|
|
Post by *xoxo* on Apr 6, 2005 10:48:51 GMT -5
yes it is murder. i dont think it's right in ANY situation even rape. There's no reason to kill another life just b/c u got hurt. Hurt's a part of life. yeh it's a major tragedy to get raped, but life's full of bad crap. even if ur liberal and think that "oh it's not a human yet b/c it's not fully developed so who cares? we should just abort it!" well guess what? it's still a living organism either way!!  what is the definition of murder? here let me help ya: v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v. tr. To kill (another human) unlawfully. To kill brutally or inhumanly. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce. verb To take the life of (a person or persons) unlawfully: destroy, finish (off), kill1, liquidate, slay. Informal put away. Slang bump off, do in, knock off, off, rub out, waste, wipe out, zap. notice that it doesn't HAVE to be human to murder something  |
|
|
|
Post by stardust15 on Apr 6, 2005 10:49:52 GMT -5
I keep hearing the line "the world is overpopulated enough as it is." Did you know that if every person in the world stood up in the middle of a circle about five feet in diameter, the entire planet's population would ALL fit in the City of Jacksonville, Florida?
My stance on abortion: I am firmly against it, with the exception of two cases - a) if the mother's life is in danger to go through with the pregnancy (although this is a rare case, and usually what C-sections are for) and b) if it is a 12/13/14 year old girl whose body can not handle going through a pregnancy.
Notice that I did not make an exception for rape; a baby's life is a baby's life no matter how it was created. If a rape has happened, a horrible crime has been committed, yes, so why blame the innocent party and take its life? The baby deserves life either way.
Oftentimes this scenario comes up in abortion debates: A married mother and father with 3-4 children already who cannot afford to raise another child find out that the mother is pregnant. In this case, adoption would be perfect. They can't financially support another child, (a different factor would be the emotional aspect) so giving up that child to a couple who cannot have children would be the best option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shodan on Apr 6, 2005 10:56:47 GMT -5
overpopulation is not just about space, it is about how much we consume, the rate at which we strip away at limited resources, the amount of fertile land we have on which to grow food for everybody and so on. I am not certain that we have an overpopulation crisis as such, at least not yet. notice that it doesn't HAVE to be human to murder something everyone on this board is a mass murderer then. |
|
|
|
Post by stardust15 on Apr 6, 2005 11:14:07 GMT -5
Excerpts from this site: www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2782From the period before Christ, men have been worried about overpopulation. Those concerns have become ever more frenzied. On an almost daily basis we are fed a barrage of stories in the newspapers and on television—complete with such appropriately lurid headlines as “Earth Near the Breaking Point” and “Population Explosion Continues Unabated”—predicting the imminent starvation of millions because population is outstripping the food supply. We regularly hear that because of population growth we are rapidly depleting our resource base with catastrophic consequences looming in our immediate future. We are constantly told that we are running out of living space and that unless something is done, and done immediately, to curb population growth, the world will be covered by a mass of humanity, with people jammed elbow to elbow and condemned to fight for each inch of space. The catastrophists have been predicting doom and gloom for centuries. Perhaps the single most amazing thing about this perennial exercise is that the catastrophists seem never to have stopped quite long enough to notice that their predictions have never materialized. This probably says more about the catastrophists themselves than anything else. But isn’t the world overpopulated? Aren’t we headed toward catastrophe? Don’t more people mean less food, fewer resources, a lower standard of living, and less living space for everyone? Let’s look at the data. As any population graph clearly shows, the world has and is experiencing a population explosion that began in the eighteenth century. Population rose sixfold in the next 200 years. But this explosion was accompanied, and in large part made possible, by a productivity explosion, a resource explosion, a food explosion, an information explosion, a communications explosion, a science explosion, and a medical explosion.The result was that the sixfold increase in world population was dwarfed by the eighty-fold increase in world output. As real incomes rose, people were able to live healthier lives. Infant mortality rates plummeted and life expectancies soared. Food production has outpaced population growth by, on average, one percent per year ever since global food data began being collected in the late 1940s. There is currently enough food to feed everyone in the world. And there is a consensus among experts that global food production could be increased dramatically if needed. The major problem for the developed countries of the world is food surpluses. In the United States, for example, millions of acres of good cropland lie unused each year. Many experts believe that even with no advances in science or technology we currently have the capacity to feed adequately, on a sustainable basis, 40 to 50 billion people, or about eight to ten times the current world population. And we are currently at the dawn of a new agricultural revolution, biotechnology, which has the potential to increase agricultural productivity dramatically. Where people are hungry, it is because of war (Somalia, Ethiopia) or government policies that, in the name of modernization and industrialization, penalize farmers by taxing them at prohibitive rates (e.g., Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya), not because population is exceeding the natural limits of what the world can support. Like food, resources have become more abundant over time. Practically all resources, including energy, are cheaper now than ever before. Relative to wages, natural resource prices in the United States in 1990 were only one-half what they were in 1950, and just one-fifth their price in 1900. Prices outside the United States show similar trends. But how can resources be getting more abundant? Resources are not things that we find in nature. It is ideas that make things resources. If we don’t know how to use something, it is not a resource. Oil is a perfect example. Prior to the 1840s oil was a liability rather than a resource. There was little use for it and it would often seep to the surface and get into the water supply. It was only with the dawn of the machine age that a use was discovered for this “slimy ooze.” Our knowledge is even more important than the physical substance itself, and this has significant ramifications: More people mean more ideas. There is no reason, therefore, that a growing population must mean declining resource availability. Historically, the opposite has been true. Rapidly growing populations have been accompanied by rapidly declining resource prices as people have discovered new ways to use existing resources as well as uses for previously unused materials. For example, if the entire population of the world were placed in the state of Alaska, every individual would receive nearly 3,500 square feet of space, or about one-half the size of the average American family homestead with front and back yards. ------------------------------------------------------ Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to give you all an idea of how things really are; pretty much all you hear from the pro-choice activists and such is that we're running out of food and space and resources. I notice that when Kinda said we experienced a growth explosion during the Industrial Revolution, she didn't mention that we also experienced a resource and technology explosion. |
|
|
|
Post by *xoxo* on Apr 6, 2005 11:20:35 GMT -5
overpopulation is not just about space, it is about how much we consume, the rate at which we strip away at limited resources, the amount of fertile land we have on which to grow food for everybody and so on. I am not certain that we have an overpopulation crisis as such, at least not yet. everyone on this board is a mass murderer then. haha technically yes . but the question is, what are the differences between killing an ant and killing a cell that could develop into a living human being? Still as ridiculous as it sounds, when u kill an ant u are keeping it also from doing it's vital work and contribute to the world and from reproducing other ants. so u have to ask yourself, what's MORALLY right? |
|
|
|
Post by Shodan on Apr 6, 2005 11:34:16 GMT -5
haha technically yes . but the question is, what are the differences between killing an ant and killing a cell that could develop into a living human being? Still as ridiculous as it sounds, when u kill an ant u are keeping it also from doing it's vital work and contribute to the world and from reproducing other ants. so u have to ask yourself, what's MORALLY right? There are some (who I do not neccesarily agree with) who say that it is morally worse to kill the ant than to kill a zygote. These same people would also equate killing the ant to killing a newborn baby, up to about a month old. They claim that the newborn baby is not aware of itself as a seperate entity, that it has no sense of indentity, and cannot see a future for itself. The ant (or almost any other animal you want to substitute) will also lack these things. They say since we are so willing to kill these animals, we should not be so unwilling to abort foetuses or even kill newborn babies. Of course the easy way (and way I am certain that many of you would take) to oppose this is the theological argument that we came from God and that he knew us before we were in the womb etc etc. I am sure you all know it, probably better than I do. |
|
|
|
Post by sex ees gud on Apr 6, 2005 11:52:56 GMT -5
agreed. if you have a child and he turns out to be a complete idiot, you should by law be alloud to put him in a paper shredder and end your own personal misery.
XD
|
|
|
|
Post by *xoxo* on Apr 6, 2005 12:29:40 GMT -5
yeh that's true that last part ^ and i'm a firm believer in that. b/c since i definitely believe there's a God, He would have had to know what He was creating before He created it. Or He could have just randomly BAM and there it was cuz he felt like it! but that's a whole other theory
|
|
|
|
Post by Spoonie on Apr 6, 2005 15:07:39 GMT -5
yes it is murder. i dont think it's right in ANY situation even rape. There's no reason to kill another life just b/c u got hurt. Hurt's a part of life. yeh it's a major tragedy to get raped, but life's full of bad crap. even if ur liberal and think that "oh it's not a human yet b/c it's not fully developed so who cares? we should just abort it!" well guess what? it's still a living organism either way!! what is the definition of murder? here let me help ya: All right, so a ten year old gets raped by her father, sick but it has been known to happen. Her body for some reason supports the pregnancy, however, she physcally cannot have the baby. Her hips aren't wide enough and her birth canal is definetely to small. This is a problem, in what your saying, she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. You need to think of the radical situtations. Think of what would happen even if she had the baby and lived, she would live forever with a reminder that her father, someone who she thought she could trust, raped her and she has viable living proof. Even if she gave it up for adoption, she would still know that her child is out there in the world somewhere. Some adopted children go out to find their biological parents. Imagine that twenty years in the future, she's married and is having a family of her own, think of the emotional damage if she opened the door one day to find someone claiming to be her kid. There would be tons of questions and she'd have to visit something she wouldn't wnat to do. And have more compassion for people who are raped and pray to God that it never happens to you. I can't believe you'd be that insensitive about something so serious. Oftentimes this scenario comes up in abortion debates: A married mother and father with 3-4 children already who cannot afford to raise another child find out that the mother is pregnant. In this case, adoption would be perfect. They can't financially support another child, (a different factor would be the emotional aspect) so giving up that child to a couple who cannot have children would be the best option. And, do you know how much it is for prenatal visists, and going to the hospital just to give birth? I highly doubt that if they were under severe financial issues as to not support another child, that they could afford to pay for all of that too. |
|
|
|
Post by Phobic of Tragedy on Apr 6, 2005 18:19:52 GMT -5
I will give up. i am not saying that i have changed my mind about this issue. but i know myself well enough to know that if i continue it will somehow turn into a personnel level. i am EXTREMLEY competitive and i don't accept defeat.i just know i will make it get out of hand so i will end with this......... In my opinion, abortion is murder, and is very wrong, and does not coincide with Gods word. yet to all things there is a good and bad. Well...this is a debate... Also, not everyone believes in god. I don't, and I highly doubt the god you believe in exists. He doesn't influence my morals and opinions on the issue at all. yeh that's true that last part ^ and i'm a firm believer in that. b/c since i definitely believe there's a God, He would have had to know what He was creating before He created it. Or He could have just randomly BAM and there it was cuz he felt like it! but that's a whole other theory I'm no theist, but if you say your god is basically all knowing and he knew each and every child before he created it, wouldn't he also know that some of the children he created were going to be aborted? Wouldn't that even be part of his *plan* for them? |
|
Lady
Average Poster
I swear i would rip out my heart if you said you'd be impressed
Posts: 238
|
Post by Lady on Apr 7, 2005 10:10:06 GMT -5
Well...this is a debate... Also, not everyone believes in god. I don't, and I highly doubt the god you believe in exists. He doesn't influence my morals and opinions on the issue at all. I know i said i was finished but i can't help it. 1) I never said that this wasn't a debate. and where you got the idea that i said it wasn't, i have no clue. 2) thats up to you if you wanna believe in God or not. and trust me i can see that it doesn't affect you morals or opinions. that is the difference (in this situation) between you and me. mine are affected by God, and always will be. |
|
|
|
Post by gopher on Apr 7, 2005 21:57:26 GMT -5
I keep hearing the line "the world is overpopulated enough as it is." Did you know that if every person in the world stood up in the middle of a circle about five feet in diameter, the entire planet's population would ALL fit in the City of Jacksonville, Florida? How do you know that? |
|
|
|
Post by sex ees gud on Apr 7, 2005 22:01:52 GMT -5
and who would want that? I think something that i created that hasn't been born yet should be my decision what happens to it. But that's just me. Sometimes i feel that bringing a child into the world is more harm than killing it. There are worse things than death.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardust15 on Apr 7, 2005 22:06:08 GMT -5
Experts came up with that using simple statistics on the world's population and the total square feet of Jacksonville Florida. It's a matter of basic mathematics (division). |
|
|
|
Post by ava on Apr 7, 2005 22:27:35 GMT -5
Experts came up with that using simple statistics on the world's population and the total square feet of Jacksonville Florida. It's a matter of basic mathematics (division). The calculation that the entire world population would fit into Jacksonville is based on the assumption that each person receives a 2 x 2 feet plot--i.e., 4 square feet--rather than 2 x 6 feet--i.e., 12 square feet, which is 3 times as much. This is SRO ("standing room only"), not room enough to lie down. The calculation is easy when you know that Jacksonville is around 800 square miles. This is over 22 billion square feet, which works out to just under 4 square feet per person (for a population of 6 billion). If, instead, one had a 12 foot plot, the world population would have to be under 2 billion. Aside from the erroneous calculation, the point is misleading because Jacksonville is "one of the nation's largest cities in area", to quote the Encyclopedia Brittanica. This is because Jacksonville consolidated with Duval county, so that the city limits include the entire county. In comparison, L.A. is only about half the area of Jacksonville. www.geocities.com/seapadre_1999/jacksonville.html |
|
what is the definition of murder? here let me help ya: 
