Would you really say it's good to have a child live a life where he gets no love or care?

 

 

 

But it doesn't mean we should kill them just because they'll have a harsh road in the end. Just my two cents of course.

 

 

 

Would you really say it's good to have a child live a life where he gets no love or care?

 

 

 

But it doesn't mean we should kill them just because they'll have a harsh road in the end. Just my two cents of course.

 

 

 

I don't see how. If I were against abortion, it would be for reasons concerning morality - you know, right from wrong. Well then what makes it more right to force them to go through a life of suffering? Now I understand that there are cases where people escape their horrible childhoods and they've become strong people, but that type of judgment should be up to the parents.

I think that the parents should be able to choose wheter they want to keep the pregnancy or not.

 

If a couple is irresponsible enough not to protect themselves from pregnancy, i still believe it's their right to be able to choose abortion.

 

 

 

Would you really say it's good to have a child live a life where he gets no love or care?

 

 

 

But it doesn't mean we should kill them just because they'll have a harsh road in the end. Just my two cents of course.

 

 

 

I don't see how. If I were against abortion, it would be for reasons concerning morality - you know, right from wrong. Well then what makes it more right to force them to go through a life of suffering? Now I understand that there are cases where people escape their horrible childhoods and they've become strong people, but that type of judgment should be up to the parents.

 

 

 

Are you joking me? Would you honestly put your life in the hands of your parent knowing full well they might decide to kill you as a plausible option?

 

 

 

The fetus, destined to be a baby, should decide for itself.

 

 

 

Nobody in America is born into a 'bad' family and is destined for a crappy future (unless it's a bunch of crackheads, but the child can even escape that if they so choose - it's called governmental protection). The baby should have a choice in whether they grow up into a great person or a scumbag, but that decision should never be made for them.

 

 

 

...and furthermore, this really isn't a debate about abortion. It's about the FOCA; and the sanctions therein. Please stay a bit more on topic. -.-

Also, I think what really needs to be taught is real sex education. Not [cabbage] abstinence. Teach protection, maybe with a minor emphasis on abstinence. I like how mine has been. Since grade 7, I've been taught about protection, however was always told that abstinence was the only 100% sure method.

 

 

 

agreed.

 

 

 

The reason absitence is taught is because it IS the only method that really works, 100%. Saying that it shouldn't be taught is like saying using a calculator shouldn't be taught to do math, because it is the most reliable method.

 

 

 

Sorry, I forgot to add only to the end of abstinence.

 

 

 

One top of protection and abstinence being taught side-by-side in schools, I feel that abortion and adoption need to be taught side-by-side as well. Equal emphasis put on both, and taught by an objective teacher.

 

 

 

Are you joking me? Would you honestly put your life in the hands of your parent knowing full well they might decide to kill you as a plausible option?

 

 

 

Yes, yes I would. They created me, cared for me, and made me who I am. If being alive meant that they would have to go through hell just for me, I would let them choose. If they choose me over themselves, I will love them all the more. If they chose themselves over me, they have done no wrong.

The fetus, destined to be a baby, should decide for itself.

 

 

 

Nobody in America is born into a 'bad' family and is destined for a crappy future (unless it's a bunch of crackheads, but the child can even escape that if they so choose - it's called governmental protection). The baby should have a choice in whether they grow up into a great person or a scumbag, but that decision should never be made for them.

 

Lol wut.

Heh. The decision will certainly be made for them.

 

Are you joking me? Would you honestly put your life in the hands of your parent knowing full well they might decide to kill you as a plausible option?

 

 

Isn't that kind of what parenting is? Having the life of a child in your hands? Especially for someone who can't think for themselves, it really is up to the parent to decide...

 

And it's so wonderful how you think everyone has an equal chance in life. If only, if only...

 

Are you joking me? Would you honestly put your life in the hands of your parent knowing full well they might decide to kill you as a plausible option?

 

 

Isn't that kind of what parenting is? Having the life of a child in your hands? Especially for someone who can't think for themselves, it really is up to the parent to decide...

 

And it's so wonderful how you think everyone has an equal chance in life. If only, if only...

 

 

 

I can see the rationale in cases of impoverished families and such, my real problem is when abortion becomes replacement for birth control. Im not trying to be an anti rights person, but if the family would have no trouble raising a child or making sure it was placed in a good family, then killing it is horribly wrong.

Nobody in America is born into a 'bad' family and is destined for a crappy future (unless it's a bunch of crackheads, but the child can even escape that if they so choose - it's called governmental protection). The baby should have a choice in whether they grow up into a great person or a scumbag, but that decision should never be made for them.

 

 

 

That's a very naive attitude. Many children are born into abusive families with very little hope for a better life.

So girls at any age who are irresponsible enough to get pregnant can now go and get abortions, with no repercussion, and, furthermore, without even altering their parents?

 

 

 

What is the reason for parental consent regarding abortion? It's nothing but a guise so that parents can make their children have the child if the parents don't agree with abortion.

 

 

 

I 100% support the Freedom of Choice Act, and if it's ever passed, it will be signed by its Sponsor, Barack Obama :)

 

 

 

Wait. So minors can't get married without parental consent because they're deemed to not be able to make informed decisions, nor can they enter in contracts for the same reason, but they can somehow make informed decisions when it comes to having an abortion? Haha lol

 

 

 

The reason for removing restrictions on abortion is to allow a safe procedure for the woman. Abortions happen despite laws against it, and prior to Roe vs. Wade, there were something like 5000 deaths a year due to poor hygiene and procedures. Added, there were still 1.2 million abortions a year prior to Roe vs. Wade, while there were about 850,000 in 2003. [1][2]

 

 

 

Okay. The whole thing about 5,000 deaths per year is a bold-faced lie.

 

 

 

Firstly, here's the actual graph concerning the number of deaths due to illegal abortions per year in the United States:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, the 5,000 deaths per year thing is and was a hyperinflated number. Bernard Nathanson, one of the co-founders of NARAL and a once staunch pro-choice advocator, even admitted as much. [1][2]

 

 

 

Furthermore, the debate is no longer over whether a fetus is alive or whatnot. As Ronald Reagan once said, "The real question today is not when human life begins, but, 'What is the value of human life?'" Unfortunately, today, far too many people have relegated the value of a human life to a choice (Except for when it doesn't suit them).

 

 

 

Oh, and reading this thread makes me sad. Whenever I see statements like "It's not alive", I really have to wonder what people are being taught in biology, if anything at all. Hiding behind the choice moniker doesn't make abortion a choice, either. Just because I'd love to bash a couple of people over the head with a bat and label it as a choice doesn't make it a choice. Choices are only such when they effect you and only you. Otherwise, I'm off to go on a repercussion-less killing spree because, you know, it's my choice :lol:

I did a little fact check and I'm happy to say you're right - the 5000 deaths a year figure sounds way to inflated to be anywhere near accurate.

 

 

 

Would you really say it's good to have a child live a life where he gets no love or care?

 

 

 

But it doesn't mean we should kill them just because they'll have a harsh road in the end. Just my two cents of course.

 

 

 

I don't see how. If I were against abortion, it would be for reasons concerning morality - you know, right from wrong. Well then what makes it more right to force them to go through a life of suffering? Now I understand that there are cases where people escape their horrible childhoods and they've become strong people, but that type of judgment should be up to the parents.

 

 

 

Are you joking me? Would you honestly put your life in the hands of your parent knowing full well they might decide to kill you as a plausible option?

 

 

 

The fetus, destined to be a baby, should decide for itself.

 

 

 

Nobody in America is born into a 'bad' family and is destined for a crappy future (unless it's a bunch of crackheads, but the child can even escape that if they so choose - it's called governmental protection). The baby should have a choice in whether they grow up into a great person or a scumbag, but that decision should never be made for them.

 

 

 

...and furthermore, this really isn't a debate about abortion. It's about the FOCA; and the sanctions therein. Please stay a bit more on topic. -.-

 

Now, are you joking me? Nobody is? Just because someone doesn't have the life you or I have, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. People are born into families of 12+ living inside a trailer with parents selling drugs for money, abusive families, using their children for benefit, or far worse. Just because America sets high standards and a precedent for the middle class, doesn't mean things can't and don't happen. It's a country like any other. The government it sometimes useless in helping children.

 

 

 

How, might I add, is a fetus supposed to decide for itself. If you wanted to be fair, you'd have to wait until it's an adult to reach a logical conclusion. By then, well, there was no point. The choice of life and death of a fetus lies in the hands of the parents - no one else.

agreed, but Im annoyed at people saying they dont like churches having power and they church should have to keep its hospitals open.

 

 

 

The church SHOULD have to keep their hospitals open. It says in the bible that they need to care for the sick, how the hell is taking away the hospital caring for the sick? hypocritical religious people piss me right off. "Oh we don't agree with that law so we're going to make the entire nation suffer for it." Sorry but if your problem is with the government, take it up with the government. Don't [bleep] take it out on the people, selfish [puncture]s.

 

 

 

Now I don't know if anyone has answered to this or not, as the moment I read this I had to comment on it, but the church will be closing their hopsitals because they won't perform abortions, as they refuse to go against their religion, and they may find other ways to help the sick, but they will not perform any abortions.

 

Oh, and reading this thread makes me sad. Whenever I see statements like "It's not alive", I really have to wonder what people are being taught in biology, if anything at all. Hiding behind the choice moniker doesn't make abortion a choice, either. Just because I'd love to bash a couple of people over the head with a bat and label it as a choice doesn't make it a choice. Choices are only such when they effect you and only you. Otherwise, I'm off to go on a repercussion-less killing spree because, you know, it's my choice :lol:

 

You're comparing violent acts to a question of morality. Big no-no. Why aren't the ancient Greeks or Inuits ever mentioned in these arguments? Both of those cultures practiced infanticide and there was no questioning it because of cultural relativism. But we're not even talking living, out of the womb babies here, we're talking about zygotes. Tiny cells that if the average pro-life person looked at under the microscope, probably couldn't even tell you it was a human being in formation. You can't compare killing an embryo to killing a person because an embryo has no value for life. Hell, a 1 year old has no value in life. They don't know how precious life is or how great it is going to be. But again, we're not killing infants here. We're killing zygotes that have no meaning in this world. This is a choice, not a choice like choosing which food you want to eat or "going off on a repercussion-less killing spree", but a choice left up to the people that decided to start the matter.

 

Oh, and reading this thread makes me sad. Whenever I see statements like "It's not alive", I really have to wonder what people are being taught in biology, if anything at all. Hiding behind the choice moniker doesn't make abortion a choice, either. Just because I'd love to bash a couple of people over the head with a bat and label it as a choice doesn't make it a choice. Choices are only such when they effect you and only you. Otherwise, I'm off to go on a repercussion-less killing spree because, you know, it's my choice :lol:

 

You're comparing violent acts to a question of morality. Big no-no. Why aren't the ancient Greeks or Inuits ever mentioned in these arguments? Both of those cultures practiced infanticide and there was no questioning it because of cultural relativism. But we're not even talking living, out of the womb babies here, we're talking about zygotes. Tiny cells that if the average pro-life person looked at under the microscope, probably couldn't even tell you it was a human being in formation. You can't compare killing an embryo to killing a person because an embryo has no value for life. Hell, a 1 year old has no value in life. They don't know how precious life is or how great it is going to be. But again, we're not killing infants here. We're killing zygotes that have no meaning in this world. This is a choice, not a choice like choosing which food you want to eat or "going off on a repercussion-less killing spree", but a choice left up to the people that decided to start the matter.

 

 

 

According to this logic we should allow people to kill one year olds, since they don't have any value in life.

 

Oh, and reading this thread makes me sad. Whenever I see statements like "It's not alive", I really have to wonder what people are being taught in biology, if anything at all. Hiding behind the choice moniker doesn't make abortion a choice, either. Just because I'd love to bash a couple of people over the head with a bat and label it as a choice doesn't make it a choice. Choices are only such when they effect you and only you. Otherwise, I'm off to go on a repercussion-less killing spree because, you know, it's my choice :lol:

 

You're comparing violent acts to a question of morality. Big no-no. Why aren't the ancient Greeks or Inuits ever mentioned in these arguments? Both of those cultures practiced infanticide and there was no questioning it because of cultural relativism. But we're not even talking living, out of the womb babies here, we're talking about zygotes. Tiny cells that if the average pro-life person looked at under the microscope, probably couldn't even tell you it was a human being in formation. You can't compare killing an embryo to killing a person because an embryo has no value for life. Hell, a 1 year old has no value in life. They don't know how precious life is or how great it is going to be. But again, we're not killing infants here. We're killing zygotes that have no meaning in this world. This is a choice, not a choice like choosing which food you want to eat or "going off on a repercussion-less killing spree", but a choice left up to the people that decided to start the matter.

 

 

 

According to this logic we should allow people to kill one year olds, since they don't have any value in life.

But again, we're not killing infants here. We're killing zygotes that have no meaning in this world.

Wait. So minors can't get married without parental consent because they're deemed to not be able to make informed decisions, nor can they enter in contracts for the same reason, but they can somehow make informed decisions when it comes to having an abortion? Haha lol

 

 

 

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, so hilariously ironic. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Oh, and reading this thread makes me sad. Whenever I see statements like "It's not alive", I really have to wonder what people are being taught in biology, if anything at all. Hiding behind the choice moniker doesn't make abortion a choice, either. Just because I'd love to bash a couple of people over the head with a bat and label it as a choice doesn't make it a choice. Choices are only such when they effect you and only you. Otherwise, I'm off to go on a repercussion-less killing spree because, you know, it's my choice :lol:

 

You're comparing violent acts to a question of morality. Big no-no. Why aren't the ancient Greeks or Inuits ever mentioned in these arguments? Both of those cultures practiced infanticide and there was no questioning it because of cultural relativism. But we're not even talking living, out of the womb babies here, we're talking about zygotes. Tiny cells that if the average pro-life person looked at under the microscope, probably couldn't even tell you it was a human being in formation. You can't compare killing an embryo to killing a person because an embryo has no value for life. Hell, a 1 year old has no value in life. They don't know how precious life is or how great it is going to be. But again, we're not killing infants here. We're killing zygotes that have no meaning in this world. This is a choice, not a choice like choosing which food you want to eat or "going off on a repercussion-less killing spree", but a choice left up to the people that decided to start the matter.

 

 

 

According to this logic we should allow people to kill one year olds, since they don't have any value in life.

But again, we're not killing infants here. We're killing zygotes that have no meaning in this world.

 

 

 

In your opinion they have no meaning. They have no meaning simply because it isn't convenient for you if they have meaning. Try telling a couple trying to conceive that their zygote has no meaning.

That's not what he or I were trying to convey. A fetus and a child don't have the capability to make decisions, thus they have no meaning in this equation.

That's not what he or I were trying to convey. A fetus and a child don't have the capability to make decisions, thus they have no meaning in this equation.

 

 

 

There are many people who don't have the capability to make decisions, so we should just kill them? I'm really not understanding your logic here.

That's not what he or I were trying to convey. A fetus and a child don't have the capability to make decisions, thus they have no meaning in this equation.

 

 

 

There are many people who don't have the capability to make decisions, so we should just kill them? I'm really not understanding your logic here.

We are not questioning the fact of people and their capabilities of decision making. We cannot give those people the option or ability of an abortion in any manner. A fetus cannot make a decision itself; it's up to the parents. Giving the child the option of an abortion defeats the purpose, because it cannot be done.

Are the people here who are against abortion also vegetarians? Because the cows, pigs, sheep, etc. you eat are far more intelligent and mentally able than the zygotes you seek to protect.

 

 

 

 

 

Wait. So minors can't get married without parental consent because they're deemed to not be able to make informed decisions, nor can they enter in contracts for the same reason, but they can somehow make informed decisions when it comes to having an abortion? Haha lol

 

 

 

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, so hilariously ironic. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

 

For those things you can wait to make a decision. One cannot wait in order to decide whether having a child is a good decision. Not only this, but only the girl can decide whether abortion or having a baby will be best for her. She's the one that will have to live with either decision, not her parents or her priest. Girls aren't really able to make informed decisions, but given the emotional situation there is no one else who can make it for her, and at least she'll know that she was the one to make it rather than resenting whatever someone else decided for her.

 

 

 

I think that there's a philosophical point to make here about parents making decisions for their children. Parents should make decisions in order to stop a child causing irreparable harm to themselves. Stop a child making the type of decision that cannot be undone, so that they can make it in future if they still want to. Pro-choice parents realise that for a girl who becomes pregnant, whatever she chooses cannot be undone, so it is too late to protect her by making a decision for her and all they can do is give her advice and guidance. However, I tend to find that people with right-wing political views don't see it this way. They think that they somehow "own" their child until it is 18, as if it is a possession. With this viewpoint, they think that of course they should be able to make whatever decision they want for their daughter.

That's not what he or I were trying to convey. A fetus and a child don't have the capability to make decisions, thus they have no meaning in this equation.

 

 

 

There are many people who don't have the capability to make decisions, so we should just kill them? I'm really not understanding your logic here.

We are not questioning the fact of people and their capabilities of decision making. We cannot give those people the option or ability of an abortion in any manner. A fetus cannot make a decision itself; it's up to the parents. Giving the child the option of an abortion defeats the purpose, because it cannot be done.

 

 

 

Exactly. And because you are talking about an issue that is so important, you don't have the right to make that decision.

 

I can see the rationale in cases of impoverished families and such, my real problem is when abortion becomes replacement for birth control. Im not trying to be an anti rights person, but if the family would have no trouble raising a child or making sure it was placed in a good family, then killing it is horribly wrong.

 

That's kind of my view. If the mother/family has a good (And I mean good) reason to abort, then I find absolutely nothing wrong with it. If a couple has unprotected sex, and decides they don't want a baby a few months later (...Or if they're just that stupid), then no. However, if a couple has safe sex, and really does try to avoid a pregnancy, I'd let that slide.

 

You can't really compare abortion to flat-out murder, simply because murderers generally can easily live with their victim. Like I said...Mothers sometimes can't live with the burden of a child. Sometimes it'd just be suicide for both of them.