DescentBB

I'm one of those people, kurupt, but I really don't see how your question applies. I've already stated that you're not responsible for your girlfriend's abortion but she is, since you had no idea that it was going to happen. However, even if you had known, you still wouldn't have been responsible if you had done your best to discourage her and talk her out of it. Forcibly restraining her and kidnapping her is not only illegal, it goes far beyond what you are called to do; the responsibility still rests on her. I'm still not sure exactly what you were asking.

i'm responsible because i planted the seed, arent i not? the baby would not have been aborted, hence a life would not have been taken, had i took better precautions and not gotten her pregnant in the first place (assuming it was mine). so if for that i'm not a murderer by the same logic other people are murderers for having abortions, maybe we should be a little less hasty to toss the word murderer around?

to a degree Kur. the final decision rests with the woman wether she wants to keep the fetus or abort it.

Kur, you really need to let go ofthat guilt youre trying to place on yourself. Even Kd has said youre not responsible.

missing the point. the point is that a "its always murder" stance is unbelievably closed minded. i just wanted to see how closed minded some of these people on the board are. i'm actually quite surprised.

I've never understood the whole circumstantial approach myself.

It's either life or it's not. It's either wrong or it's not. There's no justifying it via circumstances. We don't judge any other ethic on the basis of our convenience, so why this one? If you're hungry, you can't steal bread. If you're angry, you can't injure people. If you're inconveniently pregnant, why should this be any different?

In regards to when life begins, well, until well-paid scientists finally figure it out, I don't see how it's worth playing a guessing game over. I mean, come on, is it really worth gambling when someone's life is potentially at steak?

Top Gun wrote:...in most cases, the man must masturbate to produce the required semen for the procedure...

False: (a common misconception) Masterbation doesn't yield enough sperm, they actually have to stick a tube up in there and extract them. I have heard it is quite painful and unpleasant. I do agree with the throwing away extra fertilized eggs part, though.

Jeff250 wrote:I've never understood the whole circumstantial approach myself.

It's either life or it's not. It's either wrong or it's not. There's no justifying it via circumstances. We don't judge any other ethic on the basis of our convenience, so why this one? If you're hungry, you can't steal bread. If you're angry, you can't injure people. If you're inconveniently pregnant, why should this be any different?

Wrong- everything is circumstantial. Having sex isn't necessarily a sin- it's the circumstances that dictate that. Killing someone isn't necessarily a sin- it's the circumstances that define that. (remember, God told the Isrealites to kill all the people in the promised land) Now, does X circumstance make it so that an abortion is or isn't wrong? Certainly it does, but one must use extreme caution in trying to determine what way it goes. Sometimes it's a matter of one life or the other, and sometimes it's a case of one life (the mother's) or neither. With great power comes great responsibility- I think the key in it is in using abortions as an emergency procedure, when all other methods have failed. Also, it seems that the woman's life is assumed to be more important than the baby's life, I would like that assumption to be removed. As I mentioned earlier- from the perspective of continuing the race, the babies is actually more important.

kurupt wrote:...i'm actually quite surprised.

I'll take that as a good thing.

Ferno wrote:to a degree Kur. the final decision rests with the woman wether she wants to keep the fetus or abort it.

Exactly, I must say I would be a supporter of "Men's Rights" or better said "Equal Rights". If a woman wants an abortion but the man does not, shouldn't the man have equal say? Think about if a man wants an abortion but the woman doesn't, what's going to happen?

Topher wrote:

Ferno wrote:to a degree Kur. the final decision rests with the woman wether she wants to keep the fetus or abort it.

Exactly, I must say I would be a supporter of "Men's Rights" or better said "Equal Rights". If a woman wants an abortion but the man does not, shouldn't the man have equal say? Think about if a man wants an abortion but the woman doesn't, what's going to happen?

Like the feminazis will ever allow us equal footing regarding the children we help create...

I wasn't aware of that, snoopy. Even without that factor, though, the procedure of artificial insemination would still be disapproved of, due to the act of conception occurring outside of sexual intercourse. Also, I'm actually glad that you posted your opinion that the unborn child is, from an evolutionary or biological standpoint, more important than its mother. I personally place equal worth on the life of the mother and unborn child; however, it's nice to see another opinion besides, "The mother's life is much more important because she was already born." That statement never made any sense to me.

Topher, I would also like to see the man have some sort of say in the matter. Personally, I would like the onus to fall on allowing the baby to be born. For example, if the woman wanted the abortion but the man did not, I would favor the woman being prohibited from having an abortion. If the man agreed to take full custody and financial responsibility of the child, why would the woman want an abortion? Just as a manner of "convenience," so that she wouldn't have to bother with pregnancy? If the opposite situation were true, if the woman wanted to keep the child and the man wanted an abortion, I would put no pressure on the woman to have an abortion. Once again, if she was willing to take full care of the child, why would the man care if she had an abortion or not? This is my take on the matter; I'd be interested in hearing some of yours.

P.S. I don't think I've ever seen such an intelligent thread here dealing with religion, sexuality, and abortion. For once, we're not getting into flamewars on these subjects .

Your mother wears combat boots Hur hur.

I concur with the no flamewar thing...is nice.

Yes that's good. Thx, TopGun.

Jeff250 wrote:I've never understood the whole circumstantial approach myself.

It's either life or it's not. It's either wrong or it's not. There's no justifying it via circumstances. We don't judge any other ethic on the basis of our convenience, so why this one? If you're hungry, you can't steal bread. If you're angry, you can't injure people. If you're inconveniently pregnant, why should this be any different?

In regards to when life begins, well, until well-paid scientists finally figure it out, I don't see how it's worth playing a guessing game over. I mean, come on, is it really worth gambling when someone's life is potentially at steak?

the debate over abortion has nothing to do with when life begins. EVERY scientist agrees that life begins at conception. the debate is concerned with when personhood, otherwise known as ontological status, begins.

Jeff250 wrote:I've never understood the whole circumstantial approach myself.

this is what i was getting at. if its never ok to abort and its always murder, why is it not in my case? there should be no exceptions! i know everything is circumstantial to a certain degree, but are we not murdering a child to save a mothers life in a situation where they both wouldnt make it? it is still murder, is it not?

but are we not murdering a child to save a mothers life in a situation where they both wouldnt make it? it is still murder, is it not?

Well, in this situation you have a choice. You either lose just the child, or lose both the child and the mother. The child is a goner either way (in most cases). In this case, I'd say you might as well sacrifice the child to save the mother. I believe when abortion was outlawed (before Roe v Wade), most (if not all) of the states had an exception to it if the mother's life was at risk if the child went to term (or got started very far, such as in an ectopic pregnancy).

kurupt wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:I've never understood the whole circumstantial approach myself.

this is what i was getting at. if its never ok to abort and its always murder, why is it not in my case? there should be no exceptions! i know everything is circumstantial to a certain degree, but are we not murdering a child to save a mothers life in a situation where they both wouldnt make it? it is still murder, is it not?

When I said that, I wasn't thinking of actual merit-worthy circumstances, just trying to point out that "convenience" alone is a pretty lousy premise to judge a moral upon and that we should be taking a better look at the excuses some people give for them. Sometimes they sound like good reasons, but really aren't pertinent to the ethical issue in any way.

I think the reason that people are unanimously saying you're A-OK is that, if I remember correctly, you really didn't have anything to do with the abortion, regardless of whether or not your girlfriend's decision was right.

the debate over abortion has nothing to do with when life begins. EVERY scientist agrees that life begins at conception. the debate is concerned with when personhood, otherwise known as ontological status, begins.

So when "human life" begins then-- until some even-betterly-paid scientists can definitively give me the answer on this one, the stakes are too rich for my blood.

back to topic.

Stemcell research doesn't need to be done on embrios. It had been found that the same results can be acheived by using fat cells.

LOL....if that were the case why isnt there a market for fat cell donation? Ace could be a millionaire overnight!

There goes our lack of flames .

Snoopy Said:
"False: (a common misconception) Masterbation doesn't yield enough sperm, they actually have to stick a tube up in there and extract them. I have heard it is quite painful and unpleasant. I do agree with the throwing away extra fertilized eggs part, though."


Can I get some proof of this? This seems hard to believe. Thanks!

Hmmm.

It's a point of fact that fertilised human eggs are NOT and can NOT be classified as human UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Fact: over 60% of fertilised eggs are automatically aborted by the female body. If fertilised eggs were so important, you'd think the human body would go to greater lengths to retain them.

Persons who argue about the humanity of fertilised eggs simply do not understand the biology involved, and have extremely old-world religious views. They are wrong, and don't like to be told the truth.

The simple fact that Stem Cell research offers humanity a plethora or incredible benefits in the future is all the information which is required to make a decision about whether to persue it.

When avenues of research are limited by the government, you can guarantee other countries will pick up the ball and run with it. Stem Cell reasearch has the potential to be a trillion dollar industry - and if the US government is too weak to allow it, then the rest of the world doesn't mind selling you the benefits later on.

Mobius wrote:Hmmm.

It's a point of fact that fertilised human eggs are NOT and can NOT be classified as human UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Fact: over 60% of fertilised eggs are automatically aborted by the female body. If fertilised eggs were so important, you'd think the human body would go to greater lengths to retain them.

Persons who argue about the humanity of fertilised eggs simply do not understand the biology involved, and have extremely old-world religious views. They are wrong, and don't like to be told the truth.

The simple fact that Stem Cell research offers humanity a plethora or incredible benefits in the future is all the information which is required to make a decision about whether to persue it.

When avenues of research are limited by the government, you can guarantee other countries will pick up the ball and run with it. Stem Cell reasearch has the potential to be a trillion dollar industry - and if the US government is too weak to allow it, then the rest of the world doesn't mind selling you the benefits later on.

Ok, then go ahead a define a more appropriate, and less arbitrary time when the fertilized thing growing into humanity becomes humanity

(Birds I'll look for backup when I get home- don't want to get myself in trouble at work looking for random stuff.)

Sry for the delay. From Here it looks like it depends on the reason for the need for the fertility stuff. If it's the woman, Masterbation is used. If the man has a low sperm count, or no sperm, then they use other methods....

Well that seems a bit more logical now doesn't it?

DCrazy wrote:Well that seems a bit more logical now doesn't it?

Well, you know....