Spoiler! At least we know one group who isn't happy with the new Buffy plot....
- Thread starter ckg927
- Start date
My apologies, currently I am also in a discussion with a few people on another forum in relation to the overpopulation myth. It is exacerbating to come here, a discussion about Buffy and Abortion story, only to find that the overpopulation myth has cropped up here too, and find yet another person who believes in it. Not to mention exhausting.
That is, a false caricaturization of the point I was making. The point was not that 'women should have of the babies and men should watch of the sports and look at the bosoms' you know this. I ask you, am I making caricatures of your position?
As easy as it would be no, I have not done so. This is a dirty tactic, and a tactic that I did request we avoid earlier in this thread, as it leads no where. If you care to have a gander, it is at the start of my post a few comments back.
To reiterate the point, if you, on the off chance, honestly had trouble with what I was trying to convey: I do know I'm not the best at articulating myself.
It was about the responsibilty each gender has, responsibilities they should preform for the betterment of the community, even when they don't want to do so. Whether it be men having to go to war, or women having children.
No man or woman is an island onto themselves, we all have responsibilties to each other.
Life cannot be owned it is not 'property' of which you can do what you like with.
Therefore to deny the right to life of a developing child, is denying the child, and later adult, from contributing to the community.
The very community you get your food, transportation and all the other fruits of labour you avail of in your community. It's a bit like having your cake and eating it too if you do deny the community the fruits of yet another developing human.
Just like a man who dodges the draft, when his country is under duress, is essentially spitting on those that have provided his safety, education and freedom of speech etc.
Again this is like having your cake and eating it too.
In purely materialistic terms, societies greatest asset is it's population, it's population is what makes it prosperous, without people all the resources in the world are of no value or use.
Whatever country you are born into requires taxes to function, people are the greatest source of taxes, the more people you have, the more taxes you can generate, the more prosperous overall your community will become.
This is not to be misinterpreted that women should simply be baby machines, on the contrary, women should use contraception, but if in the unlikely event she does become pregnant without her complete desire for that outcome, it is not completely her decision to terminate the child.
As the Child is not her property. It now exists and has become a burgeoning member of society, a society it will ultimately depend upon for a time, until becoming an adult, at which point it will contribute to it. It is the epitome of selfishness to deny the child life, and to deny society the childs life.
Now I know that some mothers are poor and adoption sometimes doesn't work, but like I've repeated many times, the horror stories you read about are the exceptions. The vast majority of poor children and adoptions work out just fine.
As ever, I do encourage criticism, this is something I have waxed and waned over so good points are always welcome. I am not certain that this is the best position. It is a sensitive and complex issue so certainty is possibly never assured.
Is this best compromise between Pro Life and Pro choice would be Artificial wombs:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030701222608.htm
That way the child is still born and the mother is no longer pregnant, but until the day that this technology is perfected for humans, I am going to side with the 'Pro-life' crowd, as much as I don't agree with a lot of their baggage, or often times, religiously tinted message.
Lastly, As for 'anachronisms'...are you really in a position to be leavening that at me after you came out with that old and insipid 'overpopulation' stinker?
I wonder, do you think it preaching when your view is backed up with the truth? Unlike the question of abortion, the overpopulation myth is a real 'yes/no' question. Either it is, or isn't.
Granted some areas of the world do have slums, and are overcrowded that certainly IS a reality. but the World most certainly is not overpopulated as briefly laid out in my previous post.
As 'Preaching' invokes connotations of speaking nonsense without evidence, as there is plenty of evidence that the world is not overpopulated, therefore it stands to reason that if you truly want to assign the word 'preaching' to either one of us, it would seem to thoroughly ly with you.
''“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed"- that just about sums the overpopulation myth up, don't you think?
Does Anya have a soul? Not does she have conscience, does she have a soul when she's a demon?
According to the mythology it is not elucidated as far as I can remember. Anya perhaps is a blip on the morality of the show, why she is not incarcerated for her murdering.
Much like how when Darla rapes Angel it is not seen as a big deal on Angel, very questionable message and morality being presented.
The Franchise name 'Buffy the baby Slayer'
You're getting hung up on this,
Here's an example that should clear up the misunderstanding:
Before Buffy slays a single vampire in the original movie or 'Welcome to the Hellmouth', are we aware that 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is a good name for the show, as the character Buffy hasn't slayed a single one? Nope we don't! We're just led to believe that's what she does, at some point. She slays evil murderous Vampires and protects humanity.
If Buffy aborts/kills her child(most fans here are expressing that it will probably be a miscarriage) then yes 'Buffy the Baby Slayer' would be a more descriptive title of the franchise, as that is what Buffy the main character does- kills innocent life forms because she finds them a tad inconvenience.
Last edited:
Ive been following along but staying out of this one but just wanted to say it would not be a more descriptive title of the franchise at all. Buffy slays vampires dozens if not hundreds of times throughout. It may be a descriptive title for the issue she actually has the abortion (if she does) but not the franchise.
Somehow I doubt that 'a tad inconvenience' is an accurate description for how Buffy herself feels about her pregnancy. 🙂
/SK
Gum Gnome33
"Well, yeah..."
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,148
But by using that logic you could argue that by not conceiving a child at all, a woman is depriving the world said potential being. I understand that's not what you mean to suggest, (and you said as much in your post), but the logic used in the above quotation inherently lends itself to this kind of assertion.
In other words: where is the line drawn? If a fetus growing inside of a woman's body is merely a collection of cells, (which at the time during which abortion is legal in the US, it is), that is not so many cells removed from a fetus that does not yet exist. An unfertilized egg, for example. Some sperm. Again, where's the line? If we wouldn't fight for an egg's right to develop into a member of society, why then do we fight for it when it is newly fertilized, though not yet close to being an actual human?
Just like a man may decide that he does not want to pick up weapons to kill and be killed for any particular cause, a woman may decide that she does not want to bring another life into the world when she knows that she cannot provide for it financially, emotionally, or both. It's a choice. In neither scenario should the person be told by the government what to do with his/her body. When to die, when to kill, when to give birth. The decision must belong to the individual alone.
(PS if we're going to use war as an analogy to abortion: why is picking up a gun and killing a human being encouraged in one context while terminating a fetus is condemned or considered evil? I'm not singling you out; the two arguments are often made in close proximity to one another).
Technically the child is no one's property because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist and it isn't a burgeoning member of society until it is born. But that growing fetus in the woman's body is her property and the property of the man who fertilized her egg. Their cells, their DNA, and most importantly, her body.
I'm also wondering: what is your opinion on terminating a fetus when it has been determined that the baby would suffer great birth defects or crippling, potentially fatal diseases upon being born? I'm guessing you're opposed to amniocentesis--please correct me if I'm wrong. But if a woman was given the information that her unborn child was certain to have spine bifita, for example, what would you think she should do?
Neither Sperm nor eggs on their own spontaneously divide and develop into human beings, That is the difference, between the component parts and the fused 'zygote', that is where the 'line is drawn'.
The Zygote left in its natural environment generally forms into a human being, and is quite close, a matter of weeks away from that.
Fighting for the right of Sperm or eggs on their own to be respected as a human being makes no sense whatsoever.
As I've written previously it is not an entirely individual choice as no man or woman is an island onto themselves, they live in a community and avail of the fruits of that community.
By all means if you want to live in a community where no one is told or forced to do anything, then no one would pay taxes etc. and generally we would have anarchy.
As the quote that I have mention already, that sums this up- ''freedom for the pike, is death for the minnow''. Thus we must balance freedoms to achieve an equitable world.
The War analogy exemplifies an act most men would rather not do, just as some women would rather not bring their child to birth. The killing of an invading enemy is self defense, which is not immoral or illegal in any country I know of.
However on the other hand, if the man simply goes out and shoots innocent people, then yes that is immoral and we call it murder. Much like abortion.
As I have said previously, if the mother's life is shown to be in medical danger, then this is the only morally acceptable time where a mother should be premitted to have an abortion.
Which I suppose is equivalent to a man shooting an invading army, out of self defense.
Although equating the two slightly turns my stomach as it more aptly would be equated to the man shooting an innocent bystander, all because he was told, by a Doctor, that the bystander, by no fault of their own, might kill him in the future.
The developing zygote / fetus / Child does exist. If it didn't exist then their would be no need for an abortion. Would there?
Human life is no one's property, what you are talking about is slavery. Just like the woman, the developing child is in society. Without society the woman would most likely already be dead. The Police that protect her neighbourhood while she sleeps do not 'own' the woman, but she certainly has a great deal to thank them for.
Similarly the Child has a great deal to thank their mother for, but the mother does not 'own' the child.
You see my point? I am by no means great at explaining myself.
In reply to the morality of terminating a child who happens to have Spina Bifida or generally a high chance of being disabled. Please see my recent reply regarding 'Stephen Hawking' and 'value' and also, as a more direct rebuttal take a look at Christy Brown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christy_Brown
Would you have killed them?
I would dissuade mothers who wish to undergo Amniocentesis as it is not without its risks, just as I would dissuade parents from preforming any unnecessary procedure, like circumcision on their children, as no medical procedure is without its risks.
We do, afterall only undergo medical procedures only if the benefits outweight the risks, do we not?
What benefit comes from amniocentesis? Is the mother's or child's health improved by it? No, on the contrary it puts the Child's health at risk. Just like, circumcision, sometimes it results in a necessary amputation of the penis. Why would parents risk such a thing I ask you?
Gum Gnome33
"Well, yeah..."
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,148
Exactly. And my point is that there is an arbitrary line drawn that dictates that in unlike an egg, as soon as fertilization happens but before life beings, the fetus must be preserved under any circumstance, as if it is already a human being, which it is not. To some, stating that a zygote must be preserved is as arbitrary as declaring that an egg must reach its potential at all costs. There are some religious groups who believe that birth control under any circumstance must not be used, for that exact reason. Again, if we see the line in different places, we will never agree on this.
Forcing people to pay taxes and follow the law is for the good of those who are living in the society. What a mother does with an unborn fetus can not be compared to what a member of society contributes to those around him.
Yet how many times does a war take place when there is no invading enemy and the issue of "self defense" is far more of a gray area? I can rattle off a few off the top of my head. 🙂 Should we force people to kill and be killed for those causes?
Ah see this is the crux of it. If someone equates the shooting of innocent people to the termination of a fetus; if they are both considered murder--then there is not much for me to argue. Let me just say that I strongly disagree. That will have to suffice.
I will address this below, but let me just say here: if you think it's so clear cut for the mother's health, (and I agree), what about when the baby's health is in question? So much concern for the fetus but what about what happens when it's born? What kind of life will it have?
Ah, but you're twisting my words. 🙂 I said that the "child" does not exist, as you said that it did. It doesn't. It's simply the fetus that exists at this stage, and I don't find them to be one and the same.
I would say that dictating what one should do with his/her body is a form of slavery.
The developing fetus is in the woman. Not in society until it's born.
First of all, no one is advocating for the killing of anyone. To decide to terminate a fetus after it has been medically proven that it would suffer tremendously and be in incredible pain throughout its entire life is a decision that a woman should have the right to make. Would it be easy? Of course not. Of course not.
Amniocentesis does have its risks to the fetus. That is true. It's not an entirely simple decision to make but if a lifetime of pain and suffering can be prevented it is fortunate that the choice exists. But the point is that if one had knowledge that a fetus would suffer greatly if it were to come to term, I would think it would be of profound importance to take into consideration what kind of life that person would have in deciding whether to have an abortion. And, then, it would be a choice. Which is all I'm advocating for.
Infant circumcision is not a high risk procedure in 2012. In fact one recent study found that complications resulting in lack of circumcision in children up to 8 years can be greater than in those who are circumcised. And yes, we always weigh risks and benefits. Any procedure has its risks; mishandling an infected toenail and then failing to prescribe antibiotics to prevent cellulitis can result in disastrous consequences. Does that mean we skip the podiatrist?
Furthermore, to tie this all together, we allow religious groups to perform circumcision as part of their traditions, the same way we understand that there are those who, for religious reasons, can not even consider aborting a fetus or using birth control in the first place. All groups should be free to have the choice, either way.
T
Tofik vampie
great arguments
This quote really stood out to me and I agree 100%. Now, I agree that many Pro-Life advocates are wackos or use weak arguments at best. But many, many Pro Life supporters are so because they believe that unborn human beings have rights too. For many Pro Lifers saying that you will terminate a pregnancy because you aren't mature, ready, wealthy, etc. or able to care for the child is almost the same logic as saying that you are going to kill your 5 week old baby because you aren't ready, can't take care of it, can't give it a good life etc.
I'm on the mid spectrem (as I think many "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice" people are) in that I think that women should be given the choice to terminate the pregnancy if it will bring harm to themselves, the child (birth defects), cases of rape/incest etc. I'll even go so far as to say that I'm personally okay with other women who aren't me getting rid of a pregnancy for any reason (such as getting drunk, having unprotected sex with a one night stand). But let's not lie to ourselves that the aborted child was a "mass of cells." For whatever reason, you just ended a human life.
Good points, and that same logic of 'I'm not ready' that you discussed is rightly a pretty shaky argument that we commonly hear with little substance behind it, as you pointed out. Thanks for sharing your views!
For those like [MENTION=11014]Gum Gnome33[/MENTION] who do not regard the zygote as human, then I ask you to define what is human? Are non sentient-vegetative state adults, human? Then why aren't non-sentient developing Children also treated as such?
Can you also accept that the zygote has the same genome as that of a grown adult? That, what makes an individual an individual is their genes? then if you accept this, why do you insist that the zygote is not human? The Zygote left in its natural environment has a high probability of developing into a contributing member of society, potentially another orphan like Sarah McLoughlin.
If a mother has a right to do what she wishes with her unborn developing child, Does the Earth itself which sustains all of us, 'own' us because it supplies us with oxygen to breathe?
I wonder, how would you feel if the Earth itself decided to abort you out into Space? Would you think it fair? or morally justified?
Since the Pro-life vs Pro-Choice argument generally sways into the morality of embryonic stem cell research.I thought I might address this now.
The below video discusses 'embryonic stem cells' and the lack of necessity to experiment with embryo's when there are many other, less morally questionable, and arguably more scientifically attractive alternatives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URqJQ9wZd8I&feature=related
I would like to step in and remind everyone that this is not a pro-life/pro-choice or embryonic stem cell research discussion thread, this is about Buffy season 9 and the potential direction this plot could take or not and it's various reactions from readers, supporters and opposers alike.
Please lets get back to how this topic ties-into the Buffy comics and your thoughts about it.
🙂
Please lets get back to how this topic ties-into the Buffy comics and your thoughts about it.
🙂
Tofik vampie
Townie
No, it's not. Please prove that embryo is this same as full human being. I'm thinking, feeling human who can make my own decision. Embryo can't do that, so it's not homo sapiens, it's only have potential to become one in the future. In other words embryo is not human therefore don't have human rights. Embryo is not human, just like egg is not chicken, period. Please stop forcing your morality on everyone else. You think that abortion is wrong? OK, so don't have abortion, but don't force people to have unwanted kids. That's immoral. I agree with Buffy and her decision, I'm only sorry that this decision is now null and void.
Aloverssoulz
Potential
Why is this being spoken about again? Didn't it turn out that Buffy was a robot?
What a cop out.
What a cop out.