I wasn't saying that they were the same thing. I simply commented on your statement of, "It's not a human's place to decide whether or not to kill another human," I was putting aside the whole abortion argument for a second with that little paragraph.
And as for the rest of your paragraph, we're now bringing personal experience into an argument instead of facts. But I'll respond anyways. Yes, I would have gladly allowed someone to come up to me, and end my life at any given time. And all of the other kids there with me? They all felt the same way. 90% of us, including me didn't care about living anymore. I cut myself on a daily basis, and simply didn't care about anything. Now am I saying everyone's like this? No, of course not. And I'm not saying that murdering kids just because they're GOING to have a shitty life is a valid thing to do. I'm saying that I think a kid who already HAS a shitty life, where everyday is a living hell, and it's a struggle to get up in the morning, putting him/her out their misery is the right thing to do. (This is no longer abortion though, this is murder or suicide so really this is completely off topic.)
To this day, I'm still very suicidal due to my childhood. The only reason I'm sitting here today is because of my girl, and smoke. And I'm very lucky that things got semi-decent for me. Although I still have many mental illnesses, and my medication costs 2k every other week. So I'm not going to lie, if I had the choice to go back and end it all, I most likely would.
I wasn't bringing in your personal life in i was just asking a rhetoric question. Please by no means take what I said personally and I am sorry for all your past experiences. Now I'm just curious as to why you think that putting people out of their misery(murder) is a better option that supplying them with better living conditions.
Originally Posted by LuaHax
Abortions are straight up wrong. You don't have to dig deep into different resources to figure this out. The definition of abortion (The killing of unborn babies) just instantly comes to me as morally wrong. In America if you destroy a Bald eagle's egg they fine you $250,000 but if you kill an unborn baby the Government will fund you. Does this strike anyone else as odd?
Yeah, I find the destroying an eagles egg not worth $250k fine.
How is it morally wrong? Explaining stuff instead of just saying "it's wrong" would do a lot for you.
Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller
I wasn't bringing in your personal life in i was just asking a rhetoric question. Please by no means take what I said personally and I am sorry for all your past experiences. Now I'm just curious as to why you think that putting people out of their misery(murder) is a better option that supplying them with better living conditions.
Well...... suffering isn't always better than death.
Either way, this is rather past the point of abortion and the fetus. Living conditions don't apply for the overwhelming majority of abortions that take place anyway.
Originally Posted by Empire
Yeah, I find the destroying an eagles egg not worth $250k fine.
How is it morally wrong? Explaining stuff instead of just saying "it's wrong" would do a lot for you.
Well...... suffering isn't always better than death.
Either way, this is rather past the point of abortion and the fetus. Living conditions don't apply for the overwhelming majority of abortions that take place anyway.
What @LuaHax is basically saying, and is in my opinion a valid point(just not for this debate), the destruction of an eagles egg(Which is not living) is prohibited by law but the killing of a nonliving human fetus is not. He was pointing out an imbalance in the government that, while it doesn't contribute to either side of the debate, is quite curious.
Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller
What @LuaHax is basically saying, and is in my opinion a valid point(just not for this debate), the destruction of an eagles egg(Which is not living) is prohibited by law but the killing of a nonliving human fetus is not. He was pointing out an imbalance in the government that, while it doesn't contribute to either side of the debate, is quite curious.
Well government fine are generally ridiculous in and of themselves, and only exist to "tax" people and perhaps prevent destruction of the national bird.
However its again pretty silly to argue this with the law provided given that you and luhax's viewpoint is morality/ethics. There is a law past a certain time for abortions and there is a penalty for doing so already.
What is commonly misused is pointing out one thing to reference how the other one is a lesser offense. This is pretty stupid though when I could list traffic violations or half a dozen other things that are more dangerous to human life than the bald eagle's eggs.
:/
Originally Posted by Empire
Well government fine are generally ridiculous in and of themselves, and only exist to "tax" people and perhaps prevent destruction of the national bird.
However its again pretty silly to argue this with the law provided given that you and luhax's viewpoint is morality/ethics. There is a law past a certain time for abortions and there is a penalty for doing so already.
What is commonly misused is pointing out one thing to reference how the other one is a lesser offense. This is pretty stupid though when I could list traffic violations or half a dozen other things that are more dangerous to human life than the bald eagle's eggs.
:/
Yet there is no time period where you are allowed to kill a bald eagle's egg. If the egg has JUST been laid, you are not allowed to kill it. Why is it that there are exceptions for abortions of human fetuses but not a bird's egg?(Not on either side, just playing devil's advocate.)
Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller
Yet there is no time period where you are allowed to kill a bald eagle's egg. If the egg has JUST been laid, you are not allowed to kill it. Why is it that there are exceptions for abortions of human fetuses but not a bird's egg?(Not on either side, just playing devil's advocate.)
:/ again, this isn't an argument.
It's using a ridiculous law to trying to relate it.
Originally Posted by Empire
:/ again, this isn't an argument.
It's using a ridiculous law to trying to relate it.
How is it not an argument? Don't you believe that right and wrong, and thereby affording both individual and societal safety and encouraging positive cultural growth, is determined by a society as a whole through the use of government and law? What purpose does law serve if not that? I would note that the synchronization of the two are offset by probably 10-20 years, but certainly they are 100% related.
I've never heard this eagle egg argument before and find it quite intriguing.
My view on this topic changed a bit after becoming a father. My thought is once a potential lifeform is imminent, then it is immoral to end its life. If your life situation does not conveniently allow for a child, then put on some rubber before screwing. Not only can you avoid this difficult/stressful decision, you'll last longer and maybe give her a few extra happy's. Maybe she'll return the favor for you in the morning.
Originally Posted by maddoggy00
How is it not an argument? Don't you believe that right and wrong, and thereby affording both individual and societal safety and encouraging positive cultural growth, is determined by a society as a whole through the use of government and law? What purpose does law serve if not that? I would note that the synchronization of the two are offset by probably 10-20 years, but certainly they are 100% related.
I've never heard this eagle egg argument before and find it quite intriguing.
My view on this topic changed a bit after becoming a father. My thought is once a potential lifeform is imminent, then it is immoral to end its life. If your life situation does not conveniently allow for a child, then put on some rubber before screwing. Not only can you avoid this difficult/stressful decision, you'll last longer and maybe give her a few extra happy's. Maybe she'll return the favor for you in the morning.
It's not relevant for several reasons.
1. It's not a law applying to humans.
2. It's a fine, even if we applied the same fine or more, you'd be arguing that "human life" has a set price.
3. It's also a ridiculous law to begin with, and only there for preventative measure. Doubt there is more than 1 person annually who breaks the law and is fined.
4. By logic you could compare that law to any number of things(speeding through a schoolzone), and it makes them seem petty by perspective.
Again, the eagle fine isn't an argument. It's taking a silly law and applying it to a moral issue.
-------
So you are in agreement with abortion till week 23-24 when the child has a high chance of surviving outside the mother?
Originally Posted by Empire
It's not relevant for several reasons.
1. It's not a law applying to humans.
2. It's a fine, even if we applied the same fine or more, you'd be arguing that "human life" has a set price.
3. It's also a ridiculous law to begin with, and only there for preventative measure. Doubt there is more than 1 person annually who breaks the law and is fined.
4. By logic you could compare that law to any number of things(speeding through a schoolzone), and it makes them seem petty by perspective.
Again, the eagle fine isn't an argument. It's taking a silly law and applying it to a moral issue.
-------
So you are in agreement with abortion till week 23-24 when the child has a high chance of surviving outside the mother?
Under normal circumstances, after week ~14 is when the chance of a miscarriage sharply drops. I'm on the fence about before that; I don't really feel strongly either way. But I definitely think it's wrong after that.
You're avoiding my questions: How do laws become existent, and what purpose do they serve? If you dig deeper to the fundamentals behind law itself, you will see that the eagle egg argument is completely logical and relevant. One law being for humans, another being for animals, is a completely separate issue and shouldn't be confused with the binding thought of the purpose of law. If you, as an individual, find a particular law to be stupid, then that's on you. But laws are created by a society, and therefore you cannot dismiss law as an element here on your individualistic preference.
Ironically, based on your line #2, we could argue that a pre-born eagle has a set value of $250k or whatever, whereas a pre-born human has a set value of $0. This is why I find it an interesting comparison. But whether you want to believe it or not, every human has quantitative $-based value to someone else. Just few people ever dare to find out what it is. That's one purpose of law: provide safety.
Originally Posted by maddoggy00
Under normal circumstances, after week ~14 is when the chance of a miscarriage sharply drops. I'm on the fence about before that; I don't really feel strongly either way. But I definitely think it's wrong after that.
You're avoiding my questions: How do laws become existent, and what purpose do they serve? If you dig deeper to the fundamentals behind law itself, you will see that the eagle egg argument is completely logical and relevant. One law being for humans, another being for animals, is a completely separate issue and shouldn't be confused with the binding thought of the purpose of law. If you, as an individual, find a particular law to be stupid, then that's on you. But laws are created by a society, and therefore you cannot dismiss law as an element here on your individualistic preference.
Ironically, based on your line #2, we could argue that a pre-born eagle has a set value of $250k or whatever, whereas a pre-born human has a set value of $0. This is why I find it an interesting comparison. But whether you want to believe it or not, every human has quantitative $-based value to someone else. Just few people ever dare to find out what it is. That's one purpose of law: provide safety.
So why miscarriage again? The baby can't survive outside of the womb at week 14-20 anyway. If i'm correct miscarriage is not considered "abortion" and not exactly relevant at all...
----------------------------------------------------
Well the only reason I didn't answer your "questions" is because they were rhetorical. Not only that, a little bit off-topic as you were telling me about general law, and not the topic at hand. It's kind of the "let me ramble on and act like it proves a point" type of argument. Answering it would only distract from abortion into a topic of general law and it's creation. Which is fine, but make another thread for that.
-Please, don't make the same mistake people make here and just say "oh it's logical and relative" but not explaining why, especially when i'm explaining why not.
-----------------------------------------------------
Its like you read #2 and didn't understand why its a stupid idea to argue unborn eagles/humans have a set monetary value if you applied a fine to the law.
I thought it would be rather obvious, but it's apparently not.
Fines do not equal value, they are a deterrent.
------------------------------
There are already laws on abortion and accepted weeks of doing so. If you want to argue against abortion that's fine, arguing against the laws is fine too.
Just don't be stupid and argue semantics. It's a waste of my time.
Originally Posted by ap0.
Haha, funny how they do, scissors xD
How the hell is that supposed to be funny?
Originally Posted by Pepsi Cola
How the hell is that supposed to be funny?
Would be fun to do xD
Originally Posted by ap0.
Would be fun to do xD
Killing a little baby?
Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller
Killing a little baby?
Haha you people take shit too seriously xD
Was fucking with ya. I would never do such a thing.
Originally Posted by ap0.
Haha you people take shit too seriously xD
Was fucking with ya. I would never do such a thing.
Not funny when we're trying to have a serious debate. Go shitpost somewhere else.
Originally Posted by Deflorate.
