This is supposed to be a Diablo III forum, not a socio-religious/political forum. Threads of this type should be disallowed and deleted immediately. There are too many other places to argue these points, and they take up unnecessary space.
But while I'm here...
I'll never understand how abortion is so much worse than what Moses ordered at the behest of "God" in Numbers 33 - an amoral story if I ever heard one. God himself seemed to have a fondness for murdering the innocent - just read the Old Testament.
This is supposed to be a Diablo III forum, not a socio-religious/political forum. Threads of this type should be disallowed and deleted immediately. There are too many other places to argue these points, and they take up unnecessary space.
That's why we have sections like the Spam/Off Topic section, General Section, and the General Polls section.
And, might I add, people are not pro-life on a basis of religion. I'm sure there are some, but to say that anyone that is pro-life is a Christian or religious is kind of... I don't want to say "ignorant" since it seems kind of rude, but that is what I would use. That seems to be the only claim and basis of defense of most of the pro-death people here.
That's why we have sections like the Spam/Off Topic section, General Section, and the General Polls section.
And, might I add, people are not pro-life on a basis of religion. I'm sure there are some, but to say that anyone that is pro-life is a Christian or religious is kind of... I don't want to say "ignorant" since it seems kind of rude, but that is what I would use. That seems to be the only claim and basis of defense of most of the pro-death people here.
Magistrate, you are the first other member of the board that I have myself witnessed to speak up in regards to this point. While ignorant simply means uninformed and has been treated as undue hindrance upon one's character, your reservation serves well to the justifiably civic nature of your cause. I have witnessed time and again the view of ineffable distaste of religion, Christianity most notably, from certain participants of these public forums. The loss of judgment solely by one's character and actions has been replaced by nescience and a founding of assessment by an individual's faith and morals. I hope this to be reversed dramatically, or that swift action be taken by those who hold responsibility to a place where all people, of any trait of character, can feel as welcomed or at ease as they have the right to.
This is ridiculous. The fact is, a stem cell is NOT intelligent life at all, it is just the same as any other part of a woman's body. The stem cell can do miracles that save people's lives, and it can also ruin the life of a thirteen- year-old girl. From a scientific perspective, we know everything about the construction of a cell, as we do about the thought process of the brain, and there is NOTHING in common between the two. So basically, to sum it all up, disregarding scientific knowledge for the rule of a book written almost 2,000 years ago that we KNOW doesn't even apply to the subject is messed up, it is basically only disregarding the constitution and has NO moral implications at all.
This is ridiculous. The fact is, a stem cell is NOT intelligent life at all, it is just the same as any other part of a woman's body. The stem cell can do miracles that save people's lives, and it can also ruin the life of a thirteen- year-old girl. From a scientific perspective, we know everything about the construction of a cell, as we do about the thought process of the brain, and there is NOTHING in common between the two. So basically, to sum it all up, disregarding scientific knowledge for the rule of a book written almost 2,000 years ago that we KNOW doesn't even apply to the subject is messed up, it is basically only disregarding the constitution and has NO moral implications at all.
For many many people, morals and religion are tied together. It is not ignorant of me, as for many people religion signifies the basis of all moral thinking. When people are pro- life, it is more often than not because people fit their daily lives into the words of their holy book instead of fitting the words of their religion into their surroundings. This creates the dilema of organizing ones thoughts in an ignorant way and it generalizes everything into the categories of the ten commandments, the five pillars, the words of the Gita, etc... That is not a bad thing in most cases, but the fact is that those particular works were written from a purely philispfical standpoint, and so it was not written with these such dilemmas in mind.
The ideal way, for me as well as democracy, to look at the scriptures, is to take what we KNOW, and compare it to what they wouldn't have known at the time. This way, you can think for yourself, and read the words as if you were reading something written 2000 years ago. If you are cheating your concience, believe me, you will know, just as you would know if you believed in the literal words of the scriptures. People manage to cheat their moral beliefs and guidelines even with the scriptures as a guideline, and there are many examples. Really, there is nothing to be afraid of in the majority of western culture's lack of conservative beliefs, there is only ignorance to be afraid of. Everybody has a concience.
I guess to sum up my incoherant mess, when seemingly non-religious pro-life people confront this issue, they go to the scriptures instead of scientific knowledge. Let's face it, not everybody knows how a stemcell works, even if you can find out on the Internet. And so they turn to religion. I am sure you all know people like this, I know I do, and there is nothing "wrong" with it. Maybe they were raised catholic, and they abandoned their religious beliefs when they left home. It really doesn't matter, but I hope I got my point across.
This is ridiculous. The fact is, a stem cell is NOT intelligent life at all, it is just the same as any other part of a woman's body. The stem cell can do miracles that save people's lives, and it can also ruin the life of a thirteen- year-old girl. From a scientific perspective, we know everything about the construction of a cell, as we do about the thought process of the brain, and there is NOTHING in common between the two. So basically, to sum it all up, disregarding scientific knowledge for the rule of a book written almost 2,000 years ago that we KNOW doesn't even apply to the subject is messed up, it is basically only disregarding the constitution and has NO moral implications at all.
1) We're not just talking about a single stem cell. Stem cells are extracted from the living host, I.E. the unborn child.
2) From a scientific perspective, saying that "we know every about x" is very wrong, because it's not true. If we knew everything about it, we'd have the cure by now.
3) You're doing that thing I've already talked about- not everyone is religious that is pro-life. You're over-generalizing and also making a universal statement (as you did in point #2), and scientifically, that is wrong, since universal statements cannot be scientific. Science only proposes theories.
4) We're not talking about the constitution.
I guess to sum up my incoherant mess, when seemingly non-religious pro-life people confront this issue, they go to the scriptures instead of scientific knowledge. Let's face it, not everybody knows how a stemcell works, even if you can find out on the Internet. And so they turn to religion. I am sure you all know people like this, I know I do, and there is nothing "wrong" with it. Maybe they were raised catholic, and they abandoned their religious beliefs when they left home. It really doesn't matter, but I hope I got my point across.
Yes, I have reviewed the facts. I've reviewed points from both sides. What I've arrived at, however, is that:
It is stupid to kill your baby if you were having casual sex and didn't use proper protection, but are still able to raise the child, and just don't "feel" like it.
If you were raped and now bear a seed, abortion should be offered as an option, but not encouraged or discouraged.
Society should not push it on a woman that having a child is good or bad.
If you are financially unable to raise a child, you should be offered the choice of abortion, but not encouraged or discouraged to do so. There are plenty of clinics that offer all manner of material, clothing, food, etc. I happen to live just down the road from one called "Mercy Crisis Pregnancy Center", which, despite its religious meaning (which I do not encourage or discourage), it will still offer you everything it offers to those that are religious, even if you are not.
The amount of past abortions since Roe v. Wade has caused the decimation of well over 40 million babies- that's a whole generation. Given, I'm sure a good portion of them are justifiable, but I'm also sure that the majority is just for reasons I pointed out in point #1.
Due to the aftermath of point #5, it is reasonable to assume that, because abortion is partially funded by our government, and because the generation eliminated could have had jobs and paid taxes, it is partially responsible for our current financial predicament. Key word there is partially.
If you aren't able to take care of a baby, just don't have sex. Simple point there.
If you do (in reference to point #7), then use proper protection and morning-after pills, that way there is at least a good chance that nothing will come of it (unless, of course, you want a child.)
I understand that stem cells are valuable and unborn children are a good place to find them, but the umbilical chord, I've heard, actually has an abundance of them, as well, and can be harvested after child birth without harming the fetus. Not very sure on this, though, so don't take my word for it. I'm actually going to go look it up right now, just to be sure I'm right on this.
Edit--
Here's some stuff on it:
Umbilical cord yields noncontroversial source - Stem Cells
The cushioning material or matrix within the umbilical cord known as Wharton's jelly is a rich and readily available source of primitive stem cells, according to findings by a research team at Kansas State University, Manhattan. Animal and human umbilical cord matrix (UCM) cells exhibit the telltale characteristics of all stem cells, namely, the capacity to salt-renew and to differentiate into multiple cell types.
The cells--called cord matrix stem cells to distinguish them from cord blood cells--can be obtained in a noninvasive manner from an abundant source of tissue that is typically discarded. "Umbilical cord matrix cells could provide the scientific and medical research community with a noncontroversial and easily attainable source of stem cells for developing treatments for Parkinson's disease, stroke, spinal cord injuries, cancers, and other conditions," suggest Mark Weiss and Deryl Troyer of the College of Veterinary Medicine.
Among the findings: Wharton's jelly cells from pigs were propagated in the lab for more than a year without losing potency; they can be stored cryogenically; and engineered to express foreign proteins. The cells exhibit telomerase activity, a key indicator of stem cells, and they can be induced to form nerve cells, both neurons and glia, that produce a range of nerve-cell-specific traits. Neurons are the nervous system cells that transmit signals; glial cells support the neurons. On the basis of the encouraging results with animal tissue, the team broadened its investigations to human umbilical cord matrix cells with similar findings--they differentiate into neurons, too.
Most of the promise of developing embryonic stem cell-based therapies for treating several degenerative diseases of the nervous system, as well as other types of disease, is hindered by the controversial nature of the cell sources. Progress also has been slowed by having a limited number of existing embryonic stem cell lines available for Federally-funded medical research.
Wharton's jelly, discovered in the mid 1600s by Thomas Wharton, a London physician, is the gelatinous connective tissue only found in the umbilical cord. It gives the cord resiliency and pliability, and protects its blood vessels from compression. As an embryo forms, some very primitive cells migrate between the region where the umbilical cord forms and the embryo. Some primitive cells possibly may remain in the matrix later in gestation or still be there even after the baby is born. The researchers suggest that Wharton's jelly might be a reservoir of the primitive stem calls that form soon after the egg is fertilized. "Our results indicate that Wharton's jelly calls can be expanded in vitro, maintained in culture, and induced to differentiate into neural cells. We think these ceils can serve many therapeutic and biotechnological roles in the future," explains the College of Veterinary Medicine's Kathy Mitchell.
The next step is to evaluate human UCM cells to see if, in addition to forming nerve tissues, they will differentiate into cardiac muscle and the cells that line the blood vessels.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group
to say this about stem cells, they can be harvested from other sources other than a fetus and oocyte, but those cells are already specialized, but they can still help.
eventually this argument bout stem cells can escalate to cloning.
oh...and i voted pro-choice if i havent stated this before.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
let us change the equation a little bit - if abortion is ilegal, should the girl be punished?
Nobody wants to adopt a baby whose father is a criminal, but it seems wrong to not tell the potential foster parents when they are trying to do good to the world, as it could potentially be harmful to their lives.
Are humans so superior to other life forms that we consider a cluster of undefined cells to be more important than a cockroach, which we know has at least an ellementary thought process?
Oh my god, I just proved pro-lifers wrong... Listen to this -
If one stem-cell = 1 human being, then a cluster of 8 stem-cells = 8 human beings. Since we know this to be untrue, then 1 stem-cell must = 1/X, X being the number of cells in a human with the first signs of inteligent life. Essentially, 1 stem-cell is only a fraction, a stepping stone to building a human being. Also, we know that since stem-cells turn into cells with the genetic code around them, a live (non pregnant) human being with a highly developed thought process has no stem-cells in his/her body, meening that the stem-cell is not a living, thinking organism.
If one stem-cell = 1 human being, then a cluster of 8 stem-cells = 8 human beings. Since we know this to be untrue, then 1 stem-cell must = 1/X, X being the number of cells in a human with the first signs of inteligent life. Essentially, 1 stem-cell is only a fraction, a stepping stone to building a human being. Also, we know that since stem-cells turn into cells with the genetic code around them, a live (non pregnant) human being with a highly developed thought process has no stem-cells in his/her body, meening that the stem-cell is not a living, thinking organism.
The baby itself is not a stem cell. The fetus has many stem cells.
In response to your former questions which I don't feel like quoting (not to be a jerk, I just don't feel like bothering with it at the moment), I'm pro-life in the sense that it should stay legal, but there needs to be strict regulations on it, conforming to the things I posted here http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283295&postcount=122.
sorry, that was rude. I can only hope you didn't mean it... You godda admit it was pretty stupid. On another note, when you say that you "reviewed the facts" in a counter arguement to my proposal, and you said that you were pro-life in the sense that it should be legal with regulations, you are basically saying that you are pro-choice.
There is only one last problem, over population. Let's face it, if china didn't have the one child policy, we'd be screwed. Of course, I am against that one (meaning they should just not have sex, if possible) because they practice selective abortion. Basically, they wait until they know it's gender, which is sick. If they just did it soon, before the baby was yet a human being, I would be fine with it.
The fact is, 90% of jobs do not directly, if at all, support the sustainability of the human race. They just consume more, making the starving people hungrier and the companies richer and less Eco-friendly as they strugle to keep up with the growing population. MORE PEOPLE DOES NOT MEAN BETTER ECONOMY! That is like supporting trickle-down economics, which is like saying that slavery is okay because you feed your slave. In fact, it's pretty damn close, except that it applies to all races, and there is the ellusion of the freedom to have any job. Unfortunately, the poor are stuck poor.
One last point, earlier I was refering to the fact that when you harvest the fetus early enough, it is entirely stem cells, and the number of stem cells changes from fetus to fetus, so basicly, if, for example, 20 stem cells is considered a human, then 40 is two humans... I was mostly joking.
sorry, that was rude. I can only hope you didn't mean it... On another note, when you say that you "reviewed the facts" in a counter arguement to my proposal, and you said that you were pro-life in the sense that it should be legal with regulations, you are basically saying that you are pro-choice.
What I think is rude is when people just assume everyone who is against liberal policies is religious. That is rude. It is also over-generalizing and a stereotype. I'm sorry if what I wrote offended you, but it's what I truly think.
When I say I am pro-life (and not pro-choice) I mean that I prefer not to havea bortions, but realistically, people are always going to want to kill their children. So, my stance has come to "have it limited so we don't have every single baby on earth aborted".
There is only one last problem, over population. Let's face it, if china didn't have the one child policy, we'd be screwed. Of course, I am against that one (meaning they should just not have sex, if possible) because they practice selective abortion. Basically, they wait until they know it's gender, which is sick. If they just did it soon, before the baby was yet a human being, I would be fine with it.
The earth's current population is 6.6 billion. In twenty years it will be 7 billion. Assuming we continue along this same population increase slope, the entire population of the earth could cozily fit within the confines of the United States for hundreds of years to come with each family having roughly enough space to own two or three houses. (The U.S. is 3.79 square miles.)
The fact is, 90% of jobs do not directly, if at all, support the sustainability of the human race. They just consume more, making the starving people hungrier and the companies richer and less Eco-friendly as they strugle to keep up with the growing population. MORE PEOPLE DOES NOT MEAN BETTER ECONOMY! That is like supporting trickle-down economics, which is like saying that slavery is okay because you feed your slave. In fact, it's pretty damn close, except that it applies to all races, and there is the ellusion of the freedom to have any job. Unfortunately, the poor are stuck poor.
Based on the principle of "trickle down economics", anyone with a paying job would benefit society, because nearly half of what they earn goes to government funds (in the U.S.) Their taxes would trickle down and benefit society, as long as the government directs the money properly through the nation (which, in my opinion, it currently doesn't, but that is fixable.) So, anyone working at all is helping to maintain our nation (or at least mine, I don't know what country you live in.)
Poor people can get out of their slump- there's thousands of ways and companies that can help them do it. The problem is the psychological damage that they sustain of hopelessness (which is very similar to someone who's depressed), in which they firmly believe that there is no way out, and in most cases don't even try to get out. Poverty will never be gone, yes, but there are things that can be done which no one is trying. I actually read a good modern dark fantasy book by Terry Brooks called A Knight of the Word (it's set mostly in Seattle) which actually contains a lot of good arguments of how modern people could be helping the destitute (and thus our country as a whole), but don't- sometimes out of ignorance, mostly because of lack of caring. Interesting book. Sorry, I went of subject there, but my point is that we all (being the not-poverty-stricken, since we all obviously have computers or access to them/one) could definitely be doing a better job of helping them.
One last point, earlier I was refering to the fact that when you harvest the fetus early enough, it is entirely stem cells, and the number of stem cells changes from fetus to fetus, so basicly, if, for example, 20 stem cells is considered a human, then 40 is two humans... I was mostly joking.
Oh, okay. My line of thought here is that the amount of stem cells isn't what's important. It's how they're strung together to form the basis of a human being, in which case the number does not matter- only the cells' existence.
Yes, I have reviewed the facts. I've reviewed points from both sides. What I've arrived at, however, is that:
It is stupid to kill your baby if you were having casual sex and didn't use proper protection, but are still able to raise the child, and just don't "feel" like it.
If you were raped and now bear a seed, abortion should be offered as an option, but not encouraged or discouraged.
Society should not push it on a woman that having a child is good or bad.
If you are financially unable to raise a child, you should be offered the choice of abortion, but not encouraged or discouraged to do so. There are plenty of clinics that offer all manner of material, clothing, food, etc. I happen to live just down the road from one called "Mercy Crisis Pregnancy Center", which, despite its religious meaning (which I do not encourage or discourage), it will still offer you everything it offers to those that are religious, even if you are not.
The amount of past abortions since Roe v. Wade has caused the decimation of well over 40 million babies- that's a whole generation. Given, I'm sure a good portion of them are justifiable, but I'm also sure that the majority is just for reasons I pointed out in point #1.
Due to the aftermath of point #5, it is reasonable to assume that, because abortion is partially funded by our government, and because the generation eliminated could have had jobs and paid taxes, it is partially responsible for our current financial predicament. Key word there is partially.
If you aren't able to take care of a baby, just don't have sex. Simple point there.
If you do (in reference to point #7), then use proper protection and morning-after pills, that way there is at least a good chance that nothing will come of it (unless, of course, you want a child.)
Your Point 5 & 6: I understand that stem cells are valuable and unborn children are a good place to find them, but the umbilical chord, I've heard, actually has an abundance of them, as well, and can be harvested after child birth without harming the fetus. Not very sure on this, though, so don't take my word for it. I'm actually going to go look it up right now, just to be sure I'm right on this.
Your Point 7: Just dont have sex? this sounds like bad parenting, true just dont have sex, but you can only blame bad parenting. Not abortion
Not sure how reliable it is, but it does have some valid points.
just one thought, how could you blame the american deficit or any other worldy econimic problem on abortion, even if 40 million more babies had been born what would push you to think that THOSE children were better then previous generations. What would make THOSE children capable of curing desease or creating 40 million jobs and paying 40 million poeples worth of taxes, the truth is that point is invalid becuase there would just be 40 mil more homeless, or 40 mil more high school drop outs, or 40 mil more serial killers. there is NO information that states those aborted children would make it something big in this world that no one before them could.
Trickle down economics doesnt work, it has been proven so. It also doesnt have to do with government. Because there are 40 million tax payers, there are also 40 million more people whole receive the benefits. Essentially, the government does not spend more on each persons individual benefits. Trickle down economics focuses on companies who receive the populations money. Basically, if a company has to produce more, they dont bother with being environmentally friendly. The higher ups make lots more money, and the gas station owners and such sell the same amount, because let's face it, more people means more gas stations. Also, the poor still stay poor, because most often, in a poor family, when the high school age child can work, they drop out and get a job to help the family. A low paying job, because they didn't finish high school. If colledge education was free, this wouldn't be the case, but because the tax benefits are the same for each person. The only way this could work us if less money went to the military, like in the EU.
abortion is gross to think about for everybody, so we avoid it, but it is necisary, because you can't stop people from having unprotected sex, and having more than 2 children is very irresponsible. Also, you can't have regulations on it, because having a baby is a huge thing, so huge that people would just lie to get around it. Also, people don't want you snooping around their business, even if it is supposedly a good thing.
So, to finally answer your question, when people are entirely pro-life, it is not necessarily because they are religious, but because they are opting away from science. Being pro-life is, to many people, cursing a woman with 18 years of hell, along with incredible emotional distress. We know that a fetus is not life, and opting away from science is opting towards something else, religion or otherwise, it really doesn't matter. Getting an abortion is gross, but really just as gross as getting an appendix taken out. If you think it is grosser because the fetus could potentially be life, you are again opting away from science.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
HELL
IS RISING
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But while I'm here...
I'll never understand how abortion is so much worse than what Moses ordered at the behest of "God" in Numbers 33 - an amoral story if I ever heard one. God himself seemed to have a fondness for murdering the innocent - just read the Old Testament.
That's why we have sections like the Spam/Off Topic section, General Section, and the General Polls section.
And, might I add, people are not pro-life on a basis of religion. I'm sure there are some, but to say that anyone that is pro-life is a Christian or religious is kind of... I don't want to say "ignorant" since it seems kind of rude, but that is what I would use. That seems to be the only claim and basis of defense of most of the pro-death people here.
Magistrate, you are the first other member of the board that I have myself witnessed to speak up in regards to this point. While ignorant simply means uninformed and has been treated as undue hindrance upon one's character, your reservation serves well to the justifiably civic nature of your cause. I have witnessed time and again the view of ineffable distaste of religion, Christianity most notably, from certain participants of these public forums. The loss of judgment solely by one's character and actions has been replaced by nescience and a founding of assessment by an individual's faith and morals. I hope this to be reversed dramatically, or that swift action be taken by those who hold responsibility to a place where all people, of any trait of character, can feel as welcomed or at ease as they have the right to.
This is what we're talking about...
The ideal way, for me as well as democracy, to look at the scriptures, is to take what we KNOW, and compare it to what they wouldn't have known at the time. This way, you can think for yourself, and read the words as if you were reading something written 2000 years ago. If you are cheating your concience, believe me, you will know, just as you would know if you believed in the literal words of the scriptures. People manage to cheat their moral beliefs and guidelines even with the scriptures as a guideline, and there are many examples. Really, there is nothing to be afraid of in the majority of western culture's lack of conservative beliefs, there is only ignorance to be afraid of. Everybody has a concience.
1) We're not just talking about a single stem cell. Stem cells are extracted from the living host, I.E. the unborn child.
2) From a scientific perspective, saying that "we know every about x" is very wrong, because it's not true. If we knew everything about it, we'd have the cure by now.
3) You're doing that thing I've already talked about- not everyone is religious that is pro-life. You're over-generalizing and also making a universal statement (as you did in point #2), and scientifically, that is wrong, since universal statements cannot be scientific. Science only proposes theories.
4) We're not talking about the constitution.
Yes, I have reviewed the facts. I've reviewed points from both sides. What I've arrived at, however, is that:
Edit--
Here's some stuff on it:
(Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2701_132/ai_109085092/print?tag=artBody;col1.)
Not sure how reliable it is, but it does have some valid points.
eventually this argument bout stem cells can escalate to cloning.
oh...and i voted pro-choice if i havent stated this before.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Nobody wants to adopt a baby whose father is a criminal, but it seems wrong to not tell the potential foster parents when they are trying to do good to the world, as it could potentially be harmful to their lives.
Are humans so superior to other life forms that we consider a cluster of undefined cells to be more important than a cockroach, which we know has at least an ellementary thought process?
Oh my god, I just proved pro-lifers wrong... Listen to this -
If one stem-cell = 1 human being, then a cluster of 8 stem-cells = 8 human beings. Since we know this to be untrue, then 1 stem-cell must = 1/X, X being the number of cells in a human with the first signs of inteligent life. Essentially, 1 stem-cell is only a fraction, a stepping stone to building a human being. Also, we know that since stem-cells turn into cells with the genetic code around them, a live (non pregnant) human being with a highly developed thought process has no stem-cells in his/her body, meening that the stem-cell is not a living, thinking organism.
In response to your former questions which I don't feel like quoting (not to be a jerk, I just don't feel like bothering with it at the moment), I'm pro-life in the sense that it should stay legal, but there needs to be strict regulations on it, conforming to the things I posted here http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283295&postcount=122.
There is only one last problem, over population. Let's face it, if china didn't have the one child policy, we'd be screwed. Of course, I am against that one (meaning they should just not have sex, if possible) because they practice selective abortion. Basically, they wait until they know it's gender, which is sick. If they just did it soon, before the baby was yet a human being, I would be fine with it.
The fact is, 90% of jobs do not directly, if at all, support the sustainability of the human race. They just consume more, making the starving people hungrier and the companies richer and less Eco-friendly as they strugle to keep up with the growing population. MORE PEOPLE DOES NOT MEAN BETTER ECONOMY! That is like supporting trickle-down economics, which is like saying that slavery is okay because you feed your slave. In fact, it's pretty damn close, except that it applies to all races, and there is the ellusion of the freedom to have any job. Unfortunately, the poor are stuck poor.
One last point, earlier I was refering to the fact that when you harvest the fetus early enough, it is entirely stem cells, and the number of stem cells changes from fetus to fetus, so basicly, if, for example, 20 stem cells is considered a human, then 40 is two humans... I was mostly joking.
What I think is rude is when people just assume everyone who is against liberal policies is religious. That is rude. It is also over-generalizing and a stereotype. I'm sorry if what I wrote offended you, but it's what I truly think.
When I say I am pro-life (and not pro-choice) I mean that I prefer not to havea bortions, but realistically, people are always going to want to kill their children. So, my stance has come to "have it limited so we don't have every single baby on earth aborted".
The earth's current population is 6.6 billion. In twenty years it will be 7 billion. Assuming we continue along this same population increase slope, the entire population of the earth could cozily fit within the confines of the United States for hundreds of years to come with each family having roughly enough space to own two or three houses. (The U.S. is 3.79 square miles.)
Based on the principle of "trickle down economics", anyone with a paying job would benefit society, because nearly half of what they earn goes to government funds (in the U.S.) Their taxes would trickle down and benefit society, as long as the government directs the money properly through the nation (which, in my opinion, it currently doesn't, but that is fixable.) So, anyone working at all is helping to maintain our nation (or at least mine, I don't know what country you live in.)
Poor people can get out of their slump- there's thousands of ways and companies that can help them do it. The problem is the psychological damage that they sustain of hopelessness (which is very similar to someone who's depressed), in which they firmly believe that there is no way out, and in most cases don't even try to get out. Poverty will never be gone, yes, but there are things that can be done which no one is trying. I actually read a good modern dark fantasy book by Terry Brooks called A Knight of the Word (it's set mostly in Seattle) which actually contains a lot of good arguments of how modern people could be helping the destitute (and thus our country as a whole), but don't- sometimes out of ignorance, mostly because of lack of caring. Interesting book. Sorry, I went of subject there, but my point is that we all (being the not-poverty-stricken, since we all obviously have computers or access to them/one) could definitely be doing a better job of helping them.
Oh, okay. My line of thought here is that the amount of stem cells isn't what's important. It's how they're strung together to form the basis of a human being, in which case the number does not matter- only the cells' existence.
This is a staple of these forums.
(id LOVE to argue some religion if anyone is up to it :D)
Pro-Abortion
This petition is to KEEP the current art direction
Good Job Blizzard. Stay on Track
just one thought, how could you blame the american deficit or any other worldy econimic problem on abortion, even if 40 million more babies had been born what would push you to think that THOSE children were better then previous generations. What would make THOSE children capable of curing desease or creating 40 million jobs and paying 40 million poeples worth of taxes, the truth is that point is invalid becuase there would just be 40 mil more homeless, or 40 mil more high school drop outs, or 40 mil more serial killers. there is NO information that states those aborted children would make it something big in this world that no one before them could.
This petition is to KEEP the current art direction
Good Job Blizzard. Stay on Track
So, to finally answer your question, when people are entirely pro-life, it is not necessarily because they are religious, but because they are opting away from science. Being pro-life is, to many people, cursing a woman with 18 years of hell, along with incredible emotional distress. We know that a fetus is not life, and opting away from science is opting towards something else, religion or otherwise, it really doesn't matter. Getting an abortion is gross, but really just as gross as getting an appendix taken out. If you think it is grosser because the fetus could potentially be life, you are again opting away from science.