Well, few people see it as justifiable to torture animals. Though if you are referring to animal testing, what would you rather have? Untested medicines on animals or humans?
Most of us do, perhaps indirectly, but we do. And I'm not refering to testing. You ever saw that video about how Chinese skin oppossums? I'm not sure it was opposums, though, but they really do it in a way that most people will refer to as "horrible".
Speaking of testing, it is our problem that we have to test something. If a driver can't find a parking lot, it is his problem and doesn't mean he can park anywhere he wants. He bought that damn car, he is resposible for it, and if he has trouble with it, it is his and only his problem. If he can't avoid pedestrians, it's still his problem, even if they are total idiots. Just as those medicines are our invention, our problem. If we want to use something, morale wise we should test it on ourselves. We are lucky to have these animals to pass it over too. I don't mind. But why we justify doing that to animals, but we can't justify "killing" something that is not even alive yet?
"Sure, humans are cute. But how are we supposed to test cosmetics?" - humans are bastards. That's what you should always remember...
"Should mentally retarded people or people on life support, who can't support themselves in any way be killed?" - well, regarding this, I actually think that every person should have the right to death. Suicide, if you want to call it that way. That regarding life support. But that's another question that you can go on for ages about.
Mentally retarded people that had lobotomia don't make any sense to me. They are not people anymore, they are vegetables. What's the point of keeping them???
"I don't know much about it but, do the parents have to have a good reason for aborting the baby?" - would go as far as say that they don't really need one...
But on the other hand if it is just 2 stupid people who know what they are getting into and not using birth control...(someone else said this) then they uphold they responsiblity to care and provide for the life that they are bringing into the world.... if they cant then they are lieing and too lazy to give the child the chance at life that the probably never had.
But wouldn't a kid in this situation also feel unwanted and have a bad upbringing?
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
its a really difficult discution, and even more difficult when it involvs living beings who cant speak for themselfs (mentaly disabled, comatuose, foetus, animals, ..)
how hard it may sound there is a line betwean awareness, and nonawareness. maybe there lies the line betwean the moraly choice for life or death.
Yes, and this brings up the functionality issue for me. As I was saying, a lot of people have arguments that since it's just a fetus, how could it possibly be aware or have its own thoughts? And this is why I bring up how science is proving all the time just how self-aware a fetus is? The question then, is just how developed does the mind need to be before you can start saying, okay, it's one of us now, let it live.
And if you try to use the argument that a fetus is as good as a mindless animal, thus there's no major isues with killing it, I imagine you're going to offend a lot of parents with retarded children. Seriously, if their child's level of intelligence is the equivelent of a bovine, you're not gonna tell them there child doesn't have every right to live or could have some quality of life in them yet.
So, while I'm pro-choice, I would never use Equinox's argument on why it makes no difference on aborting a baby since its as good as an animal.
As I was saying, a lot of people have arguments that since it's just a fetus, how could it possibly be aware or have its own thoughts? And this is why I bring up how science is proving all the time just how self-aware a fetus is?
Actually, they did scientifically prove that life beings at conception. But that still doesn't do it for me. Would one consider it a human being at that stage? And, since U.S. citizenship is defined as being granted at birth, then fetuses are not necessarily entitled to the right to life, technically. But that's on a legal basis, as I believe separation of church and state is one of the most important things upon which our government is based.
And if you try to use the argument that a fetus is as good as a mindless animal, thus there's no major isues with killing it, I imagine you're going to offend a lot of parents with retarded children. Seriously, if their child's level of intelligence is the equivelent of a bovine, you're not gonna tell them there child doesn't have every right to live or could have some quality of life in them yet.
And if we used Equinox's argument as a reason to abort kids, then does that mean that PETA should represent the protection of fetuses? How dumb does that sound? I can imagine it now...Pamela Anderson, speaking out to protect the rights of fetuses, when she's probably killed more children than Evel Knievel using a daycare center full of kids for a ramp. The irony would be hilarious. I'd watch CNN all the time if that happened.
And if you try to use the argument that a fetus is as good as a mindless animal, thus there's no major isues with killing it, I imagine you're going to offend a lot of parents with retarded children. Seriously, if their child's level of intelligence is the equivelent of a bovine, you're not gonna tell them there child doesn't have every right to live or could have some quality of life in them yet.
I don't think the world becomes better with more retarded children. Or retarded men. Or anyone who's retarded. We kill mad dogs, don't we?
About the fetuses, i thought the legal right to life begins at the minimal
medical possibility for human life out off the womb and abortian is illegal when the fetus exceeds that timeframe (i thought it was 3,5 months), but correct me if i'm wrong.
Yes, if I'm not mistaken, there is a federal law that at least totally banned partial birth abortions. But besides that, each state has different abortion laws. Some obviously more liberal than others. I'm certain most states that allow abortions however will only do it during the first trimester. For those with a very pending labor, well, I'm not certain who allows that. Or for that matter I can't tell why a women would decide only then to do it.
Quote from "muttonchops" »
Actually, they did scientifically prove that life beings at conception. But that still doesn't do it for me. Would one consider it a human being at that stage? And, since U.S. citizenship is defined as being granted at birth, then fetuses are not necessarily entitled to the right to life, technically. But that's on a legal basis, as I believe separation of church and state is one of the most important things upon which our government is based.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. We guarantee the right to life for illegal immigrants. It's not legal to kill someone who is in our country just cause they aren't citizens. What I'm saying is that for most lawmakers, the right to life goes beyond the confines of being a U.S. citizen.
Or one might argue that a fetus just beyond the first trimester is still hardly a life. But there have been prematures babies delivered up to 17 weeks earlier than nine months and went on to survive and had fairly normal lives. Sure, such cases those babies would probably suffer brain damage. But we don't excuse chronic potheads as dispensible, do we? Well, I have on occasion.
Quote from "Equinox" »
I don't think the world becomes better with more retarded children. Or retarded men. Or anyone who's retarded. We kill mad dogs, don't we?
Consider, however, the dangers of your argument. It's easy to put someone in charge of euthanizing a mad dog, foaming at the mouth. But how do we decide who is in the best position to claim a fetus' life worth saving or not. In fairness, I understand what you're saying. I think it's sad the way brain dead vegetables are hooked up to breathing machines and are not allowed to die. But I think we understand more about those unfortunate people than we do yet about unborn children. In other words, I think this issue is not ripe enough to come to a final conclusion. And thus, the battle over abortion ensues. Politically, no politician is brave enough to attempt legislation on either extreme. Morally, there are too many arguments that support both the mother's right to choose, and the baby's right to life. Socially, the ambiguity of the definition of life is vast at best and society still has much to learn before we can truly identify what life is, when rights begin, and who's rights override the others: the baby or the mom. That's all just my opinion, though.
I dont know, i think it depends what you mean with retarded.
OK, for starters, let's just say people with lobotamia. They are already dead, why make a special operation on the instead of killing them? And I don't even know what is worse. In any case, these are done for.
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
But I think we understand more about those unfortunate people than we do yet about unborn children. In other words, I think this issue is not ripe enough to come to a final conclusion. And thus, the battle over abortion ensues. Politically, no politician is brave enough to attempt legislation on either extreme. Morally, there are too many arguments that support both the mother's right to choose, and the baby's right to life. Socially, the ambiguity of the definition of life is vast at best and society still has much to learn before we can truly identify what life is, when rights begin, and who's rights override the others: the baby or the mom. That's all just my opinion, though.
There is nothing to understand about them. It does not matter. They are not humans until they are a certain age, and they should only be legal when they are born and there is something to legalize. I don't think it matters if "life starts" when they are inside. It's not yet human life. Human life consists of intelligence, fetuses can't have it. IMHO, of course.
Abortion should be made as long as it doesn't hurt the mother, if it does, at all. While the baby is not born, it's his/her mother's property, a part of her body, and it is her right to deal with it, and she has a lot more right to it, she is the one to decide for it to exist or not to exist.
I don't think the world becomes better with more retarded children. Or retarded men. Or anyone who's retarded. We kill mad dogs, don't we?
We do, because they are a threat to us. Retarded people may also be a threat, but most often an indirect one if that is the case.
And where would you draw the line between being retarded and not being retarded?
There is nothing to understand about them. It does not matter. They are not humans until they are a certain age, and they should only be legal when they are born and there is something to legalize. I don't think it matters if "life starts" when they are inside. It's not yet human life. Human life consists of intelligence, fetuses can't have it. IMHO, of course.
I'm still unclear on what you mean by intelligence.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Abortion should be made as long as it doesn't hurt the mother, if it does, at all. While the baby is not born, it's his/her mother's property, a part of her body, and it is her right to deal with it, and she has a lot more right to it, she is the one to decide for it to exist or not to exist.
Isn't it also part of the man's:D
Sounds to me if you were to make the laws I could run around impregnate whoever I wanted without even worrying about consequences (like caring for a child since it will be killed).
If people bring life into this world, even if by accident, they should be obligated to care for it.
I told you, at the point when they do lobotomia... and they have their own way to find retardation, anyway.
Ability to think, act farther than the animal instincts allow. It's different for everybody, but fetuses don't have it for sure.
You're really not in the position to make that call for a fetus though. Why can't you acknowledge that there still isn't conclusive data to decide one way or the other? If you cannot admit that at least, then I must conclude that you are retarded, and therefore must die (based on your views of who gets to live or not).
Sounds to me if you were to make the laws I could run around impregnate whoever I wanted without even worrying about consequences (like caring for a child since it will be killed).
If people bring life into this world, even if by accident, they should be obligated to care for it.
No, it's not in the man's body.
I'm too stupid to make laws.
Says who? The bible?
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
You're really not in the position to make that call for a fetus though. Why can't you acknowledge that there still isn't conclusive data to decide one way or the other? If you cannot admit that at least, then I must conclude that you are retarded, and therefore must die (based on your views of who gets to live or not).
It's a forum, and this is my opinion, whether you like it, or not.
I don't care for any conclusive data. People not born do not yet acknowledge our world, period. Simply because they are inside a womb or whatever and don't feel anything outside it.
And why would that make me retarded? And since when you became a doctor? Retardation is a medical term. You can't say someone is retarded until you do some medical expertise. And that expertise isn't going to show me retarded. Unless I'm imagining all that I am doing now. But if I am, they have all the right, whether or not do I like it, to get rid of me.
You're really not in the position to make that call for a fetus though. Why can't you acknowledge that there still isn't conclusive data to decide one way or the other? If you cannot admit that at least, then I must conclude that you are retarded, and therefore must die (based on your views of who gets to live or not).
It's a forum, and this is my opinion, whether you like it, or not.
I don't care for any conclusive data. People not born do not yet acknowledge our world, period. Simply because they are inside a womb or whatever and don't feel anything outside it.
And why would that make me retarded? And since when you became a doctor? Retardation is a medical term. You can't say someone is retarded until you do some medical expertise. And that expertise isn't going to show me retarded. Unless I'm imagining all that I am doing now. But if I am, they have all the right, whether or not do I like it, to get rid of me.
Yes, but what I'm saying is that you really can define retarded in a number of ways, even a doctor may have different takes on retardation.
And recognizing that the term "retarded" may be subjective, I am thus, in my opinion, thinking that to not acknowledge that you can't be positive about a fetus' state, since the data is far from inconclusive and we don't understand enough about the human brain, is retarded.
If a doctor is a normal doctor, retardation can pretty much defined in only one way. Let's just say that for normal psychologists, the human brain is not such a dim area. And for exceptional people like Freud and Ericson, it may not be dim at all...
I think the term is not subjective for psychologists. Only for people that don't understand the actions of others.
Also, a stupid, or pointless opinion is not necessary retarded, unless you are using "retarded" in its slang form.
If a doctor is a normal doctor, retardation can pretty much defined in only one way. Let's just say that for normal psychologists, the human brain is not such a dim area. And for exceptional people like Freud and Ericson, it may not be dim at all...
Well, the effects of the brain that we can see (reactions, habits, personalities etc.) and how it reacts may not be dim, but the actual processes and inner workings of it are still in question.
If a doctor is a normal doctor, retardation can pretty much defined in only one way.
Retardation: lack of normal development of intellectual capacities
So any person who's brain isn't developing as it should then?
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Speaking of testing, it is our problem that we have to test something. If a driver can't find a parking lot, it is his problem and doesn't mean he can park anywhere he wants. He bought that damn car, he is resposible for it, and if he has trouble with it, it is his and only his problem. If he can't avoid pedestrians, it's still his problem, even if they are total idiots. Just as those medicines are our invention, our problem. If we want to use something, morale wise we should test it on ourselves. We are lucky to have these animals to pass it over too. I don't mind. But why we justify doing that to animals, but we can't justify "killing" something that is not even alive yet?
"Sure, humans are cute. But how are we supposed to test cosmetics?" - humans are bastards. That's what you should always remember...
"Should mentally retarded people or people on life support, who can't support themselves in any way be killed?" - well, regarding this, I actually think that every person should have the right to death. Suicide, if you want to call it that way. That regarding life support. But that's another question that you can go on for ages about.
Mentally retarded people that had lobotomia don't make any sense to me. They are not people anymore, they are vegetables. What's the point of keeping them???
"I don't know much about it but, do the parents have to have a good reason for aborting the baby?" - would go as far as say that they don't really need one...
Yes, and this brings up the functionality issue for me. As I was saying, a lot of people have arguments that since it's just a fetus, how could it possibly be aware or have its own thoughts? And this is why I bring up how science is proving all the time just how self-aware a fetus is? The question then, is just how developed does the mind need to be before you can start saying, okay, it's one of us now, let it live.
And if you try to use the argument that a fetus is as good as a mindless animal, thus there's no major isues with killing it, I imagine you're going to offend a lot of parents with retarded children. Seriously, if their child's level of intelligence is the equivelent of a bovine, you're not gonna tell them there child doesn't have every right to live or could have some quality of life in them yet.
So, while I'm pro-choice, I would never use Equinox's argument on why it makes no difference on aborting a baby since its as good as an animal.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Actually, they did scientifically prove that life beings at conception. But that still doesn't do it for me. Would one consider it a human being at that stage? And, since U.S. citizenship is defined as being granted at birth, then fetuses are not necessarily entitled to the right to life, technically. But that's on a legal basis, as I believe separation of church and state is one of the most important things upon which our government is based.
And if we used Equinox's argument as a reason to abort kids, then does that mean that PETA should represent the protection of fetuses? How dumb does that sound? I can imagine it now...Pamela Anderson, speaking out to protect the rights of fetuses, when she's probably killed more children than Evel Knievel using a daycare center full of kids for a ramp. The irony would be hilarious. I'd watch CNN all the time if that happened.
Yes, if I'm not mistaken, there is a federal law that at least totally banned partial birth abortions. But besides that, each state has different abortion laws. Some obviously more liberal than others. I'm certain most states that allow abortions however will only do it during the first trimester. For those with a very pending labor, well, I'm not certain who allows that. Or for that matter I can't tell why a women would decide only then to do it.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. We guarantee the right to life for illegal immigrants. It's not legal to kill someone who is in our country just cause they aren't citizens. What I'm saying is that for most lawmakers, the right to life goes beyond the confines of being a U.S. citizen.
Or one might argue that a fetus just beyond the first trimester is still hardly a life. But there have been prematures babies delivered up to 17 weeks earlier than nine months and went on to survive and had fairly normal lives. Sure, such cases those babies would probably suffer brain damage. But we don't excuse chronic potheads as dispensible, do we? Well, I have on occasion.
Consider, however, the dangers of your argument. It's easy to put someone in charge of euthanizing a mad dog, foaming at the mouth. But how do we decide who is in the best position to claim a fetus' life worth saving or not. In fairness, I understand what you're saying. I think it's sad the way brain dead vegetables are hooked up to breathing machines and are not allowed to die. But I think we understand more about those unfortunate people than we do yet about unborn children. In other words, I think this issue is not ripe enough to come to a final conclusion. And thus, the battle over abortion ensues. Politically, no politician is brave enough to attempt legislation on either extreme. Morally, there are too many arguments that support both the mother's right to choose, and the baby's right to life. Socially, the ambiguity of the definition of life is vast at best and society still has much to learn before we can truly identify what life is, when rights begin, and who's rights override the others: the baby or the mom. That's all just my opinion, though.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
There is nothing to understand about them. It does not matter. They are not humans until they are a certain age, and they should only be legal when they are born and there is something to legalize. I don't think it matters if "life starts" when they are inside. It's not yet human life. Human life consists of intelligence, fetuses can't have it. IMHO, of course.
Abortion should be made as long as it doesn't hurt the mother, if it does, at all. While the baby is not born, it's his/her mother's property, a part of her body, and it is her right to deal with it, and she has a lot more right to it, she is the one to decide for it to exist or not to exist.
We do, because they are a threat to us. Retarded people may also be a threat, but most often an indirect one if that is the case.
And where would you draw the line between being retarded and not being retarded?
I'm still unclear on what you mean by intelligence.
Ability to think, act farther than the animal instincts allow. It's different for everybody, but fetuses don't have it for sure.
Sounds to me if you were to make the laws I could run around impregnate whoever I wanted without even worrying about consequences (like caring for a child since it will be killed).
If people bring life into this world, even if by accident, they should be obligated to care for it.
You're really not in the position to make that call for a fetus though. Why can't you acknowledge that there still isn't conclusive data to decide one way or the other? If you cannot admit that at least, then I must conclude that you are retarded, and therefore must die (based on your views of who gets to live or not).
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I'm too stupid to make laws.
Says who? The bible?
It's a forum, and this is my opinion, whether you like it, or not.
I don't care for any conclusive data. People not born do not yet acknowledge our world, period. Simply because they are inside a womb or whatever and don't feel anything outside it.
And why would that make me retarded? And since when you became a doctor? Retardation is a medical term. You can't say someone is retarded until you do some medical expertise. And that expertise isn't going to show me retarded. Unless I'm imagining all that I am doing now. But if I am, they have all the right, whether or not do I like it, to get rid of me.
I don't care for any conclusive data. People not born do not yet acknowledge our world, period. Simply because they are inside a womb or whatever and don't feel anything outside it.
And why would that make me retarded? And since when you became a doctor? Retardation is a medical term. You can't say someone is retarded until you do some medical expertise. And that expertise isn't going to show me retarded. Unless I'm imagining all that I am doing now. But if I am, they have all the right, whether or not do I like it, to get rid of me.
And recognizing that the term "retarded" may be subjective, I am thus, in my opinion, thinking that to not acknowledge that you can't be positive about a fetus' state, since the data is far from inconclusive and we don't understand enough about the human brain, is retarded.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I think the term is not subjective for psychologists. Only for people that don't understand the actions of others.
Also, a stupid, or pointless opinion is not necessary retarded, unless you are using "retarded" in its slang form.
So any person who's brain isn't developing as it should then?
wow do i know that fealing...