well, if nature runs its course, 2 people will choose to have sex. i think this is self-evident. and again, a fertilized egg on its own has no potential to grow into a human being whatsoever, as well.
well, if nature runs its course, 2 people will choose to have sex. i think this is self-evident. and again, a fertilized egg on its own has no potential to grow into a human being whatsoever, as well.
what do base this claim on? just because you say so? what is the difference between a child 10 seconds after it's born and right before it is born? try not to avoid this question when you respond.
and don't tell me that the difference is in terminology and "what you call it," which has been what you entire argument is based on. semantics don't matter. it's a living thing. a baby, a fetus, call it a cheesepuff for all i care.
Pro-choice is a misnomer. A woman gets the choice to destroy a child. The child does not get a choice in this matter, nor does the father of the child. So, thinking about it, Pro-abortion people are anti-choice by taking away the choices of two individuals while only gaining one choice. So we are at -1 choices.
Adoption is a wonderful thing.
Adoption is a wonderful thing.
i will put it this way:
a fertilized egg, when nurtured, will grow into a baby. not on its own, but when it is nurtured.
a sperm cell will not.
now can you please stop making me refute this lame comparison?
Which is, of course, why wealthy white people from Ohio are lined up around the block to adopt the unwanted children of all the teenage mothers here in GA.
Oh wait....no they're not.
yukichigai
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 76
My desire to get involved in this kind of argument is minimal. However I would like to see something addressed by both sides, so here goes:
If a woman becomes pregnant because of a rape, what then? Is it reasonable for the woman to be expected to carry a child through no fault of her own?
If a woman becomes pregnant because of a rape, what then? Is it reasonable for the woman to be expected to carry a child through no fault of her own?
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Which is, of course, why wealthy white people from Ohio are lined up around the block to adopt the unwanted children of all the teenage mothers here in GA.
Oh wait....no they're not.
If someone was wealthy, why would they be living in Ohio? Are there an excessive number of infants ready to be adopted there in Georgia? If there are, why does that make adoption not a wonderful thing?
i wouldn't have had to keep on making it, had your argument been solid in the first place.
in any event, if a fertilized egg has potential to grow into a human being, and is not already a human being, then is it okay to destroy a fertilized egg? that wouldn't be murder, right?
Anti-abortion people are taking away the choice of the pregnant woman. Does her choice affect you? How do you know what the fetus' choice would be? Do you think the fetus would want to live knowing that its parents didn't want it?
My point: there are far more unwanted pregnancies every year than couples waiting to adopt. I think it's great that people are willing to open their homes and hearts to someone else's child but it is in no way a solution to the abortion issue. Period.Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Which is, of course, why wealthy white people from Ohio are lined up around the block to adopt the unwanted children of all the teenage mothers here in GA.
Oh wait....no they're not.
If someone was wealthy, why would they be living in Ohio? Are there an excessive number of infants ready to be adopted there in Georgia? If there are, why does that make adoption not a wonderful thing?
Condoms and education, on the other hand, are definitely a wonderful thing.
this whole issue of the fetus' choice is kind of silly. it doesn't have the mental capacity to reason objectively... fully developed humans don't even have that capacity. so you will never get a "choice" from a fetus, or a human, in regards to whether they should be/have been aborted or not, all you will get is a primal instinct to survive.
All you pro lifers are all great and all but I just don't agree. If a woman gets raped she shouldn't have to go through the burden of carrying a child to put it up for adoption. I still don't buy the argument that a fetus is alive.
That being said, there should be some sort of limit on how late you can perform an abortion. I think something like 3 weeks is plenty of time to look at your options and decide if you're willing to become a parent. I don't really see the difference between a sperm and a 6 week old fetus. Both are alive and have the potential to become a human but logically, what's the difference? Can a fetus express emotion and self exist as a normal baby would?
That being said, there should be some sort of limit on how late you can perform an abortion. I think something like 3 weeks is plenty of time to look at your options and decide if you're willing to become a parent. I don't really see the difference between a sperm and a 6 week old fetus. Both are alive and have the potential to become a human but logically, what's the difference? Can a fetus express emotion and self exist as a normal baby would?
I wasn't comparing slavery with abortion, I was comparing the ATTITUDE of the colonial slavers toward blacks with your ATTITUDE toward an unborn child. It's a very important point. You are degrading the person in the womb of the mother to a non-person. Now we know exactly where we disagree on this issue. You don't think that an unborn child is a person and I do. I honestly don't understand your logic. How does passing through a woman's vagina inately change the personhood of the human coming out? It isn't some magic portal that has Person Fairies all around it zapping blobs of flesh with their "PersonWand"TM. The child is simply passing from one stage of development to another. It makes no sense to classify it as a non-person one instant and a person the next, when ultimately there is no change in the nature of the being coming out. You are saying location determines personhood. That just sounds ludicrous to me.
as far as your "tax credit" BS, why can it be considered a double homocide to kill a pregnant mother? In that case the law is definitely in the favor of the life of the child.
I consider and all the pro-lifer's consider the fetus to be a person.
i honestly didn't think i needed to explicitly spell out such an obvious point.
it's not just "potential." "potential" means something like "that kid has some potential to be a great baseball player." it doesn't necessarily mean that he will become a great baseball player. the fertilized egg will definitely grow into a human unless either something goes wrong or you take measures against it. so yes, killing the fertilized egg is no different.
Actually, it does not affect the woman's choice at all. She can still kill the growing thing inside of her if she wishes. She can always put it up for adoption. Or she can fufill the social contract she made by having sex in the first place, and accepting responsibility for her actions. But of course, accepting responsibility for the problems you cause is very un-American. I must be a terrorist for telling people to grow up.
It could have. I was born after abortion was legalized. What if I fathered a fetus (can you do that or does it have to be a living organism or human or whatever you think it metamophasizes into to have a father?) and the mother wants to destroy that growth? I believe that choice affects me in a great many ways.
Let the thing pop out and see.
But there is a good chance someone does want a child but cannot have one. A friend of my family was trying to adopt, but apparently, there aren't enough children in the area to be spared to someone that does not make an increadible amount of money. Its a damn shame. And frankly, if I was adopted I would think about it more along the lines of my birth parents were to irresponsible, ignorant, or just plain stupid to do things a much better way, I'm better off without them.
Uh...yeah....except that most women won't know they're pregnant until they skip a period, maybe feel sick, buy a test kit, and finally go see a doctor for confirmation. That takes a bit longer than 3 weeks.
the child passes from one stage of development to another when it goes from 2 cells to however many are in a newborn... but it's rediculous to think that 2 cells is a human being.
Originally posted by: Fausto1
My point: there are far more unwanted pregnancies every year than couples waiting to adopt. I think it's great that people are willing to open their homes and hearts to someone else's child but it is in no way a solution to the abortion issue. Period.Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Which is, of course, why wealthy white people from Ohio are lined up around the block to adopt the unwanted children of all the teenage mothers here in GA.
Oh wait....no they're not.
If someone was wealthy, why would they be living in Ohio? Are there an excessive number of infants ready to be adopted there in Georgia? If there are, why does that make adoption not a wonderful thing?
Condoms and education, on the other hand, are definitely a wonderful thing.
That does not ruin the legitimacy of adoption. Condoms are definitely a wonderful thing. Education is always great. Abstinance is awfully helpful too (whether you all would like to agree or not).
I'm not saying it's not legitimate, I'm just saying it can't even come close to resolving things even assuming all women who become pregnant would be willing to carry to term knowing someone would adopt the child. Abstinence is fine and well, but is also not any kind of absolute solution when you take human nature into account. People are going to have sex no matter what you tell them in some instances.Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: Fausto1
My point: there are far more unwanted pregnancies every year than couples waiting to adopt. I think it's great that people are willing to open their homes and hearts to someone else's child but it is in no way a solution to the abortion issue. Period.Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Which is, of course, why wealthy white people from Ohio are lined up around the block to adopt the unwanted children of all the teenage mothers here in GA.
Oh wait....no they're not.
If someone was wealthy, why would they be living in Ohio? Are there an excessive number of infants ready to be adopted there in Georgia? If there are, why does that make adoption not a wonderful thing?
Condoms and education, on the other hand, are definitely a wonderful thing.
That does not ruin the legitimacy of adoption. Condoms are definitely a wonderful thing. Education is always great. Abstinance is awfully helpful too (whether you all would like to agree or not).
Originally posted by: XZeroII
In my humble opinion, this shot your argument(s) in the foot. This reminds me (and I'm gonna make a HUGE leap here) of the people that are just sure that homosexuals won't make good parents.
In my humble opinion, this shot your argument(s) in the foot. This reminds me (and I'm gonna make a HUGE leap here) of the people that are just sure that homosexuals won't make good parents.
ok, i can see your point. lets take this one step further... we agree that for any load of semen in a woman, if an egg is fertilized, then there must have been some sperm that fertilized it? suppose we knew which sperm that was, before the fertilization occurred. would destroying that sperm be no different than killing a human being then?
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