| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Abortion = Child Sacrifices
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Abortion = Child Sacrifices

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
Author
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 23:35
Technically speaking, a faetus only forms after 8-9 weeks before that it's an embryo.  So when you say faetus you're talking of an animate entity.

Aborting an embryo is different to aborting a faetus; in the former stage, it is simply organic matter as opposed to a living entity.


Edited by Zagros - 04 Mar 2011 at 23:40
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 01:22
In response to an earlier post;
 
 
In the USA, it seems, the law does recognize the "un-born" as human!
 
A fetus/faetus is at a certain point, and espeically with todays medicine, viable at a very early stage.  If were to take a side, then I would take the side of the unborn-infant human, but that is a process that has been fought for many years in and out of court.
 
But, back to the supposed sacrifices found in the remains of Carthage, I would suggest that these babies or unborn-humans, or born and killed humans, was merely the result of the baggage that comes from a religion supposeldy containing the "virgins" (temple prostitutes) of the God(s)!
 
A virgin could not have a living child, etc.Confused
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 10:58
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Technically speaking, a faetus only forms after 8-9 weeks before that it's an embryo.  So when you say faetus you're talking of an animate entity.


Human beings are animal entities. So, your proposition makes no sense.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


Aborting an embryo is different to aborting a faetus; in the former stage, it is simply organic matter as opposed to living entity.


When do you mark the difference between organic matter and living entity? Remember that for the ancient a "proto-human" become a human being when they reached self-awareness.... around 6 years old Confused. For them, a proto-human could be killed or aborted before that time.

So, that's the problem when you try to mark the beginning. The only clear difference is marked by conception.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 11:17
It is funny, pinguin seems to advocate the destruction of rainforests and other valuable ecosystems and he does not care about if we seriously diminishes the biodiversity on this Earth, but if it comes to a lump of cells in the uterus of a woman he goes berserk if it is in any way threatened. Talking of lack of proportions.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 11:40
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

It is funny, pinguin seems to advocate the destruction of rainforests and other valuable ecosystems and he does not care about if we seriously diminishes the biodiversity on this Earth, but if it comes to a lump of cells in the uterus of a woman he goes berserk if it is in any way threatened. Talking of lack of proportions.


I am humanist, not a hippie New Age ecologist. 

What's tragic is that certain people care so much about overseas rainforests and strange species of frogs but kill theirs own descendants, theirs own blood, just for the fun of it. Those people lack any moral ground for arguing anything.



Edited by pinguin - 05 Mar 2011 at 11:42
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 12:43
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

It is funny, pinguin seems to advocate the destruction of rainforests and other valuable ecosystems and he does not care about if we seriously diminishes the biodiversity on this Earth, but if it comes to a lump of cells in the uterus of a woman he goes berserk if it is in any way threatened. Talking of lack of proportions.


I am humanist, not a hippie New Age ecologist. 

What's tragic is that certain people care so much about overseas rainforests and strange species of frogs but kill theirs own descendants, theirs own blood, just for the fun of it. Those people lack any moral ground for arguing anything.

 
More population control could really be a blessing for human survival. So we do not need all these religious or semi religious fanatics that are screaming their heads about embryos that are not more than lump of cells. Or even worse, people like the pope who even dislike the use of condoms and also have the stupidity and arrogance to say it out loud, influencing a lot of uneducated people.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 12:48
Hypocrites.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 14:12
Hypocrisy is to accept catastrophic destruction of the world (which potentially can kill us all) and myriads of its organisms but scream for an aborted fetus.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 14:21
The world won't be destroyed. Today we have 7 billion people. It will reach its peak at about 10 billion people and then will decline. The effort is done in the poorest countries to behave. Most of the world has passed the demographic transition already. Besides, people keep moving to cities, and as you know, cities have less impact per capita in the environment than people living in the countryside.
With respect to technology and also agriculture, it is a lot cleaner today than a generation ago.
Engineers and scientists are working in developing cleaner technologies, and the recovering of the environment is a goal worldwide.

Catastrophism is a mental illness, that affect specially to abortionists.

But all these is not an excuse for killing human beings. Human beings will survive, and the world will be converted in a huge and pretty golf field.




Edited by pinguin - 05 Mar 2011 at 14:24
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 14:52
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The world won't be destroyed. Today we have 7 billion people. It will reach its peak at about 10 billion people and then will decline. The effort is done in the poorest countries to behave. Most of the world has passed the demographic transition already. Besides, people keep moving to cities, and as you know, cities have less impact per capita in the environment than people living in the countryside.
With respect to technology and also agriculture, it is a lot cleaner today than a generation ago.
Engineers and scientists are working in developing cleaner technologies, and the recovering of the environment is a goal worldwide.

Catastrophism is a mental illness, that affect specially to abortionists.

But all these is not an excuse for killing human beings. Human beings will survive, and the world will be converted in a huge and pretty golf field.


 
Still there are no need to go on expanding, destroying more and more of our environments. To slowly decrease population is probably in the long run neccesary to obtain a reasonable living for most people, and to uphold environments and biodiversity on earth. Also more equality in the societies, sharing resources in a better way, and smarter use of technology could decrease our need of expansion. Such measures would hopefully also decrease the risks for a lot of conflicts.
 
Ever increasing expansion and increased resource wasting is not a good way to go and we could live in much better, less wasteful and less conflict ridden world if we used our brains in better ways. And among those better ways would be not to go on and on about some fetuses when we have much more urgent problems to adress.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 16:58
Still, you have no argument.

You speak of slowing decreasing population? Try to preach your mantra in Indian and Africa, that is where it grows faster.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 20:29
Zagros, the vocabulary defiinitions appeal to me, I had tended to treat te two words as meanng he same. But I can live with that: a fetus is an embryo that has quickened. Not easy though to defend when quikenng takes place, but that is the traditional point at which abortion becomes impernissible.
 
Now what we need is a word for destroying an embryo that is different from abortion.
 
Taxonomy rules, OK!
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 21:24
Obliteration?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 21:40
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Zagros, the vocabulary defiinitions appeal to me, I had tended to treat te two words as meanng he same. But I can live with that: a fetus is an embryo that has quickened. Not easy though to defend when quikenng takes place, but that is the traditional point at which abortion becomes impernissible.
 
Now what we need is a word for destroying an embryo that is different from abortion.
 
Taxonomy rules, OK!


Changes in words doesn't change the action or the guilt.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 13:23
The argument from development as a rationale for the abating of the moral and ethical implications of abortion is a dangerous one since the premise would eventually open the door to further sophistry within the realm of Law so as to justify everything from mercy killing to genocide. The flight into taxonomy is illusory since it is only in the realm of nitpicking lawyers that the term abortion becomes a negative. In its Latin root (ab oriri) the term is applicable to any phenomenon that fails to fully form [or arise] and its early usage referenced natural miscarriage. Failed pregnancies were a fact of life and accepted as natural but what was never accepted was the inducing of the natural by human intervention. Even in the Ancient World (and Roman law) one was not permitted to physically destroy an unwanted infant [simply reference the myth cycles]. Hence the term itself is rooted to a natural event that failed full fruition and it was under this understanding that it entered into early medical "science" (and English) as a synonym for miscarriage. Human intervention to achieve such an outcome never had sanction in the formation of Western Civilization. The existence of the natural process of aboriri stood at the center of the moral and ethical concerns touching upon the definition of "when life begins" at law and within the context of the English language, to be quick is to be alive (read your Bracton and Blackstone) and English as well as American Law to this day honors the principle in its definitions of what constitutes homicide.
 
Now what is interesting within an American context and the present contretemps is the revival of the concept of property as a rationale to permit the arbitrary termination of the natural life cycle through artificial means. Therein the constant appeal to terms shaped by early medical science as descriptives for natural miscarriage so as to avoid the moral and ethical consequences of actions that have no foundation at Law. Hence all of the gobbledygook on it's the woman's body and she can do with it what will from point A to point Z.
 
Old cynic that I am, perhaps what is needed is full prosecution of the pharmaceuticals industry as modern versions of the old sellers of potions and concoctions interfering with the natural rhythms of life. As for the medical practitioners, heck prosecute them for perjurous oath-taking and willful violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
 
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
 
While we're at it, is it not about time to draw the line of sex as recreation and hence bring an end to the Era of Orgiastic Excess? When you get flavored lubricants catering to the tastes of the sexes, have we really not plummeted to the depths of dispeptic despair?
 
 
  •  For Him &amp; Her



  • Edited by drgonzaga - 06 Mar 2011 at 13:31
    Honi soit qui mal y pense
    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 13:26
    It is not a mater of law. It is a mater of principles. Don't make lawers the defenders of principles.
    Back to Top
    drgonzaga View Drop Down
    King
    King
    Avatar
    Plus Ultra

    Joined: 01 Oct 2005
    Status: Offline
    Points: 6262
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 13:37
    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    It is not a mater of law. It is a mater of principles. Don't make lawers the defenders of principles.
     
    ?????????? In what possible shape or form can what I wrote above be taken as such an argument. One can certainly decry the practice of Law as little more than an avenue for excess by your run-of-the-mill picapleito (the Spanish equivalent of "ambulance chaser"), however the integrity of the Law is premised upon the defense of Principles!


    Edited by drgonzaga - 06 Mar 2011 at 13:38
    Honi soit qui mal y pense
    Back to Top
    Zagros View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar
    Kaveh ye Ahangar

    Joined: 11 Aug 2004
    Location: MidX,Engelistan
    Status: Offline
    Points: 12491
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 13:45
    Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

    Zagros, the vocabulary defiinitions appeal to me, I had tended to treat te two words as meanng he same. But I can live with that: a fetus is an embryo that has quickened. Not easy though to defend when quikenng takes place, but that is the traditional point at which abortion becomes impernissible.
     
    Now what we need is a word for destroying an embryo that is different from abortion.
     
    Taxonomy rules, OK!


    For true avoidance of doubt and authoritative reference, let's not forget the thesauri and ontology are needed in a good taxonomy for relationship and synonym definition: Gestation, sperm, egg, embryo, faetus, abortion, child, human, human being, person.
    "There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 14:03
    Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

     
    ?????????? In what possible shape or form can what I wrote above be taken as such an argument. One can certainly decry the practice of Law as little more than an avenue for excess by your run-of-the-mill picapleito (the Spanish equivalent of "ambulance chaser"), however the integrity of the Law is premised upon the defense of Principles!


    What I mean is that not necesarily what it is assumed or writen in the law is really what is right.
    Humanity evolves from the savage states to a more humanitarian society. This has been a long fight that has taking centuries. Some societies, believing to be good, usually take the wrong decisions. Civilizing this wild monkey that is the human being hasn't been an easy task, and we still aren't there. Not while people still kill human beings for fun or convenience.

    War should be banned.
    Dead penalty should be banned.
    Abortion should be banned.





    Edited by pinguin - 06 Mar 2011 at 14:04
    Back to Top
    drgonzaga View Drop Down
    King
    King
    Avatar
    Plus Ultra

    Joined: 01 Oct 2005
    Status: Offline
    Points: 6262
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 15:13
    Please Zagros, it's fetus (archaic English foetus)...faetus is an obsolete term premised upon the bad Latin of 17th century "science". Keep in mind that no Roman would have written such a barbarism [e.g. Horace: Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus.
     
    We will not mention the problems with your sequence of terms that turns all topsy turvy for example human and gestation belong together since the process in question is Human gestation, which does not commence until the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus and undertakes embryonic development.
    Honi soit qui mal y pense
    Back to Top
    Zagros View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar
    Kaveh ye Ahangar

    Joined: 11 Aug 2004
    Location: MidX,Engelistan
    Status: Offline
    Points: 12491
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 15:59
    Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

    Please Zagros, it's fetus (archaic English foetus)...faetus is an obsolete term premised upon the bad Latin of 17th century "science". Keep in mind that no Roman would have written such a barbarism [e.g. Horace: Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus.
     
    We will not mention the problems with your sequence of terms that turns all topsy turvy for example human and gestation belong together since the process in question is Human gestation, which does not commence until the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus and undertakes embryonic development.


    Sequence is irrelevant unless you're looking specifically at chronology.  The taxonomy could be:

    Biology
    Reproduction [synonym: sex]
    Human Reproduction
    [Then everything in alphabetical sequence]

    Or

    Biology
    [Animal]
    [Animal context (inc. reproduction)]

    But I suppose, SNOMED or MeSH would be a more authoritative source than my musings.

    Taxonomy is sometimes described as a science and sometimes as an art, but really it's a battleground. - Bill Bryson.

    As for my spelling of faetus, it's how I've always spelled it. - Fetus is definitely an Americanism, I could live with foetus but it's not automatic.


    Edited by Zagros - 06 Mar 2011 at 16:04
    "There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
    Back to Top
    gcle2003 View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar
    PM Honorary Member

    Joined: 06 Dec 2004
    Location: Luxembourg
    Status: Offline
    Points: 13262
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 21:05
    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

    Zagros, the vocabulary defiinitions appeal to me, I had tended to treat te two words as meanng he same. But I can live with that: a fetus is an embryo that has quickened. Not easy though to defend when quikenng takes place, but that is the traditional point at which abortion becomes impernissible.
     
    Now what we need is a word for destroying an embryo that is different from abortion.
     
    Taxonomy rules, OK!


    Changes in words doesn't change the action or the guilt.
    No but it's a step toward getting people to talk about the same things and not at cross purposes.
    Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

    Back to Top
    gcle2003 View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar
    PM Honorary Member

    Joined: 06 Dec 2004
    Location: Luxembourg
    Status: Offline
    Points: 13262
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 21:12
    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

     
    ?????????? In what possible shape or form can what I wrote above be taken as such an argument. One can certainly decry the practice of Law as little more than an avenue for excess by your run-of-the-mill picapleito (the Spanish equivalent of "ambulance chaser"), however the integrity of the Law is premised upon the defense of Principles!


    What I mean is that not necesarily what it is assumed or writen in the law is really what is right.
    The law should never be based on wha anyone thnks is 'right' or 'wrong'. Law has nothing to do with morals, any more than the rules of football do. Law is a set of rules that is intended to facilitate people living together without harming one another.
     
    So while I agree with you that what is assumed or written is not really what is 'right', it's a jolly good thing it isn't. It is also a jolly good thing that what is 'wrong' is not necessarily banned.
    Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

    Back to Top
    gcle2003 View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar
    PM Honorary Member

    Joined: 06 Dec 2004
    Location: Luxembourg
    Status: Offline
    Points: 13262
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 21:20
    Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

    Taxonomy is sometimes described as a science and sometimes as an art, but really it's a battleground. - Bill Bryson.
    Actually it's neither a science nor an art, but a branch of mathematics[logic] or logic[mathematics] depending how you treat the other two.
     
    Bryson is right about it being a battleground though. 

    Oh my Snokal and my Sneath of long ago!
    Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 21:24
    Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

    ... 
    So while I agree with you that what is assumed or written is not really what is 'right', it's a jolly good thing it isn't. It is also a jolly good thing that what is 'wrong' is not necessarily banned.


    Indeed. That allows some societies to keep very inmoral laws. Everybody knows that.
    Back to Top
    Cezar View Drop Down
    Chieftain
    Chieftain


    Joined: 09 Nov 2005
    Location: Romania
    Status: Offline
    Points: 1352
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 11:18
    Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


    Misunderstanding G - the post you're responding to was for Cezar, the subsequent post was an answer to you.
    Misposting for more of us, I should say, I was answering to pinguin who said that a "human is a human since conception.Clear and simple" - the point being that while simple, this statement becomes simplistic when evaluating abortion.
    Quote
    But anyway, why is a faetus not a being? It makes voluntary movements and feels pain and pleasure within the womb after all.  It's not an inanimate piece of redundant organic human material such as an appendix as you implied it is.  However, if by being you mean a person as arduously defined above then I agree.
    The value of the "being" in question is not objective. For instance you said that the problem I had was not about a "baby". Me and my wife, and many other parents, were seeing it(!) as our baby already, while we knew damn well it was far from being already a person (nature took care of it, actually, probably due to stress my wife had a spontaneous abortion. Eventually this would have been the decision to make, I guess, but she would have had the final decision).
    I agree that once conception occured, there is a "person to be" and intrerupting pregnancy will result in that entity being killed. Therefore abortion should be avoided as much as possible. But when circumstances outweigh (emotionally, morally, whateverly) the, quite foggy, right to live of such an entity then a decision based on a more complicated approach should be made.
    Back to Top
    Carcharodon View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar


    Joined: 04 May 2007
    Location: Northern Europe
    Status: Offline
    Points: 4959
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 12:08
    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    Still, you have no argument.

    You speak of slowing decreasing population? Try to preach your mantra in Indian and Africa, that is where it grows faster.
     
    Well, hopefully also people in those places will decrease their population growth. It is necessary that we all live in a responsible way, not procreating to much and not overuse and deplete natural resources if we shall be able to live in a sustainable way in the future and also have a good quality of life.
     
    We could all learn from the indigenous peoples in the Vaupes Caqueta area in the Colombian forest where having to many children were seen as a really antisocial behaviour.
    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 12:44
    Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

     
    Well, hopefully also people in those places will decrease their population growth. It is necessary that we all live in a responsible way, not procreating to much and not overuse and deplete natural resources if we shall be able to live in a sustainable way in the future and also have a good quality of life.


    Go there to preach your gospel to Africa.
     
    Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:


    We could all learn from the indigenous peoples in the Vaupes Caqueta area in the Colombian forest where having to many children were seen as a really antisocial behaviour.


    Indigenous people is still struggling to survive. Don't fool around with them. Bug Africans.
    Back to Top
    Carcharodon View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar


    Joined: 04 May 2007
    Location: Northern Europe
    Status: Offline
    Points: 4959
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 13:23
    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


    Go there to preach your gospel to Africa.

     
    Actually overprocreation is still a problem also in other parts of the world, especially locally (also in Latin America).

    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    Indigenous people is still struggling to survive. Don't fool around with them. Bug Africans.
     
    Yes, but what applies to them in a small scale also in some part applies to us. Procreating to much contributes to depletion of resources and destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity.
    Back to Top
    Seko- View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 01 Sep 2004
    Location: United States
    Status: Offline
    Points: 11725
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 14:03
    Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

    Zagros, the vocabulary defiinitions appeal to me, I had tended to treat te two words as meanng he same. But I can live with that: a fetus is an embryo that has quickened. Not easy though to defend when quikenng takes place, but that is the traditional point at which abortion becomes impernissible.
     
    Now what we need is a word for destroying an embryo that is different from abortion.
     
    Taxonomy rules, OK!


    a sensible conclusion between you and Zag
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
      Share Topic   

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
    Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

    This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.