February 18, 200917 yr I, personally, believe that we need not to kill the children, but rather encourage abstinence and SAFE SEX. Condoms, birth control, period regulation, period watch, everything you can to make sure that you don't become pregnant. You don't know how refreshing it is to hear this from a pro-life advocate. You just made my day. :)
February 18, 200917 yr Author I, personally, believe that we need not to kill the children, but rather encourage abstinence and SAFE SEX. Condoms, birth control, period regulation, period watch, everything you can to make sure that you don't become pregnant. You don't know how refreshing it is to hear this from a pro-life advocate. You just made my day. :) *Shrugs.* I prefer abstinence myself, but I recognize it's an unplausible goal in today's society. People are going to experiment; not everybody is a die-hard believer in the sacredness of marriage and then sex. For the rest of us, then, we need something more than just 'NO SEX 4 U.' That's a stupid course of action.
February 18, 200917 yr I've addressed many of the problems. I feel that the sentience of the zygote is a largest point you have; however, I have taken into full effect and mind the effect that the rearing of the child will have on society. I believe that if you read back a few pages, you may find arguments addressing this issue - on both sides. I, personally, believe that we need not to kill the children, but rather encourage abstinence and SAFE SEX. Condoms, birth control, period regulation, period watch, everything you can to make sure that you don't become pregnant. When a woman gets pregnant, it's her choice, and while the sentience of the zygote is up for debate, it is definitively a thriving organism in and of it's own right. Since it was the woman's choice to have unsafe sex and to have a zygote, it is morally wrong to kill the child. Sure, there are social repercussions for the child, but the moral repercussions of ending the life is worse. At least there is flexibility, choice, and help outside of the womb for the child; there is only one source of help inside the womb: the mother. And she, I feel, has an obligation to keep the her choice. Ah, i apologize then. 20 pages :oops: I was just taking your opinion from the dog analogy. Anyway, i fullheartedly agree. i think the one compromise we can make on abortion is that sex ed needs to be bolstered--that's one policy that we can (mostly) agree can help reduce the conflict between having an abortion or not. When a woman gets pregnant though (now), she may not know any better. Honestly, i mean it's kind of hard for us to imagine since we are obviously well aware of the reprecussions of un-safe sex and how you can make it safe, but some people don't know (thus sex-ed). In that sense then, aren't you just punishing ignorance rather than trying to fix it? As i'm writing this i'm trying so hard to actually write stuff that can be debated about...it's very hard to not tread into the waters of "fetus=human" "no it doesn't!". We make choices all the time about killing human beings though, keep that in mind. Consider cases where we take human life and are morally unopposed to it--human life that is sentient, potentially innocent, and unknown to us. We can morally justify slaughtering people we don't know. Yet we see things the other way when we talking about a woman being forced to have a child she simply does not to have, that was procreated out of ignorance? The woman in some cases may have made that choice, indeed. Ignorance may not be the culprit in some cases. But i still feel that it's remarkably insensitive to place the burden of having a child on a woman who simply refuses to want to have it instead of aborting a being who is not sentient. And here we are again, social reprecussions versus moral ones. But i also find a trace of ethics in my argument. It's ethically wrong to knowingly to FORCE a woman to go through an act she doesn't want to go through, because some people who aren't having her child and who aren't living with that burden told her to do so. Click for mah Blog!- I'm not sure why you would though because i never update it Achieved 99 Thieving 3/10/07-992nd to it
February 18, 200917 yr Author Morals and ethics are hard to argue, as they become muddled since everybody holds slight, if not extreme, variations. As for the last part of your argument, I think that to FORCE her is bad, but we FORCE felons to go through prison for making a choice to do something detrimental to society. Now, the baby may or may not be detrimental, but the consequence (ie, keeping the baby) can be justifiably forced upon them because they made a choice to have it. Once again, rape is the exception. And I don't expect you to read 20 pages. I don't think I could read 2 pages of all the dither I write. \
February 18, 200917 yr As for Blyaunte's argument, it goes back to what Scotishobbit quoted me on. I did not create Oprah Winfrey, therefore I have no obligation to them. I have made no choice to put Oprah Winfrey under my direct care, in which that if I did not care for her, she would die. A pregnant woman, however, has. You've missed the point: ... based on some "inherent right to life", that a woman can be compelled to allow her body to be used for the benefit of a fetus, why not demand the same benefit for those already born? How about requiring every able-bodied citizen make his body accessible to any patient who might need it in order to survive? Would you agree to this kind of law? What part of your own body are you willing to offer to someone who may require it to ensure their continued existence? Or do you think only female bodies should be available for use as life support? Funny -- but when it's YOUR body being called to task, you've got a much different opinion as to responsibility. :shame:
Create an account or sign in to comment