It's the battle between the practical (real life people need contraceptives) and the ideal (the policy of the Catholic Church).
It's the battle between the practical (real life people need contraceptives) and the ideal (the policy of the Catholic Church).
Convince me that a fetus is a human being.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,913
- 4,498
- 126
The numbers don't agree with you, CycloWizard. Those who pledge to be abstinant, still eventually have sex (and almost always out of wedlock). Those people also tend to be the most unprepaired for sex when they do have it. There are plenty of studies proving this. I have to leave for the day. If you need, I'll search for them tomorrow.
In an ideal world, you'd be correct. But the world isn't ideal.
No one needs contraception. No one needs to have sex. It's a desire - what people want - not what they need. Contrary to popular belief, this desire can be reined in.
Did you even read my post? If you did, you certainly didn't address any points I made in it.
Don't be a dumbass. Assuming that every fetus has an equal chance of being this "miracle person" then a simple calculation (# of fetuses aborted)/(# fetuses total) will yield the percentage of fetuses that get aborted. This percentage is so small that by any reasonable analysis it can be ignored.
Maybe the guy who was going to cure cancer got a girl pregnant because the condom was defective. Now he dropped out of college and works at the local Dairy Queen to support the mother and the baby.
So what are you going to do? Make it illegal to have sex? Regardless of how much we tell people to use protection, many still won't. Outlawing abortion won't help the problem. The rich will just buy the drugs illegally and the poor will use coat hangers. Even if you don't support abortion, I can't understand why you wouldn't want to control it.
I can't argue with you there. But again, it's the practical versus the ideal.
The only thing a person really needs is food, water, and some air. Just because something is a desire does not make it wrong. In fact, it's definition as a desire makes it imperative that we deal with its consequences practically, since you know it will happen.
Thanks for proving my point. You're not doing it to "save lives", but to legislate Christian values of abstinence. In that manner, you're no better than those fukers in Iran who stone raped women.
After reading this thread, it's apparent that for some, it's not so much that they're anti-abortion as much as they're for people 'reaping what they sow'.
If it's half out of the vagina, it would make more sense to just pull it all the way out and offer it up for adoption (assuming the mother didn't want it).
But no, I don't think a new born infant is a person, and I wouldn't regard the killing of a half-born fetus as murder.
- Dec 29, 2005
- 117
- 0
- 76
Well from the replies that I've gotten it seems clear to me that people think one cannot appeal to both emotions and logic at the same time. So according to some what the Civil Rights movement did was impossible. Yet, they did it. Now you tell me if MLK did not appeal to emotion in his speaches about civil rights?
The point of the matter is people think that just because a fetus can't think or can't sustain itself, or it doesn't have brain activty that is not a human being. That, in my opinion, is wrong. I disagree with pulling the plug oh Schiavo, that in my perspective was wrong. We have no right to take another human being's life. I beleive a fetus (which as I have said I beleive is a human being) does have the same natural rights as a full grown human. Notice that I said natural rights, the rights defined in the constitution are not the only ones that a person has.
Killing a fetus by performing an abortion is taking away the right for that fetus to live. (the most basic human right is the right to live). Of course, I know there are times at which an abortion must be performed due to medical reasons. But I beleive before this abortion is performed the doctor or doctors must evaliate the situation and see if both lives can be saved if thats not possible then its up to the doctor's best judgement to see which live is more likely to be saved and try his best to do so.
Abortion is wrong because you are commiting murder by killing a living human. Living does not constitute only to thinking and having feelings. If one of your family members had a problem and he could not think or feel anything and they wanted to kill him, I assure you wouldn't say "oh he is not human anymore just kill him."
Going back to the emotional aspect of my argument. It is completely foolish to think that humans can make a decision without having some sort of emotion behind it. When you buy a shirt is because you like it. Liking something is an emotion.
Clearly people will come and refute my opinion and tell me that I am a complete idiot, but that is to be expected.
Another thing, to the many people who have called me a kid, I recent that kind of attitude towards me. I am not a kid. I bet that I can find a lot of "kids" with better matters than yours and who can have a civilized discussion without name calling.
The point of the matter is people think that just because a fetus can't think or can't sustain itself, or it doesn't have brain activty that is not a human being. That, in my opinion, is wrong. I disagree with pulling the plug oh Schiavo, that in my perspective was wrong. We have no right to take another human being's life. I beleive a fetus (which as I have said I beleive is a human being) does have the same natural rights as a full grown human. Notice that I said natural rights, the rights defined in the constitution are not the only ones that a person has.
Killing a fetus by performing an abortion is taking away the right for that fetus to live. (the most basic human right is the right to live). Of course, I know there are times at which an abortion must be performed due to medical reasons. But I beleive before this abortion is performed the doctor or doctors must evaliate the situation and see if both lives can be saved if thats not possible then its up to the doctor's best judgement to see which live is more likely to be saved and try his best to do so.
Abortion is wrong because you are commiting murder by killing a living human. Living does not constitute only to thinking and having feelings. If one of your family members had a problem and he could not think or feel anything and they wanted to kill him, I assure you wouldn't say "oh he is not human anymore just kill him."
Going back to the emotional aspect of my argument. It is completely foolish to think that humans can make a decision without having some sort of emotion behind it. When you buy a shirt is because you like it. Liking something is an emotion.
Clearly people will come and refute my opinion and tell me that I am a complete idiot, but that is to be expected.
Another thing, to the many people who have called me a kid, I recent that kind of attitude towards me. I am not a kid. I bet that I can find a lot of "kids" with better matters than yours and who can have a civilized discussion without name calling.
Undoubtly liberal use and public promotion of contraception would reduce unwated pregnancies, as well as sexually transmitted diseases. In Africa alone--that would reduce the human death toll by at least the 1.3 million per year that film claims.
The catholic church does not dissaprove of sexual relations, it clearly states that if you have sex--it should be to procreate children. That is the only reason to have sex. I was brought up catholic--and I surely remember that part. That creates a huge cultural and policy problem.
You can read 50 bibles 50 times from cover to cover, if contraception is difficult to acquire--it doesn't matter. Even in the US, just very recently some forms of contraception have been denied at drug stores to people seeking to buy it.
I don't support any government administration (at any level, fed, state, municipal, or some yahoo at walmart) having a say-so as to deciding for a newly pregnant woman--to either bring her abortion to term, or to end her pregnancy.
Only the pregnant woman should have the right to make either of those decisions.
I would hope they would. No cortical activity = no person. It may still be a human, and may even technically be alive, but it's no different then, say, a tomato.
If I am in a persistent vegetative state, I'd surely like my family to turn the machines off, and not destroy their own lives keeping my empty shell alive.
It would make more sense to have the child and give it up for adoption, rather than kill it, but people don't make that decision.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter