The Democratic Hopefuls

[jondy]

Well, Hillary Clinton has just thrown her hat into the ring...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6282389.stm

I'm not American, and I'm interested to know how everyone over there feels about Clinton, Obama et al...

How do you guys feel about the democratic nominations? Who would you vote for? As the article says, the American public almost has a dichotomy on their hands regarding Clinton...

Course, I s'pose republicans wouldn't vote for either :P But I'm interested in your opinions either way.

[JNightshade]

She'll never win. I like some aspects of her, dislike others, but the simple truth is this: she inspires so much hate that she will NEVER make it.

I'm behind Obama.

[gick]

If she became president it would be very very bad news for the games industry.

[Solaris]

I'm with Obama.

[Qonfused]

Obama.

[Bacons]

Osama not, I like Juliani.

Juliani is very popular in New York, he's a conservative whom also believe's in liberal thinking. He's not just for one party, kind of reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt.

[theotherguy]

Osama not, I like Juliani.

Juliani is very popular in New York, he's a conservative whom also believe's in liberal thinking. He's not just for one party, kind of reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt.

I don't think juliani has the political wit to be president, he will run on a bloody shirt campaign, he's only popular because of 9/11.

[Geogaddi]

Osama

[Absinthe]

Obama, although I like Biden too.

Clinton is... I dunno. You could certainly do a lot worse, but she's far from optimal.

[DeusExMachina]

Obama's really the only Democrat candidate I like. I'm hoping Guiliani and/or McCain for Republicans. But if not, I'll probably be behind Obama.

[jondy]

Incidentally, who are the likely republican candidates? I haven't really checked them out.

[kirovman]

Obama, I'm not a fan of the female Clinton.

[Aenama]

She'll never win. I like some aspects of her, dislike others, but the simple truth is this: she inspires so much hate that she will NEVER make it.

I'm behind Obama.

dude,I totally agree with you.

[Solaris]

Your not allowed to post here.

[Insano]

Obama ftw!

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/system/files?file=images/obamabinladen_0.jpg

[Que-Ever]

Your not allowed to post here.

But lesbian!

[Beerdude26]

Obama ftw, while he's much younger he seems to have a much more well-adjusted view at America.

[Javert]

I like Obama or Cain.

[bvasgm]

Incidentally, who are the likely republican candidates? I haven't really checked them out.The only one I know of is McCain - he supports teaching intelligent design and he's anti-abortion, so that's all I really need to know about him.

There's no ****ing way that I'll vote for Hillary and McCain doesn't look any good, so if Obama decides to run, he's got my vote.

[MiccyNarc]

They all suck. Didn't Hillary state on numerous occasions that she wasn't going to run? I guess she's learned from her husband and Bush: no one gives a shit about the truth anymore.

[Aenama]

Your not allowed to post here.



QQ more please.

[Neutrino]

I would currently vote for Clinton. But we'll see how things go.

[Aenama]

Dude,she compares Porn to Cocaine.
Also she'e making "anti game" stuff with Thompson.

[Absinthe]

She's actually tempered a lot of her initial anti-game zealotry with sanity more recently. Still, not my choice.

I like McCain. I really do. But politics is politics, and there are many of his views I don't agree with. But I will respect him for having a level head when it comes to these things instead of going on rampant partisan spiels.

[Icarusintel]

I don't like any of them. I'm peronally hoping for an unknown underdog to come about.

I guess I'd vote for McCain if there was no one else that was any good. Obama seems too young and inexperienced, but could make a good president someday. Hillary's right out. People think things are f*cked up now, but I can't even imagine what she would do to the country.

[Neutrino]

Hillary's right out. People think things are f*cked up now, but I can't even imagine what she would do to the country.

What, specifically, are you afraid she would do to the country? What specific policies of hers do you feel would be detrimental to our society? Just curious.

[Hapless]

What, exactly, has Obama done to deserve such adoration? He's a two-year Senator. He makes nice feel-good speeches, in which he never really says much. He's from my state, too, but I never heard of him until he ran for the US Senate.

I'm with Obama.

That certainly improves my view of Obama........


As for Hillary......:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :eek:

[The Monkey]

I don't understand why people hold such a grudge against Hillary. She seems to be very popular in New York...

[repiV]

Obama (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/gunnerjones/toon011807.gif)

[DeusExMachina]

Probably because she's a New York senator.

I like her husband, but not her at all.

[jondy]

Obama (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/gunnerjones/toon011807.gif)

That pretty much sums up how I feel about Obama

[Absinthe]

I like Obama because of his inexperience. While that's arguably his biggest weakness, it's also his greatest advantage. He's a fresh face with a strong sense of bipartisanship (which is something this country desparately needs), and any tendrils of the political machine that may have begun to embed themselves into his body have yet to take hold.

He's against the permanent tax cuts for the billionaires.
He supports network neutrality.
He supports a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
He's pro-choice.

Granted, I think we should be marginalizing evangelicals instead of reaching out to them (as he proposes). And there are a lot of vague areas of his agenda that he needs to flesh out. But he still has time to do so. So we'll see.

[kirovman]

He's against the permanent tax cuts for the billionaires.
He supports network neutrality.
He supports a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
He's pro-choice.


Jeez, he doesn't stand a chance.

[Walter]

Obama sin laden :D

[PvtRyan]

Not Obama. Purely because we'll have to endure 4 years of Osama bin Laden jokes.

[Jintor]

I think your avatar says that opinion quite clearly.

[gick]

I wonder how many people would vote for or against Obama for the wrong reasons (namely his race).

[$kelet0r]

too many
I just can't understand the passionate dislike for Hilary, it's really bizarre. It's like her early PR was bad and it stuck.

[jondy]

Her surname, mate :) She was behind 'Clintoncare' as well, people still dig up the whitewater case, and some of her policies are... controversial. I'm sure there's more.

[JNightshade]

Her surname, mate :) She was behind 'Clintoncare' as well, people still dig up the whitewater case, and some of her policies are... controversial. I'm sure there's more.



Tbh, I don't at all think that's it. Personally, I loved Clinton, personal issues be damned. However...

Social conservatives dislike her because she's a forceful, commanding woman
Gamers dislike her because she's got ties to Jack Thompson
Liberals dislike her because she's been rather hawkish
Fiscal conservatives dislike her because... well, a democrat


And so on and so forth. Personally, I don't have much against her, but there are just too many factors against her.

[jondy]

Tbh, I don't at all think that's it.

That's cool, I should really live in America before sounding authoritative on any of this stuff :)

[Aenama]

Tbh, I don't at all think that's it. Personally, I loved Clinton, personal issues be damned. However...

Social conservatives dislike her because she's a forceful, commanding woman
Gamers dislike her because she's got ties to Jack Thompson
Liberals dislike her because she's been rather hawkish
Fiscal conservatives dislike her because... well, a democrat


And so on and so forth. Personally, I don't have much against her, but there are just too many factors against her.



and she compared porn to cocaine... add that to the list lol

[Lt. Drebin]

Hapless, what does Obama's short time in office have to do with anything?

Simply put, there have been life-long politicians that have been absolutly useless in higher office.

[boglito]

Candidate for the democratic party: Rich white man.
Candidate for the republican party: Rich white man.

The democrats (possibly John Edwards "again"?) should be able to win, but the republicans can possibly beat them at the finish-line if they pick someone that has not been tainted by the incompetence of GWB. I would expect them to go for John McCain if they really want to win. Ofcourse, if the democrats are dumb enough to nominate Osa.. excuse me, Obama then any rich white man not bearing the name "bush" should be able to win, and if the democrats really go totally apeshit insane and nominate hillary then we'll see another 8 years of bushisms.

As for Condi I'm pretty sure that's a non-issue. Would be fun, though. Meow.

.bog.

[CptStern]

all I ask is that for a change you dont nominate someone stupid/self serving/industrial military complex poster boy


too much to ask huh?

[Glo-Boy]

Right, like Obama. Absinthe put it best in his post when he said it would be a nice change from the typical good ol' boys club that usually runs washington. Obama isn't going to reach out and only support muslim groups, kind of like how Bush only helps out evangelical christians. Obama is fair and undeniably a very smart person. If he had a white coat and a stethoscope around his neck, he probably could pass himself off as a neurosurgeon. Bush would probably come off as more of an actor in a play about a neurosurgeon.

[Bacons]

He's pro-choice.


I disagree not because of my religious point of views, but because it gives an excuse for young teens to ****.

There are other options like Adoption & birth control methods.


He supports a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Even though I am against the war, now that we are there we must stay there. You just can't leave, more innocent people will die. Have we yet learned our lessons from Vietnam? But then again maybe the Iraqi people are not ready to be civilized as they continue to show & they never will be civilized.


Everything else I support him on.

[CptStern]

not civilized? you ****ing bombed them back to the stone age, put iraqis through almost 2 decades of hardship, impose a puppet regime and you say they're not ready for civilization? ..you havent the faintest clue

[Bacons]

not civilized? you ****ing bombed them back to the stone age, put iraqis through almost 2 decades of hardship, impose a puppet regime and you say they're not ready for civilization? ..you havent the faintest clue

Yeah & leftist like yourself continuously think the world is a sugar coated fantasy land.

[jondy]

I disagree not because of my religious point of views, but because it gives an excuse for young teens to ****.

There are other options like Adoption & birth control methods.


I try to avoid being romantic on messageboards, but.. you utter idiot. Condoms, diaphrams, contraceptive pills - all 'excuses for teens to ****', but abortion? There are many reasonable reasons to dislike abortion, but this is not one of them - and heaven forbid, instead of trying to subvert human nature, we instead provide a practical, workable means of avoiding teenage pregnancy, which incidentally is reaching stratospheric levels in the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4584175.stm), partly thanks to pressure from religious groups and parents to avoid sex ed and encourage abstinence

[CptStern]

Yeah & leftist like yourself continuously think the world is a sugar coated fantasy land.

pardon me? it's the other way around ..I see iraq as the hell hole it currently is ..you just see a shining road to freedom that doesnt exist and never will

see that's the problem with some of you ...you live in this vacuum completely devoid of any understanding of global politics yet will cling to the first notion you've regurgitated from the knee-jerk reactionist media shill du jour and you run with it as if it's gospel ..there is no such thing as insight, no such thing as historical context ..it's all just pure gut reaction with zero substance

[Neutrino]

Yeah & leftist like yourself continuously think the world is a sugar coated fantasy land.

Me thinks you do not quite have a firm grasp of the concept of left-wing politics.

[Bacons]

Its brings me back to this thread (http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118886&page=3)


I try to avoid being romantic on messageboards, but.. you utter idiot. Condoms, diaphrams, contraceptive pills - all 'excuses for teens to ****', but abortion? There are many reasonable reasons to dislike abortion, but this is not one of them - and heaven forbid, instead of trying to subvert human nature, we instead provide a practical, workable means of avoiding teenage pregnancy, which incidentally is reaching stratospheric levels in the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4584175.stm), partly thanks to pressure from religious groups and parents to avoid sex ed and encourage abstinence.

Well I alays concidered Abortion 'genocide', how many deaths have there been?

[Absinthe]

I disagree not because of my religious point of views, but because it gives an excuse for young teens to ****.

There are other options like Adoption & birth control methods.

People will be ****ing regardless of abortion. They don't need an excuse. I'd rather a clump of cells be removed instead of ushering in an unwanted child.

People will also be getting abortions regardless of their legality. So your choice is between a safe, medically approved environment or a coathanger.

Until pro-lifers can provide a logical and fact-based rationale for being against abortion, it is and will remain to be a dangerous and backward stance.


Even though I am against the war, now that we are there we must stay there. You just can't leave, more innocent people will die. Have we yet learned our lessons from Vietnam? But then again maybe the Iraqi people are not ready to be civilized as they continue to show & they never will be civilized.

As noble as staying there might be, I find little practicality in it. We are arguably exacerbating problems by our very presence and it's become a sinkhole for manpower and resources that would be better spent on domestic issues and legitimate areas of national security. And despite all of our own ****-ups, it is has reached the point where Iraqis need to buckle down and start taking some ownership over the sectarian violence, even if it has been unfortunately hoisted upon them. Will there be more bloodshed if we leave? Most probably. But the outcome isn't all that different from the current one we're facing by staying.
Our attempts at instilling democracy has essentially turned into a gangplank for an Iraqi theocracy any way, which would most certainly be worse than Saddam's regime or any violence we're seeing right now. It's quite clear that there is very little want for a legitimate constitutional democracy in the area, and if half the population is actively fighting against it while the other half puts such reluctant effort into it, then I don't see why we should concern ourselves with it any longer.

Almost the entire region is a cesspool of religious dogmatism and anachronistic traditions. Things advocated by its very own college-educated intelligentsia. It would seem that no amount of education or material wealth will ever change the absurdity of it all unless there comes from within a recognition that some core values need to be changed or done away with.

[Bacons]

Well now thats all straitened out, I am quite curious when will be we have a Libertarian Presidential candidate?

[Darkside55]

I haven't attached myself to a candidate yet (too early), but Sen. Clinton got some brownie points from me in her response to the president's state of the union address yesterday. She said something along the lines of getting leverage (in Iraq), but more important was how she said other people don't respect or fear us anymore, and we need to get them to start doing so again.

I had absolutely no intention of even watching Hilary Clinton's campaign but that got me interested.

[CptStern]

I wouldnt call that admirable ..I mean not being scared of the US? what does she propose? more shock and awe campaigns?

"well we just bombed them to kingdom-****ing-come ..they'll fear us now!"


hilary is too conservative for my tastes ..expect big changes in how games are marketed/distributed/made should she take office

[repiV]

not civilized? you ****ing bombed them back to the stone age, put iraqis through almost 2 decades of hardship, impose a puppet regime and you say they're not ready for civilization? ..you havent the faintest clue

So, how are they ready for civilisation? Is it the bitter factional warfare, the constant suicide bombings and murders, the unwillingness to participate in democracy...what exactly is it that makes Iraqis so ready for civilisation?

pardon me? it's the other way around ..I see iraq as the hell hole it currently is ..you just see a shining road to freedom that doesnt exist and never will

see that's the problem with some of you ...you live in this vacuum completely devoid of any understanding of global politics yet will cling to the first notion you've regurgitated from the knee-jerk reactionist media shill du jour and you run with it as if it's gospel ..there is no such thing as insight, no such thing as historical context ..it's all just pure gut reaction with zero substance

Always criticising the big guy and always supporting the underdog is not the same thing as "insight". You have little of it.

People will be ****ing regardless of abortion. They don't need an excuse. I'd rather a clump of cells be removed instead of ushering in an unwanted child.

People will also be getting abortions regardless of their legality. So your choice is between a safe, medically approved environment or a coathanger.

Until pro-lifers can provide a logical and fact-based rationale for being against abortion, it is and will remain to be a dangerous and backward stance.


I can be anti-abortion and pro-choice, can't I?
The point you make in your second paragraph is quite obviously correct, but that doesn't mean abortion should be an absolute right on moral grounds, only on practical grounds.

I wouldnt call that admirable ..I mean not being scared of the US? what does she propose? more shock and awe campaigns?

"well we just bombed them to kingdom-****ing-come ..they'll fear us now!"


It's good to be feared. Fear keeps everyone else in line. Fear is why the world isn't a nuclear wasteland. Fear stops people from attacking you. That's bloody obvious.

[Absinthe]

I can be anti-abortion and pro-choice, can't I?

The terms are stupidly flawed. Everybody is pro-life and everybody is pro-choice. No rational person would ever adopt a position of being pro-death or restricting freedoms for the sake of it. I only used them because they've become the standard labels for both sides.

The point you make in your second paragraph is quite obviously correct, but that doesn't mean abortion should be an absolute right on moral grounds, only on practical grounds.

Abortion doesn't need to be "right" on moral grounds. It's not like there's some splendidly ethical outcome in making it legal. The removal of a zygote or undeveloped clump of cells is, quite simply, an act without moral consequences. It is up to "pro-lifers" to explain how it's morally wrong (if indeed it is).

While I think there is a legitimate debate on when, during the fetus' development during pregnancy, it is considered a human life or not, being against abortion out of mere principle is silly. Scratching your ass is probably more destructive to life on this planet than destroying zygotes.

[CptStern]

So, how are they ready for civilisation? Is it the bitter factional warfare, the constant suicide bombings and murders, the unwillingness to participate in democracy...what exactly is it that makes Iraqis so ready for civilisation?

lets ignore the fact that the west put them into this predicament why dont we?



Always criticising the big guy and always supporting the underdog is not the same thing as "insight". You have little of it.

please, you cant see further than the tip of your nose, dont talk to me about insight. When it comes to the war on terror/iraq you have proven yourself to have zero insight



It's good to be feared. Fear keeps everyone else in line. Fear is why the world isn't a nuclear wasteland. Fear stops people from attacking you. That's bloody obvious.


yes fear stops terrorism ..heavy handed tactics have always proven effective in making the world a far more peaceful place. :upstare:

Posturing only works on a much larger scale ..people with nothing too lose have no fear of policy meant to intimidate entire nations ..look how effective foreign policy has been at stemming the tide of terrorism ..for all it's vaunted strength the US is completely ineffectual when it comes to fighting terrorism because they can never reach the hearts and minds of those directly affected by their policies

[repiV]

lets ignore the fact that the west put them into this predicament why dont we?


Yes, of course, it's the West's fault that they choose to wage jihad against each other. That makes so little sense it's funny.


please, you cant see further than the tip of your nose, dont talk to me about insight. When it comes to the war on terror/iraq you have proven yourself to have zero insight


Yes, of course, the only way to have insight is to chant "bad USA, good Iraqis". You're a damn sheep, but you think that somehow your entirely predictable and completely biased rhetoric is legitimate purely because it goes against the grain. It isn't.
Your posts are the Daily Mail of the left.


yes fear stops terrorism ..heavy handed tactics have always proven effective in making the world a far more peaceful place. :upstare:

Posturing only works on a much larger scale ..people with nothing too lose have no fear of policy meant to intimidate entire nations ..look how effective foreign policy has been at stemming the tide of terrorism ..for all it's vaunted strength the US is completely ineffectual when it comes to fighting terrorism because they can never reach the hearts and minds of those directly affected by their policies

If nobody feared the US, war would have been waged upon their soil a lot more than zero times in the last 200 or so years. If nobody feared mutually assured destruction, we would have experienced multiple nuclear holocausts. Stop being stupid.

[DaMaN]

So, how are they ready for civilisation? Is it the bitter factional warfare, the constant suicide bombings and murders, the unwillingness to participate in democracy...what exactly is it that makes Iraqis so ready for civilisation?
Because contrary to popular belief, they are people, too. Nobody has a right to say that one group of people is ready for civilization and another group of people is not. (Who's to say that we're ready for civilization?)

In addition, Iraq is based on the land of the world's first civilization, the Sumerian culture, in 5000 BC. Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Ancient_history)
These civilizations produced the earliest writing and some of the first sciences, mathematics, laws and philosophies in the world, making the region the center of what is commonly called the "Cradle of Civilization". Ancient Mesopotamian civilization dominated other civilizations of its time.
So they've had civilization for 7000 years, and yet our 200 year-old civilization has the right to tell it that it's not ready for civilization? Hmm...


It's good to be feared. Fear keeps everyone else in line. Fear is why the world isn't a nuclear wasteland. Fear stops people from attacking you. That's bloody obvious.
I disagree.

While fear of something is usually a deterrant, it is not always the case. Sometimes, fear will make people do things they normally wouldn't. Living in fear for long amounts of time, a person will probably become accustomed to it, or go crazy. If they become accustomed to fear, there is no longer any deterrant. If they go crazy because of the fear, again there is little deterrant left.

Besides, fear diminishes freedom of action. Diminishing someone's freedom of action is certainly impinging on their rights. Additionally, it's just as much their right to live a live free from fear as it is yours.

[Absinthe]

So they've had civilization for 7000 years, and yet our 200 year-old civilization has the right to tell it that it's not ready for civilization? Hmm...

Let's be blunt here. The region is failing miserably at "civilization" in the present day.

[repiV]

The terms are stupidly flawed. Everybody is pro-life and everybody is pro-choice. No rational person would ever adopt a position of being pro-death or restricting freedoms for the sake of it. I only used them because they've become the standard labels for both sides.



Abortion doesn't need to be "right" on moral grounds. It's not like there's some splendidly ethical outcome in making it legal. The removal of a zygote or undeveloped clump of cells is, quite simply, an act without moral consequences. It is up to "pro-lifers" to explain how it's morally wrong (if indeed it is).

While I think there is a legitimate debate on when, during the fetus' development during pregnancy, it is considered a human life or not, being against abortion out of mere principle is silly. Scratching your ass is probably more destructive to life on this planet than destroying zygotes.

It's not silly to be against abortion out of principle. It's perfectly possible to be against something without wanting laws barring it.
Abortion is the coward's way out. It's a method of avoiding dealing with your problems which you created, at the expense of a life.
I mean, ffs, just give it up for adoption. It ain't rocket science.

[DaMaN]

Let's be blunt here. The region is failing miserably at "civilization" in the present day.
Correct. But I disagree that the reason for it failing is entirly at their hands. That region has been invaded and occupied since english colonial times - that's enough to destablize any civilization.

My point is that nobody has the right to say "Ok, you can be civilized, but you can't". It is up to those people to civilize themselves or not, NOT up to us to civilize them.

[repiV]

Because contrary to popular belief, they are people, too. Nobody has a right to say that one group of people is ready for civilization and another group of people is not. (Who's to say that we're ready for civilization?)


Wow, revelation. They're PEOPLE. Who's to say that we're ready for civilisation? I'd say the fact that we have a very successful civilisation that has shaped the world, continues to shape the world, and leads the world in every field, which is also responsible for the economic prosperity of the only non-Western countries to BE leading the world, is a good indicator that we're ready for civilisation.


In addition, Iraq is based on the land of the world's first civilization, the Sumerian culture, in 5000 BC. Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Ancient_history)

So they've had civilization for 7000 years, and yet our 200 year-old civilization has the right to tell it that it's not ready for civilization? Hmm...


What? Our civilisation dates back to Roman times.


I disagree.

While fear of something is usually a deterrant, it is not always the case. Sometimes, fear will make people do things they normally wouldn't. Living in fear for long amounts of time, a person will probably become accustomed to it, or go crazy. If they become accustomed to fear, there is no longer any deterrant. If they go crazy because of the fear, again there is little deterrant left.


Erm...whatever. There's a big difference of being afraid of the consequences of ****ing with someone and living in eternal fear.


Besides, fear diminishes freedom of action. Diminishing someone's freedom of action is certainly impinging on their rights. Additionally, it's just as much their right to live a live free from fear as it is yours.

Damn hippie. You go and enforce that "right" to live free from fear then. What the **** are you gonna do? Write a letter to Bush?
The world is what it is, and your posturing is nothing but empty, pointless, stupid words.
I really don't give two shits about their "freedom of action", a meaningless concept which you just invented and which does not exist.

[repiV]

Correct. But I disagree that the reason for it failing is entirly at their hands. That region has been invaded and occupied since english colonial times - that's enough to destablize any civilization.

My point is that nobody has the right to say "Ok, you can be civilized, but you can't". It is up to those people to civilize themselves or not, NOT up to us to civilize them.

And they're failing miserably at civilising themselves, something they currently have the perfect opportunity to do. The reason we are still in Iraq is because they are incapable of doing so. Next topic.

[CptStern]

Abortion is the coward's way out.

yes because when the life of a mother is threatened it would be cowardly to try to save her life by aborting the fetus ..god forbid we all turn a blind eye to children born with crippling deformities that will make their rather short life needlessly painful ..I hope to ****ing god you never have to make such a difficult choice ..but lets just throw individuals rights right out the door because some narrow minded **** thinks it's his business to decide what's appropriate for someone elses life

It's a method of avoiding dealing with your problems which you created, at the expense of a life.
I mean, ffs, just give it up for adoption. It ain't rocket science.

bullshit you havent a ****ing clue as to how difficult it is to come to that decision ..so stop talking through your ass because unless YOU live through it you have no right to an opinion

[Absinthe]

It's not silly to be against abortion out of principle. It's perfectly possible to be against something without wanting laws barring it.
Abortion is the coward's way out. It's a method of avoiding dealing with your problems which you created, at the expense of a life.
I mean, ffs, just give it up for adoption. It ain't rocket science.

Explain yourself. Explain how a zygote or a clump of 10,000 cells with no central nervous system or capacity to feel pain, suffering, or even think constitutes a life with human rights.
If you want to argue that it's immoral because it kills off the potential of human life, then I'd argue that you're a murderer for not having enough sex. Each drop of semen you don't pump into a woman is denying the possibility of a healthy baby boy being born.

Abortion is dealing with a problem. And while it technically involves the destruction of life, so does scratching your nose. The issue is wether or not such life should be granted the same kind of freedom and moral rights that a developed human has. There's no such to believe they should at such early stages, sans the obligatory religious drivel.

[repiV]

yes because when the life of a mother is threatened it would be cowardly to try to save her life by aborting the fetus ..god forbid we all turn a blind eye to children born with crippling deformities that will make their rather short life needlessly painful ..I hope to ****ing god you never have to make such a difficult choice ..but lets just throw individuals rights right out the door because some narrow minded **** thinks it's his business to decide what's appropriate for someone elses life


Er, I was quite ****ing obviously talking about situations where nobody's life is in jeopardy. Stop being a hysterical idiot.


bullshit you havent a ****ing clue as to how difficult it is to come to that decision ..so stop talking through your ass because unless YOU live through it you have no right to an opinion

But you have an opinion, don't you? Are you a woman? Hypocrite.
And yes, I have every right to have an opinion, because I know the consequences of each course of action and I don't really care if someone finds it difficult to do the right thing or not.
Why don't you stop posting in politics, because you have no idea what it's like to be President of the USA - and thus you have no right to an opinion?
You'll either do that or prove yourself a complete hypocrite.

[repiV]

Explain yourself. Explain how a zygote or a clump of 10,000 cells with no central nervous system or capacity to feel pain, suffering, or even think constitutes a life with human rights.
If you want to argue that it's immoral because it kills off the potential of human life, then I'd argue that you're a murderer for not having enough sex. Each drop of semen you don't pump into a woman is denying the possibility of a healthy baby boy being born.

Abortion is dealing with a problem. And while it technically it involves the destruction of life, so does scratching your nose. The issue is wether or not such life should be granted the same kind of freedom and moral rights that a developed human has. There's no such to believe they should at such early stages, sans the obligatory religious drivel.

Whether or not it is technically a human being at one particular stage of pregnancy is irrelevant, the fact remains that one less person will experience life because you had an abortion.
Taking away inevitability and not starting down a course of action in the first place (not getting pregnant) are completely different things.

[Absinthe]

Er, I was quite ****ing obviously talking about situations where nobody's life is in jeopardy. Stop being a hysterical idiot.

Interesting, so the moral rights of the fetus are secondary to and dependent on the mother's? But shouldn't all innocent human life be equal?

Here's the problem with most mainstream pro-life views. They're still willing to have tiny "human lives" destroyed under certain circumstances. It's a moral double standard. Some may to rationalize it as a kind of collateral damage, but the point remains the same that you would be advocating the death of what you see as human life.

[CptStern]

Er, I was quite ****ing obviously talking about situations where nobody's life is in jeopardy. Stop being a hysterical idiot.

the mother's life doesnt have to be threatened ..take away abortion and any mother with a fetus that will not survive birth will have to be carried to TERM ..no but you didnt take that into consideration because that's not in your conservative play book now is it?



But you have an opinion, don't you? Are you a woman? Hypocrite.

yes I have a right to an opinion because I HAD TO MAKE THAT DECISION so stfu


And yes, I have every right to have an opinion, because I know the consequences of each course of action and I don't really care if someone finds it difficult to do the right thing or not.
Why don't you stop posting in politics, because you have no idea what it's like to be President of the USA - and thus you have no right to an opinion?
You'll either do that or prove yourself a complete hypocrite.

apples and oranges, but way to twist my words to mean something completely different than I intended ..you have no right to an opinion because you have no right determining what is right or wrong in anybody's life except your own

[Absinthe]

Whether or not it is technically a human being at one particular stage of pregnancy is irrelevant, the fact remains that one less person will experience life because you had an abortion.

Being a "person", by most standards, requires you to be a human being. You have yet to explain how a zygote or a miniscule clump of cells constitute human life. Depriving a person of life firstly depends on wether or not said person even exists.

One less person will not experience life because you used a condom. Or because you didn't hit up some bird at a bar. Scratch that, actually. Hundreds of potential people will not experience life because you have denied them the opportunity of being conceived and developed.

Obviously, that's a ludicrous way of thinking. Therefore, the potential of human life is nowhere near equal to the existence of human life. "Potential" is an abstract concept with no physical manifestation.

[DaMaN]

Wow, revelation. They're PEOPLE. Who's to say that we're ready for civilisation? I'd say the fact that we have a very successful civilisation that has shaped the world, continues to shape the world, and leads the world in every field, which is also responsible for the economic prosperity of the only non-Western countries to BE leading the world, is a good indicator that we're ready for civilisation.
Huh, so because we say we're civilized means that nobody else can say we're not civilized - but if we say someone's not ready to be civilized, they have no say in it?

Yea, so we gotz t3h interwebz and teknologiez and moni3z so we get to say who can be civilized and who cannot be civilized.

Damn hippie.
Do you think people have the right to food?
Do you think people have the right to health?
Do you think people have the right to education?
Do you think people have the right to life?

Then you're more of a hippie than I am.

You go and enforce that "right" to live free from fear then. What the **** are you gonna do? Write a letter to Bush?
The world is what it is, and your posturing is nothing but empty, pointless, stupid words.
Much like your insults and barbed words are nothing but empty, pointless, stupid words that aren't helping in this discussion.

I really don't give two shits about their "freedom of action", a meaningless concept which you just invented and which does not exist.
"Freedom of action" - IE, you have the freedom to go and do something. More specifically, it is a person's right to live free from fear. Do you want to live in a world where you are always afraid? Then why would you want someone else to live in a world where they are always afraid?

The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should chose which state it belongs to (for instance by plebiscite). It implies that all nations - usually meaning an ethnic group that self-identifies as a nation - have an equal entitlement to a sovereign state. It also implies that no other form of state is morally legitimate - certainly not if it includes an ethnic group who do not wish to be included in it.
People need to choose their own future. We can't do it for them.

[repiV]

the mother's life doesnt have to be threatened ..take away abortion and any mother with a fetus that will not survive birth will have to be carried to TERM ..no but you didnt take that into consideration because that's not in your conservative play book now is it?


What the bloody hell are you talking about? Where did I say ANYTHING, EVER about taking away abortion? For someone who claims to be so informed, and constantly talks about how he doesn't see things in black and white, you really should learn to read. Your blind hysterics in this thread are as bad as anything numbers has ever come out with.


yes I have a right to an opinion because I HAD TO MAKE THAT DECISION so stfu


But you never had to make difficult foreign policy decisions. So STFU criticising the USA.


apples and oranges, but way to twist my words to mean something completely different than I intended ..you have no right to an opinion because you have no right determining what is right or wrong in anybody's life except your own

First of all, I'm pro-choice and that is completely and utterly ****ing obvious. I've spelled that out explicitly on more than one occassion, so don't talk to me about twisting people's words.
Secondly, if that is the case, why do you think you have a right to talk about what is right or wrong in America or Iraq?

[repiV]

Being a "person", by most standards, requires you to be a human being. You have yet to explain how a zygote or a miniscule clump of cells constitute human life. Depriving a person of life firstly depends on wether or not said person even exists.

One less person will not experience life because you used a condom. Or because you didn't hit up some bird at a bar. Scratch that, actually. Hundreds of potential people will not experience life because you have denied them the opportunity of being conceived and developed.

Obviously, that's a ludicrous way of thinking. Therefore, the potential of human life is nowhere near equal to the existence of human life. "Potential" is an abstract concept with no physical manifestation.

A fetus is not a potential human life, it's a human life that is not yet fully functional. There is no question mark over whether or not it's going to become a human being.
You can't just say that life doesn't even exist - that's bullshit.

[repiV]

Huh, so because we say we're civilized means that nobody else can say we're not civilized - but if we say someone's not ready to be civilized, they have no say in it?


Since when did me saying Iraq isn't civilised have any influence over whether they actually are or not?
Anyone can say whatever the **** they want, it doesn't change the facts.


Yea, so we gotz t3h interwebz and teknologiez and moni3z so we get to say who can be civilized and who cannot be civilized.


Er...whatever.


Do you think people have the right to food?
Do you think people have the right to health?
Do you think people have the right to education?
Do you think people have the right to life?

Then you're more of a hippie than I am.


What's that supposed to mean?


Much like your insults and barbed words are nothing but empty, pointless, stupid words that aren't helping in this discussion.


Sue me. At least I make sense.


"Freedom of action" - IE, you have the freedom to go and do something. More specifically, it is a person's right to live free from fear. Do you want to live in a world where you are always afraid? Then why would you want someone else to live in a world where they are always afraid?


Umm, and since when was this "freedom of action" a universal right? And how exactly does it extend to the freedom to attack Western civilisation?
**** with Britain and you get what's coming to you.


People need to choose their own future. We can't do it for them.

Yes, I couldn't agree more, so let's get the hell out of that shit infested craphole otherwise known as the Middle East, cut all trade ties and free movement and let them fail by themselves.
Except we need the oil. I guess we're tied down there for another 50 years.

[Absinthe]

A fetus is not a potential human life, it's a human life that is not yet fully functional. There is no question mark over whether or not it's going to become a human being. You can't just say that life doesn't even exist - that's bullshit.

This isn't logically congruent. It's either a human life or it's going to become a human life. It is either the potential or the realization. You cannot have it both ways. A caterpillar will turn into a butterfly, but said butterfly does not exist until it actually manifests itself.

Human life gains moral rights when it actually comes into existence. The exact time in which this happens is still a gray area that requires inquiry, but it is nonsensical to give rights to the void or lump that precedes it. If this is bullshit, then it should be easy to discredit. You have to explain how a zygote or cluster of cells with absolutely zero cognitive capabilities or nervous capacity is considered a person.

Start off with the zygote, actually.

[repiV]

This isn't logically congruent. It's either a human life or it's going to become a human life. It is either the potential or the realization. You cannot have it both ways. A caterpillar will turn into a butterfly, but said butterfly does not exist until it actually manifests itself.

Human life gains moral rights when it actually comes into existence. The exact time in which this happens is still a gray area that requires inquiry, but it is nonsensical to give rights to something to the void or lump that precedes it. If this is bullshit, then it should be easy to discredit.

"The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen." - Minority Report
That "void or lump" is merely the human life in a very early stage of development. Perhaps if you'd ever met someone who was nearly aborted, you'd get it.

[CptStern]

What the bloody hell are you talking about? Where did I say ANYTHING, EVER about taking away abortion? For someone who claims to be so informed, and constantly talks about how he doesn't see things in black and white, you really should learn to read. Your blind hysterics in this thread are as bad as anything numbers has ever come out with.

oh so you didnt say abortion is for the cowardly right? no I must just be making that up ..this doesnt mean what I think it means:

Abortion is the coward's way out



But you never had to make difficult foreign policy decisions. So STFU criticising the USA.

again apples and oranges ..stop twisting my words ..i clearly said you have NO right in making decisions that affect other people's lives ..or will you dance around that too?



First of all, I'm pro-choice and that is completely and utterly ****ing obvious. I've spelled that out explicitly on more than one occassion, so don't talk to me about twisting people's words.

hmmm you're the first "pro-choice" person I've ever met who has utter disdain for anyone who actually goes through with an abortion ..and it's justified because women are cowards and couldnt make an decision affecting their lives if you put a gun to their heads

Secondly, if that is the case, why do you think you have a right to talk about what is right or wrong in America or Iraq?

again apples and oranges ..you have no right to decide what other people can do with their lives ..stop twisting obvious statements into something that appears to support your idiotic pov ..again you have NO right making a blanket statement that all women who have abortions are cowars because you havent a ****ing clue as to the level of bravery it takes to come to that conclusion so for once get your head out of your conservative ass and try not to be so narrowminded

[Absinthe]

"The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen." - Minority Report

Sorry, but Hollywood quotes aren't applicable here.

That "void or lump" is merely the human life in a very early stage of development.

Is it a person or not? How do you differentiate between virtually identical cells of potential human life and those that make up the skin on your nose? How can a void constitute a human life? If you think a void of mere potential constitutes human life, then do you agree that abstinence is murder?

Clarification: What is the criteria for being a human life with moral rights?

Perhaps if you'd ever met someone who was nearly aborted, you'd get it.

Remember that I admitted there exists reasonable debate at a certain point of development. But if such a person was aborted within the first week or two after his conception, he would have merely not existed. The same exact result would be achieved if his parents had never screwed.

You never answered one of my previous questions. Does a fetus have inferior moral rights to his mother? ie. If the mother's life was in jeopardy, is it acceptable to kill the person growing inside of her?

[Geogaddi]

"The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen." - Minority Report
That "void or lump" is merely the human life in a very early stage of development. Perhaps if you'd ever met someone who was nearly aborted, you'd get it.

"Science fiction writers, I am sorry to say, really do not know anything. We can't talk about science, because our knowledge of it is limited and unofficial, and usually our fiction is dreadful."
-Philip K. Dick
Author of Minority Report

[repiV]

oh so you didnt say abortion is for the cowardly right? no I must just be making that up ..this doesnt mean what I think it means:


Yes, it is for the cowardly. Lots of things are for the cowardly, that doesn't mean I think they should be banned.


again apples and oranges ..stop twisting my words ..i clearly said you have NO right in making decisions that affect other people's lives ..or will you dance around that too?


And...how exactly have I been making any decisions that affect other people's lives?
What is there to dance around? You're just spouting hysterical bullshit.


hmmm you're the first "pro-choice" person I've ever met who has utter disdain for anyone who actually goes through with an abortion ..and it's justified because women are cowards and couldnt make an decision affecting their lives if you put a gun to their heads


So if I'm so unique, I obviously don't see things in such simple terms as you constantly accuse me of.
I don't need any "justification" for disliking people, but thanks all the same.


again apples and oranges ..you have no right to decide what other people can do with their lives ..stop twisting obvious statements into something that appears to support your idiotic pov ..again you have NO right making a blanket statement that all women who have abortions are cowars because you havent a ****ing clue as to the level of bravery it takes to come to that conclusion so for once get your head out of your conservative ass and try not to be so narrowminded

So, how the **** am I deciding what anyone can do with their lives?
I have every right to make blanket statements, as you do. Try and stop me.
You're one of the most narrowminded, dogmatic, predictable people here (hell, even Solaris surprises me, but I could practically write your posts for you and noone would know the difference).
I find it ironic that you're calling me narrowminded yet I have the most even-handed, middle-of-the-road view of abortion there is. It's you who is narrow-minded, for refusing to consider anyone else's point of view.
Life is tough and so are life decisions, that doesn't give you an excuse to make the wrong decisions. Not holding people accountable for their decisions - that's another cowardly point of view.

Sorry, but Hollywood quotes aren't applicable here.


Something isn't credible just because it was said in a film? You'll have to do better than that.


Is it a person or not? How do you differentiate between virtually identical cells of potential human life and those that make up the skin on your nose? How can a void constitute a human life?

If you think a void of mere potential constitutes human life, then do you agree that abstinence is murder?

Remember that I admitted there exists reasonable debate at a certain point of development. But if such a person was aborted within the first week or two after his conception, he would have merely not existed. The same exact result would be achieved if his parents had never screwed.

No, abstinence is not murder, because nothing has yet been created to allow it to be destroyed. That distinction is obvious.
Of course he would have existed - he would have existed in a very rudimentary and undeveloped form. The eventual result is no different whether the abortion is done at two weeks or eight months and three weeks.


You never answered one of my previous questions. Does a fetus have inferior moral rights to his mother? ie. If the mother's life was in jeopardy, is it acceptable to kill the person growing inside of her?

Yes, obviously. However, in the vast majority of cases, the only thing that's in jeopardy is a woman's right to avoid the pain of a childbirth she was responsible for.

[Jerry_111]

David Wu for president!

[repiV]

-Philip K. Dick
Author of Minority Report

His quote clearly changes the obvious fact that is expressed in the given line.

[jondy]

Ooh, an abortion debate!

[Absinthe]

Something isn't credible just because it was said in a film? You'll have to do better than that.

No, you will have to do better with maintaining consistency with your logic.

If I don't impregnate my girlfriend, I'm preventing human life from being brought into this world. By your very own reasoning about potential, any act other than reproductive sex is the collective genocide of tiny souls. That is patently absurd.

No, abstinence is not murder, because nothing has yet been created to allow it to be destroyed. That distinction is obvious.

The only thing created is a zygote (which you still have refused to substantiate as human life), which is nothing more than instructional blueprints for developing any embryo, which in turn is an instructional blueprint for developing the fetus. And even after that point, there are still issues with the absence of a nervous system, let a lone a functioning one.

There's a distinction, but it's a superficial and pointless one since neither the void nor the zygote can constitute human life unless you were to completely remove any value from the term. In such a scenario, the cells on my left buttock would be human life, and scratching it, sitting on it too hard, or merely making contact with the commode would be grievous murder.

Of course he would have existed - he would have existed in a very rudimentary and undeveloped form. The eventual result is no different whether the abortion is done at two weeks or eight months and three weeks.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain how a zygote constitutes a human being. When are you going to do this? Remember, the development of the fetus itself has not even begun to take place with the formation of the zygote. It is essentially a set of instructions.

Yes, obviously. However, in the vast majority of cases, the only thing that's in jeopardy is a woman's right to avoid the pain of a childbirth she was responsible for.

So you admit a moral double standard? Then you also admit that a zygote - or even a fetus - is not to be considered a human being. There is no such thing as a half-human, a quarter-human, or so forth. We don't ascribe moral rights to skin cells, or sperm, or eggs. Because no matter how integral they may be to the development of a human being, they do not equate to one.

A human being either is or he isn't. Even the mentally handicapped have functioning nervous systems and brains. At least they were actually born. To be against abortion and still be supportive of what you would consider murder in certain cases requires some serious mental partitioning.

[repiV]

No, you will have to do better with maintaining consistency with your logic.

If I don't impregnate my girlfriend, I'm preventing human life from being brought into this world. By your very own reasoning about potential, any act other than reproductive sex is the collective genocide of tiny souls. That is patently absurd.


It's a completely different kind of potential. You haven't gone down that route yet, so it's solely in the realm of hypothesis. A fetus is real and it is growing.


The only thing created is a zygote (which you still have refused to substantiate as human life), which is nothing more than instructional blueprints for developing any embryo, which in turn is an instructional blueprint for developing the fetus. And even after that point, there are still issues with the absence of a nervous system, let a lone a functioning one.

There's a distinction, but it's a superficial and pointless one since neither the void nor the zygote can constitute human life unless you were to completely remove any value from the term. In such a scenario, the cells on my left buttock would be human life, and scratching it, sitting on it too hard, or merely making contact with the commode would be grievous murder.



I have asked you repeatedly to explain how a zygote constitutes a human being. When are you going to do this? Remember, the development of the fetus itself has not even begun to take place with the formation of the zygote. It is essentially a set of instructions.


Clearly that's different to a fetus. However, I'd never heard the term "zygote" until today. Makes me think of ziggurats...


So you admit a moral double standard? Then you also admit that a zygote - or even a fetus - is not to be considered a human being. There is no such thing as a half-human, a quarter-human, or so forth. We don't ascribe moral rights to skin cells, or sperm, or eggs. Because no matter how integral they may be to the development of a human being, they do not equate to one.

A human being either is or he isn't. Even the mentally handicapped have functioning nervous systems and brains. At least they were actually born. To be against abortion and still be supportive of what you would consider murder in certain cases requires some serious mental partitioning.

It's not a moral double standard at all - under normal circumstances, having a kid and giving it up for adoption creates an incalculable benefit for the kid, at relatively little cost to the woman.
If the woman's life is at stake, the cost/benefit ratio is extremely skewed from the normal situation, so the "right thing" becomes much less of a clear-cut issue.
It doesn't require any mental partitioning whatsoever.

[Absinthe]

It's a completely different kind of potential. You haven't gone down that route yet, so it's solely in the realm of hypothesis. A fetus is real and it is growing.

"Different kinds of potential?" I could theoretically cultivate those very same cells into human potential. The argument still stands that the potential of something is not equitable to its actual existence.

Clearly that's different to a fetus. However, I'd never heard the term "zygote" until today. Makes me think of ziggurats...

Even the early formations of the fetus have no developed nervous system or mental capacity. The very things we generally mandate as necessary for something to be considered human and "alive".

It's not a moral double standard at all - under normal circumstances, having a kid and giving it up for adoption creates an incalculable benefit for the kid, at relatively little cost to the woman.

While adoption may be of benefit to the kid that exists (as opposed to dashing its brains out with a rock upon exiting the birth canal), abortion - at least in the early stages of pregnancy - does not bring the child into existence period.

Something can't experience harm or loss if it has not been physically created yet.

If the woman's life is at stake, the cost/benefit ratio is extremely skewed from the normal situation, so the "right thing" becomes much less of a clear-cut issue.
It doesn't require any mental partitioning whatsoever.

It's simple. You have the choice of either killing:

A) The mother: a sentient, developed human being with moral rights.

OR

B) The zygote/fetus: a non-sentient, undeveloped collection of sheer biological matter.

Regardless of whether it's the right thing or not, one of those two will have to die. And by your standards of human life, in which all human beings have equal moral rights, one essentially needs to murdered. Ignoring life-threatening scenarios, having somebody go through with a pregnancy to "learn her lesson" as a form of punishment hardly seems like a good cause for bringing another human being into the world. Fixating the fetus' supposed right to life as a contingency on the person it's connected to is preposterous.

What is your stance on pregnancy in cases of rape?

[repiV]

Well I was literally just going to get into bed, so this will be the last post I answer for tonight.

"Different kinds of potential?" I could theoretically cultivate those very same cells into human potential. The argument still stands that the potential of something is not equitable to its actual existence.


Theoretically. Perhaps potential is the wrong word - the human being does exist as a fetus, it just isn't fully developed yet. Where do you draw the line between fetus and baby and so on?
I mean, should we make no big deal about killing babies because they aren't fully developed yet? What's the difference - apart from that they are no longer in the womb? Is it ok to kill premature babies because they should still be in the womb?


Even the early formations of the fetus have no developed nervous system or mental capacity. The very things we generally mandate as necessary for something to be considered human and "alive".


Yes, but it will be human and alive. Barring unforseen circumstances, that is a certainty. You are not killing a potential human, you're killing an undeveloped, but real, human.


While adoption may be of benefit to the kid that exists (as opposed to dashing its brains out with a rock upon exiting the birth canal), abortion - at least in the early stages of pregnancy - does not bring the child into existence period.


In the very early stages, perhaps. Otherwise, the point remains that a baby is still a developing human - just like a fetus. But we don't go around killing babies for personal convinience.


Something can't experience harm or loss if it has not been physically created yet.


But it HAS been physically created - the only difference is we use different terminology to describe unborn babies to born ones.


It's simple. You have the choice of either killing:

A) The mother: a sentient, developed human being with moral rights.

OR

B) The zygote/fetus: a non-sentient, undeveloped collection of sheer biological matter.

Regardless of whether it's the right thing or not, one of those two will have to die. And by your standards of human life, in which all human beings have equal moral rights, one essentially needs to murdered.


I don't think all human beings have equal moral rights, I never said that. A mother's life is clearly worth more than that of an unborn baby (well, unless the mother is a worthless, useless drain on society, but you know...irrelevant). I would also argue that the mother's life is worth more than a baby's life, as the baby is a blank slate who has only the future to lose. That mother has built relationships with lots of people and has paths to finish travelling in life. She means a lot more to the world.


What is your stance on pregnancy in cases of rape?

I would applaud any woman who went ahead with the pregnancy, but I would also completely understand if they didn't.
The other distinction that you probably didn't consider, here, is also that the woman is not responsible for that pregnancy. I can't abide by people who don't take responsibility for their actions.

[Aenama]

Its brings me back to this thread (http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118886&page=3)




Well I alays concidered Abortion 'genocide', how many deaths have there been?




*head hits desk*

[Absinthe]

Theoretically. Perhaps potential is the wrong word - the human being does exist as a fetus, it just isn't fully developed yet.

A life of some kind exists. The question is wether or not it has moral rights equitable to developed humans, if any at all. Since they are lacking the criteria for what we generally accept as living human beings, there's no reason to think they do.

Where do you draw the line between fetus and baby and so on?
I mean, should we make no big deal about killing babies because they aren't fully developed yet? What's the difference - apart from that they are no longer in the womb? Is it ok to kill premature babies because they should still be in the womb?

Infants, even premature ones, have fully functioning nervous systems and cognitive abilities. They are leaps and bounds ahead of developing fetuses in that they actually constitute human beings.

This response satisfies many of the other segmented replies, so quoting them would be redundant.

Yes, but it will be human and alive. Barring unforseen circumstances, that is a certainty. You are not killing a potential human, you're killing an undeveloped, but real, human.

You're still being incongruent. You can't say it will be a human and then one sentence later that it is one. If it's still only potential human life, then the matter needs to be grounded in the present as to what the life currently constitutes. If it is human life, then you're widening the criteria for something to qualify as such to the point of absurdity.

I don't think all human beings have equal moral rights, I never said that. A mother's life is clearly worth more than that of an unborn baby (well, unless the mother is a worthless, useless drain on society, but you know...irrelevant). I would also argue that the mother's life is worth more than a baby's life, as the baby is a blank slate who has only the future to lose. That mother has built relationships with lots of people and has paths to finish travelling in life. She means a lot more to the world.

Again, incongruent. The baby has potential to mean a lot to the world, and you would be robbing it of the opportunity to fulfill it.

But the contradiction aside, I agree that fully developed humans are of more importance and have more imperative moral rights than those of fetuses. Enough that if the mother decides to have an abortion, her choice trumps the life inside of her.

I would applaud any woman who went ahead with the pregnancy, but I would also completely understand if they didn't.
The other distinction that you probably didn't consider, here, is also that the woman is not responsible for that pregnancy. I can't abide by people who don't take responsibility for their actions.

But this just highlights another double standard. Women who get knocked up through their own accidents should go through with the pregnancy, but rape victims shouldn't? While I understand the compassion behind such a mindset, we find ourselves in a very deplorable state of affairs if the life of the unborn can be snubbed out because of another person's crimes. What you are doing, essentially, is punishing the developing human being and depriving it of a fair shake at life. Life with moral rights should not hinge upon the way in which it was conceived. If you think that the organism growing inside of the woman is a genuine human life, then it should make no difference if it was the cause of rape or drunk sex without protection.

[CptStern]

Yes, it is for the cowardly. Lots of things are for the cowardly, that doesn't mean I think they should be banned.

you're a hypocrite, did you not say this later on?

I would applaud any woman who went ahead with the pregnancy, but I would also completely understand if they didn't.

you identify with cowardice? so what's it going to be; cowards or people faced with tough choices? The very fact that you can use such an offensive and idiotic term to describe all women who have had to make that decision proves that you're a narrow minded immature little man who feels he can arbitrarily pass judgement on every situation regardless of the circumstances behind each individual case. We may not agree on the majority of things but at least I can say that we have argued in the past on equal footing in terms of being able to support our ideology but this is out of character even for you.

[Absinthe]

I also don't understand how, if you consider a fetus to be a human being, you wouldn't also be against banning it. That would simply be compliance with murder.

[repiV]

A life of some kind exists. The question is wether or not it has moral rights equitable to developed humans, if any at all. Since they are lacking the criteria for what we generally accept as living human beings, there's no reason to think they do.


Equitable? No. But like you said, that life exists. I do not believe it is acceptable to just throw life away for the sake of personal convinience.


Infants, even premature ones, have fully functioning nervous systems and cognitive abilities. They are leaps and bounds ahead of developing fetuses in that they actually constitute human beings.

This response satisfies many of the other segmented replies, so quoting them would be redundant.


I wouldn't say "fully functioning" cognitive abilities. Cognitive abilities are not fully developed until past adolescence.


You're still being incongruent. You can't say it will be a human and then one sentence later that it is one. If it's still only potential human life, then the matter needs to be grounded in the present as to what the life currently constitutes. If it is human life, then you're widening the criteria for something to qualify as such to the point of absurdity.


You acknowledged yourself that a life exists. Potential is a word that has more than one meaning - what could happen if a course of action was taken, and what will happen as a matter of inevitability are very different things. Perhaps potential is actually the wrong word to describe the latter. Which, in any case, makes the "abstinence is murder" argument invalid.


Again, incongruent. The baby has potential to mean a lot to the world, and you would be robbing it of the opportunity to fulfill it.


Yes, you would. Why is it acceptable to rob unborn humans of that opportunity because having the baby would just be too much effort? It's not like they even have to keep it.


But the contradiction aside, I agree that fully developed humans are of more importance and have more imperative moral rights than those of fetuses. Enough that if the mother decides to have an abortion, her choice trumps the life inside of her.


I think that depends completely on the situation.


But this just highlights another double standard. Women who get knocked up through their own accidents should go through with the pregnancy, but rape victims shouldn't? While I understand the compassion behind such a mindset, we find ourselves in a very deplorable state of affairs if the life of the unborn can be snubbed out because of another person's crimes. What you are doing, essentially, is punishing the developing human being and depriving it of a fair shake at life. Life with moral rights should not hinge upon the way in which it was conceived. If you think that the organism growing inside of the woman is a genuine human life, then it should make no difference if it was the cause of rape or drunk sex without protection.

Women who get knocked up through their own accidents are responsible for their own problems, and as such cannot be compared to rape victims.
I didn't say that it was okay for women who've been raped to have an abortion, I said I would understand. There is a difference.

you're a hypocrite, did you not say this later on?



you identify with cowardice? so what's it going to be; cowards or people faced with tough choices? The very fact that you can use such an offensive and idiotic term to describe all women who have had to make that decision proves that you're a narrow minded immature little man who feels he can arbitrarily pass judgement on every situation regardless of the circumstances behind each individual case. We may not agree on the majority of things but at least I can say that we have argued in the past on equal footing in terms of being able to support our ideology but this is out of character even for you.

How does that make me a hypocrite, and how does that make me identify with cowardice? That makes no sense.
No, you're missing the point, I'm not "arbitrarily passing judgement on every situation regarding of the circumstances". I am basing my argument off the standard situation where someone gets pregnant by accident and decides to have an abortion for the sake of their own convinience. I find it repugnant to take an attitude of indifference or encouragement towards that situation. If there are mitigating circumstances, well, that's very different.

I also don't understand how, if you consider a fetus to be a human being, you wouldn't also be against banning it. That would simply be compliance with murder.

Firstly, like you said, people will have abortions whether it's legal or not. And women will die because it's being done by a dodgy guy in a back alley. That's a purely practical concern.
Secondly, I don't think my beliefs on the issue are valid enough to impose by law on anybody else.
And I believe in small government. It's for people to run their lives, not governments.

[Absinthe]

Equitable? No. But like you said, that life exists. I do not believe it is acceptable to just throw life away for the sake of personal convinience.

I said a life exists. Technically, every cell in your body is life, but the only distinction you are making is an abstract concept of "potential", which any cell in your body can be cultivated to create under the proper circumstances.

The issue isn't wether or not it's life, but if it has moral rights. In order to have those, you need to be a sentient human being. If you consider the fetus a human being then it has to have equitable rights to those of adults, otherwise you are either reluctantly accepting that it's not a human or you are employing a dreadful moral double standard. The is no middle ground between being a human and not being a human.

I wouldn't say "fully functioning" cognitive abilities. Cognitive abilities are not fully developed until past adolescence.

And the zygote/fetus has none. It does not think, does not feel, has no memory, has no personality, has nothing that a "person" has except biological mass that - as I have pointed out repeatedly - is not enough to qualify it for moral rights, no matter how much "potential" you may heap onto it.

You acknowledged yourself that a life exists. Potential is a word that has more than one meaning - what could happen if a course of action was taken, and what will happen as a matter of inevitability are very different things. Perhaps potential is actually the wrong word to describe the latter. Which, in any case, makes the "abstinence is murder" argument invalid.

Of course the argument is invalid. That's because it's certifiably retarded. It's a matter that needs to be addressed in the present. It's not even an inevitability since we still have miscarriages (let's charge mom with manslaughter on that one), but even if it was, so what? Why should that matter at all?

This is not the termination of a human being. This is the prevention of one. You can't murder things that don't yet exist.

Yes, you would. Why is it acceptable to rob unborn humans of that opportunity because having the baby would just be too much effort? It's not like they even have to keep it.

Err... That's a question you should be asking yourself. You're the one that admitted that the murder of the unborn is acceptable under certain conditions.

It's a non-issue for me since I have no reason to think any kind of robbery is taking place.

Women who get knocked up through their own accidents are responsible for their own problems, and as such cannot be compared to rape victims.

I didn't say that it was okay for women who've been raped to have an abortion, I said I would understand. There is a difference.

Both have, according to you, tiny human lives growing inside them. The way in which they were conceived is totally irrelevant at this stage. You would condone - wait, understand - the murder of one but not the other.

Pray tell, what exactly is understandable about this? If it's a human being, then it deserves rights, which I do believe would entail not being legally killed because of another person's misfortune. You are, at the very least, idly standing by while children are killed.

And I believe in small government. It's for people to run their lives, not governments.

That's an entirely different issue from morality and ethics.