Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hi, Greatday....when I finally did manage to raise a family, or start one, it was with a military man, he was the most unfaithful of all of them... but the only one I managed to get support from even still...
Sorry - not the case here. AND, my daughter in law is also military.
They were mutually deployed a few years ago to the ME - I became "Mr. Mom" to their two kids (my fantastic grandkids!!) for 11 months.
Sorry - not the case here. AND, my daughter in law is also military.
They were mutually deployed a few years ago to the ME - I became "Mr. Mom" to their two kids (my fantastic grandkids!!) for 11 months.
what an awesome setup... every time my ex was cut a new set of orders overseas he got a huge deployment check ...and I heard that the kids and me werent part of the seabag.... great man.... I raised my kid alone, but always in person....
How come 99% pro-life and pro-choice people cannot make a logical or rational argument?
Every time I go on a forum and I see an abortion thread I cringe because I know I will be reading little more than slogans and logical fallacies. Occasionally there is one or two people who actually make sense, but nobody notices them or tries to rebut their arguments with slogans and logical fallacies.
Hey, I'm pro-choice and I believe that abortion should be legal. I believe the fetus for most of the duration of pregnancy (the very late stages of pregnancy are iffy) is an extension of the mother's body, thus she is allowed to do what she with the fetus. This allows both abortions and allows assaults resulting in miscarriages to be tried in the same intensity as if the victim was blinded or lost an arm.
However, I can understand the pro-life people as well, at least the ones who don't solely base their arguments on Bible verses. Truth be told, is that the issue is more complex than "person or not person"; a zygote becomes an embryo which becomes a fetus which develops and can potentially become a baby. During the very last stages of pregnancy, there is a very thin line between baby and fetus. There are legitimate ethical and philosophical questions about the morality of abortion and when it should or should not be allowed. I believe pro-life people are wrong (in the factually sense and in some very rare cases, morally) and mistaken, but not stupid or evil.
I also see a complete lack of logic. I see arguments like, "Oh, you think it is alright to execute a criminal, but abortions are wrong" or "Oh, liberals believe in murdering babies, but are opposed to capital punishment". These are both arguments I have seen on this forum (and many others and talk shows and blogs and magazine articles and so on). They completely leave out a major difference in opinion, one side believes a fetus is a baby and the other believes it is an unconscious potential baby. Also, bringing up capital punishment makes no sense, because one side doesn't consider a fetus to be a person, but doesn't believe the state should either debase itself or is competent enough to execute people, while the other side believes a fetus is a baby and sees a difference between an innocent baby and a (assuming) convicted murderer.
Also, both sides often agree with each other more than they think. Very few people are against abortion in all cases, many pro-life people support the option for rape, incest, or when the mother's life is threatened. There are different types of pro-life as well, the purely religious motivated, those who think that there are different levels of personhood (which usually have no problem with abortion in the early stages, but become increasingly opposed the closer to birth), and rarer groups which support bans on abortion because they want population growth. Also, a lot of pro-choice people support the option of abortion in every case. Many are opposed to late term abortions in all but the most extreme cases. The funny thing is the pro-life person who believes that a fetus becomes more human as time goes on and a pro-choice person who believes in some restrictions on late term abortion are closer to agreeing with each other than most people on their own respective sides.
I don't care what side you are on, just understand what the other side believes and what your opponent believes and work on that. Think that a fetus is a baby? Well, come up with facts and a reasoned argument why a fetus is a person. Science, philosophy, make a moral argument as to why abortion is wrong; anything other than "Life begins at conception" or talk of "baby killing". Show everyone when it becomes a baby and why it is a baby. Think that a fetus is just a fetus? Show your opponent evidence how a fetus is not a person. Make an argument about how since a fetus can only survive due to its mother's body, the mother should have the ultimate say on whether or not it can stay there. "My body, my choice" doesn't cut it. It is along the right lines, but bumper sticker debating is a waste of everyone's time.
Thank you.
I believe in BOTH capital punishment and abortion. I also favor euthanasia. When a "life" is unwanted, we have the right to end it. We claim that right in wartime, don't we?
No offense intended. Antichoice atheists are a rarity, though.
True, in general, and hardly a coincidence in the minds of many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
Please elaborate on what the HUGE difference is. I'd wager that the net effect is the same in either case.
I'd back you on that bet. The differences are so huge that the actual medical term for a non-induced end to pregancy at any point through the 20th week is in fact spontaneous abortion, and this is the fate that awaits as many as half of all conceptions consummated, up to some 5 million per year by various estimates. That would be three to four times the number of elective abortions that occur each year...
A human being is a human being no matter where he/she is located, or how dependent he/she is on another or no matter how he/she appears.
With regard to the lack of logic aspect of the thread title, some posts seem to be going back and forth from human life to human being as if one were the rational equivalent of the other. In fact, there is a great deal of difference between the two. Living cells that are of human origin qualify as human life, but the standards for qualifying as a human being are much, much higher. Let's try to keep that vast gulf in mind here...
True, in general, and hardly a coincidence in the minds of many.
I'd back you on that bet. The differences are so huge that the actual medical term for a non-induced end to pregancy at any point through the 20th week is in fact spontaneous abortion, and this is the fate that awaits as many as half of all conceptions consummated, up to some 5 million per year by various estimates. That would be three to four times the number of elective abortions that occur each year...
There is a huge difference between an elective abortion and a spontaneous abortion! One is intentional, the other is not. One involves a womans body naturally expelling a baby (most the time, though some women will have to undergo a D&C if there is remaining tissue), the other involves the use of a suction machine that involves many health risks.
What does it matter how many women a year experience a spontaneous abortion, it really has nothing to do with elective abortion.?!
With regard to the lack of logic aspect of the thread title, some posts seem to be going back and forth from human life to human being as if one were the rational equivalent of the other. In fact, there is a great deal of difference between the two. Living cells that are of human origin qualify as human life, but the standards for qualifying as a human being are much, much higher. Let's try to keep that vast gulf in mind here...
Please enlighten us with the vast differences b/t a human life and a human person.
Life either begins at conception or at birth. There is no middle ground for me. That's why I am anti-abortion. Still, as a gay male, I will NEVER have to deal with this. I have no dogs in this fight.
How many cuticles have you met that turn into babies?
Every living human cell contains the full set of instructions for assembling a human being. Every living cell is a potential life. Can one ethically choose to favor one expression of potential life while disregarding others entirely? where is the logical consistency in such a stance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
When it comes to abortion, we need to stop talking about when "life" begins. Per the scientific definition of life, lots of cells in our body are "life." We need to talk about when a human person begins. A human person begins at conception, and that isn't religious or anti-religious dogma. It's just scientific fact.
No, it's the opinion of <Mark S.>. If you have what you believe to be a scientifically established definition of personhood, that would be an interesting thing to see. If you have a scientific basis for assuming that personhood somehow switches on as part of the process of conception, that would be an even more interesting thing to see...
Every living human cell contains the full set of instructions for assembling a human being. Every living cell is a potential life. Can one ethically choose to favor one expression of potential life while disregarding others entirely? where is the logical consistency in such a stance?
No, it's the opinion of <Mark S.>. If you have what you believe to be a scientifically established definition of personhood, that would be an interesting thing to see. If you have a scientific basis for assuming that personhood somehow switches on as part of the process of conception, that would be an even more interesting thing to see...
There is absolutely no difference between a human being and a person.
It is not an opinion that human personhood begins at conception, it's pure logic and science. "Person" is defined as: a human being, human individual or member of the human race. All of these apply to an unborn baby and one cannot deny that. B/c an unborn baby is a member of the human race, he has the natural, inherent capacity to function as a person. The only thing he lacks is the current capacity to do so.
Personhood is not a matter of skill, size or degree of intelligence. We develop the ability to act as persons only b/c we already are personal beings to begin with. Neither an unborn baby or a newborn baby can yet speak, reason or perform personal acts, but this only means that he cannot yet function as a person, not that he lacks the essential being of a person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
