What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
302 Comments
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/11/2007, -38/+78So, if your girlfriend didn't want to carry this life to term, then you would force her? She provides the egg and the womb. She takes the risk of death from complications in her pregnancy. All you donated was a single sperm. So, I think the majority of the responsibility lies with the woman. Since she runs the most risk, she should be the one making the decisions.
- sprkoolguy, on 10/11/2007, -50/+90Reducing personal freedoms and inhibiting science are a step back for everyone in this country and in the world...
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -36/+68"She takes the risk of death from complications in her pregnancy. All you donated was a single sperm. So, I think the majority of the responsibility lies with the woman. Since she runs the most risk, she should be the one making the decisions."
And yet, the man will be forced to pay child support.
"what child? At that point its just a mass of cells."
That may be a valid *opinion*. But it is also a valid opinion that human life starts at conception and it has nothing to do with religion. At that point, all the genetic material necessary is there.
Justice Scalia said it best in his debate with the ACLU. He said that the court didn't have the authority under the constitution to decide Roe v Wade. He said that at that time in history, the court made a desicion that they (the ACLU) agreed with. But that now the court has the precedent to make other moral decisions and even to reverse that decision. What it comes down to is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to decide that case, it should be up to legislation to decide. So in that way Thompson is exactly right, the court should not make moral decisions. Just as the court should not have the authority to, say, rule that murder is illegal. - faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31My immediate thought was what about "Dred Scott," but apparently he said worst decision in 40 years, not ever.
FTA: "UPDATE III: We’ve corrected an earlier version of the post which said that Thompson believed Roe v. Wade was the most harmful Supreme Court case in history. He said it was the most harmful case in the past 40 years. We apologize for the error." - VIrus9, on 10/11/2007, -7/+34Ron Paul is personally pro-life, but believes that the legality of abortion should be determined by each state- NOT the federal government. Personally I don't see many states going the direction of South Dakota just yet.
- ksosez, on 10/11/2007, -7/+32Isnt Ron Paul also anti-abortion? Why is this different?
- cybermort, on 10/11/2007, -15/+33@tehpwnrate
The Ninth Amendment :The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
just because is not listed specifically doesn't mean we don't retain the right. what we do with our body is our own business not anyone else not washington's period. - Auerbeck, on 10/11/2007, -10/+26Calling Roe v. Wade a bad Supreme Court decision is hardly radical.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -21/+37By that logic, there's no guarantee that a newborn will survive either.
- prisoner24601, on 10/11/2007, -16/+31As much as some people might philosophically desire unrestricted abortion rights, the reality is that Roe v. Wade was unabashed legislating from the bench. There were no legal precedents quoted in the decision where it was built upon established principles, it was an entirely new theory suited to the political environment and sexual morality of the 70's, not in any way some natural extension of existing jurisprudence.
- theone2Punch, on 10/11/2007, -21/+36I would like to point out a little known fact about this story. Jane Roe (real name McCorvey) had made the difficult decision to have an abortion and the abortion rights activists and pundits latched on to her story and rode her coattails to push their political agenda even though "Jane Roe" later regretted the abortion and went on to speak out against the abortion movement. Roe v wade was not a victory for the female choice but rather for political activists who used and then dumped "Jane Roe".
- tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -25/+39You know, having read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution several times, I have yet to find anything in there that even implies that we should give everyone the right to abortion. Taking an implied right to privacy and the right against search and seizure, and then applying that to a womb is quite a segue.
Perhaps we should legislate these things (as they were before the decision and as the framers intended) state by state. Or, if you really want, make it a federal law. But legislating from the bench is bad no matter what--it opens the floodgates for things like abuse of eminent domain.
Worst decision? Not even close. But bad, if only because it was a poor use of judicial power. - reddevil3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17From what I understand, the libertarian party is usually anti-abortion but they won't stop you from getting one.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17are you kidding? Wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade is a prerequisite for running on the GOP ticket!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22@diggerydood
Can you site the source for your assertion that right-to-lifers don't pay child support? I'm sure that we'd all like to see it. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1648 days according to Tibetan buddhists (the soul allegedly wanders through a realm of hallucinations for this period of time before choosing a body to inhabit), 48 days is also when structures of the brain begin to appear.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -35/+46"the ability to live outside the womb would be a good start, so would sentience"
But the thing I don't understand about the militant pro choice position is that, why is that a more acceptable definition than conception? A sperm and egg combined could theoretically live outside the womb... Just as a newborn baby would die without constant care, why can't we kill them?
I just think sentience and ability to live outside the womb are made up or invented points in time, while either birth or conception are "natural" points in time. Birth is just a tough point in time to defend, because a week before birth the baby looks so cute and alive, it's much easier to accept a time when the baby still "looks" like a ball of cells.
And seriously, you can't compare a haircut to a developing embryo. Hair will never develop into a baby. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Is cell division == life? Sure. The rest of the cells in the mother's body are also dividing, so at that point what differentiates the cluster from any other group of cells? The real question is, when does the cell-cluster become a human individual, seperate from the mother, and therefore worthy of having its life protected? It is generally agreed upon that individuality is a result of some process within the brain, so the most obvious answer is "when the brain begins to develop"
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -11/+220xbaadf00d - "And conception is when cells begin to divide. Is that really a less acceptable definition of "alive?""
Of course it's life - in the sense that a group of cells are alive. If you care that much about a mass of cells, I guess you don't use anti-bacterial soap. - Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Isnt that the point that Fred Thompson was making here? In a questionnaire he answered a few years ago, he said that exact thing, that at BEST its a states rights issue, and its completely not something that should be federally decided or determined in the courts.
- NoStoppingUs, on 10/11/2007, -31/+41im agnostic, gay, and anti-abortion, except in extreme circumstances. i simply believe people need to have self responsibility, and not take their mistakes out on a child. i have an issue with people using abortion as birth control. abortion is rampant in the UK, and according to planned parenthood, there were a record number of abortions last year. you can toss around any rhetoric you want, but most people oppose it because they believe its morally wrong.
- TLAKABM, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11@0xbaadf00d
Human life is a vague term. Is my blood 'human life'? Hair? Fingernails? Your argument is rooted in vagueness.
An embryo does not have a brain. It is not conscious or sentient. It is nothing like you or me. You keep calling it a person without demonstrating that it is.
And I have quite clearly showed that all your definitions of a person are bunk. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+18@satanatnmtedu, good point but I figured the masturbation angle was more likely in this case :)
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17And, every time you have sex for purposes other than creating an embryo.
- Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17@gracemolley
Did you even read the article? I know for a fact you didnt. He never said he wanted no abortion, he said Roe vs. Wade was bad law and was not constitutional. He said it should be a state decided issue, just like it was in the months before Roe vs Wade.
@gtitian
So you are saying that its fine to go around and kill anything that is not capable of advanced thought? Its hilarious that somehow all on one side of the political isle you have people who are fine with killing potential human beings, people who oppose ANY kind of testing on animals to save human beings, people who think cutting down trees is murder, and people who are against any form of capital punishment. Its really curious to me how liberals somehow justify all of that with themselves, as there is not any sense to it. - fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10No, if it's an individual right, it should not be decided by the states but should be protected on a federal level, and there's the other point of contention.
- cybermort, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12a right that clearly resides on each and every person to do with their body as best see fit should not be put on a ballot for others to vote on, that would be ludicrous.
- JoCliMe, on 10/11/2007, -67/+75So let's see. I get my girlfriend pregnant, I see abortion wrong. She wants to have an abortion...why does she get to choose? It is as much my child as it is hers...I don't want to hear any bull about she going to be the one having it...she decided to have sex with me just as I decided to have sex with her...so why is it her right to choose and not mine either?
- Lewie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@Shadow503
So we should not harm any living creatures? Or just humans? Does that make war bad?
The question in this debate is when does that lump of cells becomes a "Human being" which is protected under law. - Lewie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@theone2punch
According to Wikipedia, she never had the abortion because the case took 3 years. She converted to Catholicism in 1995, and adopted the Church's view of abortion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+130xbaadf00d, I'm really not sure if you are being deliberatly obtuse or not - I'm not arguing that embryonic cells are alive - of course they are - I think the point you are trying to make is not "is it alive" but "is it human life" A group of cancer cells can grow also but they are not a human life.
- Leviathan777, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12The idea that life begins at conception is utterly indefensible.
First of all, even if you want to take the extremist view, life would begin at pregnancy, if you were vaguely capable of rational thought.
Second of all, if you wanted to take a truly spiritually-grounded approach, you would regard sentience as the critical barrier. Of course, it's a gray and fuzzy barrier, but it's one that most poeple, regardless of religion, would consider a valid standard. If you found the most vehement atheist, but could scientifically show evidence of sentience, they would be very, very likely to regard that as a valid cut-off criterion.
Thirdly, one could take the pragmatic standard - if you would give it a name and a funeral, then maybe it's alive. If you would not, but you claim it's alive, then you are just full of *****. - ksosez, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11BTW my point of this post was to point out how Fred Thompson and Ron Paul are similar.
Ron Paul(ers?) you may commence digging me down.
@Virus9:
You need to take a look at the laws on the books in most southern and midwestern states *currently*. If roe vs wade is overturned it would become illegal immediately in most Southern/Midwest states. - ironhide, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11"So you agree an embryo is alive. So what makes a clump of cells "human." To me, if that clump of cells is *trying* to develop and grow into a baby, it is human. Conception is when that process begins."
So a woman who miscarries should drag the organic material out of the toilet and have a funeral? - thefaithful, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10"THOMPSON: ...it was another example of thwarting the notion of federalism, which is an integral part of our constitution — taking things away from the states to decide, by the people, on a local basis..."
If anyone bothered to read what was actually said they would know this it's not about abortion at all. It's about whether Roe v. Wade was a good decision to make at the federal level. It's about having good constitutional law.
"Q: So your position on abortion would be overturn Roe, and put it back to the states. Let the states decide.
THOMPSON: Yeah." - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10The they want to legislate morality is because all these things that they disapprove are what people desire, deprive them and shame them for it and their life will be miserable. Then the promise of heaven is much more appealing.
Religion is the ultimate anti competitive business. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10"this should not come as a surprise"
True, Thompson is a Nixon Republican, just like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. He's always been a right wing extremist wackjob. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+20@hunkster, would have been her right and her choice. And we are not talking about life...arguably POTENTIAL life but if you are going down that route then you are killing potential life every time you masturbate.
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@ 0xbaadf00d
And, which party would that be? I don't see a question that asks Democrats if abortion is appropriate. One might assume that Democrats are pro-choice and republicans are pro-life. But, it is an assumption. Further, I find it ironic that, in this case, Democrats are the ones seeking greater freedoms for people. Libertarians are closer to Republicans than Democrats on most issues.
The major issue is when this human life become viable. Until there is a way for an embryo to live outside the womb, then it is not a viable human life. I would prefer that abortions never happened. But, the pro-life consensus seems to be that sex is bad. Condoms and other birth control are restricted based on religious dogma.
I think that if you feel that an embryo deserves your protection, then you are welcome to protect the embryos under your control. But, you have no right to force me to protect the embryos under my control. Even if the embryo was classified as a child, children do not have full citizen's rights. But, I do find is strange that the many people who claim to be pro-life are the ones complaining the most about welfare mothers and children. I think that either you want all human life, no matter what age or economic class, to succeed or you are not truly pro-life.
It comes back to wanting the best life for all humans. I would prefer that there were no abortions. I would prefer that all women and men had control over their own reproduction. But, this is not the reality of the world. So, we have the gray areas associated with abortion and reproductive rights where one must weigh the consequences and rights of everyone involved. In this case, there are three human lives involved: the mother, the father, and the embryo. The father contributes sperm and potentially monetary support in the future. The embryo contributes their life and nothing more for the time being. The mother contributes the egg, the womb, and part of her nutrition to the growing embryo. To me, the person with the most risk and the most value as a completely developed human is the mother. - bbear, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9@ prisoner24601
Great post. But the more I think about it the more I think that I am in fact Pro-Death. And no I don't find this morally apprehensible. I remember a question in Philosophy class where we talked about what we would do in the following scenario:
An person has a rare disease or some kind of organ failure that will surely kill him...
However a cure exists. This cure requires him to be hooked up to you intravenously for a period of time... lets say 1 month of time. All you have to do is lay in a hospital bed next to him or drag him around with you. Would you agree to save the mans life? I always kill him if hes a stranger, even if its for one week or one day. If the sick man is family I give more thought to the idea of saving his life but then I usually kill him anyway. There would have to be a very strong bond, the kind of bond that doesn't exist between a mother and an unborn fetus to save his life. Should the government be able to force you to save him? I say no. I'm Pro-Death.
Pro-Death and Anti-Choice seem like more accurate descriptions than Pro-Choice and Pro-Life to me. Why not use them? - Leviathan777, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Amazing. So you would not even give your child a proper burial. I think you're going to have to do better than that.
But you're even still willing to make claims that life begins before pregnancy. I wonder how many of those bloodstains on your girlfriend's underwear you've given a funeral.
So heartless of you to treat a life so callously. - AhmedF, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9"than a vote by the people"
I hate it when people say that. If the vote of the people counted for everything, minorities would have absolutely *NO* rights. - JoCliMe, on 10/11/2007, -57/+63"its her body"
And it's hers and my child as well, why should she decide just because she carries the child? - obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I don't normally comment on this topic, but I digg your post. We can force a child to be born, but we can't force the parents of that child to care. Chances are that if a child was unwanted as a foetus it will also be unwanted as a child. I'd love for all kids to have amazing parents that give them love and encouragement, but the world just isn't like that. As much as I think abortion is degrading to our society, I think having lots of unwanted children running around is even worse. I'm sure someone has already posted this, but people hardly ever talk about how legalized abortion relates to crime. It may not be 100% true, but I see enough truth in this study to make me pause and think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime - usrlocalbin, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13This is comedy by Bill Hicks but he makes damn good points. (RIP Bill, We love you!)
"You know who ís really bugging me these days. These pro-lifers ... You ever look at their faces? "I'm pro-life!"
"I'm pro-life!" Boy, they look it don't they? They just exude joie de vie. You just want to hang with them and play Trivial Pursuit all night long.
You know what bugs me about them? If you're so pro-life, do me a favor - don't lock arms and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries. Let's see how committed you are to this idea.
(as pro-lifer) She can't come in!
(as confused member of funeral procession) She was 98. She was hit by a bus!
(as pro-lifer) There's options!
(as confused member of funeral procession) What else can we do? Have her stuffed?
I want to see pro-lifers with crowbars at funerals opening caskets - "get out!" Then I'd be really impressed by their mission."
If these fundamentalists don't like abortions so much, then don't have an abortion, and drop your kid off at some of these people's front door. Maybe they wont like the idea so much anymore.
And to any of you Diggers (my god there were a lot of you commenting on this article) who think just because you can get a woman pregnant doesn't ***** mean you have more of a say than she does about the child. Grow the ***** up and realize that if there's complications with the pregnancy she will die, NOT YOU. And more than likely you wont support the little kid anyways, she'll have to go on welfare. (It pisses me off seeing my hard earned money going to people who can't get their ***** straight because of them making bad choices in life) We have enough dead beat dad's in this world already. So shut your ***** mouths and be REAL MEN about it and stop whining like little children who aren't getting their way. You people make me sick!
Stop bringing more people into this world unless you are damn sure and ready to support, raise, and love a child. I will do my best to never have a child, because I don't want to father a child in this world. To each their own, but you have to be ready in every way for it. - Gtitian, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12***** guys! Why stop at conception? I mean, hell, I've got like 40million sperm right here ready to go, let's make some ***** babies? right?! who's with me!!?? How many eggs you got? Between the two of us we could have at least a hundred thousand kids! then we'll be like squids, just like god wants us.
/sarcasm - cybermort, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9how about the entity of the host.. are you going to nullify the rights of the woman over the rights of a group of cells.
- clkou, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14Worst decicion in history, eh? What about a little thing called "Dredd Scott" that considered slaves property in states where slavery was illegal? There was also a little matter in 2000 where 5 Republican appointed justices voted to overturn a legal recount that would rightly given the presidency to Gore instead of Bush. Then, they said their decision could not be used as precedent in future case. Translation: "this is wrong, but we're going to do this just this once". Yeah, I'd say there were some decisions worse than Roe vs. Wade.
- bupublue, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@muyoso
"I would probably call a woman a name if I knew her and she had one."
Wow, that's mature, and very sensitive. As though she had an abortion just for laughs.
" What sickens me is that a majority of the women who are having abortions are ones whom have already had at least 1 abortion.
Where do you get that information, exactly? I looked everywhere and I cannot find statistics from a non-biased source, except from a few individual states.
"These are people who have no decency and are using MY freaking tax dollars to blender their problems out of their wombs. That is BS."
The Hyde Amendment, passed 30 years ago, prohibits federal funding for abortion except in the case of incest, rape, or life endangerment. Individual states can choose to help fund abortions for low-income women, but if your state is not one of them, then your tax dollars are probably not doing any such thing. Even if it is, you will find that many more of your tax dollars are being spent on welfare for low-income women who chose not to have abortions, or on foster families and various facilities for children who were given up for adoption and remain unwanted.
"Blender their problems out of their wombs" is an even better comment than suggesting that you would call a woman "a name" if you knew she had an abortion. You are one class act. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8You make the leap from aborting a fetus to murder and then call the other poster a moron?
Gee, you must vote GOP. -
Show 51 - 100 of 302 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is