krisvek said:
|
From a personal viewpoint, in my mind, it's just more logical to prevent an issue or problem from happening in the first place than to have to deal with cleaning up the mes afterwards.
|
I don't think the problem is the pregnancy itself. Bringing a baby into the arms of parents who are incapable or unwilling to raise it is. In this case, abortion acts as a preventative method rather than a clean-up method.
Quote:
|
There are cures for some diseases, and there are also immunizations from them. Does it make sense to get immunized? Yes. Abortion isn't a disease, but if you don't look at the comparison obtusely, then you can see what I mean.
|
But the analogy is specious. For the analogy to convey your perspective, abotrion must be looked at as the disease. I propose shifting that viewpoint and looking at abortion as the immunization rather than the disease itself.
Quote:
|
Carry a gun into a danger zone, or simply avoid the danger zone? Get shit-faced drunk and have to find someone to get you home, or limit yourself and get yourself home?
|
The only way to prevent pregnancy a 100% of the time is abstinence -- and as WW pointed out in another thread, that's not a full 100%. I think your gun analogy would be more apt if rephrased. Lets say you need to get home. The only way to get home is through a danger zone. Do you avoid the danger zone and not go home, or carry a gun?
Sex is a natural, and essential part of the human condition. Enjoy it.
Quote:
|
And where the heck did abstinence come from? There are plenty of ways to have sex without worrying so much about pregnancy, bountiful options when it comes to choosing a birth control, and all of them cheaper than abortions.
|
None of them quite as effective as abstinence. What would you propose to a girl who is on birth-control pills, who used a physical contraceptive, and took the morning-after pill, yet still got pregnant? These cases are rare, but they happen.
Quote:
Masturbation and periods are natural. Fetuses are natural. An abortion is not. Duh 
|
I would argue that abortions are more natural than physical or chemical contraceptives. Spontaneous abortions happen all the time.
Quote:
|
There are also the biological difference too... a person receiving an organ transplant, for example. That person, without the organ, will not be alive (unless artificially assisted, of course). That person with the organ is alive.
|
I'm not sure I understand the relevance.
Quote:
|
Sperm and eggs, apart from one another, are just the parts that combine to make a whole.
|
A whole what? A zygote? If killing that is murder, than why is it not murder in the case of rape, or other more complicated cases. Further, why is it not murder when you kill a roach? A roach is far more complex than a zygote.
Quote:
|
So, for the Big Bang to be true, we just have to allow for time to understand it?
|
No, what happened is true whether or not we understand it. Now, we understand the conception of the universe to a good bit of detail already. Our view may be honed and perfected, but the overall picture is not going to change.
Quote:
|
But this is not an option with regards to religion?
|
The difference between science and religion is
evidence.
Quote:
|
Do you not accept that there may very well be MANY things in reality that we do not understand? Or that we misunderstand?
|
Wholly. However, I am about as certain as I am of anything else in the world that a magic man in the sky did not create our world in 7 days starting on October 22, 4042 B.C.
Quote:
|
I do not argue from a purely religious perspective, I just insist that the same lines of logic that are used to support and detract from each issue be assigned to both parties. Such as, the issue of faith. How many of the researchers and scientists that have discovered the many facets of science do you personally know? How many have you seen? Can you even identify and name all of them, and their contributions? Are they not also human, just as prone to deceit, ignorance, pride, etc. as the rest of us? How is it that we can trust science more than anything else? I don't ask this to suggest that one throw away what humanity has learned, I don't propose the crazy notion that all of science is some sort of grand scheme or hoax. But does it not appear as if faith is an element? Don't we all have faith in what we are taught and told and hear and see?
|
I wouldn't call accepting material from a textbook faith.
Perhaps you would enjoy this thread:
http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042