Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » McCain picks his vp.
( ) 1 Vote
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348824 is a reply to message #348808] |
Sun, 31 August 2008 13:23   |
 |
Ryan3k
Messages: 363
Registered: September 2004
Location: USA
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| Quote: |
I only think abortions should be allowed in cases in which the the pregnancy was imposed and not expected. I don't mean not expected as "I forgot to take birth control" (If that's the reason, then they shouldn't allow it) I mean in a situation like rape or something similar.
Also in the case of putting the woman's life at risk.
|
Laughing... have any of you guys even HAD sex? I have the feeling that your convictions would fold in a case where birth control failed or a condom broke (the latter has happened to me at least 2ce, luckily nothing happened). In other words - a genuine accident, after all measures to avoid pregnancy were taken. A lot of the people I know who are unapologetically anti-abortion are antisocial, bitter virginal losers who think women who have premarital sex are sluts.
Also, what do you think of morning-after pills? Same as clinical abortion?
Obviously this post does not apply to Aircraftkiller. I can respect him because when the shit hit the fan, he actually manned up and took responsibility.
A Path Beyond
[Updated on: Sun, 31 August 2008 13:31] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348827 is a reply to message #348647] |
Sun, 31 August 2008 13:53 |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
I've had several partners, and more than one pregnancy scare. Did I consider abortion? Sure, for a minute, and then I realized that I can't take the easy way out of a situation that I put myself in. That and the idea of ending a life for being an inconvenience was absurd.
whoa.
[Updated on: Sun, 31 August 2008 13:54] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348842 is a reply to message #348824] |
Sun, 31 August 2008 17:44 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Ryan3k wrote on Sun, 31 August 2008 16:23 |
Laughing... have any of you guys even HAD sex? I have the feeling that your convictions would fold in a case where birth control failed or a condom broke (the latter has happened to me at least 2ce, luckily nothing happened). In other words - a genuine accident, after all measures to avoid pregnancy were taken. A lot of the people I know who are unapologetically anti-abortion are antisocial, bitter virginal losers who think women who have premarital sex are sluts.
Also, what do you think of morning-after pills? Same as clinical abortion?
|
Don't be stupid. My opinion wouldn't change. It is my opinion for everything, not just abortion. People always choose the easy way out, and when laws grant the easy way out, it screws up society because people become lazy, then the lazy way of doing something becomes the standard way of doing something. So what then? People try to laze out of the lazy way and it just keeps going down like that.
There needs to be a law for anything that grants the easy way out of something and says "No, if you can't deal with the consequences, then that is your problem."
It has absolutely nothing to do with me personally. If, in the event that I am involved in a pregnancy scare, would I her to consider abortion? Yes I would. But that shouldn't be an option if the pregnancy doesn't fall under on of those categories.
And I still consider this to be pro-choice.
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348844 is a reply to message #348647] |
Sun, 31 August 2008 17:57 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I really don't understand how the abortion debate still manages to heat up American politics so much. The United States has a whole slew of larger problems to deal with. Get back to that debate once your deficit is being payed off, and China has fewer of your T-Bills.
Plus, if you're sleeping around, and yet are pro-life, something is messed up, because I thought God supposedly looked down on abortion, and premarital sex.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348855 is a reply to message #348647] |
Sun, 31 August 2008 20:30 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I'm one of those people who believes in not dredging up the past. I figured that since it has been years since Roe v Wade, Americans would have either gotten past it, or put it on the back-burner, because frankly, I think the States has some bigger problems that need to be dealt with.
Up here, we've had our abortion debate, and that chapter is over. There are some people who aren't happy with the outcome, but our current government, which is much more conservative than yours, has said that it's not worth opening up the debate. Same thing with same-sex marriage, we had our vote, and although the government doesn't care for it much, they still believe that the debate is over.
From what I see, the only country that is so hung up (or at least the most vitriolic) about abortion is the United States. Maybe it's because the concept of 'God' is part and parcel of America, or because your politicians seem to not want to face the real issues... I really don't know.
Anyone I have met who opposes abortion, at least to the point of getting angry about it, is religious, and is usually a Catholic or Protestant. I have met people who are not religious that don't particularly like it, because it's a grizzly subject, but they do understand the need for it, and just want to focus on other issues. I myself am in that crowd.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348870 is a reply to message #348647] |
Sun, 31 August 2008 21:48 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Yeah, well, if we just settle on what was decided in the past then we couldn't fix the mistakes we have made.
Our government has decided on allowing for wire tapping without warrants. It's been years since this has become common place. Is my right to privacy not worth the fight for?
Anybody who can just say "it's in the past" when it comes to laws is too afraid of questioning what they believe. Any politician not willing to vocalize their views, all of them, is not strong enough in their views.
Also, it's not a paradox. It's a matter of whether or not the unborn child is human or a human-to-be. Anybody turning to the argument "it's the woman's body" is looking for a cheap way out to deciding on their values. If the unborn child IS human, then it deserves all of the basic human rights, and unless the child poses a threat to the mother, its rights trumps the mother's misguided assumption that she shouldn't have to be inconvenienced. If it's NOT human, then the fetus doesn't have any rights and abortion should be left alone, unquestioned.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348874 is a reply to message #348647] |
Sun, 31 August 2008 22:21 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
A fetus is a human being. It's DNA is different than that of the mother's, therefore, although physically connected to the mother, it is a separate being and therefore is NOT part of the Woman's body.
[Updated on: Sun, 31 August 2008 22:22] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348876 is a reply to message #348874] |
Sun, 31 August 2008 22:33 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 01:21 |
A fetus is a human being. It's DNA is different than that of the mother's, therefore, although physically connected to the mother, it is a separate being and therefore is NOT part of the Woman's body.
|
Then you cannot possibly give the woman domain over another human, especially because of an act that she committed. Unless by rape and/or she is physical (or mental) danger, abortion should not be a legal option. Yes, it's her body, but one's rights do not trump another's.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348901 is a reply to message #348874] |
Mon, 01 September 2008 07:49 |
w0dka
Messages: 181
Registered: March 2006
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 00:21 |
A fetus is a human being. It's DNA is different than that of the mother's, therefore, although physically connected to the mother, it is a separate being and therefore is NOT part of the Woman's body.
|
So you may ruin three (maybe even four or more if those are twins and more) cause you can't end the existence of a bunch of cells?
People should understand the difference between biological life
(Even if your brains dead your body can be alive)
and real life (emotions, having fun ...).
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348922 is a reply to message #348844] |
Mon, 01 September 2008 09:53 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 31 August 2008 19:57 |
I really don't understand how the abortion debate still manages to heat up American politics so much. The United States has a whole slew of larger problems to deal with. Get back to that debate once your deficit is being payed off, and China has fewer of your T-Bills.
Plus, if you're sleeping around, and yet are pro-life, something is messed up, because I thought God supposedly looked down on abortion, and premarital sex.
|
well, I consider Christianity to be not only rather absurd but positively immoral, and yet I'm leaning against abortion... though I'm happy to acknowledge what a terribly complicated issue it is, when you take into account factors like rape and the health of the mother...
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348923 is a reply to message #348647] |
Mon, 01 September 2008 09:58 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Extreme views in either direction concerning abortion ignore one of two facts of biology:
1. An early-term embryo has no functional nervous system (though the first activity can be measured fairly early), thus no brain, no consciousness, no feeling.
2. A late-term fetus does have a near-fully-developed nervous system; thus it is capable of feeling and limited thought (possibly consciousness, though we really don't know where that begins), even motor control.
We can safely assume that the line between a human being and a potential human being- if a definite line exists- falls somewhere between those two stages of development. There is a huge, obnoxious gray area there, and both sides of the abortion 'debate' (since it is never a formal debate so much as a passionate argument) tend to expand their position from one end clear across the gray area into the opposite end of the pregnancy. This is absolutely stupid.
Everything we know about biology tells us that an embryo which is only a month old is not a human being yet- that it is not capable of thought, feeling, or anything beyond the basic metabolic processes which sustain even the most elementary bacteria. Likewise, everything we know about an 8-month-old fetus tells us that it is clearly a human being; it is even able to survive and finish developing outside the womb if necessary (with some assistance from modern medicine- I should know; I was born a month early). Hell, a 6 or 7-month-old fetus is well-developed enough to be recognizable as human, to the point where its brain- as it truly is a brain by that time- is able to effect control over muscles.
Arguments to the effect of "we don't know where the line is, so we must err on the side of caution" are utter bullshit- we do know where the line is, we just don't know where it is exactly, and we know damn well that it doesn't lie at conception. Arguments to the effect of "until you are born, you have no rights" are utter bullshit also; we know, and have known since the ECG (that's Electrocardiogram) and the ultrasound became mainstream medicine, that a late-term fetus is as human as a newborn baby.
Arguments from the "it's your responsibility, slacker" perspective are even worse, relying on ad-hominem to make their point. Yes, it's your responsibility... but the argument goes both ways, doesn't it? It is your responsibility not to bring a baby into the world when you know you can't care for it, just as it is your responsibility to make sure that baby is cared for if and when it is born. It is an inherently neutral argument given weight only by the actual or implicit inclusion of "you kill babies because they're inconvenient."
Based on the known facts- not on bullshit, not on the "Word of God," and not on those heart-wrenching pictures of dead embryos- my stated opinion on the subject is that abortion only becomes objectionable late in a pregnancy when the fetus is known to be a thinking, feeling creature. What would I do if I got someone pregnant? I honestly have no idea; I've never been there. I like to think that I'd consult her, then make a decision based on our situation at the time- but who knows, maybe I'd get all sentimental over that little clump of cells and try to hold onto it no matter what. What I do know is that sentimentality makes horrible policy; the difference between "right" and "wrong" on this subject is almost always defined by entirely subjective views- not by biology.
Not to drag this even further off-topic or anything- just trying to inject a little common sense (appalling how uncommon it is) into the thread. By all means, flame away.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348938 is a reply to message #348904] |
Mon, 01 September 2008 11:48 |
w0dka
Messages: 181
Registered: March 2006
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 10:19 |
A fetus will gain brain function, though. A vegetable won't. If someone in a vegetative state will gain brain function, would you still justify pulling the plug?
|
If he maybe recover? No. I will not. Cause he feeled before he get into this state.
If he never feeled before. Yes I would pull the plug.
If he really will never feel again. Yes I would pull the plug.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348946 is a reply to message #348647] |
Mon, 01 September 2008 13:45 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Be careful- there are several different "vegetative states," and some of them allow no possibility of recovery. They're misdiagnosed fairly often, though- which is one good argument against pulling the plug. On the other hand, once it is known for sure that a patient will never recover, keeping an empty body on life support is rather pointless and wasteful of medical resources.
Here's a hypothetical question for you: if a patient were to recover from a PVS after all higher brain functions had ceased for months, perhaps years- would it be the same person who awoke in that body?
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348947 is a reply to message #348647] |
Mon, 01 September 2008 14:14 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
People need to learn the RIGHT thing to do isn't always the WANTED thing to be done.
If someone is in a vegetative state, and they have said they wanted the plug to be pulled, regardless if they will recover or not, you have to do it.
I don't think it is anyone else's business to get involved in it. No one other than the family or the person(s) involved should have a say in the matter. It is just not your place to say "It is not right to pull the plug on this person" when you don't even know who they are or why they are there.
[Updated on: Mon, 01 September 2008 14:17] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348948 is a reply to message #348946] |
Mon, 01 September 2008 14:21 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 16:45 |
Be careful- there are several different "vegetative states," and some of them allow no possibility of recovery. They're misdiagnosed fairly often, though- which is one good argument against pulling the plug. On the other hand, once it is known for sure that a patient will never recover, keeping an empty body on life support is rather pointless and wasteful of medical resources.
Here's a hypothetical question for you: if a patient were to recover from a PVS after all higher brain functions had ceased for months, perhaps years- would it be the same person who awoke in that body?
|
Trust me, I'm all for euthanasia. If someone wants to end their life, then by all means, listen to them. I used to be on the Republican side of the Terry Shiavo case, but now I think it was cruel to keep her alive.
You know, even if it's NOT the same person, that doesn't mean someone is incapable of having a happy life. This one lady had a terrible case of amnesia. She had a seizure (I think) and woke up one morning not having any memories. She used to hold a good career job, but lost all of that. Essentially, she had a completely clean slate, though she could drive and talk. For the past 10 years, she's had to start all over. She can now recall memories from the time that she had to start all over again, but nothing before.
She says she's happy. She says she can't miss memories that she doesn't remember ever having. So I say that if the person is capable of starting over, it'd be cruel to not let them.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Feb 07 02:00:55 MST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01412 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
