The Republic of Heaven

Hello, this is a blend between the current events thread and the random oddities of debate that occur in the other threads compressed into one. Way it works is rather simple- pick a topic that can be discussed. Try to pertain it to something that is occuring today, say abortion or embryonic stem cell research, and we debate it. And someone proposes a new topic or we vote on it or something like that and thats how it continues to live. So for the first topic, let's do abortion. I'd write an argument but right now I have to go to bed... turns out I don't have off tomorrow.

If a child can't expect a lifestyle worthy of living (and there is such a thing as a lifestyle not worthy of living), death is better.

It's not nice to kill things, but what's the alternative?

</bluntness>

Let the discussion be committed, let it be passionate, let it be intense.

But if it becomes abusive I, or one of the other orange or green-coated ones, will splat it. RoH Commandment #1 applies.

OK?

*agrees with Kinders*

wow, that's all I really have to say.


*walks out of the thread*

To end a life is seen as the cutting out of that life's potential. But we are cutting off the potential of people's lives every day, every hour, every second, and yet the enlightened fellows in the vatican throw a hissy fit over a lump of subsisting flesh.

Poeple who have had experiences already and wish to live to have more are dying as a result of the policies and or actions of others all the time.

Ceres Wunderkind wrote:Let the discussion be committed, let it be passionate, let it be intense.

But if it becomes abusive I, or one of the other orange or green-coated ones, will splat it. RoH Commandment #1 applies.

OK?

Yeah Max!

Try to pertain it to something that is occuring today, say abortion or embryonic stem cell research, and we debate it

I know a guy with this t Shirt

what circumstance exists whereby abortion is an option? i cant think of a single one. there's the pill for a rape victim who doesn't want to have the child of a rapist, there's adoption for those who aren't ready to raise a child, but to have a child aborted simply because the mother isn't willing to endure having a child that they accidentally helped create, through nothing but their own consenting sexual practice, is not an acceptable reason to end a life.

life is full of surprises, but abortion cannot be an acceptable recourse unless the situation is very much an extreme. making decisions of the life or death of a potential person, as happens all the time, based on the premise of the pregnancy being unwanted, is awful.

tell me one scenario that justifies this dreadful act, cos i can't think of one.

Not wanting the baby?

If the mother will die through complications. You asked for a scenario. Also I doubt it would be the first thought of a rape victim "Oooh I have to get the pill!". ~*pineapples*~ like that happens alot, rape victims getting pregnant.

Qu Klaani wrote:Not wanting the baby?

so is that a justifiable reason to kill a potential person, in the OH SO HAGGARD & dispicable manner that an abortion takes place? nay.

how many people do you know that are adopted? what if every mother who plans to put their unwanted child up for adoption has it aborted instead? a child has the right to live it's life, & life is worth living more often than not - in any case, what gives anyone the right to decide that?
severely immoral decision if it's for their own ends & not the unborn child's that somebody have it aborted.

Darragh wrote:If the mother will die through complications. You asked for a scenario. Also I doubt it would be the first thought of a rape victim "Oooh I have to get the pill!". ~*pineapples*~ like that happens alot, rape victims getting pregnant.

two strictly defined reasons for having an abortion right there. if left too late the pill can be useless i think, & in this case what could be fairer than to have an abortion?

same deal with the complications one. that's where there's a moral stance for the decision. but the standard unplanned pregnancy (by miles the most common reason for abortion to take place) is not included in either reason there, it's just wrong methinks.

Kevin wrote:

Qu Klaani wrote:Not wanting the baby?

so is that a justifiable reason to kill a potential person, in the OH SO HAGGARD & dispicable manner that an abortion takes place? nay.

Apparantly they do them in like, hospitals and stuff now.

You can kill a potential person, because they're not alive yet. Otherwise women refusing my advances are denying my potential children life.

Kevin wrote:

Qu Klaani wrote:Not wanting the baby?

so is that a justifiable reason to kill a potential person

But surely contraception is also "killing" a "potential person"? The thing is, a foetus does not have a defined enough life to call abortion "killing" it.

EDIT -- Damn, 4 minute simul-post.

I'm not going to say I like abortion, but I don't really have any problems with it. I will say however - Kevin - that I don't see how someone could be open to contraception but closed to abortion. Of course adoption is a better method, but think how overpopulated the world is already. And think how much more it would be today if people didn't have abortions (that argument seems rather heartless, but it's not).

You were kidding with the 'Oh so haggard and despicable' comment, weren't you?

Kevin wrote:

tell me one scenario that justifies this dreadful act, cos i can't think of one.

How many terminations are carried out per annum? How many children die from preventable diseases or war? Why do some people consider termination a more pressing issue than *that*?

A zygote is far more likely to be auto-terminated, without conscious effort, before even reaching the point of being defined as a foetus. If you believe in the sanctity of "potentional" life, surely this is more of a spine-chilling thought.

ABC wrote:

But surely contraception is also "killing" a "potential person"?

No. It's preventing the instance in which a person is "potentially" alive. That leads onto another point, though, which dove-tails my previous point. I don't know if Kevin is opposed to prophylactics, but many anti-abortionists are. Of all the hundreds of millions of sperm released during the sexual act, just one achieves the goal of fertilization. If one is opposed to prophylactics, how does one square this with that fact?

Dante wrote:I don't see how someone could be open to contraception but closed to abortion

Taking the argument to its logical extreme, when you have sex you still kill millions of sperm. All the ones that didn't make it.

Melancholy Man wrote:ABC wrote:

But surely contraception is also "killing" a "potential person"?

No.

I know, I was just pointing out the contradiction in his post. Neither a sperm or a foetus has enough life to be killed. It is merely a potential life.

I believe in the preciousness of life just as much as the next person, but honestly, if I were raped, I would have to get an abortion. There would be no way I could bring the foetus to term.

Plus, it's my body, and the foetus is in my body, so I have control over it.

Boy Kinders wrote:

It's not nice to kill things, but what's the alternative?

It is Mrs. Asrani who comes out first. She looks straight at him, but does not see him. Mrs. Pathak is right behind her, carrying her cup of tea as well. Her gaze falls upon the ants, her eyes widen at the sight of the cheese. "Damn ants," she cries, and kicks the cheese across the landing. She lifts her sandal and brings it down repeatedly on the convoy.

The screams are so loud that Vishnu covers his ears. He thinks of children run over by cars, families crushed by buildings, people burned alive. He covers his ears to keep the agony out, but the screams claw them apart and burrow into his brain.

Lostinthought_451 wrote:

Plus, it's my body, and the foetus is in my body, so I have control over it.

I've raised this point before. I don't believe it's the woman's right to choose, and nor does the majority of people off whose tongues this phrase glibly trips. Almost invariably, they immediately state exceptions. Nope, you do *not* then believe it's the woman's right to choose.

I'm not being grossly insensitive enough to say the matter should be taken out of the woman's hands entirely. Unless, however, you've mastered the knack of asexual reproduction, someone else would have been involved in the process.