|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| I have no problem whatsoever understanding intelligible posts. |
Evidently false. |
Well, since you've dropped all pretense of politeness, here's some sage advice for you: Learn what an antecedent is in English prose. |
Quick workplace poll shows every English speaker I work with understood what I said perfectly. That's enough to satisfy me. Could you stop derailing my thread with your grammar temper tantrum now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
eperdue4ad
Joined: 22 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Instead of equating abortion with murder, kidnapping, and other illegal acts, say that it's like another legal choice: eating meat. A vegan could say that he personally would never choose to harm animals by eating or wearing animal products, but he could understand why others don't have the same ethical dilemma at the galbi house. He may not drink milk, but allows others to without regaling the dinner table with stories of mastitis in dairy cows.
In the same vein, I'm pro-choice and pregnant. So I wouldn't choose to abort. However the baby was wanted and is not a consequence of a rape. Most importantly he's healthy and viable. Had a second-trimester ultrasound shown a severe anomaly that would cause him to live only a few painful hours after birth, I would still carry him. But not all women think the same.
[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vonjunk wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I have to agree that as it is part of a conscious adult woman's body, it is up to her alone as an individual to decide what to do based on what she perceives the fetus/unborn child to be. It's really up to her to decide and face whatever guilt or potential after-life judgment she may face |
So you personally are against abortion, but leave that "right" to someone else to decide?
If I said to you, "Well, I am not pro-rape, I'm just pro-choice about rape." does that make any sense? In a way, I would be saying that rape doesn't really harm anyone and in fact sometimes is justifiable. Therefore, you can not dodge the bullet and "to be pro-choice about rape is to be pro-rape."
Don't want abortion, don't have one. This an equally weak approach that a person would have towards playing baseball, what to eat but not concerning things like torture, rape, kidnapping, and murder.
Abortion is wrong because it's killing a child and there is no reason good enough to kill a child.
Seeing my wife's ultrasounds of my child close up. Truly amazing how they grow up. I could feel him moving around in her tummy and he even gave me a karate chop. I could never imagine aborting a child...and I'll leave it at that. |
From a religious standpoint, I would say a woman has free will to decide on what to do about something that is in her own body. What she does in this case is essentially between her and God.
From an atheist/materialist standpoint, the woman has a choice to decide what to do about something that is in her own body. What she does is her choice.
If doctors choose to do late term abortions for women, whether for emergency purposes only or not, is their choice.
The problem with some of these religious fundies is that they believe they are doing God's work and that legal abortion puts guilt on the nation, which I see as being completely unbiblical, and quite frankly unconstitutional. They can protest and/or encourage people not to do it but I find the practice itself to be on the conscience of those involved. This is not a state-sanctioned practice. Abortion in North America is not imposed by the government. It is allowed to be practiced because there is no official determination on what the status of a fetus is.
Yes, I am pro-life in belief and discussion (except in these emergency cases in which the woman is essentially trying to prevent undue suffering, which even a number of churches support), but I am also pro-choice because the fetus/unborn baby/creature with or without a soul is inside of THE WOMAN'S body. Are we going to chain her up and make her be healthy so the baby will be born? A woman can drink or drug a baby out of herself in some cases anyway. When abortion is illegal, it is still practiced, and with more unfortunate and unnecessary repurcussions. You might say "Well, the woman has taken an innocent life and she should suffer the repurcussions." Why? Isn't that God's judgment?
Bottom line:
Abortion = Often sinful in the eyes of the faithful. Also detestable to many non-religious.
Controlling the personal choices of others about how to control their own body = Scornful and unbiblical in the eyes of pretty much everyone who stops to think about it. I believe this about doctor assisted suicides, someone like Bob Marley who refused to have treatment because it was against their personal/spiritual beliefs, and the use of medical marijuana and/or unregulated and atypical remedies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject: Re: Doctor Killed by Anti-Abortionist |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
As noted here, a doctor who was evidently fairly notorious for abortions has been killed by an anti-abortion activist, in his own church no less.
Yet another sad example of religion-driven terrorism. |
As noted in your own link, it did not say that that shooter was an anti-abortion activist or had any ties to said groups. |
Yes, the link said only that they were investigating any links to anti-abortion groups, not that he actually had such links. None the less, it's patently obvious to one's intuition that he was an anti-abortion activist, regardless of any links he may or may not had to anti-abortion groups. |
So if it were later found that say the motive for the shooting was a business deal gone sour, it would still be "patently obvious to one's intuition that he was an anti-abortion activist."?
I say this not because I don't think he wasn't an anti-abortion activist...just wondering why you feel the need to make inflamatory statements like "yet another example of religion-driven terrorism" when as of yet there is no solid proof for this, only that it seems likely.
Would it not make more sense to wait and see? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:17 pm Post subject: Re: Doctor Killed by Anti-Abortionist |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| So if it were later found that say the motive for the shooting was a business deal gone sour, it would still be "patently obvious to one's intuition that he was an anti-abortion activist."? |
I'd say that it was a case of intuition being incorrect, I'd be surprised, and I'd feel remorse for my hasty judgment. Until then, I'll continue in my belief, as it's by far the most probable case.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I say this not because I don't think he wasn't an anti-abortion activist...just wondering why you feel the need to make inflamatory statements like "yet another example of religion-driven terrorism" when as of yet there is no solid proof for this, only that it seems likely.
Would it not make more sense to wait and see? |
I agree that skepticism is ultimately the most intellectually correct stance. However, while it may be intellectually correct to take skepticism to the extreme, in most cases it's not very productive or interesting to do so, and as such humans very rarely do it. If we think something is very likely, we act as if it's true.
In just that fashion, while I admit there's some hypothetical possibility his motive was not abortion related, I think it's so unlikely that I more or less dismiss it out of hand. I think this is reasonable because my opinion on the matter has no possibility of harming anyone: if it turns out I was wrong, I can simply admit to being incorrect and move on without anyone being the worse for it.
If this was a suicide bomber of Arabic descent, and he killed someone by self-detonating, I think you'd assume he was a Muslim extremist rather than reserving judgment on the off chance that he had some secular motivation like his wife having left him for someone who died in the blast, and I don't think you'd be wrong to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vonjunk
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
From an atheist/materialist standpoint, the woman has a choice to decide what to do about something that is in her own body. What she does is her choice.
|
Sorry, but a creature of totally different DNA. Materialistically (scientifically really) at conception a baby is NOT any part of the woman's body. Therefore, if we respect life, we can not allow this.
Now, if I take your line of reasoning, what is wrong with me taking a life then? If I assume responsibility of my actions is it then ok? Hey, it's between me and God. I don't like that stinky neighbor, so I will take him out. Apply this to different races, or religions or anybody who bothers you, because we don't want to be burdened right?
Don't ever be totally pro-choice about anything. Logic dictates that to be 100% pro-choice i.e. the freedom to do anything we want with our bodies is a mistake. It's my fist, I can hit a child however I want, it's my choice isn't it? No, choices can be good or evil, we should support good choices and not evil/bad ones. Abortion is a choice and a bad one. Supporting all choice is a fallacy, rather be pro-good choice and anti-bad choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vonjunk
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Had a second-trimester ultrasound shown a severe anomaly that would cause him to live only a few painful hours after birth, I would still carry him. But not all women think the same. |
Yes, we should start deciding who lives and who dies. A very sensible decision. I mean my grandmother has arthritis so she isn't very useful to anyone and does live in some pain. No useful "matter" there. Kill her.
Once you fail to protect life in any stage you will start to find failings in all stages...then fools in power will decide who lives and who dies.
Remember Solent Green is PEOPLE!! Don't be deceived or they will come for you someday and snuff out your life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eperdue4ad
Joined: 22 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vonjunk wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Had a second-trimester ultrasound shown a severe anomaly that would cause him to live only a few painful hours after birth, I would still carry him. But not all women think the same. |
Yes, we should start deciding who lives and who dies. A very sensible decision. I mean my grandmother has arthritis so she isn't very useful to anyone and does live in some pain. No useful "matter" there. Kill her.
|
Well I for one don't mind what you and your family decide to do with your grandmother, if she only had a few hours to live. Pull the plug early, let her linger, stuff and mount her in the living room. It's truly not my business, and I won't be picketing her "right to live" if she were in a coma, organs failing and about to pass on. Seeing that it would be legal to let her off life support if that were the only thing keeping her alive, you may do as you wish. Arthritis is a really poor example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eperdue4ad
Joined: 22 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Domestic terrorist.
Scott Roeder, the "person of interest" held by police in Kansas, belonged to the "Freemen" anti-government group in the 1990s and was once arrested for having bomb-making materials in his car.
"Freemen" was a term adopted by those who claimed sovereignty from government jurisdiction and operated under their own legal system, which they called common-law courts. Adherents declared themselves exempt from laws, regulations and taxes and often filed liens against judges, prosecutors and others, claiming that money was owed to them as compensation.
In 2007, someone named Scott Roeder posted the following on the Website of anti-abortion group Operation Rescue:
Bleass [sic] everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp. Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn't seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vonjunk wrote: |
Sorry, but a creature of totally different DNA. Materialistically (scientifically really) at conception a baby is NOT any part of the woman's body. Therefore, if we respect life, we can not allow this.
|
50% of the DNA is from the mother, 50% is from the father. If they both consent to an abortion, should it be allowed? I think the use of science in your argument is rather disingenuous. Science also doesn't use the word 'baby' when referring to something that forms at conception.
Your argument here seems to be attacking the 'it's my body' claim. But we could extend your argument here to parasites.
In the end science doesn't care. This is a moral and ethical argument. Good luck trying to make it black and white, but I'm afraid it will always be a grey area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vonjunk
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
50% of the DNA is from the mother, 50% is from the father. If they both consent to an abortion, should it be allowed? I think the use of science in your argument is rather disingenuous. Science also doesn't use the word 'baby' when referring to something that forms at conception.
|
Ok, the person has totally unique DNA to them. Not 50% mother and 50% father as you imply. Our DNA is as complex and unique as our finger prints. So, you are incorrect in asserting otherwise. A growing person's DNA has no connection to the mother or father. Therefore, no matter what your thoughts on the matter are, genetically they are totally separate.
| Quote: |
| Well I for one don't mind what you and your family decide to do with your grandmother, if she only had a few hours to live. Pull the plug early, let her linger, stuff and mount her in the living room. It's truly not my business, and I won't be picketing her "right to live" if she were in a coma, organs failing and about to pass on. Seeing that it would be legal to let her off life support if that were the only thing keeping her alive, you may do as you wish. Arthritis is a really poor example. |
They will come for you someday, the "pro-deaths" and you will not have a choice. I hope you will see the error in your ways and reconsider your position on just about everything in life. Perhaps you are a eugenics man, cold and heartless...at least that is the impression I get. How can a person have such a weak conception of protecting human life?
How can you say what I choose to do with my grandmother is right and good? That is so clearly murder, I don't even want to think of it further. What poor woman raised you to value nothing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vonjunk
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
In the end science doesn't care. This is a moral and ethical argument. Good luck trying to make it black and white, but I'm afraid it will always be a grey area. |
Life or death, seems pretty clear cut no matter how you slice it. You either support or actually take part in ending what would have been a human life or you oppose it. No grays there at all.
Science should care and find some morality or else they end up Dr. Frankenstein. Where did ethics in science go? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vonjunk wrote: |
| Quote: |
From an atheist/materialist standpoint, the woman has a choice to decide what to do about something that is in her own body. What she does is her choice.
|
Sorry, but a creature of totally different DNA. Materialistically (scientifically really) at conception a baby is NOT any part of the woman's body. Therefore, if we respect life, we can not allow this.
Now, if I take your line of reasoning, what is wrong with me taking a life then? If I assume responsibility of my actions is it then ok? Hey, it's between me and God. I don't like that stinky neighbor, so I will take him out. Apply this to different races, or religions or anybody who bothers you, because we don't want to be burdened right?
Don't ever be totally pro-choice about anything. Logic dictates that to be 100% pro-choice i.e. the freedom to do anything we want with our bodies is a mistake. It's my fist, I can hit a child however I want, it's my choice isn't it? No, choices can be good or evil, we should support good choices and not evil/bad ones. Abortion is a choice and a bad one. Supporting all choice is a fallacy, rather be pro-good choice and anti-bad choice. |
So long as it is IN HER BODY she can choose what she wants to do! Freedom of choice is not a mistake when it comes to one's own body. You are talking about killing a conscious, functioning human being. A fetus is not defined as that. Yes, it has different DNA, but so does cancer. I know that's a horrible comparison, and I do not see a fetus as being the same as cancer, but the fact of the matter is that science does not determine an unborn child to be fully human.
I would not kill my neighbor, but if I had a womb and my neighbor was in it, I might abort that SOB.
If you want to take it from the Christian perspective as most abortion detractors do, let's look at it like this:
Mary was asked to carry Jesus. She agreed to. She is considered blessed because she made that choice. She agreed to what God said. At any time, though, she could have had an abortion. She had complete freedom to do what she wanted. God, Joseph, and whoever else did not tie her down and say "Woman, HAVE THAT BABY." It was a choice. We have the freedom to determine what to do with our bodies. If it so happens that what we do with the internal structure of our body ends up taking an unborn life, it's between THE INDIVIDUAL AND GOD.
Religiously and scientifically you can say woman is the vehicle for life. She is. Legally and humanistically, however, she can make a conscious decision. If she doesn't know she is pregnant, takes drugs and she and her unborn baby die, is she legally to be held for negligent homicide?
I understand where you're coming from, but what you end up saying is that we SHOULD technically be allowed to tie a woman down and/or lock her up until she has a baby if she has professed the intention to have an abortion. Sorry, but that in itself is immoral. If killing an unborn child is a sin, then as it is in her body, the woman who does it is accountable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vonjunk
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no choice about the laws and because of the current laws in most countries women do have a choice of carrying a baby to term or not, but I would hope that more women choose not to have abortions and I come to this conclusion for various reasons:
1. Physically, a child at conception is genetically different from the mother. Something like a kangaroo's pouch. Yes, there are different stages of development, but it's a natural way for an already growing human to develop. I suppose my big hang up is that why the big switch? The human fetus is living human being before and after birth. Why such a disconnect?
2. If this then is a living, developing human; I would argue that the choice to end a life should not be a choice at all.
3. I respect all human life, therefore, I was not happy Dr. Tiller was killed, no matter what he had done. It is one reason I am against both abortion and the death penalty. No reason to take life. That is why I found eperdue4ad's comments to be most heartless in regards to my real grandmother. I hope you find some compassion and kindness in your life and a bit of moral backbone as well.
Not respecting life properly leads to callous and uncaring societies, the kind of societies which carry out the worst crimes again humanity.
4. Why not argue science, when science is backing up what I am proposing that what is growing in a woman's belly is not a parasite, but a developing human. The logic that it's not technically called a baby doesn't hold much water, because through all of the stages of development: embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, pre-teen, adolescent, ect are all stages of a human being's developmental life, which is to say through our lives we have the same genetic makeup since conception no matter what stage of life we are in. These are just stages of life which have different names, but just because a human is forming in a tummy doesn't make it not count as a life. Humans are alive at all stages, because why would you need to kill a fetus if it wasn't alive and would not become a baby? A parasite will never develop into a human being and does not contain human DNA, so, is it quite clear the difference between the two. (Also, a woman drinking and or falling, which creates a miscarriage is not a crime as there is clearly no intent to damage the human). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vonjunk wrote: |
| Quote: |
50% of the DNA is from the mother, 50% is from the father. If they both consent to an abortion, should it be allowed? I think the use of science in your argument is rather disingenuous. Science also doesn't use the word 'baby' when referring to something that forms at conception.
|
Ok, the person has totally unique DNA to them. Not 50% mother and 50% father as you imply. Our DNA is as complex and unique as our finger prints. So, you are incorrect in asserting otherwise. A growing person's DNA has no connection to the mother or father. Therefore, no matter what your thoughts on the matter are, genetically they are totally separate. |
So I guess paternity tests are pointless. If the foetus is totally unique in its DNA then where is the connection to the mother. It sounds like a parasite. This is beside the point. Why does having unique DNA or not mean abortion is wrong? Many women have IVF treatment that include donated eggs, meaning there is no direct DNA relationship. Would they be any more or less subject to your reasoning? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
