KK
Lifer
- Jan 2, 2001
- 15,903
- 4
- 81
It's the womans body. Just like no-one is trying to ban masterbating, as that is killing a potential life. Just because your definition of when a life starts is when the egg and the sperm meets, maybe mine is when the sperm is created. Are you going to tell me my definition is wrong? It's all subjective, I know that, you know that.
But you're saying that prior to ~20 weeks, he isn't a living entity, and my wife should have the choice to have him terminated.
Sorry... That's my boy in there.
I have questions. If the single cell isn't human than what is it? Isn't there going to be a 100% chance of it being human? I mean this isn't the movie Aliens where crazy things pop out of chests right?
Also I don't see how abortion is a religious element at all. I see it as a moral one that religious institutions agree with but not a true correlation.
Second to last thing, how come the mother gets to choice? Shouldn't it be the babies choice whether it wants to live or not?
Lastly, Peterson was just charged with second degree murder of his unborn child. Second degree meaning he did it without planning. Yet in the case of abortion this is a planned multimillion dollar business, shouldn't that be considered first degree murder? What about Kavorkian(sp?) being convicted for assisted suicide, shouldn't the suicidie be allowed to chose?
Also I don't see how abortion is a religious element at all. I see it as a moral one that religious institutions agree with but not a true correlation.
Second to last thing, how come the mother gets to choice? Shouldn't it be the babies choice whether it wants to live or not?
Lastly, Peterson was just charged with second degree murder of his unborn child. Second degree meaning he did it without planning. Yet in the case of abortion this is a planned multimillion dollar business, shouldn't that be considered first degree murder? What about Kavorkian(sp?) being convicted for assisted suicide, shouldn't the suicidie be allowed to chose?
KK
Lifer
- Jan 2, 2001
- 15,903
- 4
- 81
Ideally, you would have a say. Say you wanted the child but she didn't. Then after the birth, you would take full custody, and take full responsibility. Same thing if you wanted to have her get an abortion. She would then take full responsibility and custody, and you wouldn't have any. That's how I would make it. Sound fair?
does a grain of sand make a desert? i believe that scott peterson should have been charged 2 times because the woman didn't want to have the fetus aborted (and i think she was past the abortion date), and kavorkian should be free. the work he does is humane
Perhaps you're the one who needs to read some biology.
Biology rarely offers such simple distinctions, and in fact, offers us many definitions of life. A fetus is one of those grey areas, as much like a virus (generally not considered life), it's incapable of independent existence.
It's a single cell.
No, there's less than a 50% chance of a fertilized egg becoming a baby. Implantation is chancy.
Fetuses aren't people. They're not intelligent beings with the capacity to make such choices.
My point is that long before ~20 weeks, it's a child, and should be protected. No different than how I'd protect my child if it were a few days before delivery, a few days after, 6 year old, or 10 year old.
Ok, now you are being ridiculous.
Actually, the main difference between your view and mine was perfectly summed up in something you said earlier:
When I think about abortion, I think about the termination of a life. When you think about it, your primary concern is shucking the enormous responsibility of raising a child. Two completely different train of thoughts.
I don't know you, other than what I've read in this thread... But I'm guessing you are pretty young, not a father, and never really lived for anyone but yourself.
If I am correct, then we are pretty much going to have to "agree that we disagree"... Even though I see your point of view, because I once had the exact same opinion, there's no way you'll see mine at this time.
If I'm wrong... Ugh!
Why is one single celled organism any more of a person than another? Haploid versus diploid isn't that big of a difference, and if more chromosomes are better, what about all those polyploid vegetables you eat?
You can extrapolate pretty much any topic to any extreme. That doesn't make either point valid or invalid.
I have never seen anyone champion protecting each and every sperm. That's simply ridiculous, and quite irrational.
Taking one step back from the diploid single cell to a haploid single cell is hardly extrapolating to extremes.
Now taking a person capable of reason and consisting of trillions of differentiated cells and extrapolating back to a nonsentient single cell. That is extrapolating to extremes, and that's what is ridiculous.
So, you can't really prove it....Thats a great... In any event, how does aborition hurt you or anyone else?
Well then the cut-off date for abortions should be getting pushed further and further back, since we can now support the life of a neonate much earlier... I think it's around 4 mos now? I forget the # of weeks as of 2002 but I do recall it was pretty early on into the pregnancy.
Are you saying if you don't belive in God then it follows you have no regard for life, or humanity? It need not be so, some atheists hold mankind in the highest regard.
I would be pro-choice in either case, given the current state of affairs. The reason is that there is a potential conflict of rights between two people, and I do not believe the state has the authority to tell a woman her rights are inferior to other people's rights, including the rights of the unborn.
But I think it's reasonable to say that a woman has a responsibility to act relatively promptly if she decides to terminate the pregnancy, so I can see the possibility of regulating abortion as far as when it can no longer be done, except for medical reasons.
But I think it's reasonable to say that a woman has a responsibility to act relatively promptly if she decides to terminate the pregnancy, so I can see the possibility of regulating abortion as far as when it can no longer be done, except for medical reasons.
KK
Lifer
- Jan 2, 2001
- 15,903
- 4
- 81
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Ok, now you are being ridiculous.
Actually, the main difference between your view and mine was perfectly summed up in something you said earlier:When I think about abortion, I think about the termination of a life. When you think about it, your primary concern is shucking the enormous responsibility of raising a child. Two completely different train of thoughts.
I don't know you, other than what I've read in this thread... But I'm guessing you are pretty young, not a father, and never really lived for anyone but yourself.
If I am correct, then we are pretty much going to have to "agree that we disagree"... Even though I see your point of view, because I once had the exact same opinion, there's no way you'll see mine at this time.
If I'm wrong... Ugh!
I'm almost 30, married with 2 little ones. As far as the shucking of responsibility, yes I would rather them be able to shuck it than screw up some kids life because they are irresponsible. That and topped with me believing that a human life isn't alive until it can sustain itself out the womb is how I justify abortion. In a perfect world we would have this discussion, but unfortunately there's some screwed up people out there, no sense on throwing more out there.
KK
1. It is clearly not the woman's body.
2. Even if it were, I, nor a woman, have an absolute right to control our bodies.
I have refuted this position dozens of times. It is completely independent of my beliefs. Therefore, it is not subjective. You attempt to make it subjective to placate yourself into believing as you believe. Unfortunately, you can't argue away facts. If you want to argue anything, argue whether or not an embryo is a person, not whether or not it is alive, as it is obviously both alive and human.
Are you arguing that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not living tissue? Are you arguing that it is obviously distinct due to its genetics? If so, all I can say is that you're obviously wrong. I don't think I can do any more than cite reference after reference stating these obvious facts. THIS is not an area that is up for debate. There are arguments that you could make and have a point, but this is not one of them.
Further, an infant is incapable of independent existence. Would you legalize infanticide? Abortion apologists concede that this is one inevitability of their position.
How can you demonstrate this? If a fetus is 8 1/2 months, why is it allowed to be aborted? Clearly, as soon as it's outside the mother, it behaves exactly like a normal baby. Are you declaring that it is the actual process of birthing that bestows intelligence and problem-solving abilities?
Will any of these things ever possibly become a person? Genetics obviates the answer to your question.
Since you've yet to demonstrate that this is, indeed, what a person is, your position is without basis. I've already demonstrated why this definition cannot be applied.
:thumbsup:
It's easy to hand-wave to avoid the truth until confronted by its obviousness.
Moral relativism is ALWAYS fallacious. Certain things are right and wrong ALWAYS. Else, you have no recourse when someone comes to kill you. After all, why should I stop them? They're not hurting me in any way, nor anyone else - just you. Now, replace 'you' with 'baby' and you have the answer to this question. Until you can demonstrate that a fetus is not a person, you cannot negate its rights.
This is actually why the state exists: to dictate when one's rights must be subservient to the rights of others.
Pro choice everything, always.
CycloWizard is one of those who say that condoms do not work, who think that birth-control is a tool of the devil, who is against abortions and against adoptions, he praises the whore of babylon as the scholar of hers that he is.
A sick little man who will never get things right but is happy condemning others for their inability to do the same.
CycloWizard needs to take a step back and look at himself, i would not be surprised if he would then despise the intolerant bigot he has become.
You educate yourself on abortion, CycloWizard, look into the world of a woman who's choice is abortion, drop the holier than thou attitude and come down to earth for a lesson in humility and understanding before you condemn what you know nothing of.
CycloWizard is one of those who say that condoms do not work, who think that birth-control is a tool of the devil, who is against abortions and against adoptions, he praises the whore of babylon as the scholar of hers that he is.
A sick little man who will never get things right but is happy condemning others for their inability to do the same.
CycloWizard needs to take a step back and look at himself, i would not be surprised if he would then despise the intolerant bigot he has become.
You educate yourself on abortion, CycloWizard, look into the world of a woman who's choice is abortion, drop the holier than thou attitude and come down to earth for a lesson in humility and understanding before you condemn what you know nothing of.
I'd love for you to try to demonstrate a single case that you just brought up in your personal attack. Since you won't be able to do it, I'll just give you a
up front. Go back to your hole, troll-boy.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'd love for you to try to demonstrate a single case that you just brought up in your personal attack. Since you won't be able to do it, I'll just give you a
One need not go further than to the teachings of the catholic church's teachings that condoms do not protect against AIDS (which is a belief no sane man would agree with but you do) or to read this thread.
So quick to judge others while not looking at yourself.
You do not know anything about abortions except for what you can muster up against them, you do not know the lives and fates of those who choose to have one, that can be ok, but condemning them without knowing is not ok and not something a true Christian would ever do.
You do not have the right to call me troll until you actually know what it feels like to be in a situation where you will have to support a choice that you may not agree with. The poor woman would have a nice time listening to your condemnation on top of the guilt she already feels.
You are a sick little fvcker who keep proclaiming to know what yo do not have any knowledge about like you were the one who would ever have had to make the choice.
You are so willing to condemn, put your money and efforts where your mouth is and look for a woman having an abortion and tell her you will adopt her child and pay all expenses that she cannot afford. If you do that, until you are in the situation where you can no longer afford to eat yourself you will know what she would feel like if you had your way and forced her to carry the child.
But no, that will never happen, you will continue with your holier than thou attitude condemning thos already in so much pain.
Cuz that is the Catholic way to do things, wait until they are on their knees before you kick them in the face.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter