Mint Chocolate Ice Cream Reigns Supreme! & Abortion.

[Ace Rimmer]

Ok zjoere, here you go. Let's hope this doesn't spiral into a meaningless debate on which ice cream flavor you like the most. (mint chocolate)

Seriously, is abortion right, wrong, neither? There are as many viewpoints on this as there are methods for mur, er abortion. It should be quite obvious that I'm against it, right? Now, I'm not gonna scream my viewpoints out to try and change yours or tell you how wrong it is or how blind you are. I just want to see what you think, why, and how long this topic can remain civil.

Right or wrong: As a general rule, wrong. Certainly in cases of abortion for the sake of ones status in life or career or other such "circumstances" of convenience. I have two children and one on the way and can honestly say that I can not understand why people in normal circumstances would choose such a thing.

Why: Initially because I was raised to value life as I was taught that all men (mankind) was made in His image and even despite the actions of any person, they still were made in his image. Since maturing and starting a family of my own, I must admit that creating a family has had a much more profound effect on my views of the subject.

This thread and any information enclosed within this thread may contain provocative and/or extreme views and is intended only for civilized debate and/or discussion. If you take it upon yourself to post within this thread, you must not disseminate, modify, copy/plagiarize or take action in reliance upon it. None of the information posted in this thread may be taken out of context or twisted, in any form or by any means philosophically, neither by Cynicism, Stoicism, Averroism, Empiricism, Marxism, or Existentialism. Author of thread retains no liability for any post, resulting opinion's of any forum member, or action taken in response to aforementioned posts.

[Hyperion]

Mint chocolate also.

[zjoere]

in most cases it is wrong but there are a couple of exceptions: rape and when both the mother and the child lives are in danger.
2nd one should be obvious why: it's better to save 1 person by killing another then letting 2 persons die i think.
the rape exception is because in all the other cases if a women gets pregnant she has responsibility for the action of becoming pregnant and thus should bare the consequenses of her actions. if she gets raped it's not her responsibility she got pregnant and thus should be allowed an abortion

(this post is an opinion, not a defenite right or wrong)

ps: trol
pps: lemon !

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I don't tend to think of abortion as right or wrong. I think it is a personal decision that a mother (and father) has to make. Unwanted pregnancy is tragic no matter the outcome. My position is that until the child is able to live on its own out side of the mother, it is the mother's right to do as she sees fit. Government should not interfere in that phase of life. Once the child is able to live outside the mother, normal laws regarding children should apply.

[shinygerbil]

Strawberry, or rum and raisin. I'm gonna hold off on abortion for a little while, and gather my thoughts.

[Feud]

I enjoy Ben and Jerry's Phish Food ice cream the most, but I must admit that the Americone Dream flavor is also very good.

[Ace Rimmer]

I don't tend to think of abortion as right or wrong. I think it is a personal decision that a mother (and father) has to make. Unwanted pregnancy is tragic no matter the outcome. My position is that until the child is able to live on its own out side of the mother, it is the mother's right to do as she sees fit. Government should not interfere in that phase of life. Once the child is able to live outside the mother, normal laws regarding children should apply.

When do you decide the child can live on its own? Perhaps I just need a bit of clarification here. Are you saying when it has devolved in the womb sufficiently that it could live outside the womb but with assistance from incubators/other medical equipment? Or just when the child has developed enough to be born and not die from early birth?

And out of pure curiosity, why draw the line there?

[Hyperion]

it's better to save 1 person by killing another then letting 2 persons die i think

can't say i agree with that but each to their own (think you've been watching Battle Royale too much )

Abortion...hmm...i would say it is very dependent on a persons conscience, psychological health, moral/ethics learnt or taught.

I would see Ace's 'Why' comment as being justified in the above catagories as his moral grounds for being against such an act.

In my personal opinion (which is not valid as i am not female, but if i were), i could/would not want to live with myself after terminating a pregnancy prematurely. The ultimate exception being rape but even then i would probably still suffer psychologically.

Responsibility is something every human needs to learn and live by. Many do not (including myself in the past). But no one is perfect

[Hyperion]

I don't tend to think of abortion as right or wrong. I think it is a personal decision that a mother (and father) has to make. Unwanted pregnancy is tragic no matter the outcome. My position is that until the child is able to live on its own out side of the mother, it is the mother's right to do as she sees fit. Government should not interfere in that phase of life. Once the child is able to live outside the mother, normal laws regarding children should apply.

When do you decide the child can live on its own? Perhaps I just need a bit of clarification here. Are you saying when it has devolved in the womb sufficiently that it could live outside the womb but with assistance from incubators/other medical equipment? Or just when the child has developed enough to be born and not die from early birth?

And out of pure curiosity, why draw the line there?

You're arguing semantics.

[Ace Rimmer]

I don't tend to think of abortion as right or wrong. I think it is a personal decision that a mother (and father) has to make. Unwanted pregnancy is tragic no matter the outcome. My position is that until the child is able to live on its own out side of the mother, it is the mother's right to do as she sees fit. Government should not interfere in that phase of life. Once the child is able to live outside the mother, normal laws regarding children should apply.

When do you decide the child can live on its own? Perhaps I just need a bit of clarification here. Are you saying when it has devolved in the womb sufficiently that it could live outside the womb but with assistance from incubators/other medical equipment? Or just when the child has developed enough to be born and not die from early birth?

And out of pure curiosity, why draw the line there?

You're arguing semantics.

You're incorrect. I wasn't arguing. I was genuinely asking a question.

[zjoere]

In my personal opinion (which is not valid as i am not female, but if i were), i could/would not want to live with myself after terminating a pregnancy prematurely. The ultimate exception being rape but even then i would probably still suffer psychologically.

Responsibility is something every human needs to learn and live by. Many do not (including myself in the past). But no one is perfect

why would you think your opinion isn't valid simply because of the fact that you aren't a woman ?
the child has a father too you know. okay he doesn't have to run around with it for 9 months. but he certainly also has an emotional connection with the child (at least in most cases)

and you would also sufffer psychologically by keeping the baby and thus being reminded of the rape case everyday

[Hyperion]

My apologies, for some reason i sensed aggressiveness in your questioning

I would imagine Swesburntmonkey to mean that living outside of the mothers care with it's own ability to survive being after child birth. I can't speak from experience but i imagine most mothers would not care to just simply have a baby surgically removed for the simple fact that it is sufficiently developed enough inside the womb to survive in an artificial environment. I could be entirely wrong on that matter (as people do incredibly stupid and selfish things in this world) but really.

'And out of pure curiosity, why draw the line there?' - What do you mean?

[Stewsburntmonkey]

When do you decide the child can live on its own? Perhaps I just need a bit of clarification here. Are you saying when it has devolved in the womb sufficiently that it could live outside the womb but with assistance from incubators/other medical equipment? Or just when the child has developed enough to be born and not die from early birth?

I tend to allow for incubators and the like when making that call. Basically I have no real problem banning late term abortions as long as there are sufficient allowances for medical emergencies.

And out of pure curiosity, why draw the line there?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Technically every time a woman ovulates the potential for new life exists. Each egg that is not fertilized is in effect a life lost. Clearly it doesn't make sense to mandate that every egg be fertilized. On the other hand we do not allow murder of individuals. Therefore there is a line to be drawn. The question is where. Where do the rights of new life out weight those of the mother? My view is that as long as the fetus is reliant on the mother they are one and the same entity (legally). Once the fetus is no longer dependent on the mother for physical survival and can become independent it should enjoy the benefit of legal independence as well.

[zjoere]

I would imagine Swesburntmonkey to mean that living outside of the mothers care with it's own ability to survive being after child birth.

he's being pretty vague though.
it's not because you're born that you can survive on your own. a child can't survive if you don't take care of it. but does that give you the right to just kill it ?

[Feud]

I think that before this dicussion goes any further, that me must iron out a few terms so that we can all discuss on equal footing.

I noticed when i lived in the south that people refered to soda of all kinds as "Coke", and just because they said they wanted a Coke that they could just as easily mean they wanted a Sprite. With this in mind, let's iron out what does and does not count as ice crea.

Obviously, items described as ice cream alone are valid. But, do items that mearly include ice cream count as well? Would a Klondike bar, and ice cream sandwich, an Eskimo Pie, or a Choco Taco count? If so then a wide variety or choices are now open.

Further, are we including various frozen treats that are not exactly ice cream, but often serve as subsitute? For example, would frozen custard, parfait, or italian gelato be an option? I doubt that shaved ice would count, as it is really not that close to ice cream, but were it to be included then I would probably change my vote to Watermelon shaved ice.