Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(December 1, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Let me clarify. I was not referring to God at all when I said that lol. I was simply referring to the reality of the world we live in and how we, all of us, come into existence. How do we not have the right to be in our mother's wombs when that is what we evolved to do? That is what humanity's existance depends on. And our bodies evolved specifically to cater to that. You might as well say we don't have the right to use up oxygen from the Earth's air or something lol. That is the whole evolutionary purpose of why we have that entire part of our bodies. A fetus is supposed to be there. So yes, it has the right to be there. That is the natural order of our world and of the continuation of the human species. It's not like some big bad baby just barges forcefully into some random chick's body without "asking for permission" lol. He is a completely innocent bystander of natural order, as we all were too when we were conceived and lived in our mom's wombs for 9 months.
Anyway, I don't mean to harp on this, and I hate for any discussion to be going in circles. But I felt like I had to repeat myself again in order to clarify that this argument has nothing to do with God.
But people here aren't making the argument that abortion should only be okay in cases of rape lol. The argument being made is that abortion should always be okay. Through all 9 months of pregnancy, no matter what reason. Because a women has the bodily autonomy to abort her offspring, and that bodily autonomy does not go away for any reason at any stage of the pregnancy. That is the current argument being made, and the one I am replying to. Since abortion due to rape is very rare because pregnancy due to rape is rare, I am not assuming that we are talking about rape cases every time we say abortion.
Actually, different people are making vastly different arguments in this thread. Don't lump us all together just because you personally, or one other person in this thread, takes one extreme position or the other.
Most people are not extremists on the issue of abortion. Very few take the position that it is always or never ok. You have taken one extreme position of never, but most people in this thread (and most people in America, according to survey's btw) have only said it is sometimes acceptable, and there is a wide range of opinions on when and why that might be.
The vast majority of Americans do not view this as a black/white, either/or position. Those who do are extremists on this topic, and make up less than 20% of the population.
I didn't mean to lump everyone together. From what I understand, everyone who has been having this discussion with me has the position that a mother should always have the legal right to abort. My responses are to them. If I misunderstood someone, I do apologize.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
@CL, I noticed while you were searching for other people's hypocrisy, a little question I had. You said you would not help your friend get a stray cat an abortion, because all life is sacred, correct? But you are ok eating meat, and killing parasites, etc. So what kind of life, specifically, IS sacred? I would have guessed human only, but your cat story confuses me, because you implied animal life is also sacred (you said ALL), but you yourself then have many exceptions to this rule of ALL life.
So could you clarify for me when life is ok to take? Is it when an animal isn't cute? Or when it tastes good?
I'm not trying to be a bitch, just trying to understand the inconsistency there.
(December 1, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Aroura Wrote: @CL, I noticed while you were searching for other people's hypocrisy, a little question I had. You said you would not help your friend get a stray cat an abortion, because all life is sacred, correct? But you are ok eating meat, and killing parasites, etc. So what kind of life, specifically, IS sacred? I would have guessed human only, but your cat story confuses me, because you implied animal life is also sacred (you said ALL), but you yourself then have many exceptions to this rule of ALL life.
So could you clarify for me when life is ok to take? Is it when an animal isn't cute? Or when it tastes good?
I'm not trying to be a bitch, just trying to understand the inconsistency there.
St. Carlin on the sanctity of life:
Sanctity of Life
"But you know, the longer you listen to this abortion debate, the more you hear this phrase 'sanctity of life.'" You've heard that, 'sanctity of life.'" You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a bunch of shit. Well I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death, has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, all taking turns killing each other because God told them it was a good idea. The sword of God, the blood of the lamb, vengeance is mine, millions of dead motherfuckers, all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question.
'You believe in God?'
'No.'
*BANG* Dead.
'You believe in God?'
'Yes.'
'You believe in my God?'
'No.'
*Bang* Dead.
'My God has a bigger dick than your God!' That's how it is, isn't it? Thousands of years, and all the best wars too, the bloodiest, most brutal wars fought all based on religious hatred, which is fine with me. Anytime a bunch of holy people want to kill each other, I'm a happy guy. But don't be giving me all this shit about the sanctity of life. I mean, even if there were such a thing, I don't think it's something you can blame on God. No, you know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up! You know why? Cause we're alive! Self-interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred. You don't see Abbott and Costello running around, talking about this shit, do you? We're not hearing a whole lot from Mussolini on the subject. What's the latest from JFK? Not a god damned thing, cause JFK, Mussolini, and Abbott and Costello are fucking dead. They're fucking dead, and dead people give less than a shit about the sanctity of life. Only living people care about it, so the whole thing grows out of a completely biased point of view. It's a self-serving, man-made bullshit story. It's one of these things we tell ourselves so we'll feel noble. Life is sacred, makes you feel noble.
Well let me ask you this, if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is going to die, where does the sacred part come in? I'm having trouble with that. Because even with the stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don't practice it. Look at what we kill. Mosquitoes and flies, because they're pests! Lions and tigers, because it's fun! Chickens and pigs, because we're hungry. Pheasants and quail, because it's fun, and we're hungry. And people! We kill people, because they're pests... and it's fun!
And you might have noticed something else, the sanctity of life doesn't seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You never see a bumper sticker that says 'save the tumors' or 'I brake for advanced melanoma.' No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, e. coli bacteria, the crabs, nothing sacred about those things. So at best, the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up! Made it up, the same way we made up the death penalty. We made them both up, the sanctity of life and the death penalty. Aren't we versatile?!"
(December 1, 2015 at 7:11 pm)Catholic_Lad Wrote: I didn't mean to lump everyone together. From what I understand, everyone who has been having this discussion with me has the position that a mother should always have the legal right to abort. My responses are to them. If I misunderstood someone, I do apologize.
I certainly do not feel that way, and neither does the US law.
If The Flintstones have taught us anything, it's that pelicans can be used to mix cement.
(December 1, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Aroura Wrote: @CL, I noticed while you were searching for other people's hypocrisy, a little question I had. You said you would not help your friend get a stray cat an abortion, because all life is sacred, correct? But you are ok eating meat, and killing parasites, etc. So what kind of life, specifically, IS sacred? I would have guessed human only, but your cat story confuses me, because you implied animal life is also sacred (you said ALL), but you yourself then have many exceptions to this rule of ALL life.
So could you clarify for me when life is ok to take? Is it when an animal isn't cute? Or when it tastes good?
I'm not trying to be a bitch, just trying to understand the inconsistency there.
All life is sacred, of course. And yes, I believe that killing an animal for food is justifiable, but killing them because you don't want to take care of them is not.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
Actually, in the name of bodily autonomy, I think abortion should be legal until birth.
The thing is, though, that's not even a *thing*. It's not like women are going, "oh, I'm pregnant. I think I'll carry this fetus to term and get an abortion the day before my due date muahahahahaha". The only time late-term abortions are ever a thing is in an emergency.
(December 1, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Aroura Wrote: @CL, I noticed while you were searching for other people's hypocrisy, a little question I had. You said you would not help your friend get a stray cat an abortion, because all life is sacred, correct? But you are ok eating meat, and killing parasites, etc. So what kind of life, specifically, IS sacred? I would have guessed human only, but your cat story confuses me, because you implied animal life is also sacred (you said ALL), but you yourself then have many exceptions to this rule of ALL life.
So could you clarify for me when life is ok to take? Is it when an animal isn't cute? Or when it tastes good?
I'm not trying to be a bitch, just trying to understand the inconsistency there.
All life is sacred, of course. And yes, I believe that killing an animal for food is justifiable, but killing them because you don't want to take care of them is not.
I see, so it is the tasty option.
Would you be ok with the cat abortion if the remains had been used as food? A lot of people in the east eat cat. I personally don't ever want to try it, but it is a thing.
What about killing animals to feed to other animals? For instance, if the aborted fetuses were fed to living cats? Because it would have been for food, that would have been ok, then.
Also...I assume this rule about killing for food does not extend to humans, even though we are technically animals. You mean non-human animals, correct? Just clarifying the cannibalism loop-hole here.
(December 1, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Aroura Wrote: @CL, I noticed while you were searching for other people's hypocrisy, a little question I had. You said you would not help your friend get a stray cat an abortion, because all life is sacred, correct? But you are ok eating meat, and killing parasites, etc. So what kind of life, specifically, IS sacred? I would have guessed human only, but your cat story confuses me, because you implied animal life is also sacred (you said ALL), but you yourself then have many exceptions to this rule of ALL life.
So could you clarify for me when life is ok to take? Is it when an animal isn't cute? Or when it tastes good?
I'm not trying to be a bitch, just trying to understand the inconsistency there.
All life is sacred, of course. And yes, I believe that killing an animal for food is justifiable, but killing them because you don't want to take care of them is not.
What if the food goes to waste? Like it reaches it's expiry date without being sold. Does killing the animal become unjustified retroactively?
(December 1, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: All life is sacred, of course. And yes, I believe that killing an animal for food is justifiable, but killing them because you don't want to take care of them is not.
I see, so it is the tasty option.
Would you be ok with the cat abortion if the remains had been used as food? A lot of people in the east eat cat. I personally don't ever want to try it, but it is a thing.
What about killing animals to feed to other animals? For instance, if the aborted fetuses were fed to living cats? Because it would have been for food, that would have been ok, then.
Also...I assume this rule about killing for food does not extend to humans, even though we are technically animals. You mean non-human animals, correct? Just clarifying the cannibalism loop-hole here.
Yes, I believe it is not immoral to kill animals for food. Even cats. I don't like the fact that we kill animals for food, and that's why I've tried going vegetarian, but I understand that it's the way nature works and I don't think it's a "sin" or anything.
Killing other humans for good I do believe is wrong though.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
(December 1, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: All life is sacred, of course. And yes, I believe that killing an animal for food is justifiable, but killing them because you don't want to take care of them is not.
What if the food goes to waste? Like it reaches it's expiry date without being sold. Does killing the animal become unjustified retroactively?
I wouldn't say so, because that was not the intent. What about you? What do you think?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
