MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Life vs Choice
Join to comment
 Group admin 
Our most demanded topic is now here. Keep it clean or we'll have to abort the thread! A little pun for everyone.

Abortion is a heavy topic, but what exactly is it? This is life vs choice in The International Fan of Lego Debate Club, DEBATE!
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 6:51 am
I don't see how three or four cells can be considered a human being. So I have no problem with, say, the morning after pill. However, when the babies are aborted several weeks or even months in... that makes my stomach churn.

That being said... is it truly the government's business? Can they really outlaw it? I suppose what really needs to happen is, if you're gonna use the murder argument, you need to find a stage where you give the developing child the same rights as a regular person. Maybe once it is considered a fetus?
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 11:17 am
I kind of find myself leaning more towards the pro-life side. I do believe, however, that the abortion option is viable if the mothers life is in danger, or if the baby will die hours after birth anyway. But those occurances are very rare, and hard to screen before the mother goes into labor.
As for my pro-life argument, it all revolves around responsibility. If you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant. I see abortion as just an easy way out of an unplanned pregnancy, and it doesn't require the woman who wants one to take responsibility for her actions. A few cells turn into a fetus, a fetus turns into a human, and that human has so much potential to do something good in this world. What gives a woman the right to waste that potential just because she doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions? There are much better options, like adoption.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 12:33 pm
I think it'll be interesting to see who ends up on which side in this debate. Often the people who are anti-gun are pro-abortion, and vise versa. Why someone would want to save a criminal and kill a baby, not really sure, but like drugs, people will still choose to have abortions, legal or not. So might as well make it safe. Not easy, but safe. But these late term procedures are brutal.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 1:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
I think it'll be interesting to see who ends up on which side in this debate. Often the people who are anti-gun are pro-abortion, and vise versa. Why someone would want to save a criminal and kill a baby, not really sure, but like drugs, people will still choose to have abortions, legal or not. So might as well make it safe. Not easy, but safe. But these late term procedures are brutal.

Alright, well, I don't plan on being active in this thread too much, so, I might as well say where I stand: Leaning towards no, but circumstances should have the power to override.

People often say, "Let the child live, it will teach responsibility to the parents", and, well, I can kinda see what they are saying, but at the same time, what you are doing is not considering that child as a life, rather, as a punishment.

If the mother's life is in danger, than I think it should be up to the parents, really. Why should a law tell a family whether a child should live or not? The parents are the ones that should decide.

My two cents though.....
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 3:25 pm
Quoting El Barto !
I think it'll be interesting to see who ends up on which side in this debate. Often the people who are anti-gun are pro-abortion, and vise versa. Why someone would want to save a criminal and kill a baby, not really sure, but like drugs, people will still choose to have abortions, legal or not. So might as well make it safe. Not easy, but safe. But these late term procedures are brutal.

Well, I'm strongly for gun control and strongly against abortion. ;)
I'm fine with the morning after pill - that's for completely unintentional pregnancy. Once you get a few weeks in though, no way.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 3:50 pm
This is completely natural. There are animals that dissolve fertilized eggs if the situation dictates it.

Pro abortion.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 4:09 pm
Quoting El Barto !
Often the people who are anti-gun are pro-abortion, and vise versa.

That is an indicator that one side is clearly right in both cases.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 4:14 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
This is completely natural. There are animals that dissolve fertilized eggs if the situation dictates it.

Pro abortion.

In what scenarios what the situation dictate that action?
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 4:32 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
This is completely natural. There are animals that dissolve fertilized eggs if the situation dictates it.

Pro abortion.

Because the human body is able to naturally dissolve fetuses.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 4:35 pm
Quoting Cade .
Because the human body is able to naturally dissolve fetuses.

It can. With tools, but it can. If we are intelligent enough to do it, as ironic as that may sound, it is natural to do that if it appears osmewhere in nature.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 4:54 pm
Quoting Josh B.
In what scenarios what the situation dictate that action?

Insufficient food.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 4:55 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Insufficient food.

So what you are getting at, is that if a woman is pregnant and she herself cannot afford to feed the child, the necessary response is to kill that baby?
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 4:57 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
It can. With tools, but it can. If we are intelligent enough to do it, as ironic as that may sound, it is natural to do that if it appears osmewhere in nature.

"With tools."
That means it can't happen naturally in humans.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 4:59 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Insufficient food.

She could put the baby up for adoption. Did you forget women had that option?
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:01 pm
Quoting Josh B.
So what you are getting at, is that if a woman is pregnant and she herself cannot afford to feed the child, the necessary response is to kill that baby?

You deliberately misunderstood me.

Insufficient food, as with the animals in question, is not the only reason to abort.

Quoting Cade .
"With tools."
That means it can't happen naturally in humans.

I am saying abortion is a natural concept.

And it helps to make some selection for evolution. Would you let a baby with a genetic disease be born?
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:03 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
You deliberately misunderstood me.

Insufficient food, as with the animals in question, is not the only reason to abort.

Quoting Cade .
"With tools."
That means it can't happen naturally in humans.

I am saying abortion is a natural concept.

And it helps to make some selection for evolution. Would you let a baby with a genetic disease be born?

Babies with genetic abnormalities are born all the time. Both with mankind an in nature.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:05 pm
Quoting Cade .
I am saying abortion is a natural concept.

And it helps to make some selection for evolution. Would you let a baby with a genetic disease be born?

Babies with genetic abnormalities are born all the time. Both with mankind an in nature.

In nature they die. In civilization they degenerate our genetic pool. Bad.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:06 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Babies with genetic abnormalities are born all the time. Both with mankind an in nature.

In nature they die. In civilization they degenerate our genetic pool. Bad.

Looks like humanity is just fine. You really don't have a solid argument for abortions by just saying, "they may come out deformed. Might as well kill them before hand."
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:08 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
You deliberately misunderstood me.

Insufficient food, as with the animals in question, is not the only reason to abort.


I understood you perfectly. I just believe that may not have been the best response to my question, hence why I asked if you could bring forth 'scenarios', implying more than one. To do so helps to back up your stance on the subject.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:10 pm
Quoting Cade .

Looks like humanity is just fine. You really don't have a solid argument for abortions by just saying, "they may come out deformed. Might as well kill them before hand."

They have to die anyways. And with people being as stupid as they are, it is hard to imagine we only had one major ubermench genocide.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:10 pm
Quoting Josh B.

I understood you perfectly. I just believe that may not have been the best response to my question, hence why I asked if you could bring forth 'scenarios', implying more than one. To do so helps to back up your stance on the subject.

Circumstances like a deformed child, overpopulation, rape or bad adoption circumstances.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:12 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
They have to die anyways. And with people being as stupid as they are, it is hard to imagine we only had one major ubermench genocide.

Everything dies anyway.
Really, you don't have an argument here. Go do some research and come back when you have something else to say besides, "all disabled people must die! Sieg heil!"
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:15 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
And it helps to make some selection for evolution. Would you let a baby with a genetic disease be born?

Aw man, don't bring this into the discussion. Look, if we're going to take that route than we have to go into selective breeding and eugenics. While I'm all for strengthening human lineage through enforced Darwinism, it's something that must be done after a birth and can be verified. For instance, ultrasounds showed that I had a tumour on my head and I'd have major issues. Yet I was born perfectly fine and am now a genetically superior being. ;)
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:15 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Circumstances like a deformed child, overpopulation, rape or bad adoption circumstances.

I kinda laughed. "Over population."
Nope. More and more people are having less children, it's estimated that in three generations the world population will be 3 billion.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:18 pm
Quoting Cade .
I kinda laughed. "Over population."
Nope. More and more people are having less children, it's estimated that in three generations the world population will be 3 billion.

3 billion = overpopulation.
Abortion plays a part in that statistic.
Different areas have different populations and over-populations. I stand by my word.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:20 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Yet I was born perfectly fine and am now a genetically superior being. ;)

Donate sperm and continiue the house of Van.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:21 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
3 billion = overpopulation.
Abortion plays a part in that statistic.
Different areas have different populations and over-populations. I stand by my word.

This is really funny.
We have 7 billion in numbers an we aren't even using up half of the land on this earth. Three billion is NOT overpopulating.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:23 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Donate sperm and continiue the house of Van.

Maybe if they pay well...
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:27 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Circumstances like a deformed child, overpopulation, rape or bad adoption circumstances.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe you can tell if a fetus will be a deformed child. And if so, I don't see how a deformed child gives you the excuse to eliminate that life form.

With overpopulation, that is almost entirely the parent(s)' fault. Unless in the case of rape, they are the ones who chose to bring forth new life to the world. And to be frank, using abortion as a technique to control population would prove quite difficult, as that is not preventing the issue, only trying to stop it before it escalates further. And there has to be a line drawn where controlling the population of a society crosses over to a perfectly good citizen wanting to start a family. Denying someone the right to do so is pretty much denying someone the right to perpetuate a species, one which you are a part of, whether you like it or not. And therefore not above it, and not justified to determine how they choose to live.

As for rape, that can also be settled without taking a life. There shall always, ALWAYS be someone out there who is willing to take up a child if you don't 'want' it, no matter the history of that child's existence. It may not have been your choice to bring new life into the world, but it happened regardless, and you should question that right to end a life. I personally believe you have no right to take a life unless said life is trying to take yours, in which case you are both on equal and fair terms. A child that is a product of rape is still a child. It's not a matter of the reason for why you exist, but rather what you choose to do with that gift of life that is important.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 5:28 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Josh B.
I may be mistaken, but I don't believe you can tell if a fetus will be a deformed child.

We are able, and unfortunately, that is the reason for many abortions.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 6:09 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Medieval Guy
I don't see how three or four cells can be considered a human being...
is it truly the government's business?...
Perhaps three cells is not a human, but in only a sort time it would be. With that in mind, is it right to prevent a someone from existing? To make them ineligible to live?
The government was designed to do three things, protect life, liberty, and property. We can be sure that this is one of the few things that is the government's business.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 9:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Circumstances like a deformed child, overpopulation, rape or bad adoption circumstances.
This is crazy! What kind of excuse is overpopulation, or deformity to prevent someone from existing? I'll tell you, it's a sick excuse.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 9:15 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Circumstances like a deformed child, overpopulation, rape or bad adoption circumstances.
This is crazy! What kind of excuse is overpopulation, or deformity to prevent someone from existing? I'll tell you, it's a sick excuse.

Well, Deus has a sick ideology when it comes to... well, everything.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 9:19 pm
Quoting Cade .
This is really funny.
We have 7 billion in numbers an we aren't even using up half of the land on this earth. Three billion is NOT overpopulating.

We consume more land, food, and energy than any other organism, and there are far more of us than other predators. While we still have space and resources now, they're rapidly dwindling.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 10:06 pm
Throwing in my two cents.
I think a person can be anti abortion personally, and yet pro choice politically. Whether to abort the fetus or not is a strictly personal choice and not a decision one can presume to make for another. Especially if it's men who are making that choice for women.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 10:38 pm
Quoting Cade .
I kind of find myself leaning more towards the pro-life side. I do believe, however, that the abortion option is viable if the mothers life is in danger, or if the baby will die hours after birth anyway. But those occurances are very rare, and hard to screen before the mother goes into labor.
As for my pro-life argument, it all revolves around responsibility. If you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant. I see abortion as just an easy way out of an unplanned pregnancy, and it doesn't require the woman who wants one to take responsibility for her actions. A few cells turn into a fetus, a fetus turns into a human, and that human has so much potential to do something good in this world. What gives a woman the right to waste that potential just because she doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions? There are much better options, like adoption.

I'm probably in the same boat here.

But, I'd put it onto both partner's responsibilities if they didn't want children.
Permalink
| July 29, 2013, 10:56 pm
Quoting Brick Munky
I'm probably in the same boat here.

But, I'd put it onto both partner's responsibilities if they didn't want children.

It is technically both of their responsibilities, but I only mentioned the mother because it's ultimately her choice to go through an abortion, especially if the father isn't present or wont be present with the woman in a relationship.

Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 12:46 am
People like Deus are living evidence of why eugenics programs, while theoretically capable of great good, are something that simply cannot be allowed.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 1:34 am
 Group admin 
Quoting CY-EV .

Dead baby jokes. This is off to a classy start...

Quoting Medieval Guy
However, when the babies are aborted several weeks or even months in... that makes my stomach churn.


Not for the faint of heart:
http://www.silentscream.org/

Quoting Medieval Guy is it truly the government's business?


Nope! If there is one aspect of government power that needs to be limited above all else, it's the ability to decide who lives and who dies. Because if you don't,you get Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR.

Quoting Medieval Guy you need to find a stage where you give the developing child the same rights as a regular person. Maybe once it is considered a fetus?


If a person is declared dead by a doctor when the heart stops beating, isn't it logical to call them a living human when the heart begins beating? The heart develops at 5 weeks into the pregnancy.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

Quoting Achintya Prasad
Why should a law tell a family whether a child should live or not? The parents are the ones that should decide.


"The parents should decide whether or not a child lives?" Do you realize how barbarically insane that statement is?


I'm just going to respond to my bit.

No, I don't. This isn't a something that the gov't should control, whether a child is born or not (and that is saying something, coming from me). The law should only make a child live IF the mother is danger, is what I was trying to say.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 10:25 am
 Group admin 
Quoting CY-EV .
I'm just going to respond to my bit.

No, I don't.


So you're fine with... all this?

You're taking what I am saying out of context. Most, if not all, of these instances are of children that have been born, and are relatively safe. I am saying, that no, no abortion, but that law is dismissed if the mother is in danger, and the parents decide whether they wish to proceed or not.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 10:44 am
 Group admin 
Quoting CY-EV .
You're taking what I am saying out of context. Most, if not all, of these instances are of children that have been born, and are relatively safe. I am saying, that no, no abortion, but that law is dismissed if the mother is in danger, and the parents decide whether they wish to proceed or not.



Obviously they weren't safe, or they'd be alive today.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

ahem:

"On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF).
One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF)."

You aren't getting what I am saying.

IF the mother is in danger, and ONLY if she is in danger, then abortion should be considered, and be considered by the parents.

HOWEVER, otherwise, its a no go.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 10:55 am
 Group admin 
Quoting CY-EV .
Why does the site keep making random text bold? Anybody else notice that, or is it just *my* computer being strange?

I have non idea whats going on with that. I haven't had that problem, though.....
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 11:06 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
It can. With tools, but it can. If we are intelligent enough to do it, as ironic as that may sound, it is natural to do that if it appears somewhere in nature.

Would it be natural for humans, once they reached adulthood, to dissolve their brains and become filter feeders?
For humans to crawl up another animal's nose and eat it's mucous membranes?
To give birth to females when fertilized and to males when not?
To live over a mile under the sea in water at 230 degrees Fahrenheit?
To be killed by oxygen gas?
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 11:52 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Would it be natural for humans, once they reached adulthood, to dissolve their brains and become filter feeders?
For humans to crawl up another animal's nose and eat it's mucous membranes?
To give birth to females when fertilized and to males when not?
To live over a mile under the sea in water at 230 degrees Fahrenheit?
To be killed by oxygen gas?

Since we naturally evolved to a stage of doing everything we want, that could be the point.

Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 11:54 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Since we naturally evolved to a stage of doing everything we want, that could be the point.
We are not evolved to a stage of doing everything we want, we're evolved to a stage of thinking we can do whatever we want.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 12:00 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Since we naturally evolved to a stage of doing everything we want, that could be the point.
We are not evolved to a stage of doing everything we want, we're evolved to a stage of thinking we can do whatever we want.

I like this comment.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 12:09 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Since we naturally evolved to a stage of doing everything we want, that could be the point.
We are not evolved to a stage of doing everything we want, we're evolved to a stage of thinking we can do whatever we want.

So what you are saying between the lines is that I should analyze and siambiguate everything I write or you will use my rethoric techniques as counterarguments?
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 12:38 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
So what you are saying between the lines is that I should analyze and siambiguate everything I write or you will use my rethoric techniques as counterarguments?

If you don't think your comment through enough, it's foolish to not expect someone to counter what you said with a stronger statement of their own. Tends to be how a debate works.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 12:43 pm
Quoting CY-EV .

Oooh, someone's learned how to look up the big words! Well, almost. Did you mean "disambiguate" and "rhetoric"?


I would expect you to be the only person in this group to understand.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 12:51 pm
Quoting Josh B.
If you don't think your comment through enough, it's foolish to not expect someone to counter what you said with a stronger statement of their own. Tends to be how a debate works.

That would be true, if it were not just the sentence structure.

A debate is not nitpicking. But I can play the game that way, by exposing touchscreen misspellings and taking every metaphore literally.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 12:54 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
That would be true, if it were not just the sentence structure.

A debate is not nitpicking. But I can play the game that way, by exposing touchscreen misspellings and taking every metaphore literally.

You just have to know your opponents more, mah boi. Only then can you improve your argument tactics.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 1:12 pm
Quoting CY-EV .
Quoting Medieval Guy you need to find a stage where you give the developing child the same rights as a regular person. Maybe once it is considered a fetus?


If a person is declared dead by a doctor when the heart stops beating, isn't it logical to call them a living human when the heart begins beating? The heart develops at 5 weeks into the pregnancy.


That seems reasonable to me. And 5 weeks is ample time to find out that you are pregnant, I think.

Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 1:38 pm
Quoting Medieval Guy


That seems reasonable to me. And 5 weeks is ample time to find out that you are pregnant, I think.

Actually, we do not determinate a person dead when the heart stops beating. There is also fibrilation and theoretical enfibrilation... "Living" is a concept that in human case means self-conciousness, besides just metabolic processes. I know your reply to the last sentence. In such meaning, a baby is not human until about a year or two after they are born. So supporting abortion, yes, I know, you are saying that your definition of life is different, is like supporting baby slaughter. Still pro abortion.

Quoting CY-EV .
Do you realize how utterly despicable you sound right now?

Thank you for the compliment, general!

I know I sound despicable, that is what I wanted to sound like. If you have a different allignment than me, do not expect to find my ethics understandable.

Not saying I support the holocaust, because its goal was not actually to improve humanity. It was a political thing. On the other hand, a selection would work nicely today.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 3:45 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Actually, we do not determinate a person dead when the heart stops beating. There is also fibrilation and theoretical enfibrilation... "Living" is a concept that in human case means self-conciousness, besides just metabolic processes. I know your reply to the last sentence. In such meaning, a baby is not human until about a year or two after they are born. So supporting abortion, yes, I know, you are saying that your definition of life is different, is like supporting baby slaughter. Still pro abortion.

Quoting CY-EV .
Do you realize how utterly despicable you sound right now?

Thank you for the compliment, general!

I know I sound despicable, that is what I wanted to sound like. If you have a different allignment than me, do not expect to find my ethics understandable.

Not saying I support the holocaust, because its goal was not actually to improve humanity. It was a political thing. On the other hand, a selection would work nicely today.

I REALLY dont think you know what you're talking about.

Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 4:03 pm
Quoting Cade .

I REALLY dont think you know what you're talking about.

I believe you do. Or do not, as it is in this situation.

I was not only talking about one thing. So. Which do you have doubts about?
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 4:05 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I know I sound despicable, that is what I wanted to sound like. If you have a different allignment than me, do not expect to find my ethics understandable.

That sort of argument doesn't really apply outside of Dungeons & Dragons.

Besides that, I expect he understands your 'ethics' quite well, and that's the whole problem.
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Not saying I support the holocaust, because its goal was not actually to improve humanity. It was a political thing. On the other hand, a selection would work nicely today.

Because people are so much more 'evolved' today.

I can tell you this, the instant you tell an ethnicity their genes have no place in the world, you'll have a fight on your hands.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 6:41 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
Because people are so much more 'evolved' today.

I can tell you this, the instant you tell an ethnicity their genes have no place in the world, you'll have a fight on your hands.

No worries. I am fine with having a fight on my hands. And you are forgetting that I said "selection". I did not say national. Every nation has some genetically apropriate people. I think.

And you would be surprised how well D&D applies to everyday life.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 6:43 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I know I sound despicable, that is what I wanted to sound like. If you have a different allignment than me, do not expect to find my ethics understandable.

What alignment are you? I'm chaotic good... Though I act lawful to avoid police.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 9:17 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
What alignment are you? I'm chaotic good... Though I act lawful to avoid police.

Having the robber's alignment handily explains why you don't want armed victims, then.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 2:35 am
Quoting Areetsa C
Having the robber's alignment handily explains why you don't want armed victims, then.

Most robbers are chaotic neutral.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 5:47 am
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
What alignment are you? I'm chaotic good... Though I act lawful to avoid police.

I am neutral evil.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 5:48 am
 Group admin 
It seems we've drifted off topic here. We have a general conversation for random stuff you know.

I think the abortion issue can be summed up in a question- Is it okay to prevent a human being from coming into the world?- In some cases it seems the only fair option for the mother, but is there truly any excuse good enough for such an act? How can the ending of someone's life be the capital offense, yet the keeping of someone from life be considered okay?
Debate!
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 6:51 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Ru Corder
Throwing in my two cents.
I think a person can be anti abortion personally, and yet pro choice politically. Whether to abort the fetus or not is a strictly personal choice and not a decision one can presume to make for another. Especially if it's men who are making that choice for women.
Pro what choice? The choice to kill babies? How can that possibly be a personal choice without consequences? See my comment directly above.

Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 7:00 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
How can the ending of someone's life be the capital offense, yet the keeping of someone from life be considered okay?

This can be answered by a question. Why are vegetarians against killing animals that would not even live if it were not for our need of their flesh? Giving an animal the option to even live is a gift.

Now, if you are not contradicting yourself, you can choose a side. You can either choose the position of responsibility and do bad things to advance as a species, or you can be "good" and let everyone live and be happy. Problem with option B is that it likes to fail.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 7:08 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
This can be answered by a question. Why are vegetarians against killing animals that would not even live if it were not for our need of their flesh? Giving an animal the option to even live is a gift.
I'm not sure I understand this, what's your point?

Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus Problem with option B is that it likes to fail.

How do bad things advance a species? I would like example. When does option B fail?
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 10:53 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
I'm not sure I understand this, what's your point?

How do bad things advance a species? I would like example. When does option B fail?

"Bad" things like killign the weak enhances our genetic pool.

As for animals, new topic?
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 11:25 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
"Bad" things like killign the weak enhances our genetic pool.

As for animals, new topic?

What exactly is the point of enhancing the genetic pool? How is this better than letting people live and be happy? You say that this is our position of responsibility to 'do bad things and advance our species'. Why do you believe this is our responsibility, but being happy isn't?
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 11:39 am
Quoting Josh B.
What exactly is the point of enhancing the genetic pool? How is this better than letting people live and be happy? You say that this is our position of responsibility to 'do bad things and advance our species'. Why do you believe this is our responsibility, but being happy isn't?

What does it matter if you are happy? How can you travel back in time and create the universe with a specific purpose with being happy, if you are also degenerated?

Happiness is unimportaint.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 11:51 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Happiness is unimportaint.

Wait what? I had to say something over this. What you've done there is question the very meaning of life; I would say its so that your happy. If that isn't it, what is the reason?
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 11:54 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wait what? I had to say something over this. What you've done there is question the very meaning of life; I would say its so that your happy. If that isn't it, what is the reason?

Happiness is the chemical indicator that you are doing something that is good for you, at least in the situation in which your species has evolved.

We did not evolve in a place with overabundance of greasy food, drugs that make our veins shrink or expand, situations in which we could just sleep and do nothing et cetera.

I will not share my view on the meaning of life here, because that would be going off topic even more tahn it is now. And you are supporting that by continiuing this conversation with me without even a warning.

I am being more of a pope than the pope, I guess.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 11:59 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Happiness is the chemical indicator that you are doing something that is good for you, at least in the situation in which your species has evolved.

We did not evolve in a place with overabundance of greasy food, drugs that make our veins shrink or expand, situations in which we could just sleep and do nothing et cetera.

I will not share my view on the meaning of life here, because that would be going off topic even more tahn it is now. And you are supporting that by continiuing this conversation with me without even a warning.

I am being more of a pope than the pope, I guess.

I can create another thread about this, but not this moment.

All I'm going to say is that you didn't answer my question, at all.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 12:02 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I can create another thread about this, but not this moment.

All I'm going to say is that you didn't answer my question, at all.

Happiness =/= meaning of life. Unless you mean the Monty Python film.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 12:42 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Medieval Guy
I don't see how three or four cells can be considered a human being...
is it truly the government's business?...
Perhaps three cells is not a human, but in only a sort time it would be. With that in mind, is it right to prevent a someone from existing? To make them ineligible to live?
The government was designed to do three things, protect life, liberty, and property. We can be sure that this is one of the few things that is the government's business.

So then is each and every sperm cell that *could* become a human in need of protection? Because a lot of them end up being thrown away on some tissue, just saying... and politicians don't make that a political issue.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 8:34 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
This can be answered by a question. Why are vegetarians against killing animals that would not even live if it were not for our need of their flesh? Giving an animal the option to even live is a gift.

Now, if you are not contradicting yourself, you can choose a side. You can either choose the position of responsibility and do bad things to advance as a species, or you can be "good" and let everyone live and be happy. Problem with option B is that it likes to fail.

Why is it so vital to advance as a species?
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 8:41 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Why is it so vital to advance as a species?

That has to go through a long conversation to reach a simple answer.

So we have a reason to do that.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 8:46 pm
Quoting Medieval Guy
So then is each and every sperm cell that *could* become a human in need of protection? Because a lot of them end up being thrown away on some tissue, just saying... and politicians don't make that a political issue.

A sperm cell cannot become a human unless it is fused with an egg cell to become a zygote. Therefore, you should protect the zygote, not each gamete, as it is the zygote which is the dividing line between human and non-human.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 8:51 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
That has to go through a long conversation to reach a simple answer.

All right, let's do it.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 9:41 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
A sperm cell cannot become a human unless it is fused with an egg cell to become a zygote. Therefore, you should protect the zygote, not each gamete, as it is the zygote which is the dividing line between human and non-human.

I understand the biology, I was just making a point.
Permalink
| July 31, 2013, 10:59 pm
Quoting CY-EV .
If a person is medically (and legally) declared dead when the heart stops beating,

Even if it were true, what does heartbeat have to do with you being you?

The only reason why people declare death by pupil contraction is because using EEG is inefficient even if possible.
Permalink
| August 1, 2013, 6:01 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Happiness is unimportaint.
In your depressing world, what is important? If everyone is going to die what is the point of advancing the human genetic code?
Permalink
| August 1, 2013, 7:36 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Happiness is unimportaint.
In your depressing world, what is important? If everyone is going to die what is the point of advancing the human genetic code?

Who said anything about depression?

The reason is, until there is a real one, to create reason to live.
Permalink
| August 1, 2013, 7:44 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Our most demanded topic is now here. Keep it clean or we'll have to abort the thread! A little pun for everyone.

Abortion is a heavy topic, but what exactly is it? This is life vs choice in The International Fan of Lego Debate Club, DEBATE!


Well.. considering that the parents are responsible, and 'opting out' of the child's life is not their decision. He/She is Human too, and therefore precious.

Permalink
| August 1, 2013, 5:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Who said anything about depression?

The reason is, until there is a real one, to create reason to live.
I guess we'll save this for the meaning of life thread, whenever that comes out.

Permalink
| August 2, 2013, 7:41 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Thatch Gears
Well.. considering that the parents are responsible, and 'opting out' of the child's life is not their decision. He/She is Human too, and therefore precious.
Very true, so what should be done about this problem?

Permalink
| August 2, 2013, 7:42 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Thatch Gears
Well.. considering that the parents are responsible, and 'opting out' of the child's life is not their decision. He/She is Human too, and therefore precious.
Very true, so what should be done about this problem?


To simply put it, stop government funding, and educate the public on what really happens during the development of a child. It's not some 'fish' it's a human. If we can educate the younger generation, things will improve.

And also, the government can't lean to one side of thins. if they fund abortion clinics, they have to also fund places that will find home for the children. I know it's not required, but the government can't take sides in theological issues. And yes, Atheism is a theological practice.. But that's for another debate. :P

Permalink
| August 2, 2013, 4:31 pm
Give the kid a chance. So what if the kid will be an inconvenience, or poor, or handicapped, or fatherless, or statistically more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, or do drugs. Those social ills are not capital crimes, nor do we prosecute before the statistically likely offender is born. Give the kid an opportunity to be the best it can.
Permalink
| August 3, 2013, 2:41 pm
I'm going to start by saying I totally understand the argument of both sides and also that this is one thorny issue. I am pro-life. This is mostly because I'm catholic and also that's how I was raised.
I'd say 9 times out of 10, there is an unwanted pregnancy because someone was stupid, they went to a party, got drunk, and, well you know. This is the persons fault, they shouldn't kill an unborn baby since they wanted to get drunk and party.
I know that there are legitimate cases where the person who is pregnant is not at fault. They still should at least put the child up for adoption.
The final case is if the baby would be somehow 'imperfect'. You can never predict the outcome of a persons life. Look at Steven Hawking, he is forever bound to a wheelchair and wasn't excepted to live past his teens. He is now one of the foremost minds in science.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 8:59 pm
Other topics



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use