Where do babies come from?

[DeepComet5581]

4. A foetus is not an independent life-form. It cannot survive without the mother, therefore it is dependent. The person it is dependent on should decide what to do with it.


I couldn't give a flying f%@* if I insult Christianity. What are they going to do? Murder is a sin, is it not?

A child is dependent on the mother. Does that mean we can kill babies?

I worded it slightly wrong. A born child is an independent form of life. It is not part of anything or anyone else. A foetus is, and the person it is dependent on should be given the choice about whether to keep it or not. It's all about personal freedoms, especially for victims of rape.

So no baby killing then? pity.

But anyway, rape aside, abortion seems a bit extreme. What about the babies life? What about his choice?

One could argue that as the foetus is not self-aware, it doesn't have the capacity to make choices. Also, it is the mother who must endure childbirth and then support the child, so it should fall to her.

So when does it become self aware? Does it suddenly just become self aware?
Nothing i can say about the childbirth but there is always adoption.

When a child develops the ability to make an informed decision.

Example: putting the square peg through the square hole because you know the two shapes are the same.

So i can kill people if they don't pass very simple tests. So for at least a few mouths after birth i can kill babies. If some one gets brain damage I can kill them. If someone is reaaalllly drunk or tired I can kill them.

Unfortunately, thats called murder. It's illegal.

If someone is drunk they are still self-aware. They simply have no control. Tired people are also still self-aware until they fall asleep and can make simple decisions, but need to spend longer doing so.

The moment you chose to have sex you consented to the possibility of conception, and therefore through your own action should be held accountable for the results. Claiming a human person is not a human person if they are not able to pass state defined tests is simply a ridiculous and ludicrous proposition that is still just as ridiculous as when Peter Singer proposed it. Well a person may not be morally responsible until they are fully aware, that does not make them any less of a person when they are not fully aware, a baby is a person, and it will develop into a fully self aware human-person, and by preventing that you are murdering that person. Because they will be a person they ARE a person, from the moment of conception and abortion is nothing but murder in any case except where the mother's life is in mortal danger from having this child.

regardless of its dependency the moment you put yourself in a position to become a parent you became responsible for the out come of that act.

a little bit of a more secular argument might be more persuasive i thought.

But what if they haven't consented? The mother shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of something they had no control over, just because someone was a bit horny.

Also, 'killing' a foetus has it's own term and is legal (At least in the UK), so in legal terms at least, it isn't murder. Maybe from a moral standpoint, but that brings us back to the first post I quoted. Non-religious people apparently "Have no moral standards", whereas religious people do, which is why I asked whether religious people find abortion wrong.

It seems that, generally, religious people are opposed to it and the non-religious, "Slovenly" Liberals either support it or are indifferent.

I'm glad this hasn't turned into a flame war.

 

[SnipErlite]

Logicaly, you don't. Your sperm might though....

Logic doesn't always work though. If we apply certain aspects of Quantum Theory into this...it's technically possible to gain superpowers. Highly, ridiculously, almost totally, unlikely, but possible

I don't feel like trying it though >.>

 

[PrimoThePro]

small]I hope nothing I said comes off sounding rude, if it does, I sincerely apologize; i've tried to keep my tone civil, nice and polite. As far as I can tell, I've succeded in keeping my manners pleasant. If there's something here that comes off as rude, I promise you that the rudeness is unintentional. PM me and tell me what it is and I'll phrase it in a better way. I really want that Neo badge.[/small]

LOL no, I knew you were being respectful, and I'm very grateful for that.

Anyway, the point isn't whether or not your reasons are good. I'm just saying that it is a good question, thinking about it enough will make religous people either go into derpmode or give up on religion entirely (usally the former).

Some people just can't get the hang of it however.

Can I just say that Placebos don't allow people to pull four people out of a burning car. I can hear you say adrenaline as well, but under that kind of load a normal humans back would break. Also a Placebo can't allow me to jump nearly ten feet in the air and then catch someone. A placebo could, at most, allow you to do things a little better then usual, but not do the stuff I have done.
Derp mode, eh? Did it ever occur to you that with the amount of people on the planet who believe in God(s) are actually on to something?
I'm done here. Very, very done. Try not to reply, I am tired and bored of this conversation. It has gone on exactly the same as when anyone else has ever asked me "Why do you believe in God?" and I try to give an answer. It's never good enough.

 

[DonMartin]

How do you turn this on?

AoE2 comedy success!

 

[Black Phoenix]

"But, Barcelona is a country isn't it?"

My sister, while playing Trivial Pursuit. Geography really isn't her strong point...

 

[Simalacrum]

I once asked "what type of animal is a chicken?", completely without irony.

Immediately after I felt like a MASSIVE idiot.

 

[Meanmoose]

"Is it weird being twin?"

How would I know? I've never been anything else...

It's awesome btw! XD

 

[skywalkerlion]

From computer class:

Woman-"Josh?
Me-"Yes?"
Woman-"How do you make the nazi sign"
Me-*I look onto her computer screen*.."That's the Jewish Star of David.."
Woman-"Oh, whatever!"

*sigh*

OMG how did she get a Nazi swastika confused with "the Star of David"

She probably sees tons of pictures with jews with those tattoos they had to wear during the holocaust and somehow made the connection between the two

 

[standokan]

I have this problem with myself, because i ask before i think and already know the answer.

 

[Duruznik]

-"...What does that have to do with anythinng?! Think, it's next to Europe!"

-"Greenland?"

-"NO! It's ENGLAND! Just south of Scotland!"

Dude, Great Britain is not next to Europe, it's a part of it.

Only Politically. Geographically speaking it's an island next to the continent. Most people 'round where I come from (Israel) see Britain as seperate from the continent. And it still doesn't excuse those stupid questions.

Actually, it doesn't belong to Continental Europe, which is Europe minus all islands. But technically, Great Britain is a part of Europe. After all, it's the largest European Island.

Hmm. I never did listen much in Geography class. You win, good sir.

 

[Sir_Tor]

"Are all the Swedish politic parties Communists?" no, they are Socialists if you look closely how they want everything to be. exept the Swedish democrats (nazi party)

They are not nazi, they are racist if anything... There is one helluva difference between the two.

OT: Not a question but a kid once stated that you didn't need salt to survive >_<

 

[Raijha]

From a friend who works in IT......"How do I get my coffee cup holder to work?" In reference to the disc drive.

 

[eggy32]

I've had people ask me why/if I straighten my hair. Apparently having straight hair isn't natural any more.

 

[Magnalian]

"You cant disprove existence of God".

That's not a question, and it is.. well, true. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent being.

 

[Nieroshai]

We don't have morals. We have something better.

Common Sense.
Logic.
The ability to think freely.

I have Common Sense, Logic, and the Ability to think Freely regardless of my Religious Upbringing (I am a Catholic, though most people here would swear I am a "Christian Deist"). Why? Because I don't think of god as some stiff prick who'll burn your face off if you look at him. To me, God is the most caring person in the universe, and is like "As long as your good out does your bad, you get into my kingdom", and he just laughs at anyone who makes fun of him and says "Yeah, that's funny".

1. Do you go to Church?
2. Do you pray before meals?
3. Do you hate homosexuals?
4. Do you hate abortion?
5. Do you hate contraception?
6. Do you use God as an excuse for anything?
7. Do you quote the Bible where it isn't relevant?
8. Are you opposed to sex before marriage?

If you answered yes to 4 or less of them, then you are of tolerable faith. I abhor the restrictions religion puts on people. As if the restrictions by governments and laws weren't enough. I'll take all the personal freedom I can get, thank you very much.

Nice generalization. Thanks for insulting a very large chunk of the world's population. I'm certain you're only insulting Christians, because people love to insult "religion" and yet defend Buddhism and Islam and Scientology.
1. Do I go to church? Yes. What's it to you?
2. Once again, what's it to you? Does it hurt you if I choose to pray?
3. I believe homosexuality is immoral, but I do not hate homosexuals. Or liars. Or smug bastards.
4. I can hate abortion if I want because I have a different view of the value of human life than you do.
5. I don't hate contraception because it helps there be less abortion, abandoned babies, and families that can't handle their kids. And nowhere in the bible does it say sex has to make kids.
6. I do not use God as an excuse. He gave a mind of my own, and I use it under my own will as does everyone else. It's precisely because of free will that the world is screwed up, but it's better than slavery.
7. I don't quote the Bible at all unless I'm discussing the Bible itself with a fellow Christian.
8. I'm not opposed to sex before marriage. I do, however, support mating for life, out of a belief that that's the way we're made, and hope those who choose that path will make that contract binding. I personally believe that promiscuity is wrong, but that opinion need not harm you.


EDIT: MANY but not all forms of ORGANIZED religions put restrictions on people to control them. Often these rules aren't even in their holy texts.

I will never defend any religion. ESPECIALLY Buddhism, considering how much that restricts some people. I focused on Christianity in particular because the person I was quoting was Christian. I will do the same for ANY religion.

1. Fine. Nothing wrong with that.
2. Again, nothing wrong with it.
3. How is it immoral? Most religious texts mention condemn it ONCE, but they then condemn heterosexuality dozens of times.
4. A foetus is not an independent life-form. It cannot survive without the mother, therefore it is dependent. The person it is dependent on should decide what to do with it.
5. The Pope (Who is this 'bridge' between Heaven and Earth) condemns contraception (But mostly condoms), and he is the representative of Christianity.
6. Good, but there are people who don't think freely, who just use God as an excuse whenever they see something they don't understand, and condemn other theories.
7. Good.
8. Nothing wrong with that. It's the promotion of abstinence I hate. It's just one more rule for young, horny teenagers to break.

I couldn't give a flying f%@* if I insult Christianity. What are they going to do? Murder is a sin, is it not?

3. It's almost universally considered worthy of death in most religious texts although genuine Christians believe they have no right to punish or therefore judge.
You are entirely dependent on many things. Being hooked to a dialysis machine makes me a dependent so it's ok to kill me if i was without it? how about air? Water? You can't live without them. Your kids are fully dependent on you until their teens, they would most likely die if abandoned. Is it ok to kill them?
5. The Pope is the leader of the last remaining rremnants of the Holy Roman Empire aka the Vatican, which is CHRISTIAN, not CHRISTIANITY. No Protestant believes he's really a representative of God. You don't ELECT prophets.
6. All beliefs have bigots, even atheism. Like the belief that I'm stupid for being religious. Your disdain for all religion, as opposed to just not giving a damn, shows you are in this group.

Your disdain for religion and only caring to know people who are barely religious shows how intolerant you are. You don't care, as you say, who you insult. But what if they were to insult you? Are you firm enough in your beliefs? Do you want your own beliefs to be tolerated? Then man up and show the respect you want from others.

But my own beliefs AREN'T tolerated. There are some Christians who have killed atheists claiming to be doing "The work of God". As a result, why should I be tolerant of intolerance? People have insulted me and my beliefs many times (Mostly because I live in an area with a lot of elderly church-goers). I have always defended myself with the points I have made and have never once thought that it was a bad decision.

3. Exactly. You are not the one to judge or punish people for their lifestyles. Apparently, God is. I don't see many homosexuals dying by the hand of God, but by those who follow Him.
4. Refer to my earlier post.
5. Fine. He is the representative of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the worse half, to be honest, as they are much more hypocritical. Are you Catholic or Protestant?
6. I never, ever mentioned the word stupid, at any point.

Well played, blaming 21st century Christians for the Inquisition and the cleansings of early Colonial America. Hitler and Stalin were atheists, yet I do not blame you. You persecute a faith for the deeds of a few so long ago as to be barely remembered, but you donn't take credit for the misdeeds of atheists. Tell me why that's not hypocrisy.

 

[Nieroshai]

yet defend Islam and Scientology.

What universe are you from? It sounds very different compared to the one im from where these two are the ones that revieve the MOST flak. Especially scientology, described by the times as being a power hungry greedy cult. Seriously where did you get these ideas from?! WHERE DO YOU LIVE?! Everyone always bashes these religions all the time. One of them isnt even a religion.

Cant we just mildly dislike every religion a little? Except buddism. No extremist buddists. Ever. NO buddest has ever tried to make anyone else a buddist by force or enforce his rules on other people. Yay for buddism.

I'm speaking of mainstream see-it-every-day opinion. It's OK in modern society to hate Christiand, but if anyone hates other religions thats NOT OK and they receive public scorn. Also, you never heard of the bloody battles fought over relics of Buddha? Millions were killed over what was rumored to be his toebone. You miss the big point for the pleasure of nitpicking at the smaller points. We're not ALLOWED to make fun of other beliefs, or so our society says, but Christianity is the only one no one DEFENDS!

 

[Freeze_L]

4. A foetus is not an independent life-form. It cannot survive without the mother, therefore it is dependent. The person it is dependent on should decide what to do with it.


I couldn't give a flying f%@* if I insult Christianity. What are they going to do? Murder is a sin, is it not?

A child is dependent on the mother. Does that mean we can kill babies?

I worded it slightly wrong. A born child is an independent form of life. It is not part of anything or anyone else. A foetus is, and the person it is dependent on should be given the choice about whether to keep it or not. It's all about personal freedoms, especially for victims of rape.

So no baby killing then? pity.

But anyway, rape aside, abortion seems a bit extreme. What about the babies life? What about his choice?

One could argue that as the foetus is not self-aware, it doesn't have the capacity to make choices. Also, it is the mother who must endure childbirth and then support the child, so it should fall to her.

So when does it become self aware? Does it suddenly just become self aware?
Nothing i can say about the childbirth but there is always adoption.

When a child develops the ability to make an informed decision.

Example: putting the square peg through the square hole because you know the two shapes are the same.

So i can kill people if they don't pass very simple tests. So for at least a few mouths after birth i can kill babies. If some one gets brain damage I can kill them. If someone is reaaalllly drunk or tired I can kill them.

Unfortunately, thats called murder. It's illegal.

If someone is drunk they are still self-aware. They simply have no control. Tired people are also still self-aware until they fall asleep and can make simple decisions, but need to spend longer doing so.

The moment you chose to have sex you consented to the possibility of conception, and therefore through your own action should be held accountable for the results. Claiming a human person is not a human person if they are not able to pass state defined tests is simply a ridiculous and ludicrous proposition that is still just as ridiculous as when Peter Singer proposed it. Well a person may not be morally responsible until they are fully aware, that does not make them any less of a person when they are not fully aware, a baby is a person, and it will develop into a fully self aware human-person, and by preventing that you are murdering that person. Because they will be a person they ARE a person, from the moment of conception and abortion is nothing but murder in any case except where the mother's life is in mortal danger from having this child.

regardless of its dependency the moment you put yourself in a position to become a parent you became responsible for the out come of that act.

a little bit of a more secular argument might be more persuasive i thought.

But what if they haven't consented? The mother shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of something they had no control over, just because someone was a bit horny.

Also, 'killing' a foetus has it's own term and is legal (At least in the UK), so in legal terms at least, it isn't murder. Maybe from a moral standpoint, but that brings us back to the first post I quoted. Non-religious people apparently "Have no moral standards", whereas religious people do, which is why I asked whether religious people find abortion wrong.

It seems that, generally, religious people are opposed to it and the non-religious, "Slovenly" Liberals either support it or are indifferent.

I'm glad this hasn't turned into a flame war.

rape is a very touchy, and very complicated subject in and of it self, and to say that the mother should be bound to carry that baby to term, seems very harsh. However, this was part of the crime that was inflicted upon her, this is part of the injustice, and that person who is a result of this should not be destroyed before they are even born. They are still a person and still as subject to the rights of a person as anyone is, in a way this makes rape a thousand times worse for the victim, and this is one of the reasons rape is such and objectively evil deed, it at it's very nature is a completely striping the victim of their freedom, of all the things that can happen to a person this act is in a way worse than murder. One could write an essay, or many essays on the subject and it would only become a worse act as one looks at it in more detail, but the offspring of rape are just as much a person as the victim is and are entitled to just the same rights. Another distressing fact about rape is how one would deal with the fiend that committed it, what is a Just punishment for a crime that is worse then murder, how do you deal with someone who has taken away someone's freedom in such a complete and evil way, truly death is to swift a punishment for them, they should be held completely responsible for the offspring and their crimes for the rest of their days, they themselves should provide for the ones they hurt so dearly, they can never truly do enough to make up for the damage they wrote in such a short time.

got a little of track there. But i think you get my points.

also, i find that if one refers to the infant in terms of a fetus (this is a simple spelling difference not misspelling), you de-humanize the child, you turn it into an object, and killing it is no more worse than killing a malformed farm animal. just an extra put of input that i thought i would throw out there.

Also i too, am glad this has not devolved into a flame war.

 

[Freeze_L]

We don't have morals. We have something better.

Common Sense.
Logic.
The ability to think freely.

I have Common Sense, Logic, and the Ability to think Freely regardless of my Religious Upbringing (I am a Catholic, though most people here would swear I am a "Christian Deist"). Why? Because I don't think of god as some stiff prick who'll burn your face off if you look at him. To me, God is the most caring person in the universe, and is like "As long as your good out does your bad, you get into my kingdom", and he just laughs at anyone who makes fun of him and says "Yeah, that's funny".

1. Do you go to Church?
2. Do you pray before meals?
3. Do you hate homosexuals?
4. Do you hate abortion?
5. Do you hate contraception?
6. Do you use God as an excuse for anything?
7. Do you quote the Bible where it isn't relevant?
8. Are you opposed to sex before marriage?

If you answered yes to 4 or less of them, then you are of tolerable faith. I abhor the restrictions religion puts on people. As if the restrictions by governments and laws weren't enough. I'll take all the personal freedom I can get, thank you very much.

i think you views on freedom are different than mine, you subscribe to the view of freedom that originated with Ockham that freedom is the ability to do absolutely whatever you want, and anything that limits that limits your freedom. I subscribe to the more well thought out view of freedom that comes from St. Thomas Aquinas about fifty years prior to the other monk's idea of freedom; freedom is the means in and of itself, but we are given freedom for excellence, we are not free unless we exercise that freedom, and restrict ourselves. Are you following me? Am i making sense?

Let me rephrase this a little, there are 2 definitions of freedom, the freedom for and the the freedom to. By freedom for i mean to say that freedom is the ability to do whatever you want as long as you don't impede on another's freedom. By freedom to i mean to say, that freedom is the ability to learn to do something and become better at it, and one has to exercise restrictions on their freedom to grow in there freedom. The freedom to become great, the freedom for excellence. By following restrictions you actually grow in freedom, you grow in your ability to freely choose what is good, you become free no by doing whatever you want but by limiting yourself to doing what is good and what is, more often than not, much harder and more difficult than your other options.

Freedom is the ability to choose to do what is right, freely choosing the good.


Also i am not sure if you are aware of this but you have a very harsh tone in your writings and are being very accusative, you also raise very harsh terms and words, it is hard to help but think that you may be trying to get a rise out of pepole. Truly this type of harsh tone can only lead to flame wars and no positive gain from any of the arguments that have formed in this thread. Thus i beseech all who read this to please watch your tone lest we fall into a flame war.

 

[ICanBreakTheseCuffs]

Because us awesome ninjas stole it to buy non-shiny new weapons. Duh.

But seriously, it's probably: "Where's China?"

That's not good enough!
OT:why does 1+1=2?
srysly
[edit]why IS the rum gone?

 

[Freeze_L]

yet defend Islam and Scientology.

What universe are you from? It sounds very different compared to the one im from where these two are the ones that revieve the MOST flak. Especially scientology, described by the times as being a power hungry greedy cult. Seriously where did you get these ideas from?! WHERE DO YOU LIVE?! Everyone always bashes these religions all the time. One of them isnt even a religion.

Cant we just mildly dislike every religion a little? Except buddism. No extremist buddists. Ever. NO buddest has ever tried to make anyone else a buddist by force or enforce his rules on other people. Yay for buddism.

I'm speaking of mainstream see-it-every-day opinion. It's OK in modern society to hate Christiand, but if anyone hates other religions thats NOT OK and they receive public scorn. Also, you never heard of the bloody battles fought over relics of Buddha? Millions were killed over what was rumored to be his toebone. You miss the big point for the pleasure of nitpicking at the smaller points. We're not ALLOWED to make fun of other beliefs, or so our society says, but Christianity is the only one no one DEFENDS!

what are you talking to there are a great number of great catholic apologists who defended Christianity, and an even larger number of protestants, really there are plenty of pepole defending the faith. Also i think you may be backwards, no one should be allowed to send vile messages to any religion. If there is any rule that needs to be understood it is that one is free to seek the truth in any religion as long as they do not attack another religion through libel or physical means.