This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
whocares8128 wrote on 2012-05-02 16:12
Quote from Episkey;853963:
My post wasn't targeted at you specifically, but it was just something general. Also, I wasn't talking about abortion.
I was talking about being raped and saying that it was something from God ... No - it probably wasn't.
My apologies... I misunderstood, though your meaning might have been clearer if you used "gifts from God" instead, if you were only referring to rape babies.
Quote from Episkey;853963:
I think it actually makes things more clear. The existence of Satan is one of the main reason for evil in this world, the other being our very sinful nature and the nature of this world.
But by Satan's very existence (and our own?), it's less obvious who is responsible for what happens in our lives. It also makes it easy for people to see the world as black and white, where what they like is good (from God) and what they don't like is bad (of the devil). Of course, people don't all agree, so one's godsend is another's devilry.
[SIZE="1"]Once again, I'm quickly getting off-topic. :sigh:[/SIZE]
On-topic:
How would this measure interfere with in vitro fertilization? Does it state all persons must be created within persons?
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-05-02 18:42
Quote from whocares8128;853980:
On-topic:
How would this measure interfere with in vitro fertilization? Does it state all persons must be created within persons?
I'm a bit fuzzy on it, but I believe it's because a possible side effect of IVF can cause eggs to be fertilized but may not implant properly, which can be seen as killing a viable embryo/fetus/person/whathaveyou.
I dunno this is probably biased and based off of Mississippi's law but whatever.
Basically, from what I gather, some of the practices in the IVF process involve what is "manslaughter" of what would be considered viable 'persons'.
The thing that frustrates me about these laws is while you might find abortion morally reprehensible and despicable, you certainly don't have the right to decide for another person what they should do with the life growing inside of them.
It's giving someone THE CHANCE to make a choice that they are (in my opinion) entitled to make, or snatching that chance away from them and choosing for them.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-05-02 18:46
Quote from Episkey;853917:
The "everything happens for a reason" is simply a belief that whatever you have to go through - that believing in God is able to help you endure/overcome said obstacle.
It's not to say everything happens as a direct cause of God, because that eliminates other factors that can lead to incidents. Factors such as human free will and other malignant entities such as Satan.
That's your version, but not theirs. Their version is "god wills it because I think it's icky, so you shut the fuck up, icky heathen bitch".
-
Episkey wrote on 2012-05-02 18:49
Quote from Sumpfkraut;854072:
That's your version, but not theirs. Their version is "I will it and so obviously god wills it, so you shut the fuck up, icky heathen bitch".
There are so many things wrong ... so many things ... T_T
I just don't like
umbrellas, alright?
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-05-02 19:06
Speaking of umbrella terms, one of the problems with personhood laws is the idea that any act of killing an unborn 'person' is considered manslaughter.
In the Mississippi law, a person can be persecuted for manslaughter even if they are “in circumstances where the killing, although without malice, was intentional and not accidental.â€
What if the mother (and the child's) life is in danger?
How can you draw the line? Do you discriminate between voluntary and involuntary pregnancies?
Things like that are left up in the air with these laws.
-
whocares8128 wrote on 2012-05-02 20:25
Quote from Claudia;854091:
Speaking of umbrella terms, one of the problems with personhood laws is the idea that any act of killing an unborn 'person' is considered manslaughter.
In the Mississippi law, a person can be persecuted for manslaughter even if they are “in circumstances where the killing, although without malice, was intentional and not accidental.â€
What if the mother (and the child's) life is in danger?
How can you draw the line? Do you discriminate between voluntary and involuntary pregnancies?
Things like that are left up in the air with these laws.
So does that mean that any miscarriages would be considered involuntary manslaughter?
:shock2:
Edit: Or in some cases, negligent homicide?
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-05-02 21:26
Quote from whocares8128;854140:
So does that mean that any miscarriages would be considered involuntary manslaughter?
:shock2:
Edit: Or in some cases, negligent homicide?
In what I exactly quoted, no, but otherwise...i'm also under this impression.
From what I understand, intervening for any reason that ends up killing the 'person' (these terms are so awkward, but we must be politically correct!) is manslaughter. Abortion, medical emergencies, etc...
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-05-02 21:31
Quote from Episkey;854077:
There are so many things wrong ... so many things ... T_T
I just don't like umbrellas, alright?
Yes there are, indeed. The most irrelevant of which are the issues with my post.
Consider it the antagonist to your downplaying. A necessity in proper classical theatre, and all the world's a stage, is it not?
-
Cynic wrote on 2012-05-02 22:25
Well if getting involved in some way and then the person ends up dying = manslaughter, then I'm pretty sure most (if not all) Doctors should be rotting in jail by now.
People are seriously getting ridiculous with their pro-life laws nowadays. They're not even somewhat reasonable anymore.
-
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-02 23:06
Human embryos are not considered people?
Then what are they? Aardvarks?
No, I guess babies are just those inconvenient things that stop us from fornicating as we please!
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-05-02 23:13
...Regardless of that, it is right for the government to control so many aspects of our lives, especially those pertaining to our own physical bodies?
This isn't a moral issue, this is a legal issue in that it challenges a Supreme Court ruling and could possibly (well, it probably will) infringe on a woman's personal rights.
-
Kaeporo wrote on 2012-05-02 23:13
Quote from Spartaaaaa;854323:
Human embryos are not considered people?
Then what are they? Aardvarks?
No, I guess babies are just those inconvenient things that stop us from fornicating as we please!
Sexually transmitted diseases "are just those inconvenient things that stop us from fornicating as we please".
Should we stop people who contract STDs after sex from seeking medical treatment?
-
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-03 19:41
Quote from Kaeporo;854335:
Sexually transmitted diseases "are just those inconvenient things that stop us from fornicating as we please".
Should we stop people who contract STDs after sex from seeking medical treatment?
Must you put human embryos on the same level as microbes?
Or art thou merely trolling? If so, then consider what thou dost make sport of.
Quote from Claudia;854334:
...Regardless of that, it is right for the government to control so many aspects of our lives, especially those pertaining to our own physical bodies?
This isn't a moral issue, this is a legal issue in that it challenges a Supreme Court ruling and could possibly (well, it probably will) infringe on a woman's personal rights.
True the woman in question doth remain proprietor of her own body yet thou failest to see that the unborn child is just as much proprietor of his own body as the woman is of hers. Thus by rudely terminating pregnancy by means of vacuum tube and knife, doth the rights of the child by force and spoliation have been thus infringed.
tl;dr, Pregnant woman are not the only people who have ownership of their bodies.
-
ValkyrieHamster wrote on 2012-05-03 20:06
Pretty hard to take you seriously when you're being so condescending with the bible speak.
I'll take anti-abortion people seriously when they poney up the money for additional health care as well as providing additional support for the children who are born into poverty.
-
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-04 00:46
Quote from ValkyrieHamster;855085:
Pretty hard to take you seriously when you're being so condescending with the bible speak.
I'll take anti-abortion people seriously when they poney up the money for additional health care as well as providing additional support for the children who are born into poverty.
What do you have against old English? It's fun to use. [S]Don't forget to rep![/S]
Face it, the majority of women getting abortions are dumb teenagers who think they're too cool for abstinence and end up getting pregnant because of their own lack of responsibility. I'll start taking pro-death people seriously when they recognize that fact and stop trying to hide behind "rape", "incest", and "financial issues". The only time abortion is
ever justified is if there is a 100% chance that
both the mother and child will die if she tries to give birth.