . is the most selfish, irrational statement you could make.

This statement alone makes it clear that you have not actually read Hobbes yourself. Hobbes wrote that life is nasty, brutish and short for a reason, ya know. Geez

That organism, instinctively wants to continue to live, and many times has already developed sensory as well as pain receptors allowing it to feel and sense its environment, so...murdering this human organism that is very much alive is unjust and should be ensured its survival as well.

The same could be argued of a cow. Oh well, such is the nasty, brutish and short nature of life.

--oh and your little cry me a river faces magically proved your immaturity when handling that you've been mistaken, and also adds even more to your image on this board. (it sure created an amused smirk on my face.)

who cares?

All i meant here was that since i've shown that there are natural morals built into human beings instinctively . . .

Have not.

What kind of idiocy is it when a person makes statements such as "...using her body to protect an individual who's mother will do nothing but hate it" when THAT is not a proven fact and is on the contrary a FALSE statement because it has been PROVEN that many mother's of rape children do indeed love them . . .

I asked "What do you do with someone who thinks your perspective is idiotic?" That question NECESSARILY excludes those women who love their rapist's child, i.e., I asked what you do about the women who hate the rapist's child.

All you can do is repeatedly request a simplier sequence of words.

Which you are apparently unable to provide . . . because you didn't understand what you posted any better than I do.

(by the way, the cut and paste was meant to show the key factors of a LONG explained concept)

Which you should be able to put into your own, less formal, more coherent words . . . if you really understand it, that is.

--yes that's what i mean...what's wrong, the words "argumentative state" to much for you?

The words "argumentative state" do not mean anything. It was only by context (and because of my superior reading comprehension and astute mind) that I was able to decipher what you intended them to mean.

[raja]

"One of my purposes for asking you what "natural law" is was to ascertain what your understanding of it is. As you have failed miserably to explain it, my inquiry was quite successful in its other purpose: to demonstrate that you speak of things of which you know nothing."

--Um actually I did take and ace philosophy in college and read the book, so I do know about the things I speak of. I simply just covered the principles of Natural Law that pertained to this topic and summarized them. I also explained that Natural Law is a long concept to fully cover and has many aspects to it and many principles, a lot of which are irrelevant to this issue.


My Quote:Also the instinct of man to survive and not commit violent actions towards their kin or their kind, which is also illistrated in with animals.

"This sentence is PATENTLY false. If you do not recognize it as such, no amount of reason (natural or otherwise, tee hee) will suffice to convince you."

--I'm sorry let me be more clear, when I say man, I do not mean individuals but mankind as a whole. The MAJORITY of humans to not wish harm upon their kin and do not murder eachother. Nothing patenly wrong with that one.

Quote:Since humans are naturally inclined to perform that which is for their own good . . .



"This sentence is also PATENTLY false. Human beings DO NOT do what's best for them, even MOST of the time, let alone have a "natural inclination" towards it."

--NO, by choice they don't but by natural instinct they do. When separating desires and cravings that fog man's vision and logic or, as some say, by paying attention to the voice in the back of your mind telling you not to do something, or the instinctive feeling that something is wrong, mankind will be inclined to do what's best for him. It is the persuasion of mischief or rebellion, or just plain desire that causes free will to not always put a person in the right direction. Just as there is the natural instinct to fulfill the basic needs of a human body before the wants and desires.

"what makes you think that killing an unwanted, unborn child is not in the best interests of the mother who wants to do it?"

--what makes you see that at this point, it is no longer just about the selfish mother's best interests...there is another life in existence and because the world is "nasty, brutish and short for a reason," unfortunately that is the case.

--And also, in my defense, I would like to state that my first post to you last night was lost in my computer. In an attempt to retype it quickly at nearly 1:00 in the morning, typo's may have occurred...it is human. What amuses me is the fact that those typo's (with such an astute mind) would not affect the sentence's meaning, and therefore, shows that once again, your attempt at being insulting is amusing, if not embarrassing on your behalf. And here is why:

allow me to stoop to your childish level a moment to prove your contradiction. "And even if you really, really belief that it's not..."

--belief? You do mean b-e-l-i-e-v-e, right? or, as was previously shown, "I didn't have TO DO to get the information..." and "someone who WOULD DOES not respect..." etc...among the others in past posts, that with maturity, I overlooked. See your human too, maybe the surgical removal of that stick will help you with that insignificant grammer infatuation.

--Your hypocrisy astounds me.

Now I wish to return to my position above all this ludicrousy. MOVING ON...

"Anyway, what is this supposed to be an example of? I could argue that, for some women, an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy will cause terror and discomfort. According to this stupid example, the woman therefore has a "right" to avoid the pregnancy. Your argument actually was??"

--my argument, as has ALWAYS been, is from the child's perspective, you know...the other living creature involved, also with the C-A-P-A-C-I-T-Y to feel? Having your head removed from your spinal stem and your limbs detached as well would cause just a bit of terror and discomfort I would imagine. Or, as a fetus, having its elements of survival vaccumed out, wouldn't feel to great either.

My Quote "Ummm, yes i have by giving you statements based on philosophy, science and psychology...


"You meant incomprehensible statements, right?"

--Actually each statement I've shown to everyone around me is well understood because I guess they have the ability to see a big picture from strayed parts. The last post summarizes them for you but silly me, I thought with your astute mind, you would be able to form a coherent thought or explanation from that.

"No, I have not. Hobbes would argue that when a woman is pregnant with an unwanted child, she and her unborn child are in competition with each other for their continued survival. Unfortunately for the fetus, it is bound to lose."

--Yes and that is a prime example of a self-interest, self-indulged person who can do nothing more but think of herself, while surrounded with her egotism.

MY Quote:. . . is the most selfish, irrational statement you could make.


"This statement alone makes it clear that you have not actually read Hobbes yourself."

--actually that statment had NOTHING to do with the hobbesian view so your comment is irrelevant.


--The concept of Natural Law does demonstrate the morals built in a human being...as does the cognative part of the brain that deciphers right from wrong.


"I asked what you do about the women who hate the rapist's child."

--Adoption, mother lives (without the presence of the child she hates), child lives, with a family that will love him/her. Double positives that come out of a definate negative.

"Which you are apparently unable to provide . . . because you didn't understand what you posted any better than I do."

--as I've said before, if I post it I understand it. From where you sit and how little you know me, who are to be premature and decide what the hell I understand?


"Which you should be able to put into your own, less formal, more coherent words . . . if you really understand it, that is..."

---um, which I did.


"The words "argumentative state" do not mean anything. It was only by context (and because of my superior reading comprehension and astute mind) that I was able to decipher what you intended them to mean. "

--argumentative (inclined to argue) state (postion of mind)

My inclination to argue from this postion of mind...hmmmm makes sense to me.

[remedios]

I simply just covered the principles of Natural Law that pertained to this topic and summarized them.

Except you did nothing of the sort. The only thing you did was cut and paste other peoples explanations of different parts of moral philosophy.

I also explained that Natural Law is a long concept to fully cover and has many aspects to it and many principles, a lot of which are irrelevant to this issue.

Which is why anyone with a college degree worth the paper it's written on would have distinguished the salient aspects of "natural law" relevant to this issue and summed them up. You have proven yourself incapable of doing so in a manner that advances your argument. It's really quite pathetic actually. If you're the future of the pro-life movement, you've a lost cause.

--I'm sorry let me be more clear, when I say man, I do not mean individuals but mankind as a whole. The MAJORITY of humans to not wish harm upon their kin and do not murder each other. Nothing patenly wrong with that one.

Except that the majority of humans do in fact approve of various activities, the direct and intended result of which is the death of other human beings. And don't even get me started on the activities most people approve of that cause "harm" to others. PATENTLY FALSE it is.

--NO, by choice they don't but by natural instinct they do. When separating desires and cravings that fog man's vision and logic or, as some say, by paying attention to the voice in the back of your mind telling you not to do something, or the instinctive feeling that something is wrong, mankind will be inclined to do what's best for him.

So when man stops thinking and simply listens to his "instincts," he will no longer be murderous, eh? What you are arguing goes against 200 years of moral philosophy, Hobbes included. Further proof that you have NOT read "Leviathan." If anything, it is REASON which raises man out of the immoral realm of animals, not "listening to the voice in the back of his head."

If, for the sake of argument, I accepted (which I emphatically don't) your assertion that the fundamental instinct of man is to not harm his fellow human beings, you still have failed to advance an argument as to why women should be forced to follow a rule that no one else does.

I'm an atheist, so I have the advantage of being impartial towards the particular rules by which people choose to live. The only thing that matters to me is simple fairness of application and enforcement. I have no problem with everyone deciding that they want to adopt a morality that places a high value on life. What I do have a problem with is pro-lifers who expect women to value life in a world where no one else does. It is selective and unfair enforcement, and because of its injustice, is unenforceable.

It is unquestionably the case that human beings currently behave in a manner that demonstrates a rather callous disregard for the value of life. If humans REALLY valued life, they would not go to war, they would not kill people who have made terrible mistakes, they would not let each other starve . . . the list goes on and on.

Asking women to "choose life," when it's clear that's not the rule by which everyone else is playing is LAUGHABLE and the height of hypocrisy.

--what makes you see that at this point, it is no longer just about the selfish mother's best interests...there is another life in existence and because the world is "nasty, brutish and short for a reason," unfortunately that is the case.

Huh? Anyway, you argued that human beings pursue their own best interests instinctively. The mother does. Perhaps the baby does. You have yet to explain why the baby should win.

What amuses me is the fact that those typo's (with such an astute mind) would not affect the sentence's meaning, and therefore, shows that once again, your attempt at being insulting is amusing, if not embarrassing on your behalf.

No, but they are oh so funny.

. . . allow me to stoop to your childish level a moment to prove your contradiction. "And even if you really, really belief that it's not..."

If you're going to claim the high road and be believable in doing so, you actually have to stay on it. Incidentally, my one typo in five pages of posts versus your fifty AND your horrendous grammar AND the generally incomprehensible nature of most of what you type makes me rather the winner.

Welcome to the low road, where you still lose.

--belief? You do mean b-e-l-i-e-v-e, right? or, as was previously shown, "I didn't have TO DO to get the information..." and "someone who WOULD DOES not respect..." etc...among the others in past posts, that with maturity, I overlooked. See your human too, maybe the surgical removal of that stick will help you with that insignificant grammer infatuation.

I'll just let that speak for itself.

--Your hypocrisy astounds me.

Hypocrisy? Who claimed to be above pettiness and then stooped to talking about sticks in people's asses? Who? Yes, that would be you. I, on the other hand, have neither claimed the high road, nor resorted to crude anatomical jokes to insult you. I've only called you stupid, which while unnecessary (as anyone reading this board with even an Bachelors degree will see you're an idiot) does not sink to the level of playground humor.

. . . my argument, as has ALWAYS been, is from the child's perspective . . .

So you ignore the mother? Your argument does not answer the critical question: why do the interests of the child necessarily trump the interest of the woman carrying the child?

you know...the other living creature involved, also with the C-A-P-A-C-I-T-Y to feel?

Yes, yes, to feel pain. Just . . . like . . . a cow. Explain to me again why I should care more about the baby?

Having your head removed from your spinal stem and your limbs detached as well would cause just a bit of terror and discomfort I would imagine.

So if the baby could be anesthetized, you'd be o.k. with abortion?

Or, as a fetus, having its elements of survival vaccumed out, wouldn't feel to great either.

I'm sure it totally sucks to be a cow when it is either bludgeoned over the head or electrocuted to death. How is it any different?

--Actually each statement I've shown to everyone around me is well understood because I guess they have the ability to see a big picture from strayed parts.

All I can say is that birds of a stupid feather flock together. If your friends can make some sort of sense of what you wrote, it's only because they understand it in the same erroneous sense that you do.

--Yes and that is a prime example of a self-interest, self-indulged person who can do nothing more but think of herself, while surrounded with her egotism.

So women should be selfless to the point where they give up their bodies, and radically alter the rest of their lives FOREVER. I'm on board as soon as that expectation of selflessness is applied to everyone.

--actually that statment had NOTHING to do with the hobbesian view so your comment is irrelevant.

Except, retard, it does. Hobbes acknowledges the inherent selfishness of man. If you had read even the first fifty pages of "Leviathan" you would know that.

--Adoption, mother lives (without the presence of the child she hates), child lives, with a family that will love him/her. Double positives that come out of a definate negative.

Except there is absolutely no reason why mother should have to carry a child she hates.

--as I've said before, if I post it I understand it. From where you sit and how little you know me, who are to be premature and decide what the hell I understand?

If someone cannot clearly articulate what they are trying to say, they do not understand it. This is the universal standard in academic circles, which, had you ever been in one, you would know.

---um, which I did.

I said "more coherent." You have yet to achieve coherence.

argumentative (inclined to argue) state (postion of mind)

My inclination to argue from this postion of mind...hmmmm makes sense to me.

That's really priceless as an illustration of just how dumb you are. While I'm tempted to let it stand alone as a testament to your lack of education, I'm going to try to explain why what you wrote DOES NOT convey your stipulated meaning.

You agreed that "argumentative state" was intended to mean, "from my perspective," or "in my opinion." What you wrote was an adjective (argumentative) modifying a noun (state). In English, this combination of words means a state in which one is inclined to argue. It DOES NOT mean "the perspective from which the subject is arguing," nor does it mean "the opinion the subject is trying to convey."

You have now demonstrated that not only do you not know Hobbes, you are incapable of proper diction.

[raja]

"Except you did nothing of the sort. The only thing you did was cut and paste other peoples explanations of different parts of moral philosophy. "

--actually I did, the last post was a summary of why Natural Law came into play. It also includes the two principles or morals that fall under Natural Law that are relevant to this issue. Maternal instinct and Murder. Coherence can be brought to the board only to a point and then it is the individual's capability to follow it. Let your capability speak for itself in the recent posts.

"Which is why anyone with a college degree worth the paper it's written on would have distinguished the salient aspects of "natural law" relevant to this issue and summed them up. You have proven yourself incapable of doing so in a manner that advances your argument. It's really quite pathetic actually. If you're the future of the pro-life movement, you've a lost cause."

--I did distinguish them, for they were the only two I included. Under Natural Law, the moral that one should not murder his fellow mankind is believed to be built in a human's instincts, not much more to summarize there, except to say we do not roam around savagely killing eachother as animals in the wild do. Yes, people murder people among many other sad twisted things, but if the majority of mankind killed eachother, how does that account for the billions upon billions of individuals who just live their quiet lives devoid of murder. When I say murder, I do mean the direct kind. The well intented kind, not the indirect unintentional actions that many people do. The maternal instinct principle also speaks for itself. In summary, it is, under the concept of Natural Law, the natural instinct built in a mother's "biological make-up" that creates a maternal, sometimes intuitive bond between child and mother during and after pregnancy. Usually when one who has a college degree or has even completed highschool, hears the words "maternal instinct" they know the above statement already. I didn't include an entire summary because I figured the principle speaks for itself, as well as "one should not murder." I suppose I was mistaken, and with all seriousness, do apologize.

"So when man stops thinking and simply listens to his "instincts," he will no longer be murderous, eh? What you are arguing goes against 200 years of moral philosophy, Hobbes included. Further proof that you have NOT read "Leviathan." If anything, it is REASON which raises man out of the immoral realm of animals, not "listening to the voice in the back of his head.""

--Haven't read "Leviathan" and NEVER SAID I did...yet another false assumption on your behalf. We covered Hobbes shortly in philosophy and the part of his view I included was just to add emphisis to the idea that living creatures all have an instinctive aim at survival.

"you still have failed to advance an argument as to why women should be forced to follow a rule that no one else does"

--because Mother Nature, or evolution or whatever you wish to call it, allowed women and women only to become pregnant so therefore, man, unfortunately can't follow this rule being that he is incapable to physically be in the same position. Since what a man wants in this case is irrelevant in present day, it is up to the woman and so that is why it is addressed particularly to them.


"What I do have a problem with is pro-lifers who expect women to value life in a world where no one else does."

--You insinuate that I am dumb when this sentence shows equal intelligence. Pro-lifers, and there are many of us, do value life. Pro-lifers do exist in this world. So those two words "no one" contradicts the sentence before it.

" You have yet to explain why the baby should win."

--Because the baby is innocent and did not ask to be conceived, therefore, it shouldn't have it's life ended by someone who did take part in the conception (this is in the case of concentual sex), and should therefore be unselfish and take responsibility. In a rape case, my first fragment still stands. The child is innocent and did not ask to be in it's position, just as the mother did not ask to...but it happened unfortunately. So instead of killing the innocent of the two, why not give the child a chance at adoption and offer sacrifice (just as our parents have at one time or another) for a child who deserves to have a chance, just as its mother does.


"Incidentally, my one typo in five pages of posts versus your fifty"

--actually hon if you knew how to count there were three typos listed there, and one in your recent post and a few at the beginning which were not worth the effort. And also, less than ten typos on my behalf are quite short of fifty so not only are you unable to comprehend a summarized paragraph of Natural Law, you can't count either.

"Who claimed to be above pettiness"

---HMMM, did I claim that...no. I claimed to be above cheap shots at format and typos and only "stooped to your level" to show you that you are human as well and get sloppy with the keys once and awhile. Hypocrisy, one who points out the wrong of another and then does the same act themselves would fall under that label.

"Explain to me again why I should care more about the baby?"

--that sentence there illustrates the true temperature of your blood.

"So if the baby could be anesthetized, you'd be o.k. with abortion?"

--Nope, and that's not the case anyway.


"Except, retard, it does. Hobbes acknowledges the inherent selfishness of man. If you had read even the first fifty pages of "Leviathan" you would know that."

---oooh fisty are we? haha...never claimed I did read it "retard." And also, I was commenting on YOUR statement of a mother only caring about her life and survival and not her child's, which in MY opinion, was selfish.

"Except there is absolutely no reason why mother should have to carry a child she hates. "

--which again, lies in opinion. You think there is no reason, I do. Oh, well.

"In English, this combination of words means a state in which one is inclined to argue."

---not when state also means the condition or postion of one's mind silly. It's called a word with multiple meanings, found in a dictionary. You should purchase one.

Anyway...I have summarized part of the basis of my belief system in Natural Law, which is what you requested. The rest of this, unless you object, does lie in our difference of opinion. And since little by little you are making this a personal vendetta rather than a discussion of a legal issue, I feel you are not worth the time, seconds, minutes it takes to post a responce. If I were, in fact, stupid (I could not attend college with a 3.6 GPA let alone hold an argument, such as this). You're lack of intelligence in choosing words to describe me also proves your misjudgments and pathetic approaches at being witty. Maybe my sentence structures were stupidly typed but since you know NOTHING else about me but my opinion on this matter and a few unstructured sentences, it is clear that you have NO RIGHT to refer to me as a stupid person (meaning stupid in all senses). So, therefore, you have proven your nasty, unsavory attitude and are a lost cause that I don't feel is worth defending myself to and will LOVE ignoring. Goodbye.

--any last words? oh I'm sure you have some, let them speak for themselves as to how much more degrading you can be.

[remedios]

Coherence can be brought to the board only to a point . . .

Which varies with the intelligence of the poster. Unfortunately for me, yours is very low.

Let your capability speak for itself in the recent posts.

Oh it does: my ideas are clearly articulated and my posts are largely free of grammatical or punctuation errors.

. . . how does that account for the billions upon billions of individuals who just live their quiet lives devoid of murder.

They are not yet directly in competition for resources, that's how.

The maternal instinct principle also speaks for itself. In summary, it is, under the concept of Natural Law, the natural instinct built in a mother's "biological make-up" that creates a maternal, sometimes intuitive bond between child and mother during and after pregnancy.

IF the mother wants the kid.

--Haven't read "Leviathan" and NEVER SAID I did...yet another false assumption on your behalf. We covered Hobbes shortly in philosophy and the part of his view I included was just to add emphisis to the idea that living creatures all have an instinctive aim at survival.

So you admit that you haven't actually read Hobbes yourself? Kinda puts a damper on your claim of understanding him, now doesn't it?

--because Mother Nature, or evolution or whatever you wish to call it, allowed women and women only to become pregnant so therefore, man, unfortunately can't follow this rule being that he is incapable to physically be in the same position. Since what a man wants in this case is irrelevant in present day, it is up to the woman and so that is why it is addressed particularly to them.

Gosh, you really are a retard. I didn't ask why men shouldn't be forced to bear children, I asked why EVERYONE isn't forced to sacrifice their own selfish interests to prevent unnecessary death? And you still haven't answered it.

--Because the baby is innocent and did not ask to be conceived . . .

The EXACT SAME THING could be said of cows, but we still kill them.

. . . therefore, it shouldn't have it's life ended by someone who did take part in the conception (this is in the case of concentual sex), and should therefore be unselfish and take responsibility. In a rape case, my first fragment still stands. The child is innocent and did not ask to be in it's position, just as the mother did not ask to...but it happened unfortunately. So instead of killing the innocent of the two, why not give the child a chance at adoption and offer sacrifice (just as our parents have at one time or another) for a child who deserves to have a chance, just as its mother does.

Sacrifices I'm all for, but only VOLUNTARY ones. Otherwise, we should force EVERYONE to sacrifice to ensure that no one ever dies an unnecessary death ever again. You ready to sign up for that one? EH??

--actually hon if you knew how to count there were three typos listed there, and one in your recent post and a few at the beginning which were not worth the effort. And also, less than ten typos on my behalf are quite short of fifty so not only are you unable to comprehend a summarized paragraph of Natural Law, you can't count either.

If you really want to count them and annotate them, I'm more than willing. And I assure you. Yours will far exceed mine.

---HMMM, did I claim that...no. I claimed to be above cheap shots at format and typos and only "stooped to your level" to show you that you are human as well and get sloppy with the keys once and awhile. Hypocrisy, one who points out the wrong of another and then does the same act themselves would fall under that label.

So you're officially above pointing out typos, . . . except that YOU IN FACT DID POINT OUT A TYPO. And resorted to playground humor.

--that sentence there illustrates the true temperature of your blood.

Oh, it's quite warm, especially when I'm having consequence-free sex with my boyfriend.

And also, I was commenting on YOUR statement of a mother only caring about her life and survival and not her child's, which in MY opinion, was selfish.

What happened to Hobbes and "natural law?" Or are you finally admitting that all of this has been nothing but garbage out of the mind of raja?

---not when state also means the condition or postion of one's mind silly.

Which according to you was "argumentative." You're still only conveying that you are predisposed to argue. It STILL doesn't translate to "in my opinion." You're simply wrong, and what's astonishing is that you're still trying to defend it. It'd be laughable if it weren't so unacceptably idiotic.

And since little by little you are making this a personal vendetta rather than a discussion of a legal issue, I feel you are not worth the time, seconds, minutes it takes to post a responce.

Thank god! The idiocy is over.

If I were, in fact, stupid (I could not attend college with a 3.6 GPA let alone hold an argument, such as this).

Now that really depends on what "college," you went to, now doesn't it?

. . . since you know NOTHING else about me but my opinion on this matter and a few unstructured sentences . . .

And who's fault is that?

. . . it is clear that you have NO RIGHT to refer to me as a stupid person (meaning stupid in all senses).

Actually, those things are precisely the kind of thing which give someone a right to judge someone else an idiot.

So, therefore, you have proven your nasty, unsavory attitude and are a lost cause that I don't feel is worth defending myself to and will LOVE ignoring. Goodbye.

Could it really be true??? I'll have to russle up some tears.

[Prolife Defender]

I apologize if any of what I'm about to say has been said before I only have a minute and could not read all posts.

To start with, you all are totally missing the point of an abortion after rape. Let me ask everyone something. If the only way to control population is to kill humans is this right? If because of high abuse rates (though after abortion abuse rates have gone UP 500% due to the lack of value of human life) the only way to solve this is to kill a human being is that right? My last question...if, because you are raped, you get pregnant, is it right to kill a human beign? Ofcourse not, so the debate folks is NOT whether or not its okay to abort a fetus after rape, it's IS THAT FETUS A HUMAN BEING. THE REASON, is because in essence it does not matter HOW that child got there, if it was meant to be there, if it was rape, if it was implanted, it doesnt matter HOW it got there...if it's a human being, then you can not by any means kill it...simple.

First off, I am not some idiot who runs around saying, "oh just live with your baby get over the rape." Not at all, there are millions of counseling centers around the country for those who have been raped. I have extremely close family members who have been raped, and that still doesnt change my point.

First off, tell me what the difference is between a fetus and a toddler? Four things, size, level of development, environment, and dependency. Just because my younger sister is smaller doesnt make her any less human, Just because her brain isn't as developed means I can kill her, just because that infant in the ICU is in the ICU and not outside (environment) does it mean I can kill it, and lastly, if you say because it's dependent on its mother so it cant live by itself you may as well kill my father who's dependent on Insulin for life.

Secondly, when that fetus is conceived it is NOT a part of the woman's body. I REPEAT, the fetus is NOT A PART OF THE WOMAN'S BODY, it is simply NESTING in it!!! Proof?? Easy...a white woman becomes pregnant, take the fertilized egg and put it in a black woman...guess what folks it's not white when it comes out. How come? Because that fetus has received the 26 chromosomes it needs to survive at the moment of coneption. At that point NOT ONE CODE OF GENETIC MATERIAL IS EVER, EVER added. NOTHING changes at that point, it is its own genetic being.

And lastly, what does the federal government have to say about it? I bring up the recently passed law...lisa Keeney (dont think i spelled it right) law, if you kill a woman who's pregnant you are responsible for TWO HOMICIDES. Huh, now THAT'S strange, two homicides? How can you be responsible for two homicides of the fetus isn't HUMAN?! You CAN'T!!!! Abortion beign legal is COMPLETELY self contradicting when the federal government has RECOGNIZED the fetus's humanity or right to life! It has the right to life and taking that life is murder, PERIOD.

Lastly, I bring up the Law of Biogenesis. The law of biogensis is simple - Every living thing produces after its own
kind. Dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, and humans beget humans. To find out
what something is, ask 'What are its parents?' Human parents can only
produce human offspring.

Afterall how can it be possible for two human beings to create a seperate
entity that is not human - in clear violation of the law of biogenesis - but
later becomes one? If the unborn is not human, then what can it be for nine
months? and how and when does it suddenly transform into a human?

Clearly at conception, all gentic material necessary for adulthood is
present. Gender, appearance and some scientists argue even personality
traits are determined. Clearly a unique human identity is present from
conception as would be required under the scientific law of biogensis.



SOOOOO...when it comes down to it, when you say 'abort the baby she's been raped' you're talking from the heart, from emotions, NOT the facts. Fact is, abortion is murder.

[remedios]

Fact is, humans murder all the time. Fact is, tremedous loss of life occurs the entire world over EVERY DAY, not because of our inability to prevent it, but for our LACK OF WILL to do so: because it would be inconvenient, because we'd have to readjust the way we operate on a day-to-day basis, because we'd ALL have to sacrifice some of our comfort, because we simply don't want to. Not because we couldn't even if we tried: BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO.

Making abortion illegal discriminates against women: it requires that women give up their freedom and their autonomy in order to proprogate human life, to put human life above convenience and be selfless in a way that NOBODY ELSE, (least of all men and the governments they constitute) are.

You want women to stop aborting their babies? You want to make it happen on the straight and narrow, with no hypocrisy on your part? Then REALLY cultivate a "culture of life:" descry war and all forms of neglect of human beings, descry greed.

Be more like Jesus.

[wow]

that was deep. Thank you, Remedios.

[PYFAFYKI]

Remedios you make this very difficult to argue against, you make anyone who tries look like they are aginst women's rights. Yes, I agree that there are many things in our world that need to change, but let's be honest here. Yes there is tremendous loss of life all over the world everyday, and yes I'll even say that a significant number of those are not from natural causes.

However, are you going to think on your own as you say Jesus did? Or will you try and slip your conscience off on the conscience of the world?

(Just making you think, not necesarily my opinion)

[remedios]

You miss my point. I am not saying that women should be left alone to abort as they see fit. If the only point I was making was that the rest of the world is horrible so women should be allowed to be horrible, I'd have a piss poor argument indeed. What I am actually saying is that, if you want, in fact, to create a culture of life, if that is your true motivation when arguing against abortion, then you cannot stop at abortion. I am pointing out what I see as a horrible hypocrisy, a two-facedness that I believe indicates a lack of sincerity on the part of many pro-lifers.

In short, I am saying that if you want to be pro-life, then be PRO-LIFE, but do not imagine you fool anyone into believing you if the only thing you care about is whether a woman chooses to keep her baby or not. Because that is not the end of the story of our culture of death.

Women aborting is only one of many symptoms. I wouldn't disagree with you if you said that it ranks as one of the more immediately alarming ones, but it is part of a much bigger problem. Anyone who argues otherwise is either in denial, or is not sincere about valuing life.