Poll: Whom is more ignorant in your eyes?

[Thanatos34]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

Err, have you ever heard of partial-birth abortion? People used to cut up the baby, suck its brains out and throw it away. It looks just like a baby, before they cut it to pieces. They would partially birth the baby, before brutally killing it. There is simply no other way to put partial-birth abortion. Fortunately that practice has now been banned, barely, (5-4 by the Scotus), but it did happen.

Abortion is not ruled by science, it is ruled by politics. Scientifically, there is no difference between a fetus of 12 weeks, I believe it was, and a human infant, except one is not developed as much as the other. Don't quote me on the 12 weeks things yet, let me see if I can find the group of scientists whose research I am attempting to quote here.

For your other point... I am not quite certain what it is. "It costs money to make the environment more comfortable... so we shouldn't even try? Instead, we should institute measures like population control?" Is that what you are saying?

Partial birth abortion? I take it you are American, right?
Anyway point being this procedure not only gets used for less than 0.5% of all abortions and it is any late term abortion (21 weeks or later) that has the IDX method of abortion. So no, its not a baby. Also, who said anything about abortion being "ruled" by science? I said it was defined by science... of course the government get control of it. Also, infant in legal terms is any child below the legal age of consent to have sexual intercourse... Thats quite a wide range of looks and I dont think any fetus has ever been 6 foot 4.
And if you are a christian (which I assume you are) then what the hell are you talking about? "God" gave humans free will and YOU think YOU can tell people what they should do with it? Dellusions of grandeur, much?

Yes, I am American, and yes it would be a baby at this point. You said there were no cases wherein someone would cut up a baby and still be sane, and I gave you an example of a case where it had occurred, many, many times. In fact, contrary to your information, at least in America, this is the standard method of abortion for most procedures, (not the partial-birthing part, the cutting into pieces part).

You assume a lot about my definition of God to assume that He gave humans free will. Also your point is irrelevant: A murderer has free will, too, but I sure as hell can stop him from committing murder. There are certain acts which people cannot do, free will or no free will. If the fetus is alive- and that is all that is necessary, it does not necessarily have to be defined as human, though I think it's pretty obvious that it is- then the mother's free will to kill it does not supersede the fetus' right to life.

Hmm, do you want to know the most obvious difference between a 12 week old fetus and a baby? Its that there has never been a premature birth below 21 weeks and 6 days that has survived and this was a bloody scientific miracle. So the difference is a 12 week old couldnt survive where as a baby can, clearly a major difference, biologically.
Ah, so abortionists are murderers... here we go.
Oh my word... this is just going to become another Science VS God thing isnt it. Well, until proof of that comes forward then I bid you fair well because I am not being caught up in the eternal argument. That can screw right off.

I didn't say abortionists are murderers, I was using that as an example of something a person with free will is not allowed to do. It's called a parallel, I am using that to make a point. As for the God part of it, you're the one who brought that up, not me.

There are plenty of people who cannot survive on their own due to disabilities. This does not make them any less of a human being than I am, nor does it give me the right to kill them, especially not in the inhumane way abortions are performed. That is a shoddy argument indeed, and leads to very dangerous consequences.

You are right, you didnt say it but you did imply it by making murder your refernce point for what "God" says is naughty.
Also, I can pick up a "God" fearing person from 3000 miles away from a couple of comments... and this is about abortion... Who normally opposes this again(?) Oh yeah! The point being, it was only a matter of time before someone says "God says it is wrong! So NERR!"... hell, someone might already have said it... there are alot of posts on here.
Who said anything about surviving on their own? If i said that then my argument would fall apart pretty fast because BABIES cant survive on their own either. No amount of mordern science could keep the 12 week old fetus' alive after a premature birth, and science does a hell of alot more for babies than religion.
The time frame that is given to have an abortion is the time that a fetus could not survive a premature birth so it is not capable of living with or without science and that 21 week premature baby is the exception that proves the rule because it was a medical marvel, a scientific miracle.

Your deadline seems extremely arbitrary. So if science eventually evolves to the point where it can keep a 1-week old fetus alive outside the womb, then abortion would be wrong to do after 1 week? You are basing the morality of killing/not killing a developing human fetus on how advanced science is.

Regarding my other point, about free will; I admit, in retrospect, it was not the best example to come up with. However, the parallel stands. There are certain things that, even though I believe God has given people free will, I would not let them do. You, however, brought God into this, not me. I have not used the argument that it is wrong because God says it is wrong, but that leads to another question. If there is no god, then why would it be wrong to kill whoever I wanted to?

 

[Kinguendo]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

Err, have you ever heard of partial-birth abortion? People used to cut up the baby, suck its brains out and throw it away. It looks just like a baby, before they cut it to pieces. They would partially birth the baby, before brutally killing it. There is simply no other way to put partial-birth abortion. Fortunately that practice has now been banned, barely, (5-4 by the Scotus), but it did happen.

Abortion is not ruled by science, it is ruled by politics. Scientifically, there is no difference between a fetus of 12 weeks, I believe it was, and a human infant, except one is not developed as much as the other. Don't quote me on the 12 weeks things yet, let me see if I can find the group of scientists whose research I am attempting to quote here.

For your other point... I am not quite certain what it is. "It costs money to make the environment more comfortable... so we shouldn't even try? Instead, we should institute measures like population control?" Is that what you are saying?

Partial birth abortion? I take it you are American, right?
Anyway point being this procedure not only gets used for less than 0.5% of all abortions and it is any late term abortion (21 weeks or later) that has the IDX method of abortion. So no, its not a baby. Also, who said anything about abortion being "ruled" by science? I said it was defined by science... of course the government get control of it. Also, infant in legal terms is any child below the legal age of consent to have sexual intercourse... Thats quite a wide range of looks and I dont think any fetus has ever been 6 foot 4.
And if you are a christian (which I assume you are) then what the hell are you talking about? "God" gave humans free will and YOU think YOU can tell people what they should do with it? Dellusions of grandeur, much?

Yes, I am American, and yes it would be a baby at this point. You said there were no cases wherein someone would cut up a baby and still be sane, and I gave you an example of a case where it had occurred, many, many times. In fact, contrary to your information, at least in America, this is the standard method of abortion for most procedures, (not the partial-birthing part, the cutting into pieces part).

You assume a lot about my definition of God to assume that He gave humans free will. Also your point is irrelevant: A murderer has free will, too, but I sure as hell can stop him from committing murder. There are certain acts which people cannot do, free will or no free will. If the fetus is alive- and that is all that is necessary, it does not necessarily have to be defined as human, though I think it's pretty obvious that it is- then the mother's free will to kill it does not supersede the fetus' right to life.

Hmm, do you want to know the most obvious difference between a 12 week old fetus and a baby? Its that there has never been a premature birth below 21 weeks and 6 days that has survived and this was a bloody scientific miracle. So the difference is a 12 week old couldnt survive where as a baby can, clearly a major difference, biologically.
Ah, so abortionists are murderers... here we go.
Oh my word... this is just going to become another Science VS God thing isnt it. Well, until proof of that comes forward then I bid you fair well because I am not being caught up in the eternal argument. That can screw right off.

I didn't say abortionists are murderers, I was using that as an example of something a person with free will is not allowed to do. It's called a parallel, I am using that to make a point. As for the God part of it, you're the one who brought that up, not me.

There are plenty of people who cannot survive on their own due to disabilities. This does not make them any less of a human being than I am, nor does it give me the right to kill them, especially not in the inhumane way abortions are performed. That is a shoddy argument indeed, and leads to very dangerous consequences.

You are right, you didnt say it but you did imply it by making murder your refernce point for what "God" says is naughty.
Also, I can pick up a "God" fearing person from 3000 miles away from a couple of comments... and this is about abortion... Who normally opposes this again(?) Oh yeah! The point being, it was only a matter of time before someone says "God says it is wrong! So NERR!"... hell, someone might already have said it... there are alot of posts on here.
Who said anything about surviving on their own? If i said that then my argument would fall apart pretty fast because BABIES cant survive on their own either. No amount of mordern science could keep the 12 week old fetus' alive after a premature birth, and science does a hell of alot more for babies than religion.
The time frame that is given to have an abortion is the time that a fetus could not survive a premature birth so it is not capable of living with or without science and that 21 week premature baby is the exception that proves the rule because it was a medical marvel, a scientific miracle.

Your deadline seems extremely arbitrary. So if science eventually evolves to the point where it can keep a 1-week old fetus alive outside the womb, then abortion would be wrong to do after 1 week? You are basing the morality of killing/not killing a developing human fetus on how advanced science is.

Regarding my other point, about free will; I admit, in retrospect, it was not the best example to come up with. However, the parallel stands. There are certain things that, even though I believe God has given people free will, I would not let them do. You, however, brought God into this, not me. I have not used the argument that it is wrong because God says it is wrong, but that leads to another question. If there is no god, then why would it be wrong to kill whoever I wanted to?

I truly dont believe it will ever be possible to keep a 1 week old fetus alive, it hasnt developed enough to live and to assume it would is surely ridiculous.
To answer youre question, shockingly enough Humans pre-date all religions and managed to stave off massacring each other into extinction for quite some time before it came along. To assume that religion invented morality is bloody insane. Oh and it would be wrong because the law says that it is and you will be judged by your piers. Admitadly religion was important in controlling some people back when everything was a mystery but it is no longer needed, if anything it is causing more harm than good. That answers your question, right?

 

[Thanatos34]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

Err, have you ever heard of partial-birth abortion? People used to cut up the baby, suck its brains out and throw it away. It looks just like a baby, before they cut it to pieces. They would partially birth the baby, before brutally killing it. There is simply no other way to put partial-birth abortion. Fortunately that practice has now been banned, barely, (5-4 by the Scotus), but it did happen.

Abortion is not ruled by science, it is ruled by politics. Scientifically, there is no difference between a fetus of 12 weeks, I believe it was, and a human infant, except one is not developed as much as the other. Don't quote me on the 12 weeks things yet, let me see if I can find the group of scientists whose research I am attempting to quote here.

For your other point... I am not quite certain what it is. "It costs money to make the environment more comfortable... so we shouldn't even try? Instead, we should institute measures like population control?" Is that what you are saying?

Partial birth abortion? I take it you are American, right?
Anyway point being this procedure not only gets used for less than 0.5% of all abortions and it is any late term abortion (21 weeks or later) that has the IDX method of abortion. So no, its not a baby. Also, who said anything about abortion being "ruled" by science? I said it was defined by science... of course the government get control of it. Also, infant in legal terms is any child below the legal age of consent to have sexual intercourse... Thats quite a wide range of looks and I dont think any fetus has ever been 6 foot 4.
And if you are a christian (which I assume you are) then what the hell are you talking about? "God" gave humans free will and YOU think YOU can tell people what they should do with it? Dellusions of grandeur, much?

Yes, I am American, and yes it would be a baby at this point. You said there were no cases wherein someone would cut up a baby and still be sane, and I gave you an example of a case where it had occurred, many, many times. In fact, contrary to your information, at least in America, this is the standard method of abortion for most procedures, (not the partial-birthing part, the cutting into pieces part).

You assume a lot about my definition of God to assume that He gave humans free will. Also your point is irrelevant: A murderer has free will, too, but I sure as hell can stop him from committing murder. There are certain acts which people cannot do, free will or no free will. If the fetus is alive- and that is all that is necessary, it does not necessarily have to be defined as human, though I think it's pretty obvious that it is- then the mother's free will to kill it does not supersede the fetus' right to life.

Hmm, do you want to know the most obvious difference between a 12 week old fetus and a baby? Its that there has never been a premature birth below 21 weeks and 6 days that has survived and this was a bloody scientific miracle. So the difference is a 12 week old couldnt survive where as a baby can, clearly a major difference, biologically.
Ah, so abortionists are murderers... here we go.
Oh my word... this is just going to become another Science VS God thing isnt it. Well, until proof of that comes forward then I bid you fair well because I am not being caught up in the eternal argument. That can screw right off.

I didn't say abortionists are murderers, I was using that as an example of something a person with free will is not allowed to do. It's called a parallel, I am using that to make a point. As for the God part of it, you're the one who brought that up, not me.

There are plenty of people who cannot survive on their own due to disabilities. This does not make them any less of a human being than I am, nor does it give me the right to kill them, especially not in the inhumane way abortions are performed. That is a shoddy argument indeed, and leads to very dangerous consequences.

You are right, you didnt say it but you did imply it by making murder your refernce point for what "God" says is naughty.
Also, I can pick up a "God" fearing person from 3000 miles away from a couple of comments... and this is about abortion... Who normally opposes this again(?) Oh yeah! The point being, it was only a matter of time before someone says "God says it is wrong! So NERR!"... hell, someone might already have said it... there are alot of posts on here.
Who said anything about surviving on their own? If i said that then my argument would fall apart pretty fast because BABIES cant survive on their own either. No amount of mordern science could keep the 12 week old fetus' alive after a premature birth, and science does a hell of alot more for babies than religion.
The time frame that is given to have an abortion is the time that a fetus could not survive a premature birth so it is not capable of living with or without science and that 21 week premature baby is the exception that proves the rule because it was a medical marvel, a scientific miracle.

Your deadline seems extremely arbitrary. So if science eventually evolves to the point where it can keep a 1-week old fetus alive outside the womb, then abortion would be wrong to do after 1 week? You are basing the morality of killing/not killing a developing human fetus on how advanced science is.

Regarding my other point, about free will; I admit, in retrospect, it was not the best example to come up with. However, the parallel stands. There are certain things that, even though I believe God has given people free will, I would not let them do. You, however, brought God into this, not me. I have not used the argument that it is wrong because God says it is wrong, but that leads to another question. If there is no god, then why would it be wrong to kill whoever I wanted to?

I truly dont believe it will ever be possible to keep a 1 week old fetus alive, it hasnt developed enough to live and to assume it would is surely ridiculous.
To answer youre question, shockingly enough Humans pre-date all religions and managed to stave off massacring each other into extinction for quite some time before it came along. To assume that religion invented morality is bloody insane. Oh and it would be wrong because the law says that it is and you will be judged by your piers. Admitadly religion was important in controlling some people back when everything was a mystery but it is no longer needed, if anything it is causing more harm than good. That answers your question, right?

I don't really care to go back to the Stone Age, regardless if we weren't massacring people then, but in any case, I'd have to disagree with you. Man has had religion for as long as he has been Man. They had to have some way of explaining what was going on.

Also, it was more of a philosophical question, rather than a practical one, but yes, you answered it. You said the law is what defines morality, which to me, is extremely scary, because that means that whoever is currently in power can define morality as they please.

My other point remains the same. If you think that a 1-week old will never be able to survive- which all that is necessary for this is for modern science to replicate the womb, but that is superfluous to my point- how about a 12 week old? You are still basing the morality of whether or not to kill a fetus on how advanced modern science is, which is an extremely arbitrary thing to base something's life on.

 

[Kinguendo]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

Err, have you ever heard of partial-birth abortion? People used to cut up the baby, suck its brains out and throw it away. It looks just like a baby, before they cut it to pieces. They would partially birth the baby, before brutally killing it. There is simply no other way to put partial-birth abortion. Fortunately that practice has now been banned, barely, (5-4 by the Scotus), but it did happen.

Abortion is not ruled by science, it is ruled by politics. Scientifically, there is no difference between a fetus of 12 weeks, I believe it was, and a human infant, except one is not developed as much as the other. Don't quote me on the 12 weeks things yet, let me see if I can find the group of scientists whose research I am attempting to quote here.

For your other point... I am not quite certain what it is. "It costs money to make the environment more comfortable... so we shouldn't even try? Instead, we should institute measures like population control?" Is that what you are saying?

Partial birth abortion? I take it you are American, right?
Anyway point being this procedure not only gets used for less than 0.5% of all abortions and it is any late term abortion (21 weeks or later) that has the IDX method of abortion. So no, its not a baby. Also, who said anything about abortion being "ruled" by science? I said it was defined by science... of course the government get control of it. Also, infant in legal terms is any child below the legal age of consent to have sexual intercourse... Thats quite a wide range of looks and I dont think any fetus has ever been 6 foot 4.
And if you are a christian (which I assume you are) then what the hell are you talking about? "God" gave humans free will and YOU think YOU can tell people what they should do with it? Dellusions of grandeur, much?

Yes, I am American, and yes it would be a baby at this point. You said there were no cases wherein someone would cut up a baby and still be sane, and I gave you an example of a case where it had occurred, many, many times. In fact, contrary to your information, at least in America, this is the standard method of abortion for most procedures, (not the partial-birthing part, the cutting into pieces part).

You assume a lot about my definition of God to assume that He gave humans free will. Also your point is irrelevant: A murderer has free will, too, but I sure as hell can stop him from committing murder. There are certain acts which people cannot do, free will or no free will. If the fetus is alive- and that is all that is necessary, it does not necessarily have to be defined as human, though I think it's pretty obvious that it is- then the mother's free will to kill it does not supersede the fetus' right to life.

Hmm, do you want to know the most obvious difference between a 12 week old fetus and a baby? Its that there has never been a premature birth below 21 weeks and 6 days that has survived and this was a bloody scientific miracle. So the difference is a 12 week old couldnt survive where as a baby can, clearly a major difference, biologically.
Ah, so abortionists are murderers... here we go.
Oh my word... this is just going to become another Science VS God thing isnt it. Well, until proof of that comes forward then I bid you fair well because I am not being caught up in the eternal argument. That can screw right off.

I didn't say abortionists are murderers, I was using that as an example of something a person with free will is not allowed to do. It's called a parallel, I am using that to make a point. As for the God part of it, you're the one who brought that up, not me.

There are plenty of people who cannot survive on their own due to disabilities. This does not make them any less of a human being than I am, nor does it give me the right to kill them, especially not in the inhumane way abortions are performed. That is a shoddy argument indeed, and leads to very dangerous consequences.

You are right, you didnt say it but you did imply it by making murder your refernce point for what "God" says is naughty.
Also, I can pick up a "God" fearing person from 3000 miles away from a couple of comments... and this is about abortion... Who normally opposes this again(?) Oh yeah! The point being, it was only a matter of time before someone says "God says it is wrong! So NERR!"... hell, someone might already have said it... there are alot of posts on here.
Who said anything about surviving on their own? If i said that then my argument would fall apart pretty fast because BABIES cant survive on their own either. No amount of mordern science could keep the 12 week old fetus' alive after a premature birth, and science does a hell of alot more for babies than religion.
The time frame that is given to have an abortion is the time that a fetus could not survive a premature birth so it is not capable of living with or without science and that 21 week premature baby is the exception that proves the rule because it was a medical marvel, a scientific miracle.

Your deadline seems extremely arbitrary. So if science eventually evolves to the point where it can keep a 1-week old fetus alive outside the womb, then abortion would be wrong to do after 1 week? You are basing the morality of killing/not killing a developing human fetus on how advanced science is.

Regarding my other point, about free will; I admit, in retrospect, it was not the best example to come up with. However, the parallel stands. There are certain things that, even though I believe God has given people free will, I would not let them do. You, however, brought God into this, not me. I have not used the argument that it is wrong because God says it is wrong, but that leads to another question. If there is no god, then why would it be wrong to kill whoever I wanted to?

I truly dont believe it will ever be possible to keep a 1 week old fetus alive, it hasnt developed enough to live and to assume it would is surely ridiculous.
To answer youre question, shockingly enough Humans pre-date all religions and managed to stave off massacring each other into extinction for quite some time before it came along. To assume that religion invented morality is bloody insane. Oh and it would be wrong because the law says that it is and you will be judged by your piers. Admitadly religion was important in controlling some people back when everything was a mystery but it is no longer needed, if anything it is causing more harm than good. That answers your question, right?

I don't really care to go back to the Stone Age, regardless if we weren't massacring people then, but in any case, I'd have to disagree with you. Man has had religion for as long as he has been Man. They had to have some way of explaining what was going on.

Also, it was more of a philosophical question, rather than a practical one, but yes, you answered it. You said the law is what defines morality, which to me, is extremely scary, because that means that whoever is currently in power can define morality as they please.

My other point remains the same. If you think that a 1-week old will never be able to survive- which all that is necessary for this is for modern science to replicate the womb, but that is superfluous to my point- how about a 12 week old? You are still basing the morality of whether or not to kill a fetus on how advanced modern science is, which is an extremely arbitrary thing to base something's life on.

I said HUMANS pre-date all religion which they do... making up religion takes time you know.
I am not basing the morality on scientific advances, as a late abortion is 21 weeks and above.
Also, the judiciary determines the law and its an alright system. Law cant just be changed whenever you feel like it, there is an annoyingly complicated process. Oh and you mean like how one man has control over a religion and COULD use it to further his own twisted ideals that have stemed from his interpritation of his religion and faith? Like those people did in America, cant remember the name of their church but they are the "God hates fags" people. Everything is corruptable so you dont want to stick your dick in that hole, trying that out... does it work?

 

[Thanatos34]

I don't really care to go back to the Stone Age, regardless if we weren't massacring people then, but in any case, I'd have to disagree with you. Man has had religion for as long as he has been Man. They had to have some way of explaining what was going on.

Also, it was more of a philosophical question, rather than a practical one, but yes, you answered it. You said the law is what defines morality, which to me, is extremely scary, because that means that whoever is currently in power can define morality as they please.

My other point remains the same. If you think that a 1-week old will never be able to survive- which all that is necessary for this is for modern science to replicate the womb, but that is superfluous to my point- how about a 12 week old? You are still basing the morality of whether or not to kill a fetus on how advanced modern science is, which is an extremely arbitrary thing to base something's life on.

I said HUMANS pre-date all religion which they do... making up religion takes time you know.
I am not basing the morality on scientific advances, as a late abortion is 21 weeks and above.
Also, the judiciary determines the law and its an alright system. Law cant just be changed whenever you feel like it, there is an annoyingly complicated process. Oh and you mean like how one man has control over a religion and COULD use it to further his own twisted ideals that have stemed from his interpritation of his religion and faith? Like those people did in America, cant remember the name of their church but they are the "God hates fags" people. Everything is corruptable so you dont want to stick your dick in that hole, trying that out... does it work?

I'm not sure what you saying that the most primitive of the early tribes of humans did not have religion, and yet somehow you think they had some sort of morality, (I don't, I bet it was more a sort of tribal loyalty), actually does for your argument. But fine, I will cede the point, the very first humans, for the first few days, perhaps, of their life, did not have any sort of religion.

You seemed to indicate that the reason why a late abortion is 21 weeks and above is because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb before then. The reason why it cannot survive, is because modern science cannot keep it alive at that point. That was how I interpreted your argument, if I interpreted it wrong, please correct me.

As for the laws in America regarding abortion, it's kind of funny what they say. There was a case of a murdered woman in California, where the person who killed her was charged, and convicted of, double murder, because she was pregnant. How does that decision make any sense whatsoever? If it's a double murder, then by the definition of murder, the courts are allowing that the fetus is/was a human being.

P.S.: I got rid of that massive quote tree. Much simpler now.

 

[Kinguendo]

I don't really care to go back to the Stone Age, regardless if we weren't massacring people then, but in any case, I'd have to disagree with you. Man has had religion for as long as he has been Man. They had to have some way of explaining what was going on.

Also, it was more of a philosophical question, rather than a practical one, but yes, you answered it. You said the law is what defines morality, which to me, is extremely scary, because that means that whoever is currently in power can define morality as they please.

My other point remains the same. If you think that a 1-week old will never be able to survive- which all that is necessary for this is for modern science to replicate the womb, but that is superfluous to my point- how about a 12 week old? You are still basing the morality of whether or not to kill a fetus on how advanced modern science is, which is an extremely arbitrary thing to base something's life on.

I said HUMANS pre-date all religion which they do... making up religion takes time you know.
I am not basing the morality on scientific advances, as a late abortion is 21 weeks and above.
Also, the judiciary determines the law and its an alright system. Law cant just be changed whenever you feel like it, there is an annoyingly complicated process. Oh and you mean like how one man has control over a religion and COULD use it to further his own twisted ideals that have stemed from his interpritation of his religion and faith? Like those people did in America, cant remember the name of their church but they are the "God hates fags" people. Everything is corruptable so you dont want to stick your dick in that hole, trying that out... does it work?

I'm not sure what you saying that the most primitive of the early tribes of humans did not have religion, and yet somehow you think they had some sort of morality, (I don't, I bet it was more a sort of tribal loyalty), actually does for your argument. But fine, I will cede the point, the very first humans, for the first few days, perhaps, of their life, did not have any sort of religion.

You seemed to indicate that the reason why a late abortion is 21 weeks and above is because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb before then. The reason why it cannot survive, is because modern science cannot keep it alive at that point. That was how I interpreted your argument, if I interpreted it wrong, please correct me.

As for the laws in America regarding abortion, it's kind of funny what they say. There was a case of a murdered woman in California, where the person who killed her was charged, and convicted of, double murder, because she was pregnant. How does that decision make any sense whatsoever? If it's a double murder, then by the definition of murder, the courts are allowing that the fetus is/was a human being.

P.S.: I got rid of that massive quote tree. Much simpler now.

Well, your point was "what, if not god, was going to determine what was wrong with killing another person" to which I said "human life pre-dates religion" and thats what this does for my argument or at least that one.
Well, actually you kept changing it... first you said 1 week and then 12 and now it is 21 weeks which is the youngest premature birth to have survived (Exception that proves the rule, the rule being that under 21 weeks the fetus would not have developed enough to live... even after that it would likely have birth defects and still may die incredibly young) So my point is that abortion is done up to the point where a baby could not survive independantly outside of the womb due to being under developed.
Also, how old was the fetus? And that is the juries ruling... it is still going to be bias, there is nothing you can do about that... it doesnt represent law or science, it represents the juries opinion.

 

[Thanatos34]

I don't really care to go back to the Stone Age, regardless if we weren't massacring people then, but in any case, I'd have to disagree with you. Man has had religion for as long as he has been Man. They had to have some way of explaining what was going on.

Also, it was more of a philosophical question, rather than a practical one, but yes, you answered it. You said the law is what defines morality, which to me, is extremely scary, because that means that whoever is currently in power can define morality as they please.

My other point remains the same. If you think that a 1-week old will never be able to survive- which all that is necessary for this is for modern science to replicate the womb, but that is superfluous to my point- how about a 12 week old? You are still basing the morality of whether or not to kill a fetus on how advanced modern science is, which is an extremely arbitrary thing to base something's life on.

I said HUMANS pre-date all religion which they do... making up religion takes time you know.
I am not basing the morality on scientific advances, as a late abortion is 21 weeks and above.
Also, the judiciary determines the law and its an alright system. Law cant just be changed whenever you feel like it, there is an annoyingly complicated process. Oh and you mean like how one man has control over a religion and COULD use it to further his own twisted ideals that have stemed from his interpritation of his religion and faith? Like those people did in America, cant remember the name of their church but they are the "God hates fags" people. Everything is corruptable so you dont want to stick your dick in that hole, trying that out... does it work?

I'm not sure what you saying that the most primitive of the early tribes of humans did not have religion, and yet somehow you think they had some sort of morality, (I don't, I bet it was more a sort of tribal loyalty), actually does for your argument. But fine, I will cede the point, the very first humans, for the first few days, perhaps, of their life, did not have any sort of religion.

You seemed to indicate that the reason why a late abortion is 21 weeks and above is because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb before then. The reason why it cannot survive, is because modern science cannot keep it alive at that point. That was how I interpreted your argument, if I interpreted it wrong, please correct me.

As for the laws in America regarding abortion, it's kind of funny what they say. There was a case of a murdered woman in California, where the person who killed her was charged, and convicted of, double murder, because she was pregnant. How does that decision make any sense whatsoever? If it's a double murder, then by the definition of murder, the courts are allowing that the fetus is/was a human being.

P.S.: I got rid of that massive quote tree. Much simpler now.

Well, your point was "what, if not god, was going to determine what was wrong with killing another person" to which I said "human life pre-dates religion" and thats what this does for my argument or at least that one.
Well, actually you kept changing it... first you said 1 week and then 12 and now it is 21 weeks which is the youngest premature birth to have survived (Exception that proves the rule, the rule being that under 21 weeks the fetus would not have developed enough to live... even after that it would likely have birth defects and still may die incredibly young) So my point is that abortion is done up to the point where a baby could not survive independantly outside of the womb due to being under developed.
Also, how old was the fetus? And that is the juries ruling... it is still going to be bias, there is nothing you can do about that... it doesnt represent law or science, it represents the juries opinion.

So you think we should adopt the morals of the humans in the Stone Age, before they had religion and use that to apply morality to present-day civilization?

No, I changed it because you attacked my example of the age of the fetus, not the thrust of the argument. Let's try it this way. Why are you arbitrarily setting the line at 21 weeks? Because a fetus cannot survive unaided outside the womb? Many people can't survive unaided outside the womb, I pointed out, so you added that even with modern scientific aid, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. So then the argument evolved into, if the fetus was able to be aided to survive outside the womb at a time under 21 weeks, then would abortion suddenly be wrong at that point forwards?? Say, we can make a fetus survive outside the womb at 8 weeks using modern scientific technology. Is abortion after 8 weeks now morally wrong because modern science can keep a fetus of 8 weeks alive? This is what it seemed to me that you were saying, which seems extremely arbitrary.

The unborn child was seven and a half months old. Are you saying that if the fetus was only, say, 8 weeks old, that he should not have been convicted of double murder?

 

[Kinguendo]

I don't really care to go back to the Stone Age, regardless if we weren't massacring people then, but in any case, I'd have to disagree with you. Man has had religion for as long as he has been Man. They had to have some way of explaining what was going on.

Also, it was more of a philosophical question, rather than a practical one, but yes, you answered it. You said the law is what defines morality, which to me, is extremely scary, because that means that whoever is currently in power can define morality as they please.

My other point remains the same. If you think that a 1-week old will never be able to survive- which all that is necessary for this is for modern science to replicate the womb, but that is superfluous to my point- how about a 12 week old? You are still basing the morality of whether or not to kill a fetus on how advanced modern science is, which is an extremely arbitrary thing to base something's life on.

I said HUMANS pre-date all religion which they do... making up religion takes time you know.
I am not basing the morality on scientific advances, as a late abortion is 21 weeks and above.
Also, the judiciary determines the law and its an alright system. Law cant just be changed whenever you feel like it, there is an annoyingly complicated process. Oh and you mean like how one man has control over a religion and COULD use it to further his own twisted ideals that have stemed from his interpritation of his religion and faith? Like those people did in America, cant remember the name of their church but they are the "God hates fags" people. Everything is corruptable so you dont want to stick your dick in that hole, trying that out... does it work?

I'm not sure what you saying that the most primitive of the early tribes of humans did not have religion, and yet somehow you think they had some sort of morality, (I don't, I bet it was more a sort of tribal loyalty), actually does for your argument. But fine, I will cede the point, the very first humans, for the first few days, perhaps, of their life, did not have any sort of religion.

You seemed to indicate that the reason why a late abortion is 21 weeks and above is because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb before then. The reason why it cannot survive, is because modern science cannot keep it alive at that point. That was how I interpreted your argument, if I interpreted it wrong, please correct me.

As for the laws in America regarding abortion, it's kind of funny what they say. There was a case of a murdered woman in California, where the person who killed her was charged, and convicted of, double murder, because she was pregnant. How does that decision make any sense whatsoever? If it's a double murder, then by the definition of murder, the courts are allowing that the fetus is/was a human being.

P.S.: I got rid of that massive quote tree. Much simpler now.

Well, your point was "what, if not god, was going to determine what was wrong with killing another person" to which I said "human life pre-dates religion" and thats what this does for my argument or at least that one.
Well, actually you kept changing it... first you said 1 week and then 12 and now it is 21 weeks which is the youngest premature birth to have survived (Exception that proves the rule, the rule being that under 21 weeks the fetus would not have developed enough to live... even after that it would likely have birth defects and still may die incredibly young) So my point is that abortion is done up to the point where a baby could not survive independantly outside of the womb due to being under developed.
Also, how old was the fetus? And that is the juries ruling... it is still going to be bias, there is nothing you can do about that... it doesnt represent law or science, it represents the juries opinion.

So you think we should adopt the morals of the humans in the Stone Age, before they had religion and use that to apply morality to present-day civilization?

No, I changed it because you attacked my example of the age of the fetus, not the thrust of the argument. Let's try it this way. Why are you arbitrarily setting the line at 21 weeks? Because a fetus cannot survive unaided outside the womb? Many people can't survive unaided outside the womb, I pointed out, so you added that even with modern scientific aid, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. So then the argument evolved into, if the fetus was able to be aided to survive outside the womb at a time under 21 weeks, then would abortion suddenly be wrong at that point forwards?? Say, we can make a fetus survive outside the womb at 8 weeks using modern scientific technology. Is abortion after 8 weeks now morally wrong because modern science can keep a fetus of 8 weeks alive? This is what it seemed to me that you were saying, which seems extremely arbitrary.

The unborn child was seven and a half months old. Are you saying that if the fetus was only, say, 8 weeks old, that he should not have been convicted of double murder?

That was never what I said (For the first 2 of the three paragraphs). I said we had morals before religion... we still have morals now, different morals and they should change with the times.
I use 21 weeks because that is the youngest a prematurely birthed baby has survived. No, because every part of it would still be under developed at 8 weeks old! Also, life for that baby would be absolute torture. It woudlnt be aware that it was living, it wouldnt know what living meant... it probably couldnt even spell living! And the parents would have to watch their child struggle horribly through life, science wouldnt even think about keeping a baby this under developed alive because it would be so cruel for everyone.
If the parent wanted to keep the baby then yes it should be double murder, if not then no. Because then YOU could try to make the argument that aborsionists are murderers... yet again!

 

[Thanatos34]

I don't really care to go back to the Stone Age, regardless if we weren't massacring people then, but in any case, I'd have to disagree with you. Man has had religion for as long as he has been Man. They had to have some way of explaining what was going on.

Also, it was more of a philosophical question, rather than a practical one, but yes, you answered it. You said the law is what defines morality, which to me, is extremely scary, because that means that whoever is currently in power can define morality as they please.

My other point remains the same. If you think that a 1-week old will never be able to survive- which all that is necessary for this is for modern science to replicate the womb, but that is superfluous to my point- how about a 12 week old? You are still basing the morality of whether or not to kill a fetus on how advanced modern science is, which is an extremely arbitrary thing to base something's life on.

I said HUMANS pre-date all religion which they do... making up religion takes time you know.
I am not basing the morality on scientific advances, as a late abortion is 21 weeks and above.
Also, the judiciary determines the law and its an alright system. Law cant just be changed whenever you feel like it, there is an annoyingly complicated process. Oh and you mean like how one man has control over a religion and COULD use it to further his own twisted ideals that have stemed from his interpritation of his religion and faith? Like those people did in America, cant remember the name of their church but they are the "God hates fags" people. Everything is corruptable so you dont want to stick your dick in that hole, trying that out... does it work?

I'm not sure what you saying that the most primitive of the early tribes of humans did not have religion, and yet somehow you think they had some sort of morality, (I don't, I bet it was more a sort of tribal loyalty), actually does for your argument. But fine, I will cede the point, the very first humans, for the first few days, perhaps, of their life, did not have any sort of religion.

You seemed to indicate that the reason why a late abortion is 21 weeks and above is because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb before then. The reason why it cannot survive, is because modern science cannot keep it alive at that point. That was how I interpreted your argument, if I interpreted it wrong, please correct me.

As for the laws in America regarding abortion, it's kind of funny what they say. There was a case of a murdered woman in California, where the person who killed her was charged, and convicted of, double murder, because she was pregnant. How does that decision make any sense whatsoever? If it's a double murder, then by the definition of murder, the courts are allowing that the fetus is/was a human being.

P.S.: I got rid of that massive quote tree. Much simpler now.

Well, your point was "what, if not god, was going to determine what was wrong with killing another person" to which I said "human life pre-dates religion" and thats what this does for my argument or at least that one.
Well, actually you kept changing it... first you said 1 week and then 12 and now it is 21 weeks which is the youngest premature birth to have survived (Exception that proves the rule, the rule being that under 21 weeks the fetus would not have developed enough to live... even after that it would likely have birth defects and still may die incredibly young) So my point is that abortion is done up to the point where a baby could not survive independantly outside of the womb due to being under developed.
Also, how old was the fetus? And that is the juries ruling... it is still going to be bias, there is nothing you can do about that... it doesnt represent law or science, it represents the juries opinion.

So you think we should adopt the morals of the humans in the Stone Age, before they had religion and use that to apply morality to present-day civilization?

No, I changed it because you attacked my example of the age of the fetus, not the thrust of the argument. Let's try it this way. Why are you arbitrarily setting the line at 21 weeks? Because a fetus cannot survive unaided outside the womb? Many people can't survive unaided outside the womb, I pointed out, so you added that even with modern scientific aid, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. So then the argument evolved into, if the fetus was able to be aided to survive outside the womb at a time under 21 weeks, then would abortion suddenly be wrong at that point forwards?? Say, we can make a fetus survive outside the womb at 8 weeks using modern scientific technology. Is abortion after 8 weeks now morally wrong because modern science can keep a fetus of 8 weeks alive? This is what it seemed to me that you were saying, which seems extremely arbitrary.

The unborn child was seven and a half months old. Are you saying that if the fetus was only, say, 8 weeks old, that he should not have been convicted of double murder?

That was never what I said (For the first 2 of the three paragraphs). I said we had morals before religion... we still have morals now, different morals and they should change with the times.
I use 21 weeks because that is the youngest a prematurely birthed baby has survived. No, because every part of it would still be under developed at 8 weeks old! Also, life for that baby would be absolute torture. It woudlnt be aware that it was living, it wouldnt know what living meant... it probably couldnt even spell living! And the parents would have to watch their child struggle horribly through life, science wouldnt even think about keeping a baby this under developed alive because it would be so cruel for everyone.
If the parent wanted to keep the baby then yes it should be double murder, if not then no. Because then YOU could try to make the argument that aborsionists are murderers... yet again!

That seems rather hypocritical and arbitrary. Either it is a human, or it is not. If it is, then it is double murder, and then abortion is also murder. If it is not, then it should not be double murder, and abortion wouldn't be murder, either. How does the intent of the mother have anything to do with it at all?

My question is a hypothetical situation. IF the baby could survive outside the womb at 8 weeks, THEN it would be morally wrong to kill it after 8 weeks, correct?

What are the morals that we have, that are not based on religion, based on? Individual codes? Laws passed by the state? Society?

 

[Kinguendo]

I don't really care to go back to the Stone Age, regardless if we weren't massacring people then, but in any case, I'd have to disagree with you. Man has had religion for as long as he has been Man. They had to have some way of explaining what was going on.

Also, it was more of a philosophical question, rather than a practical one, but yes, you answered it. You said the law is what defines morality, which to me, is extremely scary, because that means that whoever is currently in power can define morality as they please.

My other point remains the same. If you think that a 1-week old will never be able to survive- which all that is necessary for this is for modern science to replicate the womb, but that is superfluous to my point- how about a 12 week old? You are still basing the morality of whether or not to kill a fetus on how advanced modern science is, which is an extremely arbitrary thing to base something's life on.

I said HUMANS pre-date all religion which they do... making up religion takes time you know.
I am not basing the morality on scientific advances, as a late abortion is 21 weeks and above.
Also, the judiciary determines the law and its an alright system. Law cant just be changed whenever you feel like it, there is an annoyingly complicated process. Oh and you mean like how one man has control over a religion and COULD use it to further his own twisted ideals that have stemed from his interpritation of his religion and faith? Like those people did in America, cant remember the name of their church but they are the "God hates fags" people. Everything is corruptable so you dont want to stick your dick in that hole, trying that out... does it work?

I'm not sure what you saying that the most primitive of the early tribes of humans did not have religion, and yet somehow you think they had some sort of morality, (I don't, I bet it was more a sort of tribal loyalty), actually does for your argument. But fine, I will cede the point, the very first humans, for the first few days, perhaps, of their life, did not have any sort of religion.

You seemed to indicate that the reason why a late abortion is 21 weeks and above is because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb before then. The reason why it cannot survive, is because modern science cannot keep it alive at that point. That was how I interpreted your argument, if I interpreted it wrong, please correct me.

As for the laws in America regarding abortion, it's kind of funny what they say. There was a case of a murdered woman in California, where the person who killed her was charged, and convicted of, double murder, because she was pregnant. How does that decision make any sense whatsoever? If it's a double murder, then by the definition of murder, the courts are allowing that the fetus is/was a human being.

P.S.: I got rid of that massive quote tree. Much simpler now.

Well, your point was "what, if not god, was going to determine what was wrong with killing another person" to which I said "human life pre-dates religion" and thats what this does for my argument or at least that one.
Well, actually you kept changing it... first you said 1 week and then 12 and now it is 21 weeks which is the youngest premature birth to have survived (Exception that proves the rule, the rule being that under 21 weeks the fetus would not have developed enough to live... even after that it would likely have birth defects and still may die incredibly young) So my point is that abortion is done up to the point where a baby could not survive independantly outside of the womb due to being under developed.
Also, how old was the fetus? And that is the juries ruling... it is still going to be bias, there is nothing you can do about that... it doesnt represent law or science, it represents the juries opinion.

So you think we should adopt the morals of the humans in the Stone Age, before they had religion and use that to apply morality to present-day civilization?

No, I changed it because you attacked my example of the age of the fetus, not the thrust of the argument. Let's try it this way. Why are you arbitrarily setting the line at 21 weeks? Because a fetus cannot survive unaided outside the womb? Many people can't survive unaided outside the womb, I pointed out, so you added that even with modern scientific aid, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. So then the argument evolved into, if the fetus was able to be aided to survive outside the womb at a time under 21 weeks, then would abortion suddenly be wrong at that point forwards?? Say, we can make a fetus survive outside the womb at 8 weeks using modern scientific technology. Is abortion after 8 weeks now morally wrong because modern science can keep a fetus of 8 weeks alive? This is what it seemed to me that you were saying, which seems extremely arbitrary.

The unborn child was seven and a half months old. Are you saying that if the fetus was only, say, 8 weeks old, that he should not have been convicted of double murder?

That was never what I said (For the first 2 of the three paragraphs). I said we had morals before religion... we still have morals now, different morals and they should change with the times.
I use 21 weeks because that is the youngest a prematurely birthed baby has survived. No, because every part of it would still be under developed at 8 weeks old! Also, life for that baby would be absolute torture. It woudlnt be aware that it was living, it wouldnt know what living meant... it probably couldnt even spell living! And the parents would have to watch their child struggle horribly through life, science wouldnt even think about keeping a baby this under developed alive because it would be so cruel for everyone.
If the parent wanted to keep the baby then yes it should be double murder, if not then no. Because then YOU could try to make the argument that aborsionists are murderers... yet again!

That seems rather hypocritical and arbitrary. Either it is a human, or it is not. If it is, then it is double murder, and then abortion is also murder. If it is not, then it should not be double murder, and abortion wouldn't be murder, either. How does the intent of the mother have anything to do with it at all?

My question is a hypothetical situation. IF the baby could survive outside the womb at 8 weeks, THEN it would be morally wrong to kill it after 8 weeks, correct?

What are the morals that we have, that are not based on religion, based on? Individual codes? Laws passed by the state? Society?

No, it is human... just not a baby... or even alive really.
"How does the intent of the mother have anything to do with it at all?" Really? REALLY? It should be the womans choice wether she keeps a baby. My point being, if the mother had the intent to abort the baby then it would be much like assisted suicide... including the illegality for the muderer... so slap him with a murder and an assisted suicide if the child was to be aborted.

Yes, if it was possible (which it isnt) for a fetus to live at 8 weeks then it would be morally wrong and it wouldnt take 9 months to birth it as it has developed so quickly. But due to natural biological progression and limitations a fetus would not have developed mentally or physically.

Morals based on selfish, animalistic realisations such as if you kill others, others can and probably will kill you and the same goes for theft (the only things early-man cared about). The invention of religion gave people a way to control the average man and use it to commit acts of mass murder and thefton a grand scale.

 

[Thanatos34]

I don't really care to go back to the Stone Age, regardless if we weren't massacring people then, but in any case, I'd have to disagree with you. Man has had religion for as long as he has been Man. They had to have some way of explaining what was going on.

Also, it was more of a philosophical question, rather than a practical one, but yes, you answered it. You said the law is what defines morality, which to me, is extremely scary, because that means that whoever is currently in power can define morality as they please.

My other point remains the same. If you think that a 1-week old will never be able to survive- which all that is necessary for this is for modern science to replicate the womb, but that is superfluous to my point- how about a 12 week old? You are still basing the morality of whether or not to kill a fetus on how advanced modern science is, which is an extremely arbitrary thing to base something's life on.

I said HUMANS pre-date all religion which they do... making up religion takes time you know.
I am not basing the morality on scientific advances, as a late abortion is 21 weeks and above.
Also, the judiciary determines the law and its an alright system. Law cant just be changed whenever you feel like it, there is an annoyingly complicated process. Oh and you mean like how one man has control over a religion and COULD use it to further his own twisted ideals that have stemed from his interpritation of his religion and faith? Like those people did in America, cant remember the name of their church but they are the "God hates fags" people. Everything is corruptable so you dont want to stick your dick in that hole, trying that out... does it work?

I'm not sure what you saying that the most primitive of the early tribes of humans did not have religion, and yet somehow you think they had some sort of morality, (I don't, I bet it was more a sort of tribal loyalty), actually does for your argument. But fine, I will cede the point, the very first humans, for the first few days, perhaps, of their life, did not have any sort of religion.

You seemed to indicate that the reason why a late abortion is 21 weeks and above is because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb before then. The reason why it cannot survive, is because modern science cannot keep it alive at that point. That was how I interpreted your argument, if I interpreted it wrong, please correct me.

As for the laws in America regarding abortion, it's kind of funny what they say. There was a case of a murdered woman in California, where the person who killed her was charged, and convicted of, double murder, because she was pregnant. How does that decision make any sense whatsoever? If it's a double murder, then by the definition of murder, the courts are allowing that the fetus is/was a human being.

P.S.: I got rid of that massive quote tree. Much simpler now.

Well, your point was "what, if not god, was going to determine what was wrong with killing another person" to which I said "human life pre-dates religion" and thats what this does for my argument or at least that one.
Well, actually you kept changing it... first you said 1 week and then 12 and now it is 21 weeks which is the youngest premature birth to have survived (Exception that proves the rule, the rule being that under 21 weeks the fetus would not have developed enough to live... even after that it would likely have birth defects and still may die incredibly young) So my point is that abortion is done up to the point where a baby could not survive independantly outside of the womb due to being under developed.
Also, how old was the fetus? And that is the juries ruling... it is still going to be bias, there is nothing you can do about that... it doesnt represent law or science, it represents the juries opinion.

So you think we should adopt the morals of the humans in the Stone Age, before they had religion and use that to apply morality to present-day civilization?

No, I changed it because you attacked my example of the age of the fetus, not the thrust of the argument. Let's try it this way. Why are you arbitrarily setting the line at 21 weeks? Because a fetus cannot survive unaided outside the womb? Many people can't survive unaided outside the womb, I pointed out, so you added that even with modern scientific aid, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. So then the argument evolved into, if the fetus was able to be aided to survive outside the womb at a time under 21 weeks, then would abortion suddenly be wrong at that point forwards?? Say, we can make a fetus survive outside the womb at 8 weeks using modern scientific technology. Is abortion after 8 weeks now morally wrong because modern science can keep a fetus of 8 weeks alive? This is what it seemed to me that you were saying, which seems extremely arbitrary.

The unborn child was seven and a half months old. Are you saying that if the fetus was only, say, 8 weeks old, that he should not have been convicted of double murder?

That was never what I said (For the first 2 of the three paragraphs). I said we had morals before religion... we still have morals now, different morals and they should change with the times.
I use 21 weeks because that is the youngest a prematurely birthed baby has survived. No, because every part of it would still be under developed at 8 weeks old! Also, life for that baby would be absolute torture. It woudlnt be aware that it was living, it wouldnt know what living meant... it probably couldnt even spell living! And the parents would have to watch their child struggle horribly through life, science wouldnt even think about keeping a baby this under developed alive because it would be so cruel for everyone.
If the parent wanted to keep the baby then yes it should be double murder, if not then no. Because then YOU could try to make the argument that aborsionists are murderers... yet again!

That seems rather hypocritical and arbitrary. Either it is a human, or it is not. If it is, then it is double murder, and then abortion is also murder. If it is not, then it should not be double murder, and abortion wouldn't be murder, either. How does the intent of the mother have anything to do with it at all?

My question is a hypothetical situation. IF the baby could survive outside the womb at 8 weeks, THEN it would be morally wrong to kill it after 8 weeks, correct?

What are the morals that we have, that are not based on religion, based on? Individual codes? Laws passed by the state? Society?

No, it is human... just not a baby... or even alive really.
"How does the intent of the mother have anything to do with it at all?" Really? REALLY? It should be the womans choice wether she keeps a baby. My point being, if the mother had the intent to abort the baby then it would be much like assisted suicide... including the illegality for the muderer... so slap him with a murder and an assisted suicide if the child was to be aborted.

Yes, if it was possible (which it isnt) for a fetus to live at 8 weeks then it would be morally wrong and it wouldnt take 9 months to birth it as it has developed so quickly. But due to natural biological progression and limitations a fetus would not have developed mentally or physically.

Morals based on selfish, animalistic realisations such as if you kill others, others can and probably will kill you and the same goes for theft (the only things early-man cared about). The invention of religion gave people a way to control the average man and use it to commit acts of mass murder and thefton a grand scale.

You mean like Hitler and Stalin? Oh wait... they weren't religious at all. Tossing the evils of the world onto religion's plate is simple ignorance. Atheism, in particular Darwinian atheism, has caused far worse evils to occur.

Like I said before, your deadline is arbitrary, and you base the morality of killing a fetus on how advanced science is. Makes no sense to me.

The intent of the mother doesn't chance the actual physical form of the child. Thus, it shouldn't matter what her intent is. She may intend for it to be born, but if the fetus is not human, then that doesn't make it murder to kill it. If the fetus is human, and she intends to kill it, then that makes it murder, regardless of who kills it. This is a black and white situation. Either it is a human, or it is not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Edit: Also, suicide would have nothing to do with it. Suicide would only occur if the fetus was going to kill itself.

 

[Kinguendo]

I don't really care to go back to the Stone Age, regardless if we weren't massacring people then, but in any case, I'd have to disagree with you. Man has had religion for as long as he has been Man. They had to have some way of explaining what was going on.

Also, it was more of a philosophical question, rather than a practical one, but yes, you answered it. You said the law is what defines morality, which to me, is extremely scary, because that means that whoever is currently in power can define morality as they please.

My other point remains the same. If you think that a 1-week old will never be able to survive- which all that is necessary for this is for modern science to replicate the womb, but that is superfluous to my point- how about a 12 week old? You are still basing the morality of whether or not to kill a fetus on how advanced modern science is, which is an extremely arbitrary thing to base something's life on.

I said HUMANS pre-date all religion which they do... making up religion takes time you know.
I am not basing the morality on scientific advances, as a late abortion is 21 weeks and above.
Also, the judiciary determines the law and its an alright system. Law cant just be changed whenever you feel like it, there is an annoyingly complicated process. Oh and you mean like how one man has control over a religion and COULD use it to further his own twisted ideals that have stemed from his interpritation of his religion and faith? Like those people did in America, cant remember the name of their church but they are the "God hates fags" people. Everything is corruptable so you dont want to stick your dick in that hole, trying that out... does it work?

I'm not sure what you saying that the most primitive of the early tribes of humans did not have religion, and yet somehow you think they had some sort of morality, (I don't, I bet it was more a sort of tribal loyalty), actually does for your argument. But fine, I will cede the point, the very first humans, for the first few days, perhaps, of their life, did not have any sort of religion.

You seemed to indicate that the reason why a late abortion is 21 weeks and above is because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb before then. The reason why it cannot survive, is because modern science cannot keep it alive at that point. That was how I interpreted your argument, if I interpreted it wrong, please correct me.

As for the laws in America regarding abortion, it's kind of funny what they say. There was a case of a murdered woman in California, where the person who killed her was charged, and convicted of, double murder, because she was pregnant. How does that decision make any sense whatsoever? If it's a double murder, then by the definition of murder, the courts are allowing that the fetus is/was a human being.

P.S.: I got rid of that massive quote tree. Much simpler now.

Well, your point was "what, if not god, was going to determine what was wrong with killing another person" to which I said "human life pre-dates religion" and thats what this does for my argument or at least that one.
Well, actually you kept changing it... first you said 1 week and then 12 and now it is 21 weeks which is the youngest premature birth to have survived (Exception that proves the rule, the rule being that under 21 weeks the fetus would not have developed enough to live... even after that it would likely have birth defects and still may die incredibly young) So my point is that abortion is done up to the point where a baby could not survive independantly outside of the womb due to being under developed.
Also, how old was the fetus? And that is the juries ruling... it is still going to be bias, there is nothing you can do about that... it doesnt represent law or science, it represents the juries opinion.

So you think we should adopt the morals of the humans in the Stone Age, before they had religion and use that to apply morality to present-day civilization?

No, I changed it because you attacked my example of the age of the fetus, not the thrust of the argument. Let's try it this way. Why are you arbitrarily setting the line at 21 weeks? Because a fetus cannot survive unaided outside the womb? Many people can't survive unaided outside the womb, I pointed out, so you added that even with modern scientific aid, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. So then the argument evolved into, if the fetus was able to be aided to survive outside the womb at a time under 21 weeks, then would abortion suddenly be wrong at that point forwards?? Say, we can make a fetus survive outside the womb at 8 weeks using modern scientific technology. Is abortion after 8 weeks now morally wrong because modern science can keep a fetus of 8 weeks alive? This is what it seemed to me that you were saying, which seems extremely arbitrary.

The unborn child was seven and a half months old. Are you saying that if the fetus was only, say, 8 weeks old, that he should not have been convicted of double murder?

That was never what I said (For the first 2 of the three paragraphs). I said we had morals before religion... we still have morals now, different morals and they should change with the times.
I use 21 weeks because that is the youngest a prematurely birthed baby has survived. No, because every part of it would still be under developed at 8 weeks old! Also, life for that baby would be absolute torture. It woudlnt be aware that it was living, it wouldnt know what living meant... it probably couldnt even spell living! And the parents would have to watch their child struggle horribly through life, science wouldnt even think about keeping a baby this under developed alive because it would be so cruel for everyone.
If the parent wanted to keep the baby then yes it should be double murder, if not then no. Because then YOU could try to make the argument that aborsionists are murderers... yet again!

That seems rather hypocritical and arbitrary. Either it is a human, or it is not. If it is, then it is double murder, and then abortion is also murder. If it is not, then it should not be double murder, and abortion wouldn't be murder, either. How does the intent of the mother have anything to do with it at all?

My question is a hypothetical situation. IF the baby could survive outside the womb at 8 weeks, THEN it would be morally wrong to kill it after 8 weeks, correct?

What are the morals that we have, that are not based on religion, based on? Individual codes? Laws passed by the state? Society?

No, it is human... just not a baby... or even alive really.
"How does the intent of the mother have anything to do with it at all?" Really? REALLY? It should be the womans choice wether she keeps a baby. My point being, if the mother had the intent to abort the baby then it would be much like assisted suicide... including the illegality for the muderer... so slap him with a murder and an assisted suicide if the child was to be aborted.

Yes, if it was possible (which it isnt) for a fetus to live at 8 weeks then it would be morally wrong and it wouldnt take 9 months to birth it as it has developed so quickly. But due to natural biological progression and limitations a fetus would not have developed mentally or physically.

Morals based on selfish, animalistic realisations such as if you kill others, others can and probably will kill you and the same goes for theft (the only things early-man cared about). The invention of religion gave people a way to control the average man and use it to commit acts of mass murder and thefton a grand scale.

You mean like Hitler and Stalin? Oh wait... they weren't religious at all. Tossing the evils of the world onto religion's plate is simple ignorance. Atheism, in particular Darwinian atheism, has caused far worse evils to occur.

Like I said before, your deadline is arbitrary, and you base the morality of killing a fetus on how advanced science is. Makes no sense to me.

The intent of the mother doesn't chance the actual physical form of the child. Thus, it shouldn't matter what her intent is. She may intend for it to be born, but if the fetus is not human, then that doesn't make it murder to kill it. If the fetus is human, and she intends to kill it, then that makes it murder, regardless of who kills it. This is a black and white situation. Either it is a human, or it is not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Edit: Also, suicide would have nothing to do with it. Suicide would only occur if the fetus was going to kill itself.

Firstly, you might want to re-think your stance on Hitler's religion... as he was a devout christian! You have the typical christian mind set in that you want to distance yourself from the most evil man ever, but factual history doesnt lie... oh and dont try to refuse this because I will just post direct quotes from "Mein Kampf" (which was the book Hitler wrote) that says he is in fact a Christian and that he dis doing what he did for "God".
Secondly, no one has ever done anything in the name of Atheism. Atheism isnt a belief system, there are no Atheist rules, or an Atheist guide... its a lack of religious belief. So the fact that Stalin was an Atheist only proves his motives were driven by his insanity alone, not his beliefs.

I dont base my morality on scientific advancements... I answered your hypothetical questiuon while still stating that it isnt possible for a fetus to develop in 8 weeks so stop trying to twist my words, I knew you would try that and that is why I put "if it was possible (which it isnt) for a fetus to live at 8 weeks" in my answer to your hypothetical! My morality (and that of pro-abortionists) is based on natural human growth inside the womb and that a baby isnt fully mentally developed until after 21 weeks!

Oh, okay so its black and white is it... so a singular sperm is a human? No, didnt think so. Not quite as black and white as you thought, huh? A sperm and egg develops into a fetus which in turn develops into a baby.
Oh and murderers are still human but it seems as though Americans cant get enough of capital puishment, this point is of course as ridiculous as your "what is human" point was. Of course a murderer deserves to die, and this is simply because being human doesnt guarantee you life.