NASA abortion and abortion

Anything About Anything...
Post Reply
User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6205
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by sinewav »

Ugh, since this thread is pretty much been derailed by the Christian right, I might as well dig in while I await the impending split. Maybe someone will learn a thing or two. Maybe.
Word wrote:I just think it's cruel and egoist to kill someone innocent because you fear to lose your wealth, reputation or support when there's still a better option.
Word, you simply haven't thought out your views enough.

Most of the people who get abortions are not in danger of losing wealth, their reputation, or support because they don't have those things in the first place. That's the main reasons why people choose abortion. They usually don't have the financial, familial, or emotional resources to raise a child. And who is this innocent someone? Many abortions occur before there is a recognizable, viable "someone." Is a blastocyst a person? It doesn't have a central nervous system, let alone a brain, and likely no thoughts. We don't know enough about consciousness to determine at what point the unborn experience "suffering." Until we do, this will always be a gray area. And speaking of suffering, read what Cody said above. There are many worse things in life than not being born. A lifetime of suffering is the primary cause of suicide. Those people would definitely benefit from not being born. Don't believe me? Ask someone who contemplates suicide regularly.
Word wrote:So many mothers died (and some still die) after giving birth, but they are sure there's a reason for that.
Oh? What reason is that? God wanted them to die? I won't even address that stupidity.
Word wrote:I just think children shouldn't be treated like a disease.
Don't you DARE minimize the suffering of women who choose to get abortions. I've known a number of them. It's emotionally scarring, permanently. They live with horrible feelings of guilt and loss for the rest of their lives; and it's not just the mothers, but the fathers too. But in every case it's better to have two people suffering and not three, which would be the case if the child was born. None of these people equate abortion with disease.

And finally, I'll drop the ultimate science bomb to show you have no idea what you are talking about, haha.

Word, today science is capable of taking any cell from your body, cloning it into a stem cell, then programing that cell to become a sex cell. So that means every cell in your body is a potential, separate, fully-realized YOU. Every time you shave you kill tens of thousands of baby "Words." You murderer! How dare you choose to have a pretty face over the thousands of aborted potential YOUs. Talk about egoism. :roll:

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by Word »

sinewav wrote:Most of the people who get abortions are not in danger of losing wealth, their reputation, or support because they don't have those things in the first place. That's the main reasons why people choose abortion. They usually don't have the financial, familial, or emotional resources to raise a child.
I know that, just wanted to say the vacuum there is seen as a reason to abort - although all these factors could be existent in another family.
sinewav wrote:And who is this innocent someone? Many abortions occur before there is a recognizable, viable "someone." Is a blastocyst a person? It doesn't have a central nervous system, let alone a brain, and likely no thoughts. We don't know enough about consciousness to determine at what point the unborn experience "suffering." Until we do, this will always be a gray area. And speaking of suffering, read what Cody said above. There are many worse things in life than not being born. A lifetime of suffering is the primary cause of suicide. Those people would definitely benefit from not being born. Don't believe me? Ask someone who contemplates suicide regularly.
Who can say that all aborted clusters of cells (if you don't regard it as a phase of your personality as l do) will become sick of life?
sinewav wrote:
Word wrote:So many mothers died (and some still die) after giving birth, but they are sure there's a reason for that.
Oh? What reason is that? God wanted them to die? I won't even address that stupidity.
Because they view children as humanity's future and believe that they should live a better life than themselves and be better people?
sinewav wrote:
Word wrote:I just think children shouldn't be treated like a disease.
Don't you DARE minimize the suffering of women who choose to get abortions. I've known a number of them. It's emotionally scarring, permanently. They live with horrible feelings of guilt and loss for the rest of their lives; and it's not just the mothers, but the fathers too. But in every case it's better to have two people suffering and not three, which would be the case if the child was born. None of these people equate abortion with disease.
I'm not minimizing it, I'm against the suffering and I think that abortions make it worse.
sinewav wrote:Word, today science is capable of taking any cell from your body, cloning it into a stem cell, then programing that cell to become a sex cell. So that means every cell in your body is a potential, separate, fully-realized YOU. Every time you shave you kill tens of thousands of baby "Words." You murderer! How dare you choose to have a pretty face over the thousands of aborted potential YOUs. Talk about egoism. :roll:
Well, there's no problem with that 'bomb'. I know that our cells die the whole time. I just kill thousands of potential clones of myself, not thousands of potential children with a different DNA who are not 'my business'.

Also, I'm not "Anti-Choice", but if I was getting father (in a normal way...) I'd do everything possible to make an abortion unnecessary.
Last edited by Word on Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:43 pm, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6205
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by sinewav »

Well you are definitely an optimist, if not a realist.

User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by Phytotron »

Word wrote:
Phytotron wrote:
I think atheists are angry about the things [the Pope] didn't say.
Huh?
For example, 'everyone should use condomes', 'abortions are awesome', 'god and creation is a lie' etc. ;)
Huh? I almost never pay attention to what that massive fraud says, and certainly wouldn't expect him to say any of those things—so why should I be angry about it? I don't determine what is moral or true by what some religious charlatan does or doesn't say (although you seem to think that's the way "the atheists" do it, defining their beliefs in the negative against what the Pope says, continuing to operate under these ridiculous stereotypes and caricatures you have).

And, not incidentally, very many religious folks (including some more sensible Catholics) also support the right to abortion; it's not just your "the atheists." This should be obvious by simple demographics. Americans are at present roughly 50-50 pro-choice versus anti-choice. You surely don't think 50% of Americans are atheists, do you?

And the word is condom, plural condomes. No e. And on that subject...
Word wrote:If you don't want children, there are still condoms and pills and lots of other stuff.
OK, soooo....

1) Are you advocating those methods of birth control? If not, why did you effectively do just that by offering them up as valid alternatives to abortion? (Which is fallacious anyway, since contraception is used as prevention, abortion after the fact—sometimes precisely because contraception has been ineffective. And, before you say it, the "abortion as birth control" is a myth.)

2) You are aware your Pope has now conceded condom use for male prostitutes and women with HIV, yes? So, now that he's made that concession, it's all over, isn't it? (As if the continual concessions in the face of modernity that the Catholic Church has been rolling out for decades hadn't already undermined it.) And, by the way, would it be moral for a woman to deliberately contract HIV so she can use a condom?
Phytotron wrote:For a long time church was the best (and at times the only) employer of artists and scientists (see this list), and there were no tensions until scientists and artists probed into subjects that seemed to contradict the church's doctrine of that time (Galilei). From the church's point of view, science was suddenly anti-religious (although the inventions of new weapons could have been called anti-religious as well).
(I should have said 'shouldn't be viewed as anti-religious' to be more clear).
You know, we discussed the first point before, but I guess once again you chose to ignore it. As for the rest, well, that's the religiosos' hang-up and they need to get the hell over it. If a true believer insists on continuing to believe in supernatural nonsense in the face of science and reason, then that's on the believer and they need to keep that to themselves and keep it out of the public, and especially the civic, sphere. Anyway, related: Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science and Faith, where he expresses a view that tends more toward the notion of the Non-overlapping magisteria. I tend to lean more toward the views of those in the "criticisms" section of that wikipedia entry, though not entirely—sort of a blend, I suppose...'nuther subject.
sinewav wrote:Just to be clear, atheists don't think abortions are "awesome." We think abortions are horrible, horrible things that should be avoided whenever possible.
I may not think it's "awesome," but I don't think it's always horrible or avoided whenever possible (and in fact think it's often a good first choice). I also don't agree (to skip ahead to a later post) that it always or necessarily results in suffering or permanent "scarring" for the woman, especially when it's early, and especially if she hasn't had abusive religious guilt pounded into her all her life. More women agonize more greatly over giving up an actual child for adoption, that continues to live on in the world somewhere, than over having had an abortion (an important point, for obvious reasons). Abortion is often the best option, not as a regrettable "least of evils," but as a positive choice for that individual's or family's life (don't forget, it's not only young, single women who have unintended pregnancies). And there should be no restrictions whatsoever on receiving one. Yes, I do support "abortion on demand," including for minors without parental notification (even against parental disapproval).
Word wrote:I just think children shouldn't be treated like a disease.
You're right, they shouldn't, but we're not talking about children. We're talking about non-viable fetuses or often even earlier stages of development (embryo, zygote, blastocyst).

And I can't even give an adequately thorough review here on Catholicism's (and evangelicals') negative and demeaning view of life. Claims about "valuing the sanctity of life" have no credibility when coming from these wicked ideologies. Christians tell real, living children that they are dead and destined to Hell until they believe as Christians do. Nine million actual, live, thinking, feeling children die every year before reaching the age of five. Parents lose their born, existing children to all manner of deaths, and the church says, "welp, that's God's mysterious plan, suck it up."

I could go on and on about this culture of death inherent to Christianity and Catholicism especially, but I can't write a book here. Anti-abortionists who base that view on Christianity do not—do not—believe in the sanctity or dignity of life. "Pro-life from conception until birth."

Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens (yep, going straight for the obvious names) on this subject, each briefly, which I'm sure you'll ignore out of prejudice and in favor of snippets cut out of context from some anti-atheist Catholic website you like.
Word wrote:@Cody: babies don't have a choice.
It's not a baby.
If you were the baby that was going to be aborted, do you really think...
There is no "you" yet, let alone any thinking.
And you think rape victims must kill their children...
No, rape victims shouldn't be forced against their will by fascistic, patriarchal religious fanatics to continue that pregnancy and give birth to those eventual children.

And that leads to one other crucial point here: the choice and availability of having an abortion is a fundamental woman's rights issue. Outlawing abortions (legally or by religious doctrine)—that is, forcing women to carry a pregnancy, bring it to term, give birth, and anything that may follow—is sexual slavery. Period.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6205
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by sinewav »

Phytotron wrote:I also don't agree (to skip ahead to a later post) that it always or necessarily results in suffering or permanent "scarring" for the woman, especially when it's early, and especially if she hasn't had abusive religious guilt pounded into her all her life. More women agonize more greatly over giving up an actual child for adoption, that continues to live on in the world somewhere, than over having had an abortion (an important point, for obvious reasons).
You're right about scarring. I'm clearing interjecting a certain bias based on personal experiences (the sample set of my close friends). Your statement about adoption is one I overlooked. I can now remember an episode not too long a go between a friend and his wife. Before their marriage and the birth of their two children, she had given up a child for adoption. An unlucky flood damaged a lot of their personal belongings, some of which where pictures and other items of sentimental value regarding the child she gave up. In her despair she lashed out at her husband, accusing him on not valuing her belongings, which quickly turned to not valuing her. The episode was a great strain on their relationship. This was many years after the adoption and she was(is) still suffering a great loss.

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by Word »

To post a proper reply I'd have to translate this (I know that text because I took part in a discourse with one of the authors of the biology part a few years ago.)


(the most relevant part is on page 203/204 = page 13 of the pdf)


edit: I'll post a translation after getting Adobe Acrobat and using OCR (so I can use Google Translator) :)

edit 2: looks like the letters are too small for OCR.
Last edited by Word on Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kijutsu
Match Winner
Posts: 676
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by Kijutsu »

Word, I think you should leave it up to the woman to decide what's best for her own body. Phyto is right to say these "babies" aren't people yet, or do you save your sperm in a bag every time it leaves your body?

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by Word »

I'm not even arguing that a sperm or an egg cell is a baby - the united gametes contain everything needed for a fully developed organism.

edit: and this is basically a moral question, believing in God plays a subordinated role here.
Last edited by Word on Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Clutch
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1009
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:53 pm
Location: A frozen wasteland

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by Clutch »

sinewav wrote:Ugh, since this thread is pretty much been derailed by the Christian right, I might as well dig in while I await the impending split. Maybe someone will learn a thing or two. Maybe.
I'm learning..and wincing at the brutality o.o
Boxed

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6205
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by sinewav »

And we all know your belief in god plays a role in your decision making. Maybe instead of arguing with your fellow humans you can ask him why he made such a shitty world that people have to consider abortion in the first place.

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by Word »

They don't have to, they have a free will, and there's always another option (adoption for example), with or without a God. If you don't believe in a free will, of course all this is determined to be a waste of time.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6205
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by sinewav »

Word wrote:If you don't believe in a free will, of course all this is determined to be a waste of time.
As it turns out I don't believe in free will. But this isn't determined to be a waste of time since you can't determine not to waste it. It just is time.

Not to go all ad homenin, but it's kind of amusing to talk about women's reproductive rights with a young guy who's likely still a virgin. I question that your morals have ever been put to the test.

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by Word »

I doubt anyone would be amused if I write my biography here...leave alone questioning where my understanding of moral originated from.

User avatar
Kijutsu
Match Winner
Posts: 676
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by Kijutsu »

sinewav wrote:
Word wrote:If you don't believe in a free will, of course all this is determined to be a waste of time.
Not to go all ad homenin, but it's kind of amusing to talk about women's reproductive rights with a young guy who's likely still a virgin. I question that your morals have ever been put to the test.
^ This so much.

What's next, gonna lecture me on my period?

User avatar
Nelhybel
Round Winner
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:51 pm

Re: Obama readies to blast NASA

Post by Nelhybel »

sinewav wrote:Ugh, since this thread is pretty much been derailed by the Christian right, I might as well dig in while I await the impending split.
Correction. This thread was derailed by Phytotron, who injected anti-Christian sentiment into his post. Should hate speech go unchecked? I don't believe so...
Phytotron wrote:Bullshit alert. There are no valid scientific "arguments" for creationism or against climate change (and by "arguments," I mean empirical evidence, because, after all, science deals with evidence, not philosophical arguments—the best argument doesn't "win;" the best evidence does). Any claim that is made against evolution or climate change can be, has been, and continues to be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not cultural criticism or "attacks." So, fail there.
Two errors.

First, regarding creationism / evolution: you misinterpreted my relatively simple statement. I did not make any comment regarding which is correct. I simply said that anybody who might not agree with consensus opinion (because that's what is is) on the subject is slandered in every way possible, as the intellectual elite turn their attacks from objective ones into hate speech against Christianity. Not "bullshit", my friend, fact. It happens every day, on these forums, on the news, in the classroom, in every day life.

Second, regarding man's role in climate change: you again misinterpreted my relatively simple statement by totally disregarding half my sentence. I don't deny the climate changes - who does? Yesterday was sunny, today is rainy. What I said was that people who oppose the belief that negative climate change is the direct result of man-kind find themselves exposed to broad attacks regarding their morals and religion (not to mention the fact that there is plenty of evidence against the belief man is causing climate change). My point was, ironically, reinforced by the second part of your post.

sinewav wrote:
Word wrote:If you don't believe in a free will, of course all this is determined to be a waste of time.
Not to go all ad homenin, but it's kind of amusing to talk about women's reproductive rights with a young guy who's likely still a virgin. I question that your morals have ever been put to the test.
Attempting to suggest Word has not had sex is so irrelevant and offense on so many levels, it can hardly be comprehended. That's his business, not ours.

Is the assumption that as Word progresses with his life he will lose all his morals? "gimmieagoddamnbreak."
Feel free to contact me here or on the grid if you would like assistance or support in beginning a relationship with Jesus Christ.
---
uNa| United Noobs of Armagetron Forums
-=}ID< Immortal Dynasty Forums
_~`Ww_ Wild West Forums

Post Reply