|
|
|
|
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 5:46:27 PM | delbard
IF N8420 had to support the kid "out of his own pocket", he would drag the woman to the clinic, at gunpoint if he has to.
IF "Right to lifers" had to support those had are unable to "Make a go of it" at their own expense, They would be the most PRO-abortion
I'm amused when people say in the Abortion Debate…”Would you force a poor woman that can’t afford another child, to bring another child into this world?” My question for them is this…”When Human Beings become “expensive”, may we “kill” them?” Would we think it “Right” for a family to kill a toddler, so that the family budget wouldn’t be strained? I think most of us would say NO…Don't you?
Thus, if "people in the womb" are JUST AS HUMAN as the “toddler” is…We Shouldn’t Kill Them, simply because they “get-in-the-way” of the family budget. Should we?
You are Assuming that the "people in the womb" are NOT already Fully Human.
 | |
|
| Your god and He/She/It's views on terminating a pregnancy
Posted: 7/8/2008 5:46:41 PM |
Tis not a crime against God. God understands when a raped woman does not wish to have the child of her attacker. God understands when a person does not want to have children.
God agrees with those who choose abortion, and holds nothing against them. If they don't have kids, he says "So be it!" Hey all y'all who are so busy giving me your definitions of abortion, perhaps you'd like to define your god for me...seeing how this is a thread in a religious forum about your god's view on the termination of a pregnancy. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 6:18:10 PM | David,
Now you're a parent and you need to take care of this thing forever.
Here's something to think about...
A Woman "becomes" a Parent, when she "becomes" Pregnant...
If you don't think so, just ask a pregnant woman…
A.) Does she not take care of “herself” to actually care for her offspring?
B.) Does she not take vitamins and supplements for herself and her offspring?
C.) Does she become more “health” conscious and more aware of what she eats?
D.) Is she not more “careful” in what she does with her body?
This sounds like a Parent to me, David.
And (just an analysis) ....Your analogy of the woman having to care for this thing "forever", really doesn't earn you much brownie points with the ladies, dude.
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 6:29:11 PM | You are Assuming that the "people in the womb" are NOT already Fully Human.
Damn right. They're disgusting little globs of mucus until they're out of the womb, or maybe until they kick, and even then there's no guarantee they'll be alive when it's time to start living the life. SO many things can go wrong...
People often say that prostitution is the oldest profession. Well, that just begs the question: "wouldn't that mean the second oldest is the abortionist?"
The answer, quite logically, is "yes". Abortion has happened since the times of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon. It's a part of human culture that we like sex (big surprise!) and don't want to always have children when we enjoy that sex (big surprise!).
By the way, there are far too many human beings on the earth right now. Part of the reason jobs are so short is that there's only so much work that really *needs* to be done.
Heck, one of the greatest pests in the world is stupid people who don't believe in abortion or birth control. They're spreading like****oaches. It's an infestation of ignorance and irresponsibility for the world around them, or even for their own lives.
And finally. Most Importantly. If you don't want to abort your own pregnancy (and I mean a child growing inside your own body, men, not your woman's), that's your prerogative. But you have no right, nor does anyone else, to impose that restriction on anyone besides yourself, especially when it's just because that's how you feel (because we all know that these "reasons" are just excuses, okay?). To say that an unborn creature has more value than a living, breathing human being is disgusting.
~ David
By the way, life without emotion is to be inhuman. Enjoy the fact that I don't consider you my kinsman. I know I do now that I can. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 6:36:28 PM | | allegiant..You are seriously mistaken if you think every pregnant woman takes care of her body and sees herself as a parent because she is pregnant...Many pregnant "women" are under the age of 18 and are still children.....She is a seperate individual with her own mind and feelings here..You will never force an attitude no matter how much you desperately want her to accept being a parent..Her mind and feelings are her own and she will hide them from you if you try to force your values on her...Not to mention that your forcing is incredibly insulting and disrespectful to every adult woman whos pregnant and thinks differently from you....Many also fear for their lives due to the antichoice loonies out there who try to bomb birth control clinics...Terrorism against women....How is that encouraging honest communication and open conversation here?..Why dont antichoice people ever ask this question?..No, its all about imposing their will and being "right", which really means they could care less about taking care of any baby | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 7:24:48 PM |
If you're “playing catch” with your Child in your backyard and you took Precautions “NOT” to break your neighbors window by Installing a Fence so the ball wouldn't go onto your neighbor's property.....and if the baseball went over the fence and “broke” your neighbor's window...Would you be Responsible to replace the window?...So, if 2 people, Engage in an "act" that COULD lead to a pregnancy...eventhough they didn't Intend to get pregnant OR they took Precautions NOT to get pregnant....THEY are still Responsible to follow through with the Pregnancy.
Because having a baby is as simple as paying for a broken window! I just love logic! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 7:25:00 PM | David,
Abortion has happened since the times of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
Did they call it Back-Cave-Abortions back then? Wowsers!
By the way, there are far too many human beings on the earth right now. Part of the reason jobs are so short is that there's only so much work that really *needs* to be done.
Overpopulation is a MYTH that Pro-Abortion people use to justify Abortion...
Human Beings only OCCUPY 5% of the Earth's landmass...Starvation occurs when “evil” Dictatorial leaders keep the food Away from their people, as a way of “controlling” them...Heck, the US government Pays farmers NOT to grow crops as an Entitlement.
To say that an unborn creature has more value than a living, breathing human being is disgusting.
Little over the top, aye David?
Have a nice day 
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 7:49:39 PM | | ..."If you are playing catch with your child in the back yard"...By the same "logic"..Those who force pregnancy and childbirth on women have to suffer the unintended consequences of that in terms of paying for her mental health services, medical treatment, medication, addiction treatment and lost wages due to having to leave her job to have a baby...They are still responsible for any decisions they force upon women no matter what happens or what they didnt "intend" to happen...People must assume responsibility for any decisions they make, including whatever happens when they force others to live under their rules...It work both ways here and no one can flip flop and change the "rules" whenever it suits them | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:00:09 PM | Actually, God is a child murderer. One of the main courses of action when God is angry at someone is to murder their young or unborn babies or to make women unable to concieve. The Bible has very little to do with abortion in a pro-life context.
(And honestly, an all-loving, all-power, all-knowing God wouldn't allow a woman to be raped... Would He?)
Personally, I believe that the soul does not enter the body, (if there is a soul,) until the fetus has the ability to feel. A few cells does not have a conciousness... and if, somehow, it did have a soul, then that soul is by no means tortured... It's merely leaving for elsewhere.
Abortion is a much better option than placing an innocent child into a family where it is unwanted. You should all know this is from someone who has a daughter who she loves who was an accident... I have never actually had an abortion. It can cause psychological problems for the mother because of the hormone changes and the obvious guilt.
Here's a neat passage for you all from the gory of glories, the Holy Bible. (Pardon the partial lack of relevance, please.)
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
Here's another! Happy reading time!
"Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children." | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:11:15 PM | David>
Fetus' aren't merely masses of mucus. They are a canvases upon which a possible future life is being painted. Very early in the project, they may not be considered art, but soon everything starts to come together, even though it may not be completed. We continue to grow after we are born, after all. We are never complete, as our body is in a constant state of change. Once that "glob of mucus" has a heartbeat and reacts to stimulus, it's a child... like a child, it shifts to get comfortable. Like a child, it can feel pain. Besides, some people never look much more attractive than a glob of mucus. Are we to kill them too? I'm pro-choice, but I find your opinion more than a bit appalling.
You're making us look bad... | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:11:54 PM | To say that an unborn creature has more value than a living, breathing human being is disgusting.
I have seen it all too many times. The pro-choice argument is a trap. You either end up proving nothing or anihilating your character trying to do it. Fortunately for this side of the fence, you did it early on.
Abortion is a much better option than placing an innocent child into a family where it is unwanted.
Here is an excerpt from my research paper on that argument.
A bad prognosis often leads to the humane abortion argument, but often the definitions become skewed. A bad prognosis should not be defined as a prediction of a bad life, but a prediction of death or indefinite incapacitation and the following will explain why. Statistically the average expectancy of a human being is 77.8 years (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2008), and the U.S. population is projected at 304,550,142 people as of 01:40 GMT on July 09, 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The national suicide statistic for the year 2004 was 7,379 people (CDC, 2006). Considering population growth and change in suicide rates from 2004 to 2008, these statistics only provide a pseudo-accurate number for a correct rate, but the ratio still serves to show a relatively low instance of suicide compared to the national population. Using these figures (for the sake of partial accuracy only) shows that roughly 0.000024 percent of Americans decide that death is the better choice. Based on the fact that everyone endures some form of hardship in a lifetime, the inescapable conclusion is that roughly 99.999976 percent of Americans choose to live in spite of it. That does not ignore severely depressed individuals who feel a responsibility to live because they are living in spite of hardship as well for whatever reason. As related to abortion, only the suicide cases can give valid testimony that death is a better prospect than life, and unfortunately they are not here to do so.
If there was an appeal-to-death-as-humane fallacy, I would so bust you on it. ;)
..."If you are playing catch with your child in the back yard"...By the same "logic"..Those who force pregnancy and childbirth on women have to suffer the unintended consequences of that in terms of paying for her mental health services, medical treatment, medication, addiction treatment and lost wages due to having to leave her job to have a baby...They are still responsible for any decisions they force upon women no matter what happens or what they didnt "intend" to happen...People must assume responsibility for any decisions they make, including whatever happens when they force others to live under their rules...It work both ways here and no one can flip flop and change the "rules" whenever it suits them
Huh? When exactly did I insemanate said woman? If you count my ex, guilty I guess, but I payed for all of that, haha. I still wouldn't trade my boys for anything. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:21:39 PM | You're using suicide cases for a pro-life argument? People who commit suicide have thoughts and feelings. A one month old fetus does not have that capability, and that is fact, no guess. People often don't commit suicide because they are afraid, not because they want to live... They are afraid that what is after might be even worse than what is "now". Often, they attempt suicide as a cry for help for others to pity them and improve their life and end up going overboard. The unknown - the "afterlife" - is no fact, thusly we do not know what will happen if we kill ourselves. Will it be a Heaven? A Hell? Limbo? Nothing? A Dream?
Somehow, I doubt the soul, (though it still seems slightly unreasonable to believe that a soul is placed at conception,) goes to Hell.
Go ahead and give some more mostly irrelevent facts, though. They might have little to do with the conversation, but learning is seldom pointless. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:28:30 PM | | Well, see that's problem with trying to get it through to you all. By the time we have addressed the NEEDS argument, the LIFE argumment is forgotten. I am acutely aware that there are two separate arguments here. Refer to post 668 to get my take on "a clump of cells" or else address my argument under the hypothetical assumption that a fetus is a life. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:41:51 PM |
Abortion is a much better option than placing an innocent child into a family where it is unwanted.
The Unwanted Child View assumes that the "people in the womb" are NOT already FULLY Human Beings.
EXAMPLE:
If there was a "toddler" in a room full of people....and I said "This child is Totally Unwanted...NO one wants it...NO one loves it."...I bet there would be NO ONE in the room that would take a club, and kill it! So, why would the mode of death (abortion or the club) be any different when using the Unwanted Child View especially when BOTH the toddler and the fetus are EQUALLY Human?
There are many neglected children in the world, and unfortunately many are abused. But should we execute them in order to prevent them from being abused or neglected? What about the homeless and orphans? Should we get rid of them simply because nobody wants them?
Actually, several studies have shown that Child Abuse has INCREASED sharply since Roe v. Wade. However, the question is not whether the "people in the womb" are wanted; the question is whether they are Human Beings!
So, if the "people in the womb" are Human, then to EXECUTE them would be the WORST kind of "Child Abuse" imaginable !!! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:49:29 PM |
The Unwanted Child View assumes that the "people in the womb" are NOT already FULLY Human Beings.
Exactly. And given the cost, it is highly illogical and inhumane to suggest it, especially considering the evidence of sentience. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 9:08:54 PM |
People who commit suicide have thoughts and feelings. A one month old fetus does not have that capability, and that is fact, no guess.
You can’t “confuse” FUNCTIONING as a Human Person, with BEING a Human Person. Just because the “people in the womb” Human Person lacks the “Present Capacity” to FUNCTION, (as you and I do), does NOT mean that the “people in the womb” are NOT Human Beings!
People who are in comas that are reversible…People under anesthesia…People who are asleep…ALL “lack” the “Present Capacity” to FUNCTION (as you and I do)…Never-the-less, they are FULLY Human Beings! Right??? The same applies to the "people in the womb".
So, if we base our “humanity” on FUNCTIONING (as you and I do), then according to your logic....We are NO longer Human “BEINGS”….WE are Human “DOINGS”!!!…Because we Exist as “Humans”, determines our “Being”. Thus we are HUMAN BEINGS!!!
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 9:17:49 PM | Chickens are sentient, AND fully capable of living and thriving independently. When did you last eat one?
A cancer cell and a mosquito are "alive", when did you last destroy one or the other?
A cancer and dandruff are "human" as much as a fetus, being defined equally by their genetic component. There is more than one definition of "human", and you have deliberately confabulated them. A fetus is only "human" in a genetic sense. It is less "sentient" than a cow, and a good deal less sapient than a child. The "pro-choice" camp is not "pro-abortion"; they argue in favor of being allowed to decide one way or the other. The "anti-abortion" camp is not "anti-choice"; they are only against one particular choice, not the right to choose. By and large, men in these arguments are not arguing about women. Anti-abortion debaters are arguing about fetal rights. Pro-choice debaters tend to argue about the rights of women. Both make spurious arguments at times, although most often, the distasteful arguments are anti-abortion arguments made by those who are quite capable of CAUSING a woman to be in the position to choose, eliminating significant choices, and never having to face those choices themselves. Meanwhile, a few women will argue that it's male oppression, which is not really the case. While women may become involuntarily pregnant by the actions of men, the argument by those who oppose abortion has less to do with women than it does with the fetus.
This is not moral relativism. Morals are standardized by culture, but tend to have a number of things in common across cultures. Abortion is not a moral standard, even within Abrahamic religions. It is, in essence, an argument about how relatively "precious" one considers humans to be. Some of the biggest issues, as usual, are a lack of mutually agreed upon, standardised definitions. Among them - religious arguments are far from universal and are entirely subjective. "Potential" arguments are pointless because the predictions may go to any extreme and cannot be tested. Right to choose is equivocal, since a woman may not be given the choice to conceive, a fetus is incapable of choosing anything at all, and a father may be so against his will or denied despite his will. Fathers can choose, but have little control. Mothers can choose but are often denied. A fetus is incapable of choice [it grows as a joined, utterly dependant parasite].
I'll just roll my eyes at "nonsensical", since my arguments were anything but, failure to properly understand them notwithstanding.
Humans NOT overpopulated? ONLY occupying 5% of the planet's surface? Do the math. Millions of species, thousands of mammal species, up to 5 or 6 great ape species...and ONE of these occupies 5% of the area, eradicates species, eradicates habitat, goes to war over resources and space, consumes, pollutes, expands...just how many of these parasites is enough? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 9:27:08 PM | Let's get down to the elements here. That's what we're doing right?
Is a fetus a human?
Is an egg a human? It is, after all, the step before fetus. For that, is a sperm a human? Or does something have to occur for that to happen and be technical?
Matter can turn to liquid, liquid to gas. We are all born from the universe. Billions of years ago, the atoms that make us up were somewhere quite possibly unimaginable. It's amazing to think about, really. And a hundred years from now, our atoms may be making up another human being.
Life, Matter, Sentience. The creatures of this earth... Do you kill flies? Or are they another living being, just as important as all living beings, to you? I feel guilty, because at least they have nerves that generate pain.
We are all matter. Honestly, the best thing to compare a fetus with no heartbeat or nerve function to is a plant. No feeling, no thought, but alive none the less. (Though they've been researching sentience in plants, and it's really quite interesting!) I have seen both sides of the "sentience issue", but these fetus', at an early stage, are not "aware". They have no brain cells differentiated from their legs, stomach, etc... and without a brain, there is no pain, no sentience.
If these things develop earlier, then I will research it and perhaps I will change my opinion... or at least develop it more thoroughly.
I discovered I was pregnant at about 4 weeks, which is when I missed my period. Considering I get one about every four weeks, as most women do, and the conception occured since the last one... it's not very long before you can tell, is it? People not getting tested is just plain idiotic.
Also, if I have missed something, I will admit I am not the most coherent currently. Be assured that I am not meaning to ignore, and feel free to reinstate something that I may have missed.
AO> People in comas do have nerves that feel pain, as do those who are sleeping. They have experiences, knowledge, ideas... whether they're sleeping or not. They are sentient. They are dreaming... Fetus' who have not yet developed a brain are not dreaming. They are *nothing* but existing. Matter exists. It is a "being". Taking the definition that means "something living", plants are "being"s. You keep trying, though, to argue with definitions. I'll enjoy watching the ignorance. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 9:50:45 PM |
..."If you are playing catch with your child in the back yard"...By the same "logic"..Those who force pregnancy and childbirth on women have to suffer the unintended consequences of that in terms of paying for her mental health services, medical treatment, medication, addiction treatment and lost wages due to having to leave her job to have a baby...They are still responsible for any decisions they force upon women no matter what happens or what they didnt "intend" to happen...
Can I also pay her rent? utilities? groceries? transportation? child/day care? Diapers? Formula? Oh yeah....we already do that through Social Services. But don't you have to give Birth to get those benefits? Gee whiz....another reason to be anti-abortion.
Seriously....I Agree, no one should be “forced” to become a parent against his or her will, but this is not the situation we face in abortion. If the "people in the womb" are human beings, then pregnant women already are parents. It seems morally self-evident that NO parent should escape her responsibilities by killing her children (inside or outside of the womb). The only legitimate way to escape from already being a parent is through adoption.
People must assume responsibility for any decisions they make, including whatever happens when they force others to live under their rules...It work both ways here and no one can flip flop and change the "rules" whenever it suits them
I wonder....Can I get "people" to assume my responsibility to pay for that Porsche I decided to buy. Maybe I'll make them pay for the insurance I'm forced to buy in order to drive it, too. Afterall, thats the rules. right?
Whatever I decide to do, it's NOT my responsibility! It's yours! Wow!
If I decide to do anything I want (whether right or wrong), you pay for it! Far-be-it for me to change those rules!
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 10:07:53 PM | Frogeyes,
A lot of what you say makes sense in terms of objectively viewing both sides of the argument. I have noted a few exceptions.
Chickens are sentient, AND fully capable of living and thriving independently. When did you last eat one?
You cannot have it both ways. Either we extend protection to chickens, or we cease protection of humans because they fit same definition as your chicken. The fetus may or may not fall somewhere between the two, and that is what is up for debate. I see how it relies upon upon your "parasite" view of humans, so I will try to address that further down. For the humor of it, I will state first that ceasing to protect any and all humans will create a state of perpetual war which would result in massive collateral damage to all creatures, not just humans. That part is speculation, but I doubt it is too far off the mark.
A fetus is only "human" in a genetic sense. It is less "sentient" than a cow, and a good deal less sapient than a child.
Is it a good deal less sapient than a child? At what point? A newborn is far less sapient than a child as well. Should we only protect children once they reach a point where they can make logical decisions?
A fetus is incapable of choice [it grows as a joined, utterly dependant parasite].
So is an infant. Should infanticide be legal?
Millions of species, thousands of mammal species, up to 5 or 6 great ape species...and ONE of these occupies 5% of the area, eradicates species, eradicates habitat, goes to war over resources and space, consumes, pollutes, expands...just how many of these parasites is enough?
I will not argue that we may be overpopulated. I have no idea what kind of ideology would be presented if it should ever become a problem warranting immediate action, but I speculate it would be the things nightmares are made of. I have a theistic belief that we will not see such days, but that does nothing for the argument. Being human yourself, how do you view mankind with such objective distain? I mean, you are one of them. You at least have a computer, which means you create demand for electric power which pumps coal smoke into the atmosphere. I cannot speculate on your lifestyle, but I know you use resources like the rest of us, and let's face it, you have to take a dump sometime. Are you not just as guilty of existing as the rest of us? The child who eats and eats, the fetus who demands space and nutrition, the man who lusts for power and money... Are we all bad, yourself included? I am trying to figure out where to begin because human life and emotion are key stipulations to be made here. Some inherent value must placed somewhere.
Is an egg a human? It is, after all, the step before fetus. For that, is a sperm a human? Or does something have to occur for that to happen and be technical?
As I stated before, the union of egg and sperm creates a unique set of DNA which project it on a clear course toward sentience that otherwise never would have happened. Abortion involves reversal of that course. Sentience emerges somewhere along the way, the exact point unknown and/or subjective.
I am glad you mentioned the comatose scenario, because abortion is both the same and different from that. You would have state that said patient was fully dependant and non-sentient, but with a twist--he/she must have a guaranteed recovery prognosis. Would anyone pull the plug? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 10:25:29 PM | I’ll play with this!
You cannot have it both ways. Either we extend protection to chickens, or we cease protection of humans because they fit same definition as your chicken. The fetus may or may not fall somewhere between the two, and that is what is up for debate. I see how it relies upon upon your "parasite" view of humans, so I will try to address that further down. For the humor of it, I will state first that ceasing to protect any and all humans will create a state of perpetual war which would result in massive collateral damage to all creatures, not just humans. That part is speculation, but I doubt it is too far off the mark.
Great point! Adult humans decide who lives and who dies, because we‘ve been corrupted and we‘ve conquered the world… Chicken, fetus’, humans could all be the same in this light… Except chickens still have a consciousness and thoughts. This admittance sort of negates your earlier arguments a bit, though, huh? We’ll keep voting democratically about how we rule the world next.
Is it a good deal less sapient than a child? At what point? A newborn is far less sapient than a child as well. Should we only protect children once they reach a point where they can make logical decisions?
Ah, back to sentience again. I’ve already answered this one.
So is an infant. Should infanticide be legal?
Infants and slightly older fetus’ are not incapable of choice. They obviously don’t control their destiny, but they can willingly move fingers, shift, be uncomfortable. A young fetus is not even capable of being uncomfortable.
I will not argue that we may be overpopulated. I have no idea what kind of ideology would be presented if it should ever become a problem warranting immediate action, but I speculate it would be the things nightmares are made of. I have a theistic belief that we will not see such days, but that does nothing for the argument. Being human yourself, how do you view mankind with such objective distain? I mean, you are one of them. You at least have a computer, which means you create demand for electric power which pumps coal smoke into the atmosphere. I cannot speculate on your lifestyle, but I know you use resources like the rest of us, and let's face it, you have to take a dump sometime. Are you not just as guilty of existing as the rest of us? The child who eats and eats, the fetus who demands space and nutrition, the man who lusts for power and money... Are we all bad, yourself included? I am trying to figure out where to begin because human life and emotion are key stipulations to be made here. Some inherent value must placed somewhere.
I personally advocated the study of furthering wind and solar power. When I build my house, I’ll be putting solar panels on it.
As I stated before, the union of egg and sperm creates a unique set of DNA which project it on a clear course toward sentience that otherwise never would have happened. Abortion involves reversal of that course. Sentience emerges somewhere along the way, the exact point unknown and/or subjective.
On their own, they have the DNA of their parents. Clones of sheep have been created, correct? These clones are individuals, with the same DNA as one parent… the same as these unimportant eggs and sperm. But these sheep, though they look the same and have similar tendencies, are not the same being. Of course, that’s another discussion altogether.
I am glad you mentioned the comatose scenario, because abortion is both the same and different from that. You would have state that said patient was fully dependant and non-sentient, but with a twist--he/she must have a guaranteed recovery prognosis. Would anyone pull the plug?
If he/she was returning to a loving family who would care for him/her, by all means, keep him/her alive! What kind of a cruel pri*k are you? -wink- If there is no one that loves them, their life would likely be unhappy, and they’re being a drain on society, then it might be best to pull the plug. Could anyone do it? I couldn’t. That’s why we make robots to do it!
While legit, that might not have been the most intelligent thing to say, but I am getting a bit tired with this.
The novel I have written, (that I have not sent to publishers, so don’t ask,) deals much with this. A person gains the power to choose who lives and who dies.. But as much as she sees the evils of society and despises them, she cannot bring herself to do it. These circumstances will always be difficult. It’s part of life. One is never the same as another.
So answer the rest of what I’ve stated.
Just remembered something! Ontario uses hydroelectric power... not coal or oil... I wish that other places would be so cognizant of their environments. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 10:32:51 PM | allegiant...Women dont "decide" to become parents when they are unintentionally pregnant unless people like you force them to become parents by denying them an abortion...You deny them that choice then make them responsible for the choice you forced upon them assuming they will care for their bodies and care for an unborn child they dont want....Aint gonna happen..You will never force a woman to go against her will so get off it.....The only thing that leads to is illegal abortions and deaths of women..Women will have abortions whether you like it or not...Its none of your business and its not for you to decide... Then after you prohibit abortion, you want to ditch out of the responsibility once you invade the private lives of women and enforce your morals on them....Thats a control issue, not a concern about any unborn children...Women who dont want children dont "decide" to become parents every time they have sex anymore than you "decide" to have a car accident every time you drive your car ...So should we deny you seat belts because you took your life in your hands when you "decided" to get in your car and drive???.....sheesh
Now you want to play God and force people to live by your rules but you dont want any part of that responsibility of the consequences of what happens for enforcing your rules that prohibit abortion.....You dont have the right to force women into therapy or have medical complications or go into financial debt or lose a job because you insisted that they bear a child they didnt want....There are CONSEQUENCES for forcing women to bear unwanted children....Talk about playing with peoples lives here then jumping ship like rats on a sinking ship.......Reminds me of the kid who wants a car and the power and authority of an adult but but doesnt want the responsibility of ownership and upkeep of the car....With privledge comes responsibility ..I think thats called being a teenager and we dont need immature children making the rules for womens bodies.....Enough said | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 10:38:57 PM | If you read the article I cited, you will discover that being "uncomfortable" occurs in much earlier stages than many people realize. Sense of touch occurs at about 8-9 weeks which is the midpoint between the CDC's two markers. This is also supported by other sources, but be it known that the article is from a parenting magazine not dealing with abortion.
Definition just in case (Wikipedia) - Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively.
If he/she was returning to a loving family who would care for him/her, by all means, keep him/her alive! What kind of a cruel pri*k are you? -wink- If there is no one that loves them, their life would likely be unhappy, and they’re being a drain on society, then it might be best to pull the plug. Could anyone do it? I couldn’t. That’s why we make robots to do it!
So you would speculate that he may prefer to die if his life is sad? See my appeal-to-death-as-humane statement again.
As far as chickens, cows, and duck-billed platipi go, there is no point in continuing. If we cannot stipulate the self-evident (humans being the most valuable), this is pointless. Ask me if I would shoot my dog or my child first? It's a nonsense argument.
allegiant...Women dont "decide" to become parents when they are unintentionally pregnant unless people like you force them to become parents by denying them an abortion...
Another nonsense argument. You don't get pregnant by sharing towels. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 10:49:43 PM | | We're having a lot of different arguments, aren't we? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 10:51:47 PM | | What does sharing towels have to do with getting pregnant?...Another illogical nonsense statement again?..Women have sex as a way of showing love and affection and experiencing pleasure...Occassionally they have sex to conceive a child....Women arent animals that you can breed just because they have a uterus...sheesh..Thats truly illogical....Shoving pregnancy down their throats isnt going to make them not have an abortion if they dont want a child...They will have one if they choose whether you like it or not..Accept that and deal with your own nonsense baggage about controlling women....Shoving a square peg into a round hole isnt going to make it happen here no matter how many times you shove.......You arent part of their childbearing and rearing for the next 18 plus years so its none of your business | |
|
|
| Page 30 of 35
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 |
|
Home
login 
