ZOMBIE FORUMS

Rape is a horrible thing, but I don't see why people who would jump up and down about the rights of a child would make such a hideous crime worse by killing an innocent child.

Medical complications I can understand however. As Spock said, "The lives of many outweigh the lives of few." If somone has the luck to be pregnant with 12 children at once, some must be sacrifice if they want them all to survive.

Unrelated: Ryven, Peter is talking to Brian in that scene, not Lois. ;)

Related: Let's go radical on it. Since it would as or more effective than condoms, why isn't there a procedure that allows a surgeon to install a little valve on the vas deferens?

Consider that it wouldn't stop STDs (still need a rubber for that) but if you trust your partner, you get all the benefits of her being on the pill without all the gory side effects of hormoe treatment. There is nothing in medical science that prevents this from being a reality. It would be invasive, sure, but the valve unit could, like a pacemaker, be opened or shut by a control device via signal induction. Kinda like lo-jacking the little swimmers.

Now, once we have this, then we just start installing it in all males (at the behest of their folks) when start showing signs of puberty. Give them the remote when they turn 18 or whatever age of majority happens to apply. Voila. Terribly effective birth control without chemical nasties.

I'm *sure* all the ladies on the board are with me on that one.

Alright then. I'm going to impregnate you with 12 children, but shh, you only think it's going to be one child.

SUPRISE! It's 12, and the only way they're gonna live is if YOU die! Your 12 children will be raised by only one father, or will be scattered throughout the country through adoption agencies or foster homes! Because, y'know, you have to sacrifice.

And you're right. The needs of the many DO outweight the needs of the few. However, the mother should be included in there somewhere as well. Which is why if suddenly someone was impregnated with 12 kids, some of them WOULD have to be aborted to save the other children AND the mother. Multiple babies are tiny when they're born anyway, can you imagine the size and birth complications that could go on with trying to support 12 living beings inside of you? It's insane.

I'm thinking that having 12 fertilized eggs IS a medical emergency, not only for the mother, but the unborn as well.

Unrelated: *changes signature* I haven't seen that episode in a while, my bad ^^;

WarMage: I'd imagine that most people that are generally opposed to unecessary surgery. Not to mention it being in such a risky place. But that's just the voice of ignorance talking, seeing as I don't know much about the exact procedures and don't want to know...

...
...
...



...YOU'LL NEVER GET ME! NEVER! REVOLUTION!

Speaking as the Avatar of the Revolution incarnate, I am here to inform you that I am on vacation until mid August. All revolutions are on hold until then.

Besides, your little revolution is a silly idea. (A really F-ing big cookie to anyone who recognizes that)

Actually, Ryven, I was thinking about the mother too. I was simply using the 12 kids thing, because it was an example used before.

Hmm...this leads to the question: given a choice between two lives, how can you justify a decision either way? As this thread seems to be...dying...discuss.

You can't. You just are going to have to make a choice. I have learned the hard way that the world isn't black and white; it is many shades of gray.

No choice is completely good. If you have to choose between the life of an unborn child and the life of the mother, both decisions break some sort of moral code, yet a decision has to be made. Even doing nothing or "leaving it in the hands of God" is a decision.

You are going to have to compromise sometimes. I am pro-life. I think abortion is wrong. However I am not a pro-life nazi. I think there are more important issues than the rights of unborn child and its mother (see above). I won't condemn a person for having an abortion.

Life sucks. I've been in a position were I have to choose between two choices that compromise my morals many times. I have always hated myself afterwards, but after a while you grow use to it. The guilt goes away after a while (at least for me).

To tell you the truth I have no idea what to do if I were in a situation where it was me or the life of my unborn child. Logic tells me that I could always have more children and that I could never know that this child will survive long enough to make it to adult hood. But my heart tells me that this child is my son/daughter and for them I would sacrifice my life to make sure they see this world.

Damn this is depressing. I hope I never have to make that choice. I would probably choose the second choice, so I wouldn't have to live with myself afterwards :)

I'm not really pro-choice -- I'd rather the kid live.

I'm not really pro-life -- It's not my place.

All am saying is ...
GET THE HELL OUT OF MY PANTS!

If this world stopped nosing into other people's business, it would be a better place.
Yes, someone in Jersy having an abortion is none of your business unless a) you're the mom, b) you're the dad, or c) you're an employee at the clinic.

If you're not one of those three, my suggestion would be to mind your own business. And remember, it becomes your business if it effects you. This means it is your business if your neighbor is building a bomb with which to ruin your day.

Indirect emotional effect does not count, either. (Just 'cause you're saddened by it, doesn't mean it's your business)

I tend to take the attitude that Jay uses in Dogma.

"Me and Silent Bob are Pro-Choice. A woman's body is her own fucking business."

...so if something immoral is happening, then you have no right to stop it? Of course, I am mostly pro-choice, just saying...

The main issue, which nobody has really discussed, is at what point the fetus/unborn child (depending on which side of the argument you're on) is a human life. I think of it this way: it is a separate, human life form from conception, so the real issue is very gray: at what point is it beneficial to society for abortion to be legal/"ethical"? If no abortions can be performed, then the "abstinence as a population control- because sex is Baaaad" people win (something I, and, I would assume, most of you, wouldn't agree with, and that is pretty much unreasonable anyway). Saying that a fetus becomes human only after birth is rather arbitrary, and leads to contradictions (especially because many pro-choice people are also pro-cloning). So we have to find a middle ground; something bioethicists like to call "viability", or about 16 weeks. This wouldn't prevent very many abortions, but would draw a fairly specific line. Of course, even this is still arbitrary, which is the compelling pro-life argument.

Well, when you get right down to it, all morality is arbitrary. Hell, even this bullshit about "the sanctity of life" which has come into the debate (albeit perhaps not under that name) is bullshit. To quote George Carlin:

I love Mr. Carlin.


I just have to say that abortions will always continue. There will be no way to stop it. Now, whether these are done legally in a clinic, in an alley with a coat hanger, or just from some guy hitting or squeezing a woman's stomach, is all up to what the government decides as a whole and votes on. Personally, I don't think it will actually ever change, but thats just me.

Icy, that's why I was careful about saying stuff to the effect of "humanity" and not "life", because the "sanctity of life" is a bunch of BS, and so, frankly, is the sanctity of human life, but without it, we wouldn't have much of a basis for society, or for that matter, living. That's also why I was fairly careful about sticking to "usefulness" instead of morality.

Also, many people on this board express the idea that one should simply mind his or her own business. But how far are you willing to take that, and are you sure that you really want that to be the way our society works?

And please, tell me more about this "Mr. Carlin".

Well, my point was, you cannot abstractify morality - you can't make a moral system. What we call "morality" is really an umbrella term for a wide variety of instinctual drives, as well as various memeplexes that have developed based on these drives, and which allow society to function. Since most of these instincts are, in the end, nothing more than vague, undefinable impulses compelling one towards certain decisions, it's kind of silly to try to systematize these impulses and pretend that they possess some sort of coherence or order. I believe that, rather than trying to create some sort of consistent, logical moral system, a person should just do what ve feels is the right thing to do in any given situation.

George Carlin: Comidian

The man is hilarious, but also very intelligent and insightful. A lesson can be learned if one pays attention to what he is actually saying.

You should see the interview that Dennis Miller does of him, it is an absolutely fantastic view of the world.

I must find this...

I can't seem to find a transcript of it on the internet. You might try Kazaa (if you dare considering the RIAA these days) and look for the interview on Dennis Miller Live with George Carlin talking about the military.