DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:36 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 249 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:29 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 341
Location: Ireland
phan258 wrote:
Anyway, if you believe overpopulation is a problem, why wouldn't you be in favor of aborting unwanted pregnancies? The two issues seem pretty relevant to eachother to me.


The two issues may seem relevant but really, in terms of scale they aren't. Remember, I said that in an ideal world we would all take responsibilty for our actions, I did not say that I was completely against abortion. There are cases where, if both parents agree, abortion is for the best. Some parents are simply not able to take on the responsibility of having a child. In these cases do I believe that it was irresponsible of them to have sex and create a life in the first place, even though they knew they couldn't support it if it should happen? Yes, I do.
Abortion is not a form of contraception.
Aborting an unwanted pregnancy will not solve the problem of overpopulation, the number of aborted pregnancies each year is a drop in the ocean.

The way forward with this issue (aside from contraception) may be to either limit the number of children that people can have or tax people based on the number of children they have. I think both these things are unfair, I mean surely people should be allowed to have as many kids as they want, but when you consider the alternative, which is overpopulating the world until your grandchildren are born into a life in which they do not have enough food to survive, it doesn't seem so cruel.

If we don't take care of it, nature will, and that basically means that the lack of food will cause people to die until the population becomes small enough to support itself again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:21 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:24 pm
Posts: 668
Location: United States Gender: Female
Goliath wrote:
Linden wrote:
I'm against abortion for the most part. I can certainly understand why some women would want one, but I think that abortion is killing a life. What does it matter if the life can't survive outside of the womb? What does that have to do with anything? That's just further proof that the fetus is being killed.

That proofs it's not "life" and thus it is not "killing". It's really as simple as that.
But it lives in the womb. That means it has a life. So taking its life is killing it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:46 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
Linden wrote:
Goliath wrote:
That proofs it's not "life" and thus it is not "killing". It's really as simple as that.

But it lives in the womb. That means it has a life. So taking its life is killing it.

Perhaps people should not be debating when life begins, but where and when a living being's humanity lies.

Technically speaking, the individual cells of our body live and die throughout our life spans, and that includes ova and spermatazoa. If an ovum is released through the menstruation process and exits the body due to not being fertilized, it will die. And once spermatozoa are released from the body, they will die if they do not find an ovum to fertilize. The zygote an ovum and a spermatozoon form is biologically alive, and there's no doubt that consciously taking its life away is, by definition, killing it.

I believe the real issue with abortion is whether or not the baby forming inside the mother is considered a human life at any point, because once it's human, taking its life is not just killing it, it's actual murder. And how do we decide if and when the unborn baby is "human?" Once it's able to survive outside the womb? Once it grows recognizable eyes, hands, and toes? When it kicks and sucks its thumb? When it's able to observe, reason, feel, and love? Or . . . is it simply the moment those two cells join together? Where on earth should we draw the line and why?

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:58 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:36 pm
Posts: 1700
enigmawing wrote:
I believe the real issue with abortion is whether or not the baby forming inside the mother is considered a human life at any point, because once it's human, taking its life is not just killing it, it's actual murder. And how do we decide if and when the unborn baby is "human?" Once it's able to survive outside the womb? Once it grows recognizable eyes, hands, and toes? When it kicks and sucks its thumb? When it's able to observe, reason, feel, and love? Or . . . is it simply the moment those two cells join together? Where on earth should we draw the line and why?

^This.

I posted something in the old "What's your religion" a couple of years ago, before it crashed and burned.

Quote:
Quote:
and Republicans want to own reproductive rights of women


Do you honestly think it's about that??

It's because Christians view a "fetus" as a human life, and to abort it is murder. It has nothing to do with "controlling" the reproductive rights of women (and on a side note, why aren't there reproductive rights for men?)*

I think I've posted something like this before, but here goes:

If a parent took their 6-month-old child and bashed it's head against the wall, would you consider that murder?

What about someone throwing their newborn in the dumpster?

Is there some magical "pubic fairy" that gives a baby a soul when it passes through the birth canal? If not, then what is the difference between a full-term unborn child and a newborn baby?

What if someone assaults a pregnant woman, either killing her, or causing her to miscarry? Is that murder of the baby? I think there are legal precedents that have shown it to be murder, I'm not 100% sure.

Assuming that you don't believe in the "pubic fairy" and think that at some point the "fetus" is a human being instead of a growth, at what point do you think so?

    When it starts kicking and moving?
  • When it has it's own heartbeat?
  • When there is a good chance it would be viable outside the womb (about 5 months)?
  • When it can feel pain?
  • When it has brainwaves?
=======

* Reproductive rights for men (for the sake of argument.)
Why can't the father insist that the baby be kept (and raised by him, if the woman doesn't want it)?
Conversely, why couldn't the man insist on an abortion, or if the woman refuses and keeps the baby, he is released from child support?
What about a man who is using birth control and/or is told the woman is using birth control, but she pokes a hole in the condom or has sabotaged her own birth control? Is the man then forced to make payments for 18 years?

_________________
Image

My DVDs - http://littlefuzzy.dvdaf.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:09 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7045
Location: America
I ALREADY talked about when a baby is a living human being, but people did not discuss that issue.

After two months, a baby has its own sex, can do baby activities such as suck its thumb by voluntary choice, meaning it can think.

BUT either way you slice it, an unborn baby will always be alive and human, a human life, because the definition of human has always been "a member of the species home sapiens", it will always have only human DNA, right from the very, very start.

Lazario wrote:
Oh, and, I completely agree with the parasite theory. Especially in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. This life will never become a human without the mother's body, so she has the right to decide what she does with it.

See what I wrote above.

Goliath wrote:
No, when they say "on the way", they're still saying they don't have an x-number of children yet; they say they only have so many children and an unborn. So that still proves my point. But remember we're working with candydog's logic here, so within that context my countering makes perfect sense, since it doesn't matter if those terms are legal or statistical. That's just a technicality that doesn't have any bearing on mt argument.

The real way to find out would be to ask them what they personally thought and get into specific detail, but it still stands they say they have "a child" unborn or on the way. But it besides the point because it still also stands that when asked who the father is, pregnant women still will name the man who made them pregnant.

Linden, I was not counting the Biblical sense. I think that a soul may only appear after two months, when an unborn baby starts to move. In any case, I think sometimes God would definately be okay with or even want an abortion to happen, as God has let people be killed before in the Bible, and sometimes a baby or mother would have a terrible life worse than death itself if the baby was born. Or the mother is far too young and a baby being born would rip through and destroy her...well...certain parts of her body. Sometimes it seems God just wouldn't want a baby to be born. Not that it's a happy thing but sometimes sad things happen, willed by God.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:10 am 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:28 pm
Posts: 305
There really is not any way to just point at a spot on the development timeline & go "oh, well, NOW it counts as a human," because nobody can agree on whether the title is earned as a single cell or after birth or the second your immortal soul is granted to you by Jesus or whatever you believe.

-I- think the issue is getting people to stop hiding behind this "but it's murder!" thing. It's melodramatic & accusatory. Plugging your fingers in your ears & going 'lalala can't hear you over the sound of all these slaughtered innocent babies' is not going to get anyone anywhere. You HAVE to look at the bigger picture, which is that what another person chooses to do with their own body/health is none of your business. Because, as has been stated before, the fetus is part of the mother until it is capable of surviving on its own.

You don't have to LIKE abortion. Hell, personally I don't think I'd be able to go through with it, if ever I had to consider it. But it absolutely should be on the table for any woman who wants it.

_________________
<a href="http://s1116.photobucket.com/albums/k567/phan258/?action=view¤t=sig2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k567/phan258/sig2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:55 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 6685
Location: North Carolina Gender: Male
The problem is that, for the people who do consider it murder, they can't just agree to disagree and allow other people to murder. From their point of view, it would be unethical for them not to do anything. That's why I see this as a never-ending issue, because those who see it that way will most likely never stop seeing it that way.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 7:04 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:02 am
Posts: 498
Location: The Anthill
Well, it's simple. If you're smart enough to have sex and supposedly deal with the consequences, then you're smart enough to accept being pregnant and give birth.

A lot of people act so stupid because they're horny or just don't use the proper protection. And get pregnant and don't care cuz they can just undo that in a day. Burn your ass? Sit on the blares!
Carry the baby for 9 months so you will know to be more careful next time you have sex and don't wanna get pregnant and at least give the baby up for adoption if you still don't want it after 9 months.

Lots of people that want children, can't have them or have to go through insane hoops, while stupid people seem to have kids or get pregnant every two months.

I will probably never be able to have a kid of my own, and other people get abortions because they were smart enough to not use the pill or a condom. It's insane. I guess I also think they should make adoption laws easier, for barren people or gay people or single people.

Now, on the other hand, all sex that wasn't voluntary and causes pregnancy is a different matter. Abortion should be allowed in those cases. But it would be harder to proof, I guess.

All in all, I just think stupid people should have aborted... and I just want kids... :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:59 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Disney's Divinity wrote:
The problem is that, for the people who do consider it murder, they can't just agree to disagree and allow other people to murder. From their point of view, it would be unethical for them not to do anything. That's why I see this as a never-ending issue, because those who see it that way will most likely never stop seeing it that way.

But what's ironic is that, at least in my experiences, the very people who are very anti-choice because they think it's "murder" are also the ones who supportive of the death penalty and supportive of the American wars in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq. Not all of them, of course, but most of them, especially in the far-right Christian community, do support these issues. And they just don't go together.

Khonnor wrote:
A lot of people act so stupid because they're horny or just don't use the proper protection. And get pregnant and don't care cuz they can just undo that in a day. Burn your ass? Sit on the blares!
Carry the baby for 9 months so you will know to be more careful next time you have sex and don't wanna get pregnant and at least give the baby up for adoption if you still don't want it after 9 months.

Lots of people that want children, can't have them or have to go through insane hoops, while stupid people seem to have kids or get pregnant every two months.

I've never read bigger garbage than this on this forum --ever. (Not even in a Disney Essence thread.) My eyes still burn from reading so much nonsensical drivel.

Linden wrote:
But it lives in the womb. That means it has a life. So taking its life is killing it.

No.

And that's as far as I'm going to explain it. I believe I've made my opinion clear. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:50 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:59 pm
Posts: 3589
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Goliath wrote:
But what's ironic is that, at least in my experiences, the very people who are very anti-choice because they think it's "murder" are also the ones who are supportive of the American wars in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq. Not all of them, of course, but most of them, especially in the far-right Christian community, do support these issues. And they just don't go together.


Ya, but we're talking about American babies here. They're special. :P

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:34 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7045
Location: America
Goliath wrote:
Linden wrote:
But it lives in the womb. That means it has a life. So taking its life is killing it.

No.

And that's as far as I'm going to explain it. I believe I've made my opinion clear. :)

Ah, but at only 2 months or a little over, the unborn baby/fetus has it's own individual heartbeat, and when a heartbeat is stopped, it is called: death. So yes, it is killing he or she (because it has it's own sex, too).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:54 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Disney Duster wrote:
Ah, but at only 2 months or a little over, the unborn baby/fetus has it's own individual heartbeat, and when a heartbeat is stopped, it is called: death. So yes, it is killing he or she (because it has it's own sex, too).

Again: no.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:10 am 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:28 pm
Posts: 484
Location: Australia
Given how this thread has lasted much longer than I (half jokingly) predicted, I've decided that it's time I weighed in :wink:

I feel that abortion should be a woman's right if her unborn baby isn't viable outside the womb. There are numerous situations where it simply wouldn't be ideal to have the baby. The Church (and The Government) have no right to dictate what choices women make with their bodies, and no man can make a woman go through with a pregnancy if she decides it would be better not to. A child can only be given the right care if it is born into a comfortable situation.

As for the "life" issue, a fetus cannot be killed when it isn't capable of surviving outside it's Mother's womb, and that the abilty to do such basic things as sucking it's thumb, should give it priority over a living woman, is putrid.

I will never have to consider abortion, as I am infertile, but I can still put myself in the shoes of other women.

P.S: Knonnor's post is the most incredibly pathetic piece of drivel I have ever read on a discussion forum.


Last edited by Disney Geek on Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:07 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7045
Location: America
Disney Geek wrote:
I feel that abortion should be a woman's right if her unborn baby is viable outside the womb.

A woman should get to kill an unborn baby if it can live outside the womb? I don't think you meant to say that.

Anyway, yea a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body...but not what to do with another body. A body with a heartbeat. Ending a heartbeat is ending life. It's killing. The heartbeat comes in at two months.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:47 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 6:19 am
Posts: 2698
Disney Duster wrote:
Anyway, yea a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body...but not what to do with another body. A body with a heartbeat. Ending a heartbeat is ending life. It's killing. The heartbeat comes in at two months.


But it's not entirely another body; for at least a few months during the pregnancy, the fetus relies on its mother and isn't an independent life. Abortions normally take place during these early months, so I don't think it's murder at all. I'm not entirely certain on this issue as a whole, yet when the fetus is dependent on the mother I don't think abortion is bad. Also, if the female was raped or merely a teenager, then I think abortion would be okay in those circumstances as well.

_________________
http://onethousandandonemovienights.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:45 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 1685
Location: United Kingdom
I don't think it should be used as a method of contraception but I really don't see what is wrong with abortion. Maybe it's my rationalist mind speaking but a foetus is a foetus and as long as it can't live outside the body it's only slightly worse than wasting some sperm cells. Of course, if the foetus could survive outside the body then it is murder but no legal abortion clinics would allow it anyway. To me something can only be classified as living if it can function independently.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:28 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:28 pm
Posts: 484
Location: Australia
Disney Duster wrote:
Disney Geek wrote:
I feel that abortion should be a woman's right if her unborn baby is viable outside the womb.

A woman should get to kill an unborn baby if it can live outside the womb? I don't think you meant to say that.


Not at all :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

I'm editing it :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:12 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7045
Location: America
Dr Frankenollie wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
Anyway, yea a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body...but not what to do with another body.


But it's not entirely another body; for at least a few months during the pregnancy, the fetus relies on its mother and isn't an independent life.

It technically is another body, a body that is not the woman's own. A body with a heart, that beats, and is a human body.

Something depending on something else to live doesn't mean it's not alive. Consider siamese twins. Can you kill one twin because in order for it to live it must stay attached to the other?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4790
Disney Duster wrote:
Dr Frankenollie wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
Anyway, yea a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body...but not what to do with another body.


But it's not entirely another body; for at least a few months during the pregnancy, the fetus relies on its mother and isn't an independent life.

It technically is another body, a body that is not the woman's own. A body with a heart, that beats, and is a human body.


by that stupid logic, I guess I have killed many potential babies when I masturbate and then throw away the excess cum I made. Because you know, the cum is what help eventually create what we call "babies".

A fetus isn't living organism yet, and it doesn't have a heart yet like you claim you dummy.

I usually don't get involved in this debate because honestly and truly, this is a decision a woman need to make. and it's her body she making a judgement on. But seeing your ignorance on the matter really annoys me to certain extent. A guy like you should be in no position to say what she can or can't do especially since they don't know the shit a women's experience goes through when baring a organism inside her.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:34 am 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:28 pm
Posts: 484
Location: Australia
Disney Duster wrote:
It technically is another body, a body that is not the woman's own. A body with a heart, that beats, and is a human body.



No :headshake:

Before it is viable outside the womb, a fetus is NOT another body, as all it's sustenance must come through the Mother.

I must also add that the "human body" arguement doesn't fly, as the sperm and ovum that this fetus was formed from were human cells. It's a slippery slope.


Last edited by Disney Geek on Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 249 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group