DVDizzy Forum

two reasons.

1. the church has affected our values so much, even atheists keep traces.

2. there's a whole demographic of religious nuts to advertise to.

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: A siamese twin must depend on the other to survive, yet killing one of them would be considered murder.

If you're speaking about Siamese twins who have been born, then those twins aren't in the mother's womb, they are not "parasites," using other people's terminology. So it's completely different, it'd be killing a really-for-real, born human.

Don't you see I've been saying I view fetuses that have come to a certain stage as being a really-for-real human? That's the point I'm making, that being attached to and depending on someone doesn't mean you aren't alive as Siamese twins prove. It doesn't matter if you're attached to another person in the womb or attached to another person outside a womb, it's all still being attached to and depending on another person to live but you are still a life that shouldn't be killed.

blackcauldron85 wrote:And this is getting off-topic, but what do you feel about pulling the plug on someone who is on life-support? Do you think that that's wrong, that someone who has been on life-support for years and it's so unlikely that their health will improve, should stay on life support, just in case?

When it comes to life-support, by that time someone should have been able to say if they wanted life support or not. If they didn't say how they feel on the matter, I believe the humane thing will always be to pull the plug after a certain period of time, perhaps after looking at statistics of how long it takes most people to come out of such things, and if it's too random, then I'd pull the plug pretty soon. And if the person is too young to have even thought of how they feel on the matter, then pulling the plug after the same amount of time is also what I feel is best. Since allowing a fetus to grow and live as it naturally, definately will is quite different from someone on life support who might live or might not, I have such different stances.

blackcauldron85 wrote:

DancingCrab wrote:According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

That's actually a super-amazing revelation!

Please tell me why you believe that even after you read my response on it. Especially since the Bible never actually says a fetus is not a living person till after it breaths nor does it mention the word fetus that I know of.

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I think what we like about ourselves is what is not mistakes, and what we don't like is mistakes.

I've always liked you, DD, so I'm not picking on you whatsoever, but...

I'm short. Luckily, I'm fine with being short, but if I weren't, I could chalk it up to it being a mistake? A person has what everyone else would call psychological issues, and that person is a serial killer. He is fine with who he is, he doesn't think of it as a mistake, so that wouldn't be a mistake?

Thanks I always liked you too, who doesn't lol, but it's all about if you personally think it's a mistake or not. In the case of the serial killer, who is to say if the reason he is killing is because of genetic mistakes or his own personal will? That is getting into a very debatable subject right there.

Sotiris wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:Except that they are under Transsexuals or Transgenderism. Otherwise they wouldn't be under that category would they?

I mean category as in "type"; in the sense of common features, appearance or behavior. Women belong to the "female" category. Are all women alike? No.

Yes but then you have women who have red hair and you have women who used to be men. It still can be a turn-off feature that will turn you off from as many women as you might be turned off by ones who had red hair or who smoke or who like Michael Bay movies or something.

Disney Duster wrote: Don't you see I've been saying I view fetuses that have come to a certain stage as being a really-for-real human? That's the point I'm making, that being attached to and depending on someone doesn't mean you aren't alive as Siamese twins prove. It doesn't matter if you're attached to another person in the womb or attached to another person outside a womb, it's all still being attached to and depending on another person to live but you are still a life that shouldn't be killed.

I do get it now. And I'm not saying that I don't equate fetuses to be humans or not...I mean, they are human fetuses...

Disney Duster wrote:

blackcauldron85 wrote: That's actually a super-amazing revelation!

Please tell me why you believe that even after you read my response on it. Especially since the Bible never actually says a fetus is not a living person till after it breaths nor does it mention the word fetus that I know of.

Even you had asked

when does God put that breath of life in a person, in the womb or the moment they do take a literal physical breath?"

. So, I mean, my whole feelings about religion is that it's a belief system, it's a personal belief, so some people may believe the former, some may believe the latter, and some may believe neither.

blackcauldron85 wrote:So, I mean, my whole feelings about religion is that it's a belief system, it's a personal belief, so some people may believe the former, some may believe the latter, and some may believe neither.

Right. There's really no clear literal words in the Bible spelling out anything about fetuses that I know of. That's why I think we need to use the other stuff God gave us, our brains and hearts, to judge what to do, aside from the Bible telling us a soul is in all people, so it must come into the unborn child at some point.

New law in Arizona states 'pregnancy begins two weeks before conception'
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-law ... ArizonaLaw

Not sure if I commented here before...been so long but...

it is a catch 22.

If you do say from the moment of conception a fetus is life and thus human, then abortion will be murder.
But if you say its not life/human till its born, then if a woman who DOES want to give birth is harmed and the fetus dies, then the attacker cannot be tried for murder.

And for me, that is where I am totally on the fence.

I do feel it should be a choice, but I can't say for sure whether it should be legally deemed human or not and when that happens.

Honestly its usually a tough decision to make. There are women out there who see abortion as birth control and that does anger me. But to deny them is to deny all. And with so many more children then there are good homes for them its not like there are ready homes waiting. Especially in many other countries.

Sotiris wrote:New law in Arizona states 'pregnancy begins two weeks before conception'
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-law ... ArizonaLaw

................

Siren wrote: it is a catch 22.

If you do say from the moment of conception a fetus is life and thus human, then abortion will be murder.


But if you say its not life/human till its born, then if a woman who DOES want to give birth is harmed and the fetus dies, then the attacker cannot be tried for murder.

That's not the point. I mean, we can sit here for months and have philosophical discussions on when a fetus can be declared life. But in reality, you know you can't put a hard and fast definition on life like that.

The point still stands though, it's not murder. I think people get so caught up on that last fact that they forget what is really important here.

Being pregnant isn't fun, we all know this. It's painful, changes your body, takes you out of the workplace for a bit. And the fact is we can't force anyone to go through this for another life. If we did, that would mean you would have to force people to donate organs too, but we don't do that because we allow people to be in charge of their own bodies.

But because of our patriarchal society, women (the kind of people who are against abortion think all pregnant people are women, but I discussed this earlier) aren't allowed to make such a decision for themselves and their bodies.

If a person needed a kidney, but a person with a viable match wouldn't give up their kidney, are they a murderer? It's no different. Some people may question the ethics of this person, but it's their choice. Pro-lifers don't think *women* deserve this choice. "What do they know, they're women!"

And the doctor wouldn't be a murderer either, because he is just helping the person carry out their decision safely.

Siren wrote:Honestly its usually a tough decision to make. There are women out there who see abortion as birth control and that does anger me.

They don't anger me at all. They are just exercising their right over their own body. The only time I support abortions is when someone doesn't want to be pregnant anymore (and all that comes with it). Who cares how many times someone gets an abortion or the circumstances around it? It's their body, their life, and their choices, and it seems to me you are just projecting your personal beliefs over the issue. Let the pregnant people project their own personal beliefs over it and be able to decide what is best for them.

I am prochoice. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion of those who use it repeatably for birth control. I never said they couldn't get more than one abortion I am just disgusted some do.