Soup: No. She’s ostensibly blameless. Ostensible: Having the outward appearance of… “Her ostensible cheerfulness concealed her sadness.”
HawkeyE was blaming the victim.
prove souls exist.
he doesnt need to prove it, its true because he believes its true and no one can refute it
Soles exist.
oh wait…[/SIZE]
Minds exists, soles/souls do not
Soles do exist! So there!
wait a minunte… here… done! need more proof?
I feel like the current “fetus” designation and dehumanization is a cop-out to make it sound more comfortable for our society so that we can continue to have abortions. It’s not a baby, it’s just a thing that will one day become a baby, so go ahead and kill it before it gets a chance to because once it does, that’s murder and you in turn can be killed for killing it. It’s interesting to note that the terminology we use for abortion today stems from its earliest significant advocates, a large number of whom were eugenicists. Take Margaret Sanger, for instance, the founder of Planned Parenthood in America. It started out as a single birth control clinic that eventually grew into the American Birth Control League. Since this name sounded “anti-family”, it was later renamed to “Planned Parenthood”, which sounds much more family friendly. Here are some quotes from her:
And here’s an example showing that eugenically valuable “Birth Control Propaganda in” action where she talks about the Negro Project:
That doesn’t necessarily mean that she sought to use birth control as a means to quell African-American childbirths, thought it might. There just isn’t enough context. The reason I included that quote was to show that birth control can easily be used by racists to eliminate ethnicities that they find are undesirable, and many eugenicists of the period did advocate that. She may have even merely tried to play on the racist inclinations endemic to society during that period in an attempt to bolster support for birth control, which was something that was taboo back then. That aside, she did want to forcibly prevent certain undesirables from procreating, as noted in the earlier quotes. She also seems to have had a keener interest in the poor and ethnic, what other period eugenicists referred to as the “the uneducated masses”.
Regardless, while a “negative eugenicist”, even she was not a fan of abortion:
[quote=Margaret Sanger, “Contraceptives or Abortion?” (1920)]
While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.
[quote]
While what Sanger thought shouldn’t have a bearing on why we choose to either support abortion or not, it is interesting to see the thoughts of the founder of Planned Parenthood, which is—by far—the largest advocate for the pro-abortion cause in the United States today. Sanger, and eugenicists in general, sought scientific support for their theories as a means to convince the populace. There were a number of eugenicists that were even scientists. There are also many modern scientists that are concerned with the thread of “over-population”. The current distinction between human and fetus comes directly from science. Science, sadly, isn’t done in an unbiased vacuum of objectivity. It should theoretically, but it does not in practice. I’m not denying that there is a notable difference between a “fetus” and a post-birth child, there certainly is.
However, there are lots of notable differences in any of the stages of human development, that is why they are organized in stages. Take a female, for example. During the pregnancy, the fetus eventually develops female features, as dictated by its XX chromosome. At a later stage, the fetus becomes capable of self-sufficiency. After birth, it will learn to walk. At another stage, it will learn to speak. At one point, it will begin to menstruate and thereby become capable of procreation. Later, it will reach menopause, and cease menstruating. Finally, it will die. These are some of the major stages for a typical human female, and I was overly brief and general to merely illustrate a point. What valid reason is there to choose any of these stages over another? Completing the typical 9 month process does not seem to be a valid reason to draw a distinction, because, developmentally speaking, it is one of the least important aspects. As evidenced by numerous premature births, the fetus/baby/whatever is self-sufficient months before the typical 9 month interval. So people have pointed at the third trimester/self-sufficiency as being the important distinction and where we can start calling the fetus human. The fetus, however, had human DNA and a distinct sex all along. Isn’t the most rational point the one which it all begins with? Every stage is merely a stage, and I think that choosing one over the other is arbitrary. Clearly having the capability to procreate is one of the most, and arguably the most, important of all the stages in a female’s development, so should we allow abortions for females up until the specimen reaches puberty? This is why I contend that the only rational distinction is the one that begins the entire developmental process—conception. Just because a fetus has not developed a conscious (that we’re aware of, anyway), emotions or friends (I’m pretty sure it does have a desire to live, otherwise it would just stop living on its own) does not make it any less of a human than not reaching puberty for a girl does. Those are merely stages in the entirety of the development cycle. They’re all important and stem from the common cause of conception. That set of cells is unlike any other set of cells in that it immediately has the potentiality to achieve all the other human stages of development. It immediately has the potential to be self-sufficient, born, to speak, sense, think, make friends, procreate and die a natural, mortal death. No other set of cells has that potential. Even a sperm and an egg do not have that potential on their own, but only once the sperm is implanted in the egg. The only potential the sperm has is to either plant itself in an egg or not, and for the egg, to be implanted or not.
Do you have to agree with me? No, but that’s why I consider conception as the beginning—because it is. I think that having the potential is enough to be considered a living human, whereas I find setting the achievement of arguably arbitrary potentialities to be a disgusting means of dehumanization to make abortion easier for us to swallow. This practice mirrors how we dehumanize criminals that commit capital offenses so that we can feel ok about executing them. You can try to dehumanize them all you want to make yourself feel better about supporting or committing the act, but that doesn’t make them not human.
Also, you have very good English for a Brazilian. Eu no fala Portuguese.
all you have proved is that waiting 60 seconds does not prove a soul exists
Oh dear lord, TL;??R
… uh, yeah, actually. i’d like some actual proof souls exist.
I think I am waisting time explaining this to you but i have nothing to do else. I think you have heared about numerous reports when while having clinical death people see themselves from side is this enough for you? oh and btw, god says that soul exists but i think he is just drunk for the momen.(what he even understands in religion, bah!)
You’ve got it backward - yours is the potentiality argument.
I’m not sure who you’re asking, but I answered it in my earlier post:
Obviously, the girl’s a bitch, but you still took the risks.
That reminds me, though. The last on-duty/base suicide to occur in the Greek Army happened on the based I was stationed at a little under a year before I got there. Even since then, no one in the entire Greek military was ever again allowed to go on armed guard duty by themselves From then on, there always had to be at least 2 keeping an eye on eachother. Anyway, the guy apparently knocked his girlfriend up unknowingly before he was sent to the base. She spoke with his mother about it and asked her what to do, and his mother advised her to have an abortion. All this went on with the guy having any clue. So, one day he gets a phone call–I’m not sure from who–and he finds out that his girlfriend was pregnant with his child, and that she had an abortion. An hour or so later, he checked out his gun and ammo and went off to the guard post he had been assigned to for the day. He stuck the barrel of his G3A3 in his mouth and fired a 7.62x51 NATO round into his brains. The captain that I ended up having was the officer on duty during the night it happened and was the first to find him, effectively headless, after the shot was heard.
Uhh, the vast, vast, VAST majority, probably upwards of 95% of them, of all abortions are done for that very reason. What is immature, however, is using the cases of rape and incest as the end-all be-all defense for everyone to have abortions.
Again, you aren’t getting my point. My point is that they’ve had the opportunity to make decisions which affect their life, the thing inside of her, on the other hand, has not. It has nothing whatsoever to be blamed for, yet can be forced to cease its developmental process and die.
Nice job on figuring out what ostensibly means. That sentence is misleading, though, as ostensible doesn’t necessarily imply that things aren’t that way, but merely that they appear that way.
The rapist is obviously to blame for the rape itself. The victim, though, is to blame for being there. It sounds ridiculously harsh, sure, it even confuses me at times, but the rapist didn’t make her end up where she ended up, the he did, however, advantage of her location to violate her. You can’t blame the rapist for the rape victim being there. Like I said earlier, though, there might be no reason for the rape victim to not go where the rapist was. For instance, she normally takes that way and it is has always been safe thus far, so she decided that day to take that way home again. The key is that she decided. It’s a really, really shitty situation, but she did make (an albeit innocent) decision. Again, the thing growing inside of her never had the chance to make a mistake, yet can end up being punished (aborted).
It’s a big issue, and no one is making you read it.
You completely missed what I said… I said that I accept potentiality as sufficient to be human. The counter is that there is a point where a non-human fetus magically becomes a human being, and that point involves achieving some of the potentialities. Namely, self-sufficiency/third trimester or, to others, the act of birth itself. Those are merely potentials that are present at conception, the only difference is that they stress achieving those specific potentials as the key to humanity. I was explaining why I think that’s arbitrary and baseless.
… what?
jesus christ, out of body experiences are hallucinations controlled by YOUR BRAIN, it has nothing to do with a soul.
and by the way, i’m not asking for anecdotes. i’m asking for actual scientific evidence that souls exist.
and i’m not even going to acknowledge the “god says so” thing.
This is more for that other thread but I’ll answer it here anyway:
I have heard those stories and how some of them are flawed (such as believing a doctor has brown hair but is actually blond…or that a woman is on your left but is actually on the right…)
It is a hallucination caused by a malfunctioning brain that can be recreated by activating certain neurons and regions of the brain. I think the big problem here is that you have this belief and anything that reinforces said belief is automatically believed without question or further investigation.
It is intellectual laziness on your part to not take it one step further. It’s like believing in aliens visiting Earth then seeing a light in the sky and immediately believing it’s space aliens coming…only to find out it’s a helicopter.
This part of your post was already discussed, but I want to comment on it still, if I may.
Besides the fact that one cannot really predict what may happen, sometimes running away is not possible. What if the rape happens at home? What if the rapist is the father and the daughter is too afraid to go anywhere? What if the child was never taught that what was going on is wrong?
To me, it just sounds like, at least in this rape/incest point, it’s a lot easier for people to comment and point fingers when you have not been through it. You’ll never know how it is. I do support abortion in the case of rape/incest precisely because of it - you may say that there is “a choice somewhere down the line”. So what would happen in the case a young girl gets pregnant because her father raped her? Do you suggest the girl birth and tries to somehow love the child? I… I don’t know. Guess adoption may be a choice, but since the point here is abortion, then trying to love this child will prove difficult, I’m sure.
Just ramblin’ here.
Where the word “abortion” stems from, or what some eugenicist thought about it, isn’t really relevant to the topic…
You might go on to state something relevant after all the Sanger quotes, but seriously, who could be arsed to read through that lot?
Choosing from those 3, I’d have to say Pro-Choice. There’s nothing more important than a human being’s freedom of choice. Adding to that, i don’t consider it “murder” to get an abortion, since i don’t consider the fetus/baby/thing to be alive - and I’m quite sure you have to be alive to get murdered.
Furthermore i find the whole “birth control”-discussion ridiculous. I have a friend who went through an abortion, and it’s not just something you go through like: “1,2,3 baby pops out, everything’s good” - it is both physically and mentally tough.
… Especially if you have assholes talking about murder afterwards.
he’s one of the people who thinks every rape is in a dark alley by a stranger, when that’s actually the minority of cases seeing as most people are raped by someone close to them. he doesn’t care that that makes it even harder for the victim, he thinks they should be shamed further by taking away the rights to their own body, even though all of society and possibly even their friends and family shame them for it already.
@jokerine
and to everyone who didnt believe in rape culture?
there it is. right there.
And the fetus doesn’t have rights? I mean, if we are talking about rights over our own body and all, it would stand to reason that the same goes for the fetus. Right?