Abortion

Sites willing to help adopt children does not mean that capable parents are using those sites to obtain children. I have found sites completely dedicated to finding you a hook-up in your local area. I'm willing to bet there are about 2 real women on the whole site.

Last I checked you didn't need to pass a test to have a kid.  When my first came along I would have probably been labeled incapable, and yet all my youngings are still alive and getting along just fine.

Quote from: Raist on December 21, 2008, 11:35:10 PM

Sites willing to help adopt children does not mean that capable parents are using those sites to obtain children. I have found sites completely dedicated to finding you a hook-up in your local area. I'm willing to bet there are about 2 real women on the whole site.

Last I checked you didn't need to pass a test to have a kid.  When my first came along I would have probably been labeled incapable, and yet all my youngings are still alive and getting along just fine.

I'm not saying you do. I simply meant there are probably few people on those sites. By capable I meant parents that won't tie you up in a dog pen and teach you that your penis is the source of all evil in the world.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 21, 2008, 11:38:13 PM

Quote from: Raist on December 21, 2008, 11:35:10 PM

Sites willing to help adopt children does not mean that capable parents are using those sites to obtain children. I have found sites completely dedicated to finding you a hook-up in your local area. I'm willing to bet there are about 2 real women on the whole site.

Last I checked you didn't need to pass a test to have a kid.  When my first came along I would have probably been labeled incapable, and yet all my youngings are still alive and getting along just fine.

I'm not saying you do. I simply meant there are probably few people on those sites. By capable I meant parents that won't tie you up in a dog pen and teach you that your penis is the source of all evil in the world.

Well you don't have that in place for people having children naturally, I bet legitimately adopting a child is way harder than just having a kid.  So your argument is BS.

Quote from: Raist on December 21, 2008, 11:40:08 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 21, 2008, 11:38:13 PM

Quote from: Raist on December 21, 2008, 11:35:10 PM

Sites willing to help adopt children does not mean that capable parents are using those sites to obtain children. I have found sites completely dedicated to finding you a hook-up in your local area. I'm willing to bet there are about 2 real women on the whole site.

Last I checked you didn't need to pass a test to have a kid.  When my first came along I would have probably been labeled incapable, and yet all my youngings are still alive and getting along just fine.

I'm not saying you do. I simply meant there are probably few people on those sites. By capable I meant parents that won't tie you up in a dog pen and teach you that your penis is the source of all evil in the world.

Well you don't have that in place for people having children naturally, I bet legitimately adopting a child is way harder than just having a kid.  So your argument is BS.

The argument was not about the quality of the adopters. It was about the lack of people on the sites.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 21, 2008, 11:43:09 PM

Quote from: Raist on December 21, 2008, 11:40:08 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 21, 2008, 11:38:13 PM

Quote from: Raist on December 21, 2008, 11:35:10 PM

Sites willing to help adopt children does not mean that capable parents are using those sites to obtain children. I have found sites completely dedicated to finding you a hook-up in your local area. I'm willing to bet there are about 2 real women on the whole site.

Last I checked you didn't need to pass a test to have a kid.  When my first came along I would have probably been labeled incapable, and yet all my youngings are still alive and getting along just fine.

I'm not saying you do. I simply meant there are probably few people on those sites. By capable I meant parents that won't tie you up in a dog pen and teach you that your penis is the source of all evil in the world.

Well you don't have that in place for people having children naturally, I bet legitimately adopting a child is way harder than just having a kid.  So your argument is BS.

The argument was not about the quality of the adopters. It was about the lack of people on the sites.

Here's the stats.

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-numbers-trends.html

In the UK at least its a whole lot harder to adopt a child, there's loads of rules like you can't be a smoker and stuff like that. And its a long process, my parents started adopting my 3 oldest brothers several years before I was born but the official adoption day wasn't until I was 4.

Quote from: Raist on December 21, 2008, 11:44:15 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 21, 2008, 11:43:09 PM

Quote from: Raist on December 21, 2008, 11:40:08 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 21, 2008, 11:38:13 PM

Quote from: Raist on December 21, 2008, 11:35:10 PM

Sites willing to help adopt children does not mean that capable parents are using those sites to obtain children. I have found sites completely dedicated to finding you a hook-up in your local area. I'm willing to bet there are about 2 real women on the whole site.

Last I checked you didn't need to pass a test to have a kid.  When my first came along I would have probably been labeled incapable, and yet all my youngings are still alive and getting along just fine.

I'm not saying you do. I simply meant there are probably few people on those sites. By capable I meant parents that won't tie you up in a dog pen and teach you that your penis is the source of all evil in the world.

Well you don't have that in place for people having children naturally, I bet legitimately adopting a child is way harder than just having a kid.  So your argument is BS.

The argument was not about the quality of the adopters. It was about the lack of people on the sites.

Here's the stats.

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-numbers-trends.html

That gives no statistics for those sites.

When does a baby become human?  I don't talk much on this topic because I don't know.  I could never bring myself to do such a terrible thing.  Some people think they aren't human until they exit the womb.  That makes very little sense to me since a matter of minutes doesn't suddenly make you become.  I think a woman has a right to choose, but I also think it's the wrong decision.  And once a mother is into the second trimester....that's just sickening.  This is, of course, in the case of women who were stupid enough to get pregnant in the first place.  It doesn't take rocket science to keep from becoming pregnant.  I think it serves a girl right to have to go through 10 months of misery.  If she doesn't want the baby, what the hell is wrong with adoption?  Shit, the adoptive parents will set you up in a nice apartment with nice things and buy your groceries and pay your bills for the entirety of your pregnancy!  What is so fucking bad about that?  Sounds like a good way to get out of a bad situation to me.  Now I'm just ranting.  This is why I don't talk about abortion. 

Long story short: Abortion: only acceptable in certain conditions. 

I honestly just gained back respect for you.

The problem arises, with humanizing a human. If we accept the perspective that we are just organic patterns that self perpetuate over time, then terminating a fetus is no problem. Murder wouldn't be a problem either except, people have developed an ability to feel pain, despair, and fear. Constructing morals on top of a sociological need for self preservation and actual growth (emotionally as well as physically) is the driving force behind law.

If a fetus has no soul, it really is nothing but organic material, with potential to be self sufficient organic material. But quite frankly we don't even know humans in general have souls.

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 17, 2008, 11:35:18 AM

It's plainly biased

Ad hominem. Bias only speaks to the general reliability of the source, and isn't an excuse to dismiss specific cases. Like I said, you could have located multiple other sources stating the same thing with google.

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 17, 2008, 11:35:18 AM

it was trying to make abortion look disgusting and cruel

Stating facts is so dishonest.

It doesn't have to be a lie to be misleading or slanted. Consider the negative connotations used within the sentence to construct a false sense of a preconclusive topic. For example, it is entirely accurate to say a fetus is a parasite, yet it draws unfairly on the negative conceptions of parasites. See how that works? 

I think it was only mentioned as a parasite to try to counteract the other extreme end of the continuum of opinions, to try to force a reconsideration.

The problem arises, with humanizing a human. If we accept the perspective that we are just organic patterns that self perpetuate over time, then terminating a fetus is no problem. Murder wouldn't be a problem either except, people have developed an ability to feel pain, despair, and fear. Constructing morals on top of a sociological need for self preservation and actual growth (emotionally as well as physically) is the driving force behind law.

If a fetus has no soul, it really is nothing but organic material, with potential to be self sufficient organic material. But quite frankly we don't even know humans in general have souls.

Murder being illegal is not a moral issue. It is a practical one. We agree everyone has a right to live, so that we will not be killed. Mutual protection.

Moral culpability comes into every American murder trial.

Thou shalt not kill is not a practical issue and a similar law is echoed in most religions. Which predate and influenced most legislature.

It is a practical issue. Every one of the ten commandments is about treating others as you wish to be treated.

Wow morals all come from the same basic mindset. Yet they were carved into stone and that made them morals, not practical. As for the court cases, most people are too dumb to realize where morals come from.

These aren't hugely practical

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

These aren't hugely practical

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

So which laws are based on these? (I was ignoring the ones that most people would not consider morals)

To take the lord's name in vain includes breaking oaths in His name which are common in the courthouse (http://www.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a2.htm). Free speech and cosmopolitanism have killed the others but they used to be incorporated in law. Morals are implicit and not the result of rational thought laws are based upon both; it is a practical issue but it is also a moral issue.

Murder being illegal is not a moral issue. It is a practical one. We agree everyone has a right to live, so that we will not be killed. Mutual protection.

I agree, but morals and practical values are connected.

Quote from: Raist on December 30, 2008, 09:52:01 PM

Murder being illegal is not a moral issue. It is a practical one. We agree everyone has a right to live, so that we will not be killed. Mutual protection.

I agree, but morals and practical values are connected.

I agree, but only in the sense that morals are a way to place practical issues on a pedestal and give them some form of higher meaning.

To take the lord's name in vain includes breaking oaths in His name which are common in the courthouse (http://www.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a2.htm). Free speech and cosmopolitanism have killed the others but they used to be incorporated in law. Morals are implicit and not the result of rational thought laws are based upon both; it is a practical issue but it is also a moral issue.

Morals are based on practicality. (denying worship of another god is very practical for a church)

These are reasonably relevant
Noahdite laws
The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are[3]

   1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
   2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
   3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
   4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
   5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
   6. Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
   7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

I've stated that I agree to an extent but i fear we wont wholly agree on this.
To look at it from the other POV do you believe people only follow laws beause they're practical or because they have a moral obligation (or fear of reprisal)?

I've stated that I agree to an extent but i fear we wont wholly agree on this.
To look at it from the other POV do you believe people only follow laws beause they're practical or because they have a moral obligation (or fear of reprisal)?

People follow laws out of conditioning, fear, and a feeling of morality. I believe these morals were conditioned in, or instinctual based on simple empathy. Though there are many laws that I believe most people obey strictly out of fear of punishment (most laws pertaining to plants and such would fall in this category)

These aren't hugely practical

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

Their very practical. God doesn't want us worshipping other Gods-easy. He doesn't want us to say
God Damnit- also easy. It's not like you have to try to follow the commandments. He only asks basic stuff of us.

Like to pelt homosexuals with stones until they die?

Like to pelt homosexuals with stones until they die?

Do you see that in the ten Commandments?

Like to pelt homosexuals with stones until they die?

Damn straight.

Using the term parasite is as annoying as pro-life people insisting that the foetus is a baby, not a foetus. No woman is going to refer to, or think of, the foetus in her as a parasite, and if she does then she's a bit fucked up and needs an abortion pronto.

Bullshit.  My wife and I referred to our daughter as a parasite well into the third trimester.  If you had to go through it, you'd understand.  It doesn't mean we love her any less, but a fetus is a parasite.

Gayer and I called our baby a baby until it was born, then we called it roast.

Quote from: Moonlit on December 18, 2008, 11:39:23 AM

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on December 18, 2008, 11:37:48 AM

Its different when its concerning something that hasn't been conscious yet

To some extent, I agree.  As soon as a heart starts beating, I think it's no longer just a thing, but a person.

This is the big dilemma, when exactly does a potential life become a life?  When does that life get rights equal to that of the mother?  This is an unanswerable question because it is a question of morality.  Some people believe it is the moment of conception, some believe it is when the fetus becomes viable (able to survive outside the womb) and others believe it starts at birth.  None of these people are right or wrong.  Moral judgment is decided by the people who are in power.

It is for this reason that I believe it should not be legislated.  However, natural checks and balances can be established without forceful regulation.  Morality should be taught by parents, community, religion, but never enforced by government in my opinion.

Ding!  we have a winnar!

Honestly, as an adopted person and a new father, I would have put this in almost the exact same words.

The government needs to keep their damn fingers out of my morals.  My only caveat is that the thousands in America using abortion as birth control are disgusting.

Moonlit, your posts in this thread make me realize why I've always gravitated toward you on this site - your just so reasonable!

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on December 18, 2008, 09:52:28 PM

Using the term parasite is as annoying as pro-life people insisting that the foetus is a baby, not a foetus. No woman is going to refer to, or think of, the foetus in her as a parasite, and if she does then she's a bit fucked up and needs an abortion pronto.

Bullshit.  My wife and I referred to our daughter as a parasite well into the third trimester.  If you had to go through it, you'd understand.  It doesn't mean we love her any less, but a fetus is a parasite.

So did you like go to the doctor and say "How's the little parasite today?" You are sick.