Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic » Abortion is Wrong, Right?

Forum: Politics
Topic: Abortion is Wrong, Right?
started by: Wolfguard

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 04 2002,18:52

Quote

LAGOS, Nigeria (AP) -- An Islamic high court has postponed the execution of a woman convicted of sex outside marriage.

The court said Amina Lawal, who faces death by stoning, could live at least until she has weaned the baby born of the liaison.

Lawal, 30, was convicted and sentenced by an Islamic Shariah court in March after giving birth more than nine months after divorcing.

Defense lawyer Aliu Yawuri asked a Shariah high court in Nigeria's northern Katsina state on Monday to overthrow the execution order.

Failing that, Yawuri argued, the court should postpone carrying out the death sentence until January 2004, when he said Lawal's baby girl would be old enough to be weaned.

The infant is believed to be five months old. It's not clear how long after Lawal's divorce the child was born.

The judge, Aliu Abdullahi, agreed that Lawal would not be executed until 2004, if at all. He postponed hearings on the overall case until July 8.

Yawuri said the case against his client was politically sensitive, saying he expected her to be released after Nigeria's municipal, parliamentary and presidential elections are held over the coming year.

During the March 19 trial, the man Lawal identified as her sexual partner, Yahaya Mohammed, denied having slept with her. He was acquitted for lack of evidence.

Death by stoning. Thats pleasant.

And they think god will be waiting for them with open arms...

I say we send a DNA test kit over and get the guy stoned too. all is fair after all.

You dont reason with people like this except at gunpoint and event then not for long. You just take them out.

Posted by editor on Jun. 04 2002,19:40

Dear WolfGuard;

Please do not throw things at CK, kay?

Interesting article, that.
(shudder)

Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 04 2002,19:41

1. I don't think CK has ever claimed that executing a woman is acceptable (implied by the title of this topic), regardless of it's ties to abortion. I don't see any need to take him so out of context, unless you're trying to get more flames...

2.

Quote

You dont reason with people like this except at gunpoint and event then not for long. You just take them out.

I hope you're kidding (not always easy to tell). Reactions of this manner just might have something to do with entrenching anti-American sentiment amongst countries with deep islamic beliefs..., then again maybe it's just coincidence.

Posted by editor on Jun. 04 2002,19:58

I chose to edit the title of this thread.

What's interesting is that I do not disagree with Mr Wolf.

I think that putting someone else's name in a negative light in a thread-title is going a little too far though.

Please, Mr Wolf, feel free to post some more!
I'll read it!

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 04 2002,20:31

what was the original title I missed it

Posted by editor on Jun. 04 2002,20:55

It was an attack on you.

It was dealt with.

Let it be.

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 04 2002,21:01

Quote (editor @ 04 June 2002,14:40)

Dear WolfGuard;

Please do not throw things at CK, kay?

Interesting article, that.
(shudder)

Ok...ill be good

Posted by kuru on Jun. 04 2002,21:05

Quote

Reactions of this manner just might have something to do with entrenching anti-American sentiment amongst countries with deep islamic beliefs..., then again maybe it's just coincidence.

Are you condoning this death sentence?

Posted by editor on Jun. 04 2002,21:13

Didn't say you couldn't flame him, WG.
heh

Anyone want to respond to Kuru?

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 04 2002,21:43

I would just like to go on record as saying I do not take offence to anything posted about me. I agree that in a forum that is specifically moderated all demeaning or questional comments should be stricken to prevent discussions from turning personal ...but if it's about me I'd like to read what somebody wrote and I will not take offence. Thanks Ed for at least posting that you made the change and why ..it gets hard to follow a thread sometimes when there is information missing.
Sorry to go off topic ...that just hit me. And being stoned to death is cruel and unusual punishment regardless of the crime IMO ...even though it sounds like a movie put out by Cheech & Chong.

Posted by editor on Jun. 04 2002,21:52

If only...

I think this forum just got moderated.

damn; what a lot of work.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,01:06

ok I don't think that article was an argument for pro-abortion, I think it was for pro-abstinence, in that culture. Tell me I'm wrong...

Posted by j0eSmith on Jun. 05 2002,03:24

I think KILLING someone with BIG FUCKING ROCKS for having SEX is just a wee bit wrong.

I don't know what your arguing about, but this is what should be protested.

Christ, some people are still living in the stone age.. er, no pun intended..

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,04:19

what! I thought all cultures were equally valid, because there was no such thing as absolute morals! accoring to their culture, this is the right thing to do! who are we to impose CatKnight's morals on these people?

Posted by editor on Jun. 05 2002,04:27

I don't care about morals and ethics and stuff.
If I see fighting I will delete it.

Posted by j0eSmith on Jun. 05 2002,04:35

Quote (CatKnight @ 04 June 2002,20:19)

The whole 'Moral Higher Ground' by NOT imposing our morals can be such bullshit. This is one instance.
But there are times when its good to take a step back and say 'I wouldn't, but why can't they'

And of course you can't have it both ways.

Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 05 2002,16:43

Quote (kuru @ 04 June 2002,13:05)

Quote

Reactions of this manner just might have something to do with entrenching anti-American sentiment amongst countries with deep islamic beliefs..., then again maybe it's just coincidence.

Are you condoning this death sentence?

Note the original point made by wolf.

Quote

You dont reason with people like this except at gunpoint and event then not for long. You just take them out.

Hence my comments. I wasn't condoning the death sentence. However, before the United States goes and pretends that we have some kind of legal jurisdiction wherever we feel like it, we have to remember that in the real world not everybody looks up to us for an explanation as to the 'right' way to live life and as such we must act diplomatically to change the world to further our personal beliefs.

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 05 2002,18:04

Quote (Wolfguard @ 04 June 2002,13:52)

You dont reason with people like this except at gunpoint and event then not for long. You just take them out.

The point of that statement was not to point out the fact that they are all a bunch of raging, psycho, fucknuggets. That is redundant at this point.

The point is that you can not deal with an extremist. If you do, it will have to be at gunpoint and in the end you will just have to shoot them anyway.

Think palistine. Most of the people could care less and want to go on with their lives but before that can happen you will have to deal with the extremists at gunpoint.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,18:18

the reason why so many people in the west bank live in refugee camps is because they don't want to get on with their lives, they are still waiting for the jews to be annihilated so they can move back in...

when I say most, I mean > 65% according to various polls.

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 05 2002,18:24

Quote (CatKnight @ 04 June 2002,20:19)

I just gave an opinion about the way the death sentence was carried out.
Since I believe morals are developed around the rules mutually agreed upon by a society and not absolute, I don't think I can say the people fighting for the stoning are doing something morally wrong. I personally disagree with it, but unless you have knowledge of all the facts in this case, the laws in that society, and were raised under that culture with the knowledge of what they believe to be moral and immoral then you are obviously missing information to make a non biased judgment. In our culture it is not morally wrong to have a child out of wedlock …in theirs it obviously is. The stoners themselves are not immoral because they are only carrying out a death penalty (not morally wrong in your opinion, but morally wrong in mine) just like any warden in the states would do when it came time to order the hanging, electric chair, lethal injection or gas chamber. Being a fan of the death penalty you should offer your support for this stoning CK.
What's next? Are people going to start thinking that hanging and the electric chair are cruel and unusual punishments for the crimes they are supposed to serve vengeance on and decide our death penalty immoral? Let he who lives in the glass house cast the first stone.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,18:29

I never condoned the stoning, nor did I ever compare it to capital punishment for violent crimes. pregnancy out of welock is not a violent crime and does not deserve capital punishment. please don't intentionally misrepresent my position for the sake of yours.

oh, and try asking 10 people whether they think pregnancy out of wedlock is immoral here. most of them will probably say yes. it would be naive for you to assume otherwise.

Posted by editor on Jun. 05 2002,18:31

You could start a poll...

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,18:40

i meant here as in the united states, certainly not here as in detnet.

Posted by editor on Jun. 05 2002,18:44

heh.

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 05 2002,18:45

Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,10:29)

Thank you for making my point

There are no absolutes ...morality, legality, and social acceptance depend on varying cercumstances. You do not condone this case of capitol punishment because it doesn't meet your required circumstances for when capitol punishment is acceptable. I mean, if everything had a moral right and wrong then what about capital punishment? It must have an absolute right or wrong. I don't think I've ever seen a moral argument that didn't have an exception. So, I'll say it again ...I don't beleive in absolutes.

Here's a question combining the two threads for you. If you accidently got a woman pregnant in a society where she would be put to death when somebody found out ...would you abort the baby? Her life ...or the baby's? Now seeing how you have an absolute moral right & wrong opinion on abortion what would your answer be? There is only a yes or no answer ...it's not a trick question.

Quote

oh, and try asking 10 people whether they think pregnancy out of wedlock is immoral here. most of them will probably say yes. it would be naive for you to assume otherwise.

hmmm ....good idea.

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 05 2002,18:46

Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,13:29)

oh, and try asking 10 people whether they think pregnancy out of wedlock is immoral here. most of them will probably say yes. it would be naive for you to assume otherwise.

ask them if its unethical and you will get a different answer.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,19:20

Look you can't ask hypothetical questions where both answers are wrong, and expect me to pick one. There is no point except so that you can say "LOOK CK'S IMMORAL I WIN". Whether I say I would rather have an abortion, or I'd rather see my lover killed, is irrelevant.

btw how does my previous post "proove your point"? I think you are confused.

wolfguard--they are the same thing (m-w: ethical--involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval), however the connotation of the words might result in different answers.

Posted by Jynx on Jun. 05 2002,19:43

This is an interesting question, and actually brings up two points:

1) This woman knew her country's and religion's rules, and willfully disobeyed them. You pays your money, you takes your chances. Ultimately, the responsibility in doing something foolilsh in a society with rules such as this is hers. Remember, "Cruel and Unusual" has no bearing here, because Nigeria doesn't have a Bill of Rights. Additionally, we have no legal right to interfere, since Nigeria is a soverign nation.

2) The way I see it, a set of morals is something that you can only impose upon your own life, and use to judge your actions and the actions of others as "right" or "wrong". Based on this, we can all say to ourselves, "The actions being taken here are wrong, and I would never want to find myself taking any actions remotely resembling these, or supporting those who do." What we can do is put economic pressure on Nigeria (if we do any significant trade with them -- do we??), we can ensure that our own laws do not resemble theirs, and that's it.

So, saying that, I think that this sentencing is atrocious. If I ever participated in anything like this, I would feel dirty for the rest of my life. I think that these actions are barbaric and sexist, and I do not want my country doing business with those who commit these acts. However, as long as they stay in their own country, and do these atrocities in their own country, I have no legal right to take them out.

It is frustrating, but then that's life.

Posted by kuru on Jun. 05 2002,20:09

So, Jynx, you think they ought to just stone her and we should mind our own freakin business, eh?

Who gives a fuck about her human rights, she had the misfortune of being born in a place where they're denied her because she's got a vagina not a penis.

And then you go on to question our legal standing to do something about this?

Legal standing my ass. There's a moral obligation to protect the human rights of EVERYONE. And since she's appealing, she obviously WANTS her human rights protected.

Is there any limit to the cruelty that can be exercised before you'll stop turning a blind eye to it?

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 05 2002,20:27

Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,11:20)

Why??? Do we live in a perfect world where nobody has to make a tough decision? This is what you fail to understand time and again. Print out the following and stare at it for an hour.
Sometimes there are exceptions!!!
Seriously think about it. I'm not trying to give you two answers that contradict what you have said earlier to prove you wrong, I can care less. I'm trying to make a point that when you say there are absolute right and wrongs you are not looking at cases where you yourself could not make a right or wrong decision. There is only the best thing for you personally at the time. These things happen all the time. My question, though hypothetical here, can be a very real one. This story is a case of one woman (who I'm sure thought about aborting her baby) who had to make this exact choice ...it's not so far fetched. So if you found yourself pregnant in her shoes what would you do? Do you think it would change your views?

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 06 2002,00:45

Nancy Reagan changed her view on stem cell research while The Gipper was on his deathbed. Personal experience can change your view on certain issues profoundly. Rudy Giulianni (sp?) was letting HMOs get away with not covering cancer paitient bills, untill he got cancer.

Point is, you can truly believe one thing, and do another if you're put in a difficult situation.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 06 2002,01:40

wiley--wtf are you talking about? have you and boze changed the subject from morals to just choices in general?

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 06 2002,05:21

The thread is about the morals of abortion, not morals in general. We traveled off topic a long time ago. Are you surprised? This is detnet! We start on one thing, and then build from there. Who knows where this thread will lead to next? Religion? Military? Video games?

Stay tuned to find out!

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 06 2002,05:30

you tell me it was you who just made that last post that was off on a tangent to what we were talking about

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 06 2002,15:20

What?

Posted by kuru on Jun. 06 2002,15:43

I think, CK, the point about Nancy Reagan is that people re-evaluate whether or not their moral values actually hold water in reality.

Posted by demonk on Jun. 06 2002,17:34

That's right. Morals a personal. If you don't believe me, then there is absolutly nothing I can do to change your mind. Most people have a lot of the same morals because either

a) it's just one of those common sense things or
b) the morals came from a common religion.

Posted by Jynx on Jun. 06 2002,22:20

Quote (kuru @ 05 June 2002,12:09)

We absolutely should NOT mind our business, but we CAN NOT just go in, guns blazing, set up shop and say "everything you believe is wrong. Here is how you should live." This may not be what you have said, but it's what I have interpreted from your and others' responses.

Just for fun, let's reverse the situation:
-------------------------------------------
The New York Times prints an article about a man who, after discovering that his wife was having an adulterous relationship, brutally murders his wife. He has been caught, convicted, and sentenced to death.

Upon hearing the news, several Islamic countries are in an uproar - after all, the wife committed a mortal sin, and it is the husband's right and obligation, under their god and their law, to kill her. The countries, using political and military pressure, succeed in not only freeing the man and restoring him to his prior status, but championing him as an example of one decent individual in a land of barbarians.
---------------------------------------------

Did the Islamic countries act in an appropriate manner? Many of us would say that they didn't, and that they had no right to interfere in our affairs, especially since what the man did was evil and wrong, and was not only against our morality, but against the law.

See where I'm going here?

I can rant and rave all I want, and I can tell anyone who will listen that this trial and sentence is wrong, but as soon as I violate a soverign nation's borders in order to impose my moral code on them, I lose my own moral high ground.

What we can do is exert economic pressure on the country in question, and welcome refugees with open arms.

Please, please remember that two wrongs don't make a right.

Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 07 2002,04:54

Quote

1. There is no such thing as a human right. This is an artificial concept. It is incredibly conceited of Americans to assume that whatever rights they decide their government is fit to grant clearly must be the inherently natural "correct" set of rights people should have, and therefore are "human rights". You are not born with a right to live. Nothing in nature suggests that. There is no reasoning that defends this claim as anything other than an arbitrary rule. There are a lot of practical reasons why societies have a focus on not killing, but these practical reasons do not stem from some innate "right" that has been around all the time, and just wasn't noticed until a few hundred years ago.

2. Because if there were objective human rights, then maybe separate countries could independently discover them and come to some agreement? Oddly enough, people as a whole don't disagree too much with objective truth (such as math & physics laws -- note laws, not theories...), but they disagree a great deal with what is "moral" and what "rights" people should innately have. What if Islam is the true religion and it is America that not only defies the one true god by allowing people to worship false gods, but actually supports the evil jew people who are blatantly murdering honest, Allah-fearing palestinianes? Is it not the duty of islamic nations to attack America and put a stop to this vile disregard for the will of the one true god?

3. While one can certainly justify acting in one's own interests, it becomes a lot harder to justify taking a moral position and imposing it on another soverign nation. Because there are other nations who take a very different moral position, and neither one of us can objectively justify one or the other as "right" or "wrong".

4. Even if we wish to impose our view of human rights on people (as seems to be our goal...), it is necessary to do so diplomatically. Going in with guns ablazing is just going to upset other nations and entrench anti-American sentiment which is clearly not in our self-interests nor is it beneficial in promoting our world view.

For those of you too lazy to read the above, in short, I agree with Jynx.

Posted by kuru on Jun. 07 2002,15:38

Isn't it nice how the men, who would have no threat of death for living like human beings, can say there's no cause for interference in a system that treats women with less respect than dogs.

Posted by liquid metal on Jun. 07 2002,15:50

I read the first page.
Stop fighting.

She's being killed because her husband at the time isn't the father. In their culture that's a valid reason to be put to death. The real father isn't claiming the child either. The poor woman.

Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 07 2002,18:12

Quote (kuru @ 07 June 2002,07:38)

Isn't it nice how the men, who would have no threat of death for living like human beings, can say there's no cause for interference in a system that treats women with less respect than dogs.

Isn't it nice how women, who have no threat of death for going to war since they don't have combat roles, are so eager to send in troops to die in a country whose system they don't like.

Kuru the argument you're making would suggest that we would advocate going into Turkey to protect the kurds (since men are being hurt), but not into places were women are being hurt? Neither Jynx nor myself are advocating that. We're saying you have to act diplomatically and while you sure would like to impose your world view on everyone, so does everybody else (communist expansion...?) and we can't operate like a nation in a world of nations if we don't respect soverign boundaries. That doesn't mean we can't do anything, but it does mean we don't go in guns blazing.

Posted by kuru on Jun. 07 2002,18:48

Quote

Isn't it nice how women, who have no threat of death for going to war since they don't have combat roles, are so eager to send in troops to die in a country whose system they don't like.

I understand that you don't know dick about me, but you better listen to this part. This isn't hot air coming from me, this is a chick who would gladly go and fight and experience hell on earth if it would do some good. This is someone who argued with more recruiters than she can count because they told her 'not to worry, girls aren't going to get put in harm's way'.

Don't you ever, ever insult me again by insinuating that I'm only eager because someone else would die instead of me.

Quote

We're saying you have to act diplomatically and while you sure would like to impose your world view on everyone, so does everybody else (communist expansion...?) and we can't operate like a nation in a world of nations if we don't respect soverign boundaries.

Forgive me, for I am about to invoke Godwin's Law.

Eleven million people died in camps because we once waited too long to interfere in what was going on inside another sovereign country's borders. And now we have Wahaabist Islam, where the only difference is that instead of Jews and Gypsies being considered subhuman, it's women, white people, and the western world in general. How many more people do they have to kill before we stop this shit?

Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 07 2002,20:04

Quote

Isn't it nice how the men, who would have no threat of death for living like human beings, can say there's no cause for interference in a system that treats women with less respect than dogs.

Don't you ever, ever insult me again by insinuating that I'm only eager because someone else would die instead of me.

Hello kettle? you look black. Nice observation Mr. Pot. Don't tell me that I prefer diplomacy over brute force simply because the subject matter is a woman being hurt rather than a man. Not only is that insulting to my capacity for reason it wasn't even vaguely hinted at in anything that I said. At no point did I focus on the fact that the victim was a woman, so for you to suggest that this was my major concern is blatent misrepresentation. This is the exact misrepresentation that I parodied. Don't start insulting people and then get upset when they talk back.

My objection to your advocacy is not that you're going in to defend people, it's that your basis for doing so is your personal moral stance. You want to impose your world view on others, with force. Hitler was aghast at the thought of honest, good natured arryans not given their rightful place above the scum of the earth, so naturally he felt obligated to liberate them from the tyranny of the impure. Stalin, Mao-Tse-Tung & co couldn't bare the thought of the poor being so horribly oppressed by the bougouise and it was their duty to save them (with force, of course) from their terrible fate.

I don't mean to equate what you're suggesting to the actions of Hitler and Stalin, but the point remains nonetheless that you're taking your moral stance and trying to shove it down the throats of people who disagree with you. You could just as easily justify an attack on America for allowing it's women to murder their unborn, defenseless children. However, we take a different moral perspective than other people, and we expect our soverign borders to be respected. What's the difference between attacking their country and them attacking ours for allowing women to slaughter the unborn? Well the main one is that you disagree with one moral position, but agree with another.

Don't you think we should abandon our alliance with Turkey and, instead of using political or economic pressure, just invade them to protect the kurdish people whom they kill with the guns we sell them? Why not protect kurdish women?

There is nothing more worrying than a war based on a moral imperative.

Posted by KitKat on Jun. 13 2002,19:22

PA

Can you claim the woman in question was not forced down her throat morals of others?

Posted by kuru on Jun. 13 2002,19:29

I favor choice, not forced abortion, which is quite different.

This is an area in which moral beliefs vary widely, especially depending on religion, and religious moral beliefs can't be legislated to those who don't hold them or it would affect the 'establishment' clause.

I can't force someone either to have or not to have a baby, so my hands (and laws) are off of it. Let them decide in the privacy of their doctor's office.

Posted by compact3000 on Jun. 22 2002,23:43

What I dont get is why some people are trying to stop people from having abortions. I heard plenty of stories about people going into abortion places and trashing everything. Why the fuck cant people just let the woman decide if she wants it? Is it that hard to just leave an option open for her to have an abortion? what is so wrong with it? I never could understand why some people are against it. I can understand why some other people wouldent want a woman to have an abortion if it is later in the pregnancy and the baby is more then just a couple of cells... This is a fucked up world...

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 23 2002,00:31

What I dont get is why some people are trying to stop people from killing other people. I heard plenty of stories about people going into compounds and trashing everything. Why the fuck cant people just let the guy decide if he wants to murder or not? Is it that hard to just leave an option open for him to commit a murder? what is so wrong with it? I never could understand why some people are against it. I can understand why some other people wouldent want a guy to murder someone who is a teenager, and the girl still has her whole life ahead of her. This is a fucked up world...

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 23 2002,01:05

That's what I'm saying. I don't want the ATF storming my compound right when I'm deciding which virgin to sacrifice ...it really kills the mood of the ceremony when they start shooting out the windows.

Seriously though
ATF, FBI, CIA or any other government agency putting a stop to murder is ok with me.
Wack-job pro-lifers with home made bombs putting a stop to murder is not ok with me. Take your beef to the government, if they don't want to help you then it's because you are wrong. That's just how it works. We elect people to decide what is right and wrong for the masses ...they pass laws and enforce them. If you disagree with the laws they pass or enforce then start a petition ...don't go blowing people up.

Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 23 2002,01:34

mmm don't you just love opening you're bomb mail in the morning or love having your fingers sliced open with razor blades taped to the envolope. fucking prolifers.

Posted by compact3000 on Jun. 23 2002,03:26

What about every single sperm that ever comes out? Every one of them has a whole life ahaid of them. Exept that every time you jerk off and ejaculate, they all die. What about that, CK? I guess its murder, isnt it?

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 23 2002,05:18

RU-486 is the solution to this.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 23 2002,14:38

I am totally against attacking doctors who perform abortions. those people who commit those crimes are not much better then hamas.

sperm := zygote
every sperm won't have a chance to become a full life. Only like one out of a million will. The sperm by itself is not a person, it's only half of a person. Same goes for an unfertilized egg. Once the egg is fertilized though, then it is on the way to becoming a real person, and should not be aborted.

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 23 2002,15:29

Several fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted, without the woman ever knowing. Even a zygote only has a chance. If this kind of thing happens, should we have a funeral? How can we tell? Are people dying in uteruses across the world, without recognition?

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 23 2002,20:44

It is an extremly archaic notion to believe that a sperm and an egg combined is a person and should not be harmed in any way. When you prick your finger, cells die. That's all the zygote is, a bunch of cells.

Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 23 2002,21:54

to imply that a single sperm and a single egg would imply that there is some kind of "soul" involved when its quite clear its just a few chromosones. considering how atheist you are CK how come you suddenly take up this VERY religious stance and claim that its life on the grounds of

"we just dont know for sure"

well if i had my arm amputated would that make me a 15% murderer becuase i killed 15% of my "soul" get a fucking grip. you want to use the whole "we don't know" argument as an opposition to "this bunch of cells will fuck up my life"

theres no physical way of something that small of even rmotely being self aware and you want ot use the excuse that eventually it will become sentient. well nature is a hell of a lot more of a murderer than we are. nature kills "potential lifeforms" every day with aborted phetouses naturally.

in short: GET A FUCKING GRIP THIS ISNT THE DARK AGES!

Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on Jun. 23 2002,23:02

<mod_hat>this one's edging towards a flamewar. Ease down.</mod_hat>

<peon_hat>
it's really funny, because my view is this; the cells are of your creation, they take part of your DNA, and they use your resources. they _are_ you.

Does anyone here get in an uproar when dogs are put to sleep? Dogs are self aware, but that collection of cells are not.

When you use anti-bacterial soap, you murder millions of innocent bacteria cells. you don't see anyone bombing the soap factories...

Now, would you get pissy if I cut out my liver? no, you'd call me a 'f*cking dumbass'. What's the difference between my liver, that can grow itself anew in the same conditions as a fetus, and a fetus itself?

interesting points, eh?
</peon_hat>