FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Aug 31, 2018 16:31:37 GMT
Just wondering how many people think of each and their reasons for it.
|
|
ainsley
New Member
Posts: 47
Likes: 10
|
Post by ainsley on Sept 3, 2018 18:39:52 GMT
- Yes it is about deciding for the mother, because if you want to give the fetus the rights to live, you're forcing the women bearing the child to keep it for all those 9 months. So yes it is about deciding for the women, without their consent. - also it is debatable whether the fetus/baby/child should have a voice. There are so many factors you have to look at, but overall apart from being a potential human being, it has not contributed to the society, it has no ambitions nor dreams, it doesn't know what a mom is until some time after its born (not sure exactly how long, but guessing weeks-months after). - maybe the baby's body is its own, but let's say for a second that it is possible to get a fetus out of a woman's womb and put in others. Now I know you're a man, but if you were forced to carry around a baby for 9 months (not to mention babies are heavy) without your consent, how would you feel? No matter how much you wanna get rid of it, you just can't, you're bound for 9 months and it's another human body, so you're not allowed to harm it. This is gonna affect your health, which is put in danger, it's gonna affect education, work, hobbies, you're gonna be exhausted 24/7 not to mention the pain that comes with bearing a child, you will get light-headed easily and puke all the time. Should you be forced to go through all that? Excuse me, but who are you to make decisions for others? First of all it's a major risk for the women's health. Second of all it can affect the most important parts of their lives, it disrupts education, it disrupts work and so on. This is not about 'killing a baby' because it's no big deal and super fun!? But this is often (if not mostly) not even an ultimatum, because the person bearing the child knows what they're gonna go through, and how it's gonna fuck their lives. It disgusts me that pro-life people want to be in charge of other people and decide what they can do with their bodies and life and can't do! With a law that allows abortions, people who don't wanna abort can simply just not do it. If you guys wanna be so fucking Christian and ultra conservative about this topic then why aren't you guys for banning men masturbating? Men are daily wasting potential babies. Disgusting. Masturbating should be illegal. Give me a break. It isn't about deciding for the mother. It is about speaking out for the child that has no voice. A child inside of a mother is NOT HER BODY. I have no problem with birth contraception, there is no baby there to abort. I understand if people don't want to have children. Killing a fetus is not an extricate for poor decisions.
|
|
ainsley
New Member
Posts: 47
Likes: 10
|
Post by ainsley on Sept 3, 2018 19:12:14 GMT
= n o t sure** idk why it turns it into a smiley...
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 3, 2018 19:29:05 GMT
A parent risks their life for the child. Otherwise that's not a parent. If they take the child's life then to justify that means she dies too if we're being lawful.
|
|
notenochpowell
New Member
Posts: 25
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White British
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Yorkshire and Humber
Politics: Conservative/Nationalism
Religion: Christianity
Hero: Enoch Powell, Clement Attlee, Mrgaret Thatcher (and a few others)
Age: 17
Philosophy: Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
|
Post by notenochpowell on Sept 3, 2018 19:54:05 GMT
Pro-Life. Unless there is a very good reason for doing so (e.g. rape) but in any situation where it would be necessary in my view, it must not be approved of, for the taking of the life of the innocent must never be approved of. If the abortion is as a result of rape, then the rapist should A) Castrated or B)Shot.
|
|
Bigbufyboy85
Junior Member
I am a young Christian conservative trying to find a balance with my political, and religious views.
Posts: 68
Likes: 52
Country: United States
Religion: Christian
Age: Young
Member Admiration & Reason: Elizabeth for her KIND HEART ♥ FIERCE MIND ♥ BRAVE SPIRIT ♥ UNBREAKABLE STRENGTH ♥ ENDLESS FIGHTER
|
Post by Bigbufyboy85 on Sept 3, 2018 23:06:49 GMT
- Yes it is about deciding for the mother, because if you want to give the fetus the rights to live, you're forcing the women bearing the child to keep it for all those 9 months. So yes it is about deciding for the women, without their consent. - also it is debatable whether the fetus/baby/child should have a voice. There are so many factors you have to look at, but overall apart from being a potential human being, it has not contributed to the society, it has no ambitions nor dreams, it doesn't know what a mom is until some time after its born ( exactly how long, but guessing weeks-months after). - maybe the baby's body is its own, but let's say for a second that it is possible to get a fetus out of a woman's womb and put in others. Now I know you're a man, but if you were forced to carry around a baby for 9 months (not to mention babies are heavy) without your consent, how would you feel? No matter how much you wanna get rid of it, you just can't, you're bound for 9 months and it's another human body, so you're not allowed to harm it. This is gonna affect your health, which is put in danger, it's gonna affect education, work, hobbies, you're gonna be exhausted 24/7 not to mention the pain that comes with bearing a child, you will get light-headed easily and puke all the time. Should you be forced to go through all that? It isn't about deciding for the mother. It is about speaking out for the child that has no voice. A child inside of a mother is NOT HER BODY. I have no problem with birth contraception, there is no baby there to abort. I understand if people don't want to have children. Killing a fetus is not an extricate for poor decisions. No one said it is easy. But my inconvenience is not worth killing a baby. No one forced the woman to get pregnant, she went and had sex with someone, unprotected, so now she's pregnant. Yeah, I'm sure pregnancy sucks, but it's your own fault. Just because it might inconvenience you doesn't mean you get to kill the baby. Not to mention that you could put the baby up for adoption if you don't want it. There are thousands of people who can't even have children who would be happy to take the baby. Once you are pregnant, there is no going back. All we are saying is you can't kill it. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
Bigbufyboy85
Junior Member
I am a young Christian conservative trying to find a balance with my political, and religious views.
Posts: 68
Likes: 52
Country: United States
Religion: Christian
Age: Young
Member Admiration & Reason: Elizabeth for her KIND HEART ♥ FIERCE MIND ♥ BRAVE SPIRIT ♥ UNBREAKABLE STRENGTH ♥ ENDLESS FIGHTER
|
Post by Bigbufyboy85 on Sept 3, 2018 23:13:52 GMT
If women AND men were somehow bonded together so it would be the man's job to protect and support the mother/baby that would be amazing. If only there were some way to link them together before sex. hmmmm If a woman want's to be dumb and irresponsible, obviously not thinking about the consequences, then yeah she should have to deal with the baby. I think the father should be involved, say, IF THEY WERE MARRIED.Man if people weren't stupid enough to have premarital, unprotected sex, we wouldn't have this problem.
|
|
ainsley
New Member
Posts: 47
Likes: 10
|
Post by ainsley on Sept 3, 2018 23:50:12 GMT
I really don't feel like repeating myself, but should the consequences/punishment be so severe, for such an act? For someone who steals, you can punish them by giving them a fine or send them to jail all depending on what they stole, or, you could as in the Middle East, cut their hands off. What do you have to say about young teenagers having sex because the school/parents/society failed to sex ed them in time? If they didn't even know what contraception was, are the young girls forced to carry around a baby, against their will? Also you could put a baby up for an adoption if you choose to carry the child, or if it's too late to abort. But no - having to carry a child for that long if you already know that you don't want it and it has only been one month, you don't have to go through the additional 8 months of pain etc. If people need babies to adopt there are millions of them living in poverty in Africa and Asia. They are in more need of a loving family, and overpopulation is already a problem so adopt these miserable babies in the 3rd world countries instead. And actually yes, once you're pregnant, you can still decide whether to have the baby or not. Let's say the fetus is 7-9 months on, which is old enough for it to grow outside the womb, then I personally think that it is immoral to kill it. Between 3-6 months I think there should be a very very good reason to why you wanna abort it. But within 3 months, I feel like you should be able to abort it without any problem. Well you get to live your life however you want to, so if you wait with sex until marriage, then that's totally fine. But to suggest that everybody should do the same to avoid abortions and idk what.... Dude, mind your own god damn life, don't interfere with others lives and how they should live, and whether they can abort or not. This isn't a problem either. You guys are making it a problem. - Yes it is about deciding for the mother, because if you want to give the fetus the rights to live, you're forcing the women bearing the child to keep it for all those 9 months. So yes it is about deciding for the women, without their consent. - also it is debatable whether the fetus/baby/child should have a voice. There are so many factors you have to look at, but overall apart from being a potential human being, it has not contributed to the society, it has no ambitions nor dreams, it doesn't know what a mom is until some time after its born ( exactly how long, but guessing weeks-months after). - maybe the baby's body is its own, but let's say for a second that it is possible to get a fetus out of a woman's womb and put in others. Now I know you're a man, but if you were forced to carry around a baby for 9 months (not to mention babies are heavy) without your consent, how would you feel? No matter how much you wanna get rid of it, you just can't, you're bound for 9 months and it's another human body, so you're not allowed to harm it. This is gonna affect your health, which is put in danger, it's gonna affect education, work, hobbies, you're gonna be exhausted 24/7 not to mention the pain that comes with bearing a child, you will get light-headed easily and puke all the time. Should you be forced to go through all that? No one said it is easy. But my inconvenience is not worth killing a baby. No one forced the woman to get pregnant, she went and had sex with someone, unprotected, so now she's pregnant. Yeah, I'm sure pregnancy sucks, but it's your own fault. Just because it might inconvenience you doesn't mean you get to kill the baby. Not to mention that you could put the baby up for adoption if you don't want it. There are thousands of people who can't even have children who would be happy to take the baby. Once you are pregnant, there is no going back. All we are saying is you can't kill it. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Sept 4, 2018 1:12:08 GMT
The sperm thing was a joke.... As you mentioned, it takes two to make a baby, but how come the guy never face any kind of consequences? Is it fair that the woman has to bear the burden, and the guy doesn't have to worry about anything? Your example with the car crash is very misleading (and obviously only targeted towards women). The outcome of irresponsible/unprotected sex and losing a leg from a car accident is very incomparable. But let me try to work this out with your example anyways. First I need to get these two things out of the way: 1. Running over a stop sign, or some sort is against the law. You don't only put your own life in danger, you put other lives in danger. 2. Having unprotected sex is not a violation of the law. You don't harm anyone, even tho unprotected sex is stupid, you've done nothing wrong! Back to the car accident. - In case of a woman being raped, it's like she was driving by the law, and some asshole didn't, which resulted in her getting hurt, because of someone who was irresponsible. - In case of sex with consent, it's like a guy and a girl in the same car driving irresponsibly. No matter whom driving nor how many times they get into an accident, it's always the girl getting hurt. Another flaw in your example (as I mentioned with the incomparable outcomes): Losing a leg is not a choice, whether it was your own fault or someone else's, you have to live with the sad truth that you just won't get your leg back. Onthr other hand; when pregnant you actually have a choice whether you want to keep the baby or not. And your example with killing someone just doesn't make sense, sorry. I already explained that one thing is in violation of the law and the other ting isn't. Also the person you kill in an accident is an individual contributing to the society, the fetus isn't. It's not about ending a life of a baby, it's about forcing women to remain pregnant without their consents. Let me give you an example: If you're somehow (whether doing it purposely or unpurposely) responsible for damaging my kidneys, lets say it'll take 9 months for them to heal, am I by law allowed to hook you up with me and force you to be my human blood filter for the next 9 months? - wouldn't that violate your right to YOUR body? By your definition won't have a say, you need to face the consequences of your actions, now you're forced to lie on a hospital bed with me for 9 months. What? Sperm from a man are not human beings facepalm you’ve been watching too much Carl Sagan. No Christians don’t want to be in charge of others bodies, we want people to take responsibility for their actions. If two people can’t be smart enough to have protected sex or not have sex at all, then they had better be ready for the consequences of their negligence. It’s like if I get in a car accident because I ran a stop sign and my leg was broken in the accident, I don’t blame my broken leg for why my life is going to suck for the next 6 months, I blame myself for running the stop sign. Essentially what you’re doing is blaming the broken leg, the result, or in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, you’re blaming the baby for why the persons life is going to suck; you’re using it as a scapegoat so they can continue running stop signs and not take responsibility for their actions. We could even take it further and say someone who ran a stop sign killed someone; are you going to say the person that was the victim of that action shouldn’t have been in the way? Because that’s exactly what a person does when they get an abortion for their own convenience; “the person I killed in running the stop sign was just in my way”...”the baby I aborted after having irresponsible sex was just in my way”. I have to ask you, what makes you, as a pro-choice advocate, think people have a right to end the life of another? When does that life that is being ended get a choice? Truth is it never had a choice and you’re depriving that life of the very idea you support. It’s called a double standard. The real problem is people think sex is a recreational activity when it isn’t, it’s meant for procreation; it’s an absolute failure within society. "Is it fair that the woman has to bear the burden, and the guy doesn't have to worry about anything?" The guy should be responsible too, both should be responsible, that's why I didn't single out the man or the woman in my comparison example and just said "someone" and "person". Everyone should be responsible for their actions. "Your example with the car crash is very misleading (and obviously only targeted towards women)." What? I didn't target women in my example, you should read it again. I used myself as an example first(I'm not a woman), then said "someone" and "person" in my second example. shrug "The outcome of irresponsible/unprotected sex and losing a leg from a car accident is very incomparable." Well yea I didn't compare losing a leg to unprotected sex. I compared the results of each accident to each other which is the potential for loss of life. The running of the stop sign is the irresponsibility, the broken leg is the unwanted pregnancy. "1. Running over a stop sign, or some sort is against the law. You don't only put your own life in danger, you put other lives in danger." Yes, and with irresponsible sex you risk the life of the woman and her baby. I thought this was pretty clear cut. "2. Having unprotected sex is not a violation of the law. You don't harm anyone, even tho unprotected sex is stupid, you've done nothing wrong!" I didn't say it was a violation of the law. I am saying it has the same results as running a stop sign, it creates the potential for someone to get hurt/die. You really did not grasp my comparison at all, or you're purposely strawmanning what violates and doesn't violate the law. "In case of a woman being raped, it's like she was driving by the law, and some asshole didn't, which resulted in her getting hurt, because of someone who was irresponsible." Yes, the man who raped her should be punished for what he did. Should the innocent child now manifesting in the victim's womb be punished(put to death) for something it didn't do? "In case of sex with consent, it's like a guy and a girl in the same car driving irresponsibly. No matter whom driving nor how many times they get into an accident, it's always the girl getting hurt." That's the thing though. Sex isn't supposed to be outside of marriage. That's the failure of society that I mentioned. Sex isn't a recreation, or isn't supposed to be. But to entertain your point, no, it isn't always the girl getting hurt, you seem to completely ignore the victim which is the baby. "Losing a leg is not a choice, whether it was your own fault or someone else's, you have to live with the sad truth that you just won't get your leg back." I didn't say "lose your leg" in my example, I said broken leg. But to entertain your changing of what I said, the choice was not losing the leg, the choice was running the stop sign which resulted in the loss of a leg. "Onthr other hand; when pregnant you actually have a choice whether you want to keep the baby or not." Yes, one does have the choice, we have free will, but the baby's choice is eliminated. As I said, pro-choice advocates operate by a double standard, they believe the woman has a choice in whether the baby should live or die, but the never offer that same choice to the child in her womb. "And your example with killing someone just doesn't make sense, sorry." I'm sorry you couldn't understand it. It might be because you don't consider the baby a life, at least that is what I am gathering from your response. "I already explained that one thing is in violation of the law and the other ting isn't." Yes you did, but I never made any mention of what is legal and illegal, it wasn't my argument. Hence it is a strawman. "Also the person you kill in an accident is an individual contributing to the society, the fetus isn't." So a life is only someone that contributes to society? Man, this is some extreme stuff. "It's not about ending a life of a baby, it's about forcing women to remain pregnant without their consents." If someone wants an abortion, they can get it whether it is legal or not. Nobody is forcing them to do anything, just like nobody is forcing them not to run the stop sign. "If you're somehow (whether doing it purposely or unpurposely) responsible for damaging my kidneys, lets say it'll take 9 months for them to heal, am I by law allowed to hook you up with me and force you to be my human blood filter for the next 9 months? - wouldn't that violate your right to YOUR body?" What? It isn't the baby's fault the woman is pregnant... it's her own fault facepalm "By your definition won't have a say, you need to face the consequences of your actions, now you're forced to lie on a hospital bed with me for 9 months." No, as I said, it isn't the baby's fault that the woman is pregnant, it is her own fault for not being responsible.
|
|
Bigbufyboy85
Junior Member
I am a young Christian conservative trying to find a balance with my political, and religious views.
Posts: 68
Likes: 52
Country: United States
Religion: Christian
Age: Young
Member Admiration & Reason: Elizabeth for her KIND HEART ♥ FIERCE MIND ♥ BRAVE SPIRIT ♥ UNBREAKABLE STRENGTH ♥ ENDLESS FIGHTER
|
Post by Bigbufyboy85 on Sept 4, 2018 2:16:34 GMT
I really don't feel like repeating myself, but should the consequences/punishment be so severe, for such an act? For someone who steals, you can punish them by giving them a fine or send them to jail all depending on what they stole, or, you could as in the Middle East, cut their hands off. What do you have to say about young teenagers having sex because the school/parents/society failed to sex ed them in time? If they didn't even know what contraception was, are the young girls forced to carry around a baby, against their will? Also you could put a baby up for an adoption if you choose to carry the child, or if it's too late to abort. But no - having to carry a child for that long if you already know that you don't want it and it has only been one month, you don't have to go through the additional 8 months of pain etc. If people need babies to adopt there are millions of them living in poverty in Africa and Asia. They are in more need of a loving family, and overpopulation is already a problem so adopt these miserable babies in the 3rd world countries instead. And actually yes, once you're pregnant, you can still decide whether to have the baby or not. Let's say the fetus is 7-9 months on, which is old enough for it to grow outside the womb, then I personally think that it is immoral to kill it. Between 3-6 months I think there should be a very very good reason to why you wanna abort it. But within 3 months, I feel like you should be able to abort it without any problem. Well you get to live your life however you want to, so if you wait with sex until marriage, then that's totally fine. But to suggest that everybody should do the same to avoid abortions and idk what.... Dude, mind your own god damn life, don't interfere with others lives and how they should live, and whether they can abort or not. This isn't a problem either. You guys are making it a problem. No one said it is easy. But my inconvenience is not worth killing a baby. No one forced the woman to get pregnant, she went and had sex with someone, unprotected, so now she's pregnant. Yeah, I'm sure pregnancy sucks, but it's your own fault. Just because it might inconvenience you doesn't mean you get to kill the baby. Not to mention that you could put the baby up for adoption if you don't want it. There are thousands of people who can't even have children who would be happy to take the baby. Once you are pregnant, there is no going back. All we are saying is you can't kill it. Nothing more, nothing less. Let me change gears a little bit. What makes it immoral to abort after 6 months? Why do you even need a reason at 3 months? Why does it matter to you? Just want to find some common ground here.
|
|
james
New Member
Posts: 12
Likes: 3
|
Post by james on Sept 4, 2018 2:26:53 GMT
Interesting, because I believe that life begins when the child is born (care to object)? Why do you believe life begins at birth? When the egg and sperm unite the DNA creates a new human. To abort that human is simply no different than taking a two month old child and denying it the necessities of life food and shelter. Just because the child does not breathe on its own until exitting the womb does not mean it is not a unique living human being in the care of its maternal guardian.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,698
Likes: 1,758
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Sept 4, 2018 2:29:02 GMT
Yes, it does need to be that extreme. The reason is because the baby growing inside of her is a human life and you don't get to kill people because they inconvenience you. THAT is what is ridiculous; murdering your own offspring because you don't want to suffer the consequences of your actions. Excuse me, but who are you to make decisions for others? First of all it's a major risk for the women's health. Second of all it can affect the most important parts of their lives, it disrupts education, it disrupts work and so on. This is not about 'killing a baby' because it's no big deal and super fun!? But this is often (if not mostly) not even an ultimatum, because the person bearing the child knows what they're gonna go through, and how it's gonna fuck their lives. It disgusts me that pro-life people want to be in charge of other people and decide what they can do with their bodies and life and can't do! With a law that allows abortions, people who don't wanna abort can simply just not do it. If you guys wanna be so fucking Christian and ultra conservative about this topic then why aren't you guys for banning men masturbating? Men are daily wasting potential babies. Disgusting. Masturbating should be illegal. Give me a break. Ma'am, the very act of an abortion is literally the act of someone making decisions for others. It is about the mother making the decision on whether her offspring, a human being, gets to live or not with the child nor the husband for that matter having no say over it. I've often found it strange and creepy the passion and moral indignation in which pro choicer's show in defending the right, and lets not mince words here, of a mother to MURDER HER OFFSPRING in cold blood because she does not want to suffer the consequences of her actions. The thing about sperm being a waste of potential babies. A sperm is not in it of itself a potential baby. If someone masturbates and inseminates their pants with sperm, that sperm if left to its own devices will not grow into a human being. A sperm only contains half the DNA of a human and it is not until that sperm fertilizes an egg that the being is fully human genetically and if left to its own devices will grow into a fully formed human. Also understand that my stance against abortion is not specifically based upon the Bible. The Bible says nothing specifically against abortion. If I go by any Bible verse regarding this issue it is "thou shalt not kill" or otherwise translated, "thou shalt not commit murder". I would think that any human being with any sort of sense could tell that a human life is still a human life whether or not it exists inside the womb or outside the womb. But I understand that you come from Europe and your culture indoctrinates you from when you are child to think nothing of murdering the unborn. Me? I was never indoctrinated by anyone. I heard the term abortion having no idea or no frame of reference as to what it meant; asked my father about it (I was like 8 year old), and was simply told what it was. I almost threw up at how disgusting, immoral, and barbarous the act of a mother (someone who is supposed to have natural motherly instincts to nurture and love her child) killing her own offspring was. Such an act is an abomination, a blasphemy against morality, humanity, and nature itself.
|
|
james
New Member
Posts: 12
Likes: 3
|
Post by james on Sept 4, 2018 2:30:21 GMT
When something is able to grow, move, etc. Only living things can do that. Nonliving things can't. Hmm okay, that's not a bad definition- But would this include artificial intelligence? Sorry but artificial intelligence does not include the DNA from two humans to make it a new unique human life. We do not worry about other species like chicken beef pork etc. Humans we know are self aware intelligent sapient life forms. That makes the difference.
|
|
ainsley
New Member
Posts: 47
Likes: 10
|
Post by ainsley on Sept 4, 2018 9:20:47 GMT
Jesus. Seems like we're not getting anywhere with texting.
Do any of you guys have discord? Would you be willing to discuss things there? Perhaps in a VC?
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Sept 4, 2018 15:01:27 GMT
Hmm okay, that's not a bad definition- But would this include artificial intelligence? Sorry but artificial intelligence does not include the DNA from two humans to make it a new unique human life. We do not worry about other species like chicken beef pork etc. Humans we know are self aware intelligent sapient life forms. That makes the difference. But can you be so sure that AIs can't "evolve" to become so complex that they essentially become self-aware? Artificial lifeforms, both mechanical and organic are right around the corner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2018 16:04:21 GMT
The prolife/pro-choice dualism observes an inherent movement away from the balance of natural law where the structuring of human life, and identity for that matter, is determined according to the artificial structures we replicate according to nature in an attempt to control nature...effectively leading to an imbalance.
These movement's effectively are a result of an absence of natural balance, as the history of these movements stem from a time of heavy industrialization and increase in technology that effectively seperates man from the natural cycles of life and death founded within nature and in these respects deal with the moral problems of technology and human identity.
Natural law observes an inherent mirroring effect through the act of reproduction that not just enabled a maintanence of a species across a timeline but is the logical foundation for the technology industries we have founded in recent history as many of the "inventions" are merely a replication of the "replicative" faculties of nature in an effort to control the time cycles of being itself.
These replication of reproduction, effectively creates an illusatory environment as technology acts as an artificialization of nature and creates a disconnect between environments and natural balance by introducing artificial one's that are deficient in themselves. In these respects this false environment, subject to its own laws that inevitably are deficient of the balance from which which there origins extend (nature) observes an imbalance between one nature (original) and another (artificial).
This imbalance in the reproductive nature of reality causes an inherent seperation between environments causing a further seperation within the human condition leading to opposing moral dualisms where the natural laws of reproduction (embodied in the pro-life movement) oppose the artifical laws of reproduction (embodied in the pro-choice movement). The former observes a mediation of natural law as constant where the latter effectively observes choice as division through creation as a form of seperation conducive to relativistic choice and imbalance of identity due to this premise.
In these respects the question of nature effectively breaks down to the morality of creation, maintainance and destruction where:
1) The pro-life movement observes nature as a form of mediation through inherent cycles of time that maintain a balance. 2) The pro-choice movement observes nature as a form of dominance (master/slave dualism) through inherent progressive change in time where the origins are continually overcome.
The best solution to this dualism of pro-life and pro-choice effectively lies in understanding the proper balance of technology with natural law that prevents these moral choices from being necessary to being with as these choices between "x" and "y" observe an inherent seperation to begin with...in simpler terms people only talk about morality with morality is not completely evident.
|
|