Oh, I agree designs. I think people need to be educated to avoid getting themselves into this kind of situation. That would certainly remove all this unnecessary stress and trauma. All i'm saying is that it's the right of the woman to choose whether she wants a baby or not. She's carrying the child, she makes the decision, that's it.
Flat_Accent
JoinedPosts by Flat_Accent
-
-
-
-
-
-
Flat_Accent
Sulla, You make some interesting points, and really it gets to the heart of the issue: It's personal. All you can base these kind of opinions on is your own moral inclination and conscience. For me, there is a big difference between a foetus and a child. The main point being that, similar to the case of a coma patient - until he wakes up, all decisions rest with the next of kin. I value the decision of the mother more than the potential life she is carrying.
I don't know enough about how children develop and learn, or at what stage this happens to answer your 3rd point. - I didn't mean that children immediately have these traits - but until it is born, the child cannot be exposed to the outside world and begin developing them.
-
-
-
Flat_Accent
botchtowersociety, just to point out that as you mentioned someone under anasthaesia, or someone under a coma, I had already brought out some differences between an unborn child and one that had just been born. Either way, someone who is in a coma is in the same predicament as a foetus, as the responsibility and decision lies with the closest living relative - they choose whether to terminate that persons life. It is exactly the same case with a foetus; decision lies with the Mother, and I believe that is right.
I also thought it was interesting your bring up Ron Pauls stance. He first mentions an abortion that took place in the 60's. Now, until Roe v. Wade, abortion was only Legal by request in 4 states. 16 States would allow abortion on the grounds of either Rape/Danger to womans health/Damaged foetus, and those conditions were not applicable in all 16. In the other 30 states it was illegal - so out of those options it's more likely this was an illegal abortion, if not, then I'd imagine the mother was justified in her decision.
He brings up the idea that Abortion is overstepping the bounds of morality, but I see he failed to mention the womans reason for having one. This is where I think pro-life is wrong. It values the unborn life greater than the life of the woman.
I don't know if you're going to vote for Paul, that's of course if he makes it through the primarys, but I hope you realize his intentions on abortion, which you can read about on his campaign site, but I will post some parts here.
As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
-
-
-
Flat_Accent
I'm not an atheist. And I do not believe that God kills children or babies or anyone for that matter.
Oh that's right, he just gets his lackeys to do it for him. My bad.
Except with Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Flood, and the 10th plague on Egypt, and in Leviticus when God deliberately sends in wild animals to trample their children, and when he sends the bears to kill 42 kids. But that's all meant as an allegory, i'm sure.
-
-
-
Flat_Accent
Once the fetus has a nervous system, and can feel pain, pain is pain.
Foetuses 'cannot experience pain'
Pain is something that comes from our experiences and develops due to stimulation and human interaction. . . It involves concepts such as location, feelings of unpleasantness and having the sensation of pain. . . Pain becomes possible because of a psychological development that begins at birth when the baby is separated from the protected atmosphere of the womb and is stimulated into wakeful activity.
The last phrase in particular would explain why babies born prematurely are crying and grimacing - because they have been separated from the womb and are exposed to the outside world, and so this psychological understanding of pain comes into effect.
If foetuses do feel pain at a certain point - some pro-life groups say 20 weeks - then in most places abortions are not allowed after that time period.
What's the big hoo-har about suffering anyway? God doesn't seem to have a problem with killing children or babies, or anyone for that matter. How you atheists live without this superb moral compass, i'll never know.
Back to the fetus. Your example, Flat, is equally applicable to a newborn as it is to a fetus prior to birth. Is it not?
Yes, you can make that argument, and I predicted someone would - there are however several other differences:
• The child is no longer being carried inside the mother and therefore, the termination of the life is no longer a decison she can make (legally or morally i'd say)
• The child itself has reached a point whereby it can survive outside of the womb, which is quite a clear distinction from an embryo
• The child is now capable to begin learning and developing all those features I mentioned before - thoughts, feelings, awareness, relationships. At any point previous this is impossible
-
-
-
Flat_Accent
Not just that, i'm saying if anything happens to a foetus, and it lives, it can't remember anything. To suffer, you need to be aware of suffering. Foetuses have no awareness, they don't get lonely or bored inside the uterus, they are not conscious to anything, and therefore cannot suffer (this is while they are alive). If nature had made unborn children able to be aware of their surroundings and what was going on, that would be a very cruel way of life. All a foetus has is the potential for existence, for awareness, for thoughts and emotions. And if you want to say that because it has potential for life, it is life, I guess sperm is also a life, and I imagine a lot of teenagers are genociding thousands of human beings as we speak.
-
-
-
Flat_Accent
I think you know what I'm saying Flying. Do we remember what life was like as a foetus? No, because a foetus has no awareness at all. Ergo, there is no suffering. The enormous difference between mr foetus and whoever the dies by the hand of the serial killer should be obvious. That murder victim ticks all those boxes.
Thoughts? Yep
Feelings? Yep
Awareness? Yep
Relationships? Yep
Those are four key factors that make humans... well, human. You cannot label an embryo a human being in that sense because it has none of those features.
And actually in the case of your serial killer, the charge would be for First Degree Murder, not torture, right? If the victim was tortured and kept alive, the charge would be for something like Aggravated Assault or Attempted Homicide.
-
-
-
Flat_Accent
I'm pro-choice, but I believe that there can be exceptions where adoption could be a better alternative - especially in cases where it's later in pregnancy, and there is no good reason to terminate it. But that's just a personal opinion. Really the womans life is of greater importance, so I believe her position should be upheld, especially if her life is at risk. She is the one caring for the unborn, so it's her decision whether she wants to keep it or not. In cases of rape, or for severly disabled children, I'd say it is the more moral choice to terminate the pregnancy.
Either way I do not consider it murder. An unborn foetus is a cluster of cells that could one day be a human being. A foetus has no thoughts, feelings, relationships, and at least until 8 weeks, it has no central nervous system so it can't feel pain - not that you could even conceptualize pain or remember any pain you had in the womb.
-
36
Which Beliefs and Doctrines Helped Push You Out?
by ilikecheese inokay, so this is my first post, but i've been lurking here for months and months.
i have to say this is a very informative and hilarious site.
you guys are great to read!
-
-
Flat_Accent
I'm surprised no one has brought up the Creation/Evolution issue - anyway, my turn.
I was actually at the tipping point, I had read, read and re-read the orange brochure TheOrigin of Life: 5 Questions Worth Asking. It's arguments made sense to me, but I was amazed at how all these scientists were so blind to 'the truth'. Then I stumbled on an anonymous paper which you'll probably find on here somewhere, called Weighed and found Wanting. It completely answered every open-ended question and quote-mine the WT threw at evolutionary theory. I came on here looking for some rebuttals, as I pretty much knew WT had nothing of any substance to say on the subject. I didn't find any.
I continued to research into other subjects. As many have already said, once you spot a problem within the borg/doctrine, the whole thing seems to unravel before your eyes. The Genesis account, The Flood, 607 and the failed predictions/new light. By the end it was so obvious.
-
32
jwfacts.com
by allyouneedislove ini had a few comments to make regarding paul grundy's jwfact.com website.
these comments are in no way meant to defend jws, but only to point out illogical statements.
i have actually found his website to be quite informative.. .
-
-
Flat_Accent
Yes, OP. You're missing the point. Think like a witness here. Those JW's have free will - but for them, the consequences of going against Gods Organization and risking disfellowshipping/everlasting death are far more terrifying than suffering in this system for the truth. And I'm sure fear-mongering and peer pressure from the local elders also played a part in those witnesses deciding not to get a party card. Would you have gone against what the GB told you to do? I think not.