I don't care how many friends I lose over this (Abortion propaganda)

But isn't it?

Are you being facetious?

I'm being completely facetious.

However I do see the merit in calling it a theory. It's just highly UNLIKELY it is not a factual process.

Like I said somewhere before, the word "theory" allows science a valid excuse if God is fucking with our eyes.

But it is a pretty nil argument, seeing as to how the "what if" thought process will never lead to a solid conclusion. The only interpretation of reality I can think of that allows the firmest basis for discussion is the collective group of theories which science has produced to be taken as fact.

to get back on subject....

kill the babies!! and by babies i mean unborn clumps of cells.

The only way to vote pro-abortion is to look at the unborn babies in a scientific way. But for all people that have a religions standpoint, they scream that abortion is wrong. I personally believe that abortion is wrong, because even if the baby is undeveloped, it still has the potential to become something big, and by big, I mean literally and morally.

The only way to vote pro-abortion is to look at the unborn babies in a scientific way. But for all people that have a religions standpoint, they scream that abortion is wrong. I personally believe that abortion is wrong, because even if the baby is undeveloped, it still has the potential to become something big, and by big, I mean literally and morally.

Wouldn't you be killing the potential every time you masturbate as well?

and every time i get my period

For the record, I wasn't implying I was against the notion of the Big Bang theory, but rather, it is basically just as miraculous an event as anything that religions propose.

Also, when I speak of religion, I don't necessarily mean BIBLICAL religion alone. There's a whole lot more to religion than the bible. If you have some personal beef with the bible, that's a different topic

So far as abortion goes, no, masturbation wouldn't be the same, and no, a period wouldn't be the same, as an abortion. Furthermore, while I may state simply that I am "against abortion", there's a lot of details that I haven't elaborated on. A clearer way of expressing my feelings towards it would be that I am against CASUAL abortion, such as, abortion as a means of birth control. If you eliminated the casual, birth-control abortions, that would leave the life-threating, rape, etc. scenarios to be discussed, which makes things more complex.

In general, I just think that self-control is important and that there should be more of a focus on it in all areas of life. Having an abortion is usually (USUALLY, not ALWAYS) just the lazy and irresponsible way out of a difficult situation that poor choices have led to.

For the record, I wasn't implying I was against the notion of the Big Bang theory, but rather, it is basically just as miraculous an event as anything that religions propose.

It's only miraculous now because we don't understand it yet. Once we manage to do that, it will be no more miraculous than lightning.

So far as abortion goes, no, masturbation wouldn't be the same, and no, a period wouldn't be the same, as an abortion.

Why?

Furthermore, while I may state simply that I am "against abortion", there's a lot of details that I haven't elaborated on. A clearer way of expressing my feelings towards it would be that I am against CASUAL abortion, such as, abortion as a means of birth control. If you eliminated the casual, birth-control abortions, that would leave the life-threating, rape, etc. scenarios to be discussed, which makes things more complex.

Why is abortion an unacceptable means of birth-control?

In general, I just think that self-control is important and that there should be more of a focus on it in all areas of life.

Self control in what way? The only absolutely sure way to not get pregnant is abstinence. Are you advocating abstaining from sex altogether?

Having an abortion is usually (USUALLY, not ALWAYS) just the lazy and irresponsible way out of a difficult situation that poor choices have led to.

Irresponsible in what way? The only way I can see someone arguing that is from a purely religious perspective.

[QUOTE=talentedhamster]and every time i get my period[/QUOTE'

Masturbation doesn't affect the potential of an egg becoming fertilized, one always has more sperm (awkward). And a period is because an egg wasn't fertilized, it doesn't cause that... So I don't know where that came from

[QUOTE=Why]

and every time i get my period[/QUOTE' Masturbation doesn't affect the potential of an egg becoming fertilized, one always has more sperm (awkward).

One could always produce another fetus.

and every time i get my period

Exactly right. You're a baby killer. And every time you swallow that semen, you're a cannibal. I HOPE YOU CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT!

wahh im a horrible person!!!!! =[

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.

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.

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?

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.

About your other responses:

Masturbation and periods are natural. Fetuses are natural. An abortion is not. Duh 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. Sperm and eggs, apart from one another, are just the parts that combine to make a whole.

So, for the Big Bang to be true, we just have to allow for time to understand it? But this is not an option with regards to religion? Do you not accept that there may very well be MANY things in reality that we do not understand? Or that we misunderstand?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But this is not an option with regards to religion?

The difference between science and religion is evidence.

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.

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

How's about we just leave it up to the mother and father of the child and shut the fuck up about it?

How's about we just leave it up to the mother and father of the child and shut the fuck up about it?

That's entirely what I think. But that's not the question. The question is whether or not it is unethical, and based on that, whether or not it should be illegal. Ethics is not a question for science, but ethical decisions should certainly be informed and based on scientific facts.

Well you're preaching to the choir as well on that note. I mean, personally I am against abortion, I honestly don't think that anybody should do it unless their life is threatened, I feel that you shouldn't be able to just abort the baby because you fucked up, I feel more-so you shouldn't be allowed on a basis that you need to learn your lesson.

Well you're preaching to the choir as well on that note. I mean, personally I am against abortion, I honestly don't think that anybody should do it unless their life is threatened, I feel that you shouldn't be able to just abort the baby because you fucked up, I feel more-so you shouldn't be allowed on a basis that you need to learn your lesson.

Your first sentence, and the rest of your paragraph contradict each other.

No, i'm saying I am against abortion, but yet the parents of this particular offspring should decide what happens to it, not me.

No, i'm saying I am against abortion, but yet the parents of this particular offspring should decide what happens to it, not me.

Right, but this thread isn't really about telling people what to do. It started out as a dissection of some propaganda, but transformed into whether or not abortion is ethical. On that topic, it certainly does not seem that I am "preaching to the choir."