Gwazi Magnum

Abortion Discussion

Being in class atm, I can't really give a long response to Jorick's points now.

I could come back after and give a longer one if need be, but the overall idea/message of that long response can be wrapped up pretty quickly anyways.
So I'll just leave this short response and only expand on it if asked to.

TLDT: All of Jorick's points seem to be correct, logical and makes sense from a legal and rights standpoint.
It is precisely arguments like these that has caused me to halt and take another look at my stance on the topic of Abortion.

From a purely logical, legal and rational standpoint I have nothing to challenge the argument with.
My only possible arguments against it would be moral based and founded ones.

That would be isn't it flawed/misplaced in the first place that we as society value things such as property, effort and body rights above the lives of other human beings?
In cases such as organ donation, eating to live etc. I mean, considering everything we value, want and do depends on being alive why is being alive so low on the list of priorities?
This is a separate topic altogether mind you, but one which end decision directly influences people stances and the legal stance on Abortion.

-Note: Stuff like this is why I commonly take part in these debates.
Either I'm on the right track and can help others and/or expand my own knowledge.
Or can be exposed to far better argument's and points that I have, learn from them and change my stance and viewpoint accordingly.

Jobs r dum

Cayden Black said
The torture I face in office work at the moment is the feeling of being trapped in a jail cell that is unlocked and knowing I must stay inside because the alternative it starvation and destitute. I know it's not so dramatic but I hate that feeling. I love the feeling of the horde of wealth I gain each week. I have an issue simply balancing out the love for wealth and the hatred for productive imprisonment.Much rage, so much!

There are many jobs that don't require you to be stuck in an office all day.

Suicide, Tragic or Selfish?

This is a big and complex topic, so I'd like to get the most simple/obvious parts out of the way first before I delve into the rest of it.

First, let's look at one extreme where I think we'd all be in some agreement, suicide bomber's/terrorists. They are ending their own life basically for the sole purpose of causing harm on others cause their God/Beliefs say so. This is can very easily be called selfish and left at that, but even this is not that simple since they had to be raised to have such hate/beliefs to begin with. So is that truly selfishness or a sad story of a promising individual who was convinced to end their life because of how they were raised?

Now for the Suicide topic which this topic seems to actually be referencing, suicide as a result of Depression.

I'll go at this from the assumption the person actually has depression, and isn't someone who simply self-diagnosed and is using it as an excuse for everything they do in life.
-Side Note: Seriously, if you're self-diagnosing and using it as an excuse for how you treat others just stop. Now.
I've been at the receiving end of that before, all you do is hurt those who care for you and make things worse for those who actually struggle with Depression.

*Back to being on topic*

Originally I was tempted to say "There is a trace of selfishness, you are choosing to end your life and make those that care for you suffer". But then I stopped and thought of it another way. Depression and every other mental illness is for all intents and purposes a wound, an injury and alteration of the mind. It is not something we can help, and it is a wound that is not obvious like a physical one.

It is one where you truly need to know a person to know the wound is there, and even then you may not know they have such a wound. If someone were to have a weak heart for example would you blame them? Would you get mad at them for having a wound inflicted on them they couldn't control? Of course you wouldn't. Why should something like Depression be treated any differently?

Depression actually releases hormones that alter the way we think, act and feel. We can't help it anymore than we can help being attracted to someone cause of the hormones we produce, or the fact we have certain interests and things that make us happy. We don't consciously choose "I'm going to enjoy ______ and be attracted to _______", it just happens. Someone feeling suicidal killing themselves is not a sign of selfishness, it's losing what probably was a very hard and difficult battle against a condition they had no say in having or not. No one chooses to be Depressed, no one chooses to be suicidal. If someone had cancer and died, would be mad at them for being selfish and not fighting hard enough to stay with their family? Of course we wouldn't. Both are conditions that are unwillingly thrown onto us, both are conditions that can lead us to dying, both are conditions that cause us to go through a hard battle every step of the way. The only difference they have at the heart of it is that one is physical and obvious, and the other is mental and not so obvious.

Next time you see someone whose depressed and have suicidal thoughts don't treat them as if they are selfish. Treat and respect them the same way you would someone who had another kind of illness that was killing them or at the very least making their life much harder to go through.

Shout out

Big shout out to Dark Wind.
He was perhaps the main person who let me learn more on Depression and look at it from an understanding perspective rather than one who is quick to throw judgement and label it as selfish. I had gone through experiences in life with people who had Depression where for a while I looked at anyone with it as fakers. Selfish people who only wanted popularity, attention and to avoid owning up to their actions. His words a long time ago had helped open my eyes to the issue being far more complex than I originally thought I'd like to give him proper thanks for that may he be reading this or not. :)

Religion(s) and Atheism

I went ahead and looked up the definitions for both of the words.

They are both worded in such a way that you can in fact argue it is a Religion in the sense that Jorick describes.
But you can't claim an atheist is religious if they are the kind who simply lacks belief.

Jorick said However, there are plenty who do not believe in deities but do not believe that they absolutely do not exist; this is agnostic atheism, colloquially known simply as agnosticism, and it is not a religious belief because it is in truth the absence of belief. These types of atheists tend not to have beliefs about the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe because they take the stance that it is impossible (whether permanently or just currently with our limited understanding and technology) to understand these things, that they are so far above human ken that it would be foolish to pretend to have the answers. This is the lack of beliefs stance that cause most atheists to call shenanigans on people calling atheism a religion, because this is the stance that most atheists (at least in my experience) actually take.

I'd fall into this category.
My posts on Religion might imply otherwise, but my issues with Religion is the blind faith/following of a God without proof and evidence.
The specific Gods of the specific religions in existence are not based on any real evidence, in fact claims by them can be dis-proven through science so it's safe to say no worshiped god exists.

But to say there is no God period?
There is no proof for it so it would be unwise to treat that notion as any kind of fact, but it is still potential, and without knowing any details (and assuming it is not infinite and all-knowing, otherwise we can disprove it again already) we can't make a sure judgement on it. So for all intents and purposes, I reject the created gods of today, but do not reject the possibility of there being a god in existence at all. But will not be living my life at all as if there is one until proper evidence shows itself.

As for the Agnostic bit.
Agnostic simply means unknowing. Although culturally it's used to define atheists open to the idea of a God (or outright believe a god like entity) it is in fact a false usage of the word.
In practice, Agnostic's can also be religious, as long as they admit to not knowing something. For example.

Fundamental Religious: My God is true, and there is nothing you can say or show to change it!
Agnostic Religious: I believe in God, but I do not know for sure.
Agnostic Atheist: I do not believe in God, but I cannot say for sure there is a God or not.
Fundamental Atheist: There is no God, and there is nothing you can say or show to change it!

Abortion Discussion

mdk said
This is the part of the 'debate' that I despise. The word games. Look, if the only way you can make sense of things is to call it a 'parasite,' or to call it 'subjugation,' you're not really giving yourself a fair shake.

I have to agree.

Pro-Life people are far from innocent with the abortion clinic bombings, contraceptive banning and all that.
(Thankfully me and others as this thread has shown are not doing those things).

But the Pro-Choice also has faults in that often I've them have to resort to demeaning the child inside, or anyone of an opposing view.

With arguments such as
-"The child is just a parasite"
-"You are sexist if you are against abortion"
-"You are against freedom if you are against abortion" <--- Will get back to this one

Both side's have fault's, so when this topic is debated let's debate it like civil adults and not resort to attacks, generalizations or name calling.

---

As for the "Against a mothers freedom to choose" argument I've seen above. Technically yes, it is.
But we have other laws also against some freedoms.

It's illegal to kill, rape, steal etc.
We do not give people the free will do these acts cause we as a society deemed it immoral and harmful to society.
I am not defending people who commit these crimes at all.

But in a case of murder, theft, rape no matter how you handle it, 100% of the time someone is losing their freewill.
Just that it can be either the victim, or the person committing it. We as society have chosen to take the freewill away from who wants to commit the crime.

When it comes to pro-life or pro-choice there isn't an exception either.
There will clearly be the removal of free-will from one side or the other, that will never change until we find the means to grow a newly developed fetus at the moment of conception outside of the womb.

Until we reach the scientific point, we either must remove the freewill from the mother or the child, but one of the two will lose their freewill in this area in the end.

Abortion Discussion

Fat Boy Kyle said
The main point of mine really was the life/death part. The other issues to me aren't strong reasons, and in many cases (like the mental example) I only meant it in cases where there are a combination of factors. And I agree, I don't think in many cases you can predict some problems before birth (especially within the early stages where abortions are typically conducted); that's why I used the terms 'moderate chance' and 'severity'. But like I said in the earlier post, I'm an advocate of welfare and social schemes to help parents and children.

We seem to be agreed almost fully on the topic then.

Abortion Discussion

Fat Boy Kyle said
Without giving another massive answer, and without listing tonnes of conditions: Physical issues would obviously include ones where there is a moderate chance that the mother and/or child might die. I would include this to the point where there is also severe handicapping (e.g. one or both becoming handicapped). Something that's treatable or manageable (e.g. a loss of an arm, etc.) should not constitute an abortion. Psychological issues would include where due to genetics (etc.) there is a moderate chance of the child developing a severe issue. I do not know much about this though, so my opinion is limited - if what I just said is bullshit then by all means point it out. Moreover, where there is a chance due to the circumstances surrounding the birth and possible upbringing (e.g. like in the Fritzle case) that the child or mother may suffer further psychological trauma; if from a young age you found out that your father was your rapist grandfather, you might become pretty fucked up. By mental issues I mean the more severe ones, such as (in the most extreme case, and please forgive my wording,) vegetation. However things like autism I do not believe should constitute abortion in the majority of cases.

Fair enough.

The way I see it, an abortion is appropriate if it's a medical/life danger to the mother.

But to argue a child should be aborted because whatever physical and mental illness they have can make life harder for them makes as much sense as the "Should abort them cause they may not be adopted" argument. It's also almost impossible to predict before birth if a child will be suffer mass mental damage like you ended off describing.
Also, arguing mother mental damage simply opens the door for all abortion claims to be approved cause of the mental damage of having said abortion denied to the mother, therefore body violation.

I really hate the gray nature of this topic?
Pro-Choice and it means you're allowing children's lives to end before they even have a chance at life.
Pro-Life and it means mothers are losing some of their bodily rights.

Abortion Discussion

Fat Boy Kyle said -snip-

Mostly agreeing with this point here.

But I feel the need to have clarified, what kind of mental and physical health issues are you referring to?
Cause I'd have to disagree with you depending on what you mean.

Religion(s) and Atheism

Protagonist said
As for Atheism not being a religion: I'm going to argue that is.I have heard that "Not collecting cards isn't a hobby", but not collecting stamps is simply stating the hobby you /don't/ have. Atheism is to religion what 'sitting around doing nothing' is to hobbies, or what 0 is to numbers.Also, it's not like Atheists don't believe anything. To be an Atheist you have to consciously believe that deities don't exist.

Religion is worship of set beliefs or gods. Atheism is the absence of a religion. The very nature of atheism is that it is not a Religion.To call it one is not understanding what atheism is.

Plus its not belief there is no god. It is the lack of a belief in a god.

What's Bothering You?

If you mean in Off Topic there are some bigger names around that would by default get some more attention. But overall if you have an interesting and/or engaging topic then people will most likely notice.

If you mean Spam. Treat it like High School on the internet, cause it is. Issues like cliches and popularity run rampant there. I wouldn't let them replying to you or not be anything to bother worrying about.