Omaha, Neb. Denies girl (16) abortion - She must have the child.

[Blockygame]

I wonder if those that made this decision are mentally mature themselves, unwanted child becomes yet another ward of the state because the mother wants nothing to do with it, it's her body and unborn baby and it should be her decision.

[Roose]

Abortions for all! Fuck the religious dumbasses! Let them support that child if they will not let her get an abortion.

[Bakis]

It would probably cause a disease, i.e. a zombie outbreak.

I hope not, then all zombie-"horror" movies would turn into documentaries with no element of surpise

[KDSwain]

I didn't know having passions were so dishonorable

This one doesn't cite sources that well

http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/...n-life-begins/

Author is Catholic, so I'm sure it's not creditable either

I am trying to dig and find some thing more suitable to you later I suppose. Glad that pro-lifers are likened to the KKK however

A little MMO advice for you. Don't even bother with sources, links, facts that go against the liberal/marxist/progressive agenda. The zealots here aren't interested and immediately attack anything that questions their beliefs. Save yourself the time and effort.

[Underverse]

I'd accept circumstance is paramount to the morality of whether something lives or dies. I'm still firmly of the mind though the case of this girl, circumstance is irrelevant, as Rukentuts said if it hasn't reached fetal viability it should be completely up to the host, not the parasite.

You agree that killing is a matter of circumstance, then. I think it's both a fact (and irrelevant) that a fetus is human, and alive. It is not an individual; but status as alive, human, or individual say nothing for the morality of killing. They can imply things - if something is what we define as human (genetically), it is more likely to have trait X. But it's these traits (X, Y, Z) that determine whether or not killing is moral - not that fact that it's 'human'.

What are these traits? Evolution dictates that they increase propagation of the individual.

What does this mean for the abortion debate?

It means that if the decision to abort beneficially affects the propagation, then it is a moral decision. Propagation means the continuation of information - the organization of matter into a specific form. Because humans largely share a form or matter, it would be moral to abort a fetus if the mother, by not having the child, is able to benefit the propagation of other humans (through her work, or care, or her survival to have kids later), even though abortion directly reduces the mother's own information propagation.

Note that this is only possible because the fetus is *almost* a parasite - it provides *almost* nothing in return for being nourished, not even emotional stability/fulfillment (unless it's socially constructed) until it's born. It does innately fulfill the requirement of increasing propagation, but this can often be overcome by other forces that decrease net propagation.

[Achtalon]

I was hoping you'd forget your own post history.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post17848277

"Might I make a correction....as a Catholic...we do not believe homosexuality is a choice. You can be born homosexual. But that does not mean we support gay marriage. We believe in other vocations (such as a single lifestyle) and such...there are actually a good number of happy homosexual Catholics that I know that follow our "rules". Most protestant Christians will go about saying that homosexuality is a choice."

Nice spiel though, your best friend is gay but you don't want them to get married and be happy? I'd like to read the next spiel you type to explain this to me.

My sister's Mormon and had some gay friends. What was your point again? This attempt at "gotcha" is fuckin' fail.

[Obby]

I hope not, then all zombie-"horror" movies would turn into documentaries with no element of surpise

spoiler unless he has alot of technology the nerd wont live till the end with the hot chick in this one xD and the black guy just might not die first lmao

[Aeluron Lightsong]

A little MMO advice for you. Don't even bother with sources, links, facts that go against the liberal/marxist/progressive agenda. The zealots here aren't interested and immediately attack anything that questions their beliefs. Save yourself the time and effort.

We're not zealots but the passive aggressive behavior is nice.

[Nayelie]

Dig all you want, there is no generally accepted consensus on when life begins. It could be conception according to some groups, it could be when the first kick is felt according to some groups, it could be at the point of viability to some groups, it could be when it takes it's first breath to some groups.
You are literally going to convince NOBODY or change anyones minds on the issue, it is an issue that everyone came into with a bias, that's all there is to it.

A girl can dream ^_^

As can everyone else in this thread. Maybe someone will get convinced to jump sides. And I am starting to see "Biased" in such a negative light now because of this thread.... damn you internet!!!

Some of you have been amazing to engage with. Others, not so much.

Back to the court hearing though, Bible belt judge made uneducated teenager keep her child. Is that the general agreed interpretation?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

A girl can dream ^_^

As can everyone else in this thread. Maybe someone will get convinced to jump sides. And I am starting to see "Biased" in such a negative light now because of this thread.... damn you internet!!!

Some of you have been amazing to engage with. Others, not so much.

Back to the court hearing though, Bible belt judge made uneducated teenager keep her child. Is that the general agreed interpretation?

Judge made Girl keep baby even though she already stated she is financially unable to take care of her baby.

[chaotus]

It is killing, I won't disagree something will die. But it is not murder.

We don't call murder when we kill a tapeworm, we shouldn't call it murder when we kill this either.

I agree with the terminology there. I don't believe it qualifies for the more robust concepts presented when someone equates abortions to "murder" but I do believe it is undeniably killing and should be labeled as such.

[Moralgy]

A little MMO advice for you. Don't even bother with sources, links, facts that go against the liberal/marxist/progressive agenda. The zealots here aren't interested and immediately attack anything that questions their beliefs. Save yourself the time and effort.

Why did you mention Marxist, progressive and liberal as the same thing? If you didn't mean to do this, the word "or" is your best friend.

[Thallidomaniac]

I hope not, then all zombie-"horror" movies would turn into documentaries with no element of surpise

You have to live as if the world is like those cataclysm/zombie/apocalypse/end-of-the-world movies. Gotta have the Final Destination mindset: Everything and anything can, and will go wrong.

[Bakis]

When proving someone wrong on how science works = I'm not so pleasent.
I'm a sad panda

[KayossZero]

I believe in the traditional man + woman = procreation, yes. I wasn't aware that this thread was jumping topics however. And I was also not aware that marriage was the only way for someone to be happy. This does not sound like a fun debate at all, since you are already misunderstanding me.

I'm understanding you quite well. You're a bigot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_..._United_States

"According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions^[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government was prohibited from recognizing same-sex couples who were lawfully married under the laws of their state. The conflict between this definition and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution led the U.S. Supreme Court to rule DOMA unconstitutional on June 26, 2013, in the case of United States v. Windsor."

So you would have critical functioning laws not apply to people just because they were gay and not in a legally recognized marriage.

Yeah, I'm glad you're not in any position of authority.

[Deleted]

When proven wrong on how science works = not so pleasent.
I'm a sad panda

Heh.

You had me worried for a second Bakis on your avatar, it looked like you had a tear tat by your eye...

[DoctorDoomkin]

And an innocent life was saved that day.

As for the "language used", if you want to put forth that she was too fragile and frail that asking her if she understands the situation and what it entails is too much for her to handle, then you make the judges case for him that she isn't qualified to make her own medical decisions for herself if she can't handle even discussing the situation.

I want to be pro-life, but only if they can actually afford to take care of "life".

There is a difference between supporting life, and actually "supporting" life. Yes, she screwed up, but she doesn't want to subject it to a foster center, which sucks, or a life where she constantly have to say, "No. We can't afford those things" as it grows up.

IMO, if someone wants to be "pro-life", they need to show it. Kinda tired of having people say I support life, and not actually pitch in when people financially need help to support it, especially when she doesn't have the option to abort it.

[Nayelie]

I think we all need a cookie break. And a beer. Or wine.

I need after a glass after finding out I am biased, homophobic, and I apparently know nothing of the constitution.

[chaotus]

Judge made Girl keep baby even though she already stated she is financially unable to take care of her baby.

I took it that he denied her request to circumvent the guardians of the ward and allow her to get an abortion without consent from her guardianship.

It seemed like the state was attempting to force the cost of the abortion on the foster parents, the foster parents were attempting to force it on the state and the girl was caught in the middle. Whoever ultimately ends up giving consent for the abortion is going to be stuck with the bill is what is driving this odd case to me. There was talk of religious fervor with the foster parents so they might even use that as a basis for denying consent, but I'm pessimistic on life and still think it's going to be money driven rather then hokey dokey morals from god on high.

[Thallidomaniac]

I want to be pro-life, but only if they can actually afford to take care of "life".

There is a difference between supporting life, and actually "supporting" life. Yes, she screwed up, but she doesn't want to subject it to a foster center, which sucks, or a life where she constantly have to say, "No. We can't afford those things" as it grows up.

IMO, if someone wants to be "pro-life", they need to show it. Kinda tired of having people say I support life, and not actually pitch in when people financially need help to support it, especially when she doesn't have the option to abort it.

Then again, in most cases, it's their fucking fault that they had a lapse in judgment. Even rape being the cause of a pregnancy is inexcusable because it's preventable in most cases. It's like trying to help someone that ran a ponzi scheme. You don't do it. You don't even associate with those kinds of people because they fucked over the lives of others.