Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:06 pm
you fail at reading comprehension don't you, Duster? Also A fetus isn't a living human being yet. so you're point been moot logn ago. Why even argue at this point.
Page 8 of 13
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:42 pm
I've already explained why I say you're wrong and a fetus is a living human being by the time it gets to a certain point. So right, let's not argue at this point.
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:54 pm
no you haven't.Disney Duster wrote:I've already explained why I say you're wrong
A fetus does not become a human until long after that(long after 40 weeks). And that most abortions are perform long before that stage happens. We said this before. Like I said. You need to learn read better.Disney Duster wrote:and a fetus is a living human being by the time it gets to a certain point.
To me that sounds like you don't want to admit you're wrong and that you don't want to deal with the argument any more.Disney Duster wrote:So right, let's not argue at this point.
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:17 pm
I already explained how once it has a heartbeat it is a living human being.
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:11 pm
Except that doesn't qualify as being alive or a living being yet.Disney Duster wrote:I already explained how once it has a heartbeat it is a living human being.
Someone already refute that point as there are organisms that do not have a heart at all yet are still living organisms.
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:27 pm
No but those are organisms that don't require a heartbeat. We are talking about human life, not other life. If you want to talk about life for any organism, it's when all the organism's parts that are required for it to be alive are working. Also in the case of humans its when it's feeling and thinking but they are not quite sure of when that happens so we have to go by the parts that they can observe such as heartbeat and the rest.
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:16 am
But it's just making the Biblical verse clearer - it obviously means that he was not alive until he started breathing.Disney Duster wrote:The part you bolded is not the quote from the Bible. It is what the tumblr person wrote.Super Aurora wrote: bold is key.
If you had actually read what SA had put instead of skimming over it, you would have noticed that he was saying that by YOUR LOGIC, animals and plants aren't alive. You said that Adam wasn't 'alive' until he had free will, the ability to think, etc.Disney Duster wrote:Animals are alive. You shouldn't kill them either, but what I've been talking about in here is killing live humans.Super Aurora wrote:Being able to think, have free will etc does not constitute as being alive. If you went that direction might as well say animals and plants are alive or living either.
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:48 am
I believe that it's quite unfair (to say the least) to force a woman to keep an unwanted pregnancy just because of a mistake or worse, a sexual assault. Forcing her to go through 9 months of emotional and physical anguish, and go through a painful labor where it's possible to die and then go through post-natal depression all for a pregnancy she never wanted. It could ruin her life forever.
Also, by not legalizing abortion you're not really stopping abortions from happening. You're just forcing women to travel to third-world countries and have an abortion under dangerous and unhealthy situations in which they might even lose their lives.
If abortion was legalized, the social stigma of having one would eradicate, and clinics and hospitals could provide a safe and healthy environment for women who choose to have an abortion. They could also offer psychological help after an abortion since an intrusive surgery like that is not only physically painful but mentally as well.
There could be an evaluation of women who would come to have an abortion to make sure these women are not coerced by boyfriends or their families to have one against their will. Or even if the reasons for wanting an abortion were merely financial, they could provide these women with financial aid. They could also offer guidance to women who are undecided by explaining the physical and mental consequences in both cases (choosing to have an abortion or keeping the baby and giving birth).
Also, by not legalizing abortion you're not really stopping abortions from happening. You're just forcing women to travel to third-world countries and have an abortion under dangerous and unhealthy situations in which they might even lose their lives.
If abortion was legalized, the social stigma of having one would eradicate, and clinics and hospitals could provide a safe and healthy environment for women who choose to have an abortion. They could also offer psychological help after an abortion since an intrusive surgery like that is not only physically painful but mentally as well.
There could be an evaluation of women who would come to have an abortion to make sure these women are not coerced by boyfriends or their families to have one against their will. Or even if the reasons for wanting an abortion were merely financial, they could provide these women with financial aid. They could also offer guidance to women who are undecided by explaining the physical and mental consequences in both cases (choosing to have an abortion or keeping the baby and giving birth).
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:22 pm
Repeating something doesn't make it true.Disney Duster wrote:I've already explained why I say you're wrong and a fetus is a living human being by the time it gets to a certain point. So right, let's not argue at this point.
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:00 pm
This fucking annoys me.
source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... ZH20120203(Reuters) - Virginia would halt taxpayer-funded abortions for low-income women in cases where the fetus is severely physically deformed or mentally deficient under Republican-backed legislation passed Friday by state lawmakers.
The House of Delegates voted 64-35 to strip the Board of Health of its ability to fund abortions for Medicaid recipients when a physician certifies that the fetus would be born with a "gross and totally incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency."
The measure comes amid a raft of conservative bills in the Virginia General Assembly, which shifted to the right following the 2011 general election.
Separate legislation backed by the state Senate on Wednesday would require women to be given an ultrasound and the chance to see the fetal image before an abortion is performed.
Legislation that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy was narrowly defeated in a Senate committee on Wednesday.
The Virginia Progressive Caucus said in a statement that the de-funding bill passed by the House on Friday lacked compassion and put government in the middle of a painful decision.
"When you are denying Medicaid funding for abortion, for some women you are denying their ability to get one," Democratic Delegate Jennifer McClellan argued during the House debate.
But Republican Delegate Mark Cole said the bill he co-sponsored would not ban abortions for poor women.
"All we're talking about is who's going to be forced to pay for this. There's organizations like Planned Parenthood that could pay for this," he said.
Democratic Delegate Mark Sickles told House members that only 10 abortions fitting the bill's criteria occurred last year.
The House also approved legislation on Friday that would allow faith-based adoption agencies to deny placements based on religious beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality. Lawmakers approved the measure 71-28 without debate.
Under the measure, private adoption agencies would not be required to consider or consent to foster care or adoption placements in conflict with the religious tenets of the agency's sponsor or any organization or institution affiliated with the agency.
The measure prohibits damages claims for such refusals. It would put into state law a controversial Board of Social Services decision last year to allow state-licensed adoption agencies to consider sexual orientation, age, disability, gender, family status and political beliefs during placements.
Critics of the bill argue that its main intent is to allow discrimination against prospective parents who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
Noting that a Senate version of the bill also received final committee endorsement on Friday, Equality Virginia Executive Director James Parrish said lawmakers were more concerned about protecting agencies' financial interests than children in the system.
"What we're even more concerned about, there's nothing protecting LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender) children in the system from being placed in unfriendly homes," he said.
A spokesman for Republican Governor Bob McDonnell told Reuters in an email Friday that the governor would sign the adoption bill and review the abortion measure if they reach his desk.
(Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Tim Gaynor)
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:39 pm
This pisses me off. Even more for the fact that it's not even out-and-out discrimination, just greed.Super Aurora wrote:The House also approved legislation on Friday that would allow faith-based adoption agencies to deny placements based on religious beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality. Lawmakers approved the measure 71-28 without debate.
Under the measure, private adoption agencies would not be required to consider or consent to foster care or adoption placements in conflict with the religious tenets of the agency's sponsor or any organization or institution affiliated with the agency.
The measure prohibits damages claims for such refusals. It would put into state law a controversial Board of Social Services decision last year to allow state-licensed adoption agencies to consider sexual orientation, age, disability, gender, family status and political beliefs during placements.
Critics of the bill argue that its main intent is to allow discrimination against prospective parents who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
Noting that a Senate version of the bill also received final committee endorsement on Friday, Equality Virginia Executive Director James Parrish said lawmakers were more concerned about protecting agencies' financial interests than children in the system.
"What we're even more concerned about, there's nothing protecting LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender) children in the system from being placed in unfriendly homes," he said.
Also, I love that last quote. Of course, the adoption agencies only see the "problem" (those dangerous homosexuals) from without not within.
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:37 pm
I explained how it's not.Dr Frankenollie wrote:But it's just making the Biblical verse clearer - it obviously means that he was not alive until he started breathing.
You know I did too it a little too fast, I should have taken more time and said that there are two different types of being alive. Spiritual and physical. God gave him both in that moment. The Bible wouldn't have been specific enough to say things like plants are also alive.Dr Frankenollie wrote:If you had actually read what SA had put instead of skimming over it, you would have noticed that he was saying that by YOUR LOGIC, animals and plants aren't alive. You said that Adam wasn't 'alive' until he had free will, the ability to think, etc.
Sotiris, which is more tramautizing then, being pregnant for 9 months, having the baby, and giving it up, or having an abortion?
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:05 pm
Same here.Super Aurora wrote:This fucking annoys me.[...]
This dangerous interfering with people's lives would be upsetting enough if it came out of holier than thou insensitivity alone, but the fact that it comes from greed as well just makes it all the more putrid.
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:31 am
I don't think so.Disney Duster wrote:I explained how it's not.Dr Frankenollie wrote:But it's just making the Biblical verse clearer - it obviously means that he was not alive until he started breathing.
So...are you saying that while humans are both physically and spiritually alive, plants and animals are only physically alive? And that we're spiritually alive in the womb, but physically alive once outside? Personally, I think this is a load of nonsense you came up with to excuse the Bible's indirect approval of abortions. What does it even mean for someone to be spiritually alive? The Bible doesn't mention plants and animals not being spiritually alive yet being physically alive. Why do you believe it?Disney Duster wrote:You know I did too it a little too fast, I should have taken more time and said that there are two different types of being alive. Spiritual and physical. God gave him both in that moment. The Bible wouldn't have been specific enough to say things like plants are also alive.
Being pregnant for 9 months if it was caused by sexual assault is clearly much more traumatising. If you honestly believe that raped women can't have abortions, then...you disgust me.Disney Duster wrote:Sotiris, which is more tramautizing then, being pregnant for 9 months, having the baby, and giving it up, or having an abortion?
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:53 pm
Disney Duster wrote:I should have taken more time and said that there are two different types of being alive. Spiritual and physical.
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:09 pm
Animals might be spiritually alive.Dr Frankenollie wrote:So...are you saying that while humans are both physically and spiritually alive, plants and animals are only physically alive? And that we're spiritually alive in the womb, but physically alive once outside? Personally, I think this is a load of nonsense you came up with to excuse the Bible's indirect approval of abortions. What does it even mean for someone to be spiritually alive? The Bible doesn't mention plants and animals not being spiritually alive yet being physically alive. Why do you believe it?
Here's a breakdown:
The Bible believes in souls and spirits, which are alive, correct?
Adam wasn't alive before the breath of life came into him, correct?
Adam's body existed, but his soul was not in him before the breath of life, correct?
Therefore Adam became alive in both senses of the word when the breath of life was put into him. Also notice it says it is "God's breath" not Adam's breath, it makes no mention of Adam breathing even though he'd have to be breathing to be alive in addition to having a soul.
The rape itself would be more tramautizing. A woman learning to view the life growing inside her as an individual that is not the man who raped her...that's different.Dr Frankenollie wrote:Being pregnant for 9 months if it was caused by sexual assault is clearly much more traumatising. If you honestly believe that raped women can't have abortions, then...you disgust me.
Well I by spiritually being alive I mean just having a spirit/soul.Goliath wrote:WTFDisney Duster wrote:I should have taken more time and said that there are two different types of being alive. Spiritual and physical.
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:21 pm
This interpretation wasn't as hilarious as I was hoping for...Disney Duster wrote:Here's a breakdown:
The Bible believes in souls and spirits, which are alive, correct?
Adam wasn't alive before the breath of life came into him, correct?
Adam's body existed, but his soul was not in him before the breath of life, correct?
Therefore Adam became alive in both senses of the word when the breath of life was put into him. Also notice it says it is "God's breath" not Adam's breath, it makes no mention of Adam breathing even though he'd have to be breathing to be alive in addition to having a soul.
YOU ARE EITHER LYING OR CONTRADICTING YOURSELF. PROOF:Disney Duster wrote:The rape itself would be more tramautizing. A woman learning to view the life growing inside her as an individual that is not the man who raped her...that's different.Dr Frankenollie wrote:Being pregnant for 9 months if it was caused by sexual assault is clearly much more traumatising. If you honestly believe that raped women can't have abortions, then...you disgust me.
You asked Sotiris "which is more traumatising: having the baby or having an abortion?" Yet when I say which one I think is more traumatising, you say "The rape itself would be more traumatizing, blah blah blah..." You didn't give that as an option. The options were having the baby, or having an abortion. Don't twist the facts.Disney Duster wrote:Sotiris, which is more tramautizing then, being pregnant for 9 months, having the baby, and giving it up, or having an abortion?
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:53 pm
Why the hell does it matter whether or not Adam was alive when God created him/breathed on him? You're all treating it like it's a historic fact. It's a fairytale!
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:53 pm
I agree that one should be allowed to decide, as only that person knows whether or not having 9 months of pregnancy is more traumatizing than having and/or raising the child. It's different for everyone. Expecting someone to be okay with it, as Duster said, just doesn't work, because everybody is different, and some people just can't learn to do it. That is why it should be a choice. Not to mention its not alive, so its not murder. But no need going into that again.Dr Frankenollie wrote: Being pregnant for 9 months if it was caused by sexual assault is clearly much more traumatising. If you honestly believe that raped women can't have abortions, then...you disgust me.
Not directed only at you, Dr. Frank, but I am continuously astounded that everyone in this thread is only addressing rape and abortion for women. As much as we'd like to think the world is black and white, there are many (key word. it's not as uncommon as society would lead you to think) men, CAFABs (Coercively Assigned Female At Birth), and other "variants" that are raped and/or have abortions. And I can only assume you have the same opinion towards them. But just saying "women have the right to choose" is really ciscentric and non-inclusive. You are literally disregarding the experiences and issues of many when you say that, which makes you look ignorant. Just because someone can get pregnant does not mean that they are a women. I just wanted to point this out in case some just didn't realize it, and feel that its important to be inclusive of all people who have abortions, instead of only arguing for a certain type of abortion-prone person during future discussions. Personally, I feel like there is a huge hole in either argument if you only address women, because you make it seem like you don't have an opinion on male abortion. Which, I'm sure you do, and it's probably the same. But I just don't understand the point of using such a limiting word as "women", when not only women can get pregnant and have abortions. And using more inclusive terms is not difficult, and will strengthen your argument.
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:18 am
Recently, a member at another forum I'm a member of posted about being raped and impregnated by her father at fourteen-years-old and she got an abortion. The damage down there from her father raping her required staples and sutures! She thinks God is punishing her now because she and her boyfriend have been trying for a baby for six months. Also she has doctors who think she is to blame if she can't get pregnant again. I really wanted to hug the poor woman! 