What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
66 Comments
- Lucas123, on 11/05/2009, -0/+36Actually, I wrote my first short story in the womb. It was a parody of Hemingway's "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place."
- analogkid01, on 11/05/2009, -1/+13@warchant: I had a friend who was a born-again Christian. She was fairly pro-choice, until she got pregnant. From that point forward, she was VERY pro-choice. She said, "There is no way I could support a law forcing a woman to be pregnant if she didn't want to be."
I understand your perspective because I once shared it. But here's my challenge to you: you're "pro-life," but how many young, single, terrified expectant mothers have you supported financially or materially? How many orphans have you adopted? How much money have you donated to Planned Parenthood and their efforts to educate people about birth control? Are you all talk, or are you action when it comes to helping those in need? You know...like what Jesus did? - ngmcs8203, on 11/05/2009, -2/+12Did you read the article? Third trimester. At that point a baby has a chance of living outside of a womb. The majority of abortions are done in the first trimester. When the "baby" is just a collection of cells. Do you get upset every time somebody kills a fly? That is a larger collection of complex cells than a first trimester embryo.
- iwillforgetthis, on 11/05/2009, -0/+10All living things have a right to life, naturally.
That said, I'm pro-choice. - Mujokan, on 11/05/2009, -0/+9I think that is maybe my favorite Digg comment ever.
- SgtSeaCow, on 11/05/2009, -0/+9Not many parents in the room, I see. I actually found the research and its finding to be extraordinary.
I talked to my first son while he was in utero, multiple times a day, always starting with the same greeting. When he was less than 12 hours old, out of habit, I began talking to him using the same beginning line. His head whipped around like an adult's and he stared straight at me. Blew my mind. I can only imagine how much more learning takes place in the womb than what we're aware of right now. - veriix, on 11/05/2009, -3/+10But babies aren't humans until they're born. Until that point they're just a parasite feeding off of the mother. Once they are born they are completely self reliable little people just like everyone else...right?
- geezor, on 11/05/2009, -0/+7I love canine veal. Almost as much as fresh, pulsating monkey brains. Oh, but we can't kill a human fetus because that glob of tissue is more sacred.
- s0nicfreak, on 11/05/2009, -0/+6No, we do not think it's ok to give women the choice to end pregnancies at the point which this is possible.
- bipolar, on 11/05/2009, -0/+5@analogkid01
That's not ritualized abortion. It doesn't even mention the woman being pregnant. However, it does say that if the Woman did turn out to be a slut her belly would swell up and she would lose her ability to bear children. - noumuon, on 11/05/2009, -0/+5this settles it. when my wife gets pregnant, i'm going to read nothing but mathematical works in klingon to her stomach all day.
- Gudeldar, on 11/05/2009, -2/+6Dogs can learn. Should we make it illegal to put them down?
Dogs are about as smart as 2 year old children. - analogkid01, on 11/05/2009, -1/+4@acwixom: no, we don't know the exact moment, which is why we leave the choice up to the *woman* rather than pseudoscientific, superstitious fundamentalists.
Oh, and read Numbers 5:23-28 and tell me that's not ritualized abortion. - mirunit, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3"but how many young, single, terrified expectant mothers have you supported financially or materially? How many orphans have you adopted? How much money have you donated to Planned Parenthood and their efforts to educate people about birth control"
Most mothers are not financially ready, because, most people have kids and most of them are poor. The world will never have a majority of 'good' or 'ready' parents. Also, having a baby IS A CHOICE, unless you get raped - at which point I see no problem with abortion; otherwise it is just a escape from taking responsibility for your own actions. This isn't even about religion for some people. If women get the ability to run away from responsibility by aborting a baby, then men should be able to run away by not paying child support. Take, responsibility, wow. - clintonbaptiste, on 11/05/2009, -1/+4I did this same thing, uttering a single sentence and repeating it a few times daily for a couple of months up to the due date. But my girlfriend had a miscarriage so it was a complete waste of time in the end.
- noumuon, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3"And actually we do know the exact moment a new person exists. It is called Fertilization. When a sperm and an egg combine you get a brand new human being distinct and different from every other single human being on the planet."
[citation needed] - DekarCorvus, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2you sir, impressed me.
well done. - AndrewMoyer, on 11/05/2009, -3/+5How is babby language formed!
- iwillforgetthis, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Take my mom, please!
- Screwy1138, on 11/06/2009, -1/+2k3... your comment added absolutely nothing. Human or human being obviously my intentions were fairly obvious so you were nit picking for no reason. Also, you abuse the word bias pretty significantly. Obviously I take a view on the topic, and am making a point. Whether or not I have a view on the topic isn't consequential to the point I was making, which you completely failed to address.
I'm amused at how people refuse to take a scientific view on abortion. We just brush that under the carpet because we prefer the convenience of abortion. - s0nicfreak, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1@geogeer
My point is, when sperm and egg meet is NOT when a new human is formed, because most of the time sperm and egg meeting does not result in a new human. - ajkrik, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1It IS inconsequential. It's a phony debate that has plagued our politics for decades. You want an abortion? Get an abortion. You don't want an abortion? Don't get an abortion. This doesn't have to be a national debate. . . and really isn't anyway.
- Scotty87, on 11/05/2009, -1/+2How the ***** did this turn into a religious debate?
Jesus *****.... - shannondoko, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1I just saw this today: http://www.thinkgeek.com/geek-kids/newborn-infant/ ...
- Lucid00, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1"your friend cannot truly be a Christian and be in favour of abortion. It has been considered an intrinsically sinful act from the very beginnings of the Church."
Supporting the sinner doesn't make you the sinner. - geogeer, on 11/05/2009, -4/+5The problem with your whole argument is that it plays on emotions rather than the real issue. You can name any problem and there is never enough "aid" to completely solve it. Does that mean that killing those who are in that problem is acceptable? No. There are poor people, hungry people, dying people all around the world. Not many of us can say that we have given up everything to help those people. Therefore we are all to some extend guilty of a lack of compassion.
That being said, it does not make it right to kill off those people. And yes most people who are pro-life give generously to organizations that help support pregnant women. Many even adopt.
BTW - your friend cannot truly be a Christian and be in favour of abortion. It has been considered an intrinsically sinful act from the very beginnings of the Church. - sivyr, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1I'm going to get flak for this, I'm sure, but I'm pro-choice at least partly because we need population controls that people have access to, such that people unready to have a child will not have one (or more).
World population is rising very rapidly and it's going to put serious strain on our food and water supplies soon. I would much rather that we deal with population control (at least in part) by painlessly aborting unwanted children than face the widespread famine and political destabilization that's going to come with our disregard for the resources available to support people having large families.
Does this sound callous to you? Maybe it does. I don't care. It is a necessary measure to prevent the catastrophic famine that's going to hit us by the time I'm getting into old age.
I'm not too worried about how the Americas hold up in all of this, but Africa, the Middle East and Asia are going to get hit really, really hard. They need such population control measures more than anywhere else. - secaedelcielo, on 11/05/2009, -1/+2And Scottish babies cry in a melody going ACCCHHKT to both deter their mothers and foster utter hatred from the English.
- Screwy1138, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Yes, because the abortion debate is so inconsequential.
- Mujokan, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Not a lot of universal grammar fans in the house tonight.
- s0nicfreak, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1@geogeer
Actually, when spem and egg combine you get an embryo... and the majority of embryos don't implant. - frforums, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Our informal poll seems to indicate that whether you talk to your baby like she/he is a person, "Hi sweet baby. How are you doing? Daddy loves you." or like they have some mental deficit, "Ows daddees wiwill babee? Me wuvs ew.", they will mimic you.
So you will get a toddler that speaks in complete sentences, even if they don't pronounce everything exactly right, or one that talks "baby talk" and points and grunts.
"Rory wan a dwink of wawer." versus "Wa-wa!" - geogeer, on 11/05/2009, -1/+2@noumuon:
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whit ...
Well that was pretty easy. - noumuon, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1geogeer ... catholicism is a subset of christianity, but christianity does not necessarily imply catholicism. the catholic church is just a relatively-corrupt, political entity. i wouldn't take their word on subject matters to heart.
- ajkrik, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Labeling others is a fun past-time. Labeling yourself is a refection of stupidity.
This was an article that discussed an interesting notion that infants in the womb are not only capable of hearing (sensing) the world outside their mom's belly, but have functional brains. Get off the abortion debate. - frforums, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Our o.m. has this anecdote about her kid.
"When ____ was about four she became very frustrated because she couldn't get the clothes on her "My First Barbie". I could hear her angry mumblings as she tried to dress the doll. I went in and took the Barbie and took off its head. I showed her that the head was hollow - no brain. I told her that the doll didn't know what she wanted it to do, because, "Look the head is hollow. All empty. No brain. No way to know what was expected of it." (Yeah, hippie, leftest, freak).
She seemed to understand and accept.
About 15 minutes later, I overhear, "Barbie! If you don't cooperate. I am going to snatch your empty head off!!" - veriix, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Oops, I forgot some people still need the sarcasm tag so here ya go: /s
- k3rfuffl3, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Of course he didn't read the article. He's a ***** idiot.
- geogeer, on 11/06/2009, -1/+1You really cannot deny that the fertilized egg is a unique human - it is the quintessential moment that defines the growth of a new human being. The only thing you can do is say whether you give it rights or not - which is a completely different argument all together.
Would a zygote still form if removed from its environment? Would you still live if dropped in the middle of the desert, or on the moon? That has nothing to do with whether it is a unique person.
The pro-choice guy in this debate makes a better (but still flawed) argument...
http://digg.com/world_news/Uvic_Abortion_Debate_Oc ...
The biology is settled, the question is now what rights do we afford at what time? - bipolar, on 11/05/2009, -2/+2{deleted} wrong thread.
- record200, on 11/06/2009, -1/+1Dogs don't speak English
- record200, on 11/06/2009, -2/+2Are you human? I doubt so.
You know that babies can feel and they can learn while they are still in tummies.
How this is not human?!
I know ppl the mid thirties who are not self reliable, so what? It doesn't mean they are aliens. - DrummerDudeXT, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1@analogkid01
You insist that because pro-life advocates oppose the willful destruction of an innocent human being, they must therefore assume responsibility for all of society's ills
How does their alleged unwillingness to adopt a child justify an abortionist killing one? Imagine how bizarre it would sound if I were to say, “Unless you agree to marry my wife, you have no right to oppose me mistreating her.” Either way, if you reject my ultimatum, it does nothing to justify my evil treatment of innocent persons - noumuon, on 11/06/2009, -1/+1wow, you somehow think i can't accept biology because you're incapable of noting that science does not solely make up a logical argument? if all you can see is biology, then i suggest you take a course in logic. without writing an equally long argument of refutation, i'll give you some pointers. part of her premise is the biology behind fertilization, another part is comprised of definitions. she tries to then logically connect the definitions with the biological processes, but in the process of doing so, it seems she arbitrarily narrows what is being related for non trivial statements with a loss of generality to her original intention. she also accepts an argument and attempts to refute it with faulty analysis (the difference she tries to make between zygote formation and car assembly narrows in on a particular aspect, yet fails to include other possibilities. namely, would a zygote still form if removed from its environment... it is arguable that her assertion of "designer" (in the context she uses it: assembler) is not applicable in the terms she uses it). if you cannot successfully negate the arguments of your opponents, you cannot fully justify that your argument is necessarily correct. while it may be the case, she certainly does not provide substantial argument that it is the case. there are more slight logical fallacies involved, but i don't care to do much more of a breakdown on this.
- noumuon, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1that's an interesting opinion piece, but it's riddled with enough minor logical flaws for forming a concrete conclusion that it's just that, an opinion piece.
- darkfus, on 11/05/2009, -2/+2Abortion is wrong. But hey I'll just get buried for being crazy because there can't possibly be any valid points in the opposing point of view.
I do find it interesting the courts admit DNA as means of establishing human identity. We take people out of jail and put them in based on this part of our anatomy. At the same time this is the very first part of our anatomy that is created and it happens at the moment of conception.
One of the many inconvenient details for pro-choicers - that there is real legal precedent to overturn Row vs. Wade and real momentum to do so. - k3rfuffl3, on 11/06/2009, -2/+2"unborn child "
You can't even keep your bias outside of the first sentence of your pathetic little rant. Also the debate is about when a fetus is a "human being." Skin cells that flake off of people are "human" but not "human beings." - geogeer, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1@noumuon - yes there is politics within the Catholic Church (as there are in all large organizations). However it has always remained consistent on theology and I was using it as an example.
2 you comment does not refute what I said - sins are "in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do." Christianity requires you to bend your will to God's not just get baptized and live your life how you choose. - Mujokan, on 11/05/2009, -5/+4Chomsky FTW
- immortalovercr, on 11/06/2009, -1/+0I'm a fan of post-birth abortion, so I guess I'm pro-eugenics. Actively implemented, pro-lifers will one day be sloughed off with those who don't want: to allow the legalization of soft drugs, a right for all to marry, and an end to Murdoch affiliates.
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is