At 12/16/11 03:54 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 12/16/11 03:46 PM, escobargames wrote:

In every other thread you try to defend God, the bible, and christian arguments

Oh, I'm sorry. I was unaware that one should have to agree with everything in the "Christian" argument rather than just parts of it. I assumed that's where the concept of "personal beliefs" came in. My mistake.

You just said in the beginning of this thread there is no grey area, you said its either black and white. This is a contradiction YOU have. You don't give a shit about aborted babies, your just hiding behind some christian arguments give or take to make yourself appear like a good innocent girl. How pathetic of you.

At 12/16/11 04:12 PM, escobargames wrote:

your just hiding behind some christian arguments give or take to make yourself appear like a good innocent girl. How pathetic of you.

You are ATTEMPTING to throw words like that at a chick on the internet.
How bitchass of you.

At 12/16/11 04:15 PM, Shady wrote:

At 12/16/11 04:12 PM, escobargames wrote:

your just hiding behind some christian arguments give or take to make yourself appear like a good innocent girl. How pathetic of you.

You are ATTEMPTING to throw words like that at a chick on the internet.
How bitchass of you.

I personally think he has an odd fascination with her. He's always trying to throw insults her way and seems to give her a lot of excess, inexplicable negative attention.

Attention nonetheless?

At 12/16/11 04:18 PM, BananasFoster wrote: Attention nonetheless?

She gets her fix for the thread. ;)

At 12/16/11 04:19 PM, Shady wrote:

At 12/16/11 04:18 PM, BananasFoster wrote: Attention nonetheless?

She gets her fix for the thread. ;)

I think she wants people to actually contribute, though. She's put a lot of energy into this thread, and I doubt she wants the odd negative attention escobargames keeps giving her.

If he wouldn't flame so much, and would put more energy into his posts, he could contend with her arguments better.

At 12/16/11 04:04 PM, Shady wrote: Aight, voice of reason, lets go.

Haha, let's hear it!

When having this conversation, one must first assess the position of humanity, in the grand scheme of things. Are we some chosen species that are destined/willed to be the greatest thing in a "god's" universe, or are we just another living being, no less or more than any other creature?

Very interesting. I would say we are inherently special in comparison to other species. However, were this not the case, I would still hold a heavy bias towards my own species than, say, chicken. If we are not specifically created, then we are simply predators (extremely dominant ones, I might add). Thus, it is within our interests as ultra-social organisms to care for, provide for, and support the species as a whole - regardless of our position on the food-chain or intelligence hierarchy; or possible "soul attribute". Stemming from this, I believe in the protection of negative rights of the rational human species - not positive (this will come back up in the second half of my post).

If the ladder, then I would say that absence of life is not an issue, but suffering is. An aborted fetus feels no pain, no suffering, unborn and never knowing the pain and pleasure of the world. If we as humans thought there was something wrong with preventing a life to come to consciousness, we would all have as many children as possible so as to bring as much human life to the world as possible.

While I agree with the first part (premise-wise), I disagree that arguing against the prevention of life correlates to a duty of excessive reproduction. I do not believe it is wrong to have sperm/eggs left over after death - as this is what you are suggesting is the case. However, at conception, it is within our duty as a species (divinely designated or otherwise) to protect the future generations. This was actually one of the reasons I listed the abortion of females as especially devastating to the survival of the species - from a completely nonmoral perspective. But, because I must stand by my belief that murder is an action exclusive to "person-person", I would say abortion is permissible if - and only if - you can prove that the baby is not a person. What defines a person? If there is no difference between human and person, why is murder illegal, but not abortion?

I stake my belief in Buddhist philosophy and I believe that an abortion is karma NEUTRAL, or maybe even positive in certain circumstances.

That's fair. I will not argue with religious beliefs.

If you believe the former, on the other hand, then it is your responsibility to bring as many children into this world as possible, get to work emma. ;)

No, that would be a positive right (to give to, rather than take away). I will not be making anyone's babies!

At 12/16/11 04:24 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Very interesting. I would say we are inherently special in comparison to other species. However, were this not the case, I would still hold a heavy bias towards my own species than, say, chicken. If we are not specifically created, then we are simply predators (extremely dominant ones, I might add). Thus, it is within our interests as ultra-social organisms to care for, provide for, and support the species as a whole - regardless of our position on the food-chain or intelligence hierarchy; or possible "soul attribute". Stemming from this, I believe in the protection of negative rights of the rational human species - not positive

You are stating that "it is within our interests as ultra-social organisms to care for, provide for, and support the species as a whole" like it is a given fact, I highly disagree. It is instinct, yes, but if one becomes enlightened to the nature of the universe, you cannot hold your own happiness above the happiness of anything else, as that is irrational and unjustifiable. Go ahead, try, I dare you.

Abortion is murder! If you do it you are going to hell! Killing soldiers in war is also murder and you will go to hell for that too!

I mean what if I was aborted? I would experience extreme fetal pain (scientists haven't proven fetal pain as being true yet but we all know its true!) and I would never have gotten to live! How fucked up is that! I would be so upset knowing that I wasn't going to be born!

Pro-abortion (or 'pro-murder') people are fucking heartless

They need to be FORCED to give birth to their children. The government needs to force people to give birth.

I mean its not like people will just secretly backyard abort their children or anything right guys? And even if they do they will probably end up hurting themselves and getting themselves killed lol

Like I said, abortion should be forced upon people like a punishment for their unprotected sex, I don't give a shit about 'its a woman's body so its her right to do what she wants with it' or that 'pro-choice' bullshit. Its so fucking retarded and illogical (most pro-abortionists and 'pro-choice' people are pretty stupid though)

The woman may put the child up for adoption. This is great because now there will be much more children in adoption center, children for everybody (except for homosexuals, we still need to fight the laws about homosexuals being able to adopt children)

People say that the countries where abortion is legal are the countries where the least abortion happens and that even if a country illegalizes abortion the abortion rate stays really static, well personally I think that is fucking bullshit and I'm not going to believe that until I see proof.

And even if there is proof for it what does that have to do with anything? It changes nothing about how evil the pro-abortion/fetal termination agenda is

As for miscarriage, well personally I think to make sure that women are not self-aborting/backyard aborting every miscarriage needs to be investigated thoroughly

The same with attempted suicides or any vaginal related injuries that women get, they need to be investigated thoroughly to make sure the women are not trying to abort their child, and if they are found to be doing this then they should go to jail for attempted murder

I also believe that masturbation should be illegal, because you are GENOCIDING sperms that COULD BE HUMANS ONE DAY

what gives YOU the right to decide which sperms will die and which sperms you will use to impregnate a woman!!!!!!

and there must be NO COMPROMISE!!!! all of us pro-life people agree on this. Its all the way not some of the way. We will not give rape victims the chance to have abortions, murder is murder, there are no justifications for it or pussyfooting for it

also OP lets discuss our best pro-life tactics

I personally like to use the word 'pro-life' instead of anti-abortion when talking to pro-abortionists

I also ALWAYS remember to tell pro-abortionists how abortion leads to breast cancer, and I always show them pictures of 9-month old fetuses and I always tell them about fetal pain and etc.

that sure shows the pro-abortionists

Also my personal favorite when dealing with pro-murder/fetal terminationists is reminding them that ADOLF HITLER was a staunch supporter of fetal termination/abortion/baby slaughter

really makes the pro-abortionists think about their lives and the sick agenda they are supporting

Another black and white oversimplification of a complicated issue brought to you by EmmaVolt.

Another two of my favorite terms for anti-abortionists are pro-death and anti-life

And again I must stress that there is NO COMPROMISE

compromise is for fucking morons and will never get society anywhere

its always got to be ultra left wing vs. ultra right wing

THER CAN B NO MIDLE GROUND EVAR

At 12/16/11 04:12 PM, escobargames wrote: You just said in the beginning of this thread there is no grey area, you said its either black and white. This is a contradiction YOU have. You don't give a shit about aborted babies, your just hiding behind some christian arguments give or take to make yourself appear like a good innocent girl. How pathetic of you.

You obviously have no clue what that portion of the discussion was about - moral decisions (kantianism vs utilitarianism and/or consequentialism). Seeing as you are not even remotely EmmaVolt (yet, for some reason, are [not]-so keen on my posting habits), allow me to be the one to decide what beliefs/stances I hold - be the subject religion, ethics, politics, or otherwise. Thank you.
_______

At 12/16/11 04:37 PM, Shady wrote:

At 12/16/11 04:24 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Very interesting. I would say we are inherently special in comparison to other species. However, were this not the case, I would still hold a heavy bias towards my own species than, say, chicken. If we are not specifically created, then we are simply predators (extremely dominant ones, I might add). Thus, it is within our interests as ultra-social organisms to care for, provide for, and support the species as a whole - regardless of our position on the food-chain or intelligence hierarchy; or possible "soul attribute". Stemming from this, I believe in the protection of negative rights of the rational human species - not positive

You are stating that "it is within our interests as ultra-social organisms to care for, provide for, and support the species as a whole" like it is a given fact, I highly disagree. It is instinct, yes, but if one becomes enlightened to the nature of the universe, you cannot hold your own happiness above the happiness of anything else, as that is irrational and unjustifiable. Go ahead, try, I dare you.

I do not believe benevolence, nor altruism qualify as unjustifiable or irrational even from an evolutionary perspective. As social beings, we are genetically programmed to serve the interest of the whole - this sometimes means giving something up for someone, or risking something of value for someone. Social evolution has played a huge part in our survival. Take, for example, the "princess-locked-away-in-the-castle" stories (perhaps imaginative representations of the human response to protecting the survival of the species). Or, consider the reasons for most great empires leaving behind the women (Rome, Sparta, the British Empire to name a few). There is a psychological reason for this. I believe it is the idea of protecting the human race through its females. Evolutionarily, it is certainly within our interest to prevent murders above almost anything else. This comes naturally, I would say - and strangely exclusive to social organisms (the most evident being humans, of course).

A similar argument stands for seeking happiness for both yourself and others. But, as generations continue, we are caring less and less about the lives of our brothers and sisters. I imagine a future where humans are no longer social as we won't be able to stand each other. (I'm trying not to get science-fiction-y here, haha).

And I forgot to say that not only is masturbation murder but contraception of any sort is also murder! THOSE SPERMS COULD HAVE BEEN HUMANS!!!!!

So wat do u guys think of my words of wisdom ^

At 12/16/11 04:48 PM, Halberd wrote: THER CAN B NO MIDLE GROUND EVAR

I was almost impressed with your satire, until I realized very quickly that you parodied none of my arguments specifically, and instead, mocked the mainstream pro-life agenda. If this was your intention, why did you take the time to do that? If you were attempting to parody my arguments, you are extremely off, my friend.

At 12/16/11 04:59 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I was almost impressed with your satire, until I realized very quickly that you parodied none of my arguments

HERP DERP EMMA, WHOLE BBS REVOVLES AROUND ME!

At 12/16/11 04:59 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I was almost impressed with your satire, until I realized very quickly that you parodied none of my arguments specifically, and instead, mocked the mainstream pro-life agenda. If this was your intention, why did you take the time to do that? If you were attempting to parody my arguments, you are extremely off, my friend.

Are you claiming that your arguments are any different than those made by mainstream pro-lifers?

I can't be fucked looking for your arguments

At 12/16/11 05:02 PM, TheBlueRaven wrote: Are you claiming that your arguments are any different than those made by mainstream pro-lifers?

Are you claiming to have read this thread at all, or are you also naturally unfunny with your sarcasm? If the prior, please direct me to one of my posts that consigns with his tirade. I trust that you will be able to find multiple cases where I incorporate religion unprompted and embrace legalities wholeheartedly! Get back to me when you're done. This will be on your final exam!
_______

At 12/16/11 05:00 PM, Shady wrote: HERP DERP EMMA, WHOLE BBS REVOVLES AROUND [YOU]!

Damn right. Keep spinning!

By the way, that was sarcasm. Just thought I'd clarify for people who can't read beyond letters.

In closing, Emmavolt is a control freak whore that think she is the sun.

I wait for her quick demise, hopefully NG will survive the gum ball it has swallowed.

At 12/16/11 05:12 PM, Ilssm wrote: WHY would someone even start a thread like this?

I explained that I wanted an (intelligent) discussion on page one - the first post even! Then I restated it on page three (?). I have, especially in the later responses, been disappointed.

Plus, isn't this in the wrong section? I think it should go under ' Politics '

I have explicitly stated that this is in no way, shape, or form, a political or legal discussion - and consistently discourage people from bringing either of those into the debate. This must be the hundredth time I've said it. Also, if a mod deems this to be an unacceptable category for the discussion, they will lock or move it.

If you have nothing to contribute, though, I would prefer you either lurk or completely stay out of the thread, rather than insulting me and/or my motives.
_______

At 12/16/11 05:27 PM, escobargames wrote: Emmavolt is a control freak whore that think she is the sun.

I suppose that postscript in my previous response was for you.

In closing,

Ha.

Also furthermore EmmaVolt my post was not satire

they are my opinions and nothing less

At 12/16/11 05:22 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Are you claiming to have read this thread at all, or are you also naturally unfunny with your sarcasm? If the prior, please direct me to one of my posts that consigns with his tirade. I trust that you will be able to find multiple cases where I incorporate religion unprompted and embrace legalities wholeheartedly! Get back to me when you're done. This will be on your final exam!

Like all of them. He doesn't mention religion at all. Your arguments are nothing but idealistic oversimplifications where there is no middle ground or pragmatism.

I would elaborate on each of your points but I've got dicks to suck and all that jazz so I'll take a rain check

At 12/16/11 05:36 PM, Ilssm wrote:

If you have nothing to contribute, though, I would prefer you either lurk or completely stay out of the thread, rather than insulting me and/or my motives.

I'm not insulting you, it's just really not a good idea to start a thread like this on NG, or ANY site for that matter, because there's bound to be a flame war, AT LEAST from one person. And I only said Politics because this can be considered a Political matter.

Okay, sorry. It came across as insulting when you suggest that I should not have started a topic about a passion of mine, on a forum. And, why should an argument (debate hopefully) be a deterrent for voicing an opinion? Do you have an opinion on this matter? I'm sure you do. If you would like to express it, or challenge mine, feel free to do so in a mature, rational manner.

Like I said before, it's the internet, so keep serious topics out of it.

As opposed to "what the pizza I ordered looks like"? No thanks, I'll stick with serious discussions. But, thank you for the suggestion. I will keep it in mind until we lose the the freedom of speech/press.

Mfw EmmaVolt trolls everyone

Mfw Halberd makes fun of religious people then acts as if he isn't mad

Some say abortion is a serious topic but sum will just orate the poizza

At 12/16/11 05:40 PM, TheBlueRaven wrote:

At 12/16/11 05:22 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: This will be on your final exam!

He doesn't mention religion at all.

I guess Hell is a completely non-religious place then.

Your arguments are nothing but idealistic oversimplifications where there is no middle ground or pragmatism.

Nonsense, I have elaborated quite thoroughly. You chose to read one or two of my posts - and it then becomes oversimplified. However, I am open to considering middle grounds. Let's hear one that doesn't involve murder (which is what I have been asking about this whole time, yet nobody seems to notice, including you).