Abortion.

[assassin_696]

Assassin, please don't forget to respond to the last two quotes in my last post as well. :P

 

 

 

Just making sure you didn't miss them since the majority was responding to Warrior.

 

 

 

I'm on it, laggy computer and masses of quotes to order doesn't help. :P

[Barihawk]

 

 

 

1) That's fine, be a lobbyist for what you believe in, just make sure you don't fall into the trap of believing you in fact have divine right to tell a mother what she can and can not do when the choice to abort is within the limits of law.

 

 

 

2) Yes, "life begins at birth" is BS. Life eventuates from a mechanical dividing machine into an embryo with a heartbeat and pain perception and beyond. Where to draw the line of where life begins can be a simple 'at conception' or something far more difficult to pin point.

 

 

 

3) Yes, I don't like the emotional appeal. I admire Ambassadar in particular for debating a human zygote as a person and bringing up many difficult philosophical issues to answer, but the argument then carries huge emotional appeal. To debate such issues and avoid an emotional bias, you need specificity in what you are debating against. Ambassadar's argument was that zygotes are people, killing people is wrong and therefore killing zygotes is wrong (feel free to correct me Ambassadar). My arguments countering Ambassadar's then evolved into a questioning of why not debate against killing a human zygote instead of lumping them in with the category of people? Hell, why not divide the whole gestation period into weeks and argue against terminating the pregnancy at a specific point? This would undoubtedly destroy emotional appeal because the connotation when saying 'killing people' is much more real and unsettling than the connotation when saying 'killing zygotes' or even 'killing blastocysts' or 'killing 1 week old embryos.'

 

 

 

4) Eugenics is a difficult issue and you bring up a difficult scenario.

 

 

 

5) Herein lies the polar opposite views of the debate. You're bringing emotion into it by comparing what you are infact not doing to what you are. In terminating an undeveloped embryo, you are not snuffing out dreams, hopes, aspirations, etc. Can you see what I'm saying? Is the mentality here that the position has less appeal when you actually look at what it is you are doing rather than what you are not? They are future possibilities, as you pointed out; you are arguing a hypothetical as if it were the current state of the embryo and people thrive on that emotion in thier arguments and disgust in abortion. They think of little children playing in fields of green grass when talking about biochemical entities who feel nothing and whose current purpose is to divide.

 

 

 

Yes, it will likely grow up and have aspirations, dreams, hopes, etc, but it dosen't actually have those things now. People then make the connection that they are wiping out something analagous to a fully grown and concious human, which no doubt gets people worked up. If you were to kill an embryo with none of these qualitites, why are we bringing them up in the debate? A possible answer could be people like the oomph or emotional undertones of 'killing a future human with dreams and aspirations' over 'killing a conglomeration of dividing cells with no pain perception or awareness of self.'

 

 

 

6) I'm not saying that the adoption program is dismal like that. I don't know enough about it to do so. Your hypothetical seemed to have all pieces fit into each other nicely and as for how frequently these occurances happen in real life, I'm not sure. I think it's great when a mother can agree to go through a pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption to a truly deserving couple. The key word being 'agree.' I'm not about to say what she must or must not do with her embryo even if I am a truly deserving infertile parent. It would be seen as rather intrusive and rude of me.

 

 

 

7) That wasn't the question. You asked me about the rights of an embryo of irresponsible parents when I asked you if abortion should be outlawed even though those who do abort aren't always irresponsible. In other words, should the actions of those irresponsible ones determine the legality of abortion for those who genuinely need it?

 

 

 

 

 

1. Never have had that "divine right," unlike others in the debate. Notice how I've brought the Bible into this. I'm relying on moral and ethical principles here. General ones.

 

 

 

2. Exactly. That's the whole spirit of the debate. However, most pro-choicers I talk to believe in the "life begins at birth" and therefore spoil my opinion of the rest of you. Like you stated in number 7, it's a small group of irresponsible ones spoiling it for the rest.

 

 

 

3. However, the point is that zygotes only last for hours before the first division. Note that this is three-five days after intercourse, in which the parents to be had plenty of time to follow-up with birth control. The "morning-after" pill is dirt cheap, I hear. And unlike some people, I don't consider it abortion if you use it "the morning after" as the sperm has likely not reached the egg.

 

 

 

4. Yes, I thought so. The bads far outweigh the goods of eugenics research.

 

 

 

5. As someone stated before, a newborn infant does not have current views, ideas, aspirations, etc. But when an infant is smothered by it's mother, CNN crucifies her bringinig up that same point. But an embryo or fetus is different because it hasn't been born yet?

 

 

 

I was not referring to a termination paradox, I was referring to the grandiose double-standard that exists.

 

 

 

6. It's her right (couple A) to do whatever she wants. But my belief is that murder is not one of them. If she does carry the baby to term, she may decide that she does indeed love this thing growing inside her. She might even decide to keep the child.

 

 

 

7. I believe it should. Abortion is not to be used as a form of birth control (the main thing about it that pisses me off). If someone has genuine medical need of an abortion, with a certified gynecologist providing evidence, I'm more likely to bend. But it should be strictly monitored, so every midwife in America doesn't make a killing giving out 'abortion tickets.'

[kelem_ryu]

Does your sense of morality tell you that's all right?

 

 

 

My sense of morality has nothing to do with my argumentation. For all i know i can't tell the difference between morality and hypocrism.

 

 

 

Ideally a child would be made by loving parents and the thought of abortion would never cross their mind. Since we are discussing abortion, we have to assume that whatever circumstances there are, they weren't ideal in the first place.

 

 

 

Let's go through some possible devergence from ideal:

 

-The parents decide together to get the baby.

 

-The parents decide together that an abortion would be best.

 

-The father wants the baby to be carried out, but the mother doesn't want to and gets an abortion.

 

-The father doesn't even know the woman was pregnant in the first place, because she aborted without telling him.

 

-The mother wants to carry out the baby, but the father would want an abortion. The baby gets born.

 

 

 

-The couple trusts each other and know what kind of birth control they are each using.

 

-The couple doesn't trust each other and both don't want babies, so they both use birth control.

 

-The couple doesn't trust each other and both want babies, or don't care. They both don't use birth control.

 

-The wo/man doesn't trust the wo/man and doesn't want a baby. S/he uses birth control.

 

-The man does want a baby, but the woman doesn't.

 

.) The man knows that so they use birth control.

 

.) The man doesn't know that, so she uses birth control, without letting him know.

 

-The woman does want a baby, but the man doesn't.

 

.) The woman cares about the mans wishes and they use birth control.

 

.) The woman doesn't care about the mans wishes and she lets him believe she is using birth control, but doesn't.

 

 

 

Now you can't tell me that man and woman have equal control over pregnancy. Still you are saying both should have the same responsibility.

 

 

 

Of course ideally this shouldn't matter at all, because ideally a child would come from an ideal relationship, but we don't live in an ideal world. I'll give you an extreme example: Boris Becker became a father from a woman he hardly knew that gave him a [bleep] and used the sperm from her mouth to impregnate herself.

 

 

 

I realize your concern is that a part of the male population wouldn't care about birth control at all anymore. My concern is that part of the woman population abuses their power.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh well.. doesn't really matter at all. The topic is purey academic anyway.

[Kant]

A zygote will only form a human being under special circumstances, and the analogy could possibly be extended to any single cell if human cloning was ever brought in, or indeed artifical random meiotic shuffling.

 

 

 

Those "special circumstances" are naturally occuring. Human cloning, "artifical random meiotic shuffling", and abortion are not naturally occuring.

 

 

 

 

 

I define quality of life in a sense of having one's health, and the means to support ones self. If you want to call that materialistic, fine, but I can't see how a kid in Africa who's living in abject poverty and gets AIDS from his mum will really look for much else in life. We must be very lucky to be able to take health and basic amenities for granted, or dismiss them as 'materialistic'.

 

 

 

Then you haven't been to Africa. My mom and friends have been, to work in AIDS clinics for orphans. Do you know what they all said? "It's amazing how little money and health they have, and yet they appear happier than anyone I've ever met in North America". Yep, it's an anecdotal argument, but I think a valid one. A baby can bring joy that no amount of money can.

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong, it wasn't that response. Rather, it was the response that stemmed from that. Namely the empirical observation that death is a simple lack of consciousness, and so fearing what we cannot know anything about (hell) but can be reasonably sure does not exist, is foolish.

 

 

 

From a "only matter exists" point of view, yes, empirical evidence points towards death being a simple lack of consciousness. However, I am not a materialist/atheist.

 

 

 

Oh, and just wanted to note that when I say materialist in the above paragraph, I mean "only matter exists". I know else where I have been using the same word to denote the view of people that only care about commercial material objects.

 

 

 

This is why I dislike pure reason, you're right in so far as we cannot know what nothingness is like, but we can be damn sure that this world can contain terrible cruelty and suffering, and yet you can bring a child into this world, knowing full-well that it will suffer terribly, and somehow defend it on some philosophical grounds that there might be some kind of hell, so we're somehow playing it safe? And that the logic or reason works?

 

 

 

I thought we were supposed to leave emotional arguments out of this :P.

 

 

 

But yes, I think it is a very safe bet. You're assuming that life + suffering < death. That is a very bold and unfounded assumption. The joys of life could be impossible to outweigh by any amount of suffering.

[Rebdragon]

Does your sense of morality tell you that's all right?

 

 

 

My sense of morality has nothing to do with my argumentation. For all i know i can't tell the difference between morality and hypocrism.

 

Hellz yes it does. You're arguing your point of view, so at least tell us your gut feeling on the issue, what your morality tells you is right. What's wrong with mentioning that? It's a vital part of your position, especially on a topic such as abortion, so if you don't mind, answer the question please:

 

 

 

Would you walk out on some girl after impregnating her? "Yes" or "no" will suffice (and this scenario involves intercourse, so don't try and fall back on the anecdote of Boris Becker you used below).

 

 

 

Ideally a child would be made by loving parents and the thought of abortion would never cross their mind. Since we are discussing abortion, we have to assume that whatever circumstances there are, they weren't ideal in the first place.

 

 

 

Let's go through some possible devergence from ideal:

 

[...]

 

 

 

Now you can't tell me that man and woman have equal control over pregnancy. Still you are saying both should have the same responsibility.

 

 

 

Of course ideally this shouldn't matter at all, because ideally a child would come from an ideal relationship, but we don't live in an ideal world. I'll give you an extreme example: Boris Becker became a father from a woman he hardly knew that gave him a [bleep] and used the sperm from her mouth to impregnate herself.

 

 

 

I realize your concern is that a part of the male population wouldn't care about birth control at all anymore. My concern is that part of the woman population abuses their power.

 

I'll say it again: Just because the woman has more control doesn't mean that both parents don't share equal responsibility for the child that they created. Just because .0001% of women who carry a baby abuse their power against the stern will of their partners

 

 

 

Oh, and the ideal situation is much more common than you seem to portray it to be, where a loving couple decides to have a baby and does. Sure you can spout out all that old "but we don't live in an ideal world" rhetoric, but the fact still remains that the vast majority of children aren't exactly accidents :| .

 

 

 

Though (not sure if Sumpta agrees)... I will admit that you have a point on that Becker anecdote. He did nothing that could possibly lead to the creation of a child (other than making sperm available), so it is debatable whether or not the responsibility lies with the woman. I myself am not really sure where I'd stand on that, but in any case involving actual sexual intercourse, I still hold that any created child is the responsibility of both parents :? .

[Ashlyn_Hart]

I'm personally against abortion.

 

 

 

But politically pro-choice. I don't like forcing my personal views on other people.

 

 

 

Thank you!

 

 

 

May a mother make a statement about this whole topic?

 

 

 

I am pro-choice, that does NOT mean I am pro-abortion. It means that no one else has the right to say what I am to do with my body.

 

 

 

Children now-a-days are having sex way to early for comfort causing all sorts of problems down the road, STDs, pregnancies, etc.

 

 

 

Abstinence is the only way to prevent that, but I'm not stupid enough to think that young teenagers are going to keep their pants on long enough to wait until they are married. Heck, I didn't (but that's neither here nor there).

 

 

 

The fact of the matter is that you all need to be extremely careful and not have to need the choice of abortion or adoption.

[GrimHams]

Personally, i dont think there are many circumstances where a person could justify abortion. The old "i'm poor" scenario doesn't work with me, life isn't about money and life shouldn't be denied simply because someone doesn't want to work hard for the child they have created. Another big argument for abortion would be if someone was raped, i dont think thats the childs fault and the oppertunity of something good out of bad presents itself.

 

 

 

Its typical capitalist society values when people would even want to deny life to a baby because they felt they couldn't "afford" it. A child is not only for the person but for the country, murdering those of tomorrow is wrong in my opinion.

[kelem_ryu]

Does your sense of morality tell you that's all right?

 

 

 

My sense of morality has nothing to do with my argumentation. For all i know i can't tell the difference between morality and hypocrism.

 

Hellz yes it does. You're arguing your point of view, so at least tell us your gut feeling on the issue, what your morality tells you is right. What's wrong with mentioning that? It's a vital part of your position, especially on a topic such as abortion, so if you don't mind, answer the question please:

 

 

 

Would you walk out on some girl after impregnating her? "Yes" or "no" will suffice (and this scenario involves intercourse, so don't try and fall back on the anecdote of Boris Becker you used below).

 

 

 

I won't answer that question, but i'll tell you my gut feeling about abortion:

 

 

 

I think the embryo isn't consscious until a certain point. I think that point would be three weeks after impragination (i might be wrong about the three weeks), because that's the time the pineal gland first appears. I think the pineal gland is the seat of counsicousnes. So during the first three weeks there is no moral problem whatsoever to abortin. Imo.

 

 

 

Yet it will be a problem to discover pregnancy that early. Imo since the embryo is inside the womans body she can do whatever she wants with it. It's her body and imo she has to have the right to have th choice what she wants to keep in there.

 

 

 

Imo an embryo at first has barely any consciousness at all, maybe like that of a plant (i assume a one month old embryo barely has any consciousness at all), but as it evolves the consciousness expandes and it becomes more and more human like. So if she wants to abort she should decide to do so as soon as possible.

 

 

 

I think the three months limit as it is in my country (idk about others) is a good compromise. At that stage the consciousness is still pretty dormant and it is justifyable cruel to abort. Of course abortion is cruel, but it is also cruel to force a woman to carry out a baby. No matter what, forcing somebody to do anything he or she doesn't want is cruel. So you have to find a compromise between being cruel and being cruel. What the compromise will look like is a matter of opinion. Imo the three months solution is as good as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

Ideally a child would be made by loving parents and the thought of abortion would never cross their mind. Since we are discussing abortion, we have to assume that whatever circumstances there are, they weren't ideal in the first place.

 

 

 

Let's go through some possible devergence from ideal:

 

[...]

 

 

 

Now you can't tell me that man and woman have equal control over pregnancy. Still you are saying both should have the same responsibility.

 

 

 

Of course ideally this shouldn't matter at all, because ideally a child would come from an ideal relationship, but we don't live in an ideal world. I'll give you an extreme example: Boris Becker became a father from a woman he hardly knew that gave him a [bleep] and used the sperm from her mouth to impregnate herself.

 

 

 

I realize your concern is that a part of the male population wouldn't care about birth control at all anymore. My concern is that part of the woman population abuses their power.

 

I'll say it again: Just because the woman has more control doesn't mean that both parents don't share equal responsibility for the child that they created.

 

 

 

If the parents raise the child together this isn't an issue anymore, but if one side wants the child and the other doesn't then the woman obviously is in a stronger position. If the woman doesn't want the child, but the man does, the child will get aborted. If the woman does want the child, but the man doesn't the child will get carried out. So in a conflict of interest the woman can make the choice. (I said that before i think.)

 

 

 

That's why i think the man should have the choice to care for the baby in any way or not to. At the end of the day the woman does have this choice to anyway and if the man happens to get the child with the woman doing whatever, she shouldn't be forced to care (in these cases care always equals cash, as if that would be care.)

 

 

 

 

Oh, and the ideal situation is much more common than you seem to portray it to be, where a loving couple decides to have a baby and does. Sure you can spout out all that old "but we don't live in an ideal world" rhetoric, but the fact still remains that the vast majority of children aren't exactly accidents :| .

 

 

 

The not so ideal situations are pretty common to.

 

 

 

 

Though (not sure if Sumpta agrees)... I will admit that you have a point on that Becker anecdote. He did nothing that could possibly lead to the creation of a child (other than making sperm available), so it is debatable whether or not the responsibility lies with the woman. I myself am not really sure where I'd stand on that, but in any case involving actual sexual intercourse, I still hold that any created child is the responsibility of both parents :? .

 

 

 

That's about the most extreme example imaginable. If you think he should be legally forced to do aynthing about his child whatsoever then you can't possibly agree with anything else i said about child care.

 

 

 

 

 

Usually both parents feel some responsibility for the children anyway and if they don't live together they'll usually come to an agreement to. I just don't think anybody should be forced to even financially cover for a child they didn't want in the first place. I do even think that would be in the childs best interest. i mean: "Yes your father doesn't want you, but i sued him so i can buy you .."

[kelem_ryu]

Another big argument for abortion would be if someone was raped, i dont think thats the childs fault and the oppertunity of something good out of bad presents itself.

 

 

 

 

A child usually reflects the relationship between its parents in some way. I can't imagine the mother not seeing the rapist in the child eyes. I sincerly doubt there would be much opportunity for something good to come out here, as much as i like the thought of something good developing out of something bad.

[Rebdragon]

I won't answer that question, but i'll tell you my gut feeling about abortion:

 

 

 

[...]

 

Well, thank you for providing your opinion, but I'm not arguing with you about the ethics of abortion- I'm pro-choice myself, or however people label it nowadays. I still want you to answer the question :| .

 

 

 

If the parents raise the child together this isn't an issue anymore, but if one side wants the child and the other doesn't then the woman obviously is in a stronger position. If the woman doesn't want the child, but the man does, the child will get aborted. If the woman does want the child, but the man doesn't the child will get carried out. So in a conflict of interest the woman can make the choice. (I said that before i think.)

 

 

 

That's why i think the man should have the choice to care for the baby in any way or not to. At the end of the day the woman does have this choice to anyway and if the man happens to get the child with the woman doing whatever, she shouldn't be forced to care (in these cases care always equals cash, as if that would be care.)

 

You're acting like the men don't get a say in the argument at all, like the woman just completely disregards her partners opinion and makes every decision on her own. That's pretty risible considering how vital a decision abortion is and can be for a couple.

 

 

 

Yes, sometimes the woman aborts without the father knowing, but in all other cases, are you seriously saying that the father doesn't have any say at all?

 

 

 

And even if he didn't, how is the child still not the responsibility of both it's parents? I.e., do you think it's right for a father to leave his partner to fend for herself if they both create a baby that the woman wishes to keep?

 

 

 

That's about the most extreme example imaginable. If you think he should be legally forced to do aynthing about his child whatsoever then you can't possibly agree with anything else i said about child care.

 

Ya, suppose I have to agree with you there :-w .

 

 

 

 

 

Usually both parents feel some responsibility for the children anyway and if they don't live together they'll usually come to an agreement to. I just don't think anybody should be forced to even financially cover for a child they didn't want in the first place. I do even think that would be in the childs best interest. i mean: "Yes your father doesn't want you, but i sued him so i can buy you .."

 

What, the father should just let his partner and the child rot, and be a heartless [bleep]? "It's in the child's best interest that the father walk out"? What?

 

 

 

I mean, if the father's abusive than he can be denied custody, I get that point... but until the father is deemed unfit for the benefit of the child, I see no reason why they should be allowed to escape responsibility.

 

 

 

Again, I'd really prefer if you answered the question though before we went further with this discussion.

[ctp080188]

I posted my opinion on the last topic of this. If it can still be found you can read it there because I don't wish to post it again.

[dwarfdude3]

Besides its not like you're alive when you're a fetus so you're not gonna remember anything. Do you remember getting circumcised? It's the same kinda thing.

 

 

 

So you would be ok with killing infants since they are in the same boat?

 

 

 

no, not at all. I would be ok with mercy killings but just killing random babies, hell no.

[Erk02]

Besides its not like you're alive when you're a fetus so you're not gonna remember anything. Do you remember getting circumcised? It's the same kinda thing.

 

 

 

So you would be ok with killing infants since they are in the same boat?

 

 

 

no, not at all. I would be ok with mercy killings but just killing random babies, hell no.

But what if even one of those little babies grow up and kill a bunch of people, including him/herself in a pcp-fueled frenzy? The children that are raised by parent/s that never wanted them are more likely to do drugs, kill themselves, etc.

[The Real ET]

I posted my opinion on the last topic of this. If it can still be found you can read it there because I don't wish to post it again.

 

 

 

Then why not find it and post it. Just posting that you have an opinion but aren't going to share it is useless spam.

 

 

 

Besides its not like you're alive when you're a fetus so you're not gonna remember anything. Do you remember getting circumcised? It's the same kinda thing.

 

 

 

So you would be ok with killing infants since they are in the same boat?

 

 

 

no, not at all. I would be ok with mercy killings but just killing random babies, hell no.

But what if even one of those little babies grow up and kill a bunch of people, including him/herself in a pcp-fueled frenzy? The children that are raised by parent/s that never wanted them are more likely to do drugs, kill themselves, etc.

 

 

 

I don't quite get your point... I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I'm understanding that it's okay to kill fetuses and/or unwanted babies because there's a chance that they'd grow up to kill or be druggies...

 

 

 

Sure children that have gone through such things are more likely to be into drugs and the like, but after going through such troubles some can rise up and make a change for the better.

[dwarfdude3]

I posted my opinion on the last topic of this. If it can still be found you can read it there because I don't wish to post it again.

 

 

 

Then why not find it and post it. Just posting that you have an opinion but aren't going to share it is useless spam.

 

 

 

Besides its not like you're alive when you're a fetus so you're not gonna remember anything. Do you remember getting circumcised? It's the same kinda thing.

 

 

 

So you would be ok with killing infants since they are in the same boat?

 

 

 

no, not at all. I would be ok with mercy killings but just killing random babies, hell no.

But what if even one of those little babies grow up and kill a bunch of people, including him/herself in a pcp-fueled frenzy? The children that are raised by parent/s that never wanted them are more likely to do drugs, kill themselves, etc.

 

 

 

I don't quite get your point... I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I'm understanding that it's okay to kill fetuses and/or unwanted babies because there's a chance that they'd grow up to kill or be druggies...

 

 

 

Sure children that have gone through such things are more likely to be into drugs and the like, but after going through such troubles some can rise up and make a change for the better.

 

 

 

I'm saying that if the mother thinks the baby should be aborted, chances are it will have a really crappy childhood and/or life in general, possibly leading to another accidental pregnancy or whatever, and the cycle starts all over again. Why not just end it before the problem starts...?

 

 

 

and yes there may be that 1 in 1,000,000 chance that they end up growing up to be the next ghandi or something, but its far more likely they will end up a drug dealer or murderer. Why not try to do something to stop this problem???

[The Real ET]

I'm saying that if the mother thinks the baby should be aborted, chances are it will have a really crappy childhood and/or life in general, possibly leading to another accidental pregnancy or whatever, and the cycle starts all over again. Why not just end it before the problem starts...?

 

 

 

and yes there may be that 1 in 1,000,000 chance that they end up growing up to be the next ghandi or something, but its far more likely they will end up a drug dealer or murderer. Why not try to do something to stop this problem???

 

 

 

Actually I was directing that at Erk02. This problem though is always going to be existant and always get worse. Our society is going (and has been for awhile) down the drain and people have the natural to like being intoxicated (beer is one of the oldest drinks made by ancient people). Those chances are very exaggerated and I wasn't talking about the next Gandhi, I was talking about just a functioning member of society (probably who helps others in the same situation). I'm not sure where I stand on aboration, but I know this isn't a reason to okay it and even less of a reason to kill babies.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I'm 100% pro-choice. I think that it's your right as a human individual to do whatever you want since it's your life, and no one should be able to control you. I think it's your right to kill babies, and I think it's your right to walk up to people and stab them in the heart. I think that it's your right to catch your neighbors' houses on fire, and I think it's your right to run people over who walk in front of you on the street. I think it's your right to steal from stores that overcharge you for items, and I think that it's your right to harass anyone who ever bothers you. It's your right because you're a human and an individual and no one should be able to tell you otherwise. Ever.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

I'm 100% pro-choice. I think that it's your right as a human individual to do whatever you want since it's your life, and no one should be able to control you. I think it's your right to kill babies, and I think it's your right to walk up to people and stab them in the heart. I think that it's your right to catch your neighbors' houses on fire, and I think it's your right to run people over who walk in front of you on the street. I think it's your right to steal from stores that overcharge you for items, and I think that it's your right to harass anyone who ever bothers you. It's your right because you're a human and an individual and no one should be able to tell you otherwise. Ever.

 

An embryo is different from a human who regards himself as an individual.

[The Real ET]

I'm 100% pro-choice. I think that it's your right as a human individual to do whatever you want since it's your life, and no one should be able to control you. I think it's your right to kill babies, and I think it's your right to walk up to people and stab them in the heart. I think that it's your right to catch your neighbors' houses on fire, and I think it's your right to run people over who walk in front of you on the street. I think it's your right to steal from stores that overcharge you for items, and I think that it's your right to harass anyone who ever bothers you. It's your right because you're a human and an individual and no one should be able to tell you otherwise. Ever.

 

An embryo is different from a human who regards himself as an individual.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how what you said had anything to do with what MyPurpleCrayon said, but how is an embryo different from a human who regards themselves as an individual. This is a key point in this kind of discussion, because an embryo is only an under-developed human. Therefore, the embryo has the potential to be that human, it just hasn't reached that point yet. In essence the whole argument over where life really starts.

[Saru Inc]

If the family can't afford or can't raise a baby properly, you shouldn't have a baby. There's no reason that if you're barely scraping by to add another expense to your budget. Although, it'd teach the people a leason (for some reason, I think I spelled that wrong) not to have sex without contraceptives.

 

 

 

But again, if they can't raise a child properly, they shouldn't even have it.

 

 

 

Thats true, but, what I think is better, is to give it up for adoption. That way, you don't have to kill a fetus. Plus, I believe it may be cheaper not sure.

 

 

 

I'm against abortion. I believe, that after conception a soul is born. It be un conscious, or at least not have any vision, os any of the 5 sense, but its still alive isn't it? So, I think all forms of abortion are murder. Don't worry, I'm not some fanatic who blows up offices, or kills people. Murder doesn't justify murder.

[The Real ET]

If the family can't afford or can't raise a baby properly, you shouldn't have a baby. There's no reason that if you're barely scraping by to add another expense to your budget. Although, it'd teach the people a leason (for some reason, I think I spelled that wrong) not to have sex without contraceptives.

 

 

 

But again, if they can't raise a child properly, they shouldn't even have it.

 

 

 

Thats true, but, what I think is better, is to give it up for adoption. That way, you don't have to kill a fetus. Plus, I believe it may be cheaper not sure.

 

 

 

I'm against abortion. I believe, that after conception a soul is born. It be un conscious, or at least not have any vision, os any of the 5 sense, but its still alive isn't it? So, I think all forms of abortion are murder. Don't worry, I'm not some fanatic who blows up offices, or kills people. Murder doesn't justify murder.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if it's cheaper to give birth than to have an aboration, but if it is cheaper for you it isn't for everyone. What about the people who have to pay to raise that child and the multitud of other expenses that are included with that (including tax paying dollars going to its public education if that's how education works in that country).

 

 

 

I love how I play both sides of this debate. =P

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

I'm not sure how what you said had anything to do with what MyPurpleCrayon said, but how is an embryo different from a human who regards themselves as an individual. This is a key point in this kind of discussion, because an embryo is only an under-developed human. Therefore, the embryo has the potential to be that human, it just hasn't reached that point yet. In essence the whole argument over where life really starts.

 

The embryo does not regard itself as an individual. That is the key difference between destroying it and MPC's idea of "stabbing your neighbor."

[insane]

 

I'm not sure how what you said had anything to do with what MyPurpleCrayon said, but how is an embryo different from a human who regards themselves as an individual. This is a key point in this kind of discussion, because an embryo is only an under-developed human. Therefore, the embryo has the potential to be that human, it just hasn't reached that point yet. In essence the whole argument over where life really starts.

 

The embryo does not regard itself as an individual. That is the key difference between destroying it and MPC's idea of "stabbing your neighbor."

 

 

 

What if the neighbour you are stabbing is unconscious and thus does not regard themself as an individual?

[The Real ET]

 

I'm not sure how what you said had anything to do with what MyPurpleCrayon said, but how is an embryo different from a human who regards themselves as an individual. This is a key point in this kind of discussion, because an embryo is only an under-developed human. Therefore, the embryo has the potential to be that human, it just hasn't reached that point yet. In essence the whole argument over where life really starts.

 

The embryo does not regard itself as an individual. That is the key difference between destroying it and MPC's idea of "stabbing your neighbor."

 

 

 

An unconscious person does not regard themself as an individual. So is killing (I mean, murdering) an unconscious person okay?

 

 

 

An embryo has not yet released the potential to regard itself as a an individual. An unconscious person has reached the potential, but because of their state they can't think of their individuality at that specific moment. The same can be said for the mentally ill (in case you were thinking of using the same point with them). They have the potential, but because of their state they can't think of their individuality.

[Riku3220]

If the family can't afford or can't raise a baby properly, you shouldn't have a baby. There's no reason that if you're barely scraping by to add another expense to your budget. Although, it'd teach the people a leason (for some reason, I think I spelled that wrong) not to have sex without contraceptives.

 

 

 

But again, if they can't raise a child properly, they shouldn't even have it.

 

 

 

Thats true, but, what I think is better, is to give it up for adoption. That way, you don't have to kill a fetus. Plus, I believe it may be cheaper not sure.

 

 

 

I'm against abortion. I believe, that after conception a soul is born. It be un conscious, or at least not have any vision, os any of the 5 sense, but its still alive isn't it? So, I think all forms of abortion are murder. Don't worry, I'm not some fanatic who blows up offices, or kills people. Murder doesn't justify murder.

 

 

 

a child should never have to life his or her life without even knoeing wha they're parents look like. if you know your child is going to have a misreble life whether you gave him up for adoption or tried your best to care for it then get an abortion and its not killing ts more like canceling. theres quadrillions (yes thats a number) of sperm cells everywhere. its no different then masturbating