Pro-life, or pro-choice?

[Bruno]

Discuss.

If you don't know in regards to what, then you're not educated enough in the topic to discuss.

[Damus_Graves]

Pro-Choice
If your considering abortion you might not be ready for a kid. But in any case Im not ok with bringing a kid into the world without being prepared for the stuff and things.

[Bunny]

I'm not a fan of abortions. If you do the crime you do the time, whether it's keeping and raising the child, or giving it away for adoption. Many people would love to adopt a new baby, so you might as well not kill it! Besides people will never learn responsibility and maturity the easy way out!

[Dudemanguy12]

As someone who is disabled, and even my mother offered to have an abortion, I am pro-life. As Bunny said, whether you keep the child, or give it away for adoption. As for the child is bought to life being unprepared argument, I just want to know who's decision is it to to determine one's existence.

In reality, life sucks. Our "purpose" is quite limited, and others need a chance to live life to the fullest.

[Cryptonic]

I'm not a fan of abortions because I knew a girl who had gotten 2 abortions; One day, we were talking, and I asked her why she wasn't on birth control. She told me that she doesn't plan on having sex, so there isn't a point. Last I heard, she has now had 3 abortions (that was like, 4 years ago). All this before she was even 20. There are countless couples that would love to adopt a baby, and I feel like you shouldn't be having sex if you aren't responsible enough to use protection/raise a child.

That being said, I am pro-choice. It's just not my choice.

[oops_ur_dead]

Pro-choice until the 5th or 6th week of development, then pro-life. Reason being that that's when the CNS begins to develop.

Also I hate the term pro-life. It makes it sound like anyone who isn't pro-life is pro-death or something and is some immoral serial killer type.

[deathworlds]

I'm going to look at it from two points of view.

From a genetic point of view as a species we are hard coded to reproduce (Using any means necessary) to keep the species going on indefinitely. When you look at animal planet you see in usually mentions "The two males fight, the strongest will be able to mate" or some shit. So we would want to have the strongest babies while still keeping the population from decreasing. Ergo Pro choice.

From a religious point of view abortion would be wrong because they have a soul or something. (If you want more information read the bible)

[oops_ur_dead]

From a genetic point of view as a species we are hard coded to reproduce (Using any means necessary) to keep the species going on indefinitely. When you look at animal planet you see in usually mentions "The two males fight, the strongest will be able to mate" or some shit. So we would want to have the strongest babies while still keeping the population from decreasing. Ergo Pro choice.

Two things wrong with this. Firstly, Darwinism does not prescribe morality. Just because doing something "goes against" natural selection doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it; in fact, quite the opposite, since we evolved morality as a mechanism of influencing natural selection. If we're to ignore morals in favour of natural selection, should we also refuse to treat people who have medical issues?
Also, I don't see how any of that has anything to do with being pro-choice.

[deathworlds]

People make stupid decisions with the gene pool. Therefor more disabled infants, ergo a less stronger species.

[Lazers]

A choice should only be available in rape scenarios.

Otherwise, get some goddamn birth control

[Kusco]

For those of you who are pro-choice, what is your opinion of using tax-payer money to pay for abortions? I'm curious because the pro-choicers I know dislike forcing people to pay for something they may disagree with.

I'm pro-life, btw. Everyone has guaranteed misery regardless of class, location, or circumstances. No one has a right to decide for someone else whether they can handle the misery. Besides, if there is no sadness how can people show the beauty of true happiness?

My brother is a very difficult and expensive gift. Do I ever feel like trading him and his faults for someone who is "normal"? Yes. But without him, I would be someone completely different. Many points in life were "lows" that only made the "highs" even better. Similar to showing how without evil, good cannot exist, without misery, joy also cannot exist.

Practically speaking, people who have abortions either are stupid for not having birth control or ignorant of the adoption option. There are quite a few couples who would love to raise a child. They may be childless or want another child without a pregnancy. Life with those parents would likely be better than life with the mother who feels unprepared for a child or unwilling to give up her career or lifestyle.

Yes the future will be miserable. Yes the kid will have to deal with some tough issues. But that kid may also have times of complete joy and happiness that make all the misery and pain worth it.

[oops_ur_dead]

Practically speaking, people who have abortions either are stupid for not having birth control or ignorant of the adoption option. There are quite a few couples who would love to raise a child. They may be childless or want another child without a pregnancy. Life with those parents would likely be better than life with the mother who feels unprepared for a child or unwilling to give up her career or lifestyle.

Birth control is not 100% effective. Even birth control pills can fail. The body can even undo vasectomies in rare cases.

I never think of the "but another family can adopt the child so it's not like they even have to keep it!" argument as particularly valid. The woman's body still has to go through enormous and potentially life-threatening stress to deliver the baby. And it isn't like there's a shortage of children to adopt, hell, there are way too many.

[louiswill]

The fact that abortion is an option has nothing to do with pro-choice and pro-life.

The fact that people want to choose it is due to economic, culture.

I believe abortion is a crime but excusable on the earth.

I don't think law enforcers should take a stand to stop it.

I think to accept abortion's bill as state benefit is still arguable.

The fact that many people choose abortion has nothing to do with its necessity.

All choices have its consequences. People should stop abortion but not force it to happen.

I am also a male.

[Mateo]

pro choice but i wouldnt choose it

also, i knew this one chick who decided to get an abortion and everyone was all boooo but then the fetus turned out to be balck so everyone was ok

[kyle1234513]

pro life, plenty of people are willing to adopt your baby. however choice should still be an option for 2 reasons, 1) rape pregnancies and 2) the fetus is causing medical difficulties and it is hazardous to the mother, or in the case of the fetus having a high chance of being born with birth defects or a known genetic disease.

[oops_ur_dead]

plenty of people are willing to adopt your baby.

Oh okay so I guess all 3500+ kids on this site aren't actually looking for a parent and they're actually living a happy life: http://www.adoptuskids.org/

[kyle1234513]

Oh okay so I guess all 3500+ kids on this site aren't actually looking for a parent and they're actually living a happy life: http://www.adoptuskids.org/

baby* not 10yr old ~17yr old.
parents want a baby, adopt as young as possible. the older they get the less likely they are to be adopted.
you can make a newborn believe you are their mom and dad, its just not the same when they "know" they're adopted.

[Bruno]

baby* not 10yr old ~17yr old.
parents want a baby, adopt as young as possible. the older they get the less likely they are to be adopted.
you can make a newborn believe you are their mom and dad, its just not the same when they "know" they're adopted.

Maybe if the person doing it is a selfish asshole that could be possible.

[Muso]

As somebody who works in the medical field and who's seen first-hand the real situation, I'm definitely pro-choice.

To reference data from my own country (and it's echoed worldwide), legalising abortion doesn't do much to the actual rates of abortion. If you don't provide a legal, safe, low risk way of terminating a baby it doesn't stop people having abortions. The difference is that instead of a doctor carrying it out, there's a dude who you pay $50 to stick a coathangar past your cervix.

After we legalised abortions in Australia, we noticed that the rates of pregnancy stayed the same, but that our emergency departments were no longer full of ladies with septic infected uteruses from backyard abortions.

Definitely pro-choice.

[louiswill]

As somebody who works in the medical field and who's seen first-hand the real situation, I'm definitely pro-choice.

To reference data from my own country (and it's echoed worldwide), legalising abortion doesn't do much to the actual rates of abortion. If you don't provide a legal, safe, low risk way of terminating a baby it doesn't stop people having abortions. The difference is that instead of a doctor carrying it out, there's a dude who you pay $50 to stick a coathangar past your cervix.

After we legalised abortions in Australia, we noticed that the rates of pregnancy stayed the same, but that our emergency departments were no longer full of ladies with septic infected uteruses from backyard abortions.

Definitely pro-choice.

Thats matching what I thought, people choose abortion not majorly because they can.

[Nick]

What Muso said... I'll add: ideology or real-life situation?

@kyle
What if those baby expired? Grew too old and yet to be adopted? TIME FOR POSTPARTUM ABORTION!!!

[oops_ur_dead]

baby* not 10yr old ~17yr old.
parents want a baby, adopt as young as possible. the older they get the less likely they are to be adopted.
you can make a newborn believe you are their mom and dad, its just not the same when they "know" they're adopted.

Yeah, you're right, every single one of those kids came out of the womb at 10 years old. None of them were ever babies at any point in their lives.

[Kusco]

Birth control is not 100% effective. Even birth control pills can fail. The body can even undo vasectomies in rare cases.

I never think of the "but another family can adopt the child so it's not like they even have to keep it!" argument as particularly valid. The woman's body still has to go through enormous and potentially life-threatening stress to deliver the baby. And it isn't like there's a shortage of children to adopt, hell, there are way too many.

I accept the argument about the birth control. I just think that birth control is a way to diminish the chances of a pregnancy. A pregnancy is still a risk that people should realize is entirely possible. Actions have consequences.

Yes the mother has to go through a ton of stress. I hear you. What I disagree is that the mother decides to snuff out a life just so she doesn't have to suffer. Potential for life > temporary suffering.

Yes it can be life-threatening. I would say that for life-threatening situations, abortion to save the mother ought to be the last resort. A doctor should do no harm to either the child or the mother until shown that not aborting the child could be fatal to both. Even then it's a shitty situation.

Yes, there are a ton of children still not adopted. Have you seen the red tape around adoption agencies? It's a situation there for the children's benefit to keep them away from terrible parents. We've all heard stories of adoptive parents who abuse the kids and generally are terrible people. Even with the numerous laws and policies and background checks, these people still can adopt. The fact that many children are not adopted and abused shows that those laws ought to be looked at and possibly rewritten.

It's still an option (albeit a less than ideal option).


The fact that abortion is an option has nothing to do with pro-choice and pro-life.

The fact that people want to choose it is due to economic, culture.
I agree with you except for the part about nothing to do with the pro-choice/pro-life debates.

Even if abortion is criminalized people will continue to do it. I like that you view abortion as a crime. Do you also view theft as a crime? I bet you do. It's illegal at the moment and has been for most of civilization. It still happens. It's a socioeconomic problem that will continue despite a lot of enforcement of law. One could argue that some people need to steal to live or provide for their families. A worthy cause, no? Let's assume that a lot of theft occurs because thieves need to provide for their family. Our response isn't to decriminalize theft. Our response ought to try to remove the reasons for the theft.

There's a lot of social work and benefits for those who are statistically likely to steal. Theft still continues.

That's one of the reasons that your argument that abortion still continue is a notion that needs to be changed. We need to address the reasons for a crime, rather than make it legal.



I believe abortion is a crime but excusable on the earth.

I don't think law enforcers should take a stand to stop it.

I think to accept abortion's bill as state benefit is still arguable.

The fact that many people choose abortion has nothing to do with its necessity.

All choices have its consequences. People should stop abortion but not force it to happen.

I am also a male.

I'm glad that you see it as a crime.

pro choice but i wouldnt choose it

also, i knew this one chick who decided to get an abortion and everyone was all boooo but then the fetus turned out to be balck so everyone was ok
I'm glad that you wouldn't choose it. I hope there's no situation that you're tempted to go for it. I've just got to say, that situation is just shitty for everyone and makes me boil.

pro life, plenty of people are willing to adopt your baby. however choice should still be an option for 2 reasons, 1) rape pregnancies and 2) the fetus is causing medical difficulties and it is hazardous to the mother, or in the case of the fetus having a high chance of being born with birth defects or a known genetic disease.
I'm glad that you're pro-life. I agree with you on the hazardous to the mother. I'm curious for the rape exception. Why should it be an exception? Yes it's a terrible experience for both the mother and the child, but why resort to abortion?

Why the birth defects or genetic disease? Is humanity at its peak of evolution? Or do you think that people who aren't "normal" (what does that even mean?) are a drain to society? I'm curious since I know quite a few who you might have categorized as "birth defects or a known genetic disease"


As somebody who works in the medical field and who's seen first-hand the real situation, I'm definitely pro-choice.

To reference data from my own country (and it's echoed worldwide), legalising abortion doesn't do much to the actual rates of abortion. If you don't provide a legal, safe, low risk way of terminating a baby it doesn't stop people having abortions. The difference is that instead of a doctor carrying it out, there's a dude who you pay $50 to stick a coathangar past your cervix.

After we legalised abortions in Australia, we noticed that the rates of pregnancy stayed the same, but that our emergency departments were no longer full of ladies with septic infected uteruses from backyard abortions.

Definitely pro-choice.

Now here's what confuses me. Why didn't Australia take a look at what causes mothers to resort to abortion? Like with other crimes or evils, shouldn't people seek to reduce the causes? Isn't prevention better than a cure (reducing overall abortions and complications rather than reacting)?
Yeah, you're right, every single one of those kids came out of the womb at 10 years old. None of them were ever babies at any point in their lives.
You're also right. No child after 10 has ever been adopted into a loving, nurturing home.

You make a nice point (inadvertently). Every single one of those kids has a future and numerous possibilities. From what I know of abortion clinics and their procedures, those unlucky children can look forward to... nothing. The kids in the adoption agencies have lives. Why does their background have to keep them from success? Adoption is not the end-all-be-all for those children. It's a step up, a higher point to jump into the world. They don't absolutely need it. Those kids do need that breath of life to do anything, though.

I'm glad you brought up that those kids have lives.

[Bruno]

Kusco, how is it a life? By definition, babies are parasites.

They feed off of a host.

[kyle1234513]

Yeah, you're right, every single one of those kids came out of the womb at 10 years old. None of them were ever babies at any point in their lives.


its not that they're born at 10, just that their parents die when they are 10 (or any varying age where they aren't young enough to know who their parents are yet) and are then put into a home or up for adoption. car crash, fire, mugged, whatever reason their parents are no longer around and there is no other family.

and as for the birth defects, tay-sachs, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, canavan disease. anything that causes the child to die very early in life or have extremely over complicated or painful lives, then it should be the mothers choice to prevent the life in the first place.

[Bruno]

its not that they're born at 10, just that their parents die when they are 10 (or any varying age where they aren't young enough to know who their parents are yet) and are then put into a home or up for adoption. car crash, fire, mugged, whatever reason their parents are no longer around and there is no other family.

and as for the birth defects, tay-sachs, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, canavan disease. anything that causes the child to die very early in life or have extremely over complicated or painful lives, then it should be the mothers choice to prevent the life in the first place.

So you're pro-choice? Got it.

[Kusco]

Kusco, how is it a life? By definition, babies are parasites.

They feed off of a host.

Nursing children feed off their mothers' milk and they are considered "alive" but I doubt that's what you're looking for.

The difference between a baby and, say, a tapeworm is that there are no proven cases of tapeworms becoming people. Both are alive in the sense that they grow. The baby eventually stops feeding off of the mother and usually becomes self-sufficient. The tapeworm is entirely dependent on the host for its survival.

You could argue that people are still parasites sucking energy and money from those around them. I don't disagree with that argument. They're just two different types of parasitic behavior. One is socioeconomic and the other biological.

[Bruno]

Nursing children feed off their mothers' milk and they are considered "alive" but I doubt that's what you're looking for.

The difference between a baby and, say, a tapeworm is that there are no proven cases of tapeworms becoming people. Both are alive in the sense that they grow. The baby eventually stops feeding off of the mother and usually becomes self-sufficient. The tapeworm is entirely dependent on the host for its survival.

You could argue that people are still parasites sucking energy and money from those around them. I don't disagree with that argument. They're just two different types of parasitic behavior. One is socioeconomic and the other biological.

You're a true moron.

A baby in the womb is a parasite.

I don't care what a baby can become, for all I care he can become stem cells I shoot up to get ripped. Lol, don't care.



If you think you have more of a right over a woman's body, you're a virgin or gay or an asshole. Gays actually have respect for others.

[Kusco]

You're a true moron.

A baby in the womb is a parasite.

I don't care what a baby can become, for all I care he can become stem cells I shoot up to get ripped. Lol, don't care.



If you think you have more of a right over a woman's body, you're a virgin or gay or an asshole. Gays actually have respect for others.
Let's say that I agree with you that I'm an asshole. It's a very well-documented phenomenon. You don't actually get points for saying it.

Ignoring that fact, I agree with you about having rights over someone else. What we disagree on is whether the child has rights or not. You see me as an asshole for violating a woman's right to her body. I see you as inhumane for defending the murder of an innocent. I doubt either of us is going to change our minds on this.

We must agree to disagree.

(on a side note I had to make sure that this was, indeed, in serious discussion)

[kyle1234513]

So you're pro-choice? Got it.


its a bit more than one or the other, i would rather see all babies born, and only in very extreme cases should the mother have the right to abort. i think that abortion is a horrible thing to do and shouldn't be chosen because of "convenience" or lack of parent hood material "i dont think im ready to be a mother" are not viable excuses. Id like it to be more heavily regulated at the least.

[Muso]

Now here's what confuses me. Why didn't Australia take a look at what causes mothers to resort to abortion? Like with other crimes or evils, shouldn't people seek to reduce the causes? Isn't prevention better than a cure (reducing overall abortions and complications rather than reacting)?


You're right, prevention is better than a cure.

But there are a multitude of reasons why a woman might seek an abortion, and although you can reduce these factors, they are extremely difficult to entinguish altogether:

Some of the extrme ones that spring to mind are:

1. Women who are victims of rape/sexual assault who seek termination
2. Foetuses that are diagnosed with Down Syndrome, or any of the myriad of syndromes that will cause death or extreme morbidity in early childhood or infancy.
3. Young girls who conceive. Eg. A 12 year old girl.

Fundamentally though I believe that if the woman feels she is incapable of raising and caring for a child then she should have the option of early termination. The pain and suffering that is spared is ultimately so much greater than the minor blip that is terminating a foetus that hasn't even developed a consciousness yet.

There is zero point punishing woman who conceive unexpectedly. All you can do is make the best of the situation, and if necessary provide a means to avoid a child growing up in an abusive and or dysfunctional household. Children brought up in such households carry their burdens for life, with far higher rates of mental illness and other health conditions.

[oops_ur_dead]

The difference between a baby and, say, a tapeworm is that there are no proven cases of tapeworms becoming people. Both are alive in the sense that they grow. The baby eventually stops feeding off of the mother and usually becomes self-sufficient. The tapeworm is entirely dependent on the host for its survival.

See, sperm cells can become people too. Should jerking off be illegal because of that?

[Mateo]

fact: outlawing abortion raises the crime rate for years

people who would get an abortion will be shit parents if abortion was outlawed

[Nick]

Once babies stop feeding off mothers they are self-sufficient. Can stop providing them care, food and shelter. They can start living independently once they reach 2 years old.

Kusco: Whales and dolphins are fishes.
Bruno: No they are not!
Kusco: We must agree to disagree.

[Slaol]

That being said, I am pro-choice. It's just not my choice.


Pro-choice until the 5th or 6th week of development, then pro-life. Reason being that that's when the CNS begins to develop.

Also I hate the term pro-life. It makes it sound like anyone who isn't pro-life is pro-death or something and is some immoral serial killer type.

My stances have been stated.
Pro-choice until it has reached later staged of development.
However, I do not see a scenario in which I personally would want to abort a child.

[Nick]

Legalized and heavily regulated. For regulation, depends on the country/state/society.

Neither pro-life nor pro-choice is the best. Only morons see things as black and white.

[Bruno]

Once babies stop feeding off mothers they are self-sufficient. Can stop providing them care, food and shelter. They can start living independently once they reach 2 years old.

Kusco: Whales and dolphins are fishes.
Bruno: No they are not!
Kusco: We must agree to disagree.

Mammal ... fish... these are just words.

[Tossangel]

Pro-life! Shocking that our society ever decided killing human babies was ok.

[Mateo]

im disappointed how many red state opinions r on this site, even from blue states

[Bunny]

im disappointed how many red state opinions r on this site, even from blue states

Illl take everyones unwanted babies gladly =D

[madbird20]

Definitely pro-life. I know far too many people who were nearly aborted, but were kept by their mothers and have become amazing people. One of them is a very, very autistic girl whose mother was told to drop her in an asylum and forget she ever had her. She said no, and while she has her problems socially and privately, she is a truly amazing person with a unique perspective that I could never see by myself.

I also have a friend who is a single(never married) mother of 2 beautiful young children who, in her own words, are the joys of her life[Trust me; she posts a lot about them on Facebook haha]. She could easily have said "I don't think I'm ready for this" and missed out on the life she has now, but she didn't.

I myself am from a family of 6 kids, and my mother had her boy and girl first, and she could have just stopped there, like a lot of people did in her day. And if she had, she would not have had me or my 3 other brothers (2 of whom are married and 1 is raising his own family now).

TL;DR: Pro-life all the way.

[Helz]

I am very pro-choose.

First off I think it is very messed up to bring an unwanted child into this world. Sure the kid could live in some places with government programs but they will be born into this world as a second class citizen with no true support line to rely on their whole life unless they are lucky enough to get adopted. If they don't they will grow up knowing that their family and their extended family didn't care enough about them to keep them around and just threw them out to be someone else problem. Regardless of what they find in life this will leave some issues. I take the point that pain and pleasure are relative but there is a very real reason rates of suicide are higher in adopted kids than in those that grew up in a loving home.

Also- Human euthanasia has existed as far back as we can trace human societies. This was usually done because there was not enough food or to prevent deformities from being passed on or even to appease the gods but it was always done with the intention of the greater good at heart. Now we have people that should have died because of their flawed genetics living through modern medicine to pass on these traits to the next generation. I am not saying that its morally right or something that should happen but it is undoubtedly as bad for us as a species as our creating antibiotic-immune bacteria that will hurt our children and grandchildren.
I really have never understood how people can value the life of a human more than that of a cat or a chicken. We give rights and protection to creatures we interact with more and look at those we do not as less than worthy of their right to live. If we are to say that because of our self awareness and intellect we are superior then we are just placing a value on life itself based upon observable traits. A lot of people find this point to be particularly frustrating in abortion debates because logical reasoning fails. Its hard to make an argument against this other than saying 'I can't believe you said my life is worth the same as a chickens' But on the same line as many people have pointed out here 'Who are you to judge a creature should die so you will not be inconvenienced'
The truth is that someday we will outgrow this planet. Food and water and air. These things are not without limit. Someday mankind will hit that wall hard and the people who are unfortunate enough to experience it will be living in a hell on earth. I believe that every living thing has value. That every living thing deserves to live but that deth is a necessary evil. I believe that ending the life of an unwanted child live means that someday a wanted child will suffer. I very strongly believe that if you are willing to work hard you can have anything you want in this life. But that the foundation of that is set with a nurturing development as a child. Getting rid of the choice to kill a baby (I say a baby and not an embryo because I fine that argument to be such total chicken shit it disgusts me) Will only mean more unwanted kids and a lower quality of life and potential for their future quality of life for those kids. It will just mean Irresponsible people will act more foolishly and a totally innocent child will suffer for it. Just look up what happens from a failed coat hanger abortion to the child. Go to support sites and see what some of those people deal with in their abandonment issues.

And just to state the obvious- Freedom is destroyed by laws every bit as much as it is protected.

[Cryptonic]

I am very pro-choose.

First off I think it is very messed up to bring an unwanted child into this world. Sure the kid could live in some places with government programs but they will be born into this world as a second class citizen with no true support line to rely on their whole life unless they are lucky enough to get adopted. If they don't they will grow up knowing that their family and their extended family didn't care enough about them to keep them around and just threw them out to be someone else problem. Regardless of what they find in life this will leave some issues. I take the point that pain and pleasure are relative but there is a very real reason rates of suicide are higher in adopted kids than in those that grew up in a loving home.

Also- Human euthanasia has existed as far back as we can trace human societies. This was usually done because there was not enough food or to prevent deformities from being passed on or even to appease the gods but it was always done with the intention of the greater good at heart. Now we have people that should have died because of their flawed genetics living through modern medicine to pass on these traits to the next generation. I am not saying that its morally right or something that should happen but it is undoubtedly as bad for us as a species as our creating antibiotic-immune bacteria that will hurt our children and grandchildren.
I really have never understood how people can value the life of a human more than that of a cat or a chicken. We give rights and protection to creatures we interact with more and look at those we do not as less than worthy of their right to live. If we are to say that because of our self awareness and intellect we are superior then we are just placing a value on life itself based upon observable traits. A lot of people find this point to be particularly frustrating in abortion debates because logical reasoning fails. Its hard to make an argument against this other than saying 'I can't believe you said my life is worth the same as a chickens' But on the same line as many people have pointed out here 'Who are you to judge a creature should die so you will not be inconvenienced'
The truth is that someday we will outgrow this planet. Food and water and air. These things are not without limit. Someday mankind will hit that wall hard and the people who are unfortunate enough to experience it will be living in a hell on earth. I believe that every living thing has value. That every living thing deserves to live but that deth is a necessary evil. I believe that ending the life of an unwanted child live means that someday a wanted child will suffer. I very strongly believe that if you are willing to work hard you can have anything you want in this life. But that the foundation of that is set with a nurturing development as a child. Getting rid of the choice to kill a baby (I say a baby and not an embryo because I fine that argument to be such total chicken shit it disgusts me) Will only mean more unwanted kids and a lower quality of life and potential for their future quality of life for those kids. It will just mean Irresponsible people will act more foolishly and a totally innocent child will suffer for it. Just look up what happens from a failed coat hanger abortion to the child. Go to support sites and see what some of those people deal with in their abandonment issues.

And just to state the obvious- Freedom is destroyed by laws every bit as much as it is protected.

You would rather be dead than poor or adopted?

[Bunny]

I am very pro-choose.

First off I think it is very messed up to bring an unwanted child into this world. Sure the kid could live in some places with government programs but they will be born into this world as a second class citizen with no true support line to rely on their whole life unless they are lucky enough to get adopted. If they don't they will grow up knowing that their family and their extended family didn't care enough about them to keep them around and just threw them out to be someone else problem. Regardless of what they find in life this will leave some issues. I take the point that pain and pleasure are relative but there is a very real reason rates of suicide are higher in adopted kids than in those that grew up in a loving home.

Also- Human euthanasia has existed as far back as we can trace human societies. This was usually done because there was not enough food or to prevent deformities from being passed on or even to appease the gods but it was always done with the intention of the greater good at heart. Now we have people that should have died because of their flawed genetics living through modern medicine to pass on these traits to the next generation. I am not saying that its morally right or something that should happen but it is undoubtedly as bad for us as a species as our creating antibiotic-immune bacteria that will hurt our children and grandchildren.
I really have never understood how people can value the life of a human more than that of a cat or a chicken. We give rights and protection to creatures we interact with more and look at those we do not as less than worthy of their right to live. If we are to say that because of our self awareness and intellect we are superior then we are just placing a value on life itself based upon observable traits. A lot of people find this point to be particularly frustrating in abortion debates because logical reasoning fails. Its hard to make an argument against this other than saying 'I can't believe you said my life is worth the same as a chickens' But on the same line as many people have pointed out here 'Who are you to judge a creature should die so you will not be inconvenienced'
The truth is that someday we will outgrow this planet. Food and water and air. These things are not without limit. Someday mankind will hit that wall hard and the people who are unfortunate enough to experience it will be living in a hell on earth. I believe that every living thing has value. That every living thing deserves to live but that deth is a necessary evil. I believe that ending the life of an unwanted child live means that someday a wanted child will suffer. I very strongly believe that if you are willing to work hard you can have anything you want in this life. But that the foundation of that is set with a nurturing development as a child. Getting rid of the choice to kill a baby (I say a baby and not an embryo because I fine that argument to be such total chicken shit it disgusts me) Will only mean more unwanted kids and a lower quality of life and potential for their future quality of life for those kids. It will just mean Irresponsible people will act more foolishly and a totally innocent child will suffer for it. Just look up what happens from a failed coat hanger abortion to the child. Go to support sites and see what some of those people deal with in their abandonment issues.

And just to state the obvious- Freedom is destroyed by laws every bit as much as it is protected.

also, a lot of people warm up to the idea of having a child once they meet their little bundle of joy and can't bear to part ways with them once theyre born.

[Helz]

You would rather be dead than poor or adopted?

I grew up very poor and I have adopted family that I love very much. I know that there will never be a time that all children put up for adoption will have a home and I would rather be dead than born a brain damaged crack baby living off life support unable to have a real shot at life.

If it clarifies my position any I would point out that I would never abort my own child for any reason.

[Cryptonic]

If it clarifies my position any I would point out that I would never abort my own child for any reason.

what if it was brain damaged from your baby mama smoking crack?

[Bunny]

I grew up very poor and I have adopted family that I love very much. I know that there will never be a time that all children put up for adoption will have a home and I would rather be dead than born a brain damaged crack baby living off life support unable to have a real shot at life.

If it clarifies my position any I would point out that I would never abort my own child for any reason.

i just find it ridiculous that all you people on here basically only talk about crack addicts or rape victims or poor women as mothers, when a majority of the abortions are for cruel callous women who can raise a child like anyone else but choose not to because they are too self involved! I don't support that!

[Slaol]

^^

[Helz]

what if it was brain damaged from your baby mama smoking crack?

I would find myself a coward and selfishly choose to keep the child alive and do what I could to make its life worth living.

QUOTE=Bunny;394414]also, a lot of people warm up to the idea of having a child once they meet their little bundle of joy and can't bear to part ways with them once theyre born.[/QUOTE]

I think that anyone that didn't is a special kind of monster.




On a kind of related note I think it is pretty sick that suicide is not legal for a person that is terminal and will have nothing but suffering until they die naturally. In some specific situations I am pro-suicide / doctor assisted suicide although I would never put a gun in my mouth from depression.

[Helz]

i just find it ridiculous that all you people on here basically only talk about crack addicts or rape victims or poor women as mothers, when a majority of the abortions are for cruel callous women who can raise a child like anyone else but choose not to because they are too self involved! I don't support that!

That's because those are the reasons people support 'pro-choice'. I also think less human life is good for the planet in general but more than anything I hate restricting freedom. Just because I am offended when I see an idiot with fake diamonds on their teeth is no reason to ban it for everyone. The line of making this law is that an innocent life hangs in the balance. I maintain my position because I value the life of all animals the same and yet I choose to eat a steak.

I think a lot of avoiding the shitty mother subject is just a fear of subjecting yourself to criticism. Not too many people are grounded enough to say they will stand up for an obviously immoral action with any real conviction because they are not really grounded on the subject. On that note consider the average age of this community. I would be surprised if more than a handful of the people on this site have confronted this decision personally

[Muso]

On a kind of related note I think it is pretty sick that suicide is not legal for a person that is terminal and will have nothing but suffering until they die naturally. In some specific situations I am pro-suicide / doctor assisted suicide although I would never put a gun in my mouth from depression.

I completely agree. Having briefly spent some time working on palliative care wards I believe there are definitely instances where euthanasia is appropriate, moral, and cruel to deny.

These are very limited instances though, and there would need to clear protocols, planning, and family involvement wherever it was instituted.

[Muso]

On that note consider the average age of this community. I would be surprised if more than a handful of the people on this site have confronted this decision personally

This is likely true, and it is interesting to hear the opinions of the young. I know their views will grow and change over time, but it is always helpful and grounding to listen to what they have to say because they often present a different perspective (often one I can recall believing in myself).

[Bunny]

That's because those are the reasons people support 'pro-choice'. I also think less human life is good for the planet in general but more than anything I hate restricting freedom. Just because I am offended when I see an idiot with fake diamonds on their teeth is no reason to ban it for everyone. The line of making this law is that an innocent life hangs in the balance. I maintain my position because I value the life of all animals the same and yet I choose to eat a steak.

I think a lot of avoiding the shitty mother subject is just a fear of subjecting yourself to criticism. Not too many people are grounded enough to say they will stand up for an obviously immoral action with any real conviction because they are not really grounded on the subject. On that note consider the average age of this community. I would be surprised if more than a handful of the people on this site have confronted this decision personally

yah and consider that most of you are guys and don't really have to make that decision. As someone who has recently lost a pregnancy, i just feel that unless you are going to be homeless you can make it work, people make it work all around the world and are happy and have done so for all of time.

[Muso]

people make it work all around the world and are happy and have done so for all of time.

This is a bit of a generalization. It's true of the majority of people, yes. However, for almost as long as people have been having babies, they have also been having abortions, and before abortions there was always the mountain, the snow, or the river.

[Bunny]

This is a bit of a generalization. It's true of the majority of people, yes. However, for almost as long as people have been having babies, they have also been having abortions, and before abortions there was always the mountain, the snow, or the river.

lol what do you mean the snow

[Muso]

lol what do you mean the snow

Like what happened to Moses, only on the snow instead of the river.

[Helz]

yah and consider that most of you are guys and don't really have to make that decision. As someone who has recently lost a pregnancy, i just feel that unless you are going to be homeless you can make it work, people make it work all around the world and are happy and have done so for all of time.

You are right. In the end its the girl that really makes that call. But you should consider that in some countries children are considered property more than family.
When I was in Iraq I found that sometimes dads would send their kids or their wife to steal for them because if they got caught they could have a hand cut off. Although kids caught slack every time I was around for and I never saw a kid missing a hand because of theft. When I was in Afghanistan a mother killed 2 of her kids and tried to make it look like they were killed by a mortar strike to get money. 3rd world countries and cultures have very different values and ways of doing things. Take china for example. When they passed a law saying that families in certain provinces could only have one child it became common to find homeless girls everywhere who usually ended up as prostitutes at a very early age. This is because a girl would not carry on the family name and having a 2nd kid would cost a lot of money.
For every bit that a child could have a great life they could have a very miserable one. Either way its a hell of a tough call and men have the comfort of dealing with it from a much more detached position.

[oops_ur_dead]

I really have never understood how people can value the life of a human more than that of a cat or a chicken. We give rights and protection to creatures we interact with more and look at those we do not as less than worthy of their right to live. If we are to say that because of our self awareness and intellect we are superior then we are just placing a value on life itself based upon observable traits. A lot of people find this point to be particularly frustrating in abortion debates because logical reasoning fails. Its hard to make an argument against this other than saying 'I can't believe you said my life is worth the same as a chickens'

Jesus fuck I hate this argument so much.

Humans are better than animals because we think that humans are better than animals. I (and most sane people) sympathize with a human more than I sympathize with a cat or a chicken, thus humans are worth more to me. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying too hard to be an edgy cool nihilist.

We can sit around and say "hurr humans are the same as bacteria" or "hurrr we're just a bunch of chemicals" but then we're just saying shit for the sake of saying it. These arguments don't get us anywhere so they're fucking useless to everyone.

[CarolinaCrown]

Jesus fuck I hate this argument so much.

Humans are better than animals because we think that humans are better than animals. I (and most sane people) sympathize with a human more than I sympathize with a cat or a chicken, thus humans are worth more to me. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying too hard to be an edgy cool nihilist.

We can sit around and say "hurr humans are the same as bacteria" or "hurrr we're just a bunch of chemicals" but then we're just saying shit for the sake of saying it. These arguments don't get us anywhere so they're fucking useless to everyone.

From a purely evolutionary standpoint, we're developed to care about the survival of the offspring of our own species. That instinct is partially replicated towards a few domesticated species like dogs, but even so the genetic will for human genes to continue to spread / multiply is restricted to humans.

That is why humanity cares more about a human zygote than a fully-grown cow. That's what it comes down to. Whether it's neurologically or somehow "morally" better to kill the zygote or the cow is irrelevant. We have no reliable metric for valuing lives and so the base line is that humanity is the trump card.

Are our genetic instincts reliable in a point of history where we actually understand the system in which we operate? Doubtful - the propagation of the species doesn't depend on your daughter having an abortion. We're just programmed to say "BAD" upon seeing or imagining a dead member of our own tribe (country).

[Helz]

Jesus fuck I hate this argument so much.

Humans are better than animals because we think that humans are better than animals. I (and most sane people) sympathize with a human more than I sympathize with a cat or a chicken, thus humans are worth more to me. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying too hard to be an edgy cool nihilist.

We can sit around and say "hurr humans are the same as bacteria" or "hurrr we're just a bunch of chemicals" but then we're just saying shit for the sake of saying it. These arguments don't get us anywhere so they're fucking useless to everyone.

Why is it insane to think that all life is equal? You pretty much backed up your argument with circular reasoning and said that I only believe this because I am trying to be trendy. I have seen people do some pretty sick shit that I have never seen an animal pull. I really would like to hear an objective reason for why people should be valued so much higher than any other living thing. Every living thing naturally stands up for other living things in its group. Its natural to say 'I am human, This other person is human, So I care for it over a dog' But what happens when its a human you don't like and a dog you consider family? Obviously you take the position that the guy was an ass hole and your dog was totally justified for barking at him.

And on the note of humans being bacteria- Every 10 years you are alive no single cell is alive that was alive 10 years ago. So every piece of you from 10 years ago is now dead and you are 100% a new living thing. When you start breaking things down to how they are made and what comes into play life makes a lot of sense.

We sympathize with what we associate with. Sympathy is just a feeling of understanding a difficulty and what it requires to overcome this. If you really feel that a human life is so much more valuable than a chickens why not give logical reason? (This would be a recreation of a debate already done btw)

[oops_ur_dead]

Why is it insane to think that all life is equal?

Because all life isn't equal. The other day I killed millions of E.coli cells in the lab, are you saying I should have felt any empathy at all for them?


You pretty much backed up your argument with circular reasoning and said that I only believe this because I am trying to be trendy. I have seen people do some pretty sick shit that I have never seen an animal pull. I really would like to hear an objective reason for why people should be valued so much higher than any other living thing.

My argument was that humans are better than other animals because we think they are, and we feel more empathy for other humans than we do for animals. Considering anything else is a waste of time because it has no practical meaning. There is no objective reason for why people are better than any other living thing, but that doesn't dictate our emotions so it doesn't matter.


Every living thing naturally stands up for other living things in its group. Its natural to say 'I am human, This other person is human, So I care for it over a dog' But what happens when its a human you don't like and a dog you consider family? Obviously you take the position that the guy was an ass hole and your dog was totally justified for barking at him.

That's a lopsided example. I highly doubt that you would even hesitate to sacrifice the life of a dog for the life of a human.


And on the note of humans being bacteria- Every 10 years you are alive no single cell is alive that was alive 10 years ago. So every piece of you from 10 years ago is now dead and you are 100% a new living thing. When you start breaking things down to how they are made and what comes into play life makes a lot of sense.

That isn't relevant at all.


We sympathize with what we associate with. Sympathy is just a feeling of understanding a difficulty and what it requires to overcome this. If you really feel that a human life is so much more valuable than a chickens why not give logical reason? (This would be a recreation of a debate done by professors in the 1930's btw)

There doesn't have to be a logical reason for it. I sympathize with humans more than I sympathize with chickens because that's how I naturally think. I would far more readily sacrifice the life of a chicken to save a person, hell, I'd probably sacrifice thousands of chickens to save a person. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince myself that humans are as valuable as chickens because I gain absolutely nothing from that.

[Helz]

Because all life isn't equal. The other day I killed millions of E.coli cells in the lab, are you saying I should have felt any empathy at all for them?
No, But people kill other people without feeling bad. So how can this relate to human life being more important than other life when the reaction from taking life is relitive?


My argument was that humans are better than other animals because we think they are, and we feel more empathy for other humans than we do for animals. Considering anything else is a waste of time because it has no practical meaning. There is no objective reason for why people are better than any other living thing, but that doesn't dictate our emotions so it doesn't matter.
So when dogs get together in a pack and decide they are superior to a person and attack them wouldn't this mean that dogs are superior to humans because they think they are? This conversation may have no piratical application to your life but neither did the nature vs nurture argument which has been a subject of debate for over a hundred years. The fact that there is no objective reason for people being better than any other living thing is exactly my point. We consider ourselves better when we are not. On a grand scale we are much worse than any other living thing because we destroy the natural balance of things and will end up destroying this planet in the long run. You will never see a pack of deer totally destroy their habitat and die off.



That's a lopsided example. I highly doubt that you would even hesitate to sacrifice the life of a dog for the life of a human.
I would kill a dog in a second. But there are people that would sacrifice their own lives for a dog just as quickly.



That isn't relevant at all.
I think that it is in that it brings into question the idea of 'self' and 'what is life'. If we consider that we are constantly dieing and being reborn all the time it changes the idea of what life and death is. And to take it a step further if you believe in the big bang theory than there is a good chance the matter that makes you up has been alive and died thousands of times. If you believe in creationism then its the living soul that is the essence of life and our body is just a shell. in which case how do other animals that live long enough to have no living part of them around after a designated period of time maintain the same personal basis that they did before? Does this mean they have a 'soul' as well that should be respected as much as our own in spite of our dominion of them?




There doesn't have to be a logical reason for it. I sympathize with humans more than I sympathize with chickens because that's how I naturally think. I would far more readily sacrifice the life of a chicken to save a person, hell, I'd probably sacrifice thousands of chickens to save a person. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince myself that humans are as valuable as chickens because I gain absolutely nothing from that.
Why not consider the possibility? Your admitting you have no reason behind your belief other than that 'Its what you believed before' and at the same time saying you are indifferent to exploring why you believe what you do and what could potentially be because it has no value to your current situation that you can see. But at the same time you say this line of thought is something that you 'hate so much'. Its like saying you don't care if gay people marry but when it happens you are terribly offended at the site of it.


If you want me to drop the topic its fine. Im just pushing for you to consider a different perspective here.

[oops_ur_dead]

No, But people kill other people without feeling bad. So how can this relate to human life being more important than other life when the reaction from taking life is relitive?

People who kill people without feeling bad would also kill E.coli without feeling bad. Nobody who is not mentally ill will care about killing a bacteria more about killing a human.


So when dogs get together in a pack and decide they are superior to a person and attack them wouldn't this mean that dogs are superior to humans because they think they are?

Dogs are incapable of thinking that they are superior to a person. We are the only species capable of thinking of something like that, therefore we get to decide whether or not we are superior because we're the ones who define that very idea.


This conversation may have no piratical application to your life but neither did the nature vs nurture argument which has been a subject of debate for over a hundred years. The fact that there is no objective reason for people being better than any other living thing is exactly my point. We consider ourselves better when we are not. On a grand scale we are much worse than any other living thing because we destroy the natural balance of things and will end up destroying this planet in the long run. You will never see a pack of deer totally destroy their habitat and die off.

The nature vs nurture argument has practical applications to my life because it determines causes of conditions, from which treatments can be derived. And no, we aren't objectively better, but I value human beings more than any other animal, therefore humans are better to me.


I would kill a dog in a second. But there are people that would sacrifice their own lives for a dog just as quickly.

So then you agree with me.


I think that it is in that it brings into question the idea of 'self' and 'what is life'. If we consider that we are constantly dieing and being reborn all the time it changes the idea of what life and death is. And to take it a step further if you believe in the big bang theory than there is a good chance the matter that makes you up has been alive and died thousands of times. If you believe in creationism then its the living soul that is the essence of life and our body is just a shell. in which case how do other animals that live long enough to have no living part of them around after a designated period of time maintain the same personal basis that they did before? Does this mean they have a 'soul' as well that should be respected as much as our own in spite of our dominion of them?

The matter that makes me up doesn't die. Matter can't die. I can die.

I don't believe in souls so the second part of the argument doesn't pertain to me.


Why not consider the possibility? Your admitting you have no reason behind your belief other than that 'Its what you believed before' and at the same time saying you are indifferent to exploring why you believe what you do and what could potentially be because it has no value to your current situation that you can see. But at the same time you say this line of thought is something that you 'hate so much'. Its like saying you don't care if gay people marry but when it happens you are terribly offended at the site of it.

I've considered the possibility, but it's foolish and doesn't change my life in any meaningful way, and I have no reason to change the way I think for it.

[Helz]

If I push any further it will end up as a dog chasing its tail. You plainly say that you do not have an objective reason or logic for valuing peoples lives more than other creatures and I am arguing points I don't really believe to instigate a conversation that just will not happen.

I still maintain that all life is equal though.

[madbird20]

@TLL, on the Creationist thing, Creationists believe that God made man in his own image, and that we are the only race gifted with a soul, and that we were all made with compassion so that we would care for non-human life, but at the same time recognize that something with a soul > something without. (You probably already knew that but w/e lol)

[Damus_Graves]

If I push any further it will end up as a dog chasing its tail. You plainly say that you do not have an objective reason or logic for valuing peoples lives more than other creatures and I am arguing points I don't really believe to instigate a conversation that just will not happen.

I still maintain that all life is equal though.

This isn't factual. Life is hardly created equally and by the very definition of equal all life is at an imbalance. If all life was equal man would have been born base and without higher levels of thinking. Its evident by the conversation being had here, right now. Dogs and other animals cannot have such conversations about if life is equal across the board or if it isn't. A large majority of the human race would save a fellow human being from death than a dog if they were given the choice.

"A fire breaks out in the apartment next door. You quickly rush to the scene and immediately are faced with a choice. There isn't going to be enough time to save both the girl and her dog given how fast the fire is spreading. So you have to choose who is going to die. Do you save the girl or the dog?"

Most of the time you are going to get an answer of "the girl". This answer is another example of inequality in life. We naturally value other human beings lives over dogs, and other animals. If life were indeed equal the answer, reasonably, would be more split down the middle.

Additionally there isn't any justifiable way to reference equal life in all things because of the difference in culture/habits. In most contexts Humans have more luxury/standards than other animals, such as sturdy homes and a more consistent source of substance.


It's only a novel idea to consider all lives equal but in reality they are drastically not.

[Muso]

tl;dr the oops vs tll argument


And on the note of humans being bacteria- Every 10 years you are alive no single cell is alive that was alive 10 years ago. So every piece of you from 10 years ago is now dead and you are 100% a new living thing. When you start breaking things down to how they are made and what comes into play life makes a lot of sense.


But I do have to correct this quote above. This is not true.

There are numerous cells in the body that are created when yoú're an embryo and are never replaced at any point in your life. They are:

- neurons (the cells in your brain and spinal cord) - that's the main impediment to people with brain damage recovering because otherwise the damaged ones would just be replaced
- cardiac myocytes (the muscle cells of the heart) - that's why if you have a heart attack, that part of your heart is dead forever
- the hair cells in your ear that carry sound to the brain - that's why hearing loss from listening to too loud music is permanent
- the lens cells of the eye - that's why cataracts are permanent, and the way to treat them is to replace the old lens with a new synthetic one.

Certainly it's true that other cells in the body, like your skin are constantly turning over, but some parts of you are permanent.

[Helz]

This isn't factual. Life is hardly created equally and by the very definition of equal all life is at an imbalance. If all life was equal man would have been born base and without higher levels of thinking. Its evident by the conversation being had here, right now. Dogs and other animals cannot have such conversations about if life is equal across the board or if it isn't. A large majority of the human race would save a fellow human being from death than a dog if they were given the choice.

"A fire breaks out in the apartment next door. You quickly rush to the scene and immediately are faced with a choice. There isn't going to be enough time to save both the girl and her dog given how fast the fire is spreading. So you have to choose who is going to die. Do you save the girl or the dog?"

Most of the time you are going to get an answer of "the girl". This answer is another example of inequality in life. We naturally value other human beings lives over dogs, and other animals. If life were indeed equal the answer, reasonably, would be more split down the middle.

Additionally there isn't any justifiable way to reference equal life in all things because of the difference in culture/habits. In most contexts Humans have more luxury/standards than other animals, such as sturdy homes and a more consistent source of substance.


It's only a novel idea to consider all lives equal but in reality they are drastically not.

I am talking about life itself. That spark that man can not recreate. Not the ability's of a creature or a creatures ability to influence its environment.
Also I would maintain that we all value life more or less because we associate with it. We will save a human over a dog because we sympathize with a human being human. You can draw this parallel in many ways with factions of people through race, nationality, language and definitely familiarity. Take that same situation with a person that is a total recluse and only interacts with that dog. There is a good chance that person will save the dog over the person valuing the dogs life over another humans.

My point is that your argument for a persons life having more value is relative. From an objective stance life is equal. Its our natural bias that struggles with this point. Unless you want to bring God into the conversation.


@Muso-
I stand corrected. I caught that bit from vsause which I did have pegged as a reliable source. I think I will do some reading on this but given your field I bet you are right.

-edit
I should have said I whole heartedly agree that my opinion is not factual in the slightest. I just think life has its value.

[CarolinaCrown]

I am talking about life itself. That spark that man can not recreate.

**The spark that man can not yet recreate.

The same has been said of many things. What if man invents a true Artificial Intelligence? Shall we cast it off as unliving and non-sentient simply because it was made by man and not some entirely chaotic and uncontrolled process?

What if man discovers the process by which life began, and accelerates evolution through genome sequencing? Shall that, too, be considered "non-life" because the entire project happened to be controlled to the very atom?

How the idea of "life" relates to physical laws of the universe may be unknowable now, but in no way does that mean it is unknowable forever

[Helz]

**The spark that man can not yet recreate.

The same has been said of many things. What if man invents a true Artificial Intelligence? Shall we cast it off as unliving and non-sentient simply because it was made by man and not some entirely chaotic and uncontrolled process?

What if man discovers the process by which life began, and accelerates evolution through genome sequencing? Shall that, too, be considered "non-life" because the entire project happened to be controlled to the very atom?

How the idea of "life" relates to physical laws of the universe may be unknowable now, but in no way does that mean it is unknowable forever

If that happens I would say that the overall value of a life would decrease. Good point though.

I think that it would be more likely for us to create life than artificial intelligence. No matter how complicated we make a computer it will forever boil down to on or off. Even if we went back to vacuum tubes at heart computers are still just doing what they are told. This could never change but we could make something so complex it appears to be intelligent. Like that robot that (kinda) taught itself to walk.

[Admiral]

Because all life isn't equal. The other day I killed millions of E.coli cells in the lab, are you saying I should have felt any empathy at all for them?

You are basically Hitler.


Dogs are incapable of thinking that they are superior to a person. We are the only species capable of thinking of something like that, therefore we get to decide whether or not we are superior because we're the ones who define that very idea.

Everything assesses their opponent to a degree. Fight or flight. Of course the comment you're replying to is way wrong in how they are presenting the argument. The only point that was making was that the dogs felt superior in a group and not alone, thus meaning a dog was not superior to a human.


The nature vs nurture argument has practical applications to my life because it determines causes of conditions, from which treatments can be derived. And no, we aren't objectively better, but I value human beings more than any other animal, therefore humans are better to me.

The best way to understand this would be to think who you would execute first, a dog or a person? Even if you're completely indifferent towards the person (and you are totally sane) and the dog has a wagging tail you are going to execute the dog over the person.

[Cryptonic]

The best way to understand this would be to think who you would execute first, a dog or a person? Even if you're completely indifferent towards the person (and you are totally sane) and the dog has a wagging tail you are going to execute the dog over the person.

I'd execute the human first, because they'd be sad to see the dog die. A dog wouldn't care if the person was shot.

[Admiral]

I'd execute the human first, because they'd be sad to see the dog die. A dog wouldn't care if the person was shot.

No worries, I took that factor into consideration already.

[louiswill]

Life is equal, because Equality is not "=" on amounts of things such as intelligence you have but rather the meaning of existence.

It is just our inability to equally treat them as a limited being under current condition of our living.

I want to save everyone but I am no super man.

However, this is not the excuse for myself being cruel.

"I saw too much slaughtering and I am used to it." This is no different than drug yourself to feel better.

Everyone should be attitudewise pro-life and actionwise pro-choice at same time,
though People who suck at metaphor would never be able to embrace ideas to level high enough to actually help them.

Then, in a long run, humanity will be able to survive both machinism and reality.

[creedkingsx]

You kill more life when you tep on an ant then when someone has an abortion. If someone doesn't want their child so much that they are willing to get an abortion, they won't be a good parent. I'd rather the person do something that has the same result as a guy jacking off than a child be raised by someone that doesn't love them or not be raised at all in an orphanage.