Respect For Life

[Dreadsox]

To all others reading this thread, whether you believe in abortion or not, statements like this should not be tolerated in this forum. One may say, ignore it and move on, but understand that this is a very touchy subject and attacking or insulting the other side of the debate is not appropriate as that is what this is, a debate. I just hope I was not the only one offended by this crap.

Ouizy you are correct.

I was offended too.

WE can make points without going overboard.


Peace to all.

 

[nbcrusader]

Ouizy you are correct.

I was offended too.

WE can make points without going overboard.


Peace to all.

 

[Screaming Flower]

i agree ouizy. this was an actual mature conversation on an extremely sensitive subject and it was going pretty well. name-calling and verbal attacks are not only inappropriate, but should be unacceptable.

 

[ouizy]

good to see the "other side" agrees and is open-minded and civil enough to agree...

that's good.

 

[Lilly]

Not George Lucas,


Let's try to keep this debate civil. You were warned about the photo, now try to tone it down with your language please.


Thank you,

Lilly

 

[Zoomerang96]

why do i even come here anymore.

people are more concerned about proper posting ediquette than the safety of a child who has yet to enter the world.

this world fucking sucks.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Zoomerang it is a discussion. Both sides of the argument are welcome. Perhaps it is a case of being more concerned with etiquette - no one here can or will filter responses to lean toward one side of the issue.

Also for the record, the subsequent 'death' of any fetus in utero is called an abortion. A miscarriage is termed a natural abortion. It isn't actually sugar coating any fact.

And guys, the issue is sensitive enough without reducing it to child like responses. This WILL be closed if it is not kept civil.

 

[pinkfloyd]

To allow abortion , yes .... to allow right to have a choice abortion or not , twice yes .... freedom for Devil sake

 

[Not George Lucas]

So, now I can't express my personal opinion? Great.

 

[diamond]

So, now I can't express my personal opinion? Great.

NGL-
Of course your opinon is valued..
however, the "shock" tactics are not..
See, next you will have pro abortionists posting pics of "botched back alley abortions" w dead women ect...

Think my brother...

Think
-diamond-

 

[Salome]

So, now I can't express my personal opinion? Great.

when it involves meat grinders you can go express your personal opinion somewhere else
a place where people are not offended by it

I don't (and don't want to) know where that is though

 

[Not George Lucas]

Ok, I think I'm done with this thread, since no one seems to want to read my inane, emotionally-driven rants. I'll just leave you with this image:

 

[pax]

I believe any woman who has an abortion deserves to be put through a meat-grinder.

The title of the thread is "Respect For Life." That includes respect for the life of the woman.

 

[melon]

I have always found it semi-amusing that most pro-choicers are horrified by pictures of aborted fetuses. I guess the truth comes down to the fact that if you dehumanize your victim, it becomes easier to justify his/her destruction; and this is the case with anything: terrorism, homophobia, white supremacism, and, yes, abortion.

Now there is something to think about.

Melon

 

[Sparkysgrrrl]

I don't know anyone who is particularly found of graphic medical pictures of any kind. Much less when someone dosen't even have anything to say on the subject, they just post a picture.

 

[Lilly]

I have always found it semi-amusing that most pro-choicers are horrified by pictures of aborted fetuses. I guess the truth comes down to the fact that if you dehumanize your victim, it becomes easier to justify his/her destruction; and this is the case with anything: terrorism, homophobia, white supremacism, and, yes, abortion.

Now there is something to think about.

Melon

It's not something I want to see. The only reason I'm pro-choice is because I feel I don't have the right to decide for every other woman out there. I don't think I would ever, EVER be able to do it.

I know what dead fetuses look like, even before it was unwelcomly posted in this thread. I know what stillborns look like in person, I know what amniotic fluid that was taken out in an abortion looks like. It's disturbing. But it doesn't change the fact that it is not my place to decide for others.

 

[famous rungi]

I am against abortion myself. If I were ever raped (heaven forbid), I hope I will keep to my beliefs and have the strength to carry the baby. I may consider not telling my child who his father is; that problem is more important than whether I ought to have the child or not.

I think pro-choice is an euphemism, and I dislike euphemisms. I watched the doco "silent scream" and saw that piccie of a foetus screaming. I don't know how anyone who ever saw that doco could ever agree to abortion...

Oh yeah, there was this artist few years back who made earrings out of real foetuses. Would you be outraged by that?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Foray....honestly, no offence, but that's kinda something entirely different. That is making a fashion accessory out of a dead fetus for craps sake. Its not really an acceptable extension of some people's views. I mean, there is no hypocrisy or double standard with those who are ok to accept some women will choose abortion, and then are sickened by the idea of someone making art for arts sake out of a dead baby!
The lengths some go to in the name of art is beyond questionable. Making a statement, my arse.

 

[foray]

Thanks Angie. Personally, I neither support nor condemn that artwork (btw, I've never seen it myself, only read about it). Just brought it up as a matter of interest, I'm not wanting to spark off more anger.

But the artwork did get people talking, I think any successful artwork does.

I forgot if you are pro-choice/pro-life, Angie, but you called it a "dead foetus"; that tells me that you regard the foetus as a once-living organism... If pro-choice people really believe that a fetus is just a lump of cells, why object to the foetus earrings? (Yeah, it is a gross question, in a way, sorry.) Is it a similar situation if the artist exhibited placentas?


foray

 

[Screaming Flower]

i've seen silent scream too. it was, without question, the most horrific thing i've ever seen.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

I forgot if you are pro-choice/pro-life, Angie, but you called it a "dead foetus"; that tells me that you regard the foetus as a once-living organism... If pro-choice people really believe that a fetus is just a lump of cells, why object to the foetus earrings? (Yeah, it is a gross question, in a way, sorry.) Is it a similar situation if the artist exhibited placentas?
foray

OK, I am finally going to gingerly dip my toe into this discussion. I am offiially a "pro choice" person, because whether you make something illegal or not (drugs, prostitution etc.) people will do it anyway, and it seems ridiculous in free countries with access to excellent healthcare that you have to make women resort to these horrible back alley abortions when we have safe alternatives.

However, I do think a safe, accessible abortion should be carefully regulated and only made available in situations where the mother's life is in danger (either by her partner/family or by health problems having the child, if she were raped, etc.) and then to have the abortion as early as possible in the pregnancy. I certainly do NOT approve of using abortion as an alternate of birth control, or as a way out if your birth control fails.

With all that said, the issue of the fetus earrings...well yes, any clump of cells is a living organism of some sort, and whether one thinks the fetus is just a lump of cells or a human person, either way, the earrings are objectionable because it's just plain GROSS! Placenta art is gross too imo!

But taking this argument further, a leather jacket was once part of a living organism too for that matter, but of course because it wasn't a part of a human (either as simple cells or otherwise) it bothers few people.

 

[Sparkysgrrrl]

I urge everyone who has seen Silent Scream to read this:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/silentscream.HTM

Yes, it is from Planned Parenthood and you may not like reading the info from a bias source, but take a look at it non the less. If for no other reason than to "know thy enemy"
There are other articles and studies form sources other than PPH, but they have it set up on their website in the easiest to read formet.

As for art, it can be art, but like Mrs. Edge says, it's just gross.
I don't want to see someone's toes made into earings, I don't want to see someone's appendix as a bracelet. I just don't like medical things of any kind

and also brought up by Mrs. Edge - some humans tend to not look at animals in the same light, so when an animal or their parts are used some don't even bat an eyelash. But I guess that could get us into a whole human vs. animal thing...

 

[nbcrusader]

I urge everyone who has seen Silent Scream to read this:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/silentscream.HTM

I appreciate you posting this link. You are correct; the best way to sharpen you thinking is to know the opposing sides view in detail.

The arguments contained at this web site touch on Melon?s comment: ?if you dehumanize your victim, it becomes easier to justify his/her destruction?.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Hmm, I'm not sure where to begin my reply, so apologies if its jumbled. Also fors, I hope I didn't sound angry when I replied, I re-read it just then and realised how pompous it sounded. Sorry again lol.
Ok, the earrings, plain and simply are gross. But that has been established so no need to go on. With the placenta artworks, they raise some interesting questions, but I dont hold a placenta in the same regard I do an unborn fetus, be it dead or alive. In a nutshell though, it falls under the same category to me, as 'gross'. I agree with you though that an artwork that sparks debate is good etc, that is all true. I do however have a problem with artwork that oversteps my own personal boundary of what is in good taste, for want of a better term. But this isn't about artwork lol, so I'll leave it at that.

Now, with abortion....Where to start...I have my interference setting set on 40 replies per page, and am not sure if anyone else has changed theirs, but I made a reply on what is page 2 for me, on what my beliefs are in a general kind of reply. But to reiterate, I dont see any difference in a life that is 6 weeks old in utero and one that is 60 years old in life. I see the whole life journey as a process and dont really like to differentiate simply because that fetus is yet to be born. I'll try and keep this succinct here. I could never opt for a medical abortion under normal circumstances. I could never purposely kill any other living human being. I dont see much difference between killing a person under many circumstances, or killing an unborn fetus. It's simply because I see all life at any stage, as equal. I dont ever think anyone has the right to end any life. Yet every day we kill people and we justify it, legalise it, accept it. We can kill someone who threatens us, we can kill someone who breaks into our homes and the law says we are just protecting ourselves. We argue about abortion and say it is an innocent life and it is different. Well to me every life is different, yet none more important than another. I wont look at these 'guilty' members of our adult or grown up society and say they got what they deserved, or they did something wrong, and their death was manslaughter in the name of self defense. Who am I to judge? I cannot say a person's death is acceptable. I dont think we should have that power to ever say it is someone's time to die. I dont think it is our place.
Is abortion acceptable to me? No.

 

[RavenStar]

I think it all comes down to, not when the baby becomes human, but when the baby is considered a person. But then you have to ask thew question: "What is a person?" In my opinion, the way most people would define person would make alot of animals people too. But since some humans dont mind killing animals for no reason I assume they have a different view of what is a person. I think human rights should be changed to person rights. Humans who have raped children or abused animals are not people and should not get those rights.

 

[hiphop]

Respect for Life Pt. II

Here you go... a totally different story about the value of human life.

Visions for the Future: The Rules of Risk

If you?re not willing to take a risk, you?ll never get off the ground!

Guy Thibodaux and Max Faget

Robbie: There?s a question I really want to ask. What is your vision for the future of humans in space? If you could paint the picture any way you wanted, what?s your vision? What would it look like?

Max: I think the long range vision is probably that humans will at least explore the inner planets. I?m not sure they?ll go much beyond Mars, unless they get something that science fiction calls hyper-drive or something like that and the human race is really going to move to another solar system. We need space for more and more things. The commercial use of space could probably hardly be done without the human applications.

I?ll make another prediction that?s not original with me because Bob Gilruth said it long before I did. He said, "Next time we go to the moon, the people who do it are really going to find out that it is very difficult." I would agree with him on that. With the modern ground rules, it?s almost impossible to do. The military talks about "rules of engagement." Well, I?ll talk about rules concerning risk and so forth. Those rules we have imposed on ourselves almost preclude the possibility of a reasonable landing on the moon in the next thirty or forty years. That?s my feeling. We either change the rules or we won?t get there for another thirty or forty years.

Robbie: Because of the structure of NASA now?

Max: It?s the mindset of the bureaucrats on what?s safe and what?s not safe, and it?s the culture of the country where human life is so precious and it can?t be wasted. We?ve got rules against killing people even if they are murderers. They?re not hard rules, but you?ve elevated the value of human life out of proportion to its true value. That?s all there is to it. I?m talking as an engineer who is used to looking at big pictures and understanding what?s going on.

Robbie: So you think risks have to be taken to get back to the moon and they won?t be willing to take those risks.

Max: Every endeavor in the future has to be more risk free than the previous ventures. You just have to look at history to understand that.

Guy: There?s no joy to success without an opportunity to fail. Absolutely not. If you can?t fail, then there is no point in trying. Anybody can do it. It?s not a challenge.

Robbie: So are you saying the astronaut that gets in the next rocket has to be willing to die?

Max: I didn?t say you?d have to be willing to die, but you have to understand the risk. The risk right now of flying is acceptable because it?s an existing machine. But if you designed another one now you?d have to preclude a lot of the risks that are acceptable on the shuttle?they?d have to be ruled out.

Guy: Many of the astronauts live around here--Buzz Aldrin, David Scott, Dick Gordon, Gene Cernan and Mike Collins all went to the moon. Jim McDivitt, Rusty Schweikert and Walt Cunningham flew on pre-lunar missions as well as Gemini missions. My wife knew all of their wives. She said, "Well, what?s the difference in working in NASA?" And every wife told her, We go to fewer funerals these days because they were all test pilots, and the death rate on test pilots is far more severe than any other group in the United States.

Robbie: How do you reckon the true value of human life? You said that they are overvaluing human life right now and that?s hurting them.

Max: Well, see that?s the problem. It depends on what you?re talking about. The place where a human life is valued the least is in the Highway Department. I can go up and down this road here and show you situation after situation where humans are at unnecessary risk because of the way the highway is constructed and so forth and so on. They?re slowly getting rid of these things, but I think the highway department probably used a formula?a million dollars for a human life, something like that. Now, if it?s a criminal, the life of a convicted criminal is probably worth about $20 million. You understand? You spend $20 million dollars screwing around with him after he gets the death sentence. That?s ridiculous. We send them to the gas chamber in five or ten years. It doesn?t make any sense.

Guy: I?ll tell you how I feel. I?ve worked in safety. I?ve worked in the most hazardous part of the operation. Everything I had could explode and detonate and do all sorts of damage and all of the failures of anything I had to do with were going to be the most spectacular things you ever saw. Consequently, I was very heavily involved in safety. My attitude toward safety is that if in order to save one man?s life I have to spend more than one man?s lifetime trying to do that, there?s a net loss to humanity. That?s a very cold-hearted way of looking at it. It?s a very practical way of looking at it. If I have to spend a thousand man years of effort to save one man?s life, then it?s a great loss to humanity. That would not be a very popular opinion, but I?ve always looked at safety that way. I lean more toward the safe side, but that pretty much expresses my feelings about risk, for example. Knowledge of what you are doing, how it works and personal responsibility of the people doing the work is what makes things safe.

I remember a story about all the accidents people were having operating a press. People were having fingers cut off and other damage to their hands. Some bright guy got the idea to put the operators hand in shackles so when the press came down, the man?s hands were pulled out of the way. The union struck. People were not going to be subject to the machine. So some bright guy put a ring with a small amount of harmless radioactivity in it. The press sensed when the operator?s hand was near and would not operate. The machine was now subject to the man. You have to know a lot about human nature and human behavior to be a successful safety expert.

Max: The best way to be safe is simply to understand what the hazards are. If you understand what the hazards are and the people that are involved understand what the hazards are, then you?ve gone a big step forward toward safety. A lot of our safety now is what you might call "plastered-on safety." It hasn?t got anything to do with making the thing safe, but we?ve got a committee to sit in review, we?ve got special organizations that specialize in safety.

The special organizations that specialize in safety don?t understand the problem near as much as the guy that is working with the problem. You know--you?ve got novelists that write good novels and you?ve got critics. The critics themselves would love to be a good writer but they don?t know how to do it, so they become a critic. Same thing with movies. They don?t know how to act or they don?t know how to produce a movie, so what the hell, I?d like to be a critic. It?s cheap to be a critic. Well, you?ve got these safety organizations of nothing but critics. That?s what they are. Most of those people have never really done real engineering themselves. They had a brush with it or they?ve got an engineering degree, but they don?t know how to make things work, they can only criticize the work of others. (laughs)

Robbie: As you speak, I am remembering that if you had been listened to in the design of the Challenger, there would have been no O-rings.

Max: The rocket would have been all one piece. It wouldn?t have had any joints.

Robbie: So that means it wouldn?t have blown up.

Max: But that was not a politically acceptable solution.