a father's rights

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:56 pm

@Georgi: And is potential itself worthless? All I'm asking is that people think about this a little. Think about the fact that a developing fetus is meant to develop into a human being. If you think about it this way, it doesn't matter "when life begins." The very cells that form the human embryo are alive. And if you're talking about a human person, as I see it, it's what's meant to be that matters. I don't think anyone has the right to cut off the potential of a full human life, whether that life reaches its fullness in a few days, a few months, or a few years.

Since we're using analogies -- think about it this way: You have a savings account or a trust fund or some such, to go to college on. Your potential is to do very well in college and be successful in your chosen field after you graduate. Now, this is far in the future, it's not happening right now. You're not working in your field yet; that is still a long way off. But you are studying hard and your potential for success is good. Then someone comes along and steals your money, robbing you of the opportunity to make something of your life. And they say, "Oh, I needed it for my own thing. Besides, you wouldn't like college anyway."

It's the same with human life, IMO. The fetus might not be an adult but its potential to live a fully human life is there and should not be tampered with.

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:09 pm

Originally posted by Weasel:

Lack off an arguement is a good excuse to use sarcasm. When you don't have the answer "attack" Point proven

Sarcasm is not an attack. I have attacked no one here, including you. Sarcasm is often employed as a manner of debate to drive home a point. For example, Swift (I think??) writing that the Irish should eat their children during the famine. It seems to me that you are the one attacking. The only hostility I see here is coming from you.

As for the rest of your post....maybe I will come down to your level later.

Weasel, your near-paranoid hostility proves that you are already so far down past my level it's laughable.

Why specifically am I down on a "low level" because I try to argue my points using logic and my own belief system? What is so "low level" about that? I'm genuinely curious.

The difference being..I will give you some answers...instead of 'putting some thought and hard work into coming up with real solutions' which you haven't.

Give me some answers then, instead of accusing me of not coming up with any. The best answer I've heard from you is to just destroy any life form that's inconvenient to people, or will potentially experience suffering, which is common and inevitable to all life, human or otherwise.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:14 pm

@loner you have your opinion and I have mine, I'm not going to argue about it

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:15 pm

Originally posted by loner72:

Of course it's terrible when a child -- or any person -- suffers in any way and everything should be done to prevent such a situation. But life is full of suffering all the way through. So we should take a life because the person is going to have a hard time? That makes no sense to me.

It lets us all off the hook, doesn't it? It's the easy way out. We don't have to do any work to figure out how to make life better for the child, how to improve his or her circumstances. No, just get rid of it. Get it out of everyone's way so no one is inconvenienced. Prevent any potential suffering. Wow, a quick, easy, and happy solution for all involved!

"But life is full of suffering all the way through" so what does it matter if this kid starves.

Strange isn't?

Bring a child into this world to starve. The solution: 1. Stop these people from having more children than they can support. 2. For all these protesters to get another job (Since it seems they have the time to protest) and send money over to feed these children. The thing is...it's easy to walk around and shout and get that good feeling you are doing something. When it comes to getting down and dirty for your belief....they start falling by the way side.

1. Will not work because..it's a potential human life. God forbid we stop them from bringing more life into this world.

2. Will not work because of the reason's I stated.That "I'm a good person" feeling only goes so far.

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:15 pm

@Georgi: That's only because I used the university metaphor, isn't it?

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:19 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
@Georgi: That's only because I used the university metaphor, isn't it?

No, it's because I fail to see the point in arguing about personal opinions. You're welcome to hold whatever opinion you want on the subject

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:20 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
Give me some answers then, instead of accusing me of not coming up with any. The best answer I've heard from you is to just destroy any life form that's inconvenient to people, or will potentially experience suffering, which is common and inevitable to all life, human or otherwise.

Is not that an answer? Is one answer from me not good enough for you to give one back.Or does it have to fit your 'best' answer group?

How about I give you two?

Both posted.

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:21 pm

Originally posted by Weasel:
"But life is full of suffering all the way through" so what does it matter if this kid starves.

Strange isn't?

That is not what I said or meant, Weasel, and I think you know it. What I said was, once again: Everything possible should be done to make life better and prevent suffering, for each human life at any and every age. At teh same time, the possibility that a person will suffer is no reason to deprive him or her of a chance at life.

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:24 pm

Originally posted by Weasel:
Is not that an answer? Is one answer from me not good enough for you to give one back.Or does it have to fit your 'best' answer group?

How about I give you two?

Both posted.

Wow, Weasel. Do you hate everyone this much or should I be honored?

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:31 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
Everything possible should be done to make life better and prevent suffering, for each human life at any and every age

Maybe life would be better and suffering would be prevented for the parents by not having a baby. IMPO a fetus is not a separate human life. There is the potential for creating human life every time two people have sex, so do you disagree with contraception as well?

I try to argue my points using logic and my own belief system

And what is valid in your belief system may not be so in others'.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:34 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
Sarcasm is not an attack. I have attacked no one here, including you. Sarcasm is often employed as a manner of debate to drive home a point. For example, Swift (I think??) writing that the Irish should eat their children during the famine. It seems to me that you are the one attacking. The only hostility I see here is coming from you.

Originally posted by Weasel:

Lack off an arguement is a good excuse to use sarcasm. When you don't have the answer "attack" Point proven

Let's see...your lack of an arguement is a good excuse to use sarcasm? Since you don't have any answer."attack" (Better?)

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:39 pm

Originally posted by Weasel:
1. Will not work because..it's a potential human life. God forbid we stop them from bringing more life into this world.

I'm talking about the wrongness of abortion, not the wrongness of birth control.

2. Will not work because of the reason's I stated.That "I'm a good person" feeling only goes so far.

Money only goes so far as well. What happens when the money to feed the starving children is gone? Back to square one. What I'm tlaking about is not short-term band-aid solutions, but long-term changes in the way things are done. Economic changes, for one. Changes in systems that exploit labor. Job training for the unskilled. Those kinds of things. If we're talking about poverty as a reason to terminate pregnancy.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:39 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
Wow, Weasel. Do you hate everyone this much or should I be honored?

I just wanted to quote this. Should I repeat the part above about.."Lack of" ?

See it's easy to evade the questions. Just diregards them.

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:46 pm

@Weasel: You are answered. Regarding your "amended" comment on sarcasm related to lack of an argument: I've already explained that one. If you don't or won't understand that sarcasm is a useful debating tool and is frequently employed WITHIN arguments, not as an attack, I'm not going to hammer that point anymore.

What's worse -- my sarcasm, or your obvious hostility?

@Georgi: Contraception is different IMO. It prohibits life from beginning; but once that life has already begun to develop, it should not be tampered with.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:53 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
Money only goes so far as well. What happens when the money to feed the starving children is gone? Back to square one. What I'm tlaking about is not short-term band-aid solutions, but long-term changes in the way things are done. Economic changes, for one. Changes in systems that exploit labor. Job training for the unskilled. Those kinds of things. If we're talking about poverty as a reason to terminate pregnancy.

Why then does these protesters not do this. Do you see what I'm say? I agree money is not the whole answer. But protesting isn't the answer either. Till they decide to do something "for " the ones, I see no answer except stopping them from having children.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 7:56 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
@Weasel: You are answered. .

Thank you.

And no I'm not being sarcastic.

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 8:04 pm

Hi everyone, please tone it down a little.
thanks, T

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 8:05 pm

Originally posted by Weasel:
Why then does these protesters not do this. Do you see what I'm say? I agree money is not the whole answer. But protesting isn't the answer either. Till they decide to do something "for " the ones, I see no answer except stopping them from having children.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. You may be surprised to know that I agree with everything in that post.

Are you talking about the protesters who do the pro-life marches and such? Marches don't accomplish much IMO. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the "pro-life movement" has gone about their cause in the completely wrong way. Preaching a belief system that others don't hold to; shoving disgusting pictures in people's faces, etc. etc.; instead of crafting logical arguments and bringing them into the public forum. Now that they have gone about it in the wrong way for so long, no one wants to listen even when a good argument is used.

Marches are not the answer. IMO, most of those marches are to make abortion illegal; but if abortion were made illegal tomorrow nothing would be solved. Like I said, short-term band-aid solutions do not work. The root of the problem needs to be found and dealt with.

Also, like I said, birth control is one thing, to prevent overpopulation, resource strain, and an increase of suffering in many parts of the world (including the US). My point is not birth control, however, but abortion, the cutting off of a life that has already begun to develop.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 8:22 pm

Originally posted by loner72:

Also, like I said, birth control is one thing, to prevent overpopulation, resource strain, and an increase of suffering in many parts of the world (including the US). My point is not birth control, however, but abortion, the cutting off of a life that has already begun to develop.

Why should it matter what someone else does?

You will find this strange, but when my ex-wife decided on getting pregnant...without talking to me about... me and her discussed an abortion. She told me the choose was left up to me. I decided against it. She agreed.

I didn't want a child at 20 years old, but she and I made the decision. No one told us what to do...what's right, what's wrong.

Do you see what I mean?

(I didn't comment on the other stuff, I believe we are on the same page there.)

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 8:54 pm

Originally posted by Weasel:
Why should it matter what someone else does?

Let me put it this way: If I see someone with a knife at someone else's throat, I'm going to do what I can to prevent a potential tragedy. Because I believe that murder is morally wrong. Same with theft, physical/emotional abuse, or any other kind of abuse of human life. Any kind of violence affects life as a whole. Something like abortion is a general moral wrong. This goes way beyond legalistic codes of behavior; it extends to the general dynamic of life itself. There cannot be so much death and acceptance of death without it affecting the life energy of the cosmos in some way. Just as acts of love affect the life force of the entire world, even if such acts remain unseen and unknown to conscious knowledge. Everything each person does affects all of us becaue we are all connected. Does this make sense at all? I don't mean to sound weird and esoteric...